OK, I give up. Tried posting details of the correlation between education level vs liberal/conservative and the post just won’t show up. Perhaps they’re sitting in an approval queue somewhere for OW to release and a couple copies of the posting will show up all at once if he does so.

Short version: A sizable majority of the most educated cities in the US are liberal. Only one of the most educated cities shows up on a list of the most conservative. Several are on the list of most liberal.

At the other end, of the least educated cities 11 voted for Bush in 2004, 7 for Kerry and 2 essentially tied. In half of his wins Bush got over 65 % of the vote, Kerry never got over 59%.

More data would really have to be analyzed before any definitive statement could be made, but it clearly appears educated folks

are liberal/Democratic and less educated are conservative/Republican.

In other words, Amused, you are exactly wrong.

I am not frightened by the woefully ignorant, but I have my doubts about the politicians who seek to gain power by seeking favor with felons.

But politicians don’t seek to gain power by seeking favor with felons. There’s pretty much a one-way ratchet in criminal legislation that endeavors to make penalties higher and more crimes subject to imprisonment and the death penalty. The only counter in our current political system to these trends is the judiciary, which, being tasked with overseeing the herding of millions into prisons and the execution of hundreds by lethal injection and other means, does occasionally pause to consider whether the process is in perfect accord with that little thing called the Constitution, but otherwise is a passive bystander.

Some of us don’t believe it is wise for politicians to compete for votes on the basis of who can be “tuffer on crime,” particularly when people like you believe it a good thing to block those who are coping with the results of such tuffness from also having a voice in the democratic process. It’s the equivalent of having the laws on heterosexual rape written only by women; there’s not much of the other side’s perspective to explain how someone can make a good faith mistake about whether he’s received consent, etc. Almost nobody believes he will become a felon; if you study criminal psychology, you’ll find that even people plotting felonies at this very moment are convinced that they will get away with it and never be caught, much less prosecuted, indicted and convicted.

In other words, if you succeed in blocking felons from voting, their perspective on whether our system works — which I do believe is a perspective we should include, just as men should give their perspective on the burden of proof in hetero rape prosecutions — will be systematically excluded. You believe that’s a good thing. I don’t.

The more voters the better, i.e., in a representative democracy. Everyone gets a vote. Ignorant or criminal doesn’t enter into the picture.

As to the second part, you’re gonna have to cite something that proves your assertion that the majority of felons vote for Democrats, ‘cuz I think you’re just blowing smoke.

As the video I linked to shows, the Democrats don’t have a lock on the ignorant and uneducated. This time around, they seem to be all in the Big Tent.

As to the second part of your comment I don’t think the Democrats would be so heavily invested in recruiting ignorant and uneducated voters or push so hard for felons being allowed to vote if they did not think the Democratic party would harvest the majority of the ignorant and criminal vote.

Why is it the majority of felons vote for Democrats and why is that good for the rest of us?

To the first question, in a democratic Republic, the more the better.

The second part of your question can be easily refuted by the demo of recent Palin/McCain rallys.

Cheney in drag The ironically named Joy McCann. AKA Little Miss Attila, j mcann

Get used to the taste of that barrel in November, Joy.

The decision to enfranchise the ignorant has already been decided. My question was how is the Republic benefited by the participation of the ignorant or by felons.

I am not frightened by the woefully ignorant, but I have my doubts about the politicians who seek to gain power by seeking favor with felons.

As for educational funding, if one is taught to read then the world is your university. Any competent teacher can give a child the basic tools to learn. If a child is in school and hasn’t learned to read by the time they are 7 years old then the question is why are those teachers still employed?

So again the question, what is the benefit of encouraging the ignorant to vote? And why do they apparently overwhelmingly vote Democratic?

Or we can look at other pieces of evidence.

Why, living in a country where guilt is presumed and innocence has to be proven, of course. Where nobody should object to warrentless searches of their houses because, c’mon, if they’re innocent what could they have to hide?

When did you start to hate America, j?

Amused O: How is the Republic benefited by encouraging the uneducated, ignorant, or historically criminal to vote? Why do these people seem to always vote for Democrats?

So your concern isn’t that they vote, but that they don’t vote the way you want. Interesting.

But to respond to your first question, how is the Republic benefited by depriving people of their constitutional rights? And who gets to decide who is too uneducated or too ignorant? Mr. James Crow, perhaps?

Since you fear an uneducated, ignorant and/or criminal electorate, I assume you’re all in favor of drastically increasing the funding level of schools so that they can ensure everyone is truly provided with a quality education.

I think you should tell that to Sarah Palin.

I find that the majority of people that use this argument usually have something to hide. Have any skeletons in your closet, Jmac?

How is the Republic benefited by encouraging the uneducated, ignorant, or historically criminal to vote? Why do these people seem to always vote for Democrats?

Gee, I wonder what demograph you’re talking about?

Let’s encourage people to vote. Let’s push people to participate and vote. So let’s not make the voter have to initiate the request.

If we could keep track of people when they turn 18 to send them draft notices, we can send them voter registration forms. If we can require them to register with the Selective Service when they turn 18, we can require them to turn in the registration forms.

When someone gets a drivers license, have them check if they are registered to vote and if they are not, sign up up then and there. When someone is released from jail (assuming they would be allowed to vote) have them fill out the form and turn it in as they are released.

I think you mean unrequested, not unrequited, unless your plan is for voters to have to issue IDs to the government.

“But YOU have to initiate the request, not have the government hand them out unrequited.”

Why? Why does it bother you to have a mandate that the states that institute these voter-ID requirements have a corresponding obligation to ensure that marginalized voters actually have the IDs? How difficult is it to have every person released from a penal institution handed a valid state ID as he walks out the door? Why should an ex-felon, who probably is thinking more about how he’s going to get a job with a felony record than who he’ll vote for this year, have to initiate the request?

Many marginalized voters have plenty of interactions with government authority other than the DMV and passport office — why not use those interactions to ensure that those folks have the free ID you’re happy to give them? When a cop stops an 18-year-old in Harlem and asks for ID (as SCOTUS has said they can do for merely suspicious behavior, see Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada), and the 18-year-old says he doesn’t have one, at least the cop can have something positive come out of this encounter by saying proactively, “Let’s get you an ID so you can vote. Now, hands behind your back so I can cuff you.”

I’d be OK with a provision that says if the state institutes measures to issue ID at all points of government contact, is found by testers to have done so, but still misses some folks, its voter-ID requirement will be upheld so long as it allows folks without ID to mark provisional ballots that only will be considered if the election is close. Such voters will have to show up the next day with a utility bill or similar mail that shows the name and address for the claimed registration, and will be issued ID for the next election.

if you haven’t broken the law, have registered legally and truthfully, you have nothing to worry about.

like i said, if you have so much faith in acorn, let this investigation go forward and then say “i told you so.”

innocent people with nothing to hide don’t try to stop investigations.

you’re acting like you don’t really believe what your saying when you call the acorn mess just a “republican ploy,” or whatever.

LMAO!

a) no problem.

b) These IDs shouldn’t be handed out like candy. It should be handled just like Voter Registration is now: if you want one, no problem. But YOU have to initiate the request, not have the government hand them out unrequited.

And before you ask, I have no problem allocating a fair amount of money to advertise the program (much like how the Feds are currently advertising the HDTV switchover.)