ymeskhout
1yr ago
What makes you think they won't, or haven't?
Because the problems with how voting restoration works are not going to go away, as they're baked into the system the Republican legislature intentionally chose to implement. The problems that exist with tabulating the records are also not the result of any malicious behavior. The 20 people who were arrested were given faulty information by local election officials. All those local officials did was rely on faulty information that the state gave them. And as far as I can tell, the people working for the state appear to be doing the best they can in tabulating this information. For an ex-felon to get erroneously registered to vote, no one involved in the chain needs to have acted maliciously. Again, the record-keeping problems are inherent with the system DeSantis and the Florida GOP wanted to see implemented, so there's absolutely no surprise that mistakes were made, this was precisely the issue that was litigated! Again, here's the 125-page court opinion that details the problems on Pg 53:
The case of one named plaintiff, Clifford Tyson, is illustrative. An extraordinarily competent and diligent financial manager in the office of the Hillsborough County Clerk of Court, with the assistance of several long-serving assistants, bulldogged Mr. Tyson’s case for perhaps 12 to 15 hours. The group had combined experience of over 100 years. They came up with what they believed to be the amount owed. But even with all that work, they were unable to explain discrepancies in the records.
And see page 65 about the workload the state estimated for itself:
Even without screening for unpaid LFOs, all the Divison’s caseworkers combined can process an average of just 57 registrations per day. The LFO work, standing alone, is likely to take at least as long as—probably much longer than—the review for murder and sexual offenses and for custody or supervision status. Even at 57 registrations per day, screening the 85,000 pending registrations will take 1,491 days. At 261 workdays per year, this is a little over 5 years and 8 months. The projected completion date, even if the Division starts turning out work today, and even if screening for LFOs doesn’t take longer than screening for murders, sexual offenses, custody, and supervision, is early in 2026. With a flood of additional registrations expected in this presidential election year, the anticipated completion date might well be pushed into the 2030s.
So this is a system that can eat up dozens of hours from experienced staff for a single registration and still give the wrong information. There's no connection to actual voter fraud here either, because so much resources are incinerated towards a doomed mission of trying to make sense of a mess that was entirely man-made. There's no reason for me to expect criminal conduct from officials to be at play here, so there's no reason for me to expect any officials to be arrested.
The only honest response from DeSantis here should've been to admit the problem. Any of the system's supporters should be willing to defend it on its merits, and explain why the headache is worthwhile and what important interests are advanced. Instead they're taking out their frustrations on random nobodies and putting them in jail.
ymeskhout
1yr ago
I have been ready to accept that what DeSantis is doing is trying to scare felons from voting, in a bid to improve his electoral chances. I think that's the most likely explanation. I was keeping my mind open and looking for something less uncharitable.
ymeskhout
1yr ago
I responded to this here.
I don't see the win here (aside from improving DeSantis' electoral chances), because the problem with faulty record-keeping was the main argument against how Florida decided to implement Amendment 4. None of the issues are predicated on criminal behavior by the officials. The fact that the system made mistakes about voter registration was exactly what was predicted, and it's rich for the government to take out its frustrations on the victims of this system.
ymeskhout
1yr ago
So if we see arrests of actual public officials, with actual evidence that said public officials were involved in voter fraud schemes, would that be something you would support?
Sure, but I don't see any reason to believe anyone related to the felony voting restoration process acted with criminal intent. So I don't see why this should be the focus of a law enforcement agencies. Arresting random nobodies does not advance the goal of addressing voter fraud. DeSantis is using the spectre of voter fraud as a pretext to scare a portion of the electorate he does not like away from voting.
What is your prediction, here?
I predict that the voter restoration process for felons will not get appreciably easier. I predict the backlog for processing felony registration will continue to pile up. I predict that out of the million or so felons who are potentially eligible to have their voting rights restored, very few will even bother to apply, and even fewer will get approved. I predict that even the ones that do get approved to vote, even fewer will bother voting because they'll have the threat of prosecution dangling over their head. I believe all these effects are intentional.
ymeskhout
1yr ago
Your response is not dispositive. I'm saying he's trying to shore up his electoral chances by discouraging people from voting and you're saying his election chances are already high. Neither is mutually exclusive.
if he can successfully deter fraud throughout the state
What I am finding frustrating about this exchange is the lack of clarity. I'm referring to how the felon voter right restoration process is a mess and you're talking about "voter fraud" as if the two things were the same. They're not. I try to be precise with the language I use so I find it really confusing when you resort to genericized vocabulary.
If so, it would be useful to know which step exactly is erroneous.
You haven't contradicted my summary, but instead just doubled-down on the assertion that it was impossible to investigate voter fraud because the RNC was really left helpless (setting aside other people with an interest in investigating voter fraud, like law enforcement and whatnot). You can chalk it up to a deficient theory of mind on my part, but I don't understand who finds these excuses persuasive. It comes across as calcified helplessness.
Even if you assume the guy retained sky-high bad judgment and did indeed try to vote illegally intentionally, it doesn't explain how he managed to parse the status of his voting rights more accurately than the election officials. So again:
but I don't know why you find that explanation more plausible than "court records are a mess and the election authority that granted his registration fucked up"
ymeskhout
1yr ago
For a less emotionally fraught example, imagine a dealers' service agreement that explicitly excludes the car's transmission from the warranty. What would your immediate suspicion be? I can tell you what mine would be.
Sure, I'd be suspicious of the transmission. What part of the voting system is this supposed to map to your analogy?
But in the real world asking a government agency to oversee itself is almost always a losing proposition.
This is bewildering. You haven't explained how prosecuting normal people for believing the government advances any interest. What problem does this solve? What behavior is this supposed to encourage?
ymeskhout
1yr ago
and I tell them that the lady at the DMV told that I didn't need any of that stuff
This discussion has been particularly frustrating because it seems that people are just assuming facts about a system they're not familiar with. This is not a case of a felon caught voting claiming someone "told" them they could vote. The problems with Florida's voting restoration system have been well known for a really long time. It would be helpful if you were at least somewhat familiar with the system, and you can learn a lot by just skimming this court opinion. Here's the 125-page court opinion that details the problems on Pg 53:
The case of one named plaintiff, Clifford Tyson, is illustrative. An extraordinarily competent and diligent financial manager in the office of the Hillsborough County Clerk of Court, with the assistance of several long-serving assistants, bulldogged Mr. Tyson’s case for perhaps 12 to 15 hours. The group had combined experience of over 100 years. They came up with what they believed to be the amount owed. But even with all that work, they were unable to explain discrepancies in the records.
And see page 65 about the workload the state estimated for itself:
Even without screening for unpaid LFOs, all the Divison’s caseworkers combined can process an average of just 57 registrations per day. The LFO work, standing alone, is likely to take at least as long as—probably much longer than—the review for murder and sexual offenses and for custody or supervision status. Even at 57 registrations per day, screening the 85,000 pending registrations will take 1,491 days. At 261 workdays per year, this is a little over 5 years and 8 months. The projected completion date, even if the Division starts turning out work today, and even if screening for LFOs doesn’t take longer than screening for murders, sexual offenses, custody, and supervision, is early in 2026. With a flood of additional registrations expected in this presidential election year, the anticipated completion date might well be pushed into the 2030s.
ymeskhout
1yr ago
...Walker?
Let the felons go in front of a judge, admit that they voted illegally
It might be helpful to learn about why the voter restoration system in Florida is a mess right now, because it's nonsensical to claim voter ID is somehow a solution. Here's the 125-page court opinion that details the problems on Pg 53:
The case of one named plaintiff, Clifford Tyson, is illustrative. An extraordinarily competent and diligent financial manager in the office of the Hillsborough County Clerk of Court, with the assistance of several long-serving assistants, bulldogged Mr. Tyson’s case for perhaps 12 to 15 hours. The group had combined experience of over 100 years. They came up with what they believed to be the amount owed. But even with all that work, they were unable to explain discrepancies in the records.
And see page 65 about the workload the state estimated for itself:
Even without screening for unpaid LFOs, all the Divison’s caseworkers combined can process an average of just 57 registrations per day. The LFO work, standing alone, is likely to take at least as long as—probably much longer than—the review for murder and sexual offenses and for custody or supervision status. Even at 57 registrations per day, screening the 85,000 pending registrations will take 1,491 days. At 261 workdays per year, this is a little over 5 years and 8 months. The projected completion date, even if the Division starts turning out work today, and even if screening for LFOs doesn’t take longer than screening for murders, sexual offenses, custody, and supervision, is early in 2026. With a flood of additional registrations expected in this presidential election year, the anticipated completion date might well be pushed into the 2030s.
ymeskhout
1yr ago
"We don't know if bigfoot exists because my cryptozoologist uncle has been in prison for the last 30 years."
"Aren't there other people that can look for bigfoot? Maybe park rangers or something?"
"My uncle really is in prison. He can't look for bigfoot from behind bars."
"Ok fine but you haven't explained why your uncle is pivotal in the hunt for bigfoot! What stopped other people from looking for bigfoot? Assuming he exists of course."
"By now I've clearly established that my uncle has not been in a position to conduct any scouting trips for bigfoot, none of which you've even tried to dispute. Good day sir!"
ymeskhout
1yr ago
The prosecution of several cases of shoplifting regardless of the merits of the individual shoplifting cases may have a deterrent effect on truck hijacking, because it signals that prosecutions of truck hijackings may follow.
Or it signals that prosecutors are too lazy to pursue truck hijackings, so they're going after shopliftings just to make it look like they're trying. If your goal is deterring truck hijackings, you could just prosecute truck hijackings instead of pursuing something orthogonal in the hopes that maybe it sends a signal to all the truck hijackers out there.
ymeskhout
1yr ago
Nah, I did talk about the cryptozoologist uncle but I think he's being used by you in this argument as a distraction. @atelier claims we can't know if bigfoot exists because the uncle hasn't been allowed to work. That assumes the uncle is somehow foundational to the mission of finding bigfoot. If you reject the assumption (I do) then talking about the uncle is irrelevant. But if you do accept the assumption (do you?) the obvious follow-up is how did the world end up relying on just one man to find bigfoot? Why aren't the park rangers doing their job?
ymeskhout
1yr ago
By how you describe it, free speech rights under a "modern conservative" regime would not exist, because freedom of expression would be conditional on supporting the government's agenda. If you oppose the government's agenda, you'll have the full force brought down on you until you stop opposing the government. Am I misunderstanding something?
ymeskhout
1yr ago
If they weren't doing anything in the first place, who is providing the incentive to "make it look like they're trying"? Laziness by itself explains the status quo, but predicts that it will continue.
"Hey these complaints are not going away soon and we have an election for a new DA coming up, can you just make it look like we solved the problem? Thx"
Either way, I don't really see the utility of meticulously detailing this hypothetical. The obvious question of "why not prosecute truck hijackings?" remains, and dodging the question with "well maybe prosecuting shopliftings might end up deterring truck hijackings" is not convincing.
ymeskhout
1yr ago
I do not care one lick about principle when it comes to adversarial dealings.
How do you talk about "the right" as a cognizable concept without principles? You're referring to a political ideology after all, so this is kind of confusing.
ymeskhout
1yr ago
Sure, let's assume bigfoot definitely exists. Justifying away the lack of photos of bigfoot by citing the cryptozoologist' prison time (as atelier did) doesn't begin to explain why he would be the only person capable of supplying them. It remains a distraction tactic.
ymeskhout
1yr ago
Even if that's true, it doesn't address how a "modern conservative" regime should deal with the issue. Instituting a policy of "agree with the government's agenda or face retribution" doesn't strike me as compatible with my (potentially inadequate) understanding of what conservatism stands for.
ymeskhout
1yr ago
it should allow speech as long as it doesn't disagree too much with conservative values
I appreciate the candor. I think it's bad when governments punish speech that disagrees with government values. I thought it was bad when the communists do it, I would think it's bad when conservatives do it. Both are a manifestation of authoritarian government rule, and I find it dispiriting to see conservatives abandon this principle.
that DeSantis' unreasonable attack on Disney is the unique, utterly unprecedented intervention?
DeSantis was more than happy to give Disney a special carve-out for his social media bill. I think it's bad to for the law to give corporations special carve-outs. DeSantis changed his mind after Disney said things he didn't like. I think it's bad for government officials to retaliate against private entities for speech they engage in.
Why is it bad when governments punish speech that disagrees with government values? Why that formulation specifically? If we're going to punish speech, why does the mechanism matter more than the result?
Because governments are powerful, and have the legal authority to cage you and kill you sometimes. Examining government action in this context seems like a reasonable per se (bad no matter what) demarcation line, but I'm open to considering similar concerns if they're a result of some another mechanism.
You can, by selective framing, build a coherent and consistent story where Blues are in the right and Reds are in the wrong. I contend that such a framework is isomorphic to "it's okay when and how blues do it."
I think it's bad when governments punish speech that disagrees with government values no matter who runs the government. There's no need to refute positions of mine you've made up.
I know for a fact that you're willing to advocate lawless violence against people very like me when it suits you, and then blame my tribe for the easily-predicted consequences of that violence when they arrive.
Uh what? Consider my curiosity piqued.
Edit: I think you're referring to burning down Minneapolis police precinct building? Yes, I support lawless violence against the government whenever it abdicates using its authority in a responsible manner. Although I'm not sure what you mean by "people very like me", are you the government?
ymeskhout
1yr ago
Yes, yes, yes. One hundred percent to all three examples you cited. I think it's bad when governments punish speech that disagrees with government values no matter who runs the government. Did you expect me to answer differently? And yes, principled parties continue to point out these issues, like some libertarians and advocacy groups like FIRE (ACLU has given up that mantle long ago). If you want to argue that it's ok for Republicans to abandon principle when their foes do, I suppose that's a coherent position to adopt, and I appreciate you being transparent about it.
ymeskhout
1yr ago
Very helpful! I'm not sure why it took this much time and effort, and this far down thread to get you to answer a basic question about your argument. Having done so, the assumptions you are relying upon are much clearer:
-
RNC uniquely cares about preventing election fraud, more so than or the exclusion of other parties
-
The consent decree prohibited the RNC from sending poll watchers
-
The inability for the RNC to send poll-watchers hamstrung efforts to uncover voter fraud
-
RNC is the only organization that can plausibly coordinate poll-watchers for Republicans
-
Law enforcement does not really care about investigating voter fraud unless someone brings them evidence
-
Law enforcement avoids investigating voter fraud because of politics
#1 is just...what? Simply asserting that only/primarily the RNC cares about voter fraud does not make it so. #2 is false, the consent decree did not prohibit sending poll watchers. #3 is arguably false, but either way relies on the previous premises both being true. Even assuming #1 and #2 are true, it's not obvious how exactly the lack of poll watchers would handicap voter fraud investigations, as the judge in the consent decree discussed (see starting on pg 44 of the 2009 opinion). #4 is debatably true, but also requires #1, #2, and #3 to all being true. #5 is plausibly true (I know cops are lazy) but again relies on #1-#4 for this to matter. #6 is a bizarre claim to make about prosecutors, a group that is explicitly political and leans conservative.
Either way, I really appreciate the transparency. This was a markedly less frustrating comment to respond to because you took the time to lay out your assumptions clearly.
ymeskhout
1yr ago
If that regrettable eventuality is to be forestalled, we are going to have to suppress bad speech. Such suppression is going to need to be effective, and Government can be effective in at least some cases.
I feel bad that I can't give this the attention it deserves, as it's buried several levels down in last week's thread. Your argument for the suppression of speech is quite a remarkable position, and one I don't believe I have ever encountered presented this transparently. Perhaps you should rework this post as a top-level comment?
I'll briefly respond to some other points meanwhile:
a perceived absence of similar criticisms of Blue Tribe foibles
What I believe != what I write != what you read != what you remember reading
I've written a lot about blue tribe foibles (gender identity inanity and my firm support of Kyle Rittenhouse to name just a couple), but even so, I wouldn't expect my writing to be representative of anything. If there's a suspicion of hypocrisy, I think I've demonstrated that I don't shy away from answering direct questions.
the violence so unleashed did not confine itself to Government people or property. It metastasized out of all control, nationwide and without restraint. It laid down hatreds and sorrows that will in all likelihood outlive us both.
Ok but you said:
you're willing to advocate lawless violence against people very like me
"You directly advocated for X" is not at all the same thing as "You directly advocated for Y, which had X downstream effects".
I think you are willing to cheer on the destruction of an order you despise, but take zero responsibility for the worse horrors that replace it
I have a vague recollection about our conversation regarding the so-called Ferguson effect, where I admitted that it likely was a real phenomena. To the extent that your accusation of not taking responsibility is true, I should be rightly called out for it. I just don't think this actually happened.
Cool. So to recap, @atelier 's explicit claim is that it's impossible to know how much voting fraud happens in this country because the RNC was subject to a 30 year consent decree about the conduct of their polling observers. Somehow (unsure how) this on its own hobbled their institutional capacity to such a devastating degree that they were left helpless from effectively engaging on the issue of voter fraud, even years after the decree was lifted and despite significant motivation and resources on their side. Somehow (again, unsure how) the consent decree about polling observer behavior had ramifications that extended well beyond to other arenas, and crippled the RNC's ability to litigate, investigate, or otherwise advocate against voter fraud. Simultaneously, institutions that would also have a strong interest in investigating voter fraud (such as law enforcement, or other republican organizations) abdicated their responsibility for some unknown reason. Of course, I'm setting aside the underlying assumption that only democrats engage in voter fraud.
I anticipate I'll be accused of a misleading summary. If so, it would be useful to know which step exactly is erroneous. For now I'll just refer you back to atelier's comment that kickstarted this thread.
More options
Context Copy link