Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/10 21:36:21
Subject: Federal Courts backs new limits on new VoterID laws
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
This seems to have gotten buried along with the bevy of international news... but, this is interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/09/us/judge-in-north-carolina-upholds-2013-voting-law.html?smid=pl-share
ATLANTA — A federal judge in North Carolina on Friday rejected an effort by civil rights groups and the Justice Department to block the application of key elements of a Republican-backed state law that curtailed early voting and other opportunities for residents to cast their ballots.
The 125-page written ruling, issued late Friday by Judge Thomas D. Schroeder of the Federal District Court, rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the law, one of the most far-reaching in a recent national wave of Republican-backed legislation on voter ID and against voter fraud, would place “disproportionate burdens” on African-American voters hoping to participate in the November elections.
Judge Schroeder, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, acknowledged that given the racism in North Carolina’s past, residents “have reason to be wary of changes in voting law.”
But he cited various ways in which black voters would still have opportunities to get to the polls, even with the less generous ballot access the law affords. For example, one part of the law reduces the period of early voting to 10 days from 17. Judge Schroeder noted that witnesses in last month’s hearing “opined” that the loss of days would hamper get-out-the-vote efforts. “But no witnesses testified that he or she will not be able to adjust operations readily to fit the new early-voting period,” he wrote.
Over all, he stated, the plaintiffs failed to show that they were “likely to be irreparably harmed,” and were thus unworthy of the injunction.
The law, which was signed by Gov. Pat McCrory, a Republican, in 2013, will require voters to show a picture ID at the polls, but not until 2016. At issue in this case were changes already in effect, including the seven-day reduction of the state’s early-voting period; the elimination of a program that allowed for registration and voting on the same day during early voting; a ban on counting provisional ballots when voters cast them out of their home precinct; and a program that allowed 16- and 17-year-olds to “preregister” in anticipation of coming elections. The plaintiffs, including the state N.A.A.C.P., had argued that many of these provisions were particularly popular with black voters.
Some North Carolina legislators who voted for the law had been emboldened by a 2013 Supreme Court ruling that effectively gutted Section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act. Before the ruling, a law like North Carolina’s would have been subject to automatic scrutiny by federal officials, who would have rejected it if they determined that it would adversely affect minority voter turnout.
With Section 5 no longer applicable, the plaintiffs turned to another portion of the Voting Rights Act, Section 2, and to the Constitution’s equal protection clause.
Richard L. Hasen, a law professor and voting rights expert at the University of California, Irvine, wrote in a blog post on Friday that the court had expressed “great skepticism” about the use of either Section 2 or the equal protection clause “to protect voting rights in a strong way.”
That leaves much unresolved. In Wisconsin, Professor Hasen noted, a federal district judge recently struck down a voter ID law with a much broader view of the scope of Section 2 and the equal protection clause. It is now possible that one of these cases — or perhaps a similar case in Texas — could eventually end up before the Supreme Court, Professor Hasen said.
On Friday night, Penda Hair of the Advancement Project, one of the lawyers for the state N.A.A.C.P., said that her team had not decided whether to appeal the ruling. But she said that they planned to challenge the provisions, as well as the voter ID provision, in a full trial scheduled for next July. “We are disappointed,” she said. “But we remain committed to prevailing on the trial on the merits.”
In a statement, Bob Stephens, chief legal counsel to Mr. McCrory, said that the ruling upheld a law that enacted “common-sense protections that preserve the sanctity of the voting booth.”
“Today’s ruling is just more evidence that this law is constitutional — as we have said from the very onset of this process,” Mr. Stephens said.
I actually would've placed bets that the court would overturn turn this.
Here's the decision... it's a mammoth:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/236345284/North-Carolina-NAACP-Et-Al-v-McCrory-Et-Al
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/07 13:31:15
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/11 02:54:43
Subject: Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
I'm not surprised. While people might find aspects of this distasteful, there's no real way to prove harm. We won't know how this effects voting till it actually happens. The court could only make one decision imo.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/11 02:55:10
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/11 02:59:28
Subject: Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
It might not have been illegal, but anybody that has any doubt that this was done with the full intention of keeping legitimate voters away is just fooling himself.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/11 03:15:23
Subject: Re:Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
Then by that logic... in New York they must have the most horrible group of racist legislators in the country, because do you know how long you have to vote in NY? Fifteen hours. That’s right... you have from 6 AM until 9 PM to vote on election day. Full stop. That’s it. (Aside from absentee and military ballots, which every state has.)
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/11 03:20:47
Subject: Re:Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
whembly wrote:Then by that logic... in New York they must have the most horrible group of racist legislators in the country, because do you know how long you have to vote in NY? Fifteen hours. That’s right... you have from 6 AM until 9 PM to vote on election day. Full stop. That’s it. (Aside from absentee and military ballots, which every state has.) I never said gak about racists, so check your facts. What I did say was that the law was 100% aimed at stopping voters who voted Democrat from voting. I could go back and find the post I wrote when this whole thing happened, the one where I researched every single group of voters targeted by this law and how they actually voted in the preceding elections, and then post it again with the actual number of voters in each demographic showing wonderful things like "early voting gone - mostly voted D" and "young voters cant preregister anymore - mostly voted D", "No more Sunday voting - mostly voted D" and "old people is the only group that doesn't have to have a valid ID - mostly voted R". But then you would just post [WellThatsJustYourOpinionMan.jpg] and everybody else that just handwaved it away will do the same. So why waste my fething time.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/11 03:22:07
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/11 03:31:57
Subject: Re:Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
d-usa wrote:
I could go back and find the post I wrote when this whole thing happened, the one where I researched every single group of voters targeted by this law and how they actually voted in the preceding elections, and then post it again with the actual number of voters in each demographic showing wonderful things like "early voting gone - mostly voted D" and "young voters cant preregister anymore - mostly voted D", "No more Sunday voting - mostly voted D" and "old people is the only group that doesn't have to have a valid ID - mostly voted R".
Are you implying that North Carolinian are such drastically different people than New Yorkers?
So...let me answer your question is a round-about manner. So what if these new laws disfavors one voting bloc more than the other. In the old system, it favored that one voting bloc.
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/11 03:33:51
Subject: Re:Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
whembly wrote: d-usa wrote:
I could go back and find the post I wrote when this whole thing happened, the one where I researched every single group of voters targeted by this law and how they actually voted in the preceding elections, and then post it again with the actual number of voters in each demographic showing wonderful things like "early voting gone - mostly voted D" and "young voters cant preregister anymore - mostly voted D", "No more Sunday voting - mostly voted D" and "old people is the only group that doesn't have to have a valid ID - mostly voted R".
Are you implying that North Carolinian are such drastically different people than New Yorkers?
So...let me answer your question is a round-about manner. So what if these new laws disfavors one voting bloc more than the other. In the old system, it favored that one voting bloc.
Use search, find the old thread, I'm not doing this gak again.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/11 03:42:21
Subject: Re:Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
d-usa wrote: whembly wrote: d-usa wrote:
I could go back and find the post I wrote when this whole thing happened, the one where I researched every single group of voters targeted by this law and how they actually voted in the preceding elections, and then post it again with the actual number of voters in each demographic showing wonderful things like "early voting gone - mostly voted D" and "young voters cant preregister anymore - mostly voted D", "No more Sunday voting - mostly voted D" and "old people is the only group that doesn't have to have a valid ID - mostly voted R".
Are you implying that North Carolinian are such drastically different people than New Yorkers?
So...let me answer your question is a round-about manner. So what if these new laws disfavors one voting bloc more than the other. In the old system, it favored that one voting bloc.
Use search, find the old thread, I'm not doing this gak again.
I remember.
If it's good enough for The Empire State, why not for NC? (and the rest of the US for that matter).
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/11 04:05:29
Subject: Re:Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
whembly wrote:If it's good enough for The Empire State, why not for NC?
It isn't good enough. Things like early voting are good and should exist everywhere. But the most important thing here is that intent matters. NY just didn't have those options, there was no biased intent in omitting them. NC, on the other hand, had a system that was working just fine and when we got a new majority in the state legislature the first thing they did is carefully research which groups tend to vote against them and how to discourage them from voting without doing anything blatantly illegal.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/11 04:38:23
Subject: Re:Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
Peregrine wrote: whembly wrote:If it's good enough for The Empire State, why not for NC?
It isn't good enough. Things like early voting are good and should exist everywhere. But the most important thing here is that intent matters. NY just didn't have those options, there was no biased intent in omitting them. NC, on the other hand, had a system that was working just fine and when we got a new majority in the state legislature the first thing they did is carefully research which groups tend to vote against them and how to discourage them from voting without doing anything blatantly illegal.
See... I'd like to give more credit to those voters.
New rules are simple, and they'll adjust accordingly.
FYI: This ruling will be appealed, so it's likely it'll be thrown out in future courts. Unless the SC get involved. In that case, who knows... they did reaffirm Indiana's 2005 VoterID law. *shrug*
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/11 04:58:37
Subject: Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Yeah, not seeing how 7 days is going to have that much of an affect on things.
Also... who the feth thinks that a register in one line, then turn around and vote directly after is a good idea? That just seems like it's a decent spot to go for voter fraud.... But, they're apparently only getting rid of that during the 10 day early vote, so.. meh.
the provisional ballot thing also makes sense as you could, ostensibly go to a neighboring county, vote as someone you're not to attempt to "pad" the vote for someone.
And not pre-registering 16/17 year olds doesn't bother me, as when it comes down to it, how many actually vote when they've just turned 18? And if they do, how many are "forced" to by parents/grandparents and are thus more likely to vote for the persons that those parents/grandparents tell the kids to vote for??
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/11 07:49:37
Subject: Re:Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
whembly wrote:So what if these new laws disfavors one voting bloc more than the other.
How in the feth can that be a question? How can you not just recognise any new law that 'disfavors' anyone from casting their vote as a bad thing?
Now, that doesn't mean that anything that impacts negatively on any voting bloc must be rejected - such impacts can be justified by reductions in voter fraud and, more importantly, even if the reduction in voter fraud doesn't justify the impact, anyone taking the matter to court actually to prove the scale of the negative impact, and that hasn't been done yet.
But to actually ask 'so what?' to a point about a voting bloc being negatively impacted... well that's an incredible thing.
|
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/11 09:39:56
Subject: Re:Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
Most Glorious Grey Seer
|
sebster wrote:But to actually ask 'so what?' to a point about a voting bloc being negatively impacted... well that's an incredible thing.
Alleged but not proven, nor even shown a preponderance of evidence to support the claim.
Way back in the day, before voting laws were loosened, I had to wait until my 18th birthday before I could register to vote. Voting also only lasted from 8am to 8pm on election day. Neither I nor the nation was irreparably harmed by that. I really don't see how anyone would be so harmed today.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/11 09:41:49
Subject: Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
Reading the judgement the plaintiffs couldn't even establish that they were eligible in law for the relief that was claimed.
In one line of argument the plaintiffs really shot themselves in the foot;
Plaintiffs’ witnesses opined that the loss of one week of early voting will hamper GOTV efforts and thus depress black turnout. (Doc. 164 at 74-76 (testimony of Melvin F. Montford); Doc. 165 at 95-97 (testimony of Rev. Jimmy Hawkins).) But no witness testified that he or she will not be able adjust operations readily to fit the new early-voting period. Cf. Brown, 895 F. Supp. 2d at 1253-54 (citing Florida, 885 F. Supp. 2d at 336) (finding that, despite testimony suggesting a two-week period was essential to GOTV efforts, groups would be able to adjust to a new distribution of hours over fewer days). In fact, one witness testified that even 17 days was not sufficient for his efforts and that a whole month of early voting would be preferable. (Doc. 165 at 100.) This suggests that although GOTV operators would prefer more days of early voting, they will be able to adjust to a reduced schedule of days with more voting sites and hours. This is especially true for the purposes of irreparable harm in the lower-turnout 2014 midterm election.
Finally, Plaintiffs argue that historically black voters disproportionately used the first week of early voting under the old law and that SL 2013-381 “takes that away.” *
This is a reformulation of the same argument. The evidence shows that black voters utilized the initial days of early voting more than white voters. To say that they will no longer use the first seven days of the new ten-day period is speculative and insufficient to show irreparable harm.
*
The court also acknowledges that data from the May 2014 primary suggest that black turnout increased more than did white turnout when compared with the May 2010 primary. (See Doc. 126-1 ¶¶ 61-67.) Although this tends to weigh against a finding of irreparable harm, it is of limited significance because of the many noted differences between primaries and general elections
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/11 10:02:05
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/11 11:24:43
Subject: Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Also... who the feth thinks that a register in one line, then turn around and vote directly after is a good idea? That just seems like it's a decent spot to go for voter fraud.... But, they're apparently only getting rid of that during the 10 day early vote, so.. meh.
There was no evidence of fraud. This is a "solution" to an imaginary problem.
Breotan wrote:Alleged but not proven, nor even shown a preponderance of evidence to support the claim.
Oh, it's proven. If you know anything about NC state politics it's perfectly obvious what they were intending to do.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/11 12:51:30
Subject: Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
As stated in the response noted, if NY doesn't even have it, you can't complain too much. Note: Frazzled is for a full month of early voting. We have it in Texas and its a godsend. I wander over to the county office a few blocks over-sigh as I pay the zombiues standing in line at the tax collector office - and vote faster than you can say "donde esta el banjo?" Frazzled would be for online voting, but Frazzled knows it would be hacked in 38 seconds by groups in Russia. "And in an epic upset not seen since Kennedy was elected, Vladimir Putin was just elected Atty General of Texas. In an even greater turn of events, its seems the voters elected a small wiener dog for Governor. When apprised of his come from behind election, Rodney the wiener dog immediately peed on all the members of the Texas House. His approval ratings have now risen to 95% and there are calls for a Presidential run."
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/11 12:56:01
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/11 13:04:31
Subject: Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
Oh, it's proven. If you know anything about NC state politics it's perfectly obvious what they were intending to do.
I think the intent is obvious, but proving that it'll actually work is kind of not realistic prior to the law being in effect (and I'm sure when the legislators who passed it knew this).
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/11 13:04:48
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/11 14:21:09
Subject: Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Here is the issue with provisional ballots:
Provisional ballots are designed to be if I just moved in, I can vote in my new district. They allow my vote to be taken and verified later.
*someone* decided that the default action for a provisional ballot is to 'be counted' and thrown out later after verification. Verification happens 20 days after the election which means as we all know, the election is over by then.
The problem is, Someone can provisionally vote at literally dozens of precincts in one day, and have all their votes count. Or you can have people provisionally vote with people's information who are not voting. And since you can't be forced to show ID, all you need is a piece of mail from a utility with a name and address.
But voter fraud doesn't happen! Well, it isn't voter fraud until:
*Someone actually checks the ballots (which don't usually happen)
*Someone who checks actually checks for more than a person actually existing at the address and see the same person voted more than once (which doesn't happen as checks are spread out)
*Someone actually says 'hey this is fraud' and the voter board doesn't write it off to confusion or a clerical error.
*Someone is actually charged.
So basically it happens all the time, and since it doesn't matter, no one is charged and fraud is not identified.
Except when it does matter.
In MD in the 90s, we had a governors race where an abandoned closed apartment building had been in a important voting district. There were hundreds of provisional votes done for people who lived in that building using their mail. Except those people don't live in that building. Many moved away or out of state. And since no IDs were provided all people used was mail from that building to identify people.
These votes would have swung the election if not counted. They were counted. Pressure was applied to make the loser (who could have been the winner) concede. News reporters searched out the people who supposedly voted, they found dozens of people who said they didn't vote. They found 1 person who said 'yes, I did, but I did't have a new address yet'.
MD board of elections said 'they all probably intended to vote, no fraud, all clerical possibly votes count. Evidence of fraud ignored and wiped away because it was inconvenient. Of course there is no fraud when the people committing the fraud run the voter boards and explain it away.
Every year, there are buses who come to my neighborhood, going door to door asking people to grab a utility bill and go vote, they do not want to know if you are a citizen. They go to multiple polling places and vote multiple times. My neighbors parents who are not citizens each voted 4 times in the last presidential election.
It is hard to convince me IDs shouldn't be required to vote.
|
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/11 20:34:38
Subject: Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
nkelsch wrote:Verification happens 20 days after the election which means as we all know, the election is over by then.
Who cares? Nobody has taken office 20 days after the election, so if the verification of the provisional ballots produces a different outcome then there's no problem.
So basically it happens all the time, and since it doesn't matter, no one is charged and fraud is not identified.
Do you actually have evidence that there was any meaningful amount of fraud in NC? Because even the state republican party here didn't bother to present any evidence. If it "happens all the time" then you'd think that they'd say so and gain a little more support for their unpopular policies.
MD board of elections said 'they all probably intended to vote, no fraud, all clerical possibly votes count. Evidence of fraud ignored and wiped away because it was inconvenient. Of course there is no fraud when the people committing the fraud run the voter boards and explain it away.
So let me get this straight: the board of elections makes a stupid ruling and keeps clearly fraudulent provisional ballots and you think the problem is the provisional ballots, not the board of elections?
Every year, there are buses who come to my neighborhood, going door to door asking people to grab a utility bill and go vote, they do not want to know if you are a citizen. They go to multiple polling places and vote multiple times. My neighbors parents who are not citizens each voted 4 times in the last presidential election.
And what exactly is this supposed to accomplish when any votes they make will be thrown out?
It is hard to convince me IDs shouldn't be required to vote.
It shouldn't be, because requiring IDs doesn't accomplish anything. If you've managed to convince the system that you're a legitimate voter (whether by being registered to vote or by having your provisional ballot accepted) then whether or not you have an ID is irrelevant. The only fraud the ID requirement stops is a person trying to vote as someone else, and there's no evidence that this happens at any meaningful rate.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/11 20:35:26
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/11 20:58:24
Subject: Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
Wolf Guard Bodyguard in Terminator Armor
|
Wait, what? No ID required? That's pretty much the only thing here in the Netherlands you have to take of yourself in order to vote.
Everything else is either sent to you prior to the vote taking place or in the system already.
You take the ID and the ballot that was sent to you (if any), you go to the voting venue, identify yourself and everything else is already in place except your actual vote.
How does the US not yet have something like that in place?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/11 21:02:26
Subject: Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Bran Dawri wrote:Wait, what? No ID required? That's pretty much the only thing here in the Netherlands you have to take of yourself in order to vote.
Everything else is either sent to you prior to the vote taking place or in the system already.
You take the ID and the ballot that was sent to you (if any), you go to the voting venue, identify yourself and everything else is already in place except your actual vote.
How does the US not yet have something like that in place?
Evidently the Netherlands is full of evil racists. I'm not sure why. Maybe Manchu can clarify.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/11 21:21:20
Subject: Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
Fate-Controlling Farseer
|
Frazzled wrote:Bran Dawri wrote:Wait, what? No ID required? That's pretty much the only thing here in the Netherlands you have to take of yourself in order to vote.
Everything else is either sent to you prior to the vote taking place or in the system already.
You take the ID and the ballot that was sent to you (if any), you go to the voting venue, identify yourself and everything else is already in place except your actual vote.
How does the US not yet have something like that in place?
Evidently the Netherlands is full of evil racists. I'm not sure why. Maybe Manchu can clarify.
Would be interesting to hear.
|
Full Frontal Nerdity |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/11 23:35:57
Subject: Re:Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
[MOD]
Not as Good as a Minion
|
Let's kill off the 'oh wow they must all be racists' before it gets the thread locked. Either it is serious, in which case issues with our rules here, or it is typed facetiously, in which case it's spammish. Either way, no good comes of it.
|
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own... |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/12 01:55:18
Subject: Re:Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
Breotan wrote:Alleged but not proven, nor even shown a preponderance of evidence to support the claim.
Oh come on. I said that in the next line; “more importantly, even if the reduction in voter fraud doesn't justify the impact, anyone taking the matter to court actually to prove the scale of the negative impact, and that hasn't been done yet”
The whole post was 112 words, and you didn’t make it to third sentence before you hit respond.
|
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/12 07:13:58
Subject: Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
Most Glorious Grey Seer
|
Peregrine wrote:It shouldn't be, because requiring IDs doesn't accomplish anything. If you've managed to convince the system that you're a legitimate voter (whether by being registered to vote or by having your provisional ballot accepted) then whether or not you have an ID is irrelevant. The only fraud the ID requirement stops is a person trying to vote as someone else, and there's no evidence that this happens at any meaningful rate.
I would love to apply this logic to firearm ownership. Seriously.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/12 07:38:11
Subject: Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
Breotan wrote:I would love to apply this logic to firearm ownership. Seriously.
Nah. There's 30 to 40 thousand attempted purchases of firearms each year. Instances of voter fraud are counted in single digits.
|
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/12 08:03:35
Subject: Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Breotan wrote:I would love to apply this logic to firearm ownership. Seriously.
And then watch all the gun owners scream about how the world is ending because there's mandatory gun registration, which is obviously just the first step in confiscating all of their guns. The voting system only works because there's a list of approved voters that can be checked frequently for people who are no longer eligible to vote in that location, something that will never happen with guns.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/12 08:08:11
Subject: Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
Most Glorious Grey Seer
|
Peregrine wrote: Breotan wrote:I would love to apply this logic to firearm ownership. Seriously.
And then watch all the gun owners scream about how the world is ending because there's mandatory gun registration, which is obviously just the first step in confiscating all of their guns.
But illegals would be able to own guns, there would be no waiting period, all this talk of straw purchases would end, we'd have mail-in registration for our CPLs, and the pinko commies would be happy to see us when we open carry in their coffee shops.
Peregrine wrote:The voting system only works because there's a list of approved voters that can be checked frequently for people who are no longer eligible to vote in that location, something that will never happen with guns.
Except that you don't have to prove who you are or that you're even eligible to be voting if you don't show ID. Which makes a list of approved voters sort of useless.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/12 08:09:52
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/12 08:09:55
Subject: Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Because the system already covers everything without needing a specific form of ID. You still have to bring some form of identification (utility bills, etc) to prove that you're who you say you are, you just don't have to worry about whether you updated the address on your driver's license or not. And to actually vote you have to be registered in advance (which at least in theory includes verifying things like citizenship), which means that typical conservative claims about how we "need voter ID or all the illegal immigrants will vote" are just stupid.
Could the system be more secure? Possibly, but so far there's no evidence that voting fraud of the kind that stricter ID requirements could prevent happens with any meaningful frequency. Essentially the NC republican party (and advocates of stricter ID requirements elsewhere) are using rare stories of one guy voting with his dead friend's name and having no effect on the outcome of the election as a cover for their real motivation: reducing turnout in groups that tend to vote for their opponents. Automatically Appended Next Post: Breotan wrote:But illegals would be able to own guns, there would be no waiting period, all this talk of straw purchases would end, we'd have mail-in registration for our CPLs, and the pinko commies would be happy to see us when we open carry in their coffee shops.
Tell that to your fellow gun owners. There is absolutely no chance that there will ever be a "gun owner registry" containing the names of everyone who is approved to own a gun, so you might as well talk about a magical fantasy world in which guns don't exist at all.
Except that you don't have to prove who you are or that you're even eligible to be voting if you don't show ID. Which makes a list of approved voters sort of useless.
You still have to provide proof of identity, just not the one specific form of ID that the new law requires. And, as previously stated, there is absolutely no evidence that there is any meaningful amount of fraud that could be prevented by the new law.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/12 08:12:17
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/12 09:22:41
Subject: Federal Courts backs new limits on NC VoterID laws
|
 |
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan
|
whembly wrote:
the elimination of a program that allowed for registration and voting on the same day during early voting
This is, in my opinion, the worst part. When nearly half the people do not vote in this country, there is no genuine reason to throw up roadblocks.
|
lord_blackfang wrote:Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote:The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock |
|
 |
 |
|