Thread: An examination of delegate allocation

Hi there - been busy. Just got back to this.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Wyoming has about 570,000 people and 3 electoral votes. California has 38 million people and has 55 electoral votes. That means in Wyoming, there is 1 electoral vote for every 190,000 people, and in California, there is 1 electoral vote for every 691,000 people. In other words, every person in Wyoming has a 3.6 TIMES as much of a say as a Californian. Same reasoning as why the Senate is undemocratic bullshit, too.

Interesting - hadn't looked at the population nuumbers. Thanks.

I agree that it's skewed based on simple population to representative ratios. No arguing that. There are several ideas in this thread that I think would help. Yours have some real merit I think.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Originally Posted by Alundil

So what is disenfranchising about voter id laws, specifically photo id laws? SCOTUS has already ruled on this to the effect of photo is to vote is not a disenfrachising thing today in this age, nor is it discriminatory. So if SCOTUS has ruled on it, it's pretty much a moot point to argue about now. No?

No, it's not moot, and I still think it's an important point.
It's a direct, coordinated attempt to disenfranchise millions of voters who would likely support Democratic candidates. You think they are doing this on accident or because of some bogus voter fraud nonsense? It is a blatant attempt to suppress the vote and limit turnout because that plays into their advantage. This shit should be criminal.

I disagree in part. So, too, does SCOTUS.
Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd. : SCOTUSblog
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/wa...otus.html?_r=1






Additionally, I'd hardly call "Rolling Stone" an unbiased source. However, a couple points from reading that article, slanted though it is and some analyical/critical questions based solely on the article:
The GOP War on Voting | Politics News | Rolling Stone
1. Kansas and Alabama now require would-be voters to provide proof of citizenship before registering.
-- This is really a vague allegation. There is no supporting documentation of this claim anywhere in the article. Just a simple "trust us" statement.
Q. Who is legally allowed to vote?
A. I think only citizens are allowed to vote.

2. Florida and Texas made it harder for groups like the League of Women Voters to register new voters.
Q. How?
--The article doesn't say. It simple alleges that this is the goal of the bill(s) and hopes that its readers take it as fact.
A. Without any documentation of the bills in question, there is no way for a reader to ascertain whether the article is correct in its entirety, hiding points that counter or invalidate its own claims by omission, etc.

3. Maine repealed Election Day voter registration, which had been on the books since 1973.
Q. Is there any reason given as to why this was repealed?
--We the readers, once again, are asked to assume that Rolling Stone is conveying all of the information. That is unlikely.
A. __________________________________

4. Five states – Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia – cut short their early voting periods.
Q. See question from #3.
--Is it possible that there were financial reasons for reducing the staff levels of those state elections boards? That is extremely plausible. I think that financial concerns would be a poor reason for reducing staff/polling places/early voting and would argue that there are plenty of other expenses that could, or should, be pared before voting concerns, but that doesn't detract from the plausibility But since there were no details of this other than what Rolling Stone wanted to convey no meaningful discussion is possible. It's all just emotional arguing.
A. __________________________________

5. Florida and Iowa barred all ex-felons from the polls, disenfranchising thousands of previously eligible voters.
Q. See question from #3.
--Felons (or Ex felon if you prefer) and voting, among many other rights issues.....There cannot be a binary question/answer/response to this issue. There are many different types of felons. Some more dangerous and less trustworthy, regardless of time served, than others. If FL and IA barred all ex-felons from voting then I think that there is an issue to be rectified. However, I would also have some issue with all ex-felons regaining the right to vote as well. It's a matter of scale, scope and propriety, imo. But, again Rolling Stone provides no documentation.
A. In fact, they are not permanently barred from voting. This is a misleading statement. "Florida and Iowa join Kentucky and Virginia as the only states that require all former felons to apply for the right to vote after finishing their prison sentences." We can disagree over this and discuss it, but it is not a permanent prohibition as Rolling Stone implies.

6. "...and six states controlled by Republican governors and legislatures – Alabama, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin – will require voters to produce a government-issued ID before casting ballots."
--This is almost directly what the 2008 SCOTUS decision dealt with.
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Justice John Paul Stevens in the leading opinion wrote, "The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483.[2] Because Indiana’s cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek."

At trial, the plaintiffs were unable to produce any witnesses who claimed they were not able to meet the law's requirements. The defendants were likewise unable to present any evidence that the corruption purportedly motivating the law existed.

As I said, a moot point. One could argue that it's not necessary and wasteful of state resources and there might be accuracy to that. However, one could just as easily argue that there is no real harm by doing so to voters. Thus moot.

Rolling Stone goes on to say, that there were no instances of prosecuted voter impersonations between 2002 and 2007 and applies that to all types of voter fraud, when it is just a single part of the whole. Yet then says in the same paragraph that 86 convictions for voter fraud took place in that same time period. They also make the false claim that since there are few voter fraud convictions then therefore there are few instances of voter fraud. That is illogical (denying antecedents) to assume that. Additionally, Justice Stevens noted several cases of flagrant voter fraud throughout history

But, as Justice Stevens noted, there have been flagrant examples of voter fraud in American history. He cited the 1868 New York City elections, in which a local tough who worked for Tammany’s William (Boss) Tweed explained why he liked voters to have whiskers: “When you’ve voted ’em with their whiskers on, you take ’em to a barber and scrape off the chin fringe. Then you vote ’em again with the side lilacs and a mustache. Then to a barber again, off comes the sides and you vote ’em a third time with the mustache. If that ain’t enough and the box can stand a few more ballots, clean off the mustache and vote ’em plain face.”

In 2004, Justice Stevens noted in a footnote, the hotly contested gubernatorial election in Washington State produced an investigation that turned up 19 “ghost voters” and at least one confirmed instance of voter fraud. And while Justice Stevens did not mention the elections in the career of Lyndon B. Johnson, biographers of the late president have suggested that he won at least one election in Texas in the 1940’s through ballot box-stuffing — and lost at least one the same way.

So these things are hardly unheard of. Public Enemy #1? No. Should they be ignored? I don't think so either.

7. "...roughly half of all black and Hispanic residents in Wisconsin do not have a driver's license, and the state staffs barely half as many DMVs as Indiana"
Q. Where is this information on black and Hispanic residents of Wisconsin?
--According to the 2000-2010 Census, there are 5,711,767 residents of Wisconsin. Of those, 359,148 are African-American (or black). The article claims that almost 180,000 of those have no DL? I find that hard to believe. It's possible but I'd want to see actual data.....that is not provided by the people making the claim. According to the 2000-2010 Census, there are 192,921 residents of Hispanic or Latino descent in Wisconsin. Again, with no data, the reader is lead to believe that roughly 96,500 of those have no DL?
--On to the DMV disparity claimed by Rolling Stone....according to the Wisconsin DMV site there are 72 counties and 87 DMV service centers. More than 1 to 1. That doesn't sound to bad to me. I was not able to find a count of Indiana's DMV/BVM locations.
A. The fact that Rolling Stone's claim of lack of DL is couched in terms of # of residents is intriguing. As we all know, resident does not equal citizen therefore it's not a 1 to 1 ratio of residents to voters. Though a less detailed reading of the article would miss that distinction.

8. "Why should we disenfranchise people forever once they've paid their price?" Bill Clinton asked during his speech in July. "Because most of them in Florida were African-Americans and Hispanics and would tend to vote for Democrats – that's why."
--I see he hasn't lost his skill as a panderer.
Q. Should all convicted felons regain their right to vote regardless of the reason for the conviction?
A. I disagree. See #5. For certain violent crimes, I absolutely agree with some kind of additional request/application for reinstatement of certain rights and privileges. I'd definitely agree with it in the case of voter fraud

Interesting point of reference if I might sidebar for a moment.
Why is it that we have no issues, whatsoever, calling an alcoholic an alcoholic for life and not an ex-alcoholic? It's because they, more often than not, fail to stay sober and battle that for life. Why then, when we know that recidivism rates for some (many) types of crimes are as bad or worse than the rates of alcoholics falling off the wagon, do we insist on calling them ex-felons as if there is a large meaningful difference. Take violent offenders for instance and the classification or naming
Felons once convicted = Alcoholics who have admitted a problem
Felons incarcerated = Alcoholics attending AA or other treatment programs
Felons released are now "Ex-Felons" = Alcoholics who have been sober for n time are still called, and refer to themselves as, alcoholics or recovering alcoholics and not "Ex-Alcoholics"
See the difference?


9. In April 2008, the Supreme Court upheld a photo-ID law in Indiana, even though state GOP officials couldn't provide a single instance of a voter committing the type of fraud the new ID law was supposed to stop.
Q. Did Rolling Stone completely omit the fact that the opponents of the Photo ID law could not provide a single instance of a voter not able to meet the criteria set out for voter registration by Indiana?
--Omission for the win....
A. I believe that's exactly what they just did.

I would like to see documentation/links etc to the state bills for those two states and the discussion (pro/con) that the bill generated. I, and many others here, realize that most of our government is corrupt. It is possible that the goal of the legislation was to make registration more difficult. It is also possible that there were legitimate reasons or rationale for certain portions of the bills that were passed. However, I'm not going to take it on faith that Rolling Stone is giving me the whole truth and nothing but the truth as I am aware of what their agenda is an know that this story is slanted in that regard.

Q. Do states, and the nation as a whole, have a vested interest in ensuring that the people voting should be voting?
A. I believe that they do. My hope is that people (senators who have passed the various bills for or against voter ID, hacks like Rolling Stone and Fox, and idiotic knee-jerk reactionists on either side) come to realize that accurate voting rolls and registration processes are better for everyone. The challenge is in finding the balance between accuracy and convenience. I would argue that neither of those things trumps the other. I would also argue that the claims for and against are overblown by our political overlords, as they always are, for the sole purpose of obfuscating the real truths; That they are robbing us blind and killing us softly. But, as usual, that's less important than sticking one in the eye of your neighbor.

General statement inbound
Most People = Useless waste of space and time

Holy mother of god, Alundil. That is quite the post, lol! I'm not going to go and respond to all of that, because it might drive me nuts if I try to!

Voter fraud doesn't exist in the manner Republicans allege. If you have to go back to 1868 to make a point about voter fraud and have to use "allegations", but no real proof, you're beyond desperate. That's reaching. Nineteen "ghost voters" in the 2004 Washington state gubernatorial election? One, that's not evidence of fraud, and two, that's out of 2,810,058 votes! Or .0000021% of the vote. Not statistically significant.

Here is about the lack of evidence in Kansas: Waiting for evidence | Wichita Eagle
More: The myth of voter fraud | MinnPost
And more: The Truth About Fraud: Case Studies by State

I will ask this: Putting aside the questions about legality for a minute, why do you think the GOP, and only the GOP, are pursuing this bills? There claims about "voter fraud" are clearly based on lies and misinformation, so what other valid reason would they push this other than to try and disenfranchise some heavily Democratic voters?

Here is a much more detailed report for you since you obviously didn't like the Rolling Stone one, lol:
Voting Law Changes in 2012 | Brennan Center for Justice

LOL you're welcome. Before I answer that though (fingers are tired ) I have one for you.

Whether the rep claims are true or the dem claims against are true, do you agree that we should have the most convenient and accurate voting system in place?

That is what I'm looking for. I think that 6 of the supreme court justices "got it" too. Everything else, both sides of the partisan debate, are pointless and lack basis in reality. Those aren't my reasons for supporting the scotus decision. Neither side was able to provide proof either way.

With that said, I'd love to see someone, anyone, dem or rep, go to prison for this kind of fraud. I truly would relish it. It would be an affront to every citizen and might restore a faith in the government to police its own so to speak.

Additionally, I don't believe the claims for or against the law have basis in fact and the inability to prove that in the SUPREME FREAKING COURT is pretty telling. But nevertheless, I feel that the scotus made the right ruling in light of the political shenanigans they were surrounded by.

Now with said, I don't know why only reps seem to be pushing these bills. But I don't disagree with them out of hand unless they really do create an overwhelming burden. At this point, there is nothing to prove that they do. If that changes then by all means reevaluate.

The emotional, "save the children-esque," "what if" complaints that are en vogue at the moment just aren't doing it for me.

Sent via highly charged bolt of electricity.

Originally Posted by Alundil

LOL you're welcome. Before I answer that though (fingers are tired ) I have one for you.

Whether the rep claims are true or the dem claims against are true, do you agree that we should have the most convenient and accurate voting system in place?

That is what I'm looking for. I think that 6 of the supreme court justices "got it" too. Everything else, both sides of the partisan debate, are pointless and lack basis in reality. Those aren't my reasons for supporting the scotus decision. Neither side was able to provide proof either way.

Yes, we should, and all these bills serve as a means to make voting INconvenient and if you are worried about accuracy, that would deal with who's counting the votes. These bills do nothing to facilitate either of those. Look at the disenfranchise numbers from the study I posted.

Originally Posted by Alundil

With that said, I'd love to see someone, anyone, dem or rep, go to prison for this kind of fraud. I truly would relish it. It would be an affront to every citizen and might restore a faith in the government to police its own so to speak.

Additionally, I don't believe the claims for or against the law have basis in fact and the inability to prove that in the SUPREME FREAKING COURT is pretty telling. But nevertheless, I feel that the scotus made the right ruling in light of the political shenanigans they were surrounded by.

The problem is there is virtually NO fraud to arrest people for. If you want to arrest anyone, arrest the people who are causing mass hysteria about this nonsense.

Originally Posted by Alundil

Now with said, I don't know why only reps seem to be pushing these bills. But I don't disagree with them out of hand unless they really do create an overwhelming burden. At this point, there is nothing to prove that they do. If that changes then by all means reevaluate.

The emotional, "save the children-esque," "what if" complaints that are en vogue at the moment just aren't doing it for me.

Sent via highly charged bolt of electricity.

Why do you think the Department of Justice rejected the Texas voter ID bill? And the South Carolina one?
Justice Dept opposes Texas voter ID law - Yahoo! News