Submitted by Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
Last night I had a situation that I found to be quite disappointing. Just after seven o’clock in the evening, I thought I would have dinner at a restaurant on the other side of town and drove over there to dine out. Along the way, I needed to merge onto a major interstate freeway in the metro area having four lanes and busy traffic. As I drove along in the outside lane, it was after dark at the time, I saw a man walking along the hard shoulder of the roadway. I worried that a drunk might veer off the travelled portion and hit him so I pulled over to offer him a ride. Thus began a conversation that really shows how we can often allow people to be put at risk because the county does not want to offer them a modicum of accommodation.
After I picked him up, the gentleman walking around the roadway told me that he had just been released from the county jail after serving time for driving while license suspended. He did not have someone to pick him up from jail so he had no other option but to walk back home. He lived twenty five miles from the jail. The only way he could get home, since he had no money with him, was to walk along a busy interstate freeway.
We previously wrote about the virtual debt peonage and endless circle of jail and further increases of fines with suspended drivers in an article HERE.
It would have taken him until after six in the morning to walk that far. So rather than drive him to the next exit to find another ride I just drove him home.
He was 57 years old, unemployed and had no family available to drive him. He had no other choice than to walk. I asked him if the jail offered him a bus ticket or some other accommodation to allow him to return home after release. He said the jail used to give bus tickets to people in his situation but stopped doing that several years ago.
We had a good visit with each other, but the entire time we were together I could not help but wonder why the county has a system as such that a person of little means is forced to walk twenty five miles home because no effort was made to arrange for his journey. The risk this man faced from being hit by a drunk driver, stopped by the state patrol for being a pedestrian on a limited access freeway, or simply collapsing from exhaustion is certainly not something that we should accept nor something a person released from custody should endure.
I recognize that the sheriff’s office is not a taxi service and has no obligation to provide transport for released inmates after their term has expired, but couldn’t the county at least take a few more steps to ensure that someone can either pick up the inmate or try to prevent a situation where a fifty seven year old does not have to walk twenty five miles to get home?
Is this too much to ask?
By Darren Smith
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
Well, the biggest criticism I have heard here against Judge Posner is that “he gets overturned, too”, or something like that.
For anyone who would like to read his actual opinion, including the instances of voter fraud, or lack of same, the link is as follows:
http://bradblog.com/Docs/JudgePosnerDissent_PhotoID_WI_101014.pdf
“America was made great by risk takers. And some of them happen to be criminals, too.”
BFM,
That is a great point! It all boils down to flaws in human nature. I have a theory too; the greater the power, the more they are exposed.
BFM, we ARE sympatico on risk takers.
Mark, I think we agree the reason for the US obscene incarceration rate is primarily because of our insane, War on Drugs.
“If “the first principle of our system” is “that the majority should govern,” a president chosen by a national popular vote with a mandate to impose his will on any recalcitrants in Congress is the natural result. As Jackson argued, no other federal officeholder could claim to be the “direct representative of [all] the American people”–or at least most of them. But would the “divine right of the majority” give us any more justice than the “divine right of kings”? As Jefferson put it, “an elective despotism is not the government we fought for.
On the other hand, if the first principle of our system, as understood in our founding documents, is that the natural rights of all should be preserved, we very much need a president who will faithfully execute the laws and “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution”–and an election process that, as Hamilton put it, “affords a moral certainty, that the office of president will seldom fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” Applying the brakes to the National Popular Vote movement would be a start, but, as we’ll argue in subsequent essays, there’s rather more practical work to be done.”
http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/13/choosing-a-republican-president/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=1a3c58b5e7-RSS_DAILY_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-1a3c58b5e7-79248369
And David, this country is a Representative Democracy, no matter how much you want to deny it.
Annie – you are not going to win the battle of semantics with David. It is unwinnable.
No David it is WRONG. Every single American citizen has the same vested interest in voting for someone who would represent them in Congress. Even though some may have more material wealth than others, the wealth of less the fortunate is as precious to them and worth the effort for them to vote as the property owner.
Mark, Thanks for getting off the “widespread” meme. We now simply disagree that there need to be voter ID laws, not that voter fraud needs to be widespread before it is addressed. I’m w/ the 70%, you the 30%. Funny, because I’m often in the minority.
“Giving people greater confidence in the fairness and accuracy of a voting process is a much more noble goal than having the goal of assuring the most legal votes possible. If you get more votes but decrease the confidence of a fair, honest and accurate voting process, then that destroys democracy. Elections would be considered fixed and a sham.”
David,
That is precisely the point of seeking voter ID laws. Voter fraud is not a zero-sum issue. It takes two legitimate votes to overcome one fraudulent vote. Also, an effective republican system of government requires the electorate has a reasonable level of confidence they are influential in the process. When the electorate becomes calloused against the democratic process they will not only ignore their duty for oversight of government, they will cease to participate in the process. The last thing we need is for the remnant of engaged citizens to lose confidence in the franchise.
And neither the Dem strategists here have replied to the OVERWHELMING majority who want voter ID laws. Should we let them eat cake?
Both BFM and Mark will not get off the Dem talking point that fraud must be WIDESPREAD before taking measures to stop it. Thankfully, these otherwise intelligent gents aren’t in charge of stopping the Ebola virus!! Although, I have little trust in those currently in charge of stopping that as well.
@Nick ” will not get off the Dem talking point that fraud must be WIDESPREAD before taking measures to stop it”
I made it clear that my test for reasonableness is based on whether the policies eliminate more valid votes than fraudulent votes. If more valid votes are being eliminated then the policies are not leading to more accurate and fair elections – quite the contrary.
As for the Ebola analogy, there is a huge difference in giving the patient Zmapp and bleach. Both have a chance at stopping the virus but only one has a chance of saving the patient – or fair elections if that is what we are talking about.
Finally you keep taking about paying attention to stopping fraud – I know of no one, no one at all who is suggesting that we not look for fraud and prosecute it vigorously when found.
Your remarks suggest the only way to combat fraud is to use techniques that we creditably believe will eliminate 2 to 3% of valid voters. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many vigorous anti fraud efforts are absolutely compatible with full valid voter turn out. However, the new voter ID laws will eliminate many valid voters and distort elections.
As for democratic talking points, if democrats are using my thoughtful remarks that is OK with me. I would hope that others, including fair minded republicans would use then as well.
Mark, As I stated previously, I and 70% of voters reject that voter fraud, or ANY CRIME, needs to be “widespread” before taking measures to stop it. This is not a banana republic. Apparently you long for it to become one.
Nick S: “As I stated previously, I and 70% of voters reject that voter fraud, or ANY CRIME, needs to be “widespread” before taking measures to stop it.”
Well, considering that over the past 10 years, there have been something like five verified cases of individuals committing voter fraud, and considering that a recent study by (I think) Pew Research (might have been the Brennan Center) found that voter ID laws have prevented something like 2% or 3% of one state’s legally qualified voting population from voting, I too don’t care if it’s “widespread.” What it IS is “virtually non-existent”—but the ID laws are what’s perpetrating the REAL voter fraud!
“This is not a banana republic. Apparently you long for it to become one.”
And apparently YOU think that because several hundreds or thousands of people are prevented from voting even though they are legally and constitutionally entitled to do so, that’s just fine. If anyone wants to live under a banana republic, it’s apparently you.
Markkernes wrote: “Well, considering that over the past 10 years, there have been something like five verified cases of individuals committing voter fraud…”
No, it was not for the past 10 years. It was from one lame study that students at ASU conducted to cover the years 2000 to 2010. They found 2068 cases of fraud, and they claim that only 10 can confidently be said to be from voter impersonation. That silly study never accounted for the fact that virtually nobody was looking for voter fraud. They simply called counties and asked, “hey, have you had any voter fraud over there?” In most cases, they say the data was not readily available. Why? Because nobody is looking for fraud. If you govern elections, why would you ever want to find an instance of fraud? It makes you and your organization look stupid.
The bottom line is that you are quoting an untrustworthy study and relying upon negative evidence to substantiate that voting fraud doesn’t exist. That is illogical and a faulty way of thinking.
Here are some more recent data you can add to your analysis.
“In 2012, Henry won a city commission seat for zone five and was in office when he was charged and arrested for voter fraud after one of his workers fraudulently requested absentee ballots. Henry was suspended from office by then-Governor Charlie Crist. Henry resigned his seat shortly thereafter.”
http://mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2012/9/2/derrick_henry_campai.html
Add consider the following also:
http://www.rnla.org/votefraud.asp
There are a lot more than 10 in that list. Note that all of these examples were never considered by the study that you keep quoting from 2010. Try to keep up with recent data please.
“In 2012, Henry won a city commission seat for zone five and was in office when he was charged and arrested for voter fraud after one of his workers fraudulently requested absentee ballots. Henry was suspended from office by then-Governor Charlie Crist. Henry resigned his seat shortly thereafter.”
You keep using examples that shpow no one voted fraudulently and they were stopped before they moight have attempted t cast a vote.
leejcaroll wrote: “You keep using examples that shpow no one voted fraudulently and they were stopped before they moight have attempted t cast a vote.”
Sometimes I wonder if we are reading the same information. Derrick Henry broke the law by requesting numerous absentee ballots using the same email account. That is illegal. Each of the illegally-obtained ballots is a felony and carries five years in prison.
Both Derrick Henry and his campaign manager Genesis Robinson were arrested and charged, and you claim it never happened? The governor removed Derrick Henry from office because of this. And you claim it never happened?
This kind of fraud is very difficult to substantiate, but with you, it is nearly impossible.
====
In another case, a man said he didn’t request the ballots and hasn’t lived or voted in Florida in more than two decades.
Henry also had requested an absentee ballot for his niece, listing her address as a home registered to Henry that was located within Zone 5. But investigators discovered that even though the niece used the absentee ballot to vote in the Zone 5 race, she actually lives at a different location in the city, outside of Zone 5.
Henry, 41, is charged with two counts of absentee ballots and voting violations, nine counts of being a principal to absentee ballots and voting violations and one count of conspiracy to commit absentee ballots and voting violations.
Robinson, 21, is facing 11 counts of being a principal to absentee ballots and voting violations and one count of conspiracy to commit absentee ballots and voting violations. All of the charges are third-degree felonies.
====
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/daytona-beach-commissioner-arrested-on-fraud-charg/nFDc7/
David I read exactly what you wrote but you seem to think voter fraud, i.e. casting a vote fraudulently, is the same thing as requesting absentee ballots which was your example.
They are not the same thing. No votes were cast fraudulently, no votes were cast period in your example, only the fraudulent requesting of absentee ballots.
lee –
I mentioned in a previous post that I worked as a precinct captain. I also know several people who work at the Board of Elections, and while I can’t speak for other areas, I know that the workers here in Athens-Clarke County are some of the most honest around. They deal with absentee ballots and check them carefully, as I believe other places would as well.
There have been comments here about what “used” to happen in Chicago and elsewhere, but I think that most of that has been cleaned up. The scrutiny is far too great, and studies from the right, left and center have pretty well indicated that the amount of actual fraud is miniscule, while the attempts at voter suppression are many. I had posted the link to Judge Posner’s opinion, and while, as someone said, he may very well be overturned, it will not overturn the facts contained within. He cites the studies that led him to his opinion, and remember, he was one who favored IDs in the past.
chestercat1 wrote: ‘I had posted the link to Judge Posner’s opinion, and while, as someone said, he may very well be overturned, it will not overturn the facts contained within. He [Posner] cites the studies that led him to his opinion, and remember, he was one who favored IDs in the past.”
ChesterCat1, the document you linked to was a DISSENT opinion. The proposal he favored FAILED. Posner was giving reasons why the request should not have been denied.
I read that document carefully when docmadison supplied a link to it prior to your link. I found many problems. Posner is obviously heavily biased on this issue, just like you. His document had many mistakes and links to studies did not work. I explained this previously, but you apparently did not read my comment. Here it is again if you care to rebut it:
====
I followed your link. That document had many errors. He never substantiated that ID is not needed to board airplanes, and he contradicted himself by saying they were wrong to say that ID is needed for entering courthouses by later saying they were required in their courthouses but not for some visitors to the Supreme Court. His link for ID about the bank did not work. I found the correct page with the following information that contradicts what he said and the position you take by trusting him.
—
Financial institutions are required by law to have a Customer Identification Program for the creation of new accounts. A new account may include, but is not limited to, a deposit account, an extension of credit, or the rental of a safe deposit box.
The minimum information that a bank must obtain when opening a new account includes—
name,
date of birth (for an individual),
address, and
identification number (for U.S. citizens, a taxpayer identification number is defined as the individual’s Social Security number or employer identification number).
The bank must then verify the accuracy of the information via a review of documents such as a driver’s license or passport. Or it can verify the information by comparing the information you provided with information from a credit-reporting agency or by checking prior bank references.
http://www.helpwithmybank.gov/get-answers/bank-accounts/identification/faq-bank-accounts-identification-02.html
—-
Oh, and banks can legally take your fingerprint to cash a check too.
It seems pretty clear to me that there is a problem of bias involved in that document.
====
Basically, Judge Posner is blind about what institutions require ID. Posner tried to sell the idea in that document that airplanes and banks do not require ID. What is most amazing is that you and a few other judges bought into that idea. Most people understand the absurdity on this argument using common sense without attempting to cite studies and statistics to prove the opposite. You can choose to stick with Posner’s rhetoric and misapplied studies and statistics if you like, but I choose to stick with the facts.
David
You mention Judge Posner’s dissenting opinion, not mentioning, or not realizing, that the Supreme Court has since blocked Wisconsin’s voter ID law:
http://gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/photo-id
Why I keep on mentioning Judge Posner’s writing is because he was a staunch backer of voter IDs when the issue was first front and center. I feel that his dissent is all the more powerful in that he has done the research, and, I might even say, soul-searching that generally accompanies a complete reversal of opinion, especially in a jurist.
Thank you for reminding me of the ONE case of voter fraud of a Democrat, in 2012. Should you like, as you tend to love to barrage one with Googled facts, I will find all the cases of voter fraud with an (R) following the name.
Oh, and should Olly’s mention of the Koch’s get tiresome, I can add Sheldon Adelson, Richard DeVoss, Charles Schwab, Steve Wynn, and Joe Ricketts to the list of the Republican donors, along with Art Pope, who just about bought North Carolina. There is a list of about 15 BILLionaires who contribute solely to the Republicans; I only listed the names of the more familiar ones.
The Democrats have some as well, but not in the numbers I’ve read. You can always list Steyer, Soros, and Bloomberg.
What’s interesting is, in actually researching this response, I found a Forbes article that claimed that Soros and Bloomberg alone gave more to the Democrats than “from all 26 billionaires combined”. However, Forbes then goes on to say;
“The rankings do not include so-called “dark money,” funding given to charities that in turn donate to campaigns without disclosing the money’s origins.
Republican stalwarts David and Charles Koch run Koch Industries, the nation’s second-largest private company and its 36th-largest donating organization this election cycle. Koch Industries and its employees have disclosed donations of $2.6 million so far, but that figure may underestimate the actual donations from the Kochs, who have famously given millions in dark-money to Republicans in recent election cycles.”
And therein lies the rub. Charles Koch, in his defense, states:
“We get death threats, threats to blow up our facilities, kill our people, we get Anonymous and other groups trying to crash our IT systems,” Charles Koch told Forbes in 2012. “So long as we’re in a society like that, where the President attacks us and we get threats from people in Congress, and this is pushed out and becomes part of the culture–that we are evil, so we need to be destroyed, or killed–then why force people to disclose?”
Fascinating. So, does he believe that Soros and Bloomberg do not? Michael Bloomberg, when he decided that some gun regulations were, indeed, needed, became the NRA’s public enemy #1, but somehow it’s the Kochs that only need to keep it as dark money. It’s no wonder that some in the Democratic Party see bogeymen when they hear the name Koch, or when “Citizens United” is mentioned.
So, as you mentioned one instance of Democratic voter fraud, and now mention one name of a Democratic donor, I gladly give you more names. I don’t believe it changes the overall equation in the slightest, but glad to play the game. Your relentless quest to prove me, Olly, or anyone else with a differing opinion wrong will continue, I’m sure. I don’t generally write long posts such as this, and only when I’m really riled up. The one other person I posted to in such length was the birther who claimed that half the amendments to the Constitution were illegal, and that Obama wasn’t legitimate, so you’re in good company. I don’t mind argument. I do mind that a sizable portion of the population, one that I happen to be a part of, is often dismissed as being wrong, flaky, stupid, unpatriotic, socialist, communist and/or deluded. The jokes, innuendos and flat out statements get stale, and occasionally need to be soundly refuted.
In line with all of this, the Secretary of State here in Georgia is currently holding up 40,000 voter applications and is now being sued over them. He originally claimed that the organization that recruited the new voters was fraudulent, yet
he then allowed another 40,000 of those applications to be processed. To anyone’s knowledge, the ones being held up haven’t been checked for processing. He has refused to meet with a voting rights group, and is now headed for court. Of course, this will all be too late for the November election. Are the applications fraudulent? For all I know they are. The Secretary said that some, even the ones that were processed, were “incomplete”. Interesting, since when I was registering people several years ago, we were told, by a non-partisan group, to get as much info as possible, and if the form was incomplete, it could still be submitted, as long as the name and address was on it.
chestercat1 wrote: “So, as you mentioned one instance of Democratic voter fraud, and now mention one name of a Democratic donor, I gladly give you more names. I don’t believe it changes the overall equation in the slightest, but glad to play the game.”
I gave you much more than just one Democratic voter who was arrested for voter fraud. Maybe you did not click on the link. I called your attention to one because the first time you overlooked it, claiming that all my examples were Republican fraudsters. It only takes one example of a Democratic fraudster to disprove your allegation. I don’t know how you react when you are proven wrong, but for me, I back up and investigate how I missed that. It is not my intention to research whether there are more Republican fraudsters or Democratic fraudsters. Even though I think the data would show more Democratic fraudsters, the question does not really appeal to me. I just want us to be honest with each other, and if I can point out hyperbole on your part, it is my hope that you will back off of the bias that causes you to overstate your case and try to work at being more objective with the data.
The primary way that you and I differ is that you think of universal and equal voting to be a fundamental human right. I think you believe that only because the Democratic party has repeated it so often as their platform that you think you do your society a good service by believing it and touting it as a loyal member of the Democratic Party.
I do not agree that voting is a fundamental human right. It is a privilege granted by government to citizens to allow citizens to have some voice in government. Whether we have universal and equal suffrage is simply a product of positive law decided by government.
Now if I am asked for my input about voting, I would say that I am agreeable with universal suffrage but not equal suffrage. I do not think the vote of uneducated people who do not own land or have any investment in the community should be equal to that of those who have applied themselves to understand the principles of governance, how their government works, and the effects of various government policies. Furthermore, those who actually own property in their community are more stable and invested in their community, less likely to just move away when problems arise, so their vote should count more heavily in my opinion. But I will abide by whatever voting rules the government makes. Even though I believe in universal suffrage (and for me that would include illegal aliens voting), if the government prohibited women from voting, I would not have a problem with that. If the government decides you must have ID to vote, again, no problem. If they said you do not have to have ID to vote, fine. Your position seems to be that the law must reflect your values of universal and equal suffrage or there has been a great injustice. The only way we could come to a meeting of the minds on this is for you first to acknowledge that voting is not a fundamental human right, or convince me through argument that voting is a fundamental human right. This concept of voting being a fundamental human right, which then necessarily paints our founding fathers in a very evil light, is the very root and heart of our differences on voting.
David –
Perhaps I didn’t follow the link, and if not, I apologize. In all, the numbers of fraud on either side are small.
On the right to vote, we must agree to disagree. I realize the Constitution restricted who could vote, but in the words of the late Maya Angelou, “when you know better, you do better”, and I feel that if we are all to realize the words “We the People” it must be all inclusive. I know that Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Hamilton, and even Franklin couldn’t conceive of the “common masses” voting, but then I recall that Jefferson believed in free schooling for all, and set up the first university that wasn’t affiliated institution because he believed in education, so I truly believe that he clung to the Enlightenment principles of betterment and equality, despite his odd duplicity on slavery, which he both detested and embraced. I think he would have seen expansion of voting rights as an extension of enlightenment principles.
But, again, we must disagree. This is an argument as old as the Republic, and is not going to be solved here. You’re right, however; I cannot, and will not understand how limiting voting to property owners or setting other restrictions can further democracy. I’m 63 years old, will be 64 in a month. Until 14 years ago, I owned no property, only rented, yet I have voted since I was 18. I would have laughed at someone who told me that my vote should not have been allowed because I chose to rent, or because I was a woman. Sorry, I just can’t understand that. Not here. I have a friend who will be sworn in as a U.S. citizen tomorrow. Her one regret is that she’s two weeks too late to register to vote for the upcoming election. The United States was truly that “shining nation on a hill” to her. If I told her that some thought it would be okay if her vote were taken from her, she’d hightail it back to Britain and tell us we’ve learned nothing.
leejcaroll wrote: “you seem to think voter fraud, i.e. casting a vote fraudulently, is the same thing as requesting absentee ballots which was your example.”
I think that requesting absentee ballots for another person who has no knowledge you are doing that, and then using that ballot to vote as that person, is a type of voter fraud. It demonstrates that there are people out there willing to impersonate a voter. You claim no votes were cast, but they were; maybe not in all cases, but in some of them, the votes were cast.
markkernes wrote: “And apparently YOU think that because several hundreds or thousands of people are prevented from voting even though they are legally and constitutionally entitled to do so, that’s just fine.”
You are using loaded and biased language. Nobody is PREVENTED from voting. They simply have to make a little bit more effort to be allowed the privilege of voting. Just like if they want to go fly on a plane, they need ID. If they want to go out of the country, they need a passport and possible a visa. What is wrong with requiring them to lift a finger for the privilege of voting?
Not only should they need ID, they should show they have some understanding of who and what they are voting for. Don’t you want to make sure they are voting for what they want? This is a MUCH bigger problem than a few thousand people not being able to vote because they don’t have ID.
Mark, As I stated, unions steal votes in monopoly big cities where the DA’s turn a blind eye. What are your thoughts on the HIGH % of black and white voters who support Voter ID laws? Screw ’em?
A Pew Research poll conducted in 2012 showed 79% of whites and 62% of blacks support voter ID laws.
BFM, So we need “widespread voter fraud” in order to make sensible ID laws for voting. We need to become a banana republic before stopping voter fraud?? Hell, many law violations are not “widespread,” do we just say “screw it.”
70% of people support voter ID laws. Let me repeat that, 70% of people support Voter ID laws. About 30% of the public is hardcore Dem. That would account for the 30% who oppose. Pretty blatant. The folks who steal votes don’t want measures to stop stealing votes. Shoplifters don’t want store security. Burglars don’t want burglar alarms.
Nick S: “70% of people support voter ID laws. Let me repeat that, 70% of people support Voter ID laws. About 30% of the public is hardcore Dem. That would account for the 30% who oppose. Pretty blatant. The folks who steal votes don’t want measures to stop stealing votes. Shoplifters don’t want store security. Burglars don’t want burglar alarms.”
Obviously, the quest to get you to back up your claims of widespread voter fraud is useless. I won’t be responding further on this topic if I can avoid it.
@Nick: ” The folks who steal votes don’t want measures to stop stealing votes. Shoplifters don’t want store security. Burglars don’t want burglar alarms.”
Nick, you assume the very fact that is in question. If there is wide spread voter fraud show us some evidence. Show us any creditable evidence that demonstrates wide spread voter fraud.
In terms of a fair elections, the current implementation of voter ID laws make no sense – none. You get a less accurate and fair election when the number of valid voters that are eliminated is greater than the number of fraud voters eliminated.
If there is a creditable study to show 2 to 3% voter fraud in a jurisdiction then maybe we have a debate. But without the reasonable belief that voter fraud comes close to the number of valid voters who would not be allowed to vote I don’t see there is a serious question.
As for the number of people who want voter ID, I agree. I just think the implementation has to take place over a time frame and with support that does not distort a fair and accurate elections. Those conditions do not now exist.
Voter ID laws will unfairly diminish the accuracy of elections if implemented in their present form.
bfm – most laws on the books are there because of a single abuse of the system, not systemic abuse.
Paul: “most laws on the books are there because of a single abuse of the system, not systemic abuse.”
Without agreeing that your claim is correct, if it were, it might explain why the U.S. has the highest percentage of its population either in prison or on probation of any country in the world: roughly 2.5 MILLION!
markkernes – I have a theory on that, but it is only a theory and has no science behind it. Most, if not all, immigrants are risk-takers. Risk-takers are also more prone to illegal acts. Therefore a higher population of risk-takers would have a higher population of criminals.
As I said, it is a theory. I call it Schulte’s Theory of American Criminality.
Paul: “I have a theory on that, but it is only a theory and has no science behind it. Most, if not all, immigrants are risk-takers. Risk-takers are also more prone to illegal acts. Therefore a higher population of risk-takers would have a higher population of criminals.”
Wow, what an absurd theory! So you seriously think that a risk-taking illegal (I’m assuming) immigrant would risk exposing his/her undocumented status (and therefore being sent out of the country he/she struggled so hard to enter) by GOING TO THE POLLS AND VOTING ON ELECTION DAY??? That’s one of the craziest ideas I’ve heard recently.
markkernes – where did I say illegal immigrant? Go back and read CAREFULLY what I wrote. You will, if you take the time to read and contemplate, realize that it actually makes sense.
BTW, I knew an illegal alien who voted on Election Day. Not such a crazy idea,
markkernes wrote: “So you seriously think that a risk-taking illegal (I’m assuming) immigrant would risk exposing his/her undocumented status (and therefore being sent out of the country he/she struggled so hard to enter) by GOING TO THE POLLS AND VOTING ON ELECTION DAY??? ”
Mark, their chances of being deported are nill. I’ve known many illegals to go right into the immigration office, hoping to get on a path to citizenship, and not one of them was ever deported. They live for years with the threat of deportation, but nothing ever happens. I knew one guy that made numerous trips to the immigration office, and he was always told no, his path was deportation. But it never happened. Our immigration system is completely broken. It is a joke and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
@Paul: ” I have a theory on that, but it is only a theory and has no science behind it. Most, if not all, immigrants are risk-takers.”
I have a theory too. CEO’s, entrepreneurs, innovators, pioneers, and cowboys are all risk takers. America was made great by risk takers. And some of them happen to be criminals, too.
Give me an on the edge, over the top, double down and bet the farm risk taker any day.
bfm – you have to take the good with the bad on the risk takers. You get the criminals and the entrepreneurs. Hopefully more of the latter (not ladder) than the former).
bfm wrote: “I have a theory too. CEO’s, entrepreneurs, innovators, pioneers, and cowboys are all risk takers. America was made great by risk takers. And some of them happen to be criminals, too.”
Totally agree with you here.
David, no it’s not the mark of the beast to have a national ID, and NO implants, absolutely not!
Why is it not better to ensure everyone is represented by their vote? Do certain people have less reason to vote than others? It most certainly should be a goal of a Representative Democracy ( same exact thing as Republic, so relax) to get as many of the population out to vote so as to be represented and have a voice in our democratic process. I keep hearing these undercurrents of suppressing the vote as being a positive thing. That is flat out wrong.
Annie wrote: “Do certain people have less reason to vote than others?”
Of course they do!
Annie wrote: “I keep hearing these undercurrents of suppressing the vote as being a positive thing. That is flat out wrong.”
No, it is flat out RIGHT. Democracy is a bad thing. Democracy always leads a society to ruin because many people in the population are not wise enough to run the country. That is why we did not establish a democracy for our country.
BFM, I’m with you on the real ID idea. A national ID given at birth with some sort of technology that would make it incredibly difficult to reproduce.
Annie, the best way to do that is to just implant everyone with a chip at birth, either in their hand or forehead. Nobody would be allowed to buy, sell, or vote without the chip. Is that the kind of ID you find attractive?
” Nobody would be allowed to buy, sell, or vote without the chip. Is that the kind of ID you find attractive?”
That is not my idea of a good system.
But I have no problem with the DMV or similar institution checking documents for legal presence in the US before issuing a state ID. VA has been doing that for a while and it seems to me it presents few problems and I don’t see that it is a significant threat of intrusive government either.
But it does take a while, and for some additional help, to get everybody up to standard. Real ID is a reasonable goal over a period of time that would do much to eliminate the debate over fraudulent votes.
Implementing the equivalent of Real ID quickly seems likely to distort the outcome of elections. No one who cares about democracy should be comfortable with that.
bfm – you could easily insert a chip at birth and then be done with it. The person would be good to go for life
Nick,
What you’re seeing is a twist on the “you can’t prove a negative” argument atheists commonly use. In the case of the multiple scandals, first they deny they exist and then as long as they can obstruct the discovery of evidence then they will maintain there is “no there, there”. It only takes a “smidgen” of reason and logic to realize how absurd their denials are. They will forever own this embarrassment in American history.
You guys are aware that Posner has been overturned before, right?