Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

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?

feth if I know.

What difference does it make? Most people vote in person.

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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

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...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 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?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
feth if I know.

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.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

That's not what I'm saying...

*reads what I posted before*

Okay...what I typed could've insinuated that.

Whateve... you guys keep railing on.

 d-usa wrote:
Everybody can vote early.

I can't.

 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.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

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:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
but showing an ID for most anything is common

is by your own definition extraneous, a distraction, and a waste of time.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Everybody can vote early.

I can't.

Context matters, you know. We're talking about the voting laws in NC, where anyone who wants to can vote early.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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?

Hmmmm, wished I had that here in Missouri.

 Manchu wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

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:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
but showing an ID for most anything is common

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.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
I hope those wins help the politicians sleep when the government just stops working because of all the petty bickering.

That's an entirely accurate and topical critique of the GOP.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
You would be a great politician.....that's not a compliment.

No, I would never make it as a politician because I do think a little consistency of belief is necessary. But thanks for the insult all the same.

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.

@Andre1975:

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.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

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!

Yes, you sound like an elitist.

 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.

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

I like how you sum up your position -- the government can do whatever it wants and as long as you are not personally put out by it that's fine.

Oh and I assure you, who is allowed and not allowed to vote is certainly a real issue.

Except it causes a burden.

But you have all the answers, and everybody else is lazy, so why bother even dealing with you.