|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 20 2015 02:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 02:15 oneofthem wrote:On March 20 2015 02:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 20 2015 02:05 oneofthem wrote:On March 20 2015 02:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 20 2015 02:01 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2015 01:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 20 2015 00:49 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2015 00:37 xDaunt wrote:
So is there actually a consensus around here now that voter ID laws are, in fact, generally reasonable? the issue was never with voter id laws in general, but how they tend to be used in America, and why they were pushed by the republican party. A majority of the public wants them. The laws aren't always flawless, but that's something to be corrected, rather than bullshitted over. if you can fix all the flaws in them fine. but it's not bullshitting when the intent behind the laws actually proposed was nefarious. Also that the laws don't address an actual need. Statements from liars like yourself is what is nefarious. are you going to call a statement like "repulbicans pushing voter id law" nefarious lying? it's a pretty obvious fact. Don't reply to me if you aren't going to read my post. He claimed the intent was nefarious. Unless he can prove the intent, he is lying (again). he could be advancing that as an argument, and advancing an argument short of absolute proof is not lying. intent can be supported from advantages gained by the short term enforcement of ID requirement. it can also be gathered from legislative priorities of republican state legislatures. e.g. http://www.politicspa.com/turzai-voter-id-law-means-romney-can-win-pa/37153/ No, he wrote it as a statement of fact. He is a confirmed, repeated liar.
this discussion will be fairly pointless except to stop you from rejecting a strong argument by merely moving the standard of proof goalpost, but i'll take it up anyway.
first, lying is when one misrepresents fact contrary to one's own belief. it is an act sensitive to intention and subjective knowledge. if he knew the republicans are honest, and still asserted that they were acting nefariously, then yes he'd be lying.
but you are also dismissing the idea of nefarious, vote manipulation intent with this lying charge, implying that the claim is totally baseless if it can't be proven. that's just not going to work. there's good argument to be made about the vote manipulation intent.
|
On March 20 2015 02:36 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 02:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 20 2015 02:18 xDaunt wrote:On March 20 2015 02:14 dAPhREAk wrote:
republicans want voting id laws to keep minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people away from the polls.
democrats want mandatory voting to get minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people to vote because they pretty much are guaranteed to vote for democrats disproportionately.
both will make up pretextual shit to justify their positions, but what it comes down to is their own self interest.
lets not beat around the bush. If you want to frame it that way, fine, but there isn't really much doubt regarding where courts are going to fall on the issue. i agree with voting id laws. you shouldnt be allowed to vote unless you can prove who you are, but thats not why republicans want it and democrats oppose it. and, yes, the courts will likely come down on the side of voting id laws since its a fraud protection. That's fine. But what is wrong with simply requiring a valid ID when actually showing up to vote instead of requiring a secondary voter ID? Other countries (e.g. all of Europe) have been doing it like that without any significant fraud problems. The way it works in NL is that if you have a registered address with the government, you automatically get your voting registration sent to your home. Showing up with this piece of paper and a valid ID to your designated voting booth allows you to vote. If for some reason you want to vote at a different booth, you request an exception, send back your piece of paper and get issued a new one. If for some reason you do not have a registered address (e.g. citizens living abroad), you have to do a bit more work to get registered at a specific booth (for those living abroad: voting by mail. For those who unregistered in one home and are in transition, the same exception protocol as for voting at a different booth). In Spain, you don't even have the piece of paper: you are registered at the booth near your home, and if you show up with your ID, your name gets scratched off a list and you can vote. And yes, this assumes the government has an administration with registry of where people live. In both Spain and NL this registration is mandatory for all kinds of things (but the government mainly uses it to collect your municipal taxes). If in the US there is no such registry then I can understand voter ID laws; I would just be highly surprised: how do municipal taxes get collected? How do they prevent you from registering your car to some completely random address?
That's what the voter ID laws are.
|
On March 20 2015 02:40 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 02:36 Acrofales wrote:On March 20 2015 02:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 20 2015 02:18 xDaunt wrote:On March 20 2015 02:14 dAPhREAk wrote:
republicans want voting id laws to keep minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people away from the polls.
democrats want mandatory voting to get minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people to vote because they pretty much are guaranteed to vote for democrats disproportionately.
both will make up pretextual shit to justify their positions, but what it comes down to is their own self interest.
lets not beat around the bush. If you want to frame it that way, fine, but there isn't really much doubt regarding where courts are going to fall on the issue. i agree with voting id laws. you shouldnt be allowed to vote unless you can prove who you are, but thats not why republicans want it and democrats oppose it. and, yes, the courts will likely come down on the side of voting id laws since its a fraud protection. That's fine. But what is wrong with simply requiring a valid ID when actually showing up to vote instead of requiring a secondary document? Other countries (e.g. all of Europe) have been doing it like that without any significant fraud problems. The way it works in NL is that if you have a registered address with the government, you automatically get your voting registration sent to your home. Showing up with this piece of paper and a valid ID to your designated voting booth allows you to vote. If for some reason you want to vote at a different booth, you request an exception, send back your piece of paper and get issued a new one. If for some reason you do not have a registered address (e.g. citizens living abroad), you have to do a bit more work to get registered at a specific booth (for those living abroad: voting by mail. For those who unregistered in one home and are in transition, the same exception protocol as for voting at a different booth). In Spain, you don't even have the piece of paper: you are registered at the booth near your home, and if you show up with your ID, your name gets scratched off a list and you can vote. And yes, this assumes the government has an administration with registry of where people live. In both Spain and NL this registration is mandatory for all kinds of things (but the government mainly uses it to collect your municipal taxes). If in the US there is no such registry then I can understand voter ID laws; I would just be highly surprised: how do municipal taxes get collected? How do they prevent you from registering your car to some completely random address? i have never heard of a secondary document and i think thats bullshit (not your statement, the requirement, if any). when i vote, i go with my driver's license, give it to them, they scratch me off and i vote. thats all that should be required in my mind.
Yeah, it was my misunderstanding as a foreigner based on how things were being represented in the media. I honestly thought you were required to have a regular ID card, and with that, you could register to vote, giving you a secondary voter ID card.
Requiring some type of identification at the polling station seems more than normal. In fact, not requiring that kind of ID seems somewhat insane.
|
On March 20 2015 02:45 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 02:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 20 2015 02:36 Acrofales wrote:On March 20 2015 02:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 20 2015 02:18 xDaunt wrote:On March 20 2015 02:14 dAPhREAk wrote:
republicans want voting id laws to keep minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people away from the polls.
democrats want mandatory voting to get minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people to vote because they pretty much are guaranteed to vote for democrats disproportionately.
both will make up pretextual shit to justify their positions, but what it comes down to is their own self interest.
lets not beat around the bush. If you want to frame it that way, fine, but there isn't really much doubt regarding where courts are going to fall on the issue. i agree with voting id laws. you shouldnt be allowed to vote unless you can prove who you are, but thats not why republicans want it and democrats oppose it. and, yes, the courts will likely come down on the side of voting id laws since its a fraud protection. That's fine. But what is wrong with simply requiring a valid ID when actually showing up to vote instead of requiring a secondary document? Other countries (e.g. all of Europe) have been doing it like that without any significant fraud problems. The way it works in NL is that if you have a registered address with the government, you automatically get your voting registration sent to your home. Showing up with this piece of paper and a valid ID to your designated voting booth allows you to vote. If for some reason you want to vote at a different booth, you request an exception, send back your piece of paper and get issued a new one. If for some reason you do not have a registered address (e.g. citizens living abroad), you have to do a bit more work to get registered at a specific booth (for those living abroad: voting by mail. For those who unregistered in one home and are in transition, the same exception protocol as for voting at a different booth). In Spain, you don't even have the piece of paper: you are registered at the booth near your home, and if you show up with your ID, your name gets scratched off a list and you can vote. And yes, this assumes the government has an administration with registry of where people live. In both Spain and NL this registration is mandatory for all kinds of things (but the government mainly uses it to collect your municipal taxes). If in the US there is no such registry then I can understand voter ID laws; I would just be highly surprised: how do municipal taxes get collected? How do they prevent you from registering your car to some completely random address? i have never heard of a secondary document and i think thats bullshit (not your statement, the requirement, if any). when i vote, i go with my driver's license, give it to them, they scratch me off and i vote. thats all that should be required in my mind. Yeah, it was my misunderstanding as a foreigner based on how things were being represented in the media. I honestly thought you were required to have a regular ID card, and with that, you could register to vote, giving you a secondary voter ID card. Requiring some type of identification at the polling station seems more than normal. In fact, not requiring that kind of ID seems somewhat insane.
It's not insane when the history of a country is full to the brim with examples of institutionalized discrimination that directly impacted a disadvantaged demographic's ability to take part in the political process.
|
On March 20 2015 02:47 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 02:45 Acrofales wrote:On March 20 2015 02:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 20 2015 02:36 Acrofales wrote:On March 20 2015 02:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 20 2015 02:18 xDaunt wrote:On March 20 2015 02:14 dAPhREAk wrote:
republicans want voting id laws to keep minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people away from the polls.
democrats want mandatory voting to get minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people to vote because they pretty much are guaranteed to vote for democrats disproportionately.
both will make up pretextual shit to justify their positions, but what it comes down to is their own self interest.
lets not beat around the bush. If you want to frame it that way, fine, but there isn't really much doubt regarding where courts are going to fall on the issue. i agree with voting id laws. you shouldnt be allowed to vote unless you can prove who you are, but thats not why republicans want it and democrats oppose it. and, yes, the courts will likely come down on the side of voting id laws since its a fraud protection. That's fine. But what is wrong with simply requiring a valid ID when actually showing up to vote instead of requiring a secondary document? Other countries (e.g. all of Europe) have been doing it like that without any significant fraud problems. The way it works in NL is that if you have a registered address with the government, you automatically get your voting registration sent to your home. Showing up with this piece of paper and a valid ID to your designated voting booth allows you to vote. If for some reason you want to vote at a different booth, you request an exception, send back your piece of paper and get issued a new one. If for some reason you do not have a registered address (e.g. citizens living abroad), you have to do a bit more work to get registered at a specific booth (for those living abroad: voting by mail. For those who unregistered in one home and are in transition, the same exception protocol as for voting at a different booth). In Spain, you don't even have the piece of paper: you are registered at the booth near your home, and if you show up with your ID, your name gets scratched off a list and you can vote. And yes, this assumes the government has an administration with registry of where people live. In both Spain and NL this registration is mandatory for all kinds of things (but the government mainly uses it to collect your municipal taxes). If in the US there is no such registry then I can understand voter ID laws; I would just be highly surprised: how do municipal taxes get collected? How do they prevent you from registering your car to some completely random address? i have never heard of a secondary document and i think thats bullshit (not your statement, the requirement, if any). when i vote, i go with my driver's license, give it to them, they scratch me off and i vote. thats all that should be required in my mind. Yeah, it was my misunderstanding as a foreigner based on how things were being represented in the media. I honestly thought you were required to have a regular ID card, and with that, you could register to vote, giving you a secondary voter ID card. Requiring some type of identification at the polling station seems more than normal. In fact, not requiring that kind of ID seems somewhat insane. It's not insane when the history of a country is full to the brim with examples of institutionalized discrimination that directly impacted a disadvantaged demographics ability to take part in the political process.
So what stops someone from just showing up at different polling stations and voting repeatedly? Or if there is some form of name control, doing this early and claiming to be people who he is not?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 20 2015 02:49 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 02:47 farvacola wrote:On March 20 2015 02:45 Acrofales wrote:On March 20 2015 02:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 20 2015 02:36 Acrofales wrote:On March 20 2015 02:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 20 2015 02:18 xDaunt wrote:On March 20 2015 02:14 dAPhREAk wrote:
republicans want voting id laws to keep minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people away from the polls.
democrats want mandatory voting to get minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people to vote because they pretty much are guaranteed to vote for democrats disproportionately.
both will make up pretextual shit to justify their positions, but what it comes down to is their own self interest.
lets not beat around the bush. If you want to frame it that way, fine, but there isn't really much doubt regarding where courts are going to fall on the issue. i agree with voting id laws. you shouldnt be allowed to vote unless you can prove who you are, but thats not why republicans want it and democrats oppose it. and, yes, the courts will likely come down on the side of voting id laws since its a fraud protection. That's fine. But what is wrong with simply requiring a valid ID when actually showing up to vote instead of requiring a secondary document? Other countries (e.g. all of Europe) have been doing it like that without any significant fraud problems. The way it works in NL is that if you have a registered address with the government, you automatically get your voting registration sent to your home. Showing up with this piece of paper and a valid ID to your designated voting booth allows you to vote. If for some reason you want to vote at a different booth, you request an exception, send back your piece of paper and get issued a new one. If for some reason you do not have a registered address (e.g. citizens living abroad), you have to do a bit more work to get registered at a specific booth (for those living abroad: voting by mail. For those who unregistered in one home and are in transition, the same exception protocol as for voting at a different booth). In Spain, you don't even have the piece of paper: you are registered at the booth near your home, and if you show up with your ID, your name gets scratched off a list and you can vote. And yes, this assumes the government has an administration with registry of where people live. In both Spain and NL this registration is mandatory for all kinds of things (but the government mainly uses it to collect your municipal taxes). If in the US there is no such registry then I can understand voter ID laws; I would just be highly surprised: how do municipal taxes get collected? How do they prevent you from registering your car to some completely random address? i have never heard of a secondary document and i think thats bullshit (not your statement, the requirement, if any). when i vote, i go with my driver's license, give it to them, they scratch me off and i vote. thats all that should be required in my mind. Yeah, it was my misunderstanding as a foreigner based on how things were being represented in the media. I honestly thought you were required to have a regular ID card, and with that, you could register to vote, giving you a secondary voter ID card. Requiring some type of identification at the polling station seems more than normal. In fact, not requiring that kind of ID seems somewhat insane. It's not insane when the history of a country is full to the brim with examples of institutionalized discrimination that directly impacted a disadvantaged demographics ability to take part in the political process. So what stops someone from just showing up at different polling stations and voting repeatedly? Or if there is some form of name control, doing this early and claiming to be people who he is not?
that effect exists, but so does the effect of depressing voter turnout for those who are without acceptable govt IDs. it's a balancing between these concerns. The ID system in the U.S. isn't as universal or grounds-up. it comes as a subsidiary growth of other social programs like driver's license or social security.
at the very least putting in higher ID requirements very close to an election isn't going to fly.
|
On March 20 2015 02:36 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 02:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 20 2015 02:18 xDaunt wrote:On March 20 2015 02:14 dAPhREAk wrote:
republicans want voting id laws to keep minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people away from the polls.
democrats want mandatory voting to get minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people to vote because they pretty much are guaranteed to vote for democrats disproportionately.
both will make up pretextual shit to justify their positions, but what it comes down to is their own self interest.
lets not beat around the bush. If you want to frame it that way, fine, but there isn't really much doubt regarding where courts are going to fall on the issue. i agree with voting id laws. you shouldnt be allowed to vote unless you can prove who you are, but thats not why republicans want it and democrats oppose it. and, yes, the courts will likely come down on the side of voting id laws since its a fraud protection. That's fine. But what is wrong with simply requiring a valid ID when actually showing up to vote instead of requiring a secondary voter ID? Other countries (e.g. all of Europe) have been doing it like that without any significant fraud problems. The way it works in NL is that if you have a registered address with the government, you automatically get your voting registration sent to your home. Showing up with this piece of paper and a valid ID to your designated voting booth allows you to vote. If for some reason you want to vote at a different booth, you request an exception, send back your piece of paper and get issued a new one. If for some reason you do not have a registered address (e.g. citizens living abroad), you have to do a bit more work to get registered at a specific booth (for those living abroad: voting by mail. For those who unregistered in one home and are in transition, the same exception protocol as for voting at a different booth). In Spain, you don't even have the piece of paper: you are registered at the booth near your home, and if you show up with your ID, your name gets scratched off a list and you can vote. And yes, this assumes the government has an administration with registry of where people live. In both Spain and NL this registration is mandatory for all kinds of things (but the government mainly uses it to collect your municipal taxes). If in the US there is no such registry then I can understand voter ID laws; I would just be highly surprised: how do municipal taxes get collected? How do they prevent you from registering your car to some completely random address? EDIT: ok. I seem to be misunderstanding some things. The voter ID laws cover any kind of voter ID. It seems somewhat insane that there are still places that require absolutely no ID at the polling place. According to wikipedia: California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C. do not require ID to vote. How the hell do they stop people from showing up in multiple different polling stations (or even repeatedly at the same one) and voting?
in response to your final paragraph:
well, where I am, they check your name off the list (the list that's made when people register to vote) when you come so you can't vote twice, and you have to vote at one specific place that's determined by where you live (there's a lot of them so it's never that hard to get to). Also, the poll workers are people who're active in the community and tend to know a lot of the people living there. Each voting district is around 2000-ish people as an estimate.
The department of justice did a thorough examination and found that in-person voting fraud basically doesn't happen. They found like a handful (a few dozen iirc) instances (and by instance I mean a single vote cast, or attempted to be cast) over a ten year period. Most actual voter fraud occurs using absentee ballots and other similar methods.
|
On March 20 2015 02:49 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 02:47 farvacola wrote:On March 20 2015 02:45 Acrofales wrote:On March 20 2015 02:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 20 2015 02:36 Acrofales wrote:On March 20 2015 02:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 20 2015 02:18 xDaunt wrote:On March 20 2015 02:14 dAPhREAk wrote:
republicans want voting id laws to keep minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people away from the polls.
democrats want mandatory voting to get minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people to vote because they pretty much are guaranteed to vote for democrats disproportionately.
both will make up pretextual shit to justify their positions, but what it comes down to is their own self interest.
lets not beat around the bush. If you want to frame it that way, fine, but there isn't really much doubt regarding where courts are going to fall on the issue. i agree with voting id laws. you shouldnt be allowed to vote unless you can prove who you are, but thats not why republicans want it and democrats oppose it. and, yes, the courts will likely come down on the side of voting id laws since its a fraud protection. That's fine. But what is wrong with simply requiring a valid ID when actually showing up to vote instead of requiring a secondary document? Other countries (e.g. all of Europe) have been doing it like that without any significant fraud problems. The way it works in NL is that if you have a registered address with the government, you automatically get your voting registration sent to your home. Showing up with this piece of paper and a valid ID to your designated voting booth allows you to vote. If for some reason you want to vote at a different booth, you request an exception, send back your piece of paper and get issued a new one. If for some reason you do not have a registered address (e.g. citizens living abroad), you have to do a bit more work to get registered at a specific booth (for those living abroad: voting by mail. For those who unregistered in one home and are in transition, the same exception protocol as for voting at a different booth). In Spain, you don't even have the piece of paper: you are registered at the booth near your home, and if you show up with your ID, your name gets scratched off a list and you can vote. And yes, this assumes the government has an administration with registry of where people live. In both Spain and NL this registration is mandatory for all kinds of things (but the government mainly uses it to collect your municipal taxes). If in the US there is no such registry then I can understand voter ID laws; I would just be highly surprised: how do municipal taxes get collected? How do they prevent you from registering your car to some completely random address? i have never heard of a secondary document and i think thats bullshit (not your statement, the requirement, if any). when i vote, i go with my driver's license, give it to them, they scratch me off and i vote. thats all that should be required in my mind. Yeah, it was my misunderstanding as a foreigner based on how things were being represented in the media. I honestly thought you were required to have a regular ID card, and with that, you could register to vote, giving you a secondary voter ID card. Requiring some type of identification at the polling station seems more than normal. In fact, not requiring that kind of ID seems somewhat insane. It's not insane when the history of a country is full to the brim with examples of institutionalized discrimination that directly impacted a disadvantaged demographics ability to take part in the political process. So what stops someone from just showing up at different polling stations and voting repeatedly? Or if there is some form of name control, doing this early and claiming to be people who he is not?
That's a very interesting question, though I doubt in the way that you mean it. There are a variety of these "soft boundaries" that the law sets up (or ought to) in which people are sort of allowed to do morally reprehensible things because preventing them in a legal manner brings about more problems than it solves. The laws that we set up in and around the reprehensible act constitute the "boundary."
The most most accessible example is inebriating or psychoactive substances; Prohibition taught us that attempting to take away people's access to booze only turns them into criminal alcoholics, and the War on Drugs is teaching the same lesson with different material. So, the idea is that we legalize the act of using drugs and alcohol and then make sure we set up a peripheral framework of laws that protect society from the demonstrably negative ramifications of the inappropriate use of said substances.
Voting law is a different beast that still bears a resemblance to an area that is best served by a "soft boundary." The US Constitution makes it clear that access to the political process in the form of voting is so essential to one's self that the law must be very careful in how it shapes that access. It is in this sense that a logically consistent, normative argument justifying the use of voter id laws might seem agreeable, perhaps even overwhelmingly so, and yet still fall short of passing Constitutional muster because the reality of the voting landscape in the United States is still one of fairly common racism and demographic-specific disadvantage. In other words, even though it's very easy to argue that someone voting should have the facilities necessary to obtain an id beforehand in a timely fashion, the groups of people who are most likely to be affected by that requirement are otherwise disadvantaged enough to warrant a "soft" id-less boundary to voting access.
It's worth noting here that the vast majority of voter fraud in the United States was brought on by those handling the elections and not the people voting in them. Furthermore, those in favor of voter id laws have done a very poor job of demonstrating the existence of the sort of voter fraud you describe; for one reason or another, people aren't gaming the id-less system. The address matching scheme in many states seems to do a satisfactory job.
|
This is what happens when you have a voting conversation with no one who has probably ever voted in the types of places we are talking about.
Some of the longest lines on Election Day occur at polling places in black and Hispanic neighborhoods. A new report says that’s not a coincidence.
In the three states with the longest lines in 2012, precincts in minority neighborhoods were systematically deprived of the resources they needed to make voting operate smoothly — specifically, voting machines and poll workers, according to the report by the Brennan Center for Justice. The report’s data show the growing need for federal supervision of voting rights, though ensuring supervision is harder than ever since the Supreme Court removed the teeth from the Voting Rights Act of 1965 last year.
The report looked at Maryland, South Carolina and Florida, where many voters waited for hours to cast a vote in the 2012 presidential election. In all three, minority precincts were more likely to have had long lines. In South Carolina, the 10 precincts with the longest waits had more than twice the percentage of black registered voters, on average, than the rest of the state.
There was a clear relationship in those states between the racial makeup of a precinct and the number of voting machines it received from the state or county. In Maryland, the 10 precincts with the lowest number of machines per voter had more than twice the average percentage of Hispanic voters. In South Carolina, the law requires one voting machine per 250 voters, but that requirement is routinely violated in minority areas. Richland County, which is about half black, had a precinct with 432 voters per machine, which contributed to extensive delays.
Florida has no standards for machines or poll workers, but the study found far fewer poll workers in heavily Hispanic areas. That contributed to an average delay in the most populous counties of 53 minutes — a wait that encouraged people to walk away and discouraged them from returning in the future.
Source
Source
At least daPhreak and farv (more or less) called it like it is.
We know the ID fraud doesn't happen with any significance, so the wasted resources for voter ID easily could be used elsewhere.
It's not 10 minutes, it's not a 3 mile drive, it's not easy for elderly people who don't have a birth certificate, license, or car to get new ID.
There was probably some more asinine assessments but those are the ones that I remembered while skimming.
Jonny you ever figure out what I lied about, or are you just on a call people a liar without justification kick?
|
After March 1, 2013....you can't get a government check without a bank account. All social security nowadays is direct deposit.
You can't get a bank account without an ID.
Everyone on government assistance of some kind (i.e. the Poor or the Elderly) should have an ID by now.
http://www.ssa.gov/deposit/
If you apply for Social Security or Supplemental Security Income benefits, a new law went into effect March 1, 2013, requiring that you receive your payments electronically. If you did not sign up for electronic payments when you applied for benefits, we strongly urge you to do it now. If you still receive checks, the U.S. Department of the Treasury will contact you about complying with the requirement. For more information regarding switching to an electronic payment, visit Treasury’s Go Direct website or call the helpline at 1-800-333-1795.
|
On March 20 2015 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:This is what happens when you have a voting conversation with no one who has probably ever voted in the types of places we are talking about. Show nested quote +Some of the longest lines on Election Day occur at polling places in black and Hispanic neighborhoods. A new report says that’s not a coincidence.
In the three states with the longest lines in 2012, precincts in minority neighborhoods were systematically deprived of the resources they needed to make voting operate smoothly — specifically, voting machines and poll workers, according to the report by the Brennan Center for Justice. The report’s data show the growing need for federal supervision of voting rights, though ensuring supervision is harder than ever since the Supreme Court removed the teeth from the Voting Rights Act of 1965 last year.
The report looked at Maryland, South Carolina and Florida, where many voters waited for hours to cast a vote in the 2012 presidential election. In all three, minority precincts were more likely to have had long lines. In South Carolina, the 10 precincts with the longest waits had more than twice the percentage of black registered voters, on average, than the rest of the state.
There was a clear relationship in those states between the racial makeup of a precinct and the number of voting machines it received from the state or county. In Maryland, the 10 precincts with the lowest number of machines per voter had more than twice the average percentage of Hispanic voters. In South Carolina, the law requires one voting machine per 250 voters, but that requirement is routinely violated in minority areas. Richland County, which is about half black, had a precinct with 432 voters per machine, which contributed to extensive delays.
Florida has no standards for machines or poll workers, but the study found far fewer poll workers in heavily Hispanic areas. That contributed to an average delay in the most populous counties of 53 minutes — a wait that encouraged people to walk away and discouraged them from returning in the future. At least daPhreak and farv (more or less) called it like it is. We know the ID fraud doesn't happen with any significance, so the wasted resources for voter ID easily could be used elsewhere. It's not 10 minutes, it's not a 3 mile drive, it's not easy for elderly people who don't have a birth certificate, license, or car to get new ID. There was probably some more asinine assessments but those are the ones that I remembered while skimming. Jonny you ever figure out what I lied about, or are you just on a call people a liar without justification kick?
That's an interesting thing. While I agree that there should be better voting machine per voter laws, and that these laws should not be violated like in the article(?) you posted, I really don't like how it talks about them not having enough poll workers. In my area poll workers are volunteers, and if they don't have enough volunteers that's on the local people (local government should be handling this, it probably shouldn't be a state problem, but more like a county/city/township thing).
|
On March 20 2015 04:46 RCMDVA wrote:
After March 1, 2013....you can't get a government check without a bank account. All social security nowadays is direct deposit.
You can't get a bank account without an ID.
Everyone on government assistance of some kind (i.e. the Poor or the Elderly) should have an ID by now.
The ID you need for a bank account might not be good enough for voting.
You can in fact get a bank account without the ID required to vote.
|
Type of ID would depend on the place. For instance, cali would have to have a separate ID to use because illegal immigrants can get a driver's license.
Which is insane in and of itself, but whatever.
On March 20 2015 02:45 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 02:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 20 2015 02:36 Acrofales wrote:On March 20 2015 02:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 20 2015 02:18 xDaunt wrote:On March 20 2015 02:14 dAPhREAk wrote:
republicans want voting id laws to keep minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people away from the polls.
democrats want mandatory voting to get minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people to vote because they pretty much are guaranteed to vote for democrats disproportionately.
both will make up pretextual shit to justify their positions, but what it comes down to is their own self interest.
lets not beat around the bush. If you want to frame it that way, fine, but there isn't really much doubt regarding where courts are going to fall on the issue. i agree with voting id laws. you shouldnt be allowed to vote unless you can prove who you are, but thats not why republicans want it and democrats oppose it. and, yes, the courts will likely come down on the side of voting id laws since its a fraud protection. That's fine. But what is wrong with simply requiring a valid ID when actually showing up to vote instead of requiring a secondary document? Other countries (e.g. all of Europe) have been doing it like that without any significant fraud problems. The way it works in NL is that if you have a registered address with the government, you automatically get your voting registration sent to your home. Showing up with this piece of paper and a valid ID to your designated voting booth allows you to vote. If for some reason you want to vote at a different booth, you request an exception, send back your piece of paper and get issued a new one. If for some reason you do not have a registered address (e.g. citizens living abroad), you have to do a bit more work to get registered at a specific booth (for those living abroad: voting by mail. For those who unregistered in one home and are in transition, the same exception protocol as for voting at a different booth). In Spain, you don't even have the piece of paper: you are registered at the booth near your home, and if you show up with your ID, your name gets scratched off a list and you can vote. And yes, this assumes the government has an administration with registry of where people live. In both Spain and NL this registration is mandatory for all kinds of things (but the government mainly uses it to collect your municipal taxes). If in the US there is no such registry then I can understand voter ID laws; I would just be highly surprised: how do municipal taxes get collected? How do they prevent you from registering your car to some completely random address? i have never heard of a secondary document and i think thats bullshit (not your statement, the requirement, if any). when i vote, i go with my driver's license, give it to them, they scratch me off and i vote. thats all that should be required in my mind. Yeah, it was my misunderstanding as a foreigner based on how things were being represented in the media. I honestly thought you were required to have a regular ID card, and with that, you could register to vote, giving you a secondary voter ID card. Requiring some type of identification at the polling station seems more than normal. In fact, not requiring that kind of ID seems somewhat insane.
It is insane. People talk about suppression but as far as I'm aware, for most challenged ID laws, the courts have dismissed that. Either the supposed effect doesn't happen (i.e., it's not hard to get the ID) or they say that it affects so few that it's with it.
If some of these states are going to do things like driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, then I'm sure we can expect regular citizens to take the time to drive or take the bus a few miles to get their own ID for voting (once every few years).
On March 20 2015 04:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 04:46 RCMDVA wrote:
After March 1, 2013....you can't get a government check without a bank account. All social security nowadays is direct deposit.
You can't get a bank account without an ID.
Everyone on government assistance of some kind (i.e. the Poor or the Elderly) should have an ID by now. The ID you need for a bank account might not be good enough for voting. You can in fact get a bank account without the ID required to vote.
His point is, if you are able to get an ID from the bank, you can probably get one from the government.
|
On March 20 2015 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:This is what happens when you have a voting conversation with no one who has probably ever voted in the types of places we are talking about. Show nested quote +Some of the longest lines on Election Day occur at polling places in black and Hispanic neighborhoods. A new report says that’s not a coincidence.
In the three states with the longest lines in 2012, precincts in minority neighborhoods were systematically deprived of the resources they needed to make voting operate smoothly — specifically, voting machines and poll workers, according to the report by the Brennan Center for Justice. The report’s data show the growing need for federal supervision of voting rights, though ensuring supervision is harder than ever since the Supreme Court removed the teeth from the Voting Rights Act of 1965 last year.
The report looked at Maryland, South Carolina and Florida, where many voters waited for hours to cast a vote in the 2012 presidential election. In all three, minority precincts were more likely to have had long lines. In South Carolina, the 10 precincts with the longest waits had more than twice the percentage of black registered voters, on average, than the rest of the state.
There was a clear relationship in those states between the racial makeup of a precinct and the number of voting machines it received from the state or county. In Maryland, the 10 precincts with the lowest number of machines per voter had more than twice the average percentage of Hispanic voters. In South Carolina, the law requires one voting machine per 250 voters, but that requirement is routinely violated in minority areas. Richland County, which is about half black, had a precinct with 432 voters per machine, which contributed to extensive delays.
Florida has no standards for machines or poll workers, but the study found far fewer poll workers in heavily Hispanic areas. That contributed to an average delay in the most populous counties of 53 minutes — a wait that encouraged people to walk away and discouraged them from returning in the future. At least daPhreak and farv (more or less) called it like it is. We know the ID fraud doesn't happen with any significance, so the wasted resources for voter ID easily could be used elsewhere. It's not 10 minutes, it's not a 3 mile drive, it's not easy for elderly people who don't have a birth certificate, license, or car to get new ID. There was probably some more asinine assessments but those are the ones that I remembered while skimming. Jonny you ever figure out what I lied about, or are you just on a call people a liar without justification kick?
Since you referenced me specifically I'll be more than happy to respond in kind.
You strike me as the in-your-face, screaming liberal type, a la Rachel Maddow, who does far more harm than good to the progressive cause as this rhetoric and strategy is nothing more than a mirror-image of the hostile language coming from the far right. Just an observation.
The cute little anecdote I shared was in response to a poster who shared the thought that voting, in general, is unnecessarily difficult in the United States. As this is categorically false, I decided to share my personal story. As a white male youth my story may not be representative of minority voters, just as the plight of certain minority voters is not representative of the American voting system at large.
Are there problems with disenfranchisement? Absolutely. Due these problems stem from voter ID laws? Hardly. Racial disenfranchisement begins at a very base level, a cultural and social level, and even the article you shared acknowledges this as it states these communities receive disproportionate funding, and certainly the assumption is that these communities themselves offer less-than-adequate living standards and opportunities.
Certainly this is a much larger issue encompassing a far greater demographic, but to simply condemn voter ID laws as the method of disenfranchisement, to engage posters with opposing views with such hostility, seems rather contrived to me and I'm far more inclined to disregard everything you say as hyperbolic and heavily biased.
|
On March 20 2015 04:56 Introvert wrote:Type of ID would depend on the place. For instance, cali would have to have a separate ID to use because illegal immigrants can get a driver's license. Which is insane in and of itself, but whatever. Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 02:45 Acrofales wrote:On March 20 2015 02:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 20 2015 02:36 Acrofales wrote:On March 20 2015 02:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 20 2015 02:18 xDaunt wrote:On March 20 2015 02:14 dAPhREAk wrote:
republicans want voting id laws to keep minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people away from the polls.
democrats want mandatory voting to get minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people to vote because they pretty much are guaranteed to vote for democrats disproportionately.
both will make up pretextual shit to justify their positions, but what it comes down to is their own self interest.
lets not beat around the bush. If you want to frame it that way, fine, but there isn't really much doubt regarding where courts are going to fall on the issue. i agree with voting id laws. you shouldnt be allowed to vote unless you can prove who you are, but thats not why republicans want it and democrats oppose it. and, yes, the courts will likely come down on the side of voting id laws since its a fraud protection. That's fine. But what is wrong with simply requiring a valid ID when actually showing up to vote instead of requiring a secondary document? Other countries (e.g. all of Europe) have been doing it like that without any significant fraud problems. The way it works in NL is that if you have a registered address with the government, you automatically get your voting registration sent to your home. Showing up with this piece of paper and a valid ID to your designated voting booth allows you to vote. If for some reason you want to vote at a different booth, you request an exception, send back your piece of paper and get issued a new one. If for some reason you do not have a registered address (e.g. citizens living abroad), you have to do a bit more work to get registered at a specific booth (for those living abroad: voting by mail. For those who unregistered in one home and are in transition, the same exception protocol as for voting at a different booth). In Spain, you don't even have the piece of paper: you are registered at the booth near your home, and if you show up with your ID, your name gets scratched off a list and you can vote. And yes, this assumes the government has an administration with registry of where people live. In both Spain and NL this registration is mandatory for all kinds of things (but the government mainly uses it to collect your municipal taxes). If in the US there is no such registry then I can understand voter ID laws; I would just be highly surprised: how do municipal taxes get collected? How do they prevent you from registering your car to some completely random address? i have never heard of a secondary document and i think thats bullshit (not your statement, the requirement, if any). when i vote, i go with my driver's license, give it to them, they scratch me off and i vote. thats all that should be required in my mind. Yeah, it was my misunderstanding as a foreigner based on how things were being represented in the media. I honestly thought you were required to have a regular ID card, and with that, you could register to vote, giving you a secondary voter ID card. Requiring some type of identification at the polling station seems more than normal. In fact, not requiring that kind of ID seems somewhat insane. It is insane. People talk about suppression but as far as I'm aware, for most challenged ID laws, the courts have dismissed that. Either the supposed effect doesn't happen (i.e., it's not hard to get the ID) or they say that it affects so few that it's with it. If some of these states are going to do things like driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, then I'm sure we can expect regular citizens to take the time to drive or take the bus a few miles to get their own ID for voting (once every few years).
On one hand we have the practically non-existent problem of voter id fraud, on the other, we have the very real and significant problem of minority dominated areas having to wait disproportionately longer to vote. That Republicans are more worried about the non-problem is at the core of the issue.
On March 20 2015 05:02 always_winter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:This is what happens when you have a voting conversation with no one who has probably ever voted in the types of places we are talking about. Some of the longest lines on Election Day occur at polling places in black and Hispanic neighborhoods. A new report says that’s not a coincidence.
In the three states with the longest lines in 2012, precincts in minority neighborhoods were systematically deprived of the resources they needed to make voting operate smoothly — specifically, voting machines and poll workers, according to the report by the Brennan Center for Justice. The report’s data show the growing need for federal supervision of voting rights, though ensuring supervision is harder than ever since the Supreme Court removed the teeth from the Voting Rights Act of 1965 last year.
The report looked at Maryland, South Carolina and Florida, where many voters waited for hours to cast a vote in the 2012 presidential election. In all three, minority precincts were more likely to have had long lines. In South Carolina, the 10 precincts with the longest waits had more than twice the percentage of black registered voters, on average, than the rest of the state.
There was a clear relationship in those states between the racial makeup of a precinct and the number of voting machines it received from the state or county. In Maryland, the 10 precincts with the lowest number of machines per voter had more than twice the average percentage of Hispanic voters. In South Carolina, the law requires one voting machine per 250 voters, but that requirement is routinely violated in minority areas. Richland County, which is about half black, had a precinct with 432 voters per machine, which contributed to extensive delays.
Florida has no standards for machines or poll workers, but the study found far fewer poll workers in heavily Hispanic areas. That contributed to an average delay in the most populous counties of 53 minutes — a wait that encouraged people to walk away and discouraged them from returning in the future. At least daPhreak and farv (more or less) called it like it is. We know the ID fraud doesn't happen with any significance, so the wasted resources for voter ID easily could be used elsewhere. It's not 10 minutes, it's not a 3 mile drive, it's not easy for elderly people who don't have a birth certificate, license, or car to get new ID. There was probably some more asinine assessments but those are the ones that I remembered while skimming. Jonny you ever figure out what I lied about, or are you just on a call people a liar without justification kick? Since you referenced me specifically I'll be more than happy to respond in kind. You strike me as the in-your-face, screaming liberal type, a la Rachel Maddow, who does far more harm than good to the progressive cause as this rhetoric and strategy is nothing more than a mirror-image of the hostile language coming from the far right. Just an observation. The cute little anecdote I shared was in response to a poster who shared the thought that voting, in general, is unnecessarily difficult in the United States. As this is categorically false, I decided to share my personal story. As a white male youth my story may not be representative of minority voters, just as the plight of certain minority voters is not representative of the American voting system at large. Are there problems with disenfranchisement? Absolutely. Due these problems stem from voter ID laws? Hardly. Racial disenfranchisement begins at a very base level, a cultural and social level, and even the article you shared acknowledges this as it states these communities receive disproportionate funding, and certainly the assumption is that these communities themselves offer less-than-adequate living standards and opportunities. Certainly this is a much larger issue encompassing a far greater demographic, but to simply condemn voter ID laws as the method of disenfranchisement, to engage posters with opposing views with such hostility, seems rather contrived to me and I'm far more inclined to disregard everything you say as hyperbolic and heavily biased.
What did I say that was hyperbolic?
|
On March 19 2015 23:44 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2015 23:34 xDaunt wrote:On March 19 2015 23:24 ZasZ. wrote:(CNN)The president whose major policy achievement is mandatory health insurance thinks maybe voting should be mandatory, too.
Asked how to offset the influence of big money in politics, President Barack Obama suggested it's time to make voting a requirement.
"Other countries have mandatory voting," Obama said Wednesday in Cleveland, where he spoke about the importance of middle class economics, and was asked about the issue during a town hall.
"It would be transformative if everybody voted -- that would counteract money more than anything," he said, adding it was the first time he had shared the idea publicly.
The clout of millionaires and billionaires in campaign funding has been enormous, and many claim the uber wealthy have undue leverage in politics.
"The people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups," Obama said. "There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls."
At least 26 countries have compulsory voting, according to the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Failure to vote is punishable by a fine in countries such as Australia and Belgium; if you fail to pay your fine in Belgium, you could go to prison.
Aside from campaign finance issues, the United States also grapples with one of the lowest voter turnout rates among developed countries.
Less than 37% of eligible voters actually voted in the 2014 midterm elections, according to The Pew Charitable Trusts. That means about 144 million Americans -- more than the population of Russia -- skipped out.
But mandatory voting could bring its own set of problems. Haydon Manning, associate professor at Flinders University in Australia, said that country's rules can backfire.
"Turning the vote out might not be a problem, but wooing disengaged citizens now requires banal sloganeering and crass misleading negative advertising," Manning wrote. "To me, this can diminish the democratic experience for those who take the time to think through the issues." SourceHe's really not shying away from the controversial topics huh? Floating out mandatory voting is bound to get him some backlash, but I do think voter turnout in this country needs to be addressed. It doesn't really feel like a government by and for the people when only a third of the people decide to weigh in on electing officials. EDIT: Also, while I'm sure there are many arguments against mandatory voting, I don't really buy the one provided by Australia in this case. I'm not sure there's anywhere to go but up when it comes to political advertising and our democratic experience. Why do we want to force a bunch of politically and socially disengaged and uninformed rubes to vote? We won't be doing anyone any favors. While they are more socially engaged, would you seriously make the argument that the vast majority of the people who do vote are somehow more informed? As an example, the level of political discussion in this thread is far above what any of my friends and/or family are willing to discuss, and they are all fairly well educated professionals who vote in every election. It's one of the reasons I'm more of a lurker than a poster, I don't have very much to say because I don't feel as informed as I would like to be. I don't feel like the people who vote are, on the whole, any more informed than those who don't, just more engaged. That said, using the word mandatory for it is a red flag and people will immediately shut people down. But I see no reason why we can't provide better incentives to get people to vote without making it only about incentives. The last thing we want is people showing up and putting down "C" for all the answers without reading the questions.
That would actually be great. Enough people accidentally vote libertarian, green, or communist and then we actually could end up with a multi party system.
|
On March 20 2015 04:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 04:46 RCMDVA wrote:
After March 1, 2013....you can't get a government check without a bank account. All social security nowadays is direct deposit.
You can't get a bank account without an ID.
Everyone on government assistance of some kind (i.e. the Poor or the Elderly) should have an ID by now. The ID you need for a bank account might not be good enough for voting. You can in fact get a bank account without the ID required to vote.
The only loop around that I can possibly see is using a same-bank branded ATM card to open an additional account since that is a "Primary ID" for the bank.....but you needed an ID to open the original account.
In Virginia all the Bank primary ID's are good enough for you to vote, except for the bank-branded ATM card.
|
On March 20 2015 04:56 Introvert wrote:Type of ID would depend on the place. For instance, cali would have to have a separate ID to use because illegal immigrants can get a driver's license. Which is insane in and of itself, but whatever. Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 02:45 Acrofales wrote:On March 20 2015 02:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 20 2015 02:36 Acrofales wrote:On March 20 2015 02:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 20 2015 02:18 xDaunt wrote:On March 20 2015 02:14 dAPhREAk wrote:
republicans want voting id laws to keep minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people away from the polls.
democrats want mandatory voting to get minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people to vote because they pretty much are guaranteed to vote for democrats disproportionately.
both will make up pretextual shit to justify their positions, but what it comes down to is their own self interest.
lets not beat around the bush. If you want to frame it that way, fine, but there isn't really much doubt regarding where courts are going to fall on the issue. i agree with voting id laws. you shouldnt be allowed to vote unless you can prove who you are, but thats not why republicans want it and democrats oppose it. and, yes, the courts will likely come down on the side of voting id laws since its a fraud protection. That's fine. But what is wrong with simply requiring a valid ID when actually showing up to vote instead of requiring a secondary document? Other countries (e.g. all of Europe) have been doing it like that without any significant fraud problems. The way it works in NL is that if you have a registered address with the government, you automatically get your voting registration sent to your home. Showing up with this piece of paper and a valid ID to your designated voting booth allows you to vote. If for some reason you want to vote at a different booth, you request an exception, send back your piece of paper and get issued a new one. If for some reason you do not have a registered address (e.g. citizens living abroad), you have to do a bit more work to get registered at a specific booth (for those living abroad: voting by mail. For those who unregistered in one home and are in transition, the same exception protocol as for voting at a different booth). In Spain, you don't even have the piece of paper: you are registered at the booth near your home, and if you show up with your ID, your name gets scratched off a list and you can vote. And yes, this assumes the government has an administration with registry of where people live. In both Spain and NL this registration is mandatory for all kinds of things (but the government mainly uses it to collect your municipal taxes). If in the US there is no such registry then I can understand voter ID laws; I would just be highly surprised: how do municipal taxes get collected? How do they prevent you from registering your car to some completely random address? i have never heard of a secondary document and i think thats bullshit (not your statement, the requirement, if any). when i vote, i go with my driver's license, give it to them, they scratch me off and i vote. thats all that should be required in my mind. Yeah, it was my misunderstanding as a foreigner based on how things were being represented in the media. I honestly thought you were required to have a regular ID card, and with that, you could register to vote, giving you a secondary voter ID card. Requiring some type of identification at the polling station seems more than normal. In fact, not requiring that kind of ID seems somewhat insane. It is insane. People talk about suppression but as far as I'm aware, for most challenged ID laws, the courts have dismissed that. Either the supposed effect doesn't happen (i.e., it's not hard to get the ID) or they say that it affects so few that it's with it. If some of these states are going to do things like driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, then I'm sure we can expect regular citizens to take the time to drive or take the bus a few miles to get their own ID for voting (once every few years). Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 04:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2015 04:46 RCMDVA wrote:
After March 1, 2013....you can't get a government check without a bank account. All social security nowadays is direct deposit.
You can't get a bank account without an ID.
Everyone on government assistance of some kind (i.e. the Poor or the Elderly) should have an ID by now. The ID you need for a bank account might not be good enough for voting. You can in fact get a bank account without the ID required to vote. His point is, if you are able to get an ID from the bank, you can probably get one from the government.
The suppression doesn't come from the laws themselves (requiring photo ID to vote is common sense) but from the way they are used by Republicans (the same would be true for Obama if he actually pursues mandatory voting). These issues never seem to come up between elections but just prior to elections, and it's only a concern in areas with a high percentage of minorities that are more likely to vote Democratic. In that way, voters are being targeted and suppressed.
Completely separately, what GH is talking about is also voter suppression. I don't know about you, but if I absolutely had to wait for 3 hours to vote, I probably wouldn't do it. It's kinda nice to mail in my ballot or go down to the civic center and wait half an hour maximum to vote, and I don't have a job that cares if I need the morning off to vote.
|
On March 20 2015 05:12 RCMDVA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 04:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2015 04:46 RCMDVA wrote:
After March 1, 2013....you can't get a government check without a bank account. All social security nowadays is direct deposit.
You can't get a bank account without an ID.
Everyone on government assistance of some kind (i.e. the Poor or the Elderly) should have an ID by now. The ID you need for a bank account might not be good enough for voting. You can in fact get a bank account without the ID required to vote. The only loop around that I can possibly see using a same-bank branded ATM card to open an additional account since that is a "Primary ID" for the bank.....but you needed an ID to open the original account. In Virginia all the Bank primary ID's are good enough for you to vote, except for the bank-branded ATM card.
Here you go. The more you know.
I want to open a new account. What type of identification do I have to present to the bank?
Financial institutions are required by law to have a Customer Identification Program for the creation of new accounts. A new account may include, but is not limited to, a deposit account, an extension of credit, or the rental of a safe deposit box.
The minimum information that a bank must obtain when opening a new account includes—
name,
date of birth (for an individual),
address, and
identification number (for U.S. citizens, a taxpayer identification number is defined as the individual's Social Security number or employer identification number).
The bank must then verify the accuracy of the information via a review of documents such as a driver's license or passport. Or it can verify the information by comparing the information you provided with information from a credit-reporting agency or by checking prior bank references
Source
|
On March 20 2015 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 04:56 Introvert wrote:Type of ID would depend on the place. For instance, cali would have to have a separate ID to use because illegal immigrants can get a driver's license. Which is insane in and of itself, but whatever. On March 20 2015 02:45 Acrofales wrote:On March 20 2015 02:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 20 2015 02:36 Acrofales wrote:On March 20 2015 02:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 20 2015 02:18 xDaunt wrote:On March 20 2015 02:14 dAPhREAk wrote:
republicans want voting id laws to keep minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people away from the polls.
democrats want mandatory voting to get minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people to vote because they pretty much are guaranteed to vote for democrats disproportionately.
both will make up pretextual shit to justify their positions, but what it comes down to is their own self interest.
lets not beat around the bush. If you want to frame it that way, fine, but there isn't really much doubt regarding where courts are going to fall on the issue. i agree with voting id laws. you shouldnt be allowed to vote unless you can prove who you are, but thats not why republicans want it and democrats oppose it. and, yes, the courts will likely come down on the side of voting id laws since its a fraud protection. That's fine. But what is wrong with simply requiring a valid ID when actually showing up to vote instead of requiring a secondary document? Other countries (e.g. all of Europe) have been doing it like that without any significant fraud problems. The way it works in NL is that if you have a registered address with the government, you automatically get your voting registration sent to your home. Showing up with this piece of paper and a valid ID to your designated voting booth allows you to vote. If for some reason you want to vote at a different booth, you request an exception, send back your piece of paper and get issued a new one. If for some reason you do not have a registered address (e.g. citizens living abroad), you have to do a bit more work to get registered at a specific booth (for those living abroad: voting by mail. For those who unregistered in one home and are in transition, the same exception protocol as for voting at a different booth). In Spain, you don't even have the piece of paper: you are registered at the booth near your home, and if you show up with your ID, your name gets scratched off a list and you can vote. And yes, this assumes the government has an administration with registry of where people live. In both Spain and NL this registration is mandatory for all kinds of things (but the government mainly uses it to collect your municipal taxes). If in the US there is no such registry then I can understand voter ID laws; I would just be highly surprised: how do municipal taxes get collected? How do they prevent you from registering your car to some completely random address? i have never heard of a secondary document and i think thats bullshit (not your statement, the requirement, if any). when i vote, i go with my driver's license, give it to them, they scratch me off and i vote. thats all that should be required in my mind. Yeah, it was my misunderstanding as a foreigner based on how things were being represented in the media. I honestly thought you were required to have a regular ID card, and with that, you could register to vote, giving you a secondary voter ID card. Requiring some type of identification at the polling station seems more than normal. In fact, not requiring that kind of ID seems somewhat insane. It is insane. People talk about suppression but as far as I'm aware, for most challenged ID laws, the courts have dismissed that. Either the supposed effect doesn't happen (i.e., it's not hard to get the ID) or they say that it affects so few that it's with it. If some of these states are going to do things like driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, then I'm sure we can expect regular citizens to take the time to drive or take the bus a few miles to get their own ID for voting (once every few years). On one hand we have the practically non-existent problem of voter id fraud, on the other, we have the very real and significant problem of minority dominated areas having to wait disproportionately longer to vote. That Republicans are more worried about the non-problem is at the core of the issue.
I haven't looked it up, but I'm pretty sure that wait times depend more on the district than the state, so that's not really a national issue.
In my district there used to be pretty long poll times, but guess what happened? They opened up two more polling places in the area and now the wait is 15 min tops. It wasn't the state or the federal government that mandated that.
And given how lax some areas are, it seems entirely possible that the reason we don't see any fraud is because we have no way of catching it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
