I personally agree that this decision makes sense. CNN Supreme Court upholds Ohio method of removing names from voter rolls. I mean how else do people expect to remove those who die, move to another State, etc?
Here is VOX's view. Supreme Court’s conservative justices uphold Ohio’s voter purge system
And FOX's... Supreme Court gives green light to Ohio's voting roll purge
As I am questioning elsewhere, personally I think our rights of citizenship should come with responsibilities... Even us voters need to make sure our records stay up to date.
Here is VOX's view. Supreme Court’s conservative justices uphold Ohio’s voter purge system
And FOX's... Supreme Court gives green light to Ohio's voting roll purge
As I am questioning elsewhere, personally I think our rights of citizenship should come with responsibilities... Even us voters need to make sure our records stay up to date.
30 comments:
The point is that by making it more difficult to vote, Republicans benefit because turnout is more of a problem for Democrats, for various reasons. That's why Republicans employ various voter suppression tactics like the purging of voter rolls. There was a time, not so long ago, when Democrats used exactly these same devices for our political advantage.
--Hiram
Why should anyone but the voter care if they have or have not voted? The only things that should remove you from the voter rolls is death or registration in a different precinct. It's pretty basic. Anything else is voter suppression.
Moose
Hiram,
Are you saying that Democratic voters are less reliable and responsible citizens?
Moose,
How again would a State know if some moved out of State? Or if someone died for that matter?
There is a rational reason why the rolls are such a disaster.
Why should anyone but the voter care if they have or have not voted?
Because political activists want to elect their candidate. Two ways you can influence an election are first, to persuade, and second, to turnout your voters or inversely to suppress voting by the other side. Most campaigning is designed to do the latter, affect voter turnout either positively or negatively.
Not so long ago, it was the Democratic Party that tried to suppress voter turnout. The techniques we used then serve as the model for Republican today. Their imitation of the stuff we used to try to pull is flattering in a way. One thing we knew back then is that if we could purge voter rolls, for whatever reason, we were more likely to lose the other sides voters than our own. We had all sorts of phony rationales for it, election integrity and what not, but bettering our election prospects was the reason we tried to do it. We were not a very nice party back then.
--Hiram
Are you saying that Democratic voters are less reliable and responsible citizens?
No. I am saying that for various reasons Democrats find it harder to vote. This is the hoariest of conventional wisdom which both sides act on. It's why Republicans favor barriers to voting like purging election rolls and it's why we oppose such barriers. It's simple calculation on both sides, and each side makes exactly the same calculation.
Republicans nominated and voted for Trump. Let's just say, I don't have any problem in saying that we are more reliable and without any doubt more responsible than our Republican neighbors.
--Hiram
Are you saying that Democratic voters are less reliable and responsible citizens?
By the way, this is an instance of projection. Many Republicans believe lots of Democrats shouldn't vote or should at least be discouraged from voting because they are unreliable or irresponsible. Sometimes they project such views on us. We of course don't believe that; we believe different things.
When I talked about the strategies for voting suppression, I was engaging in projection, projecting the tactics and motivation we used until recently onto Republicans. Was I being unfair? Was I wrong? I mean it is quite possible that the two sides do share the same view and in that case projection is quite valid. Both Democrats and Republicans share an understanding of how elections work, and we both believe the same things. Partisanship just means we employ different tactics in response to beliefs we share.
--Hiram
Hiram-
I think you misunderstood me. Of course the parties care that people vote. I'm talking specifically about the data. Would a voting record not be considered private?
John-
"How again would a State know if some moved out of State? Or if someone died for that matter?"
They don't know because they choose not to be proactive in keeping the voter rolls as accurate as possible. They only do it retroactively. Surely the State knows when people die.
Moose
Hiram,
I guess I would say that many of the DEM constituents are not very reliable. Probably a good thing or the DEMs could easily control the country. :-)
To back up my belief, I have a perception that DEMs target:
- welfare / medicaid recipients (ie folks who failed to follow through on their education and/or have a hard time keeping a job)
- people who are immature and have a hard time using birth control effectively
- young folks who have many priorities above voting
- illegal immigrants who can not vote
- ex-cons who can not vote
Of the GOP targets some real winners also:
- the backwoods ignorant folks who only like White people
- the pompous religious folks who believe everyone should believe and act like they do :-)
Would a voting record not be considered private?
How people vote is private, but whether people vote is public information. Both parties have access to it.
I guess I would say that many of the DEM constituents are not very reliable.
Reliability is a morally neutral virtue. It depends on what someone is reliably doing.
""How again would a State know if some moved out of State? Or if someone died for that matter?"
It is quite possible to prove the accuracy of voter rolls. But it would require money and effort. And from the Republican perspective, it wouldn't do what they want to do, suppress Democratic votes. The point of just about all Republican proposals in this area is to make it more difficult to vote. They want to increase the chances that people will be turned away at the polling place. Behind the scene measures don't do that, which is why they have little or no interest in implementing them.
--Hiram
I guess I don't understand why someone else should know whether I vote or not. If voting isn't compulsory, then it is literally no one else's business but mine.
Moose
Hiram,
How? It is quite possible to prove the accuracy of voter rolls.
Moose,
Remember that they check you off on the list when you get your ballot.
Also, I assume it is a way in which people can check for potential voter fraud.
Let's try to be even more obtuse about it, shall we?
Good god.
Moose
Here is someone Moose will likely agree with.
I guess I don't understand why someone else should know whether I vote or not. I
There are reasons, I suppose, but the fact is your voting history is a matter of public record. Both parties access it as part of their campaigns. They know in which elections you voted. They also know whether you voted in person or absentee.
It is quite possible to prove the accuracy of voter rolls.
There are lots of things that can be done and are done to maintain voter rolls, and a lot of them are done, especially in states like Minnesota. Deceased voters are usually struck from the rolls, for example. When people move, even within the same precinct, they must register. How is that checked out? Citizenship is another issue. We could check citizenships. But that would be very difficult, and very expensive and very prone to error.
--Hiram
Hiram,
Unfortunately your answer has not filled me with confidence...
- What system are the reliant on to know someone died when State and Federal systems are separated?
- What if a citizen fails to notify them that their address changed?
I still think the purge process makes the most sense.
What system are the reliant on to know someone died when State and Federal systems are separated?
I don't know the details. It would certainly make sense for the state, when issuing a death certificate, to notify the secretary of state. It isn't a fool proof system, but no system would be. Bear in mind that i am not the one terribly concerned about voter fraud. It would seem to me that the burden is on those, to come up with the solution to the problem they claim to be concerned about. But the fact is, they aren't concerned about voter fraud; what they want is to find ways to discourage voters. If they were concerned about voter fraud, they would have more of a problem with the literal discard of millions of California votes in the last presidential election.
What if a citizen fails to notify them that their address changed?
There are certainly ways to address this issue. We could require homeowners to register when they buy their homes. We could require renters to register when they enter into leases. My guess is that Republicans wouldn't view measures like this favorably because although increase election integrity, they also skew to the benefit of Democrats. Renters in particular, skew Democratic.
The purge process makes sense if there is a link to the elibility to vote, and actual voting. Do you think there is such a link?
--Hiram
I am not so worried about fraud.
I just like clean databases...
Please remember that if I had my way there would be one database and one national Photo ID. And if you weren't in the database and holding a valid ID... You would not vote.
Of course I would use it for many things:
- Donor registration
- Citizenship status
- Gun Rights status
- Voting Rights status
- Criminal Record
- Current address
- etc
Sounds good, John. But these would need to be GIVEN to every American. Minorities and the poor are the ones always left behind by such things.
I don't think it would fly, constitutionally speaking.
Also...
- What if a citizen fails to notify them that their address changed? How would they know?
Moose
I am fine giving them to everyone.
However everyone needs to provide their data and supporting records... Even the poor.
That is the nice thing about the purge process... Voters neglect to update their info or die... At some point in the future they are purged from the rolls. A nice simple natural consequence.
Okay, but you're not suggesting a purging once the National ID is in place, are you? How will the authorities know your address is correct?
Moose
One thought...
The Post Office would use the same location for mail delivery...
Health and Human services would use the same address...
Social Security, SSD and Medicare too...
Our public schools...
The DMV...
It seems citizens would be very interested in keeping that address correct
"The Post Office would use the same location for mail delivery..."
MANY people get their mail delivered to a P.O. Box. I don't think that counts as a residence.
Moose
Also...
If it could be done with a National ID in place, it can be done now, so there's goes one of your arguments.
Moose
Not sure how folks register to vote in a district if they have no city address.
Is this where that friends "vouching" comes in?
Not sure how folks register to vote in a district if they have no city address.
It is a bit of a problem. But people do have a right to vote even though they don't have a right to having a home.
Millions of people vote. Just in the nature of things. tens of thousands of people will have an assortment of problems. If we insisted on addressing and correcting every single one of those problems, we would be consumed by the management of elections to the exclusion of a whole lot of other things. I don't think it's really worth our time and our resources to try for a perfection we will never obtain. You can tell the other side isn't interested in that since they seem to show no interest at all in correcting problems in ways that don't benefit them politically.
We have a president who lost the popular vote by about three million votes. Those voters were effectively disenfranchised, their votes tossed simply because they lived in the wrong place. How many Republicans do we hear griping about that?
--Hiram
Hiram,
Are you ever going to accept that we are a collection of States and not a pure National Democracy?
Hillary won California... All 3 million extra votes made that a strong majority...
Should I keep crying that my vote did not count in MN because Hillary won our state?
We split the responsibilities and power between the States and Feds, and I do not see it changing. Sorry
Are you ever going to accept that we are a collection of States and not a pure National Democracy?
Oh sure. That just isn't a reason for throwing out votes. What does your passport say on the cover? Minnesota? Or United States of America?
Should I keep crying that my vote did not count in MN because Hillary won our state?
My answer would be yes.
We split the responsibilities and power between the States and Feds, and I do not see it changing.
If we could change, our country would be stand a better chance of not failing. We are in decline, in part, because we can't change.
--Hiram
Personally I think we would be declining faster and more violently if things did change...
If a few thousand square miles of territory had the power to rule the country just because of their population density and homogenous nature, I think things could go real wrong real fast...
By the way, apparently the land area of the USA is 3.797 million sq miles.
I was envisioning what you want as being similar to the British empire in its hay day. The people of one region forcing it's will across many others against their will.
If a few thousand square miles of territory had the power to rule the country just because of their population density and homogenous nature, I think things could go real wrong real fast...
That's what we have. Empty territory with an incredibly disproportionate influence on our national politics. It's a system which can and does impose the will of the minority on the majority, often with disastrous results.
--Hiram
Post a Comment