tudorgurl: redmid17: tudorgurl: I see jackass isn't going to respond. I win!

You're about the tenth person to point that out and he responded up thread.

I guess you're a bandwagon winner or something then?

Huh weird. I went back to look and I didn't see it. My bad, then. I'll look again.

Ok, he never responded to me pointing out the 24th Amendment (Spaz something...), so I take back "my bad" and re-apply the "jackass isn't going to respond". :O)

Headso: I wonder which is more believable the GOP has taken this up as an issue because it is "common sense" or they have taken it up as an issue to suppress some voters from voting.

I know which YOU seem to find more believable. What evil nefarious reason must the Democrats have for fighting resonable efforts against unqualified voters casting ballots?

Headso: If you were willing to commit a crime you might get away with it and the payout would be some money. If you were willing to commit a federal felony to vote twice your payout would be??

Individually, nothing. For party organizers of either side willing to bus in voters, potentially quite a lot.

But there is little reason NOT to require a minimum threshold for qualifying voters. It simply makes no sense to FIGHT a basic standard for voter verification.

skullkrusher: you understand that that is not what the discussion is about, right? Of course you do.

the title of the article "UN rights council delves into US voter I.D. laws"

skullkrusher: like environmental regulations and measures to proactively fight securities fraud

because companies have not poisoned soil and water to the extent that they have caught on fire or something. I can see why you think that is a crime that is not reasonable to believe will occur.

Wendy's Chili: liam76: Wendy's Chili: liam76: If he lives there, as a resident, he has to get an ID there.

No, he doesn't.

BasWho should I trust on this. My experience moving from around in the US. The Texas DMV website. Or some random girl on the internet?

Wendy's Chili is a fast food item, not a girl.

And it doesn't matter what the DMV says, you don't need an ID to live somewhere.


Maybe if you're living in a cardboard box, but every apartment I've moved into, I've had to show my ID to sign the lease.

BojanglesPaladin: What evil nefarious reason must the Democrats have for fighting resonable efforts against unqualified voters casting ballots?

They are not unqualified unless the voter suppression law is passed, that's kinda the whole point of passing it to, you know, suppress those people from voting.

BojanglesPaladin: It simply makes no sense to FIGHT a basic standard for voter verification.

a poll tax isn't a basic standard for voter verification.

I'd like to see technology get to the point of providing a free, biometric alternative for anyone unable to produce photo ID.

Most of the people that lack photo ID probably already have a criminal record on file that could be matched with the potential voter's prints.

My method would also keep people from voting more than once and keep convicted felons that lost their voting rights and illegal aliens known to INS from voting.

There would also have to be independent, non-government oversight to ensure all collected biometric data is deleted at closing time.

And until Election Day is either a paid holiday or polls come into the 21st century and it becomes possible to vote remotely ie web browser, SMS etc the argument over photo ID is like debating whether to use wine glasses or barrels for bailing out a rapidly sinking Italian cruise ship.

Headso: They are not unqualified unless the voter suppression law is passed

You seem to be almost irrationaly biased here. It's not even clear what actual 'suppression' would occur, or even how many of the people purpotedly lacking Photo ID are even regular voters. But by calling it what YOU believe the intent to be, you are actually reducing your credibility here.

Headso: a poll tax isn't a basic standard for voter verification.

Which is a good thing, since no one is trying to pass a poll tax. Requiring a voter to provide what they overwhelmingly already have and which is no more and no less than they have to provide to their bank, their employer, their grocery store, their liquor store or their check-cashing place is hardly an additional tax. Anymore than requiring them to be clothed or wear shoes is.

Again, there is no better way to establish identity than a Photo ID, and the concept that polls should allow voters who cannot even establish their identity is simply absurd, if for no other reason than age verification.

You are all too ready to assign nefarious intent to the attempt to have Photo ID presented for identity verification, but honestly, I wonder why someone would be so intent in absolutely denying the simple ability to confirm that the person voting is who they say they are. Why would you NOT want that?

rewind2846: You're absolutely right. Someone who lives in a place 10 months out of the year or more (student) should NEVER have a say in local elections. That's just crazy talk. Nothing that happens in the town/city/state where they attend college should EVER concern them.

If you would read my other posts, I'd have no problem if he wanted to vote in the local elections. But that means he'd have to register to vote locally and declare legal residency in Texas rather than his current home state. That would mean either getting a new license or giving up his out-of-state license. The issue I have with this guy is that he's registered to vote in another state, which means that he shouldn't be voting in the election in Texas.

BojanglesPaladin: Which is a good thing, since no one is trying to pass a poll tax. Requiring a voter to provide what they overwhelmingly already have and which is no more and no less than they have to provide to their bank, their employer, their grocery store, their liquor store or their check-cashing place is hardly an additional tax. Anymore than requiring them to be clothed or wear shoes is.

So all the people who object to the voter ID laws on the basis that many people don't have ID are lying? They have the ID but just don't want to show it?

Government should have a good reason for passing a law, and small-government types should by definition support that notion. The only defense of this law I've heard is "voter fraud" that no one can prove exists. Therefore, the law seems unnecessary.

ImpendingCynic: So all the people who object to the voter ID laws on the basis that many people don't have ID are lying?

Not sure who "All the people" are, so I can't speak to their truthfulness. Nor is it clear how many people are legitimate potential voters who may (or may not) be affected. Also note that many of the people objecting to this do, in fact, have Photo ID already and are outraged on behalf of 'others' who they think might be adversely affected.

Government DOES have a good reason - Since you must be eligible to vote, verifying identity is a requisite of verifying eligibility. We already establish residency, which is actually a higher threshold than confirmingsimple identity. Otherwise, why even have proctors there?

I would flip the question. Why NOT confirm identity? Without confirming identity, you can't confirm eligibility anyways.

UNC_Samurai: There was a report on MSNBC

But MSNBC is liiiiiiberal!

SniperJoe: rewind2846: You're absolutely right. Someone who lives in a place 10 months out of the year or more (student) should NEVER have a say in local elections. That's just crazy talk. Nothing that happens in the town/city/state where they attend college should EVER concern them.

If you would read my other posts, I'd have no problem if he wanted to vote in the local elections. But that means he'd have to register to vote locally and declare legal residency in Texas rather than his current home state. That would mean either getting a new license or giving up his out-of-state license. The issue I have with this guy is that he's registered to vote in another state, which means that he shouldn't be voting in the election in Texas.

If I live somewhere for 80% more of the time, even if it's for only 4 or 5 years, and I'M GOING TO LEAVE AFTERWARD, during that time span I should not have to have any extra paperwork to vote. I have that right wherever I go, wherever I happen to be, because I am a citizen. End of story.

The whole point of the new voter ID laws, and the reason that they are being pushed by republicans, is to shrink the number of people who can vote, particularly those who tend to vote democrat. When voter turnout is high, republicans usually lose. When voter turnout is low, republicans usually win. That's how it works, and the R's know it.

Stop trying to hide that fact behind the bullsh*ttery of "ID requirements" and "voter fraud", which I have yet to see proof of in this thread in great enough numbers to warrant changing the law. To republicans any vote that is not (R) is fraudulent.

Besides, even if the local elections did affect me (and they do - I would still be paying local taxes and receiving local services) why in the holy f*ck would I EVER want to change my state of legal residence to TEXAS? Even if I were born there I would change it out of shame...

skullkrusher: THE GREAT NAME: lennavan: skullkrusher: yeah, that's not what's happening here. I am willing to listen to your suggestions on how we make sure all votes are counted, all eligible people are able and no one gets to vote more than once.

That's fundamentally retarded. You're telling me you are willing to listen to my suggestions on how we make sure all no innocent people are harmed so long as no guilty people go free. I could give a shiat if some guilty people go free. I could give a shiat if a few people vote twice. Call me when an extra vote or two is a relevant problem in a race decided by a vote or two. Then we'll talk.

Hey derp guy. If somebody can vote more than once they can vote a hundred times. If somebody fails to vote, that's just one vote.

Do the math retard.

but there's not problem now so if we change things there will be no problem in the future! Duh.

/the word "retard" is unbecoming a person over the age of 12

LOL I know, great use of sarcasm, there are lots of examples of people who have voted 20 times or more in systems that do not have all the hoops we do LOL.

Go ahead and post some.

skullkrusher: and the conversation you joined was discussing lennavan's "vote by honor code" dumbassery.

You do know, we're totally taking your word that you're not a rapist, right? I mean, you might be a rapist. We could pass laws requiring a national DNA database. But we didn't. So we're totally taking this as you put it "not a rapist by honor code" dumbassery.

Also, we're taking your word you're a legal immigrant. We could require you to provide your papers to any authority member at any moment's notice. But we have this as you put it "citizen by honor code" dumbassery.

skullkrusher: lennavan: But again, as I recall and do correct me if I'm wrong, you're were against Arizona's SB1070. Can you not see the parallel?

no

I can't help you then. In your defense, you're actively trying not to. I bet if you stop actively attempting to be stupid, you'd see it.

skullkrusher: enforce the notion, prevent the converse from happening. This isn't hard, not matter how much you try to obfuscate.

I know Jack Bauer seems super awesome and all on TV but in real life, cops don't really do much preventative work. There is an enormous difference in drawing up laws that attempt to prevent versus laws that attempt to punish. Murder is bad. Do you think our laws actually attempt to prevent murder? And wouldn't making voter fraud a felony punishable by whatever you want not accomplish the exact same preventative level of protection as it does for murder?

Innocent until proven guilty is not hard, no matter how much you try to ignore it.

skullkrusher: How do you suggest we change our policies in a way that is less restrictive to ensure that people who are eligible can vote

If you remove all voter laws, all eligible people will be able to vote. Let's start from there. That way we are no longer excluding some legal citizens from voting.

skullkrusher: while allowing us to continue to not have an election fraud problem?

How many times in this thread do I have to remind you, you have never demonstrated an actual election fraud problem?

Your boogie man does not exist. There is no election fraud problem. If you remove all voter laws, everyone will just vote once and it will work out great.

Here's the the thing, I don't actually believe that but you cannot prove it wrong, nor can I. Yet meanwhile you're crafting laws for something you totally believe but have no evidence for. It's like a religion to you.

If there is a voter fraud problem in the future, presumably we will deal with it in a manner that does not infringe upon the rights of legal citizens. You know, like SB1070 infringed upon the rights of legal citizens.

rewind2846: If I live somewhere for 80% more of the time, even if it's for only 4 or 5 years, and I'M GOING TO LEAVE AFTERWARD, during that time span I should not have to have any extra paperwork to vote. I have that right wherever I go, wherever I happen to be, because I am a citizen. End of story.

The whole point of the new voter ID laws, and the reason that they are being pushed by republicans, is to shrink the number of people who can vote, particularly those who tend to vote democrat. When voter turnout is high, republicans usually lose. When voter turnout is low, republicans usually win. That's how it works, and the R's know it.

Stop trying to hide that fact behind the bullsh*ttery of "ID requirements" and "voter fraud", which I have yet to see proof of in this thread in great enough numbers to warrant changing the law. To republicans any vote that is not (R) is fraudulent.

Rewind, if you're going to criticize me, at least try to read some of my posts before appearing ignorant. I've not been trying to "hide behind" anything. I came right out and admitted that I am not as informed as I would like, thus the reason for my request for more information from both sides, which HAS been provided by the side arguing against requiring IDs, but so far has not by those supporting it. Of course, I might have missed something, as this is a bloody long thread!

But in regards to your first statement, you don't exactly have the right to vote "wherever you go." You have the right to vote where you live, whether that's Texas or New York or Alaska. However, you DO have to REGISTER to vote. Would that qualify as "extra paperwork" to you? Or would you show up to the Texas precinct with your New York drivers license and New York voter registration card and expect to cast a ballot?

skullkrusher: you stop with that sense making talk. We don't cotton that sort of thing 'round here, ya unnerstand?

Having someone tell me that I'm making sense on Fark is usually my cue to start drinking.

Dwight_Yeast: quoinguy: Acting like an adult means you're supposed to accept some responsibility in life, like having a valid ID.

I find it really funny that the people and the party who are putting forth that argument are the same people who scream bloody murder any time a national ID card is mooted.



Never understood why a national ID card is considered a bad thing.

If you have a passport that's a national ID. A driver's license is state issued, of course, but each state is in a database the police and Feds can access, so we're basically already there.

a lot of the arguments made by the right on these threads seem to boil down to "why is it so hard for people to jump through these arbitrarily-set hoops?"

it just displays a stunning lack of empathy or awareness that some people have shiattier circumstance. seems to be a party platform these days.

SniperJoe:
But in regards to your first statement, you don't exactly have the right to vote "wherever you go." You have the right to vote where you live, whether that's Texas or New York or Alaska. However, you DO have to REGISTER to vote. Would that qualify as "extra paperwork" to you? Or would you show up to the Texas precinct with your New York drivers license and New York voter registration card and expect to cast a ballot?

Yes.

If I show up with my new York (current) voter registration and ID in Texas, plus a current ID card from a state university WHICH I AM ATTENDING IN Texas, than yes, I should be able to vote with no problems. In fact, I should be able to vote with just the college ID alone, which proves that at the time of the election I was LIVING IN Texas.

Too many people tend to think of states as their own little kingdoms... that sh*t needs to stop now, especially during elections. The days are over when people would live their whole lives within 100 miles of where they were born, and a little common sense must be used once in awhile. If you are in a place temporarily, but long-term (years) then you shouldn't have to throw away all your ID from where you came and where you're probably going back to once you're done with your business.

If I'm going to school here, for that time I live here. I pay taxes (and tuition) here. What local politicians do affects me here. A change in property taxes affects the amount of rent I pay for the house I'm sharing with my two college friends here. Who's running the sheriff's department and how they handle their business affects me here. Funding for the local library where I do part of my class research affects me here The local curfews for people under 21 affect how late I and my friends (I'm way over 21, but f'rinstance) can stay out, and so on.

Everyone from the local sheriff to the people that fix the streets is part of my world here, while I am here, and they affect me here. So why shouldn't I vote here? Because I might vote democrat? That is where the real issue is, not the red herring argument of "waaal, they ain't from 'round here" usually tossed around by the local "townies". They wanted an excuse, rattled what little grey matter they had collectively around in a large jar, and came up with this quasi-legal form of discrimination. That's all it is, and it will not stand. Bet on it.

lennavan: liam76: lennavan: The supreme court agrees with him so I'm gonna go ahead and side with him as well. But I'm sure your opinion still matters

So I guess you agree with Kelo and citizens united rulings, right?

Or maybe, just maybe, you can recognize while the supreme court has ruled on something you don't have to agree with it.

When I post my disagreement with citizens united, it's usually accompanied by a lengthy reasoning why the SCOTUS was wrong and how money is not speech and how equating money to speech only serves to stifle those without it and so on. Not just "meh, I disagree."

Maybe, just maybe, you can recognize when you disagree with the highest law authority in the land resting your case on "I'm not sure I agree" doesn't get you very far.

If you followed the thread I did give my rational. If you were too lazy to do that you could have asked, you didn't.

You just assumed since I didn't agree with the suprweme court I was wrong. Odd how that is ok when you do it.


rewind2846: If I show up with my new York (current) voter registration and ID in Texas, plus a current ID card from a state university WHICH I AM ATTENDING IN Texas, than yes, I should be able to vote with no problems. In fact, I should be able to vote with just the college ID alone, which proves that at the time of the election I was LIVING IN Texas.

You really haven't given this any thought have you? Lets ignore that you still might be voting in NYC. You do realize that every person in texas doesn't vote ont he exact same things, rgiht? There are different counties with differetn elections, and a student ID doesn't adress which election you should be voting in.

rewind2846: Too many people tend to think of states as their own little kingdoms... that sh*t needs to stop now, especially during elections. The days are over when people would live their whole lives within 100 miles of where they were born, and a little common sense must be used once in awhile. If you are in a place temporarily, but long-term (years) then you shouldn't have to throw away all your ID from where you came and where you're probably going back to once you're done with your business

Actually if you are going to be somewhere for years, and you plan on driving there, by law you do have to change your ID.

rewind2846: If I'm going to school here, for that time I live here. I pay taxes (and tuition) here. What local politicians do affects me here. A change in property taxes affects the amount of rent I pay for the house I'm sharing with my two college friends here. Who's running the sheriff's department and how they handle their business affects me here. Funding for the local library where I do part of my class research affects me here The local curfews for people under 21 affect how late I and my friends (I'm way over 21, but f'rinstance) can stay out, and so on.

If you live their rent a place, etc, why not get ID there? Why keep your ID back "home"?

rewind2846: Everyone from the local sheriff to the people that fix the streets is part of my world here, while I am here, and they affect me here. So why shouldn't I vote here? Because I might vote democrat? That is where the real issue is, not the red herring argument of "waaal, they ain't from 'round here" usually tossed around by the local "townies". They wanted an excuse, rattled what little grey matter they had collectively around in a large jar, and came up with this quasi-legal form of discrimination. That's all it is, and it will not stand. Bet on it

If you can't even be assed out to get ID, then no I don't think you should be able to vote there. Issues of dependent children aside (whose parents may lose the right to claim them if they register somewhere else) if you aren't vested ina town enough to take the minimal steps to get residency, you shouldn't be voting there.

How are you being discriminated against? Are ther rules different for students than anyone else?

skullkrusher: lennavan: How many times in this thread do I have to remind you, you have never demonstrated an actual election fraud problem?

ok man, I just throw in the towel here and tip my cap to a job well done.

Looks like you never did answer that amazingly important point.

You're gonna go ahead and create laws for a problem you cannot even demonstrate exists.

I'm pretty sure this gets your libertarian card taken away. You are still pretending to be one of those, right?

skullkrusher: There is no way a person can possibly be this stupid. Kudos.

Yes, when you are shown how truly weak your argument is, you can always seek refuge in calling me a troll and pretend thats why you aren't going to respond. Perhaps no one will notice.

skullkrusher: That problem that does not even exist because we have laws and restrictions which prevent it from happening.

I know you believe that. But in the world I live in, you actually have to prove something for it to be true. You know, actual evidence, not just totally believe in it. I guess this is where you and I differ.

skullkrusher: I was willing to listen to your arguments on how we can help make sure eligible people are not excluded from voting.

That's the problem. You start from a place where we are excluding eligible people from voting and you're totally willing to listen to me how to fix that. I start from a place where we exclude no one from voting but I'm totally willing to listen to your ideas on how to reduce voter fraud.

You'd rather err on the side of excluding eligible voters. I'd rather err on the side of some voter fraud. I'm innocent until guilty, you're guilty until innocent. People like you write laws like AZ's SB1070.

skullkrusher: As far as I can tell, your argument is "no election law, we don't have a electoral fraud issue with election law so that means we won't have one without it".

Right. To counter that, all you have is:

skullkrusher: That is a very stupid argument.
skullkrusher: Nice trolling. There is no way a person can possibly be this stupid
skullkrusher: so you're going to avoid backing up your stupid?
skullkrusher: yeah, you've tried this tact a few times now. It hasn't worked for you. No one is talking about a boogie man. We're talking about common sense.

I made an incredibly easy to disprove statement. With no election laws, there would be negligible election fraud. You cannot disprove it. All you've got is ad hominem. It's really pathetic even coming from you. Usually you've got some sort of reasoning. Not today apparently.

skullkrusher: We HAVE election fraud laws and there are people circulating false recall petitions, losing ballots, trying to disqualify absentee ballots... somehow these people will find scruples and not try to rig an election once there are no protections preventing them from doing so.

Good thing we have voter ID laws to prevent those though, amirite?

skullkrusher: You don't think there would be an issue?

I have no idea, neither do you, there is no evidence. But lets exclude legal citizens from voting just in case you're right. Good idea.

skullkrusher: Voting by the honor system. Any reasonable person would see that this is asinine. This is not a science experiment. We can eliminate all speed limits across the country under the same logic.

Teehee, you think there are no studies on speed limits. Today is just not your day.

skullkrusher: lennavan: skullkrusher: We HAVE election fraud laws and there are people circulating false recall petitions, losing ballots, trying to disqualify absentee ballots... somehow these people will find scruples and not try to rig an election once there are no protections preventing them from doing so.

Good thing we have voter ID laws to prevent those though, amirite?

skullkrusher: You don't think there would be an issue?

I have no idea, neither do you, there is no evidence. But lets exclude legal citizens from voting just in case you're right. Good idea.

skullkrusher: Voting by the honor system. Any reasonable person would see that this is asinine. This is not a science experiment. We can eliminate all speed limits across the country under the same logic.

Teehee, you think there are no studies on speed limits. Today is just not your day.

heh how many threads do you plan on shaming yourself in today?

You do realize it's just you and me in this thread anymore, right?

liam76:
You really haven't given this any thought have you? Lets ignore that you still might be voting in NYC. You do realize that every person in texas doesn't vote ont he exact same things, rgiht? There are different counties with differetn elections, and a student ID doesn't adress which election you should be voting in.

Let's also ignore the fact that I cannot be in two places at once. If I were to be found personally voting in New York city by some means that bends the laws of physics, THEN I would have committed voter fraud. Don't assume I'm going to do something before I've done it.
As for what county, that is simple - the county in which the college they attend is located is where they should vote.

Actually if you are going to be somewhere for years, and you plan on driving there, by law you do have to change your ID.

Not necessarily. Also, who says they even have a drivers license, or are planning to drive while they go to school? Any large college town has public transit running right through it, usually with discounted passes for student use.

If you live their rent a place, etc, why not get ID there? Why keep your ID back "home"?

Because this is not your home. Your "home" is where you want to be, this is where you have to be. This is a place where you do your business, mainly getting an education. Even so, you spend enough time there that what happens in the local community does affect the way you live, and therefore you should have a say in how things should be. This is called "voting".

If you can't even be assed out to get ID, then no I don't think you should be able to vote there. Issues of dependent children aside (whose parents may lose the right to claim them if they register somewhere else) if you aren't vested ina town enough to take the minimal steps to get residency, you shouldn't be voting there.

You already have state issued ID. It's called a college student identification card, and every student gets one. Plain and simple... I may not like your town nor the people in it, and will probably get as far away as possible once I have completed my task, especially if it's Texas. . But as I am part of the community while I go to school what the locals do and what they decide has influence on my life in the extended period of time that I am there. I get to vote.

All this rhetorical running around is moot anyway, and distracts from the crux of the issue... the local republican politicians don't want college students (or minorities, or the poor, or homeless people) to vote because more of them vote democrat.

Period.

It's all about cheating and disenfranchisement, since that's the only way the R's are going to win elections in and around college towns and in counties where colleges exist. They have realized that they will never convince anyone under the age of 50 with even the hint of an education that their "return to a 1950 that never was" is a viable philosophy, so they do everything they can to make sure those who want society to move into the 21st century don't get that chance in their areas.

That's the issue. They're just throwing that "voter ID" bullsh*t against the wall hoping it will stick, and it isn't. We know better. We know that it's a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist, and we're not falling for it.

Here's a thought - instead of trying to stop people who are legally entitled to vote from voting, why don't the republicans do a bit of introspection and ask themselves why these groups of people (and even more women now) vote (D) instead of (R)?