The GOP war on voting

[erfalf]

Opened up the journal this morning and no joke, there was a picture of Obama getting ready to vote early in Chicago, and get this, he was showing his ID.

Now that's funny stuff.

Ironically Illinois requires photo ID for early voting, but not for election day voting. Even more ironic is that we are constantly told that minorities often vote early because they cannot vote on election day (although not just minorities, but that's the meme).

[nathanm]

And to clarify my earlier point I summon the words of Sgt. Hartman, "There is no racial (gender) bigotry here. I do not look down on niggers, kikes, wops or greasers. Here you are all equally worthless." I am perfectly free to think what I want. But I would not let my opinion stop another American from being afforded the same rights I am. I am human(e). I think the Chick-fil-a thing I mentioned earlier is an excellent example. the guy doesn't agree with it, but as a Christian he treats gays (not that he would know any better just bumping into someone at a store) just like everyone else.

Nobody called you racist. You just support laws that are racist in effect. When religious groups felt like they were under attack by laws of general applicability that prevented them from exercising their religious freedom, they went to Congress and got the Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed. Clearly those folks didn't believe it was OK to be discriminated against just because the law that discriminated against them didn't mention religion or only apply to religious people.

It's great that you don't intend for racist/sexist/whatever things to happen. We need more people like you! The problem is that while your intent may be pure and you may be a good person, that doesn't change the fact that a group of people are being discriminated against. Practically speaking, I don't think your motivations matter to those subject to discrimination. The effect is the same regardless of intent.

Whether you think it matters or not, the fact is that minorities and the poor are much less likely to have photo ID than you or I. Especially those that live in cities and don't drive. The fact is that minorities and the poor die younger, so increases in the retirement age hit them harder than it does you or I. The fact is that poor and minority majority neighborhoods get patrolled by police more often, leading young people in those neighborhoods to be disproportionately likely to be brought up on charges of drug possession even though they're less likely to actually have drugs in the first place.

The point being that overt bigotry is not the only kind of bigotry.

Have we made a lot of progress in the last several decades? Unequivocally yes. Do we still have a long way to go? Also yes.

Out of curiosity, why only two people for nonreligious marriage? It seems like the libertarian view would be to take no position on the number of people a person can marry. After all, they're not concerned with how many cars you own or how many kids you have.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I am for human rights. And yes, I know plenty about libertarians, and I don't watch FOX (although I do play FBN and CNBC off each other).



Tell me where I said that I didn't think that they shouldn't get the same rights. I do. Although I disagree greatly on how they are going about it. For example, on the marriage issue, I think they are using the wrong tools to get the desired result. First, the tax code in my opinion needs to be flat and this antiquated notion of giving a tax break for being able to procreate should be banished. Second, marriage (in my opinion) is a religious recognition between two individuals, therefore it should be kept there and not regulated by the state whatsoever. Third, the state's only role will be that of a contractual enforcer. With shared assets, there must be some sort of "contract" between two parties (and only two). Forth, (this is where I am not a legal expert) iron out all the issues regarding privacy issues that prevent gays from hospital visits, records releases and adoptions and whatever else their are different standards for gays.

Again, try having a conversation with me and what I say, not your interpretation of a typical Obama hater.

And to clarify my earlier point I summon the words of Sgt. Hartman, "There is no racial (gender) bigotry here. I do not look down on niggers, kikes, wops or greasers. Here you are all equally worthless." I am perfectly free to think what I want. But I would not let my opinion stop another American from being afforded the same rights I am. I am human(e). I think the Chick-fil-a thing I mentioned earlier is an excellent example. the guy doesn't agree with it, but as a Christian he treats gays (not that he would know any better just bumping into someone at a store) just like everyone else.

I like to point to MLK when talking about this because I think so many in the present day "movements" are taking the wrong approach. MLK took the high road, above reproach. He knew he would piss off people, but he still did it the right way.

This guy gets it: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-823655

Again, the high road.

Apparently not, or you would not have said what you did relative to liberal versus libertarian.  You words...not mine.


So, you think they are going about it using the "wrong tools".  Please, do tell...what in your opinion is the "right way"??   Hint: asking nicely to be treated like everyone else did not work.  So, part two of that question - should they have just stopped then and there and let it be - the good old fashioned "sit down and shut up"??  And that tax code nonsense - very weak attempt at deflection - like the 8 ball says...Try Again Later.

So, doing street demonstrations would then have to fall into the way you disagree with greatly - your words, not mine.  And yet, that is exactly one of the tools of MLK and the Civil Rights movement in this country.  How did you not know that?

Another tool they are using is the courts.  Presumably another way you disagree with greatly, since you disagree greatly on how they are doing it - again, your words, not mine.  And yet, here we have another example of the tools MLK and company used.  Did you miss that one, too?

Or how about Civil Disobedience?  Again, one of those 'bad ways' for the same reasons as above.  One more time, MLK and Friends.... do I really need to say it again?  What you would have noticed if you had paid any attention to at least the last 15 years or so - from your mid-teens on - is that the LGBT have observed and learned a lot about strategy from efforts that went before - like MLK and the entire Civil Rights movement.  And having watched that effort first hand, I see a lot of similarities - and maybe it is not a conscious effort - maybe it is just one of those things that many humans come to 'naturally'.  Don't know about that...but there have been sublime examples in the past - don't think for a second that MLK was the first to use those tools.  Mohandas Gandhi was a master at leading a movement based on peaceful resistance and civil disobedience.  And Henry Thoreau wrote about Civil Disobedience about two hundred years ago.

And then you spew some nonsense about how the state should not really be involved at all...except to make sure it is ONLY two people who can get married.  Obviously, another example of how woefully inadequate your knowledge of history is.  A religious recognition between two people - you do realize where the whole concept of institutionalized monogamy evolved, don't you?  (I'm betting no.)  Or why it came about in that time and place?  It sure wasn't any religion that you or anyone else in this country adhere to today.  So what is your problem with people who want to have their families consisting of 3, 4, or more adult people as the core family unit?  How does that affect YOUR version of marriage in any way, shape or form?  How could it possibly affect your observance of religious belief if someone else were allowed to freely observe theirs??  It IS however one of those examples of the lie that the extremist right spews about related to "religious freedom" in this country.

Ahhhh...the "high road".  Except that the guy who runs Chik-fil-a, adheres to and actively supports with his actual cash contributions, organizations that are indeed 'hate groups'.  These are groups that actually DO adhere to the belief and aggressively work toward the ideal that homosexuality should actually be criminalized again.  And even that gays should be put to death.  Yeah...that's the high road all right.  Look behind the curtain once in a while.  If the view there doesn't sink in and give you at least a little chill, well, that's just sad.

[Teatownclown]

If SANDY causes so much power outage everywhere in 6 states http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9670 then will FEMA dictate where the priority power restoration points will be and when they get activated? Isn't FEMA governed by POTUS OBAMA?  Next we will hear of Republican strongholds complaining their power did not get restored in time for them to vote. I see many false allegations regarding voting on the horizon...and it's not a pretty picture.

[nathanm]

Well, poot. I guess those voter ID laws are necessary after all:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/nov/02/southern-nevada-woman-arrested-suspicion-trying-vo/

Oh, wait..Nevada doesn't have one.

[Teatownclown]

Well, poot. I guess those voter ID laws are necessary after all:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/nov/02/southern-nevada-woman-arrested-suspicion-trying-vo/

Oh, wait..Nevada doesn't have one.

more: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/02/1132171/gop-claims-voting-machines-are-stealing-elections-for-obama/

They won't be able to live with a legit victory....crybabies and losers. Lots of hate for government the next 4 years.

[nathanm]

That's hilarious, given that the statistical evidence (softly) indicates that someone was engaged in vote flipping on Romney's behalf in the primaries. What's even more hilarious is that would be the absolute stupidest way to steal an election. People have so little conception of how computers work, they think that what's on the screen necessarily has a relation to what the machine records as your vote. Even if you were dumb enough to flip votes at the individual machine level, it wouldn't be a case of "OMG I tapped Romney but the checkbox appeared in Obama's box".

That's why a paper trail is vital to having a system that can be trusted.

[Teatownclown]

And so it begins: Florida Early Vote Totals Drastically Changed, Raises Questions
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/10/30/florida-early-vote-totals-drastically-changed-raises-questions/

This http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/04/florida-early-voting_n_2073119.html is why I predict Floriduh will go to Romney. Did you see the lines in Dade and the controversy over early voters who could not cast a vote due to all the congestion. Then they were told they could cast absentee ballots but they would be provisional.

The state gave us the Bush years...

[Townsend]

Supreme Court To Weigh Constitutionality Of Voting Rights Act

http://kwgs.com/post/supreme-court-weigh-constitutionality-voting-rights-act

The Supreme Court has agreed to weigh the constitutionality of the decision by Congress in 2006 to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act, the landmark Civil Rights legislation enacted in 1965 that let millions of African-Americans cast ballots for the first time in states that had long blocked them from voting booths.

According to Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSBlog:

"Specially at issue is the constitutionality of the law's Section 5, the most important provision, under which nine states and parts of seven others with a past history of racial bias in voting must get official clearance in Washington before they may put into effect any change in election laws or procedures, no matter how small. The Court came close to striking that down three years ago, but instead sent Congress clear signals that it should update the law so that it reflects more recent conditions, especially in the South. Congress did nothing in reaction."

As The Associated Press adds:

"The basic question is whether state and local governments that once boasted of their racial discrimination still can be forced in the 21st century to get federal permission before making changes in the way they hold elections.

"Some of the governments covered — most of them are in the South — argue they have turned away from racial discrimination over the years. But Congress and lower courts that have looked at recent challenges to the law concluded that a history of discrimination and more recent efforts to harm minority voters justify continuing federal oversight."

The case the court is taking has been brought by Shelby County, Alabama.

[Townsend]

Ex-Republicans claim Fla. GOP suppressed Democratic vote

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ex-republicans-claim-fla-gop-suppressed-democratic-vote-194121956--election.html

Former Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer has been claiming for months that state party members engineered a new law to suppress voter turnout, falsely touting voter fraud concerns to advance their mission. Now, other former Republicans and consultants are backing Greer up, The Palm Beach Post reports.

Greer, who is under indictment and accused of funneling campaign funds from the Republican Party, has been claiming that state Republicans supported a law (HB 1355)—which, in part, curtailed early voting—simply as a means to stymie the Democratic vote.

Staff and consultants "never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue," Greer told the newspaper. "It's all a marketing ploy."

Former Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, GOP consultant Wayne Bertsch and one unnamed consultant now tell the newspaper that state Republicans and consultants were actively seeking ways to suppress Democratic turnout following the 2008 election.

"I know that the cutting out of the Sunday before Election Day was one of their targets only because that's a big day when the black churches organize themselves," the anonymous longtime GOP consultant told the newspaper.

State officials continue to discredit Greer as a disgruntled former Republican. Greer, in a deposition filed against the party this summer, accused leaders of working to suppress black turnout and made other damning claims.

Crist is also regarded as an enemy of the GOP following his party switch, his decision to back President Barack Obama for re-election this year, and his subsequent attacks on his former party. This past summer, Crist lambasted the Florida GOP for backing new laws that applied more restrictive voter ID requirements.

Republicans claim that Greer was not privy to the alleged meetings, that the discussions that he claimed took place never happened, and that the GOP did not seek to suppress turnout—a potentially illegal act.

Those silly Floridians.  They just keep trying to repeat 2000.  Good idea.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Those silly Floridians.  They just keep trying to repeat 2000.  Good idea.

I am sure you are not surprised at all.  (I'm not - when either side does it.)

[Townsend]

I am sure you are not surprised at all.  (I'm not - when either side does it.)

It makes me imagine a bunch of Jefferson Davis Hoggs and Buford T. Justices sitting around a table making plans.

[heironymouspasparagus]

It makes me imagine a bunch of Jefferson Davis Hoggs and Buford T. Justices sitting around a table making plans.

You DO understand!!!  That's exactly how it works.

Bilderberg Group.    http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/index.php

[Townsend]

Virginia State Senate Moves Ahead on Electoral College-Rigging Bill

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/01/23/virginia_state_senate_moves_ahead_on_electoral_college_rigging_bill.html

These guys are swiftly becoming my favorite state legislative body. From the AP:

Virginia's Republican-ruled legislature has taken the first steps toward ending the state's winner-takes-all system of apportioning its 13 presidential electoral votes. A Senate subcommittee recommended Sen. Bill Carrico's bill on Wednesday on a 3-3 party line vote.

I interviewed Carrico about the bill last month, asking why he added a provision that makes this even less democratic than other vote-split schemes. Most of these bills assign one electoral vote for every congressional district, then give the two at-large districts to whoever wins the state. But the Carrico bill would assign the final two electors to whoever won the most districts.

"We're still not sure we're going to leave it at that," he told me. "If we tweak the legislation somewhat to allow those votes to the statewide winner, the metropolitan voters may understand that their vote is going to be heard."

Not quite. The new language:

Receipt by a slate of electors of the highest number of votes in a majority of congressional districts constitutes the election of the two at-large electors of that slate.

Look at the map from 2012. Mitt Romney won the 1st (53%), 4th (50%), 5th (53%), 6th (59%), 7th (57%), 9th (63%), and 10th (50%) districts. Barack Obama won the four remaining districts -- the 2nd (50%), 3rd (79%), 8th (68%), and 11th (62%). Had the Carrico plan been in place in 2012, Mitt Romney would have won nine of Virginia's electoral votes, and Barack Obama would have won four -- even though Obama won the popular vote of the state by nearly 150,000 ballots, and four percentage points.

It gets worse. You'll notice that the 2nd, 4th, and 10th districts were squeaker, with margins between 4000 and 5000 votes. Carrico's theory is that an electoral vote split would made rural areas more vital. But these districts cover the Tidewater region and the exurbs of Washington, D.C. One: Had Obama campaigned to win them, in particular, he wouldn't have necessarily focused on anything that didn't work statewide. Two: Had won them, he would taken eight electors to Mitt Romney's five. Winning Virginia wouldn't have been worth 13 votes. It'd have been like taking New Hampshire or Rhode Island. That's because this reform is designed to disenfranchise Democrats, not make the state more important.

[Townsend]

Some In GOP Want New Electoral College Rules

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/01/25/170276794/some-in-gop-want-new-electoral-college-rules?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

I picture a bunch of GOP Gremlins running around breaking stuff.

Why are they trying so hard to scam the system instead of changing the party line to make it more acceptable to more American voters?

Not many Americans are fans of the Electoral College. But trying to change the way electoral votes are allocated makes lots of people unhappy, too.

That's what Republicans in a number of states are finding just now. There are a half-dozen states that President Obama carried last November where both the legislature and the governor's office are controlled by the GOP — Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Virginia.

In most of those states, there are efforts under way to change how electoral votes are distributed.

"I think it's something that a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red ought to be looking at," Reince Priebus, who was just re-elected chairman of the Republican National Committee, told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

A bill in Virginia might get a vote as early as next week. It would award most electoral votes by congressional district, setting aside two votes to be given to the candidate who carries the most districts in the commonwealth.

Currently, every state but Maine and Nebraska awards all its electoral votes to the statewide popular vote winner. (Those two states have systems that would allocate electors based on congressional district results, but so far neither has split their electoral college votes because a single candidate has swept the state.)

If changes such as the Virginia bill had been in place last year, Obama would have won far fewer electoral votes. In Virginia, he would have taken four electoral votes rather than all 13.

Democrats therefore have characterized the Republican proposals as "sore loser" bills, an effort to game the system in states where their presidential candidates have struggled.

"They're trying to win by rigging the process," says Graeme Zielinski, communications director for the Wisconsin Democratic Party. "They seem consumed by this idea that they need to rig elections."

Republicans counter that changing the system could more accurately reflect the popular vote. Why should a candidate who carries a state with 51 percent of the vote get 100 percent of its electors?

"The goal is very simple," says Erik Arneson, spokesman for Pennsylvania Senate Republican Leader Dominic Pileggi. "It's to more closely align the electoral vote in Pennsylvania with the popular vote."

Pileggi tried to switch to a system based on congressional district voting in time for the 2012 election. His new bill, which will be introduced next month, would award electoral votes based on popular-vote percentages.

Under this plan, Obama, who won 52 percent of the vote in Pennsylvania in November, would have gotten 52 percent of the state's electoral votes. (Rounding would favor the statewide winner.)

Pileggi offered these changes to answer criticism that awarding electoral votes by congressional district would unfairly reflect the partisan gerrymandering that is often a major factor in how district lines are drawn.

That's what has Democrats upset about proposals such as the one in Virginia. Democrats currently have an Electoral College advantage, thanks to their success in most of the large states.

Changing the current system would give a boost to Republicans. In many states, Democrats may carry the overall vote, but they tend to be concentrated in fewer, densely populated metropolitan areas. The GOP might dominate in more districts because its voters are more spread out.

"Distributing electoral votes by congressional district is a terrible idea," says George Edwards, a visiting professor of American government at Oxford University. "Such a system would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama winning the popular vote by millions of votes."

Some Republicans have come out against the idea of tampering with electoral-vote allocation, out of concern that it might skew the outcome.

"To me, that's like saying in a football game, 'We should have only three quarters, because we were winning after three quarters and they beat us in the fourth,' " Will Weatherford, the Republican speaker of the Florida House, told the Tampa Bay Times. "I don't think we need to change the rules of the game, I think we need to get better."

Over the past few years, Democrats have sought to make their own electoral vote changes. Eight states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws that would grant their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote nationwide.

"No matter where you land on the reforms, the current system is broken and has to be fixed," says Laura Brod, a consultant to the National Popular Vote Initiative.

The popular-vote laws would take effect only if states representing a majority of the electoral votes go along with the idea. So far, the effort is well short of that goal, with the nine jurisdictions representing 132 electoral votes.

It's possible that the GOP will fall short in its current efforts, as well.

"Nobody is satisfied with the current system," says Arneson, the Pennsylvania Senate aide, "and none of the alternatives have generated a consensus."