When I'm cutting string, with my Swiss army knife, to tie up my tomatoes I must remember to order an assault rifle.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57368211
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57368211
Only in America...
- Thread starter Sincilbanks
- Start date
hulloutpost
Vital Champions League
He calls them 'fairly ordinary' weapons
hulloutpost
Vital Champions League
Well here's another perspective on voter ID
Amen for common sense but be ready for a toe curling first 1:30.
Amen for common sense but be ready for a toe curling first 1:30.
Chesterimp
Vital Football Hero
As in the American equivalent of "I've been brave" stickers? Or in the hands of the National Guard (other 'well disciplined militia' are available), encouraging the reluctant towards the vaccination centres?
John Bigbooté
Vital Reserves Team
This is the thing: the California ban on assault rifles has been in place for 32 years (brought in after some nutter killed five kids with an AR15). The Second Amendment has not changed in that time. The Supreme Court has already ruled that it is not violated by state bans on assault weapons. This judge is a prick, paid for by the gun lobby, and the appeal will keep the ban in place.
Rasenimp
Vital Football Legend
This is pretty dumb (no offence), yes the white liberals sound like idiots but asking a few black people if they have ID on the street isn't some kind of zing case closed proving that it won't affect turnout.
Generally there doesn't seem to be loads of evidence either way, but there isn't evidence it reduces (largely non-existent) fraud in most of the studies. And this very much isn't evidence of anything at all.
hulloutpost
Vital Champions League
That's kind of my point. Listening to many commentators you would have thought that democracy had been strangled to death and swathes of people had been deprived of the right to vote. Alternatively there is a hysteria from some that millions of fraudulent votes were being amassed.
In reality it's improved things slightly, preventing some frauds from being committed. Those that want to vote and are eligible to, will easily be able to continue. It's not some massive racist conspiracy, a suggestion which has been patronisingly and hysterically 'flown' ad nauseum; nor likely to change the outcome of results in such super constituencies as US states (I can see the argument for it in our smaller UK constituencies where a few hundred votes are more likely to have an impact).
It's a small tweak and refinement that is fairer and symbolically improves the integrity of the process which can only be a good thing in a democracy.
Rasenimp
Vital Football Legend
But that wasn't really your point there - it was that that video was 'common sense' when in reality vox popping a load of people, finding a handful of those that fit the narrative and sound dodgy from a liberal perspective and then some black people who have ID and then presenting it as some amazing gotcha point when really it's just a waste of everyone's time.
I think there is a lot of hyperbole on both sides (about voter fraud and about the effects of ID). But this video isn't helpful - all the data suggests that black respondents are less likely to have ID, (1) as they're less likely to have driving licences or passports. So being like, here's a guy who knows where the DMV is, gotcha, is just ridiculous. That isn't white liberals being racist - the figures are there at a number of sources, not just that one.
The studies on the effects are a bit mixed - there's a number if you google around that show small negative correlations if ID was introduced, others that are pretty neutral (or think the whole thing is pointless (2)). The studies so far aren't big enough and it's a vastly more nuanced point than a video like that suggests (that was my point.)
This suggests (3) that in one state in 2012, nearly 10% of voters wouldn't meet photo ID requirements. Some of those people might not vote anyway and yes, there might be a counter mobilisation effort to get people to register but in cases like this, disenfranchising people/requiring them to do something to vote for what everything suggests is a negligible gain other than you feeling a bit better with little evidence would probably make me err on the side of caution. You certainly don't have the evidence so far to back up doing it, even if the evidence against is questionable.
(1) https://electionlab.mit.edu/research/voter-identification
(2) https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...09/voter-id-laws-fraud-turnout-study-research
(3) https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/07/9-2-percent-of-pennsylvania-voters-lack-valid-id.html
Last edited:
hulloutpost
Vital Champions League
I think people are over thinking it. If you are eligible and want to vote there is nothing to stop you. If it involves a little effort for something as important as voting, well that's nothing really is it when you look at other countries where people have no right to vote or the outcome is completely rigged.
Anything that re enforces the trustworthiness and foundations of the democratic process and ensures it can can stand up to scrutiny is a move in the right direction. I don't see it as complicated or needing academia or statisticians trying to prove their own agenda.
Rasenimp
Vital Football Legend
But you can't disagree (a number of republicans haven't) that it's more likely to be poorer, democrat leaning voters who will be ineligible. It seems a weird game to me to make potentially 100s of thousands of people ineligible to vote without doing something, to tackle 6 alleged instances of fraud or whatever the figure was at the last election. Not to mention the cost to properly educate people on what they need to do, the comms campaign etc. There are some eye watering estimates on what it would cost, I thought the right didn't like pointless stats spending?
You might think people are overthinking it but videos like that are massively under thinking it.
I think it would be best if the whole thing was parked unless evidence suggests it has any impact on fraud whatsoever, because make hulloutpost feel better about democracy with no tangible benefit is not a reason to do it.
John Bigbooté
Vital Reserves Team
If there is no voter fraud or at worst fraud at levels close to zero, and compulsory
ID has no effect on turnout... why do it?
ID has no effect on turnout... why do it?
Last edited:
Rasenimp
Vital Football Legend
I agree! Not only is there little fraud, the alleged/reasonable instances of fraud are unlikely to be fixed by mandating ID. It might be that it also has a limited effect on turnout.
I think in reality, the Republicans/Tories think it will marginally reduce turnout in a way that helps them and so talk up the fraud, while the democrats/left think it will marginally reduce turnout in a way that negatively impacts them, so talk that up.
In reality I think everyone leaving ends up with probably a similar outcome (it's hard to definitely know if it would negatively impact turnout and it's also unlikely it's going to stop the tiny amounts of attempted fraud) and also cost the taxpayer a lot less money.
John Bigbooté
Vital Reserves Team
He calls them 'fairly ordinary' weapons
That's carefully selected language due to the Supreme Court ruling in 2008 that said private citizens do not have the right under the Second Amendment to store "dangerous and unusual weapons".
John Bigbooté
Vital Reserves Team
If they were so concerned about democracy they'd make the act of voting mandatory rather than pissing around at the edges.
But they won't do that, will they? Because that would be a threat to them.
Rasenimp
Vital Football Legend
Or more broadly (especially here) electoral reform. First past the post is clearly massively busted - where you have things like the lib dems doubling the amount of people voting for them and getting one more seat or something. I also think its a contributing factor in the low calibre of people we get as MPs, in many cases.
It also leads to some absolutely bonkers results in local councils, like what the hell is this split?
That can't be a sensible way of splitting that vote share? But of course, the 0.00001 of a person in that constituency who tried to vote twice is the problem
hulloutpost
Vital Champions League
Because a cornerstone of democracy is a vote that can stand up to the scrutiny (of the technology) of the day.
If the integrity is strengthened that instantly diminishes the conspiracy theories and weakens the hand of those that would say it was other than a legitimate result.
That would have been a favourable outcome for the Democrats this time around and shut the Republicans up straight away, or made them look ridiculous if they didn't. What's not to like for the Democrats, a win win.
hulloutpost
Vital Champions League
It's nowt to do with me, I'm not a US citizen. Just my take on it.
hulloutpost
Vital Champions League
That explains that then, because use of the language of 'fairly ordinary' in the context of an assault rifle is quite ridiculous, even perverse through the eyes of a non gun culture. I would hate to see where the bar is set for dangerous and unusual then.
John Bigbooté
Vital Reserves Team
America? The status quo in America is unhindered access to a fundamental right. There is minimal to no voter fraud. There are however multiple verified instances of the intimidation of voters (both through the law and physical acts), and attempts to have entire electorates disenfranchised because of the way they voted - by the very people who claim to be trying to "save" democracy.
Historical barriers to voting in America have been erected exclusively by racists and right-wingers. The modern-day iteration of these people have shit all over the country's concept of democracy, incited and supported an attempted insurrection to usurp the constitution and the office of the President, tried to prevent the electoral college confirming a free and fair election, removed members of their own party for telling the truth, lied through their teeth in Congress to defend those responsible, and blocked every avenue to make them pay.
And even if the Democrats agreed to every Republican demand, what makes you think the same Republicans won't be crying foul the next time they lose anyway - and that they won't invent a new excuse and a new way to stop people voting for the other guy? Do you think we're dealing with honourable people here?
Don't even dare to think this is being done for any other reason than to destroy American democracy and reshape it for the purposes of control.
Meanwhile in the UK, we have a system that can and does stand up to scrutiny. There is absolutely no valid reason to impose a potential barrier to eligibility: there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, or even minor voter fraud, and there is no practical reason nor need to insist on ID when a voting registration card has been sufficient for every election in the more than 100 years that we have had universal suffrage. We've had driving licences and passports for all of that time. They're not new technology. Why are they now suddenly needed to ensure our democracy?
You want to place a barrier between a universal right and a large section of society who don't drive and don't go abroad because ... a far-right fuckwit of a government said "because". And you believe them.
Last edited:
