Insight into the GOP strategy by a former republican

I thought this was a interesting read.

http://blog.reidreport.com/2012/08/...read-this-notes-from-goper-who-fled-the-cult/

Basically a life long republican who worked in washington for many years tells why he left the party (no he didn't become a democrat). He adds some clarity for those that are confused by why the GOP does what it does, he also critiques the democrats and their issues.

Good read. I agree with his critique of both parties, the media, and the ignorant masses. The Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh people are starting to get downright scary; is this what Germany felt like in 1936? So much hate, misinformation, and mind control... Anyway, I did disagree with him on voter IDs. If you don't have a photo ID issued by the government then you should be required to get an ID. Of course it's a tactic to reduce Democratic voters, and of course it'll work! But it doesn't change the fact that proof of identity should be required to vote.

The issue with voter ID laws isn't with requiring an ID to vote. The issue is the cost associated with getting that ID, whether it's to pay for a birth certificate, pass port, or the ID itself, any cost associated with having to purchase an ID is essentially a poll tax.

What I find funny is that we have all these "small government" republicans increasing government spending to "fix" things that are statistically insignificant, voter ID fraud has had a total of 10 cases since 2000. Plus all the voter ID laws still would not address absentee voter fraud. How many eligible voters would be effected by these new laws? Is it more or less than the fraud numbers?

It's a simple question - should a person have to prove their identity to vote or not. The scale of the abuse isn't really the issue. What do democracies in other countries do? I find it difficult to believe someone in Germany can walk into a polling station without ID.

You really don't see why there may be an issue with requiring an ID and then have the cost of those ID's be prohibitive? I hope you aren't that short sighted MSP.

Again the issue isn't about requiring an ID it's about the cost associated with obtaining that ID.

Shane, should you be required to show an ID to vote? Yes or no? I say yes because what's to prevent thousands of activists on either side of the coin voting as often as they can? Just trott from district to district and lie! I see where you are coming from as far as cost, I'll grant you that. However do you know of anyone that doesn't have some form of ID? Those that don't typically have had it revoked, are illegals. I mean c'mon?

I have to pay for my identification. But for low income folks I would support low or no fee cards for them. But fee or not you and I both know that a big chunk of them wouldn't bother going through the steps in order to have the ID to vote with. That's the real issue here, not the cost. Requiring IDs is going to dramatically cut into the Democrats base, particular in the urban areas.

EDIT: And no, I'm not short sighted. Is it possible for you to debate anything without coming off as an arrogant prick?

Aren't you required to have an id to get a job, buy cigarettes, alcohol, or purchase a car. These are simple tasks that people do everyday, why should it be any different for people voting?

I see so I guess because you guys don't think poor people will vote anyway costs of the ID are secondary. I guess if an ID is required to get a job that means everyone must already have ID's or jobs.

Here is what I do know: A) voter fraud accounts for a really tiny amount B) voter ID laws don't address voter fraud (as I mentioned with regards to absentee ballots) C) voter ID laws will makes several hundred thousand (I haven't done the math but in Penn alone it's about 900k) people ineligible to vote.

How long have you known me? The answer to your question is no.


Do I think an ID should be required to vote? Yes but I'm sure as fuck am not going to support or hope laws get pushed through that will inadvertently affect my fellow Americans for something that is not an issue and has worked for the 200+ years! Do you guys expect your law makers then to pass laws making it easier to get ID's? My guess is that you guys couldn't care less since you have your ID's.

I don't know, maybe something called the constitution that guarantees every citizen the right to vote without paying a poll tax.

I read something humorous a while back on this, not sure from where. Basically someone was saying that the American people were given like 4+ years to prepare for the transition from analog to digital TV but we only give them a few months to square away getting an ID to vote? Tac or MSP, do you think it would be reasonable to give a 12month or so transition period until these laws can take effect? Is it reasonable to put this undue burden on the DMV or whoever to process hundreds of thousands of ID's within months? Don't you think there will be some fuckups in these few months possibly delaying someone from getting their ID?

I think MSP would be all for a phased in approach. Get legitimate voters an ID for free and you won't hear anyone complaining.

Wait. Isn't the argument being made by The Dems that poor people will be affected by imposing an ID law thus, they wouldn't be able to vote? With a straight face you think MSP and I think poor people don't vote already is what you just said in the 1st sentence. If that's the case, what's the argument about? In my experience, the majority of law abiding citizens have ID's. So what's the biggy? I'm willing I guess to allow another 12 months for someone of voting age to obtain a photo ID. It is the grown up thing to do after all isn't it? Every fucking adult in this society should have one for shit's sake. Is it really that hard and expensive though? Most states require an individual to carry some sort of identification with them. I also never claimed illegals were voting....just that most people that cannot produce an ID have either had it revoked (drivers license so get a state ID loser) or are illegal or...........are lying. There shouldn't be any hiccups because millions of people get their DL renewed everyday. It isn't mailed to you. By the way, don't you have to show ID at the BMV to get ........an ID?!?

I completely agree with this (see, I don't just want to argue with you!). Just roll the cost of photo ID's from the state into the driver's license cost. Right now, Virginia charges $10 for a state issued ID card. They require one primary form of ID (Social Security Card, Birth Certificate, another state issued ID or driver's license, passport, naturalization papers, etc...) and one secondary proof of residency (bill or lease with the person's name on it). It's not too tough to get.

I believe that if the states require voters to have ID's, that they should supply some sort of ID card to the voters for free. But, I think that this needs to be done. I honestly can't argue as to the percentage of votes that are fraudulent, but it is an issue that should be addressed to keep everyone honest.

~Will Courtier~

Yep. I don't desire to keep anyone from voting. But even for free some folks wouldn't go through the hassle. For those people I feel no sympathy.

There are some that can't get to the DMV to get an ID, because it's too far and they can't drive or for a number of reasons that none of us can even imagine. But, so long as the ID is free as well as the required documents are free then I'm fine with voter ID requirements.

With regards to this being an issue that needs to be addressed I whole heartedly disagree. It's not an issue and it is nothing but a rediculous boogeyman created by the GOP to affect elections. How any person can support the current republican party is beyond me (and it's probably why more and more people are considering themselves to be independent).

^^^ And I'll agree with that too. I think it's reasonable to ask for ID, but the Republicans are pushing the issue to thin out the Democrat ranks. I'd prefer they just offer a good candidate, but alas we get Romney instead.

I had no position on this issue one way or the other, but the question intrigued me so I thought it over.

Three things, and they all have to occur simultaneously within one individual:

-First, the person must possess enough political motivation to brother with such activities in the first place. Right now people barely even vote once.
-Second, the person must willingly and knowingly break the law (the penalty of which is fines, prison time and/or disenfranchisement). People casually break the law all the time (speeding, littering, etc) but the important difference is in those situations is that it's EASIER to not obey the law. Not so voting illegally. Also, in those cases the result is direct and assured... which brings me to my next point:
-Third, the person must be sufficiently delusional to think that their 2 or 3 extra votes are going to make a difference.

Additionally, the risk of disenfranchisement alone to someone who cares THAT much about political outcomes would be particularly demotivating. Also, this is just one person, not a cohesive operation. And if it were, the penalties would be that much tougher, and include other charges. On top of that, if discovered there would be action taken in the area in question, be it recounting the votes or discounting that areas votes altogether, making the operation a complete waste of time potentially.

To be effective you would have to have mass voter fraud, but the more effective the fraud the more likely it is to be detected.

With all this in mind I just can't imagine the individual who fits all these criteria. Sensible enough to care, not sensible enough to realize it wouldn't matter? Believes very strongly in the power of voting, and believes they should be permitted MORE votes than anyone else, and yet would risk never being allowed to vote again?

Oh and another thing:
Fourthly, the person would have to be a complete knob to believe that what a candidate says and what a candidate does are the same thing. Obviously this theoretical voter would be voting for the candidate who he feels has his best interests in mind, but what guarantee is there that his great risk will pay off directly? He may successfully commit fraud and find out the candidate changed his mind and isn't going to lower the taxes in his bracket after all (it happens all the time! Probably more often than not!). The risk/reward ratio in this scenario is off the charts.

When I started typing this response I thought I was just playing Devil's advocate, but actually I've kind of convinced myself that it really isn't necessary. It is a pretty compelling argument is it not?

That said, I DO present an ID when I vote (in Canada) and have never before considered it or begrudged that fact. I guess I've what I'm realizing now is that it's a silly requirement that seems sensible at first glance. Gotta hand it to those strategists though, making something out of nothing.

Great article btw, thanks for posting it.

Thousands of activists CAN sway an election. I didn't say one. I'm not talking about just POTUS. Local elections are just as important maybe even more depending on where you are in the states. Free ID doesn't mean free either. Yet again, the people that pay their taxes would absorb that. BTW, what alarm bells would be set off to consider an election to be considered possibly fraudulent?

By it's very nature the voting system seems to keep itself honest all on it's own, as is. The numbers seem back that up.

I know it may seem like a zero-cost measure to implement... how hard it is to just have someone check IDs when you vote after all? They're already sitting there check if your name is on the list. It seems like a free safety. Like a seatbelt. It's there, you just have to put it on and voila you've increased your chances of surviving a crash by 100 times. For FREE!

For arguments sake lets even say that every year one state's voting results are changed from red to blue or blue to red. That every year there is successful mass voter fraud of an entire state. A situation severe enough to warrant this new law, certainly (even though it's just one state). It's STILL not a free safety measure. There are a ton of small, but real, costs that DO add up to something which will be payed for directly by the voter or indirectly through his taxes. Keeping in mind that time is money, lets add up all the hours spent checking IDs and BEING checked for ID nationally. Consider that the lines will be longer, because they will now move slower. Lets say 1 extra minute of time is spent participating in the vote because of ID checking (both for the voter and the checker). Over 100 Million people vote every year, times 1 extra minute = 100 million hours. What amount of those hours would have been spent more productively... say, working. I know this is taking it to absurd levels, and trying to quantify these minutes and speculate on their worth IS absurd... but this is what cost analysis is all about. How about the 3 seconds it takes to put on a seat belt? In that instance three measly seconds make a world of difference. Why not 1 minute?

There is a point, I don't know where, that this new measure would be a cost benefit. I'm pretty sure that point is not now.

Also consider the intangible costs. Are we so distrustful of our neighbours now that we suspect them of voter fraud too? Do we want to cement this distrust in law? Has it gotten that bad? Consider how it might feel to live in a city where you don't have to worry about locking your door at night, or leaving your keys in your car. Or living in a time when AIDS didn't exist. Think about the mental costs of these ever present, and justifiable threats. They add up. They create an atmosphere of cautiousness, distrust. They are the facts of life and we must deal with them, but it would be better if we didn't have to.

Well here's one fact of life we DON'T have to deal with. It's not a problem yet. Lets not add it to our already great mental burdens.

A thousand activists are a thousand individuals who have independently made similar choices. I believe the points I outlined would have to be fulfilled one thousand times by one thousand individuals, in a single voting region.

This is simply beyond my ability to imagine. Probably because I've never seen anything like it.

For one thing the logistics are mind boggling. How do you find 1000 people willing to commit fraud? Second, how do you communicate to, and coordinate those people as one, without being detected or ratted out? Particularly in digital snooping age we live in.

Activists are good at burning cop cars, painting cardboard signs, and getting pepper spray in the face. These are things mobs can do, because they don't need coordinated planning. They're spontaneous. Turning up to vote, travelling en masse to vote again somewhere else, travelling en masse, voting again, and so on is not something that can be executed spontaneously.

Shit I don't know. Word gets out on these things. Clinton couldn't keep a blow job a secret, what hope do any of us have? And he's the president!

Also, blow jobs aren't even illegal. We can high-five on that at least, am I right?

How do the activists that just blow up cop cars contact each other before hand?

We can absolutely High 5 on that. Now here's where people aren't going to like me........again. The blow job wasn't the issue. Lying under oath about the blow job always was the issue. The Clinton supporters did everything they could to divert from that basic fact. Now start the usual hate.