The Republican Party’s electoral philosophy: Cheating wins

KingOrfeo

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Posts
39,182
From Salon:

Saturday, Oct 25, 2014 06:30 AM EDT

The Republican Party’s electoral philosophy: Cheating wins

The explosion and enforcement of restrictive voter ID laws make this one thing very clear

Sean McElwee


Last week, the Supreme Court upheld a law that could disenfranchise 600,000 Texans. But the effects of the law won’t fall equally: African-Americans and Latinos are 305 percent and 195 percent less likely (respectively) to have the necessary forms of identification than whites. The Republican party is increasingly unpopular, and relies almost exclusively on white voters. The charts below show the 2008 if only white men voted and if only people of color voted (source).

Since 2008, people of color become a growing share of the voting population while the GOP has, if anything, moved further to the right. It has further alienated voters of color with racist attacks and laws. But as they say: if you can’t beat ‘em, make sure they don’t vote. Over the last four years the Republicans have gone through elaborate attempts to make sure populations that don’t support them don’t get a chance to vote.

["2008 electoral map, white men only" -- shows all states red except HI, WA, OR, CA, WI, ME, VT, MA, RI, & DC]

["2008 electoral map, non-whites only" -- shows all states blue]

Since 2006, Republicans have pushed through voter ID laws in 34 states. Such laws did not exist before 2006, when Indiana passed the first voter ID law. The laws were ostensibly aimed at preventing voter fraud, but a News21 investigation finds only 2,068 instance of alleged fraud since 2000 (that is out of over 146 million voters). They estimate that there is one accusation of voter fraud for every 15 million voters. As Mother Jones notes, instances of voter fraud are more rare than UFO sightings. There have been only 13 instances of in-person voter fraud (the sorts that a voter ID law would reduce), while 47,000 people claim to have seen a UFO.

On the other hand, research by the Brennan Center for Justice finds that, “as many as 11 percent of eligible voters do not have government-issued photo ID.” Those who do not have ID are most likely to be “ seniors, people of color, people with disabilities, low-income voters, and students” — i.e.. people who vote Democratic (chart source).

[bar graph of "Adults Without Photo ID" ranked from blacks, 25%, to whites, 8%; "All" is 11%]

There is now a large literature studying the effects of voter ID laws. James Avery and Mark Peffley find, “states with restrictive voter registration laws are much more likely to be biased toward upper-class turnout.” The GAO finds that voter ID laws reduce turnout among those between ages 18-23 and African-Americans (two key Democratic constituencies). A 2013 study finds that the proposal and passage of voter ID laws are “highly partisan, strategic, and racialized affairs.” They write, “Our findings confirm that Democrats are justified in their concern that restrictive voter legislation takes aim along racial lines with strategic partisan intent.” [Italics in original] The authors also find that increases in low-income voter turnout triggered voter ID laws. A more recent study finds, “where elections are competitive, the furtherance of restrictive voter ID laws is a means of maintaining Republican support while curtailing Democratic electoral gains.” That is, not all Republican legislatures propose voter ID laws — only those that face strong competition from Democrats. If Republicans are concerned about election integrity, why do they only pass voter ID laws when they’re about to lose an election? Because they’re cheaters.

Voter ID laws are also racially motivated. A recent study finds that voters are significantly more likely to support a voter ID law when they are shown pictures of black people voting than when shown white people voting. One voter ID group had a picture on their website showing a black inmate voting and a man wearing a mariachi outfit — clearly playing off racial stereotypes.

But this isn’t the only time Republicans have tried to leverage state-level advantages into federal gains. After the 2010 walloping, Republicans decided they would need to tilt the odds in their favor. Using their control of state legislatures, they gerrymandered districts to ensure their victory. In 2012, Democrats actually had a larger share of the popular vote for the House of Representatives, while Republicans gained their largest House majority in 60 years. Cook Political Report noted, “House GOP Won 49 Percent of Votes, 54 Percent of Seats.” How? They cheated. Karl Rove came out and said it in an Op-Ed, writing, “He who controls redistricting can control Congress.” They won in districts that were drawn specifically to allow them to win. There were certainly other factors at play, but it’s hard to image Republicans winning as many seats without their nifty swindle.

As Tim Dickinson points out, this isn’t the end:

In a project with the explicit blessing of Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, a half-dozen Republican-dominated legislatures in states that swing blue in presidential elections have advanced proposals to abandon the winner-take-all standard in the Electoral College…Thanks to the GOP’s gerrymandering, such a change would all but guarantee that a Democratic presidential candidate in a big, diverse state like Michigan would lose the split of electoral votes even if he or she won in a popular landslide.

If Republicans have their way, we’ll eventually be back to the days of the poll tax and the literacy test, where the votes of blacks, youth and the poor simply don’t count. We’re already halfway there. The Senate, with its antiquated system of two senators per state means that the largely rural, old, white and conservative Midwest and South have far more sway than liberal metropolitan areas. This gives Republicans a strong advantage in the Senate, something to remember if they win it this election.

Republicans have also made use of felony disenfranchisement to boost their electoral success. Some 5.85 million Americans are denied the vote due to felony disenfranchisement. Because of the racial bias in our criminal justice system and the war on drugs, a disproportionate share of these voters are black. One study finds that because felons are more likely to be poor and people of color, disenfranchisement benefits Republicans. The authors estimate that, “at least one Republican presidential victory would have been reversed if former felons had been allowed to vote.” Further, they find that such laws may have impacted control of the Senate, and even more state and local elections. It’s no surprise that in Florida, a state where 10 percent of voters can’t vote because of a felony conviction, one of Rick Scott’s first moves as governor was to tighten rules for felons trying to gain voting rights.

To a large extent, the radicalism of the Tea Party and the Republican Party at-large is due to the fact that they don’t represent the population at large; they represent a primarily white and middle- to high-income voting bloc. And that’s how Republicans want to keep it; they know they can’t win in fair race, so like Dick Dastardly and Muttley, they set all sorts of obstacles in their opponents’ way. Hopefully, much like Dick Dastardly and Muttley, their plan will blow up in their faces: Voters will be so angry about Republican attempts to suppress the vote that they’ll turn out in even higher numbers. Sadly, convicted felons, undocumented immigrants and many citizens without ID will still be denied the vote. In the movies, cheaters never win, for Republicans it’s been a successful electoral strategy for three decades running.
 
do you click your high heels when you post this shit...expecting if you repeat it three times that 'it' will be true?


fucking pathetic welfare asshole
 
I don't think the Republican party has a lock on cheating. Until we can get rid of those electronic voting systems, no one will have a fair election.
 
I don't think the Republican party has a lock on cheating. Until we can get rid of those electronic voting systems, no one will have a fair election.


how many politicians from the great state of IL are in jail? and how many of those are democrats? hum....
 
I don't think the Republican party has a lock on cheating. Until we can get rid of those electronic voting systems, no one will have a fair election.

How would eliminating electronic voting systems even limit the amount of cheating?
 
How would eliminating electronic voting systems even limit the amount of cheating?

There's a theory that some parties have changed some election results by tampering with, or preprogramming, the machines. It's entirely possible. Of course, only a limited number of insiders, either in the elections office or in the company that provides the machines, could pull that off, so it's a problem more akin to old-fashioned ballot-box stuffing than to any alleged in-person voter fraud. There are ways to retrofit such machines to provide a verifiable paper trail.
 
Okay I get that, but not the part where humans counting ballots aren't for starters more capable of fucking up purely by accident, but also harder to track if they do decide to fuck the system. With computers there are multiple ways we can set things up so things can be monitored but humans counting it? A few people in key locations could probably do a lot and with fewer ways to catch them.

No system is going ot be 100% problem free.
 
And Republicans believe Democrats are the biggest cheaters.

Republicans, at least the retarded ones like you, believe Obama was born in Africa, is a Communist, a Muslim and spends 2 billion dollars a day on trips to India.
 
From NRO

Done In by John Doe
A liberal DA’s cynical use of Wisconsin’s “John Doe” process may cost Scott Walker the election.
George Will
OCTOBER 25, 2014

The early-morning paramilitary-style raids on citizens’ homes were conducted by law-enforcement officers, sometimes wearing bulletproof vests and lugging battering rams, pounding on doors and issuing threats. Spouses were separated as the police seized computers, including those of children still in pajamas. Clothes drawers, including the children’s, were ransacked, cell phones were confiscated, and the citizens were told it would be a crime to tell anyone of the raids.

Some raids were precursors of, others were parts of, the nastiest episode of this unlovely political season, an episode that has occurred in an unlikely place. This attempted criminalization of politics in order to silence persons occupying just one portion of the political spectrum has happened in Wisconsin, which often has conducted robust political arguments with Midwestern civility.

From the progressivism of Robert La Follette to the conservatism of Governor Scott Walker today, Wisconsin has been fertile soil for conviction politics. Today, the state’s senators are the very conservative Ron Johnson and the very liberal Tammy Baldwin. Now, however, Wisconsin, which to its chagrin produced Republican senator Joe McCarthy, has been embarrassed by Milwaukee County’s Democratic district attorney, John Chisholm. He has used Wisconsin’s uniquely odious “John Doe” process to launch sweeping and virtually unsupervised investigations while imposing gag orders to prevent investigated persons from defending themselves or rebutting politically motivated leaks, which have occurred.

According to several published reports, Chisholm told members of his staff subordinates that his wife, a teachers’-union shop steward at her school, is anguished by her detestation of Walker’s restrictions on government employees’ unions, so Chisholm considers it his duty to help defeat Walker.

In collaboration with Wisconsin’s misbegotten Government Accountability Board, which exists to regulate political speech, Chisholm has misinterpreted Wisconsin campaign law in a way that looks willful. He has done so to justify a “John Doe” process that has searched for evidence of “coordination” between Walker’s campaign and conservative issue-advocacy groups.

On October 14, much too late in the campaign season to rescue the political participation rights of conservative groups, a federal judge affirmed what Chisholm surely has known all along: Since a U.S. Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago, the only coordination that is forbidden is between candidates and independent groups that go beyond issue advocacy to “express advocacy” — explicitly advocating the election or defeat of a particular candidate.

But Chisholm’s aim — to have a chilling effect on conservative speech — has been achieved by bombarding Walker supporters with raids and subpoenas: Instead of raising funds to disseminate their political speech, conservative individuals and groups, harassed and intimidated, have gone into a defensive crouch, raising little money and spending much money on defensive litigation. Liberal groups have not been targeted for their activities that are indistinguishable from those of their conservative counterparts.

Such misbehavior takes a toll on something that already is in short supply — belief in government’s legitimacy. The federal government’s most intrusive and potentially punitive institution, the IRS, unquestionably worked for Barack Obama’s reelection by suppressing activities by conservative groups. Would he have won if the government he heads had not impeded political participation by many opposition groups? We will never know.

Would the race between Walker and Democrat Mary Burke be as close as it is if a process susceptible to abuse had not been so flagrantly abused to silence groups on one side of Wisconsin’s debate? Surely not.

Gangster government — Michael Barone’s description of using government machinery to punish political opponents or reward supporters — has stained Wisconsin, illustrating this truth: The regulation of campaigns in the name of political hygiene (combating “corruption” or the “appearance” of it) inevitably involves bad laws and bad bureaucracies susceptible to abuse by bad people.

Because of Chisholm’s recklessness, the candidate he is trying to elect, Burke, can only win a tainted victory, and if she wins she will govern with a taint of illegitimacy. No known evidence demonstrates any complicity in Chisholm’s scheme, but in a smarmy new ad she exploits his manufactured atmosphere of synthetic scandal in a manner best described as McCarthyite. Indeed, one probable purpose of Chisholm’s antics was to generate content for anti-Walker ads.

Wisconsin can repair its reputation by dismantling the “John Doe” process and disciplining those who have abused it. About one of them, this can be said: Having achieved political suppression by threatening criminal liability based on vague theories of “coordination,” Chisholm has inadvertently but powerfully made the case for deregulating politics.
 
The Wasilla Hillbilly used to use her government like that too.

These are the people AJ is upset about:
The people charged in the probe were:

_ Kelly Rindfleisch: Walker's deputy chief of staff. She was sentenced to six months in jail after pleading guilty to felony misconduct in office for doing campaign work on county time.

_ Tim Russell: Walker's deputy chief of staff, Russell, was sentenced to two years in prison in January after he was convicted of stealing more than $20,000 from a nonprofit group Walker appointed him to lead.

_ Darlene Wink: The former Walker aide pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges of working on Walker's gubernatorial campaign on county time. She was sentenced to a year's probation.

_ Kevin D. Kavanaugh: Walker named Kavanaugh to the county Veterans Service Commission. Kavanaugh was found guilty of stealing more than $51,000 that had been donated to help veterans and their families. He was sentenced to two years in prison.

_ William Gardner, president and chief executive officer of Wisconsin & Southern Railroad Co., was sentenced to two years' probation in July after being found guilty of exceeding state campaign donation limits and laundering campaign donations to Walker and other Wisconsin politicians.

_ Brian Pierick: The longtime domestic and business partner of Russell was found guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor after investigators examined his and Russell's phones and computers. The criminal complaint said Pierick exchanged text messages with a 17-year-old boy and tried to entice him into his van, but the boy declined, according to the criminal complaint.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...cott-walker-aide-investigation_n_2789768.html
 
People on this forum seem to be living in the past.
Some still think we have two political parties and there is a difference in republicans and democrats.
People you need to start living in the modern world.
 
what is wrong with showing a valid id to vote- you need to show one to buy a drink, drive a car.... why not show one to vote- I think one should have to show some grasp of issues and facts for their vote to count most of the time the vote seems to be cast because of the party and not the issues
 
what is wrong with showing a valid id to vote- you need to show one to buy a drink, drive a car.... why not show one to vote- I think one should have to show some grasp of issues and facts for their vote to count most of the time the vote seems to be cast because of the party and not the issues

Have you ever heard of the 24th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?
 
Back
Top