|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 13, 2014 23:52:08 GMT
Although I do not place a one-time expense in the same category as a recurring expense--the $45-$75 of which you speak would not trouble me nearly so much as, say, a $3 per month increase ad infinitum--I do not "support" either. As you (correctly) noted, I believe that copies of individuals' birth certificates should be provided by the state for free. And I certainly do not see it as the equivalent of a "poll tax," in any case. The poll tax was developed in the South during the Reconstruction Era, immediately after the Civil War, as a means of depriving black people of the right to vote. (So were so-called "grandfather clauses"--which were considerably different than the term as it is used nowadays--that required one to prove that one's grandfather had voted, in order to be able to vote.) Even if people were charged for birth certificates, in order to obtain a valid ID--and I do not think that should be the case--it would surely not be for the purpose of attempting to deny them the vote. Actually, I am not "in agreement" that any amount of pollution--no matter how small--is "violating our rights as a person." I simply do not believe in the approach advocated by the left, of taking a broad view of the "values" contained in any document--whether it is the Bible or the US Constitution--but believe, instead, in looking for the specifics. And I can find no reference to "pollution" in the US Constitution; the freedom from which being guaranteed as a "right." Oh, a footnote: I just received, in an e-mail, an update from my congresswoman, Diane Black, as concerning the EPA. As this touches upon a discussion we have been having, I thought I would reproduce it, below:
Republican politicans that have been responsible for crafting the Republican voting laws that include the "Voter ID" laws have already admitted that the purpose of these laws was expressly to suppress the votes of minorities that overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. The requirements to provide documents (e.g a birth certificate) that a poor person would be unable to afford were intentional and specifically intended to deprive minorities, that are disproportionately poor, of their right to vote. You're living in denial of the expressed reasons behind these laws that those crafting the laws have already admitted.
We have no "right" to do anything that is not based upon our natural (inalienable) rights as a person. We do not have a "right to pollute" as that is the dispoiling of that which does not belong to us but instead it belongs to the "common" (i.e. all persons). The coal companies, for example, don't own the atmosphere and have no right to release toxic chemicals or chemicals that result in any harm to the atmosphere because they don't own it.
We do allow limited pollution based upon compelling arguments of economic necessity but that is an exception where, as a society, we're willing to allow a minimal violation of our natural (inalienable) rights but that never implies that the person (entity) causing the pollution has any right to pollute. No such right of the person exists.
I'm not sure of the specifics that Rep Diane Black refers to in her letter but I've not found federal regulations to be either onerous or difficult to comply with. If there are cases where it is difficult for farmers and land owners to comply with the Clean Water Act then that process needs to be addressed. You don't "throw out the baby with the bath water" but instead address the problem. If there is a problem with the process for the landowners then fix the process.
This is obviously not a "land grab" by the federal goverment and it really annoys me when politicals use these inflamatory terms.
There are, of course, reasons behind regulations because the land owner doesn't own the water that might temporarily be on their land due to rains but then either runs off of the land or soaks down into the ground water because that water belongs to the "common" (i.e. all people) and they have no right to pollute it. I'm not addressing the specific regulation because I don't know what it is but in general all water most be protected because no individual owns the water except by "use" (i.e. if the landowner collects the rain in a barrel and drinks it then it is theirs). They have no right to pollute the water that will go to others or flow back into the seas.
BTW - I've read news stories in the past where the chemicals used by farmers in California's Central Valley have made the ground water almost undrinkable and hundreds of thousands depend upon the ground water for drinking water. I don't know what's been done about it, if anything, but basically the farmers are poisoning the ground water and it is a serious issue. Sort of a "Love Canal" on a huge scale but where no single "farmer" can be identified because it's being caused by all of the farmers.
Those who wish to "prove" a point may indeed be able to find one or two rogue "Republican politicians" who have claimed self-serving motives for their support of voter-ID laws. But they should not be assumed to speak for Republican politicians in general. By the way, did you see that Wisconsin, just the other day, upheld the state's voter-ID law? www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/09/court-oks-voter-id-in-wisconsin-195398.html?hp=l3 I have commented upon your concept of the so-called "rights of the common" in another thread. (Interestingly enough, the US Constitution speaks of no such thing, as far as I can see.) And whenever an EPA regulation manages to transmute a normal piece of (usually dry) land into a "wetland," to be regulated accordingly, just because a sudden rain (temporarily) made the land wet, I would, indeed, consider that "onerous." |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 14, 2014 14:12:15 GMT
Those who wish to "prove" a point may indeed be able to find one or two rogue "Republican politicians" who have claimed self-serving motives for their support of voter-ID laws. But they should not be assumed to speak for Republican politicians in general. By the way, did you see that Wisconsin, just the other day, upheld the state's voter-ID law? www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/09/court-oks-voter-id-in-wisconsin-195398.html?hp=l3 I have commented upon your concept of the so-called "rights of the common" in another thread. (Interestingly enough, the US Constitution speaks of no such thing, as far as I can see.) And whenever an EPA regulation manages to transmute a normal piece of (usually dry) land into a "wetland," to be regulated accordingly, just because a sudden rain (temporarily) made the land wet, I would, indeed, consider that "onerous."
Do you seriously believe that Republican politicans are honest and forthright enough to actually come out publically and state that the Voting laws they're passing are about suppressing the African-American and Hispanic vote? It is amazing that any of those behind the laws were that honest and forthright to begin with and came out to expose the motivation behind the laws. They were actually Republicans with just enough integrity to admit their part in crafting nefarious laws to suppress the black and Hispanic vote so of course "Republicans" in general comdenmed them for being honest.
Of note, based upon your logic, Charles Manson shouldn't have been convicted because the conviction hinged on one person turning "state's evidence" where all of the other conspirators denied the claims.
Wisconsin has made provisions in the "voter ID law" where a person doesn't have to provide any documents they would have to pay for in order to obtain a "free ID" card from the state:
Eligibility requirements:
1.ID Card applicants must be U.S. Citizens, at least 17 years of age, and indicate that the ID card is required free of charge for the purposes of voting; and
2.ID Card applicants must claim that documents required to prove U.S. Citizenship, name and date of birth and/or legal name change are unavailable and require a fee to a government agency to obtain.
www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/apply/petition-process.htm
When the state waives the requirment to provide documents to obtain the ID card then it is not unconstitutional because it doesn't cost the person any money to obtain the ID card. Only where the state imposes a requirement that the person furnish the documents they must purchase in order to obtain the ID card does it impose a de facto poll tax (which the Supreme Court ruled was unconstitutiona).
That still doesn't imply that Wisconsin's law isn't neferious in attempting to prevent African-Americans and Hispanics, that disproportionately don't already have government issued ID cards, from voting. The "voter ID laws" are still addressing a non-existant problem because voter impersonation fraud, the only thing the Voter ID is supposed to prevent, is virtually non-existant in the United States. I've yet to find even one contested election where "potential voter impersonation" was even mentioned as a possible cause for disputing the election results. Not a single case can be found where voter impersonation has EVER been linked to a problem with our electorial process and there is absolutely no foundation for the laws except to prevent those that don't already have government ID, mostly blacks and Hispanics statistically, from voting.
Of note, on the Rights of the Common, the US Constitution does address the protections of the unenumerated Rights of the "Common" (i.e. The People) in the 9th Amendment. The term "People" in the US Constitution refers to "all individuals" exactly like the word "Common" refers to "all individuals" in John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter V. The words are virtually interchangeable based upon usage in each document.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 15, 2014 0:07:17 GMT
Those who wish to "prove" a point may indeed be able to find one or two rogue "Republican politicians" who have claimed self-serving motives for their support of voter-ID laws. But they should not be assumed to speak for Republican politicians in general. By the way, did you see that Wisconsin, just the other day, upheld the state's voter-ID law? www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/09/court-oks-voter-id-in-wisconsin-195398.html?hp=l3 I have commented upon your concept of the so-called "rights of the common" in another thread. (Interestingly enough, the US Constitution speaks of no such thing, as far as I can see.) And whenever an EPA regulation manages to transmute a normal piece of (usually dry) land into a "wetland," to be regulated accordingly, just because a sudden rain (temporarily) made the land wet, I would, indeed, consider that "onerous."
Do you seriously believe that Republican politicans are honest and forthright enough to actually come out publically and state that the Voting laws they're passing are about suppressing the African-American and Hispanic vote? It is amazing that any of those behind the laws were that honest and forthright to begin with and came out to expose the motivation behind the laws. They were actually Republicans with just enough integrity to admit their part in crafting nefarious laws to suppress the black and Hispanic vote so of course "Republicans" in general comdenmed them for being honest.
Of note, based upon your logic, Charles Manson shouldn't have been convicted because the conviction hinged on one person turning "state's evidence" where all of the other conspirators denied the claims.
Wisconsin has made provisions in the "voter ID law" where a person doesn't have to provide any documents they would have to pay for in order to obtain a "free ID" card from the state:
Eligibility requirements:
1.ID Card applicants must be U.S. Citizens, at least 17 years of age, and indicate that the ID card is required free of charge for the purposes of voting; and
2.ID Card applicants must claim that documents required to prove U.S. Citizenship, name and date of birth and/or legal name change are unavailable and require a fee to a government agency to obtain.
www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/apply/petition-process.htm
When the state waives the requirment to provide documents to obtain the ID card then it is not unconstitutional because it doesn't cost the person any money to obtain the ID card. Only where the state imposes a requirement that the person furnish the documents they must purchase in order to obtain the ID card does it impose a de facto poll tax (which the Supreme Court ruled was unconstitutiona).
That still doesn't imply that Wisconsin's law isn't neferious in attempting to prevent African-Americans and Hispanics, that disproportionately don't already have government issued ID cards, from voting. The "voter ID laws" are still addressing a non-existant problem because voter impersonation fraud, the only thing the Voter ID is supposed to prevent, is virtually non-existant in the United States. I've yet to find even one contested election where "potential voter impersonation" was even mentioned as a possible cause for disputing the election results. Not a single case can be found where voter impersonation has EVER been linked to a problem with our electorial process and there is absolutely no foundation for the laws except to prevent those that don't already have government ID, mostly blacks and Hispanics statistically, from voting.
Of note, on the Rights of the Common, the US Constitution does address the protections of the unenumerated Rights of the "Common" (i.e. The People) in the 9th Amendment. The term "People" in the US Constitution refers to "all individuals" exactly like the word "Common" refers to "all individuals" in John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter V. The words are virtually interchangeable based upon usage in each document.
Well, the Republican politicians to which you have so triumphantly alluded did, indeed, "actually come out publicly and state that the Voting laws they're passing are about suppressing the African-American and Hispanic vote." So your rhetorical question (do I "seriously believe" that they might do this sort of thing) tends to answer itself. By the way, there is an enormous difference between the intention of "suppressing" some people's legitimate votes, if that group typically votes for the other major party, and attempting to curtail voter fraud when that would likely benefit the other party. Let us not mix apples and oranges here. I hope you are indicating your sense of favor for Wisconsin's voter-ID law, since the requisite documentation is truly free. And what does the Ninth Amendment say, precisely, that would lead you to conclude that it is merely a paraphrase of John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 15, 2014 11:38:48 GMT
Well, the Republican politicians to which you have so triumphantly alluded did, indeed, "actually come out publicly and state that the Voting laws they're passing are about suppressing the African-American and Hispanic vote." So your rhetorical question (do I "seriously believe" that they might do this sort of thing) tends to answer itself. By the way, there is an enormous difference between the intention of "suppressing" some people's legitimate votes, if that group typically votes for the other major party, and attempting to curtail voter fraud when that would likely benefit the other party. Let us not mix apples and oranges here. I hope you are indicating your sense of favor for Wisconsin's voter-ID law, since the requisite documentation is truly free. And what does the Ninth Amendment say, precisely, that would lead you to conclude that it is merely a paraphrase of John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government?
I would remind you that the Republicans that came out stating explicitly that the voting laws they were creating were about suppressing the votes of blacks and Hispanics had nothing to gain from this revelation. They were condemning themselves for their own nefarious actions. It was an admission of guilt on their own behalf. They were basically sacrificing their own political careers by admitting to their own nefarious (and racist) political actions.
There are numerous forms of voter fraud but statistically voter impersonation isn't a problem. Never has it been referenced in any lawsuit challenging the election results nor is there any evidence that it is significant enough to ever affect any electorial process in the United States. Rarely can a state even cite a single case of voter impersonation ever occuring in their state. Texas managed to cite four cases of alleged voter fraud in it's elections but it was over four election cycles averaging only one case per election. Out of millions of votes only four cases of alleged (not proven) cases of voter impersonation does not establish a foundation for voter ID laws that will prevent tens of thousands of US citizens from voting.
While the Wisconsin law maybe Constitutional because it doesn't impose a de facto poll tax that doesn't imply it's not a nefarious attempt to suppress the votes of minorities. While the federal appeals court has ruled that it is Constitutional we must remember that during the adjudication of the case that the State of Wisconsin was unable to provide any evidence of a single case of voter impersonation ever occuring in recent history.
"The evidence at trial established that virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin," (Judge) Adelman wrote. "The defendants could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past."
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/29/judge-strikes-down-wisconsin-voter-id-law/
If voter impersonation fraud is not occuring in Wisconsin, and it isn't, then why are the citizens being required to show ID to vote at all? The voter ID law is not going to prevent any voter fraud because no one is commiting voter impersonation to begin with. The law only has one possible purpose and that is to prevent US citizens that don't have government issued ID, which are statistically far more likely to be blacks and Hispanics, from voting. It serves no other purpose.
Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The 9th Amendment refers to the "People" which is all of the people in society. John Locke refers to the "common" which is all of the people on society. The terms are synonymous in usage. The 9th Amendment addresses the unenumerated Rights of the People and Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter V, defines the Right of Property of the Person that is not enumerated in the US Constitution.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 16, 2014 0:40:34 GMT
Well, the Republican politicians to which you have so triumphantly alluded did, indeed, "actually come out publicly and state that the Voting laws they're passing are about suppressing the African-American and Hispanic vote." So your rhetorical question (do I "seriously believe" that they might do this sort of thing) tends to answer itself. By the way, there is an enormous difference between the intention of "suppressing" some people's legitimate votes, if that group typically votes for the other major party, and attempting to curtail voter fraud when that would likely benefit the other party. Let us not mix apples and oranges here. I hope you are indicating your sense of favor for Wisconsin's voter-ID law, since the requisite documentation is truly free. And what does the Ninth Amendment say, precisely, that would lead you to conclude that it is merely a paraphrase of John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government?
I would remind you that the Republicans that came out stating explicitly that the voting laws they were creating were about suppressing the votes of blacks and Hispanics had nothing to gain from this revelation. They were condemning themselves for their own nefarious actions. It was an admission of guilt on their own behalf. They were basically sacrificing their own political careers by admitting to their own nefarious (and racist) political actions.
There are numerous forms of voter fraud but statistically voter impersonation isn't a problem. Never has it been referenced in any lawsuit challenging the election results nor is there any evidence that it is significant enough to ever affect any electorial process in the United States. Rarely can a state even cite a single case of voter impersonation ever occuring in their state. Texas managed to cite four cases of alleged voter fraud in it's elections but it was over four election cycles averaging only one case per election. Out of millions of votes only four cases of alleged (not proven) cases of voter impersonation does not establish a foundation for voter ID laws that will prevent tens of thousands of US citizens from voting.
While the Wisconsin law maybe Constitutional because it doesn't impose a de facto poll tax that doesn't imply it's not a nefarious attempt to suppress the votes of minorities. While the federal appeals court has ruled that it is Constitutional we must remember that during the adjudication of the case that the State of Wisconsin was unable to provide any evidence of a single case of voter impersonation ever occuring in recent history.
"The evidence at trial established that virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin," (Judge) Adelman wrote. "The defendants could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past."
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/29/judge-strikes-down-wisconsin-voter-id-law/
If voter impersonation fraud is not occuring in Wisconsin, and it isn't, then why are the citizens being required to show ID to vote at all? The voter ID law is not going to prevent any voter fraud because no one is commiting voter impersonation to begin with. The law only has one possible purpose and that is to prevent US citizens that don't have government issued ID, which are statistically far more likely to be blacks and Hispanics, from voting. It serves no other purpose.
Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The 9th Amendment refers to the "People" which is all of the people in society. John Locke refers to the "common" which is all of the people on society. The terms are synonymous in usage. The 9th Amendment addresses the unenumerated Rights of the People and Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter V, defines the Right of Property of the Person that is not enumerated in the US Constitution.
You really never addressed my central point, viz.: there is nothing inherently "nefarious" about one's attempting to prevent the illegitimate voting of those who are likely to vote, in large percentages, for the other party. That does not amount to voter suppression, in any meaningful sense of the term. If only one person per year, on average, were to vote illegally--and I rather doubt that statistic--that would be enough to nullify my vote. (The fact that one vote would be very unlikely to affect the actual outcome of the election is beside the point. If that were the point, I would not even bother to vote in statewide and national elections, as Tennessee is a deep red state; so the Republican candidate is virtually assured of winning the state, either with or without my vote.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 16, 2014 12:32:16 GMT
You really never addressed my central point, viz.: there is nothing inherently "nefarious" about one's attempting to prevent the illegitimate voting of those who are likely to vote, in large percentages, for the other party. That does not amount to voter suppression, in any meaningful sense of the term. If only one person per year, on average, were to vote illegally--and I rather doubt that statistic--that would be enough to nullify my vote. (The fact that one vote would be very unlikely to affect the actual outcome of the election is beside the point. If that were the point, I would not even bother to vote in statewide and national elections, as Tennessee is a deep red state; so the Republican candidate is virtually assured of winning the state, either with or without my vote.)
With virtually no cases of voter impersonation fraud being committed in the United States then the "voter ID laws" that only address voter impersonation are not preventing any "illegitimate" voting for anyone. What they do accomplish is to deny the right of US citizens to vote if they don't happen to have a valid government issued ID card. As studies indicate 25% of African-American and 18% of Hispanic US CITIZENS don't have goverment issued ID cards and they're the target of these laws. Wisconsin, as an example, had zero cases of voter impersonation in recent history so the voter ID law is not preventing even one "illegitimate" vote in Wisconsin because voter impersonation at the polls, the only thing the vote ID law prevents, doesn't exist.
On the flip side the 2012 election in Wisconsin recorded about 3 million votes cast and with 6.5% of the population being black where, based upon national statistics, we can assume almost 49,000 don't have ID to vote that's how many votes can't be cast in November if these individuals don't go through the hassle of obtaining a voter ID card.
Potentially up to 49,000 US citizens will be denied their Right to Vote while not a single "illegitimate" vote will be prevented because voter impersonation is non-existant in Wisconsin.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 16, 2014 21:08:02 GMT
You really never addressed my central point, viz.: there is nothing inherently "nefarious" about one's attempting to prevent the illegitimate voting of those who are likely to vote, in large percentages, for the other party. That does not amount to voter suppression, in any meaningful sense of the term. If only one person per year, on average, were to vote illegally--and I rather doubt that statistic--that would be enough to nullify my vote. (The fact that one vote would be very unlikely to affect the actual outcome of the election is beside the point. If that were the point, I would not even bother to vote in statewide and national elections, as Tennessee is a deep red state; so the Republican candidate is virtually assured of winning the state, either with or without my vote.)
With virtually no cases of voter impersonation fraud being committed in the United States then the "voter ID laws" that only address voter impersonation are not preventing any "illegitimate" voting for anyone. What they do accomplish is to deny the right of US citizens to vote if they don't happen to have a valid government issued ID card. As studies indicate 25% of African-American and 18% of Hispanic US CITIZENS don't have goverment issued ID cards and they're the target of these laws. Wisconsin, as an example, had zero cases of voter impersonation in recent history so the voter ID law is not preventing even one "illegitimate" vote in Wisconsin because voter impersonation at the polls, the only thing the vote ID law prevents, doesn't exist.
On the flip side the 2012 election in Wisconsin recorded about 3 million votes cast and with 6.5% of the population being black where, based upon national statistics, we can assume almost 49,000 don't have ID to vote that's how many votes can't be cast in November if these individuals don't go through the hassle of obtaining a voter ID card.
Potentially up to 49,000 US citizens will be denied their Right to Vote while not a single "illegitimate" vote will be prevented because voter impersonation is non-existant in Wisconsin.
Anyone who is unwilling to "go through the hassle" of obtaining a proper ID card is really not very interested in voting, it seems to me. (I recently lost a portion of my wallet--a clear, plastic section, containing my driver's license, my Blue Cross/Blue Shield card, and my Medicare card, among other things--fell out. And it was, indeed, a bit of a "hassle" to get replacements; yet I did so. And that, notwithstanding the fact that I had to wait for more than two hours when I went to get my replacement driver's license. But it mattered to me. Significantly. So did having a Medicare card (for which I remained on the phone, on hold, for a very long time), and having a Blue Cross/Blue Shield card. It is very hard for me to feel sorry for those who simply do not care enough about exercising their voting franchise to put up with a slight inconvenience. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 18, 2014 8:45:32 GMT
Anyone who is unwilling to "go through the hassle" of obtaining a proper ID card is really not very interested in voting, it seems to me. (I recently lost a portion of my wallet--a clear, plastic section, containing my driver's license, my Blue Cross/Blue Shield card, and my Medicare card, among other things--fell out. And it was, indeed, a bit of a "hassle" to get replacements; yet I did so. And that, notwithstanding the fact that I had to wait for more than two hours when I went to get my replacement driver's license. But it mattered to me. Significantly. So did having a Medicare card (for which I remained on the phone, on hold, for a very long time), and having a Blue Cross/Blue Shield card. It is very hard for me to feel sorry for those who simply do not care enough about exercising their voting franchise to put up with a slight inconvenience.
If no illegimtate votes are being cast by people impersonating another person then why do they need an ID card at all? I thought your argument was about preventing illegitimate voting? Now you've switched arguments to they should "go through the hassle" even though it won't prevent even a single illegitmate vote from being cast because voter impersonation isn't happening in Wisconsin.
If having or not having an ID doesn't matter when it comes to voting at the poll, if it doesn't stop illegimate voting because voter impersonation isn't happening at all in Wisconsin, then explain why they need a friggin' ID card? You're not arguing that it's to stop illegitmate voting so why do they need to present an ID card to vote at all?
Give me a reason for the requirement to show ID in Wisconsin to vote because it's not about preventing illegitimate voting.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 18, 2014 23:34:14 GMT
Anyone who is unwilling to "go through the hassle" of obtaining a proper ID card is really not very interested in voting, it seems to me. (I recently lost a portion of my wallet--a clear, plastic section, containing my driver's license, my Blue Cross/Blue Shield card, and my Medicare card, among other things--fell out. And it was, indeed, a bit of a "hassle" to get replacements; yet I did so. And that, notwithstanding the fact that I had to wait for more than two hours when I went to get my replacement driver's license. But it mattered to me. Significantly. So did having a Medicare card (for which I remained on the phone, on hold, for a very long time), and having a Blue Cross/Blue Shield card. It is very hard for me to feel sorry for those who simply do not care enough about exercising their voting franchise to put up with a slight inconvenience.
If no illegimtate votes are being cast by people impersonating another person then why do they need an ID card at all? I thought your argument was about preventing illegitimate voting? Now you've switched arguments to they should "go through the hassle" even though it won't prevent even a single illegitmate vote from being cast because voter impersonation isn't happening in Wisconsin.
If having or not having an ID doesn't matter when it comes to voting at the poll, if it doesn't stop illegimate voting because voter impersonation isn't happening at all in Wisconsin, then explain why they need a friggin' ID card? You're not arguing that it's to stop illegitmate voting so why do they need to present an ID card to vote at all?
Give me a reason for the requirement to show ID in Wisconsin to vote because it's not about preventing illegitimate voting.
Actually, I did not "switch" arguments at all. It was you who complained of the fact that some people might be forced to "go through the hassle of obtaining a voter ID card.," in an earlier post; to which I was responding. How many fraudulent votes--more specifically, how many fraudulent votes related to voter impersonation--must be cast for it to become a matter of legitimate versus illegitimate? I would suggest that just one such vote is sufficient to attain that status, as any Wisconsinite could (correctly) feel that his or her vote was nullified by the illegitimate vote of another. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 19, 2014 0:44:13 GMT
If no illegimtate votes are being cast by people impersonating another person then why do they need an ID card at all? I thought your argument was about preventing illegitimate voting? Now you've switched arguments to they should "go through the hassle" even though it won't prevent even a single illegitmate vote from being cast because voter impersonation isn't happening in Wisconsin.
If having or not having an ID doesn't matter when it comes to voting at the poll, if it doesn't stop illegimate voting because voter impersonation isn't happening at all in Wisconsin, then explain why they need a friggin' ID card? You're not arguing that it's to stop illegitmate voting so why do they need to present an ID card to vote at all?
Give me a reason for the requirement to show ID in Wisconsin to vote because it's not about preventing illegitimate voting.
Actually, I did not "switch" arguments at all. It was you who complained of the fact that some people might be forced to "go through the hassle of obtaining a voter ID card.," in an earlier post; to which I was responding. How many fraudulent votes--more specifically, how many fraudulent votes related to voter impersonation--must be cast for it to become a matter of legitimate versus illegitimate? I would suggest that just one such vote is sufficient to attain that status, as any Wisconsinite could (correctly) feel that his or her vote was nullified by the illegitimate vote of another.
The citizens of Wisconsin didn't approve the voter ID law as was passed by the Republican controlled legislature. A Wisconsonite cannot "correctly" feel that their vote is being nullified by illegitmate vote by another person becaus there are no reported cases of this happening. They could incorrectly feel that if they're ignorant and possibly believe Republicans but the Republicans can't show a single case of it happening. Sorry but the "incorrect" feeling of one person pales in comparison to the loss of the Right to Vote for an estimated 49,000 US citzens living in Wisconsin. Remember that the Voter ID law revokes the Right to Vote for anyone that doesn't currently have a valid government issued ID card. Yes, those people can have their Right to Vote reinstated by "going through the hassle" of obtaining an ID card, which might not even be possible for thousands, but that is a reinstatement of a Right based upon a completely unjustified requirement to obtain a voter ID card.
Now with the facts pointed out please address this:
Give me a reason for the requirement to show ID in Wisconsin to vote because it's not about preventing illegitimate voting.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 19, 2014 23:23:49 GMT
Actually, I did not "switch" arguments at all. It was you who complained of the fact that some people might be forced to "go through the hassle of obtaining a voter ID card.," in an earlier post; to which I was responding. How many fraudulent votes--more specifically, how many fraudulent votes related to voter impersonation--must be cast for it to become a matter of legitimate versus illegitimate? I would suggest that just one such vote is sufficient to attain that status, as any Wisconsinite could (correctly) feel that his or her vote was nullified by the illegitimate vote of another.
The citizens of Wisconsin didn't approve the voter ID law as was passed by the Republican controlled legislature. A Wisconsonite cannot "correctly" feel that their vote is being nullified by illegitmate vote by another person becaus there are no reported cases of this happening. They could incorrectly feel that if they're ignorant and possibly believe Republicans but the Republicans can't show a single case of it happening. Sorry but the "incorrect" feeling of one person pales in comparison to the loss of the Right to Vote for an estimated 49,000 US citzens living in Wisconsin. Remember that the Voter ID law revokes the Right to Vote for anyone that doesn't currently have a valid government issued ID card. Yes, those people can have their Right to Vote reinstated by "going through the hassle" of obtaining an ID card, which might not even be possible for thousands, but that is a reinstatement of a Right based upon a completely unjustified requirement to obtain a voter ID card.
Now with the facts pointed out please address this:
Give me a reason for the requirement to show ID in Wisconsin to vote because it's not about preventing illegitimate voting.
Of course the law is about "preventing illegitimate voting," notwithstanding your spin to the contrary. This aversion to "'going through the hassle' of obtaining an ID card" indicates to me a very lukewarm desire to vote, at best. And I have very little desire to ensure that such people end up in the voting booth. (As for your assertion that this "might not even be possible for thousands," I would simply note that we can usually do those things that we really desire sufficiently. You alluded to this point, in fact, when you noted, in another post, that one would surely find a way to get from Los Angeles to Seattle--or the other way around--for the right incentive.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 20, 2014 11:54:51 GMT
The citizens of Wisconsin didn't approve the voter ID law as was passed by the Republican controlled legislature. A Wisconsonite cannot "correctly" feel that their vote is being nullified by illegitmate vote by another person becaus there are no reported cases of this happening. They could incorrectly feel that if they're ignorant and possibly believe Republicans but the Republicans can't show a single case of it happening. Sorry but the "incorrect" feeling of one person pales in comparison to the loss of the Right to Vote for an estimated 49,000 US citzens living in Wisconsin. Remember that the Voter ID law revokes the Right to Vote for anyone that doesn't currently have a valid government issued ID card. Yes, those people can have their Right to Vote reinstated by "going through the hassle" of obtaining an ID card, which might not even be possible for thousands, but that is a reinstatement of a Right based upon a completely unjustified requirement to obtain a voter ID card.
Now with the facts pointed out please address this:
Give me a reason for the requirement to show ID in Wisconsin to vote because it's not about preventing illegitimate voting.
Of course the law is about "preventing illegitimate voting," notwithstanding your spin to the contrary. This aversion to "'going through the hassle' of obtaining an ID card" indicates to me a very lukewarm desire to vote, at best. And I have very little desire to ensure that such people end up in the voting booth. (As for your assertion that this "might not even be possible for thousands," I would simply note that we can usually do those things that we really desire sufficiently. You alluded to this point, in fact, when you noted, in another post, that one would surely find a way to get from Los Angeles to Seattle--or the other way around--for the right incentive.)
There are no reported cases of voter impersonation in Wisconsin. No reported cases of illegitmate voting based upon voter impersonation in Wisconsin. Not a single "illegitimte" vote is going to be prevented based upon the voter ID law according to the recent history of voting in Wisconsin.
An estimated 49,000 African-American US citizens that have very proactively demonstrated their desire to be involved in the political process by registering and voting in the 2012 elections have had their Right to Vote stripped from them. 49,000 US citizens that have proven they are actively involved in the electorial process of Wisconsin and the United States have had their Right to Vote revoked by the law and it's not going to stop a single illegitimate vote in Wisconsin.
It was interesting because last night on the Bill Maher show it was pointed out that the Republicans will only win control of the US Senate in November if Americans don't turn out to vote. Yes, they were pointing out the fact that Democrats don't have a very good turnout rate for non-presidental elections but it's still about Americans turning out to vote and the more US citizens that vote the less likely Republicans are to be elected because 75% of Americans oppose the Republican Party agenda (a statistic mentioned in the same program).
The Wisconsin law is about stripping 49,000 African-American US citiens of their Right to Vote and it is not, nor was it ever, about preventing illegitimate voting in Wisconsin. It might be Constitutional but the purpose of stripping 49,000 African-Americans of their Right to Vote was the only purpose of the law because if they vote Republicans are far more likely to lose the elections. Why you can't see this as a Jim Crow voting law amazes me.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 20, 2014 20:54:22 GMT
Of course the law is about "preventing illegitimate voting," notwithstanding your spin to the contrary. This aversion to "'going through the hassle' of obtaining an ID card" indicates to me a very lukewarm desire to vote, at best. And I have very little desire to ensure that such people end up in the voting booth. (As for your assertion that this "might not even be possible for thousands," I would simply note that we can usually do those things that we really desire sufficiently. You alluded to this point, in fact, when you noted, in another post, that one would surely find a way to get from Los Angeles to Seattle--or the other way around--for the right incentive.)
There are no reported cases of voter impersonation in Wisconsin. No reported cases of illegitmate voting based upon voter impersonation in Wisconsin. Not a single "illegitimte" vote is going to be prevented based upon the voter ID law according to the recent history of voting in Wisconsin.
An estimated 49,000 African-American US citizens that have very proactively demonstrated their desire to be involved in the political process by registering and voting in the 2012 elections have had their Right to Vote stripped from them. 49,000 US citizens that have proven they are actively involved in the electorial process of Wisconsin and the United States have had their Right to Vote revoked by the law and it's not going to stop a single illegitimate vote in Wisconsin.
It was interesting because last night on the Bill Maher show it was pointed out that the Republicans will only win control of the US Senate in November if Americans don't turn out to vote. Yes, they were pointing out the fact that Democrats don't have a very good turnout rate for non-presidental elections but it's still about Americans turning out to vote and the more US citizens that vote the less likely Republicans are to be elected because 75% of Americans oppose the Republican Party agenda (a statistic mentioned in the same program).
The Wisconsin law is about stripping 49,000 African-American US citiens of their Right to Vote and it is not, nor was it ever, about preventing illegitimate voting in Wisconsin. It might be Constitutional but the purpose of stripping 49,000 African-Americans of their Right to Vote was the only purpose of the law because if they vote Republicans are far more likely to lose the elections. Why you can't see this as a Jim Crow voting law amazes me.
Jim Crow laws were predicated upon the (ridiculous) belief that skin color is a proxy for something much more substantial (i.e. a person's true essence). But laws intended to prevent voter fraud, that might disproportionately impact the African-American community, are not at all based upon a ridiculous belief. As you have pointed out, African-Americans--for historical reasons, I believe--tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates. (For many decades, it has been around 90 percent; and it has increased to about 95 percent in 2008 and 2012, what with Barack Obama's candidacy.) And just how, exactly, did these 49,000 African-Americans have their voting rights "stripped" from them? To declare that they must have to have proper ID--as I did, just the other day, when I applied for a duplicate Social Security card (the original having been lost recently)--is hardly tantamount to being "stripped" of anything. I certainly did not feel "stripped" of my rights by this minimal requirement. Yes, you are quite correct that Democrats tend to do less well in midterm elections. That is because low-information voters--many of whom tend to vote Democratic when they vote, even if they characterize themselves as "independents"--are likely to view House and Senate races as less important than presidential races, so they simply will not make the effort to vote. Also, the sixth year of any president's tenure in office usually redounds against members of his party in the congressional elections. But to try to delegitimize free and fair elections simply because of some polls indicating widespread opposition to "the Republican Party agenda" is to misunderstand, fundamentally, the way our country operates. We do not elect our representatives by mere polls. (If we did, we would today be uttering the words, "President Romney.") So let us dispense entirely with that bit of silliness. On what basis might anyone "report" a case of voter impersonation--either in Wisconsin or anywhere else? (Chicago, for instance, is legendary for the voting of its dead citizens. And, as former Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley once suggested, citizens are urged to "[v]ote early and vote oftem.") |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 21, 2014 11:50:17 GMT
Jim Crow laws were predicated upon the (ridiculous) belief that skin color is a proxy for something much more substantial (i.e. a person's true essence). But laws intended to prevent voter fraud, that might disproportionately impact the African-American community, are not at all based upon a ridiculous belief. As you have pointed out, African-Americans--for historical reasons, I believe--tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates. (For many decades, it has been around 90 percent; and it has increased to about 95 percent in 2008 and 2012, what with Barack Obama's candidacy.) And just how, exactly, did these 49,000 African-Americans have their voting rights "stripped" from them? To declare that they must have to have proper ID--as I did, just the other day, when I applied for a duplicate Social Security card (the original having been lost recently)--is hardly tantamount to being "stripped" of anything. I certainly did not feel "stripped" of my rights by this minimal requirement. Yes, you are quite correct that Democrats tend to do less well in midterm elections. That is because low-information voters--many of whom tend to vote Democratic when they vote, even if they characterize themselves as "independents"--are likely to view House and Senate races as less important than presidential races, so they simply will not make the effort to vote. Also, the sixth year of any president's tenure in office usually redounds against members of his party in the congressional elections. But to try to delegitimize free and fair elections simply because of some polls indicating widespread opposition to "the Republican Party agenda" is to misunderstand, fundamentally, the way our country operates. We do not elect our representatives by mere polls. (If we did, we would today be uttering the words, "President Romney.") So let us dispense entirely with that bit of silliness. On what basis might anyone "report" a case of voter impersonation--either in Wisconsin or anywhere else? (Chicago, for instance, is legendary for the voting of its dead citizens. And, as former Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley once suggested, citizens are urged to "[v]ote early and vote oftem.")
The Jim Crow voting laws never mentioned "race" as a criteria but instead imposed criteria that adversely affected African-Americans (and other minorities) exactly like the current Jim Crow voter ID laws being passed by Republicans.
There are numerous forms of election fraud but voter impersonation at the polls is statistically non-existant in the United States. Voter ID laws only address voter impersonation at the polls which is statistically a non-existant criminal act so voter ID laws do not prevent election fraud in the United States.
There were 49,000 African-American Citizens that are registered voters and that voted in the 2012 election that cannot vote in 2014. These 49,000 US Citizens, all African-Americans, have had their Right to Vote stripped from them by a nefarious law that does not address any issue of election fraud.
Voter impersonation is very easy to identify. When a person walks into their polling place they give their name. The poll worker looks them up on the registered voter list and the person signs below their name. If two people use the identical name then the first one has already signed and the second cannot sign. One of only a few possible things could have happened: 1) The first person to sign accidently signed on the wrong like but then their signature wouldn't match the name (an unlikely event because poll workers ensure people sign on the correct line); 2) There are two people with the same exact name and address (perhaps a possibility); 3) a case of voter impersonation has either already happened or the second person is attempting to commit voter impersonation. In any case it would indicate a possible case of voter impersonation and it would be up to law enforcement to investigate but the evidence of possible voter impersonation would be clearly evident whenever two people attempt to vote using the same name.
The fact is that this isn't happening at all statistically. Of the possible cases the odds against it happening on in the tens of millions to one. There have been numerous elections challanged in the United States over the last few decades but never once has voter impersonation been cited as a possible cause of a discrepancy of the election results because it doesn't happen and doesn't affect any elections.
The voter ID laws reek of Jim Crow and are identical in all respects to the Jim Crow voting laws of the past. The sole purpose is to prevent minorities, predominately African-Americans, from voting because they do not address any identified issue of election fraud occuring in the United States.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 21, 2014 23:25:44 GMT
Jim Crow laws were predicated upon the (ridiculous) belief that skin color is a proxy for something much more substantial (i.e. a person's true essence). But laws intended to prevent voter fraud, that might disproportionately impact the African-American community, are not at all based upon a ridiculous belief. As you have pointed out, African-Americans--for historical reasons, I believe--tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates. (For many decades, it has been around 90 percent; and it has increased to about 95 percent in 2008 and 2012, what with Barack Obama's candidacy.) And just how, exactly, did these 49,000 African-Americans have their voting rights "stripped" from them? To declare that they must have to have proper ID--as I did, just the other day, when I applied for a duplicate Social Security card (the original having been lost recently)--is hardly tantamount to being "stripped" of anything. I certainly did not feel "stripped" of my rights by this minimal requirement. Yes, you are quite correct that Democrats tend to do less well in midterm elections. That is because low-information voters--many of whom tend to vote Democratic when they vote, even if they characterize themselves as "independents"--are likely to view House and Senate races as less important than presidential races, so they simply will not make the effort to vote. Also, the sixth year of any president's tenure in office usually redounds against members of his party in the congressional elections. But to try to delegitimize free and fair elections simply because of some polls indicating widespread opposition to "the Republican Party agenda" is to misunderstand, fundamentally, the way our country operates. We do not elect our representatives by mere polls. (If we did, we would today be uttering the words, "President Romney.") So let us dispense entirely with that bit of silliness. On what basis might anyone "report" a case of voter impersonation--either in Wisconsin or anywhere else? (Chicago, for instance, is legendary for the voting of its dead citizens. And, as former Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley once suggested, citizens are urged to "[v]ote early and vote oftem.")
The Jim Crow voting laws never mentioned "race" as a criteria but instead imposed criteria that adversely affected African-Americans (and other minorities) exactly like the current Jim Crow voter ID laws being passed by Republicans.
There are numerous forms of election fraud but voter impersonation at the polls is statistically non-existant in the United States. Voter ID laws only address voter impersonation at the polls which is statistically a non-existant criminal act so voter ID laws do not prevent election fraud in the United States.
There were 49,000 African-American Citizens that are registered voters and that voted in the 2012 election that cannot vote in 2014. These 49,000 US Citizens, all African-Americans, have had their Right to Vote stripped from them by a nefarious law that does not address any issue of election fraud.
Voter impersonation is very easy to identify. When a person walks into their polling place they give their name. The poll worker looks them up on the registered voter list and the person signs below their name. If two people use the identical name then the first one has already signed and the second cannot sign. One of only a few possible things could have happened: 1) The first person to sign accidently signed on the wrong like but then their signature wouldn't match the name (an unlikely event because poll workers ensure people sign on the correct line); 2) There are two people with the same exact name and address (perhaps a possibility); 3) a case of voter impersonation has either already happened or the second person is attempting to commit voter impersonation. In any case it would indicate a possible case of voter impersonation and it would be up to law enforcement to investigate but the evidence of possible voter impersonation would be clearly evident whenever two people attempt to vote using the same name.
The fact is that this isn't happening at all statistically. Of the possible cases the odds against it happening on in the tens of millions to one. There have been numerous elections challanged in the United States over the last few decades but never once has voter impersonation been cited as a possible cause of a discrepancy of the election results because it doesn't happen and doesn't affect any elections.
The voter ID laws reek of Jim Crow and are identical in all respects to the Jim Crow voting laws of the past. The sole purpose is to prevent minorities, predominately African-Americans, from voting because they do not address any identified issue of election fraud occuring in the United States.
Whereas it is certainly true that the poll taxes and so-called "grandfather clauses" of the Reconstruction Era--almost a century-and-a-half ago--"never mentioned 'race'" specifically, the Jim Crow laws of a slightly later era (say, the first half of the twentieth century, roughly) did precisely that. Restrooms and drinking foundtains were typically festooned with signs that declared, "White Only"; or "Colored Only." It was "separate but equal" (to extrapolate from Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896). And let us be clear: Your fundamental objection to voter-ID laws is not rooted in the matter of their usefulness; rather, it is all about the fact that many "minorities, predominantly African-Americans"--I am quoting you here--might decline to acquire the requisite identification, thereby enhancing Republicans' electoral chances. And that appears to be an outcome that you simply cannot stomach. And your claim that "49,000 African-American Citizens...had their Right to Vote stripped from them" by voter-ID laws is not quite accurate. More precisely, they had that privilege suspended until they choose to obtain proper identification. And that is certainly not tantamount to being "stripped" of anything. |
|
