In light of the NC court case, for those against voter ID requirements. If you could use a recognizable state ID, or two forms of ID include an alternative recognizable pic ID, would there be an issue? Aka if you didn't have a state ID but had a school pic ID, passport or even SAMs Club, you'd be good.
Seconded. It's a solution looking for a problem that, last I saw reported, does not exist. Voter fraud is (from all I've read) incredibly rare, and in-person voter fraud (the kind ID requirements might combat) is effectively non-existent.
Implementing any barriers to voting to combat a non-issue is transparently not about dealing with the issue it claims to be against.
Manchu wrote: What I would really like is credible evidence that in-person voter fraud is actually undermining our elections in the first place.
I don't see any use in talking about solutions until there is a problem. I think it's often expressed as "change for the sake of change."
Then again, we all know these laws are neither changes for the sake or change nor efforts to protect the validity of our elections so there you go ...
Answer the actual question please.
My intent is the mere confirmation of ID to protect enfranchisement of citizens. If your motive is only to insure that all truly eligible voters can vote as well then
Would you have an issue with that?
*There's no cost
*There's no time issue or scarcity of time to get one.
*Its literally as a simple verification of ID. I only listed the above pic IDs because I could think of others but I am sure there are more.
To sweeten the pot, we can add in the personal affadavit I routineley have to sign because of different addresses. Like the Canadians, if you show up with a power or water bill in your name and sign that you are eligible to vote, you may make a provisional ballot. If there's no dispute within 24 hours of close of all polling then your vote counts. Note this is same affadavit anyone signs if there is a glitch in the voting roll and it insures you still vote (and its assumed you're eligible in a burden of proof issue).
And what exactly are you referring to Canadian. Have you voted recently? Can you not use your hydro bill to vote? or are you calling Canadian laws racist?
Forar wrote: Implementing any barriers to voting to combat a non-issue is transparently not about dealing with the issue it claims to be against.
It's pretty good about keeping too many of the wrong kind of people from voting, though. Which is not at all why we need these laws, of course.
So are you saying that minorities can't get IDs with the same ease as other people?
That's actually casually racist
Or it would be, if I used the word "minorities" or anything else at all alluding to skin color even once in my post, which I didn't... but why let what I actually said get in the way of what you want to pretend I said, right?
Manchu wrote: Awareness that race is an issue in this country is not racism.
Are minorities being denied IDs?
If the answer is no, then there is no problem. Given that an ID of some form is going to be required at some point. Unless you live in the boonies and are self employed you will need an ID at some point.
Forar wrote: Implementing any barriers to voting to combat a non-issue is transparently not about dealing with the issue it claims to be against.
It's pretty good about keeping too many of the wrong kind of people from voting, though. Which is not at all why we need these laws, of course.
So are you saying that minorities can't get IDs with the same ease as other people?
That's actually casually racist
Or it would be, if I used the word "minorities" or anything else at all alluding to skin color even once in my post, which I didn't... but why let what I actually said get in the way of what you want to pretend I said, right?
You do know that you do need to "prove who you are" to qualify for IA's welfare services...eh? Minority... in general aren't all poor.
Frazzled wrote: And what exactly are you referring to Canadian.
Well, American,
Have you voted recently?
Yes.
Can you not use your hydro bill to vote?
It's on the list of things I can use.
or are you calling Canadian laws racist?
No, I'm calling transparent US laws racist. Please, do try to keep up little doggy. I know it's not easy, stubby legs and all...
We both know that the states looking to implement voter photo ID requirements aren't going to take a Sam's Club card as proof.
It's a distraction at best and a thinly veiled effort to put another barrier to voting in place at worst.
Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing.
Forar wrote: Implementing any barriers to voting to combat a non-issue is transparently not about dealing with the issue it claims to be against.
It's pretty good about keeping too many of the wrong kind of people from voting, though. Which is not at all why we need these laws, of course.
So are you saying that minorities can't get IDs with the same ease as other people?
That's actually casually racist
Or it would be, if I used the word "minorities" or anything else at all alluding to skin color even once in my post, which I didn't... but why let what I actually said get in the way of what you want to pretend I said, right?
You do know that you do need to "prove who you are" to qualify for IA's welfare services...eh? Minority... in general aren't all poor.
Forar wrote: Implementing any barriers to voting to combat a non-issue is transparently not about dealing with the issue it claims to be against.
It's pretty good about keeping too many of the wrong kind of people from voting, though. Which is not at all why we need these laws, of course.
So are you saying that minorities can't get IDs with the same ease as other people?
That's actually casually racist
Or it would be, if I used the word "minorities" or anything else at all alluding to skin color even once in my post, which I didn't... but why let what I actually said get in the way of what you want to pretend I said, right?
Really just yanking your chain there, but the point does stand.
Dems claim that voter ID requirements would hinder minorities from voting. Which should really be insulting to anybody who is a minority. It also implies that there is racisim in the availability of IDs, which is simply not true.
Forar wrote: Implementing any barriers to voting to combat a non-issue is transparently not about dealing with the issue it claims to be against.
It's pretty good about keeping too many of the wrong kind of people from voting, though. Which is not at all why we need these laws, of course.
So are you saying that minorities can't get IDs with the same ease as other people?
That's actually casually racist
Or it would be, if I used the word "minorities" or anything else at all alluding to skin color even once in my post, which I didn't... but why let what I actually said get in the way of what you want to pretend I said, right?
You do know that you do need to "prove who you are" to qualify for IA's welfare services...eh? Minority... in general aren't all poor.
Really? I have to say it twice?
I didn't
use the word
minority
at all
My bad... then who are the "wrong kind of people" then? o.O Folks who don't like Selma Hayek?
Grey Templar wrote: Are minorities being denied IDs? If the answer is no, then there is no problem.
Let's use that same logic for a hypothetical. Let's say there's a law that you have to show an income tax return stating your household makes over $200,000 a year in order to vote. That passes your test -- after all, no one is explicitly denying minorities the kind of jobs that net such income. Why, that's illegal! But even so, what would the actual effect of such a law have regarding minorities? As a matter of fact, minorities would be disproportionately kept from the polls.
Sadly, Voter ID laws could have the same effect even though we are not talking about such an extravagant figure as $200,000 annual household income. This is because socio-economic inequity is very deep in this country and racial minorities are much more likely to be among the poorest. Given that Voter ID laws risk carrying this racial socio-economic inequity over into racial political inequity, I think it is very important to establish that the benefit for which we take such a risk actually exists.
If we lived in a society with an open lack of confidence in elections as a result of rampant in-person voter fraud, it might be appropriate to weigh this substantial risk against the benefit of reviving legitimate elections.
But that is not the society we live in. So why undertake the risk in the first place?
Manchu wrote: What I would really like is credible evidence that in-person voter fraud is actually undermining our elections in the first place.
I don't see any use in talking about solutions until there is a problem. I think it's often expressed as "change for the sake of change."
Then again, we all know these laws are neither changes for the sake or change nor efforts to protect the validity of our elections so there you go ...
Answer the actual question please.
...
...
Ask an honest question.
Are you saying I'm dishonest? I'm taking those against the voter id issue at their word and their stated intent and impugning no malign motive. You can't take me at mine?
I saw the Voter ID on a news title and, since bored of the Congress fiasco, raised a question.
Interestingly I've been called a lot of things, but no one has called me a liar to my face in decades.
So again, would anyone against the voter ID like NC, be against this method? It incorporates their arguments, and further expands it with the Canadian system.
You could find me five creditable studies* that show that NATION WIDE voter fraud is serious** (or even a thing) enough to merit nationwide voter ID. As well as five instances where voter fraud swayed an election***.
*Studies cannot be paid for by either major political party or politically associated group. Also it has to be clear who DID fund the study so bias can be checked.
**Serious as in "All the fraud swayed an election."
***Examples must be from congressional races, presidential races, or gubernatorial races. (Ie I don’t care if some mayor somewhere won because a bunch of zombies voted for him.)
Forar wrote: No, I'm calling transparent US laws racist. Please, do try to keep up little doggy. I know it's not easy, stubby legs and all...
Confucius say - he who throws mud is losing ground.
Please elaborate in what way a law that provides free ID, and applies to all creeds, colours and religions is racist?
So do you see racism in asking for ID for welfare? State support? Applying for a job? Applying for credit? Buying a beer? Driving a car? Owning a firearm?
Easy E wrote: Fraz, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Just answer the question please.
I'll answer that question with this question.
If your wife was personal friends of the former chief of police of the neighboring city, knows where the local safe houses for battered women are, was a crack shot and always armed with a pistol with one of those evil high capacity magazines, wouldn't it be more appropriate to ask, has she stopped beating me yet?
Easy E wrote: Fraz, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Just answer the question please.
I'll answer that question with this question.
If your wife was personal friends of the former chief of police of the neighboring city, knows where the local safe houses for battered women are, was a crack shot and always armed with a pistol with one of those evil high capacity magazines, wouldn't it be more appropriate to ask, has she stopped beating me yet?
Just answer the question please Fraz. have you stopped beating your wife?
Grey Templar wrote: I do think a free ID would be a good idea for the government to provide. Especially since many places want not 1 form of ID but 2 or more.
So you'd support a government push to provide a government ID to everyone who wanted one, but not require them for voting? I mean, we're just being altruistic, right?
You could find me five creditable studies* that show that NATION WIDE voter fraud is serious** (or even a thing) enough to merit nationwide voter ID. As well as five instances where voter fraud swayed an election***.
*Studies cannot be paid for by either major political party or politically associated group. Also it has to be clear who DID fund the study so bias can be checked.
**Serious as in "All the fraud swayed an election."
***Examples must be from congressional races, presidential races, or gubernatorial races. (Ie I don’t care if some mayor somewhere won because a bunch of zombies voted for him.)
Well assume chances of fraud are minimal. If efforts to reduce that are also minimally invasive, then there's no problem.
I'll note, if Canada has other options for documentation then the hydro bill those could count too, I just don't know them.
Any proof that there was in-person voter fraud before and that there is less of it now? The article answers the question: No. Furthermore, the article suggests that the case against voter suppression is not actually settled. In particular, the article notes the issue of free IDs does not account for over 260,000 GA voters.
It does answer the question. Since there has yet to be any credible evidence of a problem that will be fixed by stricter ID requirements the inevitable conclusion is that those requirements are being implemented with malicious intent. So even if the argument seems like a good one superficially there's a very good reason to oppose it until it is established that it is anything more than a solution in need of a problem.
Sure, free ID would be a good idea in general. Not everybody will have a drivers license, military ID, etc...
Certainly it should be provided if we do require ID to vote. But it wouldn't be a big deal if they didn't have a free one. After all if voter fraud isn't a problem then adding a layer of security shouldn't do anything either.
Grey Templar wrote: OK, but you haven't shown that being poor = limited access to IDs. There isn't a income requirement for IDs. Its not comperable to your example.
I do think a free ID would be a good idea for the government to provide. Especially since many places want not 1 form of ID but 2 or more.
Well, in the OP, I proffered any pic ID, but expanded that to include non pic IDs. I'm also ok with the state paying for ID.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just answer the question please Fraz. have you stopped beating your wife?
The questio proceeds from a false assumption at the beginning, therefore the answer to your question exists before the question is even made.
Any proof that there was in-person voter fraud before and that there is less of it now? The article answers the question: No. Furthermore, the article suggests that the case against voter suppression is not actually settled. In particular, the article notes the issue of free IDs does not account for over 260,000 GA voters.
The Georgia voter ID law has been upheld by every state and federal court in Georgia that reviewed it, up to and including the Georgia Supreme Court. These courts have held that the Georgia law does not unduly burden any racial or economic group, that it does not violate the Georgia or the U.S. Constitutions, or any federal voting rights law, including the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
So... you want that overturned?
Funny how I'm in your shoes with respect to the ACA.
Grey Templar wrote: There isn't a income requirement for IDs. Its not comperable to your example.
Okay, let me change my hypothetical. Instead of showing a tax return proving your household nets >$200k/year, the law requires you to drive to the polling center in a Lamborghini. There, no direct income requirement.
It does answer the question. Since there has yet to be any credible evidence of a problem that will be fixed by stricter ID requirements the inevitable conclusion is that those requirements are being implemented with malicious intent. So even if the argument seems like a good one superficially there's a very good reason to oppose it until it is established that it is anything more than a solution in need of a problem.
There is evidence of voter fraud, whether or not you accept that evfidence is different (more people voting then registered that sort fo thing). As noted however, if we assume such fraud is minor, then an equally noninvasive check is appropriate.
Grey Templar wrote: There isn't a income requirement for IDs. Its not comperable to your example.
Okay, let me change my hypothetical. Instead of showing a tax return proving your household nets >$200k/year, the law requires you to drive to the polling center in a Lamborghini. There, no direct income requirement.
Still a horrible comparison.
There is not direct or indirect income requirement for an ID in this country. Your example would be an income requment.
Grey Templar wrote: After all if voter fraud isn't a problem then adding a layer of security shouldn't do anything either.
This is why I'm pushing for the government to issue every citizen with a magic rock, which deters lion attacks. Maybe.
Sure, lion attacks are practically unheard of in this country, and sure, it would involve quite a bit of cost to produce and renew the rocks, and yes, we'd obviously have to entrench a new bureaucracy to manage the rocks, and finally, yeah, maybe the rocks don't even actually stop lion attacks... but frankly, none of this should matter in the face of preventing these nearly nonexistent lion attacks.
Isn't it funny, when it comes to discussion about guns (another constitutional right) and gun control we have advocates saying that we should be more like other developed countries. Yet when it comes voter ID laws it is a complete 180
Poll workers in Ireland can ask voters for proof of identity, but voters have a choice of “five different forms of photo ID, in addition to bank books, credit cards, checkbooks and marriage certificates.”
“In Switzerland, every registered voter is sent a registration card prior to an election, and if the voter brings her registration card to the polling place, no additional identification is needed.”
“Canada permits any voter who lacks one of the allowed forms of photo identification to present two of forty-five other forms of identification or documentation that have the voter’s name and address on at least one. Acceptable documents include leases, student transcripts, and utility bills.”
Sweden’s policy is a bit more vague, requiring that a “voter who is not known to the voting clerks [produce] an identity document or in another way verify her or his identity.”
“India allows the use of fifteen different types of identification, ranging from property documents to arms licenses to income tax identity cards. Included, too, are forms of identification most likely to be possessed by the poor.... For instance, voters can present ration cards issued to the poor to allow them to buy food staples and kerosene oil at subsidized prices.” . . .
“Countries such as Spain, Greece, France, Malta, Belgium, and Italy provide national identity documents to their citizens to use for many purposes, including travel, banking, and healthcare access as well as voting.”
As well as that we managed to introduce crude voter ID in Iraq and Afghanistan with purple ink. Was that being racist too?
whembly wrote: Funny how I'm in your shoes with respect to the ACA.
First off, using underlining and italics does not make your points seem more compelling to me. Second, I'm not saying that GA's Voter ID law is unconsitutional. I am saying it is a solution that lacks a problem and while solving nothing carries the risk of causing further problems.
I want a government program to help me find my voter ID when I lose it after putting it down somewhere.
Also I assume there is some sort of electronic verification of the card at the voting place. Because if you didn’t then you could just make and distribute fake ID cards. What happens if the power goes out? The machine breaks? The machine gets hacked/tampered with?
Will I have to stand in a DMV style line to get my card? If my card goes through the wash machine do I have to stand in the DMV style line? Our founding fathers never envisioned automatic weapons or DMV lines preventing us from getting our voter ID. I demand shorter guns and a ban on assault DMV lines!!!!
Who takes the picture for my ID (back to the DMV style line)? When are they open? Will I have to take off work to get my voter ID? Will I have to drive across town? If I don’t have a car will I have to walk?
We could answer and deal with all those questions and more or….
whembly wrote: Funny how I'm in your shoes with respect to the ACA.
First off, [underlining and italics does not make your points seem more compelling to me. Second, I'm not saying that GA's Voter ID law is unconsitutional. I am saying it is a solution that lacks a problem and while solving nothing carries the risk of causing further problems.
Of course they do. You youngins with your good eyesight won't notice but your seniors sure do!
Ma55ter_fett wrote: I want a government program to help me find my voter ID when I lose it after putting it down somewhere.
Also I assume there is some sort of electronic verification of the card at the voting place. Because if you didn’t then you could just make and distribute fake ID cards. What happens if the power goes out? The machine breaks? The machine gets hacked/tampered with?
Will I have to stand in a DMV style line to get my card? If my card goes through the wash machine do I have to stand in the DMV style line? Our founding fathers never envisioned automatic weapons or DMV lines preventing us from getting our voter ID. I demand shorter guns and a ban on assault DMV lines!!!!
Who takes the picture for my ID (back to the DMV style line)? When are they open? Will I have to take off work to get my voter ID? Will I have to drive across town? If I don’t have a car will I have to walk?
We could answer and deal with all those questions and more or….
We could just let people vote.
You could use another form of ID. Bring your power or water bill.
Bingo bango congratulations you voted! Now pick up that can citizen!
Grey Templar wrote: Adding ID requirements wouldn't add any real cost to voting. You just have the pollster verify the name matches and youre done.
Yup... easy peasy.
The purpose of requiring voter photo-identification is to suppress voter impersonation at the polls...
to stifle double voting by persons who are registered in more than one state or locality...
to stop any voting facilitated by fictitious voter registration...
to stop voting by legal/illegal aliens who are not citizens and have no right to vote in our elections.
Nothing to do with stopping "the wrong kind of eligible voters" from voting...
These are all worthwhile goals because bogus ballots cast by foreigners, impersonators and frauds are ballots stolen from honest Americans.
If in-person voter ID fraud of the type that would be stopped by picture ID became an actual significant phenomenon by some yet to be argued metric (half of 1% of the vote, lets say, but we can argue the specifics of what "significant" means later) , and the state would bear the cost of the ID cards for those who could not afford them, I would not have a problem with that because, although it would have a tax dollar cost and a somewhat expanded bureaucracy, it would be solving a problem.
However, I would not and do not support solutions in search of a problem. The cart is before the horse in this debate.
dammit, Ninja'd by Manchu. Stupid work, always distracting me!
But our elections are clearly invalid. I mean, look at all those Republicans getting elected in Texas! It's in-person fraud, I tell you.
I agree all Carpetbagger Republicans coming to our fair land...h wait, sorry wrong century...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: If in-person voter ID fraud of the type that would be stopped by picture ID became an actual significant phenomenon by some yet to be argued metric (half of 1% of the vote, lets say, but we can argue the specifics of what "significant" means later) , and the state would bear the cost of the ID cards for those who could not afford them, I would not have a problem with that because, although it would have a tax dollar cost and a somewhat expanded bureaucracy, it would be solving a problem.
However, I would not and do not support solutions in search of a problem. The cart is before the horse in this debate.
dammit, Ninja'd by Manchu. Stupid work, always distracting me!
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Isn't it funny, when it comes to discussion about guns (another constitutional right) and gun control we have advocates saying that we should be more like other developed countries. Yet when it comes voter ID laws it is a complete 180
Isn't it funny that when it comes to discussion about how large goverment should be we have advocates saying we should have small goverment and less spending.
Yet when it comes to voter ID laws its a complete 180 and they want more bureaucracy and an expensive new national program.
whembly wrote: Funny how I'm in your shoes with respect to the ACA.
First off, using underlining and italics does not make your points seem more compelling to me. Second, I'm not saying that GA's Voter ID law is unconsitutional. I am saying it is a solution that lacks a problem and while solving nothing carries the risk of causing further problems.
Need moar bewbs instead of underlines / italics? I'd be happy to obliged!
A bunch of folks in GA obviously felt there was a problem. *shrugs*
whembly wrote: A bunch of folks in GA obviously felt there was a problem. *shrugs*
"Feeling there is a problem" and there actually being one aren't always the same thing.
Also, let's not forget that it's not impossible for the problem to not actually be the one supposedly being solved. Not to besmirch the good people of GA, merely pointing out that it should be a consideration.
Ok I know I'm going to seem like an idiot for asking this, but what's wrong with asking for an ID to vote?
If all I need is a driver's license or something I don't see how that's a huge deal. Most people will have one already and those that don't can get a regular state ID for fairly cheap.
I go through more hassle trying to buy alcohol to be honest.
MrMoustaffa wrote: Ok I know I'm going to seem like an idiot for asking this, but what's wrong with asking for an ID to vote?
If all I need is a driver's license or something I don't see how that's a huge deal. Most people will have one already and those that don't can get a regular state ID for fairly cheap.
I go through more hassle trying to buy alcohol to be honest.
Requireing a drivers license means requireing people to stand in line at the DMV.
Such a cruel requirement boggles my moral and ethical compass.
In all seriousness I consider it a onerous requiremnt to meet before you can vote.
Seeing as there is no problem being prevented by voter ID
MrMoustaffa wrote: Ok I know I'm going to seem like an idiot for asking this, but what's wrong with asking for an ID to vote?
If all I need is a driver's license or something I don't see how that's a huge deal. Most people will have one already and those that don't can get a regular state ID for fairly cheap.
I go through more hassle trying to buy alcohol to be honest.
Requireing a drivers license means requireing people to stand in line at the DMV.
Such a cruel requirement boggles my moral and ethical compass.
If I have to go through that hell than everyone should
Frazzled wrote: There is evidence of voter fraud, whether or not you accept that evfidence is different (more people voting then registered that sort fo thing). As noted however, if we assume such fraud is minor, then an equally noninvasive check is appropriate.
But that's not the question here. Requiring an ID to vote does not deal with all cases of voter fraud. It does absolutely nothing to stop someone from tampering with the ballot count, and it does absolutely nothing to stop someone from voting illegally if they have succeeded in registering to vote in the first place. The only thing it could possibly stop is the case where someone steals the identity of a legal voter but isn't able to get a good fake ID. And your proposal isn't even very effective against that case since you've broadened the range of acceptable IDs to include ones (school IDs, for example) that are much less secure than a state-issued driver's license. So since the method of "security" is so laughably ineffective it's a safe bet that anyone advocating it is doing so in the hope of influencing the outcome of the election, not out of non-partisan desire to have fair elections.
If you want to stop voter fraud then you need to do it effectively, through securing the ballot counting process more effectively (and with more transparency) and keeping illegal voters off the registry.
MrMoustaffa wrote: Ok I know I'm going to seem like an idiot for asking this, but what's wrong with asking for an ID to vote?
If all I need is a driver's license or something I don't see how that's a huge deal. Most people will have one already and those that don't can get a regular state ID for fairly cheap.
I go through more hassle trying to buy alcohol to be honest.
Requireing a drivers license means requireing people to stand in line at the DMV.
Such a cruel requirement boggles my moral and ethical compass.
In all seriousness I consider it a onerous requiremnt to meet before you can vote.
Seeing as there is no problem being prevented by voter ID
hence the addition of any pic ID being available to be used, or just bring in your water or power bill like the Canadians do eh. If you brought your registration card (that all voters get FYI) then you'd be golden too.
MrMoustaffa wrote: I go through more hassle trying to buy alcohol to be honest.
Sure, but you don't have a protected right to have easy access to alcohol* enshrined in the constitution. As voting is the cornerstone of our democracy - in fact, the very foundation upon which all of our other rights lie - any impingement or barriers to exercising it should be carefully constructed to have the least possible impact.
*Although lord knows Ben Franklin tried, he just couldn't get the other guys on board.
MrMoustaffa wrote: Ok I know I'm going to seem like an idiot for asking this, but what's wrong with asking for an ID to vote?
If all I need is a driver's license or something I don't see how that's a huge deal. Most people will have one already and those that don't can get a regular state ID for fairly cheap.
I go through more hassle trying to buy alcohol to be honest.
Requireing a drivers license means requireing people to stand in line at the DMV.
Such a cruel requirement boggles my moral and ethical compass.
In all seriousness I consider it a onerous requiremnt to meet before you can vote.
Seeing as there is no problem being prevented by voter ID
hence the addition of any pic ID being available to be used, or just bring in your water or power bill like the Canadians do eh. If you brought your registration card (that all voters get FYI) then you'd be golden too.
Not everyone will have a water or power bill in their name.
A Photo ID can be faked by anyone with serious intent on comiting voter fraud.
If the photo ID needs to be electronically verified than you have the added cost and problems of electronic technology.
Frazzled wrote: There is evidence of voter fraud, whether or not you accept that evfidence is different (more people voting then registered that sort fo thing). As noted however, if we assume such fraud is minor, then an equally noninvasive check is appropriate.
But that's not the question here. Requiring an ID to vote does not deal with all cases of voter fraud. It does absolutely nothing to stop someone from tampering with the ballot count, and it does absolutely nothing to stop someone from voting illegally if they have succeeded in registering to vote in the first place. The only thing it could possibly stop is the case where someone steals the identity of a legal voter but isn't able to get a good fake ID.
True that. This would be just one measure with other measures to address those issues.
And your proposal isn't even very effective against that case since you've broadened the range of acceptable IDs to include ones (school IDs, for example) that are much less secure than a state-issued driver's license. So since the method of "security" is so laughably ineffective it's a safe bet that anyone advocating it is doing so in the hope of influencing the outcome of the election, not out of non-partisan desire to have fair elections.
Its watered down to take into account the objections of those against voter ID. You can't accuse someone of impure motive when they actually icorporate the concerns of the other side into the proposed legislation. thats kind of coockoo.
It would really only come into play if a real voter attempts to vote but the system notes two (or more voters) using the same alias. hence it being provisional.
If you want to stop voter fraud then you need to do it effectively, through securing the ballot counting process more effectively (and with more transparency) and keeping illegal voters off the registry.
MrMoustaffa wrote: I go through more hassle trying to buy alcohol to be honest.
Sure, but you don't have a protected right to have easy access to alcohol* enshrined in the constitution. As voting is the cornerstone of our democracy - in fact, the very foundation upon which all of our other rights lie - any impingement or barriers to exercising it should be carefully constructed to have the least possible impact.
*Although lord knows Ben Franklin tried, he just couldn't get the other guys on board.
I have a right to bear arms.
I can't wily-nily walk into a Gun Store and purchase a gun w/o an ID....right?
In just about ALL WALK OF LIFE, in any social economic spectrum, everyone has some sort of ID. How is that impinging on one's right to vote?
It does answer the question. Since there has yet to be any credible evidence of a problem that will be fixed by stricter ID requirements the inevitable conclusion is that those requirements are being implemented with malicious intent. So even if the argument seems like a good one superficially there's a very good reason to oppose it until it is established that it is anything more than a solution in need of a problem.
There is evidence of voter fraud, whether or not you accept that evfidence is different (more people voting then registered that sort fo thing). As noted however, if we assume such fraud is minor, then an equally noninvasive check is appropriate.
If a minor check is required for something that is pretty much a non-problem, does that mean you would be fine with a much stricter check and requirement for ID, proof of lawful eligibility etc for purchasing a gun? You know, because gun crime is a very real, very widespread problem in the USA?
It does answer the question. Since there has yet to be any credible evidence of a problem that will be fixed by stricter ID requirements the inevitable conclusion is that those requirements are being implemented with malicious intent. So even if the argument seems like a good one superficially there's a very good reason to oppose it until it is established that it is anything more than a solution in need of a problem.
There is evidence of voter fraud, whether or not you accept that evfidence is different (more people voting then registered that sort fo thing). As noted however, if we assume such fraud is minor, then an equally noninvasive check is appropriate.
If a minor check is required for something that is pretty much a non-problem, does that mean you would be fine with a much stricter check and requirement for ID, proof of lawful eligibility etc for purchasing a gun? You know, because gun crime is a very real, very widespread problem in the USA?
Considering that already occurs, yep. Its called an NCIS check boyo.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Isn't it funny, when it comes to discussion about guns (another constitutional right) and gun control we have advocates saying that we should be more like other developed countries. Yet when it comes voter ID laws it is a complete 180
Isn't it funny that when it comes to discussion about how large goverment should be we have advocates saying we should have small goverment and less spending.
Yet when it comes to voter ID laws its a complete 180 and they want more bureaucracy and an expensive new national program.
I know. Imagine wanting to protect the cornerstone of your political system. What heartless b*stards
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Sure, but you don't have a protected right to have easy access to alcohol* enshrined in the constitution. As voting is the cornerstone of our democracy - in fact, the very foundation upon which all of our other rights lie - any impingement or barriers to exercising it should be carefully constructed to have the least possible impact.
But we do to have a protected right concerning firearms, and look at the ID and background checks that we need for that
You can have your national voter ID law if I get a national gun control law that takes all your guns away.
At least my id is required when I buy my guns.
Personally, I'd be fine if within the 4 years between elections you had to show proof you passed the US citizenship test that immigrants have to take to become naturalized.
Frazzled wrote: Considering that already occurs, yep. Its called an NCIS check boyo.
It's clearly not enough given the amount of gun crime that occurs, wouldn't you think? Especially since you seem keen to introduce checks to stop, what? 40 detected crimes per year (or whatever cycle was quoted earlier). I'd suggest that your time and effort is far better spent trying to reduce the massive number of gun crimes and indeed gun deaths than crusading for voter ID...
Frazzled wrote: Considering that already occurs, yep. Its called an NCIS check boyo.
It's clearly not enough given the amount of gun crime that occurs, wouldn't you think? Especially since you seem keen to introduce checks to stop, what? 40 detected crimes per year (or whatever cycle was quoted earlier). I'd suggest that your time and effort is far better spent trying to reduce the massive number of gun crimes and indeed gun deaths than crusading for voter ID...
Yeah. It's stop criminals. It has nothing to do with the actual guns. The number of guns crimes in the United States when compared to the the number of firearms is less than 1%.
Frazzled wrote: Its watered down to take into account the objections of those against voter ID. You can't accuse someone of impure motive when they actually icorporate the concerns of the other side into the proposed legislation. thats kind of coockoo.
Of course you can make that accusation. It's just like how if you see a scam you can immediately reject it. Strictly looking at the deal that is offered you'd be insane to reject it. Of course you'd pay $1000 to get $1 million (once the exiled king gets their bank account unlocked). But yet in the real world we don't have any problem noticing the obvious fact that the scammer is not offering an honest deal and rejecting it. We don't say "but you don't know he has an impure motive" and insist that accepting the deal is a good idea.
The same is true for stricter ID requirements. Even if it's superficially a good tradeoff between security and convenience the fact that it is utterly ineffective at addressing any demonstrated problem makes it perfectly clear that anyone advocating those requirements is just doing it because they think it will help them win the next election.
It would really only come into play if a real voter attempts to vote but the system notes two (or more voters) using the same alias. hence it being provisional.
But stricter ID requirements have nothing to do with this. If you have duplicate votes then you have a situation that calls for more than just a glance at the second guy's college ID card.
cincydooley wrote: Yeah. It's stop criminals. It has nothing to do with the actual guns. The number of guns crimes in the United States when compared to the the number of firearms is less than 1%.
However, the number of gun crimes per 100,000 population puts you way ahead of the rest of the developed world, almost right up there with countries actively engaged in civil war...
Frazzled wrote: Considering that already occurs, yep. Its called an NCIS check boyo.
It's clearly not enough given the amount of gun crime that occurs, wouldn't you think? Especially since you seem keen to introduce checks to stop, what? 40 detected crimes per year (or whatever cycle was quoted earlier). I'd suggest that your time and effort is far better spent trying to reduce the massive number of gun crimes and indeed gun deaths than crusading for voter ID...
Moving your goalposts. To your point it already occurs.
cincydooley wrote: Yeah. It's stop criminals. It has nothing to do with the actual guns. The number of guns crimes in the United States when compared to the the number of firearms is less than 1%.
However, the number of gun crimes per 100,000 population puts you way ahead of the rest of the developed world, almost right up there with countries actively engaged in civil war...
The majority of which is gang violence, which for all intents and purposes is a form of domestic war.
And not only that, but crime rates in the US continue to fall nationwide.
But yeah, IDs. How about we finger print sign our ballots. That's freely accessible to everyone.
Frazzled wrote: Its watered down to take into account the objections of those against voter ID. You can't accuse someone of impure motive when they actually icorporate the concerns of the other side into the proposed legislation. thats kind of coockoo.
Of course you can make that accusation. It's just like how if you see a scam you can immediately reject it. Strictly looking at the deal that is offered you'd be insane to reject it. Of course you'd pay $1000 to get $1 million (once the exiled king gets their bank account unlocked). But yet in the real world we don't have any problem noticing the obvious fact that the scammer is not offering an honest deal and rejecting it. We don't say "but you don't know he has an impure motive" and insist that accepting the deal is a good idea.
The same is true for stricter ID requirements. Even if it's superficially a good tradeoff between security and convenience the fact that it is utterly ineffective at addressing any demonstrated problem makes it perfectly clear that anyone advocating those requirements is just doing it because they think it will help them win the next election.
It would really only come into play if a real voter attempts to vote but the system notes two (or more voters) using the same alias. hence it being provisional.
But stricter ID requirements have nothing to do with this. If you have duplicate votes then you have a situation that calls for more than just a glance at the second guy's college ID card.
Er no. If the argument is that its too onerous then that is taken into account you can't then say Hah! its too easy when you're the one arguing its too onerous in the first place.
I already have to have ID for my Second Amendment right. No reason to not have to have ID for my right to vote.
In fact Frazz, I think one could make the exact same argument about required IDs for firearms as for voting. Requiring an ID to purchase a firearm unfairly infringes upon my right to own a firearm because I don't have an ID.
cincydooley wrote: Yeah. It's stop criminals. It has nothing to do with the actual guns. The number of guns crimes in the United States when compared to the the number of firearms is less than 1%.
However, the number of gun crimes per 100,000 population puts you way ahead of the rest of the developed world, almost right up there with countries actively engaged in civil war...
The majority of which is gang violence, which for all intents and purposes is a form of domestic war.
And not only that, but crime rates in the US continue to fall nationwide.
But yeah, IDs. How about we finger print sign our ballots. That's freely accessible to everyone.
Frazzled wrote: Considering that already occurs, yep. Its called an NCIS check boyo.
It's clearly not enough given the amount of gun crime that occurs, wouldn't you think? Especially since you seem keen to introduce checks to stop, what? 40 detected crimes per year (or whatever cycle was quoted earlier). I'd suggest that your time and effort is far better spent trying to reduce the massive number of gun crimes and indeed gun deaths than crusading for voter ID...
Moving your goalposts. To your point it already occurs.
My point was that you intend to push something which will take a not immodest amount of resources; money, time, goodwill, etc, to "solve" a problem that statistically does not even exist. If you were to put a proportional amount of effort into combating a real issue (gun crime), you would be talking about putting chips into guns to recognise their owner, tracking them from space, full background checks, interviews with neighbours, colonoscopy, etc before you could buy a gun.
Frazzled wrote: Er no. If the argument is that its too onerous then that is taken into account you can't then say Hah! its too easy when you're the one arguing its too onerous in the first place.
Sure I can. You're making the assumption that there is a level of difficulty which provides meaningful security improvements without imposing an unfair burden on anyone. I'm just arguing that there isn't. Once you've reduced the burden enough to be reasonable you're left with something that is completely ineffective at addressing the supposed problem. The solution isn't to try to find some magical balance, it's to accept that voter ID is not an effective approach to stopping fraud and concentrate on the methods that are more likely to accomplish something.
cincydooley wrote: But yeah, IDs. How about we finger print sign our ballots. That's freely accessible to everyone.
So, you want a national register of fingerprints too? And would you be fingerprinting your actual ballot paper so anyone who cared to could check exactly how you voted?
cincydooley wrote: But yeah, IDs. How about we finger print sign our ballots. That's freely accessible to everyone.
So, you want a national register of fingerprints too? And would you be fingerprinting your actual ballot paper so anyone who cared to could check exactly how you voted?
No... just dip you finger in ink after voting. That'll stop some of it... Like they do in Iraq:
Ouze wrote: Sure, but you don't have a protected right to have easy access to alcohol* enshrined in the constitution. As voting is the cornerstone of our democracy - in fact, the very foundation upon which all of our other rights lie - any impingement or barriers to exercising it should be carefully constructed to have the least possible impact.
But we do to have a protected right concerning firearms, and look at the ID and background checks that we need for that
And I think that's a perfect example of a restraint on a right that required it be balanced out by a clear state interest in doing so.
There is a clear government interest in preventing felons, the mentally disturbed, those with open restraining orders, and suchlike from being able to exercise that right freely. It's unambiguous. The state interest is compelling.
Since in-person voter fraud of the type this is purportedly to address is nearly nonexistent, the state interest in being able to impede that right is substantially diminished.
cincydooley wrote: But yeah, IDs. How about we finger print sign our ballots. That's freely accessible to everyone.
So, you want a national register of fingerprints too? And would you be fingerprinting your actual ballot paper so anyone who cared to could check exactly how you voted?
No... just dip you finger in ink after voting. That'll stop some of it... Like they do in Iraq:
cincydooley wrote: But yeah, IDs. How about we finger print sign our ballots. That's freely accessible to everyone.
So, you want a national register of fingerprints too? And would you be fingerprinting your actual ballot paper so anyone who cared to could check exactly how you voted?
I think I'm one of the very few NRA cardholders in the country that wouldn't have a problem if I could do everything by my fingerprint. I'm already in the system from being a teacher and banker, so if I had the opportunity to no longer carry a wallet i wouldn't be opposed to it.
cincydooley wrote: But yeah, IDs. How about we finger print sign our ballots. That's freely accessible to everyone.
So, you want a national register of fingerprints too? And would you be fingerprinting your actual ballot paper so anyone who cared to could check exactly how you voted?
I think I'm one of the very few NRA cardholders in the country that wouldn't have a problem if I could do everything by my fingerprint. I'm already in the system from being a teacher and banker, so if I had the opportunity to no longer carry a wallet i wouldn't be opposed to it.
The problem with that now, is that your fingerprint is easy to "steal"... go full Minority Report... support retinal scans!
Rosanell Eaton outsmarted literacy tests and defied cross-burnings to vote in the Jim Crow South. But she may have met her match in North Carolina’s restrictive new voting measure, a lawsuit claims.
Growing up in the 1920s and ’30s in Louisburg, N.C., Eaton went to a segregated school, and drank from “colored” water fountains. As soon as she was old enough, Eaton went to the county courthouse, on a wagon pulled by a mule, to register to vote—where, as part of a literacy test designed to weed out blacks, she was forced by registrars to recite the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Eaton had been the valedictorian of her class, and she recited the passage successfully. She went on to vote reliably and to help other local blacks register—an activity for which she received crosses burned on her front lawn, and a bullet just below her bedroom window.
But now, in her tenth decade of life—and nearly a half century after the Voting Rights Act appeared to settle the question for good—Eaton’s right to vote may be in jeopardy. After the Supreme Court struck down a key part of the landmark civil-rights law earlier this summer, North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature pushed through what many experts have called the nation’s most restrictive voting measure, which was signed Monday by Gov. Pat McCrory, also a Republican.
“Here I am at 92 years old doing the same battling,” Eaton told a crowd Tuesday morning at a rally to protest the law.
Starting in 2016, the law will require not just that voters present a valid photo ID, but also that it exactly match the name on their voter registration card—an even stricter requirement than some past photo ID laws. Eaton has a valid driver’s license, Penda Hair, a lawyer with the Advancement Project, a civil-rights group, told MSNBC. But the name on the license doesn’t exactly match that on her registration card. Fixing the problem will likely be a bureaucratic nightmare that would test even a much younger person, and will cost significant time as well as money. In addition, the new law significantly cuts early voting, which Eaton frequently used. And it ends the state’s popular system of same-day registration, as well as a program encouraging high-school students to pre-register.
Eaton’s plight was detailed in a lawsuit filed Monday afternoon by the NAACP and the Advancement Project, challenging the law, which, it says, “imposes unjustified and discriminatory electoral burdens on large segments of the state’s population and will cause the denial, dilution, and abridgment of African-Americans’ fundamental right to vote.”
A similar but separate lawsuit was filed Monday by the ACLU, joined by the Southern Coalition for Social Justice on behalf of the North Carolina League of Women Voters.
Opponents of the law have been quick to draw parallels with past efforts to disenfranchise blacks. “Governor Pat McCrory and the North Carolina Legislature are on the wrong side of history,” Rev. William Barber II, the president of the state’s NAACP chapter, said in a statement issued Tuesday morning. “This Anti-Voting Rights Bill tramples on the blood of our martyrs,” and “desecrates the graves of freedom fighters.”
Barber, who has led the local ongoing “Moral Monday” protests, compared the philosophy behind the law to the extreme states-rights doctrine advanced by George Wallace and Strom Thurmond. “We will fight this race-based, immoral and regressive bill with everything we have and believe we will be victorious,” he added.
In an op-ed piece published Monday in the Raleigh News and Observer, McCrory justified the law as necessary to combat voter fraud—despite an apparent acknowledgment that such fraud is all but non-existent. “Even if the instances of misidentified people casting votes are low, that shouldn’t prevent us from putting this non-burdensome safeguard in place,” McCrory wrote.
According to the state’s own numbers, 316,000 North Carolinians—disproportionately blacks, Hispanics, and the poor—lack the I.D. required under the law.
The NAACP’s lawsuit argues that because it disproportionately affects racial minorities, the voting law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 bars racial discrimination in voting nationwide, and was left untouched by the Supreme Court’s ruling—though, as MSNBC reported last month, there have been recent hints that it too could be a ripe target for conservative foes of voting protections. The suit also challenges the law under the 14th and 15thAmendments of the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court invalidated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which required most southern states, including much of North Carolina, to “pre-clear” any voting changes with the U.S. Justice Department, in order to ensure they don’t have the effect of hurting minorities. North Carolina is the first state to enact a restrictive voting law since the court’s ruling. But other states, including Texas, Mississippi, and Virginia, have pushed ahead with similar laws in response to the decision.
I assume that probably varies from place to place to an extent/ways around it/etc etc , but it cropped up in my feed at the exact moment .. and who am I to argue with serendipity...?
Ouze wrote: Sure, but you don't have a protected right to have easy access to alcohol* enshrined in the constitution. As voting is the cornerstone of our democracy - in fact, the very foundation upon which all of our other rights lie - any impingement or barriers to exercising it should be carefully constructed to have the least possible impact.
But we do to have a protected right concerning firearms, and look at the ID and background checks that we need for that
And I think that's a perfect example of a restraint on a right that required it be balanced out by a clear state interest in doing so.
There is a clear government interest in preventing felons, the mentally disturbed, those with open restraining orders, and suchlike from being able to exercise that right freely. It's unambiguous. The state interest is compelling.
Since in-person voter fraud of the type this is purportedly to address is nearly nonexistent, the state interest in being able to impede that right is substantially diminished.
There is also clear and compelling interest in protecting the democratic process
It is a dishonest question because it is based on the false proposal that there is a voting fraud problem that needs to be solved. Thus, someone arguing against voter ID is made to look as if he condones voter fraud. Basically it is the same as “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
Protecting democracy is a very good thing, however it cannot be achieved by trying to stop a problem that does not exist.
In fact, the money spent on the useless programme is not available to solve real problems like gerrymandering, under-trained polling station staff, and voting machine malfunctions.
Plus, voter involvement is reduced by restrictive voter ID, so too much of it is anti-democratic.
It is ironic that Republicans, the party of small government, are so keen to spend government money on enlarging the role of government. Given that voter ID is more restrictive on minority voters more likely to vote Democratic, and it has been enacted by Republican administrations, one can only draw the conclusion that it is a way of biasing the democratic process in favour of the party in power.
If you truly want democracy to work, you have to accept that sometimes your side will lose the vote.
By not allowing voter ID laws, we are protecting democracy. Voter ID laws make it harder to vote period. Since there is no significant statsitical basis in believing in-person voter fraud occurs, why make it harder to vote?
However, unlike the activities you have highlighted, there is very little evidence to suggest people are voting when they should not be, or in ways that break the law. Everything else you listed is a much greater target for fraud, and or requires you to prove you are allowed to do it (such as being old enough, be able to drive, have the appropriate finances etc...).
SilverMK2 wrote: However, unlike the activities you have highlighted, there is very little evidence to suggest people are voting when they should not be, or in ways that break the law. Everything else you listed is a much greater target for fraud, and or requires you to prove you are allowed to do it (such as being old enough, be able to drive, have the appropriate finances etc...).
There's plenty of evidence... and that's only those that we identified/caught.
whembly wrote: There's plenty of evidence... and that's only those that we identified/caught.
So, where exactly is this evidence?
When providing it please remember the difference between voter fraud in general and the very specific kind of voter fraud that stricter ID requirements would have any chance of stopping. And please stick to credible sources, not tinfoil hat speculation about "PRECINCT #340895 HAD 9999999999999.9999999999% FOR OBAMACARE IT MUST BE FRAUD".
whembly wrote: There's plenty of evidence... and that's only those that we identified/caught.
So, where exactly is this evidence?
When providing it please remember the difference between voter fraud in general and the very specific kind of voter fraud that stricter ID requirements would have any chance of stopping. And please stick to credible sources, not tinfoil hat speculation about "PRECINCT #340895 HAD 9999999999999.9999999999% FOR OBAMACARE IT MUST BE FRAUD".
“The most amazing part about this voter fraud case involving the highest office in the United States is the fact that such a few number of people, because of laziness, arrogance or both did not do their job and thus could have affected the outcome of the election," noted St. Joseph County Republican Party Chairwoman Dr. Deborah Fleming.“
“FEMA official charged in voter fraud case. Federal Emergency Management Agency official has been arrested in connection with a voter fraud case in St. Johns County, Florida. Michel Pawlowski, 68, was named in a complaint last fall alleging voter fraud. He lives in Maryland. His daughter ran for St. Augustine Beach city commission and won.”
“Top staffer for Florida Democratic Rep. Garcia resigns amid voting fraud probe. The congressman said he thinks the plot was a “well-intentioned attempt to maximize voter turnout” and that the system is “prone to fraud.”
“Milwaukee County prosecutors Thursday filed voter fraud charges against 10 people, including two accused of double voting in 2012 elections and two felons ineligible to vote. Also among the fraud cases: a Milwaukee woman who is accused of signing a recall petition against Republican Gov. Scott Walker three times; and the petition circulator who collected those signatures.”
"Richardson told a local television station this month that she voted twice last November. She cast an absentee ballot and then voted at the polls as well...Authorities also are investigating if she voted in the names of four other people, too, for a total of six votes in the 2012 presidential election."
"A North Vernon man who worked on a former Jeffersonville mayor’s re-election campaign in 2011 has agreed to plea guilty to three counts of vote fraud in Jennings County Circuit Court on charges related to a campaign there."
"According to a Dec. 20 statement from the US attorney’s office , Smith allegedly submitted fraudulent requests for absentee ballots, then cast those ballots on behalf of voters without their knowledge. Prosecutors say Smith also knowingly delivered absentee ballots to ineligible voters, knowing that their votes in his favor would be fraudulent. Smith was charged with two misdemeanor counts of deprivation of rights under color of law. He faces up to two years in prison, and prosecutors will recommend a 6-month sentence, according to his plea agreement, which also requires that he vacate his seat in the Legislature and prohibits him from seeking another elected office for the next five years."
"District 4 Election Commissioner Carl Payne reported an incident in which "a father cast an absentee ballot, the son voted in person and then the son changes clothes and returned to vote as his father. We learned of this from a written statement from the poll manager." Among other cases reported by Payne (who was defeated Nov. 6 by Sissie Ferguson): A voter came to cast a ballot, gave a name that was on the poll book, signed the receipt book and was allowed to vote. Another person using the same name came to vote later that day, "and was informed he'd already voted. The second person provided proof of identity," Payne reported. Also, a voter cast a ballot in person at the proper precinct — and then prepared a provisional ballot, including a sworn affidavit, at another precinct."
They don't exist as a significant problem. All of those links you point to show, literally, 14 cases of voter fraud, along with 2 much more nebulous links claiming "more then dozens, perhaps hundreds" of absentee ballots. Lets presume 200 each, for a total of 414 ballots.
There were 129 million votes cast in 2012. This is a problem that does not effectively exist, and for that nearly unmeasurable percentage it does happen in, we already have ample criminal remedies available, as evinced by your links.
To put it differently, do you think more than 414 legal voters would not vote if these laws were put in places?
They don't exist as a significant problem. All of those links you point to show, literally, 14 cases of voter fraud, along with 2 much more nebulous links claiming "more then dozens, perhaps hundreds" of absentee ballots. Lets presume 200 each, for a total of 414 ballots.
There were 129 million votes cast in 2012. This is a problem that does not effectively exist, and for that nearly unmeasurable percentage it does happen in, we already have ample criminal remedies available, as evinced by your links.
To put it differently, do you think more than 414 legal voters would not vote if these laws were put in places?
EVEN Then... is it THAT much of a burden?
EDIT: I have a plethora of more links... I can go all day long with these instances...
Frazzled wrote: Significance is not required. The fact that voters are disenfranchised is the issue.
Don't be silly. Of course significance is required; or else we'd be lobbying to dramatically increase the size of every single police department in the country to make sure no jaywalker does unticketed.
We don't disenfranchise large numbers of eligible voters to catch what is likely less that .001% of votes that are fraudulent.
I'd be willing to enforce voter ID requirements if and when it became a measurable problem. In 2013, it's not, not by my reckoning, and we don't squander resources, increase government bureaucracy, and limit freedoms of honest Americans for no measurable gain.
Frazzled wrote: Significance is not required. The fact that voters are disenfranchised is the issue.
Don't be silly. Of course significance is required; or else we'd be lobbying to dramatically increase the size of every single police department in the country to make sure no jaywalker does unticketed.
We don't disenfranchise large numbers of eligible voters to catch what is likely less that .001% of votes that are fraudulent.
Again... what's the burden.
You prove to me that Voter ID disenfranchise voters.
Frazzled wrote: Significance is not required. The fact that voters are disenfranchised is the issue.
Don't be silly. Of course significance is required; or else we'd be lobbying to dramatically increase the size of every single police department in the country to make sure no jaywalker does unticketed.
We don't disenfranchise large numbers of eligible voters to catch what is likely less that .001% of votes that are fraudulent.
I'd be willing to enforce voter ID requirements if and when it became a measurable problem. In 2013, it's not, not by my reckoning, and we don't squander resources, increase government bureaucracy, and limit freedoms of honest Americans for no measurable gain.
Considering its the exact argument being made by the DOJ of course its not silly.
Frazzled wrote: Significance is not required. The fact that voters are disenfranchised is the issue.
Apply this sentiment to gun control arguments ... and idiocy results! You can fathom that in one example but not the other. And you wonder why I don't buy your "I'm not partisan" act.
Frazzled wrote: Significance is not required. The fact that voters are disenfranchised is the issue.
Apply this sentiment to gun control arguments ... and idiocy results! You can fathom that in one example but not the other. And you wonder why I don't buy your "I'm not partisan" act.
Hey its not my standard its the standard the DOJ is arguing.
DOJ Invokes Voting Rights Act in Suit v. N.C. over Voting Law Changes Today, the DOJ will sue North Carolina under sections 2 and 3 of the Voting Rights Act in an attempt to invalidate substantial portions of North Carolina's reforms to its voting laws. The North Carolina law requires photo IDs to vote (student IDs are not sufficient), limits early voting, ends same-day registration and voting, and prohibits counting provisional ballots when a voter appears at the wrong polling place. The DOJ contends that the effect of the changes is to dilute minority voting and thus is a violation of section 2 of the VRA. But the DOJ also asserts that the NC law is intentionally discriminatory and thus warrants imposition of section 5 preclearance under section 3 of the VRA. This is the second such DOJ suit; earlier this year the DOJ sued Texas on similar theories.
The section 2 claim hinges on whether the empirical evidence is sufficiently strong to prove that the effect of the change materially impedes minority voter participation. The evidence is contestable. Democracy North Carolina, an advocacy group, claims that 23% of NC registered voters are African-American, but in 2012 were 29% of early voters, 30% of voters appearing at the wrong polling place, 34% of registered voters without qualified photo IDs, and 41% of those using same-day refistration and voting. But these statistics do not prove that the proportion of early voters who are African-American will decline, nor do they establish that African-American voters will continue to represent a disproportionate share of voters who come to the wrong polling place. The share of minorities who used same-day registration and voting may be ephemeral, as once registation and voting is accomplished, the voter stays on the rolls and need not resort to same-day registration again. Such will be the arguments over whether section 2 has been violated.
Section 3 poses a much tougher challenge for the DOJ. The NC law is race-neutral and, though I do not know, I would be surprised if racist motivations were openly voiced in the NC legislature. In order to be constitutionally valid, section 3 must be congruent with an identified violation of the 15th Amendment and proportional to the scope of that violation. While section 3 is congruent with the 15th Amendment's ban of racial discrimination in voting, it is quite likely disproportionate. Absent proof of the kind of systematic, sub rosa discrimination that convinced the Court in South Carolina v. Katzenbach to uphold pre-clearance, a section 2 suit is adequate to address the alleged constitutional injury. At least that will be the argument in each of the NC and Texas suits, and it may well succeed.
Frazzled wrote: Its also the standard you have been arguing FYI
Noooooope. I'm really glad you said that because it could clear up a lot.
I am not saying that hypothetical disenfranchisement is enough. I am saying there is no credible evidence to suggest a problem that Voter ID laws would address and, in the absence of a problem, all we get from this "solution" is a risk. Pretty simple.
Frazzled wrote: Its also the standard you have been arguing FYI
Noooooope. I'm really glad you said that because it could clear up a lot.
I am not saying that hypothetical disenfranchisement is enough. I am saying there is no credible evidence to suggest a problem that Voter ID laws would address and, in the absence of a problem, all we get from this "solution" is a risk. Pretty simple.
Lemme repeat myself... unless ya'll put me on ignore. Again... what's the burden.
You prove to me that Voter ID disenfranchise voters
whembly wrote: You prove to me that Voter ID disenfranchise voters
Let me rephrase what I just posted (and you even quoted!) as it answers your question. I'll use italics, since you seem to like that: I don't need to prove a burden. Before we enact a law to stop fraud we need credible evidence of a fraud problem. It doesn't exist. You can't build that case anecdotally, as you have been trying to do and as the GOP has been trying to do.
It is the essence of political conservativism to not do a thing with government that does not need to be done. Whether the possible harm is incidental or intentional, actually results or remains hypoethetical, etc, does not matter.
Also -- your tactic of posting the same question over and over while ignoring that people have answered you multiple times and in some cases even in multiple threads is getting irritating.
"As Virginia legislators hotly debated a voter ID bill that narrowly passed the General Assembly, many were unaware of a state police investigation that, so far, has resulted in charges against 38 people statewide for voter fraud. Warrants have been obtained for a 39th person who can't be located. A majority of those cases already have resulted in convictions, and 26 additional cases are still being actively investigated nearly 3½ years after the state Board of Elections forwarded more than 400 voter and election fraud allegations from 62 cities and counties to Virginia State Police for individual investigation."
The point is... there's more than enough evidences that there are issues.
Voter ID wouldn't necessarily stop 'em all, but it'll help. Asking for ID isn't that onerous. Claiming it so is basically telling voters that they're stupid.
whembly wrote: You prove to me that Voter ID disenfranchise voters
Let me rephrase what I just posted (and you even quoted!) as it answers your question. I'll use italics, since you seem to like that: I don't need to prove a burden. Before we enact a law to stop fraud we need credible evidence of a fraud problem. It doesn't exist. You can't build that case anecdotally, as you have been trying to do and as the GOP has been trying to do.
It is the essence of political conservativism to not do a thing with government that does not need to be done. Whether the possible harm is incidental or intentional, actually results or remains hypoethetical, etc, does not matter.
Also -- your tactic of posting the same question over and over while ignoring that people have answered you multiple times and in some cases even in multiple threads is getting irritating.
whembly wrote: The point is... there's more than enough evidences that there are issues.
Voter ID wouldn't necessarily stop 'em all, but it'll help. Asking for ID isn't that onerous. Claiming it so is basically telling voters that they're stupid.
Looking at the scant issues that exist, you have admitted that Voter ID laws will not even effectively address the problem. You've got some minuscule instance of in-person voter fraud and you're further saying that these laws won't even fully solve those few.
See, we don't even need to ask what kind of costs a Voter ID law has. All we have to do is ask if it will render a significant benefit.
And the answer remains "no."
I would advise you to read the following ten times before responding:
Manchu wrote: It is the essence of political conservativism to not do a thing with government that does not need to be done. Whether the possible harm is incidental or intentional, actually results or remains hypoethetical, etc, does not matter.
whembly wrote: The point is... there's more than enough evidences that there are issues.
Voter ID wouldn't necessarily stop 'em all, but it'll help. Asking for ID isn't that onerous. Claiming it so is basically telling voters that they're stupid.
Looking at the scant issues that exist, you have admitted that Voter ID laws will not even effectively address the problem. You've got some minuscule instance of in-person voter fraud and you're further saying that these laws won't even fully solve those few.
See, we don't even need to ask what kind of costs a Voter ID law has. All we have to do is ask if it will render a significant benefit.
And the answer remains "no."
That's your opinion... doesn't make it fact.
Evidently some states believe it's needed and survived challenges.
I would advise you to read the following ten times before responding:
Manchu wrote: It is the essence of political conservativism to not do a thing with government that does not need to be done. Whether the possible harm is incidental or intentional, actually results or remains hypoethetical, etc, does not matter.
whembly wrote: That's your opinion... doesn't make it fact.
Ouze already explained to you why it is not an opinion but rather a fact.
Ouze wrote: There were 129 million votes cast in 2012. This is a problem that does not effectively exist, and for that nearly unmeasurable percentage it does happen in, we already have ample criminal remedies available, as evinced by your links.
Manchu wrote:I would advise you to read the following ten times before responding:
Manchu wrote:It is the essence of political conservativism to not do a thing with government that does not need to be done. Whether the possible harm is incidental or intentional, actually results or remains hypoethetical, etc, does not matter.
So... what's the possible harm?
This is exactly why I advised you to read that ten times before responding. As you can see, I answered your question once again in the very post you quoted. The answer is, it does not matter. You know what harms could result and you disagree with that. So fine, for the sake of argument, let's forget the potential harm -- we don't need to talk about them so long as there is no reason for government to act. And this is just such a case.
Manchu wrote: Also -- your tactic of posting the same question over and over while ignoring that people have answered you multiple times and in some cases even in multiple threads is getting irritating.
whembly wrote: That's your opinion... doesn't make it fact.
Ouze already explained to you why it is not an opinion but rather a fact.
Ouze wrote: There were 129 million votes cast in 2012. This is a problem that does not effectively exist, and for that nearly unmeasurable percentage it does happen in, we already have ample criminal remedies available, as evinced by your links.
Still an opinionated statement. Which is fine... I only object to your assertion that it's factual.
Manchu wrote:I would advise you to read the following ten times before responding:
Manchu wrote:It is the essence of political conservativism to not do a thing with government that does not need to be done. Whether the possible harm is incidental or intentional, actually results or remains hypoethetical, etc, does not matter.
So... what's the possible harm?
This is exactly why I advised you to read that ten times before responding. As you can see, I answered your question once again in the very post you quoted. The answer is, it does not matter. You know what harms could result and you disagree with that. So fine, for the sake of argument, let's forget the potential harm -- we don't need to talk about them so long as there is no reason for government to act. And this is just such a case.
I still reject that premise because it smacks to me that you're trying to tell me HOW to think...
You see... we're at an impasse. Let's just bob our head and move along.
Manchu wrote: Also -- your tactic of posting the same question over and over while ignoring that people have answered you multiple times and in some cases even in multiple threads is getting irritating.
I'm not ignoring anyone... the questions that *I* asked weren't answered.
peregine asked for some examples, which I provided. Some threw that back at me by saying... it doesn't matter. I said, "fine" here's my followup question. So YOU decided to jump in and expouse "political conservativism" as if that directly answers my question.
Not even close, unless you're talking about yourself. As eventually clarified by way of Ouze, Peregrine asked for evidence that in-person voter fraud is actually wrecking our elections. You responded with anecdotes. As was immediately pointed out to you by Ouze, and I'm paraphrasing, you're the one moving the goal posts. The question isn't whether there is any in-person voter fraud at all ever; the legitimate question, at least from a politically conservative point of view, is whether there is a significant enough problem to warrant government action.
This is why I reminded Frazz that it is dumb to enact gun control in the wake of a public shooting. I mean, he knows that. But then he forgets it whenever we're talking about Voter ID laws instead of gun control. You're beating the same partisan drum, heedless of the fundamentally non-conservative stance you're actually taking.
whembly wrote: Still an opinionated statement. Which is fine... I only object to your assertion that it's factual.
... Which part was an opinion? That 129 million votes were cast, or that 414 is so tiny a fraction of that number that it's nonsignificant?
Buddy... that's misleading at best... disingenuous at worst.
414 isn't the total number of potential fraudulent votes. Peregine asked for any evidence, you decided to add them up, thinking no other evidences exists.
Check this out... keep in mind, they're NOT the only champion to the cause.
Not even close, unless you're talking about yourself. As eventually clarified by way of Ouze, Peregrine asked for evidence that in-person voter fraud is actually wrecking our elections. You responded with anecdotes. As was immediately pointed out to you by Ouze, and I'm paraphrasing, you're the one moving the goal posts. The question isn't whether there is any in-person voter fraud at all ever; the legitimate question, at least from a politically conservative point of view, is whether there is a significant enough problem to warrant government action.
Therein lies our current stalemate...
You see... I'm a big 10th Amendment guy. I like the idea the States are test beds for new ideas. I like the idea that not all state are governed the same way and believe that the STATE'S officials are better equipped to deal with their issues.
VoterID is one of them. We have numerous states that has passed laws (or in the process) dealing with this. Hence, my question remains unanswered:
Again... what's the burden.
You prove to me that Voter ID disenfranchise voters
This is what we're discussing... NOT what's my political belief or worldview... or if I think the St. Louis Cardinals will win the World Series... if you want to know these things PM or startup another thread.
This is why I reminded Frazz that it is dumb to enact gun control in the wake of a public shooting. I mean, he knows that. But then he forgets it whenever we're talking about Voter ID laws instead of gun control. You're beating the same partisan drum, heedless of the fundamentally non-conservative stance you're actually taking.
Depending on what's your definition of what it means to be conservative.
I'm not beating the same drum... I asked a very simple (I think) question and you want to turn it into some sort of major desertation on political beliefs. I'm mean, it's interesting and all... but, let's acknowledge that that we have differences of opinions and respect it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I kinda regret using italics so much now
Dammit man... what do you have against the Eye Impaired?
whembly wrote: Asking for ID isn't that onerous. Claiming it so is basically telling voters that they're stupid.
And you keep missing the point. Let me put it in simple terms for you. We have no evidence that the specific kind of fraud that a stricter ID requirement would prevent is happening frequently enough to matter. The proposed laws will do absolutely nothing about a wide range of potential fraud methods, such as people who are illegally registered to vote, rigging the voting machines to favor a desired candidate, etc. So, which is more likely:
1) That the advocates for stricter ID requirements are pushing for these changes out of a sincere non-partisan desire to have the fairest possible elections, even though the likely impact of these laws on voter fraud is nonexistent.
or
2) That the advocates for stricter ID requirements are pushing for these changes because they believe that it will shift voter turnout in favor of their party/ideology.
(Hint: if you have any clue about NC politics you know that the answer is #2.)
whembly wrote: peregine asked for some examples, which I provided.
No you didn't. You provided the same old mix of tinfoil hat claims by partisan sources about "there must have been fraud we can't possibly have lost legitimately!!!" and random cases of fraud that have nothing to do with the laws we're discussing. For example, a convicted felon voting illegally will do so whether or not they have to show a driver's license, since a driver's license does not say "convicted felon, may not vote" on it.
What I want to see is evidence that the specific kind of fraud that stricter ID requirements could prevent is happening in meaningful numbers.
whembly wrote: 414 isn't the total number of potential fraudulent votes.
How do you know? Do you have proof that the number is greater than 414 by a significant enough margin to change the overall results of elections? Or are you just speculating based on tinfoil hat claims about how there must be fraud because Benghazi?
Check this out... keep in mind, they're NOT the only champion to the cause.
Yeah, because that's a completely unbiased source. It's a pretty impressive level of dishonesty when you have claims of "46 states have convicted people of voter fraud", and it turns out that something like this counts as a "conviction": http://www.ktiv.com/story/13777266/former-morningside-student-sentenced-for-voter-fraud?redirected=true . That's one person contributing one vote. Using this as an example of why we need new laws is just unbelievably dishonest.
PS: requiring photo ID on election day would have done absolutely nothing to prevent this from happening.
1) That the advocates for stricter ID requirements are pushing for these changes out of a sincere non-partisan desire to have the fairest possible elections, even though the likely impact of these laws on voter fraud is nonexistent.
or
2) That the advocates for stricter ID requirements are pushing for these changes because they believe that it will shift voter turnout in favor of their party/ideology
whembly wrote: Asking for ID isn't that onerous. Claiming it so is basically telling voters that they're stupid.
And you keep missing the point. Let me put it in simple terms for you. We have no evidence that the specific kind of fraud that a stricter ID requirement would prevent is happening frequently enough to matter. The proposed laws will do absolutely nothing about a wide range of potential fraud methods, such as people who are illegally registered to vote, rigging the voting machines to favor a desired candidate, etc. So, which is more likely:
1) That the advocates for stricter ID requirements are pushing for these changes out of a sincere non-partisan desire to have the fairest possible elections, even though the likely impact of these laws on voter fraud is nonexistent.
or
2) That the advocates for stricter ID requirements are pushing for these changes because they believe that it will shift voter turnout in favor of their party/ideology.
(Hint: if you have any clue about NC politics you know that the answer is #2.)
Are you upset that the Judiciary has not yet overturned Voter ID laws?
whembly wrote: peregine asked for some examples, which I provided.
No you didn't. You provided the same old mix of tinfoil hat claims by partisan sources about "there must have been fraud we can't possibly have lost legitimately!!!" and random cases of fraud that have nothing to do with the laws we're discussing. For example, a convicted felon voting illegally will do so whether or not they have to show a driver's license, since a driver's license does not say "convicted felon, may not vote" on it.
What I want to see is evidence that the specific kind of fraud that stricter ID requirements could prevent is happening in meaningful numbers.
You do know that's very hard to prove dontcha?
What would be an indicator(s) that such requirements works or does not work?
whembly wrote: 414 isn't the total number of potential fraudulent votes.
How do you know? Do you have proof that the number is greater than 414 by a significant enough margin to change the overall results of elections? Or are you just speculating based on tinfoil hat claims about how there must be fraud because Benghazi?
How do you know that there's not anymore?
Check this out... keep in mind, they're NOT the only champion to the cause.
Yeah, because that's a completely unbiased source. It's a pretty impressive level of dishonesty when you have claims of "46 states have convicted people of voter fraud", and it turns out that something like this counts as a "conviction": http://www.ktiv.com/story/13777266/former-morningside-student-sentenced-for-voter-fraud?redirected=true . That's one person contributing one vote. Using this as an example of why we need new laws is just unbelievably dishonest.
PS: requiring photo ID on election day would have done absolutely nothing to prevent this from happening.
Must be so nice to ignore everything else.
Look... we do have voter issues. There were numerous cases where the number of total votes vastly exceeds that census for a region. I mean, there are districts in Phillydelphia and in St. Louis where the total votes were MORE than the known census counts and a ridiculously high percentage all went to Obama. These sots of things happens at EVERY level. It doesn't pass the smell test.
Strictly speaking, the ID laws isn't the problem. We all need them in all walks of life... I get your current angst regarding NC's law also includes the ending of the program to register high school seniors to vote, end sunday voting, ending straight party voting and early voting knocked down from two weeks, to one week. Those are all valid concerns.... but, not necessarily onerous. *shrugs* I can see the court striking those downs, but leaving the ID requirement laws intact.
Now, are these laws the "end all, be all" solution against voter fraud? Of course not... but, it is each state's perogative to implement these things... 'cuz, ya know... elections has consequences (at least, that's what my political opponents keep tell me )
whembly wrote: Are you upset that the Judiciary has not yet overturned Voter ID laws?
Did you even read what you just quoted? That makes absolutely no sense as a response to the question I asked.
You do know that's very hard to prove dontcha?
And your point is? If it's hard to prove then get to work proving it. The difficulty in proving something doesn't mean we should lower the standards of proof to include ever tinfoil hatter that wants to rant about Obamacare.
What would be an indicator(s) that such requirements works or does not work?
You could start by demonstrating that the specific kind of fraud that the laws are intended to stop actually happens in the first place. Otherwise you're making the classic "my $500 dragon repellant charm works, I haven't been killed by a dragon yet" argument.
How do you know that there's not anymore?
Do you even understand the concept of a burden of proof? You don't get to just wildly speculate about how there might be more fraud and demand evidence that there isn't.
Look... we do have voter issues. There were numerous cases where the number of total votes vastly exceeds that census for a region. I mean, there are districts in Phillydelphia and in St. Louis where the total votes were MORE than the known census counts and a ridiculously high percentage all went to Obama. These sots of things happens at EVERY level. It doesn't pass the smell test.
And requiring photo ID to vote will do absolutely nothing to stop any of that.
Strictly speaking, the ID laws isn't the problem.
They aren't the entire problem. But they are part of the problem, and the problem is a blatant effort by republicans to rig elections through reducing turnout for groups that don't vote for them. The only way the ID laws have any rational purpose is if their goal is to influence the outcome of the election.
whembly wrote: You prove to me that Voter ID disenfranchise voters
Let me rephrase what I just posted (and you even quoted!) as it answers your question. I'll use italics, since you seem to like that: I don't need to prove a burden. Before we enact a law to stop fraud we need credible evidence of a fraud problem. It doesn't exist. You can't build that case anecdotally, as you have been trying to do and as the GOP has been trying to do.
It is the essence of political conservativism to not do a thing with government that does not need to be done. Whether the possible harm is incidental or intentional, actually results or remains hypoethetical, etc, does not matter.
Also -- your tactic of posting the same question over and over while ignoring that people have answered you multiple times and in some cases even in multiple threads is getting irritating.
Wait, no bolds? I can't be expected to read a post without Bolds! I should note, if I haven't, that this would just be part of a series of measures.
whembly wrote: Are you upset that the Judiciary has not yet overturned Voter ID laws?
Did you even read what you just quoted? That makes absolutely no sense as a response to the question I asked.
Of course I did... but your binary choices didn't encompass all the choices.
Here, I'll modify one of your choice as the REAL answer:
1) That the advocates for stricter ID requirements are pushing for these changes out of a sincere non-partisan desire to have the fairest possible elections. <-- note the period.
You do know that's very hard to prove dontcha?
And your point is? If it's hard to prove then get to work proving it. The difficulty in proving something doesn't mean we should lower the standards of proof to include ever tinfoil hatter that wants to rant about Obamacare.
Wow... me... a tinfoil hatter. Real mature.
What would be an indicator(s) that such requirements works or does not work?
You could start by demonstrating that the specific kind of fraud that the laws are intended to stop actually happens in the first place. Otherwise you're making the classic "my $500 dragon repellant charm works, I haven't been killed by a dragon yet" argument.
Right... then prove there's actual voter's disenfranchisement.
How do you know that there's not anymore?
Do you even understand the concept of a burden of proof? You don't get to just wildly speculate about how there might be more fraud and demand evidence that there isn't.
Jesus... I've tried showing you some reported cases of fraud. Get your head of the sand once in a while.
Look... we do have voter issues. There were numerous cases where the number of total votes vastly exceeds that census for a region. I mean, there are districts in Phillydelphia and in St. Louis where the total votes were MORE than the known census counts and a ridiculously high percentage all went to Obama. These sots of things happens at EVERY level. It doesn't pass the smell test.
And requiring photo ID to vote will do absolutely nothing to stop any of that.
I disagree... evidently the states that passed versions of VoterID laws disagrees with you too.
Strictly speaking, the ID laws isn't the problem.
They aren't the entire problem. But they are part of the problem, and the problem is a blatant effort by republicans to rig elections through reducing turnout for groups that don't vote for them. The only way the ID laws have any rational purpose is if their goal is to influence the outcome of the election.
Hook... line... sinker.
It's all the Republican's fault.
It's baffling to me that you think that there's segments of the population that is incapable of flashing an ID at the polls. If you believe it's not going to do jack gak, then what's the harm of having such requirements?
Manchu wrote:(2) Would you agree that a basic conservative premise is that government should not act when it does not have to?
Actually... no. That's more a libertarian strain.
Putting aside that you are wrong about what conservative means, at least in the American context, let me pose a further question: do you think that government should act even if it is unnecessary?
Manchu wrote:(2) Would you agree that a basic conservative premise is that government should not act when it does not have to?
Actually... no. That's more a libertarian strain.
Putting aside that you are wrong about what conservative means, let me pose a further question: do you think that government should act even if it is unnecessary?
Possibly.
Hey... that's my standard answer to just about anything... I work in IT.
The crux of this conversation Manchu is that it's just about IMPOSSIBLE for everyone to actually agree if a hypothetical act is completely "unnecessary".
I'm not asking you a hypothetical question. I'm asking a conceptual question. The question has a premise: a given government function is unnecessary. You know the definition of unnecessary. So -- do you think the government, specifically the federal government, should undertake an unnecessary function?
Manchu wrote: I'm not asking you a hypothetical question. I'm asking a conceptual question. The question has a premise: a given government function is unnecessary. You know the definition of unnecessary. So -- do you think the government, specifically the federal government, should undertake an unnecessary function?
No.
However, the point I'm trying to make with you is that what I think is necessary or unnecessary can be completely opposite to what you believe.
That's true; I understand it and accept it. So let's focus in on that with a hypothetical question.
Lets say for the sake of discussion that less than one percent of all gun crimes are committed by people with guns that they have legally obtained and privately own. Would you say that a proposal to more severely limit the legal private ownership of firearms is necessary or unnecessary?
Manchu wrote: That's true; I understand it and accept it.
Cool man!
So let's focus in on that with a hypothetical question.
Lets say for the sake of discussion that less than one percent of all gun crimes are committed by people with guns that they have legally obtained and privately own. Would you say that a proposal to more severely limit the legal private ownership of firearms is necessary or unnecessary?
False premise.
Because, you'd expect me to say "No".
Severely limiting private ownership to mitigate the less than one percent of all gun crimes does not EQUATE to simply showing an ID at a polling station.
It's not a false premise; it's a hypothetical premise. The question is meant to determine why a government function is necessary or not. You raise a good point: that the problem and response are both important to analyzing whether a government action is necessary or not. But all I really want to know is whether you think that, given the premise that less than one percent of all gun violence is committed with legally obtained privately owned firearms, is it necessary or unnecessary for the government in any way to further restrict legal private ownership of firearms. I'm not talking about any specific policy response; I'm talking about generally making legal, private ownership of firearms harder in any way.
This Voter Idea ID has its good points and bad points. I mention before that they went about this all wrong. They should have gone with clearing the Voter Registration Book of the deceased and those who moved from out or to another districts. I can see that flying.
Manchu wrote: It's not a false premise; it's a hypothetical premise. The question is meant to determine why a government function is necessary or not. You raise a good point: that the problem and response are both important to analyzing whether a government action is necessary or not. But all I really want to know is whether you think that, given the premise that less than one percent of all gun violence is committed with legally obtained privately owned firearms, is it necessary or unnecessary for the government in any way to further restrict legal private ownership of firearms. I'm not talking about any specific policy response; I'm talking about generally making legal, private ownership of firearms harder in any way.
Okay... fair enough.
In this hypothetical case. My answer is "No" simply because that'll definitely infringe the 2nd Amendment... not because it's "unnecessary".
whembly wrote: In this hypothetical case. My answer is "No" simply because that'll definitely infringe the 2nd Amendment... not because it's "unnecessary".
Okay, that's a fine answer. It so happens that I agree. And I think a government action that violates the Constitution is even less acceptable than a government action that is merely unnecessary. Although I would remind you that gun control generally is not unconstitutional. As liberal Democrats often forget, there are already hundreds of gun control laws on the books. And those have been upheld as constitutional. So it's surely within the ambit of my hypothetical that further government action to limit private ownership of firearms is also constitutional.
So with that in mind, let me slightly rephrase the question: if less than one percent of all gun crime is committed with firearms by citizens who legally and privately own those firearms, is it necessary or unnecessary for the government to further restrict private ownership of firearms assuming that such a restriction would be constitutional?
whembly wrote: In this hypothetical case. My answer is "No" simply because that'll definitely infringe the 2nd Amendment... not because it's "unnecessary".
Okay, that's a fine answer. It so happens that I agree. And I think a government action that violates the Constitution is even less acceptable than a government action that is merely unnecessary. Although I would remind you that gun control generally is not unconstitutional. As liberal Democrats often forget, there are already hundreds of gun control laws on the books. And those have been upheld as constitutional. So it's surely within the ambit of my hypothetical that further government action to limit private ownership of firearms is also constitutional.
Sure... same thing goes for "free speech". (ie, no protection for screaming "FIRE" in a crowded establishment).
So with that in mind, let me slightly rephrase the question: if less than one percent of all gun crime is committed with firearms by citizens who legally and privately own those firearms, is it necessary or unnecessary for the government to further restrict private ownership of firearms assuming that such a restriction would be constitutional?
Nope, still infringes on the 2nd.
BTW... I know what you're doing... but, since we're all civil-like, I'll play along.
If anything, the existence of all these gun control laws says that maybe we should have voting control of some sort. Just because. ya know. consistency
Might also help if Voting was a required duty of a Citizen as well as a privilege. Too many people don't vote.
Gun Control Facts: Existing Gun Laws Would Reduce Crime, But These Are Not Enforced
Why are we introducing more gun laws though....
The Obama administration has failed in gun control because it has failed to enforce existing gun laws.
In 2007, candidate Barack Obama said, "We know what to do. We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books." He also alluded to cracking down on straw man purchasers and "unscrupulous gun dealers." He continued to reiterate this view on the campaign trail in 2008, including calls for stronger background checks.
When President Obama addressed the people of Newtown, he asked, "can we honestly say that we're doing enough?" and answered, "If we're honest with ourselves, the answer's no. We're not doing enough," adding, "surely we can do better than this ... if there's even one step we can take to save another [life] … then surely we have an obligation to try."
But President Obama has apparently forgotten the words of candidate Obama. President Obama would have to look no further than a mirror to see who is responsible for not doing "better than this." Strong enforcement of existing gun laws has not been a priority. CNN's John Avlon writes, "before the Newtown shootings, the Obama administration had not made enforcement of existing guns laws a political or policy priority" and cites Arkadi Gerney, an adviser to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on illegal guns from 2006-11 who said, "during the Clinton administration there were efforts to fully enforce the gun laws we have."
Failing to fund NICS
During the Obama administration, Congress has failed to provide the necessary funding for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). NICS is the database checked during gun purchases to ensure individuals with criminal records & mental illness aren't allowed to purchase guns. In 2007, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act, which created incentives for states to improve the reporting of mental health information into background check system. Yet many states have made little or no progress reporting largely because Congress failed to follow through with funding, granting just 5.3% of the total authorized amount from FY 2009 through
Ensuring, for example, that NICS has the mental health data that includes documentation of whether an individual has been involuntarily committed, has strong bipartisan support. Yet state reporting of such data has a long way to go; 19 states have provided fewer than 100 records of individuals disqualified on mental health grounds since the implementation of NICS in the early 1990s. This should be a "no-brainer." A poll released in January 2010 showed 90% of gun owners’ support addressing such gaps. This is a prime example of not enforcing the existing laws, which candidate Obama said we need to do. This is where the administration is failing to "do enough."
Prosecute people who falsify background check information
The Obama Administration Justice Department is also not strongly enforcing prosecutions of people who falsify information on their gun background checks. The FBI reported 71,000 instances of people lying on their background checks to buy guns in 2009. But the Justice Department prosecuted a mere 77 cases, or a fraction of 1%.
There's no good reason to not enforce this law and prosecute violators. This also has strong support, with 99% of non-NRA member gun owners and 95% of NRA members expressing support for punishing traffickers to the full extent of the law. This is another area where the Obama Administration can "do better."
The irony is that gun rights advocates have argued for years that it's not that more gun laws are needed, but that the existing laws need to be better enforced. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said, "gun-rights activists [have] been saying for years and years [that] the existing laws should be enforced more effectively and proactively." In line with that, the NRA backed the 2007 NICS Improvement Amendments Act that President Bush signed into law.
Straw Man purchases & Illegal gun trafficking
Another area the Obama administration could enforce existing laws is prosecuting straw man purchases and illegal gun trafficking. The FBI states gangs engage in illegal guns trafficking (as well as narcotics). The ATF defines straw man as using another person to acquire a firearm specifically when the end user is prohibited from acquiring the firearm. "That is to say, the actual purchaser is a felon or is within one of the other prohibited categories of persons who may not lawfully acquire firearms." The straw purchaser violates federal law by making false statements on Form 4473.
Enforcing these existing laws is "common sense" and should be the "common sense" measures pursued, but President Obama has failed to take action. As noted in my previous article, rifles – which include bolt-action, semi-automatic, and so-called "assault rifles" - account for roughly 350 homicides that last few reported years (2.55-2.75% of homicides). Handguns account for nearly half of all homicides, or 6,009 out of 12,996 in 2010 (46%)and 6,501 out of 13,752 in 2009 (47%). Note that when candidate Obama referenced enforcing the current laws, he mentioned both mass shootings like Virginia Tech (in which the shooter was diagnosed with mental illness, but this information was not put into NICS in a timely manner, thereby allowing the shooter to buy guns legally) and less-sensational street crime, citing children "gunned down" in Chicago.
President Obama addressing the people of Newtown said, "are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage?" President Obama is not in fact powerless to make enforcement a priority. If he is serious about reducing crime, homicides and the mentally ill from obtaining weapons, then enforcement of these laws should be a priority.
edit
Whembly. You back up what you say with Manchu. Manchu your question, for lack of words, to broad.
This is not a beat stick on Obama because the same can apply to Bush Jr.
Manchu wrote:So with that in mind, let me slightly rephrase the question: if less than one percent of all gun crime is committed with firearms by citizens who legally and privately own those firearms, is it necessary or unnecessary for the government to further restrict private ownership of firearms assuming that such a restriction would be constitutional?
Nope, still infringes on the 2nd.
Nah, as I've pointed out there are tons of constitutional gun control laws on the books. There are constitutional ways to limit a person's access to constitutional rights. Whether they are necessary or unnecessary is a different matter. So again, the question assumes that the gun control is constitutional. That's clearly a reasonable assumption. So given that, I'd like to know whether you think such government action is necessary or unnecessary.
Manchu wrote:So with that in mind, let me slightly rephrase the question: if less than one percent of all gun crime is committed with firearms by citizens who legally and privately own those firearms, is it necessary or unnecessary for the government to further restrict private ownership of firearms assuming that such a restriction would be constitutional?
Nope, still infringes on the 2nd.
Nah, as I've pointed out there are tons of constitutional gun control laws on the books. There are constitutional ways to limit a person's access to constitutional rights. Whether they are necessary or unnecessary is a different matter. So again, the question assumes that the gun control is constitutional. That's clearly a reasonable assumption. So given that, I'd like to know whether you think such government action is necessary or unnecessary.
Well... I'll be honest with you... you've got me thinking. ( )
It's like Jihadin pointed out -- there are already so many gun control laws. How about we just enforce them rather than taking on further ones? I think you and I and Jihadin are all on the same page there.
Now, as you expect, the question can come around to another constitutional right -- namely, the right to vote.
If less than one percent of all in-person voting is fraudulent is it necessary or unnecessary, totally separate from the question of constitutionality, for the government to put more qualifications on everyone's access to voting?
It's like Jihadin pointed out -- there are already so many gun control laws. How about we just enforce them rather than taking on further ones? I think you and I and Jihadin are all on the same page there.
Of course...
Now, as you expect, the question can come around to another constitutional right -- namely, the right to vote.
If less than one percent of all in-person voting is fraudulent is it necessary or unnecessary, totally separate from the question of constitutionality, for the government to put more qualifications on everyone's access to voting?
And here's the $64,000 question...
Hypothetically speaking Manchu... if I can be reasonable assured that "If less than one percent of all in-person voting is fraudulent", then yes I'd agree with you that it's unnecessary.
However, I'm not assured of this. That's why I'm in favor of these various VoterID laws. Sure, some are stuck on stupid (looking at NC's recent one). But flashing an ID at the polling station so that the pollsters can check off the registered list... itself isn't even on the radar of being "onerous".
The other thing that drives me bonkers about this is that every voting group is playing by those same VoterID rules. Know what I mean? That is to say, I've yet to see a VoterID act that forces one social/racial/economic voting group to vote differently than their counter-part.
It's like Jihadin pointed out -- there are already so many gun control laws. How about we just enforce them rather than taking on further ones? I think you and I and Jihadin are all on the same page there.
Now, as you expect, the question can come around to another constitutional right -- namely, the right to vote.
If less than one percent of all in-person voting is fraudulent is it necessary or unnecessary, totally separate from the question of constitutionality, for the government to put more qualifications on everyone's access to voting?
I maybe wrong but isn't like a large amount of gun violence caused by lawful gun owners such as accidents, suicide, etc?
whembly wrote: And requiring photo ID to vote will do absolutely nothing to stop any of that.
I disagree... evidently the states that passed versions of VoterID laws disagrees with you too.
Sigh. Why is this so hard to understand? The states that passed voter ID laws did so as a deliberate attempt to harm turnout for groups that tend to lean democrat. The idea that voter ID supposedly stops fraud is just a flimsy excuse invented to justify it so that the courts don't immediately say "no, stop being stupid".
And that's exactly what's happening now in NC. The republican party got control of the state legislature for the first time in decades, and suddenly voter fraud is a major top-priority issue. Why? Because Art Pope wants to protect his investment, and he hopes that the cumulative effect of all of the new voting laws and gerrymandering is that he gets to keep power long enough to accomplish all of his goals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The other thing that drives me bonkers about this is that every voting group is playing by those same VoterID rules. Know what I mean? That is to say, I've yet to see a VoterID act that forces one social/racial/economic voting group to vote differently than their counter-part.
As we've pointed out before it's not an openly targeted law, but the people proposing these laws know perfectly well that the groups that most often lack the required ID (poor people, college students, etc) are ones that lean democrat. The goal isn't to keep all of them from voting, it's to discourage enough of them to swing the election results a bit in favor of the republican candidates in districts where it's close to a 50/50 split. And it's also a cumulative effect. A potential voter might be willing to go to the DMV to get an ID card if that was the only new requirement, but on top of shorter early voting times, no sunday voting, etc, that might just be the last thing that keeps them home.
And let's not forget the context of these laws. This is just one law of many, all of them aimed at reducing turnout among democrat-leaning groups, while republican-leaning groups are not hindered at all (and even get exemptions from the laws).
whembly wrote: And requiring photo ID to vote will do absolutely nothing to stop any of that.
I disagree... evidently the states that passed versions of VoterID laws disagrees with you too.
Sigh. Why is this so hard to understand? The states that passed voter ID laws did so as a deliberate attempt to harm turnout for groups that tend to lean democrat. The idea that voter ID supposedly stops fraud is just a flimsy excuse invented to justify it so that the courts don't immediately say "no, stop being stupid".
And that's exactly what's happening now in NC. The republican party got control of the state legislature for the first time in decades, and suddenly voter fraud is a major top-priority issue. Why? Because Art Pope wants to protect his investment, and he hopes that the cumulative effect of all of the new voting laws and gerrymandering is that he gets to keep power long enough to accomplish all of his goals.
Alright... let's tango.
1) Is it too much to ask for to show an ID at the polls, whether or not that it'll have any impact to voter fraud?
2) In NC's case: Reducing absentee ballots from 2 weeks to 1 weeks... everyone is bound by that if they qualify... right?
3) In NC's case: Removed Sunday voting... why is this a problem again?
4) In NC's case: The program to register newly 18 year olds... so, they'll have to learn how to take initiative to pre-register / vote themselves.
I really don't see it as "ermah gawd" those icky republicans are suppressing the democratic votes.
whembly wrote: The other thing that drives me bonkers about this is that every voting group is playing by those same VoterID rules. Know what I mean? That is to say, I've yet to see a VoterID act that forces one social/racial/economic voting group to vote differently than their counter-part.
As we've pointed out before it's not an openly targeted law, but the people proposing these laws know perfectly well that the groups that most often lack the required ID (poor people, college students, etc) are ones that lean democrat. The goal isn't to keep all of them from voting, it's to discourage enough of them to swing the election results a bit in favor of the republican candidates in districts where it's close to a 50/50 split. And it's also a cumulative effect. A potential voter might be willing to go to the DMV to get an ID card if that was the only new requirement, but on top of shorter early voting times, no sunday voting, etc, that might just be the last thing that keeps them home.
And let's not forget the context of these laws. This is just one law of many, all of them aimed at reducing turnout among democrat-leaning groups, while republican-leaning groups are not hindered at all (and even get exemptions from the laws).
So why is there preferential treatment to those groups that lean-democrats then?
(even get exemptions from the laws? wut? are you referring to expired licenses on Elderly voters?)
You wouldn't increase gun control on law abiding citizens if less than 1% of gun related crimes involved legal weapons, but you will increase voting regulation on law abiding citizens when less then 1% of voting irregularities arise from fraud. Seems like consistency is a problem here.
Just to go back to the start and answer Frazzled's question;
Frazzled wrote: In light of the NC court case, for those against voter ID requirements. If you could use a recognizable state ID, or two forms of ID include an alternative recognizable pic ID, would there be an issue? Aka if you didn't have a state ID but had a school pic ID, passport or even SAMs Club, you'd be good.
If such a reform was coupled with an extensive and genuine effort on part of government to ensure that all registered voters have sufficient ID, including giving them such ID free of charge should they lack it, then I'd be fine with the law.
And so to ask a question in reply to the folk who support voter ID laws, would you support an effort to ensure that all registered voters be supplied with such ID free of charge?
whembly wrote: 1) Is it too much to ask for to show an ID at the polls, whether or not that it'll have any impact to voter fraud?
It doesn't matter. This is like the scammer asking you for $1000 to bribe the officials to let them have their $1 million back and promising to pay you half as a reward. It doesn't matter that the numbers are in your favor by a huge margin, you know that the scammer is lying to you and you reject the "offer". Voter ID is the same kind of thing. You can talk all you want about how the deal is superficially a reasonable one, but it doesn't matter because the people proposing these laws are lying s who just want to ensure they keep getting elected by any means necessary.
2) In NC's case: Reducing absentee ballots from 2 weeks to 1 weeks... everyone is bound by that if they qualify... right?
Everyone might be bound by the same law, but that doesn't mean that it isn't targeted at democrat-leaning groups.
3) In NC's case: Removed Sunday voting... why is this a problem again?
Because it is being removed for exactly one reason: black churches often organize "drive to the polls after church" days, and they lean democrat. There is no plausible argument for ending sunday voting besides "it will help us win the election".
4) In NC's case: The program to register newly 18 year olds... so, they'll have to learn how to take initiative to pre-register / vote themselves.
And again, there's no reason why this should be ended besides the fact that younger voters lean democrat.
I really don't see it as "ermah gawd" those icky republicans are suppressing the democratic votes.
Seriously, go learn about NC politics. If you don't understand how these new laws are a blatant attempt to protect Art Pope's investment in the state legislature then you really need to learn more about recent events here.
So why is there preferential treatment to those groups that lean-democrats then?
There isn't.
(even get exemptions from the laws? wut? are you referring to expired licenses on Elderly voters?)
Yes, that's one of the things I'm referring to. It makes an absolute joke out of the idea that voter ID is about preventing fraud when you leave such a massive security hole in the plan. If the people advocating the ID law were really serious about security they'd close the hole. The only reason they don't is that that "stopping fraud" is nothing more than a flimsy pretense to keep the courts from shutting the whole thing down, and older people that would be hindered by the new law tend to lean republican.
Ahtman wrote: You wouldn't increase gun control on law abiding citizens if less than 1% of gun related crimes involved legal weapons, but you will increase voting regulation on law abiding citizens when less then 1% of voting irregularities arise from fraud. Seems like consistency is a problem here.
This is the same mindset that, for example, bitterly criticizes government intrusion into people's lives via healthcare laws while proposing legislation that obliges women seeking abortions to submit to medically unnecessary trans-vaginal ultrasounds.
Ahtman wrote: You wouldn't increase gun control on law abiding citizens if less than 1% of gun related crimes involved legal weapons, but you will increase voting regulation on law abiding citizens when less then 1% of voting irregularities arise from fraud. Seems like consistency is a problem here.
This is the same mindset that, for example, bitterly criticizes government intrusion into people's lives via healthcare laws while proposing legislation that obliges women seeking abortions to submit to medically unnecessary trans-vaginal ultrasounds.
I criticize government intrusion but oppose the ultrasound legislation as being both expensive and stupid.
I also want voter id and other protections on suffrage put into place. Our voting system is declining in its veracity, and with multimillion illegal alines, its ripe for corruption.
Interestingly California just started permitting illegal aliens to have CA driver ID.
I'm in a very odd place atm. I can see how laws like NC's are targeted at people that tend to vote democrat, but at the same time, my state has had voter ID laws for as long as I can remember (even when I would go with my parents as a youngin'). When you show up at a polling place in Ohio, you need a valid form of ID, the state says the following are valid forms of ID that have to match the address that you have when you registered to vote:
Spoiler:
A current and valid photo identification card issued by the State of Ohio or the United States government; or A military identification ("military ID"); or An original or copy of a current utility bill; or An original or copy of a current bank statement; or An original or copy of a current government check; or An original or copy of a current paycheck; or An original or copy of a current other government document, other than a voter registration acknowledgement notification mailed by the board of elections, that shows the voter’s name and current address.
Out of all of those, most people should be able to come up with something that helps prove who they are, and even if you have an State ID, you can still vote even if the address on the ID doesn't match the address on your voter registration (this happened to me in 2011). So I look at this and say, "why is it so hard to prove who you are?" Kan was in the last thread yelling up a storm about how he couldn't use his College ID to vote under this new law, but could use it to buy beer and smokes. So I could see why someone would be upset that they couldn't use their college ID for that, because here in Ohio college IDs don't have anything relating to age on them and thus don't really prove who you are, nor how old you are.
I feel that people should have to prove who they are when they get to the polling place, because while voter fraud isn't a big issue, it seems as if that would be a way to keep the integrity of our voting system intact. This doesn't mean that I feel it should be a photo id only, though I do feel that it is one of the easiest ways to prove you are who you are.
Though it seems I have to send off a letter/communique to my local state representative. As it stands, Ohio is attempting to institute 3 separate bills in regards to voting. The first is a Voter ID bill (which is dumb because we have one already that works and isn't abusive) that would essentially cut out most of the things we currently allow as proof of identification and only accepting State Drivers Licenses, State IDs, Military IDs, and Passports. The second bill reduces early voting from 35 days before the election to 17 days. While I don't totally agree with that change, the third bill is what makes it stupid. The third bill seeks to reduce the hours and days that a person can do in-person absentee voting (early voting). The schedule is a little different county to county from what I can tell, but they're allowing it to open up earlier (7:30 instead of 8:30) and going until 4:30, but cutting out weekend voting.
The 'light' to our voter ID law is that the state would provide IDs to those at or below the poverty level, but the whole thing seems stupid.
And apparently this guy is a fething nutjob... He says he is the most conservative politician in the Ohio Legislature... He also wrote a letter to a local news paper in 2003 that the federal government should amend the constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages, or kick Mass. out of the union because they allowed same-sex marriages...
This quickly went from something that seemed kind of reasonable to, "this guy is a fething nutjob"...
Note: Ohio apparently had 135 cases of voter fraud during the 2012 election out of 5.6 million ballots cast (huh, we vote more in this state than I thought )
Alfndrate wrote: I'm in a very odd place atm. I can see how laws like NC's are targeted at people that tend to vote democrat, but at the same time, my state has had voter ID laws for as long as I can remember (even when I would go with my parents as a youngin'). When you show up at a polling place in Ohio, you need a valid form of ID, the state says the following are valid forms of ID that have to match the address that you have when you registered to vote:
Spoiler:
A current and valid photo identification card issued by the State of Ohio or the United States government; or
A military identification ("military ID"); or
An original or copy of a current utility bill; or
An original or copy of a current bank statement; or
An original or copy of a current government check; or
An original or copy of a current paycheck; or
An original or copy of a current other government document, other than a voter registration acknowledgement notification mailed by the board of elections, that shows the voter’s name and current address.
OK that works for me completely. In Texas we get voter registration cards before major elections as well (IIRC, I seem to get them randomly). Can you use that as well?
whembly wrote: And requiring photo ID to vote will do absolutely nothing to stop any of that.
I disagree... evidently the states that passed versions of VoterID laws disagrees with you too.
Sigh. Why is this so hard to understand? The states that passed voter ID laws did so as a deliberate attempt to harm turnout for groups that tend to lean democrat. The idea that voter ID supposedly stops fraud is just a flimsy excuse invented to justify it so that the courts don't immediately say "no, stop being stupid".
And that's exactly what's happening now in NC. The republican party got control of the state legislature for the first time in decades, and suddenly voter fraud is a major top-priority issue. Why? Because Art Pope wants to protect his investment, and he hopes that the cumulative effect of all of the new voting laws and gerrymandering is that he gets to keep power long enough to accomplish all of his goals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The other thing that drives me bonkers about this is that every voting group is playing by those same VoterID rules. Know what I mean? That is to say, I've yet to see a VoterID act that forces one social/racial/economic voting group to vote differently than their counter-part.
As we've pointed out before it's not an openly targeted law, but the people proposing these laws know perfectly well that the groups that most often lack the required ID (poor people, college students, etc) are ones that lean democrat. The goal isn't to keep all of them from voting, it's to discourage enough of them to swing the election results a bit in favor of the republican candidates in districts where it's close to a 50/50 split. And it's also a cumulative effect. A potential voter might be willing to go to the DMV to get an ID card if that was the only new requirement, but on top of shorter early voting times, no sunday voting, etc, that might just be the last thing that keeps them home.
And let's not forget the context of these laws. This is just one law of many, all of them aimed at reducing turnout among democrat-leaning groups, while republican-leaning groups are not hindered at all (and even get exemptions from the laws).
Remember this is my OP. The states didn't post the ideas, I did. I welcome all eligible US citizens except those in mental facilities and in prison at the time of election.
Frazzled wrote: OK that works for me completely. In Texas we get voter registration cards before major elections as well (IIRC, I seem to get them randomly). Can you use that as well?
Um... I think if you're not registered or if you voted absentee in the previous election you get those cards I'll tell you in the next week or so when this stuff starts going out
Also in the state of Ohio you can check with your local Board of Elections to see you are registered and at what address.
Though it seems I have to send off a letter/communique to my local state representative. As it stands, Ohio is attempting to institute 3 separate bills in regards to voting. The first is a Voter ID bill (which is dumb because we have one already that works and isn't abusive) that would essentially cut out most of the things we currently allow as proof of identification and only accepting State Drivers Licenses, State IDs, Military IDs, and Passports.
I'd be ok with this only if the ID were freely available. I like your current setup.
The second bill reduces early voting from 35 days before the election to 17 days.
Unless there's a major economic reason for this, why?
While I don't totally agree with that change, the third bill is what makes it stupid. The third bill seeks to reduce the hours and days that a person can do in-person absentee voting (early voting). The schedule is a little different county to county from what I can tell, but they're allowing it to open up earlier (7:30 instead of 8:30) and going until 4:30, but cutting out weekend voting.
I can see cutting out weekend voting in certain locations-but thats due to where the locations are only. It depends on where the early voting is held.
Frazzled wrote: I criticize government intrusion but oppose the ultrasound legislation as being both expensive and stupid.
But you don't oppose it as intrusive? Very telling, Frazz. One would think sticking a metal rod into your nether parts without your consent is the very definition of intrusive.
Frazzled wrote: Our voting system is declining in its veracity, and with multimillion illegal alines, its ripe for corruption.
You don't have the evidence to back up the first part of that two-part statement. As to the second part, you're just trying to pretend you have evidence for the first part: "if there are lots of undocumented immigrants then in-person voter fraud must be a problem." Weak stuff.
Meanwhile, the real question for sincere conservatives as opposed to partisan hacks remains:
Manchu wrote: If less than one percent of all in-person voting is fraudulent is it necessary or unnecessary, totally separate from the question of constitutionality, for the government to put more qualifications on everyone's access to voting?
Though it seems I have to send off a letter/communique to my local state representative. As it stands, Ohio is attempting to institute 3 separate bills in regards to voting. The first is a Voter ID bill (which is dumb because we have one already that works and isn't abusive) that would essentially cut out most of the things we currently allow as proof of identification and only accepting State Drivers Licenses, State IDs, Military IDs, and Passports.
I'd be ok with this only if the ID were freely available. I like your current setup.
I like our current setup as well
The IDs for people at or below the poverty level would be free as long as the following requirements are met (basically formalities as long as you actually are at or below the poverty level)
Spoiler:
(C)(1) An individual may apply to the registrar or a deputy registrar for the issuance to that individual of an identification card or a temporary identification card under this section without payment of any fee if both of the following are true:
(a) The individual cannot afford to pay the fees prescribed in division (A) of this section, including any lamination fee; and
(b) The individual's income does not exceed one hundred per cent of the federal poverty guidelines.
(2) In order to receive an identification card or a temporary identification card under division (C)(1) of this section, an individual shall execute an affirmation, under penalty of election falsification, that includes:
(a) The individual's name;
(b) The individual's address;
(c) The individual's date of birth;
(d) A statement that the individual cannot afford to pay the fees prescribed in division (A) of this section, including any lamination fee;
(e) A statement that the individual's income does not exceed one hundred per cent of the federal poverty guidelines;
(f) The individual's signature; and
(g) The current date.
(3) As used in division (C) of this section, "federal poverty guidelines" has the meaning defined in section 5101.46 of the Revised Code.
The second bill reduces early voting from 35 days before the election to 17 days.
Unless there's a major economic reason for this, why?
According to Nutjob Becker, "2 weeks is ample time to vote." Too bad he's cutting those 17 days to a 'realistic' level of 17 days of absentee by mail and 11-15 days of absentee in-person voting depending on what your local BoE says. So if you mail in your ballot, then it's not too big of an issue, but with the USPS being what it is, I'd rather have my vote in earlier than a week or so. If you work an 8 to 5 job it becomes really tough to make that weekday polling time, which I made a mistake in my previous post on this. The time I had said was 7:30 to 4:30, this was reported incorrectly by the Cleveland Plain Dealer. The bill actually states 8am to 4:30pm.
While I don't totally agree with that change, the third bill is what makes it stupid. The third bill seeks to reduce the hours and days that a person can do in-person absentee voting (early voting). The schedule is a little different county to county from what I can tell, but they're allowing it to open up earlier (7:30 instead of 8:30) and going until 4:30, but cutting out weekend voting.
I can see cutting out weekend voting in certain locations-but thats due to where the locations are only. It depends on where the early voting is held.
To use my county of Cuyahoga as an example, we currently have in-person absentee voting on Saturday November 2nd from 8:30am to 2:00pm and Sunday November 3rd from noon till 5:00pm. Becker's reason for introducing this bill is to cut costs, which I can get behind, but reducing the voting time from 35 days to 17 days is more than enough time cut, there's no need to reduce it anymore.
Alfndrate wrote: I feel that people should have to prove who they are when they get to the polling place, because while voter fraud isn't a big issue, it seems as if that would be a way to keep the integrity of our voting system intact.
The issue is, the integrity of our voting system is not currently in peril nor is there any credible reason to believe it might soon be. There is therefore no above-board reason to make voting rights even one iota less accessible.
Frazzled wrote: I criticize government intrusion but oppose the ultrasound legislation as being both expensive and stupid.
But you don't oppose it as intrusive?
I thought the term "stupid" included "intrusive" nicely
Very telling, Frazz. One would think sticking a metal rod into your nether parts without your consent is the very definition of intrusive.
Hey what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas baby!
Frazzled wrote: Our voting system is declining in its veracity, and with multimillion illegal alines, its ripe for corruption.
You don't have the evidence to back up the first part of that two-part statement. As to the second part, you're just trying to pretend you have evidence for the first part: "if there are lots of undocumented immigrants then in-person voter fraud must be a problem." Weak stuff.
Its not weak where I live.
Meanwhile, the real question for sincere conservatives as opposed to partisan hacks remains:
Manchu wrote: If less than one percent of all in-person voting is fraudulent is it necessary or unnecessary, totally separate from the question of constitutionality, for the government to put more qualifications on everyone's access to voting?
Sorry please restate your question to clarify.
Are you saying is 1 in 100 votes are fraudluent would ID be prudent, you betcha.
The thing about voting fraud is that there isn't any good motive to commit the crime. You get practically nothing for pretending to be someone else to vote -- unlike say driving without a licence, when you get the benefit of driving -- while there is a big downside if you are caught.
Voting fraud only makes sense if large numbers of people can be mobilised to commit a fraud in crucial areas. In such a case it would be more likely to be discovered, unless a well organised conspiracy was able to produce good quality fake IDs whatever the system imposed by the state. (Which they undoubtedly could. It happens with everything else.) Even then, it would be likely to come to light due to statistical analysis.
Illegal aliens are doubly unlikely to vote fraudulently because they want to avoid situations in which they come into contact with the authorities.
All this helps explain why voter fraud is practically non-existent in the USA.
Meanwhile, the real question for sincere conservatives as opposed to partisan hacks remains:
Manchu wrote: If less than one percent of all in-person voting is fraudulent is it necessary or unnecessary, totally separate from the question of constitutionality, for the government to put more qualifications on everyone's access to voting?
Sorry please restate your question to clarify.
Are you saying is 1 in 100 votes are fraudluent would ID be prudent, you betcha.
The question is perfectly clear. Now let me apply your answer to gun control: you would necessarily be in favor of increased restriction on private ownership of firearms if 1 in 100 gun crimes are committed by people using guns they have legally obtained and privately own, right? You betcha?
“According to Nutjob Becker, "2 weeks is ample time to vote." Too bad he's cutting those 17 days to a 'realistic' level of 17 days of absentee by mail and 11-15 days of absentee in-person voting depending on what your local BoE says. So if you mail in your ballot, then it's not too big of an issue, but with the USPS being what it is, I'd rather have my vote in earlier than a week or so. If you work an 8 to 5 job it becomes really tough to make that weekday polling time, which I made a mistake in my previous post on this. The time I had said was 7:30 to 4:30, this was reported incorrectly by the Cleveland Plain Dealer. The bill actually states 8am to 4:30pm. “ -I could understand only for substantial operational reasons. Having said that I think Texas (or this county anyway) is more like two weeks, but I like the idea of it being longer, given here there are only specific locations for early voting.
“To use my county of Cuyahoga as an example, we currently have in-person absentee voting on Saturday November 2nd from 8:30am to 2:00pm and Sunday November 3rd from noon till 5:00pm. Becker's reason for introducing this bill is to cut costs, which I can get behind, but reducing the voting time from 35 days to 17 days is more than enough time cut, there's no need to reduce it anymore.” Indeed, if cutting it you should leave the weekends alone.
Meanwhile, the real question for sincere conservatives as opposed to partisan hacks remains:
Manchu wrote: If less than one percent of all in-person voting is fraudulent is it necessary or unnecessary, totally separate from the question of constitutionality, for the government to put more qualifications on everyone's access to voting?
Sorry please restate your question to clarify.
Are you saying is 1 in 100 votes are fraudluent would ID be prudent, you betcha.
The question is perfectly clear. Now let me apply your answer to gun control: you would necessarily be in favor of increased restriction on private ownership of firearms if 1 in 100 gun crimes are committed by people using guns they have legally obtained and privately own, right? You betcha?
You betcha and we already have it. We have background checks, ID requirements, and substantial limits on who can own firearms which are far more restrictive then voting. Apply the same laws to voting...wow...how restrictive of you. You don't want to compare all the gun laws to voting laws boyo.
Alfndrate wrote: I feel that people should have to prove who they are when they get to the polling place, because while voter fraud isn't a big issue, it seems as if that would be a way to keep the integrity of our voting system intact.
The issue is, the integrity of our voting system is not currently in peril nor is there any credible reason to believe it might soon be. There is therefore no above-board reason to make voting rights even one iota less accessible.
While I agree it's not in peril, and I don't see it becoming one, you think it's completely fine if I get to a polling place before you, and walk up and say, "Hi my name is Manchu" and the person at the polling place checks your name off and says, "Here is your ballot, when you're done bring it up here and slide it in that box."? What happens then if you get to the polling place and they say, "I'm sorry sir but our records indicate you've already voted."
I'm not saying that you need very specific forms of ID, but when you get to a polling place, you should have to be registered to vote (following those requirements), and have a way to prove that you're Manchu who lives on X street by providing some form of identification like a utility bill and an out of state driver's license, or a utility bill and your government welfare check. Just something that proves you are who you say you are.
Manchu wrote:you would necessarily be in favor of increased restriction on private ownership of firearms if 1 in 100 gun crimes are committed by people using guns they have legally obtained and privately own, right? You betcha?
You betcha and we already have it.
And we already have hundreds of voter fraud laws in place, which is the only reason why you even hear about the meager instances of it in the first place.
Don't try to dodge the question. I put the word "increased" above in bold, italics, and underlined it. There's no way you can miss it.
Alfndrate wrote: you should have to be registered to vote (following those requirements), and have a way to prove that you're Manchu
You're assuming the conclusion of your own argument. You're saying I should have to present ID because I should have to present ID. It's not very convincing, Alf.
Alfndrate wrote: I feel that people should have to prove who they are when they get to the polling place, because while voter fraud isn't a big issue, it seems as if that would be a way to keep the integrity of our voting system intact.
The issue is, the integrity of our voting system is not currently in peril nor is there any credible reason to believe it might soon be. There is therefore no above-board reason to make voting rights even one iota less accessible.
While I agree it's not in peril, and I don't see it becoming one, you think it's completely fine if I get to a polling place before you, and walk up and say, "Hi my name is Manchu" and the person at the polling place checks your name off and says, "Here is your ballot, when you're done bring it up here and slide it in that box."? What happens then if you get to the polling place and they say, "I'm sorry sir but our records indicate you've already voted."
Except that it really isn't happening. You have a solution in search of a problem, and one that is problematically being introduced, both legislatively as well as philosophically.
Alfndrate wrote: I feel that people should have to prove who they are when they get to the polling place, because while voter fraud isn't a big issue, it seems as if that would be a way to keep the integrity of our voting system intact.
The issue is, the integrity of our voting system is not currently in peril nor is there any credible reason to believe it might soon be. There is therefore no above-board reason to make voting rights even one iota less accessible.
While I agree it's not in peril, and I don't see it becoming one, you think it's completely fine if I get to a polling place before you, and walk up and say, "Hi my name is Manchu" and the person at the polling place checks your name off and says, "Here is your ballot, when you're done bring it up here and slide it in that box."? What happens then if you get to the polling place and they say, "I'm sorry sir but our records indicate you've already voted."
Then you have engaged in identity theft and voter fraud.
I'm not saying that you need very specific forms of ID, but when you get to a polling place, you should have to be registered to vote (following those requirements), and have a way to prove that you're Manchu who lives on X street by providing some form of identification like a utility bill and an out of state driver's license, or a utility bill and your government welfare check. Just something that proves you are who you say you are.
And why are those things better than a college ID with a photo? Or a voter registration card or selective service card?
As Peregrine keeps saying, the NC bill is nonsense of the highest caliber.
Manchu wrote:you would necessarily be in favor of increased restriction on private ownership of firearms if 1 in 100 gun crimes are committed by people using guns they have legally obtained and privately own, right? You betcha?
You betcha and we already have it.
And we already have hundreds of voter fraud laws in place, which is the only reason why you even hear about the meager instances of it in the first place.
Don't try to dodge the question. I put the word "increased" above in bold, italics, and underlined it. There's no way you can miss it.
Alfndrate wrote: you should have to be registered to vote (following those requirements), and have a way to prove that you're Manchu
You're assuming the conclusion of your own argument. You're saying I should have to present ID because I should have to present ID. It's not very convincing, Alf.
We have over 25,000 firearms laws and regulations. Come talk to me when you get 10% of that for voting.
Alfndrate wrote: I feel that people should have to prove who they are when they get to the polling place, because while voter fraud isn't a big issue, it seems as if that would be a way to keep the integrity of our voting system intact.
The issue is, the integrity of our voting system is not currently in peril nor is there any credible reason to believe it might soon be. There is therefore no above-board reason to make voting rights even one iota less accessible.
While I agree it's not in peril, and I don't see it becoming one, you think it's completely fine if I get to a polling place before you, and walk up and say, "Hi my name is Manchu" and the person at the polling place checks your name off and says, "Here is your ballot, when you're done bring it up here and slide it in that box."? What happens then if you get to the polling place and they say, "I'm sorry sir but our records indicate you've already voted."
Then you have engaged in identity theft and voter fraud.
I'm not saying that you need very specific forms of ID, but when you get to a polling place, you should have to be registered to vote (following those requirements), and have a way to prove that you're Manchu who lives on X street by providing some form of identification like a utility bill and an out of state driver's license, or a utility bill and your government welfare check. Just something that proves you are who you say you are.
And why are those things better than a college ID with a photo? Or a voter registration card or selective service card?
As Peregrine keeps saying, the NC bill is nonsense of the highest caliber.
Selective service card? Seriously. Thats kind of grasping at straw a bit.
Alfndrate wrote: you should have to be registered to vote (following those requirements), and have a way to prove that you're Manchu
You're assuming the conclusion of your own argument. You're saying I should have to present ID because I should have to present ID. It's not very convincing, Alf.
What conclusion am I assuming? I'm saying you should have to present a form of identification when you enter a polling place. The people working at the polling place have a record of registered voters at their polling place. When you go to that polling place you say you are Manchu, and they say, "okay we need to see a form of identification" You provide that form of identification that says your records and statement of persons match their records. Once you've satisfied that requirement you're given your ballot and you're free to vote. Ways to provide identification can be as simple as a utility bill. Anything that helps corroborate your statement of being x person that lives at y place.
Ohio has very similar voter ID requirements to Virginia, which are extremely fair and accommodating to all voters. You can provide a photo ID issued by the state or federal government, or you can provide any number of other documents that are easier to get your hands on.
The NC law, and the law introduced in Ohio are fighting a problem that doesn't exist, but to have no requirements seems stupid. If there are no requirements as to who can vote, simply do away with voter registration and start going with the Iraq method of sticking your finger in ink so that no one can vote twice.
Frazzled wrote: We have over 25,000 firearms laws and regulations. Come talk to me when you get 10% of that for voting.
You are taking pains to dodge this question, Frazz.
I have gone through this piece by piece. If you would agree that the government should not act when it is unnecessary to do so, and if you agree that restricting access to constitutional rights in the face of 1 in 100 or less instances of abuse of said rights is unnecessary, then you must also as a matter of logic agree that Voter ID laws are unnecessary and therefore the government should not make them.
I have shown very simply that there is a basic conservative objection to Voter ID laws quite apart from any talk about the burden of IDs or inequitable impact. Indeed, I have shown that this basic conservative objection must precede any such discussion. You need not come to those other topics because Voter ID laws are unacceptable from a conservative point of view at the outset.
Now you can dodge and dissemble or you can actually address this simple, clear, and rigorous point. It's my belief, based on your posts thus far, that you can't address it and that your position is entirely and merely partisan.
Alfndrate wrote: you should have to be registered to vote (following those requirements), and have a way to prove that you're Manchu
You're assuming the conclusion of your own argument. You're saying I should have to present ID because I should have to present ID. It's not very convincing, Alf.
What conclusion am I assuming? I'm saying you should have to present a form of identification when you enter a polling place.
I've read through most of this, and I dont necessarily disagree with those of you stating that voter ID laws are 'searching for a problem." I'd much rather hear THAT argument than the argument that it's still disenfranchising people. Because that argument, after a 2012 election where low income and minority voting was the highest it's ever been, just doesn't hold water anymore.
I say make it up to the states, and allow each individual state to allow ID.
Kanluwen wrote: Then you have engaged in identity theft and voter fraud.
I realize that, shouldn't there be a check and balance for people to prove they are who they say they are?
I'm not saying that you need very specific forms of ID, but when you get to a polling place, you should have to be registered to vote (following those requirements), and have a way to prove that you're Manchu who lives on X street by providing some form of identification like a utility bill and an out of state driver's license, or a utility bill and your government welfare check. Just something that proves you are who you say you are.
And why are those things better than a college ID with a photo? Or a voter registration card or selective service card?
Because in my state, college IDs don't come with things like an address if they did, so it wouldn't work in my state. We also don't have voter registration cards longer than the time it takes to fill them out in Ohio. Once you register, you're in the system. You can change your address at the polling place or beforehand, but the voter registration card isn't in your hands when you go to vote and if it is, in Ohio, you can only use it to provisionally vote and then you're registered for next year which means you have to then provide a form of identification next year. Also you're a year older than me Kan, and you have a selective service card? I registered online and didn't get jack or gak.
Also, I agree that the NC bill is stupid beyond belief, please tell me where I said it was reasonable? A college ID with a photo simply confirms that the name you see on the address has a picture that matches my face Throw an address on that and it's a little harder to deceive the polling person, which is why I'm okay with a utility bill being used as a form of proof of residence.
So you shouldn't have to provide a form of identification to vote?
That's right. And it's so simple to figure out why.
- Voting is perhaps our most important right as citizens.
- There is no credible evidence that in-person voter fraud threatens the validity of our elections.
- There is therefore no reason to further restrict by even one iota citizens' access to their voting rights.
I agree that voting is an important, if not the most important right, I also agree that there isn't credible evidence that in person voter fraud exists, which is why I'm against the Voter ID law that is currently going through the Ohio House of Representatives (note the point earlier in the thread where I stated that 135 cases of fraud occurred out of 5.6 million ballots cast in 2012).
Sounds like you're being reasonable -- which is grounds for being banned from the OT!
Quick, advocate transvaginal ultrasounds to shame women who want abortions and then tell me Obamacare is just the government sticking its ... nose in our private business.
whembly wrote: 1) Is it too much to ask for to show an ID at the polls, whether or not that it'll have any impact to voter fraud?
It doesn't matter. This is like the scammer asking you for $1000 to bribe the officials to let them have their $1 million back and promising to pay you half as a reward. It doesn't matter that the numbers are in your favor by a huge margin, you know that the scammer is lying to you and you reject the "offer". Voter ID is the same kind of thing. You can talk all you want about how the deal is superficially a reasonable one, but it doesn't matter because the people proposing these laws are lying s who just want to ensure they keep getting elected by any means necessary.
2) In NC's case: Reducing absentee ballots from 2 weeks to 1 weeks... everyone is bound by that if they qualify... right?
Everyone might be bound by the same law, but that doesn't mean that it isn't targeted at democrat-leaning groups.
3) In NC's case: Removed Sunday voting... why is this a problem again?
Because it is being removed for exactly one reason: black churches often organize "drive to the polls after church" days, and they lean democrat. There is no plausible argument for ending sunday voting besides "it will help us win the election".
4) In NC's case: The program to register newly 18 year olds... so, they'll have to learn how to take initiative to pre-register / vote themselves.
And again, there's no reason why this should be ended besides the fact that younger voters lean democrat.
I really don't see it as "ermah gawd" those icky republicans are suppressing the democratic votes.
Seriously, go learn about NC politics. If you don't understand how these new laws are a blatant attempt to protect Art Pope's investment in the state legislature then you really need to learn more about recent events here.
So why is there preferential treatment to those groups that lean-democrats then?
There isn't.
(even get exemptions from the laws? wut? are you referring to expired licenses on Elderly voters?)
Yes, that's one of the things I'm referring to. It makes an absolute joke out of the idea that voter ID is about preventing fraud when you leave such a massive security hole in the plan. If the people advocating the ID law were really serious about security they'd close the hole. The only reason they don't is that that "stopping fraud" is nothing more than a flimsy pretense to keep the courts from shutting the whole thing down, and older people that would be hindered by the new law tend to lean republican.
I have no dog in this fight and I wouldn't be surprised if this NC VoterID get thrown out.
Let me rephrase the question: Why are you okay with special preferential treatment to certain groups, be it those who leans democrat or republican, and not everyone else?
Are you implying that those who usually vote on Sundays are incapable to vote on election day like everyone else?
Manchu wrote: Sounds like you're being reasonable -- which is grounds for being banned from the OT!
Quick, advocate transvaginal ultrasounds to shame women who want abortions and then tell me Obamacare is just the government sticking its ... nose in our private business.
My way of looking at it is this, we all should get the chance to vote, but we should only be able to vote once. Having set polling places where registered voters can go gives a structured way to contain the masses in an orderly fashion. To avoid things like identity theft and voter fraud, some form of identification that either 1) you are who you state you are and you live in that district/belong at that polling place or 2) states that you've already voted (i.e. indelible ink) should be used. I'm completely okay with removing all forms identification required at a polling place if we were to switch to something like indelible ink.
Hell I'd be okay if you did indelible ink and then stamped your thumb as a way to seal/sign your ballot when finished. I think that'd be a nice way to do this, everyone gets a vote, and no one has to really be identified.
Edit: Since I have to be unreasonable, I think Obamacare is sticking it's nose in our private business, but I do think that state regulated healthcare should be the thing instead (did I mess up that unreasonable thing again?)
Kanluwen wrote: Then you have engaged in identity theft and voter fraud.
I realize that, shouldn't there be a check and balance for people to prove they are who they say they are?
Sure there should be. However it is important to realize that as has been mentioned there is not really a huge reason for someone to commit in-person voter fraud and to get to the point of committing in-person voter fraud you have to commit a few other crimes(stealing personal information or forging documentation for a nonexistent person) where you should have been caught along the way.
Jihadin brought up the point about the voter registration rolls being where any real changes should be made--and I agree with him on that. Voter ID does nothing to stop someone who was able to get on the registry without
I'm not saying that you need very specific forms of ID, but when you get to a polling place, you should have to be registered to vote (following those requirements), and have a way to prove that you're Manchu who lives on X street by providing some form of identification like a utility bill and an out of state driver's license, or a utility bill and your government welfare check. Just something that proves you are who you say you are.
And why are those things better than a college ID with a photo? Or a voter registration card or selective service card?
Because in my state, college IDs don't come with things like an address if they did, so it wouldn't work in my state. We also don't have voter registration cards longer than the time it takes to fill them out in Ohio. Once you register, you're in the system. You can change your address at the polling place or beforehand, but the voter registration card isn't in your hands when you go to vote and if it is, in Ohio, you can only use it to provisionally vote and then you're registered for next year which means you have to then provide a form of identification next year. Also you're a year older than me Kan, and you have a selective service card? I registered online and didn't get jack or gak.
I registered as soon as I turned 18, same day I registered to vote. Got both in paper.
Here in NC, we get something after registering to vote which has a listing of our voting place and what districts we are voting for.
Also, I agree that the NC bill is stupid beyond belief, please tell me where I said it was reasonable?
I didn't ever say you did. I felt like taking the opportunity after replying to you to include a link to the relevant document which Pat McCrory announced he would sign before ever having read it. A lot of people are still under the impression that the NC bill did nothing except require you to present a photo ID which is not the case, and any exposure to that dribble which might get someone to recognize that it was an underhanded attempt to combat a problem that does not exist but which does get a significant amount of people on your side(voter fraud) while also dealing with problems which do exist(certain demographics not voting Republican) is a good thing.
A college ID with a photo simply confirms that the name you see on the address has a picture that matches my face Throw an address on that and it's a little harder to deceive the polling person, which is why I'm okay with a utility bill being used as a form of proof of residence.
So why not allow for combinations? If I can present a college ID with no address on it but can produce a voter registration card, why not allow for that?
Kanluwen wrote: So why not allow for combinations? If I can present a college ID with no address on it but can produce a voter registration card, why not allow for that?
Then that's fine, I'd personally prefer if it wasn't something so easy to forge (and they are easy to forge*, but I won't give up my secrets), but that's up to your state and not Alf (yet... >_> )
* - sometimes your buddies that didn't go to college just want to enjoy college night at the local gentlemen's club
If you consider Voter Fraud and look at what % will be reduced, then compare it to Gun Violence and what % will be reduced it will have an appreciable effect.
The disingenuous attempt to use the Second Amendment 'debate' to justify opposition to voter ID laws manages to both be pathetic and hilarious, though. If criminal background checks and waiting periods and absolute restrictions aren't infringing on one constitutionally-affirmed right, surely the far lower burden of "becoming a functional adult and acquiring identification" cannot be infringing on another.
Credit to the nakedly partisan mental gymnastics required to make that point, though.
cincydooley wrote: Again, gun violence is largely committed by criminals that acquire guns illegally.
That's why we're talking about gun violence committed by people who legally obtained their firearms.
cincydooley wrote: Unlike, voting, however, there are tons of barriers to getting a gun.
This is because, unlike with the issue of firearms, the lack of an ID will never result in one much less dozens murdered or maimed. But the point of this line of reasoning is not to say there should be more gun control. To the contrary, the point is that just like there should not be more (and maybe that there is too much) gun control there also should not be Voter ID laws.
If there is not a good reason to put obstacle between people and their constitutional rights then those obstacles are by default unacceptable. If a 1 in 100 chance of abusing one's right to privately own firearms is not enough to justify further gun control laws (and even some currently on the books) then a 1 in 100 chance of abusing one's right to vote is surely not enough to impose any restriction, no matter how light, on voting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: That could be many things, but an Ad Hominem isn't one of that.
No, he phrased a personal attack as a critique of the argument. It is meant to trick others who are also trying to avoid the actual argument and it works very well.
Manchu wrote: No, he phrased a personal attack as a critique of the argument. It is meant to trick others who are also trying to avoid the actual argument and it works very well.
It actually was a critique of a laughably hypocritical argument rather than the person who made it, but to paraphrase a guy from earlier in the thread...
To answer the argument, I have to assume it's worth being answered. It's not. If that sauce was good for the gander earlier, I'll assume it's still good for the goose.
Also, if it was a personal attack, you probably ought to hit the Triangle of Friendship.
Manchu wrote: No, he phrased a personal attack as a critique of the argument. It is meant to trick others who are also trying to avoid the actual argument and it works very well.
Nice stealth edit there. But I know what you typed originally and I just love the juicy irony.
Grey Templar wrote: Nice stealth edit there. But I know what you typed originally and I just love the juicy irony.
It wasn't meant to be a stealth edit. I was trying to make it clearer before you had to ask "what do you mean people like me?" What I mean is, people who aren't going to deal with the actual argument -- namely that there is no justification to restrict access to voting via Voter ID laws and therefore, from a conservative perspective, Voter ID laws should not be passed.
Grey Templar wrote: Really, all it came across as was "You're too stupid to see the attack, so there!".
No, what I meant is that rather than deal with the argument you would prefer to say "he's just some stupid liberal" and go from there ... which is what you've been doing. That is why I explicitly made a conservative argument against Voter ID laws. I'm not talking about inequitable racial or economic impact. I'm talking about there being in this case no justification to further restrict the people's constitutional right to vote.
Grey Templar wrote: Except you haven't shown that there is any restriction of people's right to vote by requiring an ID.
Again, I'm not making an argument about burden. I'm not even getting to what burdensome means. I'm saying, let's start at the beginning: Voter ID laws impose an unnecessary condition on voting. If the condition is unnecessary it does not matter whether it is onerous or not.
Maybe not quite important is a better way of putting it. We probably have better things to do with our time to require IDs at polls. But its not going to harm things so if someone thinks it is worth it I'm not going to argue with them.
Liberal democrats say the same thing about gun control: "only criminals oppose gun control -- for law abiding people gun control doesn't harm anything." I disagree. Any unnecessary condition placed on a constitutional right is a harm.
As for unnecessary being up for debate, we have debated it: would you say far, far less than 1% of in-person voter fraud justifies placing a condition on a constitutional right?
I think it's interesting because in order to have an non-partisan argument, you really have to look at it constitutionally, right? As such, all the gun ownership laws make it harder to get a firearm, while there are no laws which make it harder to get an ID. A few things:
1. I'm honestly okay with the hoops I have to jump through to get my guns. It takes a bit more time to process, but now that it's a process of a few hours as opposed to the old 3-day, I don't see it as a problem. We don't want guns in the hands of a lot of people if we can help it. Obviously, the law doesn't prevent it, as people will find a way if they really want to, but it does perhaps help to limit it.
2. I think it would become a huge issue if you were required to pay for a gun ownership license, regardless of the dollar amount. Despite the fact that its ridiculous to think that somoene couldn't afford a $15 gun registration fee when purchasing a $500 firearm, I think the argument could be made that it 'unduly burdens,' very similarly to the claim with IDs that requiring one "unduly burdens" the poor and minority populations.
3. I think a lot of this could be allievated for the poor if we implemented a required photo ID card to anyone on a social service like food stamps or welfare. SNAP fraud is an actual, real issue in the US (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Store-owner-guilty-in-200-000-food-stamp-fraud-4864189.php) and could help better curb that. Granted, I think our Welfare/SNAP programs need a huge overhaul to begin with, but providing IDs for free to these recipients could potentially help to solve one very real problem and one perceived problem.
Right off the bat, you're headed in the wrong direction. There is no constitutional right to a state-issued ID and Voter ID laws do not make it harder to get them. There is, however, a constitutional right to vote and Voter ID laws place make it harder to vote.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: I think a lot of this could be allievated for the poor if we implemented a required photo ID card to anyone on a social service like food stamps or welfare.
Besides sounding like what the far right bemoans as Big Government Tyranny, how do you account for the right simultaneously trying to deny poor people access to those same services? You're just creating a gap and at the same time creating more government infrastructure. This doesn't sound like authentic conservatism to me.
Grey Templar wrote: Except you haven't shown that there is any restriction of people's right to vote by requiring an ID.
Again, I'm not making an argument about burden. I'm not even getting to what burdensome means. I'm saying, let's start at the beginning: Voter ID laws impose an unnecessary condition on voting. If the condition is unnecessary it does not matter whether it is onerous or not.
Manchu... you keep pushing the "unnecessary condition" as if it's fact.
The trouble here that it's hard to prove or disprove that it's unnecessary.
The truth of the matter, various states has already implemented various forms of Voter ID and has survived numerous challenges.
cincydooley wrote: I think a lot of this could be allievated for the poor if we implemented a required photo ID card to anyone on a social service like food stamps or welfare.
Besides sounding like what the far right bemoans as Big Government Tyranny, how do you account for the right simultaneously trying to deny poor people access to those same services? You're just creating a gap and at the same time creating more government infrastructure. This doesn't sound like authentic conservatism to me.
Get your head out of whats "conservatism" or "liberalism" or general donkey-cave attitudes.
Trying to pin some of us to a concept and in a round about way to call us out as hypocrites is crazy-pants dude.
whembly wrote: Manchu... you keep pushing the "unnecessary condition" as if it's fact.
The trouble here that it's hard to prove or disprove that it's unnecessary.
No it isn't. We've already accomplished that in this thread. There are only an infintesimally small amount of instances of in-person voter fraud and those are being dealt with under existing laws. Voter ID laws as a measure to prevent in-person voter fraud are absolutely, inarguably unnecessary.
whembly wrote: Get your head out of whats "conservatism" or "liberalism" or general donkey-cave attitudes.
Trying to pin some of us to a concept and in a round about way to call us out as hypocrites is crazy-pants dude.
All I'm trying to figure out is if you guys have reasonable, coherent systems of thought or if you'll just buy anything that the GOP is selling. So far -- it's definitely the latter.
Manchu wrote: Right off the bat, you're headed in the wrong direction. There is no constitutional right to a state-issued ID and Voter ID laws do not make it harder to get them. There is, however, a constitutional right to vote and Voter ID laws place make it harder to vote.
You either misunderstood or I didn't write it clearly enough. I meant that requiring an ID which costs money is unconstitutional because it infringes upon the right to vote. Just like if they required a for purchase gun registration (well, they sort of do. You have to show your ID when you buy a gun) when you purchased a firearm it would be unconstitutional.
Besides sounding like what the far right bemoans as Big Government Tyranny, how do you account for the right simultaneously trying to deny poor people access to those same services? You're just creating a gap and at the same time creating more government infrastructure. This doesn't sound like authentic conservatism to me.
Poor phrasing on my part again. The photo ID should come with the social services, and thusly you should have to use to continue your social sevices.
I think Social Services like welfare and SNAP should be better regulated and monitored. I way to do this would be attaching those social services to an "account" or a Photo ID, which would be like your "social services membership card." It would come with it when you apply, like the toy you get with a happy meal.
Honestly, I don't know what "authentic conservatism" is.
Grey Templar wrote: Except you haven't shown that there is any restriction of people's right to vote by requiring an ID.
And I do see your argument and where its coming from. I just think its flawed for the above reason.
There might be nothing wrong with voter ID, but when you insist that there is a problem(in-person voter fraud) and refuse to actually show evidence to support that there is a problem or continue to show evidence that points toward problems which would not be solved by your proposed solution to the problem, it starts to make your whole argument that there is a problem look ridiculous.
Especially in the context of NC's voter ID laws, where far far more was done than simply "requiring an ID" and where McCrory stated he would sign the bill without having read the damn thing.
whembly wrote: Manchu... you keep pushing the "unnecessary condition" as if it's fact.
The trouble here that it's hard to prove or disprove that it's unnecessary.
No it isn't. We've already accomplished that in this thread. There are only an infintesimally small amount of instances of in-person voter fraud and those are being dealt with under existing laws. Voter ID laws as a measure to prevent in-person voter fraud are absolutely, inarguably unnecessary.
Unproven. Wanna know why?
Because, by and large, EACH in-person ballot can never by TIED to a voter. Once you drop it into that box on your way out... that's it. Someone can't then go back and determine how you voted. To me, that's a GOOD system. So, the question really becomes, can the PROCESS be fine-tuned.
whembly wrote: Get your head out of whats "conservatism" or "liberalism" or general donkey-cave attitudes.
Trying to pin some of us to a concept and in a round about way to call us out as hypocrites is crazy-pants dude.
All I'm trying to figure out is if you guys have reasonable, coherent systems of thought or if you'll just buy anything that the GOP is selling. So far -- it's definitely the latter.
Trying to pin some of us to a concept and in a round about way to call us out as hypocrites is crazy-pants dude.
All I'm trying to figure out is if you guys have reasonable, coherent systems of thought or if you'll just buy anything that the GOP is selling. So far -- it's definitely the latter.
Well, I didn't vote for Romney....so I don't know what I'm buying from the GOP.
Quite frankly, I'm pretty socially moderate to liberal. I just don't buy that requiring an ID creates any more of an unnecessary burden to poor or minority voters than requiring an ID to purchase a firearm (which is required) does. This isn't the 1960s when Jim Crow laws were very real. This is a 2013 where, in 2012 record numbers of minority voters hit the polls. I juist dont believe requiring an ID adversly affects voter turn out, or would have in 2012.
You really can't. Because I line up according to a stable line of thought. I say no to further gun control and I say no to putting unnecessary conditions on the ballot. I say no across the board to any unnecessary government limitations of constitutional rights.
You really can't. Because I line up according to a stable line of thought. I say no to further gun control and I say no to putting unnecessary conditions on the ballot. I say no across the board to any unnecessary government limitations of constitutional rights.
Where we seem to disagree is that the requirements you don't want for voting are already in place for firearms and support it under the guise of "unnecessary." Couldn't one make the argument that requiring a photo ID for puchasing a firearm creates an "unnecessary government limiation of constitutional rights?"
cincydooley wrote: Honestly, I don't know what "authentic conservatism" is.
We can at least know it by what it is not -- and it is not an increase in the size and scope of government to meet purely political goals.
I'm simply not convinced requiring a photo ID does any of that, especially if the requirement is dictated at a state level.
State government is still government. In my book, the states don't get to free reign to trounce constitutional rights just because they aren't the federal government.
cincydooley wrote: Besides, who here has been advocating for bigger Federal gov't on this thread?
cincydooley wrote: I juist dont believe requiring an ID adversly affects voter turn out, or would have in 2012.
And I'm saying, there is an objection before we get that far into the analysis.
I guess my follow up to this would be to ask you why its okay to impose that exact same restriction on an equally protected (argubly more protected, as it high higher bill of rights priority) constitutional right?
You really can't. Because I line up according to a stable line of thought. I say no to further gun control and I say no to putting unnecessary conditions on the ballot. I say no across the board to any unnecessary government limitations of constitutional rights.
Where we seem to disagree is that the requirements you don't want for voting are already in place for firearms and support it under the guise of "unnecessary." Couldn't one make the argument that requiring a photo ID for puchasing a firearm creates an "unnecessary government limiation of constitutional rights?"
cincydooley wrote: Requiring more oversight to a federal program that's already in existance doesn't add goverment size or scope.
You don't think more oversight entails more infrastructure? You want benefits without costs.
Some, but how much? Were you to track what is purchased on your SNAP card, where it's purchased, etc, and introduce something like that...sure. That would probably take a considerable amout of additional infrastructer systems wise. But to provide a photo ID with Welfare/SNAP? Honestly, no. I don't think it would take that much more infrastructure at all.
You really can't. Because I line up according to a stable line of thought. I say no to further gun control and I say no to putting unnecessary conditions on the ballot. I say no across the board to any unnecessary government limitations of constitutional rights.
Uh... yes, I can.
Using your words.
Society feels necessary to incorporate gun-control laws.
Just as society feels necessary to incorporate identification laws with respect to voting.
cincydooley wrote: I juist dont believe requiring an ID adversly affects voter turn out, or would have in 2012.
And I'm saying, there is an objection before we get that far into the analysis.
I guess my follow up to this would be to ask you why its okay to impose that exact same restriction on an equally protected (argubly more protected, as it high higher bill of rights priority) constitutional right?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Gentleman, I'll continue with ya'll later. I'm headed to das gym.
whembly wrote: Do you feel that society introduced gun control laws because they felt it was necessary?
Not really. I think liberal democrats introduce gun control laws to create a hot button issue and rally the loony end of their base.
Gotta give you props... you're consistent here.
So, couldn't the same thing be argued with respect to Voter ID laws? I mean, there's plenty of laws on the books that will do this... that's the nature of the beast. (looks towards obamacare).
whembly wrote: Do you feel that society introduced gun control laws because they felt it was necessary?
Not really. I think liberal democrats introduce gun control laws to create a hot button issue and rally the loony end of their base.
Gotta give you props... you're consistent here.
So, couldn't the same thing be argued with respect to Voter ID laws?
Yes, I believe far-right republicans are using Voter ID laws as a hot button issue to rile up the loony end of their base, too. And as you know, I also believe they want to make it harder to vote for people who are more likely to vote for democrats. That last part isn't a conspiracy theory. It's something the Republicans have repeatedly admitted:
More than one Republican is mentioned in that article. And each of them is talking about Republican strategy to many other Republicans. Please take a close look at the article.
As to whether you're going to change my mind -- yes, you very well could change my mind. But you will need evidence and reason. You haven't been able to marshal either so far.
Manchu wrote: More than one Republican is mentioned in that article. And each of them is talking about Republican strategy to many other Republicans. Please take a close look at the article.
I did read the article and I reject the premise.
Let me flip the script. Why is it okay to give certain groups preferential voting treatments?
As to whether you're going to change my mind -- yes, you very well could change my mind. But you will need evidence and reason. You haven't been able to marshal either so far.
I'm convinced that nothing will change your mind because you're stuck on whether the necessity for such laws need to exist in the first place.
whembly wrote: I did read the article and I reject the premise.
What premise?
whembly wrote: Why is it okay to give certain groups preferential voting treatments?
I'm not arguing that certain groups should have preferential voting treatments. I'm arguing against Voter ID laws.
whembly wrote: I'm convinced that nothing will change your mind because you're stuck on whether the necessity for such laws need to exist in the first place.
What's wrong with considering as a first principal whether a law is necessary or not? Surely, that is the most important question one can ask about a policy.
whembly wrote: I did read the article and I reject the premise.
What premise?
That's it's a Republican scheme to supress voters.
whembly wrote: Why is it okay to give certain groups preferential voting treatments?
I'm not arguing that certain groups should have preferential voting treatments. I'm arguing against Voter ID laws.
What exactly about it then? Simply flashing your ID?
whembly wrote: I'm convinced that nothing will change your mind because you're stuck on whether the necessity for such laws need to exist in the first place.
What's wrong with considering as a first principal whether a law is necessary or not? Surely, that is the most important question one can ask about a policy.
Because, "considering as a first principal whether a law is necessary or not" is and will always be subjective.
whembly wrote: That's it's a Republican scheme to supress voters.
But that's what Republicans are telling other Republicans ...
Right... if you do that. So, then I can do that same stupid thing and say that since Harry Reid said "why would we want to help just one child with cancer"... he speaks for all Democrats since he's the Senator Majority Leader.... dontcha know.
It's asinine.
whembly wrote: Because, "considering as a first principal whether a law is necessary or not" is and will always be subjective.
Totally wrong.
Should we have a law requiring leashes for unicorns?
No, it is objectively unnecessary.
How about requiring photo ID for voting to preserve the legitimacy of our elections?
No, for the same reason.
Nah... I disagree. You and I will never convince each other.
whembly wrote: he speaks for all Democrats since he's the Senator Majority Leader.... dontcha know
I give you a number of Republicans teaching other Republicans about the Republican strategy around Voter ID laws ... and you give me an out-of-context soundbyte? Talking to you is rapidly losing all value.
Manchu wrote:Should we have a law requiring leashes for unicorns?
No, it is objectively unnecessary.
How about requiring photo ID for voting to preserve the legitimacy of our elections?
No, for the same reason.
Nah... I disagree. You and I will never convince each other.
So you think a law dealing with in-person voter fraud is necessary given that this kind of fraud is exceedingly rare and that there are already laws dealing with it?
whembly wrote: he speaks for all Democrats since he's the Senator Majority Leader.... dontcha know
I give you a number of Republicans teaching other Republicans about the Republican strategy around Voter ID laws ... and you give me an out-of-context soundbyte? Plus, if you actually understand what he's saying -- surprise surprise -- that is the position of Democrats. Talking to you is rapidly losing all value.
Manchu wrote:Should we have a law requiring leashes for unicorns?
No, it is objectively unnecessary.
How about requiring photo ID for voting to preserve the legitimacy of our elections?
No, for the same reason.
Nah... I disagree. You and I will never convince each other.
So you think a law dealing with in-person voter fraud is necessary given that this kind of fraud is exceedingly rare and that there are already laws dealing with it?
Nah... I disagree. You and I will never convince each other.
So you think a law dealing with in-person voter fraud is necessary given that this kind of fraud is exceedingly rare and that there are already laws dealing with it?
I don't know if it's exceedingly rare. There's no proof one way or another.
I don't believe it's such an over reaching burden to flash an ID at the polls.
whembly wrote: I don't know if it's exceedingly rare. There's no proof one way or another.
Yes you do. You know that we currently do not have any problem with confidence in our electoral results in this country. And any we have had in the recent past had nothing to do with in-person voter fraud. You know it very well. And even if there was no proof -- how on earth could you justify passing this legislation to fix a problem you can't even prove exists???
whembly wrote: I don't believe it's such an over reaching burden to flash an ID at the polls.
We're not talking about how burdensome it is; we're talking about whether it's necessary in the first place.
whembly wrote: 1) Is it too much to ask for to show an ID at the polls, whether or not that it'll have any impact to voter fraud?
It doesn't matter. This is like the scammer asking you for $1000 to bribe the officials to let them have their $1 million back and promising to pay you half as a reward. It doesn't matter that the numbers are in your favor by a huge margin, you know that the scammer is lying to you and you reject the "offer". Voter ID is the same kind of thing. You can talk all you want about how the deal is superficially a reasonable one, but it doesn't matter because the people proposing these laws are lying s who just want to ensure they keep getting elected by any means necessary.
2) In NC's case: Reducing absentee ballots from 2 weeks to 1 weeks... everyone is bound by that if they qualify... right?
Everyone might be bound by the same law, but that doesn't mean that it isn't targeted at democrat-leaning groups.
3) In NC's case: Removed Sunday voting... why is this a problem again?
Because it is being removed for exactly one reason: black churches often organize "drive to the polls after church" days, and they lean democrat. There is no plausible argument for ending sunday voting besides "it will help us win the election".
4) In NC's case: The program to register newly 18 year olds... so, they'll have to learn how to take initiative to pre-register / vote themselves.
And again, there's no reason why this should be ended besides the fact that younger voters lean democrat.
I really don't see it as "ermah gawd" those icky republicans are suppressing the democratic votes.
Seriously, go learn about NC politics. If you don't understand how these new laws are a blatant attempt to protect Art Pope's investment in the state legislature then you really need to learn more about recent events here.
So why is there preferential treatment to those groups that lean-democrats then?
There isn't.
(even get exemptions from the laws? wut? are you referring to expired licenses on Elderly voters?)
Yes, that's one of the things I'm referring to. It makes an absolute joke out of the idea that voter ID is about preventing fraud when you leave such a massive security hole in the plan. If the people advocating the ID law were really serious about security they'd close the hole. The only reason they don't is that that "stopping fraud" is nothing more than a flimsy pretense to keep the courts from shutting the whole thing down, and older people that would be hindered by the new law tend to lean republican.
I have no dog in this fight and I wouldn't be surprised if this NC VoterID get thrown out.
Let me rephrase the question: Why are you okay with special preferential treatment to certain groups, be it those who leans democrat or republican, and not everyone else?
Are you implying that those who usually vote on Sundays are incapable to vote on election day like everyone else?
Don't talk bs. Making Sunday available for everyone to vote is not preferential to particular groups and you know it.
whembly wrote: I don't know if it's exceedingly rare. There's no proof one way or another.
Yes you do. You know that we currently do not have any problem with confidence in our electoral results in this country. And any we have had in the recent past had nothing to do with in-person voter fraud. You know it very well. And even if there was no proof -- how on earth could you justify passing this legislation to fix a problem you can't even prove exists???
whembly wrote: I don't believe it's such an over reaching burden to flash an ID at the polls.
We're not talking about how burdensome it is; we're talking about whether it's necessary in the first place.
We're just rehashing the same arguments over and over again...
Don't talk bs. Making Sunday available for everyone to vote is not preferential to particular groups and you know it.
BS?
I was responding to peregrine's statement:
Because it is being removed for exactly one reason: black churches often organize "drive to the polls after church" days, and they lean democrat. There is no plausible argument for ending sunday voting besides "it will help us win the election".
Agreeing to disagree sort of implies that reasonable minds can come to different conclusions on the matter. Nothing you have posted establishes reasonable disagreement with the points I've made. You're just trying to get off the hook here.
whembly wrote: I don't know if it's exceedingly rare. There's no proof one way or another.
Yes you do. You know that we currently do not have any problem with confidence in our electoral results in this country. And any we have had in the recent past had nothing to do with in-person voter fraud. You know it very well. And even if there was no proof -- how on earth could you justify passing this legislation to fix a problem you can't even prove exists???
whembly wrote: I don't believe it's such an over reaching burden to flash an ID at the polls.
We're not talking about how burdensome it is; we're talking about whether it's necessary in the first place.
We're just rehashing the same arguments over and over again...
Don't talk bs. Making Sunday available for everyone to vote is not preferential to particular groups and you know it.
BS?
I was responding to peregrine's statement:
Because it is being removed for exactly one reason: black churches often organize "drive to the polls after church" days, and they lean democrat. There is no plausible argument for ending sunday voting besides "it will help us win the election".
What if you're an atheist african-american?
OK, let's open it up. Strict orthodox Jews cannot operate a machine (e.g. voting machine) on the Sabbath.
Is it specially preferential to strict orthodox Jews to allow the operation of voting machines to be done on a Thursday?
Agreeing to disagree sort of implies that reasonable minds can come to different conclusions on the matter. Nothing you have posted establishes reasonable disagreement with the points I've made. You're just trying to get off the hook here.
Absolutely NOT Manchu.
You keep looking at this in a technical sense.
I'm looking at this that the integrity of our elections means at least as much to us as our ability to rent a fething movie from Blockbuster.
We're both coming at this from completely different viewpoints... that's all.
Manchu wrote: I give you a number of Republicans teaching other Republicans about the Republican strategy around Voter ID laws ... and you give me an out-of-context soundbyte?
Holy feth, the irony.
Incidentally, pointing to conservative columnists and claiming they speak for the Republican party is about as accurate as pointing at Bill Maher and claiming he speaks for the Democrats. Because that's basically what your article has, aside from - wait for it - an out-of-context soundbyte from a Republican politician.
OK, let's open it up. Strict orthodox Jews cannot operate a machine (e.g. voting machine) on the Sabbath.
Is it specially preferential to strict orthodox Jews to allow the operation of voting machines to be done on a Thursday?
No.
QED.
Yup. Because most elections days falls on a Tuesday. Everyone else must play by some sort of rules in order to vote. If one segment of the population, be it social/economic/racial/religious, are given a different method to vote... I'd definitely consider that preferential.
Now the next question should be: Are we okay with it? I can see arguments for both sides.
Same arguments about those provisional ballots for military. Just about every election, we'd hear issues about how those ballots are handled.
Whembly is trying to assert that Harry Reid doesn't want to help kids with cancer because he found a YT vid named something to that effect. The actual point is clear even in the clip, where one of the Democrats asks in response to the question why can't you just help these kids with cancer instead of holding firm on the ACA, why does it have to be one or the other? Reid didn't say he's not interested in helping kids with cancer -- he said he's not interested in Republicans proposing PR-friendly legislation as a substitute for the ACA.
In contrast, the quotations from the article I linked are, when read in their context, frank statements that Voter ID laws are meant to make it harder to vote for people who are likely to vote for Democrats.
This isn't a matter of the source of the reporting -- you can disregard the headline and journalistic editorial in preference for the sources in both cases. Reid, as a source, is not saying he's doesn't want to help kids with cancer regardless of how the soundbyte is protrayed. These Republican strategists are saying they're banking on Voter ID laws to win jurisdictions, again regardless of how that soundbyte is portrayed.
So you're asserting it's a fact that conservative columnists represent the entirety of the Republican party and are privy to the motivations behind voter ID laws?
I personally think election day should be a federal holiday. If Columbus Day can be, the I figure we can add another one every 4 fething years that has an enormous impact on our country.
I do understand where you're coming from, Manchu, in that you believe enacting a voter ID law is unncessary because the percentage of voter fraud is so low. I really do. I think it's another way to get us close to zero voter fraud, and not only that, I think every adult US citizen should have some form of photo ID anyways.
I mean, they're giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants in California, and that's a photo ID....so i figure it couldn't hurt for everyone to have one.
cincydooley wrote: I think it's another way to get us close to zero voter fraud
I can't accept that argument when it comes to limiting the people's right to bear arms and I cannot accept that argument when it comes to the people's right to vote.
cincydooley wrote: I personally think election day should be a federal holiday. If Columbus Day can be, the I figure we can add another one every 4 fething years that has an enormous impact on our country.
I do understand where you're coming from, Manchu, in that you believe enacting a voter ID law is unncessary because the percentage of voter fraud is so low. I really do. I think it's another way to get us close to zero voter fraud, and not only that, I think every adult US citizen should have some form of photo ID anyways.
I mean, they're giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants in California, and that's a photo ID....so i figure it couldn't hurt for everyone to have one.
EDIT: As an aside, I have very little problem with immigrants in our country; I'd like to make the route towards citizenship for many of the illegals that are in our country working easier, quite honestly. Let em work, legalize em, and make em pay into the system.
cincydooley wrote: I think it's another way to get us close to zero voter fraud
I can't accept that argument when it comes to limiting the people's right to bear arms and I cannot accept that argument when it comes to the people's right to vote.
I honestly enjoy discourse with you, I do, but dammit your selective responses to people in this thread is no better than pulling that Reid quote out of context. It's really frustrating to maintain a dialog when you've done that for 3 pages. Gar!
I have to be selective because you guys keep trying to smuggle the burden issue or the disproportionate impact issue back in. (Talk about frustrating!) We can know these are bad laws without ever needing to go that far.
Also, let me clarify about whembly "quoting" Reid. That's not what happened. It wasn't just a quotation out of context. It was a quotation taken out of context and then given another, incredibly flimsy context which was made up specifically to lie about what Reid was actually saying.
Holy crap in the time you guys are arguing this I could have flashed my ID 10,000 times. Its ridiculous, its not an inconvenience, its not a burden. We don't have concrete figures for how much voter fraud happens, and we have no idea how much it will happen in the future. If something as unincumbersome as showing an ID will make people happy and close a potential door just do it. We didn't use to have crazy security at the airport because nobody ever flew a plane into a building either! Now it seams like some security might have been appropriate. Do we always have to wait for a disaster to happen, before we take a simple prophylactic measure.
Ounce of prevention, pound of medicine, all that jazz.
Andrew1975 wrote: Holy crap in the time you guys are arguing this I could have flashed my ID 10,000 times. Its ridiculous, its not an inconvenience.
Its not about it being an inconvenience. It's about it being unconstitutional because it's a step that could potentially prevent someone from participating in their consititutionally protected right to vote. The place it gets sticky for me is when the hypocrisy of requiring an ID to purchase a gun, another constitutionally protected right, comes into play.
The primary arguments by the Dems is not that requiring an ID is unconstitutional, it's that it puts an undue burden on the poor and the minority voter and is unfairly prejudicial. Multiple people on the right, especially in Georgia and Ohio, have stated that they want to enact Voter ID laws not because it will reduce voter fraud, but because a greater number of poor and minority voters don't have IDs.
I guess the whole argument, and why I'm honestly in the same boat as you, Andrew, confuses me because I can't fathom not having an ID.
OK, let's open it up. Strict orthodox Jews cannot operate a machine (e.g. voting machine) on the Sabbath.
Is it specially preferential to strict orthodox Jews to allow the operation of voting machines to be done on a Thursday?
No.
QED.
Yup. Because most elections days falls on a Tuesday. Everyone else must play by some sort of rules in order to vote. If one segment of the population, be it social/economic/racial/religious, are given a different method to vote... I'd definitely consider that preferential.
Now the next question should be: Are we okay with it? I can see arguments for both sides.
Same arguments about those provisional ballots for military. Just about every election, we'd hear issues about how those ballots are handled.
You consider it preferential to not be denied an equal chance to vote as everyone else.
OK.
That goes some way to explain your cognitive capability.
I guess the whole argument, and why I'm honestly in the same boat as you, Andrew, confuses me because I can't fathom not having an ID.
Its called being a responsible adult member of society. If you cant be bothered to get a standard drivers license, much less a free id, well I don't know if I trust you to vote.
Sounds like some people may have their panties in a twist because they can't send the bus to a loony bin or an old age home and get people to vote for a pudding cup!
These silly fights over none issues are killing this country, by allowing us to avoid the gak that actually matters.
You consider it preferential to not be denied an equal chance to vote as everyone else.
OK.
That goes some way to explain your cognitive capability.
Well help me out here...
How is that in any way, denying an equal chance to vote?
I just asked a specific question on a specific case: Is it okay to grant preferential treatment to a group to vote on Sunday whereas everyone else, who is not a church goer, needs to take time out on a Tuesday to vote (or process a provisional/early ballot).
Frankly, I don't really care... but I thought it's an interesting topic.
Andrew1975 wrote: These silly fights over none issues are killing this country, by allowing us to avoid the gak that actually matters.
You're kind of right. Since there is no voter fraud to speak of, no one should ever have raised these Voter ID laws in the first place -- because they don't matter unless you're just trying to distract the electorate or disenfranchise some of them.
cincydooley wrote: Correct me if I"m wrong, but can't EVERYONE apply for an absentee ballot and ostensibly vote from their home like a provisional ballot is handled?
Most states allow it under certain criteria... ie, disabled, have to work, jury duty etc...
Andrew1975 wrote: These silly fights over none issues are killing this country, by allowing us to avoid the gak that actually matters.
You're kind of right. Since there is no voter fraud to speak of, no one should ever have raised these Voter ID laws in the first place -- because they don't matter unless you're just trying to distract the electorate or disenfranchise some of them.
You see, you're just being disingenuous here...
If there's "no voter fraud to speak of"... how come folks are being charged/convicted of fraud?
What difference does it make? Most people vote in person.
Uh...It sort of makes a big difference in our country, where the estimated number of early ballots alone (not voting in person) in 2012 was over 32 Million.
But you're right, it doesn't matter at all.
EDIT: Some states did have in-person early voting. I don't know exactly which right now. Apologies.
You consider it preferential to not be denied an equal chance to vote as everyone else.
OK.
That goes some way to explain your cognitive capability.
Well help me out here...
How is that in any way, denying an equal chance to vote?
I just asked a specific question on a specific case: Is it okay to grant preferential treatment to a group to vote on Sunday whereas everyone else, who is not a church goer, needs to take time out on a Tuesday to vote (or process a provisional/early ballot).
Frankly, I don't really care... but I thought it's an interesting topic.
Who the feth is prevented from voting on Sunday and forced to vote on Tuesday?
Do the poll workers require a signed note from your pastor before you can vote?
"I didn't go to church today, I guess I can't vote!"
There is no "preferential treatment". Everybody can vote early.
Andrew1975 wrote: These silly fights over none issues are killing this country, by allowing us to avoid the gak that actually matters.
You're kind of right. Since there is no voter fraud to speak of, no one should ever have raised these Voter ID laws in the first place -- because they don't matter unless you're just trying to distract the electorate or disenfranchise some of them.
Sure but showing an ID for most anything is common. In fact most of the building where voting happens like schools, government buildings and such, you need an ID to get in at any other time of the year. Just negotiate it and move on. Look, you don't like many of the voting laws, fine. Get rid of the ones you don't like, allow the ID requirement and move the F on to more important business.
whembly wrote: I just asked a specific question on a specific case: Is it okay to grant preferential treatment to a group to vote on Sunday whereas everyone else, who is not a church goer, needs to take time out on a Tuesday to vote (or process a provisional/early ballot).
Sigh. Is this really that complicated? Sunday voting is NOT only for churches. Sunday voting helps everyone because there are a lot of people who work a "standard" week, which means being able to vote on the weekend is very convenient. I'm a devout atheist who hasn't been in a church in years and I've used sunday voting simply because a particular sunday was the most convenient time for me.
The only preferential treatment here is that the NC republican party looked at who happens to use the sunday option most frequently, realized that sunday voters lean democrat, and decided to get rid of it as a deliberate attempt to suppress democrat turnout.
You consider it preferential to not be denied an equal chance to vote as everyone else.
OK.
That goes some way to explain your cognitive capability.
Well help me out here...
How is that in any way, denying an equal chance to vote?
I just asked a specific question on a specific case: Is it okay to grant preferential treatment to a group to vote on Sunday whereas everyone else, who is not a church goer, needs to take time out on a Tuesday to vote (or process a provisional/early ballot).
Frankly, I don't really care... but I thought it's an interesting topic.
Who the feth is prevented from voting on Sunday and forced to vote on Tuesday?
Do the poll workers require a signed note from your pastor before you can vote?
"I didn't go to church today, I guess I can't vote!"
There is no "preferential treatment". Everybody can vote early.
whembly wrote: If there's "no voter fraud to speak of"... how come folks are being charged/convicted of fraud?
Do you actually understand what "no voter fraud to speak of" means? It means that voter fraud is not happening often enough to matter. And that's exactly what we see, the convictions are for very small numbers of votes (for example, one guy attempting to vote even though he wasn't a US citizen) that could not plausibly have any impact on the final outcome of the election. There is no evidence of widespread organized fraud that would be prevented by the ID laws.
Manchu wrote:Since there is no voter fraud to speak of, no one should ever have raised these Voter ID laws in the first place -- because they don't matter unless you're just trying to distract the electorate or disenfranchise some of them.
Sure
Full stop. That's all we need. No further debate is necessary. Stuff like this:
whembly wrote: I just asked a specific question on a specific case: Is it okay to grant preferential treatment to a group to vote on Sunday whereas everyone else, who is not a church goer, needs to take time out on a Tuesday to vote (or process a provisional/early ballot).
Sigh. Is this really that complicated? Sunday voting is NOT only for churches. Sunday voting helps everyone because there are a lot of people who work a "standard" week, which means being able to vote on the weekend is very convenient. I'm a devout atheist who hasn't been in a church in years and I've used sunday voting simply because a particular sunday was the most convenient time for me.
The only preferential treatment here is that the NC republican party looked at who happens to use the sunday option most frequently, realized that sunday voters lean democrat, and decided to get rid of it as a deliberate attempt to suppress democrat turnout.
Oh. I see.
Yeah... makes sense.
So, no different when the controlling party makes gerrymandering changes eh?
Manchu wrote:Since there is no voter fraud to speak of, no one should ever have raised these Voter ID laws in the first place -- because they don't matter unless you're just trying to distract the electorate or disenfranchise some of them.
Sure
Full stop. That's all we need. No further debate is necessary. Stuff like this:
is by your own definition extraneous, a distraction, and a waste of time.
I never defined anything. I said arguing over stupid issues that are easy enough to solve simply for arguments sake or for the thrill of the win is ridiculous. I hope those wins help the politicians sleep when the government just stops working because of all the petty bickering.
But whatever. I can be an adult ID carrying member of society, and just move on. You would be a great politician.....that's not a compliment.
That's an entirely accurate and topical critique of the GOP.
Not really, its all of them and the partition extremists that support them like they are rooting for a f%#ing football team and every point counts. Its always about the win and never about the integrity of the game.
I'm independent, so I see that both sides are pretty petty and stupid.
I know blaming everyone makes you feel like you can say you're independent but saying you're an independent does not mean blaming everyone is suddenly accurate.
Manchu wrote: I know blaming everyone makes you feel like you can say you're independent but saying you're an independent does not mean blaming everyone is suddenly accurate.
I don't say I'm independent to blame people. I say I'm independent because I'm nuanced enough to know that sometimes the Dems are right, and sometimes the Repubs are right, I don't have to blindly stand up for one or the other when they are wrong, or when they are both wrong. I also don't hate one side any more than the other, so when one brings up something as innocuous as "Hey maybe a responsible voter should also be a responsible adult who carries an ID". I go ok, doesn't cost anything and it couldn't hurt. If that makes you happy fine, just remember you owe me one.
If getting an ID is too much work for your constituency, maybe your party is grasping as straws. Your argument just reinforces peoples ideas that the DEMS are the party of the lazy! Why fuel the fire.
Andrew1975 wrote: I also don't hate one side any more than the other, so when one brings up something as innocuous as "Hey maybe a responsible voter should also be a responsible adult who carries an ID". I go ok, doesn't cost anything and it couldn't hurt. If that makes you happy fine, just remember you owe me one.
Again, what you're missing is that it's not about the terms of the deal, just like an email scam isn't. Even if the scammer offers you something that looks like a good deal you reject it because you know it's not an honest offer. Same thing here, what you're really saying is "it's ok to pass voting laws targeted at specific groups that don't vote for you, as long as it's not a burden on me". These laws should be rejected as a matter of principle even if superficially they look like they aren't too bad a deal.
If getting an ID is too much work for your constituency, maybe your party is grasping as straws. Your argument just reinforces peoples ideas that the DEMS are the party of the lazy! Why fuel the fire.
I'm going to guess you haven't had any experience being poor.
Once again, my argument is that constitutional rights should not be unnecessarily conditioned. For most of my life, I figured this was a Republican slogan. Not this time, I'm afraid. But please notice that Democrats are not making the same argument as I have been making here; they are saying that these laws have unconstitutional disproportionate impacts.
You say you're an independent but you seem to have a two-party assumption about politics and it seems to be getting in the way of you understanding my argument.
I'm going to guess you haven't had any experience being poor.
If I was drinking it would have shot out my nose and all over the computer. I don't know what its like to be poor? I'm the youngest of 8 kids, my diet as a child in the 80's consisted of cheese, bread and peanut butter that we got from the church NOT THE GOVERNMENT for providing services to the school. I didn't get a new pair of clothes until I was in highschool because thats when I grew out of hand me downs.
People see this in repo man and think its funny!
However this is what my food looked like as a kid
We probably could have gotten better but my Father would not take money from the government.
Don't presume to know me. Poor does not make you lazy. Lazy makes you lazy. GO get a frikin ID if you want to be a useful member of society you Lazy ^%#. I know it must come off as elitist to expect people to have of all things an ID, but if you can't participate in the world enough to have one of the most basic of societal tool, I'm sorry but maybe you shouldn't be participating in voting!
Again, what you're missing is that it's not about the terms of the deal, just like an email scam isn't. Even if the scammer offers you something that looks like a good deal you reject it because you know it's not an honest offer. Same thing here, what you're really saying is "it's ok to pass voting laws targeted at specific groups that don't vote for you, as long as it's not a burden on me". These laws should be rejected as a matter of principle even if superficially they look like they aren't too bad a deal.
No that's an assumption that throws sands into the gears of government. This us vs them mentality that the parties have is rediculous. Its an ugly culture that has just gotten way out of hand. We are all Americans here, how about a little solidarity. Why can we only drop our bullcrap when there is a gun to our heads? HOW IN THE WORLD IS REQUIRING AN ID BIASED? Who is that targeting except maybe people that shouldn't be voting. Some of the other requests I understand, but the ID thing is just stupid!
Once again, my argument is that constitutional rights should not be unnecessarily conditioned. For most of my life, I figured this was a Republican slogan. Not this time, I'm afraid. But please notice that Democrats are not making the same argument as I have been making here; they are saying that these laws have unconstitutional disproportionate impacts.
You say you're an independent but you seem to have a two-party assumption about politics and it seems to be getting in the way of you understanding my argument.
Right I have heard your arguments and it still goes back to showing an id that takes 2 seconds and you already have to do it 20 times a day. In fact the exception is that on election day you don't have to show an ID to get into the public school to vote. Any other time you would have to show that ID just to step foot in the school, so pretty much your conservative argument goes out the door. Now if the Repubs wanted to be sneaky they could just say you still need ID to enter the school, not necessarily to vote, however you can't vote without getting into the school. Or we can just be sane about it and realize that showing ID is not the end of the world.
In many ways there is really only one party they really are pretty much all the same in the end. For the sake of the argument however there are only two real parties, there may be different facets in the parties, but there is still only two. The republican factions are in the middle of ripping each other to pieces but they are still one party.
I know it must come off as elitist to expect people to have of all things an ID, but if you can't participate in the world enough to have one of the most basic of societal tool, I'm sorry but maybe you shouldn't be participating in voting!
Andrew1975 wrote: Right I have heard your arguments and it still goes back to showing an id that takes 2 seconds and you already have to do it 20 times a day
No it doesn't.
That is a second order question. I am interested in the first order question.
Let me diagram it out for you:
(1) Is it necessary for the government to act?
(2) If it is necessary for the government to act, does government action result in a burden?
(3) If government action results in a burden, how can the burden be mitigated?
(2) If it is necessary for the government to act, does government action imply disproportionate impact?
(3) If government action implies disproportionate impact, how can the disproportionate impact be mitigated?
You keep insisting that we start at (2) -- and Frazzled wants to start at (3) -- when the only appropriate place to begin is naturally the beginning.
Since the answer to that FIRST question is NO, we don't have to address the second or third order questions at all.
Andrew1975 wrote: Right I have heard your arguments and it still goes back to showing an id that takes 2 seconds and you already have to do it 20 times a day
No it doesn't.
That is a second order question. I am interested in the first order question.
Let me diagram it out for you:
(1) Is it necessary for the government to act?
(2) If it is necessary for the government to act, does government action result in a burden?
(3) If government action results in a burden, how can the burden be mitigated?
(2) If it is necessary for the government to act, does government action imply disproportionate impact?
(3) If government action implies disproportionate impact, how can the disproportionate impact be mitigated?
You keep insisting that we start at (2) -- and Frazzled wants to start at (3) -- when the only appropriate place to begin is naturally the beginning.
Since the answer to that FIRST question is NO, we don't have to address the second or third order questions at all.
Yes and in that time it took you to type that up and for me to respond I could have shown my ID 20 times.
I understand your argument, but I'm not a conservative so I don't give a gak about your conservative argument. The government does plenty of things as prophylactic measures, to handle situations before they become massive. I don't even know..or care if voter fraud is a situation. If it ends the argument and gets us moving to a real issue then you know what, it is necessary and because the issue costs nothing and does not cause a burden, just fing do it already.
s who just want to ensure they keep getting elected by any means necessary.
