Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Progressives Infantilize the Poor

State governments that have the temerity to demand voters show official identification have been stirring progressives to righteous indignation for some time now. They noisily protest anything that would prohibit the dead, convicted felons and illegal aliens from voting, since those groups are a reliable Democrat party constituency.

The only real disenfranchisement caused by stricter voter registration and identification laws would be a self-imposed one on the irresponsible and the lazy, another reliable liberal constituency if it can be rounded up and bussed to the polls after being lured in by free booze and cigarettes.

Kevin Drum sums up the liberal view of poor minorities...
Lots of people assume that getting photo ID is no big deal. Most people have it, and even the ones who don't can easily get it. After all, it's free! But that's not true. First, you need a birth certificate. Middle-class folks might not realize this, but not everyone has a birth certificate handy, and both the hassle factor and the cost of getting one can be real deterrents. Add to that the hassle of getting a ride to a DMV office two counties away during working hours, and voting in the next election suddenly got a whole lot harder for you than it is for your average middle-class white suburbanite. You might even never get around to it. ( Kevin Drum – The Poor are Stupid and Helpless)
You need that stuff to get a job and to be a responsible citizen! How do these helpless people get to the polls? How do they get out of bed and feed themselves on their own? How do they find their ass with both hands?

The Denver Post, in a rare moment of lucidity, gets it right:
2008 U.S. Supreme Court case involving a voter ID law in Indiana, a state that also does not fall into the higher-scrutiny category, made it clear there wasn't anything inherently discriminatory about requiring voters to present a photo ID before casting a ballot.
The opinion was written by a liberal voice on the court, John Paul Stevens. He brushed aside concerns the law would disproportionately harm Democrats over Republicans.
If your natural constituency is lazy and irresponsible, changing the rules for them is not the answer.  If liberals really cared about these people, they would help them get these documents, not just so they can identify themselves at the polls, but so they can get into the mainstream of society and better their lives.

The answer is to help these people without documents become responsible; but that would work against the Democrats, since that would also probably turn them into Republicans.


Always On Watch said...

Love those last two sentences! You nailed it there!

Without voter ID, voter fraud will proliferate. Such proliferation is a tradition in the Democratic Party.

How many dead folks voted in the election to get LBJ to Congress? Hmmmmm?

Mr. AOW said...

Make the liquor stores and convenience store (cigarette purchases) demand ID from all customers, and you'll see just how fast these "disenfranchised" voters get an ID!

Ducky's here said...

"If your natural constituency is lazy and irresponsible"


There we go. You just had to slip in the sweeping generalization. Okay, why don't we discuss the issue of the natural right wing constituency being as freaking dumb as hammers? There now where are we?

Better might be to start with some background of just how common voter fraud is in America. I've never seen any writings that state it s very high.

In light of that it is quite reasonable to ask if the motive here is elimination of fraud or voter suppression.

Finntann said...

"Better might be to start with some background of just how common voter fraud is in America. I've never seen any writings that state it s very high."

You need look no further than Bush-Gore to see that it doesn't need to be very high to impact an election.

We should have zero tolerance for voter fraud.


Z said...

Your last two sentences say it all, SF.

And Mr. AOW makes an excellent point...he's absolutely right.

Jersey McJones said...

I'm sorry to see Silver fall for this particular and narrow "voter fraud" issue. And I'm sorry to hear that he thinks the 10% of voters, many of whom are elderly, are just "lazy and irresponsible," a popular right wing class derogatory (if you are poor, then you must be lazy, if you are rich, then you must be a hard worker, etc).

I'm also sorry to hear that apparently the only type of voter fraud the right deems important to address is the extremely rare occurrence of individual illegal voting, while other types of malfeasance at the polls are far more common and problematic.



This "issue" seems to be coming to the fore these days (it's every federal election cycle with these guys) because of changing demographics in the South, with it's rising population of Hispanic and older black voters (the older you are, the more likely you are to vote).

There's a second way of looking at this, and it involves personal liberty - should we be forcing everyone to have picture ID? It seems to run contrary to conservative or libertarian thought, but there they are demanding as such.

I see it as yet another divisive, distracting, diversionary pseudo-issue of a right wing in the country that offers nothing by way of betterment of the nation.


Ducky's here said...

Finntann, the critical factor in Florida was voter fraud? How was that established? I thought it was lack of a recount and right wing judicial activism.

Yeah, those damn Dems be just spending there welfare checks and food stamps at the packy.

I'll give you this Silverfiddle, you manage to hide your "biases" a little better than the likes of Mr. AOW or z.

Silverfiddle said...

There's a second way of looking at this, and it involves personal liberty - should we be forcing everyone to have picture ID?

That train already left the station, Kemosabe.

And with many states having incredibly loose voting laws, how would you detect voter fraud>

Z said...

Why should I hide my "biases?"
You don't. I should? :-)
AOW should?
Is that more "Shut up, Conservatives, we know what's best for you"? :-)

Jersey McJones said...

I'm not particularly worried about individual voting fraud because it is very rare, and it makes no sense - there's just not enough impetus for people to commit the crime. At every polling place I've ever been, the system in place seemed fine for addressing this tiny little problem (you are more likely to be hit by lightening than to fraudulently vote).

On the other hand, I'm far more concerned with malfeasance by poll workers, and state and local election institutions, because it is at those levels that fraud can have a major impact.

I see no effort from the right to address that. And that tells me that "voter fraud" is not really the issue for the right, but rather just finding little ways to disenfranchise potential Democratic voters at the federal level (you never hear about this nonsense at the local levels during off-year elections).

Yet another sleazy right wing pseudo-issue, I'm afraid. It's a shame that you guys can't offer substance.


Ducky's here said...

You'll notice Jersey that they bring up Florida for some reason as an instance of rampant voter fraud (I'd love to see the doc) but they avoid any mention of the voter suppression in Ohio during the 2004 election.

Then they'll get their knickers in a knot when you call them on the whole foundation of this bullshit argument.

Rob said...

Good Lord, you have to have a birth certificate "handy" to get married, get a driver's license, get a passport, or to be registered in public school. Hell, I don't think you can even get a relative's death certificate without first providing their birth cert.

If these lazy bastards had an inkling of the paperwork required to, say, adopt a child from another country, they'd crap themselves. Shut yer kegholes and trot right on down to the county courthouse!

Perhaps acquiring this personal document is a serious deterrent, because these people backstroked across the Rio Grande or hoofed it across Sierra Madres...

That people are bellyaching about having to show proof of citizenship to vote just seems laughable.

And yeah, written English literacy should be a requirement too - no publishing election info in Spanish. If you can read enough English to navigate the streets to the voting center in your $55k Escelade, you can damn well handle an English voting form.

Radical Redneck said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jersey McJones said...

Yeah, Ducky. All the real fraud out there, and these sleazoids are worried about something that barely even exists.

Meanwhile, these cowards, like Rob here, call people "lazy bastards." I wonder if he'd have the guts to say that to the grandson of some old lady living in the country who doesn't have picture ID.

Hey Rob, you wanna talk about lazy? Try losing some weight. I, as a taxpayer, am not looking forward to paying for your eventual diabetes or heart disease.


OD357 said...

Obama is playing the race card through Holder, artificially creating a race discrimination that isn’t there just so he can ride in and conquer the mighty evil Republicans.

If you want to vote and don't have a birth certificate, write your state, spend the $10 and get one.

Jeeze, you have to have an ID to do everything in today's society. Do you mean to tell me that a person who cares about political issues doesn't even have an ID? Heck even the dead people that vote in Chicago have some sort of identification.

Finntann said...

I did not cite Florida as a case of rampant voter fraud, but as the election margin narrows the impact of fraud increases.

The impact of voter fraud on a landslide election is non-existent, the closer it is, the higher the potential impact.

"the critical factor in Florida was voter fraud?"

"they bring up Florida for some reason as an instance of rampant voter fraud"

I didn't say or imply either, don't put words in my mouth.

I said "You need look no further than Bush-Gore to see that it doesn't need to be very high to impact an election."

Meaning admittedly low fraud numbers can have an impact on a close election.

In the 2000 election in Florida the vote count was 2912790 - 2912253 a difference of only 537


Are you saying that in a close race in a high population state (or even any state), voter fraud couldn't throw it one way or the other? All it needs to come down to is a close race that throws the electoral college one way or the other.

Florida had a population of roughly 16 million in 2000, of those roughly 20% are under 18, leaving 12,800,000 eligible voters. It would only take a voter fraud rate of .000042% to have thrown the Florida election.

Now suppose that those 537 votes that put Bush over the top came from conservative catholic illegal aliens.

To use JMJ's source, The Brennan Center, and I quote:

"it happens approximately 0.0009% of the time"

So... using Jersey's source figures...the voter fraud in Florida in 2000 should have only amounted to 11,520 votes. If only 5% of those fraudulent voters voted conservatively, that's 576 votes. How many votes did Gore lose by again?

You do the math!

Paints a pretty picture, don't it?

But I'm a conservative and voted against Gore...

Nooooo! There was absolutely no voter fraud in Florida in 2000, none at all....why do you ask?


Ducky's here said...

Well Finntann you seem to agree that the number is small and frankly it's likely offset by the voter suppression numbers so this is at best a push.

However you ignore the real objection here. The measures are efforts right wing bigots to suppress voting.

And the likes of the eloquent Bob ably demonstrate what's behind this.

So the supporters are going to lose in the courts and they're going to be called out for the bigots they are.


Rob said...

Jersey, you're so spoiling for a fight that you've stooped to attacks at a personal level? Tsk. That reeks highly of sweaty desperation.

Finntann said...

The number are small... Bush won by 527 votes and there were most likely over 11000 illegal votes cast... of course you're naive enough to think they voted for your man, so, no harm, no foul.

"The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters." That was the conclusion of the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, headed by former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of State James Baker. The commission recommended stronger photo-identification requirements at the polls.

The U.S. Supreme Court agrees. In 2008, the court recognized the threat posed by voter fraud and ruled that Indiana's photo ID requirement was a legitimate, non-discriminatory means of protecting the integrity of elections.


It's obvious...

You're an imbecile.

Anonymous said...

Exactly who are these people which are somehow functioning in society without identification, but want to vote? How do they get bank accounts, or pay bills? HOW CAN YOU FUNCTION IN TODAY'S SOCIETY WITHOUT IDENTIFICATION?! YOU CAN'T!

The only reason anyone would push for this is to simplify and perpetuate voter fraud.

viburnum said...

Meanwhile back at the ranch, the photo ID law passed in Texas has been struck down by the DoJ even though the Supreme Court has already ruled that photo ID requirements DO NOT impose an undue burden ?

47 years, 2 generations, after the 1965 Voting Rights Act the Attorney General still gets to butt into Texas's business? Apparently the sins of the fathers are still allowed to fall on Texans.

My suggestion made elsewhere was that the Texas legislature, in response, should remove the presidency from November's ballot, and decide for themselves who Texas wants for President.

Z said...

Trestin, so few words and so much sense. THanks for that..I think you're 100% correct. I think anybody should be able to see that.
Who wants to block whole groups of voters from voting? We want them EDUCATED, we want them to have a horse in the race other than their hands out, maybe they should be paying into the system they're voting for?
etc etc.
good comment..thanks.

Rob said...

Trestin, couldn't agree more! One of the many things that makes it so much worse is that many of these bags of wasted skin are out there on the roads & highways - license be damned. How else were they planning to get to the voting center? How are they getting to/from work? The liquor store?

Viburnum, as a Texan, I especially like the idea of stripping the Presidency from the ballot.

And to all, I still have to wonder why we do not yet have online voting. If the web is secure enough for my money... If the web is secure enough for Vegas & Atlantic City gamblers, then it's secure enough for my vote. Make it easier for people to vote - with identification - and perhaps you'd engage more voters.

Kid said...

Yep. It is too easy to get a photo ID. If you can't you shouldn't be voting.

Ducky's here said...

@Z We want them EDUCATED


Pretty damn arrogant unless you're referring to The Ladies Who Lunch.

Educated Republicans would be a fresh breeze.

The are two types of Republicans, the rednecks and the educated ones who can quote Michael Savage without shame.

98ZJUSMC said...

Now who's overgeneralizing with a 4-lane texture roller.

Sheesh. Everyone outside the glittering confines of the urban zone answers the casting call for "Deliverance".

Ahhh...why bother. Enjoy your ridiculous worldview. I'm sure it works wonderfully in those 2 square miles of utter bliss.

...at least as long as they keep raising the taxes.

As far as your wingman,....I didn't realize myopia could be so acute.

There is only one reason to oppose voter ID and Grandma not being able to acquire ID ain't it.

Jersey McJones said...

Rob, sorry about that, but I think I made my point.

"Jersey, you're so spoiling for a fight that you've stooped to attacks at a personal level? Tsk. That reeks highly of sweaty desperation."

Yeah. Like calling people "lazy and irresponsible" because they aren't doing what you might want. It's like that, right?

Get the point yet, or shall I indulge in jokes about you're name? Like "My name is Rob and I'm a conservative, and I will make you a conservative like me... I will Rob you."


Get it yet?

It's a stupid argument. Voter ID laws, from the right these days, are sleazy, scummy, lowlife bullshit.

When are you "conservatives" planning on being conservative again. Everyone misses that.


viburnum said...

JMJ: "When are you "conservatives" planning on being conservative again. Everyone misses that."

When Democrats forswear socialism and return to the principles of Jefferson.

Silverfiddle said...

Like calling people "lazy and irresponsible" because they aren't doing what you might want. It's like that, right?

What else do you call people who don't get the requisite items to live a responsible life?

I'll reiterate. If you lefties really cared, you'd bus them to the county office, like you bus them to the polls, and help them get these documents that would also help them open bank accounts and get better employment.

But no, you don't care. The democratic party relies upon the ignorant and the dependent for its vote harvesting enterprise.

MathewK said...

Your post and your comment nailed is Silver.

But as you can see the sour retorts are just whining about voter fraud being an imaginary problem and it's all just a grand plan by righties to suppress their vote.

And don't forget we're the stupid ones. Go figure!

They don't hide their biases and dishonesty well enough.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

I'll reiterate. If you lefties really cared, you'd bus them to the county office, like you bus them to the polls, and help them get these documents that would also help them open bank accounts and get better employment.

My grandfather's television and electronics repair shop was firebombed by DemoKKKrats for hiring black men and trying to teach them a trade. It probably didn't help that he was a Republican Party organizer registering black voters in 1960s Birmingham, Alabama. Back when "White Supremacy" was (openly) the motto of the Alabama DemoKKKratic Party.

Grung_e_Gene said...

Only repressive societies which seek to disenfranchise their citizens require National ID cards...

Silverfiddle said...

So Gene, give us a rundown on which countries do not require identification to vote.

dmarks said...

What Grunge says can't be true, since voter IDs don't disenfranchise anyone.

In fact, they stop disenfranchisement. Think about it, every fake/fraudulent vote cast has the effect of negating a real vote. Disenfranchising people.

Seriously, the only people who really dislike voter ID are those political groups who benefit from fake/dead/illegal voters.