ACORN

[Chesspiece_face]

I'm sorry, but just how do people who have to be rounded up and herded like cows "become a part of the voting populace"? Oh, they can cast a vote, alright, but shouldn't a voter be a little more? Like at least aware of the issues? Like motivated enough to take five minutes to register when renewing a driver's license? Do we really want large numbers of apathetic and ignorant people voting the way they are paid to vote, or the way that their demagogue of choice tells them to vote?

Now, if even a sizable minority of the people ACORN recruits are concerned, knowledgeable, citizens who couldn't or didn't register because of external restrictions, then ACORN is doing some good (the amount of good, in my opinion, is measured by the ratio of "good" voters to "bad" voters registered, where by 'good' and 'bad' I mean degree of civic responsibility accepted by the individuals). But if nearly all the ACORN recruits are civically apathetic sheep, then I fail to see how ACORN is aiding the democratic part of the republican process of our government. In signal terms, they are adding noise to the channel, causing the little signal that exists to be further drowned.

Maybe we should have a test which can decern who is a "good" voter or a "bad" voter that way we can weed out all the people who shouldn't be part of our democracy. <_<

Bad analogy. Voting is a civic right which each individual has the right to participate in or abstain from. Going to trial is usually not an option (plea bargains, etc,. aside). As an aside to this aside, do you believe that there can be a perfect system? Because, if not, then there *will* be innocent people going to jail and guilty people being turned loose. So, it is not the simple 'either-or' choice you present. How many guilty people are you willing to set free for each innocent convicted? And how many of the future victims of these criminals are you willing to console for their loss of property, dignity, or life because of your philosophy. Many in this country feel as do you, and one of the highest crime rates in the world is the price we pay.

The analogy is that in each case there is an issue of punishing an individual whom isn't deserving of punishment as well as an issue of giving a person of ill-intent the possibility of acting on their intent. In the second case guilt, whether punished or not, is soley attributed to the criminal individual whereas in the first case guilt is attributed to the system and all who aquiesce or support the system.

I agree, but this is a non sequitor. Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see where ACORN was addressing this. What I've seen is ACORN registering people who couldn't be troubled to register themselves. Not fighting for people who are being denied their rights, but simply people who didn't care to exercise them. I'm not even sure how ACORN would go about doing this, since then it becomes a matter of law. The organization I do see addressing this problem is the ACLU, and in this case, I cheer them (about two thirds of the time, I cheer the ACLU and in the other third I curse them -- but that's what makes them a good watch dog.)

--Pete

Again, not speaking for ACORN but for myself and my impressions, but ACORN's place should be to address the ignorance of the populace through information. The first step in the information process should be letting people know how they can involve themselves and how easy it is. I don't know ACORN's policies but this should be politically neutral and is valuable for democrats, republicans, conservatives, or liberals. ACORN does seem to lean liberal so i don't know if they would just ignore a republican who wished to register with them. If their political leanings push them to focus their efforts in urban or high population areas though that is just an issue of statistics. And hell, if you want to follow the argument to the theoretical conclusion the reason that voter fraud is perpetrated with the ease it is can partially be attributed to the fact that we have a relatively low turn out creating a large gap in which fraud can thrive. If we were able to hit that hypothetical spot where 100% of the eligible voters showed up it would be very easy to detect fraud. 2000 eligible voters but we got 2300 votes? hmmmm.... This is already noticable in areas which have very high turn out.

Edit:

For the reason I already gave, no such evidence will appear. There will be cases of discovered voter fraud as there is bound to be anytime a nation of 300 plus million votes. But there will never be evidence leading back to ACORN or any such organization. That proves nothing, either way.

I haven't totally written off the chance that mickey mouse actually shows up to vote. who knows?

[kandrathe]

Maybe we should have a test which can decern who is a "good" voter or a "bad" voter that way we can weed out all the people who shouldn't be part of our democracy. <_<

In some places in the world I've heard that if you vote you get a shot of booze. If you vote correctly for the single party candidate you get two shots.

[Zenda]

Well get used to it. A people that reelected George Bush, doesn't really have a lot of credit in that sense.

That's not fair, Eppie. Someones previous choices might not reflect his or her current opinion. People do learn from mistakes. Besides, iirc only one poster on this forum has ever acknowledged to have voted for Bush. Most people here might be Democrats, for all we know :whistling:

In all seriousness, though, choosing for Bush wasn't totally wrong for Americans. He might have been easily influenced, but he did plenty to stimulate US economy. For example, the reasons for the current financial crisis are complicated, but investors loosing faith now that Bush will leave has a part in it. He seems unpopular now, but that wasn't always the case. Not in the US. Sure, some of the things he did may proof unfavourable in the long run, but maybe not in his own view, be it a questionable view or not. And he didn't start or sustain the war in Iraq all by himself, either.

Also, many voters (American or not) will simply choose the candidate of their favorite political party. There is nothing wrong with that. And we Europeans must not forget that Democratic and Republic do *not* stand for Left and Right, as we know it. Those parties mostly differ in opinion on how to organize their government, not on political views. For example, if you are against Bureaucracy, you are expected to be Republican because those stand for less interference from a centralized government.

[kandrathe]

For example, if you are against bureaucracy, you are expected to be Republican because those stand for less interference from a centralized government.

Us libertarians hope to change that some day by having a true third choice that is truly for more freedom and limited government. If things continue as they are with stalemates and partisan squabbling, it won't be hard for a strong charismatic libertarian candidate to appeal to both sides. Now where do we find one? Here is the local Minnesota flavor. I believe Minnesota is ahead of the curve (both good and bad) in the frustrations of having our Democrats and Republicans argue while the State capital burns. The Democrats here more truly represent the "left" as it is defined in Europe, and the Republicans traditionally only care about the single issue of Abortion. Jesse Ventura as govenator was an interesting experience, which as it turns out didn't further the cause much.

[kandrathe]

So a congress member had to learn the meaning of your Constitution from someone working in the fields, who used words like 'legitimate purposes'? Isn't it more likely that the man was just envious about the money used for the people in Georgetown?

Probably not. Back then, in school, they used to memorize the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Gettysburg Address. Other notable works of the founding fathers were required reading, like Washington's farewell address and the Federalist papers. My mother, born on a farm, was taught in a one room school house, then went to one of the most prestigious secondary schools before attending college. I still have her school books, and their curriculum was tough. Twice as tough as the current low bar pablum our children are taught. Maybe that is a difference between Europe and America, as there is no class difference between the professor and the farmer. Some of my farmer relatives are among the wealthiest people in the state.

He was right in one thing, though. It's not about the amount, but about the choices that must be made. When there are many needs, who is going to decide where the money is spent?

Yes, and also where the limit would be as well. It seems there is an insatiable appetite by the government to separate people from their wealth and distribute it as "they" see fit.

It would be nice if the Constitution provided a useful list of priorities, but this is not the case. And even then, such a list would be probably be out-dated by now. Then again, I never read the Constitution.

You should read it, and it does make a list of priorities, being to support a citizens rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Does it mention freeing the people of Iraq from dictators?

Only if one misconstrues that invading Iraq was done to defend America.

That's where politicians get in. Someone has to do the ungrateful job of taking decisions that will never make everyone happy, like figuring out what to do with tax money. You can blame them for making 'bad' choices, but at least they have the courage to make them.

Is it courage that diverts more debt money for home state pork projects? I think it is more akin to graft and corruption. Is it courage to get elected by promising hand outs for everyone? In this regard I am very against Barrack. He says "I'm only going to increase taxes for those making over $250K". Why? Because they are not taxed enough? It is also a deception, since he is pushing for increasing the social security tax on everyone and removing the cap (currently you are only taxed on the first $102K). Since they spend social security as a part of the general budget, it exists only as an illusion so that people do not realize their taxes are actually 15.3 percent higher.

I think courage would be a person who stepped in and challenged the concept that governments have the right to become involved in any activities unrelated to the protection of individual rights. A courageous person would act to return the US to a government that would exist only to ensure the right to free speech and action, the right to own property, and the right to engage in voluntary contractual arrangements with other individuals. Courage would be to take a firm stand that no individual should be forced by the State, or another person, to relinquish any portion of his or her life or property for the benefit of another person.

I want to vote for the person who will go in and cut the federal budget in half. To blazes with balancing the budget. Let's move straight to paying off the debt.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'm going to reply to this a little out of order.

Again, not speaking for ACORN but for myself and my impressions, but ACORN's place should be to address the ignorance of the populace through information.

Maybe that should be its place, but the reality is that it is not what ACORN was started for nor what its stated intent is. Looking on their home page yields this statement:

The goal of ACORN and Project Vote's voter registration drives is to empower low-income and minority communities by giving them a voice in the political process. ACORN hopes that expanding the electorate will result in more candidates who appeal to historically underrepresented voting populations.

Two things stand out in this statement. The first is that no claim is made that that demographic is being kept from voting. The second is the demographic itself. When those groups do vote, they vote primarily for the Democrats. You can chose to believe that that choice of demographic is a coincidence if you so desire.

The first step in the information process should be letting people know how they can involve themselves and how easy it is.

People raised in the USA should already know this if they paid any attention in school. Immigrants are taught this as part of the naturalization process. At least in the state of Washington, state sponsored "get out the vote" TV commercials usually appear in the summer months of election years. So, just who needs the additional information?

I don't know ACORN's policies

They are very straightforward on their site (link above). I don't think they are very interested in an apolitical agenda, to say the least.

And hell, if you want to follow the argument to the theoretical conclusion the reason that voter fraud is perpetrated with the ease it is can partially be attributed to the fact that we have a relatively low turn out creating a large gap in which fraud can thrive.

Right. And people that get mugged deserve it because they shouldn't have been in *that* part of town. And women that get raped were probably asking for it. And if you don't have steel doors and bars on your windows, then home invasion is your fault. You might just want to rethink that idea.

I haven't totally written off the chance that mickey mouse actually shows up to vote. who knows?

I don't see why not, I hear he voted early and often for Regan both as governor and president. :lol:

Maybe we should have a test which can decern who is a "good" voter or a "bad" voter that way we can weed out all the people who shouldn't be part of our democracy. <_<

And that, in my opinion, is the only interesting thing in this post. Consider that we have always had limits on who could vote. When the Constitution was ratified, effectively it was only white christian men of British descent and of property. It was felt that they were the only ones with enough of a stake in the country to vote for the good of the country. That argument is not completly fallacious. Over the succeeding two and a quarter (almost) centuries, that has been greatly expanded as it was realized that not gender, race, religion, or natural origin are good indicators of the ability to show good judgement. We still restrict it by age, thus a moron, chronologically thiry but mentally ten, can vote, but a genius ten year old with the understanding of a normal thirty year old cannot. We are restricted by legal condition, convicted criminals lose their right to vote but it may be reinstated. There might be additional restrictions I am not aware of, but unfortunately, the State of Washington web pages with additional info are broken at this time. Of course, non-citizens including long term residents who've never applied for citizenship cannot vote. So, exclusions are not new nor uncommon.

Now, consider what voting is. It is the ultimate political power that determines the course of our nation (and given the present situation, that of much of the world). Looking at it in that light, perhaps to weed out all the people who shouldn't be part of our democracy isn't that bad an idea. Voting is expressing an opinion on an issue. There can be, often are, valid differences of opinion amongst people who understand the issue. But should the vote of those that do understand the issue be counted as cheaply as the votes of those that don't? Indeed, should those that don't understand the issue be permitted to vote on it at all? Should those that pay no attention to politics and then vote the straight party ticket, often without even recognizing many of the names they voted for, be counted equally to those who've studied the issues and the candidates and attempt to vote for what they think is best. And should those that vote for runious measures to their advantage be considered as worthy to be citizens as those that will put the good of the country first?

I believe that the right to live in a country is broader than the right to be a citizen (and thus a voter) in that country. The first is given by birth or legal immigration. The second, I feel, should be earned. And, to earn it, I think there should be certain minimum requirements. The most fundemental is the mental abilty to understand what citizenship is, its duties and responsibilities. Next, a certain level of knowledge should be required. A basic high scool equivalency should suffice if the requirements aren't set too low. Third, if one wants to be placed in the position of ruling the state, then he should show that he is willing to serve the state. Military service comes to mind, and indeed many countries require military service for full citizenship (and failure to comply, in some counties, makes you a criminal). However, military service is not suitable for everyone, and alternatives in schools, police, firefighting, health care, peace corps, etc. should be available. But, the basis that those who wish to rule must first serve should be adheared to, and 'cheap' tickets to the ballot should not exist. Finally, in every election, the first part of the ballot should be a series of simple factual questions, taken from a publically available source such as the Woman's League Voter's Pamphlet. Failure to answer a sufficient percent (I'd hold out for seventy, but that's my Catholic school background, we didn't have 'D') correctly would invalidate the rest of the ballot. If you don't know the facts, how can you have valid opinions?

So, that (minus a world of details) is my answer to "Democracy is the system of government where opinions are counted but not weighed." Of course, the details are difficult. The intent is to weed out the apathetic, the self-servers, the ignorant. At the same time, every care must be taken to include all people who are informed, who do want the good of the state, who care. I propose this not as a viable direction for the USA to go, but as an ideal for a well regulated country. It is, in many ways, the closest we can come to a Jeffersonian ideal with the realistic population that exists.

Now, let the games begin:)

--Pete

[Taem]

I was talking about the fact that so many people apparantly want to believe such groundless accusations. It can't be that hard to find a better motivation for your political choice, I hope? Do you really want the government that wins a mud slinging contest?

I guess you weren't aware how close John Kerry came to beating Mr. Bush. If he won Florida, he would have won the vote, yet look: LINK

Researchers: Florida Vote Fishy
Kim Zetter Email 11.18.04

Electronic voting machines in Florida may have awarded George W. Bush up to 260,000 more votes than he should have received, according to statistical analysis conducted by University of California, Berkeley graduate students and a professor, who released a study on Thursday.

The researchers likened their report to a beeping smoke alarm and called on Florida officials to examine the data and the voting systems in counties that used touch-screen voting machines to provide an explanation for the anomalies. The researchers examined the same numbers and variables in Ohio, but found no discrepancies there.

Their aim in releasing the report, the researchers said, was not to attack the results of the 2004 election in Florida, where Bush won by 350,000 votes, but to prompt election officials and the public to examine the e-voting systems and address the fact that there is no way to conduct a meaningful recount on the paperless machines.

The analysis -- which hasn't been formally peer-reviewed, but was examined by seven professors -- showed a discrepancy in the number of votes Bush received in counties that used the touch-screen machines and counties that used other types of voting equipment.

The researchers examined numerous variables that might have affected the vote outcome. These included the number of voters, their median income, racial and age makeup and the change in voter turnout between the 2000 and 2004 elections. Using this information, they examined election results for the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates in the state in 1996, 2000 and 2004 to see how support for those candidates and parties measured over eight years in Florida's 67 counties.

They discovered that in the 15 counties using touch-screen voting systems, the number of votes granted to Bush exceeded the number of votes Bush should have received -- given all of the other variables -- while the number of votes that Bush received in counties using other types of voting equipment lined up perfectly with what the variables would have predicted for those counties.

The total number of excessive votes ranged between 130,000 and 260,000, depending on what kind of problem caused the excess votes. The counties most affected by the anomaly were heavily Democratic.

Sociology professor Michael Hout, who chairs the university's graduate Sociology and Demography group, said the chance for such a discrepancy to occur was less than 1 in 1,000.

"No matter how many factors and variables we took into consideration, the significant correlation in the votes for President Bush and electronic voting cannot be explained," he said in a statement. "There is just a trivial probability of evidence like this appearing in a population where the true difference is zero -- less than once in a thousand chances."

The three counties where anomalies were most prevalent were Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade. In Broward, statistical analysis showed Bush should have received 13,000 fewer votes this year than in 2000. In fact, he received 59,000 more votes than expected, for a net gain of 72,000 votes.

In Palm Beach county, analysis showed that Bush should have gained only 17,000 votes. But instead he gained 57,000. In Miami-Dade county he was expected to gain votes, but by much less than he actually did. According to the researchers he should have received only 29,000 more votes, but he actually gained 44,000 votes.

Both Broward and Miami-Dade counties use machines made by Election Systems & Software, while Palm Beach county uses machines made by Sequoia Voting Systems. No Florida counties used touch-screen machines made by Diebold Election Systems, the company whose machines have received the most scrutiny over the last year.

A representative for Election Systems & Software called the study "hypothetical."

"If you consider real-world experience, we know that ES&S' touch-screen voting system has been proven in thousands of elections throughout the country," said Jill Friedman-Wilson in an e-mail. "Based on this solid track record -- as well as the extensive testing process that is required before equipment may be used in an election -- we are confident in the security, reliability and accuracy of all of our voting systems."

Susan Van Houten, cofounder of Palm Beach Coalition for Election Reform, was not surprised by the Berkeley report.

"I've believed the same thing for a while that the numbers are screwy and it looks like they proved it," Van Houten said.

Van Houten said her group had received a number of reports from voters who said that when they voted for Kerry on the Sequoia machines, the review screen showed that the vote had been cast for Bush. The review screen lets voters review their choices before casting their ballot. Van Houten said she was concerned that the same thing may have happened to many other voters who didn't carefully check the review screen before casting their ballot.

"From the computer experts I spoke to, it’s relatively easy to program something into the system so that only every 50th vote would automatically go to Bush," Van Houten said. If this were the case, election officials would be less likely to think there was a problem with the machine if only a few voters noticed it.

But Walter Medane, a professor of government at Cornell University, said the study showed no indication of fraud or that something was out of place with the election results.

"All their study truly demonstrates is what was already well known, which is that the counties that used electronic touch-screen machines differ from the counties that used optical scan ballots in many respects," Mebane wrote in an e-mail. "Whether those differences include fraud specifically involving the electronic machines cannot be determined from regression models such as the UC Berkeley study uses."

Jenny Nash, press secretary for the Florida Department of State, said she would not comment on a report that she had not yet read. She said Florida had been using its current voting systems since 2002 and had "delivered hundreds of successful elections using the systems."

"Florida has one of the most rigorous certification processes in the nation," Nash said. "After a system is certified for use ... then every single voting systems is tested prior to the election, sealed, and then that seal is not broken until Election Day. We have never had any reports from supervisors of machines malfunctioning or of votes being lost."

"I think that's a joke," Van Houten said. "As a poll worker in the primary (election), I personally witnessed three machines go down."

Van Houten's group, which monitored polling places on Nov. 2, found that at least 40 of 798 machines they monitored were unable to print out a final tally tape at the end of the night. In Florida, poll workers are supposed to print out two tallies from each machine -- one for county officials and another for posting at the polls so that voters can see what the tallies were.

"In around 40 cases that didn't occur," Van Houten said. "I personally observed that during the primary as well. A machine just went down and flashed a message that it needed service repair. It didn't print out a tally."

Graduate students from Berkeley's Quantitative Methods Research Team launched the research project after following debates in the blogosphere about possible fraud in the election. After examining and discounting many other theories, such as ones involving optical-scan machines in Florida, they decided to look at counties that used touch-screen voting machines.

Touch-screen machines became the focus of much debate last year when computer scientists who examined the systems released several reports showing that the machines were vulnerable to hacking and vote manipulation. The testing and certification process for approving voting systems has also been roundly criticized by computer experts and voting activists as being inadequate.

The researchers would not speculate on possible causes for the vote discrepancies in Florida; they said they would leave it to officials to figure that out.

Just Google "Florida Vote Bush" and you will find a ton of information on it. Other states lost THOUSANDS of ballots, while in other states, THOUSANDS of dead people voted. Are you honestly going to sit back and tell me this won't affect who wins an election when it comes down to the wire? I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. Perhaps ACORN didn't orchestrate this level of voter fraud that lead to Bush winning Florida, however someone was surly aware of it.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Are you honestly going to sit back and tell me this won't affect who wins an election when it comes down to the wire?

Exactly why I'm opposed to the 'paperless' election machines. People think that what they input is what is reported. Maybe so, maybe no. And without a paper trail, no way to know. A new beatitude: "Blessed are the nerds, for they shall fix the elections."

BTW, no need to both link and quote an article, either would do fine and linking saves space on this server.;)

--Pete

[eppie]

That's not fair, Eppie. Someones previous choices might not reflect his or her current opinion. People do learn from mistakes. Besides, iirc only one poster on this forum has ever acknowledged to have voted for Bush. Most people here might be Democrats, for all we know :whistling:

Zenda, I know, and I know he for sure didn't vote for Bush. However, I got really annoyed by Kandrathe's remark about not caring. I am really wondering why he is not going to an american-only forum if his is true.
I also was very impressed with his and Pete's response.

Also, many voters (American or not) will simply choose the candidate of their favorite political party. There is nothing wrong with that. And we Europeans must not forget that Democratic and Republic do *not* stand for Left and Right, as we know it. Those parties mostly differ in opinion on how to organize their government, not on political views. For example, if you are against Bureaucracy, you are expected to be Republican because those stand for less interference from a centralized government.

Yes I know, and they know I know. This is not the first election we are discussing here. However once in a while some people here really want to show their lack of a sense of humor and when a real response is difficult, what is easier than just blaming in on 'the europeans'. This is also one of the reason why we keep repeating the same things again and again in these kinds of discussions. And the reason why I stopped reaction on the subject. It is always someone else's fault, and a critical look at if there might be things that can be improved in the voting process is not an option.

[kandrathe]

Zenda, I know, and I know he for sure didn't vote for Bush. However, I got really annoyed by Kandrathe's remark about not caring. I am really wondering why he is not going to an American-only forum if his is true.

MEAT was the one who said he voted for Bush. Maybe you were annoyed by my remark about ignoring European complaints, as I was from Europeans advising Americans to "Not Vote" if they were unsure. The alternative would be to do a few hours of research regarding the issues one cares about, and which candidate seems to have the record of acting in the manner you desire and following through to deliver on their promises. It seems to me that an unsure person could educate themselves between now and November 4th. Also, some people will say they are unsure, when they really are saying "I don't want to tell you".

[Jester]

As to the logic lesson, start with Jester's "There is no evidence that these voter registration issues have led to voter fraud." Since he says that in rebuttal to kandrathe's claims that, "registration fraud leads to voting fraud.", the conclusion is that Jester is, in effect implying that registration fraud does not lead to voter fraud. Voter fraud exists, even you grant that. For a fraudulent vote to be cast, the voter must obtain a ballot. To obtain that ballot, the voter must be on a list (under the fraudulent alias) either to vote in person or to receive an absentee ballot, or there needs to be collusion between the voter and the workers at the polling place. There are observers at the polling places to ensure that such collusions do not take place. So, if there are fraudulent votes (as you admit there are) then they must be the result of fraudulent registration, contrary to Jester's implication. To make his implied statement false does not take all fraudulent registrations causing fraudulent votes. If even a single case occurred, then that is sufficient.

You take as an implication ("in effect implying") from "There is no evidence that these voter registration issues have led to voter fraud." that "registration fraud does not lead to voter fraud." Correct?

Then, clarifying the issue as to what you are taking me to mean, you say that a single case would be sufficient to disprove my implication (actually, your implication from my statement) that registration fraud does not lead to voter fraud. Slightly more hoity toity, that's me implying "There does not exist a case where registration fraud led to voter fraud" which would be contradicted by "there exists a case where registration fraud led to voter fraud."

That would be fine, except that it's not what I said. I made an epistemological claim about what we know about the situation, not an ontological claim about what is or is not factually true about voter fraud. We do not have reason to suspect that, in these cases, voter registration issues led to voter fraud, NOT that voter registration issues are never connected to voter fraud. The first is a very basic statement about the state of our knowledge. The second is an obvious absurdity.

Propositions for which I have no evidence, I believe in like I believe in Russell' Teapot. I have no evidence or argument that they are definitely not true. That's all I can say about them. But, were I to translate that into a pragmatic, actionable belief, it would not yield "maybe, maybe not, 50%-50%", it would yield "show me first, I'll believe second." To not reason in this way seems to condemn oneself to near-solipsistic uncertainty about the most ridiculous propositions. (I believe Dawkins has a passage in The God Delusion on the topic.)

Now, if the FBI investigation that Kandrathe claims is going on kicks down the right doors, and reveals actual fraudulent votes, or something pointing in that direction, either through the intentions of ACORN, or simply using them as a vehicle, then I'll change my position. That would be evidence. Right now, we haven't got the evidence, so suggestions and innuendoes about ACORN as a corrupt organization are unwarranted.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Now, if the FBI investigation that Kandrathe claims is going on kicks down the right doors, and reveals actual fraudulent votes, or something pointing in that direction, either through the intentions of ACORN, or simply using them as a vehicle, then I'll change my position. That would be evidence. Right now, we haven't got the evidence, so suggestions and innuendoes about ACORN as a corrupt organization are unwarranted.

Well, it is more that the Associated Press are claiming... FBI investigates ACORN for Voter Fraud

[Zenda]

In reply of post 165 by Kandrathe

"Some of my farmer relatives are among the wealthiest people in the state."

What's your point? That the man in the fields who lectured a congress member about the Constitution could have been a wealthy farmer? Seeing how he also kept up to date with financial and political papers, you might well be right on that (assuming all of this happened as described). Then again, that seems to go against the spirit of the story, doesn't it? Maybe that's why it wasn't mentioned :whistling:

"Is it courage that diverts more debt money for home state pork projects?"

Maybe they didn't even want to make the decision, but knew there had to be made one? Governments are often confronted with choices they'd rather avoid, you know. But the point is that you seem to be ok with appointing others to make decisions that you don't like, and cursing them if they don't do what's best for you. Do you think you would be less hated if you were up there?

"I think courage would be a person who stepped in and challenged the concept that governments have the right to become involved in any activities unrelated to the protection of individual rights."

In other words, you'd want a government that never interferes with you, and protects your interests. While that may sound like Utopia, it's also what organized crime offers. Full protection for those who can pay for it, and the 'right' to mind you own business for anyone else :glare:


In reply of post 167 by MEAT

"I guess you weren't aware how close John Kerry came to beating Mr. Bush..."

True, I didn't pay much attention to it, back then. You may be right on that issue, but I was talking about the current groundless accusations against ACORN to discredit the Democratic candidate. Do you think such things should be used in election campaigns?


In reply of post 169 by Eppie

"This is also one of the reason why we keep repeating the same things again and again in these kinds of discussions."

I agree with much of what you say, but another reason is that most people simply have a hard time understanding eachother. We may talk the same language (English in this case), and buy generally the same things in stores, but there are huge psychological and cultural differences between Americans and Dutch, for example. We don't think the same things. Sometimes it's needed to repeat things in different wordings, just to arrive at a point of understanding.

My old English teacher used to say that if you want to truly understand a country, you'd need to understand everything in it's newspapers. No matter how boring or full of crap it seems to be :mellow:

Also, getting angry rarely helps. I know from experience :blush:

[Jester]

Well, it is more that the Associated Press are claiming... FBI investigates ACORN for Voter Fraud

I did not mean to cast doubt on your statement, which is apparently true. I merely meant to indicate that I had not independently checked it, and was going on your word.

It does bear mentioning that an investigation is a response to allegations, and not, by itself, evidence of wrongdoing.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I did not mean to cast doubt on your statement, which is apparently true. I merely meant to indicate that I had not independently checked it, and was going on your word.

It does bear mentioning that an investigation is a response to allegations, and not, by itself, evidence of wrongdoing.

Yup. Again, I don't believe there is an organized attempt by the national ACORN organization to commit voter fraud, but rather there are likely some people or procedures that need changing.

[kandrathe]

"Some of my farmer relatives are among the wealthiest people in the state."

What's your point? That the man in the fields who lectured a congress member about the Constitution could have been a wealthy farmer? Seeing how he also kept up to date with financial and political papers, you might well be right on that (assuming all of this happened as described). Then again, that seems to go against the spirit of the story, doesn't it? Maybe that's why it wasn't mentioned :whistling:

I mentioned it because you seem to have a problem with a Congressman getting educated by a farmer. In fact, if things in government operated as intended, the congressman might be a farmer who is taking 2 years off to serve their country.

"Is it courage that diverts more debt money for home state pork projects?"

Maybe they didn't even want to make the decision, but knew there had to be made one? Governments are often confronted with choices they'd rather avoid, you know. But the point is that you seem to be ok with appointing others to make decisions that you don't like, and cursing them if they don't do what's best for you. Do you think you would be less hated if you were up there?

This is where you may not understand our federal system. The federal government exists to maintain only what is common within the 50 states (and etc.). When a politician creates a bill, or an amendment that uses federal money on a project that only benefits the people in his local district, we call that pork. In essence, every tax payer is funding the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago, whereas it is really only the people in the Chicago area that will enjoy it. Likewise, the bridge to nowhere that we hear so much about was going to serve only a few thousand people, but be funded by everyone in the nation. Some things, like NASA, which are located in a few States are federal programs and do help the economies in the areas they are located. I don't appoint anyone. I only get a single vote, and my candidate rarely gets elected so exercising my right of free speech to curse their actions is the only other right I have left. I know I wouldn't be very popular with the "I want a free lunch" crowd.

"I think courage would be a person who stepped in and challenged the concept that governments have the right to become involved in any activities unrelated to the protection of individual rights."

In other words, you'd want a government that never interferes with you, and protects your interests. While that may sound like Utopia, it's also what organized crime offers. Full protection for those who can pay for it, and the 'right' to mind you own business for anyone else

I want the Utopia that was envisaged by the founders and encoded in the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution. I believe the federal governments sole purpose is to protect individual rights relating to life, liberty, and the pursuit of their dreams. If it is a persons ambition to become very wealthy, then I see no reason why the government should impede that right, as long as that person does not impinge on others rights in following their dreams. The government does not exist to insure that every one is equal, or that everyone is happy. In many ways, our government is an organized crime.

[Zenda]

In reply to post 176 by Kandrathe

"I mentioned it because you seem to have a problem with a Congressman getting educated by a farmer. In fact, if things in government operated as intended, the congressman might be a farmer who is taking 2 years off to serve their country."

No matter how intelligent or wise a farmer is, without further experience the man would not be able to run a country. Besides, what would become of his farm during that time? While romantic and idealistic, the notion that you could ask someone on the street how to run the nation is absurd. You may despise politicians, but not everyone can do the job.

"This is where you may not understand our federal system. The federal government exists to maintain only what is common within the 50 states..."

I think I do. In the Netherlands, the central government exists to maintain only what is common within the 14 provinces. That just happens to be a lot. Too much according to some, too little according to others. Just like in the States. But in general we don't worry much about it because we have more important matters to argue about, like clothing regulations and the (im)politeness of handshaking :glare:

You could say we Dutch are too opportunistic for the Republican viewpoint. Instead of arguing where a decision must be made, we just (try to) make it. When it's too difficult or 'hot' to handle, it gets shoved up or down the hierarchy :whistling:

"I only get a single vote, and my candidate rarely gets elected so..."

We'd all like more then one vote, or at least see our favorite candidate win. It would make organizing elections a bit more complicated, though :wacko:

"I believe the federal governments sole purpose is to protect individual rights relating to life, liberty, and the pursuit of their dreams."

I think you forgot the individual's global economic interests, which are now threatened by malicious Chinese valuta manipulations, from what I saw here.

[--Pete]

Hi,

You take as an implication ("in effect implying") from "There is no evidence that these voter registration issues have led to voter fraud." that "registration fraud does not lead to voter fraud." Correct?

Almost correct. In itself, your quoted statement simply states a fact and based only on that statement my inference would not be valid. However, taken in the context of the discussion and especially as a reply to kandrathe's claim, I felt that that inference was justified. Since these discussions are not as formal as a mathematical proof, at least some of the meaning can come from the context. Indeed, must come from the context, otherwise the verbosity required for rigor would lead to rigor mortis.:)

Then, clarifying the issue as to what you are taking me to mean, you say that a single case would be sufficient to disprove my implication (actually, your implication from my statement) that registration fraud does not lead to voter fraud.

Slight usage nit. If you make a statement, you imply, I infer. Thus, "your inferral from my statement" would be correct. I only mention this in passing because the tone of this discussion brings me back to philosophy/debate/logic class. :D

That would be fine, except that it's not what I said. I made an epistemological claim about what we know about the situation, not an ontological claim about what is or is not factually true about voter fraud.

And I made it quite clear from the start that I was discussing my inference of what I thought your statement, in the context used, implied. Thus a simple "I did not mean it that way" would have sufficed to divert the argument from your statement. However, the remainder of the argument, that registration fraud is a necessary prerequisite to voter fraud, still stands, even if not applicable as a rebuttal to your statement.

We do not have reason to suspect that, in these cases, voter registration issues led to voter fraud, NOT that voter registration issues are never connected to voter fraud. The first is a very basic statement about the state of our knowledge. The second is an obvious absurdity.

Change the verb from "suspect" to "believe" and I'll (reluctantly) accept this as strictly logically sound. However, consider the following:
1) ACORN personnel have been involved in registration fraud (acknowledged even by ACORN).
2) Voter fraud exists (pretty much common knowledge)
3) Most (non-computer based) voter fraud requires registration fraud to exist (my, perhaps not applicable to you, but still un-rebutted argument).
To conclude, from these facts, that "We do not have reason to suspect . . ." causes me to wonder just when your suspicion is aroused. Let's say we were speaking of a sinking boat. Would you be suspicious of the integrity of the hull when there was water in the bilges? When the gunwales were awash? Or not till you were sinking for the last time?

Propositions for which I have no evidence, I believe in like I believe in Russell' Teapot. I have no evidence or argument that they are definitely not true. That's all I can say about them.

I think I just heard Bayes turn over in his grave ;) Russell's outlook is all very good for mathematical discussions, but in real life it is seldom (Kant would say 'never') that we have complete information. We must draw conclusions from incomplete information and not become paralyzed by partial ignorance. We gather what information we can, we adjust our assessment as well as we can based on this information, and at some point, for practical purposes, we determine that something is 'true' or 'false' even if the mental probability we've arrived at isn't the perfect 1 or 0 we would like. That is what intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, understanding is for. The rest is just Principia Mathematica expressed as a computer program without acknowledgment of Gödel.;)

But, were I to translate that into a pragmatic, actionable belief, it would not yield "maybe, maybe not, 50%-50%", it would yield "show me first, I'll believe second." To not reason in this way seems to condemn oneself to near-solipsistic uncertainty about the most ridiculous propositions.

I prefer the viewpoint expressed by Isaac Asimov in one of his innumerable essays. He was discussing the basis for scientific belief and the reasonableness of checking everything out for oneself. I don't remember the exact details, but it went something like this:

If you claim to have a pound jar of silicon in your office, I'll just nod, say, "That's nice", and maybe ask to have some should I need it.

If you claim to have a pound jar of palladium in your office, I'll blink, say, "Really?", and ask to see it.

If you claim to have a pound jar of polonium in your office, I'll shake my head, say, "No way!" and go on about my business. The claim is too preposterous to even bother checking out.

I agree with this outlook. Our acceptance of a proposition in our daily life should be based on the likelyhood of that proposition being true and not on absolute proof. Only in cases where there is a high 'cost' should the requirements be more stringent. Of course, that opinion is an opinion.

Now, if the FBI investigation that Kandrathe claims is going on kicks down the right doors, and reveals actual fraudulent votes, or something pointing in that direction, either through the intentions of ACORN, or simply using them as a vehicle, then I'll change my position. That would be evidence.

Because, of course, the FBI is an organization that is completely unbiased and has never railroaded any group in its history? You see, your requirement for absolute proof is a never ending regression. ACORN is innocent until shown to be guilty by the FBI. The FBI investigation is biased until shown to be fair by the ACLU. The ACLU is corrupt until vindicated by ??? say Amnesty International. AI has an ax to grind until supported by Greenpeace. And so on forever. Ultimately, you'll have to pick who you trust and what you believe. The rigor of a derivation, through logic, from axioms, only happens in the abstract world of mathematics. And, even there, it is preceded by speculation based on "it seems about right."

Right now, we haven't got the evidence, so suggestions and innuendoes about ACORN as a corrupt organization are unwarranted.

Wrong, on two counts. That ACORN employees have participated in fraud is indisputable (ACORN itself admits this). To quote Dos Gringos, "And that was just an accident and it only happened twice." (Actually, quite a bit more often than twice, in the case of ACORN). Now, if an organization is tied to behavior that is repeated, is it wrong to suspect that that behavior is endemic to the organization? And if it is endemic, is it further wrong to suspect that that behavior is condoned, even encouraged by that organization?

The second count you are wrong on is a bit more subtle. This discussion is relative to the statement "There is no evidence that these voter registration issues have led to voter fraud." The question of the corruption of ACORN is a separate issue. ACORN could be as pure as the driven snow (right, ever read what is found in snow in industrial areas?), and all the registration fraud the work of evil underlings who've taken advantage of this pure and naive organization. That still does not save this final statement from being completely out of place in this post. It is a total non sequitor and an emotional red herring.

--Pete

[Thecla]

Other states lost THOUSANDS of ballots, while in other states, THOUSANDS of dead people voted.

I dare say some states lost more than that, but I very much doubt that any dead people voted, even if some of them may have attempted to cash their social security check.;)

The intentional casting of fraudulent votes is non-problem in the US, though the poor guy (68 years old and a 10 year legal resident of Florida) who was deported to Pakistan after he mistakenly filled out a voter-registration form at the DMV might not think so. Well, with a name like Ali I wouldn't be surprised if he was a terrorist anyway.

[Jester]

Almost correct. In itself, your quoted statement simply states a fact and based only on that statement my inference would not be valid. However, taken in the context of the discussion and especially as a reply to kandrathe's claim, I felt that that inference was justified. Since these discussions are not as formal as a mathematical proof, at least some of the meaning can come from the context. Indeed, must come from the context, otherwise the verbosity required for rigor would lead to rigor mortis.:)

I don't know ACORN internally. I don't work for them, I've never made a study of their methods, I didn't interview hundreds of their employees. Indeed, if you'd asked me months ago what ACORN was, I'd probably have told you it's the seed of an oak tree. I am in no position to make strict, factual claims about negatives: I cannot say, with any certainty, that ACORN is not committing fraud. However, that is trivial. I cannot say you weren't one of the Apollo astronauts either, but I have no reason to believe so.

However, the remainder of the argument, that registration fraud is a necessary prerequisite to voter fraud, still stands, even if not applicable as a rebuttal to your statement.

Sure. Maybe there should be an investigation into the matter. Of course, there have been some, and now even the FBI is going to have a look. The Republicans have been pushing hard to unearth 'voter fraud', which they either believe is a huge problem, or want other people to believe that it is. Given how long that pressure has been going, how little it has turned up in the way of substantive problems, and how none of it has managed to implicate ACORN in anything worse than imperfect hiring, I'm not sure Bayes would be counselling me to revise my probability estimates upwards at this point.

New evidence would change the map. I'll be waiting when it gets here.

However, consider the following:
1) ACORN personnel have been involved in registration fraud (acknowledged even by ACORN).
2) Voter fraud exists (pretty much common knowledge)
3) Most (non-computer based) voter fraud requires registration fraud to exist (my, perhaps not applicable to you, but still un-rebutted argument).

1 is not only acknowledged by ACORN, but they appear to be actively combatting it. Now, there is always the possibility that this is a ruse, to hide actual fraud, but we have no evidence for that proposition either, yet. 2 is obvious, although the apparently trivial magnitude of the problem makes me wonder why this has become an event mentioned offhandedly in poli-sci journals, let alone in live debate by a major candidate, unless that candidate is using it as a political weapon, and not as an actual problem to be solved. 3 is true. However, we cannot demonstrate the proportion of faulty voter registration to voter fraud, and all indications are that it is a low-to-negligible proportion.

To conclude, from these facts, that "We do not have reason to suspect . . ." causes me to wonder just when your suspicion is aroused. Let's say we were speaking of a sinking boat. Would you be suspicious of the integrity of the hull when there was water in the bilges? When the gunwales were awash? Or not till you were sinking for the last time?

Well, let's say the FBI finds something, a document that didn't get shredded, an informant willing to come forward, some district where ACORN is extremely active and fraudulent votes turn up far more often than an equivalent district where they are not active. Then I'd be suspicious. Right now, what we have are a bunch of accusations from people whose accumulated trust with me is a negative function (I'm slightly less likely to believe the sky is blue if Karl Rove tells me it's true) and very little else, except an increasing track record of uncovering nothing else.

I think I just heard Bayes turn over in his grave ;) Russell's outlook is all very good for mathematical discussions, but in real life it is seldom (Kant would say 'never') that we have complete information. We must draw conclusions from incomplete information and not become paralyzed by partial ignorance. We gather what information we can, we adjust our assessment as well as we can based on this information, and at some point, for practical purposes, we determine that something is 'true' or 'false' even if the mental probability we've arrived at isn't the perfect 1 or 0 we would like.

Yes, but I am not asking for certainty. I am asking for some evidence which would move the probability up from being trivial (it's higher than Russell's teapot, you're right, that was a misleading analogy), to something I would be concerned about. For practical purposes, though *not* in a deductive sense, I am looking at this as thought it is false. The likelihood of it being true, from our current set of knowledge, seems very low. The likelihood of it being both true and a big deal seems even lower.

Because, of course, the FBI is an organization that is completely unbiased and has never railroaded any group in its history? You see, your requirement for absolute proof is a never ending regression.

You are honestly reading what I'm saying as a request for absolute, unassailable, ironclad proof? I'm asking for anything that would even cause me to *suspect* that these accusations are true, beyond mere circumstance. Specifically, I have to have reason to believe that the hypothesis of widespread fraud or conspiracy to commit fraud is more likely than the hypothesis that it's not happening, and right now, that's not a battle ACORN is losing.

And, of course, the FBI railroads people. Their say-so would not be absolute proof. However, if they themselves want to be taken seriously, they need evidence. If this really goes into Oliver Stone land, I'm sure they could simply fool me into believing it. Contrary to what you seem to be reading from me, I do not claim to have some impervious filter that siphons out all incorrect information. I can be fooled, and easily with the right tricks, but I`m not yet fool enough to believe political accusations without some evidence.

Now, if an organization is tied to behavior that is repeated, is it wrong to suspect that that behavior is endemic to the organization? And if it is endemic, is it further wrong to suspect that that behavior is condoned, even encouraged by that organization?

Could you imagine how badly every organization would come out in such an analysis... frequency and intent are what is relevant here. You cannot simply take any repeated behaviour on the part of employees and call it endemic, unless you think almost everything people do is endemic to almost every organization.

Also, remember the unique prohibitions ACORN is working under here. They cannot enact internal quality control to catch these things in a face-saving manner. The registrations, once filled out, are going to be sent in, as a legal requirement. Their worst employees, the mistakes, the glitches, the liars and cheats, the whole lot, their work cannot be purged prior to public release. Other organizations do not labour under these conditions, and might look quite sketchy if they did. ACORN has taken steps to single out suspected fraudulent registrations, to fire employees caught doing this kind of thing, and to cooperate fully with investigations into these irregularities. That would, at face value, make one suspect that the behaviour is neither condoned nor encouraged. One can of course suspect what one wishes, such as that this cooperation is a sham, but it does not seem to me that, in this case, there is reason to suspect any malfeasance.

The second count you are wrong on is a bit more subtle. This discussion is relative to the statement "There is no evidence that these voter registration issues have led to voter fraud." The question of the corruption of ACORN is a separate issue. ACORN could be as pure as the driven snow (right, ever read what is found in snow in industrial areas?), and all the registration fraud the work of evil underlings who've taken advantage of this pure and naive organization. That still does not save this final statement from being completely out of place in this post. It is a total non sequitor and an emotional red herring.

Sure. That`s a plausible hypothesis. But it lives in the infinite land of plausible hypotheses until some actual malfeasance is shown. So far, what`s been dredged up painstakingly at the behest of the Bush administration is downright feeble, lazy people filling out bogus cards, voters voting fraudulently because they are merely confused about the process. If you want to posit evil underlings, I`m afraid you`re in jar-of-palladium territory for me at this point. Until we know more, I think that last statement stands just fine in the context of this thread, and is neither emotional, a non-sequitur, nor a red herring.

-Jester