chess online
| ||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 His claim is that there are unbiased...fair and balanced studies. He talks about evidence, not posturing and campaigning. Real evidence. Not op-ed science. 'Some studies' are easy..the ones he claims to have read and is intimate with---the ones he now cannot find or needs to find are funded by liberals and biased from beginning to end. Sure...'some studies' will be spread before us to gaze upon... I can think of others things he could spread out on a shingle for us to eat as well... It will be interesting to see. Very interesting. |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
I am willing |
|||||||||
|
stinky ... |
|||||||||
|
Disparate Impact Notably: The "business necessity" defense that sites requirements of the job in question. In other words, if the 'applicant' doesn't meet the job description, Disparate Impact doesn't apply. The 'job requirements' in this case IS American citizenship. They know this of course but are counting on clever verbal gymnastics to fool everyone else. --------------------------- From Wikipedia In United States employment law, the doctrine of disparate impact holds that employment practices may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate "adverse impact" on members of a minority group. Under the doctrine, a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act may be proven by showing that an employment practice or policy has a disproportionately adverse effect on members of the protected class as compared with non-members of the protected class. The doctrine entails that "A facially neutral employment practice is one that does not appear to be discriminatory on its face; rather it is one that is discriminatory in its application or effect." Where a disparate impact is shown, the plaintiff can prevail without the necessity of showing intentional discrimination unless the defendant employer demonstrates that the practice or policy in question has a demonstrable relationship to the requirements of the job in question. This is the so-called "business necessity" defense. Unintentional discrimination This form of discrimination occurs where an employer does not intend to discriminate; to the contrary, it occurs when identical standards or procedures are applied to everyone, despite the fact that they lead to a substantial difference in employment outcomes for the members of a particular group and they are unrelated to successful job performance. An important thing to note is that disparate impact is not, in and of itself, illegal. This is because disparate impact only becomes illegal if the employer cannot justify the employment practice causing the adverse impact as a "job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity" (called the "business necessity defense"). |
|||||||||
|
Take away the 'erudite assertions that conservatives cannot understand the issues' and I buy into what he feels like...it has as much merit as anybody elses feelings. Mine included. And he should have the right to assert them based on his own personal feelings or experiences. DoK |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Perhaps |
|||||||||
|
stinky ... |
|||||||||
|
You have to wonder |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Dok ... It's an issue that the GOP is wagering to be in their favor; but, unfortunately, it's also an issue that distances many Latino voters, even conservative Latinos. It's too bad Rubio wasn't put on as VP (in my opinion). |
|||||||||
|
I guess I misunderstood which tool it is that you would endorse to manage illegal immigration. |
|||||||||
|
Dok ... ... I also favor enabling the most number of people to vote who can. |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
The left may paint the motivations how they would like others to see them in a smear attempt, but the idea of making sure Americans only vote seems so natural that it is odd to feel like it needs to be defended. Unless the left is really wanting to make sure that illegals vote, of course. Otherwise, what is the big deal? Illegals are a much larger issue than in decades past...that is no excuse to disregard the basic tenet that only Americans should vote. |
|||||||||
|
I think there are and have been a large number of cases of fraud being investigated, or should have been investigated. NOBODY is trying to deny the right to vote for citizens... but we are trying to deny the right to non-citizens. Compare our voting laws with Mexican voting laws to see a contrast. Similarly, NOBODY wants to deny government benefits to any legally entitled citizens and legal immigrants, but we do want to deny those rights to non-citizens and people here illegally. |
|||||||||
|
dmaestro 01-Sep-12, 16:32 |
Well--- Some of these comments aren't worth responding to. Gullible audience, thumper? Where? Others merely restate claims already refuted on fact checking sites. Keep in mind I am addressing the suspect and repetitive claim by our 3 moderators in response to a question by jdh that there is no rational reason for opposition to the current voter ID laws other than support for illegal voting, that there are a lot of illegals voting and other voter fraud incidents, and that the impact of these laws is not unreasonable. Courts are finding otherwise, with good reason. The fact is that I think an objective observer can see there is a political calculus on both sides and that these measures as passed in practice have a disproportionate impact. I am opposed to our current two party system, and am resigned to the eventual need for some sort of national identification. I think what is needed here is a compromise that honestly addresses political motivations, and that as a result actually improves the integrity of the electoral system and legitimate participation in the voting process. I will address that at the end. The issue as framed by both parties is somewhat dishonest in its framing and basically partisan, with the issues framed by these partisans in a way to mask their raw political motivations. (www.cnn.com, blogs.wsj.com). Voting fraud is an insignificant problem (votingrights.news21.com), and as the previous links show the voter ID laws are not that foolproof. And MOST (not all) DETERMINED, HIGHLY MOTIVATED voters can get the necessary ID and navigate the entire voting process. (articles.philly.com) There are worse practical problems with the current electoral system we have, as we saw again in the primaries this year that had nothing to do with fraud. So the motivation for the voter ID push and pushback must be understood first. It is easy to understand the motivations behind the rhetoric, and honestly admitting that and moving forward from that that should be the basis for a compromise. It is a political truism that low turnouts generally favor the GOP, because overall those who actually vote are more conservative than those who register, and far more so those citizens who could register but to do not vote. If every citizen eligible to vote voted, nationally the GOP would be crushed. This latest study simply confirms what earlier studies have shown. (www.suffolk.edu). Furthermore, shifts in demographics of those who actually vote have a huge impact on the results, and the GOP struggles with expanding demographics. (www.nytimes.com). So anything the Dems can do that would also increase the turnout of those proven less likely to vote benefits them, while anything the GOP can do that would also act as a barrier to less motivated voters would benefit them. Were the situation reversed, we would likely see the parties adopt the opposite positions. Partisan as well as non partisan get out the vote efforts are constitutional and consistent with national values. Measures that establish barriers that would discourage voters are not consistent with national values, and if necessary to adopt, need a convincing justification and should include maximum reasonable mitigation measures to address any disproportionate impact. While it is true you can't force a horse to drink even if you lead them to the water, in a democratic system you should at least lead them to the water, IMO. For example, the situation in Wisconsin, where the IDs were free but you had to specifically ask for the fee to be waived rather than be informed you were entitled to voting ID at no charge, should not be acceptable. With the parties unable to compromise, the courts must adjudicate this partisan dispute. Examining these laws then, if there is evidence of disproportionate impact on the citizen's exercise of voting privilege, whether direct or indirect, overt or covert, the burden of proof for necessity and reasonability is high, while that of establishing probable disproportionate impact is low. Courts also examine motivations in assessing reasonability and impact. From the GOP legal briefs, we see an emphasis on claims of the necessity of preclusion rather than evidence of an actual significant issue with voter fraud. This is a weak argument for necessity or reasonability. And in rebuttal we see clear evidence of a motivation outside of the stated intent of improving electoral integrity, from comments by a GOP leader in PA that voter ID laws would allow Romney win to win the state of Pennsylvania, to similar comments by a GOP leader in Wisconsin about that state, to the most outrageous example so far, the GOP bill sponsor in South Carolina responding with "Amen" to an email complaint about possibly providing free IDs for voting by stating "It would be like a swarm of bees going after a watermelon." (www.washingtonpost.com). This supports the contention that the GOP acknowledges and finds acceptable disproportionate impact in its calculus in pushing these bills. While there are conservative studies supporting voter ID, they are like this one (www.nationalcenter.org), easily criticized for ignoring factors such as the Obama Presidency that might have increased black votes from 2006 to 2010. From the Dems legal briefs, we see a focus on the issue of disproportionate impact and lack of sound evidence of voter fraud. Studies like this one assert that not only do many not have the required ID but it is not as easy to get as it might seem. (www.brennancenter.org). Another study examines the impact of the legality of requiring voter ID on resulting voting and finds that the adverse impact affects far more people than documented voter fraud. (journalistsresource.org). And even in the previously mentioned ultimately successful case featured on conservative sites, it is evident some intervention was required: (articles.philly.com). There is simply enough evidence of probable disproportional impact and conscious failure to address it, and conversely lack of evidence of a serious voter fraud problem presented, that the burden of proof that there is not unreasonable disparate impact has not been met, while the burden of proof of probable disparate impact has been met. I mentioned that it is not just quoting studies without considering who did them, but understanding and evaluating them that is necessary. In cases like these, you evaluate studies through common sense, motivations, and triangulation (in simple terms, the truth is somewhere in the middle). The problem may not be as bad as the Brennan or Journalistsresource studies suggest, but compared to the conservative studies which are far more anecdotal that data based, there is good evidence that voting patterns are skewed. And plain common sense tells you that this republican governor is correct when he says it will make it more difficult for some to vote: (www.newschannel5.com). That is what is motivating the courts, not a radical agenda. Even the 93 year old disabled woman in PA conservatives feature as a success story needed intervention according to the local reports because of problems with the records she had. What about the person who wasn't set up as an example and got no attention. What we have here is really another version of the classic conservative/liberal philosophical divide. As we can even see from the comments here, and from commentary on the internet, conservatives believe that fraud is much more widespread than can be documented and a few hurdles are ok in principle because motivation to vote is philosophically an acceptable screen out factor. Liberals want to see mitigating factors for any hurdles to maximize interest in voting and question the rush for such laws and in particular the way they are applied. When you get past the partisanship, there is broad agreement that elections should be fair and that voting fraud is unacceptable. I think we need to compromise, move past the partisan “voting wars”, and in the interim where we require ID to vote, there needs to be more effort made to deal with the barriers and actually explaining to voters how to get through the process. Long term we probably need a digital database like we use for drivers licenses now that links to existing records so once citizens can get ID routinely and easily upon turning 18, every legitimate voter stays registered and receives proper instruction on how to vote and deal with hurdles. There is a reason why less than 50% of the US population even votes, it isn't seen as being worth the effort. We should be encouraging compromise and solutions that actually increase citizen engagement in the process. In summary, there are in fact compromise solutions that deserve attention. Quoting from an earlier link: "Robert A. Pastor, former executive director of the Carter/Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform, a bipartisan group that in 2005 called for better data on voter fraud while advocating voter IDs (www1.american.edu), said both parties have fair points about the electoral system. “Republicans have a legitimate concern about the integrity of the ballot,” Pastor said. “Democrats have a legitimate concern about access. Good electoral policy is one that incorporates both, but we’re not seeing that happen today.” I suggest that a lack of a cooperative approach, not the red meat rhetoric about Dems condoing voter fraud and illegals voting, is the sad reality and why we can't get agreement. Denying there are reasonable concerns about the voter ID laws and the usual hostile rhetoric lacking a factual basis is part of the problem, not the solution. The Carter/Baker Commission is a much more balanced place to start than these voter ID laws are with the evident partisan intent. I would support that framework. I hope jdh and others who asked find this informative and useful in weighing the issue. Since all this is readily available on the internet to those willing to do some real research, let someone else do it next, I won't be doing this again for a long time |
|||||||||
|
softy ... |
|||||||||
|
I |
|||||||||
|
thanks for the hard work. I am digesting it even now. I find your arguments compelling and much less biased than what I have seen in the past and it gives you credibility. I will comment in more detail as I finish reading the information you have provided but find this type of debate far more acceptable than anything I have heretofore witnessed. When you say you will not be doing this again for some time, that is sad to me because it demonstrates both ability and a mystery as to why not. It is worth it. IF anything is...this is. I may criticize pieces of it, and accept others, but that is why we do this. DOK |
|||||||||
|
I see 15 paragraphs of noise Q - Who can legally vote in an American election? A - Americans It's pretty simple really. Prove it. All the rest is noise, counting on clever (and long winded) verbal gymnastics. |
|||||||||
|
I really fail to see The main group of people that would vote who are not citizens would be illegals from Mexico. Common sense would tell you this is a fact. Most illegals would of course vote for the Dems. The dems don't want I.D.s required. Pretty clear to me. I would see DM's point if it were some difficult process that was harder for poor people or if it were an expensive process. Takes about 15 min and extremely cheap. |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Chaz |
|||||||||
|
ChaZ "but it is a convenient conservative position to minimize the ability of minorities and the poor to vote (since they lean liberal)" Are you serious with this crap?? |
|||||||||
|
stinky ... |
|||||||||
| ||||||||||
Log in 
