American Politics

[LascielsShadow]

*facepalm* Apparently my post got eaten.

 

Of course I'm not ignoring the story. I absolutely believe that it happened, whether it occurred exactly the way those site are reporting it or not. People are stupid, and they do stupid things like this without consideration of how their "helping" is actually going to affect their cause. I was just pointing out that those sources are just as biased as the others. Sucks when you want a little perspective from the other side. I have that problem with some LW stuff, too. It's good to see what one side is saying about a particular story, but I like to hear from all sides.

 

 

 

The problem with the issue of voter ID laws and voter fraud is that such laws, while possibly not intentionally malicious or disenfranchising, do not address the area in which actual voter fraud generally occurs. There is a very, very tiny number of people committing in-person voter fraud. In-person fraud is impractical and ineffective to commit. It requires more effort than most people are willing to expend. Absentee ballot fraud is a more real, quantifiable problem, as it is an easier to commit and more effective form. (It's not a huge problem, of course, but it does occur more often.) Voter ID laws, while they may be good in theory, do nothing to effect a change in the ability to commit this kind of fraud, which is part of why I question them.

 

 

Also, all of what Skauble said.

[Slaskia]

I have that problem, too, sometimes.  One of the reasons I know the Blaze is conservative oriented is because Glenn Beck owns it.

 

I will admit I don't go researching these issues as much as I should...mostly because I royaly suck at it (I admit I did use to follow Beck, however he did get a bit to...eccentic for my tastes). My brother is much better at debating these kinds of things, but he got tired of essentually talking to brick walls on DA.

 

But, just to be clear, I'm not dismissing it because it was on a right wing site.  Everyone's tense about voting, so I can see flare ups happening on both sides (although I didn't get that bit about flying people to Ohio).  I just like to double check with anything I read on the left or right parts of the spectrum.

 

And I like you for that very reason , even if I can't hold up my end of the 'deal', reseach wise, very well. Unfortunately, a lot of people take their favorite news site as freaking gospel and reject any other sources (both sites of the fence).

 

The thing is that in person voter fraud is a fairly laborious and not so effective way to commit the kind of voter fraud it takes to largely swing elections these days.  Can it be done?  Sure.  But it's really far, far easier to use mail in ballots for fraud and it doesn't have to be voting in multiple states, there are lots of ways to work that scam - and IDs do absolutely nothing about that.  Anyone can register, and if you aren't voting in person, then IDs don't matter.

 

That's why Voter ID requirements would only be one part of the solution toward voter fraud in general. Combatting Fraud via absentee is a tricker issue to tackle, without trampling on people's rights in the process (or screwing over the military voters).

 

Here's the problem with some of these non-citizen voting hunts.  Take the situation in Colorado.  The thousands of fraudulent voters they were predicting just haven't shown up.  And that's with them having access to voter rolls and the federal database which keeps track of immigrants who become citizens.  And the proof that they point to that it's happening relies a lot on things like registration forms where the non-citizens are actually checking that they aren't citizens, or them writing letters asking to be removed from the rolls because they didn't understand that they couldn't register until they had their citizenship.  So that sounds way more like there's an education problem on the matter rather than fraud.

 

Or perhaps Union trickery like in the story I posted before.

 

But what a lot of people have an issue with is that when they have these “suspect” voters – who very often are just not updated in the database – they get letters like the following:

 

And now these people have to prove their citizenship, or – and here's the best part – they have to prove that they're not this person.  So I can lose my chance to vote if I don't go and prove I'm not someone else because we share a name.  And there was a woman in Florida who had to prove herself twice.

 

Considering how complex the system is and how many people are in said system, I'd rather be safe than to be sorry, even if it would be a pita to deal with. That said, would help if they at least investigated these 'suspects' a lot sooner, so they DON'T inconvience a legit voter too much.

 

And, to be honest, I'm not even sure why non-citizens are the main target of this (other than that they're probably less likely to vote Republican).  If I had to put my money on people who would try to throw an election it would definitely be citizens on the far edges of both the left and the right.  We're way more polarized and fanatical about our political system – case in point, the whole super speedy voter ID laws.

 

The 'targeting' of illegals is probably due to the high focus on the illegal immigration problem in general by the general populous.

 

Fanatical...yeah...we are. I did mention before that I wouldn't mind both major parties getting knocked down a peg or two....

 

As for removing dead people from the rolls, they do.  And maybe they could do it in a bit more efficient way, but I think that it's always best A. done very carefully, and B. done far in advance of elections.

 

That is true. Keep in mind, though, that link I posted as reference I was using simply as an example. Good to know that much of that had already been resolved.

 

And that's disturbing.  Because nothing is more important than our right to vote.  It's what allows us to shape our government so that we retain all of the other right we have.  Before we start adding burdens or potential obstacles to that I want to first know for certain that it's necessary, and second that it's going to be effective – which it's not because we aren't doing anything about absentee ballots.

 

I'm not saying that voter ID laws can't work.  I'm just saying that when all things are equal we should err on the side of making the path to voting as smooth as possible.  And no one's really showing how things are so unequal.

 

Agreed mostly: i would prefer to err more on the side of caution myself. It's just balancing voting intergity with fairness/privacy is a sticky point.

 

Question for you all: What do you think of voters that really don't care who wins and blindly votes party line just to say they 'voted'?

 

Now, I honestly don't know how many people vote like that (and I'm not about to guess), but I am fairly certain they exist. I had a similiar mentality until this year, in fact, though I never voted (cause I didn't see the point if I didn't care): this year was the first time I have ever voted....and I made sure it was an informed vote.

[Kyrieath]

Question for you all:  What do you think of voters that really don't care who wins and blindly votes party line just to say they 'voted'? 

Tends to depend on which vote we're talking for me.

 

Presidential? I don't blame them too much since we don't actually control that vote. Essentially the public vote is just a popularity contest- it by no means indicates the candidate the public decides they like gets to be president.

 

Now- for all the positions that we do have say in? I want to slap people who just go in and blindly pick a square to fill in/button to push/whatever the method in the given area is. There is no excuse for voting in ignorance on those subjects. If you want a say in the presidential vote, this is where you should be casting your informed votes to try and get the person who closest represents your interests in place to cast the electoral vote you want down the line.

 

Yes, it's a headache sorting out who to vote for, but if you're going to vote? Again, there's no excuse for ignorance- not of parties in general or candidates in particular. Especially in this day and age.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Kyrieath

[~Kat~]

500 Generals and Admirals back Romney for their next President and Commander-In-Chief

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/500-former...l-full-page-ad/

 

I am also glad to see that the Military Reserve, National Guard and the Active Duty are backing Romney 2 to 1

 

They want a strong leader they can believe in, who does not bow down to the Saudi King as it shows a sign of weakness. You do not see others bowing down to the President of the USA.

 

It is important for the USA to keep a strong Military.

Edited November 5, 2012 by NixAyum

[brairtrainer]

I am also glad to see that the Military Reserve, National Guard and the Active Duty are backing Romney 2 to 1

 

They want a strong leader they can believe in, who does not bow down to the Saudi King as it shows a sign of weakness. You do not see others bowing down to the President of the USA.

 

It is important for the USA to keep a strong Military.

I question these sources since one of the militarys rules (as told to me by two different marines and family who have been in the armed forces) they are not to speak ill of the president as he is their boss.

 

Yes, they can vote against him, but they are to show support to show a untied front.

[Kestra15]

They want a strong leader they can believe in, who does not bow down to the Saudi King as it shows a sign of weakness. You do not see others bowing down to the President of the USA.

Making peaceful overtures and reaching accords through talks and discussions =/= bowing down. Achieving peace doesn't require a war, and having a massive army doesn't mean you will have peace - relying purely on a strong military presence to achieve peace is known as 'bullying.'

Edited November 5, 2012 by Kestra15

[Fuzzbucket]

Making peaceful overtures and reaching accords through talks and discussions =/= bowing down. Achieving peace doesn't require a war, and having a massive army doesn't mean you will have peace - relying purely on a strong military presence to achieve peace is known as 'bullying.'

QFT. "A strong military" basically means the ability to bully. I do wish someone would make world leaders have to square up personally, one to one when they have disagreements, instead of shipping out cannon fodder.

 

Maybe they could play chess and determine a winner that way. But consensus is the best way of all.

[catstaff]

QFT. "A strong military" basically means the ability to bully. I do wish someone would make world leaders have to square up personally, one to one when they have disagreements, instead of shipping out cannon fodder.

 

Maybe they could play chess and determine a winner that way. But consensus is the best way of all.

Hear,hear!

 

How about armored foot combat with sword and shield, like how the Society for Creative Anachronism holds their Crown Tournaments and selects their kings? They could even do it SCA style with rattan weapons instead of live steel, so that no one would actually get killed for real whether on purpose or by accident.

 

shows slow-motion views of SCA heavy fighters "killing" each other... done slo-mo so that non-fighter types can actually see what's happening. But there are plenty of other SCA combat video clips listed on that page, if anyone's interested in seeing more.

[Vhale]

I definitely know people that vote party over everything else. My sister and her husband strongly dislike Romney, but they are considering voting for him anyway because they are Republican. I actually don't know many people that have any respect for Romney at all, but many that are still voting for him. Or I should say, voting for party as they don't care about the candidate. No one I know that is voting for him trusts him as no one has any clue which Romney would show up if elected. The perverse part of me almost hopes he does, because given his record as Governor with vetoing I'm not sure that he'd follow party as much as they want him to.

 

I'd love to have access to what both parties know about current election fraud. Given Michelle Obama's statement that it is the biggest crisis we face, I'm willing to bet they have access to a lot more information on it than we know about. And it makes me wonder how big it really is, just given how many cases they've caught this year that effect hundreds of thousands of people.

 

Just adding in, 60 minutes did an interview with both party's congressional leaders about the current deadlock issue.

Interview

Edited November 5, 2012 by Vhale

[CrossingStar]

There was a very accurate parody called "Romney Style" that got quite popular on YouTube. It highlighted many of the faults people are worried about in him. I found it really funny, myself.

[Alpha1]

Obama is likely to win tomorrow

 

fivethirtyeight 88% Obama

 

http://election.princeton.edu/

 

Probability of Obama re-election: Random Drift 98.1%, Bayesian Prediction 99.8%

 

Larry Sabato

 

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/

 

 

 

That's why Voter ID requirements would only be one part of the solution toward voter fraud in general. Combatting Fraud via absentee is a tricker issue to tackle, without trampling on people's rights in the process (or screwing over the military voters).

 

If the voter fraud is so bad, why did one of O'Keefe's guys get in the news?

 

http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/v...r_stopped_in_nh

 

This is why Republicans like voter ID in the way that they implement it.

 

 

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/11/...orida-and-ohio/

 

In states like Ohio and Florida, they've been reducing hours and days (especially dislike weekends) to discourage people from voting. The result can be found in the link.

[ShinyTomato]

who does not bow down to the Saudi King as it shows a sign of weakness.

 

That's not a sign of weakness Kat. If Romney were to meet the Saudi King and not do it, it would be a grave insult, and seriously harm any diplomatic position we have there, including soldiers and people who serve as diplomats there.

 

You do not see others bowing down to the President of the USA

 

Actually, you do. It wasn't all that uncommon.

 

And no one ever complains about Bush bowing, whether to the King of Saudi Arabia or the Pope.

 

 

 

Nor do they claim that about Nixon or Eisenhower, who bowed to foreign leaders and dignitaries.

Edited November 5, 2012 by ShinyTomato

[hazeh]

Bush even held hands with a Prince of Saudia Arabia and kissed him.

 

It's respect for different cultures, not weakness. I'm appalled that people would think bowing or showing respect is a weakness. That's ridiculous.

[brairtrainer]

How I see it if you don't respect someones culture thats a weakness. The weakness of pride.

[Fuzzbucket]

How I see it if you don't respect someones culture thats a weakness. The weakness of pride.

Absolutely. I dread the day I am in whatever country it is where it is the height of rudeness not to burp after a meal, though.

 

But I would curtsy to the Queen if I met her, and bow to Royalty elsewhere if that is what the protocol requires. It is common courtesy - and failure to be polite causes a LOT of the issues that spiral out of control.

[Vhale]

Absolutely. I dread the day I am in whatever country it is where it is the height of rudeness not to burp after a meal, though.

 

But I would curtsy to the Queen if I met her, and bow to Royalty elsewhere if that is what the protocol requires. It is common courtesy - and failure to be polite causes a LOT of the issues that spiral out of control.

Would it be bad if I tried to bow instead of curtsy? I'm not convinced I wouldn't fall flat on my face if I tried to do that =x

 

We had some Japanese gentlemen visit here to help teach a product we had bought from them. I was the one training on it. They didn't speak a lot of english but I swear they bowed after every sentence. Extremely polite men. But I was very unsure how much I should bow back

[KageSora]

There was a very accurate parody called "Romney Style" that got quite popular on YouTube. It highlighted many of the faults people are worried about in him. I found it really funny, myself.

Oh man, I love that one. That one is just great.

 

 

Re:bowing

 

Yep, it's a sign of respect for their culture that you'll behave as their culture dictates when interacting with people of that culture. If bowing is what's done, then you bow. If that would be rude or strange, then you don't. It's not weakness. I'd argue that it shows strength--the strength to recognize and respect the differences others have, and to behave according to their standards rather than your own to show them that you respect and value them as a person.

 

Any person can be a rude jerk. It's harder to be a decent person.

[Rosedamai]

Oh man, I love that one.    That one is just great.

 

 

Re:bowing

 

Yep, it's a sign of respect for their culture that you'll behave as their culture dictates when interacting with people of that culture.  If bowing is what's done, then you bow.  If that would be rude or strange, then you don't.  It's not weakness.  I'd argue that it shows strength--the strength to recognize and respect the differences others have, and to behave according to their standards rather than your own to show them that you respect and value them as a person.

 

Any person can be a rude jerk.  It's harder to be a decent person.

Haha just watched it. The funny thing is we also made a parody of our current conservative politician way when it first came out.

 

And yes, bowing is not a sign of weakness. It's a sign of respect. It's also a sort of diplomatic formal ritual that you have to go through. I mean, our former presidents had bowed and shook hands with Kim Jung Il, does that mean we think we're weaker than them? Hell no. But that's the formal thing to do at a diplomatic meeting. You can hate someone's guts and still manage to be polite at a diplomatic setting. That's what professionalism is about.

 

I'd be way more concerned about a president who refused to shake hands or bow and instead threw a temper tantrum, myself.

Edited November 6, 2012 by ylangylang

[Moonlight_Eevee]

It's my first time to vote tomorrow.

[hazeh]

Exactly.

 

Any president who doesn't bow or show other gestures of respect appropriate to that culture is an immediate red flag. They are not fit to be apart of foreign exchange- or even a leader of an entire country- if they cannot extend proper diplomatic exchanges with other leaders.

 

I'm so proud of Obama for always being respectful, no matter which country he visited. That's a mark of a true leader. Any leader that refuses to do such a thing is rude, prideful, arrogant, and not worthy of leading.

[demonicvampiregirl]

That's not a sign of weakness Kat. If Romney were to meet the Saudi King and not do it, it would be a grave insult, and seriously harm any diplomatic position we have there, including soldiers and people who serve as diplomats there.

 

 

 

Actually, you do. It wasn't all that uncommon.

 

And no one ever complains about Bush bowing, whether to the King of Saudi Arabia or the Pope.

 

 

 

Nor do they claim that about Nixon or Eisenhower, who bowed to foreign leaders and dignitaries.

Finally someone says it.

 

Everyone complains about Obama showing respect to other cultures yet not a single person said anything about Bush walking around holding hands with that Saudi prince. (If that's correct on who it was. I can't remember who it was at all and had to ask someone.)

 

 

It would be completely rude and disrespectful if Obama didn't do any of that. Or any political leader for that matter. That shows you have no respect at all for any other culture beside your own.

[Astralite]

I've been toying with the idea all day that Romney might be a sociopath, mainly to get on the nerve of my mom's boyfriend who is fairly conservative. The thought just came as a random musing with my sister seeing as he shows some of the warning flags (pathological lying, manipulative, lack of empathy, superficial charm) in my opinion, anyways. But looking around when I got home I dug up this little article which made me smirk a little myself. At least I wasn't the only one to think it, haha. Be warned, I'm not sure how much of the article is hearsay or fact, but still brings the point.

 

About the bowing, anyhow, I'd be more paled to see our leader not take to the customs of the people he visits. It's really just a thing of respect to other cultures.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Astralite

[skauble]

It's my first time to vote tomorrow.

Good for you!

 

Voting is awesome. I know that the country seems broken in a lot of ways, but this is how we fix that...also, they give out really cool "I voted" stickers that let me feel morally superior to non-voters all day.

 

I will admit I don't go researching these issues as much as I should...mostly because I royaly suck at it (I admit I did use to follow Beck, however he did get a bit to...eccentic for my tastes).  My brother is much better at debating these kinds of things, but he got tired of essentually talking to brick walls on DA.

I think most of us could stand to work on the research angle. I know that I'm always bookmarking links I should be reading so that I know more about a subject and then I don't end up going back to check them out. lol

 

I've kept up with checking for other sources on that story. Most places that have it seem to just be repeating the initial report. I did find a site that looked into the matter. I can't speak to any particular political leanings it might have – it's the website for channel 2, the NBC affiliated television station in Houston. Here's their article:

 

Voting article prompts polling questions

They spoke with Assistant County Attorney Douglas Ray, and he said, regarding the account given by the poll watcher:

 

Assistant County Attorney Douglas Ray said much of the story is untrue.  "That's not the complete story," Ray said. 

 

He said the real fight at Acres Homes came when NAACP members started demanding that disabled residents be allowed to vote faster.

 

"They were taking people out of the line that they were identifying and were taking them to the front of the line in order to get them special assistance," Ray said.

 

Ray said his office sent investigators in, who told NAACP members that disabled voters could not skip the line.  However, Ray said they did let NAACP stand in line for the disabled voter, acting as a surrogate, until the voter's name was called.

 

Ray said his team never saw NAACP members advocating for a candidate.  He said NAACP members did get confrontational before they agreed to the election rules.

 

"Some voices might have been raised," Ray said.  "But I think we were able to reach a mutual compromise by the end."

Now, I want to be clear that the NAACP shouldn't be trying to move people around in the line for any reason because that's not how things work at polling places. If they want to make an official complaint about the matter, or alert voters that they might have options under the ADA, that's one thing, but just messing with the order of the line is not okay.

 

Having said that, that's sooooooooo far off from what's being alleged. If the account from the official is to be believed, there wasn't any campaigning, there was no talk of flying people to Ohio, or keep some people from voting. It was just people being too aggressive in trying to help disabled voters.

 

For the record, I'm not a fan of True the Vote, and I think they have an agenda. I'm more than willing to discuss that, but I won't overwhelm this (already too long) post with that.

 

That's why Voter ID requirements would only be one part of the solution toward voter fraud in general.  Combatting Fraud via absentee is a tricker issue to tackle, without trampling on people's rights in the process (or screwing over the military voters).

The problem is that in all of the credible, substantial cases people do find of fraudulent voting, it's done this way. So absentee ballots aren't the side note here, they're 99.9% of the problem (which still hasn't been demonstrated to be a massive problem). The fact that states are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to not address the actual problem seems kind of mind boggling.

 

Because, realistically, it is worth asserting that, yes, voter IDs can prevent a problem. But it's not solving a current problem. The only thing that could be a current problem isn't even being addressed. And that is in no way an accident, because those votes are largely Republican.

 

Or perhaps Union trickery like in the story I posted before.

This is why I'd like to see that story investigated further. Because I think that this is an area where you've got a very organized group (unions) with very specific interests and that could benefit from the actions, and so I think it's important to check out.

 

Question for you all:  What do you think of voters that really don't care who wins and blindly votes party line just to say they 'voted'? 

 

Now, I honestly don't know how many people vote like that (and I'm not about to guess), but I am fairly certain they exist.  I had a similiar mentality until this year, in fact, though I never voted (cause I didn't see the point if I didn't care): this year was the first time I have ever voted....and I made sure it was an informed vote.

First of all, good for you for getting out and getting informed. No matter who people choose, the more everyone is aware of what's happening the better the process works.

 

As for people voting party lines, it's definitely not what I'd prefer for the country, and it does have it's drawbacks, but I'm more okay with it than not for three reasons:

 

1. Every vote is a statement to Washington that they're being watched. Vigilance is what makes the government run effectively. While it's nice to believe that all politicians will be people of unquestioned virtue always championing the people, they're really mostly people who want to keep their jobs. If special interests fund their campaigns, or one extremist section of voters gets them in office, and no one's really paying any attention, then they'll often act accordingly.

 

But the more eyes they feel on them – of any political bent – the more that they understand that they have to be responsive to the people because their mistakes and misconduct are being widely observed.

 

2. People who make a habit of voting, even if it's party lines, will be in a much better position to make change when they do become informed about something. Voting, for whatever reason, puts you in the system and in the habit of participating in the government.

 

3. While it's not always true, the parties tend to have some core principals and positions that stay fairly stable. They also tend to have some issues that are very publicly connected with them. While I do believe that there's a lot of difference in how different elected officials will act, and so it's worth paying attention to, the place where that's most at issue is probably in the primaries which isn't really a “party line” voting situation.

 

So while it may vary vastly in the execution, a candidate from a specific party does, generally, tend to represent a person's broader beliefs or goals.

 

I will say, though, that I think that's less true right now with the Republican party. They're being largely driven by the far right, these days. But I think that has a good chance of being seen, at least in part, by even the most casual of voters.

 

However, that situation is up in the air.

 

If Obama wins, I think it will go one of two ways.

 

One, the Republicans will move back to center in a relatively short period. The obstruction of the past two years has been very unpopular and they can't afford to do it again, so there will be some kind of compromise. Also, if the race in Indiana with Richard Mourdock is even close (and a lot of polls have him down), the Tea Party will have trouble, because they're the reason that Dick Lugar lost the primary, and pretty much everyone agrees that there's no way he would have lost in the general election.

 

The Tea Party is a legitimate movement in that it reflects the values of a certain group within the GOP. However, it's a very well funded one, which is what allows it to be so dominant in the party. If it doesn't produce the results the big money needs, it's very likely we won't see that last.

 

Two, a lot of the party might convince themselves that the loss was because Romney's not a “true” conservative. In that case, they may push for candidates that are even more conservative, which is in keeping with the views of many of the younger Republicans they have in office.

 

Republican Senator Graham made an interesting comment -

 

"If I hear anybody say it was because Romney wasn't conservative enough I'm going to go nuts," said Graham. "We're not losing 95 percent of African-Americans and two-thirds of Hispanics and voters under 30 because we're not being hard-ass enough."

So I think that, even if they do go ultra-conservative, that won't last longer than the next election.

 

If Romney wins, I think that the far right has a longer period of prominence in the party, but they'll still fade in 6-8 years.

 

That's simply because of numbers. White voters are constantly decreasing, and they're what's really driving the Tea Party agenda – especially white males. The most viable way that they can survive, long term, is to bring in conservative oriented Latinos. And given that their views on immigration tend to be rather extreme, that's not likely to happen.

 

So, while voting a Republican party line might not be as straight forward as it once was, I think that some of that will begin to change soon.

[Slaskia]

(pathological lying, manipulative, lack of empathy, superficial charm)

 

Hmm...you just described about 90% of all politicians .

 

 

I've kept up with checking for other sources on that story. Most places that have it seem to just be repeating the initial report. I did find a site that looked into the matter. I can't speak to any particular political leanings it might have – it's the website for channel 2, the NBC affiliated television station in Houston. Here's their article:

 

NBC is very left wing, so I'd be careful with anything you get from sites affiliated with them.

 

As for the article itself, it is vastly different...so the truth is likely somewhere inbetween the two.

 

And that is in no way an accident, because those votes are largely Republican.

 

That's funny...I keep hearing that fraudulant votes are largely Democrat (remember the 'the dead always vote Democrat' thing I mentioned before). It doesn't help though that I am a largley conservitive household though. Not to say there isn't any such votes for Republicians, of course.

 

First of all, good for you for getting out and getting informed. No matter who people choose, the more everyone is aware of what's happening the better the process works.

 

Thanks, now if only more people would the same....

 

But the more eyes they feel on them – of any political bent – the more that they understand that they have to be responsive to the people because their mistakes and misconduct are being widely observed.

 

Maybe, maybe not. It's quite possible the politicians are aware of 'uncaring' voters: people that go vote, than go back to watching their football games (or other sport of their choice) with no care on how the person they voted for did. In other words: the impact on high voter turnout on politician's 'motivation' to keep their promises may not be as great as we think. That is unless, of course, said person really screws up somewhere and it directly affects said voters. But how often does that happen?

 

I admit I am anxious on how things will go tomorrow...and I admit I am a bit paranoid on what could happen (such as race riots if Obama loses). Nothing is absolutely certain right now on what the outcome will be. Well...there is one thing: the cease of those annoying freaking political calls.....

[skauble]

NBC is very left wing, so I'd be careful with anything you get from sites affiliated with them.

 

As for the article itself, it is vastly different...so the truth is likely somewhere inbetween the two.

I agree that NBC has liberal leanings - look at MSNBC, but I tend to find that doesn't necessarily move on to affiliates because they're owned by other people/companies, and mainly just carry programming from the main network. Which isn't to say it doesn't have a certain bent, just that I don't think whatever that is derives from NBC.

 

The thing that bothers me about the story is that I can't find any corroboration of the original observer's account. Everything I've seen on the right blogs is just a repost of the original claims that were made. I don't even really see an attempt to investigate the matter from those posting the report. However, I'm totally open to the fact that I may just not be finding it in my search.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think the NAACP people were out of line. But I also think that True the Vote has a very strong racial component to their project and there's already a great deal of talk about them targeting minority areas for their observations. Of course, that's something that is probably best discussed post-Tuesday when there will be concrete numbers so the story is clearer, whichever way it plays out.

 

That's funny...I keep hearing that fraudulant votes are largely Democrat (remember the 'the dead always vote Democrat' thing I mentioned before).  It doesn't help though that I am a largley conservitive household though.  Not to say there isn't any such votes for Republicians, of course.

 

Sorry, I was kind of unclear in how I worded what I wrote (pretty much my constant state of being )

 

Voting outside of election day tends to break down two ways. Democrats vote early in larger numbers, while Republicans tend to lead when it comes to absentee ballots.

 

I wasn't saying that the Republicans are committing absentee ballot voter fraud; honestly, I don't know how those statistics break down. What I was saying was that there has been a vast amount of effort expended by Republicans to do two things - voter ID laws, and to cut back and/or eliminate early voting.

 

The cutting back on early voting is a clear hit at people voting Democrat. It's created ridiculously huge voting lines, so it's causing problems, and there have been blatantly partisan efforts to cut voting time in some Democrat heavy areas and not Republican heavy ones.

 

The voter ID laws are somewhat different. Let's leave aside any disenfranchising they may or may not do, and set aside the fact that a Pennsylvanian Republican official basically admitted that passing them would win Romney the state, and look at what we know about voter fraud:

 

What people are able to find out about it says that clearly the biggest issue is absentee voting. And yet, all of these laws leave out any prevention for the largest and easiest avenue of abuse, because any attempts to do so would likely affect their ease of use, and thus hinder Republican voters, most likely resulting in lower vote totals for Romney.

 

So we have an outright slashing of time for voting that tends to be used more by Democrats, and at the same time you have an obvious protection of a Republican leading form of voting, even though it's the best path to voter fraud during a time when everyone is going on and on about stopping it.

 

So my point was that the way that voter fraud is being tackled, as an issue, is not about stopping voter fraud, because no one's doing anything about where we actually know the system is weakest. And, further, that is very strongly baked up by the fact that the same group of people who are pushing these voter ID laws are also doing other things that restrict mainly Democratic voters, like cutting early voting hours.

 

Maybe, maybe not.  It's quite possible the politicians are aware of 'uncaring' voters: people that go vote, than go back to watching their football games (or other sport of their choice) with no care on how the person they voted for did.  In other words:  the impact on high voter turnout on politician's 'motivation' to keep their promises may not be as great as we think.  That is unless, of course, said person really screws up somewhere and it directly affects said voters.  But how often does that happen?

 

I admit I am anxious on how things will go tomorrow...and I admit I am a bit paranoid on what could happen (such as race riots if Obama loses).  Nothing is absolutely certain right now on what the outcome will be.  Well...there is one thing:  the cease of those annoying freaking political calls.....

 

The thing about people voting party lines without really informing themselves is that they do care, just not a lot. Otherwise they just wouldn't vote. Because, while some people may want to just be able to say that they voted, they usually pick a party line that is generally representative of many of their core beliefs. So their “eyes” on the politicians do matter, because they're just active enough to hear about trouble or a candidate who's really doing a bad job.

 

I very strongly doubt that there would be riots. However, if that was truly a concern, you would hope that it would have motivated the Republican officials to stop messing around with the vote. Honestly, if I was in Florida and I didn't get to vote because the Governor just decided to not extend voting time, despite the huge mess, despite people asking, despite court cases, despite the state's history, I wouldn't riot, but I'd would be absolutely, justifiably furious.

 

I'll be frank, here; I'm a liberal, but I have a lot of problems with the Democratic party. I find them very flawed in a lot of ways. I have a bunch of issues with Obama, even though I plan to vote for him. I find the political system very interesting, so I often try to stand back from some of my beliefs and take a look at it. I don't know if I'm always successful, but I try understanding and appreciating things, even though I don't always agree with them.

 

But I'm firmly on the side that believes that there has been a concerted effort made to shift this election towards the Republicans by the way that some states have handled voting.

 

And I say the following to help my Republican friends – if you guys don't win this election you need to tackle your party leaders and demand that they fix whatever's broken. And I don't mean that they need to be more liberal, just that they need to figure out a better playbook, because with the election issues, and the voter ID confusion, added to the slow economy, this election is imminently winnable for Romney. And, like I said, demographics are changing, and if the Republicans can't pull out a win with all of those advantages, it'll be a nightmare in 2016 that the party needs to realistically address now.

 

Of course, if you guys win, then you can't probably pick up huge amounts of swing voters in 2016 if there's a strong economy. A lot of people have said that this is actually an 8 year election, so that's good news for you guys if Romney swings it, which is possible in a race this close.