I Pit GOP "voting reform"

[drewtwo99]

@Bricker

We can’t reject it out of hand merely because it was proposed by someone whose party would profit by its adoption.

This is a lot like the post from Cecil about non-partisan elections in Chicago for mayor, and how it was enacted to protect a certain group’s political interests (racist in this case instead of partisan), but that we can’t discount its merits because of that.

I agree that enacting a voter ID law is not inherently immoral. However, if you are going to require A, or B or C in order to vote, you better make sure that it is freely available to everyone.

I’m sure there are a fair number of poor folks who have no valid ID who would still like to vote, and requiring them to go down and pay up to 40 or 50 bucks for an ID card (even just 5 or 10 dollars is really unfair) should at least be considered unfair, if not unconstitutional.

So if republicans and conservatives want to push this, they should also provide a free way for voters to obtain the IDs they will need. Make it part of the registration process. Streamline it, make it automatic, and everyone will be happy.

But without doing any of that, it just makes them look really sleazy when surveys and studies show that these types of laws disproportionately affect democratic party voters.

[Lobohan]

@Clothahump

That one statement makes the entire rant moronic.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with requiring proof of citizenship. We, as a country, should have adopted this decades ago.

How about proof of an IQ above 80? Or are you afraid that this would disenfranchise Republican voters?

The whole point is, either require everyone to have an ID card, or don’t require that you need one to vote. It’s very simple.

[Robot_Arm]

@Bricker

Unfortunately, as the ghost of Elbridge Gerry can attest, it’s an unattainable goal: as long as humans are the beings in charge of election procedures, they will use their office to advance policies that favor them at the expense of their opponents.

What the electorate must do is judge each proposal on its merit.

Fine. I judge this one to be cynical, dishonest, and sleazy.

That’s an interesting way to phrase it, by the way; “what the electorate must do”. This proposal would have the effect of redefining who the electorate is. Don’t have an ID, you’re not part of the electorate anymore, and are no longer burdened by having to make such judgments.

[Bricker]

@drewtwo99

So if republicans and conservatives want to push this, they should also provide a free way for voters to obtain the IDs they will need. Make it part of the registration process. Streamline it, make it automatic, and everyone will be happy.

I agree with this – although I generally draw the line when we start talking about ancillary costs. Free ID card? Fine. The scheme is unconstitutional because the city bus costs $1.10 to get to the Vital Records Bureau?

Uh… no.

BUt ID cards themselves should be free on at least a means-tested basis.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

…So while I don’t like the result, I recognize that the process by which it arrived is one that is a reasonable one under our laws.

So too here. A law that requires voters to be identified may indeed cause a few voters not to bother. But it’s not an unreasonable thing to do. And that should be the touchstone.

You are one slippery sumbitch, Bricker.

“This thing here is reasonable, even though it operates against me. This other thing is reasonable, therefore they are the same, both being reasonable.” But they are not the same, not by a long shot.

You tacitly admit that his will cause some voters not to vote, voters who have every right to do so. (And one notes the nifty spin you put on the cue ball, how they choose “not to bother”, deftly putting the onus upon them for not overcoming the burden placed, rather than those who placed the burden. Slick. Slimey, but slick.)

You also tacitly accept that there is some legitimate purpose to all of this, knowing full well that isn’t so. There is no voter fraud worthy of the name, we’ve been all over this.

Because unicorns are irresistably attracted to virgins, we might restrict the access of virgins to polling places, in order to prevent citizens being impaled by unicorns. If there were unicorns. But there are not.

And I also note that you make no reference to intent, leaving the question open. So, let me put the question, then: do you believe that this effort is utterly innocent of political intent? That it will not act to deter a specific stripe of voter, namely, leftish and Dem? Or do you believe that, somehow, the framers of this legislation are blissfully unaware of such implications to their actions? Can you offer any support to either of these extraordinary assumptions?

[drewtwo99]

@Bricker

I agree with this – although I generally draw the line when we start talking about ancillary costs. Free ID card? Fine. The scheme is unconstitutional because the city bus costs $1.10 to get to the Vital Records Bureau?

Uh… no.

BUt ID cards themselves should be free on at least a means-tested basis.

Haha, yeah… I suppose the argument some people put forward go something like this…

You have to wear clothes to go out in public to apply for your card in the first place!!! so let’s say 20 bucks minimum for a shirt and cheap pants.

And then there is the Bus ride to the records department/DMV/etc and back home again: $3.50

What about the energy to walk, write, etc that comes from food eaten prior to the trip, so let’s put that at 2.00 minimum???

The person will also need a wallet or purse to put the ID in, so let’s give them 10 bucks for that!!!

And on, and on and on. Ancillary costs are the voter’s own responsibility…

Also, the thing about means-tested basis is probably ok… but it only adds another layer of complexity to the whole issue. If they are free to everyone everywhere, we will get less people complaining about people getting a “free ride” and such.

[Robot_Arm]

@elucidator

Because unicorns are irresistably attracted to virgins, we might restrict the access of virgins to polling places…

Don’t even think about it, pal.

[JoelUpchurch]

@CalMeacham

Heinlein liked screwing around with ways to establish the polity – the right to vote. He throws out a number of them in Expanded Universe. He also talks about it at length in Starship Troopers, where he only allows those who have performed government service (almost invariably military, despite his protestations in Expanded Universe) to have the vote. He plays with different systems in *Tunnel in the Sky[/i[, too. And he mentioned Mark Twain’s The Curious Republic of Gondiour

That is just wrong. Here is a passage in Starship Troopers:

Major Reid was gentle with him. “Sorry. An appealing theory not backed up by facts. You and I are not permitted to vote as long as we remain in the Service, nor is it verifiable that military discipline makes a man self-disciplined once he is out; the crime rate of veterans is much like that of civilians. And you have forgotten that in peacetime most veterans come from non-combatant auxiliary services and have not been subjected to the full rigors of military discipline; they have merely been harried, overworked, and endangered—yet their votes count.”

It was also explained in other passages that veterans could could vary from 3% to 90% of the population depending on what nation or planet you were on. Obviously most of the 90% aren’t going to end in the military and a lot will end up being terraformers or the future equivalent or picking up trash on the side of the road. You also couldn’t be disqualified for physical issues, like being blind or deaf and they wouldn’t be in the military services.

[CalMeacham]

Not wrong – he says “in peacetime”, which we see precious little of in that book (and which Rico implies occupies less of his experience than civilians realize, once he’s in the service), and he implies elsewhere that if you’re not in the military they will go out of their way to find something so difficult that it will make you remember your service. The rest is your interpretation.

Heinlein evidently thought that he made more of a case for a mostly civilian service when he defended it in Expanded Universe, but the impression you get from Starship Troopers is of a much more greatly military service.

[Spiff]

Voter ID passed both Minnesota houses this past session, and our Democratic Governor vetoed it, thank Og.

When the bill was up for debate in the House, a Dem stood up and raised all the points being raised by the voter ID opponents in this thread, challenging Republicans to explain how voter IDs would not disenfranchise voters, how it does not address voter fraud, etc.

Not a single Republican stood up to address those points. The bill’s author was in the chamber at the time, and was specifically invited to speak to those points.

The bill’s author declined to speak.

Oh yes, Republicans know that they are sleazy. So much so that they can’t bear to even stand up and hear themselves promoting their sleaze.

[PaulParkhead]

@Sitnam

With the amount of privacy invasion Brits are comfortable with I’m surprised you don’t all have bar codes tattooed on your neck.

We’re not all comfortable with it. The incoming Conservative government buried the ID card scheme. Possibly the only time I can recall cheering an action by a Conservative government.

[elucidator]

If very, very carefully done, a national ID card could have a lot of advantages.

It could function as a permanent voter ID and voter registration. Present the card at your polling place, regardless of where that may be, and if you haven’t voted elsewhere, you’re good to go. You’re a student, vote at school or at home. You are homeless, no matter.

You are detained, for whatever reason, by the law. Scan your card, and if you have no warrants or anything else, then the police must instantly step back and allow you to go on your merry way.

The card can contain important medical information, which would be instantly available to emergency medical technicians, in the event of accident.

Temporary and day workers can show the card, have it scanned by a prospective employer, and both parties are assured.

Of course, the card cannot be made cumpulsory, it should be offered and accepted simply on the basis of its convenience and usefulness. It must be provided free of any charge, and replaced when lost on the same basis, and must be universally accepted as proof of identification by any and all persons or government agencies. It could also serve as proof of a variety of licenses. Pay for your fishing license, put it on the card, no need for seperate paper.

I am just as easily squicked out by “Papers, citizen?” as anybody, more than most, perhaps. But if very, very carefully done, there is a lot to be said for it.

[drewtwo99]

@elucidator

I am just as easily squicked out by “Papers, citizen?” as anybody, more than most, perhaps. But if very, very carefully done, there is a lot to be said for it.

100% agreed. Like you said, voluntary, but easily attainable and highly useful. I also hadn’t thought about “apending” things like licenses to it on record, it would be great. It’d be nice to be able to get your concealed hand gun permit on it, hunting/fishing license, or maybe even professional certifications on it.

[MaxTheVool]

@Bricker

Unfortunately, as the ghost of Elbridge Gerry can attest, it’s an unattainable goal: as long as humans are the beings in charge of election procedures, they will use their office to advance policies that favor them at the expense of their opponents.

What the electorate must do is judge each proposal on its merit.

To use some lawyerese, it seems to me that any actions concerning voting rights ought to be subject to an increased level of scrutiny. You want to change something about voter registration? Fine, but the onus is on you (ethically, if not legally) to go above and beyond what you would normally do to convince us that your law serves a needed purposes, is as fair as it possibly can be, etc.

Obviously, right now there is no such legal framework or requirement, but I think there should be. And I think these actions are unethical and damaging.

[fluiddruid]

@Bricker

Unfortunately, as the ghost of Elbridge Gerry can attest, it’s an unattainable goal: as long as humans are the beings in charge of election procedures, they will use their office to advance policies that favor them at the expense of their opponents.

What the electorate must do is judge each proposal on its merit. A gerrymandered district may have the laudable end of increasing minority particpation and representation at the same time that it’s advanced for selfish reasons. We can’t reject it out of hand merely because it was proposed by someone whose party would profit by its adoption.

An understandable perspective, but I have to also question the motive of wanting to clamp down on voter fraud (which, by and large, doesn’t exist) in a way that is profitable to one party, while, for example, not clamping down on the huge security hole that is absentee ballots, and while not dealing with any of the systematic problems with acquiring state-issued ID for certain populations. When a comprehensive plan with a defined goal of defeating voter fraud is brought forward, I’ll be happy to consider it – but passing regressive laws that disproportionately affect your opponents’ voters is, and should be called out as, partisanship.

[Steophan]

@elucidator

It must be provided free of any charge, and replaced when lost on the same basis,

I agree with the rest of your post, but if it’s genuinely voluntary, why should it be free?

I wouldn’t have a problem with even a compulsory card being charged for, but I can understand the arguments for it being free in that case, but not for a voluntary one.

[JoelUpchurch]

@CalMeacham

Not wrong – he says “in peacetime”, which we see precious little of in that book (and which Rico implies occupies less of his experience than civilians realize, once he’s in the service), and he implies elsewhere that if you’re not in the military they will go out of their way to find something so difficult that it will make you remember your service. The rest is your interpretation.

Heinlein evidently thought that he made more of a case for a mostly civilian service when he defended it in Expanded Universe, but the impression you get from Starship Troopers is of a much more greatly military service.

All Federal Service was supposed to be unpleasant. Easy and safe jobs were given to civilians. Heinlein explains that this as part of his theory of value because people wouldn’t value their citizenship if they didn’t have to sweat to get it. I think service in the combat arms had higher status, but it didn’t make any difference in citizenship, but it might have made a difference in running for office. Notice that you didn’t actually have to accept a discharge if you washed out of the Mobile Infantry training. You could actually finish your federal service somewhere else. Juans regiment started with 2009 people and graduated 187. I suspect a lot would have chosen to finish up their federal service somewhere else.

It was pretty obvious that Heinlein was thinking about the United States when most of the Army and large parts of the Navy were demobilized between wars. You have just as many people enlisting between wars, but there are a lot less jobs in the military. Mobile Infantry and Navy jobs are expensive to support so it would be a lot harder to get into those jobs during peacetime.

I notice Juans friend Carl ended up with an R&D job. On Pluto. I guess it was unpleasant or dangerous enough to qualify for federal service. It certainly was dangerous enough for Carl, since he got killed.

[elucidator]

Heinlien apparently believed that suffering is good for you. Fuck that shit!

[Broomstick]

@tumbleddown

Where is the legal support for Constitutional rights to be based upon the good conduct of a citizen? If someone is not in jail or on parole, what is the constitutional basis for further restraint on their rights?

When the debt is paid, the debt is paid. To say that something which is constitutionally guaranteed should be withheld until some arbitrary date, not related to current conduct or correctional status, is frankly rather abhorrent.

At present, permanent loss of the right to vote is a routine punishment for felonies. That means you screw up once when you’re, say, 18, and you will never ever be able to vote again, even 70 years later.

If the law is changed to “after X years you can petition for the right to vote again” then that may be construed as part of the punishment.

This would only apply to people who have committed felonies, not to the average citizen without a criminal record.

[curlcoat]

@septimus

I would refer you to the excellent posts by elucidator and MaxTheVool to understand why many believe this is partisan politics. Their replies are much more restrained than I could produce, given my anger on such matters.

luci is being an asshole and Max’s post above yours again simply states that “the motivation for these changes is 100% purely political” without saying why he thinks that. All of you that think these reforms are partisan say it like it’s obvious and then ignore me when I ask why you think, for example, that folks who cannot get around to registering until the day of an election must be mostly Democrat? Is that because you have no idea?

Perhaps I owe you an apology, curlcoat, if you honestly do not see these as partisan moves. But be aware that that people happy about such moves because they are pro-Republican will pretend the moves are non-partisan. I may have mistaken you for one of these.

Never assume that my posts mean anything other than what they say. If I asked you why you think the League of Women Voters is going to register mostly Democrats, that is all I am asking.

If I did make this mistake, and you did not understand that this is Republican partisanship in action, I would especially ask that you study the posts by elucidator and MaxTheVool and gain a better awareness of the reality of present American politics.

As I said, luci has been full of shit in this thread and Max’s post said nothing about the things I am questioning. I am well aware that politics is a dirty business, but in the case of the OP, I am having trouble understanding why those groups would be considered largely Democratic.

@Broomstick

I think how long since said person has committed a crime/“paid his debt to society” and his (or her) conduct during that time should also be taken into account.

Perhaps. I might also take into account what the felony was, how old the person was at the time and other extenuating circumstances. But I don’t think a law could be written that way?

Someone who commits a serious felony, serves the imposed time, then behaves themselves as a model citizen for 15 or 20 years afterwards (and I do know a few people who fit that description) should be allowed to vote again, as they have demonstrated an ability to behave and follow the law.

I agree, I just don’t see a way for the PTB to follow each and every felon for that period of time. Maybe they could make it that a felon could apply to vote after X number of years and then review his record?

Among other things, it provides an incentive for convicted felons to reform and become law-abiding.

I suppose. I don’t vote so I don’t view it as incentive to do anything!

I was once a member of a club where a man was voted in as treasurer. He was flabbergasted that he was nominated, much less voted in, as it was no secret that he had a felony conviction and had severed several years in jail. 15 years prior. The consensus was that he was arguably one of the most honest and responsible people in the club, hence his election. That was based on people who were familiar with his conduct after he was released from prison, for a long time period. He served in that position well with no hinky business, unlike that guy a few years prior who had no record and bragged about his church attendance but somehow managed to “lose” 75% of the club funds during his term. Granted, that anecdote, but some people DO reform and shouldn’t be punished for life when only sentenced to, say, 5 years after which they behave themselves.

In that case tho, it was far easier for the people doing the voting and who would be affected by him being in office to judge for themselves if that man deserved the nomination and to win the election.

I can’t emphasize enough that this would be after a long time of good conduct. This would allow a one-time offender to redeem him/herself. It would also be impossible for a repeat and frequent offender to do this, or someone given a life sentence for a truly heinous crime.

Yes, that’s a good point - one not-so-bad felony (what are those? I don’t even know what are felonies except things like murder) would be considered after a period of years, but no two time losers.