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.

 Manchu wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Then you're not actually reading anything that people are saying.

This is Frazzled we're talking about. He's just here to post the dachshund pics, Kan.

"Get offa my lawn!"

If that weren't accurate it'd almost be triangle worthy.
But you're remiss. There are also important discussions about rum and Tex Mex.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Then you're not actually reading anything that people are saying.

This is Frazzled we're talking about. He's just here to post the dachshund pics, Kan.

"Get offa my lawn!"

If that weren't accurate it'd almost be triangle worthy.
But you're remiss. There are also important discussions about rum and Tex Mex.

Don't forget the queso!

mmmmm queso...

 Alfndrate wrote:
But that is on a state by state basis, some states don't have them, and like I said earlier in the thread states that have photo ID laws for voting purposes must provide a free way to get such an ID because if you were to pay for it that would be a poll tax (which is bad, mkay?). To vote, your state requires a piece of identification that has 1) your photo 2) a name that conforms to the name on your voter registration (so if your name was Robert John Crew, it could be any number of variations of that name) 3) Cannot be expired, or expired sometime after the last general election 4) Issued by the State of Indian or the US Government.

yes your BMVs can and will provide free IDs for voting purposes, though the documentation on such things are a little unclear. The site says It seems that you need to use the same documentation to obtain a driver's license, which can be found here.

And North Carolina, and many others that require ID to vote, do so free of charge. And they are absolutely right to provide them free of charge. I am not now, or have I ever said that people should be charged for ID to vote with. In fact that's what Frazz's opening post concerns - the ID being provided free.

And those documents are the ones that the government also initially provides free to natural born citizens - like the birth certificate, social security card, etc. And I don't think that it is a massive deal that your details have to match given that you have to do that on every government form that exists already

14 pages. I'm about to settle with "Toe Tags" at the moment.

 Forar wrote:
So the running gag that the DMV in the US counts as the ninth circle of hell is untrue?

Because that's what I've been led to believe.

No its the 8th circle of hell. The 9th cicle of hell is the local county tax office. Texas thought about sending prisoners there. Instead of years you had so many forms you had to satisfactorily get submitted. SCOTUS ruled its more humane to kill them...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Then you're not actually reading anything that people are saying.

This is Frazzled we're talking about. He's just here to post the dachshund pics, Kan.

"Get offa my lawn!"

If that weren't accurate it'd almost be triangle worthy.
But you're remiss. There are also important discussions about rum and Tex Mex.

Don't forget the queso!

mmmmm queso...

yea lunch time is appraching. That was a real mistake on my part.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Not the conduct I would expect of any community member, much less a moderator.

This reads as pure hypocrisy after you just pissed on my shoe and told me it was raining. I think you better stick to your points.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Are voting laws unnecessary in the Democrat states listed above?

Yes.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Are voting laws unnecessary in Georgia where the turn out of minorities increased?

Yes.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Are voting laws so unnecessary that there is a long list of countries that do have them, and that the US implement voter ID in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I don't care what other countries are up to. I should also note that I'm assuming by "voting laws" you mean Voter ID laws.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I disregarded no point of Alf's. He mentioned the cost of the documents, of getting time off work, of the hours of opening. I addressed all those points.

Sure you addressed them -- by disregarding them. Alf said there are costs; you said the costs were negligible or disingenuous. If you really want to state that as a counterargument, it boils down to "free IDs are free because they are free IDs."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Then you're not actually reading anything that people are saying.

This is Frazzled we're talking about. He's just here to post the dachshund pics, Kan.

"Get offa my lawn!"

If that weren't accurate it'd almost be triangle worthy.
But you're remiss. There are also important discussions about rum and Tex Mex.

It's true what they say, a thread is never really off-topic without Frazzled.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
That says early voting not voter ID.

I'm for a nice fat early voting period.

The article is a little... weird. The title of it says voter id laws are targeting democratic voters, but the quotes say they want to quash early voting.

I too am okay with early voting, not everyone can make it to the polls on Election Tuesday. But I also remember D's post in the NC thread, it is telling, though I'm still not for no identification at the polls, but I won't get into it since I've stated it before.

It is evidence of a specific Republican party policy to put restrictions on voting in order to try and disenfranchise Democratic leaning voters.

As such it relates to the Voter ID issue though not being specifically about it.

That 93% of African Americans voted for Obama statistic still blows my mind.

I think everyone should have an ID, and if it cost me an extra buck on my license plates or my own ID to do so, It wouldn't bother me a bit.

As to the birth cert/SS --> I wonder if all the problems my wife had were due to us requesting them from a different state? She had a lot of problems getting hers replaced.

This reads as pure hypocrisy after you just pissed on my shoe and told me it was raining. I think you better stick to your points.

It's true what they say, a thread is never really off-topic without Frazzled.

You know this is like saying the devil's name three times right?
TBone has indeed peed on my shoe and looked up at me while doing it when he was displeased. He also did that to the Boy. Mean little dog...
(OT but his latest blood test came back, absolutely normal. Although his heart's going to get him shortly and he's given up any pretense not being in full stage dementia, he appears to be wailing on the C pretty good. Wow)

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

...
...

And for all those crying racism, and disenfranchisement of minorities - http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/lessons-from-the-voter-id-experience-in-georgia

Georgia’s experience with minority voters also directly refutes the claims that voter ID laws somehow prevent racial minorities from voting. Keep in mind that Georgia’s photo ID requirement was not in place in the 2004 presidential election or the 2006 mid-term congressional elections. The law was first effective in the 2008 presidential election and the 2010 congressional elections, although Georgia has actually had at least 40 state and federal elections since September 2007 when the law became effective, not including municipal and county elections. More than 15 million votes have been cast in those elections.
According to the Secretary of State, the turnout of black and Hispanic voters has been as follows:
Latino Percentage Increase 140%
Black Percentage Increase 42%
White Percentage Increase 8%
...
...
.

The interesting thing about that article is that it doesn't offer a shred of evidence about reduction of voting fraud, which is the purpose of voter ID.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
And North Carolina, and many others that require ID to vote, do so free of charge. And they are absolutely right to provide them free of charge. I am not now, or have I ever said that people should be charged for ID to vote with. In fact that's what Frazz's opening post concerns - the ID being provided free.

My point is that the free ID has some cost associated with it somewhere.

And those documents are the ones that the government also initially provides free to natural born citizens - like the birth certificate, social security card, etc. And I don't think that it is a massive deal that your details have to match given that you have to do that on every government form that exists already

I don't disagree that the details on these documents have to match.

I'm for voters having to show proof they are who they are insomuch as to protect the everyone gets 1 vote to balance out the register at the polling place. I don't believe voter fraud is as big of an issue as republicans believe it is. I feel that voting areas should have early voting so that people can vote when they are available to do so as some people are not available to vote on Election Tuesday (as I've stated several times in this thread). What I am against is bills that restrict people by knocking the number of available documents is restricting people's rights to vote. I've also said that I'd be for removing all ID at the polling place if we switched to an indelible ink system. I'm all for free IDs if states wish to pursue that as is their right to pursue, I'm just saying that "free IDs" aren't exactly free. Those costs have to be paid somewhere. Either with having to pay for another identifying document or through taxes, and missing work to get an ID is a lot more costly to some people than one would think. Sure some of us have Paid Time Off and we're not really 'missing' anything, but many people, especially the people that would benefit the most from a free voter ID, tend to work at crappy jobs that have a "you work, you get paid" mentality. Some of those places even go so far as, "you don't show up, you no longer work here."

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is evidence of a specific Republican party policy to put restrictions on voting in order to try and disenfranchise Democratic leaning voters.

As such it relates to the Voter ID issue though not being specifically about it.

That I will agree with, and chalk it up to just piss poor titling on the part of the editor/author something like, "Republicans admit voting laws meant to disenfranchise Dem. voters" instead of what it currently is.


Also: I'm trying to find out if birth certificates for your children are free when they're born. I can't seem to nail down an answer.

 Frazzled wrote:
You know this is like saying the devil's name three times right?

You're the one who summoned me back into the OT by starting another thread on these patently un-American Voter ID laws!

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You know this is like saying the devil's name three times right?

You're the one who summoned me back into the OT by starting another thread on these patently un-American Voter ID laws!

So is this Pyramid Head vs. Missionary or Predator vs. Alien?

"No matter who wins, we get fat..."

 Alfndrate wrote:

Also: I'm trying to find out if birth certificates for your children are free when they're born. I can't seem to nail down an answer.

It varies by State Alf...

In MO, it's like 20 bucks.

But, I'm told that it's for a copy of the original, among other things. I'm not sure what would happen if I didn't the 20. o.O

 whembly wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

Also: I'm trying to find out if birth certificates for your children are free when they're born. I can't seem to nail down an answer.

It varies by State Alf...

In MO, it's like 20 bucks.

But, I'm told that it's for a copy of the original, among other things. I'm not sure what would happen if I didn't the 20. o.O

I know that if you want a copy it's gonna cost ya. So when your grots were born, you paid 20 bucks apiece for their birth certificate?

 Alfndrate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

Also: I'm trying to find out if birth certificates for your children are free when they're born. I can't seem to nail down an answer.

It varies by State Alf...

In MO, it's like 20 bucks.

But, I'm told that it's for a copy of the original, among other things. I'm not sure what would happen if I didn't the 20. o.O

I know that if you want a copy it's gonna cost ya. So when your grots were born, you paid 20 bucks apiece for their birth certificate?

That's correct. (I even remembered paying more to get a copy of the feet prints... I forget how much tho)

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I had a good write-up in the NC thread that showed the voting patterns of every single group impacted by the changes that were made to their voting laws. It was pretty telling.

You mean this one (and the replies to it)?

Spoiler:

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Yeah, totally fair bill that doesn't target any particular voters at all. Let's see areas of the bill line up with voter demographics based on 2012 elections.

-People older than 70 can use their expired IDs to vote
(56% of people over 65 voted for Romney).
Yeah, and I've seen it argued that it's bad because it makes it hard for old people to get their ID's, so now it's bad because old people don't need to get new ID's?

-Making it hard for young people to vote:
Eliminating pre-registration.
Not allowing Student IDs.
(60% of people under 29 voted for Obama)
I would like to find a copy of the actual bill before anymore judgement is passed on this. Michigan doesn't allow pre-registration either, but it still allows for those who turn 18 by the date of the election to register 30 days before hand.

-Eliminating voting options historically used by Democrats
-Cut early voting by a week
(Early votes cast in North Carolina were: Dem 47.6%, Rep 31.5%, None/Other 20.9%)
Cost saving measure, as explained. Voter turn out, even with early voting, was significantly lower then several previous elections, so in days of tight budgets it tends to make sense, but hey tightening the belt is another way of targetting people who usually vote dem anyways, right? The same amount of time is allowed for early voting, it is just offered in a shorter period of time, freeing up more resources.

-Eliminate voting options historically used by African Americans
-Get rid of Sunday early voting (utilized by African-American Churches churches)
(93% of African Americans voted for Obama)
See above

-Making it harder for poor people to vote
-Cutting early voting down to one site per county (making it hard for transportation (at least everybody can jump on the church bus...oh wait) and resulting in much longer lines which makes it harder for people who can't get off work)
-Not providing free IDs.
(60% of people who make less than $50,000 voted for Obama)
Your no free ID thing is BS. State Photo ID (not drivers license, and still acceptable under the law) is free, and will remain free.

-Eliminated Straight Party Voting
(55.54% of all straight party tickets cast were for Democrats)
God forbid people have to put a few extra check marks down. If their to lazy to do this, then they aren't going to put in the effort to vote anyways.

-Left absentee voting intact.
(66% of absentee votes were cast for Romney)
And? How else are folks who are in military supposed to vote?

But it's okay, this bill is totally legit and targets legitimate voter fraud (without showing evidence of voter fraud and without anybody being able to explain how it actually combats voter fraud) and has nothing to do with the actual statistics showing that it impacts Democrats more than Republicans.

Source dump:

http://www.ncsbe.gov/content.aspx?id=69
http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/42923/114645/Web01/en/summary.html
http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html

.

And in the time since that was originally posted your red text still doesn't do anything to actually counter the facts: Every single issue in that bill either benefits republican voters, or hurts democratic voters.

 Breotan wrote:
I keep seeing people make this type of statement. The problem is that there is a complete and total lack of evidence that voter ID would result in increased republican votes or decreased democrat votes. Basically you have one side saying, "we want to stop the nonexistent fraud" and the other side saying "you want to stop us, whom you are unable to specifically target with this law, from voting." Both sides are demagoging here.

Context matters. The context of the ID law in NC is that the republican party recently gained control of the state government and has been passing a series of laws to keep that control. Cuts to early voting (early voters lean democrat), blatant gerrymandering, etc. So which is the more likely explanation:

That the ID law is a good-faith attempt to stop fraud, and it's purely a coincidence that it was included in the same "reforms" as all of the suppression and gerrymandering.

or

That the ID law is just another part of the "protect Art Pope's investment" strategy.


(If you're at all familiar with NC politics the answer is pretty obvious.)

 Manchu wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Not the conduct I would expect of any community member, much less a moderator.

This reads as pure hypocrisy after you just pissed on my shoe and told me it was raining. I think you better stick to your points.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Are voting laws unnecessary in the Democrat states listed above?

Yes.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Are voting laws unnecessary in Georgia where the turn out of minorities increased?

Yes.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Are voting laws so unnecessary that there is a long list of countries that do have them, and that the US implement voter ID in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I don't care what other countries are up to. I should also note that I'm assuming by "voting laws" you mean Voter ID laws.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I disregarded no point of Alf's. He mentioned the cost of the documents, of getting time off work, of the hours of opening. I addressed all those points.

Sure you addressed them -- by disregarding them. Alf said there are costs; you said the costs were negligible or disingenuous. If you really want to state that as a counterargument, it boils down to "free IDs are free because they are free IDs."

So free IDs are not being provided free? So the documents needed for these free IDs are also not being provided free, and there is only a charge if you have been negligent in your handling of them? The point was not ignored, nor disregarded. It was quite clearly addressed. If you are worried about the cost to the State then that is part of the functions of the State, so it falls under it's purview. If you're complaining that someone has to make a trip to the BMV then I have no sympathy for that argument - it's like claiming that there is a poll tax because you have to travel to vote The point is that these IDs are still being provided free to the public.

You seem quite content to rail against an un-American, unconstitutional interference in this individual right - while ignoring that other constitutional rights have much more interference (firearms), and that Democrat majority States also have ID laws. So please keep tilting at windmills Don Quixote

You are not familiar with the economic concept of transaction costs.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You seem quite content to rail against an un-American, unconstitutional interference in this individual right - while ignoring that other constitutional rights have much more interference (firearms), and that Democrat majority States also have ID laws. So please keep tilting at windmills Don Quixote

Manchu already argued that a person opposed to firearm permits should be opposed to voter identification.

 dogma wrote:
Manchu already argued that a person opposed to firearm permits should be opposed to voter identification.

Hasn't really argued that a person opposed to voter identification should be opposed to firearm permits, though. Curious, that.

 Seaward wrote:

Hasn't really argued that a person opposed to voter identification should be opposed to firearm permits, though. Curious, that.

Oh no, a person making an argument took a position by way of implication, whatever will the world do!?!

I'm pretty sure I've seen Manchu argue for basic gun control before, though, is the problem.

Either way, I'd be happy with having exactly as much identity/eligibility verification on voting as on guns.

 Seaward wrote:
I'm pretty sure I've seen Manchu argue for basic gun control before, though, is the problem.

It isn't a problem if you read what he actually writes, and not just parts of it. Background checks helps curtail a great number of problems and is seen as a necessary intrusion by almost everyone, including the majority of gun owners whereas the Voter ID laws don't meet either of those requirements ie it is neither necessary nor is it curtailing any serious issues. Total freedom from government intrusion was never argued, just that we should be critical of it, and only do it when there is a compelling public interest.

That requires showing there is no compelling government interest in preventing fraudulent voting, which, so far, I don't believe anyone's accomplished.

 Seaward wrote:
That requires showing there is no compelling government interest in preventing fraudulent voting, which, so far, I don't believe anyone's accomplished.

Of course the government has a compelling interest in preventing fraudulent voting. The problem is that nobody has provided a compelling reason to believe that the new ID laws will make any meaningful difference in stopping fraud, or that a fraud problem (of the specific type that could be prevented) even exists at all. The government loses its compelling interest when the only reason for a new "fraud prevention" law is that Art Pope thinks it will protect his investment.

Contrast this with gun laws, where there is a credible argument that certain laws (though not all of them) restricting gun ownership do accomplish a legitimate government objective.

 Seaward wrote:
That requires showing there is no compelling government interest in preventing fraudulent voting, which, so far, I don't believe anyone's accomplished.

No, the argument is whether there is sufficient evidence of fraudulent voting to create a compelling case for public interest in counter-measures.

The burden of proof in the argument lies with you, and you have failed to produce evidence, so now you are trying to change the terms of the argument.

No-one supports fraudulent voting. If you want to gain wider support for your ideas you will need to do the following:

Prove widespread fraudulent voting, and also the following points:

That the proposed voter ID will be an effective counter measure.
That it will be more effective than other possible counter-measures, such as better training of polling staff.
That it can be brought in without laying unfair burdens on the citizens.
That it isn't linked to other unnecessary voting law changes designed to bias the voting pattern. (Each of those other changes is likely to occasion a long debate.)

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No-one supports fraudulent voting. If you want to gain wider support for your ideas you will need to do the following:

Prove widespread fraudulent voting, and also the following points:

That the proposed voter ID will be an effective counter measure.
That it will be more effective than other possible counter-measures, such as better training of polling staff.
That it can be brought in without laying unfair burdens on the citizens.
That it isn't linked to other unnecessary voting law changes designed to bias the voting pattern. (Each of those other changes is likely to occasion a long debate.)

Why, pray tell? That's certainly not the method in which those in favor of more gun laws go about proposing them. If this whole argument is based on the similarities between the two examples of restricted/potentially restricted rights, why must one side play by rules that the other doesn't have to?

 Seaward wrote:
Why, pray tell? That's certainly not the method in which those in favor of more gun laws go about proposing them. If this whole argument is based on the similarities between the two examples of restricted/potentially restricted rights, why must one side play by rules that the other doesn't have to?

I thought "but he did it too!!!!" stops being a valid excuse when you're a small child? The fact that some people advocate stupid gun laws for stupid reasons doesn't have anything to do with this issue, and you don't get to dismiss arguments based on what some imaginary "side" is doing about something else.