Languish.org

Recently-enacted laws in some states (and subsequent DOJ action in some cases to nullify the laws) to require voters to show photo ID when voting have created some controversy here in the US.

What is Languish's opinion on the matter?

Opponents don't necessarily have a problem with the concept of providing photo ID, in and of itself (even THE MOST REVEREND Al Sharpton agrees on this point);  where the problem lies is the parameters states are attempting to establish regarding which photo IDs are acceptable, and which are not. 
And not all Photo IDs are created equal.

So long as they never require them to be Government ID Cards or Driver's License.  Wasn't that part of the deal that we would never require people to get those sorts of things?

Somewhere between "Yes" and "Don't care".

Does it matter? Elections in the US are decided by courts anyway.

This requirement sounds fine in theory, but the devil may be in the details.  Given how Republicans are far more disproportionally motivated to enact such requirements, my guess is that there is a serious voter suppression effect at stake that's biased in one ideological direction.

No.

Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2012, 01:06:05 PM
So long as they never require them to be Government ID Cards or Driver's License.  Wasn't that part of the deal that we would never require people to get those sorts of things?

That's part of the problem;  look at the new photo ID voter law passed in Texas:  Concealed carry gun permit?  Yes.  Student photo ID from a state university? Nope.

And then Texans wonder why the DOJ gets involved.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 02:00:59 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2012, 01:06:05 PM
So long as they never require them to be Government ID Cards or Driver's License.  Wasn't that part of the deal that we would never require people to get those sorts of things?

That's part of the problem;  look at the new photo ID voter law passed in Texas:  Concealed carry gun permit?  Yes.  Student photo ID from a state university? Nope.

And then Texans wonder why the DOJ gets involved.

It's been a while since I was in college, but do university IDs contain any address info?

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:03:55 PM
It's been a while since I was in college, but do university IDs contain any address info?

And what IDs would contain that info besides government issued IDs?

Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2012, 02:07:45 PM

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:03:55 PM
It's been a while since I was in college, but do university IDs contain any address info?

And what IDs would contain that info besides government issued IDs?

Dunno.  What's your problem with government issued IDs?

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:03:55 PM
It's been a while since I was in college, but do university IDs contain any address info?

Do passports?

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:03:55 PM
It's been a while since I was in college, but do university IDs contain any address info?

They don't (or at least the ones I still have) contain anything except my name and student ID numbers, with one having the date it was issued as well.

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:03:55 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 02:00:59 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2012, 01:06:05 PM
So long as they never require them to be Government ID Cards or Driver's License.  Wasn't that part of the deal that we would never require people to get those sorts of things?

That's part of the problem;  look at the new photo ID voter law passed in Texas:  Concealed carry gun permit?  Yes.  Student photo ID from a state university? Nope.

And then Texans wonder why the DOJ gets involved.

It's been a while since I was in college, but do university IDs contain any address info?

No.
And neither do concealed carry permits.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 04, 2012, 02:12:34 PM

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:03:55 PM
It's been a while since I was in college, but do university IDs contain any address info?

Do passports?

No :blush:

I guess they at least prove citizenship though, which is what the Texas law is trying to do.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 02:19:43 PM

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:03:55 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 02:00:59 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2012, 01:06:05 PM
So long as they never require them to be Government ID Cards or Driver's License.  Wasn't that part of the deal that we would never require people to get those sorts of things?

That's part of the problem;  look at the new photo ID voter law passed in Texas:  Concealed carry gun permit?  Yes.  Student photo ID from a state university? Nope.

And then Texans wonder why the DOJ gets involved.

It's been a while since I was in college, but do university IDs contain any address info?

No.
And neither do concealed carry permits.

They do in Texas

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.texaschllicense.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F05%2Fnew-tx-chl-license.jpg&hash=e66d0720f61c54bdee954cbb8519d9d8fe395a12)

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 02:19:43 PM
No.
And neither do concealed carry permits.

E: Aw blog dude's shopped version doesn't want to be leeched.  Spiess has the generic sample up there though.

They look like the new DLs, which I despise and I hope they change them again before I have to renew.

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:20:14 PM
I guess they at least prove citizenship though, which is what the Texas law is trying to do.

This could be a difference in our systems, but surely the point you deal with eligibility to vote is when you're registering to vote, not when you're at the polling station? 

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 04, 2012, 02:23:38 PM

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:20:14 PM
I guess they at least prove citizenship though, which is what the Texas law is trying to do.

This could be a difference in our systems, but surely the point you deal with eligibility to vote is when you're registering to vote, not when you're at the polling station? 

Why not at both points?

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:20:14 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 04, 2012, 02:12:34 PM

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:03:55 PM
It's been a while since I was in college, but do university IDs contain any address info?

Do passports?

No :blush:

I guess they at least prove citizenship though, which is what the Texas law is trying to do.

Guess again what the Texas law is trying to do.

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:21:34 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 02:19:43 PM

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:03:55 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 02:00:59 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2012, 01:06:05 PM
So long as they never require them to be Government ID Cards or Driver's License.  Wasn't that part of the deal that we would never require people to get those sorts of things?

That's part of the problem;  look at the new photo ID voter law passed in Texas:  Concealed carry gun permit?  Yes.  Student photo ID from a state university? Nope.

And then Texans wonder why the DOJ gets involved.

It's been a while since I was in college, but do university IDs contain any address info?

No.
And neither do concealed carry permits.

They do in Texas

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.texaschllicense.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F05%2Fnew-tx-chl-license.jpg&hash=e66d0720f61c54bdee954cbb8519d9d8fe395a12)

Minority female?  With a concealed carry permit?  In Texas?  Obviously fake.

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:10:07 PM
Dunno.  What's your problem with government issued IDs?

Well if you have one there is no controversy at all.  The only people who would not have a drivers license or a Passport or ID card would be people who, for whatever reason, would rather not have them.  Making them get one is something the Feds specifically promised they would never do.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 02:33:59 PM
Minority female?  With a concealed carry permit?  In Texas?  Obviously fake.

With blue eyes no less.

I assume citizenship is the basis for rejection of the university ID.

Isn't it kinda important for voting to identify that the person doing it is, in fact, a voter? In Finland people are required to show a photo id when voting (drivers' licenses are considered such).

Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2012, 02:34:28 PM
Well if you have one there is no controversy at all.  The only people who would not have a drivers license or a Passport or ID card would be people who, for whatever reason, would rather not have them.  Making them get one is something the Feds specifically promised they would never do.

They would have also taken citizenship cards and that free voter ID thing.

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:27:51 PM
Why not at both points?

I don't understand.  Is the check at the polling booth to prove you're the person on the electoral register or to prove you're the person on the register and you remain eligible to vote?  If it's the former which is what I think you described then you'd need photo ID + address.  If it's the latter something like photo ID + address (presumably together not proof of address separately) + proof of citizenship/green card or whatever.

I think it would be remarkable if you had to prove you're the person on the register and, in effect, that you're still able to vote as you were when you registered.  It seems like it's making voting a bureaucratic hassle for the voter, the register and the polling booth which would deter people.  There's a balance to be struck and I think you're going too far.  Unless fraud is a serious, serious problem I think it wouldn't have a significant effect beyond deterring people from voting.  I mean just think if you get to the polling booth on your way to work, with your passport and your polling card but I forgot your gas bill to prove your address.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 02:35:56 PM
I assume citizenship is the basis for rejection of the university ID.

I would think the purpose of ID is to simply ID. When I vote, they look up my name on the voter registration role, which presumably is what is there to establish that the person I claim to be can in fact vote. The only point of ID at the polling place would be to make sure that I really am that person, right?

Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2012, 02:37:22 PM
Isn't it kinda important for voting to identify that the person doing it is, in fact, a voter? In Finland people are required to show a photo id when voting (drivers' licenses are considered such).

I showed my voter registration card yesterday.  Has no photo.  They checked off my name on the roll.  And I voted.  FOR THE FUCKING DEMOCRAT INCUMBENT.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 02:35:56 PM
I assume citizenship is the basis for rejection of the university ID.

How exactly would a non-citizen be on the voting rolls?  So how would having a University ID identifying you as a person not registered the vote do you any good?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 02:33:59 PM
Minority female?  With a concealed carry permit?  In Texas?  Obviously fake.

Go tell that to the good folks in Anytown :contract:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 02:35:56 PM
I assume citizenship is the basis for rejection of the university ID.

Can they not get concealed carry permits?

QuoteThe Department of Justice is reviewing Texas' election law changes to determine whether they comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

States have enacted a slew of restrictive voting laws since the 2010 elections, and Texas is only one of several places where students now face new obstacles to vote. Tennessee passed a similar law this year making student IDs invalid for voting use, while the Wisconsin legislature passed legislation that only allows voters to use student IDs if the IDs have certain information, including addresses and expiration dates.

The Wisconsin law amounted to a ban on student IDs, according to observers, because none of Wisconsin's universities issue cards that include the necessary information.

"I've actually never seen a case where student ID does have an address," said Matthew Segal of Our Time, an advocacy group for Americans under 30 years old. Segal also spoke during Monday's Capitol Hill forum.

The University of Wisconsin estimated that it would be forced spend $700,000 every two years in order to make its new ID cards that comply with the law, which requires that all school IDs used in elections expire in less than two years after those elections.

The state's Government Accountability Board, which runs the state's elections, has clashed with the Republican legislature over stopgap solutions. The board recommended that students be allowed to vote by placing state-produced stickers on their IDs that carried the required information, but the lawmakers said that compromise could encourage fraud. A conflict over the use of technical college IDs is still ongoing.

In Maine, Charlie Webster, the chairman of the state Republican Party, has accused more than 200 out-of-state students attending college in Maine of committing voter fraud by registering to vote in Maine -- a claim that has been met with significant skepticism within the state.

Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2012, 02:37:22 PM
Isn't it kinda important for voting to identify that the person doing it is, in fact, a voter? In Finland people are required to show a photo id when voting (drivers' licenses are considered such).

I have always just used my voter registration card.

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:40:48 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 02:33:59 PM
Minority female?  With a concealed carry permit?  In Texas?  Obviously fake.

Go tell that to the good folks in Anytown :contract:

MISS SAMPLE IF THATS YOUR REAL NAME

Quote from: Berkut on April 04, 2012, 02:38:30 PM
I would think the purpose of ID is to simply ID. When I vote, they look up my name on the voter registration role, which presumably is what is there to establish that the person I claim to be can in fact vote. The only point of ID at the polling place would be to make sure that I really am that person, right?

As things stand now a vote is essentially self-certifying during registration that they are eligible to vote.

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:10:07 PM
Dunno.  What's your problem with government issued IDs?

Then why not follow the Continental method and have ID cards?

Hey Sheiblh, here's a nifty report by the Brennan Center on the issue.  Enjoy more lessons on American democracy.

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/voting_law_changes_in_2012/

So Seedy, I take it from your first post that you voted yes?

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:46:18 PM
So Seedy, I take it from your first post that you voted yes?

I don't need a photo ID to vote, so as far as I'm concerned, neither do negroloids in Texas.

Why are GOPtards against a national ID card but love photo ID?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 02:47:43 PM

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:46:18 PM
So Seedy, I take it from your first post that you voted yes?

I don't need a photo ID to vote, so as far as I'm concerned, neither do negroloids in Texas.

YES OR NO WILL DO.

Btw, I read where you're not only not required in MD, but that you're not allowed to show ID.  Is that true?  :huh:

Quote from: Fate on April 04, 2012, 02:49:02 PM
Why are GOPtards against a national ID card but love photo ID?

We don't like voter fraud.  Didn't know that was such a partisan position to take.

So what's wrong with waltzing in, saying who you are and at what address, they tick you off their voter roll/registration and you go and cast your ballot ?  :bowler:

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:50:43 PM
Btw, I read where you're not only not required in MD, but that you're not allowed to show ID.  Is that true?  :huh:

Don't know;  the state of Maryland has never attempted to violate my civil rights or disenfranchise me, so I never looked into it.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 04, 2012, 02:23:38 PM

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:20:14 PM
I guess they at least prove citizenship though, which is what the Texas law is trying to do.

This could be a difference in our systems, but surely the point you deal with eligibility to vote is when you're registering to vote, not when you're at the polling station?

:yes:

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:51:23 PM

Quote from: Fate on April 04, 2012, 02:49:02 PM
Why are GOPtards against a national ID card but love photo ID?

We don't like voter fraud.  Didn't know that was such a partisan position to take.

You're against a national ID card because then we could make sure that poor people have their IDs if it's on a federal level. Jesusland can get away with suppressing the negros and wetbacks if it remains a state matter.

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:51:23 PM

Quote from: Fate on April 04, 2012, 02:49:02 PM
Why are GOPtards against a national ID card but love photo ID?

We don't like voter fraud.  Didn't know that was such a partisan position to take.

That sounds great and all, but since there is basically no actual evidence of meaningful voter fraud taking place, one has to wonder what the actual motives might be...

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:51:23 PM

Quote from: Fate on April 04, 2012, 02:49:02 PM
Why are GOPtards against a national ID card but love photo ID?

We don't like voter fraud.  Didn't know that was such a partisan position to take.

By all means, please show the live studio audience the sheer number of convictions in US Federal court of voter fraud, worth 5 years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine per offense.

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:51:23 PM
We don't like voter fraud.  Didn't know that was such a partisan position to take.

Um if somebody is motivated enough to do voter fraud before why wouldn't they continue it?  They could just make false IDs.  This does however make it harder for legitimate voters to vote, and will probably cost the public money to introduce, so it should be done with some reflection about the unintended consequences.

Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2012, 02:56:01 PM

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:51:23 PM
We don't like voter fraud.  Didn't know that was such a partisan position to take.

Um if somebody is motivated enough to do voter fraud before why wouldn't they continue it?  They could just make false IDs.  This does however make it harder for legitimate voters to vote, and will probably cost the public money to introduce, so it should be done with some reflection about the unintended consequences.

Less black and Hispanic citizens will vote after the law is enacted so it's more than worth the public cost.

Quote from: Fate on April 04, 2012, 02:54:55 PM
You're against a national ID card because then we could make sure that poor people have their IDs if it's on a federal level. Jesusland can get away with suppressing the negros and wetbacks if it remains a state matter.

So you're in favor of a national ID? :)

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:51:23 PM
We don't like voter fraud.  Didn't know that was such a partisan position to take.

There's always a balance to be struck between adding enough security to prevent fraud and causing needless hassle for voters.  I think the more hassle you add the more evidence you need that there's a fraud problem that it fixes.  Otherwise you're, at best, fixing something that ain't broken.

A Continental style national ID card would get around this though.  It could have all the information you wanted (address, citizenship and more) and would be compulsory to have and to carry so it wouldn't cause any extra cost or hassle to the voter.

If they introduced something like that I would want to volunteer for an election just so I could look sternly at people and say 'papers please'.

Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2012, 02:56:01 PM

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:51:23 PM
We don't like voter fraud.  Didn't know that was such a partisan position to take.

Um if somebody is motivated enough to do voter fraud before why wouldn't they continue it?  They could just make false IDs.  This does however make it harder for legitimate voters to vote, and will probably cost the public money to introduce, so it should be done with some reflection about the unintended consequences.

"I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year."
--Wally O'Dell, Chairman & CEO, Diebold*, 2003



*Yes, the very same Diebold that makes paper-less, audit-less touchscreen voting machines used in elections.



And people want to fuck around over the myth of voter fraud without fucking photo IDs.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 03:08:42 PM
"I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year."
--Wally O'Dell, Chairman & CEO, Diebold*, 2003



*Yes, the very same Diebold that makes paper-less, audit-less touchscreen voting machines used in elections.



And people want to fuck around over the myth of voter fraud without fucking photo IDs.

By all means, please show the live studio audience the sheer number of convictions in US Federal court of [electoral] fraud [by Diebold].

Quote from: mongers on April 04, 2012, 02:51:40 PM
So what's wrong with waltzing in, saying who you are and at what address, they tick you off their voter roll/registration and you go and cast your ballot ?  :bowler:

Nothing, but OTOH, I'd hate to show up to vote and not be allowed to because someone else showed up earlier claiming to be me and being told I'd already voted when I know that I hadn't.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 03:13:38 PM
By all means, please show the live studio audience the sheer number of convictions in US Federal court of [electoral] fraud [by Diebold].

There's a difference between voter fraud and election misconduct.

And machines that tallied up 9,000 votes for the Socialist candidate, and Al Gore -19,000 in Volusia County.  :P

Quote from: dps on April 04, 2012, 03:15:59 PM

Quote from: mongers on April 04, 2012, 02:51:40 PM
So what's wrong with waltzing in, saying who you are and at what address, they tick you off their voter roll/registration and you go and cast your ballot ?  :bowler:

Nothing, but OTOH, I'd hate to show up to vote and not be allowed to because someone else showed up earlier claiming to be me and being told I'd already voted when I know that I hadn't.

But that is fixed by simply requiring that people bring their voter registration card.  You hand that to the nice old lady who takes your card, ticks off your name and hands you a ballot.

No fuss no muss.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 03:17:49 PM
There's a difference between voter fraud and election misconduct.

Please elaborate.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2012, 03:20:15 PM

Quote from: dps on April 04, 2012, 03:15:59 PM

Quote from: mongers on April 04, 2012, 02:51:40 PM
So what's wrong with waltzing in, saying who you are and at what address, they tick you off their voter roll/registration and you go and cast your ballot ?  :bowler:

Nothing, but OTOH, I'd hate to show up to vote and not be allowed to because someone else showed up earlier claiming to be me and being told I'd already voted when I know that I hadn't.

But that is fixed by simply requiring that people bring their voter registration card.  You hand that to the nice old lady who takes your card, ticks off your name and hands you a ballot.

No fuss no muss.

kill two birds with one stone, make voter id card photo id cards.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2012, 03:20:15 PM

Quote from: dps on April 04, 2012, 03:15:59 PM

Quote from: mongers on April 04, 2012, 02:51:40 PM
So what's wrong with waltzing in, saying who you are and at what address, they tick you off their voter roll/registration and you go and cast your ballot ?  :bowler:

Nothing, but OTOH, I'd hate to show up to vote and not be allowed to because someone else showed up earlier claiming to be me and being told I'd already voted when I know that I hadn't.

But that is fixed by simply requiring that people bring their voter registration card.  You hand that to the nice old lady who takes your card, ticks off your name and hands you a ballot.

No fuss no muss.

Sure, unless someone has lifted my wallet.  Then they'd have my voter registration card.  Of course, they'd have my photo ID, too, but that wouldn't help them unless they happen to look like me.

In general, though, I do agree that having to show photo ID in order to vote is probably overkill.  If you're going to vote fraudulantly, showing up at the polling place before one of your neighbors and claiming to be them isn't the way to go.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 03:24:53 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 03:17:49 PM
There's a difference between voter fraud and election misconduct.

Please elaborate.

Voter fraud is committed by minorities without Photo ID, and election misconduct is committed by GOP political contributors that provided electronic voting machines to 37 states in 2004.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 04, 2012, 03:02:55 PM

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 02:51:23 PM
We don't like voter fraud.  Didn't know that was such a partisan position to take.

There's always a balance to be struck between adding enough security to prevent fraud and causing needless hassle for voters.  I think the more hassle you add the more evidence you need that there's a fraud problem that it fixes.  Otherwise you're, at best, fixing something that ain't broken.

A Continental style national ID card would get around this though.  It could have all the information you wanted (address, citizenship and more) and would be compulsory to have and to carry so it wouldn't cause any extra cost or hassle to the voter.

I'm guessing this is a cultural issue. Over here, pretty much everyone has a photo id, be it a passport, a driver's license, a social security card with a photo, or the like. So showing it is no hassle at all. It's also required to withdraw money from your bank account, for example (at the bank office, not from ATMs).

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 03:24:53 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 03:17:49 PM
There's a difference between voter fraud and election misconduct.

Please elaborate.

Election misconduct covers a lot of action one of which includes voter fraud.

Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2012, 03:32:46 PM
I'm guessing this is a cultural issue. Over here, pretty much everyone has a photo id, be it a passport, a driver's license, a social security card with a photo, or the like. So showing it is no hassle at all. It's also required to withdraw money from your bank account, for example (at the bank office, not from ATMs).

Yeah, that is really the point.  This sure looks like it is aimed at people who wont likely have such identification.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2012, 03:44:27 PM

Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2012, 03:32:46 PM
I'm guessing this is a cultural issue. Over here, pretty much everyone has a photo id, be it a passport, a driver's license, a social security card with a photo, or the like. So showing it is no hassle at all. It's also required to withdraw money from your bank account, for example (at the bank office, not from ATMs).

Yeah, that is really the point.  This sure looks like it is aimed at people who wont likely have such identification.

It's not as if you have no recourse under these laws if you lack a photo ID.  They still allow the ID-less voter a chance to cast a provisional ballot.  In some cases, they just have to sign an affidavit and you get a regular ballot.

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 04:04:24 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2012, 03:44:27 PM

Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2012, 03:32:46 PM
I'm guessing this is a cultural issue. Over here, pretty much everyone has a photo id, be it a passport, a driver's license, a social security card with a photo, or the like. So showing it is no hassle at all. It's also required to withdraw money from your bank account, for example (at the bank office, not from ATMs).

Yeah, that is really the point.  This sure looks like it is aimed at people who wont likely have such identification.

It's not as if you have no recourse under these laws if you lack a photo ID.  They still allow the ID-less voter a chance to cast a provisional ballot.  In some cases, they just have to sign an affidavit and you get a regular ballot.

That isn't the point though.

Since there is no problem these laws area actually purported to adress, it is clear their intent is something else - and that is to disnefranchise otherwise valid voters via making it harder for them to vote.

I don't care if there is some "recourse". The point of these laws seems to be to discourage some people who are otherwise valid voters from voting.

What is reprehensible about stuff like this is that it is fundamentally an attack on democracy itself. Supporting these kinds of laws when it is clear that the intent has nothing to do with voter fraud is supporting the attempt to get people to stop voting because they don't tend to vote in the manner you like.

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 04:04:24 PM
It's not as if you have no recourse under these laws if you lack a photo ID.  They still allow the ID-less voter a chance to cast a provisional ballot.  In some cases, they just have to sign an affidavit and you get a regular ballot.

So tell me again why you want voter ID?

On the affidavit issue, there are a number of complications I can see.

First the person has to be able to read the document.  Then they have to understand the document.  Then, if your professional obligations are anything like ours, the person hearing the depondant swearing the affidavit has to satisfy themselves that the person is who they claim to be (usually by taking some form of ID....) and for all that to happen there actually has to be someone at the polling station that can deal with all that.


See any problems with that system or how it might disadvantage some groups and not others?

Quote from: Berkut on April 04, 2012, 04:17:41 PM
What is reprehensible about stuff like this is that it is fundamentally an attack on democracy itself. Supporting these kinds of laws when it is clear that the intent has nothing to do with voter fraud is supporting the attempt to get people to stop voting because they don't tend to vote in the manner you like.

Yep, that is it exactly.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2012, 04:18:05 PMSee any problems with that system or how it might disadvantage some groups and not others?

I think derSpiess can see how it might disadvantage some groups and not others, but not how that's a problem.

Quote from: Berkut on April 04, 2012, 04:17:41 PM
That isn't the point though.

Since there is no problem these laws area actually purported to adress, it is clear their intent is something else - and that is to disnefranchise otherwise valid voters via making it harder for them to vote.

I don't care if there is some "recourse". The point of these laws seems to be to discourage some people who are otherwise valid voters from voting.

What is reprehensible about stuff like this is that it is fundamentally an attack on democracy itself. Supporting these kinds of laws when it is clear that the intent has nothing to do with voter fraud is supporting the attempt to get people to stop voting because they don't tend to vote in the manner you like.

I think there are reasonable arguments on both sides, but when you start saying there is no problem and the intent is clearly to disenfranchise valid voters you go way too far.

How easy is it to catch an illegal voter?  My guess is it's not easy at all.

How difficult is it for a valid voter to obtain ID?  Trivially easy.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 04:28:16 PM
How difficult is it for a valid voter to obtain ID?  Trivially easy.

Really Yi, how can you be so certain.

Where does when obtain such an ID, do they have the ID offices every few blocks so that one does not need to drive to obtain one or are they just trivially easy for those who are able to drive to such a location during business hours and produce the necessary documentation to obtain one.  Yes that is trivially easy for you and I but then again the law isnt really targeted at people like us is it.

At the DMV.

To get my photo ID I had to take a written test and then another one where I paralleled parked.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 04:36:28 PM
To get my photo ID I had to take a written test and then another one where I paralleled parked.

When you request the non-driving ID they don't make you do those things.

What do they make you do?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 04:35:44 PM
At the DMV.

So in other words, not trivially easy.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 04:39:44 PM
What do they make you do?

Show proof of identity and fork over five bucks.

It's been a while since I checked the price, could have gone up.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 04:36:28 PM
To get my photo ID I had to take a written test and then another one where I paralleled parked.

Here you can get a state photo ID from the same place you get drivers licenses, without having to take a driving test.  Pretty sure that's the case in most/all states.

Great, so now Americans have to pay for the right to vote.

Why dont the Republicans bring back property ownership requirements and have done with it.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 04:41:30 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 04:39:44 PM
What do they make you do?

Show proof of identity and fork over five bucks.

It's been a while since I checked the price, could have gone up.

I believe that would make it unconstitutional.  You can't charge people to vote, even in a round about way.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2012, 04:44:09 PM
Great, so now Americans have to pay for the right to vote.

Why dont the Republicans bring back property ownership requirements and have done with it.

:lol:  Fly off the handle much?

Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 04:45:50 PM
I believe that would make it unconstitutional.  You can't charge people to vote, even in a round about way.

You can get a photo ID for free by joining the military. :P

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2012, 04:18:05 PM

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 04:04:24 PM
It's not as if you have no recourse under these laws if you lack a photo ID.  They still allow the ID-less voter a chance to cast a provisional ballot.  In some cases, they just have to sign an affidavit and you get a regular ballot.

So tell me again why you want voter ID?

On the affidavit issue, there are a number of complications I can see.

First the person has to be able to read the document.  Then they have to understand the document.  Then, if your professional obligations are anything like ours, the person hearing the depondant swearing the affidavit has to satisfy themselves that the person is who they claim to be (usually by taking some form of ID....) and for all that to happen there actually has to be someone at the polling station that can deal with all that.


See any problems with that system or how it might disadvantage some groups and not others?

This.

I've searched teh intrawebs up and down this afternoon looking for cases of out-of-state students attempting to vote where they're going to school instead of casting absentee ballots for places they have a more vested interest in like, you know, home.

Can't seem to find any.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 03:24:53 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 03:17:49 PM
There's a difference between voter fraud and election misconduct.

Please elaborate.

Nixon

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 02:35:56 PM
I assume citizenship is the basis for rejection of the university ID.

And driver's license is a proof of citizenship?  :rolleyes:

Did you ever get citizenship DG?

Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 06:12:49 PM
Did you ever get citizenship DG?

Of course, more than a decade ago.  Kind of dumb to plan to live in the country for the rest of your life without ever getting your citizenship.

Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2012, 06:15:49 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 06:12:49 PM
Did you ever get citizenship DG?

Of course, more than a decade ago.  Kind of dumb to plan to live in the country for the rest of your life without ever getting your citizenship.

My friend's wife still hasn't.  I don't know how old she is, but I think it's pretty close our age.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 06:17:38 PM

Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2012, 06:15:49 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 06:12:49 PM
Did you ever get citizenship DG?

Of course, more than a decade ago.  Kind of dumb to plan to live in the country for the rest of your life without ever getting your citizenship.

My friend's wife still hasn't.  I don't know how old she is, but I think it's pretty close our age.

Doesn't matter how old she is, it matters how long she's been here.  I don't understand people who are here for way more than five years, and still don't care to get citizenship.  There are many ways you can get fucked in a stupid way without it.

Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2012, 06:12:01 PM
And driver's license is a proof of citizenship?  :rolleyes:

Isn't it?  I thought you had to show a birth certificate when you got your first one but it has been 300 years since my first license so I could be wrong.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 06:21:48 PM

Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2012, 06:12:01 PM
And driver's license is a proof of citizenship?  :rolleyes:

Isn't it?  I thought you had to show a birth certificate when you got your first one but it has been 300 years since my first license so I could be wrong.

Nope.  Don't you remember the big stink in the run-up to 2008 over the states that gave DL's out to illegals?

Then why the hell are Democrats objecting? :lol:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 06:21:48 PM

Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2012, 06:12:01 PM
And driver's license is a proof of citizenship?  :rolleyes:

Isn't it?  I thought you had to show a birth certificate when you got your first one but it has been 300 years since my first license so I could be wrong.

Aren't you forgetting about legal immigrants?  Legal immigrants have a right to get a driver's license everywhere without a controversy, but they don't have the right to vote (until they get naturalized, but that would take years).

Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2012, 06:30:16 PM
Aren't you forgetting about legal immigrants?  Legal immigrants have a right to get a driver's license everywhere without a controversy, but they don't have the right to vote (until they get naturalized, but that would take years).

Birth certificate, green card, whatever.

Do you remember what you had to show?  I assume you were a Green Carder at the time?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 06:33:14 PM
Birth certificate, green card, whatever.

The point I was getting at is that driver's license is no proof of citizenship, so proof of citizenship cannot be the reason for not accepting university IDs but accepting DLs.

Quote
Do you remember what you had to show?  I assume you were a Green Carder at the time?

I don't, and I'm sure the rules have been toughened up anyway since then.

I have voted in three states:  Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Kentucky.  In the case of the latter two I was asked to show my driver's license.  I've never not done so and never seen anyone else not comply, so I'm not sure what happens if you don't.  I don't remember how it worked in the case of Pennsylvania.

IMO if you can't be bothered to get a driver's license or a state-issued photo ID (assuming every state issues them... I don't know for sure about this) you probably shouldn't be voting.

I'm more than happy to show my driver's license in Ohio when voting.  Photo IDs are so difficult and expensive to get, I take pride in being in such an exclusive group.

Quote from: Caliga on April 04, 2012, 07:19:46 PMIMO if you can't be bothered to get a driver's license or a state-issued photo ID (assuming every state issues them... I don't know for sure about this) you probably shouldn't be voting.

Yeah... I guess you'd probably vote for the wrong candidates, eh?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 06:24:09 PM
Then why the hell are Democrats objecting? :lol:

What is it you think the Democrats goals are?

Quote from: Caliga on April 04, 2012, 07:19:46 PM
IMO if you can't be bothered to get a driver's license or a state-issued photo ID (assuming every state issues them... I don't know for sure about this) you probably shouldn't be voting.

I am sure that is the plan...

Yes. And provide an ID that is sufficient for the purpose that everyone can get. $5 with a fee waiver if you can show economic hardship. It's not that hard.

Quote from: Maximus on April 04, 2012, 07:52:00 PM
Yes. And provide an ID that is sufficient for the purpose that everyone can get. $5 with a fee waiver if you can show economic hardship. It's not that hard.

It is to get it through the courts.  Charging a fee to vote even if it can waived for those with economic hardship is still unconstitutional.

Quote from: Maximus on April 04, 2012, 07:52:00 PM
Yes. And provide an ID that is sufficient for the purpose that everyone can get. $5 with a fee waiver if you can show economic hardship. It's not that hard.

People still need to get to where ever it is that people need to go to get these things.  Not everyone has a car, or access to transit or can get there during the hours that office might be open.

Why would anyone construct a system that would in any way create a disincentive to voting when participation rates is one of the biggest problems in Western Democracies.  Probably because we all know who this will adversely effect the most. ;)

Quote from: Jacob on April 04, 2012, 07:23:35 PM
Yeah... I guess you'd probably vote for the wrong candidates, eh?

I'm actually a Democrat (seriously). :P
I think that people who aren't capable of basic tasks like getting a driver's license and/or a government ID shouldn't be deciding on the future direction of my country.  Like Max said, it's really not that hard.  Maybe it's really hard in Canada, but it isn't here (and I guess Max would know).  I don't care whether said people are liberal or conservative.  In truth, I doubt that people incapable of obtaining basic government-issued identification care about voting anyway.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2012, 07:55:25 PM
People still need to get to where ever it is that people need to go to get these things.  Not everyone has a car, or access to transit or can get there during the hours that office might be open.

Doesn't it stand to reason that someone who can't figure out a way to get to the DMV also isn't going to be able to figure out a way to get to a voting booth?

Quote from: Caliga on April 04, 2012, 08:02:56 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2012, 07:55:25 PM
People still need to get to where ever it is that people need to go to get these things.  Not everyone has a car, or access to transit or can get there during the hours that office might be open.

Doesn't it stand to reason that someone who can't figure out a way to get to the DMV also isn't going to be able to figure out a way to get to a voting booth?

Why is there any connection between the two.  I asked Yi earlier on whether they would have places to get the ID in every neighbourhood so that people dont actually have to drive.  I asked that question becuase I assumed that in the US you run your elections in such a way that you have polling booths in all neighbourhoods so that distance is not a deterent to voting.

But maybe I am wrong. Maybe you already have built in biases as to who will likely vote and who will not.

Assuming there are polling stations within easy access to every voter then how is an inability to get to a far off DMV during office hours any indication that people cannot get to a polling station in their own neighbourhood after work?

Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 07:45:23 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 06:24:09 PM
Then why the hell are Democrats objecting? :lol:

What is it you think the Democrats goals are?

To ensure that people who shouldn't be voting (either felons, fictitious names, or dead people) are able to vote, since they tend to vote for Democrat candidates.

But heaven forbid we disenfranchise Donald Duck, who registered here in Ohio a while back with the help of your ACORN buddies.

Ah, so you believe Democrats to be engaged in a criminal conspiracy.  I was wondering where you guys were coming from.

@cc

I've not lived in every locality in the United States so I can't give you a truly informed answer, but in the county I live in currently, there are six polling places for the entire county.  The poorest people in my county live in one of two towns and I think anybody who could walk and lives in those precincts could reasonably get to those polling stations--one of the two is across the street from the DMV so those folks could easily get their driver's license/photo ID from there.

The rest of the county is what most people would call very rural, and you would have to have a car to get to any of the other four polling stations unless you happened to have property adjacent.  I have to drive about 2 miles to get to mine.  I guess I could walk, but there are no sidewalks.  Very few people that live near me are what I would call poor, but even the poorest of the poor pretty much have to have cars out here because you simply could not survive without one.

I would be willing to bet that the above also describes a large portion of rural Canada as well.  Don't try to tell me you have voting booths installed on every street corner. :P

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2012, 08:10:51 PM
Why is there any connection between the two.  I asked Yi earlier on whether they would have places to get the ID in every neighbourhood so that people dont actually have to drive.  I asked that question becuase I assumed that in the US you run your elections in such a way that you have polling booths in all neighbourhoods so that distance is not a deterent to voting.

But maybe I am wrong. Maybe you already have built in biases as to who will likely vote and who will not.

Assuming there are polling stations within easy access to every voter then how is an inability to get to a far off DMV during office hours any indication that people cannot get to a polling station in their own neighbourhood after work?

Not every voter is capable of walking to his/her polling station.  That's why various organizations help bus them there (sometimes providing food, drink, etc.).  I'd think that the same organizations could help voters get photo IDs.  In fact, it sounds like they are.  Jim "Guam might tip over" Clyburn is leading such an effort. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2012, 08:10:51 PM
I asked that question becuase I assumed that in the US you run your elections in such a way that you have polling booths in all neighbourhoods so that distance is not a deterent to voting.

I'm pretty sure there are people in rural areas for whom walking to a polling station is simply not an option.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 08:19:38 PM
I'm pretty sure there are people in rural areas for whom walking to a polling station is simply not an option.

It's weird to be having this conversation with Canadians... I get the pushback coming from someone from say Belgium, but Canada is a vast country with a (generally) low population density, just like the United States.

Quote from: HVC on April 04, 2012, 03:25:46 PM
kill two birds with one stone, make voter id card photo id cards.

:)

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2012, 04:34:10 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 04:28:16 PM
How difficult is it for a valid voter to obtain ID?  Trivially easy.

Really Yi, how can you be so certain.

Where does when obtain such an ID, do they have the ID offices every few blocks so that one does not need to drive to obtain one or are they just trivially easy for those who are able to drive to such a location during business hours and produce the necessary documentation to obtain one.  Yes that is trivially easy for you and I but then again the law isnt really targeted at people like us is it.

I don't think how easy it is has anything to do with the issue, actually CC.

Except insofar as it is used as a reason why it should be ok to enact laws that are intended to discourage certain people from voting.

How easy it is to comply is irrelevant, unless there is an actual problem that needs solving, in which case the severity of the problem can be compared to the reasonable ease of compliance.

In this case we know that there is no real problem - there is no significant reports of voter fraud in the US. It is a made up problem.

Sure, it is easy to get ID - but some people don't even if it is easy. And those people will be less likely to vote if laws like this are passed, and that is the only purpose of the law.

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 08:13:05 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 07:45:23 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 06:24:09 PM
Then why the hell are Democrats objecting? :lol:

What is it you think the Democrats goals are?

To ensure that people who shouldn't be voting (either felons, fictitious names, or dead people) are able to vote, since they tend to vote for Democrat candidates.

Cite?

Quote from: Caliga on April 04, 2012, 08:22:46 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 08:19:38 PM
I'm pretty sure there are people in rural areas for whom walking to a polling station is simply not an option.

It's weird to be having this conversation with Canadians... I get the pushback coming from someone from say Belgium, but Canada is a vast country with a (generally) low population density, just like the United States.

Every two-bit rural town in Canada has a polling station.

When I lived at a lakefront cottage, my polling station was in a town of population <100.

A full-on farmer living in the middle of nowhere couldn't get to a polling station without a car (or a horse), but for everyone else they are pretty much within walking distance.

I am skipping all 8 pages:

Don't you people have to go to the registered polling station of your residental address, then give your name when voting, to avoid people voting multiple times? If so, why shouldn't you show some ID?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 04:28:16 PMHow easy is it to catch an illegal voter?  My guess is it's not easy at all.

But that's not the issue.  How many illegal voters are there?  Is it a sufficient problem to justify imposing extra requirements on voters?

QuoteHow easy it is to comply is irrelevant, unless there is an actual problem that needs solving, in which case the severity of the problem can be compared to the reasonable ease of compliance.

Exactly.  Unless there's a pressing need there's no reason for the state to place extra burden on voters exercising their rights.  Though I think a possible exception could be a national ID system which everyone's required to have and required to carry as exists in some European countries.

If voters are required to show photo ID at the voting booth, then the government should have responsbility to ensure that all eligible voters have such photo ID. I think voting rights is so fundamental to a society that calls itself a democracy that the government should not have the power to take away such rights so easily. 

Quote from: Tamas on April 05, 2012, 01:28:46 AM
I am skipping all 8 pages:

Don't you people have to go to the registered polling station of your residental address, then give your name when voting, to avoid people voting multiple times? If so, why shouldn't you show some ID?

The way things work in HK (which doesn't even call itself a democracy) is that before voting, the government mails a letter to each voter.  The voter then takes the letter and his mandatory ID to the voting booth to vote.  The key I think is that both the letter and the ID are provided by the government to every eligible citizen who has registered to vote.  The responsibility that the voters have these documents rests with the government.  What we are talking about is that the voter is required to show photo ID, but getting such ID is the responsibility of the voter.  I think that is not really acceptable because the process of getting the ID may constitute a hurdle to voting.  Yes, fraud distorts the will of the electorate.  But this kind of law has the potential to distort it even more.  If they really want to implement something like this, then their government should actively seek out every voter and provide him with the necessary photo ID to vote.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 05, 2012, 02:41:48 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 04:28:16 PMHow easy is it to catch an illegal voter?  My guess is it's not easy at all.

But that's not the issue.  How many illegal voters are there?  Is it a sufficient problem to justify imposing extra requirements on voters?

They're the same issue Shelf.  How can we know how many illegal voters there are unless we have an estimate of the percentage that get caught?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2012, 03:01:00 AM
They're the same issue Shelf.  How can we know how many illegal voters there are unless we have an estimate of the percentage that get caught?

They're not.  There've been extensive investigation into voter fraud by the DoJ.  They've uncovered very little and let to extremely few convictions.  My argument would be that that's because there's very little fraud and if there were more there'd be more evidence of it to begin with (anomalous voting patterns etc.), while yours is that because it's so difficult to prove people just aren't getting caught so you can't say there's probably very little fraud.

But academic studies have found very little too.  Apparently a study of the Washington gubernatorial election in 2004 found fraud accounted for 0.0009%, while a study of the Ohio vote in the same year found it accounted for 0.00004% of the vote.  A think tank looked at law enforcement and academic research found similarly low amounts.  No doubt you're right and it's terribly difficult to catch but that doesn't address the question of whether measures that make it easier to catch are worth the hassle to legitimate voters - and the potential of legitimate voters being turned away because they forgot the right kind of ID.  Even if you're right and the real problem is how difficult it is to catch, then if your double or triple the amount of fraud you're still more likely to be struck by lightning and you'd probably need to increase it by such a scale that we'd know by other ways for it to have a substantial effect.

As I say at what point do you stop?  What sort of responsibility do you place on polling booth volunteers not to be duped?  Should it be like selling booze to a minor?  Why is one ID (that shows your address) available to legal immigrants who can't vote okay while another isn't?  As CdM says isn't electoral misconduct, like giving out leaflets with the wrong address for the polling booth, probably more serious? 

I've no issue with combating voter fraud where it's a problem, in the UK there's serious issues with postal or absentee ballots, or imposing requirements on people getting on the electoral roll.  But unless there's some indication that there's actually a problem I don't think there's any justification in increasing the hassle on voters (though a national ID card gets around this, if you're so inclined).  Like Berk, I'd wonder about the possible other reasons for pushing for this.  One study in Indiana showed that Democrats and independents were 3-5% less likely to have valid photo ID than Republicans - that sort of figure is a substantial enough difference for me to think that there could be a problem with some voting laws.

Monsters from the ID!

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2012, 07:55:25 PM
People still need to get to where ever it is that people need to go to get these things.  Not everyone has a car, or access to transit or can get there during the hours that office might be open.

What part of "that everyone can get" did you not understand?

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2012, 07:55:25 PM
Why would anyone construct a system that would in any way create a disincentive to voting when participation rates is one of the biggest problems in Western Democracies.  Probably because we all know who this will adversely effect the most. ;)

Yes, yes, it's all a grand conspiracy :tinfoil:

Quote from: Berkut on April 05, 2012, 12:09:21 AM

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 08:13:05 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 07:45:23 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 06:24:09 PM
Then why the hell are Democrats objecting? :lol:

What is it you think the Democrats goals are?

To ensure that people who shouldn't be voting (either felons, fictitious names, or dead people) are able to vote, since they tend to vote for Democrat candidates.

Cite?

Same source that states how evilllll Republicans want to disenfranchise minorities.

Quote from: Maximus on April 05, 2012, 04:57:53 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2012, 07:55:25 PM
People still need to get to where ever it is that people need to go to get these things.  Not everyone has a car, or access to transit or can get there during the hours that office might be open.

What part of "that everyone can get" did you not understand?

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2012, 07:55:25 PM
Why would anyone construct a system that would in any way create a disincentive to voting when participation rates is one of the biggest problems in Western Democracies.  Probably because we all know who this will adversely effect the most. ;)

Yes, yes, it's all a grand conspiracy :tinfoil:

Not reallly all that grand at all. And not really a conspiracy either, since that implies some secretiveness - this is all pretty much right out in the open.

Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2012, 10:13:04 AM

Quote from: Berkut on April 05, 2012, 12:09:21 AM

Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 08:13:05 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 07:45:23 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 06:24:09 PM
Then why the hell are Democrats objecting? :lol:

What is it you think the Democrats goals are?

To ensure that people who shouldn't be voting (either felons, fictitious names, or dead people) are able to vote, since they tend to vote for Democrat candidates.

Cite?

Same source that states how evilllll Republicans want to disenfranchise minorities.

So you don't have any actual data that shows that there is some kind of problem with voter fraud that this "solution" would address then...right?

I'd like to disenfranchise everybody. Except for us landowners. :bowler:

Quote from: Caliga on April 04, 2012, 08:18:11 PM
@cc

I would be willing to bet that the above also describes a large portion of rural Canada as well.  Don't try to tell me you have voting booths installed on every street corner. :P

typically polling stations are located in schools, community centres and churches so that yes, polling stations are very conveniently located making it very easy for people to simply walk to their polling station.  I dont think I have ever driven to a polling station to vote - including when I lived outside an urban centre.  There are likely places in very remote areas where a person lives a long distance from any school or church in the boonies.  But that would very much be the exception.  Certainly there are many more polling stations then DMV branches. :P

Quote from: Maximus on April 05, 2012, 04:57:53 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2012, 07:55:25 PM
People still need to get to where ever it is that people need to go to get these things.  Not everyone has a car, or access to transit or can get there during the hours that office might be open.

What part of "that everyone can get" did you not understand?

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2012, 07:55:25 PM
Why would anyone construct a system that would in any way create a disincentive to voting when participation rates is one of the biggest problems in Western Democracies.  Probably because we all know who this will adversely effect the most. ;)

Yes, yes, it's all a grand conspiracy :tinfoil:

You have to have some mighty big blinders on to fail to recognize that this is not a nuetral measure.

We've had similar laws in this country before... Often in the same states that try to push these voter ID cards now.  Funny that.

Quote from: Berkut on April 05, 2012, 10:48:09 AM
So you don't have any actual data that shows that there is some kind of problem with voter fraud that this "solution" would address then...right?

No data, sorry.  But I'd think voter fraud one of those things where you'd want to take common-sense measures to prevent. 

Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2012, 11:23:12 AM
We've had similar laws in this country before... Often in the same states that try to push these voter ID cards now.  Funny that.

We have similar laws in this country right now, guy.  In Indiana, for example:

http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/2401.htm

Ok, so in Indiana people have to pay for the right to vote.  Lets all follow them off the cliff.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 05, 2012, 12:03:07 PM
Ok, so in Indiana people have to pay for the right to vote.  Lets all follow them off the cliff.

lolwut

Info on how to get your free photo ID card: http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/2625.htm

A link from NPR about this stuff:

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/11/145044060/political-battle-brewing-over-new-voter-id-laws

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnpr.org%2Fnews%2Fgraphics%2F2012%2F01%2Fmap-voterid-300.gif&hash=e73efc51a11ccc605671b307eff6b3c2a41dff90)

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on April 05, 2012, 12:05:02 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 05, 2012, 12:03:07 PM
Ok, so in Indiana people have to pay for the right to vote.  Lets all follow them off the cliff.

lolwut

Info on how to get your free photo ID card: http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/2625.htm

OMG that's too many hoops to jump through!  :lol:

Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2012, 12:07:58 PM
OMG that's too many hoops to jump through!  :lol:

Probably the most pain in the ass part would be getting a copy of your birth certificate if you don't have one.   Their DL places are even open on Saturdays for those who are constantly working all week, and look to generally be open an extra hour or two one other day of the week.

Hell, they even give you a temporary card right then and there that'll work for voting purposes.

Cc, I think we might be talking past each other.  It's possible that many if not most Americans and Canadians both can walk to their local polling place.  All I'm saying is large geographic swaths of both countries wouldn't fall into this category, where a minority of people live.  I don't know about Canada but here you cannot live in a rural area and be without a car so the argument is really a non-starter.

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on April 05, 2012, 12:05:02 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 05, 2012, 12:03:07 PM
Ok, so in Indiana people have to pay for the right to vote.  Lets all follow them off the cliff.

lolwut

Info on how to get your free photo ID card: http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/2625.htm

A link from NPR about this stuff:

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/11/145044060/political-battle-brewing-over-new-voter-id-laws

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnpr.org%2Fnews%2Fgraphics%2F2012%2F01%2Fmap-voterid-300.gif&hash=e73efc51a11ccc605671b307eff6b3c2a41dff90)

QuoteApplicants must bring documents to the license branch to prove their name and date of birth, Social Security number, lawful status in the United States, and Indiana residency.

So, a person without a picture ID must get to a DMV location during office hours and must submit the above documentation.  What if such a person does not have a birth certificate and has to order a new one in order to qualify to vote.  Is that free?  When I had to get a replacement certificate a number of years ago (my original was destroyed in a house fire) I recall a cost.  I assume it is the same in the US.  Most people likely have a social security number but if one does not is obtaining that free?  I dont know it has been too long since I obtained my equivalent to remember if it had cost associated with it.  I am not sure how one proves lawful status in the US.  Here we prove our status via birth certificates which brings us back to the cost issue identified above.  I assume proof of Indiana residency is pretty straight forward as I assume that a person would just need to show that bills etc are sent to them at a particular address.  But maybe I am wrong maybe something more convincing is required that would cost money to obtain.

So lolwut right back at you. ;)
So, what happens if a person doe

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 05, 2012, 11:00:01 AM
You have to have some mighty big blinders on to fail to recognize that this is not a nuetral measure.

What measure?

The question was whether voters should be required to show photo ID. The  answer is yes with the additional requirements I outlined. This does not imply a connection to any law proposed or enacted. Nor does it imply that it is politically feasible, few worthwhile things are.

That in turn does not meant it is not a good idea or that it would be difficult or costly(other than politically).

Quote from: Caliga on April 05, 2012, 12:15:10 PM
Cc, I think we might be talking past each other.  It's possible that many if not most Americans and Canadians both can walk to their local polling place.  All I'm saying is large geographic swaths of both countries wouldn't fall into this category, where a minority of people live.  I don't know about Canada but here you cannot live in a rural area and be without a car so the argument is really a non-starter.

Well lets take the people that can then.  The people in urban areas.  Do all those people have access to DMVs that are within walking distance.  If not then do you see the problem.

One of the things that got me thinking about this is a story I heard about Seattle yesterday.  Apparently there is a place surrounded by poor neighbourhoods that is referred to as a food desert because there are no grocery stores within a reasonable distance where residents can by food and so they purchase their food from corner stores and gas stations (no offence intended).

I found that remarkable and didnt believe it at first but apparently that is a phenomenon in a number of cities in the industrialized world (the term seems to have been coined in the UK).  Not having available access to healthy food apparently has all kinds of negative outcomes.  I mean sure eating at a gas station every now and then is fine but a steady diet of quicky mart hotdogs has got to have some adverse effect.

If not having having ready access to a grocery store influences eating behaviour negatively I think it likely that not having ready access to a DMV is likely to influence the likelyhood of actually getting to the DMV with all the documents required to obtain the ID.

Our resident Republican apologists can laugh all they want at the hoops one must jump through which seem trivial to people with the resources and ability to easily jump through them.  But we should not assess the impact of voting laws based on how it will impact those it will not likely impact but rather those it is most likely to impact.

Quote from: Maximus on April 05, 2012, 12:23:30 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 05, 2012, 11:00:01 AM
You have to have some mighty big blinders on to fail to recognize that this is not a nuetral measure.

What measure?

The question was whether voters should be required to show photo ID.

You just answered your own question.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 05, 2012, 12:19:43 PM
So, a person without a picture ID must get to a DMV location during office hours and must submit the above documentation.  What if such a person does not have a birth certificate and has to order a new one in order to qualify to vote.  Is that free?  When I had to get a replacement certificate a number of years ago (my original was destroyed in a house fire) I recall a cost.  I assume it is the same in the US.  Most people likely have a social security number but if one does not is obtaining that free?  I dont know it has been too long since I obtained my equivalent to remember if it had cost associated with it.  I am not sure how one proves lawful status in the US.  Here we prove our status via birth certificates which brings us back to the cost issue identified above.  I assume proof of Indiana residency is pretty straight forward as I assume that a person would just need to show that bills etc are sent to them at a particular address.  But maybe I am wrong maybe something more convincing is required that would cost money to obtain.

So lolwut right back at you. ;)
So, what happens if a person doe

Since you are apparently incapable of clicking links and reading things:

Quote from: Shit that proves your identityThe full list of documents proving your identity includes:
United States birth certificate. Must be an original or certified copy filed with a U.S. state or territory office of vital statistics or equivalent agency in your state of birth. Puerto Rican-born citizens must provide a birth certificate issued on or after July 1, 2010.
Amended birth certificate showing a change of legal name, date of birth, or gender. The amended birth certificate must have been filed with a state office of vital statistics in your state of birth.
United States passport.
Foreign passport with a United States visa affixed and accompanied by an approved I-94 form documenting your most recent admittance into, or current status in, the United States.
Consular Report of Birth Abroad issued by Department of State (Form FS-240, Form DS-1350, or Form FS-545).
Certificate of Naturalization (Form N-550 or Form N-570).
Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-560 or Form N-561).
Permanent Resident Card issued by Department of Homeland Security or Citizenship and Immigration Services (Form I-551).
Employment Authorization Document issued by Department of Homeland Security (Form I-766).
Other documents issued by a United States federal agency to show identity and lawful status. The BMV must be able to verify through the Department of Homeland Security that the information in the document is accurate.

That shit also proves your lawful status in the US.  The birth certificate copy, if you don't have one, is $4 in Indiana, and is an excellent document to have.  The social security card is free.  Proof of residency is a fucking bill.  So $4 once.  This is not prohibitive and is not difficult.  The hours of the BMV are on their website (and have been previously posted) and are perfectly reasonable.  They include locations open on Saturday and with a night during the week where they stay open late.

I have a question for you:  How the fuck are these people who are supposed to be voting getting these crazy jobs where they work from 8-7 every day except Sunday without any documentation at all?   That job they have must suck real bad too, since it apparently also doesn't cover the cost of a regular ID, let alone a copy of a damn birth certificate.

I seriously give no shits either way about the law, since I have an ID and can provide it if they want, or not.  Makes no difference to me.  The exaggeration about how difficult it is for someone to get an ID card of any type is irritating though.  It's not fucking difficult.

MiM, if you are not actually going to read my post there is no point in talking is there.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 05, 2012, 12:36:19 PM
MiM, if you are not actually going to read my post there is no point in talking is there.

It would probably help if you even knew who you were talking to.

E: But you know what?  Here:

Quote from: youSo, a person without a picture ID must get to a DMV location during office hours and must submit the above documentation.  What if such a person does not have a birth certificate and has to order a new one in order to qualify to vote.  Is that free?  When I had to get a replacement certificate a number of years ago (my original was destroyed in a house fire) I recall a cost. 

Quote from: meThe birth certificate copy, if you don't have one, is $4 in Indiana, and is an excellent document to have.

Quote from: youMost people likely have a social security number but if one does not is obtaining that free?  I dont know it has been too long since I obtained my equivalent to remember if it had cost associated with it.

Quote from: meThe social security card is free.

Quote from: youI am not sure how one proves lawful status in the US.  Here we prove our status via birth certificates which brings us back to the cost issue identified above.

Quote from: me

QuoteThe full list of documents proving your identity includes:
United States birth certificate. Must be an original or certified copy filed with a U.S. state or territory office of vital statistics or equivalent agency in your state of birth. Puerto Rican-born citizens must provide a birth certificate issued on or after July 1, 2010.
Amended birth certificate showing a change of legal name, date of birth, or gender. The amended birth certificate must have been filed with a state office of vital statistics in your state of birth.
United States passport.
Foreign passport with a United States visa affixed and accompanied by an approved I-94 form documenting your most recent admittance into, or current status in, the United States.
Consular Report of Birth Abroad issued by Department of State (Form FS-240, Form DS-1350, or Form FS-545).
Certificate of Naturalization (Form N-550 or Form N-570).
Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-560 or Form N-561).
Permanent Resident Card issued by Department of Homeland Security or Citizenship and Immigration Services (Form I-551).
Employment Authorization Document issued by Department of Homeland Security (Form I-766).
Other documents issued by a United States federal agency to show identity and lawful status. The BMV must be able to verify through the Department of Homeland Security that the information in the document is accurate.

That shit also proves your lawful status in the US.

Quote from: youI assume proof of Indiana residency is pretty straight forward as I assume that a person would just need to show that bills etc are sent to them at a particular address.  But maybe I am wrong maybe something more convincing is required that would cost money to obtain.

Quote from: meProof of residency is a fucking bill.

Which part do you feel I didn't read and respond to?

:lol:

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 05, 2012, 12:31:21 PM

Quote from: Caliga on April 05, 2012, 12:15:10 PM
Cc, I think we might be talking past each other.  It's possible that many if not most Americans and Canadians both can walk to their local polling place.  All I'm saying is large geographic swaths of both countries wouldn't fall into this category, where a minority of people live.  I don't know about Canada but here you cannot live in a rural area and be without a car so the argument is really a non-starter.

Well lets take the people that can then.  The people in urban areas.  Do all those people have access to DMVs that are within walking distance.  If not then do you see the problem.

One of the things that got me thinking about this is a story I heard about Seattle yesterday.  Apparently there is a place surrounded by poor neighbourhoods that is referred to as a food desert because there are no grocery stores within a reasonable distance where residents can by food and so they purchase their food from corner stores and gas stations (no offence intended).

I found that remarkable and didnt believe it at first but apparently that is a phenomenon in a number of cities in the industrialized world (the term seems to have been coined in the UK).  Not having available access to healthy food apparently has all kinds of negative outcomes.  I mean sure eating at a gas station every now and then is fine but a steady diet of quicky mart hotdogs has got to have some adverse effect.

If not having having ready access to a grocery store influences eating behaviour negatively I think it likely that not having ready access to a DMV is likely to influence the likelyhood of actually getting to the DMV with all the documents required to obtain the ID.

Our resident Republican apologists can laugh all they want at the hoops one must jump through which seem trivial to people with the resources and ability to easily jump through them.  But we should not assess the impact of voting laws based on how it will impact those it will not likely impact but rather those it is most likely to impact.

I didn't realize one had to renew the IDs every other day. That does indeed make things difficult and I may have to come around to your point of view.

Marty-like comparisons aside. Getting an ID isn't outside the ability of anyone who cares. And yea, I've been there, so you can put your assumptions in a warm, wet place.

Quote from: Maximus on April 05, 2012, 12:41:32 PM
Marty-like comparisons aside. Getting an ID isn't outside the ability of anyone who cares.

That is a nice justification for denying the vote. People just dont care enough. I can see that flying at a Republican convention.

Well it's pretty consistent.

People who care can get a job.
People who care will buy health insurance.

So if you don't have a job or health insurance it's because you don't care.

Same with voting.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 05, 2012, 12:31:21 PM
One of the things that got me thinking about this is a story I heard about Seattle yesterday.  Apparently there is a place surrounded by poor neighbourhoods that is referred to as a food desert because there are no grocery stores within a reasonable distance where residents can by food and so they purchase their food from corner stores and gas stations (no offence intended).

I found that remarkable and didnt believe it at first but apparently that is a phenomenon in a number of cities in the industrialized world (the term seems to have been coined in the UK).  Not having available access to healthy food apparently has all kinds of negative outcomes.  I mean sure eating at a gas station every now and then is fine but a steady diet of quicky mart hotdogs has got to have some adverse effect.

If not having having ready access to a grocery store influences eating behaviour negatively I think it likely that not having ready access to a DMV is likely to influence the likelyhood of actually getting to the DMV with all the documents required to obtain the ID.

Our resident Republican apologists can laugh all they want at the hoops one must jump through which seem trivial to people with the resources and ability to easily jump through them.  But we should not assess the impact of voting laws based on how it will impact those it will not likely impact but rather those it is most likely to impact.

CC, we've had a discussion that involved this very concept many, many moons ago regarding the phenomenon of health issues of inner city denizens.  You will not find any sympathy for their disadvantages here.

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 12:47:39 PM
Well it's pretty consistent.

People who care can get a job.
People who care will buy health insurance.

So if you don't have a job or health insurance it's because you don't care.

Same with voting.

I am not sure why I didnt see that inescapable logic before. 

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 12:47:39 PM
Well it's pretty consistent.

People who care can get a job.
People who care will buy health insurance.

So if you don't have a job or health insurance it's because you don't care.

Same with voting.

It's not even a little bit the same. ID cards are not a scarce resource. It's like everyone is trying to fill in for Marty while he's gone.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2012, 12:50:16 PM
CC, we've had a discussion that involved this very concept many, many moons ago regarding the phenomenon of health issues of inner city denizens.  You will not find any sympathy for their disadvantages here.

I fully expect that to be the case.  It reminds me a bit of the dust up BB and I had many moons ago over some of the causes of unemployment.

Quote from: Maximus on April 05, 2012, 12:51:19 PMIt's not even a little bit the same. ID cards are not a scarce resource. It's like everyone is trying to fill in for Marty while he's gone.

What's with the need for name-calling?

The point is, that if you look at things systemically, you can take actions to increase voter participation or to decrease voter participation (or affect any other social issue). If you chose to decrease voter participation, especially amongst groups that are already under represented, you can of course say that it's because "they don't care"; but it nonetheless comes across as incredibly self-serving when they happen to vote against you and when you can't come up with any data show the need for restricting their access.

Furthermore, in a democratic country the proper response to "voters don't care" isn't "well, let's make it harder for them to vote" it's "let's help them overcome the hurdles to voting."

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 01:03:53 PM

Quote from: Maximus on April 05, 2012, 12:51:19 PMIt's not even a little bit the same. ID cards are not a scarce resource. It's like everyone is trying to fill in for Marty while he's gone.

What's with the need for name-calling?

No kidding, talk about below the belt.

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 01:03:53 PM
What's with the need for name-calling?

I apologize, the amount of assumptions being thrown around in this thread is staggering, but I should not have stooped to the same level.

Quote
The point is, that if you look at things systemically, you can take actions to increase voter participation or to decrease voter participation (or affect any other social issue). If you chose to decrease voter participation, especially amongst groups that are already under represented, you can of course say that it's because "they don't care"; but it nonetheless comes across as incredibly self-serving when they happen to vote against you and when you can't come up with any data show the need for restricting their access.

If we don't require voters to show that they have the right to vote, then effectively everyone(or no one) has the right to vote. That may or may not be fine in your view, but it should be reflected in the law and not in the inability to enforce it.

Quote
Furthermore, in a democratic country the proper response to "voters don't care" isn't "well, let's make it harder for them to vote" it's "let's help them overcome the hurdles to voting."

And making sure everyone has a valid ID isn't doing that?

I don't want poors to vote. They are unintelligent and ignorant.

Quote from: Maximus on April 05, 2012, 01:18:13 PMI apologize, the amount of assumptions being thrown around in this thread is staggering, but I should not have stooped to the same level.

That is a shitty and weak apology :lol: I apologize for saying that, but it's true. At least I didn't have to stoop to your level, so there is that.

QuoteIf we don't require voters to show that they have the right to vote, then effectively everyone(or no one) has the right to vote. That may or may not be fine in your view, but it should be reflected in the law and not in the inability to enforce it.

Gosh... so nobody has the right to vote in states where they don't require ID? That's a pretty big indictment of American democracy you're putting forth there.

Quote

QuoteFurthermore, in a democratic country the proper response to "voters don't care" isn't "well, let's make it harder for them to vote" it's "let's help them overcome the hurdles to voting."

And making sure everyone has a valid ID isn't doing that?

Well, if the voter ID laws were combined with concerted drives to register voters and getting them ID, then it would (an organization like ACORN would be great at that). When it's "you can't vote without your ID, but we're keeping the DMV open another 3 hours a week to help you out" it isn't.

Hell, I bet ACORN would be able to cut out the middle man & print the ID themselves!  :D

Anyway, as I mentioned there are organizations that are working to help voters get IDs.

Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2012, 01:33:01 PMAnyway, as I mentioned there are organizations that are working to help voters get IDs.

Well that's good. What organizations are these?

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 01:29:05 PM
Gosh... so nobody has the right to vote in states where they don't require ID? That's a pretty big indictment of American democracy you're putting forth there.

:mellow: Why do you think that's what I wrote?

Quote
Well, if the voter ID laws were combined with concerted drives to register voters and getting them ID, then it would (an organization like ACORN would be great at that). When it's "you can't vote without your ID, but we're keeping the DMV open another 3 hours a week to help you out" it isn't.

Quote from: Maximus on April 04, 2012, 07:52:00 PM
Yes. And provide an ID that is sufficient for the purpose that everyone can get.

But of course it's easier to assume that I want to deny people the vote and I wouldn't think of expecting you to do something that's not easy.

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 01:38:04 PM

Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2012, 01:33:01 PMAnyway, as I mentioned there are organizations that are working to help voters get IDs.

Well that's good. What organizations are these?

Organizations like the League of Women Voters and Rock the Vote--

QuoteFlorida's New Election Law Blunts Voter Drives
By MICHAEL COOPER and JO CRAVEN McGINTY
Florida, which is expected to be a vital swing state once again in this year's presidential election, is enrolling fewer new voters than it did four years ago as prominent civic organizations have suspended registration drives because of what they describe as onerous restrictions imposed last year by Republican state officials.

The state's new elections law — which requires groups that register voters to turn in completed forms within 48 hours or risk fines, among other things — has led the state's League of Women Voters to halt its efforts this year. Rock the Vote, a national organization that encourages young people to vote, began an effort last week to register high school students around the nation — but not in Florida, over fears that teachers could face fines. And on college campuses, the once-ubiquitous folding tables piled high with voter registration forms are now a rarer sight.

Florida, which reminded the nation of the importance of every vote in the disputed presidential election in 2000 when it reported that George W. Bush had won by 537 votes, is now seeing a significant drop-off in new voter registrations. In the months since its new law took effect in July, 81,471 fewer Floridians have registered to vote than during the same period before the 2008 presidential election, according to an analysis of registration data by The New York Times. All told, there are 11.3 million voters registered in the state.

It is difficult to say just how much of the decrease is due to the restrictions in the law, and how much to demographic changes, a lack of enthusiasm about politics or other circumstances, including the fact that there was no competitive Democratic presidential primary this year. But new registrations dropped sharply in some areas where the voting-age population has been growing, the analysis found, including Miami-Dade County, where they fell by 39 percent, and Orange County, where they fell by a little more than a fifth. Some local elections officials said that the lack of registration drives by outside groups has been a factor in the decline.

In Volusia County, where new registrations dropped by nearly a fifth compared with the same period four years ago, the supervisor of elections, Ann McFall, said that she attributed much of the change to the new law. "The drop-off is our League of Women Voters, our five universities in Volusia County, none of which are making a concentrated effort this year," Ms. McFall said.

Florida's law — which is being challenged in court by civic groups and, in counties covered by the Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department — is one of more than a dozen that states have passed in recent years that have made it harder to vote by requiring voters to show photo identification at polls, reducing early voting periods or making it more difficult to register.

Republicans, who have passed nearly all of the new voting laws, say the restrictions are needed to prevent fraud. Democrats note that such fraud almost never happens, and say that the laws will make it harder for young people and members of minorities, who tend to support Democrats, to vote.

...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/us/restrictions-on-voter-registration-in-florida-have-groups-opting-out.html

Oh, wait... nevermind.  :(

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 01:38:04 PM

Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2012, 01:33:01 PMAnyway, as I mentioned there are organizations that are working to help voters get IDs.

Well that's good. What organizations are these?

Cost of Freedom Project, protectingourvote.com, League of Women Voters.  I'm sure there are lots of local grassroots groups as well.

Quote from: Maximus on April 04, 2012, 07:52:00 PM
Yes. And provide an ID that is sufficient for the purpose that everyone can get.

But of course it's easier to assume that I want to deny people the vote and I wouldn't think of expecting you to do something that's not easy.

Well, if you spent your time agitating for access to government resources, including ID cards for people who don't have them, then I'm sorry that I missed that.

If you're pushing for a great big voter registration drive and working to remove access barriers to voting, and the ID card is just a component of that and the inherent barrier in having to jump through another hoop is ameliorated by other steps to get people engaged, then I'm very supportive of your goals.

It's the people who just want to put in ID card requirements and who think that any barriers that raises to voter participation are fine because "those people just don't care" or "those people shouldn't vote anyways" that I take issue with.

But if you're advocating a comprehensive attack on barriers to voting, then I'm very much supportive.

Quote from: FunkMonk on April 05, 2012, 01:52:27 PM
Oh, wait... nevermind.  :(

Are you talking about voter registration or helping voters get IDs?

Fines for voter registration?  "You forgot to fill in section 14a, please pay the fine"?

I cannot say I am that surprised.  Both parties have been working to make it really hard to run for office for decades, if not centuries, so trying to make it harder to vote isn't that big of a stretch.

Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2012, 02:00:26 PM
Are you talking about voter registration or helping voters get IDs?

It could be the same thing.

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 01:54:57 PM
agitating for access to government resources,

Lolz I love left-wing speak.

Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2012, 02:01:00 PM
Fines for voter registration?  "You forgot to fill in section 14a, please pay the fine"?

Once again, I think you're reading something that's not there.

Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2012, 02:04:20 PM
Once again, I think you're reading something that's not there.

Quotewhich requires groups that register voters to turn in completed forms within 48 hours or risk fines

So I imagined the word 'completed' there?  Further why exactly am I supposed to give either political party the benefit of the doubt that they have the best of intentions here until proven otherwise?  Their track record endlessly suggests they will eagerly make elections as unfair as possible.

Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2012, 02:07:34 PM
So I imagined the word 'completed' there?

I think what the article is trying to say is that these organizations are required to submit the forms no later than 48 hours after they're completed.  I don't think it's saying that the state will be handing out fines for line 14a being blank.

edit: here it is stated a little differently:

http://www.thegrio.com/politics/new-florida-voting-law-slows-voter-registration-groups.php

QuoteAs a part of a wave of new voting laws passed across the country by GOP-controlled governors and state legislatures, Florida enacted a provision last year that mandates voter registration groups turn in the forms of newly-registered people within 48 hours or face fines of $50 for each late form. The laws have worried groups like the League of Women Voters, who argue they could face heavy fines for not complying with the provision.

You know, I'd been avoiding this thread because I'd been expecting it to be full of Raz retardation, but it's actually kind of interesting.

Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2012, 02:00:26 PM

Quote from: FunkMonk on April 05, 2012, 01:52:27 PM
Oh, wait... nevermind.  :(

Are you talking about voter registration or helping voters get IDs?

In a state that requires an ID to vote, they're effectively the same thing.

Of course there are other ways to get an ID, but discouraging voting drives means there's one less way to get one.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2012, 12:50:16 PM
CC, we've had a discussion that involved this very concept many, many moons ago regarding the phenomenon of health issues of inner city denizens.  You will not find any sympathy for their disadvantages here.

That's okay.  You can sleep at night knowing your boy Marion Barry is fighting the good fight.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/post/marion-barry-stands-by-remark-that-asian-businesses-ought-to-go-from-ward-8/2012/04/05/gIQAP2TlxS_blog.html

Quote from: FunkMonk on April 05, 2012, 02:34:25 PM

Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2012, 02:00:26 PM

Quote from: FunkMonk on April 05, 2012, 01:52:27 PM
Oh, wait... nevermind.  :(

Are you talking about voter registration or helping voters get IDs?

In a state that requires an ID to vote, they're effectively the same thing.

Of course there are other ways to get an ID, but discouraging voting drives means there's one less way to get one.

Not sure I follow.  You can help someone get ID separately from helping them register to vote.  There's no liability AFAIK with helping them get their ID.  There is some liability in Florida now with having voter registration drives, or at least there is with inefficiently handling completed voter registration forms.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 05, 2012, 12:52:37 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2012, 12:50:16 PM
CC, we've had a discussion that involved this very concept many, many moons ago regarding the phenomenon of health issues of inner city denizens.  You will not find any sympathy for their disadvantages here.

I fully expect that to be the case.  It reminds me a bit of the dust up BB and I had many moons ago over some of the causes of unemployment.

Well what's the option? Force grocery stores and other places that sell "good" foods to keep stores open in unprofitable areas?

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 02:57:55 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 05, 2012, 12:52:37 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2012, 12:50:16 PM
CC, we've had a discussion that involved this very concept many, many moons ago regarding the phenomenon of health issues of inner city denizens.  You will not find any sympathy for their disadvantages here.

I fully expect that to be the case.  It reminds me a bit of the dust up BB and I had many moons ago over some of the causes of unemployment.

Well what's the option? Force grocery stores and other places that sell "good" foods to keep stores open in unprofitable areas?

I think the ultimate problem is consumer demand (or lack thereof) for healthy foods in those areas.

Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2012, 03:09:24 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 02:57:55 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 05, 2012, 12:52:37 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2012, 12:50:16 PM
CC, we've had a discussion that involved this very concept many, many moons ago regarding the phenomenon of health issues of inner city denizens.  You will not find any sympathy for their disadvantages here.

I fully expect that to be the case.  It reminds me a bit of the dust up BB and I had many moons ago over some of the causes of unemployment.

Well what's the option? Force grocery stores and other places that sell "good" foods to keep stores open in unprofitable areas?

I think the ultimate problem is consumer demand (or lack thereof) for healthy foods in those areas.

Yeah, people just dont care.

Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2012, 03:09:24 PM
I think the ultimate problem is consumer demand (or lack thereof) for healthy foods in those areas.

Well then it does seem like step one would be some sort of education to encourage people to recognize the importance of healthy foods.  Of course, even if you realize healthy foods are important, if there aren't any available in the neighborhood or you have to spend more time/money to acquire and prepare them...you probably are likely to forgo them.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 05, 2012, 03:11:51 PMYeah, people just dont care.

:hmm:

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 03:33:48 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 05, 2012, 03:11:51 PMYeah, people just dont care.

:hmm:

One more thing to add to the list.

People dont care enough to get health care coverage; don't care enough about being unemployed to get a job; dont care enough about eating poorly to justify a grocery store in their area; and they certainly dont care enough to vote.

Thank goodness we have the Republican party to make all this apparent.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 05, 2012, 03:43:02 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 03:33:48 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 05, 2012, 03:11:51 PMYeah, people just dont care.

:hmm:

One more thing to add to the list.

People dont care enough to get health care coverage; don't care enough about being unemployed to get a job; dont care enough about eating poorly to justify a grocery store in their area; and they certainly dont care enough to vote.

Thank goodness we have the Republican party to make all this apparent.

Considering that a lot of those people still vote for Republicans, maybe they really don't care.

Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2012, 03:55:58 PM
Considering that a lot of those people still vote for Republicans, maybe they really don't care.

A lot of people who don't care enough to vote, vote Republican? :hmm:

STALK STALK ACORN

Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2012, 02:39:43 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2012, 12:50:16 PM
CC, we've had a discussion that involved this very concept many, many moons ago regarding the phenomenon of health issues of inner city denizens.  You will not find any sympathy for their disadvantages here.

That's okay.  You can sleep at night knowing your boy Marion Barry is fighting the good fight.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/post/marion-barry-stands-by-remark-that-asian-businesses-ought-to-go-from-ward-8/2012/04/05/gIQAP2TlxS_blog.html

Fuck those little overcharging yellow bastards.  $1.75 for a can of Pepsi, my ass.  The dazzling urbanites may be stranded in their neighborhood, but so was my squad car.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2012, 03:58:30 PM
Fuck those little overcharging yellow bastards.  $1.75 for a can of Pepsi, my ass.  The dazzling urbanites may be stranded in their neighborhood, but so was my squad car.

Bullet proof glass and weekly trips to the ER aren't cheap.

Quote from: FunkMonk on April 05, 2012, 01:52:27 PM
Organizations like the League of Women Voters and Rock the Vote--

Who at least leave a paper trial of their work.  Unlike Diebold.

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 03:16:57 PM

Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2012, 03:09:24 PM
I think the ultimate problem is consumer demand (or lack thereof) for healthy foods in those areas.

Well then it does seem like step one would be some sort of education to encourage people to recognize the importance of healthy foods.  Of course, even if you realize healthy foods are important, if there aren't any available in the neighborhood or you have to spend more time/money to acquire and prepare them...you probably are likely to forgo them.

Considering 5% of the population accounts for nearly half the costs of the US healthcare system, maybe having the options available to eat right economically would help drive down costs. Maybe?

QuoteNearly half of people in the top 5 percent of health care spending had high blood pressure; a third had high cholesterol; and a quarter had diabetes.

Wow, those three chronic issues sound less like birth defects and GORKs than it does the results of your average inner-city denizen's diet.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2012, 04:01:02 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2012, 03:58:30 PM
Fuck those little overcharging yellow bastards.  $1.75 for a can of Pepsi, my ass.  The dazzling urbanites may be stranded in their neighborhood, but so was my squad car.

Bullet proof glass and weekly trips to the ER aren't cheap.

Neither is tuition to Stanford or Yale, but since their little shit kids get scholarships anyway, they can't use that excuse for $4 Funyuns.  AND THEY OVERCHARGE FOR EXTRA STARCH AND STILL FUCKING RIP YOU OFF BY SKIMPING ON IT

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2012, 04:17:41 PM
Neither is tuition to Stanford or Yale, but since their little shit kids get scholarships anyway, they can't use that excuse for $4 Funyuns.  AND THEY OVERCHARGE FOR EXTRA STARCH AND STILL FUCKING RIP YOU OFF BY SKIMPING ON IT

OK English Bob.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2012, 04:21:16 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2012, 04:17:41 PM
Neither is tuition to Stanford or Yale, but since their little shit kids get scholarships anyway, they can't use that excuse for $4 Funyuns.  AND THEY OVERCHARGE FOR EXTRA STARCH AND STILL FUCKING RIP YOU OFF BY SKIMPING ON IT

OK English Bob.

Now, a bag of Funyuns...well, I mean...why not shoot a bag of Funyuns.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2012, 04:13:08 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 03:16:57 PM

Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2012, 03:09:24 PM
I think the ultimate problem is consumer demand (or lack thereof) for healthy foods in those areas.

Well then it does seem like step one would be some sort of education to encourage people to recognize the importance of healthy foods.  Of course, even if you realize healthy foods are important, if there aren't any available in the neighborhood or you have to spend more time/money to acquire and prepare them...you probably are likely to forgo them.

Considering 5% of the population accounts for nearly half the costs of the US healthcare system, maybe having the options available to eat right economically would help drive down costs. Maybe?

QuoteNearly half of people in the top 5 percent of health care spending had high blood pressure; a third had high cholesterol; and a quarter had diabetes.

Wow, those three chronic issues sound less like birth defects and GORKs than it does the results of your average inner-city denizen's diet.

Again, who is going to provide those options?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2012, 04:17:41 PM
Neither is tuition to Stanford or Yale, but since their little shit kids get scholarships anyway, they can't use that excuse for $4 Funyuns.  AND THEY OVERCHARGE FOR EXTRA STARCH AND STILL FUCKING RIP YOU OFF BY SKIMPING ON IT

Not sure 4 bucks is enough to get me to eat a bag of Funyuns. :x

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2012, 04:17:41 PM
Neither is tuition to Stanford or Yale, but since their little shit kids get scholarships anyway, they can't use that excuse for $4 Funyuns.  AND THEY OVERCHARGE FOR EXTRA STARCH AND STILL FUCKING RIP YOU OFF BY SKIMPING ON IT

Well they aren't likely getting those scholarships through the school unless they have poor parents. Neither Yale or Stanford offer merit scholarships.

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 04:43:52 PMAgain, who is going to provide those options?

Maybe solutions to complex social problems aren't simple enough that a single solution is adequate?

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 05:55:23 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 04:43:52 PMAgain, who is going to provide those options?

Maybe solutions to complex social problems aren't simple enough that a single solution is adequate?

Of course not. I thought I suggested as much in my post.  However, if CC and Seedster are going to use this as an example of how the Republicans here are so unsympathetic then I'd like to see the plans they'd like endorsed.

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 05:55:23 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 04:43:52 PMAgain, who is going to provide those options?

Maybe solutions to complex social problems aren't simple enough that a single solution is adequate?

Do you know how many radio personalities would be put out of work with that attitude?

Quote from: sbr on April 05, 2012, 06:15:57 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 05:55:23 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 04:43:52 PMAgain, who is going to provide those options?

Maybe solutions to complex social problems aren't simple enough that a single solution is adequate?

Do you know how many radio personalities would be put out of work with that attitude?

Who listens to radio personalities? :x

Where else could Yi and derspice get such silly ideas?

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 06:15:18 PMOf course not. I thought I suggested as much in my post.  However, if CC and Seedster are going to use this as an example of how the Republicans here are so unsympathetic then I'd like to see the plans they'd like endorsed.

You expect serious policy discussions on this subject, when the general Republican m.o. is one of scapegoating, disenfranchisement and/or neglect? I'd think the first order of business would be for the Republicans to show that they're at all interested in addressing the problem constructively... or, you know, acknowledge that it's a problem at all.

:huh:

Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2012, 06:24:25 PM
:huh:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F29.media.tumblr.com%2FgeWPMeIaZmtnpdu5syEGI8gTo1_400.jpg&hash=5dea9e72f262dc72eb36962b443559f6000223e1)

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 04:43:52 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2012, 04:13:08 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 03:16:57 PM

Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2012, 03:09:24 PM
I think the ultimate problem is consumer demand (or lack thereof) for healthy foods in those areas.

Well then it does seem like step one would be some sort of education to encourage people to recognize the importance of healthy foods.  Of course, even if you realize healthy foods are important, if there aren't any available in the neighborhood or you have to spend more time/money to acquire and prepare them...you probably are likely to forgo them.

Considering 5% of the population accounts for nearly half the costs of the US healthcare system, maybe having the options available to eat right economically would help drive down costs. Maybe?

QuoteNearly half of people in the top 5 percent of health care spending had high blood pressure; a third had high cholesterol; and a quarter had diabetes.

Wow, those three chronic issues sound less like birth defects and GORKs than it does the results of your average inner-city denizen's diet.

Again, who is going to provide those options?

Government must force assist the private sector to do it.

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 05:22:35 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2012, 04:17:41 PM
Neither is tuition to Stanford or Yale, but since their little shit kids get scholarships anyway, they can't use that excuse for $4 Funyuns.  AND THEY OVERCHARGE FOR EXTRA STARCH AND STILL FUCKING RIP YOU OFF BY SKIMPING ON IT

Well they aren't likely getting those scholarships through the school unless they have poor parents. Neither Yale or Stanford offer merit scholarships.

Stop trying to help.  :mad:

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 06:18:15 PM
Who listens to radio personalities? :x

Howard Stern. :cool:

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 06:23:19 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 06:15:18 PMOf course not. I thought I suggested as much in my post.  However, if CC and Seedster are going to use this as an example of how the Republicans here are so unsympathetic then I'd like to see the plans they'd like endorsed.

You expect serious policy discussions on this subject, when the general Republican m.o. is one of scapegoating, disenfranchisement and/or neglect? I'd think the first order of business would be for the Republicans to show that they're at all interested in addressing the problem constructively... or, you know, acknowledge that it's a problem at all.

That's what the Republicans on Languish do? I'm not even sure we can have a discussion if you're going to start from that assumption.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2012, 06:39:13 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 04:43:52 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2012, 04:13:08 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 03:16:57 PM

Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2012, 03:09:24 PM
I think the ultimate problem is consumer demand (or lack thereof) for healthy foods in those areas.

Well then it does seem like step one would be some sort of education to encourage people to recognize the importance of healthy foods.  Of course, even if you realize healthy foods are important, if there aren't any available in the neighborhood or you have to spend more time/money to acquire and prepare them...you probably are likely to forgo them.

Considering 5% of the population accounts for nearly half the costs of the US healthcare system, maybe having the options available to eat right economically would help drive down costs. Maybe?

QuoteNearly half of people in the top 5 percent of health care spending had high blood pressure; a third had high cholesterol; and a quarter had diabetes.

Wow, those three chronic issues sound less like birth defects and GORKs than it does the results of your average inner-city denizen's diet.

Again, who is going to provide those options?

Government must force assist the private sector to do it.

Oh lovely.

Quote from: Caliga on April 05, 2012, 06:52:37 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 06:18:15 PM
Who listens to radio personalities? :x

Howard Stern. :cool:

Not interested in copying my mother's flawed taste.

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 06:23:19 PM
You expect serious policy discussions on this subject, when the general Republican m.o. is one of scapegoating, disenfranchisement and/or neglect? I'd think the first order of business would be for the Republicans to show that they're at all interested in addressing the problem constructively... or, you know, acknowledge that it's a problem at all.

It sounds like you're saying a precondition for serious policy discussion is for Republicans to accept Democratic priorities as their own.

@garbo Does your mom look like Robin Quivers? :)

Quote from: Caliga on April 05, 2012, 07:00:36 PM
@garbo Does your mom look like Robin Quivers? :)

No my mother does not look like a black woman.

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 06:58:04 PMThat's what the Republicans on Languish do? I'm not even sure we can have a discussion if you're going to start from that assumption.

I apologize and withdraw my comment. It's sometime hard to navigate the alternating posturing banter and serious discussions here on languish.

What is your take on the problem, and how would you address it?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2012, 07:00:30 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 06:23:19 PM
You expect serious policy discussions on this subject, when the general Republican m.o. is one of scapegoating, disenfranchisement and/or neglect? I'd think the first order of business would be for the Republicans to show that they're at all interested in addressing the problem constructively... or, you know, acknowledge that it's a problem at all.

It sounds like you're saying a precondition for serious policy discussion is for Republicans to accept Democratic priorities as their own.

They're American priorities, you partisan hack.   :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Quote from: Caliga on April 05, 2012, 07:00:36 PM
@garbo Does your mom look like Robin Quivers? :)

IIRC grabon's mom is a Hindustani.

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 07:02:06 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 06:58:04 PMThat's what the Republicans on Languish do? I'm not even sure we can have a discussion if you're going to start from that assumption.

I apologize and withdraw my comment. It's sometime hard to navigate the alternating posturing banter and serious discussions here on languish.

What is your take on the problem, and how would you address it?

Fair enough.  As to the problem, I'm not really sure. I mean I think it breaks down to several things.

1) Lack of awareness about potential long-term health issues from bad diets.  I think strides are being made on this one. NYC is constantly running ad  campaigns about this sort of issue, especially as far as obesity, though I'm not sure how effective those are.

2) Even if it isn't lack of awareness, there's that whole time/cost component. It is unfortunate that bad foods are often cheap and easy (ready to go*). I never followed up on it but I believe Walmart had been testing out offering produce at below market rates in order to provide individuals with cheap healthy alternatives (though the caveat was that they'd pull the plug on the program if they didn't see an uptick in sales).  That's part of the issue but time is also a factor. When you are off hustling to make ends meet, is the time there to prepare the healthy meal or is it easier to get your kids some fatty food from Boston Market?  I guess really here there needs to be an attitude shift about how one really does need to make the time as the constant "non-meals" are akin to feeding your child a steady diet of poison. Maybe attack this issue in a similar way to that which got public attitudes to change on smoking.

3) Those two above are really about generating business for the supermarkets so that it makes business sense for them to operate in a neighborhood.  There's probably a safety component to though as if the neighborhood is hard scrabble enough with insufficient patronage, why would a business bother?  I guess you could here as Seed has suggested try to have some sort of government interference or incentive for businesses but I'm not really sure how you get around the overwhelming fiscal disincentive.

*a friend of mine did her undergrad thesis on trying to create affordable ready to go fruit options that could sell at bodegas along side all the unhealthy foods. She was aiming at trying to make the packaging engaging to children so that they'd also want to reach for it in a store.

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 07:01:59 PM
No my mother does not look like a black woman.

Oh I forgot that it's your dad who is black. :blush:

Yes, I agree with photo IDs for voting. I think at least half, and maybe most states do have that now. I also agree that the states will provide the ID for free, which they usually do, so it's not some kind of backhanded poll tax.  There are ways to do it even handedly, and my understanding is that state laws do it well, so that those without means are not prevented from voting.

Quote from: KRonn on April 05, 2012, 07:26:47 PM
Yes, I agree with photo IDs for voting. I think at least half, and maybe most states do have that now. I also agree that the states will provide the ID for free, which they usually do, so it's not some kind of backhanded poll tax.  There are ways to do it even handedly, and my understanding is that state laws do it well, so that those without means are not prevented from voting.

Why introduce all this though if we don't have evidence that voter fraud is a widespread and rampant problem? Why waste money and create more bureaucracy if we don't need it?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2012, 07:00:30 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 06:23:19 PM
You expect serious policy discussions on this subject, when the general Republican m.o. is one of scapegoating, disenfranchisement and/or neglect? I'd think the first order of business would be for the Republicans to show that they're at all interested in addressing the problem constructively... or, you know, acknowledge that it's a problem at all.

It sounds like you're saying a precondition for serious policy discussion is for Republicans to accept Democratic priorities as their own.

Well, I don't think Republicans as a whole are interested in serious policy discussion on this (though individuals are). My impression of the Republican position on most areas of social policy that intersects with poverty is:

1) Minimizing free riders and system abuse is a top priority.
2) As is minimizing costs to the tax payers.
3) People in difficulties are best helped by not coddling them. That will encourage them to pull themselves out of their difficulties. If they don't, it's likely because they're not sufficiently motivated.
4) Social assistance is best handled through private charities, such as religious charities, as it will be cheaper for the tax payer.
5) Introducing private profit motives into social programs (for the dispensers of the programs, not the recipients) is a recipe for improving efficiency and saving money.
6) People should have freedom of choice, and if population groups are consistently mired in bad social circumstances it is primarily because they're making bad choices. They should make better choices. The best way to affect that is through threats of punishment such as withdrawing social programs. This will encourage them to make better choices.
7) People mired in bad social situations are most likely there because they've developed a culture of dependency on social assistance.

While I may be clearly displaying my own bias, I do not think it's terribly inaccurate to summarize that as "scapegoating, disenfranchisement and/or neglect".

Do I have the wrong idea of the Republican approach to social issues, or do you take issue with my summary as being inaccurate?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2012, 07:14:52 PM

Quote from: Caliga on April 05, 2012, 07:00:36 PM
@garbo Does your mom look like Robin Quivers? :)

IIRC grabon's mom is a Hindustani.

That's a joke, right? :unsure:

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 07:28:36 PM
While I may be clearly displaying my own bias, I do not think it's terribly inaccurate to summarize that as "scapegoating, disenfranchisement and/or neglect".

Do I have the wrong idea of the Republican approach to social issues, or do you take issue with my summary as being inaccurate?

If you're going to do that, you might as well then say it isn't terribly inaccurate to summarize the Dem position as "throw enough money at it and you'll be able to solve the issue."

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 07:31:16 PMIf you're going to do that, you might as well then say it isn't terribly inaccurate to summarize the Dem position as "throw enough money at it and you'll be able to solve the issue."

I'll accept that, if not for Democrats, then at least for myself.

I'd put it slightly differently, but it's not that far off - "you can't solve or significantly address social problems if you're unwilling to commit the money to do so."

As for my characterization - is it that inaccurate for derspiess, Yi or Caliga? Is it inaccurate for Newt Gingrich, Romney or Santorum?

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 07:28:42 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2012, 07:14:52 PM

Quote from: Caliga on April 05, 2012, 07:00:36 PM
@garbo Does your mom look like Robin Quivers? :)

IIRC grabon's mom is a Hindustani.

That's a joke, right? :unsure:

I guess he fell for your bit a while back.

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 07:28:36 PM
1) Minimizing free riders and system abuse is a top priority.
2) As is minimizing costs to the tax payers.
3) People in difficulties are best helped by not coddling them. That will encourage them to pull themselves out of their difficulties. If they don't, it's likely because they're not sufficiently motivated.
4) Social assistance is best handled through private charities, such as religious charities, as it will be cheaper for the tax payer.
5) Introducing private profit motives into social programs (for the dispensers of the programs, not the recipients) is a recipe for improving efficiency and saving money.
6) People should have freedom of choice, and if population groups are consistently mired in bad social circumstances it is primarily because they're making bad choices. They should make better choices. The best way to affect that is through threats of punishment such as withdrawing social programs. This will encourage them to make better choices.
7) People mired in bad social situations are most likely there because they've developed a culture of dependency on social assistance.

1, 2, 3 and 4 are I believe generally accepted among Republicans, yes.  Not as sure about #5 unless you're talking specifically about only certain programs like education.  I don't know if items #6 and 7 are actually part of the standard Republican platform but I do think alot of Republicans personally would agree with that. statement.

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 07:33:45 PM
Caliga?

How many times do I have to plainly state on Languish that I'm not a Republican for people to accept it?  I'm a registered Democrat and have been one my entire life.  The only time I ever voted for a Republican for POTUS in my entire life was in 2000 for George W. Bush. :contract:

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 07:28:36 PM
<CROP CROP CROP>

While I may be clearly displaying my own bias, I do not think it's terribly inaccurate to summarize that as "scapegoating, disenfranchisement and/or neglect".

Do I have the wrong idea of the Republican approach to social issues, or do you take issue with my summary as being inaccurate?

I take issue with your summary as being innacurate and loaded.  Disenfranchisement means taking away someone's vote.  That term makes about as much sense as warmongering would in this context.

Scapegoating means someone has committed a wrong for which another person is being blamed.  Are you saying that inner city poors are jonesing something fierce for fresh fruit and vegetables but the evil Korean grocery store owners are denying it to them out of pure racial animus?  Saying that someone chooses to eat a shitty diet doesn't fit my definition of scapegoating.

Neglect could work if you start with the assumption that government has the responsibility to prevent bad outcomes.  If you think government's responsibility does not extend to stopping individuals from making all bad choices, then it's not neglect.

grabon: I thought you said you're mom was Hindustani.

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 07:28:42 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2012, 07:14:52 PM

Quote from: Caliga on April 05, 2012, 07:00:36 PM
@garbo Does your mom look like Robin Quivers? :)

IIRC grabon's mom is a Hindustani.

That's a joke, right? :unsure:

It made me chuckle.

Well they did neglect to get born wealthy.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2012, 07:47:52 PM
grabon: I thought you said you're mom was Hindustani.

I wouldn't have been pretending to be Indian if my mother was Indian.

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 07:33:45 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 07:31:16 PMIf you're going to do that, you might as well then say it isn't terribly inaccurate to summarize the Dem position as "throw enough money at it and you'll be able to solve the issue."

I'll accept that, if not for Democrats, then at least for myself.

I'd put it slightly differently, but it's not that far off - "you can't solve or significantly address social problems if you're unwilling to commit the money to do so."

Doesn't seem like a very nice view of people. We can get them to change any behavior as long as we have enough cash?

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 07:53:57 PM
I wouldn't have been pretending to be Indian if my mother was Indian.

Pretty hard to argue with that.  You wouldn't have been pretending that your dad is black if he were black too.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2012, 07:56:54 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 07:53:57 PM
I wouldn't have been pretending to be Indian if my mother was Indian.

Pretty hard to argue with that.  You wouldn't have been pretending that your dad is black if he were black too.

I don't follow. It was pretty much common knowledge on here that I pretended to be Indian for a little bit.

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 07:58:13 PM
I don't follow. It was pretty much common knowledge on here that I pretended to be Indian for a little bit.

OK.

Was the hoax revealed by any chance in the comic book, anime, or NHL threads?

Awesome, now know what threads to talk about yi in.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2012, 08:00:11 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 07:58:13 PM
I don't follow. It was pretty much common knowledge on here that I pretended to be Indian for a little bit.

OK.

Was the hoax revealed by any chance in the comic book, anime, or NHL threads?

IIRC he pretended to be Indian IRL and told us about it on the forum. His only claims to be Indian here were jokes, not a hoax.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2012, 07:47:52 PMI take issue with your summary as being innacurate and loaded.  Disenfranchisement means taking away someone's vote.  That term makes about as much sense as warmongering would in this context.

Scapegoating means someone has committed a wrong for which another person is being blamed.  Are you saying that inner city poors are jonesing something fierce for fresh fruit and vegetables but the evil Korean grocery store owners are denying it to them out of pure racial animus?  Saying that someone chooses to eat a shitty diet doesn't fit my definition of scapegoating.

Neglect could work if you start with the assumption that government has the responsibility to prevent bad outcomes.  If you think government's responsibility does not extend to stopping individuals from making all bad choices, then it's not neglect.

I'll cop to loaded, but not inaccurate.

There are enough initiatives going on that are squarely aimed at minimizing participation of likely non-Republican voters that I think disenfranchisement is accurate, even if the stated motive is not explicitly that but things like eliminating voter fraud.

Scapegoating is accurate when the outcome of complex social pressures is summarized as "it's your own fault, if you worked harder/ cared more/ made better choices you'd not be in difficulty". I believe that the solution is not as simple as just giving people free money, but saying it's someone's fault that they were born poor and never had access or exposure to means of improving their situation is scapegoating them for their situation.

Since I do assume that the government has a responsibility to if not prevent bad outcomes, at least work to mitigate them. Or more accurately, since I believe in freedom too, to provide people with as many tools and assistance to help them make constructive choices. Failing to do so is, in fact neglect in my view.

So yeah, it's a description that shows my bias but while it shows my judgement of Republican values on the issues, I don't think it misrepresents them.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 05, 2012, 08:03:36 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2012, 08:00:11 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 07:58:13 PM
I don't follow. It was pretty much common knowledge on here that I pretended to be Indian for a little bit.

OK.

Was the hoax revealed by any chance in the comic book, anime, or NHL threads?

IIRC he pretended to be Indian IRL and told us about it on the forum. His only claims to be Indian here were jokes, not a hoax.

Thanks and it wasn't even that shady. Everyone just assumed I was Indian (very odd given my hair) and I simply didn't correct their errors.

Yeah, Indians don't typically have pink hair.

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 07:55:19 PMDoesn't seem like a very nice view of people. We can get them to change any behavior as long as we have enough cash?

:lol:

That's your spin.

What I meant is:

"You can't provide good education if you're not willing to pay for adequate schools, text books and teacher salaries."
"You can't tend properly to the health of your population if you prioritize private wealth creation in the health sector over population coverage in your spending."
"You can't address poverty induced malnutrition and health issues if you're not willing to pay for the education and social programs that are necessary to address poverty."
"You can't address poverty if you're not willing to pay for the education and health programs necessary to give people the tools to climb out of poverty."

I'm not saying that any way you throw money at the problem is going to work. Nor am I saying that the Democrats always get it right. But I am saying you're not going to address social problems if you're not willing to put resources into doing so, and it's my very distinct impression that the Republican party is strongly against committing any such resources on moral (it's their own fault) and financial (less spending is always better) grounds.

Thanks for doing all the typing on these issues, Jacob.  Saves me a lot of time.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2012, 08:16:23 PM
Thanks for doing all the typing on these issues, Jacob.  Saves me a lot of time.

:hug:

Quote from: Caliga on April 05, 2012, 07:41:24 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 07:33:45 PM
Caliga?

How many times do I have to plainly state on Languish that I'm not a Republican for people to accept it?  I'm a registered Democrat and have been one my entire life.  The only time I ever voted for a Republican for POTUS in my entire life was in 2000 for George W. Bush. :contract:

Heh, I believe you. The thing I find when discussing issues with Democratic/Republican friends/relatives is that we agree on most everything because most of us are centrist on most issues, like most people. Far fewer people are strong lefties or righties. Most are a lot more centrist, with maybe a couple of issues that they go stronger left or right on. So even though you might have some "conservative" views, doesn't mean you're a right winger.

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 08:15:50 PM
:lol:

That's your spin.

Well why not? Your cogent analysis of republicans has been all about spin, no?

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 08:15:50 PM
What I meant is:

"You can't provide good education if you're not willing to pay for adequate schools, text books and teacher salaries."
"You can't tend properly to the health of your population if you prioritize private wealth creation in the health sector over population coverage in your spending."
"You can't address poverty induced malnutrition and health issues if you're not willing to pay for the education and social programs that are necessary to address poverty."
"You can't address poverty if you're not willing to pay for the education and health programs necessary to give people the tools to climb out of poverty."

Again money is only part of the equation. If you can't corral the hearts and minds, doesn't matter what money you toss about. You have to get people on board, you can't force choices for them which might be a complaint about Democrats. There often seems to be the assumption that they now what's best on how to solve the world's ills. Of course, Repubs do often lean towards washing their hands. :D

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 08:15:50 PM
I'm not saying that any way you throw money at the problem is going to work. Nor am I saying that the Democrats always get it right. But I am saying you're not going to address social problems if you're not willing to put resources into doing so, and it's my very distinct impression that the Republican party is strongly against committing any such resources on moral (it's their own fault) and financial (less spending is always better) grounds.

I'm not sure Republicans are entirely averse to spending money but when your political opponents take stands as modern Robin Hoods...;)

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 08:05:05 PM
I'll cop to loaded, but not inaccurate.

There are enough initiatives going on that are squarely aimed at minimizing participation of likely non-Republican voters that I think disenfranchisement is accurate, even if the stated motive is not explicitly that but things like eliminating voter fraud.

My previous post (not the ones to grabon) were based on the assumption that we were talking specifically about inner city groceries.

If I were the head of the RNC and I hired you to come up with a plan to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters, and you came back with "require ID cards," I'd fire you and demand a refund.  The number of people in this country without a single ID is tiny.  The subset of those who vote is tinier still.  It's ridiculously easy to get an ID.

QuoteScapegoating is accurate when the outcome of complex social pressures is summarized as "it's your own fault, if you worked harder/ cared more/ made better choices you'd not be in difficulty". I believe that the solution is not as simple as just giving people free money, but saying it's someone's fault that they were born poor and never had access or exposure to means of improving their situation is scapegoating them for their situation.

I think the term you were looking for is "blaming the victim," but that's nit-picking.  I don't deny that there is demonization of the underclass by some on the right (though significantly less than the demonization of the rich by some on the left IMO), but that fact doesn't mean that all opposition to expansion of the social safety net is based on demonization of the poor.

QuoteSince I do assume that the government has a responsibility to if not prevent bad outcomes, at least work to mitigate them. Or more accurately, since I believe in freedom too, to provide people with as many tools and assistance to help them make constructive choices. Failing to do so is, in fact neglect in my view.

As many tools and assistance as what?  Enough so that everyone makes good decisions?

I'm curious.  If voter suppression efforts where the only way to get the conservative agenda through, would it be worth it?

Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2012, 08:46:25 PM
I'm curious.  If voter suppression efforts where the only way to get the conservative agenda through, would it be worth it?

Much like the Dems, perhaps the Republicans really just know what is best for people. Is paternalism only bad when it comes from the right?

Is that a yes?

It would not be worth it to me.  I might be willing to suppress a few votes to stop some parts of the conservative agenda.

If sneaking some ineligible voters into the voting booth were the only way to advance the liberal agenda, would you be in favor?

Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2012, 08:46:25 PM
I'm curious.  If voter suppression efforts where the only way to get the conservative agenda through, would it be worth it?

No, not as far as I'm concerned. Everyone should be free to have their say and their vote.

I don't feel that IDs violate that, unless done the wrong way, if that's where you're going. If not then sorry, but I still wouldn't go with suppression even if it's for promoting views I agree with. We need to have freely made decisions and choices, IMO.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2012, 09:05:36 PM
Is that a yes?

How would you like me to answer?

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 06:15:18 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 05:55:23 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 04:43:52 PMAgain, who is going to provide those options?

Maybe solutions to complex social problems aren't simple enough that a single solution is adequate?

Of course not. I thought I suggested as much in my post.  However, if CC and Seedster are going to use this as an example of how the Republicans here are so unsympathetic then I'd like to see the plans they'd like endorsed.

You are missing the point then.  The response I get from the Goptards is people are like that because they dont care.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2012, 09:21:05 PM
It would not be worth it to me.  I might be willing to suppress a few votes to stop some parts of the conservative agenda.

If sneaking some ineligible voters into the voting booth were the only way to advance the liberal agenda, would you be in favor?

Nope.  I believe in rule of law over political expediency.  This may shock you, but I'm not entirely convinced by my side's ideas.  While I wouldn't vote for Romney, I could tolerate him being President.

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 09:36:22 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2012, 09:05:36 PM
Is that a yes?

How would you like me to answer?

Honestly.  Like a true son of India.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 06, 2012, 11:23:32 AM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 06:15:18 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 05:55:23 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 04:43:52 PMAgain, who is going to provide those options?

Maybe solutions to complex social problems aren't simple enough that a single solution is adequate?

Of course not. I thought I suggested as much in my post.  However, if CC and Seedster are going to use this as an example of how the Republicans here are so unsympathetic then I'd like to see the plans they'd like endorsed.

You are missing the point then.  The response I get from the Goptards is people are like that because they dont care.

Seedy made the comment that people on this board were unsympathetic to such things and you agreed.  I don't think care was mentioned in your two posts but was a different side argument of yours.

I think the people working the polls should show IDs to the voters...

Is preventing vote fraud an important enough thing that it needs to be done even if you know a side effect will be a boost to the wrong party?

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 06, 2012, 05:35:47 PM
Is preventing vote fraud an important enough thing that it needs to be done even if you know a side effect will be a boost to the wrong party?

lulz

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2012, 08:34:37 PMMy previous post (not the ones to grabon) were based on the assumption that we were talking specifically about inner city groceries.

If I were the head of the RNC and I hired you to come up with a plan to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters, and you came back with "require ID cards," I'd fire you and demand a refund.  The number of people in this country without a single ID is tiny.  The subset of those who vote is tinier still.  It's ridiculously easy to get an ID.

Most likely I'd be coming back with a multifaceted approach (they're all the rage these days). Requiring IDs would definitely be part of it.

But like I believe I said earlier, if ID requirements are coupled with programs to ensure that they are as easy to get as you say in practice, then I'm cool with that. I just never hear anything about such programs, so I assume they don't exist.

QuoteI think the term you were looking for is "blaming the victim," but that's nit-picking.  I don't deny that there is demonization of the underclass by some on the right (though significantly less than the demonization of the rich by some on the left IMO), but that fact doesn't mean that all opposition to expansion of the social safety net is based on demonization of the poor.

I do believe you that demonization of the poor is not necessarily the only reason to oppose expansion of the social safety net, but when such expansion is discussed the counter arguments inevitably feature such demonization so it's pretty natural to respond to that, I think.

QuoteAs many tools and assistance as what?  Enough so that everyone makes good decisions?

Well, I'm under the impression that it's even up for debate whether the government should provide tools and assistance at all. But if we're in agreement that government should in fact provide do so, we can try to work out the details.

For my part I think the following is a baseline for what a successful government should provide for its population:

- An absence of food insecurity, combined with some basic information on home economics and nutrition.
- Basic level skills on personal finances, reading and writing.
- Access to more advanced education if the aptitude is there, without the students having to mortgage several decades of their lives.
- Basic shelter for everybody (so essentially no homelessness).
- Access to adequate health care such that easily treatable quality of life illnesses, diseases and defects are treated and critical illnesses and sudden accidents do not financially destroy families; as well as basic health care information is widely disseminated.

That's what a government ought to provide its citizenry*, however it does so. If it can do so in free-market, privatized environment that's fine, but I think the reality has shown us that that leaves large groups marginalized and chronically underserved. So I don't think that works. Of course, that doesn't matter if you don't agree that the government should even be in the business of looking after the citizenry.

So, let's talk about the poor dietary habits of poor inner city people. In general they don't have the time, equipment or knowledge to cook good healthy food and in many cases they don't like it or have any interest in it. Even if they did, there are major logistical and economical obstacles in the way since the only groceries nearby are over priced and carry mostly unhealthy stuff (because that's what people buy).

We can leave it to the free market and people caring enough, and nothing will happen. The only people who put any effort into changing the dietary habits of poor inner city dwellers are fast food corporations marketing their products at them, and that's not a recipe for improving anyone's health.

Do we care? If we do, we can fund home economic classes in school to provide the skills and knowledge to younger people about healthy cooking. We can subsidize or fund community organizers who want to teach about urban farming (grow some tomatoes in your window-sill) or bring fresh produces into the city from outlying farms for farmers markets. Build and staff a community centre, and in addition to all the other shit you could do there you could teach this sort of stuff to adults or even have a community kitchen. If somebody wants to open a community grocery store in the ghetto, maybe get them some good start-up loans and some business mentorship.

... it all costs money, of course. And I'm not saying that it's some sort of magical automatic fix or anything; I don't have the answer right here. But if you do want to do something about it, the first thing you do is to study the problem, develop some programs to address the causes you identify and then execute on the programs (which include funding them). Saying, "well, we shouldn't do anything because costs... oh, and freedom" isn't going to fix a thing.

The point is not that everyone is going to make smarter choices, and if they don't you force them to. The point is that you spend some effort and money in identifying systemic obstacles and developing plans to address them. You'll see some improvement then, I'm pretty sure; more so than if you just say "yeah, we're not going to do anything" that's for sure.

*There's also law enforcement, defence, transportation infrastructure and so on, but that's not really what we're talking about.

Jake, if you care that much about nutrition for poor inner city folk, how about making a separate thread for it?  ;)

Hey Jake, any thoughts as to my random musings on inner city nutrition? I guess per dernazi, in a new thread?

Quote from: Jacob on April 06, 2012, 09:09:32 PMBut like I believe I said earlier, if ID requirements are coupled with programs to ensure that they are as easy to get as you say in practice, then I'm cool with that. I just never hear anything about such programs, so I assume they don't exist.   

I agree on making the IDs free and easy to get. And I assume this has been said before, and I said it too about states giving them for free. Most or maybe all states, at least the ones I've heard about that passed ID requirements, had programs to make them free to anyone. But of course, I assume most do have IDs. Even the poor need IDs to drive a car, or if they're poor they may be getting govt benefits so they must need IDs in some cases for those benefits.

This must be one of these cultural differences - here it is a no-brainer - everyone gets issued a photo ID when they turn 18.

Meh. Just read the rest of the thread. Short version of my post: No unless IDs are free and not through the DMV.

Jake: where are you picking up this demonization of the poor?

If a person has to be in favor of all those things you mentioned to avoid the accusation of neglect, that's most people in this country.  Probably in most countries.

Hans liked to demonize the poor.  Remember his rant against the social contract?

We all forgot it the moment you deleted it from your sig. :(

Everyone kept bitching at me.  I should learn to ignore you bastards.

Quote from: Martinus on April 07, 2012, 03:50:00 AM
This must be one of these cultural differences - here it is a no-brainer - everyone gets issued a photo ID when they turn 18.

FATMAI! YOU PROMISED MONDAY!

MONDAY!

His posts are on moderation. Means someone else approved it.

Quote from: katmai on April 07, 2012, 03:34:23 PM
His posts are on moderation. Means someone else approved it.

Don't look at me.  As a moderator, it's my duty to ignore the "Moderate" tab.

I didn't promise anything.

Quote from: Neil on April 07, 2012, 04:56:59 PM
I didn't promise anything.

Indeed you didn't.

Here's some red meat for Raz :lol:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/08/DC-Polling-Place-Holder-Ballot

QuoteO'KEEFE VOTER FRAUD INVESTIGATION: YOUNG MAN OFFERED HOLDER'S BALLOT

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has declared that there is no proof that in-person voter fraud is a problem. He's about to see proof that even he can't deny.
In a new video (below) provided to Breitbart.com, James O'Keefe's Project Veritas demonstrates why Holder should stop attacking voter ID laws--by walking into Holder's voting precinct and showing the world that anyone can obtain Eric Holder's primary ballot. Literally.
The video shows a young man entering a Washington, DC polling place at 3401 Nebraska Avenue, NW, on primary day of this year--April 3, 2012--and giving Holder's name and address. The poll worker promptly offers the young man Holder's ballot to vote.
The young man then suggests that he should show his ID; the poll worker, in compliance with DC law, states: "You don't need it. It's all right. As long as you're in here, you're on our list, and that's who you say you are, you're okay."
The young man replies: "I would feel more comfortable if I just had my ID. Is it alright if I go get it?" The poll worker agrees.
"I'll be back Faster than you can say Furious," the young man jokes on his way out, in a reference to the Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal that has plagued Holder's Department of Justice.
Holder has maintained that voter fraud is not a major problem in the United States, and that voter ID would not curb voter fraud in any case.
As Project Veritas has proven, voter fraud is easy and simple--and may be increasingly common in the absence of voter ID laws.
Project Veritas has already shown how dead people can vote in New Hampshire, prompting the state senate to pass a voter ID law; they've also shown people can use celebrity names like Tim Tebow and Tom Brady to vote in Minnesota, prompting the state legislature to put voter ID on the ballot as a constitutional amendment.

That's not voter fraud.  That's voter error.

Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 11:22:10 AM
Here's some red meat for Raz :lol:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/08/DC-Polling-Place-Holder-Ballot

QuoteO'KEEFE VOTER FRAUD INVESTIGATION: YOUNG MAN OFFERED HOLDER'S BALLOT

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has declared that there is no proof that in-person voter fraud is a problem. He's about to see proof that even he can't deny.
In a new video (below) provided to Breitbart.com, James O'Keefe's Project Veritas demonstrates why Holder should stop attacking voter ID laws--by walking into Holder's voting precinct and showing the world that anyone can obtain Eric Holder's primary ballot. Literally.
The video shows a young man entering a Washington, DC polling place at 3401 Nebraska Avenue, NW, on primary day of this year--April 3, 2012--and giving Holder's name and address. The poll worker promptly offers the young man Holder's ballot to vote.
The young man then suggests that he should show his ID; the poll worker, in compliance with DC law, states: "You don't need it. It's all right. As long as you're in here, you're on our list, and that's who you say you are, you're okay."
The young man replies: "I would feel more comfortable if I just had my ID. Is it alright if I go get it?" The poll worker agrees.
"I'll be back Faster than you can say Furious," the young man jokes on his way out, in a reference to the Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal that has plagued Holder's Department of Justice.
Holder has maintained that voter fraud is not a major problem in the United States, and that voter ID would not curb voter fraud in any case.
As Project Veritas has proven, voter fraud is easy and simple--and may be increasingly common in the absence of voter ID laws.
Project Veritas has already shown how dead people can vote in New Hampshire, prompting the state senate to pass a voter ID law; they've also shown people can use celebrity names like Tim Tebow and Tom Brady to vote in Minnesota, prompting the state legislature to put voter ID on the ballot as a constitutional amendment.

Wow, a dishonest young man said something on a website made by a dishonest dead one.    I suppose this is riveting stuff for GOPtards.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 11:26:27 AM
Wow, a dishonest young man said something on a website made by a dishonest dead one.    I suppose this is riveting stuff for GOPtards.

That's all you've got?  :(

If you liked to be fooled, tricked and lied to by people you agree with, I can't do anything for you.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 12:07:29 PM
If you liked to be fooled, tricked and lied to by people you agree with, I can't do anything for you.

You disappoint me :( :(

Quote from: garbon on April 06, 2012, 08:46:13 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 06, 2012, 05:35:47 PM
Is preventing vote fraud an important enough thing that it needs to be done even if you know a side effect will be a boost to the wrong party?

lulz

Nobody answered the question.  :P

Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 12:19:30 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 12:07:29 PM
If you liked to be fooled, tricked and lied to by people you agree with, I can't do anything for you.

You disappoint me :( :(

Sorry, what do you want me to say?

Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 11:22:10 AM
Here's some red meat for Raz :lol:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/08/DC-Polling-Place-Holder-Ballot

QuoteO'KEEFE VOTER FRAUD INVESTIGATION: YOUNG MAN OFFERED HOLDER'S BALLOT

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has declared that there is no proof that in-person voter fraud is a problem. He's about to see proof that even he can't deny.
In a new video (below) provided to Breitbart.com, James O'Keefe's Project Veritas demonstrates why Holder should stop attacking voter ID laws--by walking into Holder's voting precinct and showing the world that anyone can obtain Eric Holder's primary ballot. Literally.
The video shows a young man entering a Washington, DC polling place at 3401 Nebraska Avenue, NW, on primary day of this year--April 3, 2012--and giving Holder's name and address. The poll worker promptly offers the young man Holder's ballot to vote.
The young man then suggests that he should show his ID; the poll worker, in compliance with DC law, states: "You don't need it. It's all right. As long as you're in here, you're on our list, and that's who you say you are, you're okay."
The young man replies: "I would feel more comfortable if I just had my ID. Is it alright if I go get it?" The poll worker agrees.
"I'll be back Faster than you can say Furious," the young man jokes on his way out, in a reference to the Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal that has plagued Holder's Department of Justice.
Holder has maintained that voter fraud is not a major problem in the United States, and that voter ID would not curb voter fraud in any case.
As Project Veritas has proven, voter fraud is easy and simple--and may be increasingly common in the absence of voter ID laws.
Project Veritas has already shown how dead people can vote in New Hampshire, prompting the state senate to pass a voter ID law; they've also shown people can use celebrity names like Tim Tebow and Tom Brady to vote in Minnesota, prompting the state legislature to put voter ID on the ballot as a constitutional amendment.

That just shows that fraud is possible, it does not show that it is prevalent.

Holder should have no problem denying that this is a problem, since this example does not address the reason why people who are against these laws are against them, nor for that matter does it illuminate why people who are for these laws are in favor of them.

It is interesting that supports, such as derspeiss, use this kind of grandstanding as "evidence" when it is patently obvious to anyone that it does not address the issue at all. More grist for the mill that the real objective has nothing to do with the mythical "voter fraud".

Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2012, 12:37:26 PM
It is interesting that supports, such as derspeiss, use this kind of grandstanding as "evidence" when it is patently obvious to anyone that it does not address the issue at all.

Did I?

Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 12:40:32 PM

Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2012, 12:37:26 PM
It is interesting that supports, such as derspeiss, use this kind of grandstanding as "evidence" when it is patently obvious to anyone that it does not address the issue at all.

Did I?

:raz:

Tell you what, try to get 300 illegals with no knowledge of spoken English to line up at a polling station and having them vote under names like George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Bob Dole, and then that might indicate we have a problem.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 12:52:11 PM
Tell you what, try to get 300 illegals with no knowledge of spoken English to line up at a polling station and having them vote under names like George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Bob Dole, and then that might indicate we have a problem.

That's more like it.

That is what you guys are afraid of right?  Illegal immigrants voting en masse against your interests?

Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 01:27:05 PM
That is what you guys are afraid of right?  Illegal immigrants voting en masse against your interests?

Yes, terribly.  Keeps us up at night.

Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 01:33:18 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 01:27:05 PM
That is what you guys are afraid of right?  Illegal immigrants voting en masse against your interests?

Yes, terribly.  Keeps us up at night.

Figures.  Go out and buy some more guns.  That ought to calm your nerves.

Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2012, 01:51:30 PM
This requirement sounds fine in theory, but the devil may be in the details.  Given how Republicans are far more disproportionally motivated to enact such requirements, my guess is that there is a serious voter suppression effect at stake that's biased in one ideological direction.

Which is a good thing, or otherwise all the illegals would vote.

Quote from: Siege on April 09, 2012, 03:32:07 PM

Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2012, 01:51:30 PM
This requirement sounds fine in theory, but the devil may be in the details.  Given how Republicans are far more disproportionally motivated to enact such requirements, my guess is that there is a serious voter suppression effect at stake that's biased in one ideological direction.

Which is a good thing, or otherwise all the illegals would vote.

Do you think your retardation schtick is amusing?  Serious question.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2012, 01:37:56 PM
Figures.  Go out and buy some more guns.  That ought to calm your nerves.

Yes, it's fear that drives me to collect guns.  In fact, I sleep with a Mosin Nagant under my pillow.  Bayonet retracted, of course.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 09, 2012, 12:22:02 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 06, 2012, 08:46:13 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 06, 2012, 05:35:47 PM
Is preventing vote fraud an important enough thing that it needs to be done even if you know a side effect will be a boost to the wrong party?

lulz

Nobody answered the question.  :P

I don't understand why it's a boost to one party or the other. I know that Dems feel it's a nasty thing, to require IDs to vote, but really, I just don't see the problem. States give the IDs for free, to avoid any kind of pol tax. And most people have some kind of ID anyway. Even the poor and minorities, who I assume are two groups Dems feel would be disadvantaged. They have driver's licenses, or other forms of IDs ,or if poor and collecting govt benefits they likely some ID. So they can use the same IDs to vote, or get the free IDs the govt provides.

Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 03:48:38 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2012, 01:37:56 PM
Figures.  Go out and buy some more guns.  That ought to calm your nerves.

Yes, it's fear that drives me to collect guns.  In fact, I sleep with a Mosin Nagant under my pillow.  Bayonet retracted, of course.

That is a HUGE pillow.

Quote from: KRonn on April 09, 2012, 06:36:42 PM
I don't understand why it's a boost to one party or the other. I know that Dems feel it's a nasty thing, to require IDs to vote, but really, I just don't see the problem.

I mentioned earlier that a study's been done in Indiana.  Democrats and Independents are about 3-5% less likely to have a photo ID than Republican and certain groups, for example, African Americans are significantly less likely to have photo ID.  It's not a feeling Democrats have it's a fact.

I've said that I don't think the level of fraud justifies the extra hassle.  I certainly don't think it justifies the hassle and the cost of providing people with free, legitimate photo ID.

Quote from: KRonn on April 09, 2012, 06:36:42 PM
States give the IDs for free, to avoid any kind of pol tax. 

That's not true right now.  Currently, in at least some states, a state-issued non-driver's ID isn't free.

If you're going to require an ID to vote, I think that the first thing you'd have to do would be to issue them for free.

Quote from: Sheilbh
I've said that I don't think the level of fraud justifies the extra hassle.  I certainly don't think it justifies the hassle and the cost of providing people with free, legitimate photo ID.

I think that voting fraud is a bigger problem than a lot of people realize.  I just don't think this is going to do much to solve it, because I don't think that people showing up at the polling place and voting under an assumed name is the main way voting fraud is conducted (though I could be wrong about that).

Quote from: dps on April 10, 2012, 08:26:16 AM

I think that voting fraud is a bigger problem than a lot of people realize.  I just don't think this is going to do much to solve it, because I don't think that people showing up at the polling place and voting under an assumed name is the main way voting fraud is conducted (though I could be wrong about that).

Absolutely.  I've said there are studies that indicate this is minimal as a problem.  However I know there are problems with fraud in this country around postal and absentee ballots which need to be dealt with.  I imagine if there's any organised fraud in the US it'll probably be the same.

I suspect that voter fraud is much less of a problem then is often assumed considering how low the number charges and convictions have been made about it.  It makes a good excuse for why the election didn't go the way you wanted it to.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 09:07:25 AM
I suspect that voter fraud is much less of a problem then is often assumed considering how low the number charges and convictions have been made about it.  It makes a good excuse for why the election didn't go the way you wanted it to.

That could be a sign that it's rare, or it could be a sign that it's easy to hide.  :hmm:

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 10, 2012, 09:10:07 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 09:07:25 AM
I suspect that voter fraud is much less of a problem then is often assumed considering how low the number charges and convictions have been made about it.  It makes a good excuse for why the election didn't go the way you wanted it to.

That could be a sign that it's rare, or it could be a sign that it's easy to hide.  :hmm:

I suppose that's true for any statistic.  Blacks may make up the majority of the population in the US, but are simply really good at hiding and nobody know about it.  I doubt this is the case though.

I would posit that the rates of different races being uncounted by the census are much closer to each other than the rates of different crimes being discovered and reported.

Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 03:48:38 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2012, 01:37:56 PM
Figures.  Go out and buy some more guns.  That ought to calm your nerves.

Yes, it's fear that drives me to collect guns.  In fact, I sleep with a Mosin Nagant under my pillow.  Bayonet retracted, of course.

One would not want to poke oneself. ;)

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2012, 01:37:56 PM

Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 01:33:18 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 01:27:05 PM
That is what you guys are afraid of right?  Illegal immigrants voting en masse against your interests?

Yes, terribly.  Keeps us up at night.

Figures.  Go out and buy some more guns.  That ought to calm your nerves.

Actually I find reloading more relaxing.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 09:07:25 AM
I suspect that voter fraud is much less of a problem then is often assumed considering how low the number charges and convictions have been made about it.  It makes a good excuse for why the election didn't go the way you wanted it to.

Well, let me qualify what I said earlier a bit.  I think it's more common than many people realize (and yes, I think it's probably easy to get away with) but I think that it's less of a problem on a national scale than it might otherwise be because it's done by both parties, so a lot of it cancels out--though on a local or state basis it might be a huge problem.

And when I say "it's done by both parties", I don't think that the national party heirachies have much to do with it.  It's at the local level that it's done (and probably sometimes it's not so much a "party" thing as fraud done to favor a particular individual--for example, in local elections in areas of WV where Republicans never win local elections, I've heard a lot of allegations of fraud in Democratic primaries).

Do you have any proof?  Allegations of fraud may very well be sour grapes or cognitive dissonance to explain why the majority isn't winning.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 03:30:47 AM
I've said that I don't think the level of fraud justifies the extra hassle.  I certainly don't think it justifies the hassle and the cost of providing people with free, legitimate photo ID.

There are many more benefits to having a universally-recognized secure ID system. Personally I think that, like education, it is something society and the economy would benefit from as a whole and is something government is uniquely situated to provide.

Quote from: Maximus on April 10, 2012, 10:17:54 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 03:30:47 AM
I've said that I don't think the level of fraud justifies the extra hassle.  I certainly don't think it justifies the hassle and the cost of providing people with free, legitimate photo ID.

There are many more benefits to having a universally-recognized secure ID system. Personally I think that, like education, it is something society and the economy would benefit from as a whole and is something government is uniquely situated to provide.

As I say I don't mind the continental method.  They've got national, mandatory IDs so it seems fine that they have got show their ID to vote.  But as you say it would have other uses - though personally I'm sceptical. 

If you don't have a national ID system then I don't think it's right to impose that requirement on a voter.  But I think spending money on providing free IDs just for people who want to vote is wasteful and not worth the cost when fraud isn't a significant problem.

Quote from: Maximus on April 10, 2012, 10:17:54 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 03:30:47 AM
I've said that I don't think the level of fraud justifies the extra hassle.  I certainly don't think it justifies the hassle and the cost of providing people with free, legitimate photo ID.

There are many more benefits to having a universally-recognized secure ID system. Personally I think that, like education, it is something society and the economy would benefit from as a whole and is something government is uniquely situated to provide.

I actually do not disagree - honestly, I find the American phobia towards ID rather bizarre.

I would actually support a national ID law, or at least not be particularly opposed to it, on the grounds that there would be many benefits to a consistent and relatively more secure way to identify people for a variety of different reasons, one of which might be to reduce the potential for voter fraud.

But that isn't what these laws are about, unfortunately.

Quote from: Berkut on April 10, 2012, 10:34:59 AM
I actually do not disagree - honestly, I find the American phobia towards ID rather bizarre.

Yea, anyone who wants to keep track of you already has an ID system for you. The difference is you can't make use of it or track the use of it by others.

Quote from: 11B4V on April 10, 2012, 09:37:52 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2012, 01:37:56 PM

Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 01:33:18 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 01:27:05 PM
That is what you guys are afraid of right?  Illegal immigrants voting en masse against your interests?

Yes, terribly.  Keeps us up at night.

Figures.  Go out and buy some more guns.  That ought to calm your nerves.

Actually I find reloading more relaxing.

Just dont sleep with it under your pillow unless the safety is securely in place.


Better still learn to cope without deadly toys. :)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motifake.com%2Fimage%2Fdemotivational-poster%2F1108%2Fborn-to-kill-guns-arfcom-shooting-mp5-weapons-demotivational-posters-1314729863.jpg&hash=30d862d306f7b8533210bf819b900b0dac462a17)

I love it when Siege can make the argument for me.

:lol:

Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 10:09:53 AM
Do you have any proof?  Allegations of fraud may very well be sour grapes or cognitive dissonance to explain why the majority isn't winning.

If I had proof, I'd be telling the FBI, not Languish.