Voter suppression vs. gay marriage

[pomeroy]

Today on Post Secret (http://postsecret.blogspot.com), a card was posted that started quite a discussion on the LiveJournal RSS feed.

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w53/pomeroy_bucket/8.jpg

Anyway, the discussion there was very interesting. Is suppression of a person's right to vote ever justified? I'd like to have the discussion here, because LiveJournal is retarded.

[Nameless]

No, I don't think it's ever justified. Why have a democratic system if you're not going to listen to the people? If you believe you're democratic and you're suppressing votes at the same time, then you're lying to yourself.

[ShivaX]

Anyway, the discussion there was very interesting. Is suppression of a person's right to vote ever justified?

No. If you lose the right to vote via your actions, thats one thing, but thats not suppression.

Theres been a big deal made of voter fraud this year, but the reality of that is more a matter of people scamming the system combined with laws (ie you can't refuse to turn in any application, even if you know its bullshit). Yet every year hundreds of thousands of legal voters get "purged" from the voting lists. Most of the time they're minorities or their county voted against the party in charge in the last election. Thing is noone cares about them.

If I get bored later I'll go find some harder numbers, but contrary to what John McCain said, I think voter suppression is the single biggest threat to our democracy (well after special interests and lobbyists anyway).

[ClannerDelta]

What? Of course it isn't. That's the reason we vote.

[pomeroy]

What? Of course it isn't. That's the reason we vote.

I completely agree with you. But over there, a lot of people thought it was justified in this sense.

[ClannerDelta]

I completely agree with you. But over there, a lot of people thought it was justified in this sense.
Wasn't really directing that at you. Just stunned me that anyone would consider that kind of tactic "OK".

Dictatorships are far more efficient than corrupt Republics. Don't half ass things.

[Nameless]

I completely agree with you. But over there, a lot of people thought it was justified in this sense.

That's incredible. Just because you agree with the way things are being tampered with doesn't mean that it's suddenly OK. What a terrifying mindset.

[ShivaX]

That's incredible. Just because you agree with the way things are being tampered with doesn't mean that it's suddenly OK. What a terrifying mindset.

Theres lots of people out there that wouldn't care if fraud was involved as long as their side wins.

[ClannerDelta]

Theres lots of people out there that wouldn't care if fraud was involved as long as their side wins.

Anyone who thinks of it as "Us vs Them" is a failure at existence. We're all the same country, trying to do what we think is best. Sometimes we are wrong, but that's why we have differing viewpoints. In the hopes that reason and intelligent discourse win out.

[Schnoogs]

Anyone who thinks of it as "Us vs Them" is a failure at existence..

That's incredibly naive

[pomeroy]

That's incredibly naive

Oho. Schnoogs with the guantlet. Throwing it down, as it were.

Do explain in a bit more detail, though.

[Generation ABXY]

Ugh. I’m not necessarily for the Proposition, but stories of this sort certainly set me on edge.

[DoctorFinger]

It's never justified. If this person supposedly stole the 'no' votes instead the same people cheering him on would be foaming at the mouth with rage

[Schnoogs]

Oho. Schnoogs with the guantlet. Throwing it down, as it were.

Do explain in a bit more detail, though.

Do I really need to explain the painfully obvious??? :confused:

Listen to any political speech by Obama and McCain and you will hear countless references to "us vs. them".

Are you gonna side with ClannerDelta and call them "failures at existance"?

[Pale Ale]

I like how the fraudster presupposes a pro 8 vote is more important than any other vote. More than 4 in his eye? What about scenarios in which the ballot is staunchly conservative, but a no 8 vote? Or the inverse for that matter?

Actually now I'm wondering how true this is.

A) When is an individual left alone with absente ballots?

B) With enough time to sort through them and can the ones he doesn't agree with?

[TheEpicOfTyler]

Not really on topic, but this is great.

2H3kxDFgmu8

[Generation ABXY]

Actually now I'm wondering how true this is.

A) When is an individual left alone with absente ballots?

B) With enough time to sort through them and can the ones he doesn't agree with?

I thought about that, too. But, even if it is false, it doesn't change the wildly stupid opinions of those supporting the fictional action; that's what is perhaps most alarming.

[ClannerDelta]

Do I really need to explain the painfully obvious??? :confused:

Listen to any political speech by Obama and McCain and you will hear countless references to "us vs. them".

Are you gonna side with ClannerDelta and call them "failures at existance"?

The two parties are opposed to each other. That doesn't mean the people within those parties have to (or should) show any kind of hatred for people from the opposing parties. That's part of the reason we vote. So we can solve disputes without the need for that kind of emotional response.

And yes, Politicians ARE failures. It's a profession based on lying in the most attractive way possible. :)

[Johan]

Is suppression of a person's right to vote ever justified?

Seriously? No, except in very limited circumstances, including felony conviction. Remember, we're talking a person who has "the right" to vote already. Suppressing that is removing a right they already have. That should only be legal in very limited circumstances, like felony conviction.

Otherwise, no way! :)

[Schnoogs]

That doesn't mean the people within those parties have to (or should) show any kind of hatred for people from the opposing parties.


Who's bringing hate into this? You don't have to hate someone to oppose or challenge them...at the end of the day though it is a tug of war of political idealogies with real winners and losers.

[Schnoogs]

Not really on topic, but this is great

Pretty stupid comparison if you ask me...apples and oranges....and I'm someone who is FOR gay marriage.

[BlackMako]

Another off topic post, but in Colorado we've got amendment 48:

An amendment to the Colorado constitution defining the term "person" to include any human being from the moment of fertilization as "person" is used in those provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law.

I just love how if this passes pregnant women can drive in the carpool lane.

[Schnoogs]

I just love how if this passes pregnant women can drive in the carpool lane.

Yeah because they cant change the carpool lane definition as precluding pregnant women.

This isn't rocket science...

I'll ignore the fact that you seem more concerned with a small percentage of pregnant women taking advantage of law INSTEAD of being concerned with the possible murder of a person.

[Rakael]

Sorry Schnoogs, but I also think the us vs. them mentality has gone way too far. It seems that no one anymore can have a civil discussion of political views. It is all finger pointing and accusations of being wrong and unpatriotic.

[BlackMako]

Yeah because they cant change the carpool lane definition as precluding pregnant women.

This isn't rocket science...

That's one law that needs to be rewritten. Imagine how many more there are? If you're going to outlaw abortions, then do it; don't do it in a way that requires a rewrite of other laws that use the word 'person'.

[Schnoogs]

Sorry Schnoogs, but I also think the us vs. them mentality has gone way too far. It seems that no one anymore can have a civil discussion of political views. It is all finger pointing and accusations of being wrong and unpatriotic.

Sorry for what? :confused:

[BlackMako]

Sorry Schnoogs, but I also think the us vs. them mentality has gone way too far. It seems that no one anymore can have a civil discussion of political views. It is all finger pointing and accusations of being wrong and unpatriotic.

What are you worried about; you're from Texas, Sarah Palin's "Real America".

[Schnoogs]

After 8 years of Bush you'd think people would appreciate what's at stake every election...why be civil when our society is at stake??

[pomeroy]

Are you gonna side with ClannerDelta and call them "failures at existance"?

Politicians? No. People diametrically opposed? No.

People who steal other people's votes so they won't be counted? Well...maybe.

[Generation ABXY]

why be civil when our society is at stake??

Because it may be our last chance to post morbidly obese cosplayers?

I kid, I kid. I, for one, take every election seriously, so I suppose I'm with you in that respect.

[Johan]

I've come to the conclusion that regardless of who wins in elections, the few issues that really matter to me rarely get addressed. I've seen both sides pay lip-service to the things that supposedly matter to their constituents (and I have things of concern that are naturally considered a part of one party's platform or the other...neither party truly fits the bill for me; not even close). After rumbling about how important the issue is, they do little to nothing about it. It's made me feel very, very discouraged about the whole system.

[Karmakin]

The reason America can't get past an "Us vs. Them" is because both sides don't want to go in the same direction, but just in a different way. It's because both sides want to go in different direction. This basic national political identity has yet to be settled, and may not be settled anytime soon. (That said, I suspect that a big Obama win resulting in a fragmenting of the Republican party...and while Obama may not win big I suspect the damage to the conservative movement is already done..)

That's why it's us vs. them. When you start getting into issues where compromise is impossible....compromise is impossible.

On the whole vote suppression thing/voter fraud. It sucks no matter who is doing it. One thing I think is lost, however, is what probably is the most prevalent form of vote suppression that goes on in the US. I actually looked pretty deeply into it way back in 2000 in the aftermath of the whole Florida thing. Unfortunately I lost my data, but it's pretty simple.

Here's the example.

Two counties in the same voter pool. One votes using old voting machines, the other using newer voting machines. the older machines have a MoE (Margin of Error) of about 3%, the newer machines have a MoE of about 1%. The first county is running a 60-40 voter split, and the second about a 40-60 voter split.

The party that has their supporters in an area with a lower MoE, has quite a large advantage. As it stands in the real world, those areas are heavily Republican. Heavily Democratic areas get less voting apparatus, resulting in longer lines, and so on.

The solution is that common voting pools must have equivalent voting infrastructure. That's in terms of number of stations, the technology used, and so on. Ideally, it would be more than equivalent, they would be as near identical as you can get.

Is this done on purpose? Whose to say. I'd say probably not. It's just a matter of elections being under local control. However, you shouldn't ignore the realities of this structural advantage.

[Variable Gear]

Theres lots of people out there that wouldn't care if fraud was involved as long as their side wins.
The majority of political fanatics think like this. It's best not to bother with their bullshit.