Redstate

The problem is not the current laws, or the proposed new laws, but rather the will to enforce any law.

If you look at the illegal immigration problem we have every law necessary to solve the problem but no will, hence, no solution.

The same is true of voting fraud, we have lots of laws just no will.

If we really wanted to fix voting in this country, we would make it illegal for a State's Secretary of State to oversee a candidate's campaign (i.e. no more Blackwells or Katherine Harris), make voting day a national holiday (especially when you are in line for 6 hours), maintain equal access to the media (they used to be our airwaves), open the debates to 3rd party candidates (do not let the Republicans and the Democrats run it - this relates to the media and  empowerment of the people), introduce plurality representation, let felons vote while they are in jail, create a paper-trail for electronic voting (unless you oppose recounts / truth, why wouldn't you want to do that), etc...

Why bother voting when the 2 candidates talk about gay marriage, and we have a depreciating dollar, debt, and war?

let felons vote while they are in jail,

I can actually imagine Hillary holding a campaign rally at Sing-Sing.

Y'all on the Left really want murderers, rapists, child molesters, armed robbers, frauds, etc. to vote?

This one I really don't get this one.

What the Sam Hill does anyone have against showing a picture ID to vote? After all the principle of one man one vote is one of the foundation stones of this country. Why would anyone object to proving that you are who you say you are before exercising this most fundamental right of citizens in this country?

Would someone explain where the heck the League of Women voters and others are kvetching about?

(1) Why? They're politicians.

(2) Don't be absurd. If it's important enough to vote, it's important enough to burn leave time.

(3) Has someone been bound, gagged, and thrown in a closet? No? Then they have access to the media.

(4) As soon as we have a serious one, sounds like a good idea. As long as it's Nader and Buchanan, ain't happening.

(5) Tends to screw up politics, and let some real wackos in. We fight over a relatively narrow patch of the political spectrum. Most Americans like it that way.

(6) Felons voting. In jail. Right.

(7) Because we hate truth.

(8) Because that's what most Americans care about? Silly me. I thought the electorate should have a say in the importance of issues, rather than just you.

but im curious as to the reasoning behind felons not entitled to vote. Is it along the lines of voting being a right and their actions canceling out that right or something else?

As I said, just curious, not advocating in one way or the other.

(1) Why? They're politicians.

    Under that logic it is OK be a CEO and the Fed chairman.  I think the point I was trying to make was that there are conflicts of interest.

(2) Don't be absurd. If it's important enough to vote, it's important enough to burn leave time.

    That assumes that everyone is given that option, and from my experience that is not true.

 (3) Has someone been bound, gagged, and thrown in a closet? No? Then they have access to the media.   

    Doesn't this complete ignore the issue?  Who decides what gets focused on.  We have the opportunity to go search for alternative voices, but that is not equal access.  

(4) As soon as we have a serious one, sounds like a good idea. As long as it's Nader and Buchanan, ain't happening.

    I will save this one for just a minute because what you say is a little out of control and reflects the power structure of our media's soclization.

(5) Tends to screw up politics, and let some real wackos in. We fight over a relatively narrow patch of the political spectrum. Most Americans like it that way.

    How do we know what most Americans like?  ½  the country does not vote?  Do they count?  Is it apathy or a feeling of powerlessness; is there much of a difference?

(6) Felons voting. In jail. Right.

    Yes, it is to bad we deny some Americans their rights, but alas voting is not a right.

(8) Because that's what most Americans care about? Silly me. I thought the electorate should have a say in the importance of issues, rather than just you.

    I am not really sure what is that you are saying in, but for the last statement see your (4)

Voting is not a right. State legislators get to decide voting rules (maybe not 2000).

We certainly do not want to encourage felons to participation in society before they get out.  We would not want to make them feel like they have a stake in society.

I cannot say about The League of Women Voters, but in many countries there is retribution for people that do not vote the way the powerful want them to vote.  We are a country of immigrants, so there is a fear that picture IDs will cause immigrants that becomes citizens be afraid of voting here.  Furthermore, can someone be turned away if the face doesn't look enough like the picture?

I remember the Cold War.  The Soviets had a national ID, and we used to think that was bad.

Under that logic it is OK be a CEO and the Fed chairman.

I see nothing wrong with that, either.

That assumes that everyone is given that option, and from my experience that is not true.

Two words: Absentee ballots.

Doesn't this complete ignore the issue?  Who decides what gets focused on.  We have the opportunity to go search for alternative voices, but that is not equal access.

Where there is merit, there is invariably money. Where there is money, there is advertising. Where there is advertising, there is access.

I will save this one for just a minute because what you say is a little out of control and reflects the power structure of our media's soclization.

That makes precisely no sense. Insofar as I understand what you're saying: No, it reflects the fact that most of us live on Planet Reebok, and the rest of you live on Planet Chomsky. Third party candidates would draw more American voters if they were actually interesting enough to reach most Americans. For the most part, they're fringe candidates. When they're not, they're Ross Perot, and they get a seat at the debates. Funny world. I see nothing wrong with it.

How do we know what most Americans like?  ½  the country does not vote?  Do they count?  Is it apathy or a feeling of powerlessness; is there much of a difference?

In order:

(1) If they didn't like the alternatives (enough to care, that is) they'd do something about it, including armed insurrection. They don't. They're fine with it. Alternatively, it's called "social consensus." Were there strong feelings outside the two main parties, we'd have another party. We don't. There's not.

(2) Not if they don't vote.

(3) Apathy.

(4) Yes.

Yes, it is to bad we deny some Americans their rights, but alas voting is not a right.

No, it's not; and finally, something upon which we can agree.

I am not really sure what is that you are saying in, but for the last statement see your (4)

Let me know what color the sky is on Planet Chomsky. It's "blue" here on Earth.

It is the same ones that did and allowed more votes to be cast than there were registered voters.

They are the same ones that do not want to clean the voter rolls and remove people that are deceased.

They are the ones that would never consent to periodically requiring the voters to re-register.

We want to punish them. If we want them to vote when they get out, fine; that'll encourage them to stay away from doing bad things when out of jail. But when they are in jail, we couldn't care less about their social participation.

You're doing better.

Non sequitur is actually the negative form of a conjugated verb.

Immigrants who having become citizens are still afraid of persecution by the powerful here obviously haven't absorbed their civics lessons well.

If it's a white 20-something lady showing an ID with a bearded black guy in his fifties in the photo, there may be issues.

So goes Indiana!

The legislature has approved a bill requiring government-issued photo identification by voters. The measure is now on its way to Republican Governor Mitch Daniels, who has said he probably will sign it.

The Senate voted for it 33-to-17 along party lines today.

Republicans say the bill will help prevent voter fraud and restore voter confidence without putting an undue burden on citizens. But Democrats say the bill would unfairly affect the poor, minorities, people with disabilities and the elderly who are more likely not to have driver's licenses and may have a hard time getting photo ID's.

The bill would allow Indiana voters who show up at polling places without proper ID's to cast provisional ballots that would later be counted if they presented valid ID's by the Monday after the election.

It exempts some people in nursing homes and state institutions, and those who sign affidavits swearing they are too poor to get an ID or have religious objections to getting one.

But not Wisconsin!

APPLETON -- Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle said Friday he is looking forward to vetoing a recently passed measure requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls.

The bill was approved Wednesday by the state Senate and is headed to Doyle's desk for a signature or veto.

Doyle appeared Friday to open the convention of Council 40 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees at the Radisson Paper Valley Hotel. "The only other state in the country with a system as restrictive as this new bill is South Carolina," he said. "And we know the history of voting rights in South Carolina."

"In the last November election, South Carolina had 50 percent of its voters turn out. Wisconsin had 75 percent. So why is Wisconsin looking to South Carolina to copy instead of South Carolina looking to Wisconsin to copy?"

Yes, Governor Doyle, and we know about the history of voting in Wisconsin.

you receive a voter's ID card in the mail later. Why couldn't this card also include a small photo?

So I followed the link to the US Pravda, whoops meant dKos, and read some of the comments. Besides the usual Loon comments, there were a few that made a very, and I do mean very limited point, namely the cost of a Photo ID card in Georgia and other states.

If a person is legally entitled to vote, but does not have a driver license or one of the other forms of approved photo ID, would there be a charge for procuring one of the other forms of recognized ID's? Would this be a De facto poll tax?

I would think that if there is a cost, even a small one, then the loons may have a very small point.  Small point, but easy to fix, add a provision to the laws governing the issue of State ID cards allowing the applicant to plead indigence for waiver of fee. Drivers licenses are a different issue as the are user fee imposed.

If possession of the ID is mandatory to vote, the state should have an obligation to provide it if someone can't afford it.

My favorite.

A national holiday is one of the most ridiculous ideas I've heard since the idea of rounding Pi to 3.  I have never, ever been prohibited by any of my employers from taking the time to vote on election day, and in absolutely ZERO of the places that I've lived have I ever had a problem getting to the polls before work.  One of the reasons we have so many voting districts and options in this country in the first place is so that people can walk right down the street in order to vote.  The problem is that about half of the people simply don't care to either through absentee ballots or getting up an hour early, or taking advantage of the polling booth opportunities that already exist.  This is a nonexistent, manufactured problem.

. . .does it, it's not an unfunded mandate--by definition.  I agree that if this is done on the federal level, federal funds should be provided to make it work in the states.

On the CEO I think it goes - "If men were angels we wouldn't need government." - Federalist Papers.

During the last election it was rather difficult to get an Absentee ballot.  Furthermore, I think one question is: do we want to encourage voting, or do we simply want to make voting theoretically possible?  

Assuming wealth results from hard work is a rather large assumption, and it really does not always stand up to the evidence.  Look at the financial scandals and pyramids.  They are certainly nothing new.  

Before the primaries even start the media (CBS, ABC, FOX, CNN) are already picking and dismissing certain candidates.  Did I just imagine that?  Ross Perot had a lot of money, no?  If you are running for office, and you say we need to raise CAFÉ Standards, you are attacked by Exon Mobil and the auto industry.  They have a lot of money.  They advertise (on CBS, ABC, FOX, CNN).  Simply because one notices a convergence of interests does not mean there is a conspiracy theory, but it simple to dismiss people with the notion of conspiracy theory, for at that point, we do not even need to pay attention to what that person is saying.  

Why talk about issues when image sells?   On a side note, I think names and labels can often keep us from thinking.      

If there is nothing wrong with the world, you do not want to change anything?  Is that correct?  I am just curious.

You may think this a little off the topic, but we are socialized by the media.  Do you believe that assertion?  Certainly there are other factors in our socialization, but what values and behaviors are encouraged by the media?  How are the issues framed?  Doesn't that have an impact?

I do not even know if Ross Perot would get into the debates anymore.  The debates are controlled by the Democrat and Republican parties at this point.  Why?  

Some States do it?

Going down the street to vote was not Ohio in 2004.

. . .they're making a decision that requires them to meet constitutional standards that prevent a state from keeping poor people from voting.  It would be cheaper for a state to run elections if--for example--men were allowed to vote, though that would be a clear violation of the 19th Amendment.  Are you claiming that requiring states to provide adequate voting materials/locations/personnel to let both men and women in a state vote is an unfunded mandate?

Really.  Or contribute to adbusters.

Or join a feminist support group and tell us how anorexia is caused by Maxim and FHM and Cosmopolitan and Women's Day.  But don't forget to excoriate 90210 and Friends, and throw a pie at Jennifer Aniston.

Not only did Florida try to make it as easy as possible for people to vote early, especially in minority districts, I helped to design the mailers helping to get out the vote there.  Anyone who wasn't deliberately living in a cave knew about how to get absentee ballots or find their polling places.  

The problem:  Voters are lazy.  The Democrat solution:  Let's declare a national holiday, and take 1/365th of the economy of the U.S. and flush it straight down the toilet, so that we can get our army of volunteers to go house-to-house and rouse the disinterested from their beds and get them to the polls.  

Let me ask you this question?  Do you know, right now, when voting will begin in 2006 and 2008?  Do you know what day that will fall on?  You have internet access -- why don't you do a Google search.  Find out if the libraries and elementary schools and companies and union halls and churches will be open on election day.  Do it now!  Make sure you don't get disenfranchised because you're too lazy to look it all up.  

Compells the state to issue free photo ids to any citizen without one.

But so what?

Let me give you an object and standard to contemplate re: voting -- here.

That's a South African poll line, 1994.

Shorter version: inconvenient?  Long lines?  Suck it up, folks.

So the loons don't have a point!  Great!

You make many assumptions about me; I do not own a T.V.  

Ever hear of macromarketing?  

Florida is one state, and I do not think the election was perfect down there in 2004.  Some people that were turned away that should not have been.  Furthermore, people were still purged illegally.  See BBC report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3956129.stm

However, I think advertising has affected the nature of image.  Do you disagree?  Go look at the history of advertising - see the boom with flappers in the 1920s.  

I do not understand you last paragraph.  

Greg Palast?  Is that the best you have to offer?  Man, you really do need to spend some more time at DKos.  Or over at Common Dreams

And sure, advertising does influence the public.  That's what it's designed to do.  When you get over being so jam-packed with angst, get out of the house and go apply for a job at DDB.  Don't tell them I sent you.  Or go and protest outside of Erwin Ephron's office.

Before you go there to talk about the terrible influence of advertising on the American discourse, steel yourself by having a look at The Onion.  They do a lot of good works, too, and you can even subscribe and send them your money!

It is the BBC.  Do you deny the report?  Tell me what is wrong with Palast (slander - where is the lawsuit)?

You seem to really like the media?  

As an afterthought, I agree with you that many people do not care, but who are they; do you care who they are?  Do they feel powerless?  

Looking at it from your point of view, he's a champion of the little guy.  That's fine -- he can keep using his investigative reports to challenge what he sees as people trying to subvert voting rights and to disenfranchise minorities around every corner.  I would never try to stop Greg from making his allegations or writing his articles.  You can decide for yourself whether Palast's tone in that video clip and in the article itself was something that was beneficial to the people in Florida.  I don't consider him to be an unbiased source -- he's a self-styled muckraker.  You're perfectly free to consider him an antidote to the mainstream media's bias in favor of the status quo if you'd like.  In my opinion he is a paranoid yellow journalist who has an apocalyptic view of the world that suffuses everything he writes.  But as I said to Blue Neponset yesterday, I'm just one person.  I think he regularly takes the thinnest gruel of "evidence" and regularly weaves it into his dark narratives of dastardly tricks and hidden forces.  He loves a good conspiracy theory and I don't think it takes much to get him started on one.  I refer to people like him as catastrophists.  Feel free to differ.

No doubt Palast is excitable.  What you be if you believed what he did about Florida and few others talked about it?

Who is unbiased?  

The day that Greg Palast does a piece examining the possibility that Democrats have ever been less than honest in their get-out-the-vote efforts, I'll be inclined to give him a little more benefit of the doubt.  Palast always turns left.  That's the only direction he ever goes in.  Even Dan Rather was more "fair and balanced."

Comparing us to South Africa. Is that what we aspire to?

I do think Palast always turns left. I know nothing about "been less than honest in their get-out-the-vote efforts."  What do you know about that; what do you mean? I did not think Get Out the Vote was just a Democrat Republican thing.  

I do not think Dan Rather was liberal.  Look at his cheerleading for our new war.  We have former generals on T.V., but they are not juxtaposed with peace or human rights activist.  Phil Donahue got his show cancelled (while highest rated on the network) because the MSNBC did not want to be anti-war network.  

I ask again who is balanced; who is objective?  

Before I answer:  What do you do for a living?  You don't have to be specific...just give me a general answer.

I work on the design of software.

Well, Phil Donahue's show may have garnered some support from former fans of his and a few other viewers who were looking at MSNBC, but it was a ratings disaster otherwise.  You can't say that MSNBC didn't TRY to make it a splash, because they most certainly did try very hard to promote it.  The John Walsh (COPS) show got canned, too, if that's any consolation to you.  In fact, ratings disaster still sums up much of what MSNBC does.  But don't worry, Donahue's an old irish fighting man, and he will be back if Al Gore has anything to say about it, I suspect.  

Jesse Ventura's show never made it past a few abortive attempts, either (and for that we have only the stars to thank, I can tell you) despite his spending some time at Harvard as a resident fellow.  Media Matters, of course, was and still is playing Donahue's trip to the bottom of the tank as something that just given a little more time, a little more hope, a little more effort...was going to get somewhere, eventually.  Um, no.  It was a goner from the beginning.  It was especially a goner after he invited Andy Rooney on the show and Rooney admitted that the individual members of the media were liberally biased.  I know -- I saw that episode.

But don't worry -- there are plenty of antiwar voices out there.  RedState doesn't happen to be one of them, but they're not being elbowed out of the internet space by any stretch of the imagination.

Helping to get out the vote is all of our civic duty -- regardless of party.  I am a Republican here on RedState who did his level best and worked hard to help get mailings to Florida on time, and professionally produced, to help get out the Democrat vote in Florida, in predominantly minority districts.  I don't have the slightest tinge of guilt for havind done that work.  I didn't shirk the responsibility, and I most certainly didn't try to sabotage the job in any way -- I wanted as many people to vote their conscience as possible, as honestly as possible, and as early as possible, according to Florida law, and then let the chips fall where they may.  

I suspect that most of the Republicans and conservatives here at RedState would have done the same thing.

I did not say anything about your character or personal experience in Florida.  Because you did not see something, it did not happen?

He was the 3rd in the ratings when he was cancelled.  He was the highest rated show MSNBC had.  I never saw it.  

In the article you link it says long expected cancelation, but he was only on 6 months? Did you read the article you linked; there sure is spin in there.  

Knowing we'll never achieve it in this vale of tears. In the process, we might achieve excellence.

In the interim, perspective is important.

true

You got a law passed that will do nothing to stop any of the voter fraud that is actually occuring. No one, including you, has been able to point to one incident of voter fraud that would have been prevented if there was a photo id only requirement.

No one knows how many voters this will affect, but common sense tells me most of the affected voters will be elderly people who do not have driver's licenses.  You should be proud, because of your law, 80 year old ladies will now have to make a trip to the DMV and show the same non-photo ID's they used to be able to use to vote and obtain a photo id.  

You never resonded to any of the critisisms I raised when you posted about this in March: RedState in the news