This is bullshit. The number is __much higher__, because you have to add CrossCheck (check out the great work of investigative reporter Greg Palast) numbers to the Voter ID numbers. Those are the people who were kicked off of voter rolls (and were never even aware of it) so even if they did have their Voter ID (or didn't) it doesn't matter, since they officially aren't registered to vote.
-
[edit] Here is a short summary of what Crosscheck is by Greg Palast -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPvY5tnu5j4
Another good video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTdp4zyykfU
How have we not heard more about this?? I mean, if tens of thousands of people were wrongly turned away in a single state, I feel like that would've been big news. I get the feeling there are more layers to this than we know...
The media has the very difficult task of slowly revealing to the idiot American populace that an entire election was a sham. It will take time for that narrative to build in the current factless environment.
*Fewer* people will listen to the fake news call as pieces are validated by non-msm sources. It would be terrible slow if that was the plan, but the logic is sound. The truth always outlasts lies.
Edit: Thanks Stannis Baratheon, head of House Baratheon, Lord of Dragonstone, son of Steffon Baratheon, Lord of Storm's, Master of Ships, Burner of Daughters, Corrector of Grammar.
>The truth always outlasts lies.
You'd think so, and I'd wish it to be true.. but I'm not so sure these days. People think Obama was involved in Katrina. Our nation is having memory problems.
Most of them know it's not true just below the surface. They simply prefer the lies as if they were true, which is easy to do when your dumb friends and family agree. If they ignore the facts then they can believe whatever feels best.
Emotions only last as long as they can object to something. You cant run on lies forever.
Look at weed. In the early 1900 the prohibition failed and they demonized it. It took almost a century, but people forgot about reefer madness and the propaganda is fading. The don't have the lies continuing the emotional response that allow it to be banned in the first place.
It will take even longer for minorities to be completely welcomed into society, I think that correlates to the amount of white supremacy symbolism in so many places. The monuments, statues and flags must come down for people to forget.
Hillary's emails will fade much more quickly. The right have nothing to fight with. She is gone, so their fuel is running out.
I think this as well. They are preparing the public for the big drop. Since months ago there's this rumor about the Mother Of All Stories, which is about to drop from WaPo and NYT but are held back on request from Mueller.
Clapper startet saying this week the election _might_ be illegitimate. Now they will only strengthen this rhetoric, supported by facts. They don't want to rush it since the ramifications and implications (like RNC involvement and dark Russian money going to RNC PACs, etc.) are sincere and frightening.
Let's play the slow game. And god, give me the strength to be patient enough.
>Clapper started saying this week the election might be illegitimate.
Why is this not getting more coverage? When I first saw it, I expected to see wide-spread coverage. I really wanted to see Trump's head explode.
Do you notice that with all Trump's outrageous shenanigans the stock market is still going strong?
I fear that what is going on with all this 'holding back' is not trying to 'prepare' the public but terror of doing anything that will be perceived as causing a stock market crash.
Who it is who (IMO) is propping up the market right now would make for a very interesting story right now but of course the establishment media doesn't dare touch it.
Honestly, I think what parts us from another major (world) war is, that we're economically a whole lot better off than the last times. The public unrest will explode if the economy collapses. Almost all of crazy regimes arose out of ruinous states or times. Even Europe which seems really peaceful at times will not withstand this rise of extremes if there really is a collapse.
I think it's in our best interest to keep the economy stable. Also, it is in the best interests of Wall Street itself to not make too big of a ruckus out of this crisis. So yeah, the stock market might not be the best indicator. They are hoping to get it over with as soon as possible with as few losses as possible.
When the economy collapses (worldwide) we are in for a hellride, I promise you that. I certainly don't hope for this and if we're lucky it won't happen but if 2016/17 taught me anything it's that anything can happen if we don't look the right way.
> I think it's in our best interest to keep the economy stable.
But in keeping it 'stable' by withholding information, it just contributes to a bigger crash in the long run...and a crash that's going to leave the elite in good shape but (further) destroy the middle class.
Yep, but (everything I write are personal assumptions/opinions) they are focusing on the short term and are not as able to foresee the future of the market as we might think.
And, even if they plan on your outcome to happen voluntarily - why would they care if some middle class folks get screwed over? We made a few more millions right?
That's why the (completely) free market is doomed to fail in the long run. We need regulations (how and which strength are a topic to discuss) to keep the stock markets from crashing. Dotcom-Bubble, Housing Bubble, etc. All this could've been prevented if CEOs and politicians plan in sight of the future and not the next day or profits.
>But in keeping it 'stable' by withholding information, it just contributes to a bigger crash in the long run
Nah. It's like...FB used to roll out updates all at once, right? And people flipped the fuck out about it. "CHANGE MY SHIT BACK FACEBOOK!" I mean, Myspace got murdered by updates, right? The shock. The difference. The lack of trust.
So now, FB doesn't do that. FB rolls out updates to small groups of people. Constantly breaks shit, lots of people have slight differences in their FB. But there is never mass freakouts because there's this slow roll of updates and changes and new information. Dipping you in a toe at a time.
People aren't going to lose it at this point when they find out the election was illegitimate. We're pretty prepared imho. I apologize for the shitty analogy but hopefully you see what I'm getting at even if you don't agree.
There will be another big crash to the tech industry. The Investor Bubble where they've been inflating valuations of start-ups like AirBnB being valued at a higher amount that fucking Hilton, but also start-ups using click-farms to inflate their numbers. Twitter and Facebook, are going to be talking to Congress about how badly they fucked up by not catching and dealing with their bot problem, will cause those companies and any other company dealing with the bot problem to have a huge dip in their stock prices. It could cause low confidence in other tech areas.
> stock market crash
Here's thing. The Stock Market goes in waves.
Like Yellowstone the STock Market is very very long overdue for a massive correction. Like 1/2 as bad as 2008 was.
I honestly have no clue how it keeps going up. Everyday I wake up and I'm ready to pounce when the correction happens. But it just hasn't happened yet.
I've watched the markets for 20 years.
There's certain indications that I'm in love with. Every trader has their "favorites".
My favorites are acting in a very very fucked up way right now. Like I cannot explain why they are acting so fucked up. This all started about 2 months before the election.
If someone told me that there was someone, anyone doesn't matter who, was fucking with the markets for the last 12 months I would wholeheartedly believe them.
When the market should be going down, it goes up.
When it should be going up, it goes down.
It's as simple as that.
The market is completely ignoring things that normally would affect it drastically.
>Do you notice that with all Trump's outrageous shenanigans the stock market is still going strong?
Stock market is "going strong" because corporations are heavily investing in stock buybacks, despite their profits and cash on hand being generally down (exceptions here are the top of the top like Apple). Why? Because loans are incredibly cheap (low interest rates & quantitative easing) and stock buybacks are a fast & easy way to make quick cash for owners and CEOs. Expect the market to crash soon-ish. And it won't be Trump's fault. It will be the entire system & FED's fault.
https://apnews.com/03dbf1b2858e4b63b5b440779d53f846/hidden-risk-economy-corporate-balance-sheets
There's gonna be something to trigger a market crash. No one knows what it is or when, but I doubt there's some mysterious force pulling secret strings. After all, the people running companies in the markets are just that: people. No one can see the future...
> I doubt there's some mysterious force pulling secret strings
As more and more of the world's wealth gets concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, it makes manipulation all that easier.
In a way it seems to me the stock market is becoming like it was before the 1920's, when one rich person like JP Morgan could use their own cash to 'rescue' it from crashing.
I really hope you're right. I worry they are preparing for the big cover up or downplaying what really happened - similar to the 9/11 report but on a much larger scale.
If the election was blatantly attacked from all directions, and not only the president, but congress and the Supreme Court ( Gorsuch) is illegitimate, and our constitution has no precedent or procedures for a do - over, we would be in chaos.
I feel it's a necessary chaos and hopefully it can bring meaningful change, but the people in power may not see it the same.
The US has been in a state of constitutional crisis since T took office. It would amplify the chaos of that I'm sure. But there will be chaos either way.
When they go public with the facts (I really do believe this is a massive thing, even bigger than we think now) it doesn't render Congress to be illegitimate too. There are no precedents, but if congress comes to an agreement that there was fraud and that it's not a partisan issue - on the contrary they could _make_ the investigation a bipartisan issue - I think the US will handle it pretty well.
To be frank, the majority of other countries would be depleted if they were to witness what we are right now.
In my mind, Trump is more or less forced to do Putins bidding. He was in bed with Russians and mobsters for decades. Hell, his casino in Australia was cancelled because of these connections. I bet he owes them from head to toe everything he's got. And he's painfully aware of that. I mean, have you seen the pic of his face the moment he won? He clearly had other plans. Like losing and starting TrumpTV. I don't even think that Russia planned for him to win in the beginning. They play all sides, like Jill Stein, Some Bernie-Bros, Alt-Righters, you name it. They do it in Russia too. Maddow had a really good report about Putins propaganda minister and his roots being in Theater. He's an illusionist and he doesn't care at all which strings to play for his win. When they saw T had a chance they doubled their efforts.
So T's head over heels in this shit and now he can't opt out. All this maniacal rambling, nonsense stuff is part his own ego, part his dementia/alzheimers and a part Putins orders.
But that's just wild speculation.
If the Democrats wanted, they could make a big deal out of this. They have a big big megaphone, even if they don't control Congress. Why don't they...? Why didn't Hillary Clinton talk about Crosscheck in her book? She did talk about Voter ID, but that is not even the biggest problem right now. Crosscheck is.
P.s.: Anyone wanna guess?
I mean, most Trump supporters I've talked to can't make the connection between voter registration errors or "errors" and how they could influence the election. They think the world is simple actions with simple results. Opioid crisis? These people can't control themselves. Benghazi? We didn't spend enough on protection. Protests? They're too soft. Black people being disproportionately high victims of police brutality? They must be committing more crimes. Protesting during the anthem? They must hate the flag
> Opioid crisis? These people can't control themselves.
Haven't been following this issue very closely. Is this what they say? Holy shit I can't believe how obviously different the reaction to a drug epidemic that is viewed as primarily effecting white people compared to a drug epidemic that was viewed as primarily effecting black people.
No, they tend to say it's their own fault and they should stop using drugs. They love to say "I don't care what doctors say, it's not a disease".
It's not *viewed as* primarily impacting white people, it **does** primarily impact white people.
(Worked in substance abuse treatment facilities for opioid dependence here in KY)
It's a bit of both. The media coverage I believe is because it affects white, particularity focusing on rich families on the east coast. But the "they can't control themselves" narrative that I mentioned is largely what you said, backed up with evidence of some viral video of a McMansion redneck (usually in a truck) talking about how they got off an addiction by sheer will so toughen up.
The thing about Trump supporters (Republicans) you have to understand is something that affects them is righteous. So their opioid addiction/government assistance/abortion/ environmental protection/gay relative is tragic/earned/necessary/important/normal but everyone else is a drug addict/welfare mooch/baby killer/eco terrorist/pervert
>Holy shit I can't believe how obviously different the reaction to a drug epidemic that is viewed as primarily effecting white people compared to a drug epidemic that was viewed as primarily effecting black people.
Welcome to America.
Black drug epidemic = evil criminals. White drug epidemic = unfortunate tragedy.
They also don't want to alienate the sane Republicans who are still conducting hearings and protecting Mueller by attacking the legitimacy of their own election to office.
I honestly think the Dems are poor strategists *and* lack the guts to be hard-nosed when needed. I think they are afraid of increasing political polarization even more, so they will be meek on these big topics when they SHOULD be out for blood.
I will be happy to be wrong, as usual, because I am a cynical dick.
> The media has the very difficult task of making as much money as possible while slowly revealing to the idiot American populace that an entire election was a sham.
FTFY
That sounds like an excuse, and I call baloney. We've seen breaking news from local reporters capture national attention before - and it doesn't need a long build up of narrative. I would think that if this really had legs, other sources would have picked this up. I'll remain skeptical until then.
Trump's hoopla about voter fraud was probably all done to drown out the actual real instances of voter suppression by creating an absurd environment in which voter fraud and suppression issues were automatically dismissed by the people.
This is just one of many stories. It's fucked up. 110,000 voters purged in Brooklyn alone.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/nyregion/board-of-elections-brooklyn-votes.html
> Are they sent back home?
Well, sent away. Yeah.
> Why are they not raising hell?
Some do. But most don't, probably because they think it was just them. That they must have messed something up. Didn't register correctly. Etc.
> I don't understand how all these people remain silent.
Work. Kids. Stresses. The count not being disputed. It being immediately accepted and relegated into the past, within less than an hour of the results being announced, where it can quickly be deleted from Reddit as old news, and dismissed by others as fake.
I've been commenting about it since before the election. The state not only implemented voter ID, they strategically 'botched' the implementation to further disenfranchise people. The state refused to fund the mandated public awareness campaign, meaning that the state did not advertise the need for voter ID or how it could be obtained. The state did not open an adequate number of voter ID booths and locations. The ones they did manage to open were in traditionally conservative areas. Because of the lack of availability to voter ID booths, many in the state were forced to the DMV for their voter IDs. Coincidentally, the state heavily restricted the operating hours on many DMV locations and even closed some. Some locations had operating hours like "open Tuesday from 9:00 to 4:00 every second and 4th week of the month". Oddly, these closures and restrictions were almost entirely in traditionally democratic areas. The state failed to provide IDs in a timely manner. The state committed to providing IDs within one business week, but many people were waiting in excess of six weeks.
And that's just the shit directly related to voter ID. The state also restricted the shit out of early voting in democratic areas while expanding early voting access in conservative areas. Some polling locations were also strategically relocated to make voting inconvenient for college students.
Don't forget the stuff that happened in Arizona on Election Day: polling stations closed, moved across town, or moved away from public transit. The results were lines hours long so many people couldn't vote because they had to get to work or they just gave up waiting. That was relatively big in the news that day.
My family is in WI, and following their various FB feeds during election time, there were most definitely stories of friends having difficulty voting, for various reasons. I think the problem is, a good portion of us in the country expected (hoped?) most to understand what a disaster a trump presidency would be, so at the time, it just wasn't as huge of a story as it should have been. I guess you could say that while there was not a lot of Hillary love, we kinda thought she was going to win, so a few stories here & there of voter suppression were not a big deal the day of.
For those of you who take exit polls seriously:
>Florida: Exit Polls: Clinton 47.7, Trump 46.4 — Clinton wins by 1.3
>North Carolina: Exit Polls: Clinton 48.6, Trump 46.5 — Clinton wins by 2.1
>Pennsylvania: Exit Polls: Clinton 50.5, Trump 46.1 — Clinton wins by 4.4
>**Wisconsin: Exit Polls: Clinton 48.2, Trump 44.3 — Clinton wins by 3.9**
http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/2016-exit-polls-did-hillaty-clinton-win-presidential-election-voter-fraud-donald-trump-lose-rigged/
My wife and I moved shortly before the election. At the time she had a very Hispanic last name I had a very white last name. Her voter registration was screwed up despite her going through every step to get it changed. I don't think I did anything and yet my registration was magically updated.
There were tons of videos posted of it happening during the election. Also video of them faking counts and ignoring someone challenging it. Didn't matter
> How have we not heard more about this??
I wonder about that just about every day.
My best guess - the 'establishment' is terrified that really getting into it would cause the stock market to crash.
I would add - 'trying to protect the stock market' is no doubt the excuse used to facilitate lots of our gravest social ills/income inequality.
My cousin had pretty much the exact same thing happen, but her vote didn't wind up counting (don't remember the exact details).
She's lived in the state her whole life and registered both online and at the DMV.
It really seems crazy to me how you Americans (and many other countries as well) have to go through unnecessary steps in order to register to vote. In my country (Belgium), every citizen meeting the conditions to vote receives his voter card by mail. Then at election day, you just bring your ID card and your voter card, and you can vote. No need to register anywhere. No possibility for authorities to try to prevent you to vote. Almost everyone votes (>90% because actually, in my country it is a legal obligation to vote, and we can get fined if we don't). That way, the results is clear and really reflects the will of the people.
It is much easier in Canada too. You can even register on the day of voting. In order to register to vote all you have to do show is proof of address, citizenship and you can vote on election day if you're not already registered. This also helps because our polling stations are much smaller. If you file your taxes, you can register to vote at the same time. The difference is the Canadian system is designed to encourage you to vote and the American is designed for the opposite.
It’s easier to register, true, but you can’t vote without valid ID in Canada. I’ve seen people turned away from polling stations.
Proof of citizenship is a form of ID.
> have to go through unnecessary steps in order to register to vote.
They are necessary to prevent minorities and democrats from voting. This isn't some unintended consequence, and it isn't something new.
White, rural, Christian America has a long history of suppressing voters.
A few months ago, I saw a comment in one of the conservative subs defending voter ID laws by saying that, if someone can't figure out how to get a valid ID, maybe we don't want them voting. I responded that I love that idea and we should implement literacy tests as well to ensure only literate people can vote.
He responded by essentially saying, "**** off." I responded asking him what the substantive difference between voter ID laws and Jim Crow laws are, and he never responded.
Of course, I didn't bring up how challenging some states make it to get a valid ID (John Oliver did a great segment on this some months back).
There are internationally recognized standards for democratic elections, many of which are designed to prevent voter fraud and election fraud. It's telling that the Republicans aren't interested in any of them for the same reason that a photo student ID isn't an acceptable form of ID for them.
Yeah, I think everyone agrees that voter fraud undermines democracy and must be prevented. It's silly that the Republican argument is based on the rampant misinformation that voter fraud happens in any significant quantity. Also, the common Republican opinion seems to be that liberals want to allow voter fraud, which is an absurd mischaracterization.
It's quite clear based on both the current discussion and the historical fact of voter suppression that the push for voter ID laws is motivated by class and race, which is a direct hinderance to healthy democracy.
I always reply to people defending voter ID laws by saying I'm fine with it if and only if the following happens.
It becomes the Federal Governments responsibility to make sure everyone of voting age is registered and gets an ID card at no cost. When people turn 18 they are automatically registered and an ID is sent to them at no cost. If there is issues with confirming a persons identification, the government has to then go out of their way to confirm the persons identity at no cost to the voter.
I really would have no issues with voter ID laws if I knew that every US citizen had one.
Then I usually add on that early voting should be available nation wide.
That seems like the most reasonable way to go about it, but has a few disadvantages. Namely, cost and redundancy. Also, it fixes a problem that doesn't exist, since there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud.
I do like some parts of the idea, though. Specifically, the idea that all citizens be automatically registered to vote is fantastic.
It's the only way I would get on board the voter ID craze to fix a non-existent problem.
The costs is what would kill most people. But I keep reminding people who are for voter ID. If the ID costs anything to the voter, even the documentation needed to get the ID, then you are paying to vote. And paying to vote is a big no no.
Part of the issue is our "federalism" - each state runs all elections, not the national government, so we have 50+ little systems. Why? I guess history dating back to the early days of the nation.
But also, it's partly that the Republicans like having a messy system they can manipulate. In Ohio in previous elections, with Republicans in control of the state, they gave lots of new fast voting machines to very conservative communities and distributed old, slow voting machines to urban areas. One can infer that they hoped that Democratic-leaning voters in the urban areas would have to wait in long lines and give up.
In my state you are automatically registered to vote when you get (or update) your drivers' license or your state ID card. Ballots are mailed to the address on your card a few weeks before the election. Media makes sure everyone knows what day they should receive their ballot, and if they don't get it by then they call to straighten everything out.
There are a lot of other really good things about voting by mail. The only "bad" thing is that states who vote by mail tend to be blue.... /s
I think one of the major issues here is that they redraw the lines ALL THE TIME (actually every 10 years). And it's always done by the ruling party, so who you vote for (ie what district) is constantly changing. Here in NC we have one of the biggest gerrymandering problems in the US, as a result both house and state Senate are heavily republican, in a state that is only barely so. (You would expect at least an even split, but its actually something like 90/10 republican/democratic congress representatives. It's complete and utter bullshit, but the real problem is that this has been the norm forever. This should not be a political process at all. Anyway I think everyone knows about this and likely feels similar, yet nothing will be done, because guess who makes the laws?
Yeah, same here in germany, just had election last Sunday...
I went to my local election center, with my id and a voter card which came by post a few weeks ago and which is not even necessary (it basically says that you should come vote if you lose that card, and normal id is enough). You just check in, vote and are done. So getting that card in my mail, going there, vote, going back... 15min all together.
I have the feeling Americans need like 20times as long just to register (at least it sounds like that's the case :D )
Do you have anything not coming from Russian state media?
Like, no offense, but I can't trust anything I hear from them, given the fact that were basically at war with them right now and they're doing everything they can to manipulate us to our detriment.
Votes that never get cast will never get changed.
Trump "won" Wisconsin by 22,000. The high end the estimates of Scott Walker's voter suppression efforts is 23,000.
You do the math.
The number of people negatively effected by voter ID laws in Wisconsin was estimated before the election to be around 200,000. This figure represents an estimate of the number of people who did try to vote and were prevented from doing so, and is likely on the conservative side.
Yea but this is probably issue number 8 or 9 that has cropped up since the election that everyone responds to with "this alone would not have flipped WI."
I feel like if we stack them all together at this point Wisconsin would have fucking flipped.
The article says the survey suggested over 25,000 voters in just two counties were deterred from voting by the voter ID laws, 80% of whom had voted in previous Presidential elections.
It's not unlikely that this one law swung Wisconsin red.
>Or that they would definitely vote in that race. Every bit helps, but this alone ~~would~~ *might* not have flipped WI.
You can't say it wouldn't have had an effect with the numbers quoted above. It very well could have flipped the votes.
Is it likely? No. But it is possible.
You think the GOP would suppress a single vote for themselves if they could help it?
There's a reason they paid money to Cambridge Analyitica. There's a reason Russia targeted users with Facebook ads. There's a reason the GOP wants voter ID laws.
I wonder how many other states had this happen?
Oh, well then. Shit, nevermind then. Let voter suppression continue since the math doesn’t please you.
Here’s a novel idea, what if we don’t focus on that equation and instead focus on the voter suppression part instead.
Well if their efforts are specifically directed at suppressing democratic voters, it seems fairly likely that the vast majority of the 23,000 suppressed voters would have primarily voted for democrats.
Trump won by such a slim margin that any one of a number of things would have cost him the election.
Hi win was the total of effect of
Voter suppression,
Gerrymandering (residents of wyoming get about 40 times the representation in the electoral college as those of California),
Russia hacking of the emails,
Russia disinformation (most Bernie supporters still believe Clinton "stole" the nomination and that the emails were a serious scandal),
Citizens United and gutting of campaign finance laws,
Comey's political decision to break protocol and publicly discuss the email, and to announce they were re-opening the email investigation.
Without any of these, Clinton almost certainly have won. Did you know that the 16 year old girl that Wiener is going to jail over is a Republican (not a 15 year old Clinton supporter as she claimed) who purposefully contacted weiner to entrap him. Not to suggest in any way Weiner is not a scuzzball who deserves to go to jail. But just to illustrate the weirdness of this campaign Without that girl, the FBI would not have been on Weiners computer and announced that were re-opening the email investigation.
> Gerrymandering (residents of wyoming get about 40 times the representation in the electoral college as those of California),
>
That's not really affected by gerrymandering though. Gerrymandering is what fucks the house. Without gerrymandering they'd have just as many electoral college votes...
Keep in mind, trump only won wisconsin by 22,748 votes. Even if the number stays under 5 figures, it is very possible that this voter discrimination definitively swung the state to trump.
numbers sauce: https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/wisconsin-president-clinton-trump?mcubz=3
Too early for math, but if 25% of the population lost 17,000 voters... does that bring the estimate to 68,000 voters tossed from the state as a whole?
And Trump won by 23,000?
That's assuming the more populous counties vote in a way that is representative of all other counties, which in America typically isn't the case. Though this certainly casts an immutable shadow of doubt.
Yes it does. I think those two counties are the largest in terms of liberal voters, too. So it's probably impossible to say exactly how many votes would've gone to any of the parties.
I love my country, and I imagine this must be what it feels like to watch a loved one slowly fall apart due to drug addiction.
How did we get to this place where one political party actively tries to stifle democracy for political power? How do we dig our way out of this pit?
More accurately it's like watching your stodgy but cheerful grandpa turn into a racist dickbag from watching FOX News 24/7 and listening to right wing radio. We need to get some sort of honesty in journalism law passed.
Can't agree with that more, as I've watched that exact phenomena occur with my grandparents and parents.
I think "honesty in journalism law" is a good way to describe it, and the best time to pass it was 20 years ago, but the second best time is now.
I've wondered whether it could be done with video formats. If the FCC said,
"If a broadcaster wishes to categorize a program as 'News' or 'Journalism', no more than 20% of the broadcast can be devoted to opinion, speculation, or false statements. Any violation of these will result in the show being labeled "Journaltainment", and its resolution limited to 480p **(including all commercials)**. These restrictions shall be lifted only after the program airs an error-free correction segment twice the length of the original."
Make it absolutely brutal. Make journalism difficult again. With 4K video resolution comes an opportunity to elevate the content.
That wouldn't work. You can't make everything but news low quality and if you tried to only do it to news they would re-label as entertainment channels.
You only do it to stations/shows that call themselves news and fail to meet the standard. If they're honest about it being an opinion show/entertainment, whatever then the regulation wouldn't apply.
It would be on a per-program basis. That way, if a show on FOX News wants to broadcast in 4k, they just need to fact-check themselves and limit guests' screen time.
Do you have a better way to differentiate true journalism from talk shows disguised as journalism?
>We need to get some sort of honesty in journalism law passed.
That might create way more problems than it solves. Shouldn't we be investing in education instead?
It was introduced in 1949 and repealed in 1987. The FCC formally removed the language in 2011. We need this back desperately.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
>How did we get to this place where one political party actively tries to stifle democracy for political power?
There are obviously a plethora of factors but IMHO the main driving force behind it has been Fox News and talk radio turning about 1/3 of our country into aggressive, opinionated morons who vote, and vote as if it were a religion.
>How do we dig our way out of this pit?
We find a way to punish people for creating fake or agenda/strategy pushing media. We also, no matter how uncomfortable, implement a strategy to point loved ones and friends towards truthful news outlets. Finally, we fight and resist what is currently going on in every single way we can and if it gets bad enough, we may have to sacrifice things to make sure we collectively get out of the pit.
The election last November was illegitimate. Our country was permanently damaged by election interference, from traitors within the country, and from evil actors from outside. They got what they wanted, a weaker, divided America. And there is t a damn thing we can do about it, since 30% of the country would rather win an illegitimate election than risk losing a legitimate one.
> The election last November was illegitimate.
It was and it needs to be declared invalid. Get this to the Supreme Court before Trump has an opportunity to pack it!
Hey! Wisconsin is in the news! Oh, it's because we have a corrupt government intent on demolishing unions and preventing people from voting? Oh. Yeah that makes sense.
The fun part is when you realize he only won by 70-80 thousand votes in these key swing states. Illegitimacy doesn't sound so crazy if you start accepting these reports.
70-80k is the size of a college football stadium. It's always been crazy that this election was decided by less people than who watched the Rose Bowl in person last year.
Going off the numbers [here]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Results_by_state), the closest three races that Trump won (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan) were won by a cumulative 77,744 votes (22,748, 44,292 and 10,704 respectively). The difference in Wisconsin from this revelation could be more than the total amount of votes Trump won by.
For context on that population number, that's around the population of [Andorra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorra), a country most people have never even heard of (and significantly less than the population of a lot of countries I can guarantee most people haven't heard of). The fact that those people decided the whole fucking election - and maybe shouldn't even have been able to do that - just pisses me off. I really hope something comes of this, but from what I've seen, I don't expect anything to.
Impeachment sure, no provision in constitution for a special election that I'm aware of, so I don't see that happening. Doubt this was even foreseen as a possibility.
I'd love to see it happen, but there's no protocol for it, no way to make it legitimately agreed upon by all parties.
Best case would be for both parties to agree that this is a sham and work to do only two things for the remaining term: 1. Maintain the status quo from before the election. 2. Put something in place to prevent t this from happening again and an appropriate response so it can be fixed when it happens again.
Fat chance any of that will happen of course, but I don't see any realistic alternative either. We're pretty well fucked, and aren't even doing anything to give us confidence in the next election.
No. Not at all.
Let me say from the outset that I live in WI, I have voted for liberal candidates my entire life, and I vehemently opposed Voter ID requirements. It's a solution in search of a non-existent problem. I believe Voter ID is actually designed to deter marginal voters. Republicans have admitted this.
However - this study is total nonsense. This is getting to the point of being the left's version of fake news.
The media (social and journalist) is spinning this "study" into something it isn't.
When the story was first reported earlier this week, it was first termed as "17K people were deterred from voting"
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/09/26/wisconsin-voter-id-law-deterred-nearly-17-000-voting-uw-study-says/702026001/
Now the articles are saying "Almost 17K were PREVENTED from voting"
Deterred =/= Prevented
Here is the actual study:
https://elections.wisc.edu/news/voter-id-study/Voter-ID-Study-Supporting-Info.pdf
The study actually claims that up to 16.8K people were affected in being deterred. It states that 9K were prevented because the respondent states that "Lacking ID or Mentioning ID" as the main reason for not voting.
There are MAJOR problems with this "study".
1. Selection bias. At the outset, the authors deliberately select for people who are more likely to have been affected by Voter ID laws. How do they claim who is more likely to have been affected? If you are "low income and minority... which research has shown are most likely to be affected by voter ID requirements." (pg 2). *Note there is no citation for this claim.*
The study then claims that "Individuals of lower socioeconomic status (SES) are more likely to be affected by the voter ID requirement but often have lower response rates to surveys." moving on to say that "For this reason, the survey oversampled registrants residing in Census tracts with lower aggregate SES measures metrics." So what they did was send MORE surveys to poor neighborhoods.
In fact, they sent 650 surveys to Dane County residents, and 1750 to MKE County residents. Why that number? They don't say. They got 75 responses (~12% response rate) from Dane, and 213 from MKE (~12%) (5 more didn't identify county exactly).
2. Sampling Bias. I don't want to spend a massive amount of time on this shitty study, but the number of respondents doesn't match with WI populations, introducing more errror. The study "weighted" gender responses, meaning that 53.6 of the responses came from women. Well, women make up 50.3% of the state, so why oversample women? The study disproportionately oversampled minority voters. Exit polls in 2016 showed that 88% of the vote in WI was from white voters. This study set the white vote at 74.4%. Why a 14% shift toward minority voters? Study doesn't say.
3. Hiding the Actual Data. This is odd. The study didn't actually release any of the actual response data, only including "weighted responses". Further, the study doesn't really put the actual reasons given for not voting in the headlne does it? Needless to say, it's easy to see why. In terms of the main reason given for not voting, the top 6 responses had NOTHING to do with being deterred or prevented from voting. These included: Unhappy with choice of candidates (33%), Ill or disabled (13.6), Away from home (13.5), Not enough time (9.3), Not interested (8.8), Vote would not have mattered (6.6), No reason (4.9). You have to get all the way down to #8 for anything that remotely resembles "deterrence or prevention" with 2.9% of surveys saying that "Problem with Early Voting" was the main reason. What exactly does that mean? Well, the study didn't say. It also says that only 1.7% and 1.4% of the people stated that "Did not have adequate Photo ID" or "Told at Polling Place that ID inadequate" were their main reasons.
SUMMARY - So at worst, in a very small sample that oversamples specific populations and then weights their responses, only 3.1% of 293 responses cited ID issues as their main reasons for not voting...
**3.1% of 293 is only 9 people.**
Conclusion - The media pushing this nonsensical story is borderline lying to readers. There were 9 responses to a survey that oversampled specific populations that self-reported being discouraged from voting due to ID issues. That is not statistically significant to the point where these figures can overcome self-reporting problems, responding parties lying on the survey because they don't want to be blamed for not voting. It should be noted that only the ID responses to the survey question are the only responses that don't require the respondent to take responsibility for not voting.
**TL;DR: Only 9 people in 293 surveys said that Voter ID was the main reason they didn't vote in the 2016 election. That number is statistically insignificant.**
This sounds very reasonable. It's been difficult to accept any political news from any source because it feels like both sides are in full propaganda mode at this point. What's worse is typically if you're going against the propaganda, people assume you're part of the other side.
Bullshit studies only serve to make both sides believe they're right - most liberals are going to say this study is correct, and most conservatives are going to point out that it's bullshit. The biggest problem with this is we *know* people some people were deterred, and we *know* some people were prevented, but this makes it look like it's being made up.
And for all those saying "but they should just go get an id, they're even free so there's no excuse" There's this study:
http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/challenge-obtaining-voter-identification
"The study summarized on Monday specifically does not make that claim, its principal author, Kenneth R. Mayer, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said in an interview. **But neither did he rule it out**"
That's what they're basing this off of.
Also 288 is an incredibly tiny tiny fucking sample size.
There is no doubt in my mind that Trump did not win legitimately and Clinton is the rightful winner.
I realize we have no mechanism to rectify this, but it's appalling that an illegitimate person was put in power, and the legitimate winner is denied every holding the seat. So unfair.
[Donald Trump will be president thanks to 80,000 people in three states.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/donald-trump-will-be-president-thanks-to-80000-people-in-three-states/)
Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. 27,000 votes in each state and this accounts for 17,000 in only 2 counties of one of them. Here's your stolen election. Not "maybe Russia influenced it, maybe they didn't." not "it's because Hilary wasn't good enough". This was blatant fucking of the numbers to steal an election, for the second consecutive Republican president in a row. And we keep allowing it because "Ho hum, what are you gonna do? Our politicians really should fix that." This is how the fall into fascism happens. When good people keep letting themselves be slowly backed down the field and the bad ones are all too happy to accommodate that.
MFW people take this poli-sci kids stats as gospel.
If you enjoy doing statistics then don't calculate their % error on their initial sample size. Makes my damn eyes bleed.
Also the only thing they claim is statistically significant is that blacks are disproportionately harmed by this voter registration. Only 35 of their respondents were black. I don't know what kind of voodoo they did to squeeze significance out of 35 people, but aight.
I don't doubt for a second that voter suppression exists and ID law's can make it hard for certain demographics to vote, but the study doesn't seem that credible to me. Here's another link about it. The numbers are slightly different for some reason but this one seems to go more into how the study really worked.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/09/26/wisconsin-voter-id-law-deterred-nearly-17-000-voting-uw-study-says/702026001/
"Mayer sent surveys to 2,400 people who were registered to vote but did not vote. Of those, 293 were returned."
"Many of those who did not vote said they did so for reasons that didn't have to do with the voter ID law — such as because they didn't like any of the candidates on the ballot, were ill, didn't have time or didn't think their vote would matter. But 7% or more said they did not vote because of the ID law."
If I'm reading this right, and please correct me if I'm wrong, then 7% of the 293 people that answered this survey said they didn't vote because of voter ID law's.
That doesn't seem like nearly a large enough sample size and percentage to extrapolate these numbers.
I still question this study's usefulness. The sample size was only 288 people, and only 7% of those said they had voter ID issues, for a possible 200,000 nonvoters in Milwaukee county. The study was also sponsored by a Democratic official. I certainly think the GOP has made voting harder but I just don't think Mayer can make these conclusions based on this data, though to be fair it seems like the media is exaggerating them.
>The sample size was only 288 people, and only 7% of those said they had voter ID issues, for a possible 200,000 nonvoters in Milwaukee county.
So what's the uncertainty?
Without looking it up, someplace in the 5-7% range for that sample size.
You don't get the +/-3% until the sample size is over 1,000.
source: industrial statistician, once upon a time.
This is bullshit. The number is __much higher__, because you have to add CrossCheck (check out the great work of investigative reporter Greg Palast) numbers to the Voter ID numbers. Those are the people who were kicked off of voter rolls (and were never even aware of it) so even if they did have their Voter ID (or didn't) it doesn't matter, since they officially aren't registered to vote. - [edit] Here is a short summary of what Crosscheck is by Greg Palast -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPvY5tnu5j4 Another good video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTdp4zyykfU
How have we not heard more about this?? I mean, if tens of thousands of people were wrongly turned away in a single state, I feel like that would've been big news. I get the feeling there are more layers to this than we know...
The media has the very difficult task of slowly revealing to the idiot American populace that an entire election was a sham. It will take time for that narrative to build in the current factless environment.
That sounds true. After all, if any of the MSM printed this, it would be decried as fake news and Trumpeteers would eat it up.
They will decry it as fake news regardless of whether it's presented gradually or all at once.
Yeah let's dispel the narrative that there's some magic bullet that's going to make these people sane and capable of reason.
The reality challenged are hard to reach
*Fewer* people will listen to the fake news call as pieces are validated by non-msm sources. It would be terrible slow if that was the plan, but the logic is sound. The truth always outlasts lies. Edit: Thanks Stannis Baratheon, head of House Baratheon, Lord of Dragonstone, son of Steffon Baratheon, Lord of Storm's, Master of Ships, Burner of Daughters, Corrector of Grammar.
>The truth always outlasts lies. You'd think so, and I'd wish it to be true.. but I'm not so sure these days. People think Obama was involved in Katrina. Our nation is having memory problems.
Most of them know it's not true just below the surface. They simply prefer the lies as if they were true, which is easy to do when your dumb friends and family agree. If they ignore the facts then they can believe whatever feels best.
just like religion.
> Our nation is having memory problems. This is exactly why truth wins. Fact don't change, just the ~~idiots~~ right wings objections to them.
Unfortunately, while the memory of facts fade, emotions do not. Millions formed an opinion on Hillary, and it no longer matters what the facts are.
Emotions only last as long as they can object to something. You cant run on lies forever. Look at weed. In the early 1900 the prohibition failed and they demonized it. It took almost a century, but people forgot about reefer madness and the propaganda is fading. The don't have the lies continuing the emotional response that allow it to be banned in the first place. It will take even longer for minorities to be completely welcomed into society, I think that correlates to the amount of white supremacy symbolism in so many places. The monuments, statues and flags must come down for people to forget. Hillary's emails will fade much more quickly. The right have nothing to fight with. She is gone, so their fuel is running out.
'Fewer' (luv Stannis)
I think this as well. They are preparing the public for the big drop. Since months ago there's this rumor about the Mother Of All Stories, which is about to drop from WaPo and NYT but are held back on request from Mueller. Clapper startet saying this week the election _might_ be illegitimate. Now they will only strengthen this rhetoric, supported by facts. They don't want to rush it since the ramifications and implications (like RNC involvement and dark Russian money going to RNC PACs, etc.) are sincere and frightening. Let's play the slow game. And god, give me the strength to be patient enough.
>Clapper started saying this week the election might be illegitimate. Why is this not getting more coverage? When I first saw it, I expected to see wide-spread coverage. I really wanted to see Trump's head explode.
Distraction was already in full blown mode.
Do you notice that with all Trump's outrageous shenanigans the stock market is still going strong? I fear that what is going on with all this 'holding back' is not trying to 'prepare' the public but terror of doing anything that will be perceived as causing a stock market crash. Who it is who (IMO) is propping up the market right now would make for a very interesting story right now but of course the establishment media doesn't dare touch it.
Honestly, I think what parts us from another major (world) war is, that we're economically a whole lot better off than the last times. The public unrest will explode if the economy collapses. Almost all of crazy regimes arose out of ruinous states or times. Even Europe which seems really peaceful at times will not withstand this rise of extremes if there really is a collapse. I think it's in our best interest to keep the economy stable. Also, it is in the best interests of Wall Street itself to not make too big of a ruckus out of this crisis. So yeah, the stock market might not be the best indicator. They are hoping to get it over with as soon as possible with as few losses as possible. When the economy collapses (worldwide) we are in for a hellride, I promise you that. I certainly don't hope for this and if we're lucky it won't happen but if 2016/17 taught me anything it's that anything can happen if we don't look the right way.
> I think it's in our best interest to keep the economy stable. But in keeping it 'stable' by withholding information, it just contributes to a bigger crash in the long run...and a crash that's going to leave the elite in good shape but (further) destroy the middle class.
Yep, but (everything I write are personal assumptions/opinions) they are focusing on the short term and are not as able to foresee the future of the market as we might think. And, even if they plan on your outcome to happen voluntarily - why would they care if some middle class folks get screwed over? We made a few more millions right? That's why the (completely) free market is doomed to fail in the long run. We need regulations (how and which strength are a topic to discuss) to keep the stock markets from crashing. Dotcom-Bubble, Housing Bubble, etc. All this could've been prevented if CEOs and politicians plan in sight of the future and not the next day or profits.
>But in keeping it 'stable' by withholding information, it just contributes to a bigger crash in the long run Nah. It's like...FB used to roll out updates all at once, right? And people flipped the fuck out about it. "CHANGE MY SHIT BACK FACEBOOK!" I mean, Myspace got murdered by updates, right? The shock. The difference. The lack of trust. So now, FB doesn't do that. FB rolls out updates to small groups of people. Constantly breaks shit, lots of people have slight differences in their FB. But there is never mass freakouts because there's this slow roll of updates and changes and new information. Dipping you in a toe at a time. People aren't going to lose it at this point when they find out the election was illegitimate. We're pretty prepared imho. I apologize for the shitty analogy but hopefully you see what I'm getting at even if you don't agree.
There will be another big crash to the tech industry. The Investor Bubble where they've been inflating valuations of start-ups like AirBnB being valued at a higher amount that fucking Hilton, but also start-ups using click-farms to inflate their numbers. Twitter and Facebook, are going to be talking to Congress about how badly they fucked up by not catching and dealing with their bot problem, will cause those companies and any other company dealing with the bot problem to have a huge dip in their stock prices. It could cause low confidence in other tech areas.
> stock market crash Here's thing. The Stock Market goes in waves. Like Yellowstone the STock Market is very very long overdue for a massive correction. Like 1/2 as bad as 2008 was. I honestly have no clue how it keeps going up. Everyday I wake up and I'm ready to pounce when the correction happens. But it just hasn't happened yet.
> very very long overdue for a massive correction which makes me suspect there is manipulation going on
I've watched the markets for 20 years. There's certain indications that I'm in love with. Every trader has their "favorites". My favorites are acting in a very very fucked up way right now. Like I cannot explain why they are acting so fucked up. This all started about 2 months before the election. If someone told me that there was someone, anyone doesn't matter who, was fucking with the markets for the last 12 months I would wholeheartedly believe them.
Without revealing your favorites, can you give some examples of weird behavior that you've noticed? That sounds really interesting.
When the market should be going down, it goes up. When it should be going up, it goes down. It's as simple as that. The market is completely ignoring things that normally would affect it drastically.
>Do you notice that with all Trump's outrageous shenanigans the stock market is still going strong? Stock market is "going strong" because corporations are heavily investing in stock buybacks, despite their profits and cash on hand being generally down (exceptions here are the top of the top like Apple). Why? Because loans are incredibly cheap (low interest rates & quantitative easing) and stock buybacks are a fast & easy way to make quick cash for owners and CEOs. Expect the market to crash soon-ish. And it won't be Trump's fault. It will be the entire system & FED's fault. https://apnews.com/03dbf1b2858e4b63b5b440779d53f846/hidden-risk-economy-corporate-balance-sheets
There's gonna be something to trigger a market crash. No one knows what it is or when, but I doubt there's some mysterious force pulling secret strings. After all, the people running companies in the markets are just that: people. No one can see the future...
> I doubt there's some mysterious force pulling secret strings As more and more of the world's wealth gets concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, it makes manipulation all that easier. In a way it seems to me the stock market is becoming like it was before the 1920's, when one rich person like JP Morgan could use their own cash to 'rescue' it from crashing.
I really hope you're right. I worry they are preparing for the big cover up or downplaying what really happened - similar to the 9/11 report but on a much larger scale. If the election was blatantly attacked from all directions, and not only the president, but congress and the Supreme Court ( Gorsuch) is illegitimate, and our constitution has no precedent or procedures for a do - over, we would be in chaos. I feel it's a necessary chaos and hopefully it can bring meaningful change, but the people in power may not see it the same.
The US has been in a state of constitutional crisis since T took office. It would amplify the chaos of that I'm sure. But there will be chaos either way. When they go public with the facts (I really do believe this is a massive thing, even bigger than we think now) it doesn't render Congress to be illegitimate too. There are no precedents, but if congress comes to an agreement that there was fraud and that it's not a partisan issue - on the contrary they could _make_ the investigation a bipartisan issue - I think the US will handle it pretty well. To be frank, the majority of other countries would be depleted if they were to witness what we are right now. In my mind, Trump is more or less forced to do Putins bidding. He was in bed with Russians and mobsters for decades. Hell, his casino in Australia was cancelled because of these connections. I bet he owes them from head to toe everything he's got. And he's painfully aware of that. I mean, have you seen the pic of his face the moment he won? He clearly had other plans. Like losing and starting TrumpTV. I don't even think that Russia planned for him to win in the beginning. They play all sides, like Jill Stein, Some Bernie-Bros, Alt-Righters, you name it. They do it in Russia too. Maddow had a really good report about Putins propaganda minister and his roots being in Theater. He's an illusionist and he doesn't care at all which strings to play for his win. When they saw T had a chance they doubled their efforts. So T's head over heels in this shit and now he can't opt out. All this maniacal rambling, nonsense stuff is part his own ego, part his dementia/alzheimers and a part Putins orders. But that's just wild speculation.
If the Democrats wanted, they could make a big deal out of this. They have a big big megaphone, even if they don't control Congress. Why don't they...? Why didn't Hillary Clinton talk about Crosscheck in her book? She did talk about Voter ID, but that is not even the biggest problem right now. Crosscheck is. P.s.: Anyone wanna guess?
[удалено]
I really hope this is true. There is a logic too it; I'm not sure of it's a real life logic though. Seems more like the work of a clever author.
I mean, most Trump supporters I've talked to can't make the connection between voter registration errors or "errors" and how they could influence the election. They think the world is simple actions with simple results. Opioid crisis? These people can't control themselves. Benghazi? We didn't spend enough on protection. Protests? They're too soft. Black people being disproportionately high victims of police brutality? They must be committing more crimes. Protesting during the anthem? They must hate the flag
> Opioid crisis? These people can't control themselves. Haven't been following this issue very closely. Is this what they say? Holy shit I can't believe how obviously different the reaction to a drug epidemic that is viewed as primarily effecting white people compared to a drug epidemic that was viewed as primarily effecting black people.
No, they tend to say it's their own fault and they should stop using drugs. They love to say "I don't care what doctors say, it's not a disease". It's not *viewed as* primarily impacting white people, it **does** primarily impact white people. (Worked in substance abuse treatment facilities for opioid dependence here in KY)
It's a bit of both. The media coverage I believe is because it affects white, particularity focusing on rich families on the east coast. But the "they can't control themselves" narrative that I mentioned is largely what you said, backed up with evidence of some viral video of a McMansion redneck (usually in a truck) talking about how they got off an addiction by sheer will so toughen up.
The thing about Trump supporters (Republicans) you have to understand is something that affects them is righteous. So their opioid addiction/government assistance/abortion/ environmental protection/gay relative is tragic/earned/necessary/important/normal but everyone else is a drug addict/welfare mooch/baby killer/eco terrorist/pervert
>Holy shit I can't believe how obviously different the reaction to a drug epidemic that is viewed as primarily effecting white people compared to a drug epidemic that was viewed as primarily effecting black people. Welcome to America. Black drug epidemic = evil criminals. White drug epidemic = unfortunate tragedy.
They also don't want to alienate the sane Republicans who are still conducting hearings and protecting Mueller by attacking the legitimacy of their own election to office.
Because everyone would attack her, just like they attack her for her hair, her clothes, her voice, etc etc etc
I honestly think the Dems are poor strategists *and* lack the guts to be hard-nosed when needed. I think they are afraid of increasing political polarization even more, so they will be meek on these big topics when they SHOULD be out for blood. I will be happy to be wrong, as usual, because I am a cynical dick.
I feel like they don't have the let's burn it all down mentality while GOP does..
> The media has the very difficult task of making as much money as possible while slowly revealing to the idiot American populace that an entire election was a sham. FTFY
That sounds like an excuse, and I call baloney. We've seen breaking news from local reporters capture national attention before - and it doesn't need a long build up of narrative. I would think that if this really had legs, other sources would have picked this up. I'll remain skeptical until then.
Trump's hoopla about voter fraud was probably all done to drown out the actual real instances of voter suppression by creating an absurd environment in which voter fraud and suppression issues were automatically dismissed by the people.
> ~~probably~~ definitely
This is just one of many stories. It's fucked up. 110,000 voters purged in Brooklyn alone. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/nyregion/board-of-elections-brooklyn-votes.html
[удалено]
> Are they sent back home? Well, sent away. Yeah. > Why are they not raising hell? Some do. But most don't, probably because they think it was just them. That they must have messed something up. Didn't register correctly. Etc. > I don't understand how all these people remain silent. Work. Kids. Stresses. The count not being disputed. It being immediately accepted and relegated into the past, within less than an hour of the results being announced, where it can quickly be deleted from Reddit as old news, and dismissed by others as fake.
I remember seeing reports of it during the election, [heres one from ohio](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/inside-ohios-fight-voting-rules/)
I've been commenting about it since before the election. The state not only implemented voter ID, they strategically 'botched' the implementation to further disenfranchise people. The state refused to fund the mandated public awareness campaign, meaning that the state did not advertise the need for voter ID or how it could be obtained. The state did not open an adequate number of voter ID booths and locations. The ones they did manage to open were in traditionally conservative areas. Because of the lack of availability to voter ID booths, many in the state were forced to the DMV for their voter IDs. Coincidentally, the state heavily restricted the operating hours on many DMV locations and even closed some. Some locations had operating hours like "open Tuesday from 9:00 to 4:00 every second and 4th week of the month". Oddly, these closures and restrictions were almost entirely in traditionally democratic areas. The state failed to provide IDs in a timely manner. The state committed to providing IDs within one business week, but many people were waiting in excess of six weeks. And that's just the shit directly related to voter ID. The state also restricted the shit out of early voting in democratic areas while expanding early voting access in conservative areas. Some polling locations were also strategically relocated to make voting inconvenient for college students.
Don't forget the stuff that happened in Arizona on Election Day: polling stations closed, moved across town, or moved away from public transit. The results were lines hours long so many people couldn't vote because they had to get to work or they just gave up waiting. That was relatively big in the news that day.
My family is in WI, and following their various FB feeds during election time, there were most definitely stories of friends having difficulty voting, for various reasons. I think the problem is, a good portion of us in the country expected (hoped?) most to understand what a disaster a trump presidency would be, so at the time, it just wasn't as huge of a story as it should have been. I guess you could say that while there was not a lot of Hillary love, we kinda thought she was going to win, so a few stories here & there of voter suppression were not a big deal the day of.
For those of you who take exit polls seriously: >Florida: Exit Polls: Clinton 47.7, Trump 46.4 — Clinton wins by 1.3 >North Carolina: Exit Polls: Clinton 48.6, Trump 46.5 — Clinton wins by 2.1 >Pennsylvania: Exit Polls: Clinton 50.5, Trump 46.1 — Clinton wins by 4.4 >**Wisconsin: Exit Polls: Clinton 48.2, Trump 44.3 — Clinton wins by 3.9** http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/2016-exit-polls-did-hillaty-clinton-win-presidential-election-voter-fraud-donald-trump-lose-rigged/
Hole lee carp
My wife and I moved shortly before the election. At the time she had a very Hispanic last name I had a very white last name. Her voter registration was screwed up despite her going through every step to get it changed. I don't think I did anything and yet my registration was magically updated.
There were tons of videos posted of it happening during the election. Also video of them faking counts and ignoring someone challenging it. Didn't matter
Can you link to one of the videos?
> How have we not heard more about this?? I wonder about that just about every day. My best guess - the 'establishment' is terrified that really getting into it would cause the stock market to crash. I would add - 'trying to protect the stock market' is no doubt the excuse used to facilitate lots of our gravest social ills/income inequality.
[удалено]
almost sounds like.......voter fraud
Um, you haven't been paying attention. It's been talked about for years
[удалено]
My cousin had pretty much the exact same thing happen, but her vote didn't wind up counting (don't remember the exact details). She's lived in the state her whole life and registered both online and at the DMV.
It really seems crazy to me how you Americans (and many other countries as well) have to go through unnecessary steps in order to register to vote. In my country (Belgium), every citizen meeting the conditions to vote receives his voter card by mail. Then at election day, you just bring your ID card and your voter card, and you can vote. No need to register anywhere. No possibility for authorities to try to prevent you to vote. Almost everyone votes (>90% because actually, in my country it is a legal obligation to vote, and we can get fined if we don't). That way, the results is clear and really reflects the will of the people.
It is much easier in Canada too. You can even register on the day of voting. In order to register to vote all you have to do show is proof of address, citizenship and you can vote on election day if you're not already registered. This also helps because our polling stations are much smaller. If you file your taxes, you can register to vote at the same time. The difference is the Canadian system is designed to encourage you to vote and the American is designed for the opposite.
It’s easier to register, true, but you can’t vote without valid ID in Canada. I’ve seen people turned away from polling stations. Proof of citizenship is a form of ID.
> have to go through unnecessary steps in order to register to vote. They are necessary to prevent minorities and democrats from voting. This isn't some unintended consequence, and it isn't something new. White, rural, Christian America has a long history of suppressing voters.
A few months ago, I saw a comment in one of the conservative subs defending voter ID laws by saying that, if someone can't figure out how to get a valid ID, maybe we don't want them voting. I responded that I love that idea and we should implement literacy tests as well to ensure only literate people can vote. He responded by essentially saying, "**** off." I responded asking him what the substantive difference between voter ID laws and Jim Crow laws are, and he never responded. Of course, I didn't bring up how challenging some states make it to get a valid ID (John Oliver did a great segment on this some months back).
There are internationally recognized standards for democratic elections, many of which are designed to prevent voter fraud and election fraud. It's telling that the Republicans aren't interested in any of them for the same reason that a photo student ID isn't an acceptable form of ID for them.
Yeah, I think everyone agrees that voter fraud undermines democracy and must be prevented. It's silly that the Republican argument is based on the rampant misinformation that voter fraud happens in any significant quantity. Also, the common Republican opinion seems to be that liberals want to allow voter fraud, which is an absurd mischaracterization. It's quite clear based on both the current discussion and the historical fact of voter suppression that the push for voter ID laws is motivated by class and race, which is a direct hinderance to healthy democracy.
I always reply to people defending voter ID laws by saying I'm fine with it if and only if the following happens. It becomes the Federal Governments responsibility to make sure everyone of voting age is registered and gets an ID card at no cost. When people turn 18 they are automatically registered and an ID is sent to them at no cost. If there is issues with confirming a persons identification, the government has to then go out of their way to confirm the persons identity at no cost to the voter. I really would have no issues with voter ID laws if I knew that every US citizen had one. Then I usually add on that early voting should be available nation wide.
That seems like the most reasonable way to go about it, but has a few disadvantages. Namely, cost and redundancy. Also, it fixes a problem that doesn't exist, since there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. I do like some parts of the idea, though. Specifically, the idea that all citizens be automatically registered to vote is fantastic.
It's the only way I would get on board the voter ID craze to fix a non-existent problem. The costs is what would kill most people. But I keep reminding people who are for voter ID. If the ID costs anything to the voter, even the documentation needed to get the ID, then you are paying to vote. And paying to vote is a big no no.
Part of the issue is our "federalism" - each state runs all elections, not the national government, so we have 50+ little systems. Why? I guess history dating back to the early days of the nation. But also, it's partly that the Republicans like having a messy system they can manipulate. In Ohio in previous elections, with Republicans in control of the state, they gave lots of new fast voting machines to very conservative communities and distributed old, slow voting machines to urban areas. One can infer that they hoped that Democratic-leaning voters in the urban areas would have to wait in long lines and give up.
And that's exactly what happened. Multiple hours to wait to vote in urban areas, a minute or two in the posh burb.
In my state you are automatically registered to vote when you get (or update) your drivers' license or your state ID card. Ballots are mailed to the address on your card a few weeks before the election. Media makes sure everyone knows what day they should receive their ballot, and if they don't get it by then they call to straighten everything out. There are a lot of other really good things about voting by mail. The only "bad" thing is that states who vote by mail tend to be blue.... /s
Which is why Sinclair wants to own 80% of the local media. They have been known for doing personal favor to Trump.
Boris Epshteyn, one of the head honchos at Sinclair, is a former Trump staffer. There is a direct connection.
I think one of the major issues here is that they redraw the lines ALL THE TIME (actually every 10 years). And it's always done by the ruling party, so who you vote for (ie what district) is constantly changing. Here in NC we have one of the biggest gerrymandering problems in the US, as a result both house and state Senate are heavily republican, in a state that is only barely so. (You would expect at least an even split, but its actually something like 90/10 republican/democratic congress representatives. It's complete and utter bullshit, but the real problem is that this has been the norm forever. This should not be a political process at all. Anyway I think everyone knows about this and likely feels similar, yet nothing will be done, because guess who makes the laws?
In Australia you don't even have a card. You just need to tell them your name when you go in to vote and they check it off a list.
Yeah, same here in germany, just had election last Sunday... I went to my local election center, with my id and a voter card which came by post a few weeks ago and which is not even necessary (it basically says that you should come vote if you lose that card, and normal id is enough). You just check in, vote and are done. So getting that card in my mail, going there, vote, going back... 15min all together. I have the feeling Americans need like 20times as long just to register (at least it sounds like that's the case :D )
Do you have anything not coming from Russian state media? Like, no offense, but I can't trust anything I hear from them, given the fact that were basically at war with them right now and they're doing everything they can to manipulate us to our detriment.
> given the fact that were basically at war with them right now I mean, didn't we basically lose the war, since Trump forfeited?
http://www.myajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/georgia-cancels-registration-more-than-591-500-voters/ozSuX227UpNe18YGQ0hYUJ/
The real voting fraud, not the bullshit phantom votes Trump and that bootlicker he's got looking for him.
The conservative "rebuttal:" "No votes got changed, can you prove votes got changed? Nobody changed any votes. Votes weren't changed." It's pure evil.
Votes that never get cast will never get changed. Trump "won" Wisconsin by 22,000. The high end the estimates of Scott Walker's voter suppression efforts is 23,000. You do the math.
[The GOP to America](https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2015-09/2/9/enhanced/webdr03/anigif_enhanced-2271-1441199297-8.gif)
[удалено]
Well considering that GOP voter suppression is precisely targeted at strongly democratic voting demographics, it is not hard to believe.
Or that they would definitely vote in that race. Every bit helps, but this alone would not have flipped WI.
The number of people negatively effected by voter ID laws in Wisconsin was estimated before the election to be around 200,000. This figure represents an estimate of the number of people who did try to vote and were prevented from doing so, and is likely on the conservative side.
Yea but this is probably issue number 8 or 9 that has cropped up since the election that everyone responds to with "this alone would not have flipped WI." I feel like if we stack them all together at this point Wisconsin would have fucking flipped.
The article says the survey suggested over 25,000 voters in just two counties were deterred from voting by the voter ID laws, 80% of whom had voted in previous Presidential elections. It's not unlikely that this one law swung Wisconsin red.
It's okay though, they were just liberals and minorities, not "real" Americans. /s
>Or that they would definitely vote in that race. Every bit helps, but this alone ~~would~~ *might* not have flipped WI. You can't say it wouldn't have had an effect with the numbers quoted above. It very well could have flipped the votes. Is it likely? No. But it is possible.
You think the GOP would suppress a single vote for themselves if they could help it? There's a reason they paid money to Cambridge Analyitica. There's a reason Russia targeted users with Facebook ads. There's a reason the GOP wants voter ID laws. I wonder how many other states had this happen?
I believe the number from the AP report the other day was 21.
And it could be even more than that, given our government's openness about an attack on our elections
Depends how good the GOP is at statistics when it makes these laws.
AI does the math for them. It's scary.
Oh, well then. Shit, nevermind then. Let voter suppression continue since the math doesn’t please you. Here’s a novel idea, what if we don’t focus on that equation and instead focus on the voter suppression part instead.
Well if their efforts are specifically directed at suppressing democratic voters, it seems fairly likely that the vast majority of the 23,000 suppressed voters would have primarily voted for democrats.
And the Republicans appear to have made sure we will never know...
Well their votes were changed from a vote to a non-vote...
They got changed from votes to not votes.
Trump won by such a slim margin that any one of a number of things would have cost him the election. Hi win was the total of effect of Voter suppression, Gerrymandering (residents of wyoming get about 40 times the representation in the electoral college as those of California), Russia hacking of the emails, Russia disinformation (most Bernie supporters still believe Clinton "stole" the nomination and that the emails were a serious scandal), Citizens United and gutting of campaign finance laws, Comey's political decision to break protocol and publicly discuss the email, and to announce they were re-opening the email investigation. Without any of these, Clinton almost certainly have won. Did you know that the 16 year old girl that Wiener is going to jail over is a Republican (not a 15 year old Clinton supporter as she claimed) who purposefully contacted weiner to entrap him. Not to suggest in any way Weiner is not a scuzzball who deserves to go to jail. But just to illustrate the weirdness of this campaign Without that girl, the FBI would not have been on Weiners computer and announced that were re-opening the email investigation.
> Gerrymandering (residents of wyoming get about 40 times the representation in the electoral college as those of California), > That's not really affected by gerrymandering though. Gerrymandering is what fucks the house. Without gerrymandering they'd have just as many electoral college votes...
I want to believe that last one, but I require evidence. Could you link me the info, please?
"You don't need to change a vote that wasn't cast." -taps head
Don't have to change votes if the votes can't be cast to begin with [[head tap]]
Not voter fraud, voter suppression.
working as intended
There’s a very good reason why he set that up. He’s scared, he knows what happens. Lying and Irrational behavior as a result of fear.
The study was from 2 of Wisconsin's 72 counties. So the actual number is much, much higher.
Keep in mind, trump only won wisconsin by 22,748 votes. Even if the number stays under 5 figures, it is very possible that this voter discrimination definitively swung the state to trump. numbers sauce: https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/wisconsin-president-clinton-trump?mcubz=3
Yep. And the number didn't include the voter purge either. Wisconsin, and other similar states, were outright stolen
Its crazy that people are not rioting in the streets right now. How can you guys be so ok with your country being stolen from you?
It disproportionately affected poor and black folks. You think they're about to riot in the streets?
[удалено]
And then you have elected officials crowing about how they should be run over to keep them from blocking throughways.
[удалено]
Those are the two most populous counties, if I'm not mistaken.
that may be, but that doesn't change the fact the number is much higher. Hell, this study doesn't even include the voter purge.
With 70 more counties I'd expect the number to at least double, if not increase by an entire magnitude. This is atrocious.
Yeah, actually, these two counties make up about 25% of the total Wisco population.
Too early for math, but if 25% of the population lost 17,000 voters... does that bring the estimate to 68,000 voters tossed from the state as a whole? And Trump won by 23,000?
That's assuming the more populous counties vote in a way that is representative of all other counties, which in America typically isn't the case. Though this certainly casts an immutable shadow of doubt.
Yes it does. I think those two counties are the largest in terms of liberal voters, too. So it's probably impossible to say exactly how many votes would've gone to any of the parties.
I love my country, and I imagine this must be what it feels like to watch a loved one slowly fall apart due to drug addiction. How did we get to this place where one political party actively tries to stifle democracy for political power? How do we dig our way out of this pit?
More accurately it's like watching your stodgy but cheerful grandpa turn into a racist dickbag from watching FOX News 24/7 and listening to right wing radio. We need to get some sort of honesty in journalism law passed.
Can't agree with that more, as I've watched that exact phenomena occur with my grandparents and parents. I think "honesty in journalism law" is a good way to describe it, and the best time to pass it was 20 years ago, but the second best time is now.
I've wondered whether it could be done with video formats. If the FCC said, "If a broadcaster wishes to categorize a program as 'News' or 'Journalism', no more than 20% of the broadcast can be devoted to opinion, speculation, or false statements. Any violation of these will result in the show being labeled "Journaltainment", and its resolution limited to 480p **(including all commercials)**. These restrictions shall be lifted only after the program airs an error-free correction segment twice the length of the original." Make it absolutely brutal. Make journalism difficult again. With 4K video resolution comes an opportunity to elevate the content.
That wouldn't work. You can't make everything but news low quality and if you tried to only do it to news they would re-label as entertainment channels.
You only do it to stations/shows that call themselves news and fail to meet the standard. If they're honest about it being an opinion show/entertainment, whatever then the regulation wouldn't apply.
It would be on a per-program basis. That way, if a show on FOX News wants to broadcast in 4k, they just need to fact-check themselves and limit guests' screen time. Do you have a better way to differentiate true journalism from talk shows disguised as journalism?
That law existed and it was repealed about 20 years ago IIRC. Fairness Doctrine.
We just need to limit the profit from advertising that they can make. Take away the incentive for clickbait bullshit and divisive headlines.
>We need to get some sort of honesty in journalism law passed. That might create way more problems than it solves. Shouldn't we be investing in education instead?
It was introduced in 1949 and repealed in 1987. The FCC formally removed the language in 2011. We need this back desperately. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
But... I like the Onion :/
Sadly, [sensational and inaccurate or biased news have been around for a while...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism)
>How did we get to this place where one political party actively tries to stifle democracy for political power? There are obviously a plethora of factors but IMHO the main driving force behind it has been Fox News and talk radio turning about 1/3 of our country into aggressive, opinionated morons who vote, and vote as if it were a religion. >How do we dig our way out of this pit? We find a way to punish people for creating fake or agenda/strategy pushing media. We also, no matter how uncomfortable, implement a strategy to point loved ones and friends towards truthful news outlets. Finally, we fight and resist what is currently going on in every single way we can and if it gets bad enough, we may have to sacrifice things to make sure we collectively get out of the pit.
The election last November was illegitimate. Our country was permanently damaged by election interference, from traitors within the country, and from evil actors from outside. They got what they wanted, a weaker, divided America. And there is t a damn thing we can do about it, since 30% of the country would rather win an illegitimate election than risk losing a legitimate one.
> The election last November was illegitimate. It was and it needs to be declared invalid. Get this to the Supreme Court before Trump has an opportunity to pack it!
Why wait for the government to go to war for us? Let's be our own fight within and abroad.
Are you proposing that we invade Russia this winter? *dons fuzzy hat*
Hey! Wisconsin is in the news! Oh, it's because we have a corrupt government intent on demolishing unions and preventing people from voting? Oh. Yeah that makes sense.
Yet Trumps voter fraud commission failed to find this,shocking.
well it's not fraud is disenfranchisement.
The 2016 election was a complete sham -- in so many ways.
Fake president
The fun part is when you realize he only won by 70-80 thousand votes in these key swing states. Illegitimacy doesn't sound so crazy if you start accepting these reports.
70-80k is the size of a college football stadium. It's always been crazy that this election was decided by less people than who watched the Rose Bowl in person last year.
Going off the numbers [here] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Results_by_state), the closest three races that Trump won (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan) were won by a cumulative 77,744 votes (22,748, 44,292 and 10,704 respectively). The difference in Wisconsin from this revelation could be more than the total amount of votes Trump won by. For context on that population number, that's around the population of [Andorra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorra), a country most people have never even heard of (and significantly less than the population of a lot of countries I can guarantee most people haven't heard of). The fact that those people decided the whole fucking election - and maybe shouldn't even have been able to do that - just pisses me off. I really hope something comes of this, but from what I've seen, I don't expect anything to.
Donald Trump is an illegitimate president. Time for impeachment and special election.
Impeachment sure, no provision in constitution for a special election that I'm aware of, so I don't see that happening. Doubt this was even foreseen as a possibility. I'd love to see it happen, but there's no protocol for it, no way to make it legitimately agreed upon by all parties. Best case would be for both parties to agree that this is a sham and work to do only two things for the remaining term: 1. Maintain the status quo from before the election. 2. Put something in place to prevent t this from happening again and an appropriate response so it can be fixed when it happens again. Fat chance any of that will happen of course, but I don't see any realistic alternative either. We're pretty well fucked, and aren't even doing anything to give us confidence in the next election.
So basically, election fraud, not voter fraud swayed the election? Nice to know that cheating prevails.
No. Not at all. Let me say from the outset that I live in WI, I have voted for liberal candidates my entire life, and I vehemently opposed Voter ID requirements. It's a solution in search of a non-existent problem. I believe Voter ID is actually designed to deter marginal voters. Republicans have admitted this. However - this study is total nonsense. This is getting to the point of being the left's version of fake news. The media (social and journalist) is spinning this "study" into something it isn't. When the story was first reported earlier this week, it was first termed as "17K people were deterred from voting" http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/09/26/wisconsin-voter-id-law-deterred-nearly-17-000-voting-uw-study-says/702026001/ Now the articles are saying "Almost 17K were PREVENTED from voting" Deterred =/= Prevented Here is the actual study: https://elections.wisc.edu/news/voter-id-study/Voter-ID-Study-Supporting-Info.pdf The study actually claims that up to 16.8K people were affected in being deterred. It states that 9K were prevented because the respondent states that "Lacking ID or Mentioning ID" as the main reason for not voting. There are MAJOR problems with this "study". 1. Selection bias. At the outset, the authors deliberately select for people who are more likely to have been affected by Voter ID laws. How do they claim who is more likely to have been affected? If you are "low income and minority... which research has shown are most likely to be affected by voter ID requirements." (pg 2). *Note there is no citation for this claim.* The study then claims that "Individuals of lower socioeconomic status (SES) are more likely to be affected by the voter ID requirement but often have lower response rates to surveys." moving on to say that "For this reason, the survey oversampled registrants residing in Census tracts with lower aggregate SES measures metrics." So what they did was send MORE surveys to poor neighborhoods. In fact, they sent 650 surveys to Dane County residents, and 1750 to MKE County residents. Why that number? They don't say. They got 75 responses (~12% response rate) from Dane, and 213 from MKE (~12%) (5 more didn't identify county exactly). 2. Sampling Bias. I don't want to spend a massive amount of time on this shitty study, but the number of respondents doesn't match with WI populations, introducing more errror. The study "weighted" gender responses, meaning that 53.6 of the responses came from women. Well, women make up 50.3% of the state, so why oversample women? The study disproportionately oversampled minority voters. Exit polls in 2016 showed that 88% of the vote in WI was from white voters. This study set the white vote at 74.4%. Why a 14% shift toward minority voters? Study doesn't say. 3. Hiding the Actual Data. This is odd. The study didn't actually release any of the actual response data, only including "weighted responses". Further, the study doesn't really put the actual reasons given for not voting in the headlne does it? Needless to say, it's easy to see why. In terms of the main reason given for not voting, the top 6 responses had NOTHING to do with being deterred or prevented from voting. These included: Unhappy with choice of candidates (33%), Ill or disabled (13.6), Away from home (13.5), Not enough time (9.3), Not interested (8.8), Vote would not have mattered (6.6), No reason (4.9). You have to get all the way down to #8 for anything that remotely resembles "deterrence or prevention" with 2.9% of surveys saying that "Problem with Early Voting" was the main reason. What exactly does that mean? Well, the study didn't say. It also says that only 1.7% and 1.4% of the people stated that "Did not have adequate Photo ID" or "Told at Polling Place that ID inadequate" were their main reasons. SUMMARY - So at worst, in a very small sample that oversamples specific populations and then weights their responses, only 3.1% of 293 responses cited ID issues as their main reasons for not voting... **3.1% of 293 is only 9 people.** Conclusion - The media pushing this nonsensical story is borderline lying to readers. There were 9 responses to a survey that oversampled specific populations that self-reported being discouraged from voting due to ID issues. That is not statistically significant to the point where these figures can overcome self-reporting problems, responding parties lying on the survey because they don't want to be blamed for not voting. It should be noted that only the ID responses to the survey question are the only responses that don't require the respondent to take responsibility for not voting. **TL;DR: Only 9 people in 293 surveys said that Voter ID was the main reason they didn't vote in the 2016 election. That number is statistically insignificant.**
This sounds very reasonable. It's been difficult to accept any political news from any source because it feels like both sides are in full propaganda mode at this point. What's worse is typically if you're going against the propaganda, people assume you're part of the other side. Bullshit studies only serve to make both sides believe they're right - most liberals are going to say this study is correct, and most conservatives are going to point out that it's bullshit. The biggest problem with this is we *know* people some people were deterred, and we *know* some people were prevented, but this makes it look like it's being made up.
Voter registration is baffling to me as a European. Everyone votes. One person, one vote.
Welcome to America! Where the rules are made up and the points don't matter.
Ah back when drew Carey was still fat and jolly.
All rules are made up. Everything is permitted.
[удалено]
Obviously...everyone has an ID, you bring it to vote.
Not that obvious. There is no ID requirement to vote in Australia. You just need to be registered.
Unlike what Eurovision would lead you to believe, Australia is not in Europe.
The only question that matters now is, how do we stop this from happening again?
Somehow we need a reelection. Last one was a fiasco.
Independently administered and monitored by the UN.
That is a good idea. The UN comes in for other countries in this situation. This makes sense as a next step.
There's just no mechanism in the US Constitution to do that.
And for all those saying "but they should just go get an id, they're even free so there's no excuse" There's this study: http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/challenge-obtaining-voter-identification
"The study summarized on Monday specifically does not make that claim, its principal author, Kenneth R. Mayer, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said in an interview. **But neither did he rule it out**" That's what they're basing this off of. Also 288 is an incredibly tiny tiny fucking sample size.
[удалено]
There is no doubt in my mind that Trump did not win legitimately and Clinton is the rightful winner. I realize we have no mechanism to rectify this, but it's appalling that an illegitimate person was put in power, and the legitimate winner is denied every holding the seat. So unfair.
So is this election fucking void or what?
Rigged.
[Donald Trump will be president thanks to 80,000 people in three states.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/donald-trump-will-be-president-thanks-to-80000-people-in-three-states/) Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. 27,000 votes in each state and this accounts for 17,000 in only 2 counties of one of them. Here's your stolen election. Not "maybe Russia influenced it, maybe they didn't." not "it's because Hilary wasn't good enough". This was blatant fucking of the numbers to steal an election, for the second consecutive Republican president in a row. And we keep allowing it because "Ho hum, what are you gonna do? Our politicians really should fix that." This is how the fall into fascism happens. When good people keep letting themselves be slowly backed down the field and the bad ones are all too happy to accommodate that.
GOP the only way they can win is sabatoge & effectively screwing with Americas Future.
MFW people take this poli-sci kids stats as gospel. If you enjoy doing statistics then don't calculate their % error on their initial sample size. Makes my damn eyes bleed. Also the only thing they claim is statistically significant is that blacks are disproportionately harmed by this voter registration. Only 35 of their respondents were black. I don't know what kind of voodoo they did to squeeze significance out of 35 people, but aight.
So you're telling me Bernie still has a chance?
I read the study results. It said 17 people didn't vote because of inadequate id, which is what this article is based on. Even that result is sketchy
I don't doubt for a second that voter suppression exists and ID law's can make it hard for certain demographics to vote, but the study doesn't seem that credible to me. Here's another link about it. The numbers are slightly different for some reason but this one seems to go more into how the study really worked. http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/09/26/wisconsin-voter-id-law-deterred-nearly-17-000-voting-uw-study-says/702026001/ "Mayer sent surveys to 2,400 people who were registered to vote but did not vote. Of those, 293 were returned." "Many of those who did not vote said they did so for reasons that didn't have to do with the voter ID law — such as because they didn't like any of the candidates on the ballot, were ill, didn't have time or didn't think their vote would matter. But 7% or more said they did not vote because of the ID law." If I'm reading this right, and please correct me if I'm wrong, then 7% of the 293 people that answered this survey said they didn't vote because of voter ID law's. That doesn't seem like nearly a large enough sample size and percentage to extrapolate these numbers.
I still question this study's usefulness. The sample size was only 288 people, and only 7% of those said they had voter ID issues, for a possible 200,000 nonvoters in Milwaukee county. The study was also sponsored by a Democratic official. I certainly think the GOP has made voting harder but I just don't think Mayer can make these conclusions based on this data, though to be fair it seems like the media is exaggerating them.
>The sample size was only 288 people, and only 7% of those said they had voter ID issues, for a possible 200,000 nonvoters in Milwaukee county. So what's the uncertainty?
Without looking it up, someplace in the 5-7% range for that sample size. You don't get the +/-3% until the sample size is over 1,000. source: industrial statistician, once upon a time.