You mean like a person who lived in the South for 1/3 of their life might at times? My wife only lived in Texas for three years and her accent comes out every time she is around my Southern relatives.
Texas is not part of “the South”. The South is full of crackers, Texans are mostly peckerwoods, a far more culturally advanced segment of the redneck demographic. “Advanced” by comparison, mind. So, sorta. Kinda.
A distinction without a difference. You need a form of picture ID that also bears your full address. Since the US doesn’t issue any form of official ID, that one function devolves to the DL where most people are concerned.
I don’t know how it is in the US, but here in Soshulist Yoorup while I never owned a car I still took my driving lessons, then proceeded to fail the driving test 8 separate times (I still maintain the last two were bullshit. “Too confident” my arse). The examiner brings his own car that’s fitted with double controls, so that they can slam on the brakes if/when you fuck up more than is safe.
Seems a bit much to ask people to buy their own car when they aren’t even sure they’re going to get their DL, neh ? 
If inconviencing someone is a violation of their rights, then a rights-based system such as you describe violates the rights of more people than a utilitarian one. If inconveniencing someone is not a violation of their rights, then a rights-based system is no different than a utilitarian system, except less convenient.
You can define one right as being so important that it outweighs other rights, but they have to be different rights, not the same one.
In a rights-based system, neither a rich nor a poor person can be inconvenienced. You can only decide who can be inconvenienced in a utilitarian system.
“Better that a dozen guilty men go free than one innocent be convicted” is an example of that kind of rights-based thinking. Once you start thinking that a member of some group X should no longer enjoy the presumption of innocence, beccause those people are usually guilty or because they enjoy some other advantage or suffer from some other disadvantage, you have abandoned rights-based thinking in favor of utilitarianism. Not that either side is right or wrong in their thinking - just that they are not using the same standards.
Regards,
Shodan
Please quote the part of the Voter ID law that says you need a picture ID to get your Voter ID card. Alternatively, read post #8 in this thread.
I don’t know of anywhere in the US that the DMV supplies you a car for taking the driving test. One brings ones own car here in the land of Rugged Individualism!!
For one thing, this remark assumes that no rights-based system is a utilitarian system, an assumption that I think is at least debatable.
For another thing, I can’t see why it would be true that “in a rights-based system, neither a rich person nor a poor person can be inconvenienced.” Every law will inconvenience some people, rights-based or not.
Here’s exactly what you said:
If you want to put some more qualifiers on that, please do. But how do you know there aren’t more poor people who would be affected in the so-called “rich areas” than in the poor ones? The poor ones are sparsely populated and the rich ones are near the urban areas.
Some humility might be in line here. It seems odd to me that there are so many experts in this thread on how Alabama out to run its affairs.
I’ve put some already. What are some further qualifications you would like to see?
I don’t. Hence, qualifiers.
I think I see the source of your misunderstanding of what I said. I was responding to a point Octopus had made which was more general than the Alabama situation, and my response was intended to be similarly more general than the Alabama situation. I wasn’t talking directly about Alabama in other words. I expected any application to the specific Alabama situation to of course come with plenty of qualifiers, as appropriate.
When I spoke of “the rich area” and “the poor area” I was using them to refer to rich areas and poor areas in Octopus’s general, hypothetical query.
And, as I’ve clarified twice since then, even at that general level, I meant it to have the force of an “other things being equal” remark.
Yes, I believe them. Can you offer any factual reason why I shouldn’t believe them?
As I mentioned in my OP, the state of Alabama closed all satellite offices across the state, without regard to race. The large majority of those offices were in counties where whites were a majority.
Actually 2015 not an election year. There may be a few tiddly iddly local elections, but the Presidential, Congressional, Gubernatorial, and legislative elections are all in even-numbered years. Even small children are generally intelligent enough to know that.
If that’s true, can you actually quote the portion of the consent decree that says so?
I’ve read the complaint. Like the consent decree, the complaint does not mention “suppression of black votes”. Not literally, not metaphorically. Not in those words. Not in any other words. So that proves you wrong. Again. Perhaps you should have tried reading the complaint before you urged me to.
To save you the trouble, I’ll summarize. The city of Calera (which is actually more of a small town than a city) has 5 city council members, and thus 5 districts. Under court order, the five districts were drawn up so as to have one ‘majority-minority’ district that was almost entirely black. In 2010, due to the population growing and moving, districts had to be redrawn. The government of Calera initally redrew them in a fair way with no regard to race. Then the DOJ got involved, and forced them to once again produce a majority-minority district. But at absolutely no point in the complaint is there any suggestion that the city was trying to prevent any person from voting. You are flatly wrong in stating that’s what the complaint was about.
(For what it’s worth, “majority-minority districts” are bad for blacks and other minorities. Some liberals even say that they’re a sinister plot by Republicans. By trying to be colorblind, the town of Calera was trying to do what was best for black voters, while the courts intervened to make things worse.)
That’s not nice.
But speaking of the election, I heard some stats today. Can’t remember the show, but the Dem congresswoman from Alabama, who I assume knows something about the state, and who petitioned the DOJ to review this action, was speaking.
a) in the 2014 election, an estimated 500,000 people were adversely affected by the voter ID laws of 2011 and 2013 (I don’t know how they figured that, but it is a fact that some 300,000 less people voted in 2014 than in 2010, while the state population increased)
b) the current governor won the 2014 election by some 300,000 votes
c) the DMV closure accounts for only a part of a total of $11 million saved in the law enforcement budget, which in turn is part of an attempt to help the overall budget shortfall. The state would receive billions if it opted into the Federal medicaid payments available under the ACA.
500,000 people affected is an extraordinary claim. Do you have evidence?
Your selective interpretation of the complaint is not persuasive.
Since anyone can go read it, and based on your other comments and the nature of this thread, I’ll leave it there.
Go read what evidence? He said he saw a show somewhere, and doesn’t even know who was on. It’s not selective interpretation on my part.
Post #348 might well prove informative. By the way, nice tie.
Or not. Are you sure you have the right post #?
I thought I made it pretty clear that I don’t even know what she meant by “adversely affected,” and I personally don’t care, but I thought others might be interested enough to want to look into it themselves. IMO the important point was the Medicaid money, which suggests that the governor and his pals are more concerned with politics that the welfare of their state’s poor people.
After all, who wants them to vote?
So you don’t have a cite. I’m not sure why you made your post in Great Debates, then.
“I saw a show, but I don’t know who was on it” doesn’t really work.
So it is, #350. Anyway, point being, Judge Parker was responding to him, not you.