U.S. Politics - GOP and women

[Merentha]

Yeah nothing happens to me, everything I do is acceptable. But hey you're an evil communist if you do something my morals don't align with. How dare you!

Attribution error is really common. If you commute in a shitty area, how many times do you bitch that the person cutting you off is an asshole, while cutting someone else off because you're in a hurry? Everyone does it, it just happens more frequently if you're not thinking carefully or are unwilling to put yourself in someone else's shoes.

[The Ghost of Winter]

Attribution error is really common. If you commute in a shitty area, how many times do you bitch that the person cutting you off is an asshole, while cutting someone else off because you're in a hurry? Everyone does it, it just happens more frequently if you're not thinking carefully or are unwilling to put yourself in someone else's shoes.

Definitely agree with this. Imo its best to recognize this and possibly acknowledge that everyone does it. Thank you for making me see things this way.

[Shryke]

Just world fallacy combined with attribution error. Good things happen to good people, and bad things don't. The second is: when I'm being nasty, its because of my bad day, or my meds, or something mitigating, while when someone else is being nasty, it is because they are a bad person. So, the other women in the waiting room are clearly sluts, or deserved it, or are doing it for convenience, but I deserve an abortion because the condom broke and I'm a good person. I'm on welfare because I paid into the system for years and am just using it to get back on my feet, but everyone else is just a lazy slob abusing the system. They're bad people and so they must have deserved it, but I am a good person so I can't deserve this bad thing.

The fundamental attribution error fucks everything up so bad.

[Shryke]

This is the short answer to whether the Republicans are throwing the election. Also, if Democrats/liberals were ever actually effective or could communicate a firm message instead of coming off as spineless, touchy feely losers, I think they would be taking elections like this much more easily.

But yeah, what's happening with Republicans is the end result of becoming more desperate because the long term seems to be against you, so you become more strident in your desire to hold onto the present or take things into the past, or just how you think the ideal past must have been.

It does kinda seem like we're seeing a repeat of 2004's anti-gay-apalooza, but this time applied to everything.

Including "Amend the Constitution so no abortion ever, even with rape and incest".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-party-platform-likely-to-stick-with-anti-abortion-stance-unlikely-to-address-rape-exception/2012/08/21/53a2bc2a-eb86-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_story.html

[Shryke]

Oh, and latest "God, don't you wish the media didn't suck" campaign shit:

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/paul-ryan-slams-defense-sequester-he-voted-for.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

Paul Ryan slammed President Obama for scheduled defense cuts on Tuesday, despite voting for the bill that created them and playing an instrumental role in selling it to skeptical Republicans.

[Inigima]

I think Republicans would like to know that just as much as you and me.

[Shryke]

He's going to give massive handouts to the rich and then do whatever it takes to see a second term as a Republican.

The second part isn't that hard to figure out the general shape of if you've been paying any attention to the GOP.

[Mudguard]

I wonder how much of a difference the voter ID requirements and similar shenanigans will really have on the election. After all, the people most likely to need early voting or to lack voter ID are the poor, college students, the infirm... people who you wouldn't expect to vote in huge numbers anyway. In theory, the PA law affects up to nine percent of registered voters, but in reality some of those people will get ID before the election (local groups in PA are offering free rides to seniors to get state ID) and a much larger number probably wouldn't have voted anyway. I oppose the law, and others like it, but I think its effect can easily be overstated.

Yeah, I agree that people claiming that huge numbers of people are going to be disenfranchised are likely grossly exaggerating the effect of these new voter laws, at least in terms of the numbers of people actually disenfranchised. I'm sure that the news will be following these states very closely for any hints of actual disenfranchisement, so we shall see come November. That said, in a state that is very tight, a relatively small number of disenfranchised voters could potentially alter the results.

The early voter law change doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me as long as they have an adequate number of polling stations opened on election day. Also, my understanding is that mail in ballots were available to those who don't want to or can't vote in person on election day. With the voter ID laws, I'm OK with the concept in principle as long as it isn't a poll tax or some other prohibited act in disguise. I'm not familiar enough with all the details of the implementation in PA to make any specific judgments though.

My preference though for any voter law change is to delay implementation for at least a year or two, preferably 4 years after the conclusion of all pending litigation, so that voters have time to plan and act accordingly. For example, I'm not sure when people knew about the Ohio rule change to eliminate early in person voting. Was this change made early enough so that voters could choose to vote by mail? Was the rule change well publicized so that the vast majority of voters should be aware of the change? If so, I would have less of a problem with it. With the voter ID law in PA, how long have the voters known about this change and how difficult is it to get ID?

[Shryke]

Yeah, I agree that people claiming that huge numbers of people are going to be disenfranchised are likely grossly exaggerating the effect of these new voter laws, at least in terms of the numbers of people actually disenfranchised. I'm sure that the news will be following these states very closely for any hints of actual disenfranchisement, so we shall see come November. That said, in a state that is very tight, a relatively small number of disenfranchised voters could potentially alter the results.

The early voter law change doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me as long as they have an adequate number of polling stations opened on election day. Also, my understanding is that mail in ballots were available to those who don't want to or can't vote in person on election day. With the voter ID laws, I'm OK with the concept in principle as long as it isn't a poll tax or some other prohibited act in disguise. I'm not familiar enough with all the details of the implementation in PA to make any specific judgments though.

The early voter changes were in Ohio and the issue was that they weren't being applied uniformly.

They are still terrible (what is gained by allowing less people to vote?) but the current blanket-lack-of-early-voting situation is just a result of the GOP's hand being forced.

My preference though for any voter law change is to delay implementation for at least a year or two, preferably 4 years after the conclusion of all pending litigation, so that voters have time to plan and act accordingly. For example, I'm not sure when people knew about the Ohio rule change to eliminate early in person voting. Was this change made early enough so that voters could choose to vote by mail? Was the rule change well publicized so that the vast majority of voters should be aware of the change? If so, I would have less of a problem with it. With the voter ID law in PA, how long have the voters known about this change and how difficult is it to get ID?

Why would you change the rules at all?

Voter fraud doesn't happen. And certainly not the kind that voter ID laws will stop. They spent a decade looking for it and couldn't find any.

Why support an expensive and unnecessary system that disenfranchises people?

[Mudguard]

The early voter changes were in Ohio and the issue was that they weren't being applied uniformly.

They are still terrible (what is gained by allowing less people to vote?) but the current blanket-lack-of-early-voting situation is just a result of the GOP's hand being forced.

Why would you change the rules at all?

Voter fraud doesn't happen. And certainly not the kind that voter ID laws will stop. They spent a decade looking for it and couldn't find any.

Why support an expensive and unnecessary system that disenfranchises people?

Honestly, the rule changes make me a little nervous, especially if the races turn out to be really tight, like in Florida in Bush v. Gore. I also don't like the fact that these changes are motivated by obvious political purposes. But when I view the rules in isolation, I don't think they are necessarily that bad. I'm not saying that things won't turn to shit in OH or PA, but for that to happen, I think several other things need to happen as well (which might happen).

Saying that voter fraud just doesn't happen, has never happened, and never will happen, seems like wishful thinking to me. Politics is way too dirty for these shenanigans not to happen. You see the games that people are playing with the voter rule changes, the voting irregularities that happen in every election, and then expect me to believe that voter fraud just isn't going to happen? Sorry, I'm way too cynical for that. As long as the voter ID rule is not too onerous and people have adequate opportunity to get their IDs I'm fine with it.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Saying that voter fraud just doesn't happen, has never happened, and never will happen, seems like wishful thinking to me. Politics is way too dirty for these shenanigans not to happen. You see the games that people are playing with the voter rule changes, the voting irregularities that happen in every election, and then expect me to believe that voter fraud just isn't going to happen? Sorry, I'm way too cynical for that. As long as the voter ID rule is not too onerous and people have adequate opportunity to get their IDs I'm fine with it.

In person voter fraud almost never happens, because organizing it on a mass scale without alerting law enforcement or the media would be a logistical nightmare. Election fraud is a matter of who counts the votes, not who casts them. Machine politicians would wait until their opponents had announced their vote totals, and then "find" enough votes to make up the difference. Voter ID would do nothing to stop that.

[The Ghost of Winter]

Honestly, the rule changes make me a little nervous, especially if the races turn out to be really tight, like in Florida in Bush v. Gore. I also don't like the fact that these changes are motivated by obvious political purposes. But when I view the rules in isolation, I don't think they are necessarily that bad. I'm not saying that things won't turn to shit in OH or PA, but for that to happen, I think several other things need to happen as well (which might happen).

Saying that voter fraud just doesn't happen, has never happened, and never will happen, seems like wishful thinking to me. Politics is way too dirty for these shenanigans not to happen. You see the games that people are playing with the voter rule changes, the voting irregularities that happen in every election, and then expect me to believe that voter fraud just isn't going to happen? Sorry, I'm way too cynical for that. As long as the voter ID rule is not too onerous and people have adequate opportunity to get their IDs I'm fine with it.

The thing is it doesn't seem to happen on a massive scale, so if thats the case I see no reason for anybody to claim that it's a major problem.

Now I think if they really wanted to tackle this fairly, they should have done it a while ago. Give people more notice. A year or so would've been reasonable, imo.

IDs are not perfect, there are ways to obtain them in an illegal way, so there's always that.

Also, its completely over the line to create district voting time regulations. Like in Ohio, the more democratic districts have a shorter voting time, whereas the red districts have more time. That is cheap and unreasonable.

[Mudguard]

In person voter fraud almost never happens, because organizing it on a mass scale without alerting law enforcement or the media would be a logistical nightmare. Election fraud is a matter of who counts the votes, not who casts them. Machine politicians would wait until their opponents had announced their vote totals, and then "find" enough votes to make up the difference. Voter ID would do nothing to stop that.

I'm not concerned with voter fraud on a massive scale. I'd only be worried about it in a tight race like in Florida when Bush won the state by around 500 votes out of millions cast. Frankly, I think some sort of voter ID law is necessary to ensure the legitimacy of our elections. So, as long as the implementation of the law was fair, equally applied, and not overly burdensome, I don't have a problem with it.

[Mudguard]

Also, its completely over the line to create district voting time regulations. Like in Ohio, the more democratic districts have a shorter voting time, whereas the red districts have more time. That is cheap and unreasonable.

Yeah, I read something along those lines, and this I find unfair. The voting times during election day should be the same in all districts; the number of voting stations and level of staffing per population unit should be the same in all districts; etc.

But things like getting rid of early voting for everyone but military personnel and overseas people seems OK on its face. I don't see why Ohio is obligated to provide early voting days at all if they don't want to. Sure, it would be nice, but I just don't see it as a big deal in this specific instance, as long as they have an adequate number of voting stations on election day.

[Lightning Lord]

But things like getting rid of early voting for everyone but military personnel and overseas people seems OK on its face. I don't see why Ohio is obligated to provide early voting days at all if they don't want to. Sure, it would be nice, but I just don't see it as a big deal in this specific instance, as long as they have an adequate number of voting stations on election day.

Election Day isn't a national holiday. Many people have to work on Election Day. Many people cannot afford to take time off of work, or are unaware that they have to be allowed said time, in order to go vote.

[Ser Greguh]

I'm not concerned with voter fraud on a massive scale. I'd only be worried about it in a tight race like in Florida when Bush won the state by around 500 votes out of millions cast. Frankly, I think some sort of voter ID law is necessary to ensure the legitimacy of our elections. So, as long as the implementation of the law was fair, equally applied, and not overly burdensome, I don't have a problem with it.

Harry said it before (if a little dryly) but it bears repeating. You are fairly obviously conflating voter fraud with election fraud. The first is a completely non-existent problem, the second is a very real one. Voter ID laws are a nonsense solution to the first and a very tangible exercise of the second. If the integrity of the democratic process is the primary concern, it makes no sense whatsoever to make it harder for people to vote. Obstructing that is like installing highly flammable hurricane protection to your North Dakota home but having no problem with your kid playing with matches around that protection. Who cares if it burns down, this motherfucker won't flood!

[Mudguard]

Election Day isn't a national holiday. Many people have to work on Election Day. Many people cannot afford to take time off of work, or are unaware that they have to be allowed said time, in order to go vote.

Yeah, and can't these people vote by absentee/mail ballot? Are people saying that this is too onerous of a burden?

[Mudguard]

Harry said it before (if a little dryly) but it bears repeating. You are fairly obviously conflating voter fraud with election fraud. The first is a completely non-existent problem, the second is a very real one. Voter ID laws are a nonsense solution to the first and a very tangible exercise of the second. If the integrity of the democratic process is the primary concern, it makes no sense whatsoever to make it harder for people to vote. Obstructing that is like installing highly flammable hurricane protection to your North Dakota home but having no problem with your kid playing with matches around that protection. Who cares if it burns down, this motherfucker won't flood!

I would say voter fraud is a subset of election fraud, but I don't really want to argue semantics.

Regardless, voter fraud has happened in the past, and will continue to happen in the future. Saying that it is a "completely nonexistent problem" implies that it never happens and will never ever happen. That is a ridiculous assertion. I would agree that in the United States, it is very rare, so it would only come into play in a national election if the race was extremely close. In a local election where very few votes are cast, this can have a much larger effect.

Sure, having an additional voter ID law adds some a burden to the voters, but I don't see it necessarily as being too onerous if the law is drafted in a reasonable manner and enforced in a fair and equal way. To say that presenting an ID does not do anything to make voter fraud harder flies in the face of common sense.

[mormont]

I would say voter fraud is a subset of election fraud, but I don't really want to argue semantics.

Regardless, voter fraud has happened in the past, and will continue to happen in the future.

Can you give figures for how often it has happened in the past?

Because the ones I've seen suggest that voter fraud is extremely rare. Rare to the point of insignificance, in fact. Mistakes on spoiled ballots account for far more distortion - by large orders of magnitude - than voter fraud does, when it comes to ensuring that the result of a ballot accurately reflects the will of the voters.

More to the point, turning legitimate voters away from the ballot station for lack of ID will create a distortion in the accuracy and fairness of the poll orders of magnitude greater than voter fraud too. If the point of election regulations is to ensure that the vote actually reflects the will of the voters, draconian measures against voter fraud actually aggravate the problem.

Seriously: if your aim is to ensure that there is literally zero voter fraud, as opposed to effectively zero voter fraud as there is now, you are guilty of not seeing the wood for the trees (as well as of naivete - absolute zero voter fraud is not achievable. All you can do is make it not worth the effort to try, which is the situation right now). Voter fraud is bad, yes: but why is it bad? It's bad because it distorts the results. But stringent laws against voter fraud also distort the results, by much more.

The duty of those who run elections is not to eliminate even the possibility of voter fraud - it is to ensure that the vote is fair and free and accurately reflects the will of the voters. The latter doesn't necessarily require the former. Any discussion of voter fraud measures that doesn't take as its starting point the question of whether voter fraud is demonstrably a problem in the present system is vulnerable to the suspicion that it's being driven by another agenda entirely.

[Inigima]

I'm not concerned with voter fraud on a massive scale. I'd only be worried about it in a tight race like in Florida when Bush won the state by around 500 votes out of millions cast. Frankly, I think some sort of voter ID law is necessary to ensure the legitimacy of our elections. So, as long as the implementation of the law was fair, equally applied, and not overly burdensome, I don't have a problem with it.

You aren't answering the question on the table, which is: Why do you believe it's necessary? Because, well, we checked and it isn't.

At the very least, I think it is absolutely unacceptable to change the rules this close to an election. You want to make these horseshit changes, fine, but make them now to go into effect in the next election. This close and it's extra clear you're just trying to fuck people.