U.S. Politics XXX - Should the voting age be 17?

[SpicyTurkey]

Has this turned into "Bash a Republican candidate" thread?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I suppose "It happens!" ...."No it doesn't!"...."Yes it does." might count as an enjoyable discussion for you.

Actually, that is exactly what I wanted to avoid. The problem here is that you are unaware of the hisotry. As I said, I have been down this exact same rabbit hole with Shryke before. I have linked articles, including the wikipedia article that contained examples from multiple states. This one:

http://ballotpedia.o...llot_vote_fraud

Whereupon he says that only prove that it happens, not how often, etc. When I pointed to the example listed in Florida of thousands of fraudulent ballots, and an election being overturned as a result, the response was "so what -- that just proves the system works". No, it just proves that discovered fraud gets prosecuted. It doesn't say anything about undiscovered fraud, which is the whole problem. And, of course, undiscovered fraud is the exact type about which you can't get data. So you see, when I do this with Shryke, the discussions becomes nothing but "No it doesn't", "Yes it does".

I enjoy informed debate.

So do I. The problem is that you never get there, which is exactly why I wasn't going to repost and just repeat a tired, pointless discussion of prevalence rather than discussing the obvious conceptual problems, and what can be done.

And what about those of us (like myself) who are unsure of the issue? You have plenty of ground to convince me, for example.

If you'd asked, I'd have answered because I know it would have been in good faith. Again, I've been down this exact same road with Shryke before. That's why I know it wasn't a good faith inquiry.

Now the link you provided is not terribly convincing as it involves only about 20 fraudulent votes in a local election. I don't impeach your source, it definitively proves your point that such things do happen. It fails to meet the standard I would want to show that this is a broad, systemic problem that needs federal legislation.

Read the wikipedia link.

I'm not advocating federal legislation. It is necessarily a state/local issue about which I think the feds have no business being involved. However, do you acknowledge that the problems I described -- spouse's voting for their partners, etc., could easily occur with nobody ever become aware of that fact, or without it being exposed to the general public? Or that the loss of privacy, the loss of guarantee that the ballot can be cast without someone else watching you do so, or pressuring you to vote, etc., is always a risk if you're not casting ballots in a secure, public polling place?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I found this story on NPR regarding voter ID very interesting:

http://m.npr.org/news/front/141932317

[Lord O' Bones]

It's not a fight. LoB is just pulling a prank (either that or someone hijacked his account).

Everyone should do their part to avoid talking about Herman Cain.

[Shryke]

Actually, that is exactly what I wanted to avoid. The problem here is that you are unaware of the hisotry. As I said, I have been down this exact same rabbit hole with Shryke before. I have linked articles, including the wikipedia article that contained examples from multiple states. This one:

http://ballotpedia.o...llot_vote_fraud

Whereupon he says that only prove that it happens, not how often, etc. When I pointed to the example listed in Florida of thousands of fraudulent ballots, and an election being overturned as a result, the response was "so what -- that just proves the system works". No, it just proves that discovered fraud gets prosecuted. It doesn't say anything about undiscovered fraud, which is the whole problem. And, of course, undiscovered fraud is the exact type about which you can't get data. So you see, when I do this with Shryke, the discussions becomes nothing but "No it doesn't", "Yes it does".

"Undiscovered fraud" is indistinguishable from "Non-existent fraud". That's the problem you don't seem to get FLOW.

This is like the dance going on up here in Canada with the new Crime Bill. Harper wants to build more prisons. No one can figure out why though, cause the crime rate has been going down. (as it has pretty much everywhere in the 1st world). Their answer? Crime may be going down, but "Unreported Crime" is on the rise.

If you can't prove it exists, you can't just assume it does because you want it to.

[Shryke]

I found this story on NPR regarding voter ID very interesting:

http://m.npr.org/news/front/141932317

So more problems with absentee ballots.

I'm not sure how voter ID is gonna solve that issue.

[kairparavel]

Why is no one discussing this? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/28/opinion/the-personhood-initiative.html?_r=1

Or did I miss it back there somewhere?

Personhood, for a fertilized egg. Where does the madness end? Or is this a non-topic because it'll get either defeated at vote, or beat down by the Supreme Court? All these new tacks and strategies to defeat abortion, without coming out and saying it, much like in Virginia, with the building code criteria for clinics.

A ballot measure going before voters in Mississippi on Nov. 8 would define the term “person” in the State Constitution to include fertilized human eggs and grant to fertilized eggsthe legal rights and protections that apply to people. It is among the most extreme assaults in the push to end women’s reproductive rights.

[...]

Besides outlawing all abortions, with no exceptions for rape or incest or when a woman’s life is in danger, and banning any contraception that may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, including birth control pills, the amendment carries many implications, some quite serious.

It could curtail medical research involving embryos, shutter fertility clinics and put doctors in legal jeopardy for providing needed medical care that might endanger a pregnancy. Pregnant women also could become subject to criminal prosecution. A fertilized egg might be eligible to inherit money or be counted when drawing voting districts by population. Because a multitude of laws use the terms “person” or “people,” there would be no shortage of unintended consequences.

[...]

Both the Republican and Democratic candidates for governor in Mississippi have endorsed the measure, even though some traditional leaders in the anti-abortion battle, including National Right to Life, have declined to do so, viewing it as a reckless strategy that could lead to a defeat in the Supreme Court. This extreme measure would protect zygotes at the expense of all women while creating a legal quagmire — at least until the courts rule it unconstitutional, as they should.

[Shryke]

I was watching that but was gonna see if it actually made it all the way through.

That "madness" is just a plan to try and overturn Roe v Wade by trying to push a court case up to the SCOTUS. It'll very likely just get slapped down at a much lower level though. There's groups trying to push this shit in several states to try and get an abortion case to the supreme court.

[Swift]

If a woman has a miscarriage, would that be manslaughter?

[Atreides]

That's why laws like this proposed one are bad.

[Swordfish]

If a woman has a miscarriage, would that be manslaughter?

If someone assaults a pregnant woman, and the unborn baby dies as a result, should that be considered an additional offense?

[Shryke]

I'm more interested in how this will spike the number of Anchor Pregnancies in Mississipi.

[Atreides]

Another thought: Can a fetus be an illegal immigrant?

[MinDonner]

If someone assaults a pregnant woman, and the unborn baby dies as a result, should that be considered an additional offense?

I'd imagine that this is possible to achieve without granting personhood status to the foetus.

Now seriously. A fertilised egg isn't even possible to detect by any scientific method until several weeks have passed. So technically ALL women of childbearing age might have a PERSON inside them, whom we are potentially endangering by our reckless acts of getting drunk, riding motorbikes, eating badly... once a miscarriage becomes a manslaughter, how long will it be before these factors are taken into account? Ignorance is no excuse madam!

Not to mention, for example, ectopic pregnancies. Which are a life-threatening condition (for the woman) with no possibility that this mis-implanted egg would ever carry to term... but, fertilised egg! Has more rights than the bag of meat that it's growing in! The whole thing makes me want to nuke Mississippi from orbit.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

It's not a fight. LoB is just pulling a prank (either that or someone hijacked his account).

Perhaps someone is just absentee voting for him.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

"Undiscovered fraud" is indistinguishable from "Non-existent fraud". That's the problem you don't seem to get FLOW.

I think I need to take the lesson that Charlie Brown refuses to learn.

[Swordfish]

I'd imagine that this is possible to achieve without granting personhood status to the foetus.

Now seriously. A fertilised egg isn't even possible to detect by any scientific method until several weeks have passed. So technically ALL women of childbearing age might have a PERSON inside them, whom we are potentially endangering by our reckless acts of getting drunk, riding motorbikes, eating badly... once a miscarriage becomes a manslaughter, how long will it be before these factors are taken into account? Ignorance is no excuse madam!

Not to mention, for example, ectopic pregnancies. Which are a life-threatening condition (for the woman) with no possibility that this mis-implanted egg would ever carry to term... but, fertilised egg! Has more rights than the bag of meat that it's growing in! The whole thing makes me want to nuke Mississippi from orbit.

This is pure hyperbole.

the bag of meat has a lot more rights than the 'whatever politically charged term you want to describe it with'.

[MinDonner]

Um, no. When a proposed legislation decrees that abortions are illegal even when the mother's life is in danger, it's pretty clear who has the more rights, regardless of "politically charged" terminology.

[Shryke]

I think I need to take the lesson that Charlie Brown refuses to learn.

:lol: Ok FLOW. I await your support of anti-leprachaun legislation as well.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Under the 14th isn't citizenship defined by where you are born not where your are conceived? As such it would be impossible for a fetus to be an illegal immigrant because its citizenship status hasn't been defined yet.