• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Feds to Florida: halt non-citizen voter purge

Oh bull! I am so sick and GD tired of this race card BS! People that shouldn't vote, should NOT be allowed to vote, regardless of what group you think they fall into.

Ugh. Apparently you don't understand. Let me go over it again.

The problem isn't removing undocumented immigrants from the rosters. That's fine. It's kind of pointless given that all studies ever done have shown that virtually no undocumented immigrants vote, but whatever.

The problem is that they are excluding people based on extremely suspect criteria. For example, just having the same name as an undocumented immigrant. "Jose Garcia" or whatever. Guess what, there are hundreds of Jose Garcias in Florida. They will all be excluded if there is one Jose Garcia that is know to be an undocumented immigrant. Get it?
 
They will all be excluded if there is one Jose Garcia that is know to be an undocumented immigrant.

Provide actual, irrefutable proof of your statement.
 
Provide actual, irrefutable proof of your statement.

They've been busted for doing it several times now. Most notably in 2000 when they excluded tens of thousands of legal minority voters just because they had the same name as an ex felon in the state. They were sued of course and had to undo it, but not until after the election. Same deal.
 
Asked you to provide irrefutable proof.
 
Ugh. Apparently you don't understand. Let me go over it again.

The problem isn't removing undocumented immigrants from the rosters. That's fine. It's kind of pointless given that all studies ever done have shown that virtually no undocumented immigrants vote, but whatever.

The problem is that they are excluding people based on extremely suspect criteria. For example, just having the same name as an undocumented immigrant. "Jose Garcia" or whatever. Guess what, there are hundreds of Jose Garcias in Florida. They will all be excluded if there is one Jose Garcia that is know to be an undocumented immigrant. Get it?


Hey, you know what would solve that? A voter ID law....oh wait....Holder won't let those go either.


j-mac
 
Hey, you know what would solve that? A voter ID law....oh wait....Holder won't let those go either.

You aren't making sense. How would a voter ID law prevent Florida from suppressing the minority vote? Regardless, Florida already has a voter ID law, so that would stop them, it would already have stopped the Republicans it already would have.

I mean, man, are you seriously taking the position that we should just let politicians remove whatever names they want from the list of registered voters with no oversight, so close to an election that nobody can challenge it? How can you see that as anything other than massive election fraud? I mean, look, I get that understanding why voter ID laws are bad requires a decent amount of knowledge. I get that intuitively it sounds like it would make sense, so people who haven't looked into it support it. Fine. But this? Letting politicians just take names off the lists of who can vote right before an election? Letting them do it AGAIN after they so flagrantly rigged the election in 2000 with this exactly same trick? There is just no way that you honestly don't see why that is a problem.
 
The voter I.D. law won't be in effect in the Wisconsin Recall Election.
 
Provide actual, irrefutable proof of your statement.

The infamous Florida purge of 2000—conservative estimates place the number of voters targeted for removal close to 12,000—was generated in part by bad matching criteria. Florida registrants were purged from the rolls if 80 percent of the letters of their last names were the same as those of persons with criminal convictions. Those wrongly purged included Reverend Willie D. Whiting Jr., who, under the matching criteria, was considered the same person as Willie J. Whiting.

Voter Purges | Brennan Center for Justice

How many want to bet that the poster will refuse to accept this? ;)
 
You aren't making sense. How would a voter ID law prevent Florida from suppressing the minority vote? Regardless, Florida already has a voter ID law, so that would stop them, it would already have stopped the Republicans it already would have.

I mean, man, are you seriously taking the position that we should just let politicians remove whatever names they want from the list of registered voters with no oversight, so close to an election that nobody can challenge it? How can you see that as anything other than massive election fraud? I mean, look, I get that understanding why voter ID laws are bad requires a decent amount of knowledge. I get that intuitively it sounds like it would make sense, so people who haven't looked into it support it. Fine. But this? Letting politicians just take names off the lists of who can vote right before an election? Letting them do it AGAIN after they so flagrantly rigged the election in 2000 with this exactly same trick? There is just no way that you honestly don't see why that is a problem.

How can it possibly be a problem if someone has photo ID demonstrating they are an American citizen and thus entitled to vote?

It would certainly be a problem for any politician, or his workers, to deny such a person the right to vote, and could be easily traced.
 
How can it possibly be a problem if someone has photo ID demonstrating they are an American citizen and thus entitled to vote?

After this debate has been raging for 6 months are you telling me that you aren't even clear on what the issue is?

First off, it isn't solving a real problem. No study, even ones conducted by far right organizations, has ever found any evidence of a significant number of non-citizens voting. So, that's it. That should be the end of the discussion. But, Republicans are generally too ignorant to know that the studies have shown it to be a lie and too stupid to understand that that defeats the point of the whole thing.

Second, the politicians aren't just requiring a valid photo ID. They are using this as a chance to tack on all kinds of other requirements that they think will skew the elections their way. For example, if you have a military base and a lot of retirees in your district and the retirees vote for you, but not the military folks, you support a "voter ID" law that accepts medicare cards, but not military IDs. If you have a college in your district that you don't want voting, you don't accept student IDs or out of state IDs. If you don't want the urban population to vote, you require a driver's license, but not other types of state issued IDs or passports that people who don't drive might have. If you want to exclude younger people you require that it has their current address and if you want to exclude older people you require that it not have expired. Etc. All told, the requirements they have tacked on in some states will prevent as much as 10% of the legal voters from voting.

It's just election fraud. Republicans are stupid enough that if somebody tells them they are doing something to fight against "illegals", they don't ask any more questions. So, politicians can do whatever they want when the Republicans are in the majority. They don't have to answer to anybody because their base isn't smart enough to understand stuff like this.
 
How can it possibly be a problem if someone has photo ID demonstrating they are an American citizen and thus entitled to vote?

It would certainly be a problem for any politician, or his workers, to deny such a person the right to vote, and could be easily traced.

It wouldn't be a problem for the politican if they preventedx the right people from voting. Lucky for you, the Republicans have already thought of that.

The problem is that there's totally different ways of seeing the problem. Those who are more on the liberal side want to make sure that everybody who can vote gets to vote. If a small percentage of fraud takes place, that's the price you pay, no system is perfect. The more conservative want to prevent all fraud, and if some people who can legally vote are prevenfrom voting, that's the price you pay, no system is perfect.

Do you ever ask why this is such a big deal to Republicans now? Was there no voter fraud in '04? Xf course there was , but they won.
 
After this debate has been raging for 6 months are you telling me that you aren't even clear on what the issue is?

First off, it isn't solving a real problem. No study, even ones conducted by far right organizations, has ever found any evidence of a significant number of non-citizens voting. So, that's it. That should be the end of the discussion. But, Republicans are generally too ignorant to know that the studies have shown it to be a lie and too stupid to understand that that defeats the point of the whole thing.

Second, the politicians aren't just requiring a valid photo ID. They are using this as a chance to tack on all kinds of other requirements that they think will skew the elections their way. For example, if you have a military base and a lot of retirees in your district and the retirees vote for you, but not the military folks, you support a "voter ID" law that accepts medicare cards, but not military IDs. If you have a college in your district that you don't want voting, you don't accept student IDs or out of state IDs. If you don't want the urban population to vote, you require a driver's license, but not other types of state issued IDs or passports that people who don't drive might have. If you want to exclude younger people you require that it has their current address and if you want to exclude older people you require that it not have expired. Etc. All told, the requirements they have tacked on in some states will prevent as much as 10% of the legal voters from voting.

It's just election fraud. Republicans are stupid enough that if somebody tells them they are doing something to fight against "illegals", they don't ask any more questions. So, politicians can do whatever they want when the Republicans are in the majority. They don't have to answer to anybody because their base isn't smart enough to understand stuff like this.

Certainly taking on may other things to voter ID could be cumbersome but it should also be a matter of pride to vote and to protect the system, just as it is in most every country where people have that fought for privilege. Recall the Iraqi people risking their lives to vote and then proudly holding up their purple stained fingers to show they had done so?

Whether the problem is many or few the integrity of the system should be protected 100%, and there is no rational argument why this shouldn't be so. That's probably why the debate will continue.
 
It wouldn't be a problem for the politican if they preventedx the right people from voting. Lucky for you, the Republicans have already thought of that.

I don't know why this would be lucky for me so perhaps you can explain the reasoning behind this remark.

The problem is that there's totally different ways of seeing the problem. Those who are more on the liberal side want to make sure that everybody who can vote gets to vote.

I think everyone would want that, if they are legally entitled to of course.

If a small percentage of fraud takes place, that's the price you pay, no system is perfect.

No system is perfect but that doesn't mean steps shouldn't be taken to make it as secure as possible. This seems like a rather lame excuse.

The more conservative want to prevent all fraud, and if some people who can legally vote are prevenfrom voting, that's the price you pay, no system is perfect.

Why is just conservatives who want to prevent fraud? Shouldn't everyone share the same concern? It's hard to believe that there are people who would be indifferent to voter fraud. This is taken very seriously in most countries, apart from those in the third world perhaps.
Do you ever ask why this is such a big deal to Republicans now? Was there no voter fraud in '04? Xf course there was , but they won.

It seems natural that voter fraud, whatever the numbers, would be a "big deal" to everyone. If there was clear evidence of voter fraud in the past, as you submit, then there should obviously be steps taken to prevent this in the future. Voter ID would certainly be one way.
 
Certainly taking on may other things to voter ID could be cumbersome but it should also be a matter of pride to vote and to protect the system, just as it is in most every country where people have that fought for privilege. Recall the Iraqi people risking their lives to vote and then proudly holding up their purple stained fingers to show they had done so?

I don't really see how that is relevant. Sure, people should jump through all the hoops, but obviously most won't. If it just rains, turnout drops off like 50%. Can you imagine what it will do to turnout in groups that would need to spend a day at the DMV before they could vote? You can't let politicians manipulate outcomes like that any more than you could let politicians say that, for example, voting will only be open from 2pm to 3pm in Republican districts, but from 7am to 10pm in Democratic districts. Sure, in theory, people should be so amped up about voting that they would make sure to get there between 2 and 3. But in reality, it would just be rigging the elections to ensure a victory for the Democrats. Democracy isn't working at that point.

Whether the problem is many or few the integrity of the system should be protected 100%, and there is no rational argument why this shouldn't be so. That's probably why the debate will continue.

Well, we need to calculate which is the bigger threat to the integrity of the system. Some of these voter ID laws would prevent up to 10% of the population from voting. The very highest estimates I've ever seen from any study suggest that maybe as many as 0.1% of people voting aren't legally authorized to. And those estimates are from far right sources. And, it is worth noting that the vast majority of those who aren't legally authorized to be voting are people who are voting at the wrong polling place- they thought they could just vote at any of them, so they voted at the one near their work or whatever. In those cases, the vote isn't actually counted. They (at least in most states) can cast a provisional ballot and if the election is close enough for it to matter, election workers look to see what the problem is, figure out they were in the wrong place, and dump it.

So, you've got one option that corrupts the outcome by up to 10% and another that corrupts it by less than 0.1%. Seems pretty clear which option is a bigger threat to the integrity of the system, no?
 
I don't really see how that is relevant. Sure, people should jump through all the hoops, but obviously most won't. If it just rains, turnout drops off like 50%. Can you imagine what it will do to turnout in groups that would need to spend a day at the DMV before they could vote? You can't let politicians manipulate outcomes like that any more than you could let politicians say that, for example, voting will only be open from 2pm to 3pm in Republican districts, but from 7am to 10pm in Democratic districts. Sure, in theory, people should be so amped up about voting that they would make sure to get there between 2 and 3. But in reality, it would just be rigging the elections to ensure a victory for the Democrats. Democracy isn't working at that point.

So voter ID is useless because it might rain or the voting hours might change? There seems to be a clear disconnect here.


Well, we need to calculate which is the bigger threat to the integrity of the system. Some of these voter ID laws would prevent up to 10% of the population from voting.

That's quite a few people. How can this be possible?

The very highest estimates I've ever seen from any study suggest that maybe as many as 0.1% of people voting aren't legally authorized to. And those estimates are from far right sources.

It is more important that these numbers are accurate or inaccurate, rather than your summation of the source.
And, it is worth noting that the vast majority of those who aren't legally authorized to be voting are people who are voting at the wrong polling place- they thought they could just vote at any of them, so they voted at the one near their work or whatever. In those cases, the vote isn't actually counted. They (at least in most states) can cast a provisional ballot and if the election is close enough for it to matter, election workers look to see what the problem is, figure out they were in the wrong place, and dump it.

Perhaps this is a problem that might be overcome in another way but it appears to be a separate issue.

So, you've got one option that corrupts the outcome by up to 10% and another that corrupts it by less than 0.1%. Seems pretty clear which option is a bigger threat to the integrity of the system, no?

How is voter ID corrupting the system when it isn't in effect? Do you have links to support your assertions?
 
So voter ID is useless because it might rain or the voting hours might change? There seems to be a clear disconnect here.

Not sure what you mean. I'm saying that errecting barriers to people voting has a huge impact on election results. If you elect barriers to some folks- people that don't currently have the right kind of ID- but not others, then you are corrupting the result of the election. Whether in theory people ought to just push through those barriers or not isn't the issue, the issue is how severely that measure will skew the election results. I'm using the rain example to show that even relatively small barriers do in fact dramatically skew election results.

That's quite a few people. How can this be possible?

Well, for example, I would not currently be able to vote if my state adopted the strictest of the voter ID laws unless I went and got a new ID. I have several valid photo IDs- a passport, a driver's license from the state I lived in before entering law school, and a student ID. But, many of the laws only accept IDs issued by the state in which you would be voting, and since I'm not driving while I'm at school here, I didn't get a driver's license here.

Likewise, my grandmother could not vote with her current ID in some of the states. She has a passport as well and a Medicare card, but her driver's license was allowed to expire a few years ago since she is too old to drive.

The biggest category of people whose IDs wouldn't allow them to vote are people who move more frequently. Very few people update the addresses on their IDs right away every time they move houses. So, young people very often have previous addresses on their IDs. Many of the laws exclude IDs that don't have a current address.

So, those are three big categories of people that get hit hard by the worst of the voter ID laws- students, the eldery and young people. Other categories are people in the military, people in cities where you can get by without a car, and the poor.

It is more important that these numbers are accurate or inaccurate, rather than your summation of the source.

I'm not sure what you mean.

How is voter ID corrupting the system when it isn't in effect? Do you have links to support your assertions?

Again, it is corrupting the system by suppressing the votes of up to 10% of the population. That is a massive corruption of the system on par with the Jim Crow days. Excluding one person from voting who is a legal voter is exactly as bad as one person who isn't a legal voter voting. Either way, you're cheating the result by one vote.
 
Last edited:
The real crux of this boils down to this:

About 58 percent of those flagged as potential noncitizens are Hispanics, Florida’s largest ethnic immigrant population, a Miami Herald analysis found. Hispanics make up 13 percent of the overall 11.3 million active registered voters.

Independent voters and Democrats are the most likely to face being purged from the rolls. Republicans and non-Hispanic whites are the least likely.


DOJ Sends Letter to Florida Demanding It Sotp Non-Citizen Voter Purge | TheBlaze.com


My God liberals are transparent in their intent....

j-mac
 
The real crux of this boils down to this:




My God liberals are transparent in their intent....

j-mac

Uh, it's Republicans that did this kiddo. You seem to be getting mixed up somewhere.
 
No it doesn't, but all the party cares about is that the process will likely take more than 5 months. After which point, it won't matter because the election will be over.
Your assuming its a automatic removal instead of a process and investigation, then a removal.
 
Back
Top Bottom