• 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

If that were their only attack on the voting (and more importantly human) rights of minorities you'd be right. Sadly, Southern states had that whole "Jim Crow" issue only a few decades ago. Furthermore, there are still people alive today not much older than myself who remember a time when the South was intimidating not just blacks who tried to vote but killing people coming to ensure they had that right. In general, **** the South. It's got over 150 years of history proving that when it comes to voting, it doesn't really like anybody who isn't white and protestant.
Those Jim Crow laws were put in place by Democrat legislators that the GOP fought to remove, yet you still believe that it is the (D) that can save the South. It is thinking like yours that has kept the issue as you put it "white and protestant."
 
Those Jim Crow laws were put in place by Democrat legislators that the GOP fought to remove, yet you still believe that it is the (D) that can save the South. It is thinking like yours that has kept the issue as you put it "white and protestant."

There is no greater fail than a Republican trying to hang his hat on the achievements of past Republicans who have since abandoned the GOP to join the Democrats, which is the case here. It was the civil rights movement, and Act, that pushed so many racist (pro Jim Crow) southern Democrats into the Republican Party.
 
Last edited:
I love that argument. You do everything possible to prevent finding out who actually votes (or signs ballot/recall petitions) yet assert that no evidence or data exists to prove who actually votes.
It is simply false to asset that we don't know who votes. As I mentioned above, there have been many inquiries across the country over many years many jurisdictions and they invariably conclude that voter fraud is all but nonexistent.
 
There is no greater fail than a Republican trying to hang his hat on the achievements of past Republicans who have since abandoned the GOP to join the Democrats, which is the case here. It was the civil rights movement, and Act, that pushed so many racist (pro Jim Crow) southern Democrats into the Republican Party.
I am assuming you are either ignorant of or blatantly ignoring the Dixiecrat party proof that proves your statement false.
 
It is simply false to asset that we don't know who votes. As I mentioned above, there have been many inquiries across the country over many years many jurisdictions and they invariably conclude that voter fraud is all but nonexistent.

Would this be the same voter fraud that Democrats are claiming in the Wisconsin recall election ?
Last I heard a Democrat accused a Republican in Wisconsin of locking all the cemetery gates just before the polls opened...
 
I am assuming you are either ignorant of or blatantly ignoring the Dixiecrat party proof that proves your statement false.

I'm assuming that you don't know much about the Dixiecrats or you wouldn't be flogging that irrelevant argument.
 
Would this be the same voter fraud that Democrats are claiming in the Wisconsin recall election ?
Last I heard a Democrat accused a Republican in Wisconsin of locking all the cemetery gates just before the polls opened...

No, that would have absolutely nothing to do with an argument about voter impersonation or illegal aliens.
 
And here is the chart you missed:

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[16]
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[15]
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[15]
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Statistics swing both ways. And it may make you feel better by saying it was a "Southern Thing" if you like. And that was actually a landmark bill, since it was the first Civil Rights bill that most Democrats actually supported. The previous bills all passed normally with the majority of Democrats voting agaisnt them

The point was that regional affiliation (North-South) was a much stronger determinant of whether a legislator would vote for or against the act, rather than party affiliation, and this is borne out by the data. Look into Simpson's paradox for an explanation. You can play the numbers however you want, but at the time the Republican and Democratic parties were by no means monolithic in ideology, so saying "Well, gee, a higher percentage of republicans voted in favor of the CRA" really doesn't mean much when it comes to drawing conclusions. Splitting the analysis along North-South lines makes a lot more sense given that regional affiliation was much more of a causal factor in whether or not a legislator voted for the act than party affiliation.

Simpson's paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
And that is the excuse? 98,000+, but screw it, they do not matter anyways.

I thought that is what this was all about, making every vote count, not removing the vote from people. Now I guess it is OK to do so, since they do not matter anyways?

have I stepped into the Twilight Zone here?

Once again, you missed my point, which from my experience is rather uncharacteristic of you.

In many cases, races are already decided between two candidates, and no amount of absentee votes is capable of changing the outcome. As you know, absentee ballots are counted AFTER regular votes. These are the situations in which absentee ballots often go uncounted, because it simply doesn't matter as the race has already mathematically been decided no matter how the absentee vote is split.

Now if military voters are being disenfranchised because of packages that are mailed late or whatever, then yes that's a problem. But that's not what I'm talking about here. Military/overseas absentee ballots often go uncounted not because their votes don't count or because they are actively being disenfranchised, but because the race is wide enough to already have been decided no matter what the absentee vote looks like.
 
Last edited:
The point was that regional affiliation (North-South) was a much stronger indicator of whether a legislator would vote for or against the act, rather than party affiliation, and this is borne out by the data. Look into Simpson's paradox for an explanation. You can play the numbers however you want, but at the time the Republican and Democratic parties were by no means monolithic in ideology. So splitting the analysis along North-South lines makes a lot more sense given that regional affiliation was much more of a causal factor in whether or not a legislator voted for the act than party affiliation.

Simpson's paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right, and the further point is that the passage of the civil rights act pushed many souther democrats into the republican party, so that MANY of those Democratics who voted Nay later switched to the Republican side. Prior to the civil rights act the south was solidly democratic. AFTER the civil rights act the balance shifted to the republicans (with many formerly solid southern states voting for Goldwater and Nixon).
 
Now why would the Justice Department order a purge of non-citizens to be stopped? A purge like this is a good thing, right? Well, not really. Not if a substantial number of purged voters are actually citizens, and are being added to the purge list because they don't happen to be white Republicans.



Article is here.


This could be one of two things-

1. Perhaps Florida needs to revise their methods in which they use to purge illegal voters.Are they verifying SS numbers,addresses,birth certificates and etc?

2.Race parasites in the justice department are using the fact that Hispanics make up a large portion of illegals in order to falsely claim that Florida is unfairly targeting Hispanics.
 
Nice try. Now try for some facts. Which Party voted to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by 15% or more over the other party? I will give you one guess, and it was not the Democrats. Once again, race card fail.
The 'Confederate' south voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was not a partisan issue.

The original House version (for/against):
  • Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
  • Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
  • Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
  • Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
The Senate version:
  • Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
  • Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
  • Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
  • Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Partisan card fail :mrgreen: (as tired right wing talking points always do)
 
Why are Democrats so scared of an election where only American citizens vote?
 
Why are Democrats so scared of an election where only American citizens vote?

They're not. Why are Republicans so scared of an election where ALL Americans can vote?
 
Both sides seem too partisan to want a completely fair election. In this particular case, my concern isn't bumping off non-eligible voters, in fact I support the idea, but when American citizens are denied their right to vote then I have a cause for concern.
 
Both sides seem too partisan to want a completely fair election. In this particular case, my concern isn't bumping off non-eligible voters, in fact I support the idea, but when American citizens are denied their right to vote then I have a cause for concern.

Then you are on the Democratic side.
 
They're not. Why are Republicans so scared of an election where ALL Americans can vote?

We like to at least PRETEND to limit voting to citizens, non-felons, adults, the living and residents of the state/district involved. Identification "restrictions" which allow a voter to vote only once and only as themselves, in any single election, are generally agreed upon as "good" too. The nonsense attitude that any attempt at verification of voter identity is "discriminatory" rejects precisely what it is intended to be, yet not on the basis of race, ethnicity, income or any "illegal" basis, simply to ensure that votes are cast and counted fairly, freely and legally. If the problem is no state ID for the poor then GIVE THEM ONE FOR FREE as part of your "get out the vote drives". If no attempt is made to limit "open voting", I may EASILY vote many, many times, as long as I supply the name/address of a registered voter that has yet to vote, on each voting attempt. Surely even YOU can see the "need" for some control.
 
Last edited:
They're not. Why are Republicans so scared of an election where ALL Americans can vote?

That's not it and you know it. Nice job bussing non residents into Wisconsin by the way. Walker might have won by 15 if you didn't.
 
Why are Democrats so scared of an election where only American citizens vote?

Because it limits the ability to "manufacture" votes. If 20 voters enter the polling place, during the election, yet 30 votes are cast, how can ANYONE, using current voting laws, determine which 10 votes were "manufactured"? If 30 voters (10 are duplicates but using different registered name/address combinations) enter the polling place, during the election, how can ANYONE, using current voting laws, determine which 10 votes were "manufactured"?
 
So let's assume that they keep going and eventually come up with, say, 10,000 people who *may* not be citizens. The burden is then placed on these folks, most of whom are citizens, to prove their citizenship or be purged from the voter roles. Just picking numbers out of the air, let's say that 500 are elderly, or handicapped, and lack transportation, so they aren't able to contest the finding, but would have voted. Now let's say that there were 50 people who were legitimately non-citizens who would have voted and were purged. Under this scenario, was it still a worthwhile endeavor?

First, these people have to prove they are citizens because at the time they got their licenses they were not. This isn't some purge of democrats or latinos as it was billed. It is a systematic verification of voting rights based on facts. And this is not a court of law so there is no requirement for the election commission to prove anything. All these voters have to do is send in citizenship proof (which amounts to a number and a photo copy) and it is done. It is not some difficult, time consuming process.

Second, your hypothetical is not even remotely related to reality and not worth addressing.
 
I'm on the side supporting an American citizen's right to vote. If you are against that idea, whose side are you on?

The Republican side.
 
Back
Top Bottom