The Off Topic Topic

[Josquius]

Voter ID laws & all that are only suppressing in the US.

We are not a very politically engaged state anyway. Only 12% turned out to vote in this most recent statewide election and even in big elections we never break the 60% barrier. There is really no need to suppress the voters when they don't vote anyway.

I vote in every single damn election no matter how little I give a shit about what is at stake.

What I find hilarious and extremely aggravating at the same time is the same assholes who make my life miserable by spewing political venom all the time often don't bother to show up and vote in the actual elections. Political internet warriors are not always political warriors in the real world.

I'd say this is a good thing.

[grumbler]

I've never understood the "voter identification is voter suppression" argument, either. 

I was using it as a joke mostly.

Then good timing for the two of you to learn something about the topic.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/07/is-america-a-democracy-if-so-why-does-it-deny-millions-the-vote

The timing is even better for you to learn something about the topic.  Voter identification has been required in the US for nigh-on a century, and I'll bet it is required in every other advanced democracy, too.

[crazy canuck]

Please read the article, you owe it to your students to have proper context before you tell them voter ID laws have no impact.

Next you will be telling them the the first International was based on Marx's writings. 

[grumbler]

Please read the article, you owe it to your students to have proper context before you tell them voter ID laws have no impact.

Next you will be telling them the the first International was based on Marx's writings. 

So, more strawman arguments is all you have?  *yawn*

[crazy canuck]

Done with this place.

The rest of you can continue to play with Grumbler and Berkut.

[Syt]

[Valmy]

Done with this place.

The rest of you can continue to play with Grumbler and Berkut.

Ah man

[grumbler]

Done with this place.

The rest of you can continue to play with Grumbler and Berkut.

[Sheilbh]

The timing is even better for you to learn something about the topic.  Voter identification has been required in the US for nigh-on a century, and I'll bet it is required in every other advanced democracy, too.

Not the UK

I think in terms of voter suppression in the US the stuff around polling stations seems far more dodgy, direct and wrong. And in the UK the potential for voter fraud is far higher with postal votes.

My own view is you shouldn't require voter ID unless you require ID in general (as they do in Europe). Interesting the politics of this in the UK do imitate the right: the Tories want to introduce it and Labour say it will mainly prevent the poor and minority ethnic voters (especially in cities where there's no need to drive) from voting. The stats, interestingly, show that actually it would probably stop more old voters than anyone else which would hurt the Tory vote. But I think both sides watch American politics so their responses are pavlovian.

[Razgovory]

Goddamn it Grumbler, you really need to stop being such an asshole.

[grumbler]

The timing is even better for you to learn something about the topic.  Voter identification has been required in the US for nigh-on a century, and I'll bet it is required in every other advanced democracy, too.

Not the UK

I did specify advanced democracies.

I think in terms of voter suppression in the US the stuff around polling stations seems far more dodgy, direct and wrong. And in the UK the potential for voter fraud is far higher with postal votes.

My own view is you shouldn't require voter ID unless you require ID in general (as they do in Europe). Interesting the politics of this in the UK do imitate the right: the Tories want to introduce it and Labour say it will mainly prevent the poor and minority ethnic voters (especially in cities where there's no need to drive) from voting. The stats, interestingly, show that actually it would probably stop more old voters than anyone else which would hurt the Tory vote. But I think both sides watch American politics so their responses are pavlovian.

I think that the perception of election fairness is better-served by having the voter be able to identify themselves in some fashion before voting.  Voting on demand may allow more proper voters to vote, but definitely, in the US anyway, would lead to a widespread perception that voter fraud was trivial to accomplish and therefor rife.  The actual requirements for voter identification should balance the need to allow voters to vote and to make voter fraud at least somewhat difficult.  I agree that many of the measures currently taken in some US states are far too onerous for legitimate voters, and amount to vote suppression.  I don't think that vote on demand is the answer, though.  There has to be a balance.  Having said that, I don't think that voter fraud was a problem even before the more onerous measures were adopted.

[Eddie Teach]

Goddamn it Grumbler, you really need to stop being such an asshole.

Honestly CC has been more Grumbler than Grumbler today, up to the point when he stormed off.

[Sheilbh]

I did specify advanced democracies.

Fair.

Today I learned that the reason the results of elections in England are announced by the Acting Returning Officer is because Returning Officer (that is the person responsible for the vote count) is an entirely honourary title that goes to the High Sheriff of the county.

[garbon]

Goddamn it Grumbler, you really need to stop being such an asshole.

Or CC can stop being such a drama queen. Not the first time and unlikely to be the last.

[The Brain]

Maybe people should just chill the fuck ax.