See, they're only trying to disenfranchise Democrats, it's merely coincidental that Democrats HAPPEN to be disproportionately minorities.
Which makes it ok, apparently?
Now, one might also wonder WHY IT IS that Democrats are disproportionately minorities. You might think it has something to do with the GOP not caring about minorities being disenfranchised, for example.
And, of course, voting ID, reducing early voting and other restrictions they've been promulgating don't have anything to do with disenfranchising Democrats and minorities. It's just about the integrity of elections.
Of course, former GOP officials have admitted in the past that those are ALSO about reducing [strike]minority[/strike] Democratic turnout.
But it's still amazing to see GOP government not only admitting that they want to disenfranchise Democrats, but trying to use it as an argument in their favor.
I agree with most of what you're saying, seeing as I'm not a rep, or dem.
Except, I think all voters should be concerned about illegals voting.
Each illegal vote reduces the power of MY legal vote. It helps to disenfranchise legal citizens voting.
This is so important, but if someone says anything about requiring voters to show legal ID at the polls, you get a "Boooo! Tea Party Nutjob" like response.
The only reason the "left" is portrayed as not caring about illegal votes, is because it's thought (wrongly so) that it's just the "left" who takes advantage of catering to the illegal immigrants they believe can sway an election or two.
Truth is, both sides do it, when it suits them, and where their district demographics are beneficial to do so.
ALL of us, American citizens, should be outraged if an illegal, non-citizen casts a vote in an election. It usurps our power. It further metastasizes the cancers that are voter fraud and poor voter involvement.
Why vote, when not only does my vote hardly count in the first place, but depending on where I live even when it did count a little bit, a few hundred illegal votes were cast and counted and caused a real devaluation of my ballot.
This Texas thing is just status-quo when it comes to gerrymandering, and voter district manipulation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
How does illegals voting have anything to do with what he's discussing? Neither link nor anything in his post references illegals directly or indirectly.
First is about redistricting which is all about census data (illegals don't show up on the census for obvious reasons) and the second is about reducing early voting as a claimed fraud issue. (Which is partially correct, although they attacked the wrong type of early voting - in person voting early or not is incredibly low fraud and almost always caught, it's mail-in voting that is largely fraudulent [and has some weird corner cases that don't feel like they should be legal - like that a dead person's vote still counts once it's postmarked on a mail-in ballot])
In fact illegals voting at last count accounted for NO TRACKABLE voting discrepancies in the entire US from what my local BoE is stating right now. (I had to call them anyways because I was confused why I got my 2014 voter reg card so early - so opted to get my boss for my volunteer work on the horn to see if they'll be using me this year + answering that curiosity)
It's possible they're voting in someone else's name in person - but every "illegal" that votes is doing it via taking someone's legally registered for vote - there's literally never been a proven case yet where an illegal got a voter registration card and voted for their own vote. Proxy voting is the only way, and frankly next to impossible to track without incurring tons of cost for likely a statistical blip.
A full 70% of discovered voter fraud in recent years has been attributed to mail-in voting. Isn't it quite interesting that mail-in voting that leans heavily Republican (to the order of about 4:1 most years) is never targeted even though it's the most fertile for fraud? [Case in point - every large abnormality in the 2012 election was mail-in voting...]
And, of course, voting ID, reducing early voting and other restrictions they've been promulgating don't have anything to do with disenfranchising Democrats and minorities. It's just about the integrity of elections.
ooooh I don't know, maybe I misunderstood this part.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Thusfar everyone voting that has been caught by ID laws was a legal voting for someone else. In some cases (that weren't prosecuted although they were refused the chance to vote) it was proxy voting where someone was voting for someone else with their blessing (i.e. "Jim, I'm stuck working today - mind voting for me too?") even. Proxy voting is the only way that an illegal might be voting under the RADAR any other case they'll be turned down or given a provisional ballot (which will then get tossed once considered, if it's ever considered).
One person, one vote is pretty much the cornerstone of "integrity of the election system". In fact "illegal persons" weren't even considered separate under election law until the past hundred years or so - it was illegal but untracked for a few decades in fact until about the 40's or so because until SS#'s had propagated enough to be almost universal amongst citizens they didn't have a good means to compare against.
I've been working with our BoE for close to a decade now, and every time the "integrity of elections" spiel comes up which we get during the volunteer retraining each year - it's always entirely about making sure it's one person, one vote and that the person appears on the roles.
If they don't fall under the latter or the first is suspect - they're given a provisional ballot that has never accounted for ANYTHING in the past 55 years that our BoE has records for. They're only even counted in the case of a tight election, otherwise they're straight into the dumpster - and not to date has an election in this state been close enough for them to even be considered.
I'm curious for states that do have close swings where provisional ballots end up mattering what their pass-fail rate on provisional ballots are though - I know in the Bush-Gore Florida recount they tossed ALL provisional ballots in the entire state for example. But that's about the only non-MD example I know.
If you think Voter IDs are about "illegals voting" you have absolutely no understanding of what Voter ID impacts. (Or what is even there to impact - big hint, most of the Voter ID push states have a ridiculously low hispanic population - i.e. Pennsylvania - if you think it's to keep illegals from voting, think again...)
This Texas thing is just status-quo when it comes to gerrymandering, and voter district manipulation.
The interesting thing is that they're outright admitting to doing it, that they know that it disenfranchises minorities, and they don't care.
Not the simple fact that they're doing it, which I agree is nothing new.
--------
ANYWAY
I'm fine with voter ID as long as it's paired with aggressive efforts to register voters and provide them with IDs. And the state bears any costs of finding birth certificates or what have you and makes reasonable accommodations for people like elderly black or rural voters who may not have a birth certificate through no fault of their own. But that's not how these laws are being written, and why it's so obvious that it's not about integrity, it's about suppressing votes.
Combine getting your driver's license or other services with registering to vote, for example. We should be ensuring that there are never lines too long for voters. In North Carolina (my home state), the new law prevents polling places from extending voting hours in the case of unusually long lines. It prevents provisional voting if you accidentally go to the wrong polling place. It disallows 16 and 17 year olds from registering so that they're ready to vote when they turn 18. We should be making it easy to vote for eligible voters, not hard.
But it's so clear that the people proposing these laws aren't concerned with increasing turnout.
Except, I think all voters should be concerned about illegals voting.
You still need to register to vote. It's not like they can just show up and vote and they don't need identifying information to do so.
And why would an illegal immigrant bother anyway? Voting is a lot of work for no tangible benefit. The effect of any one vote is minuscule. Most illegal immigrants are concerned about getting caught. Why would they expose themselves to that risk for basically no benefit at all? The risk of voter fraud is almost certainly far greater than the marginal benefit to you. If you only have a one in a thousand chance of being caught, it's still far greater than the one in hundreds of thousands or one in millions chance you could affect the outcome of an important race.
Each illegal vote reduces the power of MY legal vote. It helps to disenfranchise legal citizens voting.
And no, I shouldn't be that concerned about each "illegal" voting. Each illegal who vote has a minuscule effect on the power of my vote, which is already minuscule to begin with. I see no reason to be more concerned about this than I am about any other issue which affects voting. The importance it has to the integrity of the election is directly proportional to the amount of people affected.
If we stopped 10,000 illegal immigrants from voting, but prevented 100,000 eligible voters from voting, that has harmed the integrity of elections, not helped it. Integrity of our elections is not just about ensuring that every vote was legal, but about ensuring that our elections reflect the true will of the people. Ensuring that every vote was legal is just a means to that end. When people don't vote because voting is too much of a hassle, the results become less representative of the will of the people. Thus, each eligible voter who is dissuaded from voting because of efforts like these harms the integrity of our elections.
And the numbers show that these laws do more harm to our elections than good. The amount of illegal immigrants voting and the amount of other voter fraud is small, and the number of people who have been prevented or discouraged from voting is much, much, much larger. That is something that damages our democracy. That is something that all voters should be concerned about.
The only reason the "left" is portrayed as not caring about illegal votes, is because it's thought (wrongly so) that it's just the "left" who takes advantage of catering to the illegal immigrants they believe can sway an election or two.
Until you can show that it's a real problem, the reason they don't care is because these laws are meant to solve a problem with no evidence of being anything other than negligible. And because these laws suppress far more legitimate votes (who are disproportionately Democrats) than illegal votes.
Truth is, both sides do it, when it suits them, and where their district demographics are beneficial to do so.
The Republicans definitely gerrymander more and to greater effect:
Republican gerrymandering probably gave them a 23 seat advantage over what they would've had without it.
Sam Wang's calculations are that "Democrats were disenfranchised more than Republicans, at a ratio of 10:1."
ALL of us, American citizens, should be outraged if an illegal, non-citizen casts a vote in an election. It usurps our power.
I should be outraged if significant numbers of non-citizens are casting votes, enough to be non-negligible.
In a nation of over 300 million, it is not an outrage if a few people slip through the cracks. And when the elections are close, things will be examined more closely. It's an outrage if hundreds of thousands or millions of people don't vote because we've made the exercise of that right too much of a burden.
Obviously we should take steps to ensure that people aren't voting illegally. But I don't see any evidence that what we already do isn't adequate.
It further metastasizes the cancers that are voter fraud and poor voter involvement.
Voter fraud is not a cancer. You are talking about it as if it is a widespread phenomena that is swinging elections all over the place, when it is not. We should be FAR more worried about the people counting the votes than the people casting them, as far as true fraud. You can change with a few clicks in a voting machine what would take tens of thousands of vote fraudsters to accomplish.
But then you tack on poor voter involvement. These laws are part of that problem! Making it harder for people to vote is what causes that! You think people don't vote because they're concerned about illegal immigrants voting? No, it's because they have to go across town and then wait in line for an hour because there aren't enough polling places and they're understaffed!
Why vote, when not only does my vote hardly count in the first place, but depending on where I live even when it did count a little bit, a few hundred illegal votes were cast and counted and caused a real devaluation of my ballot.
Why vote, when not only does my vote hardly count in the first place, but I have to take the bus across town to get an ID that I don't need for anything else, and I have to pay $20 to get it, and they need my birth certificate, and I don't know where that is, so I have to go somewhere else to get a copy, and then I still have to register separately?
Which one do you think realistically has a larger effect on people voting?
A politician trying to ensure his district will continue to vote for him is not racism. Just because minorities happen to vote democrat 80% of the time doesn't make it racism. Minorities vote for democrats for the same reason whites do not vote for democrats: because they take money from whites to give to minorities. I don't think either side is "racist" they are just doing what it takes to get elected.
A politician trying to ensure his district will continue to vote for him is not racism. Just because minorities happen to vote democrat 80% of the time doesn't make it racism.
That argument won't necessarily stand up in court. Taking actions that hurt blacks and Hispanics out of self-interest rather than out of racial animus doesn't automatically make it acceptable legally.
Minorities vote for democrats for the same reason whites do not vote for democrats: because they take money from whites to give to minorities.
Whites don't vote for Democrats?
Just because the GOP almost only gets white votes doesn't mean that the Democrats don't get any.
I don't think either side is "racist" they are just doing what it takes to get elected.
Well of course you don't, given the fact that you just offered up that explanation of racial voting patterns.
I'm pretty surprised there isn't already a big court case about this. The courts have struck down gerrymandering when it has the effect of disenfranchising minorities, without regard to whether it's intended to disenfranchise minorities. It's really the only case where the courts will interfere with this kind of thing, but it's a case with precedent and it's clearly happening.
P.s. whites don't vote for democrats? News to this white voter who votes Democrat 85 or 90% of the time.
A politician trying to ensure his district will continue to vote for him is not racism. Just because minorities happen to vote democrat 80% of the time doesn't make it racism. Minorities vote for democrats for the same reason whites do not vote for democrats: because they take money from whites to give to minorities. I don't think either side is "racist" they are just doing what it takes to get elected.
Fact: Far more than 50% of money for welfare and other social programs go to whites. (In the high 60% range was the figure a few years ago)
Never seen a breakdown on where it comes from - but I'd imagine it's similar as well.
P.s. whites don't vote for democrats? News to this white voter who votes Democrat 85 or 90% of the time.
Indeed - some of the most solidly "blue" states are ridiculously white. (Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire anyone?)
If his hyperbolic nonsense was accurate Maryland would never go blue even with one of the highest black populations as a percentage in the nation. (Probably not the highest, but I know we're up there - but yet still only about 25-30% minority total in this state)
A politician trying to ensure his district will continue to vote for him is not racism. Just because minorities happen to vote democrat 80% of the time doesn't make it racism. Minorities vote for democrats for the same reason whites do not vote for democrats: because they take money from whites to give to minorities. I don't think either side is "racist" they are just doing what it takes to get elected.
Fact: Far more than 50% of money for welfare and other social programs go to whites. (In the high 60% range was the figure a few years ago)
Never seen a breakdown on where it comes from - but I'd imagine it's similar as well.
I'm not sure what you mean by "other social programs", but the largest percentage of recipients of welfare are not white. According to the U.S. Government, 1/3 of all welfare recipients are African-Americans, see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/character/fy2009/tab08. The stats are a little old, but I doubt that numbers have changed dramatically.
I'm pretty surprised there isn't already a big court case about this. The courts have struck down gerrymandering when it has the effect of disenfranchising minorities, without regard to whether it's intended to disenfranchise minorities. It's really the only case where the courts will interfere with this kind of thing, but it's a case with precedent and it's clearly happening.
P.s. whites don't vote for democrats? News to this white voter who votes Democrat 85 or 90% of the time.
The court cases you are referring typically overturned gerrymandering based on the state having the burden of disproving disenfranchisement. Prior to parts of the Civil Rights Act being struck down, the states had to prove that, more likely then not, there was no disenfranchisement. So, even a faint whiff of disenfranchisement could doom their redistricting. However, now, the plaintiff whether it is a person or the U.S. government challenging the redistricting would have to prove that, more likely then not, there is disenfranchisement. With the switching of the burden, the challenge is much harder because you have to establish actual disenfranchisement. The Texas brief does not say that it disenfranchises, rather it says then "even if" there is disenfranchisement, it is only incidental which is a legalistic way of saying that any effect is not intentional.
I'm not sure what you mean by "other social programs", but the largest percentage of recipients of welfare are not white. According to the U.S. Government, 1/3 of all welfare recipients are African-Americans, see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/character/fy2009/tab08. The stats are a little old, but I doubt that numbers have changed dramatically.
The difference between African Americans (33.3%) and Whites (31.2%) in welfare is 2.1% according to the source you posted, so we can reasonably conclude that about 1/3 of whites are also on welfare.
The difference between African Americans (33.3%) and Whites (31.2%) in welfare is 2.1% according to the source you posted, so we can reasonably conclude that about 1/3 of whites are also on welfare.
I think you've got the chart backwards. It's not the percentage of the race that is on welfare, it's the percentage of the welfare recipients who are of that race.
On a similar notion of the voting rights act take a look at the percentages. There are a few northern states (Delaware, New Jersey) that have a large number of African Americans on welfare, but the worst states are all Southern states that were listed under the VRA.
Alabama: 66%
Arkansas: 58.2%
Florida: 46.6
Gerogia: 70.2%
Louisiana: 78%
Mississippi: 83.6%
North Carolina: 58.6
South Caroline: 69.2
Tennessee: 53.6
Kentucky, Kansas, and Missouri are the only 3 Southern States with a higher percentage of whites than Afro-Americans on welfare.
Of course though, racism ended in the form of job discrimination in the 70s
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
A politician trying to ensure his district will continue to vote for him is not racism. Just because minorities happen to vote democrat 80% of the time doesn't make it racism. Minorities vote for democrats for the same reason whites do not vote for democrats: because they take money from whites to give to minorities. I don't think either side is "racist" they are just doing what it takes to get elected.
Fact: Far more than 50% of money for welfare and other social programs go to whites. (In the high 60% range was the figure a few years ago)
Never seen a breakdown on where it comes from - but I'd imagine it's similar as well.
I'm not sure what you mean by "other social programs", but the largest percentage of recipients of welfare are not white. According to the U.S. Government, 1/3 of all welfare recipients are African-Americans, see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/character/fy2009/tab08. The stats are a little old, but I doubt that numbers have changed dramatically.
Do you not know about the other social programs? Welfare is just one social program. I resent the notion that democrats want to take money from white people and give it to people of minorities.
For one, the largest recipient of government money are big business owners (guess whether or not they fall under the white or non-white category). Social programs isn't just about arbitrarily spreading money around and creating a nanny state. Only libertarians devoid of reason believe such a monumentally ridiculous notion.
Even if 100% of recipients of social programs were people of minorities, social programs are about creating a floor. I don't know about you but 5-10% of my income is a small price to pay to make sure the streets aren't lined with homeless, starving and diseased people (especially children).
But as far as the OP, gerrymandering is a sign that a political party is at the end of its rope. Either the GOP will take a new stance on many issues or they will be defeated in the coming elections. Considering every tea-bagger is facing a moderate primary challenge combined with the very real anger among moderates nationwide towards republicans for choosing politics over the economy, the GOP has to use every single tactic at its disposal to stay afloat (from molehills portrayed as mountains to gerrymandering).
Honestly, I'm just fine with the gerrymandering (which is crazy let me explain why), because for every person that become disenfranchised, two are becoming aware. We're starting to witness the younger generation seeing the importance of politics, and with the age of information, more power is in their hands than ever. The more stuff like this happens, the harder these new kids will fight for their rights.
40 Years ago gerrymandering would lead to disenfranchisement. Today, it goes viral and can potentially turn into a new age of reason.
But as far as the OP, gerrymandering is a sign that a political party is at the end of its rope. Either the GOP will take a new stance on many issues or they will be defeated in the coming elections. Considering every tea-bagger is facing a moderate primary challenge combined with the very real anger among moderates nationwide towards republicans for choosing politics over the economy, the GOP has to use every single tactic at its disposal to stay afloat (from molehills portrayed as mountains to gerrymandering).
Honestly, I'm just fine with the gerrymandering (which is crazy let me explain why), because for every person that become disenfranchised, two are becoming aware. We're starting to witness the younger generation seeing the importance of politics, and with the age of information, more power is in their hands than ever. The more stuff like this happens, the harder these new kids will fight for their rights.
40 Years ago gerrymandering would lead to disenfranchisement. Today, it goes viral and can potentially turn into a new age of reason.
Considering that gerrymandering has been around for over 200 years and has been used by both parties, I doubt that it is a sign that a political party is at the end of its rope. Consider my state, California, the Democrats did a fine job gerrymandering after the last census (despite having a "neutral" body determine the lines, I researched the process and they used a map created by a very left-wing company without any attempt to get input from any other company). I doubt the Democrats will lose control of California any time soon. And, considering that Republicans control 30 states completely (governor plus legislature), and their dominance of many state legislatures, I don't see how their message means a loss in 2014. The GOP just won a state senate race in California where there was +20 advantage to Democrats. It was a heavily Hispanic district in the Central Valley. I guess the message somehow carried there despite opinions to the contrary.
On a similar notion of the voting rights act take a look at the percentages. There are a few northern states (Delaware, New Jersey) that have a large number of African Americans on welfare, but the worst states are all Southern states that were listed under the VRA.
Alabama: 66%
Arkansas: 58.2%
Florida: 46.6
Gerogia: 70.2%
Louisiana: 78%
Mississippi: 83.6%
North Carolina: 58.6
South Caroline: 69.2
Tennessee: 53.6
Kentucky, Kansas, and Missouri are the only 3 Southern States with a higher percentage of whites than Afro-Americans on welfare.
Of course though, racism ended in the form of job discrimination in the 70s
Wait, so what about Michigan (59.7), Maryland (77.1), New York (40.1), Wisconsin (49.8), Pennsylvania (53.2), or Illinois (64.2)?
I doubt the Democrats will lose control of California any time soon.
And you don't suppose this has nothing to do with California legitimately being one of the most liberal states in the country? I don't deny that the legislators in Sacremento are probably guilty as sin as far as the Gerrymandering issue. But to imply that said Gerrymandering is the only or even a big reason why the Democrats control California is complete insanity. Even with absolutely no intervention by the Democratic party, it would take some shockingly severe measures by the Republicans to stand a chance here, between the liberal celebrities in Hollywood, the techies in Silicon Valley, and the minority immigrants throughout (principally Latino and Asian). The demographic deck is so heavily stacked against the GOP around here that its not even funny.
Consider my state, California, the Democrats did a fine job gerrymandering after the last census (despite having a "neutral" body determine the lines, I researched the process and they used a map created by a very left-wing company without any attempt to get input from any other company). I doubt the Democrats will lose control of California any time soon.
Uhhh... no ****.
Just look at the popular vote to see why the Republicans won't be winning control of the legislature:
CA State Assembly: 58.5% Democratic, 40.8% Republican - 17.7 point margin of victory
CA State Senate: 62.6% Democratic, 36.0% Republican - 26.6 point margin of victory
Now, it is true that the Democrats won substantially more than 60% of the seats. They have about 75% of the seats in both cases, meaning about a 50 point advantage, twice as large as their popular vote margin.
There is a tendency for the winning party to win more seats than the percentage of the vote which accelerates the further you get from 50-50, because once the result is lopsided enough, the minority party needs either a significant regional base or for there to be districts specifically gerrymandered for them.
Consider if people in California were about evenly distributed (as far as partisan affiliation). Then each district would have voted about 60% for Democrats and 40% for Republicans - Republicans obviously would win no seats at all! Obviously that is not the case. How many seats exactly should the Republicans have won? And would they even have been able to prevent a Democratic supermajority with "fair" districts anyway? To get perfectly proportional representation given that level of victory by the Democrats would probably require gerrymandering itself.
Anyway, I'd expect the Democrats to win more than 60% of the seats, but I imagine that there were also some favorable districts created. But I don't think they contributed as much as you think, given the Citizens Redistricting Committee drew up the plans and the large margin the Democrats won by in the first place.
I'd certainly be surprised if there was more gerrymandering than in the egregious example found in North Carolina, for example. In the two chambers of the NC General Assembly, the Republicans got 54% and 50% of the vote, yet hold 64% and 66% of the seats for supermajority control of the legislature.
Anyway, I'd expect the Democrats to win more than 60% of the seats, but I imagine that there were also some favorable districts created. But I don't think they contributed as much as you think, given the Citizens Redistricting Committee drew up the plans and the large margin the Democrats won by in the first place.
It would be, in its own way, stupid of the Democrats not to try to gerrymander just as much as the Republicans do. The system we have is a game, or at any rate is treated as such by the players. Both sides are going to take the moves that are most optimal for them given the current set of rules. (This is not to say that the Republicans cannot benefit more from gerrymandering: the rules may be symmetrical but the vote distribution is not.) Now, I'm not going to say anything cliché like "Don't hate the player". Hate 'em all you like. I certainly do. But know that as long as the optimal moves are hateworthy, only hateworthy people will remain players for long. So the productive question is: how can we improve the rules?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So the productive question is: how can we improve the rules?
Let computers automatically draw the districts and make the source public. The only sensible way to perform non-biased redistricting is to remove human bias entirely.
Of course that won't ever happen because, like you said, the players in the game have a vested interest to keep the rules rigged.
See, they're only trying to disenfranchise Democrats, it's merely coincidental that Democrats HAPPEN to be disproportionately minorities.
Which makes it ok, apparently?
Now, one might also wonder WHY IT IS that Democrats are disproportionately minorities. You might think it has something to do with the GOP not caring about minorities being disenfranchised, for example.
And, of course, voting ID, reducing early voting and other restrictions they've been promulgating don't have anything to do with disenfranchising Democrats and minorities. It's just about the integrity of elections.
Of course, former GOP officials have admitted in the past that those are ALSO about reducing [strike]minority[/strike] Democratic turnout.
But it's still amazing to see GOP government not only admitting that they want to disenfranchise Democrats, but trying to use it as an argument in their favor.
Except, I think all voters should be concerned about illegals voting.
Each illegal vote reduces the power of MY legal vote. It helps to disenfranchise legal citizens voting.
This is so important, but if someone says anything about requiring voters to show legal ID at the polls, you get a "Boooo! Tea Party Nutjob" like response.
The only reason the "left" is portrayed as not caring about illegal votes, is because it's thought (wrongly so) that it's just the "left" who takes advantage of catering to the illegal immigrants they believe can sway an election or two.
Truth is, both sides do it, when it suits them, and where their district demographics are beneficial to do so.
ALL of us, American citizens, should be outraged if an illegal, non-citizen casts a vote in an election. It usurps our power. It further metastasizes the cancers that are voter fraud and poor voter involvement.
Why vote, when not only does my vote hardly count in the first place, but depending on where I live even when it did count a little bit, a few hundred illegal votes were cast and counted and caused a real devaluation of my ballot.
This Texas thing is just status-quo when it comes to gerrymandering, and voter district manipulation.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
First is about redistricting which is all about census data (illegals don't show up on the census for obvious reasons) and the second is about reducing early voting as a claimed fraud issue. (Which is partially correct, although they attacked the wrong type of early voting - in person voting early or not is incredibly low fraud and almost always caught, it's mail-in voting that is largely fraudulent [and has some weird corner cases that don't feel like they should be legal - like that a dead person's vote still counts once it's postmarked on a mail-in ballot])
In fact illegals voting at last count accounted for NO TRACKABLE voting discrepancies in the entire US from what my local BoE is stating right now. (I had to call them anyways because I was confused why I got my 2014 voter reg card so early - so opted to get my boss for my volunteer work on the horn to see if they'll be using me this year + answering that curiosity)
It's possible they're voting in someone else's name in person - but every "illegal" that votes is doing it via taking someone's legally registered for vote - there's literally never been a proven case yet where an illegal got a voter registration card and voted for their own vote. Proxy voting is the only way, and frankly next to impossible to track without incurring tons of cost for likely a statistical blip.
A full 70% of discovered voter fraud in recent years has been attributed to mail-in voting. Isn't it quite interesting that mail-in voting that leans heavily Republican (to the order of about 4:1 most years) is never targeted even though it's the most fertile for fraud? [Case in point - every large abnormality in the 2012 election was mail-in voting...]
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
ooooh I don't know, maybe I misunderstood this part.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
One person, one vote is pretty much the cornerstone of "integrity of the election system". In fact "illegal persons" weren't even considered separate under election law until the past hundred years or so - it was illegal but untracked for a few decades in fact until about the 40's or so because until SS#'s had propagated enough to be almost universal amongst citizens they didn't have a good means to compare against.
I've been working with our BoE for close to a decade now, and every time the "integrity of elections" spiel comes up which we get during the volunteer retraining each year - it's always entirely about making sure it's one person, one vote and that the person appears on the roles.
If they don't fall under the latter or the first is suspect - they're given a provisional ballot that has never accounted for ANYTHING in the past 55 years that our BoE has records for. They're only even counted in the case of a tight election, otherwise they're straight into the dumpster - and not to date has an election in this state been close enough for them to even be considered.
I'm curious for states that do have close swings where provisional ballots end up mattering what their pass-fail rate on provisional ballots are though - I know in the Bush-Gore Florida recount they tossed ALL provisional ballots in the entire state for example. But that's about the only non-MD example I know.
If you think Voter IDs are about "illegals voting" you have absolutely no understanding of what Voter ID impacts. (Or what is even there to impact - big hint, most of the Voter ID push states have a ridiculously low hispanic population - i.e. Pennsylvania - if you think it's to keep illegals from voting, think again...)
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
The interesting thing is that they're outright admitting to doing it, that they know that it disenfranchises minorities, and they don't care.
Not the simple fact that they're doing it, which I agree is nothing new.
--------
ANYWAY
I'm fine with voter ID as long as it's paired with aggressive efforts to register voters and provide them with IDs. And the state bears any costs of finding birth certificates or what have you and makes reasonable accommodations for people like elderly black or rural voters who may not have a birth certificate through no fault of their own. But that's not how these laws are being written, and why it's so obvious that it's not about integrity, it's about suppressing votes.
Combine getting your driver's license or other services with registering to vote, for example. We should be ensuring that there are never lines too long for voters. In North Carolina (my home state), the new law prevents polling places from extending voting hours in the case of unusually long lines. It prevents provisional voting if you accidentally go to the wrong polling place. It disallows 16 and 17 year olds from registering so that they're ready to vote when they turn 18. We should be making it easy to vote for eligible voters, not hard.
But it's so clear that the people proposing these laws aren't concerned with increasing turnout.
You still need to register to vote. It's not like they can just show up and vote and they don't need identifying information to do so.
And why would an illegal immigrant bother anyway? Voting is a lot of work for no tangible benefit. The effect of any one vote is minuscule. Most illegal immigrants are concerned about getting caught. Why would they expose themselves to that risk for basically no benefit at all? The risk of voter fraud is almost certainly far greater than the marginal benefit to you. If you only have a one in a thousand chance of being caught, it's still far greater than the one in hundreds of thousands or one in millions chance you could affect the outcome of an important race.
And no, I shouldn't be that concerned about each "illegal" voting. Each illegal who vote has a minuscule effect on the power of my vote, which is already minuscule to begin with. I see no reason to be more concerned about this than I am about any other issue which affects voting. The importance it has to the integrity of the election is directly proportional to the amount of people affected.
If we stopped 10,000 illegal immigrants from voting, but prevented 100,000 eligible voters from voting, that has harmed the integrity of elections, not helped it. Integrity of our elections is not just about ensuring that every vote was legal, but about ensuring that our elections reflect the true will of the people. Ensuring that every vote was legal is just a means to that end. When people don't vote because voting is too much of a hassle, the results become less representative of the will of the people. Thus, each eligible voter who is dissuaded from voting because of efforts like these harms the integrity of our elections.
And the numbers show that these laws do more harm to our elections than good. The amount of illegal immigrants voting and the amount of other voter fraud is small, and the number of people who have been prevented or discouraged from voting is much, much, much larger. That is something that damages our democracy. That is something that all voters should be concerned about.
Until you can show that it's a real problem, the reason they don't care is because these laws are meant to solve a problem with no evidence of being anything other than negligible. And because these laws suppress far more legitimate votes (who are disproportionately Democrats) than illegal votes.
The Republicans definitely gerrymander more and to greater effect:
Princeton Election Consortium - Slaying the gerrymander
Princeton Election Consortium - Gerrymanders Part 1 - Busting the "both sides do it" myth
Princeton Election Consortium - Gerrymanders part 2 - How many voters were disenfranchised?
Republican gerrymandering probably gave them a 23 seat advantage over what they would've had without it.
Sam Wang's calculations are that "Democrats were disenfranchised more than Republicans, at a ratio of 10:1."
I should be outraged if significant numbers of non-citizens are casting votes, enough to be non-negligible.
In a nation of over 300 million, it is not an outrage if a few people slip through the cracks. And when the elections are close, things will be examined more closely. It's an outrage if hundreds of thousands or millions of people don't vote because we've made the exercise of that right too much of a burden.
Obviously we should take steps to ensure that people aren't voting illegally. But I don't see any evidence that what we already do isn't adequate.
Voter fraud is not a cancer. You are talking about it as if it is a widespread phenomena that is swinging elections all over the place, when it is not. We should be FAR more worried about the people counting the votes than the people casting them, as far as true fraud. You can change with a few clicks in a voting machine what would take tens of thousands of vote fraudsters to accomplish.
But then you tack on poor voter involvement. These laws are part of that problem! Making it harder for people to vote is what causes that! You think people don't vote because they're concerned about illegal immigrants voting? No, it's because they have to go across town and then wait in line for an hour because there aren't enough polling places and they're understaffed!
Why vote, when not only does my vote hardly count in the first place, but I have to take the bus across town to get an ID that I don't need for anything else, and I have to pay $20 to get it, and they need my birth certificate, and I don't know where that is, so I have to go somewhere else to get a copy, and then I still have to register separately?
Which one do you think realistically has a larger effect on people voting?
Get real.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yes, being prevented from voting is different from gerrymandering.
But gerrymandering can prevent your vote from mattering which is a type of disenfranchisement, IMO.
Whites don't vote for Democrats?
Just because the GOP almost only gets white votes doesn't mean that the Democrats don't get any.
Well of course you don't, given the fact that you just offered up that explanation of racial voting patterns.
P.s. whites don't vote for democrats? News to this white voter who votes Democrat 85 or 90% of the time.
Fact: Far more than 50% of money for welfare and other social programs go to whites. (In the high 60% range was the figure a few years ago)
Never seen a breakdown on where it comes from - but I'd imagine it's similar as well.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Indeed - some of the most solidly "blue" states are ridiculously white. (Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire anyone?)
If his hyperbolic nonsense was accurate Maryland would never go blue even with one of the highest black populations as a percentage in the nation. (Probably not the highest, but I know we're up there - but yet still only about 25-30% minority total in this state)
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I'm not sure what you mean by "other social programs", but the largest percentage of recipients of welfare are not white. According to the U.S. Government, 1/3 of all welfare recipients are African-Americans, see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/character/fy2009/tab08. The stats are a little old, but I doubt that numbers have changed dramatically.
The court cases you are referring typically overturned gerrymandering based on the state having the burden of disproving disenfranchisement. Prior to parts of the Civil Rights Act being struck down, the states had to prove that, more likely then not, there was no disenfranchisement. So, even a faint whiff of disenfranchisement could doom their redistricting. However, now, the plaintiff whether it is a person or the U.S. government challenging the redistricting would have to prove that, more likely then not, there is disenfranchisement. With the switching of the burden, the challenge is much harder because you have to establish actual disenfranchisement. The Texas brief does not say that it disenfranchises, rather it says then "even if" there is disenfranchisement, it is only incidental which is a legalistic way of saying that any effect is not intentional.
The difference between African Americans (33.3%) and Whites (31.2%) in welfare is 2.1% according to the source you posted, so we can reasonably conclude that about 1/3 of whites are also on welfare.
I think you've got the chart backwards. It's not the percentage of the race that is on welfare, it's the percentage of the welfare recipients who are of that race.
Alabama: 66%
Arkansas: 58.2%
Florida: 46.6
Gerogia: 70.2%
Louisiana: 78%
Mississippi: 83.6%
North Carolina: 58.6
South Caroline: 69.2
Tennessee: 53.6
Kentucky, Kansas, and Missouri are the only 3 Southern States with a higher percentage of whites than Afro-Americans on welfare.
Of course though, racism ended in the form of job discrimination in the 70s
Do you not know about the other social programs? Welfare is just one social program. I resent the notion that democrats want to take money from white people and give it to people of minorities.
For one, the largest recipient of government money are big business owners (guess whether or not they fall under the white or non-white category). Social programs isn't just about arbitrarily spreading money around and creating a nanny state. Only libertarians devoid of reason believe such a monumentally ridiculous notion.
Even if 100% of recipients of social programs were people of minorities, social programs are about creating a floor. I don't know about you but 5-10% of my income is a small price to pay to make sure the streets aren't lined with homeless, starving and diseased people (especially children).
But as far as the OP, gerrymandering is a sign that a political party is at the end of its rope. Either the GOP will take a new stance on many issues or they will be defeated in the coming elections. Considering every tea-bagger is facing a moderate primary challenge combined with the very real anger among moderates nationwide towards republicans for choosing politics over the economy, the GOP has to use every single tactic at its disposal to stay afloat (from molehills portrayed as mountains to gerrymandering).
Honestly, I'm just fine with the gerrymandering (which is crazy let me explain why), because for every person that become disenfranchised, two are becoming aware. We're starting to witness the younger generation seeing the importance of politics, and with the age of information, more power is in their hands than ever. The more stuff like this happens, the harder these new kids will fight for their rights.
40 Years ago gerrymandering would lead to disenfranchisement. Today, it goes viral and can potentially turn into a new age of reason.
Considering that gerrymandering has been around for over 200 years and has been used by both parties, I doubt that it is a sign that a political party is at the end of its rope. Consider my state, California, the Democrats did a fine job gerrymandering after the last census (despite having a "neutral" body determine the lines, I researched the process and they used a map created by a very left-wing company without any attempt to get input from any other company). I doubt the Democrats will lose control of California any time soon. And, considering that Republicans control 30 states completely (governor plus legislature), and their dominance of many state legislatures, I don't see how their message means a loss in 2014. The GOP just won a state senate race in California where there was +20 advantage to Democrats. It was a heavily Hispanic district in the Central Valley. I guess the message somehow carried there despite opinions to the contrary.
Wait, so what about Michigan (59.7), Maryland (77.1), New York (40.1), Wisconsin (49.8), Pennsylvania (53.2), or Illinois (64.2)?
And you don't suppose this has nothing to do with California legitimately being one of the most liberal states in the country? I don't deny that the legislators in Sacremento are probably guilty as sin as far as the Gerrymandering issue. But to imply that said Gerrymandering is the only or even a big reason why the Democrats control California is complete insanity. Even with absolutely no intervention by the Democratic party, it would take some shockingly severe measures by the Republicans to stand a chance here, between the liberal celebrities in Hollywood, the techies in Silicon Valley, and the minority immigrants throughout (principally Latino and Asian). The demographic deck is so heavily stacked against the GOP around here that its not even funny.
Just look at the popular vote to see why the Republicans won't be winning control of the legislature:
CA State Assembly: 58.5% Democratic, 40.8% Republican - 17.7 point margin of victory
CA State Senate: 62.6% Democratic, 36.0% Republican - 26.6 point margin of victory
Now, it is true that the Democrats won substantially more than 60% of the seats. They have about 75% of the seats in both cases, meaning about a 50 point advantage, twice as large as their popular vote margin.
There is a tendency for the winning party to win more seats than the percentage of the vote which accelerates the further you get from 50-50, because once the result is lopsided enough, the minority party needs either a significant regional base or for there to be districts specifically gerrymandered for them.
Consider if people in California were about evenly distributed (as far as partisan affiliation). Then each district would have voted about 60% for Democrats and 40% for Republicans - Republicans obviously would win no seats at all! Obviously that is not the case. How many seats exactly should the Republicans have won? And would they even have been able to prevent a Democratic supermajority with "fair" districts anyway? To get perfectly proportional representation given that level of victory by the Democrats would probably require gerrymandering itself.
Anyway, I'd expect the Democrats to win more than 60% of the seats, but I imagine that there were also some favorable districts created. But I don't think they contributed as much as you think, given the Citizens Redistricting Committee drew up the plans and the large margin the Democrats won by in the first place.
I'd certainly be surprised if there was more gerrymandering than in the egregious example found in North Carolina, for example. In the two chambers of the NC General Assembly, the Republicans got 54% and 50% of the vote, yet hold 64% and 66% of the seats for supermajority control of the legislature.
It would be, in its own way, stupid of the Democrats not to try to gerrymander just as much as the Republicans do. The system we have is a game, or at any rate is treated as such by the players. Both sides are going to take the moves that are most optimal for them given the current set of rules. (This is not to say that the Republicans cannot benefit more from gerrymandering: the rules may be symmetrical but the vote distribution is not.) Now, I'm not going to say anything cliché like "Don't hate the player". Hate 'em all you like. I certainly do. But know that as long as the optimal moves are hateworthy, only hateworthy people will remain players for long. So the productive question is: how can we improve the rules?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Let computers automatically draw the districts and make the source public. The only sensible way to perform non-biased redistricting is to remove human bias entirely.
Of course that won't ever happen because, like you said, the players in the game have a vested interest to keep the rules rigged.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.