Go Back   Fratching! > General > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #11  
Old 08-27-2018, 08:32 PM
mjr mjr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by s_stabeler View Post
To say nothing about how, often, getting said ID is rather more inconvenient for poor people. (remember that someone on MW probably can't afford to take a day off to get an ID, even if their employer offers time off. (and there's often no PTO available)
Again, how many things do you need ID for?

Aside from that, doesn't it stand to reason that if they can't get off to get an ID, they might not be able to get off to vote?

I get the DMV (or wherever people may get IDs) is inefficient. But people can (and do) get IDs.

And a lot of states that have ID laws have other forms of ID you can use. I'd prefer a photo ID, but places are being somewhat flexible.

On top of that, how many people who have MW jobs are working 7 days per week? Also, if I'm not mistaken, people can schedule appointments at the DMV/wherever to get a photo ID.
Reply With Quote

  #12  
Old 08-28-2018, 09:45 AM
Tanasi Tanasi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 756
Default

I've believed for a long while that no matter how easy it was made for someone to get a photo ID there would still be plenty complain that it was too hard. If you're not willing to put some effort into getting yourself registered to vote then maybe you shouldn't vote. So many people that registered to that doesn't even with several weeks of early voting, well then just shut the heck up.
Another thing in 2014 I was in a nursing home recovering from surgery and other sicknesses. I was in another county besides my county of residence. I observed how that county conducted voting for the nursing home residents and it surprised me. So many didn't know they were even in the world but someone voted for them be it their family, the staff or someone from the election commission. Was that right? I don't think so.
A cousin and I share custody of our paternal grand parents papers from the late 19th and early 20th century. Among their papers is receipts of their poll taxes. They were very poor folks but they still thought enough of voting to spend a lot of their meager cash reserves to vote.
Voting is not only a privilege but a duty that many of my multi-great grandfathers fought for. My parents made voting a big deal to their children and my wife and I make a big deal of voting to our kids and they're doing likewise with their kids. Just this past early voting both my wife and I took our youngest son into the booths with us. I wish the county still set aside a booth for the kids to vote.
__________________
Cry Havoc and let slip the marsupials of war!!!
Reply With Quote

  #13  
Old 08-28-2018, 11:18 AM
mjr mjr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,179
Default

Here are a couple of articles. The first one is from 2013, and lists 24 things that you have to show photo ID for:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/2...ire-a-photo-id

Though some of those I doubt, because I've engaged in a couple of them and not had to show ID.

The second one is Seven things the government sometimes requires ID for:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/08/...uires-ids-for/

Why do you suppose that is? It's to keep people from gaming the system.

Last edited by mjr; 08-28-2018 at 11:23 AM.
Reply With Quote

  #14  
Old 08-29-2018, 05:43 PM
Daskinor Daskinor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 235
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjr View Post
Again, how many things do you need ID for?

Aside from that, doesn't it stand to reason that if they can't get off to get an ID, they might not be able to get off to vote?

I get the DMV (or wherever people may get IDs) is inefficient. But people can (and do) get IDs.

And a lot of states that have ID laws have other forms of ID you can use. I'd prefer a photo ID, but places are being somewhat flexible.

On top of that, how many people who have MW jobs are working 7 days per week? Also, if I'm not mistaken, people can schedule appointments at the DMV/wherever to get a photo ID.
The Twenty-fourth Amendment (Amendment XXIV) of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. Don't get up in arms about the word tax. Court rulings are that having to pay in any way to vote is a poll tax. That includes having to take off work to get an ID, especially if you are PA and close down a bunch of DMV locations in the same Vote ID bill.

As for;

https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/08/...uires-ids-for/

1. Welfare Benefits - Not universally true some sates have different rules for this.

2. Registration for Buying Guns - Varies from state to state. There is also no constitutional protection from having to pay for or apply for a gun license. Allot of case history to support this to. Remember the 24th amendment sets the price to vote at 0, and prevents the government from somehow make a cost without calling it a tax.

3. Petition Your Government - This one is on the surface false, its just trying to stretch the narrative by inserting a hypothetical.

4. Right of Assembly - Technically correct but misleading, applications for space permits may or may not require an ID. However you are not required to have ID to protest. It just makes things easier if a situation arises where an officer needs to verify your identity.

5. Right to Marry - Again the particulars vary from state to state, but the two sited examples have some exceptions. Also "Remember the 24th amendment sets the price to vote at 0, and prevents the government from somehow make a cost without calling it a tax. "

6. Freedom of Movement - Confusing 'Ability to use method of travel' with Freedom of Movement. You don't need ID for domestic travel, but you need one to board an airplane.

7. Public Accommodations- It is not required to need an ID to book a hotel. Its just a practice that has occurred to limit liability. And we are also talking about private businesses that are technically NOT Public Accommodations. Hotels are private entities that can make up their own rules, as long as they don't run afoul of state and federal laws.

The other article is the same; Vague, incorrect, forgets that the constitution says the cost has to be 0. State cant even charge you for a stamp to put on the voter registration form.

That's the rub right there, 0. Remember that.

Quote:
I've believed for a long while that no matter how easy it was made for someone to get a photo ID there would still be plenty complain that it was too hard.
I would recommend looking into the lives of the very poor, or the very rural.
Reply With Quote

  #15  
Old 08-31-2018, 04:21 AM
Tanasi Tanasi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 756
Default

In my state TDOS offers drivers licensing testing in every county at least once a month, most more and in some 5 days a week. I'm sure if someone that didn't have a car to get to the testing stations could call a local politician or political organization or church group to get a ride to get a free ID. I've driven folks from their home counties to neighboring counties to do so. Heck I bet there is also veteran groups that would take folks to get IDs.
Is this available in all situations? No but my state also allows folks without ID to cast a provisional ballot. Once the person is confirmed then their ballot is included.
And I stick by my premise that the state could come to a person's home to make an ID and they'd still complain. If you aren't willing to put some effort to vote then perhaps you shouldn't be voting.
In the 2012 election there were several students at the local university complaining that there wasn't a polling station at the university for out of state students to vote. What rubbed me was why does my state have to provide a polling station for out of state students and why are out of state voting in my state's elections? How many folks that have residences in multiple states also vote in multiple states? Justin Timberlake owns some land in the Memphis area, he flew in to vote but he lives in CA. Did he vote both places? By law he can't be a residence of both states. If he did vote both places then IMO that is voter fraud. And it's just not him, there's lots of damnyankees that live both in FL and up in yankeeland. Vote both places that's fraud.
__________________
Cry Havoc and let slip the marsupials of war!!!

Last edited by MadMike; 08-31-2018 at 04:38 AM. Reason: Please don't quote the entire post. We've already read it.
Reply With Quote

  #16  
Old 08-31-2018, 10:57 AM
mjr mjr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,179
Default

EVERYTHING has a cost. "Poll Taxes" were monetary costs. I could argue that it costs me money AND time to drive to the poll to vote. So why can't I have them drive a ballot to my house?

And if you have to take off to vote, wouldn't that, under your definition, be a poll tax?

Last edited by MadMike; 09-01-2018 at 01:16 AM. Reason: Would you PLEASE stop quoting the entire post?!
Reply With Quote

  #17  
Old 08-31-2018, 02:53 PM
Daskinor Daskinor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 235
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanasi View Post
In my state TDOS offers drivers licensing testing in every county at least once a month, most more and in some 5 days a week. I'm sure if someone that didn't have a car to get to the testing stations could call a local politician or political organization or church group to get a ride to get a free ID. I've driven folks from their home counties to neighboring counties to do so. Heck I bet there is also veteran groups that would take folks to get IDs.
Is this available in all situations? No but my state also allows folks without ID to cast a provisional ballot. Once the person is confirmed then their ballot is included.
And I stick by my premise that the state could come to a person's home to make an ID and they'd still complain. If you aren't willing to put some effort to vote then perhaps you shouldn't be voting.
In the 2012 election there were several students at the local university complaining that there wasn't a polling station at the university for out of state students to vote. What rubbed me was why does my state have to provide a polling station for out of state students and why are out of state voting in my state's elections? How many folks that have residences in multiple states also vote in multiple states? Justin Timberlake owns some land in the Memphis area, he flew in to vote but he lives in CA. Did he vote both places? By law he can't be a residence of both states. If he did vote both places then IMO that is voter fraud. And it's just not him, there's lots of damnyankees that live both in FL and up in yankeeland. Vote both places that's fraud.
The state can not rely on a third party to satisfy 24th and Voting Act requirements. The can do mobile things for rural areas, but not actually following through with those plans sunk Texas' voter id laws.

The provisional ballot thing is a trap waiting for problems. Its basically weasel words to not back down on the voter ID laws after the federal courts cracked down on the efforts as voter suppression. What happens when the election is close enough and you need to count those votes. It is not fun dealing with them.

Since college students live in your state for more then half the year, they are eligible to vote in that state or their home state. Or that district if they are from another part of the state. The particulars depend on each state but you are wrong about a person being a resident of two states. There are some differences between being a 'full resident' or a 'resident'. But I feel if you pay personal taxes in both states you should be able to vote in whatever state you want. Most people settle for where they are in November. So yes whatever they call people who go south in the winter, and college students.

Quote:
EVERYTHING has a cost. "Poll Taxes" were monetary costs. I could argue that it costs me money AND time to drive to the poll to vote. So why can't I have them drive a ballot to my house?

And if you have to take off to vote, wouldn't that, under your definition, be a poll tax?
We call those absentee ballots. And some places do early voting. And one state says "screw it we will do the whole thing by mail".

So yes those points are addressed. As for getting to the polling place, that's the one thing that is not expressly covered by the 24th. But it is covered under the Voter Act. Since the poll is technically a place not an act. The amendment does not cover getting to the place or waiting in line there. But the Voter Rights Act prevents blatant ways to exploit that. Like make a polling place to far away or open a short amount of time. Or even closing before everyone in line has voted.

Honestly I am against the Tuesday vote, because I think it is an attempt at voter suppression from over 200 years ago. Should be a national holiday.



For me what it comes down to is the fact that no one has been able to show wide spread voter fraud at the individual voting level. We seen it as suppression, we seen it in gerrymandering, we have seen it with the counters. Trying to drum up enough in person fraud to influence all but a local election is more difficult then one can imagine. So many people would be involved that need to keep the crime under wraps would be that much more difficult.

I seen articles that scream "OVER 1000 DEAD PEOPLE VOTED THIS YEAR". First that is statistically barley able to affect a local election. Second you read into the article, 90% of them have been verified to have died after sending an absentee ballot. So perfectly legal votes sent in by people who happened to have died since then.

Or that "3800 people MAY of voted improperly in CA" where a record 14.6 million people voted that year. And most of those cases where paperwork irregularities not attempted fraud.

One of the articles in this thread about non citizens voting. Even stated that in some cases they filled out the form accurately. The state just did not do its job correctly, and they were the one that messed up.

And we get a published case of in person fraud. Then separate out the ones committed by someone with intellectual impairment. It statistically amounts to nothing.

But I do take great offence to putting up a barrier to voting because you do not have and item that you are not legally required to have. Then force you to get that item to exercise said right.

And if its really that important, then support a national ID program. Where everyone gets an ID. See how much backlash that gets.....
Reply With Quote

  #18  
Old 09-02-2018, 11:06 AM
mjr mjr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daskinor View Post
We call those absentee ballots. And some places do early voting. And one state says "screw it we will do the whole thing by mail".

So yes those points are addressed.
Not in all cases. If you have a post office box where you have to get to the post office, then that means you have to get to the post office. So you'd either have to drive (gas, wear on the car), walk (a decent amount of time) or take public transit (pay a fare, time). Not everyone has a mailbox outside their house or at their apartment complex.

And if ballots are supposed to be anonymous, doesn't a "mail in" ballot sort of defeat that purpose?

Quote:
As for getting to the polling place, that's the one thing that is not expressly covered by the 24th. But it is covered under the Voter Act. Since the poll is technically a place not an act. The amendment does not cover getting to the place or waiting in line there. But the Voter Rights Act prevents blatant ways to exploit that. Like make a polling place to far away or open a short amount of time. Or even closing before everyone in line has voted.
None of which prevents anyone from showing an ID when they vote.

Quote:
For me what it comes down to is the fact that no one has been able to show wide spread voter fraud at the individual voting level. We seen it as suppression, we seen it in gerrymandering, we have seen it with the counters.
So then, just how much voter fraud is OK?

Funny thing about gerrymandering. People are against it unless it's benefiting them.

Quote:
One of the articles in this thread about non citizens voting. Even stated that in some cases they filled out the form accurately. The state just did not do its job correctly, and they were the one that messed up.
The question is: Did the non-citizens vote? That's why we need more oversight. The Constitution doesn't say "residents" can vote. It says citizens can vote.

Also, is it OK and Constitutional for non-citizens to vote? Answer to both: No.

Quote:
But I do take great offence to putting up a barrier to voting because you do not have and item that you are not legally required to have. Then force you to get that item to exercise said right.
There is something you ARE legally required to have: Citizenship. How do you propose people prove that? "Take my word for it"?

Sorry, that doesn't work.

Also, aren't people generally big on "one person, one vote"? If people are voting more than once, doesn't that violate that premise? Answer: Yes.

"One person, one vote" is also why a lot of people don't want "approval voting", either.

Last edited by mjr; 09-02-2018 at 11:09 AM.
Reply With Quote

  #19  
Old 09-02-2018, 01:11 PM
s_stabeler s_stabeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,203
Default

once again the issue isn't that voter fraud is ok, it's that many methods of countering voter fraud disenfranchise more legitimate voters than they catch fraudulent voters

Or, to put it simpler, it's just as bad to disenfranchise a legit voter as it is to allow a fraudulent vote. Both can skew the result. Considering that every singe election you hear of attempts at disenfranchising opposition voters, then I don't personally trust that any voter ID scheme would be bipartisan.
Reply With Quote

  #20  
Old 09-04-2018, 01:49 PM
Daskinor Daskinor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 235
Default

Quote:
Not in all cases. If you have a post office box where you have to get to the post office, then that means you have to get to the post office. So you'd either have to drive (gas, wear on the car), walk (a decent amount of time) or take public transit (pay a fare, time). Not everyone has a mailbox outside their house or at their apartment complex.
There is a legal theory of minimum effort. Like you need to be able to get mail, or use a phone. Or have someone who can do those things for you. Also before you start splitting hairs, case history on this is really clear about. Minimums on time and effort required before it becomes suppression or a poll tax. If you are really curious I can give you the ISBNs so you can do the reading.

Quote:
And if ballots are supposed to be anonymous, doesn't a "mail in" ballot sort of defeat that purpose?
That can still be accomplished. And to answer your question, no. We actually call the current ballot type in use by most states an "Australian ballot". And current voting systems were not really in place until 1952.

Quote:
So then, just how much voter fraud is OK?
Mathematically speaking about .05%. In essence, no system is 100% infallible. IDs wont solve the problem, real vs fake. And I would also include making it so eligible voters can't vote a failure of the system even if no fraud has occurred.

Quote:
Funny thing about gerrymandering. People are against it unless it's benefiting them.
So are you for or against, I can't tell. I stand by gerrymandering as a voter suppression technique.

Quote:
The question is: Did the non-citizens vote? That's why we need more oversight. The Constitution doesn't say "residents" can vote. It says citizens can vote.
The point was the state made a mistake, and issued them a voter card. Even though they checked the box saying they are a non citizen.

Quote:
Also, is it OK and Constitutional for non-citizens to vote? Answer to both: No.
Wow, you are just not right, at all. The situation is complicated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_..._United_States

Quote:
There is something you ARE legally required to have: Citizenship.
See above

Quote:
How do you propose people prove that? "Take my word for it"?
How does a drivers license prove it? Don't flip out the answer is it does not.

Quote:
Also, aren't people generally big on "one person, one vote"? If people are voting more than once, doesn't that violate that premise? Answer: Yes.

"One person, one vote" is also why a lot of people don't want "approval voting", either.
No idea what you are trying to say
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 09:38 AM.


vBulletin skins developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.