Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Republicans Move To Disenfranchise College Students
@Mountains "but heavens, not the Second"!!) Ask those folks who had their arms confiscated after Katrina @Telly03- The govenment has some extraordinary powers, and some that are potentially very abusable.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited December 2011
Here's a 50 page PDF detailing the allegations of voter fraud and how they usually amount to nothing.
Even accepting all of the documented accounts of fraud as true, they are insignificant. The Brennan Center points out that in the state of Washington, for example, six cases of double voting and 19 instances of individuals voting in the name of the dead yielded 25 fraudulent votes out of 2,812,675 cast — a 0.0009 percent rate of fraud. Assume the 52 convictions by the Department of Justice are accurate instances of fraud. This means that 52 out of 196,139,871 ballots cast in federal elections, or 0.000003 percent of the votes were fraudulent
---
Its estimated that around %10 of the population has no picture ID. So in order to fix a fraction of a percent of a problem the stricter laws would put a roadblock in the way for a sizeable portion of the population to exercise one of their most basic rights. The majority of those without picture ID's are the poor and minorities.
So I ask, if you make it harder for people who generally vote democrat to vote in order to 'fix' a seemingly non-existent problem what is the real motivation if not to sway the election outcome?
This is not a new issue created to sway an election, albeit I understand and agree with the recent Democrat concern. 15 states already have, or in the process of having, this requirement, and Jimmy Carter was one of numerous Democrats that had been for the ID requirement in the past.
But putting political worries aside, you need an ID to get welfare, buy beer or get a passport, but people are upset about needing one to vote?
Beer and a passport are discretionary. There are a lot of people who are working on marginal pay, who don't need welfare.
But I'm beginning to wonder if part of the problem isn't that it's an emotional reaction, because it raises memories of poll taxes and Jim Crow laws. I'll have to say I'm not an expert on the issue, I'll have to turn the argument over to someone else. Like...person.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
In Australia voting is mandatory, there's like a $15 fine if you don't vote. I doubt this would ever fly in the US though. The benefit of a system like that is politicians would know that their base is going to turn out and they would focus their politics on the undecided voters in the middle. Right now the strategy is largely to motivate your base to turn out skewing the politics to the extremes.
In the primaries the politicians have to be more extreme to win over the primary voters. Then they move towards the middle in the general elections. Primary voters are generally more plugged into politics than the general population and are better able to sniff out the difference in someone who is pandering and someone who is a true believer. This means the candidates we get to choose from are to the extremes of the party instead of to the majority in the middle.
What happens when you have mandatory voting is that you get blank ballots as a protest of the choices available, or a boycott of elections people think will be rigged. Maybe that doesn't happen in Australia, but it does in developing countries and used to in the USSR.
Thanks for sharing, person. So all the aboriginal people have to vote or pay a $15 fine? How does that work out? Any problems?
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
What happens when you have mandatory voting is that you get blank ballots as a protest of the choices available, or a boycott of elections people think will be rigged. Maybe that doesn't happen in Australia, but it does in developing countries and used to in the USSR.
I figured there had to be some kind of downside. Still, I think it would be a solution to our divided politics today. Also, is a blank ballot really any different than someone who doesn't show up at all? Maybe also implementing ranked choice voting would help. Anyway, I don't really think this would happen in the US so its just some pie in the sky speculating.
Thanks for sharing, person. So all the aboriginal people have to vote or pay a $15 fine? How does that work out? Any problems?
Good question, I don't really know all the details. Could be that there are some exceptions?
How is it "disenfranchisement" to expect someone to prove who they are before voting? I have to show a passport when I visit Canada, so I imagine that would really disenfranchise blacks who want to travel there by your logic. Or when I go onto a military base.
I'm a college student and have voted absentee in the past. Or sometimes I drive the distance to vote. Depends on my schedule. So expecting someone to present identification is racist? Then get a license! It's not difficult. Why is it so hard or bad to expect people to be responsible enough to do such a basic task?
I think it's a kind of nasty, paternalist racism to believe that minorities are incapable of doing something so basic.
Knight, I agree with you. Proving who you are before voting seems like a pretty basic requirement. And, with the electoral college system, proving you live in the state in which you are voting seems pretty logical, too. If you really want to vote, knowing the basic voting law requirements seems a reasonable expectation.
If one is too limited to prove their identity and where they live, then I don't want that person voting.
I've lived overseas, and even when I lived for many years in the Washington, D.C. area and knew many people who were on assignments overseas or lived in the D.C. area temporarily, I knew many people who got their absentee ballots and voted.
If one can manage to prove their identity and age to buy a six-pack, then one can meet the same standard to vote.
I don't mind so long as it's across the board to everyone.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited January 2012
Proving who you are before voting seems like a pretty basic requirement. And, with the electoral college system, proving you live in the state in which you are voting seems pretty logical, too. If you really want to vote, knowing the basic voting law requirements seems a reasonable expectation.
If one is too limited to prove their identity and where they live, then I don't want that person voting.
I've lived overseas, and even when I lived for many years in the Washington, D.C. area and knew many people who were on assignments overseas or lived in the D.C. area temporarily, I knew many people who got their absentee ballots and voted.
If one can manage to prove their identity and age to buy a six-pack, then one can meet the same standard to vote.
Oh, and just for the record, I'm a Democrat.
People do have to prove in some way who they are. A utility bill with ones name on it or someone else from the district willing to vouch for you. When I show up to my polling place in Minnesota I'm usually just asked to give my name and verbally verify my address. There's also a 10,000 dollar fine to anyone caught committing voter fraud, most people won't take that risk.
In the history of the US we've generally removed restrictions to voting, womens sufferage, allowing blacks to vote. This is putting up a barrier. I agree it does seem reasonable for people to make an effort to get a picture ID. There are consequences to that choice though and thats to block some from voting.
People do have to prove in some way who they are. A utility bill with ones name on it or someone else from the district willing to vouch for you. When I show up to my polling place in Minnesota I'm usually just asked to give my name and verbally verify my address. There's also a 10,000 dollar fine to anyone caught committing voter fraud, most people won't take that risk.
In the history of the US we've generally removed restrictions to voting, womens sufferage, allowing blacks to vote. This is putting up a barrier. I agree it does seem reasonable for people to make an effort to get a picture ID. There are consequences to that choice though and thats to block some from voting.
I don't buy the utility bill scenario or having someone vouch for you scenario. In the school system in which I was principal, students were assigned to their neighborhood schools, with some exceptions for special programs to address student needs. My school happened to be one of the two best middle schools out of 22 in our country. We always had to battle people who would cheat on their residence location. And the utility bill scenario was often used as one way to cheat.
I guess the question really is, what is a reasonable standard. And we will all probably differ on that. But, my own personal opinion is that in federal elections there should be one nationwide standard. In state elections, each state should decide. Etc.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I don't buy the utility bill scenario or having someone vouch for you scenario. In the school system in which I was principal, students were assigned to their neighborhood schools, with some exceptions for special programs to address student needs. My school happened to be one of the two best middle schools out of 22 in our country. We always had to battle people who would cheat on their residence location. And the utility bill scenario was often used as one way to cheat.
I guess the question really is, what is a reasonable standard. And we will all probably differ on that. But, my own personal opinion is that in federal elections there should be one nationwide standard. In state elections, each state should decide. Etc.
You're right about its what we think is a reasonable standard and we probably won't agree but I want to argue the point a bit more. In determining where a student goes to school is there a $10,000 fine for lying? I also think parents, in general, are going to care more about the school their child attends than about a particular candidate.
You're right about its what we think is a reasonable standard and we probably won't agree but I want to argue the point a bit more. In determining where a student goes to school is there a $10,000 fine for lying? I also think parents, in general, are going to care more about the school their child attends than about a particular candidate.
Well, yes and no. If one was living within the county, but just jumping local boundaries, I don't think there was any penalty. But, we had people hopping from Maryland, D.C., and other counties in the state. And then, the system would go to court for funds, if necessary, and that was something over $12,000 per year, as I recall.
The main thing now, with regard to students, especially out-of-state students, is to make sure they know well in advance of the change in the rules. Otherwise, they will be disenfranchised if they show up at their polling station and are told they're not eligible to vote in that state. At that point, obviously, it's too late for them to request an absentee ballot. This is an effort the Obama campaign could spearhead, conceivably. Organize a push through student campaign representatives to make sure students around the country know of the changes, the campaign could make absentee ballot applications available, etc.
The main thing now, with regard to students, especially out-of-state students, is to make sure they know well in advance of the change in the rules. Otherwise, they will be disenfranchised if they show up at their polling station and are told they're not eligible to vote in that state. At that point, obviously, it's too late for them to request an absentee ballot. This is an effort the Obama campaign could spearhead, conceivably. Organize a push through student campaign representatives to make sure students around the country know of the changes, the campaign could make absentee ballot applications available, etc.
An article just appeared in today's paper in NM, about the Republicans here introducing legislation for the legislature to consider requiring gov't ID for voting in elections. It says that the groups most likely to not have gov't photo-ID are: young voters, minorities, and the elderly. It said certain southern states aren't able to institute such laws without the approval of the Justice Dept., because of their history of targeting black voters with discriminatory polling-station practices. So it's a serious enough issue that the Justice Dept. gets involved, and has struck down a voter-ID law in one southern state so far. The article said it's expected to be a very divisive issue in the legislature, since it's Democrats who oppose it and see voter-ID laws as a move to keep liberal voters from the polls, and Democrats also say the voter-fraud argument is phony. Republicans are pushing it, and our new governor is a Republican, which I think has a lot to do with this sudden interest.
Comments
Ask those folks who had their arms confiscated after Katrina
@Telly03- The govenment has some extraordinary powers, and some that are potentially very abusable.
http://brennan.3cdn.net/e20e4210db075b482b_wcm6ib0hl.pdf
From http://www.minnpost.com/community_voices/2009/02/09/6398/the_myth_of_voter_fraud
Even accepting all of the documented accounts of fraud as true, they are insignificant. The Brennan Center points out that in the state of Washington, for example, six cases of double voting and 19 instances of individuals voting in the name of the dead yielded 25 fraudulent votes out of 2,812,675 cast — a 0.0009 percent rate of fraud. Assume the 52 convictions by the Department of Justice are accurate instances of fraud. This means that 52 out of 196,139,871 ballots cast in federal elections, or 0.000003 percent of the votes were fraudulent
---
Its estimated that around %10 of the population has no picture ID. So in order to fix a fraction of a percent of a problem the stricter laws would put a roadblock in the way for a sizeable portion of the population to exercise one of their most basic rights. The majority of those without picture ID's are the poor and minorities.
So I ask, if you make it harder for people who generally vote democrat to vote in order to 'fix' a seemingly non-existent problem what is the real motivation if not to sway the election outcome?
But putting political worries aside, you need an ID to get welfare, buy beer or get a passport, but people are upset about needing one to vote?
But I'm beginning to wonder if part of the problem isn't that it's an emotional reaction, because it raises memories of poll taxes and Jim Crow laws. I'll have to say I'm not an expert on the issue, I'll have to turn the argument over to someone else. Like...person.
In the primaries the politicians have to be more extreme to win over the primary voters. Then they move towards the middle in the general elections. Primary voters are generally more plugged into politics than the general population and are better able to sniff out the difference in someone who is pandering and someone who is a true believer. This means the candidates we get to choose from are to the extremes of the party instead of to the majority in the middle.
If one is too limited to prove their identity and where they live, then I don't want that person voting.
I've lived overseas, and even when I lived for many years in the Washington, D.C. area and knew many people who were on assignments overseas or lived in the D.C. area temporarily, I knew many people who got their absentee ballots and voted.
If one can manage to prove their identity and age to buy a six-pack, then one can meet the same standard to vote.
Oh, and just for the record, I'm a Democrat.
In the history of the US we've generally removed restrictions to voting, womens sufferage, allowing blacks to vote. This is putting up a barrier. I agree it does seem reasonable for people to make an effort to get a picture ID. There are consequences to that choice though and thats to block some from voting.
I guess the question really is, what is a reasonable standard. And we will all probably differ on that. But, my own personal opinion is that in federal elections there should be one nationwide standard. In state elections, each state should decide. Etc.