Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[Admiral Yi]

I am not sure that his point is that there are disenfranchised people in the US, but rather that more disenfranchisement would be better.

He points out that we disenfranchise minors.

[PDH]

I am not sure that his point is that there are disenfranchised people in the US, but rather that more disenfranchisement would be better.

He points out that we disenfranchise minors.

Again, I am seeing his point not in that there are disenfranchised people, but that there should be more people disenfranchised.

[Admiral Yi]

Again, I am seeing his point not in that there are disenfranchised people, but that there should be more people disenfranchised.

He certainly doesn't come out and say he'd like to disenfranchize some voters, either particular groups or in general.

What I think he is saying is that disenfranchisement is not quite the sacred talisman that Democrats make it out to be.  Hence the mention of minors not voting.

I personally think Democrats are dead wrong on the voter ID issue.  We inconvenience voters through the registration process.  There are plenty of people out there who don't register because it's too much of a hassle.  Yet we generally all agree that the certainty gained about a voters place of residence is worth the trade off.  There is nothing preventing us from doing that on the honor system, like we do now (or used to do before states passed voter ID laws).  Dude shows up to vote, signs his name on a slip saying he "certifies under penalty of perjury" that he does in fact live in this voting district.

I mentioned in the primary thread that Iowa not requires you to print your driver's license number on absentee ballot request forms and on whatever form that is you fill out to participate in a primary.  Maybe it's a change of registration, because I had to change from Republican to Democrat for this last primary. 

Everybody just filled it out.  No one ranted about the great injustice.  There were no news stories of weeping would-be voters unable to participate because they didn't have $5 to get a non driving ID.  It's just not that big a deal.

I'm sure someone will trot out the old chestnut that the number of people caught cheating is vanishingly small.  To which I would ask, as I have several times in the past, how would you go about catching people?  If you got assigned the job of catching every person who didn't vote correctly, how would you go about doing it?

[The Brain]

I have read the article. It's a kooky rant that fails to present a sound argument. Among other things because it ignores key aspects of the question of democracy. I can only guess why he wants to disenfranchise significant parts of the population.

[alfred russel]

What would be a coherent argument (and one I would agree with) would be shifting from "why not fewer voters" to "lets take power away from voters".

Just as he points out that the USSC and Bill of Rights have taken important decisions away from voters and we have generally accepted this as a positive, there isn't a need to elect judges, sheriffs, mosquito control guys, etc. We could also eliminate layers of elected government. In addition to federal and state, there is also the local city and the local county. Plus there are other areas of autonomy that involve their own districts, like school districts, with their own elected officials.

[crazy canuck]

What I think he is saying is that disenfranchisement is not quite the sacred talisman that Democrats make it out to be. 

Then he is either an idiot or a malicious manipulator.  No rational person would fail to recognize that the disenfranchisement efforts of the GOP are designed to try to limit the vote to Blacks.

I personally think Democrats are dead wrong on the voter ID issue.  We inconvenience voters through the registration process.  There are plenty of people out there who don't register because it's too much of a hassle.  Yet we generally all agree that the certainty gained about a voters place of residence is worth the trade off.  There is nothing preventing us from doing that on the honor system, like we do now (or used to do before states passed voter ID laws).  Dude shows up to vote, signs his name on a slip saying he "certifies under penalty of perjury" that he does in fact live in this voting district.

I mentioned in the primary thread that Iowa not requires you to print your driver's license number on absentee ballot request forms and on whatever form that is you fill out to participate in a primary.  Maybe it's a change of registration, because I had to change from Republican to Democrat for this last primary.

Everybody just filled it out.  No one ranted about the great injustice.  There were no news stories of weeping would-be voters unable to participate because they didn't have $5 to get a non driving ID.  It's just not that big a deal.

I'm sure someone will trot out the old chestnut that the number of people caught cheating is vanishingly small.  To which I would ask, as I have several times in the past, how would you go about catching people?  If you got assigned the job of catching every person who didn't vote correctly, how would you go about doing it?

And yet, just to your North there is a country which goes out of its way to make voting easier - including allowing people, on the honour system, to swear that they are entitled to vote.  So when you speak of a "we" who accept whatever restrictions you have in mind, I cannot help but think you are referring to an uninformed group within your country.

The main difference between our countries is that Federal voting rules are governed by an independent body and not decided by self serving politicians.

[Berkut]

Again, I am seeing his point not in that there are disenfranchised people, but that there should be more people disenfranchised.

He certainly doesn't come out and say he'd like to disenfranchize some voters, either particular groups or in general.

What I think he is saying is that disenfranchisement is not quite the sacred talisman that Democrats make it out to be.  Hence the mention of minors not voting.

I personally think Democrats are dead wrong on the voter ID issue.  We inconvenience voters through the registration process.  There are plenty of people out there who don't register because it's too much of a hassle.  Yet we generally all agree that the certainty gained about a voters place of residence is worth the trade off.  There is nothing preventing us from doing that on the honor system, like we do now (or used to do before states passed voter ID laws).  Dude shows up to vote, signs his name on a slip saying he "certifies under penalty of perjury" that he does in fact live in this voting district.

I mentioned in the primary thread that Iowa not requires you to print your driver's license number on absentee ballot request forms and on whatever form that is you fill out to participate in a primary.  Maybe it's a change of registration, because I had to change from Republican to Democrat for this last primary. 

Everybody just filled it out.  No one ranted about the great injustice.  There were no news stories of weeping would-be voters unable to participate because they didn't have $5 to get a non driving ID.  It's just not that big a deal.

I'm sure someone will trot out the old chestnut that the number of people caught cheating is vanishingly small.  To which I would ask, as I have several times in the past, how would you go about catching people?  If you got assigned the job of catching every person who didn't vote correctly, how would you go about doing it?

"That old chestnut". Hi-lare-eye-us.

The point is not whether the requirements, absent any context, are overly onerous or not.

The point is that they are not being put into place because anyone believes that the requirements are not onerous enough, or that there is a problem that needs to be solved.

Nobody believes that. Even you don't believe that.

They are being put into place because the GOP believes that by doing so, they can discourage people from voting, and if they are careful about HOW they put these requirements into place, they can successfully discourage more people who tend to vote democrat rather then republican.

They don't believe, none of them, that the net result will be a reduction in invalid voting that will be greater then the reduction in valid voting among Democrats. That is not the intent, and it is the intent that is the point. This is not happening in a vacuum. Anymore than perfectly reasonable laws about having to sign your name legibly happened in a vacuum. I am sure at that time, people made the *exact same arguments* about how can you possibly object to someone simply signing their name to vote????

All of the people in favor of and defending these laws understand perfectly well what the intent is behind them - exactly as well as those who oppose them. It is to discourage voting in order to help the GOP get elected without having to actually appeal to more voters. All the crap about voter identification and election security is complete bullshit, and nobody involved believes it one bit. Not those who are in favor of these bills anymore than those who oppose them. The difference is completely in what they want from their political system.

[mongers]

The Republican party is now firmly anti-democratic, they oppose the republic and favour an 'elected monarchy'.

[Valmy]

Why would the Bill of Rights be beyond the power of voters? I thought congress can pass constitutional amendment and then the state legislatures can ratify these? That's how the Bill of Rights was originally created as well...

Yeah theoretically there could be 10 new amendments that repeal the entire Bill of Rights.

Practically even repealing one of them would be almost impossible.

[Syt]

[Valmy]

At one point did they cease to be "absolute"? If the idea is that the Supreme Court cannot make Constitutional rulings and instead it should be done by mob decision on Twitter I think that is a bad idea.

[Tonitrus]

At one point did they cease to be "absolute"?

It likely stems from something that Biden has been emphasizing a number of times recently, most notably in regards to the 2nd Amendment.

[Josquius]

Which amendment are they complaining about?
Somehow I doubt it's the second... But will take it.

[Admiral Yi]

Of course it's the second.

[grumbler]

At one point did they cease to be "absolute"? If the idea is that the Supreme Court cannot make Constitutional rulings and instead it should be done by mob decision on Twitter I think that is a bad idea.

They ceased to be absolute when, in DC vs Heller (2008), the USSC ruled that the portion of the second amendment that read "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" was no longer valid.  The USSC now holds that the Second Amendment reads only "The right of people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."