Redstate

Moyers is the ultimate in government influence-peddling to serve one's own ends directly. As an advisor to LBJ, he advocated the creation of PBS, the means by which he has made millions through his hysterical, politically-charged rantings that not only seem to run counter to common sense or the facts, but sometimes to themselves.

Bill Moyers, therefore, is the Marxist's left-wing role model, just as Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield are my left-wing role models. Moyers gamed the government for fun, profit, and activism, while Ben & Jerry did the same through the powerful forces of the market. All three might be buffoons, but at least two of them have some legitimacy to their motives.

The whole idea of "stolen elections" seems to have bothered Democrats twice in all of human history. They can't abide by electoral defeat, yet polling precincts in Detroit, Philadelphia, and Cleveland (among others) having more Democrat votes than there are total registered voters in that precinct doesn't seem to so much as ruffle their feathers.

"I don't understand why the same newspaper commentators who bemoan the terrible education given to poor people are always so eager to have those poor people get out and vote." - P.J. O'Rourke

The whole idea of "stolen elections" seems to have bothered Democrats twice in all of human history.

1876 was an actual stolen election. And the victim was Samuel Tilden, a Democrat.

Me? - not a Democrat

Actually the 2006 elections were not "clean as a whistle". The problem was that the Republicans underestimated the margin they needed to win. They pegged it at 4% and the Democrats, voting in large numbers, took it by 6%. If the election had been clean, there would be many more Democrats in office today.

Countdown to my account being deleted....

Some of us are quite sensitive to voter fraud, having actually seen it happen in our states. And let's just say it's not the Republicans doing it. There are plenty of things to get mad at them for (and, just as a secret between you, me, and everybody reading here, I do get mad at them fairly often), just voter fraud isn't one of them.

As a result, however, Detroit has become the new Tammany Hall... the only difference being that occasionally Tammany Hall's candidate lost.

"I don't understand why the same newspaper commentators who bemoan the terrible education given to poor people are always so eager to have those poor people get out and vote." - P.J. O'Rourke

Countdown to my account being deleted...

Hey ... I hope you're seeing someone for that martyr complex.

PS: You'll not get banned for "dissenting" - and if you did not register with a chip on your shoulder you'd realize we have quite a few liberals posting here.

But what could get you banned is flinging mud i.e. information you cannot prove or provide cites for, such as the so-called "data" you made up and posted just now.

Capiche?

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

"Underestimated the amount they needed (to steal, ostensibly) to win"?

So...you're saying that the Republicans figured they needed to find a way to shift 4% of the vote so as to successfully steal the election but that the Democrats just did that much better at the polls so as to overcome the Republicans' attempt to steal it?

Sir (or madam, as the case may be) you're a fool. If you really, honestly believe that, you're a fool. I don't think they should suspend your account. I think they should keep you out here for all the world to see.

You, and people like you, are dupes.

"LibertarianHawk", I can't imagine what problem you can find in the idea that an attempt at vote manipulation could fall short of the amount needed to win. Given that such things can and do happen (like Kennedy's boys fiddling for him against Nixon, in 1960 in Illinois - now, you don't want to brush that off as "crackpot" do you, given a chance to hit the Democrats?), it would be perfectly possible for an attempt to manipulate votes to garner a certain percent increase for a party, but then fall short of the amount needed to tip the election to a win. Don't you know how elections work? Can you do math? In fact, exit polls supported these charges, and they are usually accurate (versus the smear against the pollsters by witting or unwitting apologists for Republican vote chicanery.) And I say that fully supporting clamping down on the reverse trick of letting ineligibles vote, I favor IDs etc. (But once someone gets out of jail for any but the most heinous crimes, they should be able to vote.)

BTW, LibertarianHawk, if you are a real "libertarian" you have little business hanging around with this theocratic, Wilsonian-interventionist Republican-establishment shill joint. Look at Link for how real libertarians/real rational conservatives think.

Fortunately, I am an angel of mercy.

(Smite.)

Moe

PS: Theocratic, Wilsonian-interventionist Republican-establishment shills? I'm personally offended that you forgot "Zionist chickenhawks."

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

they benefit from election fraud and they know it.

The "disenfranchising minorities" crappola is lipstick on the pig.

Voter fraud actually disenfranchises every legally registered voter nationwide.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

Your right on, when you say they benefit from election fraud.

I'm from the only state where dead people elected a dead Senator, Missouri, i.e. Ashcroft vs. Carnahan. Ever since we have been trying without success to get positive voter identification, thanks to the efforts of the dems in this state.

And it needs to be said that the reason the Dems, are going after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, is because he had the guts to tell the career attorneys in Justice that they need to go after voter fraud more aggressively or they are out.

The Dems couldn't let that happen could they.

They're going after Gonzales because he's low-hanging fruit. He's the guy in the Administration that they can get the most stuff to stick to, so that's whom they've zeroed in on. I don't think that the voter ID thing even hardly registers; Gonzales has been so ineffectual as AG that I don't think they worry too much about him doing anything.

"I don't understand why the same newspaper commentators who bemoan the terrible education given to poor people are always so eager to have those poor people get out and vote." - P.J. O'Rourke

I live in Ohio.

Never once have I been asked to present any form of ID when registering OR voting. Ohio has been and will again be a hotly contested state with many allegations of voting irregularities.

"Then why don't we ask for something, anything when voting?"

I don't know what state you live in, but my state, Oregon, requires identification to register to vote. You need to be able to prove that you live in Oregon and are over 18.

I really don't think there are ANY states where someone can walk in and register to vote without presenting any kind of identification.

I have NEVER been asked to show identification, whether voting at the polling location or requesting an absentee ballot, and I have voted in every election that I've been eligible to vote in (granted, only the past ~6 years, but still). Just a signature and I'm on my way.

"I don't understand why the same newspaper commentators who bemoan the terrible education given to poor people are always so eager to have those poor people get out and vote." - P.J. O'Rourke

Err ... katie? Read the post again. Try to comprehend what we're talking about.

No-one is saying anything about registering to vote, but actually voting on Election Day. And since some states have same-day registration and voting that messes up your argument.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

A lot of states don't require ID to register, either. In Minnesota you can just bring in a piece of mail that has the name you'd like to register under, or a friend to vouch for you. And you need nothing at all to actually vote once you are on the rolls.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

...most states do not require much in the way of identification to vote. More states, however, have begun adopting sensible photo ID requirements to vote.

And the Dems have been fighting these laws tooth and nail. Their stated reasoning, of course, is that poor and elderly people may not have state-issued photo IDs. This has been responded to by offering free state-issued photo IDs for those who don't have driver's licenses. The Dems still fight it.

Don't you think that it's possible that their real reason for fighting such laws is that they benefit from people not having to show ID and they know it?

Photo ID is a waste of time unless the same photo is on file to compare it. Voting rolls would have to be like photo albums. It still wouldn't be fool proof because it only proves that you had a photo taken. County clerks have no way to routinely and independently check citizenship and residency status.

If you have a drivers license, it doesn't prove that you are eligible to vote. But, yet they use it. If the clerk at DMV was suspicious, the clerk could ask for a "green card," which is easily counterfeited.

No proof of citizenship is routinely required, otherwise you couldn't register by mail. When they send an absentee ballot, anyone can fill it out. This is why some party canvassers go to the nursing homes to help voters.

At my precinct, we don't show anything. We just give the name and they look it up on the voting rolls. The volunteer clerks know everybody. This wouldn't work in a big city.

Because something is not foolproof, doesn't mean it's a waste of time. Having locks on your doors doesn't stop burglars from entering your house. They can still break a window and enter that way. Or bust the door down. But that hardly makes it a waste of time to have locks installed. An ID stops people from voting multiple times at multiple polling places. It stops people from voting for other people (dead or living). It also stops people who are afraid to try to get an ID because they think there might be an immigration status check.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

"An ID stops people from voting multiple times at multiple polling places."

Before modern county computers, my uncle used to vote twice in every election. He was registered in two counties of the state. Neither county could routinely clean the rolls and relied on the voter to notify them of an address change.

If an ID was required to vote, any person wishing to vote for somebody listed on the rolls, would simply show fake ID. The voting rolls usually only contain addresses and phone numbers, no identifying data like height, weight, color of hair, etc. Please note that the fake (or real) ID also does not prove that he is a citizen. The name put on the voting rolls was also not verified for citizenship. Someone just filled out a form and mailed it to the county.

Why would anyone be afraid to get an ID because there might be a citizenship check? There is currrently no non-federal ID that requires a citizenship check. You don't have to be a citizen to get a drivers license or state ID. The only thing that might be requested is a "green card." This alien registration card is routinely counterfeited. It has a photo. Why do you think that tens of thousands of illegals have jobs with U.S. corporations. It isn't that they don't have to show them to employers. They do. But, the employers do not have the responsibility to verify that they are valid. The government cannot routinely verified them either.

You are still arguing that it makes no sense to have locks on your doors because people can still break in through a window. All the locks do is make it harder for the guy that wants to steal your stuff. They aren't ever going to be 100% effective but they are much more than 0% effective. So nobody seriously considers not putting locks on their doors.

If an ID was required to vote, any person wishing to vote for somebody listed on the rolls, would simply show fake ID.

What's harder? Saying "Hi, I'm Bob Jones," or having a fake ID created saying you are Bob Jones. What has more risk for the end user? Finding a lowlife to make you this false ID, using that false ID when it might be recognized as fake, or even just carrying it around with you, which is a crime you could get busted for at any time. If a cop notices that you have multiple IDs, good luck explaining that one away.

The voting rolls usually only contain addresses and phone numbers, no identifying data like height, weight, color of hair, etc.

That's what the DL database is for. When you get a state ID, not only do they collect all that information and associate it with the ID, they also take a digital photograph (at least in some states) and store that in the database as well. Police can verify the authenticity of IDs in their police cars, so there's no reason they couldn't do it at the polls.

Please note that the fake (or real) ID also does not prove that he is a citizen.

And that is a separate problem that needs to be addressed. Just because there's another problem (no locks on the windows) doesn't mean we don't address the easier to solve problem (no locks on the doors) first.

Why would anyone be afraid to get an ID because there might be a citizenship check?

Because they are unsure of what happens when they apply for one. Many of those who are here illegally, trying to lay low and not draw attention to themselves, don't feel it is worth taking a chance in getting mixed up in any government paperwork. Or at least they keep it to a minimum. It's not like illegal immigrants have perfect knowledge of our laws or enforcement mechanisms.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Your locks are primarily for the benefit of the insurance company.

You are distorting the question. I am not saying that you shouldn't have to show photo ID at a voting precinct. I am just saying that it is not very effective in solving the identity/citizenship problem. Voting precincts don't have DL data bases. It is ridiculous for you to say that. The clerk compares your name with a name in her book. There isn't sufficient time to do anything but get you to the booth rapidly. There are no policemen at the polls. They would laugh if you said that they should be verifying photo IDs at the polls.

Illegal immigrants in states like CA and TX are briefed on U.S. practices. Showing a photo ID does not draw any special attention unless the photo isn't correct. The phony IDs usually have authentic photos. You just need a camera and lamenater.

When my kids were teenagers in CA, it was not uncommon for persons under 21 to have fake ID cards from other states.

A typical illegal or legal resident alien isn't going to try to vote on his own. They would get expert help.

I will admit that showing a photo ID might be like locking your house doors. But, that is a small part of solving the burglary problem.

Your locks are primarily for the benefit of the insurance company.

Your interests and your insurance company's interests are perfectly aligned in this case, so I'm not sure what your point is. The point is they discourage people from breaking in, because it would be harder and they'd stand a better chance of getting busted.

I am just saying that it is not very effective in solving the identity/citizenship problem.

Yea, but they solve one problem... the easy to fix one. The other problem can be fixed too, but it will require building a new Federal database instead of using one that already exists.

Voting precincts don't have DL data bases. It is ridiculous for you to say that.

Maybe that's because I didn't say it. Obviously they don't do jack right now. This isn't about what they are doing now, it's about what we SHOULD be doing. They certainly could be given the ability to verify IDs. If we can afford dozens of pointless new computers that do electronic balloting, we can certainly afford one or two for the poll workers that could run a database query off a swiped or scanned license and show a picture. Later, when we get a Federal database of work eligibility (citizenship/visa status) built against DL numbers, it could query that as well. The same database could be used by employers.

The clerk compares your name with a name in her book. There isn't sufficient time to do anything but get you to the booth rapidly.

Uhh, yea, that's how it works now. Actually, I have to talk to three different people now. One looks up my name in a book, then I have to sign it, then I get a coupon from another one, then I trade that coupon for a ballot from the third. It's a lot faster to swipe a DL and have the computer say whether the person is registered and display a photo of them than look somebody up in a book. You wouldn't even need the book any more.

When my kids were teenagers in CA, it was not uncommon for persons under 21 to have fake ID cards from other states.

That's why the IDs would have to be verified. Not a difficult concept, I don't think. A fake ID isn't going to verify against a database. That's why fake IDs don't work so hot with the police.

A typical illegal or legal resident alien isn't going to try to vote on his own. They would get expert help.

From what, an immigration lawyer? A typical illegal voter will not seek out anybody. They'll be recruited to vote by somebody that knows better (like ACORN). It's a little bit harder to recruit people to stand in line at the DMV to get photo IDs one day and then go vote on another day.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I don't even have to SHOW UP to vote!! They mail the ballots to us automatically. And when I changed addresses, they didn't require a darned thing.

___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson

I believe that even people who are prejudiced against a black man will vote for Obama before they will vote for a Republican. Most adults with an IQ of over 70 realize the mess the Republicans have made out of our country.

BTW, I'm wondering why redstate.com is so afraid of dissenting opinions? I have as yet found a right-leaning website that allows dissenting views. And yet, every left-leaning website I have visited allow right wingers to post. Often this makes a mess out of a site because the trolls that visit those sites are dumber than rocks, but at least the liberals recognize their right to free speech. I'm betting my account doesn't last an hour on this site.

What we mind is hysterical conjecture without any semblance of cited sources to back it up. I know there's some here that mess with that from the right as well, and I think they're about as often shot down as the lefties are.

And don't think we're some monolithic thought bloc here. I've been known to get into scrapes from time to time with some of the editors here, but we still get along, even if I'm not a Republican (in fact, never have been; Michigan doesn't require party affiliation, and I see myself personally as more of a libertarian). Just try avoiding going out of your way to upset people, which, as your posts seem to show, might be a problem.

"I don't understand why the same newspaper commentators who bemoan the terrible education given to poor people are always so eager to have those poor people get out and vote." - P.J. O'Rourke

afraid or against different opinions...we just don't have a tolerance for idiocy..quite like what you've shown here in your cute little debut...

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

"Most adults with an IQ of over 70 realize the mess the Republicans have made out of our country."

Katie, your comment is pretty mild compared to the self-reflection we've been engaging in here for months. And Bush is barely more popular on RedState than he is in the rest of our country.

"liberals recognize the right to free speech", which is why Democrats in Congress are pushing for a return of the Fairness Doctrine. IQ's? Shall we give you a 69, IQ that is!
At least a rock doesn't make a fool of itself.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

Final time before banning: 1 hour, 50 seconds. Whoever she bet with: you're welcome, and please deposit 10% with the American Red Cross.

Now, katiebegood, I know that this isn't much notoriety for you, but I have to work with what I've got. I'd tell you to take your conspiracy theories about 2006 and go back to dKos, except I'm given to understand that the site operator's starting to purge your particular kind, yes? Something about... well, Madonna said it best, didn't she?

Bye - and, remember: the taproot of respect is self-respect. You can't get that from other people; you have to find it within yourself.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

There are any number of liberal posters here -- and their accounts aren't deleted for presenting dissenting opinions. In fact, they've posted here for long periods of time.

The difference between them and you is that they don't throw around conjecture, conspiracy theories, and other general silliness -- particularly without a pretty strong (or, in your case, any) set of evidence to support what they're saying.

I think everybody at RS will welcome you and converse with you respectfully. They merely demand the same from you. Your feeling that you haven't gotten off to a very good start, though, is probably an accurate one.

Flame-baiting isn't tolerated around here. Sensible discussion on any and all sides of issues is not only tolerated, but welcomed.

I think is wrong to accuse Republicans of being racists. That is painting with a pretty huge brush.

I also think it's wrong to accuse Democrats of being racists.

But that's just me.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Political parties aren't racist. That's left to people on an individual basis.

"I don't understand why the same newspaper commentators who bemoan the terrible education given to poor people are always so eager to have those poor people get out and vote." - P.J. O'Rourke

get that many people to agree on ANYTHING. Let alone something as complicated as race.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

...almost certainly suppress voting among the poor.

I know this is a well-used talking point among some of your fellow travelers, but, erm, why would "voter registrations" as you call them "almost certainly suppress voting among the poor"? Unless you're suggesting that "suppress" is roughly equivalent to "make sure they only get to vote once per election". Otherwise, I ain't seeing it. To wit...

As such people in poor areas that have no need for a driver's license may never get a legitimate form of ID.

Ah, bunk. They need a photo ID to cash a check, what makes you think you cannot get one if you really need to? And don't you think there's a relatively simple solution to said dilema? As in, schlep down to City Hall for a free-of-charge photo ID card. You cannot tell me fill-in-the-blank City Hall can't scrape-up the dough for that if they wanted to. But that's the problem, eh? They don't want to, because the regime in place in those cities got there under the current system and have no interest in changing that. Right?

Honestly if they don't feel that a driver's license is important why should we assume that voting will motivate them?

And yet, you don't seem to have any trouble with these people deciding elections in a 50/50 nation. Right?

As to your points on Vlad's points:

1) Fine - make every state a "right to work" state and you don't have to have the government involved in union voting.

2) No argument.

3) Start here - it's hardly exhaustive.

4) Well, we have more than a little evidence of one, and not nearly as much of another. Just saying.

5) I actually agree with you on this one. Funny, eh?

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

I pointed to concerns I would have with such a system. I have other concerns. I am concerned that voting officials could use ID requirements as a way to suppress voting.

And it doesn't matter if these people should be voting or not. They have an equal right to and I don't much care for creating requirements that would discourage them from voting.

Do I think this is a deal breaker on the whole idea? No. But I also think that all the claims of dead people voting are mostly a lot of hot air. IOW, I don't see this being nearly the endemic problem that is presented by the Right.

1. What do you mean by right to work state? Disband the right of workers to collectively bargain? No thanks.

2. You have no real evidence of one. You have some examples of procedural technicalities being used to discard certain military votes. Hardly the same as eliminating the right to vote for servicemembers.

3. First I agree with John Steele and now you? What next? Thomas inviting me to a BBQ? :)

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Be careful, esp. if he asks you to hold a small apple in your mouth. You might be the entree.

It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

And Rightly So!

medium rare....

___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson

still kicking - at least at the start of din-din.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

... its unbecoming, you know d*mn well what "right to work" means.

John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course

I am concerned that voting officials could use ID requirements as a way to suppress voting.

Seriously? I mean, seriously?

I'm concerned about Martians invading and taking away my stockpile of Coca-Cola Zero - but I actually think that's more likely than what you're concerned about. YMMV.

They have an equal right to and I don't much care for creating requirements that would discourage them from voting.

Just so we're clear, you think the identification requirements to cash a check are too onerous for voting. Right?

But I also think that all the claims of dead people voting are mostly a lot of hot air.

I cannot tell you what you can and cannot think. And you will likely not see that for which you're not looking. Again, just saying.

1) You're not a moron, don't act like one. But in case you're not on your "C"-game tonight - what I'm basically talking about is my right to not join a union in a "union shop" should I so choose.

2) And when you can produce anything remotely rising to the level of "procedural technicalities being used to discard" the votes of union members in national elections, then you have a point. If not, not so much.

3) I'll bring the ribs. You get the chicken. Thomas brings the grill. Deal?

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

I'm concerned about Martians invading and taking away my stockpile of Coca-Cola Zero - but I actually think that's more likely than what you're concerned about. YMMV.

Ok. So you're not concerned with the possibility of election officials intentionally using voter ID requirements to suppress votes but you ARE concerned about dead people voting?

1) You're not a moron, don't act like one. But in case you're not on your "C"-game tonight - what I'm basically talking about is my right to not join a union in a "union shop" should I so choose.

What makes them union shops in the first place? Answer that question and you see why my first response is relevant. Right to work laws are a way to circumvent collective bargaining agreements to help employers out of agreements they have made with unions.

2) And when you can produce anything remotely rising to the level of "procedural technicalities being used to discard" the votes of union members in national elections, then you have a point. If not, not so much.

3) I'll bring the ribs. You get the chicken. Thomas brings the grill. Deal?

Just as long as I'm not required to drink any Kool-Aid, DONE!

Come on, Doc. My comment was for illustrative purposes and I think you know that.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

So you're not concerned with the possibility of election officials intentionally using voter ID requirements to suppress votes

No, I'm not. Neither am I really concerned about Martians stealing my Coke Zero. I just don't think either is particularly likely.

I mean, when are you going to start screaming "POLL TAX!!"?

In other words, why - other than it's sort of accepted as an Article of Faith™ on your side of the political grand chasm, do you think election officials would intentionally use voter ID requirements to suppress votes? In this day and age? With cameras and lawyers a-plenty?

And if we cannot trust election officials to work a polling place without "using voter ID requirements to suppress votes", why in the name of all that is good and holy should we trust self-same election officials to 1) check names, 2) check for fraud, heck 3) count the stinking votes in the first place?

Right to work laws are a way to circumvent collective bargaining agreements...

No, they are a way for me to work in a union shop, not join a union should I so chose, and not have to pay roughly 85% of the union's dues. They are a way to make sure my decision to join a union is from my own free will, and not because a majority of employees in a place I care to work decided at some time in the past, in a decision about which I had no input, that they wanted to organize.

In other words, it protects my ability to work as I chose where I chose - something I would think libs would be all in favor of.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

In other words, why - other than it's sort of accepted as an Article of Faith™ on your side of the political grand chasm, do you think election officials would intentionally use voter ID requirements to suppress votes? In this day and age? With cameras and lawyers a-plenty?

Either we accept that elections are generally fair or we don't. While I'm in the camp of the former, if you wish to argue the latter you can't dismiss accusations of fraud simply because they are politically less pleasing.

No, they are a way for me to work in a union shop, not join a union should I so chose, and not have to pay roughly 85% of the union's dues. They are a way to make sure my decision to join a union is from my own free will, and not because a majority of employees in a place I care to work decided at some time in the past, in a decision about which I had no input, that they wanted to organize.

So you are ok with the government interceding on agreements between labor and employers when it suits you? As I said, you do not believe that collective bargaining agreements should be honored. The employers were free to not allow a closed shop provision from being enacted yet they did so anyway. Why should the government get involved?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

...can't dismiss accusations of fraud...

Pray tell, Man of Straw, precisely who is making such accusations? And have they been followed-up? And to what end?

So you are ok with the government interceding on agreements between labor and employers when it suits you?

No I am not, and I've not said anything to indicate that.

you do not believe that collective bargaining agreements should be honored.

Not true. I do believe CB agreements should be binding and honored - by the parties who agreed to it. You seem to suggest they should be binding on anyone who should happen to come afterward - in spite of the fact that they had no say at all in the contractually binding decision.

The employers were free to not allow a closed shop provision from being enacted yet they did so anyway.

As I understand it, this is not at all the case in non-Right-to-Work states. If a category of employees (secretaries, for example) decide to organize, then all future employees in this category are union - the employer has no say. Period. Forever - unless the employees themselves decide to de-certify their union.

If I'm wrong about that, I'll await a correction.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Pray tell, Man of Straw, precisely who is making such accusations? And have they been followed-up? And to what end?

I have to say I like Man of Straw, I'll put a little s on my shirt. :)

Do you think that the Democrats are involved in voter fraud?

Not true. I do believe CB agreements should be binding and honored - by the parties who agreed to it. You seem to suggest they should be binding on anyone who should happen to come afterward - in spite of the fact that they had no say at all in the contractually binding decision.

The CB agreements stipulate that the employer will not hire anyone who will not at least pay union dues.

As I understand it, this is not at all the case in non-Right-to-Work states. If a category of employees (secretaries, for example) decide to organize, then all future employees in this category are union - the employer has no say. Period. Forever - unless the employees themselves decide to de-certify their union.

There are no laws that I am aware that mandate that an employer must require all workers to be union just because a union is certified within their labor force. The NLRB doesn't have that authority. All the NLRB can do is enforce existing agreements or arbitrate disagreements.

Right to Work laws make it illegal to require employees to join or pay union dues regardless of any collective bargaining agreements.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

The First Amendment's freedom of assembly also carries with it the freedom not to assemble if we so choose. Employment should not hang in the balance if one exercises the freedom not to assemble by opting out of a union.

If union activities stuck to collective bargaining, then perhaps your argument would hold water. However, their activities also include political activism and contributions which often reflect the interests of the leadership, not the rank and file.

And then there's the thuggish behavior and threats of physical violence in the name of "solidarity" that are widely accepted as part and parcel of union activity. You'd never tolerate the same behavior by a government or corporation, but rarely is it condemned if it's union-backed.

It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins

The First Amendment's freedom of assembly also carries with it the freedom not to assemble if we so choose. Employment should not hang in the balance if one exercises the freedom not to assemble by opting out of a union.

The 1st Amendment deals with government restrictions. You are free to assemble wherever you wish. You are not free to take any job you wish and you are definitely not free to do so without accepting the pre-conditions of employment.

Do you also oppose corporate political activism or just union activism? I see no difference between the two, personally.

I agree that intimidation should be punished although I am not familiar with many recent cases of unions intimidating workers into joining their union.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Do you think that the Democrats are involved in voter fraud?

Don't know.

Don't care.

Here's my long/short - I think it's a good idea that one should have to show a picture ID at the polls. I think it would help cut down on the temptation to defraud the vote. I think it's a reasonable check against people acting/behaving badly. And I don't think it's too much to ask that you be able to prove you are who you say you are before you are able to exercise your voting franchise.

The only argument you've made in opposition is some yet to be evidenced belief that "poll workers" would use to ID requirements to disenfranchise "poor people". Yet you seem to be A-OK with these same crooked poll workers counting the votes afterward - a paradox I find to be, dare I say, silly.

Don't feel bad, I've yet to hear anything remotely resembling a reasonable argument against the ID requirement. Yours is among the more creative, though.

And I'm out of the "Union Voting" threadjack. I'm convinced your argument is perfectly circular but I don't care enough to argue it out. Also, I don't have the legal background to argue from anything other than uneducated opinion and hearsay.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Only 2920 Google Hits for ACORN "Voter Fraud". My guess would be it's in the millions. Washington State, one county, one incident , 1762 non qualified names submitted. Hard to tell how many times ACORN has submitted names to King County. King County does not have a real good record on checking things regarding elections.

ACORN the name almost means fraud. Now the liberals don't know anything about it?

The gov't is involved in union voting because of the Department of Labor's regulation of same. Just a couple of months ago we were discussing the perversely named "Employer Free Choice Act", q.v.

You really oughta check ACORN out. Darned if I can tell who pays the freight, but I have a sneaking hunch it's us.

Nowadays I suspect the union vote is not all that different than the country at large; more Democratic, to be sure, but with a fair representation of conservatives, independents and Republicans (esp. the ones with large 401-k's!). It's the leadership I don't trust.

A felon who has served his time is one thing. Am I mistaken or has Hillary mounted an effort to extend the franchise to those currently serving time?

It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins

ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS FOR REFORM NOW
(ACORN)

And if you suspect that George Soros and his Open Society Institute are the primary source of funds, you would be correct.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

My sense is that they also receive funds from all levels of government. I hope I'm wrong.

It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins

From an article by John Fund, last November:

Last year, Acorn helped convince the House to create an "affordable housing trust fund," allocating up to 5% of the profits generated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to groups such as Acorn that build affordable housing. The Senate failed to act on the bill, but it will surely be reintroduced.

But previous federal grants to Acorn have been highly controversial. In 1994 the Acorn Housing Corporation was given a $1.1 million grant by AmeriCorps, the federal volunteer agency. An inspector-general found the nonprofit had improperly used AmeriCorps recruits for political purposes; the grant was terminated. A guaranteed stream of federal cash to a group that so often fails audits would invite trouble. Today, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley will send a letter to the IRS asking the agency to investigate Acorn and allied groups for possibly misusing their tax status for political purposes.

But wait, this is pretty good, too:

In 1995 Acorn unsuccessfully sued California to be exempt from the minimum wage, claiming that "the more that Acorn must pay each individual outreach worker . . . the fewer outreach workers it will be able to hire." Mr. Rathke acknowledges higher wages can cost some jobs but that the raises for other workers are worth it.

It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins

From the same sidebar:

ACORN & the Money Tree
Taxpayer money helps fund voter fraud.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

because ACORN operates so many front groups which conceal their relationship with ACORN, and whose funding, like ACORN's, is often undisclosed.

But, I fear you are correct.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

If you can't find the time to get a free ID then you don't deserve to vote.

Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite

any Democrat that can't get a ride to pick up their free ID.

>>>>I can't speak for the motivations of the Democratic Party I can say that my biggest concern with voter registrations is that it would almost certainly suppress voting among the poor.

Having been poor myself once, I get so d--- sick and tired of people who imply that poor people are too stoopid to do the basics. like remeber their ID Card when they vote.

"Scott Thomas" - The New Republic's Winter Soldier

I don't think that poor people are any more or less intelligent than any other economic group.

However they are usually far less educated and they are more likely to feel disenfranchised by our social infrastructure.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

So it is better for someone who follows all the rules and does in his power to make sure his vote is proper to be disenfranchised than someone who doesn't feel it's worth his time to get an ID or register to vote? Our system is very strongly biased towards disenfranchising the first guy right now, and the Democrats sure prefer it that way.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Maybe we should require people bring their paperzz with them wherever they go?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Here in Arizona, you have to have a valid state issued id with you at all times. If you are asked by a police officer to produce ID and you don't have one, you are subject to immediate arrest (a misdemeanor) and you can stay in jail until you can prove who you are.

In addition, in order to purchase demon rum, you have to show an ID. Even guys like me who are older than dirt.

Even with those constraints, Democrats fought tooth and nail against the ballot initiative that requires an ID to vote. They took the successful initiative to court where they won. The state appealed TO THE NINTH CIRCUS and that verdict was overturned. You now have to have a valid ID to vote in Arizona.

It just seems really strange to me that you have to have a valid ID to purchase alcohol or cash a check or open a bank account or even buy tobacco, but the Left gets all wigged out because we think you should have to have a valid ID to VOTE.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Can't say I care much for being required to carry ID with you wherever you go. But if you kooky Wrens* want to impose laws against your own personal liberty, who am I to judge?

Like I said upthread this really isn't a big deal for me, especially at the state level. I have some concerns but they aren't major.

* - I am ashamed that I couldn't come up with a better nickname but I couldn't find anything else to lump all together with and Arizonans just sounds difficult to say.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Lizards maybe. Quail maybe. Coyotes maybe. Diamondbacks absolutely. Cardinals never.

I'm probably offended. My feelings hurt easily.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Get a better state bird.

I thought about team names but I figured that was too regional, even in Arizona. ;)

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

since the day the military handed me my first ID card. I expect to carry it to the hospital on my last trip there before I don't need it any more. I carried it two years in Vietnam, while friends of Jane Fonda and Walter Cronkite and John Kerry and other leftist Americans were doing their best to kill me and every other
American and our brave allies that were supporting us in the fight for freedom. Then I'm told that I assuming things by someone who feels threatened by being asked to identify themselves. Words fail me.

...and I still consider this a good idea (state won't give me a driver's license due to poor vision, and my state ID lapsed, leaving me to scramble to find proper alternate identification in order to renew it). Most states that have attempted such an idea have put in a provision to provide IDs free of charge to people living near or below the poverty line, and still they get struck down by the courts. And I still can't figure out how a photo ID requirement is racist... the cards don't (in fact, can't) list ethnicity. The fact that people's minds would immediately jump to that just shows what those critics think of the American people, in my opinion.

"I don't understand why the same newspaper commentators who bemoan the terrible education given to poor people are always so eager to have those poor people get out and vote." - P.J. O'Rourke

It is voluntary to get a state ID card. My mother doesn't drive, and I had to get one for her to carry to conduct business in stores or banks. The technicality is that it isn't mandatory for residents of the state. My mother could use other photo ID if she had anything.

A drivers license is a priviledge so photos can be required. Voting is a right. You cannot stop a person from voting if he or she is registered. In some states, a person can even vote provisionally without being registered, subject to a check for errors. This person would only fill out a form.

It seems implausible that the government could every design a system that cannot be defeated. There has to be the deterrent of possible follow-up prosecution and conviction for voting fraud.

Voting is a constitutional right, governing of which falls under the powers of the local state governments.

California has a mandatory show ID to vote law, and there is no problem or cries of discrimination.

You can't rent a video, fly on an airplane, enter some federal buildings without photo id, so why would you allow people the greatest exercise of the democracy, voting, without proving who they are? Makes no sense.

_______________________________
None of the Above !

CA doesn't speciify what kind of photo ID is used. This is the difference. You are simply proving that you have the same name as the person on on their voting list. You are not proving that you are the person who registered, or anything else.

There is a difference between showing ID, and making up a specific ID for voting, that would presumably prove that you are the person who registered.

The CA photo ID at the polls requirement does very little to solve the illegal voting problem. For one thing, phony IDs for anything are easily purchased in CA. The big problem is the registration process.

about carrying your ID anywhere you go? It boggles the mind that people think it is too much to ask to provide ID when you vote. You need ID to cash a check, some people need ID to buy beer or cigaettes, you need ID to drive a car legally, you need ID to enter the US (except of course if you are an illegal alien). Why is it such a violation of your rights to show ID when you vote? You are claiming to be a certain person, why do we not have the right to require you to prove it before you vote.

John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course

If you're arrested and shoved into jail how can you prove who you are?

Hooray!

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

It is the responsibility of law enforcement to determine your true identity. All states have various computer programs that contain various identifying data associated with names, locations, SSNs, etc. You have given them this data when you got a drivers license, ID, had prior bookings, etc. If they make an ID mistake, you can sue them for false arrest. If you are arrested for a crime, they will do fingerprints which go to the state and FBI. There are lots of federal and state computerized indexes.

and not had your license and registration handy? Try getting on an airplane w/o ID.

"Scott Thomas" - The New Republic's Winter Soldier

I never want to see a "Bush" name on a ballot again. Ever. For any office. I don't care if the next one really IS a conservative. I'm Bushed out.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Would the second Cheney be Mary or Lynne?? :)

Your Humble Servant
http://www.liberal-hypocrisy.com/blog/

...assuming that Dick Cheney and his wife are still living together, since the Pres and VP can't reside in the same state.

And Rightly So!

One of 'em will just have to move out of state.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

There is nothing that forbids the president and vice president from being from the the same state.

You're probably refering to the 12th amendment prohibiting electors from voting for a president and vice president from the same state as themselves.

So for the case in hand electors from Wyoming could not vote for both Cheneys but electors from other states would be free to vote for both Cheneys.

It makes it too easy for partisan Democrats to try to get rid of posts that they don't approve of.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I am indeed a partisan Democrat, but if you look at the very few comments I've posted none of them can be considered trolling.

But the logistics involved in tossing the presidency to one party or another are very different than those involved in tossing Congress, and I don't think its reasonable to equate the two without at least trying to explain the discrepancy.

In 2006, I voted for every office on my ballot but two.

It's Sarasota. Things like that happen there.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Thomas, which two offices did you neglect?

Comptroller? Treasurer? Coroner?

There are a few offices which many people don't bother to decide upon the candidates. But their Congressional Representative isn't one of them.

Atleast, I'm not convinced that 18,000 voters in that district didn't decide.

Why would it be unbelievable that some people would be coming just to vote in that race? Or maybe they didn't like either the options. Or maybe they were careless. Or maybe they were stupid enough that they couldn't figure the ballot out. Who knows?

Maybe we should just appoint a commissar whose duty it will be to read voter sentiment and choose the rightful winner of the election. Then we could avoid the trouble of having to actually go to a polling place and mark a ballot on election day.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Frightening Headline, isn't it?

Or maybe not. I'm glad to see that Zuiko and Thomas aren't easily bothered.

Zuiko, maybe you're right:
"Maybe we should just appoint a commissar whose duty it will be to read voter sentiment and choose the rightful winner of the election. Then we could avoid the trouble of having to actually go to a polling place and mark a ballot on election day."

Missing votes puts Democrat in Congress

If the votes are missing, how do you count them? Did they leave a note behind while they were being abducted? Or are we talking of the political equivalent of that old bookkeeping correction factor what it takes to balance? Or should we simply turn over the whole voting function to computers and let them tell us how we voted?

And Rightly So!

Civil Truth,
You may remember reading something about this. It seems that 18,000 votes(for the Congressional Representative) were "missing" on ballots which were otherwise marked completely.

Carelessness? Possibly. EIGHTEEN THOUSAND? Unlikely.

It's quite an exercise in logic to consider it otherwise.

The previous discussion in this thread reminded me about the controversy over this election.

I'm aware that if somehow these votes had been "found" and if they were voted in the same proportion as other votes in that county, then Jennings would have prevailed. However, the investigators not having discovered some kind of conspiracy nor a mechanical error, at this stage of the game, the high undervote rate will almost certainly remain one of those unsolved mysteries.

Perfection is not possible, and sometimes you just have to live with imperfection because the effort to "correct" it would introduce its own distortions. A later special election/revote would involve its own imperfections as the voting would have taken place at a different time/conditions than the original vote: e.g. very different campaign with lots of outside money, advertising, etc.

However, my somewhat facetious comment was not dealing with the controversy itself, but rather had to do with the actual wording of your proposed headline...

Had the headline read "Newly-found votes put Democrat in Congress!", I would have had no comment about the logic.

The problem was that your proposed headline was "Missing votes put Democrat in Congress!".

Sort of like a headline "Missing evidence convicts accused burglar!". (And no, the burglar did not steal the missing evidence...)

And Rightly So!

Even headline-writing is pretty simple.
Rule#1: Intrigue more than Inform.

But have it your way:
"MISSING VOTES CAUSE MANY TO BELIEVE THAT THEIR VOTES DON'T COUNT THUS UNDERMINING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF OUR PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY"

I get amusement every weekday when reading the headline bloopers that the WSJ's James Taranto comments on. This headline was just like one of them.

(Was this an actual headline? I thought it was one you invented.)

And Rightly So!And Rightly So!