MILWAUKEE (AP) -- State Sen. Mary Lazich was adamant: The bill Republicans were about to push through the Wisconsin state Senate, requiring that voters present identification at the polls, would do no harm. "Not a single voter in this state will be disenfranchised by the ID law," Lazich promised.
Well, I spent five years looking for someone who got disenfranchised and I finally found one! IN YOUR FACE REPUBLICANS!!!By one estimate, 300,000 eligible voters in the state lacked valid photo IDs heading into the election...
Wow, that's 10.7% of the total voters and it took you this long to find a single person to talk about? How pathetic are your journalistic skills douchebag? Oh and for the record, 700,000 more people voted after the law (2016) than before it (2012), a 75% increase. So how does it make sense that 300,000 people are missing?... it is unknown how many people did not vote because they didn't have proper identification.
I thought it was 300,000, no?But it is not hard to find the Navy veteran whose out-of-state driver's license did not suffice, or the dying woman whose license had expired, or the recent graduate whose student ID was deficient... (after a five year search)
Stop. The military veteran should have brought his military ID, like they do for all other things. That's how it's done an any soldier who doesn't realize that is an idiot. If the dying woman can vote, she can also go get her license. In fact, if Wisconsin is like every other state I've lived in, she could get it in the mail. And when has a student ID ever meant sh*t anywhere off campus except bars near the school. Try giving that to a cop when you get caught speeding. These are not legitimate gripes. These are idiots who have the ID they need and didn't bother to bring it.In the end, Wisconsin's 10 Electoral College votes went to Republican Donald Trump, who defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton by roughly 22,000 votes. But the battle over voter ID laws continues.
See, Hillary would have won by 280,000 votes if all 300,000 not-really-missing votes had been counted.Under the Wisconsin law, voters must present a driver's license, state ID, passport, military ID, naturalization papers or tribal ID to vote. A student ID is acceptable only if it has a signature and a two-year expiration date. Those who do not have their ID can cast a provisional ballot that will be counted only if they return with the proper ID within a few days of the election.
Sympathy switching to contempt. So you have to be a dipshit not to have the right documentation in the first place. Yep. And if you are such a dipshit, you can still come back a few days later to make sure your vote counts after they tell you what exactly to go get... documents you can get in half a day. Yep. How utterly stupid and/or lazy do you need to be for this to affect you?Supporters have long argued such restrictions are needed to prevent voter fraud, while critics have decried the laws as undermining democracy and leading to the disenfranchisement of elderly and minority voters such as Harris.
Hmm. Are minorities really that dumb or are you using them condescendingly to make a fake point? And if they are... should they be voting anyways?
28 comments:
So making additional hoops for people to jump through discourages something? Sounds reasonable to me. Its not a notion conservatives have historically been skeptical about, but these are strange times.
Of course, if the requirements are needed to counter waves of people voting who should not be voting they make sense. I remember Trump complaining about millions of illegitimate voters robbing him of the popular vote and promising a prompt investigation.
Both sides are fools and liars.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/11/trump-to-sign-order-launching-voter-fraud-commission.html
President Trump signed an executive order on Thursday to launch a commission to review alleged voter fraud, a White House official confirmed to Fox News, after months of claiming voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election.
The order, titled “Presidential Commission on Election Integrity,” would establish a bipartisan commission, chaired by Vice President Mike Pence, to review alleged voter fraud and suppression. Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who has investigated voter fraud in Kansas, will serve as vice chair.
----------------
Trump originally vowed to create such a commission in January. Days after his inauguration, Trump took to Twitter calling for a “major investigation into VOTER FRAUD,” saying that depending on the results of the investigation, “we will strengthen up voting procedures!” He cited “illegal" voters and “those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time)” which he claimed cost him the popular vote, which Hillary Clinton won by 3 million votes.
So making additional hoops for people to jump through discourages something?
discouragement ≠ disenfranchisement
Conflating those terms is the sleight-of-hand the Democrats play on this particular issue. That's not to say conflation is a ploy unique to Democrats, though they do seem to favor it more than their opponents. Moreover, they like to confuse two marginally related but distinct concepts or practices in order to point and scream, "Hypocrite!" which, perhaps not ironically, is a very hypocritical thing to do.
In the case of voter ID, discouraging votes from people who lack the wherewithal to obtain one of various documents that the vast, vast majority of people have and utilize for daily life doesn't seem like a big loss for Democracy. That the Democrat Party is courting the votes of people who couldn't find their own ass if their hands were superglued to their buttocks says an awful lot about the merits of their platform.
Anthony, I don't agree. The left is full of crap on this. They are trying to turn the slightest inconvenience into an impassable barrier. The right, on the other hand, isn't doing anything wrong here. There's zero reason people shouldn't need to show valid ID before voting. It is a requirement in every other country on Earth. It is part of making sure that only those allowed to vote vote. It is as minor a restriction as you can imagine in modern society.
tryanmax, I agree. But that's modern leftism. They try to turn the slightest thing they don't like into an epic outrage equivalent to slavery. OMG! They want you to bring an ID... which you need to function in society already? The horror.
But it's the same thing with their other complaints: cops arrest criminals and might talk to innocent people... trolls say things to people who take positions online... they elected someone I didn't want... the principal wouldn't let me show my ass at prom!... waaah!! Oh the humanity! My suffering is worse than anyone has ever experienced!
And of course, the Democrats do this cynically to agitate their most moronic supporters, who want to blame other people for their own failures
Tryanmax,
Correct. Discouragement and disenfranchisement are different things. My point is both sides lie about their motives and pull numbers (which they use to justify their false motives) out of their ass.
Andrew said:
And of course, the Democrats do this cynically to agitate their most moronic supporters, who want to blame other people for their own failures. End Quote
That is pretty much the definition of populism, which is a bipartisan phenomena nowadays, I agree the need to show a valid ID is a reasonable burden but I doubt the motive.
Anthony, you are very careful not to name the motive or motives that you are hinting at. Let me address the two most popular accusations out there.
On the one side, the GOP is accused of racism in all things. If that's the case, voter ID is woefully ineffective at preventing minorities from voting--studies have shown it to actually increase minority turnout! In other words, this theory perfectly fits the self-defeating "retarded evil genius" narrative.
On the other side, the Democrats are accused of using lax voter ID laws to commit large scale voter fraud. They point to the rarity of voter impersonation fraud to say this isn't possible. and make voter ID look like a solution without a problem. But it doesn't disguise the fact that their position is insulting to the people it purports to defend.
I find it ironic that the party that more commonly bemoans low voter turnout opposes a measure that has been shown in countries as near as Mexico to increase voter confidence.
Tryanmax,
The motive isn't racism its partisanship.
As for the fact the short term effect is to boost minority voting, that isn't a shock. Look at how Obama gun regulations boosted gun sales. If you want people to value something (at least for a hot minute) threaten it. The theory of the controllers is that the initial burst of defiance will fade but the inconvenience will remain and continue to have a negative effect.
Anthony, well now we're full circle. Democracy doesn't need people who will only vote if it's easier than falling down.
As for political parties being motivated to win elections, I struggle to avoid saying something rude.
It seems to me that if you care enough to vote you care enough to get, maintain and keep on your person one of the required forms of ID.And I can predict how these liberal articles can go by reading the headline. Isn't it funny how there are aaaallllwwwaaaayyyyyss so many veteran-minority-immigrant-elderly-first time idealistic voter-cancer patients who get disenenfranchised by voter id laws.If you are so passionate about voting and it is an election year, particularly a presidential election year, a presidential election that stirred violent passions on both sides(literally violent!) then make sure your ID is up to date. If you are ideologically opposed to carrying an ID, well tough shit. I'm ideologically opposed to having to renew my CCW permit every four years but I understand that it's the law right now. You don't have to carry it if you don't want to, just have it for that ONE DAY IN FOUR YEARS that we choose a president. If you are too lazy to spend a couple annoying hours or fill out a form and mail it in or fill out an online application, tough shit.
GypsyTyger
Anthony, I don't agree about the motive. It is the rare conservative I've met who thinks that this is a great way to keep democrats or minorities from voting. The real motive is more a question of principle. The motive they always share with me is that citizenship means something and only citizens should be allowed to vote, no matter how they vote.
I have never heard average conservatives talk about keeping certain groups of voters out (with the exception of (1) non-citizens and (2) students).
tryanmax, Here's a bit of interesting history for you kind of related to this...
When I first started voting, the media pundits used to say on talk shows that the GOP uses race to motivate its voters and the Democrats use class. And of course, using race made you an evil racist.
The thing is, this struck me as obviously backwards. Every election, the Democrats stoked racial fears -- the GOP wants to bring back slavery! Then they would accuse the GOP of being and the GOP would beg forgiveness. So how is it the GOP used race? Well, the minorities went to the Democrats, which the media spun as the GOP attracted whites... ergo racist.
It was all PR.
What's more, the Democrats were crying crocodile tears in accepting the claim that they tried to scare people using class because they would then proudly add, "And I will never stop fighting for the working poor and the middle class."
In effect, the Democrats used both race and class to divide the nation and attacked the GOP as racists. to cover their own crimes.
It's the same thing here. All of this is cynical behavior by the Democrats to smear the GOP and make their own people think they've been victimized.
GypsyTyger, I agree entirely. If you really care, then make sure you have an ID... just like everyone else. There is no subjective test here to let people keep you out. This requirement is minuscule and less than people already do for millions of other things they do every day. If you screw up, you even get a chance to fix it. No one can legitimately claim to be disenfranchised by this.
Even more, how can there be 700,000 more voters and yet they claim somehow this disenfranchised people? And isn't it funny how this never affects white men? I guess we're magic.
"I guess we're magic.". SSSHHH. Don't tell 'em. ;)
Gypsy Tyger
Andrew,
A substantial number of Republicans (nods towards the talk radio wing) were going on about terrorist fist bumps and all the ways Obama was going to let whites have it pretty much from the jump. Along those lines Trump rode that birth certificate crap to the nomination and then similarly smeared Ted Cruz and his family when he became an obstacle. Suffice to say, some of the GOP's perception problems are self inflicted.
Anthony, Trump didn't ride anything to the nomination. He started out carrying the perception of being a gimmick candidate. He was trashed by the other candidates and the conservative punditry as being a clown and a distraction. He had to run against the Republican field for the nomination and Hillary for the Presidency. The birther thing wouldn't have worked then and he never used it. He ran against a continuation of Obama's policies in the form of a Clinton Presidency. That was fair game. Barry even said that this election was a referendum on his legacy. Barack had produced a birth certificate in 2011. The issue was dead by 2016.
Gypsy Tyger
Democrats: "Identity Politics! Identity Politics! Identity Politics! Identity Politics! Identity Politics!" (repeat for 50 years)
Republicans in 2008: "I–den–tity… …politics?"
Democrats: *howls of rage*
Gypsytyger,
I'll quote what I said a year ago when the National Review came out against Trump.
http://commentaramapolitics.blogspot.com/2016/01/fridays-thoughts-part-i-national-review.html
All those people just made future Secretary of Homeland Security Coulter's list of bimbos to be deported and none mean anything to Trump supporters. Their opposition shows just how much the Establishment fears Trump's awesomeness. END QUOTE
Rush, Breitbart, Drudge and the talk radio crowd fell into Trump's back pocket (or somewhere thereabouts) during his birther phase (which lasted until September 2016) and never left because of his willingness to say whatever they wanted to hear.
It's telling that Trump and Cruz were the last men standing in the primary and most of the governors (a few of them with strong records of conservative accomplishment but none willing to dial the crazy talk up to 11) were knocked out early.
Trump ran as much against conservatism (he is not big on procedure or ideology) as he did against Obama.
For perspective in the voter disenfranchisement...on the day of the 2008 election I had raging pneumonia. I was prepared to call an ambulance to transport me to the voting booth 4 blocks away, if necessary. If you want to vote, you can get the necessary docs etc. period.
Also, Trump won because you cannot continue to insult the voters by calling them racists, misogynist, phobic and ending with deplorably irredeemables. You call them "voters"...full stop. Dems trying to shame people got old by 2010. Also, they never gave anyone a reason to vote FOR.
Bev,
Have you been following a different Trump? Trump and most other politicians insult people who support the opposition all time.
Trump beat Hillary not because of his unwillingness to insult anyone but because she is just as horrible a person (corrupt, similarly devoid of a belief in anything but power), a far worse campaigner and tied to the wildly unpopular Obama administration.
Bev; Bravo! On November 8th 2016 I stood outside in a line that stretched all the way around my voting location for a solid hour in the rain to pull the lever(or color in the circle now,Damn Al Gore, one more crime he'll pay for in the afterlife) for Trump. I had an additional 30 minutes in line after I got inside. And I had my ID. :)
Anthony; I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make.We watched the same election but apparently we drew different conclusions from it.I saw Hillary play to the hard left and have a slogan that said "I'm with her." I saw Trump reach out to a nation of Americans that had been laughed at, stepped on, ignored, marginalized,ridiculed and belittled by Barack Obama for 8 years and for whom Hillary felt the same way. Trump didn't run against conservatism per se. He ran against a corrupt and entrenched conservative elite who felt the same way about his voters as Hillary did. The conservative opposition to Trump, like National Review and Bill Kristol didn't care about winning an election. In fact, if Hillary won they could go comfortably back to being the opposition, writing columns and publishing magazines and being the only game in town for people who weren't liberals. That's what I saw at the revolution and apparently alot of other people saw it the same way. Trump defeated 16 other candidates to win the Republican nomination. In the process he gained more votes, each vote representing an individual American, than any human being in the history of the Republican party. In the general election he won 30 of 50 states and 84% of the counties in this country despite overwhelmingly negative press, both from the mainstream and conservative media. Johnny Cash once had a song called You're So Heavenly Minded You"re No Earthly Good. That perfectly describes the conservative establishment in 2016. They were complacent and arrogant. Trump gave a voice to the people that democrats hated and republicans took for granted. That's how he won 30 states and 84% of the counties in this country.
Anonymous,
Hillary pandered to people who consider themselves victims of the other political party. Trump pandered to people who consider themselves victims of the other political party. IMHO (and I've said this for many years in many contexts) in the case of most people their biggest asset and obstacle is looking at them in the mirror.
The Republicans held Congress and most of the states before 2016, so the notion that Republicans prior to Trump were just content writing articles is simply not accurate.
The notion that winning is not the only goal, that one one does (or plans to do) with power is important shouldn't strike you as a strange concept. Would you support Trump if he promised to double down on Obamacare?
On a related note, much of the appeal of Trump was centered in catering to talk radio, which argued that Republicans weren't doing enough quickly enough with the power they had. Trump promised them instant, satisfying results (he'd quickly win our war with Islamic terrorists, wipe out Obamacare, make Mexico pay for a wall, and reverse the ongoing decline of blue collar labor by curtailing trade and visas, etc). Same kind of promises Obama made. We all know how well that worked.
The fact Trump managed to beat the famously dour, corrupt Hillary Clinton is impressive though :) .
Ultimately Obama and Trump are not the problems, they are symptoms of the problem. Power is seesawing back and forth between the two parties, and both are losing the ability to govern competently because the public is prizing big talkers with no real records of accomplishment.
Shortly before and after the election the Democrats wanted Comey's head on a pike, now all of a sudden they love the idiot..
Anthony, I am with you that Trump and talk radio are always promising/ demanding impossibly quick and perfect results. That's aggravating.
On insulting the voters, Hillary sunk herself with the "basket of deplorables" statement. It was too sticky too overcome. Trump, being an insult machine, could slight the voters and it was white noise.
Hillary tried to make hay with Trump's "nasty woman" comment, but she was so thick that she took an insult directed at herself and turned it on her own supporters. I wish I could say it was surprising that several Dems are happy just to be insulted by their champion.
PS: Trump insulting Iowans was a highlight of the election for me. Insulting Iowans is a Nebraska pastime.
tryanmax, That's been a feminist thing. Take something insulting and then embrace it like a badge of honor. I think it started in the 1990s with the word "bitch," where lots of women were trying to turn the term into something "empowering."
The problem was, it didn't work. The word had too ingrained a negative association for non-indoctrinated men and woman to change their minds about it. So no one was able to give it a new meaning.
I think this is part of the whole feminist obsession with being oppressed by language... "If only people wouldn't say mankind of 'he' as a generic, then I wouldn't be so pathetic." Doesn't work.
Critch, Amazing isn't it? He's Satan until Trump turns on him when he becomes a saint. Shows you how legitimate Democratic complaints are, doesn't it?
Post a Comment