From the Book of Dirty Tricks
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Monday, August 21, 2023 08:00
VIEWED: 3400
PAGE 1 of 1
Anyone catch this nationwide move?Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/opinion/06mon1.html
GOP Making it Much Harder for Young, Urban, and Poor to Vote
One of the most promising recent trends in expanding political participation has been allowing people to vote in the weeks before Election Day, either in person or by mail. Early voting, which enables people to skip long lines and vote at more convenient times, has been increasingly popular over the last 15 years. It skyrocketed to a third of the vote in 2008, rising particularly in the South and among black voters supporting Barack Obama.
And that, of course, is why Republican lawmakers are trying desperately to cut it back. Two states in the South have already reduced early-voting periods, and lawmakers in others are considering doing so. It is the latest element of a well-coordinated effort by Republican state legislators across the country to disenfranchise voters who tend to support Democrats, particularly minorities and young people.
The biggest part of that effort, imposing cumbersome requirements that voters have a government ID, has been painted as a response to voter fraud, an essentially nonexistent problem. But Republican lawmakers also have taken a good look at voting patterns, realized that early voting might have played a role in Mr. Obama’s 2008 victory, and now want to reduce that possibility in 2012.
Mr. Obama won North Carolina, for example, by less than 15,000 votes. That state has had early voting since 2000, and in 2008, more ballots were cast before Election Day than on it. Mr. Obama won those early votes by a comfortable margin. So it is no coincidence that the North Carolina House passed a measure — along party lines — that would cut the early voting period by a week, reducing it to a week and a half before the election. The Senate is preparing a similar bill.
Republicans said the measure would save money, a claim as phony as saying widespread fraud necessitates ID cards. The North Carolina elections board, and many county boards, said it would actually cost more money, because they would have to open more voting sites and have less flexibility allocating staff members. Black lawmakers called it what it is: a modern whiff of Jim Crow.
One of the biggest jumps was in Georgia, where, over the objections of several black lawmakers, the Republican-dominated Legislature passed a bill in April that would cut back in-person early voting to 21 days, from 45 days. Florida just cut its early voting period to eight days, from 14. Florida also eliminated the Sunday before Election Day as an early-voting day; election experts note that will eliminate the practice of many African-Americans of voting directly after going to church.
Outside the region, the Republican-dominated Legislature in Ohio, a perennial battleground state, is about to restrict early voting, a move that Democrats say amounts to voter suppression and discrimination.
Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia now allow some form of early voting, a relic from the days when everyone seemed to agree that more voters were better for democracy. Republicans have recently decided that a larger electorate can hurt them. Quote:
Kansas’ Republican Secretary of State is pushing for new laws to stop what is essentially nonexistent “voter fraud.” These laws would just happen to also make it much harder for younger, more urban, and poor individuals to register and vote. These are groups that tend to vote more often for Democrats. With Republicans now in full control of the state’s government, it is very likely we will see some version of these laws passed.
Under Kobach’s proposal, Kansans would have to show a passport, birth certificate or other proof of citizenship when registering to vote. They then would have to show a government photo ID — driver’s license, passport or state university ID — at the polls.
The Republican party clearly has no problem changing the rules to help ce
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just out of curiosity, do you think people should be able to register to vote without any proof as to who they are?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You're not going to like my answer. I don't think it's nearly as big a deal or as serious a problem as we're told, or that it would change any big election, whereas voter SUPPRESSION is a very serious problem, if we are truly a Democracy as we claim.
First off, REGISTRATION FRAUD (as you put it) is different from VOTER FRAUD; of the first, there's always some on both sides, but it doesn't add up to VOTER FRAUD. VOTER REGISTRATION FRAUD is when ficticious people are registered, usually by low-paid registrants who get paid by the piece. Certainly there must be ways people can use registration fraud to vote fraudulently, but it's not easy.
VOTER FRAUD is what happens at the polls. For instance, VOTER FRAUD would be registering in two counties and voting in both; or sending in your absentee ballot and also voting at a booth on election day.
People registering to vote does not equate to voter fraud. You'll have to show me that voter fraud truly is as serious an issue as voter SUPPRESSION before we could debate it. I know where you're going, but I happen to believe that the number of people who are willing to go out and try to vote fraudulently (and manage to avoid the existing safeguards to do so successfully) is never going to shape an election, while history has shown that voter SUPPRESSION has damaged our elections many times.
So I'll ask you in return: do you think the following is more or less harmful to our DEMOCRATIC system of voting?Quote:
It has become a rallying cry for some to claim that we need to do more to prevent “voter fraud”. According to those chanting this disturbing chorus, elections are being influenced and sometimes determined, by people who are ineligible to cast a ballot impersonating eligible voters.
To be sure, the NAACP sees disenfranchising, disturbing instances of “voter fraud” every election cycle. However, the fraud that we witness is different. Every day, we hear of deceptive practices, misinformation and lies that are used to keep registered, legitimate voters away from the polls or to support candidates whom they might not otherwise vote for. Sadly, we also still find ourselves fighting attempts by election officials to disenfranchise the people in communities we represent.
It is our experience that voter impersonation, which has resulted in passing numerous laws, proposed laws, and court cases, is actually quite rare. Nationwide, between 2002 and 2006, when a crackdown on voter fraud was one of the U.S. Department of Justice’s top priorities and when more than 400 million votes were cast, an average of only 30 federal cases per year were prosecuted.
Regardless of the questionable prevalence of this type of voter fraud, several states have passed troubling photo identification requirements. Sadly, rather than addressing voter fraud, however, the true effect of these laws is to disenfranchise the estimated 20 million Americans who have not purchased government-issued photo IDs. And it should come as no surprise that a disproportionate number of these people are racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly and low-income Americans.
Yet examples of genuine, malicious voter fraud continue to plague us. In Virginia, registered voters received recorded calls stating that they could vote by telephone, by pressing a number for the candidate of their choice. The call ended by fraudulently stating that they had now voted, and did not need to go to the polls.
In 2006 in Orange County, California,14,000 Latino voters got letters in Spanish saying it was a crime for immigrants to vote in a federal election. It didn’t say that immigrants who are citizens have the right to vote.
In addition to these unscrupulous tactics, the NAACP has seen a dramatic increase in which people have registered to vote, believing or having been told that they have done everything correctly, only to be turned away from the voting booth on Election Day because they have been erro
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
You're not going to like my answer.
Nope. Because you avoided answering.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Further to that: Wikipedia lists the following as various forms of ELECTORAL FRAUD, which is real voter fraud, not just registration fraud. I'm not going to bother cleaning it up, and maybe it's something we should discuss. Or not.[uote]Quote:
Gerrymandering
Gerrymandering is the drawing of electorate boundaries in order to produce a particular result. Typically, electorates will be organized so that one group of people (for example poor people or a particular ethnic or religious group) is concentrated into a small number of electorates. This means that parties favoured by that group will win by a large majority in those electorates, but lose more narrowly in a larger number of electorates. This may result in one party gaining the most votes overall but still losing the election.
Manipulation of demography
In many cases it is possible for authorities to artificially control the composition of an electorate in order to produce a foregone result. One way of doing this is to move a large number of voters into the electorate prior to an election, for example by temporarily assigning them land or lodging them in flophouses.[3][4] Many countries prevent this with rules stipulating that a voter must have lived in an electorate for a minimum period (for example, six months) in order to be eligible to vote there. However, such laws can themselves be used for demographic manipulation as they tend to disenfranchise those with no fixed address, such as the homeless, travellers, students (studying full time away from home) and some casual workers.
Disenfranchisement
The composition of an electorate may also be altered by disenfranchising some types of people, rendering them unable to vote. In some cases this may be done at a legislative level, for example by passing a law banning convicted felons, recent immigrants or members of a particular ethnic or religious group from voting, or by instituting a literacy or other test which members of some groups are more likely to fail. Since this is done by lawmakers, it cannot be election fraud, but may subvert the purposes of democracy. This is especially so if members of the disenfranchised group were particularly likely to vote a certain way.
In some cases voters may be invalidly disenfranchised, which is true electoral fraud. For example a legitimate voter may be 'accidentally' removed from the electoral roll, making it difficult or impossible for them to vote. Corrupt election officials may misuse voting regulations such as a literacy test or requirement for proof of identity or address in such a way as to make it difficult or impossible for their targets to cast a vote. If such practices discriminate against a religious or ethnic group, they may so distort the political process that the political order becomes grossly unrepresentative, as in the post-Reconstruction or Jim Crow era until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Groups may also be disenfranchised by rules which make it impractical or impossible for them to cast a vote. For example, requiring people to vote within their electorate may disenfranchise serving military personnel, prison inmates, students, hospital patients or anyone else who cannot return to their homes. Polling can be set for inconvenient days such as midweek or on Holy Days (example: Sabbath or other holy days of a religious group whose teachings determine that voting is a prohibited on such a day) in order to make voting difficult for those studying or working away from home. Communities may also be effectively disenfranchised if polling places are not provided within reasonable proximity (rural communities are especially vulnerable to this) or situated in areas perceived by some voters as unsafe.
Intimidation
Voter intimidation involves putting undue pressure on a voter or group of voters so that they will vote a particular way, or not at all. Absentee and other remote voting can be more open to some forms of intimidation as the voter does not have t
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I answered your question because of the question I 'sussed was behind it. My answer was that I have no problem with people being able to register to vote without any proof as to who they are because I don’t think it would ever affect any election seriously, it's how most states do it now and I see no danger serious enough to change it. But I'll be specific, in which case, I expect you will be fair and specific in answering my previous question.
Given that I registered to vote, as most people did in California before on-line registration came into being, by getting a registration form from the post office and sending it in, I was not required to show a photo ID, passport, birth certificate or anything. It’s still that way, but now you can do it on line as well:Quote:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vr.htm
Fill Out A Voter Registration Form Now
Simply step through the screens and fill in the information requested on the form. Then print it, sign it, and mail it directly to the county elections office address that is pre-printed on the form. If you have any questions, you may contact the Elections Division.
Pick Up A Voter Registration Form
You can pick up a voter registration form at your county elections office, library, or U.S. Post Office. It is important that your voter registration form be filled out completely and be postmarked or hand-delivered to your county elections office at least 15 days before the election.
Ergo, no, I have no problem with not needing a passport, photo ID, driver’s license, birth certificate, etc., in order to register to vote. It's more or less that way in most states. If someone wants to turn that into a snark about California, be careful, because we’re not alone (this will be messy 'cuz I'm just copying them verbatum from websites):Quote:
Ohio:
Voter Registration Form (or change of name or address)
Download in PDF
Request a form(s) be sent to you
Voter Registration Form Instructions Brochure - Required by ORC (pdf)
Absentee Voting / Vote by Mail
Download an Absentee Ballot Request Form (pdf)
Absentee Voting / Vote by Mail Instructions
Military Absentee Voter Registration, Ballot Request and Help Desk Services
Overseas Absentee Voter Registration, Ballot Request and Help Desk ServicesQuote:
Wisconsin (currently):
The federal "Help American Vote Act of 2002" requires any person registering to vote to supply his or her Wisconsin Department of Transportation-issued driver's license number. Electors who have not been issued a Wisconsin driver's license must provide the last four digits of their Social Security Number OR their Wisconsin state ID card number. If the elector does not have a current, valid Wisconsin driver’s license, Wisconsin state ID card, or Social Security Number, the applicant may indicate this by filling in the appropriate circle on the registration form. (Box 2 on GAB-131)
Anyone wishing to vote in the state of Wisconsin has three options to register:
1. BY MAIL: Download the Application for Voter Registration (GAB-131), complete the form and mail it into the municipal clerk's office. Find your Wisconsin Municipal Clerk here. The application must be postmarked no later than the 20th day (3rd Wednesday) before the election. (For the Spring Primary, that date is Wednesday, January 26, 2011, and for the Spring Election that date is Wednesday, March 16, 2011.)
PLEASE NOTE: State and federal law now requires that any first-time voter submitting a registration application by mail provide a copy of an acceptable identifying document that provides proof of residence. (A “first-time voter” is an individual who has not voted in an election in Wisconsin.) Acceptable forms of proof of residence are outlined below. Please note that first-time voters registering by mail may not use a residential lease as proof of residence. The copy of the form of proof of residence must be included when sub
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My last post was to you, Geezer; I made my usual mistake of just "reply"ing to the last poster, and since you hadn't responded, that was me. Mea culpa.
I've been on too long, so am getting off for tonight. I hope you come back at some point and continue the debate.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
This is a concerted effort on the part of REPUBLICAN governors and legislators to do only one thing--in my probably partisan opinion they've got the others down pretty well.
And partisan Republicans probably think that motor-voter, early voting, no need of I.D. for registering/voting, etc. are part of a concerted effort on the part of DEMOCRATIC governors and legislators to do only one thing. You see disenfranchisement, they see keeping illegals from stuffing the ballot box for Democrats.
Reasonably neutral sources note that there's not really very much voter fraud from either side, but it's just too good for rousing the partisans and using as an excuse if you lose.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I'm glad to know you're one of those reasonable voters, I thought you were aiming to go after me.
Reasonably neutral sources note that there's not really very much voter fraud from either side, but it's just too good for rousing the partisans and using as an excuse if you lose.
I see what you're saying, essentially that in their opinion it's been wrong all along and they want to correct it. I don't agree, vehemently, but I can see that perspective. If I had the time and inclination, I would look up how long such procedures have been in place, but I'll accept that it's probably a very different country now than it was then (when we WELCOMED immigrants), but I maintain that these new laws do more to keep young, poor and minority CITIZENS from voting than they will keep any "ballot stuffing" from happening.
Out of curiosity, how do YOU feel about it? And do you really believe those legislators/governors doing it are actually doing it to keep illegals from voting (since, as you said, most reasonable people agree that it's not a big problem), or are you saying they're doing it to appeal to their core constituency? I would find it abhorrent that they would do things which prevent citizens from voting for purely political reasons. Which includes doing it to weigh the ballot box in their favor, which I believe is the purpose, so I still call it a dirty trick. I agree it's a partisan selling-point for either side, but that doesn't change the reality of the effect it will have.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm waiting for one of the state supreme courts to come out and say the obvious: if you require people to have a valid photo ID (driver's license, passport, etc.), and your state government charges any money for those things, you have in effect enacted a poll tax. You're charging people to vote, making it a privilege, not a right. And an enterprising judge would rule that if you're going to require such things, you also are required to provide them, free of charge, to every citizen.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mmm, good point Mike. I hope there's an "enterprising judge" out there somewhere.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'm waiting for one of the state supreme courts to come out and say the obvious: if you require people to have a valid photo ID (driver's license, passport, etc.), and your state government charges any money for those things, you have in effect enacted a poll tax. You're charging people to vote, making it a privilege, not a right. And an enterprising judge would rule that if you're going to require such things, you also are required to provide them, free of charge, to every citizen.
The Court in Georgia did pretty much that when the legislation requiring photo ID passed, so the bill was amended to provide free I.D. Panelists on the show I was listening to thought that this would pobably end up in other states' legislation.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
...but I maintain that these new laws do more to keep young, poor and minority CITIZENS from voting than they will keep any "ballot stuffing" from happening.
If you can obtain a photo I.D. for free, as is most likely to be the case (see my response to Mike's post above), I'm not sure how this will prevent any type of citizens from voting.
Quote:
Out of curiosity, how do YOU feel about it?
I figure that there are folks on both sides trying to get more of their voters and less of their opponents out to vote. If you google "Democrat voter fraud" or "Republican voter fraud" you'll see that partisan folks on both sides consider what the other guys are doing as "Dirty Tricks".
Personally, I'd prefer it if it took a bit of effort to vote. It might make folks think a bit more about what they're voting for.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SORRY, double post. OOPS!
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Personally, I'd prefer it if it took a bit of effort to vote. It might make folks think a bit more about what they're voting for.
I haven't weighed in on this thread , but Geezer's point prods me.
PERSONAL OPINION: Once registered, I believe folks should have to show up in person, on Election Day, to vote. NO ONE should be allowed to vote in advance-- something might happen the night before Election Day that might change the situation, cause a voter to change his mind. Absentee ballots should be provided for those traveling on Election Day, but picked up in person before the trip. A medical exception should be allowed for persons hospitalized or confined to bed, accompanied by a Doctor's certificate that the person is in fact alive, not a fraud. That a person is too busy, or doesn't have time on Election Day should not be an excuse. If it isn't important enough for someone to make time, they shouldn't vote. Employers should be required to provide time off to vote during Voting hours, to prevent them scheduling workers to such long hours that they can't vote.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Score one for you, NewOld; you had me going right up to the "alive" part. 
So instead of 
(because I vote by mail, every time now), I'll say 
-- good one!
Geezer, the voter turnout in America is so embarrassing for any democracy, it seems to me making it EASIER for people to vote should be the aim, not harder. Tho' I sometimes don't approve of their choices (or, more accurately, how they reached them!), I would never propose making it more difficult for ciizens to cast their vote. That's exactly what the requirement for an ID would do, and I think it's wrong. Voting is supposedly our RIGHT, isn't it? Does it say anything in whatever document gives us the right to vote that we should have to prove ourselves before we exercise that right?
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If this is about illegal immigrants and felons the problem isn't them voting, the problem is the voter kickback that sometimes comes with it and bloats some budgets. That can be addressed under the same political corruption issues I'm always harping on about. No reason to make things in this society more difficult to have your voice heard by creating new rules that could easily be exploited for use against members of other groups, such as ourselves.
But if we want to talk about voter or registration fraud I'll say maybe there's a case.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Personally, I'd prefer it if it took a bit of effort to vote. It might make folks think a bit more about what they're voting for."
Why do you think making it harder to vote would make folks more thoughtful? It seems it best screens for either people with easier schedules or those with a major ax to grind - whether they are thoughtful and rational - or not. Are you in favor of the various states efforts to re-enact what are the modern day versions of poll-taxes and Jim Crow laws? It sure seems like it.
I think election day should be a holiday. But that doesn't help people who have to work on holidays - nurses, gas station attendants, cashiers ... nor does it help people who have to work by virtue of the fact they can't afford to stop, not even for a day. It should be EASIER for people to vote and the qualifications should be the same across the entire country.
Let FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY reign!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Geezer, the voter turnout in America is so embarrassing for any democracy, it seems to me making it EASIER for people to vote should be the aim, not harder.
Googling 'why people don't vote', it seems folks blame cynicism and apathy much more frequently than than difficulty in the process.
Quote:
Tho' I sometimes don't approve of their choices (or, more accurately, how they reached them!), I would never propose making it more difficult for ciizens to cast their vote. That's exactly what the requirement for an ID would do, and I think it's wrong.
Still not sure how dropping by the DMV or local government office to pick up a free photo I.D. would be that discouraging to folks who actually wanted to vote.
Quote:
Voting is supposedly our RIGHT, isn't it? Does it say anything in whatever document gives us the right to vote that we should have to prove ourselves before we exercise that right?
]
The Constitution requires that one be a U.S. citizen and at least 18 to vote in national elections. All other qualifications are left to the states, such as residency requirements. Shouldn't people be required to show that they meet these requirements?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
You're not going to like my answer.
Nope. Because you avoided answering.
Really? I thought her answer was abundantly plain.
Senility must be wearing on ya.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Which is no valid reason for making it HARDER for those who do want to.
it seems folks blame cynicism and apathy much more frequently than than difficulty in the processQuote:
On the other hand, if the states didn’t feel it was necessary before, why change it now, especially as there is no real consequence to leaving it the way it is?
dropping by the DMV or local government office to pick up a free photo I.D. would be that discouraging to folks who actually wanted to vote.Quote:
Some states, as above, do require proof of residence, but again; what is the VALID reason for changing it? It’s a ploy to enhance voting levels on the right, pure and simple, in my opinion.
Shouldn't people be required to show that they meet these requirements?
To go beyond that, why are all these REPUBLICAN governors and legislators bothering with this, when they were elected on “jobs, jobs, jobs”? Everything they’ve done/are doing is about social issues, NOTHING to enhance job growth, so this is just more “get it while you can” in my opinion.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Which is no valid reason for making it HARDER for those who do want to.
But it's not HARD. Compare to Germany.
Quote:http://germany.angloinfo.com/countries/germany/vote.asp
Registering to Vote in Communal Elections.
All those resident in Germany who have completed the obligatory police registration procedure (polizeiliche Anmeldung) and who are legally entitled to vote will automatically receive a voting card (Wahlschein).
If no voting card is received and a person believes they are legally entitled to vote, an application can be made either in person at the voting office (Wahlamt) of the local town hall, by e-mail or by fax but not by telephone.
The following documents are required:
Police registration form (polizeiliche Anmeldung)
Proof of identity (passport)
Proof of residency in the country for a minimum of three months
Once the application to vote (Antrag) has been completed and approved, a voting card will be issued entitling the person to vote.
Per Wikipedia, voting turnout in Germany is 86%, the U.S. is 48%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout
Quote:But Republicans do see a consequence. They see the laws easing registration and I.D. requirements, mostly passed by Democratic legislatures, as a Liberal plan to provide an open door for folks who can't legally vote but would support Liberal agendas if they could. Just like you see the Conservative requirements as a nefarious plot by the Right.
On the other hand, if the states didn’t feel it was necessary before, why change it now, especially as there is no real consequence to leaving it the way it is?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, if you don't think it's hard, then what is the VALID reason for making it hard? Just the money it will cost to implement this stuff goes against their "fiscal responsibility" cry, and, as any number of us have agreed THERE IS NO PROBLEM anyway. In other words, if it's not broken, why fix it (and charge the populace for doing so)? And I ask again: Why aren't they concentrating on jobs, like they promised??
Yeah, I see how SOME Republicans view it--but I think there are a lot more who view it as giving them an edge by making it tougher for those who would vote Democratic to do so. The fact that the way things are hasn't caused any real problem makes the argument a bit invalid. I see it as a ploy to stifle Democratic votes.Quote:
Could you provide some cites that the laws were "eased" by Democrats, please? I'm curious if that's the case, because it's a state-by-state thing.
laws easing registration and I.D. requirements, mostly passed by Democratic legislatures
Lastly, so we want to model ourselves after Germany? I thought we didn't compare ourselves to other countries' governments...if we're gonna do that, hell, a LOT of governments make voting tough, and many don't even allow it. Don't we pride ourselves on our democracy? There are many reasons America's voting percentage is as low as it is, and how easy or not it is to vote doesn't seem to me to be a real valid argument.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't see the problem in people showing I.D., or having to prove their citizenship/non-felon status.
You have to be a citizen to vote, and you can't be a convicted felon either. On the "other-side" I would also like to see more transparency in vote counts. I've heard too many stories from places like Chicago, where dead people voted.
I may be going overboard, but voter fraud should be punished. Harshly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So should many, many things which aren't (punished), especially by our legislators. Voter fraud IS punished when it's found; it's not a real problem; and I too would like more transparency. The "accidental" purging/losing/etc. of votes is a much more serious problem, in my opinion.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SkyDiveLife
I wonder who's sock-puppet you are ...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I dislike sock puppet accusations, and regret the time I directed one at you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Niki, I don't consider the proposed requirements to shorten early voting periods or to obtain and show Photo I.D. to be hard. As I noted, other countries have requirements at least as - if not more - difficult and still have voter turnout almost twice as great as the U.S.
Originally posted by Niki2:
Okay, if you don't think it's hard, then what is the VALID reason for making it hard?
Quote:
Just the money it will cost to implement this stuff goes against their "fiscal responsibility" cry, and, as any number of us have agreed THERE IS NO PROBLEM anyway. In other words, if it's not broken, why fix it (and charge the populace for doing so)?.
As I noted before (two or three times, I think) the Republicans proposing this legislation may very well think THERE IS A PROBLEM. They may think that eased requirements for voter registration and identification have the potential to create a PROBLEM. They may consider funds spent to correct this as essential.
Quote:
I see it as a ploy to stifle Democratic votes.
And how would this occur? How many folks would not have the time to go down and pick up a free photo I.D. one time? How many people couldn't find the time in between a week and two weeks before election day to go file an early ballot?And why do you think that would be more onerous for Democrats than Republicans?
Quote:
Lastly, so we want to model ourselves after Germany?
No, we might COMPARE ourselves to Germany, and wonder why, with a much easier voting registration procedure, even if all Republican proposals were implemented, we can only get about half the percentage of people to bother to vote.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As compared to Germany, we might try the Australian pattern. Registration and voting are compulsory-- they get about a 97 % turnout. Ya don't vote, they send ya a letter asking why. You don't have a good reason, they fine ya $20. Ya don't pay that, they take ya to court. They win there, they fine ya $50 plus court costs.
Seems to work there...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer:Quote:
As I noted before, I don’t buy that. The best I can imagine is that it’s about immigration and/or more of the “social issues” Republicans right now are pushing...whether they believe in them or they’re doing it to pander to their base (which I think is more the case), I don’t buy that they’re ACTUALLY afraid.
As I noted before (two or three times, I think) the Republicans proposing this legislation may very well think THERE IS A PROBLEM. They may think that eased requirements for voter registration and identification have the potential to create a PROBLEM. They may consider funds spent to correct this as essential.Quote:
That one’s easy. The poor, young and minorities generally vote Democratic. If you can keep them from voting, you eliminate those votes. The poor would have to pay for an ID, as far as I know, so many wouldn’t. Minorities in the inner city might not have the ability to get photo IDs nearby. ANYTHING we do to lessen citizens’ ability to vote is something in which I don’t believe. Here are cites which explain better than me, and what do you think of Florida’s new law, particularly?
why do you think that would be more onerous for Democrats than Republicans?Quote:
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/9029527-florida-republicans-
Republicans in Florida are following the lead of other states in passing laws to block the vote of people who tend to vote for democrats.
For the past 40 years, Floridian's have been able to report updates to their personal information when they went to polling places to vote. No more.
Florida's new voting law will block the vote of people who have had a change of address, got married or divorced and changed their name, or moved because they are serving in the military.
Additional changes cut early voting ballot time from 14 days to 8, and places profound restrictions on absentee voting, which heavily impacts military families.
Republicans are citing voter fraud issues as their reason to stop people from voting, but the argument is false. According to Salon.com, A Department of Justice document found that "between the fall of 2002 and the fall of 2005, there were only 95 defendants charged with federal election-fraud-related crimes in the whole country. Salon also reports that republicans have been "using foreclosure lists to challenge the edibility of voters."
Are republicans trying to influence the outcome of elections in their favor by passing block the vote laws aimed at democrats?
The massive hole in the voter fraud argument and aiming new laws at the poor, the elderly, and military families, gives substantial weight to the idea that republicans are attempting to influence the outcome of future elections in their favor, by manipulation voter registration laws.
pass-new-block-the-vote-law Quote:
Less than a year before the 2012 presidential voting begins, Republican legislatures and governors across the country are rewriting voting laws to make it much harder for the young, the poor and African-Americans — groups that typically vote Democratic — to cast a ballot.
Anyone who has stood on the long lines at a motor vehicle office knows that it isn’t easy to get such documents. For working people, it could mean giving up a day’s wages.
A survey by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law found that 11 percent of citizens, 21 million people, do not have a current photo ID. That fraction increases to 15 percent of low-income voting-age citizens, 18 percent of young eligible voters and 25 percent of black eligible voters. Those demographic groups tend to vote Democratic, and Republicans are imposing requirements that they know many will be unable to meet.
Kansas’ new law was drafted by its secretary of state, Kris Kobach, who also wrote Arizona’s anti-immigrant law. Voters will be required to show a photo ID at the polls. Before they can register, Kansans will have to produce a proof of
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow NewOld, that's COOL! I wish we could have something similar, tho' I don't agree with the fine. If people don't WANT to vote, that should be their decision. But I like the rest!
So hey, Germany makes it much harder, Australia insists. Do we want to compare ourselves with every other country before we dedice what we want, Geezer?
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SkyDiveLife:
I may be going overboard, but voter fraud should be punished. Harshly.
Given how rarely it happens, in relation to how much people talk about it, you were right with that first part.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Your privilege. It's no more unreasonable than to think that the 'motor-voter' law Democrats passed in 1993, which required that all folks signing up for any form of public assistance be given the right to register at the same time, wasn't designed to sign up more Democratic voters.
Originally posted by Niki2:
As I noted before, I don’t buy that.
Quote:
That one’s easy. The poor, young and minorities generally vote Democratic. If you can keep them from voting, you eliminate those votes. The poor would have to pay for an ID, as far as I know, so many wouldn’t. Minorities in the inner city might not have the ability to get photo IDs nearby.
As I noted above, (how many times am I going to have to say this?) based on the experience in Georgia, the only way states are going to be able to request photo I.D. is if they provide it for free. Why should it be any harder for minorities in the inner city, with access to public transit, to pick up a free I.D. than a rancher in Montana who's 50 miles from the county seat? Or are Democrats just too lazy to make the effort to get I.D.? Seems to be what you're saying.
Quote:
Here are cites which explain better than me, and what do you think of Florida’s new law, particularly?
I think your cite is biased and half-truthful. For examble, concerning address changes, it's not "Florida's new voting law will block the vote of people who have had a change of address, got married or divorced and changed their name, or moved because they are serving in the military."
Instead:
Quote:http://www.nwfdailynews.com/opinion/changes-40415-lux-florida.html
All in-county address changes will still be allowed at the polling place on election day. Address changes made by Florida voters who move between counties who are active-duty military (or family members) will also be allowed at the polling place on election day. All other voters who move between counties and neglect to change their registration address before election day will be asked to vote provisional ballots.
Once the supervisor determines that the voter in question has not voted in the other county in the same election, the voter’s provisional ballot will be presented to the canvassing board with a recommendation that it be counted.
One positive change concerning these voters is that between-county address changes will no longer require a “wet ink” signature on a registration form to accomplish the move. It now can be done over the phone, by e-mail, or online using a web form. Voters who need to make these changes can do so before election day to avoid having to vote provisional ballots.
So folks who move within a county or are in the military change addresses at the polling place and vote as usual, and folks who moved inter-county and didn't re-register vote a provisional ballot until it's confirmed they didn't vote elsewhere. The law also makes it EASIER to change addresses prior to election day. Not quite the same.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank you for clarifying that error, it was something I hadn't heard previously and as such shocked me.Quote:
First off, there is no guarantee the state will pay for photo I.D.s, yours is a supposition. Secondly, I don't want a rancher in Montana to have to drive 50 miles to get an I.D. either; I want everyone to have equal access to vote, period. These laws hamper that for some people.
As I noted above, (how many times am I going to have to say this?) based on the experience in Georgia, the only way states are going to be able to request photo I.D. is if they provide it for free. Why should it be any harder for minorities in the inner city, with access to public transit, to pick up a free I.D. than a rancher in Montana who's 50 miles from the county seat? Or are Democrats just too lazy to make the effort to get I.D.? Seems to be what you're saying.
You may feel the cites I put up are biased (you think the second one is, too?), but that doesn’t change the statistics presented:Quote:
THAT is a fact, I’ve done it and I know.
Anyone who has stood on the long lines at a motor vehicle office knows that it isn’t easy to get such documents. For working people, it could mean giving up a day’s wages. Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/opinion/27wed1.html
A survey by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law found that 11 percent of citizens, 21 million people, do not have a current photo ID. That fraction increases to 15 percent of low-income voting-age citizens, 18 percent of young eligible voters and 25 percent of black eligible voters.
Note that the largest groups of people without photo I.D.s are precisely the groups affected by these laws. (Both those quotes with my remarks in the middle come from the last cite.)
How aboutQuote:
So if one doesn't have a birth certificate handy, one has to go through the process of obtaining a copy before being allowed to vote. How about those who don't know about the new laws? Too late, too late. Does it stop anyone already fraudulently registered from voting? No.
Before they can register, Kansans will have to produce a proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate.
What about people like this elderly Black man?Quote:
Those, too, would most likely be poor, minorities or the elderly.
Larry Butler said that South Carolina’s new voter photo ID law will prevent him from voting. The state won’t issue him a driver’s license because he can’t produce the necessary documentation. Butler does not have a birth certificate because he was not born in a hospital and the elementary school he attended burnt down many years ago so the required records are not available.
As to students:
How does the following make voter fraud less possible, as opposed to simply making the time they’re allowed to vote early shorter?Quote:
In 2008, more than half the African-American voters in Florida who participated in the historic election of President Barack Obama did it by voting early. In the state's largest counties, with the highest number of black voters, many voters went to the early voting sites on the Sunday before Election Day. Now, under a new law — passed by a Republican Legislature and signed by Gov. Rick Scott last month — that early voting period has been cut from 14 days to 8 days, and the Sunday voting, before Election Day, has been eliminated.
An analysis of state election records by the Florida Democratic Party showed that in 2008, 1.1 million black voters participated in the general election, in which they had the opportunity to elect the country's first African-American president. Nearly 54 percent of those voters cast ballots before Election Day at early-voting sites. The figure does not include the 13.6 percent who cast absentee ballots.
In contrast, only 27
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think there shouldn't be shorter voting periods, that's just inconvenient. And New Old, I hope you were joking about abolishing vote by mail, because voting by mail is the right way for me to vote. I can't do that whole look at the ballot at the voting pole thing, so I need to be able to vote at home. That's interesting about Australia by the way, I wouldn't adopt such a system, but I do think that more people should be voting, though with the crummy homogenized choices we have for leaders these days I can understand how people get discouraged and don't feel like voting.
I think we need to indeed keep voter fraud from happening, but if the rules currently in place are followed apropriately then we shouldn't need to make any more. I also think its important to make sure that all eligable people who want to vote are able to and I think vote by mail has helped this a lot. Like I said voting by mail means that I can vote without someone filling in the boxes for me and I can take as much time as I need to read the ballot. So I'm all for vote by mail. But I do think poles should be available too for people who like that.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Re voting by mail- no, Riona, I'm dead serious- To vote, you should have to show up in person. Proves you're still alive, still resident in or near the precinct where you vote. Would make it hard, but not of course, impossible, to vote in multiple precincts. Would prove that the vote you cast is cast by you, not some identity theft person. I don't believe in absentee ballots, for similar reasons, unless you're going to be traveling on Election Day or in military service. I don't like motor-voter, either, by the way. I think it opens the door to POSSIBLE fraud.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Those in-person systems all make it very difficult for people with eye-sight problems though.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'd shy away from compulsory voting. There are folks who are conscientious nonvoters, as opposed to apathetic nonvoters, who either disagree with the choices they've been giving or are peacefully protesting a system of government they do not agree with.
I don't think requiring these people to participate in a system they care little about or are philosophically opposed to is going to yield very positive results.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think its New Old's new job to sit in the voter's booth with me and read me all the measures and fill in my boxes for me, don't that sound spiffy New Old? Or he can be the one in line behind me while I read my ballot with my portable CCTV and deliberate about how I want to vote. Or I could use a Braille ballot, but they don't usually have those conveniently waiting at the poles so it would have to ... horror or horrors ... come in the mail, shock and horror! Did I mention the Horror?
:)P
:)
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I think its New Old's new job to sit in the voter's booth with me and read me all the measures and fill in my boxes for me, don't that sound spiffy New Old? Or he can be the one in line behind me while I read my ballot with my portable CCTV and deliberate about how I want to vote. Or I could use a Braille ballot, but they don't usually have those conveniently waiting at the poles so it would have to ... horror or horrors ... come in the mail, shock and horror! Did I mention the Horror?
:)P
:)
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
I hope you're teasing. All of those services are supposed to be available at any polling place here in California. And I don't mind waiting in line. I did suggest, somewhere, absentee ballots for medical reasons. I guess I overlooked the notion that that could be extended to persons with a serious degree of handicap.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
" much harder"
Can you say "spin"? I knew ya could.
Good grief. What a bunch of absolute bullshit.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think I'll just stick with voting the way I want to, thanks.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Joss and Stacey's read the Kangs Antifa BLM story
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Just out of curiosity, do you think people should be able to register to vote without any proof as to who they are?
perhaps in the end of it all...its ready to go Dystopia
only Citizens Should Vote?
and Geezer was always a Neo-Con worshipping faggot type
Board votes to fire Cobb County teacher on leave over children's book
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/board-votes-to-fire-cobb-county-teach
er-on-leave-over-childrens-book
County leaders vote to redesignate 'obscene' library books
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/midland-county-leaders-v
ote-redesignate-obscene-18297222.php
sell your own book
'Art of the Deal'?
youtube.com /shorts/ v_zaeohJuCQ
Scifi Hollyweird?
vote early and often and audio book it all
?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME