Every state in the nation should emulate them, but they won't. <_<
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/16/us-usa-politics-oregon-idUSKBN0MC27F20150316
QuoteOregon governor signs sweeping automatic voter registration into law
By Shelby Sebens
PORTLAND, Ore. Mon Mar 16, 2015 4:26pm EDT
(Reuters) - Sweeping first-in-the nation legislation making voter registration automatic in Oregon was signed into law on Monday by Governor Kate Brown, potentially adding 300,000 new voters to state rolls.
The so-called Motor Voter legislation will use state Department of Motor Vehicles data to automatically register eligible voters whose information is contained in the DMV system, with a 21-day opt-out period for those who wish to be taken off the registry.
Supporters say the legislation's goal is to keep young voters, students and working families who move often from losing their right to vote. Republican lawmakers, who unanimously voted against the bill, complain it puts Oregonians' privacy at risk.
"I challenge every other state in this nation to examine their policies and to find ways to ensure there are as few barriers as possible for citizens' right to vote," said Brown, a Democrat who took office last month after John Kitzhaber stepped down amid an ethics scandal.
The current legislation, which Brown had pushed for as secretary of state, goes further than a 1993 federal motor voter law that required states to make voter registration available for people getting or renewing a driver's license.
Under the state law, the Oregon Secretary of State will use the DMV data, which includes information on whether a person is a citizen, to register voters, who would then be sent a postcard with information on how to opt out of registration altogether.
The postcard will also instruct voters on how to choose a political party, and those who do not choose will be registered as unaffiliated under the law.
"A one-size-fits-all approach to voter registration does not work for our most vulnerable citizens that could be endangered if their personal information is suddenly made public," Republican state Senator Kim Thatcher said in a statement.
Oregon is among a handful of states that conduct elections in a vote-by-mail system and has historically had a high voter turnout rate, above the national average.
The bill is a signature piece of legislation for Brown, who was sworn in as governor Feb. 18 after Kitzhaber resigned.
The ex-governor faces a federal criminal corruption investigation over accusations his fiancée used her role in his office for personal gain. He has denied accusations of wrongdoing.
(This version of the story corrects governor's name to "Brown" in first paragraph)
(Editing by Cynthia Johnston and Alan Crosby)
I don't want to register as a voter. I don't understand why there is a need to force me to register. It is not like I will vote even if I am registered.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 17, 2015, 01:06:28 AM
"A one-size-fits-all approach to voter registration does not work for our most vulnerable citizens that could be endangered if their personal information is suddenly made public," Republican state Senator Kim Thatcher said in a statement.
:lol:
At any rate, I don't really see the excitement over this.
I look forward to record low voter turnouts in Oregon.
So how about people with multiple or seasonal residency? Oregon's basically calling "dibs" on those voters.
I thought they already did this. :sleep:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 17, 2015, 07:38:16 AM
I thought they already did this. :sleep:
They probably have just been talking about it for awhile. You know how these things go.
QuoteSo how about people with multiple or seasonal residency? Oregon's basically calling "dibs" on those voters.
What difference does it make? There are no incentives for having more registered voters that I am aware of.
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2015, 07:40:25 AM
QuoteSo how about people with multiple or seasonal residency? Oregon's basically calling "dibs" on those voters.
What difference does it make? There are no incentives for having more registered voters that I am aware of.
I don't see it as an incentive so much as disenfranchisement, since those potential voters are least likely to be aware it'll cause problems with their chosen home state.
Not to mention, I'd assume this is automatically going to register a voter as unaffiliated, but choosing no party is still making a party choice for the registrant, which affects eligibility to vote in primaries, gets factored into electoral map redistributions, etc. There's no way I'd agree with this being done automatically by the state.
Ah I can see that. Better stay out of Oregon.
I'd assume people with multiple homes just pick one state to get their driver's license in. :huh:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 17, 2015, 08:01:57 AM
I'd assume people with multiple homes just pick one state to get their driver's license in. :huh:
Not necessarily. In fact, you know who this is going to suck for? College students.
Johnny lives in New Jersey, starts college there, is registered there. In 2017, he transfers to a college in Portland as a junior. For the first year, no problem, because living in a dorm isn't permanent residency.
Johnny's grades are starting to suck, because the frat brothers in the dorm are more interested in drinking than studying for their classes. So, as a senior, he decides to get an apartment off-campus. He's a little late to class one day and gets pulled over by the campus cops and has it pointed out to him that since he's living in Portland now, he needs to have an OR driver's license.
He's still going back home as soon he graduates in 2018, well before the next four-year election, but now OR's grabbed his voter registration because most states have a rule that if you're residing there for more than 60 days, you have to register your vehicle in that state.
A similar thing is happening in the UK this year, just in time for the election. I'm sure the fact that it will probably disenfranchise the students in their uni towns is just a byproduct of the new law, and nothing to do with the LibDems trying to get an advantage (or at least reduce a disadvantage). NOT.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 17, 2015, 08:16:31 AM
[Not necessarily. In fact, you know who this is going to suck for? College students.
Johnny lives in New Jersey, starts college there, is registered there. In 2017, he transfers to a college in Portland as a junior. For the first year, no problem, because living in a dorm isn't permanent residency.
Johnny's grades are starting to suck, because the frat brothers in the dorm are more interested in drinking than studying for their classes. So, as a senior, he decides to get an apartment off-campus. He's a little late to class one day and gets pulled over by the campus cops and has it pointed out to him that since he's living in Portland now, he needs to have an OR driver's license.
He's still going back home as soon he graduates in 2018, well before the next four-year election, but now OR's grabbed his voter registration because most states have a rule that if you're residing there for more than 60 days, you have to register your vehicle in that state.
That scenario is incorrect. According to the laws of Oregon and pretty much every other state, johnny has not established a domicile in Oregon unless he is using his Oregon address as his primary address for things such as filing taxes. If he is still using his parents' address for official purposes, he is still a New Jersey resident and a transient resident of Oregon.
This is the same situation that applies to field reps who are "temporarily"[1] assigned to an out-of-state facility. As long as they do not take steps to establish a
permanent residence, they are not required to obtain a new driver's license or change their vehicle registration.
The relevant language from Oregon law (http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/pages/driverid/residency.aspx) (emphasis original):
QuoteDomiciled
To be domiciled in Oregon, a person's primary home is in Oregon and the person intends to remain in Oregon or, if absent, to return. If a person's home has never been in Oregon, they cannot be domiciled.
Note: Simply owning property in Oregon doesn't necessarily mean that you are domiciled in Oregon.
[1] I have known field reps who were on-site for years without changing residency.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 17, 2015, 07:53:24 AM
Not to mention, I'd assume this is automatically going to register a voter as unaffiliated, but choosing no party is still making a party choice for the registrant, which affects eligibility to vote in primaries, gets factored into electoral map redistributions, etc.
In Texas, if you are registered as unaffiliated you can vote in any primary you want, at which point you become registered with the party whose primary you voted in.
Quote from: garbon on March 17, 2015, 04:33:31 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 17, 2015, 01:06:28 AM
"A one-size-fits-all approach to voter registration does not work for our most vulnerable citizens that could be endangered if their personal information is suddenly made public," Republican state Senator Kim Thatcher said in a statement.
:lol:
At any rate, I don't really see the excitement over this.
The most exciting part is the additional fodder the Republicans are giving us for concluding that they are a bunch of racist assholes.
At any rate, what's the issue even if it was as DSB says. Johnny will get a postcard on how to opt out of registering to vote in Oregon - though if he is putting that Oregon is his state of residence, should he really be voting in NJ anyway?
Quote from: Berkut on March 17, 2015, 09:46:39 AM
The most exciting part is the additional fodder the Republicans are giving us for concluding that they are a bunch of racist assholes.
Trying to get back on Seedy's good side?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 17, 2015, 09:51:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 17, 2015, 09:46:39 AM
The most exciting part is the additional fodder the Republicans are giving us for concluding that they are a bunch of racist assholes.
Trying to get back on Seedy's good side?
I don't think he has one...
I assumed I was on his good side when he bough and expensed my dinner. :unsure:
Racist might be a little extreme, a better way to put it would be "anti-democracy assholes without an even token respect for any kind of principles beyond partisanship".
Glad you've settled down and are speaking in more reasonable terms :D
Quote from: derspiess on March 17, 2015, 10:13:22 AM
Glad you've settled down and are speaking in more reasonable terms :D
Well, to be fair, THIS particular law and opposition to it is not necessarily racist, but Republican consistent opposition to laws that would allow more minorities to vote isn't directly racist, but it is certainly racist lite, in that they are perfectly happy trying to setup the system so that minorities are less likely to vote. That isn't racism per se, but it is probably a distinction without much of a difference.
The entire thing is a fine example of how so few people, AGAIN, give a shit about actual liberty or any kind of principles beyond partisanship. You cannot possibly argue that you have principles that enshrine liberty, freedom, and democracy, but you also support laws intended to keep people you fear won't vote your way from voting.
Quote from: Berkut on March 17, 2015, 10:19:00 AM
Well, to be fair, THIS particular law and opposition to it is not necessarily racist, but Republican consistent opposition to laws that would allow more minorities to vote isn't directly racist, but it is certainly racist lite, in that they are perfectly happy trying to setup the system so that minorities are less likely to vote. That isn't racism per se, but it is probably a distinction without much of a difference.
The entire thing is a fine example of how so few people, AGAIN, give a shit about actual liberty or any kind of principles beyond partisanship. You cannot possibly argue that you have principles that enshrine liberty, freedom, and democracy, but you also support laws intended to keep people you fear won't vote your way from voting.
And you've become Seedy-lite.
Assuming you're making reference to Voter ID laws, is it inherently racist to support such laws? Can one just think maybe it's a good idea to establish more rigid identification requirements for someone to vote?
Quote from: derspiess on March 17, 2015, 10:52:10 AM
And you've become Seedy-lite.
Eh he feels particularly strongly on this issue.
But this is hilarious since Seedy denounced him recently for his racist views.
QuoteAssuming you're making reference to Voter ID laws, is it inherently racist to support such laws? Can one just think maybe it's a good idea to establish more rigid identification requirements for someone to vote?
No it is not inherently racist. It just happens that the reason the laws are going in is because somebody thinks it is a good political strategy, not out of some belief in prevention of voter fraud. Those dead people in Chicago need to be heard.
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2015, 10:58:20 AM
Eh he feels particularly strongly on this issue.
But this is hilarious since Seedy denounced him recently for his racist views.
Seedy influences through intimidation.
Quote from: derspiess on March 17, 2015, 11:03:32 AM
Seedy influences through intimidation.
Meh Berkut was saying this in the exact same way when we originally had this discussion way back in....whenever it was the voter ID laws went into effect.
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2015, 11:04:39 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 17, 2015, 11:03:32 AM
Seedy influences through intimidation.
Meh Berkut was saying this in the exact same way when we originally had this discussion way back in....whenever it was the voter ID laws went into effect.
I think there's a big difference between a voter ID law that's passed at a time well away from a major election, and one on the eve of the presidential election. If there's plenty of time for people to get the documentation/registration done to the new requirements then that's a better situation than saying "oops, sorry, just passed a law, you can't vote even though you could before".
Quote from: frunk on March 17, 2015, 11:09:13 AM
I think there's a big difference between a voter ID law that's passed at a time well away from a major election, and one on the eve of the presidential election. If there's plenty of time for people to get the documentation/registration done to the new requirements then that's a better situation than saying "oops, sorry, just passed a law, you can't vote even though you could before".
That's fair.
when does the eve of presidential elections begin? :hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on March 17, 2015, 10:52:10 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 17, 2015, 10:19:00 AM
Well, to be fair, THIS particular law and opposition to it is not necessarily racist, but Republican consistent opposition to laws that would allow more minorities to vote isn't directly racist, but it is certainly racist lite, in that they are perfectly happy trying to setup the system so that minorities are less likely to vote. That isn't racism per se, but it is probably a distinction without much of a difference.
The entire thing is a fine example of how so few people, AGAIN, give a shit about actual liberty or any kind of principles beyond partisanship. You cannot possibly argue that you have principles that enshrine liberty, freedom, and democracy, but you also support laws intended to keep people you fear won't vote your way from voting.
And you've become Seedy-lite.
Assuming you're making reference to Voter ID laws, is it inherently racist to support such laws? Can one just think maybe it's a good idea to establish more rigid identification requirements for someone to vote?
In theory, of course. Sure, one could support all kinds of laws for all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons.
In practicality, when it is pointed out that in fact there is no actual problem "more rigid identification" needs to address, and the actual practical effect is to simply keep black people from voting so much, then no, I don't accept that there is a legitimate reason to support such laws - at least not once the actual facts become clear.
One could, in theory, support laws that demand that people be able to read, and that isn't racist. In theory.
Once someone points out that the reality is that Jim Crow laws are only used to deny black people the right to vote, and in fact that is the entire intent of the law, and then someone still insists on supporting said laws, even if they claim that there reasons are not about race but about the "theory" behind the law...I don't accept their claim anymore, since they are clearly just using the "theory" to justify the practical - racist - effect.
Quote from: derspiess on March 17, 2015, 11:03:32 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2015, 10:58:20 AM
Eh he feels particularly strongly on this issue.
But this is hilarious since Seedy denounced him recently for his racist views.
Seedy influences through intimidation.
It keeps the local systems in line
Quote from: frunk on March 17, 2015, 11:09:13 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2015, 11:04:39 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 17, 2015, 11:03:32 AM
Seedy influences through intimidation.
Meh Berkut was saying this in the exact same way when we originally had this discussion way back in....whenever it was the voter ID laws went into effect.
I think there's a big difference between a voter ID law that's passed at a time well away from a major election, and one on the eve of the presidential election. If there's plenty of time for people to get the documentation/registration done to the new requirements then that's a better situation than saying "oops, sorry, just passed a law, you can't vote even though you could before".
But again, the reality is that there is no evidence that there is a problem that these voted ID laws are intended to solve.
Well, that isn't strictly true - there is ample evidence that there is a problem they are intended to solve. The problem is minorities don't vote for Republicans, and hence Republicans would like to if they just didn't vote at all. Which is the entire and complete purpose of these laws, as is clear from the people pushing for them.
QuoteAnd you've become Seedy-lite.
I've been completely consistent on my views on Republican attempts to limit voting from the very start.
And if Dems thought up some way to pass a law to discourage white males from voting, I would be against that as well, even if they had some "theoretical" justification for it...
Quote from: Berkut on March 17, 2015, 01:45:44 PM
But again, the reality is that there is no evidence that there is a problem that these voted ID laws are intended to solve.
Agreed, but I don't necessarily have a problem with tightening up voter ID to head off future issues. The Republicans are being way too aggressive and ham handed about it, but at least it is a semi-useful desire and shouldn't be flatly rejected. Make sure it is done in a way to avoid disenfranchising legal voters (which admittedly is hardly ever done in these changes) and it should be fine. Hand out information/guides on getting IDs at each election for a full cycle beforehand, rather than treat it like some panicky thing that needs to be done right now.
Quote from: Berkut on March 17, 2015, 01:45:44 PM
But again, the reality is that there is no evidence that there is a problem that these voted ID laws are intended to solve.
The only way there could be abundant evidence that there is a problem is if there were already a system in place to prevent the problem.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 17, 2015, 03:48:30 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 17, 2015, 01:45:44 PM
But again, the reality is that there is no evidence that there is a problem that these voted ID laws are intended to solve.
The only way there could be abundant evidence that there is a problem is if there were already a system in place to prevent the problem.
Or if we actually dedicated real resources to investigate it.
Quote from: Berkut on March 17, 2015, 01:42:08 PM
In theory, of course. Sure, one could support all kinds of laws for all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons.
In practicality, when it is pointed out that in fact there is no actual problem "more rigid identification" needs to address, and the actual practical effect is to simply keep black people from voting so much, then no, I don't accept that there is a legitimate reason to support such laws - at least not once the actual facts become clear.
Berkut, here is the thing...there are hardly any black people in Oregon. You hear a republican from Oregon argue for tighter voting requirements and cite it as evidence of republican racism and go on to say the practical effect is to keep black people from voting.
This is why people are accusing you of becoming seedy lite. It isn't evidence of racism, it is probably more than anything evidence that the republican push for tighter registration laws isn't racist. Ie, republicans are trying to frustrate poor marginal voters from voting even in places they aren't mostly black. Which of course makes since, because such voters are probably disproportionately democrat regardless of race.
Change blacks for Hispanics.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 17, 2015, 05:04:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 17, 2015, 01:42:08 PM
In theory, of course. Sure, one could support all kinds of laws for all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons.
In practicality, when it is pointed out that in fact there is no actual problem "more rigid identification" needs to address, and the actual practical effect is to simply keep black people from voting so much, then no, I don't accept that there is a legitimate reason to support such laws - at least not once the actual facts become clear.
Berkut, here is the thing...there are hardly any black people in Oregon. You hear a republican from Oregon argue for tighter voting requirements and cite it as evidence of republican racism and go on to say the practical effect is to keep black people from voting.
This is why people are accusing you of becoming seedy lite. It isn't evidence of racism, it is probably more than anything evidence that the republican push for tighter registration laws isn't racist. Ie, republicans are trying to frustrate poor marginal voters from voting even in places they aren't mostly black. Which of course makes since, because such voters are probably disproportionately democrat regardless of race.
The fact the the people the Republicans are setting out to disenfranchise in this case are not black doesn't make it any better. It is still despicable, and supporting it shows that you have at best a passing actual interest in liberty, rather than in just making sure your side wins at whatever cost.
And "people" don't accuse me of being seedy lite, that is just you. It is a kind of funny dig though, given that I just broke Seedy on his histrionics about racism, I will give you taht.
Wait Republicans are disenfranchise people in this case because they don't think everyone who gets a license should automatically be put on the voting rolls? :unsure:
Quote from: sbr on March 17, 2015, 05:17:31 PM
Change blacks for Hispanics.
The strategy is not targeted at hispanics or blacks, it's targeted at unmotivated voters of all colors.
How do I tell Berkut from CdM? :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on March 17, 2015, 05:25:12 PM
Wait Republicans are disenfranchise people in this case because they don't think everyone who gets a license should automatically be put on the voting rolls? :unsure:
If this was the only time they took this stance in regards to voting laws, that cop out might have some legs.
Ok, if one of the major problems with voter ID laws is that minorities are less likely to have a driver's license or other approved form of ID, doesn't it stand to reason that automatically registering anyone with a driver's license to vote isn't going to increase minority participation in voting?
Quote from: Berkut on March 17, 2015, 05:32:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 17, 2015, 05:25:12 PM
Wait Republicans are disenfranchise people in this case because they don't think everyone who gets a license should automatically be put on the voting rolls? :unsure:
If this was the only time they took this stance in regards to voting laws, that cop out might have some legs.
Cop out? You called out this specific instance as one of disenfranchisement. Is it?
Also, on your wider claim, do you have proof that the Republicans noted in the article have been involved in disenfranchisement moves?
Quote from: dps on March 17, 2015, 05:36:55 PM
Ok, if one of the major problems with voter ID laws is that minorities are less likely to have a driver's license or other approved form of ID, doesn't it stand to reason that automatically registering anyone with a driver's license to vote isn't going to increase minority participation in voting?
What makes you think the purpose is to increase minority participation in voting?
Just because YOUR goals are to *decrease* minority participation in voting, that doesn't mean that any voting law enacted outside of your own "Let's stop minorities from voting!" efforts are the anti-thesis of that idea.
This is pretty obviously just a generic, take away an obstacle to voting law.
Quote from: dps on March 17, 2015, 05:36:55 PM
Ok, if one of the major problems with voter ID laws is that minorities are less likely to have a driver's license or other approved form of ID, doesn't it stand to reason that automatically registering anyone with a driver's license to vote isn't going to increase minority participation in voting?
This story is about registration, not identification.
Quote from: Berkut on March 17, 2015, 05:23:06 PM
The fact the the people the Republicans are setting out to disenfranchise in this case are not black doesn't make it any better. It is still despicable, and supporting it shows that you have at best a passing actual interest in liberty, rather than in just making sure your side wins at whatever cost.
You used the word racist. Which is what I was taking issue with.
QuoteAnd "people" don't accuse me of being seedy lite, that is just you. It is a kind of funny dig though, given that I just broke Seedy on his histrionics about racism, I will give you taht.
I've never accused you or anyone else of being seedy lite--I've never used the word until the post you quoted. Derspeiss did in this very thread, so it certainly isn't just me.
Quote from: Berkut on March 17, 2015, 06:01:51 PM
Quote from: dps on March 17, 2015, 05:36:55 PM
Ok, if one of the major problems with voter ID laws is that minorities are less likely to have a driver's license or other approved form of ID, doesn't it stand to reason that automatically registering anyone with a driver's license to vote isn't going to increase minority participation in voting?
What makes you think the purpose is to increase minority participation in voting?
Just because YOUR goals are to *decrease* minority participation in voting, that doesn't mean that any voting law enacted outside of your own "Let's stop minorities from voting!" efforts are the anti-thesis of that idea.
This is pretty obviously just a generic, take away an obstacle to voting law.
First of all, did I ever say I want to decrease minority voting? Second of all, I don't see how it makes it easier to register to vote at all. Anywhere I've ever lived, it's been far easier to register to vote than to get your driver's license.
Quote from: dps on March 17, 2015, 10:43:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 17, 2015, 06:01:51 PM
Quote from: dps on March 17, 2015, 05:36:55 PM
Ok, if one of the major problems with voter ID laws is that minorities are less likely to have a driver's license or other approved form of ID, doesn't it stand to reason that automatically registering anyone with a driver's license to vote isn't going to increase minority participation in voting?
What makes you think the purpose is to increase minority participation in voting?
Just because YOUR goals are to *decrease* minority participation in voting, that doesn't mean that any voting law enacted outside of your own "Let's stop minorities from voting!" efforts are the anti-thesis of that idea.
This is pretty obviously just a generic, take away an obstacle to voting law.
First of all, did I ever say I want to decrease minority voting?
Of course not, nobody who wants to decrease minority voting SAYS that is what they want to do.
Yet, when you support laws that have no practical effect other than to do exactly that, your desires are pretty clear.
Quote
Second of all, I don't see how it makes it easier to register to vote at all.
What could be easier than doing nothing?
Quote
Anywhere I've ever lived, it's been far easier to register to vote than to get your driver's license.
You aren't seriously making this argument, are you?
In Poland (and, I believe most European countries), you are automatically registered for voting in the place of your residence (if you want to vote elsewhere, e.g. due to travelling on the voting day, you have to take a paper from your place of residence) and you have to show your ID at the polling station in order to vote.
The controversies you Yanks have about any of the above are absolutely puzzling to me.
In HK, people need to register in order to vote. Registration is open all year, and any adult with an ID card can fill in one simple form to do so. Before each election, cards are sent to the registered addresses. Voters bring their ID and the card to the polling stations to vote. If you have moved, it is your responsibility to notify the government of your new address in order to change your electoral district, otherwise the card will be sent to the old address. Registration is not automatic because otherwise another government department (say, the tax authorities) will need to notify the electroal office of people's addresses, and that's a privacy violation. The voters need to give their addresses to the electroal office themselves. That's not really hard to do.
Quote from: Martinus on March 18, 2015, 01:04:40 AM
In Poland (and, I believe most European countries), you are automatically registered for voting in the place of your residence (if you want to vote elsewhere, e.g. due to travelling on the voting day, you have to take a paper from your place of residence) and you have to show your ID at the polling station in order to vote.
The controversies you Yanks have about any of the above are absolutely puzzling to me.
If someone just sat down and wrote up simple and straighforward voter registration and restrictions rules in a non-partisan manner where the attempt was to make it easy, simple, and secure, the US system would be non-puzzling as well.
Unfortunately, the current system is a mish-mash of individual areas coming up with their own rules over time, throw in a healthy dose of various states and municipalities outright attempting to create rules to deny voting rights to some, and a partisan establishment that looks at voting rules like they look at redistricting and gerrymandering - an opportunity to skew the system in their favor.
Quote from: Berkut on March 18, 2015, 02:00:52 AM
Unfortunately, the current system is a mish-mash of individual areas coming up with their own rules over time, throw in a healthy dose of various states and municipalities outright attempting to create rules to deny voting rights to some,
It is important to keep things in perspective.
I live in Georgia. For several election cycles, we have had the draconian requirement that has been rejected by the courts in many states of having to present a state ID when voting. I personally can't imagine living without a state issued ID. You need one to drive a car, buy a beer, sometimes at the bank, when writing a check, when flying on a plane, and other periods.
I don't know an adult that does not have one. But if you don't have one, you can get one for free at a state office--and they are all over the place.
It is undeniably true that subset of the population that does not have an ID is disproportionately black and poor and democratic leaning. In much of Europe they would be required to go get an ID. But here since they don't have to get an ID, but still need one to vote: that is what Berkut means when they are denied the right to vote.
For additional perspective, Georgia recently passed a requirement that to get a CPA license renewed you have to submit a copy of a state issued ID (or immigration documents, if applicable) and a notarized affidavit asserting that you are legally entitled to work in the US. I think this is stupid and a real pain in the ass--it requires a bit of effort to go get a affidavit notarized. But it definitely isn't an attempt to keep black people from being CPAs. In a state with a lot of illegal immigration, it is an attempt to control that. Which is also stupid, because I don't think there are hordes of Mexican CPAs streaming into Georgia and stealing our jobs.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 17, 2015, 02:26:59 AM
I don't want to register as a voter. I don't understand why there is a need to force me to register. It is not like I will vote even if I am registered.
are there elections in Hong-Kong? I mean, free, multi-party elections where a vote would theoritically matter?
Quote from: alfred russel on March 18, 2015, 10:37:10 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 18, 2015, 02:00:52 AM
Unfortunately, the current system is a mish-mash of individual areas coming up with their own rules over time, throw in a healthy dose of various states and municipalities outright attempting to create rules to deny voting rights to some,
It is important to keep things in perspective.
I live in Georgia. For several election cycles, we have had the draconian requirement that has been rejected by the courts in many states of having to present a state ID when voting. I personally can't imagine living without a state issued ID. You need one to drive a car, buy a beer, sometimes at the bank, when writing a check, when flying on a plane, and other periods.
I don't know an adult that does not have one. But if you don't have one, you can get one for free at a state office--and they are all over the place.
It is undeniably true that subset of the population that does not have an ID is disproportionately black and poor and democratic leaning. In much of Europe they would be required to go get an ID. But here since they don't have to get an ID, but still need one to vote: that is what Berkut means when they are denied the right to vote.
For additional perspective, Georgia recently passed a requirement that to get a CPA license renewed you have to submit a copy of a state issued ID (or immigration documents, if applicable) and a notarized affidavit asserting that you are legally entitled to work in the US. I think this is stupid and a real pain in the ass--it requires a bit of effort to go get a affidavit notarized. But it definitely isn't an attempt to keep black people from being CPAs. In a state with a lot of illegal immigration, it is an attempt to control that. Which is also stupid, because I don't think there are hordes of Mexican CPAs streaming into Georgia and stealing our jobs.
There is no question that on the face of it a ID card is no big deal. It is a perfectly reasonable requirement.
However, given the reality that
1. Right now it isn't or wasn't required, and
2. Most people lacking such cards are black, poor, and likely to vote Democratic, and
3. There is no evidence that a lack of such requirement is in fact resulting in any significant problem, and
4. The entire push to create this requirement is completely driven not by a desire to deal with a legitimate problem (see #3), but rather as a way for Republicans to game the system
Supporting such requirements is, in the case of areas where the goal is to deny voting opporunities to minorities, racist in effect if not in intent.
Even if it is not racist in effect, it is still completely despicable to try to deny anyone the opportunity to vote based on your evaluation of their likelihood to vote for your party. It is anti-democratic, which is just as bad as being racist, as far as I am concerned.
Quote from: Berkut on March 18, 2015, 12:58:32 AM
Quote from: dps on March 17, 2015, 10:43:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 17, 2015, 06:01:51 PM
Quote from: dps on March 17, 2015, 05:36:55 PM
Ok, if one of the major problems with voter ID laws is that minorities are less likely to have a driver's license or other approved form of ID, doesn't it stand to reason that automatically registering anyone with a driver's license to vote isn't going to increase minority participation in voting?
What makes you think the purpose is to increase minority participation in voting?
Just because YOUR goals are to *decrease* minority participation in voting, that doesn't mean that any voting law enacted outside of your own "Let's stop minorities from voting!" efforts are the anti-thesis of that idea.
This is pretty obviously just a generic, take away an obstacle to voting law.
First of all, did I ever say I want to decrease minority voting?
Of course not, nobody who wants to decrease minority voting SAYS that is what they want to do.
Yet, when you support laws that have no practical effect other than to do exactly that, your desires are pretty clear.
I don't think I've ever exactly said that I do support voter ID laws. What I've said is basically that I support them in theory, but I have reservations about the idea on a practical level.
QuoteQuote
Second of all, I don't see how it makes it easier to register to vote at all.
What could be easier than doing nothing?
Unless I've misunderstood something, the new Oregon law doesn't register you to vote if you do nothing; it registers you to vote if you get a driver's license.
QuoteQuote
Anywhere I've ever lived, it's been far easier to register to vote than to get your driver's license.
You aren't seriously making this argument, are you?
Heck yes. Back when I first became old enough to vote, they sent someone to the high schools early in each year to register the students who had just turned 18 or who would turn 18 by the next primary. IIRC, they didn't even ask for proof of our ages--they just took our word on whether we were old enough. And they came right into the classrooms to register us, so we didn't even have to miss a class to get registered. In contrast, at the time, you had to go to a state police detachment to get your driver's license, and each detachment only did licenses 2 days each month (the detachment in my home county did them on the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of each month IIIRC). Of course, coming to the schools only got students who were becoming eligible to vote for the first time registered, but all anyone else had to do was go to the county courthouse, and unlike the state police detachments that only issued driver's licenses on 2 days a month, the vote registrar's offices register voters 5 days a week. So yeah, it was a lot easier to register to vote. And I haven't even mentioned the fact that you have to pass a test to get your driver's license but not to register to vote (granted that not too many people fail their driver's test, but a few do). And oh, yeah, registering to vote is free; driver's licenses aren't.
Going forward in time, when I moved to NC, it took me 1 trip to the courthouse to register to vote, and there were no lines or anything, so I was only in the building for about 5 minutes. To get my WV driver's license switched out to a NC license, it took about half a dozen trips to the DMV, and on most of those, I had to wait in line--a long line a couple of times. In fact, I think that I still had my WV driver's license when I registered to vote here.
Not going into detail about the other times I've moved, but I've never had any problem registering to vote at all, whereas there were usually some problems with getting my driver's license (and in the couple of cases in which I didn't have any problems as such with getting my license, I had a long wait in line--in one case it was about 3 hours).
Given that people get drivers licenses because they want to drive, registering those people to vote at the same time is not more difficult, it is literally "doing nothing" on their part, since the marginal effort is zero.
If you don't want to get a driver's license, you can still register to vote the normal way.
This is an incredibly stupid argument, and I feel more stupid myself for even engaging in it.
Poor Berkut :(
Poor us. :(
Quote from: Berkut on March 18, 2015, 03:18:28 PM
Even if it is not racist in effect, it is still completely despicable to try to deny anyone the opportunity to vote based on your evaluation of their likelihood to vote for your party. It is anti-democratic, which is just as bad as being racist, as far as I am concerned.
That could be, but you pulled out the word racist, in Oregon of all places.
Racist may equal anti democratic to you in terms of badness, but that isn't generally the case. A racist is effectively unemployable. People don't associate with known racists. On the other hand, people like Ide are communist and still are seen as decent people (if a bit quirky).
"Automatic voters"? Democrats?
OMG dog whistle terms!
Quote from: alfred russel on March 18, 2015, 04:16:11 PM
A racist is effectively unemployable. People don't associate with known racists.
I suspect they mostly just learn to keep their mouth shut at work.
Quote from: viper37 on March 18, 2015, 02:47:00 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 17, 2015, 02:26:59 AM
I don't want to register as a voter. I don't understand why there is a need to force me to register. It is not like I will vote even if I am registered.
are there elections in Hong-Kong? I mean, free, multi-party elections where a vote would theoritically matter?
There are. Half the seats in the legislature are elected, western style. Most of the seats at the district level are also elected, though admittedly they don't have much power.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 18, 2015, 07:50:51 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 18, 2015, 02:47:00 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 17, 2015, 02:26:59 AM
I don't want to register as a voter. I don't understand why there is a need to force me to register. It is not like I will vote even if I am registered.
are there elections in Hong-Kong? I mean, free, multi-party elections where a vote would theoritically matter?
There are. Half the seats in the legislature are elected, western style. Most of the seats at the district level are also elected, though admittedly they don't have much power.
and why are you not interested in voting then?
Quote from: viper37 on March 19, 2015, 07:52:10 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 18, 2015, 07:50:51 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 18, 2015, 02:47:00 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 17, 2015, 02:26:59 AM
I don't want to register as a voter. I don't understand why there is a need to force me to register. It is not like I will vote even if I am registered.
are there elections in Hong-Kong? I mean, free, multi-party elections where a vote would theoritically matter?
There are. Half the seats in the legislature are elected, western style. Most of the seats at the district level are also elected, though admittedly they don't have much power.
and why are you not interested in voting then?
The silent majority must remain silent.