S 1975 - Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2005

[Epee_Pox]

It's a shame that they haven't fulfilled very much of the contract...

They made one critical error, which precluded success: They got elected.

[jessicasimpson]

I think this is an inaccurate description of conservatives and liberals in modern America.

Also: Conservatives want to take the country back to a simpler time that never really existed, Liberals want to take the country forward to a Way to complicated time where everything is one giant P.C. appoligy

[Slim]

Also: Conservatives want to take the country back to a simpler time that never really existed, Liberals want to take the country forward to a Way to complicated time where everything is one giant P.C. appoligy

Major points for the StrongMad avatar.

[esskreemr]

Off the top of my head, I can think of:

1) Because a legislator is measured by the number of bills he introduces.

Perhaps to some people.

2) Because anyone resisting the passage of the bill can be villified for it in, among other things, campaign ads.

Ohhhh noooooooooooo! Villified in a campaign ad? The HORROR! I hate to break this to ya Inq, it doesn't matter what you do or who you are, if you run against someone, they will find something to villify you with.

3) Because certain factions would like to convince us that a given practice is more widespread and dangerous than it is, in order to advance a deeper agenda.

How widespread does it need to be? A swing of a few percentages can mean all the difference:

Also, you may think that this is a 'sour grapes' issue, but it isn't just the dems who are complaining. There are complaints from both sides of the fence.

http://vh10303.moc.gbahn.net/news/st...s/1522938.html

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...242EST0521.DTL

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...nor-vote_x.htm

There are many cases of Election irregularities stemming from the 2004 elections. They are well documented. Some appear to be baseless junk, but there are many more that raise legitimate concerns.

Voting is supposedly the cornerstone of the representative republic. Shouldn't that republic take voting issues VERY seriously? I know it's not important to you, but I think that the government should at least give lip service to the idea that it serves the people and that the people, as a whole, are the ones trully in charge. Idealistic, definitely, but it's tempered by a good dose of realism.

4) Because some influential constituencies are encouraging it.

On both sides.

[Inquartata]

there are many, many things you can say that violate the first amendment.

I think you meant that there are many forms of speech which aren't protected; I don't think any statement actually violates the Constitutional protection of the Amendment, unless maybe it's "Shut up" backed with coercive power...

Certainly there are many forms of speech which subsequent law has criminalized and which Supreme Court review have accepted as such; but "falsehood" generally speaking is not one of them, and I don't think it should be attempted. What next, a girl turns a guy down for a date on the grounds that she has a boyfriend when she doesn't, and we have her prosecuted? Simple lying has never been prohibited by law and I do not think any such law would pass scrutiny in the courts.

Now, making specific instances of lying resulting in specific harms might well be criminalized---have been, in fact. But this one doesn't cover specific instances, it could well apply to a very wide range of statements and behaviors.

Our right to vote is the most important right in this country, and it is imperative that we protect it.

I'd have to disagree. There are superior rights. I mean, if you are thrown into prison without cause, what good does it do that your jailers bring you an absentee balot every few years? Myself, I'd say our rights are pretty well prioritized by the Amendments to the Constitution. Voting comes a fair ways down that list.

However, I agree that voting ought not to be denied unfairly or by nefarious tactics. Criminalizing "deceit" in such a broad, vague bill, however, is not IMO the way to go about it. And I don't really believe that's the main reason why this bill has been proferred.

[Inquartata]

Do you really fail to see the irony of demanding a smoking gun and making a unprovable, general sweeping statement about a similar subject?

The statements are not "similar" at all, though. One is a specific legal charge levelled against against a specific individual on a specific matter. The other is a general statement about a general state of affairs. It's the difference between saying "This road is crooked" ( a specific statement ) and saying "It is not possible to walk straight on a crooked road" ( a general statement which doesn't try to assert anything about this particular road ). The first statement is testable and provable, thus it MUST be tested and proven before it can be accepted; the latter is neither, and can ONLY be a matter of opinion and anecdotally "supported". But unless you think politics is a straight road, you cannot believe it's possible for anyone to walk a straight line in it...

As for laughing, there's another proverb: "Laughter is the natural right of fools".

[Inquartata]

No, dear boy. It's not "everyone else" - just you.

Ah, would that it were! Perhaps you are too close to yourself to see it, but really it's anyone who disagrees with you long enough and hard enough. Anyone who doesn't yield in the end to your manifestly greater intellect, your manifestly superior world view and wisdom...

Do try harder to come up with something you're knowledgeable about.

How about...your rhetorical behaviors and patterns? One doesn't need to be all that perspicacious to discern those pretty quickly.

Not that lack of knowledge ever stops you - remember your clueless, hilarious SDI and nuclear test arguments? A classic.

Characterization does not establish truth. If I insist often enough that you have twelve fingers, it doesn't make it any more so than your characterizations of my arguments makes those descriptions so. Even if I really, really believe you have twelve fingers.

Oh dear, I touched a nerve, hence your carpet chewing.

It's more like having a pebble in my shoe. You just keep digging into the same bruise with every step. Eventually it gets old.

Plus I had a really nasty cold last week, courtesy of some fellow flier on the plane back from Pittsburgh; on top of being in a car accident the first week of the month. My patience and good humor were already on their last legs. I apologize for the unduly sharp tone of my last post.

I'm sure you would like to change the subject to whether you or I are optimistic or pessimistic, and the true nature of conservatism

Change the subject? You mean, it wasn't you who decided to lecture me about the "true nature of conservatism"? Hmm. Who was it, then? Perhaps I broke into your home and posted it in your name from your computer, so as to alter the course of the argument....

Asked and answered. If you don't want to broach a topic, maybe you shouldn't bring it up?

(hell, you've vented your opinions on liberalism enough times - turnabout is fair play, Inq)

Indeed...but I don't fancy that I really understand it better than do its proponents. I just see aspects of it that they seem to miss. Like the driver of a car doesn't see that his taillights are out. I don't claim to know what's in the trunk or what angle he's adjusted the steering wheel to, though.

instead of discussing laws passed to protect voters from being coerced, intimidated, or fooled into not voting.

Not "passed", introduced. I very much doubt it will become law, or that it is intended to become law. It's another whip with which to stripe the back of the Bush Administration and the Republican Party, IMO. Nothing more.

As for laws which might genuinely be aimed at protecting voting rights, this still ain't it. It's too vague and too broad. Even the Patriot Act is more specific about what acts are covered.

You've expressed your outrage against efforts to protect those voters, and clearly cast your vote as being on the side of those with deceptive practices to prevent voting.

"Outrage". Oy. More exaggeration.

I am against this bill, and I do not think it can do what it purports to do, and have reasons for both verdicts. "Outrage" it isn't.

I would change the subject too if I were you.

See above. Don't dive into subjects you don't want to discuss, and if you do, it's your choice, not mine.

I also like that bit of characterising me as optimistic, and asking "who can reason with an optimist?". Obviously, not you.

Yes, I am part of the rest of non-optimist humanity, so "who" obviously includes me.

Are you NOT an optimist? I'd take a good deal of the arguments you advance on various subjects to be pretty optimistic. I mean, you seem to be advancing the proposition that there is good even in politicians, so...?

And that sort of gets you off the hook for failing to provide any reasonable argument, eh?

Only the hook of your forging and honing---that very special hook.

What you don't seem too realize or accept is that there are more ways to argue than one. More ways than your way. And perfectly legitimate ones, too.

I've said this before, but if you posit X and offer a study supporting it, offering a counterstudy demonstrating not-X is only one way to refute X. Look at your study and find methodological flaws sufficient to call its conclusions into question, for instance. Yet you do not seem to recognize this. You simply blink and call for a counterstudy, or "numbers" to counter your numbers. Jeff's Way or No Way. Do you really expect people to argue you with you only on the terms you feel are most useful to you?

Cute ploy.

I learn from the master.

[Inquartata]

Sigh...another two-parter. Stupid images limit.

As far as this optimistic vs. pessimistic stuff and political affiliation - it's foolish and trivializing to try to characterise political movements to people's personalities, as if my sunny and pleasant disposition tilts me one way and yours another. I've never noticed any rule that said 'grumpy people in one political movement, and cheerful optimists in another'.

No...but generally speaking that seems to be the way things shake out, once you remove "the other side's behavior" from the equation. ( That is, liberals are often pessimistic about Republicans and their ways; Republicans are optimistic about them. That doesn't define their broad world views, though. )

In fact, contrary to how you portray it, the rubric I've heard (from conservative sources) is that conservatism is optimistic and liberalism pessimistic, because liberals think people need laws and social structures to protect them from themselves, while conservatives think, optimistically, that we all have such good characteristics that we need only be freed from the bonds of government.

As I see it, liberals rather believe in those things because they think they "help" society and people...and that they wouldn't be necessary if government just had the resources to cure underlying social ills such as poverty. ( Which problems are usually attributed to conservative policies and institutions ).

Just to take one example---imprisonment. Liberals for the most part buy into the optimistic view that rehabilitation is possible. Conservatives by and large do not. It's a basic difference in the way they see human nature. Liberals, IMO, think fundamentally that people are good; conservatives recognize the duality of people.

I have no doubt that somebody can quote comments expressing the opposite; it's a fun parlor game. Such characterizations are silly and reductionist, but if that's the level of your political thought, enjoy yourself.

Again, you are the one who pointed out this side-road. Blame yourself if you don't like where it leads.

But this is just a distraction from the subject we're discussing. Here, your outrage is directed against people who would make laws to protect voters from deceptive practice, rather than against the people who have such practices.

Or maybe (a) there's no "outrage", just cold calculation, and (b) I don't like either one, but don't feel laws like this one are of any use because the problem is an intractable, intrinsic aspect of politics...and because they tend to have unintended consequences instead.

I think that's appalling.

Optimists seem to spend much of their lives appalled at realists. I think we can endure it.

You're saying that Reagan didn't believe his own rhetoric and became corrupted by office.

Not exactly. He was probably convinced of his own rectitude. But one can only accomplish things in politics by compromise and horse-trading. That leads to favor-trading and subjecting the means to the ends. It's an inherently corrupting atmosphere, which convinces people that they can't do X good unles they get re-elected, and if they can't get re-elected without accepting money with a few strings from unsavory donors, well, surely it's the lesser evil...

A very crooked road, in other words, even if you think it leads to a "shining city on a hill" or to "Camelot" in the end. ( Mind the quicksand. )

Well, I never would have believed you would say that, so that's a surprise. Even though I had no use for the man, I thought he was sincere.

Sincere ( at least in some things ) and a politician, and effective; therefore corrupted. Both at once. Inseparable.

In the interest of getting you to actually document one of your claims rather than make sweeping unsupported assertions, could you tell me which part of the "shining hill on the city" was chicanery and dishonesty?

Glittering generalities in speeches are meaningless as far as a man's true nature goes, I think. That trope gives us few specifics. What are you asking, in terms of concrete policy?

The Iran-Contra affair is a prime example of the coexistence of idealism and corruption. IMO Reagan countenanced the weapons sales to Iran partly out of a realpolitik approach to the Iran-Iraq war, but also partly as a way to help fund the Contras in Nicaragua---an idealistically-based support achievable only by corrupt means...

It looks as though the current revelations about domestic spying by the NSA is shaping up to be the same sort of thing, wouldn't you say? The ( idealistic ) end justifying the ( corrupt ) means.

[Inquartata]

GAH! THREE parts!

Sorry Inq, we can only read the contents you enter onto the board - and they're absolutely clear, not the inner thoughts you might have left unexpressed. As Achilleus said early this morning, you demand a smoking gun from others (always!), yet you make an "unprovable, general sweeping statement about a similar subject". If you want to brazen your way out - claiming you didn't say what you clearly did - go on trying.

See my reply to him....different matters entirely.

Wrong again: I have many ways to maintain my belief in the superiority of my thought compared to yours.

I'll bet they include drugs and self-hypnosis.

You reinforce that every time you flounder around like this.

Ah, circular reasoning at its finest! "When you disagree with me you flounder, and your floundering proves I'm right!" Very nice!

This is not the first time you've thrown an on-screen tantrum when caught saying something foolish.

More like "after long needling". First the unprovoked screed over on the soapbox thread, and then the patronizing lecture about the "real meaning" of conservatism.

You sort of remind me of the little boy who kept yanking the dog's tail and then cried when the dog bit him.

Bellowing insults and changing the topic won't work. But, do keep trying.

How does one "bellow" in writing, BTW?

[Inquartata]

This is effing ridiculous.

Of course not - you're shameless. You're too smart to think that "I don't see" constitutes an argument, and you're just avoiding being called on the content of your arguments.

There doesn't have to be "content" to an argument. If it suffices to poke holes in a thesis, developing an elaborate counterthesis complete with cahrts and graphs is unnecessary and superfluous. If you say the Emperor's new clothes are gorgeous, there is no need to sift through the tailor's inventory and purchasing records to disprove the statement. "I don't see" is enough.

Look - you've been caught doing your favorite rhetorical tricks again. If you want to wriggle out of having to argue to the very standards you demand from everyone else - not Jeff's rules or Achilleus's rules - then go right ahead, but you're not fooling anybody.

Amadeus just answered this eloquently in his morning's post to you. Not all speech is protected, as he explains.

Yes. See my reply to him on this point.

So, the real story, Inq, is that when it comes down to protecting a basic freedom - the freedom to vote - you come down squarely on the side of those who want to coerce, intimidate, or fool people into not exercising it. That says all anybody needs to say about your concern for guarantees of freedom.

Again, not at all. I merely think that crusading efforts to change the filthy nature of politics are costly and doomed to failure, and more likely to bring about unfortunate unintended consequences than to achieve their ends.

And notice the optimism in the assumption, upon which your thesis rests, that this bill would actually do what it supposedly wants to do...

[Inquartata]

Perhaps to some people.

Yes, the one who matter: interest groups, for instance, and organizations who compile their records on given issues for the edification of voters and power blocs. Opinion leaders. Media outlets. People like them.

Voting records are a little like resumes for politicians. They show voters what they've done for them lately...or at least tried to do. ( Or appeared to try to do. )

I hate to break this to ya Inq, it doesn't matter what you do or who you are, if you run against someone, they will find something to villify you with.

Yes, but if someone is after your heart you don't hand them the knife.

If you think the Republican call for a vote on getting out of Iraq after Murtha's proposal was a "cheap political stunt", then so too is this bill, IMO. If neither were considered worth doing, neither would have been done. Republicans already have plenty on which to villify the Democrats, but a vote to pull out of Iraq immediately would have been another nice one, no? Having a full arsenal never stopped any politician from seeking more.

Also, you may think that this is a 'sour grapes' issue, but it isn't just the dems who are complaining. There are complaints from both sides of the fence.

Complaints, yes. Ill-considered bills designed to "do something"? Hmm...

But you're right, gullibility, blind anger, and cynical seeking for PR advantage are not the exclusive purview of either side.

There are many cases of Election irregularities stemming from the 2004 elections. They are well documented. Some appear to be baseless junk, but there are many more that raise legitimate concerns.

The point of my argument is that this bill will solve none of them, and I don't think it's really intended to do so, since as you said both sides play this game and seem to think that they benefit from it somehow. If both sides are invested in the status quo, who will make it go away, law or no law? I think the bill is political window-dressing and little more.

Voting is supposedly the cornerstone of the representative republic. Shouldn't that republic take voting issues VERY seriously? I know it's not important to you, but I think that the government should at least give lip service to the idea that it serves the people and that the people, as a whole, are the ones trully in charge. Idealistic, definitely, but it's tempered by a good dose of realism.



On both sides.

Yes. But this bill isn't likely to do any of that.

[achilleus]

The statements are not "similar" at all, though. One is a specific legal charge levelled against against a specific individual on a specific matter. The other is a general statement about a general state of affairs. It's the difference between saying "This road is crooked" ( a specific statement ) and saying "It is not possible to walk straight on a crooked road" ( a general statement which doesn't try to assert anything about this particular road ). The first statement is testable and provable, thus it MUST be tested and proven before it can be accepted; the latter is neither, and can ONLY be a matter of opinion and anecdotally "supported". But unless you think politics is a straight road, you cannot believe it's possible for anyone to walk a straight line in it...

As for laughing, there's another proverb: "Laughter is the natural right of fools".

Great proverb, although I'm still laughing. I figured you would try to split some hairs to explain you situation, it's something almost everyone does from time to time. Many people learn to admit it when they are caught in such situations.

I could argue you every point you've made, but why bother? You'll cling to your assertion that your right, and that every arguement that disagrees with is wrong.

[Inquartata]

I figured you would try to split some hairs to explain you situation, it's something almost everyone does from time to time. Many people learn to admit it when they are caught in such situations.

The implicit assumption there is that that's what I'm doing, and that I'm "caught" ( whatever that means ). Asserting these things and then repeating them over and over may feel reassuring to you, but it doesn't actually establish that they are true...

I could argue you every point you've made, but why bother?

Ah...because it's enjoyable? Why else are we all here? You think any of us are under the illusion that we are actually going to convince each other of anything?

You'll cling to your assertion that your right, and that every arguement that disagrees with is wrong.

Whereas you will---oh, never mind.

[jeff]

I'll put in my oar briefly, without hoping to touch even a fraction of the wide panorama of deep thought...

- my trope (great word) on optimistic is to pessimistic as liberal is to conservative, or the opposite, was not my intent to pursue, but a response to the comment (to me) of "who can reason with an optimist". Obviously not something I brought up in the first place... As I made clear, I don't believe any such relationship exists, so it's hardly a proposition that I was forwarding. BTW: I tried to put the relationships in using standard math notation like x:y::a:b, and it interpreted part as an emoticon!

- I think the proposed law (and Inq is certainly right that it is not law yet - and it may never be) is at least neutral with respect to incumbent power, and probably works against incumbency: it helps people vote who are otherwise dissuaded from voting, while incumbents are in office based on the people who previously did vote. Therefore, it works to the disadvantage of incumbents.

- Related to that thought is the idea that it might strengthen incumbency because the forces of the law already belong to them. I refute that on the basis of the paragraph above (showing that maintaining status quo with the population that actually casts a vote) is to the advantage of incumbents, and with this law (if passed) there is a checks-and-balances capability to overcome inequities garnered in prior (tainted) elections. If attorneys-general fail to prosecute, they can be shamed into it via the press (and it can be an effective weapon in a subsequent election cycle), or sued to enforce the law.

- I am not worried about the language. Many laws, AFAIK, start with broad language, and the specific boundaries of the acts are determined through case and legal challenges that establish precedent. Little laws like the Civil Rights acts of the 1960s worked on that principle, and that was a Good Thing then. Philistine can tell me if I'm all wet.

- I am also not worried about the idea that the proposed law is logically redundant (that is, existing laws would cover it). Often such coverage is ambiguous or not widely agreed to and has to be settled via precedent or challenge - having a specific law to address a topic removes that ambiguity and gets away from the charge of "legislation from the bench". Those who dislike judicial activism should prefer this mechanism.

- Oh, so I don't forget: I hope your cold is getting better, Inq. They say "if you treat a cold it gets better in a week; if untreated it takes seven days". Now there's a study in futility and discomfort we can all related to.

[achilleus]

The implicit assumption there is that that's what I'm doing, and that I'm "caught" ( whatever that means ).

So are you saying that you don't mean what you say? That if I read what you say, that somehow I'm making an assumption as to what you mean? Perhaps you should write more clearly (and longer messages! ) just so I don't make any false assumptions.

Asserting these things and then repeating them over and over may feel reassuring to you, but it doesn't actually establish that they are true...

Yes, I'm aware of this. Just like you asserting that I'm doing something may feel reassuring to you, but it doesn't establish that it's true either.

Ah...because it's enjoyable? Why else are we all here? You think any of us are under the illusion that we are actually going to convince each other of anything?

Well, I'm here because I love fencing and it's on my brain nearly 24/7 and work, which doesn't hold my attention, sits me in front of a computer, and blocks the msuic downloading sites and porn.

I'm young enough to know that I don't know everything, and I'm young enough to believe that a closed mind is terrible thing to have. Personally I've learned lots from this board, and my opinion on many subjects has been altered. I also know that I have convinced people of certain things as well.

Whereas you will---oh, never mind.

Whereas I will cease this conversation, because if I want a debate where one party is right no matter what, I'll call my dad.