Our Stupid Voting System! Now With Reform Legislation?

moniker

Modern Man wrote:

Bogart wrote:

MM, really? Purposely disenfranchising voters doesn't strike you as, say, corrupt?

I haven't seen any laws that I would consider to be unreasonable when it comes to elections. You'll always find cases where election officials or county clerks act like douchebags, but I see nothing wrong with, for example, laws requiring people to show ID to vote.

What do you see right with it? Particularly the laws that go well beyond requiring the purchase of government ID, like eliminating same day registration or early voting in specific instances.

FyreWulff

Requiring ID to vote is a Jim Crow law and laws that try to require it solve a problem that doesn't exist. It's entirely to screw over the poor. My photo ID (NOT a driver's license) for Nebraska costs 30$ alone, not include the costs of buying copies (up to 10$ each) of all the required supporting documents to get one in the first place.

Modern Man

Calixtus wrote:

Modern Man wrote:

What's the problem?

Infringement on democratic principles is abhorrent regardless of what the constitution says?

That's a meaningless statement. "Democratic principles" didn't spring fully-formed from Zeus's head. They exist as a construct enshrined in the Constitution. The Constitution lays out the USA's view on what democratic principles entail.

moniker

Modern Man wrote:

enlightenedbum wrote:

Modern Man wrote:

Bogart wrote:

MM, really? Purposely disenfranchising voters doesn't strike you as, say, corrupt?

I haven't seen any laws that I would consider to be unreasonable when it comes to elections. You'll always find cases where election officials or county clerks act like douchebags, but I see nothing wrong with, for example, laws requiring people to show ID to vote.

You're a conservative right? So you only want government involved when there's a pressing problem to solve, in theory.

Find evidence of the problem this legislation is supposed to solve, unless that problem is "black/Latino/poor people are voting."

I'm a strong proponent of the notion that people in, say, Arizona, should be free to run their affairs as they see fit, within the bounds of the Constitution. If the people of a state, through their elected representatives, decide to enact more restrictive election laws, that's not any of my business.

So you don't actually have a principled belief in democracy as such?

moniker

Modern Man wrote:

Calixtus wrote:

Modern Man wrote:

What's the problem?

Infringement on democratic principles is abhorrent regardless of what the constitution says?

That's a meaningless statement. "Democratic principles" didn't spring fully-formed from Zeus's head. They exist as a construct enshrined in the Constitution. The Constitution lays out the USA's view on what democratic principles entail.

Not really, no. The Constitution lays out a framework for government and institutions.

enlightenedbum

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

(I think we can interpret this as "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of wealth."

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Modern Man

moniker wrote:

Modern Man wrote:

enlightenedbum wrote:

Modern Man wrote:

Bogart wrote:

MM, really? Purposely disenfranchising voters doesn't strike you as, say, corrupt?

I haven't seen any laws that I would consider to be unreasonable when it comes to elections. You'll always find cases where election officials or county clerks act like douchebags, but I see nothing wrong with, for example, laws requiring people to show ID to vote.

You're a conservative right? So you only want government involved when there's a pressing problem to solve, in theory.

Find evidence of the problem this legislation is supposed to solve, unless that problem is "black/Latino/poor people are voting."

I'm a strong proponent of the notion that people in, say, Arizona, should be free to run their affairs as they see fit, within the bounds of the Constitution. If the people of a state, through their elected representatives, decide to enact more restrictive election laws, that's not any of my business.

So you don't actually have a principled belief in democracy as such?

What I described is democracy. I just don't believe that democracy requires Arizona and Massachusetts to make all the same decisions and pass the same laws.

Xaquin

enlightenedbum wrote:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

(I think we can interpret this as "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of wealth."

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

oh sure, bring that up.

Dr Mario Kart

I understand the idea of having to suck it up when you lose elections. I live in Texas. However, I still want to HAVE ELECTIONS. If whoever won the first basketball game going to make new rules to the game and appoint new refs to make sure those rules were OK, you might as well cut out all these intermediate steps and not have the damned game.

moniker

Modern Man wrote:

moniker wrote:

Modern Man wrote:

enlightenedbum wrote:

Modern Man wrote:

Bogart wrote:

MM, really? Purposely disenfranchising voters doesn't strike you as, say, corrupt?

I haven't seen any laws that I would consider to be unreasonable when it comes to elections. You'll always find cases where election officials or county clerks act like douchebags, but I see nothing wrong with, for example, laws requiring people to show ID to vote.

You're a conservative right? So you only want government involved when there's a pressing problem to solve, in theory.

Find evidence of the problem this legislation is supposed to solve, unless that problem is "black/Latino/poor people are voting."

I'm a strong proponent of the notion that people in, say, Arizona, should be free to run their affairs as they see fit, within the bounds of the Constitution. If the people of a state, through their elected representatives, decide to enact more restrictive election laws, that's not any of my business.

So you don't actually have a principled belief in democracy as such?

What I described is democracy. I just don't believe that democracy requires Arizona and Massachusetts to make all the same decisions and pass the same laws.

No, what you described is not democracy it is the elimination of self government. Exercising the franchise is a universal. 50 voters casting ballots in Arizona are the same number as 50 voters casting ballots in Massachusetts. What those ballots express and what laws they incorporate are meaningless without that basic right undergirding the institutions of government.

emnmnme

An illegal immigrant's driver's license looks exactly the same as my driver's license. The federal Motor Voter Law requires local welfare offices, social service agencies and motor vehicle departments to offer voter registration forms to everyone who comes in, no questions asked. Now, after an election, the states are supposed to throw out votes from ineligible persons like illegal aliens, current prisoners mailing in ballots, and ex-cons. Democrats said meh to that in 2009.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/lawlessness-at-the-doj-voting-section-told-not-to-enforce-purging-the-dead-or-ineligible-from-voting-rolls/?singlepage=true
"We have no interest in enforcing this provision of the law. It has nothing to do with increasing turnout, and we are just not going to do it."

I hear in California, all you do is check a box saying you are a US citizen and you get a voter registration card but that might be a myth. Any Californians here know?

AngelHedgie

Modern Man wrote:

Bogart wrote:

MM, really? Purposely disenfranchising voters doesn't strike you as, say, corrupt?

I haven't seen any laws that I would consider to be unreasonable when it comes to elections. You'll always find cases where election officials or county clerks act like douchebags, but I see nothing wrong with, for example, laws requiring people to show ID to vote.

That's because your default mode is "got mine, fuck you ". We have discussed how difficult it can be to get ID, especially if you have a paper trail that has holes.

Modern Man

Dr Mario Kart wrote:

I understand the idea of having to suck it up when you lose elections. I live in Texas. However, I still want to HAVE ELECTIONS. If whoever won the first basketball game going to make new rules to the game and appoint new refs to make sure those rules were OK, you might as well cut out all these intermediate steps and not have the damned game.

You'll still have elections. No one is going to take the vote away from you or any American citizen living in Texas (unless you're a felon).

enlightenedbum

Modern Man wrote:

Dr Mario Kart wrote:

I understand the idea of having to suck it up when you lose elections. I live in Texas. However, I still want to HAVE ELECTIONS. If whoever won the first basketball game going to make new rules to the game and appoint new refs to make sure those rules were OK, you might as well cut out all these intermediate steps and not have the damned game.

You'll still have elections. No one is going to take the vote away from you or any American citizen living in Texas (unless you're a felon).

Or poor, black, elderly, Latino...

AngelHedgie

Modern Man wrote:

Dr Mario Kart wrote:

I understand the idea of having to suck it up when you lose elections. I live in Texas. However, I still want to HAVE ELECTIONS. If whoever won the first basketball game going to make new rules to the game and appoint new refs to make sure those rules were OK, you might as well cut out all these intermediate steps and not have the damned game.

You'll still have elections. No one is going to take the vote away from you or any American citizen living in Texas (unless you're a felon).

... You really don't get this, do you?

Dr Mario Kart

If the decisions in Arizona stayed in Arizona then I might be a little more sympathetic to that. If they flip enough national election results with these hijinks, a MAJORITY of the NATION will not be free to run their affairs as they see fit.

ronzo

FyreWulff wrote:

Requiring ID to vote is a Jim Crow law and laws that try to require it solve a problem that doesn't exist. It's entirely to screw over the poor. My photo ID (NOT a driver's license) for Nebraska costs 30$ alone, not include the costs of buying copies (up to 10$ each) of all the required supporting documents to get one in the first place.

If the state requires some form of photo ID to vote, there has to be a way to obtain one of the said ID's for free. Otherwise it's a poll tax and gets struck down.

Of course you can just do what Wisconsin is doing and bury the fact that you can request a free ID so that no one knows the option is there

SyphonBlue

emnmnme wrote:

An illegal immigrant's driver's license looks exactly the same as my driver's license. The federal Motor Voter Law requires local welfare offices, social service agencies and motor vehicle departments to offer voter registration forms to everyone who comes in, no questions asked. Now, after an election, the states are supposed to throw out votes from ineligible persons like illegal aliens, current prisoners mailing in ballots, and ex-cons. Democrats said meh to that in 2009.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/lawlessness-at-the-doj-voting-section-told-not-to-enforce-purging-the-dead-or-ineligible-from-voting-rolls/?singlepage=true
"We have no interest in enforcing this provision of the law. It has nothing to do with increasing turnout, and we are just not going to do it."

I hear in California, all you do is check a box saying you are a US citizen and you get a voter registration card but that might be a myth. Any Californians here know?

J. Christian Adams is an election lawyer who served in the Voting Rights Section at the U.S. Department of Justice. His forthcoming book Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department (Regnery) releases in October. His website is www.electionlawcenter.com.

Moving on

Captain Carrot

AngelHedgie wrote:

Modern Man wrote:

Bogart wrote:

MM, really? Purposely disenfranchising voters doesn't strike you as, say, corrupt?

I haven't seen any laws that I would consider to be unreasonable when it comes to elections. You'll always find cases where election officials or county clerks act like douchebags, but I see nothing wrong with, for example, laws requiring people to show ID to vote.

That's because your default mode is "got mine, fuck you ". We have discussed how difficult it can be to get ID, especially if you have a paper trail that has holes.

Yes, but he doesn't care. Anything that hurts Democrats and isn't blatantly, undeniably, against the letter of the Constitution is fine.

Seriously, why are we arguing with him? He's not going to say "Oh wait, I was wrong, more people should vote, and it's bad to restrict the franchise to help your political party". He's just going to keep being a goose, and claim that if the shoe were on the other foot we'd support Democratic efforts to disenfranchise evangelical Christians.

Modern Man

enlightenedbum wrote:

Modern Man wrote:

Dr Mario Kart wrote:

I understand the idea of having to suck it up when you lose elections. I live in Texas. However, I still want to HAVE ELECTIONS. If whoever won the first basketball game going to make new rules to the game and appoint new refs to make sure those rules were OK, you might as well cut out all these intermediate steps and not have the damned game.

You'll still have elections. No one is going to take the vote away from you or any American citizen living in Texas (unless you're a felon).

Or poor, black, elderly, Latino...

Feel free to point out a law that takes away the vote from people based on income level, race, advanced age or ethnicity.

Xaquin

enlightenedbum wrote:

Modern Man wrote:

Dr Mario Kart wrote:

I understand the idea of having to suck it up when you lose elections. I live in Texas. However, I still want to HAVE ELECTIONS. If whoever won the first basketball game going to make new rules to the game and appoint new refs to make sure those rules were OK, you might as well cut out all these intermediate steps and not have the damned game.

You'll still have elections. No one is going to take the vote away from you or any American citizen living in Texas (unless you're a felon).

Or poor, black, elderly, Latino...

or not 18 years old quick enough

emnmnme

SyphonBlue wrote:

Moving on

enlightenedbum

Modern Man wrote:

enlightenedbum wrote:

Modern Man wrote:

Dr Mario Kart wrote:

I understand the idea of having to suck it up when you lose elections. I live in Texas. However, I still want to HAVE ELECTIONS. If whoever won the first basketball game going to make new rules to the game and appoint new refs to make sure those rules were OK, you might as well cut out all these intermediate steps and not have the damned game.

You'll still have elections. No one is going to take the vote away from you or any American citizen living in Texas (unless you're a felon).

Or poor, black, elderly, Latino...

Feel free to point out a law that takes away the vote from people based on income level, race, advanced age or ethnicity.

Well, gee, you could maybe read the OP of the thread and the links presented therein.

Captain Carrot

Modern Man wrote:

enlightenedbum wrote:

Modern Man wrote:

Dr Mario Kart wrote:

I understand the idea of having to suck it up when you lose elections. I live in Texas. However, I still want to HAVE ELECTIONS. If whoever won the first basketball game going to make new rules to the game and appoint new refs to make sure those rules were OK, you might as well cut out all these intermediate steps and not have the damned game.

You'll still have elections. No one is going to take the vote away from you or any American citizen living in Texas (unless you're a felon).

Or poor, black, elderly, Latino...

Feel free to point out a law that takes away the vote from people based on income level, race, advanced age or ethnicity.

Why bother? You obviously won't admit that a law can be designed to do so even when it's not there in black and white, so even if someone shows you several laws that charge money for voter IDs that you must have to vote you'll just say "The law, in its infinite majesty, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges and beg for bread".

ronzo

Modern Man wrote:

enlightenedbum wrote:

Modern Man wrote:

Dr Mario Kart wrote:

I understand the idea of having to suck it up when you lose elections. I live in Texas. However, I still want to HAVE ELECTIONS. If whoever won the first basketball game going to make new rules to the game and appoint new refs to make sure those rules were OK, you might as well cut out all these intermediate steps and not have the damned game.

You'll still have elections. No one is going to take the vote away from you or any American citizen living in Texas (unless you're a felon).

Or poor, black, elderly, Latino...

Feel free to point out a law that takes away the vote from people based on income level, race, advanced age or ethnicity.

Why? Honestly, will you change your opinion? Because I can't ever recall a single instance of it happening. You'll just find a way to twist around whatever we put forward as not being relevant. It's like arguing with a goddamn wall.

We had a proposed law that limited students right to vote in the other thread that you said didn't count as Republican's intentions to restrict voting right because it didn't get passed. You just sit there and spin reality because you just want your lower fucking taxes

Modern Man

ronzo wrote:

Modern Man wrote:

enlightenedbum wrote:

Modern Man wrote:

Dr Mario Kart wrote:

I understand the idea of having to suck it up when you lose elections. I live in Texas. However, I still want to HAVE ELECTIONS. If whoever won the first basketball game going to make new rules to the game and appoint new refs to make sure those rules were OK, you might as well cut out all these intermediate steps and not have the damned game.

You'll still have elections. No one is going to take the vote away from you or any American citizen living in Texas (unless you're a felon).

Or poor, black, elderly, Latino...

Feel free to point out a law that takes away the vote from people based on income level, race, advanced age or ethnicity.

Why? Honestly, will you change your opinion? Because I can't ever recall a single instance of it happening. You'll just find a way to twist around whatever we put forward as not being relevant. It's like arguing with a goddamn wall.

We had a proposed law that limited students right to vote in the other thread that you said didn't count as Republican's intentions to restrict voting right because it didn't get passed. You just sit there and spin reality because you just want your lower fucking taxes

I'd be opposed to any laws that ban voting on racial grounds or income levels. As would the Supreme Court, I'm sure. I'm not opposed on laws that treat everyone the same, but that might have more impact on a certain group, for whatever reason.

Requiring ID when you vote might have a negative impact on poor people, but the rules apply the same to everyone equally so I don't have a problem with them.

Calixtus

Modern Man wrote:

Calixtus wrote:

Modern Man wrote:

What's the problem?

Infringement on democratic principles is abhorrent regardless of what the constitution says?

That's a meaningless statement. "Democratic principles" didn't spring fully-formed from Zeus's head. They exist as a construct enshrined in the Constitution. The Constitution lays out the USA's view on what democratic principles entail.

Is women's lack of suffrage in Saudi-Arabia in line with democratic principles because it appears in their legal texts, or is there a different body of democratic principles by which said lack of suffrage would be judged?

The idea that democratic principles have no meaning unless enshrined in law is fucking weird, especially in a country that forged it's own laws in pursuit of those principles.

nexuscrawler

So a poll tax is ok if everyone has to spend the same amount

Captain Carrot

Hey, look, I called everything he said. What a surprise.

SyphonBlue

Modern Man wrote:

Requiring ID when you vote might have a negative impact on poor people, but the rules apply the same to everyone equally so I don't have a problem with them.

So you admit it will have a negative impact on poor people.

And just how many rich people don't have IDs? Or can't afford to get IDs?

Now, put 2 and 2 together...

Dr Mario Kart

Well, I'm ready to throw in the towel on this particular line of discussion and shift to something else thats related.

I'm going to widly speculate that the extra zeal with which this stuff is going on currently is indicative of the death throes of the party. They're increasingly on the losing side of many/more issues. The demographics are continuing to change out of their favor. This is basically what they've got left. However, they're not going to shift to rule by fewer and fewer people indefinitely. Lets say they eventually push it to where 30% of the voting populous has effective rule. Once they finally lose a single cycle, they are fucked forever.

ronzo

Captain Carrot wrote:

Hey, look, I called everything he said. What a surprise.

He's predictable at least. Disgusting, but predictable

Thanatos

Modern Man wrote:

I'd be opposed to any laws that ban voting on racial grounds or income levels. As would the Supreme Court, I'm sure. I'm not opposed on laws that treat everyone the same, but that might have more impact on a certain group, for whatever reason.

Requiring ID when you vote might have a negative impact on poor people, but the rules apply the same to everyone equally so I don't have a problem with them.

The same could be said of requiring everyone to run a ten-minute mile in order to vote.

So, you would support that, too, right?

SyphonBlue

Thanatos wrote:

Modern Man wrote:

I'd be opposed to any laws that ban voting on racial grounds or income levels. As would the Supreme Court, I'm sure. I'm not opposed on laws that treat everyone the same, but that might have more impact on a certain group, for whatever reason.

Requiring ID when you vote might have a negative impact on poor people, but the rules apply the same to everyone equally so I don't have a problem with them.

The same could be said of requiring everyone to run a ten-minute mile in order to vote.

So, you would support that, too, right?

And wheelchairs aren't allowed.

Captain Carrot

Thanatos wrote:

Modern Man wrote:

I'd be opposed to any laws that ban voting on racial grounds or income levels. As would the Supreme Court, I'm sure. I'm not opposed on laws that treat everyone the same, but that might have more impact on a certain group, for whatever reason.

Requiring ID when you vote might have a negative impact on poor people, but the rules apply the same to everyone equally so I don't have a problem with them.

The same could be said of requiring everyone to run a ten-minute mile in order to vote.

So, you would support that, too, right?

requiring five different kinds of ID including photo prevents voter fraud so it's legitimate (and I don't care if there is no evidence of voter fraud)

running doesn't have anything to do with voting

Modern Man

nexuscrawler wrote:

So a poll tax is ok if everyone has to spend the same amount

Poll taxes are unconstitutional, so they're explicitly not ok.

Styrofoam Sammich

Requiring ID when you vote might have a negative impact on poor people, but the rules apply the same to everyone equally so I don't have a problem with them.

Oh what the bleeding christ.

SyphonBlue

Captain Carrot wrote:

Thanatos wrote:

Modern Man wrote:

I'd be opposed to any laws that ban voting on racial grounds or income levels. As would the Supreme Court, I'm sure. I'm not opposed on laws that treat everyone the same, but that might have more impact on a certain group, for whatever reason.

Requiring ID when you vote might have a negative impact on poor people, but the rules apply the same to everyone equally so I don't have a problem with them.

The same could be said of requiring everyone to run a ten-minute mile in order to vote.

So, you would support that, too, right?

requiring five different kinds of ID including photo prevents voter fraud so it's legitimate (and I don't care if there is no evidence of voter fraud)

running doesn't have anything to do with voting

But there is no voter fraud.

Captain Carrot

Modern Man wrote:

nexuscrawler wrote:

So a poll tax is ok if everyone has to spend the same amount

Poll taxes are unconstitutional, so they're explicitly not ok.

But you don't believe that charging for ID that everyone must have to vote is a poll tax. Despite the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that mandatory IDs for voting must be free or they count as such.

Modern Man

Thanatos wrote:

Modern Man wrote:

I'd be opposed to any laws that ban voting on racial grounds or income levels. As would the Supreme Court, I'm sure. I'm not opposed on laws that treat everyone the same, but that might have more impact on a certain group, for whatever reason.

Requiring ID when you vote might have a negative impact on poor people, but the rules apply the same to everyone equally so I don't have a problem with them.

The same could be said of requiring everyone to run a ten-minute mile in order to vote.

So, you would support that, too, right?

I'd vote against such a dumb law. But if people in Washington state or some other benighted part of the republic wanted to pass such a dumb law, I don't care.