Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston Herald)   It costs only $9 to create a Democratic voter   (bostonherald.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, U.S. Sen, Suffolk University, welfare recipients, voter file, DTA  
•       •       •

3337 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Jan 2013 at 1:08 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



94 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-01-03 09:33:44 AM  
 Of those, 31,020 - about 6.5 percent - signed up to vote before the deadline for the Nov. 6 election.

I think anyone would have to agree that a 6.5 percent response to a direct mailing is a fantastic response. Usually those things are considered successful if they get a couple of percent response.

Congrats to the State for stepping up in a timely fashion to correct this injustice.
 
2013-01-03 09:39:02 AM  
It costs only $9 to create a Democratic voter

I mean, if you're gonna do this, do it right.
 
2013-01-03 09:40:05 AM  
Well, that's clearly not a trolling headline, no siree.
 
2013-01-03 09:49:49 AM  
6.5% return?

Most businesses would be happy to see that on bulk advertising mailers.
 
2013-01-03 10:15:11 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.com

Wishes he could get a 6.5% response rate.
 
2013-01-03 10:17:56 AM  
 As long as you can opt to register to vote when getting an driver's license or ID, I don't see the problem with offering an easy way to register attached to any other govt. service. I mean, I know why some of you idiots object to it, but remember there are plenty of food-stamp users in trailer parks that vote Republican for some reason. That should calm you down a bit. Just keep dishing out the Jesus and the Stars and Bars and it shouldn't impact you much.
 
2013-01-03 10:24:25 AM  
What did the private sector wind up spending last election, like $2 bil to $6 depending where you look?  About 120 mil voted.  I'd say they did pretty good here.

//We should just let them bid against each other at this point, that is basically what they are doing anyways.
 
2013-01-03 10:31:27 AM  
500k times $9 is $4.5 million, and if they got 31k registered that means the actual cost per Democrat was about $145.  Not bad, but quite a bit more than $9.
 
2013-01-03 10:32:38 AM  
I don't have a problem with the concept of more voters registering, even if it's a bunch of effete Lefty McLibbo Cambridge chomskybots registering, especially considering that Bloomberg spent $183 a vote down in NYC.

What I do have a problem with is the lawsuit that triggered it all.

Voter registration should be automatic upon turning 18 for one and all. I don't even have trouble with felons voting, mainly because I want to see politicians campaign in prisons and the comedy that would ensue.
 
2013-01-03 10:33:30 AM  
This is federal law. States are being sued by the Justice Department for not being compliant and are having to pony up hefty fines. Why do conservatives hate the rule of law?
 
2013-01-03 10:38:12 AM  

BunkyBrewman: 6.5% return?

Most businesses would be happy to see that on bulk advertising mailers.


FTA: A taxpayer-financed

Keyword highlighted.

Businesses can't extract money from its customers by force - they don't have private police forces or armies that can force this upon unwilling consumers. Only the government has this power. When a business commands a monopoly in a given market, it's the government that enforces it (after having been bought off by the business interests, of course).
 
2013-01-03 10:50:43 AM  

Hydra: When a business commands a monopoly in a given market


Yes, voting in national elections is a government monopoly.  Is this news to you?
 
2013-01-03 10:51:02 AM  
ginandbacon: Why do conservatives hate the rule of law?

Are you farking kidding me? The rule of law has been receiving a thrashing ever since the progressive movement picked up in the early 1900s. Obama outright said he won't enforce laws he doesn't like - see: DOMA.

But keep seeing the world through partisan-colored glasses - you obviously have a pissing contest to win.
 
2013-01-03 10:53:12 AM  

Gulper Eel: I don't have a problem with the concept of more voters registering, even if it's a bunch of effete Lefty McLibbo Cambridge chomskybots registering, especially considering that Bloomberg spent $183 a vote down in NYC.

What I do have a problem with is the lawsuit that triggered it all.

Voter registration should be automatic upon turning 18 for one and all. I don't even have trouble with felons voting, mainly because I want to see politicians campaign in prisons and the comedy that would ensue.


Puerto Rico allows prisoners to vote. (I'm all for letting people who completed a sentence vote, but people in prison are supposed to have most of their rights taken away and voting should be one). And if letting people in prison vote wasn't bad enough, PR allows people to waive their right to a secret vote and do so openly. So basically the leaders of prison gangs control all the votes of the prison population. So yes, politicans do negotiate with prison gangs for votes.
 
2013-01-03 10:55:00 AM  

Hydra: Are you farking kidding me? The rule of law has been receiving a thrashing ever since the progressive movement picked up in the early 1900s. Obama outright said he won't enforce laws he doesn't like - see: DOMA.

But keep seeing the world through partisan-colored glasses - you obviously have a pissing contest to win.


Spoken like someone who doesn't have any real understanding of the last century.

/Watergate, Iran-Contra, warrantless wiretapping, etc...
//Those progressive governors who called in the National Guard to prevent school desegregation after Brown v. Board sure were all liberally, amirite?
 
2013-01-03 10:55:19 AM  

GAT_00: Yes, voting in national elections is a government monopoly.  Is this news to you?


I was pointing out the difference between something that's financed by businessmen (investors' money) vs. taxpayers (money extracted from someone else by force).

Government has a monopoly on the (supposedly) legitimate and legal use of force, which is the defining characteristic that sets it apart from other institutions.
 
2013-01-03 10:56:26 AM  
I still like the idea of just moving voting day to tax day.  Send your vote in with your taxes, you vote at whatever address you list on the taxes.  Done no registration needed and everyone gets 1 vote.
 
2013-01-03 10:58:48 AM  

Rincewind53: Spoken like someone who doesn't have any real understanding of the last century.

/Watergate, Iran-Contra, warrantless wiretapping, etc...
//Those progressive governors who called in the National Guard to prevent school desegregation after Brown v. Board sure were all liberally, amirite?


Spoken like someone who apparently has reading comprehension problems....

Where did I absolve anyone of any wrongdoing? Both parties have blood on their hands - people like you just choose to ignore the pool of blood your favorite politicians (e.g. Obama) are bathing in.

/but the Democrats are better than Republicans - no exceptions, I'm sure
 
2013-01-03 10:58:50 AM  

Hydra: The rule of law has been receiving a thrashing ever since the progressive movement picked up in the early 1900s.


So your argument is that liberals are bad because they fought for women's right to vote, and that's the root cause of why the country is in trouble?
 
2013-01-03 10:58:56 AM  

Hydra: I was pointing out the difference between something that's financed by businessmen (investors' money) vs. taxpayers (money extracted from someone else by force).

Government has a monopoly on the (supposedly) legitimate and legal use of force, which is the defining characteristic that sets it apart from other institutions.


And yet it's still not entirely clear  why you mentioned this. In the case at hand, the government was sued because they were not providing registration forms to people who were being put on welfare,  as required by the law. They lost the lawsuit, and in the settlement agreed to mail out registration forms to people on the welfare rolls. Then the Republicans freaked out and claimed that it was a secret plot to sign up Democratic welfare-lovin' takers.

So tell me. Which is it? Was the government right to follow the law and spend money to send out the forms? Or should they have ignored the law and not sent them out?
 
2013-01-03 10:59:45 AM  

Hydra: taxpayers (money extracted from someone else by force).


The IRS often comes to your house and threatens to shoot you if you don't give them the money in your wallet?
 
2013-01-03 11:01:52 AM  

Hydra: Spoken like someone who apparently has reading comprehension problems....

Where did I absolve anyone of any wrongdoing? Both parties have blood on their hands - people like you just choose to ignore the pool of blood your favorite politicians (e.g. Obama) are bathing in.

/but the Democrats are better than Republicans - no exceptions, I'm sure


Except we don't. Most of the Democrats I know are furious with Obama over a number of things, like drone strikes in Pakistan, his leadership failures on the healthcare bills, his tendency to compromise even when bargaining from a position of strength, his poor record on civil rights, etc...  However, when viewed against the Republican side, it's clear that there is a decided net positive from him as opposed to a Republican president.

Also, you specifically called out progressives as being the ones who are not obeying the law, then you have the audacity to claim  I'm somehow just pointing the finger at one party?
 
2013-01-03 11:03:16 AM  

GAT_00: Hydra: taxpayers (money extracted from someone else by force).

The IRS often comes to your house and threatens to shoot you if you don't give them the money in your wallet?


He's entirely correct from an analytic perspective. The government  does have a monopoly on force, and all laws are theoretically undergirded by the threat of government force (arrest, imprisonment, etc...).
 
2013-01-03 11:05:40 AM  

Rincewind53: GAT_00: Hydra: taxpayers (money extracted from someone else by force).

The IRS often comes to your house and threatens to shoot you if you don't give them the money in your wallet?

He's entirely correct from an analytic perspective. The government  does have a monopoly on force, and all laws are theoretically undergirded by the threat of government force (arrest, imprisonment, etc...).


Technically, but knowing that login, I don't think that's what he meant.  Also, the existence of private security companies would argue that the government does not have a complete monopoly on the use of force.
 
2013-01-03 11:06:03 AM  

kbronsito: And if letting people in prison vote wasn't bad enough, PR allows people to waive their right to a secret vote and do so openly. So basically the leaders of prison gangs control all the votes of the prison population. So yes, politicans do negotiate with prison gangs for votes.


Most people in prison get back out again. The theory is that they're trying to get their lives straightened out, and taking away the right to vote does nothing to help them improve themselves.

Besides, politicians need to squirm whenever possible. They'll want the votes, but probably not the endorsement from the Aryan Brotherhood or Latin Kings.
 
2013-01-03 11:07:37 AM  

GAT_00: Technically, but knowing that login, I don't think that's what he meant.  Also, the existence of private security companies would argue that the government does not have a complete monopoly on the use of force.


Not in the slighest. The existence of private security companies is only allowed because the government has declared that they are allowed. If a private security company uses force against someone, and the government decides not to prosecute, it's still the government deciding whether or not force can be used, by whom, and when.
 
2013-01-03 11:12:53 AM  

Rincewind53: Well, that's clearly not a trolling headline, no siree.


Looks like it's a sure way to get a green today, though
 
2013-01-03 11:13:41 AM  

Rincewind53: GAT_00: Technically, but knowing that login, I don't think that's what he meant.  Also, the existence of private security companies would argue that the government does not have a complete monopoly on the use of force.

Not in the slighest. The existence of private security companies is only allowed because the government has declared that they are allowed. If a private security company uses force against someone, and the government decides not to prosecute, it's still the government deciding whether or not force can be used, by whom, and when.


Yes, but is that not delineating that others may use force?  Private security usually has pretty clear cut definitions of what they can and cannot do.  That's not a monopoly.  What's more, people do have the right to use limited force in self-defense.
 
2013-01-03 11:24:11 AM  

GAT_00: Rincewind53: GAT_00: Technically, but knowing that login, I don't think that's what he meant.  Also, the existence of private security companies would argue that the government does not have a complete monopoly on the use of force.

Not in the slighest. The existence of private security companies is only allowed because the government has declared that they are allowed. If a private security company uses force against someone, and the government decides not to prosecute, it's still the government deciding whether or not force can be used, by whom, and when.

Yes, but is that not delineating that others may use force?  Private security usually has pretty clear cut definitions of what they can and cannot do.  That's not a monopoly.  What's more, people do have the right to use limited force in self-defense.


But saying that the government has a monopoly on force only means that they dictate when and where force can be used, not that they are the only ones  using force. Licensing others to use force doesn't mean that they are giving up that power. And the right to self-defense only exists within the greater context of criminal law, and the government's decision not to prosecute when force is used in a declared "legitimate" way.
 
2013-01-03 11:28:23 AM  

Rincewind53: Licensing others to use force doesn't mean that they are giving up that power.


Isn't licensing other authorities the very way you break up a monopoly?
 
2013-01-03 11:31:09 AM  

GAT_00: Rincewind53: Licensing others to use force doesn't mean that they are giving up that power.

Isn't licensing other authorities the very way you break up a monopoly?


Not when it's the monopolistic company itself that's doing the licensing. A true monopoly indicates no  competition. If a monopolistic entity issues a revocable license, it has given up no power and has not engendered any true competition.
 
2013-01-03 12:10:16 PM  
This kind of thing is much better left to a third-party agency, perhaps even a non-profit of some kind that can tap into government funding.

Now all we need is a name that translates into a catchy acronym.

Working Against Leaving Nonvoters UnTallied?
Crusading Against Subjugation Here Every Way?
Positive Elections America, Now Under Trust?
...or...there's one I know I'm missing....
 
2013-01-03 12:18:24 PM  

Hydra: ginandbacon: Why do conservatives hate the rule of law?

Are you farking kidding me? The rule of law has been receiving a thrashing ever since the progressive movement picked up in the early 1900s. Obama outright said he won't enforce laws he doesn't like - see: DOMA.

But keep seeing the world through partisan-colored glasses - you obviously have a pissing contest to win.


Um, hon...DOMA is indefensible. The Justice Department refused to keep throwing money at a bad law. The Voter Registration Act that mandates that people must be given the opportunity to register to vote when applying for federal benefits or driver's licenses has been renewed every single time it expired since passing in 1965.

DOMA is a terrible law that cannot stand up to a challenge. The Administration simply refuses to waste resources on it. Boehner went around Justice and is spending millions of dollars to lose every case they try. Would you rather have it struck down by SCOTUS?

Administrations get to decide where and when to devote their energies. That's the consequence of elections. The last administration chose not to pursue states in violation of the Voter Rights Act and the Voter Registration Act. This one chooses to pursue them, and it is winning. The last administration defended DOMA and lost. This one chooses not to and now BLAG is tilting at that windmill.

Welcome to the real world.
 
2013-01-03 01:02:27 PM  

Nabb1: 500k times $9 is $4.5 million, and if they got 31k registered that means the actual cost per Democrat was about $145. Not bad, but quite a bit more than $9.


You may want to go back and reread that...
 
2013-01-03 01:14:22 PM  
It takes over $400,000 to make a Republican.
 
2013-01-03 01:14:28 PM  
FTA: "I'm not sure why taxpayers would want to encourage anybody to vote. ... Democracy doesn't work well by pushing people to the polls. It works well when informed voters, on their own volition, go to the polls because of the privilege that voting entails."

Translation: We only get the result we want when we find ways to keep those filthy, welfare queen, minorities away from the polls.
 
2013-01-03 01:14:49 PM  
And you actually can make money creating a Republican voter since they will vote away their rights and wages?
 
2013-01-03 01:15:44 PM  
Bad investment of $500,000. Billions upon billions spent on military projects that are poorly designed, sit in the hanger, or otherwise wasted? Good investment, Amirite?
 
2013-01-03 01:19:00 PM  
They sued the state in May, after a Lowell woman claimed she was never offered an opportunity to register during a visit to her local welfare office.

That's just farking irritating, if it isn't some twisted version of reality.

It isn't like someone stopped or discouraged her from registering, they didn't "offer" the opportunity. WTF is wrong with people that they can't figure out hot to make the miniscule effort required to register yet they have no problem tracking down an attorney to file a lawsuit?
 
2013-01-03 01:19:03 PM  
"I'd say that's a poor rate of return on the taxpayer investment," said David Tuerck of Suffolk University's Beacon Hill Institute. "I'm not sure why taxpayers would want to encourage anybody to vote. ... Democracy doesn't work well by pushing people to the polls. It works well when informed voters, on their own volition, go to the polls because of the privilege that voting entails."

Several amendments to the constitution would like a word, douche.

19th: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

24th: The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

26th: The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
 
2013-01-03 01:19:33 PM  
Pants-pissing, reactionary derp is still free.
 
2013-01-03 01:22:19 PM  

GAT_00: Rincewind53: GAT_00: Hydra: taxpayers (money extracted from someone else by force).

The IRS often comes to your house and threatens to shoot you if you don't give them the money in your wallet?

He's entirely correct from an analytic perspective. The government  does have a monopoly on force, and all laws are theoretically undergirded by the threat of government force (arrest, imprisonment, etc...).

Technically, but knowing that login, I don't think that's what he meant.  Also, the existence of private security companies would argue that the government does not have a complete monopoly on the use of force.


Private security companies license the right to use force from government.  You're thinking of the Mafia.
 
2013-01-03 01:23:24 PM  

Hydra: BunkyBrewman: 6.5% return?

Most businesses would be happy to see that on bulk advertising mailers.

FTA: A taxpayer-financed

Keyword highlighted.

Businesses can't extract money from its customers by force - they don't have private police forces or armies that can force this upon unwilling consumers. Only the government has this power. When a business commands a monopoly in a given market, it's the government that enforces it (after having been bought off by the business interests, of course).


Oh it's the Taxes are Theft kook.
 
2013-01-03 01:23:40 PM  

Cletus C.: They sued the state in May, after a Lowell woman claimed she was never offered an opportunity to register during a visit to her local welfare office.

That's just farking irritating, if it isn't some twisted version of reality.

It isn't like someone stopped or discouraged her from registering, they didn't "offer" the opportunity. WTF is wrong with people that they can't figure out hot to make the miniscule effort required to register yet they have no problem tracking down an attorney to file a lawsuit?


I suspect the attorney tracked her down.
 
2013-01-03 01:24:56 PM  
Whoop, missed the 15th: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

And to a certain extent the 14th: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
 
2013-01-03 01:27:18 PM  

Nabb1: 500k times $9 is $4.5 million, and if they got 31k registered that means the actual cost per Democrat was about $145.  Not bad, but quite a bit more than $9.


FTA: " spent $275,844 mailing voter-registration letters to 477,944 welfare clients in July."

Why are you making up numbers?
 
2013-01-03 01:29:32 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: FTA: "I'm not sure why taxpayers would want to encourage anybody to vote. ... Democracy doesn't work well by pushing people to the polls. It works well when informed voters, on their own volition, go to the polls because of the privilege that voting entails."

Translation: We only get the result we want when we find ways to keep those filthy, welfare queen, minorities away from the polls.


I don't really have any problem with allowing people to register to vote at a welfare office, but I don't like the idea of spending government money specifically trying to get a certain segment of the population to register to vote. I see no reason that one segment of unregistered voters should be targeted in an attempt to get them to register over any other segment of unregistered voters.
 
2013-01-03 01:32:00 PM  
$9 seems low for a decent fake ID.
 
2013-01-03 01:32:27 PM  
I have had the opportunity for interactions with the public assistance system in my state, and in my experience, pretty much every time you apply for some service, they ask if you would also like to register to vote. If a state is doing that and also sending out letters, an additional 6.5% response is very good.
 
2013-01-03 01:32:28 PM  

Nabb1: 500k times $9 is $4.5 million, and if they got 31k registered that means the actual cost per Democrat was about $145.  Not bad, but quite a bit more than $9.


There are two parts to doing real world math well. It doesn't matter how well you multiply the numbers if you pick the wrong equation.

The correct equation is:

total_spending / 31,020 = $9
 
Displayed 50 of 94 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report