Disenfranchizing the Electorate

Yeah what is up with that link? All I saw were abunch of smokin' hot pictures of some mature lady. Isn't that chick on NPR?

Excuse me, I have to go have a personal.
 
Wait - so you're telling me that when you click on the link, you don't get taken to the page from yesterday's discussion - that it doesn't say "10:00AM - VOTER FRAUD" at the top, with a "LISTEN TO THIS EPISODE" next to it?
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']Oh, it's there. It's just weak.[/QUOTE]

Well, as long as you're going to deliver stunning and thorough discrediting of the discourse like that, I guess I have no place to be.

But, of course, I know you didn't listen to the show. Someone like you would be joining in the circle jerk going on here; only you'd be jerking off to John Fund's talking points nonsense instead of photos of Diane Rehm, like pitt and thrust.

(on a side note, I've listened to her show for years, and the first time I saw her, I was not only stunned to realize that she wasn't 173 years old, but that we was an attractive lady indeed, as some of you have done a less-than-classy job of pointing out).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']But, of course, I know you didn't listen to the show.[/QUOTE]

You bitch about people presuming things, and then you do the same. Hate to break the bad news to you hypocrite, but you're dead wrong. I listened to the entire 50 or so minutes. John represented the conservative side, Wendy the lib, and I thought Doug to be relatively moderate, maybe a tiny bit lib-leaning. Having Todd Rokita on gave perspective from a prime mover for the law.

Diane did a good job moderating the discussion, but she said something about halfway in that made it sound like she agreed that such a law was a "barrier". I'd go back and listen again, but since the show failed to present a good argument against a photo ID (which is what I asked for in the first place), I don't see the point.

One thing that John said was that he wasn't going to "play competing studies". That's not verbatim, but close enough. One study said that 10-13% of voters were adversely affected, another study said 1.2%. That's the thing about studies - you have to know who paid for them, who sponsored them, and what their agenda is. Of course, I'm sure you know that as you are constantly citing studies to throw prison matters and race matters into discussions.
 
Well, why in the tits couldn't you have said THAT in the first place, instead of "weaksauce" or somesuch nondescript nonsense?

And as far as studies are concerned, you're right to a point, I suppose. It's quite easy to discredit stuff like that on the surface (e.g., the sorts of anti-global warming research paid for by foundations which are shelter groups for Exxon-Mobil) - but beyond that, if you're a sound methodologist, any study can be debunked based on its scientific merits. There's little need to say "oh, it's funded by so-and-so" when it's more logical to say "well, here's where it's flawed methodologically:"
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
(on a side note, I've listened to her show for years, and the first time I saw her, I was not only stunned to realize that she wasn't 173 years old, but that we was an attractive lady indeed, as some of you have done a less-than-classy job of pointing out).[/quote]

Well excuse me if I make a post about how I'd make that grandma's bones knock up against each other when I have no strong opinion about the underlying topic.

And what, pray tell, is "less-than-classy" about saying that I'd bone her, and that I'd knock the cobwebs off it, and that older chicks love to put out to some young buck.

"Heres to you, Mrs. Re-eh-ehm. Jesus loves you more than you could know. Oh O O. We'd like to know a little bit about you for our files. We'd like to help you learn to help yourself..."
 
This is a bullshit topic anyway. The Indiana photo ID law is not "Disenfranchizing the Electorate". There is no removal of the right to vote for anyone.

Now if you want to talk voter fraud, then talk about ACORN (pleaded guilty to the biggest case of election fraud in Washington state history, tied to voter fraud in 15 states), or the nonprofit Women's Voices Vote that has been caught in shenanigans in NC. Here's a link to that:

http://southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2008/04/facing-south-exclusive-dc-nonprofit.asp

Oh - and they've drawn rebukes from election officials and voter complaints in 11 states.
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']This is a bullshit topic anyway. The Indiana photo ID law is not "Disenfranchizing the Electorate". There is no removal of the right to vote for anyone.[/QUOTE]

Well, then, I support a poll tax. After all, nobody's right has been removed.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Just out of curiousity, why shouldn't "illegal" immigrants vote? They do live here (whether you like it or not).[/QUOTE]

Voting is a right by citizens. In almost every country in the world. You can live in Mexico for 40 years, but you still won't get to vote until you become a Mexican citizen.

Anyone that really wants to vote can become a naturalized citizen. Same here, and pretty much everywhere else.

The reasons for this should be obvious. On a very fundamental level if all you had to do is "live there", if one country wants to usurp another countries government, all they would have to do is send enough of their own people to that country for election time (this actually has happened in my wife's native country).

The idea is, ensuring that voters are at least citizens is suppose to help ensure that the people voting have a vested interest in making the country better. Part of the process of becoming a naturalized citizen is swearing allegiance to that country. If you let just anyone happening to be "visiting" your country vote, the chances are higher that they will vote for what they perceive is their native countrie's best interest.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Just out of curiousity, why shouldn't illegal immigrants vote? They do live here (whether you like it or not).[/quote]

You're kidding right?
 
Half and half, I'm just interested in hearing more detailed responses than "illegal immigrants bad".

Sometimes I think that "illegal" immigrants are the red herring of the current economic situation.

But yeah, I realize that there must be rules in place to prevent the aforementioned "voting assassins". I was just making conversation.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']You're kidding right?[/quote]

I hope so.

Then again, I'd like to vote on the leaders of China, Russia, Cuba or any other country.
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']So there is still no convincing argument against Indiana's Photo ID law.[/QUOTE]

How about that in a cost cutting move by the GOP administration, many local DMV branches were either closed or significantly reduced hours. While those with reduced hours do extend the Monday before and election Tuesday, many smaller cities no longer have a DMV locally and would need to travel to obtain an ID card.
 
How many local DMV branches were closed and when?

Having a photo ID law may not be the most convenient thing for some people, but inconvenience is not a strong point for opposition of said law.
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']How many local DMV branches were closed and when?

Having a photo ID law may not be the most convenient thing for some people, but inconvenience is not a strong point for opposition of said law.[/QUOTE]

It happened when the Republican administration came into power about 4 years ago. The branch in my hometown was closed and there were several closed around the state. I am sorry that I am not really interested in taking time to "prove" this to you or get you the actual numbers to back my point up but I really don't give a fuck to take the time to do so.

It really isn't a matter of convenience as much as ability to go to the nearest DMV branch. Even though these are offered as "free," someone who doesn't drive would still have to find a ride to the branch. With fuel prices rising, this prospect is becoming more and more difficult when this involves a trip to the next town over.

I would be more apt to support something like this if the identification required did not expire after 4 years. Unfortunately that is not the case in Indiana.
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']but inconvenience is not a strong point for opposition of said law.[/quote]

Actually it is. Voting should be extremely convenient, approachable, and easy for any citizen to access.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the ruling. Frankly I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other.

Still, don't say that incovnenience is not a strong point for the opposition because it is.
 
i think this summarizes things nicely
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQQC95YA0OE[/media]


or we could just have congress make rules for federal elections, which is in there power, that would be fair and balanced.
 
It begins:

With no photo IDs, nuns denied ballots in Indiana primary

By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — At least 10 retired nuns in South Bend, Ind., were barred from casting regular ballots in Tuesday's Indiana Democratic primary election because they lacked photo IDs required under a state law upheld last week by the U.S. Supreme Court.
John Borkowski, a South Bend lawyer volunteering as an election watchdog for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said several of the retired nuns had been voting all of their lives but were told they lacked the required photo IDs.
Indiana's toughest-in-the-nation law, which the high court upheld by a 6-3 vote, requires every voter to produce a state-issued photo ID card.
Borkowski said that two of the nuns with whom he spoke ``were very frustrated'' and so upset that they refused to exercise their rights to cast provisional ballots. He said one of the nuns told him that many other elderly nuns living on four floors of the Congregation of the Sisters of the Holy Cross decided not to vote upon learning that their sisters had been turned away at the poll in their building.
Lauren McCallick, an 18-year-old freshman at St. Mary's College, also in South Bend, said she was forced to cast a provisional ballot because she could produce only a California driver's license and a college identification card.
``The nuns and this young woman are the face of the Supreme Court case,'' said Jonah Goldman, who directs the Lawyers Committee's Campaign for Fair Elections.
A spokeswoman for Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita, who oversees the law, declined immediate comment.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']...so upset that they refused to exercise their rights to cast provisional ballots.[/QUOTE]

It begins, all right. Get pissed off that election personnel are upholding the law, so just don't vote. That'll show 'em.
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']It begins, all right. Get pissed off that election personnel are upholding the law, so just don't vote. That'll show 'em.[/quote]


that law was just deemed constitutional so there really was not enough time for people to get it.
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']That's not addressing the point that they could have cast provisional ballots but chose not to.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it's hard to cast blame on the system when you choose not to participate when you've been 'discouraged.'

I also like the little snippet about the college student without clarification if she was even eligible to vote in Indiana.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Don't photo IDs cost money in most places?[/quote]


No one lives a life of 100% handouts. Everyone at some point needs to pay for something and it's up to that person to decide what is more important, a picture ID or a bottle of Jack. I say that facetiously, but you get the idea.
 
The only way that I see this not amounting to a poll tax is to make voter ID free. I know the cost right now isn't significant, but it still means someone theoretically has to pay for the ability to vote. Put a limit on free ID cards (say 2/year) to avoid fraud, but do make them free.

Just not at the expense of deficits in budgets.
 
I get so sick of this photo ID = poll tax crap.

If you're that strapped for cash, walk up to a parked cop car with a cop inside of it and start rocking it back and forth.

When the cop orders you to stop, say these three magic words: "Arrest me, pig."

The cop will be more than happy to give you a very legally binding photo ID with no upfront costs.
 
I'm still waiting for the evidence that was necessary to pass this law in the first place - that in the absence of necessary photo ID, massive voter fraud is taking place.

Seeing as how the law changed from X to Y, it would stand that the people who support Y have built a case around it. Yet, the arguments I see here amount to little more than "show me why we shouldn't have it." As I said earlier in this thread, the burden of proof is on those people who sought to change the law, not those who want it to remain as it is (well, was).
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']that law was just deemed constitutional so there really was not enough time for people to get it.[/QUOTE]

No. The law has been on the books for some time. This is not a new thing.

From the Indiana Secretary of State's website:

The photo ID law has been tested and successfully passed the scrutiny of the courts in the past. First, by U.S. District Court Judge Sarah Evans Barker in 2006 and then upheld by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled 2-1 in favor of upholding Indiana's Photo ID law in 2007.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm still waiting for the evidence that was necessary to pass this law in the first place - that in the absence of necessary photo ID, massive voter fraud is taking place.

Seeing as how the law changed from X to Y, it would stand that the people who support Y have built a case around it. Yet, the arguments I see here amount to little more than "show me why we shouldn't have it." As I said earlier in this thread, the burden of proof is on those people who sought to change the law, not those who want it to remain as it is (well, was).[/QUOTE]

Isn't your arguement the exact same, but in reverse?
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Isn't your arguement the exact same, but in reverse?[/QUOTE]

I don't think you're supposed to notice that?
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Isn't your arguement the exact same, but in reverse?[/QUOTE]

Let me put it this way: suppose there is a political activist group who thinks that we should all drive on the left side of the street, United Kingdom-style. Who is more responsible for making an argument to support their claim: those who want to change the status quo, or the status quo itself?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Let me put it this way: suppose there is a political activist group who thinks that we should all drive on the left side of the street, United Kingdom-style. Who is more responsible for making an argument to support their claim: those who want to change the status quo, or the status quo itself?[/QUOTE]

Does a plurality or majority of the driving public support such a measure?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Irrelevant when a state-level bureaucracy is voting on it.[/QUOTE]

Don't pull that when you give an example that could only be done by federal-level bureaucracy.
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']No. The law has been on the books for some time. This is not a new thing.

From the Indiana Secretary of State's website:

The photo ID law has been tested and successfully passed the scrutiny of the courts in the past. First, by U.S. District Court Judge Sarah Evans Barker in 2006 and then upheld by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled 2-1 in favor of upholding Indiana's Photo ID law in 2007.[/quote]

yes, but when it was still being appealed, if you lose a case involving money, you don't pay right away, you wait till after you final appeal is either denied or ruled on. There def should have been some leeway on this first election
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Don't pull that when you give an example that could only be done by federal-level bureaucracy.[/QUOTE]

Nonsense. The state could do it on their own, but at the risk of sacrificing federal funds for highways and whatnot.

All that aside, you're nitpicking silly-ass points and ignoring the point I'm trying to make that you overlooked in the first place about burden of proof.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']yes, but when it was still being appealed, if you lose a case involving money, you don't pay right away, you wait till after you final appeal is either denied or ruled on. There def should have been some leeway on this first election[/QUOTE]

Your analogy doesn't apply, and the law was passed in 2005. 2-3 years is ample time to get your shit together so you can vote. And as far as "first election" goes? No. I had to show my ID for the last midterm election.
 
Let me ask this, and I'm not asking in a smartass way because I really don't know the answer...

Don't all these "disenfranchised" people need photo ID for social programs like food stamps, welfare, and etc. anyway?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Nonsense. The state could do it on their own, but at the risk of sacrificing federal funds for highways and whatnot.

All that aside, you're nitpicking silly-ass points and ignoring the point I'm trying to make that you overlooked in the first place about burden of proof.[/QUOTE]

Right. Let's see how the whole 'left-lane driving' bit works at the state borders.

You're ignoring points and providing ridiculous 'what-if' scenarios about things that aren't even remotely comparable. And by different levels of government, no less.

At least compare constitutional rights to constitutional rights.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']

Don't all these "disenfranchised" people need photo ID for social programs like food stamps, welfare, and etc. anyway?[/QUOTE]


But, according to people like myke, we're not allowed to ask that question until we prove why we need the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top