|
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. |
On March 20 2015 05:15 ZasZ. 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 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.
One reason there is so much delay is that these laws are challenged from the get go. It's not like they are passed 2 months before the election. As an example, the Texas law everyone was up in arms about this last cycle was passed in 2011. Quite long enough if you ask me. What caused chaos was the court blocking it.
|
On March 20 2015 05:24 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote: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.
I don't see the importance of the distinction between a local or national issue? Particularly when it's not just one or two local districts but very many spread across the country.
The issue is that the localities want/ask for the resources but those who control them see large minority/democratic voter numbers and deny them the resources they need or are prescribed by law.
Maybe voter fraud is an issue (I doubt it after they put several bounties up for ANYONE who could find it and got nothing) , but the issue of long voting lines, less days to vote, unjustifiable distribution of resources, etc... is a real issue we don't have to go look for.
My advice would be to stop looking for boogeymen and deal with the problem right in front of our face.
|
On March 20 2015 05:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 05:24 Introvert wrote:On March 20 2015 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote: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. I don't see the importance of the distinction between a local or national issue? Particularly when it's not just one or two local districts but very many spread across the country. The issue is that the localities want/ask for the resources but those who control them see large minority/democratic voter numbers and deny them the resources they need or are prescribed by law. Maybe voter fraud is an issue (I doubt it after they put several bounties up for ANYONE who could find it and got nothing) , but the issue of long voting lines, less days to vote, unjustifiable distribution of resources, etc... is a real issue we don't have to go look for. My advice would be to stop looking for boogeymen and deal with the problem right in front of our face.
Does this happen?
And we can focus on multiple things here. Voter ID is (as everyone has been saying) fine in principle. It's just that every time it's done liberals run around screaming "discrimination!" without being able to demonstrate it. It wouldn't be a national issue if it wasn't for the left making mountains out of molehills.
So why you even brought this topic up when it's not related to voter ID, I'm not sure...
|
On March 20 2015 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 05:12 RCMDVA wrote: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. Show nested quote +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
For giggles I checked 4-5 places and the only way you can open a new account online with just SSN is if you have a linked/existing account with that bank.
They all want something like this :
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cqg6T1i.jpg)
|
On March 20 2015 05:38 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 05:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2015 05:24 Introvert wrote:On March 20 2015 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I don't see the importance of the distinction between a local or national issue? Particularly when it's not just one or two local districts but very many spread across the country. The issue is that the localities want/ask for the resources but those who control them see large minority/democratic voter numbers and deny them the resources they need or are prescribed by law. Maybe voter fraud is an issue (I doubt it after they put several bounties up for ANYONE who could find it and got nothing) , but the issue of long voting lines, less days to vote, unjustifiable distribution of resources, etc... is a real issue we don't have to go look for. My advice would be to stop looking for boogeymen and deal with the problem right in front of our face. Does this happen? And we can focus on multiple things here. Voter ID is (as everyone has been saying) fine in principle. It's just that every time it's done liberals run around screaming "discrimination!" without being able to demonstrate it. It wouldn't be a national issue if it wasn't for the left making mountains out of molehills. So why you even brought this topic up when it's not related to voter ID, I'm not sure...
Yes it does see my previously posted article. They don't outright say it's because of the voters (well except a couple) but the pattern is clear. ID laws are "fine" it's just a waste of time and resources, which when the justification for not providing the legally required voting machines (for example) in minority areas is a lack of resources, it says a lot about what's really going on.
On March 20 2015 05:45 RCMDVA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2015 05:12 RCMDVA wrote: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 For giggles I checked 4-5 places and the only way you can open a new account online with just SSN is if you have a linked/existing account with that bank. They all want something like this :
Maybe it would be easier if I just point out you don't need a bank account to get funds electronically deposited?
|
i'll bite. how do you get funds electronically deposited without a bank account? just curious.
|
On March 20 2015 05:53 dAPhREAk wrote:
i'll bite. how do you get funds electronically deposited without a bank account? just curious.
Pre-paid cards
I was wondering if people were just totally oblivious to that or not. It's common knowledge where I'm from. I'm sure there's plenty about living upper-middle-class lives that I know nothing about too though.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i generally favor a more comprehensive id system even to the extent of using biometrics, and this could be accomplished alongside a more structured voting system that makes voting a kind of civic duty. this means more comprehensive political education. it would be nice for the lazy amongst us to be able to vote online too.
biometric linked electronic ids are quite fast and efficient. if u've traveled with a passport, ull know that scanning an id or just checking a serial takes less than five seconds and could be used in the voting process.
|
With online banks, all you need is a SSN to open an account
|
On March 20 2015 05:38 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 05:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2015 05:24 Introvert wrote:On March 20 2015 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I don't see the importance of the distinction between a local or national issue? Particularly when it's not just one or two local districts but very many spread across the country. The issue is that the localities want/ask for the resources but those who control them see large minority/democratic voter numbers and deny them the resources they need or are prescribed by law. Maybe voter fraud is an issue (I doubt it after they put several bounties up for ANYONE who could find it and got nothing) , but the issue of long voting lines, less days to vote, unjustifiable distribution of resources, etc... is a real issue we don't have to go look for. My advice would be to stop looking for boogeymen and deal with the problem right in front of our face. Does this happen? And we can focus on multiple things here. Voter ID is (as everyone has been saying) fine in principle. It's just that every time it's done liberals run around screaming "discrimination!" without being able to demonstrate it. It wouldn't be a national issue if it wasn't for the left making mountains out of molehills. So why you even brought this topic up when it's not related to voter ID, I'm not sure...
This is pretty ironic when conservatives want these laws to "protect the system from voter fraud", and yet it's been pretty conclusively demonstrated that in-person voter fraud is pretty much non-existent.
Talk about "making mountains out of molehills".
|
Obama administration officials said Wednesday that in light of that statement, they would consider supporting a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for the establishment of a sovereign Palestine roughly along the pre-1967 lines that divided Israel from the West Bank and Gaza. NyTimes
Dayum
|
On March 20 2015 06:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 05:38 Introvert wrote:On March 20 2015 05:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2015 05:24 Introvert wrote:On March 20 2015 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I don't see the importance of the distinction between a local or national issue? Particularly when it's not just one or two local districts but very many spread across the country. The issue is that the localities want/ask for the resources but those who control them see large minority/democratic voter numbers and deny them the resources they need or are prescribed by law. Maybe voter fraud is an issue (I doubt it after they put several bounties up for ANYONE who could find it and got nothing) , but the issue of long voting lines, less days to vote, unjustifiable distribution of resources, etc... is a real issue we don't have to go look for. My advice would be to stop looking for boogeymen and deal with the problem right in front of our face. Does this happen? And we can focus on multiple things here. Voter ID is (as everyone has been saying) fine in principle. It's just that every time it's done liberals run around screaming "discrimination!" without being able to demonstrate it. It wouldn't be a national issue if it wasn't for the left making mountains out of molehills. So why you even brought this topic up when it's not related to voter ID, I'm not sure... This is pretty ironic when conservatives want these laws to "protect the system from voter fraud", and yet it's been pretty conclusively demonstrated that in-person voter fraud is pretty much non-existent. Talk about "making mountains out of molehills".
You have it flipped around. The topic would be pretty boring and non-controversial if the left didn't make such a big deal about it.
The thread has already agreed, voter ID is fine and a good idea. Besides, I think much of the "it doesn't happen" talk is because, with how lenient things are now, it's hard to prove. But that's my own hunch. But it seems well agreed (even here) that the idea of voter ID is a good one.
I could turn it around. If, as has been shown time and time again, these laws aren't discriminatory, why would you oppose it? Are lefties now budget hawks? They are pretty cheap laws too.
No, this is an only an issue because the Democrat need rallying cries. The states were doing this on their own, independently of each other.
|
On March 20 2015 05:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 05:53 dAPhREAk wrote:
i'll bite. how do you get funds electronically deposited without a bank account? just curious. Pre-paid cards I was wondering if people were just totally oblivious to that or not. It's common knowledge where I'm from. I'm sure there's plenty about living upper-middle-class lives that I know nothing about too though.
sarcastic comment aside, thanks for the info. i did not know that you could do that.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
merely noting a substantial portion of the eligible to vote population dont have ids is enough to show that effect. they may not be likely to vote but this may be a long term effect of not having an id, and they could always decide to participate.
|
On March 20 2015 06:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 06:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 20 2015 05:38 Introvert wrote:On March 20 2015 05:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2015 05:24 Introvert wrote:On March 20 2015 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I don't see the importance of the distinction between a local or national issue? Particularly when it's not just one or two local districts but very many spread across the country. The issue is that the localities want/ask for the resources but those who control them see large minority/democratic voter numbers and deny them the resources they need or are prescribed by law. Maybe voter fraud is an issue (I doubt it after they put several bounties up for ANYONE who could find it and got nothing) , but the issue of long voting lines, less days to vote, unjustifiable distribution of resources, etc... is a real issue we don't have to go look for. My advice would be to stop looking for boogeymen and deal with the problem right in front of our face. Does this happen? And we can focus on multiple things here. Voter ID is (as everyone has been saying) fine in principle. It's just that every time it's done liberals run around screaming "discrimination!" without being able to demonstrate it. It wouldn't be a national issue if it wasn't for the left making mountains out of molehills. So why you even brought this topic up when it's not related to voter ID, I'm not sure... This is pretty ironic when conservatives want these laws to "protect the system from voter fraud", and yet it's been pretty conclusively demonstrated that in-person voter fraud is pretty much non-existent. Talk about "making mountains out of molehills". You have it flipped around. The topic would be pretty boring and non-controversial if the left didn't make such a big deal about it. The thread has already agreed, voter ID is fine and a good idea. Besides, I think much of the "it doesn't happen" talk is because, with how lenient things are now, it's hard to prove. But that's my own hunch. But it seems well agreed (even here) that the idea of voter ID is a good one. I could turn it around. If, as has been shown time and time again, these laws aren't discriminatory, why would you oppose it? Are lefties now budget hawks? They are pretty cheap laws too. No, this is an only an issue because the Democrat need rallying cries. The states were doing this on their own, independently of each other.
the laws being non-discriminatory has not been proven time and again, it's more complicated and unclear. With some stats pointing to issues, and others pointing to no apparent racial effect. Note that it also wouldn't be an issue if the right didn't bring it up at all.
So it's pretty clear that both sides are involved in making it a big deal. Don't lie and say it's only democrats.
Your hunch about it actually occurring is far less convincing than the studies and research conducted by the department of justice and others that find it doesn't. And it makes sense that it doesn't, because it's just not profitable or an effective way of doing voter fraud. There are simply better ways to do those things.
|
On March 20 2015 06:23 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 06:13 Introvert wrote:On March 20 2015 06:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 20 2015 05:38 Introvert wrote:On March 20 2015 05:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2015 05:24 Introvert wrote:On March 20 2015 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I don't see the importance of the distinction between a local or national issue? Particularly when it's not just one or two local districts but very many spread across the country. The issue is that the localities want/ask for the resources but those who control them see large minority/democratic voter numbers and deny them the resources they need or are prescribed by law. Maybe voter fraud is an issue (I doubt it after they put several bounties up for ANYONE who could find it and got nothing) , but the issue of long voting lines, less days to vote, unjustifiable distribution of resources, etc... is a real issue we don't have to go look for. My advice would be to stop looking for boogeymen and deal with the problem right in front of our face. Does this happen? And we can focus on multiple things here. Voter ID is (as everyone has been saying) fine in principle. It's just that every time it's done liberals run around screaming "discrimination!" without being able to demonstrate it. It wouldn't be a national issue if it wasn't for the left making mountains out of molehills. So why you even brought this topic up when it's not related to voter ID, I'm not sure... This is pretty ironic when conservatives want these laws to "protect the system from voter fraud", and yet it's been pretty conclusively demonstrated that in-person voter fraud is pretty much non-existent. Talk about "making mountains out of molehills". You have it flipped around. The topic would be pretty boring and non-controversial if the left didn't make such a big deal about it. The thread has already agreed, voter ID is fine and a good idea. Besides, I think much of the "it doesn't happen" talk is because, with how lenient things are now, it's hard to prove. But that's my own hunch. But it seems well agreed (even here) that the idea of voter ID is a good one. I could turn it around. If, as has been shown time and time again, these laws aren't discriminatory, why would you oppose it? Are lefties now budget hawks? They are pretty cheap laws too. No, this is an only an issue because the Democrat need rallying cries. The states were doing this on their own, independently of each other. the laws being non-discriminatory has not been proven time and again, it's more complicated and unclear. With some stats pointing to issues, and others pointing to no apparent racial effect. Note that it also wouldn't be an issue if the right didn't bring it up at all. So it's pretty clear that both sides are involved in making it a big deal. Don't lie and say it's only democrats.
I say that because
A) Polls show wide support for voter ID
B) these are state initiatives that are written and decided on independently of each other, at the state level.
So no, it would NOT be a national issue otherwise.
I agree that now both sides are using it, but there if weren't for politics no one would care. In fact, we could even focus more on what GH wants us to focus on! Vote times! Instead we are stuck with discussing ID laws where, after showing that they are not discriminatory, are being argued against on the grounds that they are being implemented too quickly.
|
On March 20 2015 06:14 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 05:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2015 05:53 dAPhREAk wrote:
i'll bite. how do you get funds electronically deposited without a bank account? just curious. Pre-paid cards I was wondering if people were just totally oblivious to that or not. It's common knowledge where I'm from. I'm sure there's plenty about living upper-middle-class lives that I know nothing about too though. sarcastic comment aside, thanks for the info. i did not know that you could do that.
It wasn't intended to be sarcastic or rude. It's a very real issue about living in different 'worlds' and very different sets of 'common sense' among different groups.
It's really at the heart of a lot of the friction on various issues. I would have assumed someone like yourself would know something like that. Just like I'm sure there are things people from different socioeconomic than myself, like many here, think because their peers know something, people from other backgrounds do too.
It would do us all a lot of good to admit there's a lot about people who live different lives than ourselves we don't know. Thinking we can pull the entire experience or reality out of some demographic or statistic belies the reality of a lot of issues. This one is a pretty good example.
I agree that now both sides are using it, but there if weren't for politics no one would care. In fact, we could even focus more on what GH wants us to focus on! Vote times! Instead we are stuck with discussing ID laws where, after losing the discrimination argument, are being argued against on the grounds that they are being implemented too quickly.
Several of those "Voter ID Laws" included things that had nothing to do with 'Voter ID' instead they cut down on voting availability in ways that would intentionally disproportionately impact left leaning voters (especially minorities).
So it's disingenuous to suggest the fight was strictly over ID in the first place.
|
I thought it was that polls show that people support voter ID as long as the ID required was either free, easily acquired, or one of several documents that people have already (i.e. passport/greencard/etc as an alternative to a driver's license).
|
On March 20 2015 06:28 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 06:23 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2015 06:13 Introvert wrote:On March 20 2015 06:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 20 2015 05:38 Introvert wrote:On March 20 2015 05:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2015 05:24 Introvert wrote:On March 20 2015 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I don't see the importance of the distinction between a local or national issue? Particularly when it's not just one or two local districts but very many spread across the country. The issue is that the localities want/ask for the resources but those who control them see large minority/democratic voter numbers and deny them the resources they need or are prescribed by law. Maybe voter fraud is an issue (I doubt it after they put several bounties up for ANYONE who could find it and got nothing) , but the issue of long voting lines, less days to vote, unjustifiable distribution of resources, etc... is a real issue we don't have to go look for. My advice would be to stop looking for boogeymen and deal with the problem right in front of our face. Does this happen? And we can focus on multiple things here. Voter ID is (as everyone has been saying) fine in principle. It's just that every time it's done liberals run around screaming "discrimination!" without being able to demonstrate it. It wouldn't be a national issue if it wasn't for the left making mountains out of molehills. So why you even brought this topic up when it's not related to voter ID, I'm not sure... This is pretty ironic when conservatives want these laws to "protect the system from voter fraud", and yet it's been pretty conclusively demonstrated that in-person voter fraud is pretty much non-existent. Talk about "making mountains out of molehills". You have it flipped around. The topic would be pretty boring and non-controversial if the left didn't make such a big deal about it. The thread has already agreed, voter ID is fine and a good idea. Besides, I think much of the "it doesn't happen" talk is because, with how lenient things are now, it's hard to prove. But that's my own hunch. But it seems well agreed (even here) that the idea of voter ID is a good one. I could turn it around. If, as has been shown time and time again, these laws aren't discriminatory, why would you oppose it? Are lefties now budget hawks? They are pretty cheap laws too. No, this is an only an issue because the Democrat need rallying cries. The states were doing this on their own, independently of each other. the laws being non-discriminatory has not been proven time and again, it's more complicated and unclear. With some stats pointing to issues, and others pointing to no apparent racial effect. Note that it also wouldn't be an issue if the right didn't bring it up at all. So it's pretty clear that both sides are involved in making it a big deal. Don't lie and say it's only democrats. I say that because A) Polls show wide support for voter ID B) these are state initiatives that are written and decided on independently of each other, at the state level. So no, it would NOT be a national issue otherwise. I agree that now both sides are using it, but there if weren't for politics no one would care. In fact, we could even focus more on what GH wants us to focus on! Vote times! Instead we are stuck with discussing ID laws where, after showing that they are not discriminatory, are being argued against on the grounds that they are being implemented too quickly.
you well know that things can be voted on at the state level, but still a result of a national campaign; and may not be entirely independent of each other, but may well share ideas and techniques (which is rather common in legislation in general). And of course some of these involved the federal voting rights act (prior to its weakening by the court), also making it a national issue.
Again, it has not been established that the laws in question are not discriminatory, it is more uncertain, so please stop asserting it.
I'd be happy to work on vote times and improve those.
Also, please cite who is objecting on the grounds of too quick implementation? (except in those cases where it really is too quick to give people enough time to make arrangements).
|
On March 20 2015 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 06:14 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 20 2015 05:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2015 05:53 dAPhREAk wrote:
i'll bite. how do you get funds electronically deposited without a bank account? just curious. Pre-paid cards I was wondering if people were just totally oblivious to that or not. It's common knowledge where I'm from. I'm sure there's plenty about living upper-middle-class lives that I know nothing about too though. sarcastic comment aside, thanks for the info. i did not know that you could do that. It wasn't intended to be sarcastic or rude. It's a very real issue about living in different 'worlds' and very different sets of 'common sense' among different groups. It's really at the heart of a lot of the friction on various issues. I would have assumed someone like yourself would know something like that. Just like I'm sure there are things people from different socioeconomic than myself, like many here, think because their peers know something, people from other backgrounds do too. It would do us all a lot of good to admit there's a lot about people who live different lives than ourselves we don't know. Thinking we can pull the entire experience or reality out of some demographic or statistic belies the reality of a lot of issues. This one is a pretty good example. Show nested quote +I agree that now both sides are using it, but there if weren't for politics no one would care. In fact, we could even focus more on what GH wants us to focus on! Vote times! Instead we are stuck with discussing ID laws where, after losing the discrimination argument, are being argued against on the grounds that they are being implemented too quickly. Several of those "Voter ID Laws" included things that had nothing to do with 'Voter ID' instead they cut down on voting availability in ways that would intentionally disproportionately impact left leaning voters (especially minorities). So it's disingenuous to suggest the fight was strictly over ID in the first place.
Is America really this fucked up? Both sides seem to agree that elections policy is fucked up yet bipartisan support can't be found? How about something like using IRS files for registration and voter ID(conservatives rejoice!) as a tool to get voting times down to a level that "privileged white america" enjoys(liberals rejoice!).
Conservatives could frame it as respectful and representative towards taxpayers while protecting against "fraud".
Liberals could frame it as inclusive and bringing white america efficiency to minorities bringing voting times down and efficiency up.
This seems like such a non-issue to my experience that hearing "but fraud" and "but racism and disillusionment" make me want to pull my hair out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
