Intellectual Humility & the importance of knowing you might be wrong

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

what I'm saying is that the perception is already here, and only seems to be getting worse with every election cycle

"Perception" here is overwhelmingly a result of some choosing to turn it into a wedge issue. The facts don't support any conclusion that voter fraud is distorting the results of US elections. You really should be more afraid of unaccountable PACs with dark money, or Russian interference. but no, that would be a witch-hunt.


The optics would be better if voter ID was a matter of national interest, and not just the choice of several GOP-led states... just sayin.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

"Perception" here is overwhelmingly a result of some choosing to turn it into a wedge issue. The facts don't support any conclusion that voter fraud is distorting the results of US elections. You really should be more afraid of unaccountable PACs with dark money, or Russian interference. but no, that would be a witch-hunt.

The optics would be better if voter ID was a matter of national interest, and not just the choice of several GOP-led states... just sayin.

Surely even you can do better than using this particular thread as yet another opportunity to spout your own partisan points of view, no? The mods, after all, are providing a generous amount of leeway for that sort of silliness over on the latest CC thread. Or is it just too hard to resist that momentary dopamine hit?

The more interesting takeaway from your post might instead be why you are so reflexively opposed, and why the issue conjures up other, unrelated political issues straight out of the Democratic party playbook. Right down to current talking points, along with blaming the GOP when I doubt you even know whether the states which require voter ID are Republican governed. On the surface I understand your position (and Mike's) about an apparent dearth of evidence of voter fraud, but you may want to ask yourself why you are presumably so accepting of what looks like the same sorts of ID requirements (with verifiable exceptions) in your own country?

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

To vote, I still need to show some ID with my name matching that which is on the list. But if I don’t have this ID, I can make a formal Declaration.

If I’m not on the list I need to produce ID with an address. If I can’t produce this, such as if I don’t have a permanent address, then there is yet another process I can go through. And finally, if I can’t meet the other provisions, I can have an eligible voter vouch for me. So we have requirements for identification.

Does Canada justify these voter ID requirements based on evidence of "widespread voter fraud?" Does it too suffer the injustices that only the GOP can foist on a nation? Or is it merely a sensible & prudent regulation that imposes minimal burdens, allows alternatives when needed, and assures the citizenry that only eligible voters will be permitted to vote?

Or will this too be responded to with a quip, insult, partisan stereotype, or perhaps another ? I honestly don't care nor judge based on someone's political loyalties because I really have few of my own. But I do think it's an interesting way of examining our own political biases and what really drives our positions on many issues, including my own when it comes to climate change.

[kmacdonald]

L-E is just blaming us for their bad economy. We like cheap energy here, sorry it's at the expense of your wallet.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

The more interesting takeaway from your post might instead be why you are so reflexively opposed

I've already stated my support for a genuinely reasonable voter ID system. Maybe you can explain your defense of a hodgepodge of dubiously-designed and implemented systems. Bonus marks- defend gerrymandering.

is [Canada's system] merely a sensible & prudent regulation that imposes minimal burdens, allows alternatives when needed, and assures the citizenry that only eligible voters will be permitted to vote?

Canada has a system that's fair, consistent and easy to comply with. It is all that. We also don't have f'ed up scanners or problems with hanging chads. Why aren't you guys doing that?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

L-E is just blaming us for their bad economy. We like cheap energy here, sorry it's at the expense of your wallet.

You're not wrong; you've been getting tarsands oil at fire-sale prices. That doesn't make me happy. But we do have other irons in the fire.


Worry about your own problems, and where the US economy might go when the cocaine high of the last tax giveaway wears off.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

Does Canada justify these voter ID requirements based on evidence of "widespread voter fraud?" Does it too suffer the injustices that only the GOP can foist on a nation? Or is it merely a sensible & prudent regulation that imposes minimal burdens, allows alternatives when needed, and assures the citizenry that only eligible voters will be permitted to vote?

Just to be clear, I’ve never said anything about the GOP, or the other party, being the driver of these issues. I really am not equipped to comment on your state’s ID requirements with any specifics. I can only note the facts, as have best been ascertained by credible sources, that there is no widespread voter fraud.

But to address your thoughts, I posted Canada’s requirements so as to illustrate that ID requirements are used here. They are fairly easy to achieve for most citizens, but there are challenges to them. Mostly, these challenges come from marginalized groups who (I think rightly) point out that these requirements are a barrier for some people. It’s not generally partisan based.

The closest thing we’ve come to partisan bickering is when a previous Conservative government introduced even stricter ID requirements, along with a host of other changes, to voter eligibility. These were either struck down by the courts, or reversed with the arrival of a new (Liberal) government. This initiated a brief partisan fight, which seems to mirror yours.

I want to be clear; I’m not saying ID requirements are necessarily wrong or unwarranted. Of course there must be some level of identification. You say some of your states have none? That is hard to understand, and I agree should be changed. BUT, if the current justification to tighten them in the USA is coming from a false claim, then I think reasonable people should question the motive behind the move.

Originally Posted by Exile

Or will this too be responded to with a quip, insult, partisan stereotype, or perhaps another ? I honestly don't care nor judge based on someone's political loyalties because I really have few of my own. But I do think it's an interesting way of examining our own political biases and what really drives our positions on many issues, including my own when it comes to climate change.

This seemed to be in response to my comment, but I’m not sure what you’re referring to Exile. Have I offered insulted? If is, I didn’t mean to. I don’t think I’ve eye-rolled recently, but sometimes my fingers get ahead of my brain. If so, I apologize.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You're not wrong; you've been getting tarsands oil at fire-sale prices. That doesn't make me happy. But we do have other irons in the fire.


Worry about your own problems, and where the US economy might go when the cocaine high of the last tax giveaway wears off.

How's the timber industry up there? I haven't been watching that.

As for taxes, I'm sure I don't pay my fair share.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I've already stated my support for a genuinely reasonable voter ID system. Maybe you can explain your defense of a hodgepodge of dubiously-designed and implemented systems. Bonus - defend gerrymandering. ;-)

It is all that. Why aren't you guys doing that?

The US Constitution gives substantial powers to the states to regulate national elections. It's why the Bush-Gore fiasco started with recounts in individual Fla. voting districts, but ended up in the US Supreme Court. But I don't think this constitutional structure would prevent a national voting ID card. In fact, all states are required to distribute a uniform federal application form when registering to vote (with minor differences to account for state procedures). In any event, that explains why it's a hodgepodge.

Is this one of these deals where you were for voter ID regs in every state before you were against them? You quite clearly & repeatedly expressed your opposition to voter ID laws in the US on the grounds that they're not supported by evidence of voter fraud, run the risk of voter suppression, and of course your usual GOP hatred thing. I'm not arguing with you on the merits (over the first two anyway), but thought it'd be interesting to read why you feel that those same reasons apply in the US but not in your own country. (although more stringent Canadian regs have been rejected).

But I think I understand why you wouldn't want to respond with an honest answer.

[kmacdonald]

How about one vote for every dollar of federal income tax paid? Send your vote with the tax return.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Just to be clear, I’ve never said anything about the GOP, or the other party, being the driver of these issues. I really am not equipped to comment on your state’s ID requirements with any specifics. I can only note the facts, as have best been ascertained by credible sources, that there is no widespread voter fraud.

But to address your thoughts, I posted Canada’s requirements so as to illustrate that ID requirements are used here. They are fairly easy to achieve for most citizens, but there are challenges to them. Mostly, these challenges come from marginalized groups who (I think rightly) point out that these requirements are a barrier for some people. It’s not generally partisan based.

The closest thing we’ve come to partisan bickering is when a previous Conservative government introduced even stricter ID requirements, along with a host of other changes, to voter eligibility. These were either struck down by the courts, or reversed with the arrival of a new (Liberal) government. This initiated a brief partisan fight, which seems to mirror yours.

I want to be clear; I’m not saying ID requirements are necessarily wrong or unwarranted. Of course there must be some level of identification. You say some of your states have none? That is hard to understand, and I agree should be changed. BUT, if the current justification to tighten them in the USA is coming from a false claim, then I think reasonable people should question the motive behind the move.



This seemed to be in response to my comment, but I’m not sure what you’re referring to Exile. Have I offered insulted? If is, I didn’t mean to. I don’t think I’ve eye-rolled recently, but sometimes my fingers get ahead of my brain. If so, I apologize.

No, No Mike! Sorry -- I quoted both you & L-E in a single post so I can see why you thought some of my comments were also directed at you. My error. Once again it's often difficult to avoid misunderstandings it seems when communicating in an online forum.

But I did direct some of my post to you as well. Yes, as in my own state, there are many states that don't require any ID whatsoever. It's become a big issue down here, as you say it was at some point in your country's recent history. As mentioned, my own state requires ID (and proof of address) for a one-time registration process, but then only requires that you declare your name & address when it comes time to vote. That's it. Canada, on the other hand, requires an ID (or verifiable alternative) at the time of voting according to your post. So my question is why you feel that the same reasons for not endorsing nationwide ID in the US -- lack of evidence of voter fraud and the risk of voter suppression -- don't also apply in Canada? Isn't it just a valid way of instilling confidence in the electoral process, whether widespread fraud is occurring or not? Don't you think that otherwise valid concerns over disenfranchisement could be reasonably addressed without dispensing with a basic ID requirement that is required for so may other activities in our lives?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

How about one vote for every dollar of federal income tax paid? Send your vote with the tax return.

Wouldn't be fair. All the billionaires that are now so fashionable to hate would wind up with 70% of the vote.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

You quite clearly & repeatedly expressed your opposition to voter ID laws in the US on the grounds that they're not supported by evidence of voter fraud, run the risk of voter suppression, and of course your usual GOP hatred thing. I'm not arguing with you on the merits (over the first two anyway), but thought it'd be interesting to read why you feel that those same reasons apply in the US but not in your own country. (although more stringent Canadian regs have been rejected).

But I think I understand why you wouldn't want to respond with an honest answer.

I'm against voter registration systems that, by design, unfairly burden groups who haven't traditionally supported those imposing them.

Are you saying that one must necessarily experience voter fraud before imposing any system (sensible or otherwise) to prevent it? Since the US has not recently experienced the effects of voter fraud, what's the problem then? Other than those pesky bottom-dwellers who keep voting Democrat?

Where are you on the political interference from dark money PACs and Russian assistance meddling?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

As for taxes, I'm sure I don't pay my fair share.

The bottom 50% in the US pay nothing. The bottom 43% get money back. (according to the CBO).

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Exile

Wouldn't be fair. All the billionaires that are now so fashionable to hate would wind up with 70% of the vote.

But they don't pay any tax. They may start if they get a vote for each dollar.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

But they don't pay any tax. They may start if they get a vote for each dollar.

Yea they do.