Voter Purge

I want for people of color to have their votes counted.

As recently as mid 1990's the Latino vote was a given for (R).
Correct ?

Fact is (D) higher ups agree with you in regard of targeting state wide elections.
It is no secret the success (R) has had in the past 20-30 years at the state level.
Based on what ---
a) race ?
b) Them and us politics?
c) economic anxiety

And suppose those "hardcore" you speak of meekly walked away ?
If everyone of those claims is true, the "evil" doers will have justice served.
Should they go shut up and hide in the corner .... ? Then what

next and lastly, why is (R) targeting "African Americans " ???
Correct me if I am wrong -- leading up to and during 20th century Civil Rights the majority of African Americans were registered (R) but the laws passed were championed by (D)
Why was that ?
Johnson historically/correctly noted while signing that he just handed a generation and a half to the Republicans.
If it was intended a partisan issue -- it has failed miserably.

How about it is the right thing to do
 
57Brave said:
I want for people of color to have their votes counted.

As recently as mid 1990's the Latino vote was a given for (R).

Correct ?

Fact is (D) higher ups agree with you in regard of targeting state wide elections.

It is no secret the success (R) has had in the past 20-30 years at the state level.

Based on what ---

a) race ?

b) Them and us politics?

c) economic anxiety

And suppose those "hardcore" you speak of meekly walked away ?

If everyone of those claims is true, the "evil" doers will have justice served.

Should they go shut up and hide in the corner .... ? Then what

next and lastly, why is (R) targeting "African Americans " ???

Correct me if I am wrong -- leading up to and during 20th century Civil Rights the majority of African Americans were registered (R) but the laws passed were championed by (D)

Why was that ?

Johnson historically/correctly noted while signing that he just handed a generation and a half to the Republicans.

If it was intended a partisan issue -- it has failed miserably.

How about it is the right thing to do
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you are reserving your most shrillesque comebacks for me lately. I am only trying to offer help for your party to win elections for a change, and I can tell you as long as you guys maintain this "I'm standing on the moral ground on this forever" you aren't going to do so. If you want to be pissed at someone why not be pissed at your strategists who can't figure out how to beat the Rs, but whatever. Surely you know I'm not the one advocating stripping anyone of their rights as US citizens to vote, and I've already told you how to beat the Repub tricks on keeping people of color from getting registered and/or voting but it's one of those jobs that tends to be thankless and low profile type jobs.

Oh and isn't the best way to right these wrong to win some more elections in the first place? The reason why the Repubs are able to push these things through the state legislatures is because they win so many elections at the state levels in the first place.
 
Sorry you took it as shrill or combative -- wasn't meant to be.

As far as (D) gaining grassroots ground I believe that is what Obama and Holder are low key spearheading
and I believe (R) has been winning statewide elections by touting race. With wink and nod campaigns. Witness the Rebel States and their predominant party affiliations
My congressman tweeted a picture from a luncheon he had today with a Kiwanis's Club. His audience of 20-30 were entirely older, male and white. He is (R)

Looking at the 2010 mid terms and this past one, to my eyes the underlying reason (D) has been trounced so badly is lack of participation. Some inflicted by voter suppression and an unacceptable good bit self inflicted.
I read something yesterday that of the Bernie voters of 2016 16% voted for Trump !!!
16% of the primary runner up. 1 in 6 Bernie voters voted for Trump
2010 people stayed home because they were disappointed Obama didn't part the Red Sea.
That to me is unacceptable --- but predictable -- last year at this time posts we read on this board from self proclaimed progressives that were so dissatisfied Clinton couldn't go to $15 and was stuck at a pragmatic $12 minimum wage.
Or used the McCain/Liebermanism "troubled"
Talk about cutting off ones nose to spite ones face

What troubles me most is the lack of younger 40ish (D) at all levels.
 
Ari Berman‏Verified account @AriBerman 40m40 minutes ago

Breaking: Illinois governor signs automatic voter registration bill. Could add 1 million new voters to rolls. 10th state to adopt AVR
 
sean.‏Verified account @SeanMcElwee 15h15 hours ago

sean. Retweeted Washington Post

It's weird that **registering people to vote** is framed as a partisan goal in a democratic society.
 
The survey asked registrants about their reasons for not voting, the types of ID they possess,
interest in the election, confidence in the accuracy of the vote count, and de-
mographics. The survey did not ask voters about who they would have voted for or their
party identification.
The survey found considerable confusion about the law. Most of the people who said they
did not vote because they lacked ID actually possessed a qualifying form of ID. This confusion
may be the result of a lack of effective efforts educating eligible voters of the requirements
of the law, and it is consistent with other studies that show many otherwise eligible
voters are confused about ID laws. There were no significant differences between people
who had seen information about the voter ID law and those who had not.

Surveyor: "Why didn't you vote?"
Surveyee: "I totally would have voted but I didn't have an ID."
Surveyor: "Earlier you told us that you have , which is a qualifying form of voter ID."
Surveyee: "Dude I didn't know. I wish someone had told me."

Seems legit.
 
From the linked study:

The survey further found that 6% of nonvoters were prevented from voting because they lacked ID or cited ID as the main reason they did not vote, which corresponds to 9,001 people, and could be as high as 14,101 based on the confidence interval of between 3.5% and 9.4%

but later....

Most of the people who said they did not vote because they lacked ID actually possessed a qualifying form of ID.

and their conclusions...

“The main conclusion of the study is that thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands, of otherwise eligible people were deterred from voting by the ID law,” said Mayer. “The 11.2% figure is actually a lower bound since it does not include people who don’t even register because they lack an ID. And while the total number affected in Milwaukee and Dane Counties is smaller than the margin of victory in the 2016 presidential election, that is the wrong measure. An eligible voter who cannot vote because of the ID law is disenfranchised, and that in itself is a serious harm to the integrity to the electoral process.”

So to summarize: All of these people said they didn't vote because they didn't have ID. The researchers dig deeper and find out that most of these people did have ID. The researchers conclude that the voter ID law disenfranchised all of these people.

Do you see the problem there?
 
Jaw said:
The survey asked registrants about their reasons for not voting, the types of ID they possess,

interest in the election, confidence in the accuracy of the vote count, and de-

mographics. The survey did not ask voters about who they would have voted for or their

party identification.

The survey found considerable confusion about the law. Most of the people who said they

did not vote because they lacked ID actually possessed a qualifying form of ID. This confusion

may be the result of a lack of effective efforts educating eligible voters of the requirements

of the law, and it is consistent with other studies that show many otherwise eligible

voters are confused about ID laws. There were no significant differences between people

who had seen information about the voter ID law and those who had not.

Surveyor: "Why didn't you vote?"

Surveyee: "I totally would have voted but I didn't have an ID."

Surveyor: "Earlier you told us that you have , which is a qualifying form of voter ID."

Surveyee: "Dude I didn't know. I wish someone had told me."

Seems legit.
Click to expand...

Hard to take someone serious when they say ID suppresses voter turnout. Its just another angle to push identify politics.
 
Jaw said:
From the linked study:

The survey further found that 6% of nonvoters were prevented from voting because they lacked ID or cited ID as the main reason they did not vote, which corresponds to 9,001 people, and could be as high as 14,101 based on the confidence interval of between 3.5% and 9.4%

but later....

Most of the people who said they did not vote because they lacked ID actually possessed a qualifying form of ID.

and their conclusions...

“The main conclusion of the study is that thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands, of otherwise eligible people were deterred from voting by the ID law,” said Mayer. “The 11.2% figure is actually a lower bound since it does not include people who don’t even register because they lack an ID. And while the total number affected in Milwaukee and Dane Counties is smaller than the margin of victory in the 2016 presidential election, that is the wrong measure. An eligible voter who cannot vote because of the ID law is disenfranchised, and that in itself is a serious harm to the integrity to the electoral process.”

So to summarize: All of these people said they didn't vote because they didn't have ID. The researchers dig deeper and find out that most of these people did have ID. The researchers conclude that the voter ID law disenfranchised all of these people.

Do you see the problem there?
Click to expand...

57 doesn't understand how to interpret math and statistics.

It's all emotion
 
"The researchers dig deeper and find out that most of these people did have ID. The researchers conclude that the voter ID law disenfranchised all of these people. "
 
57Brave said:
"The researchers dig deeper and find out that most of these people did have ID. The researchers conclude that the voter ID law disenfranchised all of these people. "
Click to expand...

Well the message needs to get out and state that you can use all those ID.

That is not the laws fault. That is the messaging fault.

ID should be a mandatory requirement for all voting. Its absurd that it isn't.
 
"I didn't go vote because I know about the voter ID law. But I didn't know my ID would work because I don't know about the voter ID law."

I'm sorry, but I just don't find that to be a credible response.

But even assuming that a few people actually fall into the above scenario, how hard it is to find out? Google it. If you don't have internet service, call your Secretary of State's office, the county election commission, or any party office in the state. If you don't have phone service, drive to your library and look it up, or go to the country elections office. And if you can't do any of those things, how likely were you to vote?
 
Jaw said:
"I didn't go vote because I know about the voter ID law. But I didn't know my ID would work because I don't know about the voter ID law."

I'm sorry, but I just don't find that to be a credible response.

But even assuming that a few people actually fall into the above scenario, how hard it is to find out? Google it. If you don't have internet service, call your Secretary of State's office, the county election commission, or any party office in the state. If you don't have phone service, drive to your library and look it up, or go to the country elections office. And if you can't do any of those things, how likely were you to vote?
Click to expand...

Its a dog whistle to drive up racial tensions. Its the only thing the left is good at nowadays.
 
University of Wisconsin-Madison does not do research papers to create "dog whistles"
and

IF you find fault with the study's findings, write them a letter.
They can explain to you far better than I their intent
You read the same words I did

Would think that at some point when research flies in the face of your (royal) preconceived notions you (royal) would give up the ghost.

As far as well "they shoulda" that is kinda the point, people shouldn't have to divine their voting rights.
It is a long practice of confusing voter ID issues (see North Carolina) to drive down voter participation.
Even in some cases going as far as calling to tell people the vote is held on a different days --- and other extreme cases that the vote has been cancelled.
These dirty tricks know no party affiliation either. I have heard reports of (D) primary shenanigans

Voting shouldn't be hard
 
57Brave said:
Voting shouldn't be hard
Click to expand...

I agree. It should also be limited to those who have the right to vote, which is why I support simple voter ID laws. I can't speak for Wisconsin, their law, or their messaging, but I can tell you that in Georgia it is virtually impossible to know where to vote without also knowing what forms of ID are required.
 
not on it's face.

Confusing the matter which was the issue in NC does make it intentionally harder

Do you not understand the methods of voter suppression ?
Dating back to Jim Crow
and how they are being imposed

Or even the meaning of the word "suppression"
 
Jaw said:
I agree. It should also be limited to those who have the right to vote, which is why I support simple voter ID laws. I can't speak for Wisconsin, their law, or their messaging, but I can tell you that in Georgia it is virtually impossible to know where to vote without also knowing what forms of ID are required.
Click to expand...

Which was the basis of the study in Wisconsin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top