Intellectual Humility & the importance of knowing you might be wrong

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I don’t think it’s fair to blame the press, or only the press. In the Canadian example I posted earlier, it is clearly one party who is pushing the issue. The press picks up the story and amplifies it (b/c it is news), but it is not the press who is politicizing it.

Of course we don’t have the same level of politicized media that you seem to in the USA.

You couldn't possibly think both sides would work on ANYTHING together could you?

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I don’t think it’s fair to blame the press, or only the press. In the Canadian example I posted earlier, it is clearly one party who is pushing the issue. The press picks up the story and amplifies it (b/c it is news), but it is not the press who is politicizing it.

Of course we don’t have the same level of politicized media that you seem to in the USA.

You mean the "fair and balanced press"? Give me a break. Don't let you're illusion of unbiased reporting show like that.

[john61ct]

The fact that the government - any branch or agency - has any current record of a citizen's existence should result in their automatic registration and eligibility by default.

Any change making it harder to meet voting requirements that has a disproportionate impact on turnout for one party's voters, or poor voters or non white voters is only justified when sufficient levels of voter fraud are proven to have made a difference.

And really, making voting a mandatory obligation is still IMO the way to go.

[Mike OReilly]

And with regard to the dangers of arbitrary stop and question, we already have plenty of examples of that operating outside of any national voter ID system.

Police checks for a whole range of possible infractions, from sobriety to seatbelts, are already pretty common. Courts have ruled them reasonable limitations of certain other rights, but my inner libertarian chafes mightily at any arbitrary use of authority; especially in absence of reasonable suspicion.

And near (but not at) the USA/Mex boarder there are these citizenship checkpoints which truly do feel like scenes from old WWII movies. For anyone who hasn’t experienced them, they are set up much like a border crossing, except there is no border to cross.

The entire highway traffic is routed through these heavily guarded gates, and everyone is questioned about their citizenship. All the while, multiple cameras are taking your pictures, and no doubt testing your information in various databases.

This, to me, is a far slipperier slope than anything I’ve heard about national voter ID plans.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

You couldn't possibly think both sides would work on ANYTHING together could you?

There are plenty of examples of parties, and individual members from all political sides, working together all the time. Even in your country it used to happen quite commonly.

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

You mean the "fair and balanced press"? Give me a break. Don't let you're illusion of unbiased reporting show like that.

You’ve completely ignored the point of my post here, and cherry-picked one small part. Why? So you can make your own biased claim?

We’ve already been over this. Much of what the press reports IS fair and balanced — sometimes too balanced. Don’t let your cynicism, or your illusion that the media is the enemy, cloud your judgment.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Obviously any voter ID laws would be administered fairly without regard to party affiliation and therefore isn't a partisan issue.

Oh sure, obviously. If it's been made an issue, predominantly by governments of one party, without any indication that there are problematic amounts of actual voter fraud, and if it happens to impact one demographic much more than another.... them's just the breaks, amirite?

[transmitterdan]

In the US, one party contains a significant percentage (>50%?) who advocate elimination of border controls while simultaneously opposing any type of voter identification. That’s a pretty obvious attempt to game the election system.

It is a straw man argument to say we don’t need to know who is voting because there aren’t many reports of non-citizens voting. So what? There aren’t many reports of sharp objects used to take down airliners. But we check every passenger to be sure they don’t carry them on commercial flights. Why? Because doing so instills confidence in the security of the system. It boggles the mind how anyone could think that free and fair elections can be less of a security issue than commercial air travel.

A country cannot survive without free and fair elections. Well, it can, but no one wants to live in such a country.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Indeed. I do have opinions, and often share them.
I also value facts, and accuracy, which I also try to share.
However, I sometimes think Pommer's law may more right, than wrong.
Pommer’s Law: “A person's mind can be changed by reading information on the internet. The nature of this change will be from having no opinion, to having a wrong opinion.”

Opinions of all kinds should be encouraged, within the bounds of basic civility that is. Always believing that one's particular opinion is "right" and therefore others are necessarily "wrong" suggests a closed mind and high degree of intolerance. This is my core problem with the political Left these days, a bigger problem than their positions on any particular issues. Having strong opinions is different than blind partisanship.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

It's another issue that has been wrongfully politicized by the press. Obviously any voter ID laws would be administered fairly without regard to party affiliation and therefore isn't a partisan issue.

I wouldn't take it for granted. History has shown all sorts of ways for partisans to game the system. But reasonable safeguards could certainly be utilized, similar to those which the federal courts have approved in many US states, and presumably what is in place throughout Canada.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

In the US, one party contains a significant percentage (>50%?) who advocate elimination of border controls while simultaneously opposing any type of voter identification. That’s a pretty obvious attempt to game the election system.

It is a straw man argument to say we don’t need to know who is voting because there aren’t many reports of non-citizens voting. So what? There aren’t many reports of sharp objects used to take down airliners. But we check every passenger to be sure they don’t carry them on commercial flights. Why? Because doing so instills confidence in the security of the system. It boggles the mind how anyone could think that free and fair elections can be less of a security issue than commercial air travel.

A country cannot survive without free and fair elections. Well, it can, but no one wants to live in such a country.

This pretty much summarizes the concerns of many in the US these days, and not only conservatives.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

In the US, one party contains a significant percentage (>50%?) who advocate elimination of border controls while simultaneously opposing any type of voter identification. That’s a pretty obvious attempt to game the election system...

Free-market supporters should agree with open borders as a political aspiration. Distorting the free mobility of labour across national borders causes economic inefficiencies. By eliminating this source of market distortion, open borders would reduce international wage differentials and improve the economic efficiency of national and global economies.
None other than Ronald Reagan suggested during the 1980 U.S. presidential primary debate to "open the border both ways" between the U.S. and Mexico so that workers can enter the U.S. and pay taxes there.
For the record, I would disagree with President Reagan.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Oh sure, obviously. If it's been made an issue, predominantly by governments of one party, without any indication that there are problematic amounts of actual voter fraud, and if it happens to impact one demographic much more than another.... them's just the breaks, amirite?

They've always been able to get their constituents to the polls. Even supply bus rides and free Big Macs. If a legitimate ID is too much trouble, maybe they shouldn't be voting. The same ones that appose voter ID also support allowing convicted felons to vote.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

In the US, one party contains a significant percentage (>50%?) who advocate elimination of border controls while simultaneously opposing any type of voter identification. That’s a pretty obvious attempt to game the election system.

I’m not as keenly focused on USA politics as others are (for good reason — it ain’t my country ), but I haven’t heard the Democrats advocate for the elimination of border controls. I’ve heard policy suggestions that discuss different controls, but I don’t recall anyone calling for the elimination of them.

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

It is a straw man argument to say we don’t need to know who is voting because there aren’t many reports of non-citizens voting. So what? There aren’t many reports of sharp objects used to take down airliners. But we check every passenger to be sure they don’t carry them on commercial flights. Why? Because doing so instills confidence in the security of the system. It boggles the mind how anyone could think that free and fair elections can be less of a security issue than commercial air travel.

A country cannot survive without free and fair elections. Well, it can, but no one wants to live in such a country.

Exactly right to your final point, so here’s my challenge to you. You claim the purpose of enhanced ID requirements is to instil confidence and security. From the perspective of those who believe what this really will do is disenfranchise more people and prevent them from voting, this action shakes their confidence and makes the whole system seem less secure. Now, you can either dismiss this concern out of hand, or you can try and look at it from their perspective.

On the ID demand side there are some examples of fraud, so it’s not zero. But on the disenfranchisement side there is a history of these kinds of laws and actions doing just what these people fear.

From what I can see, both sides are right, and both sides are wrong. So once this issue gets wrapped up with group identity, it becomes impossible to solve rationally.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Free-market supporters should agree with open borders as a political aspiration. Distorting the free mobility of labour across national borders causes economic inefficiencies. By eliminating this source of market distortion, open borders would reduce international wage differentials and improve the economic efficiency of national and global economies.
None other than Ronald Reagan suggested during the 1980 U.S. presidential primary debate to "open the border both ways" between the U.S. and Mexico so that workers can enter the U.S. and pay taxes there.
For the record, I would disagree with President Reagan.

California influence no doubt.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I’m not as keenly focused on USA politics as others are (for good reason — it ain’t my country ), but I haven’t heard the Democrats advocate for the elimination of border controls. I’ve heard policy suggestions that discuss different controls, but I don’t recall anyone calling for the elimination of them.

Open borders would disproportionately hurt democrats. On the other hand minorities are disproportionately democrats. Rock and a hard spot.