|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 10 2021 10:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2021 09:56 BlackJack wrote:On May 09 2021 21:43 JimmiC wrote:On May 09 2021 13:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2021 08:29 BlackJack wrote:On May 09 2021 06:33 ChristianS wrote:On May 08 2021 07:56 BlackJack wrote:On May 08 2021 07:23 ChristianS wrote:On May 08 2021 06:38 BlackJack wrote:On May 08 2021 06:03 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
But you’re not actually “giving” them anything. Decide how much you want the wealthy to pay, and set the rate at that. Then don’t tax them for “income” they already paid at the state and local levels, because it’s not really income. If at the end of that you think they’re not paying enough, raise the marginal rate more.
I’m not exactly worried about the blue state rich people, rich people are usually fine whatever changes you make. But the point of deductions is not as a back door to changing effective rates. Should the inverse be true as well? That we should be able to deduct the full amount of federal taxes paid from our state tax bill since those taxes aren't really "income" either? I don’t really care? If you think you should pay federal tax on the full amount and then state tax less the federal tax amount I’m fine with that. They can’t both subtract each other, though, unless I’m misunderstanding something. Kind of a useless aside anyway. Then what's the argument against GreenHorizon's proposal to do away with the deductions altogether? If it's about the unfairness of having to pay taxes on "income" that isn't really "income" then it doesn't really hold up if you acknowledge that this unfairness is going to exist either way. You’re sort of Zeno’s paradoxing this to convolute the math. If you’re reducing 100 by 10% twice in succession, you should get 81. If you got 80 one reduction didn’t account for the other. If you wound up doing some goofy successive approximation that ends at 81 and some weird decimal, you’re trying to have both account for each other, which is complicated to calculate and useless because is actually a 10% reduction in any meaningful sense. The brookings institution conclusion that GH agreed with was to do away with the deduction altogether. Then the math could not be any less convoluted. $100k income with 40% federal tax rate and 10% state tax rate. 40k to the feds, 10k to the state, and you keep $50k. Easy. It gets convoluted because you have to ask whether you should pay 10% on 60k to the state or 40% on 90k to the feds. I think the tax code needs a complete overhaul so the removing the SALT deduction would only be a small part of that. I'm more focused on the political ridiculousness of Democrats threatening their own infrastructure bill for a handout to the richest people in their states. I think the logical thing to do is for Democrats with integrity to say they won't pass an infrastructure bill that lifts/repeals the cap and gives a big windfall to the richest people in the country. Why is it ridiculous for a centrist to be against a tax that impacts their constituents unfairly? Not all dems are progressives, nor is the party. Because of the two party system and American politics it is a who spectrum. Also your framing makes no sense, it is a small percentage (under 10) trying to effect the bill for their people, this is how a republic/democracy is meant to operate. It's not a "tax that impacts their constituents unfairly." It's a tax deduction that overwhelmingly favors their constituents that they are upset they can no longer use. You're trying to frame a tax deduction that primarily benefits blue states into a tax that primarily penalizes blue states. Even this argument of "fairness" doesn't necessarily ring true. Why should a Californian pay less federal taxes than a Floridian with similar incomes just because the Californian paid more in state and local taxes? The Californian should get something for his state tax dollars. It's not "fake income." It's income that is going to support his state. He is surely getting a lot more for his state tax dollars than the Floridian is getting for them. Maybe we should all have to contribute to the federal government equally regardless if you also contribute to your state. If you go out to dinner with a group and decide to split the bill, Bob shouldn't get to contribute less because he took his neighbor out for breakfast. With the new higher standard deduction Floridians are already getting Federal tax deduction for a lot of state and local taxes without the burden of actually paying those taxes. Your metaphor with the restaurant doesn’t really work. It’d be more accurate if the restaurant had an old policy of letting you reduce your bill by however much you donated to the adjacent food bank but now has a new policy of assuming you donated $20. The Californian says “I donated $30 to the food bank, I want to reduce what I owe by that $30 but I’m only allowed to reduce it by $20” while the Floridian didn’t donate shit to anyone but is still claiming the full $20 discount as if he did. Letting the Floridian reduce his share of the bill by $20 is the bigger issue here. The question shouldn’t be “should the Californian get another $10 discount?”, it should be “why are we giving the Floridian a $20 discount?”.
I agree with your metaphor as well. I still wouldn't say that it's "unfair" if a restaurant changes its policy from "$30 off if you donate $30 to the food bank" to "$20 off for everyone no strings attached." Sure, it sucks for the people that were legally obligated to donate $30 to the food bank, but they aren't being discriminated against just because their special discount was taken away.
I also have no problem with reducing the standard deduction or halving it to what it was back in 2017. I don't know why we "should" be talking about lowering the standard deduction instead of repealing SALT. Especially since repealing SALT would primarily benefit the 1% and raising the standard deduction primarily benefited the middle class. This sounds like more Tucker Carlsen-esque talking points. "We shouldn't talk about whether this millionaire Californian deserves a $50k tax deduction, the bigger story is whether this middle-class Floridian really deserves a $12k~ tax deduction"
|
Derailing an infrastructure bill over SALT deductions would be monumentally stupid and even centrist democrats probably realize that. I read this as posturing to make sure their constituents are properly represented and positioning themselves so when a bill that addresses taxes does come to the floor, their demands will be met.
|
Why is it that when America does a stupid thing, the rest of the world goes: right, that's what we should be doing here too!
www.theguardian.com
Britons will have to show photo ID to vote in future general elections, ministers are poised to confirm this week, as a means of tackling fraud which critics claim could deter poorer and ethnic minority voters from taking part in democracy.
[...]
The voting reforms, which will also include a limit on the number of postal votes that can be handed in on behalf of others, are being justified by ministers as a way to reduce the risk of electoral fraud. However, the Electoral Commission says the country “has low levels of proven electoral fraud”; in 2019 there was just one conviction and one police caution for impersonating another voter.
It sure feels like America is the worldwide leader and innovator on how to weaken the democracies of developed countries.
|
On May 10 2021 20:40 EnDeR_ wrote:Why is it that when America does a stupid thing, the rest of the world goes: right, that's what we should be doing here too! www.theguardian.comShow nested quote +Britons will have to show photo ID to vote in future general elections, ministers are poised to confirm this week, as a means of tackling fraud which critics claim could deter poorer and ethnic minority voters from taking part in democracy.
[...]
The voting reforms, which will also include a limit on the number of postal votes that can be handed in on behalf of others, are being justified by ministers as a way to reduce the risk of electoral fraud. However, the Electoral Commission says the country “has low levels of proven electoral fraud”; in 2019 there was just one conviction and one police caution for impersonating another voter. It sure feels like America is the worldwide leader and innovator on how to weaken the democracies of developed countries.
Right wing governments gonna right wing govern.
|
On May 10 2021 20:40 EnDeR_ wrote:Why is it that when America does a stupid thing, the rest of the world goes: right, that's what we should be doing here too! www.theguardian.comShow nested quote +Britons will have to show photo ID to vote in future general elections, ministers are poised to confirm this week, as a means of tackling fraud which critics claim could deter poorer and ethnic minority voters from taking part in democracy.
[...]
The voting reforms, which will also include a limit on the number of postal votes that can be handed in on behalf of others, are being justified by ministers as a way to reduce the risk of electoral fraud. However, the Electoral Commission says the country “has low levels of proven electoral fraud”; in 2019 there was just one conviction and one police caution for impersonating another voter. It sure feels like America is the worldwide leader and innovator on how to weaken the democracies of developed countries.
How is requiring an ID to vote a bad thing (or being undemocratic)? In Poland it's always been needed to vote, you don't need to register to vote, you are a voter by default when you turn 18 and only need the ID to confirm you're not trying to vote as someone else. Then again everyone here gets a state-issued ID document when they turn 18 and it costs like 10-15$ (for photos and some administrative fees). Is it just some US/UK specific fuckery in play designed to hurt minorities?
|
On May 10 2021 22:42 PoulsenB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2021 20:40 EnDeR_ wrote:Why is it that when America does a stupid thing, the rest of the world goes: right, that's what we should be doing here too! www.theguardian.comBritons will have to show photo ID to vote in future general elections, ministers are poised to confirm this week, as a means of tackling fraud which critics claim could deter poorer and ethnic minority voters from taking part in democracy.
[...]
The voting reforms, which will also include a limit on the number of postal votes that can be handed in on behalf of others, are being justified by ministers as a way to reduce the risk of electoral fraud. However, the Electoral Commission says the country “has low levels of proven electoral fraud”; in 2019 there was just one conviction and one police caution for impersonating another voter. It sure feels like America is the worldwide leader and innovator on how to weaken the democracies of developed countries. How is requiring an ID to vote a bad thing (or being undemocratic)? In Poland it's always been needed to vote, you don't need to register to vote, you are a voter by default when you turn 18 and only need the ID to confirm you're not trying to vote as someone else. Then again everyone here gets a state-issued ID document when they turn 18 and it costs like 10-15$ (for photos and some administrative fees). Is it just some US/UK specific fuckery in play designed to hurt minorities? In the US measures to introduce foto id requirements usually go together with closing locations where you can get id's in certain neighbourhoods to make it harder to get them.
No idea how the situation with that is in the UK.
|
I don't think too many people are against requiring photo IDs in principle. In countries that have national IDs and every citizen gets one, I don't see a problem with requiring photo IDs.
The problems are the specifics in the US. By making it hard for certain groups of people to get a photo ID, you cut a group of people off from voting. Those people tend to vote Democrat. I don't think it is a huge number of people, but just shaving a couple of percent off the Democrat side would be enough to turn a whole bunch of seats in a 2 party system. So Democrats have to fight for every vote while the Republicans fight to suppress as much as they can. There are significant power swings in play.
UK benefits from being multi-party, so trying to suppress votes to your advantage is a bit harder. I don't know how easy/difficult it is to get an ID there, but that could be another huge difference.
|
Northern Ireland24428 Posts
On May 10 2021 22:42 PoulsenB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2021 20:40 EnDeR_ wrote:Why is it that when America does a stupid thing, the rest of the world goes: right, that's what we should be doing here too! www.theguardian.comBritons will have to show photo ID to vote in future general elections, ministers are poised to confirm this week, as a means of tackling fraud which critics claim could deter poorer and ethnic minority voters from taking part in democracy.
[...]
The voting reforms, which will also include a limit on the number of postal votes that can be handed in on behalf of others, are being justified by ministers as a way to reduce the risk of electoral fraud. However, the Electoral Commission says the country “has low levels of proven electoral fraud”; in 2019 there was just one conviction and one police caution for impersonating another voter. It sure feels like America is the worldwide leader and innovator on how to weaken the democracies of developed countries. How is requiring an ID to vote a bad thing (or being undemocratic)? In Poland it's always been needed to vote, you don't need to register to vote, you are a voter by default when you turn 18 and only need the ID to confirm you're not trying to vote as someone else. Then again everyone here gets a state-issued ID document when they turn 18 and it costs like 10-15$ (for photos and some administrative fees). Is it just some US/UK specific fuckery in play designed to hurt minorities?
It is fuckery as it’s a solution to a non-existent problem of fraud that makes it more hassle to vote for people who are poor.
It’s not a massive hassle by any means, which is how it gets framed as a reasonable measure that isn’t intended to disenfranchise people, and many people will respond ‘hey it’s not much bother’ which is how these things get in.
If it’s combined with some form of mandated but free/extremely cheap universal ID, less of an issue but it’s rarely in combination with such a scheme.
Not sure where I’d stand under these plans, my photo ID has long expired in passport/provisional driving licence but is generally accepted when I need to prove who I am, if I have to renew them to vote it’s a minor inconvenience but made more irritating by being a totally unnecessary inconvenience
|
|
|
On May 10 2021 23:33 WombaT wrote:
It is fuckery as it’s a solution to a non-existent problem of fraud that makes it more hassle to vote for people who are poor.
Basically this. Raise the spectre of voter fraud to gain a marginal increase in the vote share which can make a difference in any fptp system (such as the UK) while simultaneously undermining the faith of the electorate in the process. It's shortsighted.
|
On May 10 2021 22:42 PoulsenB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2021 20:40 EnDeR_ wrote:Why is it that when America does a stupid thing, the rest of the world goes: right, that's what we should be doing here too! www.theguardian.comBritons will have to show photo ID to vote in future general elections, ministers are poised to confirm this week, as a means of tackling fraud which critics claim could deter poorer and ethnic minority voters from taking part in democracy.
[...]
The voting reforms, which will also include a limit on the number of postal votes that can be handed in on behalf of others, are being justified by ministers as a way to reduce the risk of electoral fraud. However, the Electoral Commission says the country “has low levels of proven electoral fraud”; in 2019 there was just one conviction and one police caution for impersonating another voter. It sure feels like America is the worldwide leader and innovator on how to weaken the democracies of developed countries. How is requiring an ID to vote a bad thing (or being undemocratic)? In Poland it's always been needed to vote, you don't need to register to vote, you are a voter by default when you turn 18 and only need the ID to confirm you're not trying to vote as someone else. Then again everyone here gets a state-issued ID document when they turn 18 and it costs like 10-15$ (for photos and some administrative fees). Is it just some US/UK specific fuckery in play designed to hurt minorities?
It's a thing in the US because there getting an ID is difficult and has its own host of issues. There is nothing inherently undemocratic about requiring ID, as many countries do.
|
On May 11 2021 00:56 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2021 22:42 PoulsenB wrote:On May 10 2021 20:40 EnDeR_ wrote:Why is it that when America does a stupid thing, the rest of the world goes: right, that's what we should be doing here too! www.theguardian.comBritons will have to show photo ID to vote in future general elections, ministers are poised to confirm this week, as a means of tackling fraud which critics claim could deter poorer and ethnic minority voters from taking part in democracy.
[...]
The voting reforms, which will also include a limit on the number of postal votes that can be handed in on behalf of others, are being justified by ministers as a way to reduce the risk of electoral fraud. However, the Electoral Commission says the country “has low levels of proven electoral fraud”; in 2019 there was just one conviction and one police caution for impersonating another voter. It sure feels like America is the worldwide leader and innovator on how to weaken the democracies of developed countries. How is requiring an ID to vote a bad thing (or being undemocratic)? In Poland it's always been needed to vote, you don't need to register to vote, you are a voter by default when you turn 18 and only need the ID to confirm you're not trying to vote as someone else. Then again everyone here gets a state-issued ID document when they turn 18 and it costs like 10-15$ (for photos and some administrative fees). Is it just some US/UK specific fuckery in play designed to hurt minorities? It's a thing in the US because there getting an ID is difficult and has its own host of issues. There is nothing inherently undemocratic about requiring ID, as many countries do.
I mean, it's not 'difficult'. It's not that much of a hassle, but it's an unnecessary hassle, like Wombat was saying; for no particular reason other than to make it slightly harder to vote for a certain subset of the population that is less likely to vote for that particular political party.
In Spain the point is moot because it is mandatory to carry your national ID at all times. So yes, I do agree that there is nothing undemocratic about requiring ID to vote. It's more for countries like the US or UK that don't have national IDs and this is basically introduced as a low-impact hurdle designed to trip up mostly poor people.
|
|
|
On May 11 2021 01:08 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2021 00:56 Sbrubbles wrote:On May 10 2021 22:42 PoulsenB wrote:On May 10 2021 20:40 EnDeR_ wrote:Why is it that when America does a stupid thing, the rest of the world goes: right, that's what we should be doing here too! www.theguardian.comBritons will have to show photo ID to vote in future general elections, ministers are poised to confirm this week, as a means of tackling fraud which critics claim could deter poorer and ethnic minority voters from taking part in democracy.
[...]
The voting reforms, which will also include a limit on the number of postal votes that can be handed in on behalf of others, are being justified by ministers as a way to reduce the risk of electoral fraud. However, the Electoral Commission says the country “has low levels of proven electoral fraud”; in 2019 there was just one conviction and one police caution for impersonating another voter. It sure feels like America is the worldwide leader and innovator on how to weaken the democracies of developed countries. How is requiring an ID to vote a bad thing (or being undemocratic)? In Poland it's always been needed to vote, you don't need to register to vote, you are a voter by default when you turn 18 and only need the ID to confirm you're not trying to vote as someone else. Then again everyone here gets a state-issued ID document when they turn 18 and it costs like 10-15$ (for photos and some administrative fees). Is it just some US/UK specific fuckery in play designed to hurt minorities? It's a thing in the US because there getting an ID is difficult and has its own host of issues. There is nothing inherently undemocratic about requiring ID, as many countries do. I mean, it's not 'difficult'. It's not that much of a hassle, but it's an unnecessary hassle, like Wombat was saying; for no particular reason other than to make it slightly harder to vote for a certain subset of the population that is less likely to vote for that particular political party. In Spain the point is moot because it is mandatory to carry your national ID at all times. So yes, I do agree that there is nothing undemocratic about requiring ID to vote. It's more for countries like the US or UK that don't have national IDs and this is basically introduced as a low-impact hurdle designed to trip up mostly poor people.
It actually can be quite difficult. I think I remember Kwark describing the experience earlier in the thread. You have to submit documents like your original birth certificate, social security card, and proofs of address like utility bills or bank statements. It was difficult for me to get my state ID, I can't imagine how hard it would be if I were homeless, had been a prisoner, or didn't speak English.
|
On May 11 2021 01:29 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2021 01:08 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 11 2021 00:56 Sbrubbles wrote:On May 10 2021 22:42 PoulsenB wrote:On May 10 2021 20:40 EnDeR_ wrote:Why is it that when America does a stupid thing, the rest of the world goes: right, that's what we should be doing here too! www.theguardian.comBritons will have to show photo ID to vote in future general elections, ministers are poised to confirm this week, as a means of tackling fraud which critics claim could deter poorer and ethnic minority voters from taking part in democracy.
[...]
The voting reforms, which will also include a limit on the number of postal votes that can be handed in on behalf of others, are being justified by ministers as a way to reduce the risk of electoral fraud. However, the Electoral Commission says the country “has low levels of proven electoral fraud”; in 2019 there was just one conviction and one police caution for impersonating another voter. It sure feels like America is the worldwide leader and innovator on how to weaken the democracies of developed countries. How is requiring an ID to vote a bad thing (or being undemocratic)? In Poland it's always been needed to vote, you don't need to register to vote, you are a voter by default when you turn 18 and only need the ID to confirm you're not trying to vote as someone else. Then again everyone here gets a state-issued ID document when they turn 18 and it costs like 10-15$ (for photos and some administrative fees). Is it just some US/UK specific fuckery in play designed to hurt minorities? It's a thing in the US because there getting an ID is difficult and has its own host of issues. There is nothing inherently undemocratic about requiring ID, as many countries do. I mean, it's not 'difficult'. It's not that much of a hassle, but it's an unnecessary hassle, like Wombat was saying; for no particular reason other than to make it slightly harder to vote for a certain subset of the population that is less likely to vote for that particular political party. In Spain the point is moot because it is mandatory to carry your national ID at all times. So yes, I do agree that there is nothing undemocratic about requiring ID to vote. It's more for countries like the US or UK that don't have national IDs and this is basically introduced as a low-impact hurdle designed to trip up mostly poor people. It actually can be quite difficult. I think I remember Kwark describing the experience earlier in the thread. You have to submit documents like your original birth certificate, social security card, and proofs of address like utility bills or bank statements. It was difficult for me to get my state ID, I can't imagine how hard it would be if I were homeless, had been a prisoner, or didn't speak English.
Okay, let me reframe that. It's not much of a hassle if you fit the right profile - i.e have a reasonably steady address, pay your bills, have a bank account, etc. It can be nigh impossible if you fit a particular profile which is what this is designed to target.
I know we've discussed this to death on this thread, it just bugs me how every right wing government in the world just looks up to America for tips.
|
On May 11 2021 00:56 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2021 22:42 PoulsenB wrote:On May 10 2021 20:40 EnDeR_ wrote:Why is it that when America does a stupid thing, the rest of the world goes: right, that's what we should be doing here too! www.theguardian.comBritons will have to show photo ID to vote in future general elections, ministers are poised to confirm this week, as a means of tackling fraud which critics claim could deter poorer and ethnic minority voters from taking part in democracy.
[...]
The voting reforms, which will also include a limit on the number of postal votes that can be handed in on behalf of others, are being justified by ministers as a way to reduce the risk of electoral fraud. However, the Electoral Commission says the country “has low levels of proven electoral fraud”; in 2019 there was just one conviction and one police caution for impersonating another voter. It sure feels like America is the worldwide leader and innovator on how to weaken the democracies of developed countries. How is requiring an ID to vote a bad thing (or being undemocratic)? In Poland it's always been needed to vote, you don't need to register to vote, you are a voter by default when you turn 18 and only need the ID to confirm you're not trying to vote as someone else. Then again everyone here gets a state-issued ID document when they turn 18 and it costs like 10-15$ (for photos and some administrative fees). Is it just some US/UK specific fuckery in play designed to hurt minorities? It's a thing in the US because there getting an ID is difficult and has its own host of issues. There is nothing inherently undemocratic about requiring ID, as many countries do.
It's because the way they phrase ID requirements has, as courts put it, surgically targeted minorities.
Here's an example: Drivers license being used an option but not say, a bus pass, despite them having equivalent security checks until this year when Real-ID finally takes full effect. (My library pass had more extensive security checks than my last driver's license...).
The option usually given instead is that there will be, as you said, a 10-15$ fee for a new photo ID... as long as you have what they want. Now, it's ALREADY illegal at this point : that's poll tax on racially discriminatory lines (see Florida's tactics regarding this for felons).
Even if they made it free, what we would see is 1 entrance in all of texas for every single person, open for only 20 minutes every day at a random time, with 1 worker who will deny every application. The point would be to make it theoretically possible but not really.
That's not even adding on that they may require a birth certificate, but if you were born in 1940 in the south as a black woman, I am highly skeptical that you can track down those records easily. And if you tell people WHY you're seeking them, they may burn them in front of you and cackle like megalomaniacs : there's no reason to assume good faith on the part of elected officials in the south in this matter.
|
On May 11 2021 03:03 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2021 00:56 Sbrubbles wrote:On May 10 2021 22:42 PoulsenB wrote:On May 10 2021 20:40 EnDeR_ wrote:Why is it that when America does a stupid thing, the rest of the world goes: right, that's what we should be doing here too! www.theguardian.comBritons will have to show photo ID to vote in future general elections, ministers are poised to confirm this week, as a means of tackling fraud which critics claim could deter poorer and ethnic minority voters from taking part in democracy.
[...]
The voting reforms, which will also include a limit on the number of postal votes that can be handed in on behalf of others, are being justified by ministers as a way to reduce the risk of electoral fraud. However, the Electoral Commission says the country “has low levels of proven electoral fraud”; in 2019 there was just one conviction and one police caution for impersonating another voter. It sure feels like America is the worldwide leader and innovator on how to weaken the democracies of developed countries. How is requiring an ID to vote a bad thing (or being undemocratic)? In Poland it's always been needed to vote, you don't need to register to vote, you are a voter by default when you turn 18 and only need the ID to confirm you're not trying to vote as someone else. Then again everyone here gets a state-issued ID document when they turn 18 and it costs like 10-15$ (for photos and some administrative fees). Is it just some US/UK specific fuckery in play designed to hurt minorities? It's a thing in the US because there getting an ID is difficult and has its own host of issues. There is nothing inherently undemocratic about requiring ID, as many countries do. It's because the way they phrase ID requirements has, as courts put it, surgically targeted minorities. Here's an example: Drivers license being used an option but not say, a bus pass, despite them having equivalent security checks until this year when Real-ID finally takes full effect. (My library pass had more extensive security checks than my last driver's license...). The option usually given instead is that there will be, as you said, a 10-15$ fee for a new photo ID... as long as you have what they want. Now, it's ALREADY illegal at this point : that's poll tax on racially discriminatory lines (see Florida's tactics regarding this for felons). Even if they made it free, what we would see is 1 entrance in all of texas for every single person, open for only 20 minutes every day at a random time, with 1 worker who will deny every application. The point would be to make it theoretically possible but not really. That's not even adding on that they may require a birth certificate, but if you were born in 1940 in the south as a black woman, I am highly skeptical that you can track down those records easily. And if you tell people WHY you're seeking them, they may burn them in front of you and cackle like megalomaniacs : there's no reason to assume good faith on the part of elected officials in the south in this matter.
Exactly. But is this problem also present in the UK? I don't really know, it's the first I hear of it.
In the US, it is reasonable to equate any attempt at voter id to voter suppression because of the problems you listed and the history involved, but I would be wary of generalizing voter id = voter suppresion to other countries.
|
US voter ID laws are also part of the GOP's nonsense narrative that voter fraud is a real problem keeping them from making the country great, which has metastasized from a talking point no one in power believed to the Arizona GOP paying for a poorly run opaque audit looking for imaginary watermarks administered by a company called Cyber Ninjas whose CEO is a failed inventor and treasure hunter.
It's mostly just another way to manufacture an "other" to rail against. Voter ID laws share a lot of symbolism with bathroom bills in that respect; all empirical evidence points to it not being a problem whatsoever, with more negative consequences than positive ones, but rejecting that evidence is part of the party brand.
|
Northern Ireland24428 Posts
On May 11 2021 03:28 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2021 03:03 Nevuk wrote:On May 11 2021 00:56 Sbrubbles wrote:On May 10 2021 22:42 PoulsenB wrote:On May 10 2021 20:40 EnDeR_ wrote:Why is it that when America does a stupid thing, the rest of the world goes: right, that's what we should be doing here too! www.theguardian.comBritons will have to show photo ID to vote in future general elections, ministers are poised to confirm this week, as a means of tackling fraud which critics claim could deter poorer and ethnic minority voters from taking part in democracy.
[...]
The voting reforms, which will also include a limit on the number of postal votes that can be handed in on behalf of others, are being justified by ministers as a way to reduce the risk of electoral fraud. However, the Electoral Commission says the country “has low levels of proven electoral fraud”; in 2019 there was just one conviction and one police caution for impersonating another voter. It sure feels like America is the worldwide leader and innovator on how to weaken the democracies of developed countries. How is requiring an ID to vote a bad thing (or being undemocratic)? In Poland it's always been needed to vote, you don't need to register to vote, you are a voter by default when you turn 18 and only need the ID to confirm you're not trying to vote as someone else. Then again everyone here gets a state-issued ID document when they turn 18 and it costs like 10-15$ (for photos and some administrative fees). Is it just some US/UK specific fuckery in play designed to hurt minorities? It's a thing in the US because there getting an ID is difficult and has its own host of issues. There is nothing inherently undemocratic about requiring ID, as many countries do. It's because the way they phrase ID requirements has, as courts put it, surgically targeted minorities. Here's an example: Drivers license being used an option but not say, a bus pass, despite them having equivalent security checks until this year when Real-ID finally takes full effect. (My library pass had more extensive security checks than my last driver's license...). The option usually given instead is that there will be, as you said, a 10-15$ fee for a new photo ID... as long as you have what they want. Now, it's ALREADY illegal at this point : that's poll tax on racially discriminatory lines (see Florida's tactics regarding this for felons). Even if they made it free, what we would see is 1 entrance in all of texas for every single person, open for only 20 minutes every day at a random time, with 1 worker who will deny every application. The point would be to make it theoretically possible but not really. That's not even adding on that they may require a birth certificate, but if you were born in 1940 in the south as a black woman, I am highly skeptical that you can track down those records easily. And if you tell people WHY you're seeking them, they may burn them in front of you and cackle like megalomaniacs : there's no reason to assume good faith on the part of elected officials in the south in this matter. Exactly. But is this problem also present in the UK? I don't really know, it's the first I hear of it. In the US, it is reasonable to equate any attempt at voter id to voter suppression because of the problems you listed and the history involved, but I would be wary of generalizing voter id = voter suppresion to other countries.
The cynic in me says it’s even more opportunistically cynical over here than in the US. It feels like it’s riding the coattails of it being a big talking point in the States, where there is grass root traction either side of the aisle.
Over here I’ve barely ever seen it mooted until this move, so it’s not really responding to any kind of public clamour. Most strange really
|
If Biden was smart he'd just give Israel and Palestine our least populated states and give Israel to Iceland. If Jews and Muslims can't play nice over their holy land, neither of them get it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
