No, the argument for voter ID is, on its face, that poll workers should be able to identify those who are casting ballots.
That is entirely different than the requirement that ballots are able to be accurately counted.
Not sure how you would even possibly confuse the two.
Why not? Democrats are completely for poll workers being able to identify those who are casting ballots.
Now, there were some instances where republican law makers specifically admitted that they were creating and changing the requirements for proving one’s identity to reduce specific parts of their constituencies ability to vote in order to maintain power against the wishes of the people they represented.
That is a good question and I agree with your answer, but its not relevant to the issue raise in the OP which would be whether they should be counted when measuring the club’s popularity, or would it be more accurate to use a methodology (proposed by a rival club owner who has publically declared he wants drive it out of business) that excludes them.
I would say that they should be counted, and in the counting, the questionnaire should not include questions like, “Did you come in through the window?”, as that may cause a distortion of the count.
When the Fire Marshal shows up and takes a head count to judge the occupancy limits, is he (or she) going to care how all the people got into the building, or is the concern the total number of occupants?
“Oh, she came in through the bathroom window? Then she doesn’t count against your occupancy limit.”
Article 1, Section 2: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State … The actual Enumeration shall be made … within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”
Persons, not citizens. Not including “Indians not taxed” or the other 2/5 of slaves, though.
And paper ballots have different advantages and disadvantages from electronic voting. Election tampering also happened when paper ballots were the rule.
That’s sort of the point. No evidence has been produced for electronic voter fraud. So the potential impact on elections is even more limited - it hasn’t been demonstrated at all.
That’s not the argument for voter ID. And the requirement for accurate elections is not different for voter ID vs. paper ballots vs. electronic voting. It’s the same requirement in each case.
As to the OP, asking on the census if someone is a citizen is not a subversion of any election. If the census is just a head count, then none of the other questions would be allowed. But that ship has sailed. And
Congress has directed how the census should be taken. If Democrats are afraid that their constituents are illegal aliens, too bad. We need to take the census. If their constituents are too paranoid to answer questions, that is not a bug that can be addressed.
Regards,
Shodan
The ‘law’ in question is the Constitution of the United States, as amended. The only people trying to ignore that law are those trying to conduct the “actual Enumeration” in a way that is almost certain to result in a much less accurate count of “the whole number of persons in each State” which is the object of said Enumeration.
There is certainly an argument that only U.S. citizens should be counted. The way to win that argument for real is to amend the Constitution.
How is that an argument for voter ID? In person voter fraud is rare
The agenda of voter ID laws is to discourage turnout among people who lean democratic. The young, minorities, ex-felons, the poor, etc. all lean democratic and all are less likely to have a gov. issued ID than middle aged white people.
In some states teh GOP shuts down DMV branches in democratic areas, or they don’t count IDs of people who lean leftward (like college students) as valid ID but they do count ID of people who lean rightward (like ID for gun ownership or CCW permits)
Is there a definition of “persons” (see the parts of the Constitution you changed into dots) that excludes them? Or some unusual law of economics that they don’t consume public services of any kind that are paid via taxes? Or some version of reality in which those who are employed (which is why they came here) do not pay taxes?
Congress can’t pass laws that subvert the Constitution. And per the 14th Amendment, the purpose of the Census is “counting the whole number of persons in each State” to accurately apportion Representatives “among the several States according to their respective numbers.” I realize that Republicans and other conservatives don’t exactly regard undocumented persons as persons, but that’s what they are, whether you like it or not. And if the Census is designed in a way that’s clearly counterproductive to that goal, then it’s not doing what the Constitution says it’s supposed to be doing.
If you’ve got a problem with that, amend the Constitution.
You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that, if someone answers the question “are you a citizen” on the census form with No, they won’t be counted. That’s not the case. The various Democrats in Congress are laboring under a different misapprehension, which is that the census data for those who answer No will be turned over to the INS so the illegal immigrants can be deported. That is also not the case.
Actually I don’t think they are under any misapprehension - they are just fear-mongering. They also don’t want to know how many immigrants are in the US, especially not illegal immigrants. They are in denial, and want to remain so.
If the idea that collecting any demographic information on the census other than a head count is a subversion of the Constitution, I don’t think that’s true. The census is done that way because that’s the way that Congress decided it should be done. Since nobody’s rights are otherwise being violated, it is not a violation either of the census clause, nor of any other.
If the Democrats don’t want to know how many of their constituents are immigrants because some of them are illegal immigrants, that does not strike me as a worthwhile objection.
You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that I’m laboring under the misapprehension that, if someone answers the question “are you a citizen” on the census form with No, they won’t be counted.
That’s not the case.
The apprehension I’m actually laboring under, if you put it that way, is that not all people are as aware of and confident in the rules that keep the Census from sharing its data with other agencies as you and I might be.
And between that fact and this Administration’s outright hostility towards brown people, the presence of the citizenship question on the Census form is expected to depress response rates in a rather uneven manner, with some states being affected much more than others, thus having the well-anticipated effect of undermining the Census’ Constitutional mission.
That’s kind of the point. Using electronic voting without a paper trail removes much of the evidence that we would use, and given that machines in some places like georgia were wiped in such a way that we have no way of telling whether or not they were tampered with, a lack of evidence is not evidence against it.
Given that having a paper trail is not that hard or unusual to do or ask for, and holding onto the date from an election should not be a controversial decision, that these choices were made to prevent detection of tampering does not improve the confidence of the voting public.
You are correct that election tampering happened with paper ballots. You know how we know that? Because there was a record of the vote, that when investigated, turned out to be tampered with. The same evidence that was used to detect the election tampering that you admit you know happens is the exact evidence that is destroyed.
Well, no, I said on the face of it. I do realize that the actual argument for voter ID is to attempt to prevent marginalized populations from voting, and to hold power against the will of the represented population, but I was talking about the fiction that your side spouts about how it is to preserve the integrity of elections.
It is refreshing, yet surprising, to see you admit that the implementation of Voter ID by republicans has nothing to do with ensuring that poll workers should be able to identify those who are casting ballots.
That doesn’t even respond to what I said, much less address it.
We are not talking about requirements, we are talking about capabilities. And sure, bot are required to be accurate and accountable, but only with a paper trail is it really.
Did congress put that question on? Congress directed that the census bureau be in charge of the census, and the Census bureau specifically recommended against putting that question on. It is the Executive branch that has added this question, not congress, not the constitution. Do not try to turn the blame onto anyone but those who specifically made these decisions.
Do you think that the next democratic administration to preside over a census should ask how many guns you own?
How well will that question go? How many law abiding gun owners will answer that question honestly?
You misunderstand the concern. the concern is not that constituents will be too paranoid to answer, the concern is that this question may distort the results of the constitutionally mandated process. If you think that we should make a change to the constitution, to change it to only count the people you want it to count, then go for it. If you want to follow the constitution, then you have to, with due diligence and in good faith, attempt to get the most accurate count possible.
If someone refuses to answer a question on guns in the home honesty, will you call them “too paranoid to answer questions” as well?
The same was that a non-voting legal resident can be.
No, no one is laboring under anything like that, and I am sorry that you are laboring under the misinterpretation that your assertions are in any way correct or related to reality.
Oh, so disregard what you said in the first paragraph, as you realized what you said was incorrect.
Ah, some more misapresenions that you are operating under. A big one of which is that you can read the minds of your political opponents to make such a claim.
Suffice to say, your accusations as to the motivations of democrats opposed to this change in the census is wildly inaccurate, and is just fear mongering.
Considering how many people on the far right distrust census workers as it is, the idea that democrats may have a concern about a specific targeted question is not that they find it to be a subversion, but that they find that the intent of it is an attempt at subversion.
Would it be a violation of the census clause, or a subversion of the Constitution to ask you how many guns you have in your home?
Would you object to such a question?
good, because that is not the objection, so your concerns are completely groundless and without merit.
