Irony and Hypocrisy all rolled into one...

[Yonivore]

...photograph.


http://pjmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/12/111212-boeing.jpg

[Winehole23]

what irony? what hypocrisy?

[Nbadan]

Boeing is setting up roadblocks to keep poor, mostly minority pilots from voting?

[Winehole23]

this is akin to the* irony and hypocrisy *of identifying shareholders, or corporate board members, before they vote. nonexistent.

Corporate or labor governance is so weakly applicable to electoral politics, the conceit never really gets aloft. It makes sense for there to be much stricter rules for corporate or labor union voting, than for politics at large.

[Wild Cobra]

what irony? what hypocrisy?
The unions are pretty much opposed to people having to prove who they are for city, county, state, and federal elections, yet the unions make you prove you are a union member to vote.

[Winehole23]

well, a union hall isn't the same thing as an election booth. one of them is a public accommodation, the other, a private association -- a club, essentially.

[Winehole23]

in the interest of preserving as many valid votes as possible, there are somewhat looser standards for participation than in other kinds of elections.

[Winehole23]

in clubs, you want to make damn sure only credentialled members vote. for public voting, we've traditionally been a little laxer.

[Winehole23]

absent any showing of significant voter fraud the presumption should go to the voter. adding procedural hurdles to voting is a solution in search of a problem.

[RandomGuy]

...photograph.


http://pjmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/12/111212-boeing.jpg

:rollin

Once again, Yonivore's rush to be the Conservative Avenger leads him down a path he didn't intend to take, and the only ultimate irony and hypocrisy is his own.

Thus making the title and intent of the entire thread itself, ultimately ironic.

Dude, your posts are so often stupid, lame, and downright provably false, I can only conclude you have got to be one of the biggest idiots in the world, simply because you appear to have some moderate amount of intelligence, but absolutely no ability to do introspective analysis or critical thinking.

How do you live with being so wrong all the time and not seeming to do any re-thinking of your views or opinions?

[Yonivore]

Eric Holder Announces Opposition to Election Integrity Laws (http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2011/12/13/eric-holder-announces-opposition-to-election-integrity-laws/?singlepage=true)


Holder’s announcement will have profound partisan results in the 2012 election because of his professed unwillingness to enforce laws to prevent voter fraud. Indeed, tonight he made clear his opposition to these laws, such as voter ID and even the requirement to register to vote in advance of an election.

Holder announced broad opposition to voter identification requirements and a ramped up effort to enforce voting registration laws in welfare agencies. He didn’t make any announcements about enforcing Section 8 of Motor Voter to ensure dead people don’t populate the roles. He also said that voter fraud “isn’t a huge problem,” perhaps marking the first time the nation’s chief law enforcement downplayed criminal behavior. Of course that is in vogue in this administration, starting with the New Black Panther dismissal and now with Fast and Furious.
I think the United States should be as concerned with "election integrity" as are the unions.

And, RG, it is ironic and hypocritical for unions to push for card check and not support the same in national or public elections.

[RandomGuy]

Eric Holder Announces Opposition to Election Integrity Laws (http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2011/12/13/eric-holder-announces-opposition-to-election-integrity-laws/?singlepage=true)


I think the United States should be as concerned with "election integrity" as are the unions.

And, RG, it is ironic and hypocritical for unions to push for card check and not support the same in national or public elections.

I would be more concerned if there were widespread indications of fraud, and solid evidence backing that up.

In a nation of 300 million, I don't think there is sufficient evidence in any one state that points to any material affect on elections.

Instances of voter fraud, are mostly anectdotal.

Even so, the way that the GOP proposes to address the fraud in general will have the plausible affect of deterring genuine voting populations that vote reliably Democratic.

If the solution to fraud that might affect 0.4% of the votes cast is to disenfranchise 5% of the genuinely eligible voters, then the cost of the fraud is acceptable to me.

Show me that it is genuinely a problem, and that your solution can be tailored not to keep good honest people from voting, and I will be all for it, especially if plaing up the problem, and the proposed solution benefits ONE side of a political debate.

Otherwise I have to be deeply skeptical that there is even much of a problem to begin with. Anecdotes don't constitute sufficient reasonable proof, although they can lead one to conclude some detailed analysis or investigation should be done.

[Yonivore]

I think it's only fitting that Holder abdicated his responsibilities on voting integrity at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library. After all, LBJ deftly stole his first congressional election and orchestrated the voter fraud that put JFK in office.

:tu

How ironic.

[Yonivore]

I would be more concerned if there were widespread indications of fraud, and solid evidence backing that up.

In a nation of 300 million, I don't think there is sufficient evidence in any one state that points to any material affect on elections.

Instances of voter fraud, are mostly anectdotal.

Even so, the way that the GOP proposes to address the fraud in general will have the plausible affect of deterring genuine voting populations that vote reliably Democratic.

If the solution to fraud that might affect 0.4% of the votes cast is to disenfranchise 5% of the genuinely eligible voters, then the cost of the fraud is acceptable to me.

Show me that it is genuinely a problem, and that your solution can be tailored not to keep good honest people from voting, and I will be all for it, especially if plaing up the problem, and the proposed solution benefits ONE side of a political debate.

Otherwise I have to be deeply skeptical that there is even much of a problem to begin with. Anecdotes don't constitute sufficient reasonable proof, although they can lead one to conclude some detailed analysis or investigation should be done.
As LBJ demonstrated in 1960, voter fraud need be neither widespread nor pervasive to be effective.

All it took was the Duke of Duval and the corrupt Daly Chicago Machine.

Logical fail.

[RandomGuy]

As LBJ demonstrated in 1960, voter fraud need be neither widespread nor pervasive to be effective.

All it took was the Duke of Duval and the corrupt Daly Chicago Machine.

Logical fail.

"Do you have any evidence that the fraud is widespread or materially affects elections today and that this fraud requires a solution that benefits your chosen political party?"

"Well, I think it really did in 1960."

If I outlined some problem based on anecdotal evidence, then proposed some solution to the problem I claimed was really important that just happened to benefit my political party over yours, you would be screaming bloody murder about evidence.

Either you can prove that there is a problem currently with some fair and independent investigative work, or you can't.

Can you prove that?

If you can, how can you offer a fair assurance that the solution won't do more harm than good?

There is failure here, and it isn't mine, Conservative Scout.

[Yonivore]

"Do you have any evidence that the fraud is widespread or materially affects elections today and that this fraud requires a solution that benefits your chosen political party?"

"Well, I think it really did in 1960."

If I outlined some problem based on anecdotal evidence, then proposed some solution to the problem I claimed was really important that just happened to benefit my political party over yours, you would be screaming bloody murder about evidence.

Either you can prove that there is a problem currently with some fair and independent investigative work, or you can't.

Can you prove that?

If you can, how can you offer a fair assurance that the solution won't do more harm than good?

There is failure here, and it isn't mine, Conservative Scout.
The 2000 election hinged on less than 600 votes.

Again, voter fraud need be neither widespread nor pervasive to be effective.

The only requirement to voting on the United States of America is that you be 18 and a citizen, not prohibited due to your own acts. It shouldn't be that hard for people to prove that.

I don't have a problem with the Unions requiring people to prove they are eligible to vote in their elections. I'm not sure why you have a problem with it in more important elections.

[boutons_deux]

"voter fraud need be neither widespread nor pervasive to be effective."

Gore won the popular vote by 600K

Voter fraud is a red herring by the Repugs used to disenfranchise Dem, young voters.

[Yonivore]

"voter fraud need be neither widespread nor pervasive to be effective."

Gore won the popular vote by 600K
Presidents are not elected by popular vote and, for good reason.


Voter fraud is a red herring by the Repugs used to disenfranchise Dem, young voters.
Claiming voter fraud is a red herring by Republicans is used to enfranchise ineligible voters.

[scott]

No, it makes PERFECT sense that a concealed handgun license can pass as a valid Photo ID in Texas but a Student ID issued by a state institution cannot.

[Blake]

Presidents are not elected by popular vote and, for good reason.

What's the good reason?

[CosmicCowboy]

I really don't see where requiring an ID to vote for everyone discriminates against one american citizen over another american citizen. Is your position that we should allow non-US citizens to vote in US elections?

[Yonivore]

What's the good reason?
Because the founders left it to the states legislatures to decide how the executive would be chosen.

Popular election of the President leaves the choice, disproportionately, to the population centers while an electoral system, wherein the electors are chosen by the States' legislatures, gives a proportionate percentage of the decision to all states.

[Blake]

Because the founders left it to the states legislatures to decide how the executive would be chosen.


200+ years ago it was a solid idea.

The US has since outgrown the need for an electoral college.

[Yonivore]

200+ years ago it was a solid idea.

The US has since outgrown the need for an electoral college.
That couldn't be further from the truth. The electoral system is the only thing keeping a few population center from deciding policy for the whole country.

[boutons_deux]

Must-Watch Maddow Segment on New GOP Voting Restrictions Barring Elderly Women From the Polls

The poll tax that isn't a poll tax is arriving around the country in the form of new GOP-instated voter restrictions--and the ACLU is filing suit.

The anticipated victims of these stringent ID requirements include the poor, the young who don't drive, students, and minorities, and as Rachel Maddow noted in a devastating segment last night, the elderly. Maddow focused on two lovely elderly women who cannot vote now, including an 84-year-old who is a member of her town council--who has cast her vote in elections regularly for 63 years. Now, thanks to efforts by the one and only Scott Walker, she cannot exercise her rights in this upcoming race.

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/747710/must-watch_maddow_segment_on_new_gop_voting_restriction s_barring_elderly_women_from_the_polls/#paragraph3

[boutons_deux]

Because the founders left it to the states legislatures to decide how the executive would be chosen.


They wanted to give power the (non-Eastern) territories to induce them to become states, same angle played in giving state disproportional power with 2 Senators, no matter how unpopulated the state.

[Blake]

That couldn't be further from the truth. The electoral system is the only thing keeping a few population center from deciding policy for the whole country.

god forbid the populace actually decide who the president will be for that same populace

[Yonivore]

god forbid the populace actually decide who the president will be for that same populace
God forbid mob rule decide it. And, the President is the executive of the federal government not a representative of the people. You elect those every two years.

[Blake]

God forbid mob rule decide it.

rofl mob rule.

Explain the worst case scenario if the popular vote becomes the only vote.