TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

#35676: Oct 28th 2012 at 11:58:13 AM

@Deviant: That is my understanding. If that is the case, I would like to see the laws implemented now, rather than wait until a time when they actually do affect elections. However I do want to make sure the specific laws implemented don't carry other concerns.

@shimaspawn: I guess the question is, were the 1,200 votes those two states threw out actually illegitimate? The article tries to imply that they were not, but the only evidence it provides is that a very small number of voter fraud prosecutions have taken place. It appears to me that appealing to the number of prosecutions isn't really useful: a small number of prosecutions could mean that few cases of fraud exist, suggesting that the law is unnecessary, or it could mean that few cases of fraud are caught, suggesting that the law is very necessary.

Didn't they find, nationally, about 23 cases of voter fraud over the course of like, 8 years?

They found a few dozen cases of people being prosecuted. If the 1,200 votes thrown out were actually illegitimate, that indicates that we're doing an absolutely horrible job at preventing them from happening and we need more safeguards.

edited 28th Oct '12 12:00:14 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#35677: Oct 28th 2012 at 11:59:46 AM

[up][up]

According to Wikipedia:

Despite many instances of electoral fraud internationally, in the U.S. a major study by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007[2] showed of the 300 million votes cast in that period, federal prosecutors convicted only 86 people for voter fraud – and of those few cases, most involved persons who were simply unaware of their ineligibility.

edited 28th Oct '12 12:00:03 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Enkufka Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ from Bay of White fish Since: Dec, 2009
Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ
#35678: Oct 28th 2012 at 12:00:59 PM

@Chi: http://votingrights.news21.com/article/election-fraud-explainer/ here's a link to the most exhaustive study about election fraud. 2000 cases of election fraud, the vast majority of which would not be prevented with voter ID laws.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry
shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#35679: Oct 28th 2012 at 12:05:03 PM

There have been 10 cases in the past eight years of voting fraud where having an ID check would have made a difference. It's the single least common form of voting fraud. There has been heavy investigation from both sides and there are 10. Not even 10 that were finished being processed all the way through. 10 that were flagged at all.

There are many many more people prosecuted for voting fraud but the types of fraud like ballot tampering and mail in fraud would not be solved by voter I Ds. We've only had 10 cases of those.

There are 21 million Americans who don't have or can't get I Ds in this country, a lot of them over the age of 65 and lacking birth certificates because people didn't always get one back then.

That means that for every one act of fraud you take care of, you are disenfranchising 2 million people. That's just ridiculous.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
#35680: Oct 28th 2012 at 12:10:22 PM

10 cases of fraud or 10 cases of people being prosecuted for fraud? Because if the 1200 votes that were thrown out in '08 in Georgia and Indiana were actually not cast by eligible voters, then that latter number is the true one for fraud prevalence. That's what I'm trying to figure out.

edited 28th Oct '12 12:10:37 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#35681: Oct 28th 2012 at 12:11:53 PM

The 1200 were thrown out because they weren't accompanied by ID. That doesn't mean that they checked and the votes were fraudulent. It basically meant people tried to vote, were allowed to, and then after the fact they realized that "No, your vote doesn't count."

So, those 1200 votes were illegitimate, not because they were necessarily faulty by nature, but because they were faulty under the new rules.

edited 28th Oct '12 12:12:49 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#35682: Oct 28th 2012 at 12:13:21 PM

Well if they're something all citizens should have I feel they should be issued for free upon the age of 16.

Free of monetary cost does not mean "handed out like candy".

shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#35683: Oct 28th 2012 at 12:13:45 PM

10 cases of fraud. Period. Failing on a technicality is not fraud. It's just a blunder. If you wrote a legal document in purple ink, it wouldn't be accepted, but it wouldn't be a crime either. There's fraud and there's things that are completely legal, but not entirely complete.

edited 28th Oct '12 12:15:38 PM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#35684: Oct 28th 2012 at 12:16:03 PM

[up]

Gotta source?

edited 28th Oct '12 12:16:59 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Ekuran Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
#35685: Oct 28th 2012 at 12:17:50 PM

Sup.

edited 28th Oct '12 12:22:19 PM by Ekuran

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#35686: Oct 28th 2012 at 12:21:35 PM

[up]

Damn, Asians really don't like Voter ID and registration.

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
#35687: Oct 28th 2012 at 12:51:35 PM

The 1200 were thrown out because they weren't accompanied by ID. That doesn't mean that they checked and the votes were fraudulent. It basically meant people tried to vote, were allowed to, and then after the fact they realized that "No, your vote doesn't count."

That's the information I'm wondering about, but I can't find it anywhere aside from uncited allegations from one side or the other.

<><
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#35688: Oct 28th 2012 at 12:56:30 PM

Sure, if you want to double triple quintuple check, you can ask "Oh but, just to make ABSOLUTELY sure-" but, I mean, what do you think it means? They're not going to keep otherwise "Valid" votes that were only invalid because of the voter ID laws-because if the Voter ID laws exist, then the I Dless votes are indeed invalid. KEE Ping the votes at that point is fraud, even if they'd be valid without the law.

#35689: Oct 28th 2012 at 1:20:00 PM

I know that, but the thinking behind the law is that many/most of the votes that were cast without ID were in fact cast by people who were ineligible to vote, while the thinking behind its opposition is that many/most of them were in fact eligible, and just lacked ID. I've seen very little actual data to support either assertion, and neither of them are obviously unreasonable at first glance.

edited 28th Oct '12 1:20:14 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#35690: Oct 28th 2012 at 1:22:34 PM

Grizzly: We've already established that there are very very few cases of in-person voter fraud. Why would you expect that there would be *more* attempts at it with the rule in place?

shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#35691: Oct 28th 2012 at 1:30:14 PM

And people who are ineligable to vote but are mistakenly on the rolls won't be stopped by voter ID laws. That's not a type of fraud that voter ID laws can combat. Having people on the list who shouldn't be isn't going to be stopped by making you check their ID against the list. It's like trying to stop people from driving without their seatbelts by passing a law requiring a specific style of break-lights. The solution has no relation to the problem.

If they're ineligable to vote, they shouldn't be on the voter rolls. If they are on the voter rolls, but are for example, a convict, having that ID isn't going to tell you that they shouldn't be able to vote. It does nothing to prevent the type of fraud you are talking about.

edited 28th Oct '12 1:37:42 PM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
#35692: Oct 28th 2012 at 1:43:05 PM

[up][up] We haven't established that. We've established that very few people have been prosecuted for in-person voter fraud. The claim of voter-ID proponents is that large numbers of ineligible voters vote and are counted without it ever being an issue, a claim which I have yet to see supported or refuted.

<><
shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#35693: Oct 28th 2012 at 1:48:48 PM

[up] And that claim is still ignoring the fact that voter ID laws will not stop the kind of fraud you're mentioning of ineligible people voting. Thus that argument is completely irrelevant to the topic. People who shouldn't be on the rolls being on the rolls can not be combated by making people prove that they are in fact the person whose name is listed on the rolls.

edited 28th Oct '12 1:49:41 PM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#35694: Oct 28th 2012 at 1:52:06 PM

Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence, etc.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#35695: Oct 28th 2012 at 1:55:44 PM

I think I mentioned this earlier but I'll do so again.

They say a ton of people are on the rolls that shouldn't be? Okay, fine. They must now prove two things.

1. The fact that these people being on the voter rolls is affecting things. I haven't seen any statistics that say how many of these people on the rolls illegitimately are actual voting.

2. That the voter ID laws will stop this.

1 is pretty much never addressed and 2 is a no from what I can tell.

edited 28th Oct '12 2:05:25 PM by Kostya

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#35696: Oct 28th 2012 at 1:59:16 PM

At the very least they shouldn't have started passing these laws so close to election day. Get started on them for '14 and let the court cases progress.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Swish Long Live the King Since: Jan, 2001
Long Live the King
#35697: Oct 28th 2012 at 2:18:26 PM

From the last page:

Board a plane: Not going to be something that the working poor are going to be doing. Flying is expensive.// Cash a Check: I've never needed a photo ID to do this. I've never been asked to show one while doing so. So I don't know where this one comes from.// Enter a Federal Building: Not something most people ever have occasion to do. Most people go their whole lives without entering a federal building.

I'm pretty sure that there's a federal law that says you must have an ID saying you are the same person that a check is made out to*

...

If you have a bank account already, the bank checked your ID in order for you to open said account(or checked your parent's ID if they opened it for you). So they don't need to check it again for every check you're bringing to them...

If you don't have a bank account, and are cashing it at a bank or check-cashing location, then you're going to get your ID checked every time(and if they're wanting to get the money back if the check turns out to be bad, they're going to need that ID to track you down)...

Since, realistically, everyone is going to have to cash a check at some point, I don't see a big issue behind a mandatory ID system...


At the very least they shouldn't have started passing these laws so close to election day. Get started on them for '14 and let the court cases progress.

It should be pointed out that a lot of these voter laws, that are being challenged right now, were passed last year. They just weren't challenged until earlier this year...

shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#35698: Oct 28th 2012 at 2:37:10 PM

And a lot of people have enough documentation to open a bank account but that doesn't mean you have a current and valid ID. I had a bank account before I had a state ID. I was able to cash checks.

And not everyone gets paid in checks.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#35699: Oct 28th 2012 at 2:39:53 PM

@Swish: Actually, there are cheque cashing services that don't require photo-ID. Some banks will even allow you to open an account with a Social Security card and a utility bill.

Federal law just requires ID, not photo ID.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#35700: Oct 28th 2012 at 2:39:58 PM

Aren't poor people less likely to get checks? Gee, there's another way this could affect poor people. They don't have to go to a bank.


Total posts: 417,856
Top