Ok, so all of your opinions are invalid, I don't know if I can believe anything you say. I will continue to attack you personally until you agree with me. That's cool, right?
"The Orlando Sentinel found that 68,000 Florida voters are also registered in Georgia or North Carolina (the only two states it checked), 1,650 of whom voted twice in 2000 or 2002."
And, as was shown in the Bush election, even the slightest numbers can matter. - I would also like to say that I'm not against IDs being free. The fact that the states charge for them may be something that needs to be amended. But you can't expect everything at once. Legislation takes time.
That figure of 68,000 being registered in Florida as well as a few other states sure sounds bad. Until you read a few more paragraphs and it explicitly states that most often people are registered in more than one state because they moved from one state, registered to vote there, and the state they lived in previously simply didn't bother to remove their name.
"The fact that people are on the rolls in more than one place is not at all surprising," said Sam Issacharoff, a Columbia University law professor and election-law expert. Issacharoff remembers litigating voting-rights cases in Mississippi in the 1980s, in counties where he said the voter rolls outnumbered the state population by 25 percent. "They just never purged the rolls,"
"The Orlando Sentinel found that 68,000 Florida voters are also registered in Georgia or North Carolina (the only two states it checked), 1,650 of whom voted twice in 2000 or 2002."
And, as was shown in the Bush election, even the slightest numbers can matter. - I would also like to say that I'm not against IDs being free. The fact that the states charge for them may be something that needs to be amended. But you can't expect everything at once. Legislation takes time.
So... The RNC went through and found every possible instance of voting fraud they could--not confirmed voting fraud, but potential voting fraud, the vast majority of whom probably were just people with the same names--and came up with 3800 people.
In order to combat that, you're suggesting disenfranchising five million voters.
I have a better idea: in order to combat white collar crime, we nuke Manhattan, and the more expensive areas of New Jersey. I mean, yeah, it's an overreaction, but not anywhere near as much of one.
Who said five million voters? Give me a source? Do they know this for a fact? People make up numbers all the time.
"According to the survey, African-American citizens also disproportionately lack photo
identification. Twenty-five percent of African-American voting-age citizens have no
current government-issued photo ID, compared to eight percent of white voting-age
citizens.
10
Using 2000 census figures, this amounts to more than 5.5 million adult
African-American citizens without photo identification." (my bolding)
Also:
"As many as 11 percent of United States citizens – more than 21 million individuals – do
not have government-issued photo identification."
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
My only real fear is that Rick Perry wins the primary. That guys is fucking crazy, but both sides play a voter disenfranchisement game. Dems try to disenfranchise the old people and repubs try to disenfranchise the young people.
In what respect do the elderly get disenfranchised?
Oddly enough through progress, and efficiency. By making many thing available mostly online and removing physical locations, using digital voting booths, it works against the elderly. I know of several old people who don't like/understand digital voting, but urcbub is mistaken I am not a conservative. Hence "Rick Perry... is fucking crazy."
I worked the 2002 mid-term elections as a volunteer, when digital voting was being tried out for the first time in California. We had the specific task of asking every few elderly people leaving the station what they thought of it.
The closest we heard to a complaint was when one of them was saying how they thought it was neat how the words on the screen can be made bigger for the vision impaired. So y'know.
But to say "progress" is disenfranchisement is silly. Not all old people fear technology or lack the capacity to learn it, that's YOU being really hard on THEM, if anything.
I fail to see how a touchscreen could be any more difficult that a paper ballot. Both show instructions and both still have instructions in the booth as well as the polling place staff to answer questions.
Hell, if anything touchscreen is certainly better than those puncture based ballots
My only real fear is that Rick Perry wins the primary. That guys is fucking crazy, but both sides play a voter disenfranchisement game. Dems try to disenfranchise the old people and repubs try to disenfranchise the young people.
In what respect do the elderly get disenfranchised?
Oddly enough through progress, and efficiency. By making many thing available mostly online and removing physical locations, using digital voting booths, it works against the elderly. I know of several old people who don't like/understand digital voting, but urcbub is mistaken I am not a conservative. Hence "Rick Perry... is fucking crazy."
The things you listed can only be counted as "Democrat efforts to disenfranchise the elderly" if they are supported and pushed by democrats alone and are said to solve problems that can not be proven to exist.
Afaik the move to electronic voting machines was not opposed by the republicans at large, neither was the move to use them an purely Democrat idea. And unless I am wrong you cannot claim this is as proof that democrats are trying to disenfranchise the elderly.
That a lot of things are moving to online only is hitting the elderly is true but has a) nothing to do with voting and disenfranchisement (unless voting is now online only) and is b) a social issue mainly driven by businesses, and thus not coming from the Democrats. Again not an example that shows your statement that "Dems try to disenfranchise the old people" has any basis in fact.
So, less than middle class families don't own cars? lol. Man, the ignorance in here is so staggering. I've said my peace.
Slightly less than one-third of households said they had one personal vehicle1 available for use in 2001. A little more than one-third of households (40 million out of 107 million households) had 2 vehicles and slightly less than one-quarter had 3 or more vehicles available (figure 31). Almost 8 percent of households (8.5 million) had no vehicle available [1].
Households without vehicles tend to have characteristics different from households with vehicles. For instance, households with total incomes of less than $25,000 are almost 10 times more likely not to have a vehicle when compared with those with incomes greater than $25,000 (figure 32). Though related to income, households in rented residences are five times more likely not to have a vehicle. Household vehicle ownership is also closely related to the number of people living in the household. Eighteen percent of single-person households have no vehicle, as compared with only 4 percent of multiperson households. Furthermore, the unavailability of vehicles in households in urban areas is almost twice that of households in rural areas [1].
Look, I'm only posting to clarify - that statement was in response to someone telling me I couldn't be poor because I owned a car. You're taking it out of context. Yes, some poor people don't own cars. Do all? No. That's it, end of discussion.
If I had a nickel for everyone who announced that they were leaving the conversation and didn't post in the thread again, I would not have enough to buy a can of soda.
Fun story: I just moved, and I need to get a new ID. When I went to the DMV though, they denied me on the grounds that I didn't have proper proof of my new address. Also, the new ID costs 50 bucks. I mean, I can DO it, but it's a pain in the ass. So yeah, fuck voter ID laws.
If I had a nickel for everyone who announced that they were leaving the conversation and didn't post in the thread again, I would not have enough to buy a can of soda.
Are we instating a law that when someone says "bye" they cannot post in the thread anymore? Cry about it. You're off topic, too. Also, Pi-r8, that sucks. O.o what state is that?
Fun story: I just moved, and I need to get a new ID. When I went to the DMV though, they denied me on the grounds that I didn't have proper proof of my new address. Also, the new ID costs 50 bucks. I mean, I can DO it, but it's a pain in the ass. So yeah, fuck voter ID laws.
If I had a nickel for everyone who announced that they were leaving the conversation and didn't post in the thread again, I would not have enough to buy a can of soda.
Are we instating a law that when someone says "bye" they cannot post in the thread anymore? Cry about it. You're off topic, too.
My only real fear is that Rick Perry wins the primary. That guys is fucking crazy, but both sides play a voter disenfranchisement game. Dems try to disenfranchise the old people and repubs try to disenfranchise the young people.
In what respect do the elderly get disenfranchised?
Oddly enough through progress, and efficiency. By making many thing available mostly online and removing physical locations, using digital voting booths, it works against the elderly. I know of several old people who don't like/understand digital voting, but urcbub is mistaken I am not a conservative. Hence "Rick Perry... is fucking crazy."
From what I am aware every state where counties offer electronic voting are also required to have paper ballots on hand and permit you to use them at the poll upon request. I'm not aware of any particularly partisan push for electronic voting either, it was part and parcel to a somewhat universal desire to not see 2000 Florida happen again and a lot of various manufacturers trying to cash in on all the madness. Alongside a lot of other reforms that were put in place in other jurisdictions such as extended absentee voting, increased locations to register to vote (such as libraries), same day/on-site voter registration, ballot redesign (of which Chicago won an award by AIGA), &c. Some/many of which are being paired back or altered in specific manners to once again make it more difficult for particular groups to access the franchise. For instance, no early voting on Sundays which was a day that many black church congregations tended to vote en masse while other congregations tended to not.
Similarly most removals of physical offices that I'm aware of tend to be due solely to budgeting issues and tend to over represent urban districts in their impact due to a variety of reasons ranging from the benign to the malicious. I won't deny that eliminating physical locations has a disenfranchisement aspect, though I also do not necessarily agree that it disproportionately impacts the elderly as pensioners typically have more time on their hands. So while mobility would be more of an issue, access is still much more attainable via numerous other programs targeted at assisting the elderly such as para-transit which doesn't really correlate to someone that can't make it to the now further away county clerk or DMV while they're working.
Look, I'm only posting to clarify - that statement was in response to someone telling me I couldn't be poor because I owned a car. You're taking it out of context. Yes, some poor people don't own cars. Do all? No. That's it, end of discussion.
No one said that.
And neither have anyone talked about laws against posting after saying bye.
Stop over dramatizing everything so you can be a victim.
Sorry, you don't get to say "I don't see why the price of a tank of gas is a big deal" in one breath, then turn around and claim to be from a poor, struggling family in the next.
There, yes, I didn't summarize it word for word. It was still out of context. Lol, and stop attacking me and I won't be a victim? If you focused on the discussion rather than analyzing my character maybe something could get done. Much like in Congress.
Sorry, you don't get to say "I don't see why the price of a tank of gas is a big deal" in one breath, then turn around and claim to be from a poor, struggling family in the next.
There, yes, I didn't summarize it word for word. It was still out of context.
So exactly where does Thanatos say that you own a car, or that you cannot be poor if you own a car?
If I had a nickel for everyone who announced that they were leaving the conversation and didn't post in the thread again, I would not have enough to buy a can of soda.
Are we instating a law that when someone says "bye" they cannot post in the thread anymore? Cry about it. You're off topic, too. Also, Pi-r8, that sucks. O.o what state is that?
Sorry, you don't get to say "I don't see why the price of a tank of gas is a big deal" in one breath, then turn around and claim to be from a poor, struggling family in the next.
There, yes, I didn't summarize it word for word. It was still out of context.
So exactly where does Thanatos say that you own a car, or that you cannot be poor if you own a car?
He says 'if you think that paying for a tank of gas isn't a lot you can't be poor'. Is that less ridiculous? Maybe not. Geez, micro analyze it to the extreme.
Look, I'm only posting to clarify - that statement was in response to someone telling me I couldn't be poor because I owned a car. You're taking it out of context. Yes, some poor people don't own cars. Do all? No. That's it, end of discussion.
Roughly ~8% of households in 2001, and the number has likely risen over the past decade given the actual decline in wages even prior to the current Depression. That's a whole lot of people to be impacted by a law restricting access to the franchise. A law with no discernible benefit to its actually stated goal. It's also the number of people who literally don't own a car, rather than percentage of person's owning government issued ID. The amount of teenagers going in for a license has dropped off precipitously over the last decade as well.
Improved records maintenance and digital asset management would go far further to preventing instances of miscast ballots. What's more it or similar measures would put the burden on the State rather than the individual. Requiring people to purchase an ID in order to participate in self government goes against the very idea. As does burying the fact that free identification allowing people to register to vote is available when you manage to skirt around the 'this poll tax totally isn't a poll tax' issue through retaliation.
Ok, so make IDs free and require an SS number, or Birth Certificate, problem solved. The Government can pay for a little more, no big. Would giving people IDs be cheaper or more expensive than digital management? I'm not sure. Don't have any facts.
If I had a nickel for everyone who announced that they were leaving the conversation and didn't post in the thread again, I would not have enough to buy a can of soda.
Are we instating a law that when someone says "bye" they cannot post in the thread anymore? Cry about it. You're off topic, too. Also, Pi-r8, that sucks. O.o what state is that?
Oregon. Thankfully no voter id laws here
Yeah. If they did change the law to require ID they would have to offer one for free.
I wonder, does it still count as a poll tax if you have to provide multiple documents to receive a free ID? Something tells me that while it violates the spirit of the law, doing so is probably a-ok by the letter of it.
Sorry, you don't get to say "I don't see why the price of a tank of gas is a big deal" in one breath, then turn around and claim to be from a poor, struggling family in the next.
There, yes, I didn't summarize it word for word. It was still out of context.
So exactly where does Thanatos say that you own a car, or that you cannot be poor if you own a car?
He says 'if you think that paying for a gas of tank isn't a lot you can't be poor'. Is that less ridiculous? Maybe not. Geez, micro analyze it to the extreme.
So he never said what you claimed he said then? That is not microanalyzing anything, that is calling out your blatant lies.
And no, at current gas prices you can not claim to be poor and say that you can't see how the price of a gas of tank is not a big deal. I know several wealthy people who have cut down on driving because gas cost too much ( = gas prices are a big deal)
Ok, so make IDs free and require an SS number, or Birth Certificate, problem solved. The Government can pay for a little more, no big. Would giving people IDs be cheaper or more expensive than digital management? I'm not sure. Don't have any facts.
so now we have the government shelling out more money to solve a problem nobody can show the existence of?
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
If I had a nickel for everyone who announced that they were leaving the conversation and didn't post in the thread again, I would not have enough to buy a can of soda.
Are we instating a law that when someone says "bye" they cannot post in the thread anymore? Cry about it. You're off topic, too. Also, Pi-r8, that sucks. O.o what state is that?
Oregon. Thankfully no voter id laws here
Yeah. If they did change the law to require ID they would have to offer one for free.
I wonder, does it still count as a poll tax if you have to provide multiple documents to receive a free ID? Something tells me that while it violates the spirit of the law, doing so is probably a-ok by the letter of it.
Well those documents would have to be free as well. Otherwise the cost still exists.
Ok, so make IDs free and require an SS number, or Birth Certificate, problem solved. The Government can pay for a little more, no big. Would giving people IDs be cheaper or more expensive than digital management? I'm not sure. Don't have any facts.
Did you miss the part about retaliation being used against someone attempting to increase awareness of free ID's? Because a state employee was fired to attempting to raise awareness of those free ID's. I'm also not seeing what benefit this burden in the process is supposed to provide. As per the cost, it really would vary depending on a lot of issues however, again, I really just don't see the benefit in comparison to actually managing your voter rolls. The mechanical processes of Democracy are some of the most important because they are the cornerstone that supports everything else. Tinkering with them in a way that needlessly restricts access rather than makes it more widely available is simply a travesty. After all, without legitimate elections what good are they?
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I am a jerk making blanket statements about old people democrats and republicans, and because of the nature of the statements they are impossible to disprove, because all that i is offered is anecdotal evidence. It's about as good as the evidence that conservatives are engaged in voter disenfranchisement.
Ok, so make IDs free and require an SS number, or Birth Certificate, problem solved. The Government can pay for a little more, no big. Would giving people IDs be cheaper or more expensive than digital management? I'm not sure. Don't have any facts.
so now we have the government shelling out more money to solve a problem nobody can show the existence of?
Aren't you arguing that charging for ID's is a fee? Someone has to pay for it? Also, you must not be a democrat, clearly. You're against the government paying for things, haha.
Ok, so make IDs free and require an SS number, or Birth Certificate, problem solved. The Government can pay for a little more, no big. Would giving people IDs be cheaper or more expensive than digital management? I'm not sure. Don't have any facts.
Did you miss the part about retaliation being used against someone attempting to increase awareness of free ID's? Because a state employee was fired to attempting to raise awareness of those free ID's. I'm also not seeing what benefit this burden in the process is supposed to provide. As per the cost, it really would vary depending on a lot of issues however, again, I really just don't see the benefit in comparison to actually managing your voter rolls. The mechanical processes of Democracy are some of the most important because they are the cornerstone that supports everything else. Tinkering with them in a way that needlessly restricts access rather than makes it more widely available is simply a travesty. After all, without legitimate elections what good are they?
No, I didn't miss it? I think that's wrong, too? Isn't it a separate issue, though? If people are stopping awareness they need to be removed from positions of power. Or, disciplined, whatever you think is best. Or their boss thinks. But that wouldn't solve the problem of IDs costing money, which was all my statement was meant to solve.
I am a jerk making blanket statements about old people democrats and republicans, and because of the nature of the statements they are impossible to disprove, because all that i is offered is anecdotal evidence. It's about as good as the evidence that conservatives are engaged in voter disenfranchisement.
If I had a nickel for everyone who announced that they were leaving the conversation and didn't post in the thread again, I would not have enough to buy a can of soda.
Are we instating a law that when someone says "bye" they cannot post in the thread anymore? Cry about it. You're off topic, too. Also, Pi-r8, that sucks. O.o what state is that?
Oregon. Thankfully no voter id laws here
Yeah. If they did change the law to require ID they would have to offer one for free.
I wonder, does it still count as a poll tax if you have to provide multiple documents to receive a free ID? Something tells me that while it violates the spirit of the law, doing so is probably a-ok by the letter of it.
Well those documents would have to be free as well. Otherwise the cost still exists.
Should everything you get from the government be free?
Posts
I support teaching creationism.
From the article: "Yet there is no reliable method to determine the number of non-citizens registered or actually voting"
That figure of 68,000 being registered in Florida as well as a few other states sure sounds bad. Until you read a few more paragraphs and it explicitly states that most often people are registered in more than one state because they moved from one state, registered to vote there, and the state they lived in previously simply didn't bother to remove their name.
"The fact that people are on the rolls in more than one place is not at all surprising," said Sam Issacharoff, a Columbia University law professor and election-law expert. Issacharoff remembers litigating voting-rights cases in Mississippi in the 1980s, in counties where he said the voter rolls outnumbered the state population by 25 percent. "They just never purged the rolls,"
(cause, you can't)
(cause they aren't happening)
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Fair enough.
So, is this you admitting that your all-volunteer, poorly produced online newspaper probably isn't much of a reliable source?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Ask and you shall receive:
http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/download_file_39242.pdf
"According to the survey, African-American citizens also disproportionately lack photo
identification. Twenty-five percent of African-American voting-age citizens have no
current government-issued photo ID, compared to eight percent of white voting-age
citizens.
10
Using 2000 census figures, this amounts to more than 5.5 million adult
African-American citizens without photo identification." (my bolding)
Also:
"As many as 11 percent of United States citizens – more than 21 million individuals – do
not have government-issued photo identification."
I worked the 2002 mid-term elections as a volunteer, when digital voting was being tried out for the first time in California. We had the specific task of asking every few elderly people leaving the station what they thought of it.
The closest we heard to a complaint was when one of them was saying how they thought it was neat how the words on the screen can be made bigger for the vision impaired. So y'know.
But to say "progress" is disenfranchisement is silly. Not all old people fear technology or lack the capacity to learn it, that's YOU being really hard on THEM, if anything.
Hell, if anything touchscreen is certainly better than those puncture based ballots
The things you listed can only be counted as "Democrat efforts to disenfranchise the elderly" if they are supported and pushed by democrats alone and are said to solve problems that can not be proven to exist.
Afaik the move to electronic voting machines was not opposed by the republicans at large, neither was the move to use them an purely Democrat idea. And unless I am wrong you cannot claim this is as proof that democrats are trying to disenfranchise the elderly.
That a lot of things are moving to online only is hitting the elderly is true but has a) nothing to do with voting and disenfranchisement (unless voting is now online only) and is b) a social issue mainly driven by businesses, and thus not coming from the Democrats. Again not an example that shows your statement that "Dems try to disenfranchise the old people" has any basis in fact.
Yes, cars are in fact expensive.
Are we instating a law that when someone says "bye" they cannot post in the thread anymore? Cry about it. You're off topic, too. Also, Pi-r8, that sucks. O.o what state is that?
Which state?
No but it does make you look rather silly
From what I am aware every state where counties offer electronic voting are also required to have paper ballots on hand and permit you to use them at the poll upon request. I'm not aware of any particularly partisan push for electronic voting either, it was part and parcel to a somewhat universal desire to not see 2000 Florida happen again and a lot of various manufacturers trying to cash in on all the madness. Alongside a lot of other reforms that were put in place in other jurisdictions such as extended absentee voting, increased locations to register to vote (such as libraries), same day/on-site voter registration, ballot redesign (of which Chicago won an award by AIGA), &c. Some/many of which are being paired back or altered in specific manners to once again make it more difficult for particular groups to access the franchise. For instance, no early voting on Sundays which was a day that many black church congregations tended to vote en masse while other congregations tended to not.
Similarly most removals of physical offices that I'm aware of tend to be due solely to budgeting issues and tend to over represent urban districts in their impact due to a variety of reasons ranging from the benign to the malicious. I won't deny that eliminating physical locations has a disenfranchisement aspect, though I also do not necessarily agree that it disproportionately impacts the elderly as pensioners typically have more time on their hands. So while mobility would be more of an issue, access is still much more attainable via numerous other programs targeted at assisting the elderly such as para-transit which doesn't really correlate to someone that can't make it to the now further away county clerk or DMV while they're working.
No one said that.
And neither have anyone talked about laws against posting after saying bye.
Stop over dramatizing everything so you can be a victim.
There, yes, I didn't summarize it word for word. It was still out of context. Lol, and stop attacking me and I won't be a victim? If you focused on the discussion rather than analyzing my character maybe something could get done. Much like in Congress.
So exactly where does Thanatos say that you own a car, or that you cannot be poor if you own a car?
Oregon. Thankfully no voter id laws here
He says 'if you think that paying for a tank of gas isn't a lot you can't be poor'. Is that less ridiculous? Maybe not. Geez, micro analyze it to the extreme.
With all other theistic creation theories, right? Not in a science class, I hope.
Roughly ~8% of households in 2001, and the number has likely risen over the past decade given the actual decline in wages even prior to the current Depression. That's a whole lot of people to be impacted by a law restricting access to the franchise. A law with no discernible benefit to its actually stated goal. It's also the number of people who literally don't own a car, rather than percentage of person's owning government issued ID. The amount of teenagers going in for a license has dropped off precipitously over the last decade as well.
Improved records maintenance and digital asset management would go far further to preventing instances of miscast ballots. What's more it or similar measures would put the burden on the State rather than the individual. Requiring people to purchase an ID in order to participate in self government goes against the very idea. As does burying the fact that free identification allowing people to register to vote is available when you manage to skirt around the 'this poll tax totally isn't a poll tax' issue through retaliation.
Yeah. If they did change the law to require ID they would have to offer one for free.
I wonder, does it still count as a poll tax if you have to provide multiple documents to receive a free ID? Something tells me that while it violates the spirit of the law, doing so is probably a-ok by the letter of it.
edit: Internet, sarcasm, etc
So he never said what you claimed he said then? That is not microanalyzing anything, that is calling out your blatant lies.
And no, at current gas prices you can not claim to be poor and say that you can't see how the price of a gas of tank is not a big deal. I know several wealthy people who have cut down on driving because gas cost too much ( = gas prices are a big deal)
so now we have the government shelling out more money to solve a problem nobody can show the existence of?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Well those documents would have to be free as well. Otherwise the cost still exists.
Did you miss the part about retaliation being used against someone attempting to increase awareness of free ID's? Because a state employee was fired to attempting to raise awareness of those free ID's. I'm also not seeing what benefit this burden in the process is supposed to provide. As per the cost, it really would vary depending on a lot of issues however, again, I really just don't see the benefit in comparison to actually managing your voter rolls. The mechanical processes of Democracy are some of the most important because they are the cornerstone that supports everything else. Tinkering with them in a way that needlessly restricts access rather than makes it more widely available is simply a travesty. After all, without legitimate elections what good are they?
Aren't you arguing that charging for ID's is a fee? Someone has to pay for it? Also, you must not be a democrat, clearly. You're against the government paying for things, haha.
No, I didn't miss it? I think that's wrong, too? Isn't it a separate issue, though? If people are stopping awareness they need to be removed from positions of power. Or, disciplined, whatever you think is best. Or their boss thinks. But that wouldn't solve the problem of IDs costing money, which was all my statement was meant to solve.
Should everything you get from the government be free?