“People of color”
Now that’s a phrase I haven’t heard in a while and the only people that used it were some well-heeled whites who needed to show how enlightened they were.
Those same idiots would piss their pants if they spent one hour in Ramallah.
Voter Suppression Bills Sweep the Country | PR Watch I have to apologize to IBN. I feel bad when people that comfortable in their ignorance suddenly have to face reality. This is not new nor is it a deep dark secret. They Repubs have attempted to suppress likely voters for the Dems for decades. If you don’t know that, you should stay out of this discussion. you are clearly not up to speed.
If you were able to think, you would be able to figure out who would have trouble obtaining the new levels of ID. Would it be rich people with passports and fancy cars? Would it be middle class people with cars and credit cards? Would it be mobile people who can get around easily?
Nope. The poor who don’t have cars, passports, or easy transportation would have trouble. The people who don’t have ID are often not city dwellers, or suburbanites. It is very simple to see who would be affected by changing voting requirements. It also is easy to see what party will lose voters. Well, perhaps not for you. But the battle that goes on is because of Dems fighting against having their likely voters trimmed. it is not about fraud, since it practically does not exist. It is completely unneeded and unwarranted removal of Dem voters.
I’m not sure why you even think I’m a “Repub”.
Sorry that you’re so ignorant that you assume that anyone who disagrees with you must be a Republican.
Beyond that, as already mentioned studies show that voter ID laws have not decreased voter turnout or suppressed voter turnout amongst the groups you’ve claimed it.
As posted from Bricker’s post.
Beyond that. You claimed earlier that 20% of all Wisconcin adults don’t have ID. Please give me the name of the organization that did the study to show this and how they conducted the study.
Thanks for the link and comments, gonzomax. It’s good to see that some people are outraged by GOP “voter reform.” I do worry the outrage is too little, too late.
It makes me sad to read some of the responses in this thread. One Doper quibbled that the messengers don’t “dot their i’s” then admits to “not caring” about the issue. Bricker hangs his case on the idea that legislators have the legal right to legislate. (I hope it’s not against BBQ Pit rules to exaggerate and wonder if Shakespeare was right about lawyers. 
)
But mainly the right-wing’s attitude seems to be that students lacking the time and money to obtain ID “don’t have enough skin in the game” to deserve a vote.
Frankly I do not recognize the America I grew up in when I see it through the eyes of today’s right-wingers. I was no fan of Barry Goldwater or Wm Buckley but would happily reincarnate one of them and make him President if that would put an end to the ugly evil Frankenstein today’s right-wing has become. (Heck, I wonder if we should all re-register and vote Ron Paul in the Primaries – he’s the only Repub I see that isn’t obviously mean-spirited.)
Perhaps it’s true (though I put little credence in right-wing studies) that the earlier “voter reform” effort didn’t decrease voter turnout. In this thread we speak of the latest “voter reform” efforts, with unknown results but presumably designed to correct the reform deficiency you point out.
So you post an article from May, follow it with a large number of assumptions that are unproven and we’re all supposed to be either convinced or shamed into silence? You have no data to back up anything.
As it turns out, 85% of low income voters have ID already. That’s right about in line with the rest of the country at 89%. Tell me again how these laws affect the poor.
So – let’s get this straight. You inveighed against the earlier reforms, promisnig darkly that they would lead to voter suppression.
Now you acknowledge that this may not have happened, but insist that this time, even though the results are unknown, we should worry?
And you rely on … what? Your proven track record?
In secular democratic countries, voting is usually on Sunday, so that most people have time off from work.
That the US keeps to a schedule that originated with religious restrictions on travel on Sunday two centuries is ago is part of what makes the US so “special”. (we would call it “oldfashioned, hidebound and technologically behind”)
Can you name a serious downside, apart from “Nazis! Papers! National database!”?
Which do not follow the same standard of tamper proof, as some are paper and without picture, other plastic with photo; are not of a standardized format, so that a FL licenses can be recognized by any moron in RI or TX; are not automatically available at the DMV by showing up and giving your address, because the DMV can’t access your birth certificate on their own system, although it’s the same state…
Whuh? What? How is providing everybody with the right to get cheap and easy access to a national, safe from tampering, useful for voting and many other proofs of ID, ID card changing the relationship between the state and the citizen? Who said anything about the citizens being required to carry papers?
Since y’all are so focused on the “Nazi-Papers” connection, in Germany, people are required to have an ID, but not to carry it. If the police stops you, you have to satisfy them as to your identity in some way. If you don’t have your ID card with you, you likely will be taken to the police station and have to get it delivered or find some other way.
No, Starship Troopers was that only soldiers were full citizens, because you needed to prove that you were willing to bring some sacrifice for your country. :rolleyes:
Who can afford champagne most easily, the rich or the poor?
If you can answer that, then I ask who can more easily afford the burden in transport costs, know-how, and fees to obtain ID?
That’s two questions. If I’m allowed a third, it will be: Why do you need help connecting such simple dots?
Cite?
The other interesting point is that only voter impersonation fraud is being addressed, although that requires too much effort to be worth doing it large-scale - but I hear nothing being done about the voting machines themselves. For the record, Germany doesn’t use voting machines, because, when their introduction was discussed, experts (hackers from the Chaos Computer Club) demonstrated to the Constitutional Court how easy it was to mess with them. And with no written record for control, the Court decided that this would amount to disenfranchising and voted against them. So we still put a cross on a piece of paper and it gets counted by hand.
Didn’t you already have a test? List all US presidents, recite an amendment, “only” four questions but extremely difficult and you had to get them 100% correct in order to vote. Applied to blacks before the civil rights movement. (We were given the questions as sample in history class and nobody got them 100% correct).
First, that the US voter turnout is so abysmally low is generally seen as Very Bad Sign of the System Having Problems outside the US. (Of course, outside the US, nobody believes that you guys have the only true real democracy/ Republic in the world, but rather, an outdated beta-system that needs fixing).
Secondly, precisely because so few people relatively vote already, every small increase or decrease will have large affects.
Third, a policy that targets one group of the population heavily is seen as discrimination, which is a problem for a real democratic system / country.
Which is what several people have suggested, only to encounter the “no Nazi Papers!” and “don’t change the relationship between the state and the citizens by demanding ID” crowd.
OK, that’s fair. I guess I should have had a question mark after that sentence, not a statement. You registered here in 2009 – I have no idea how you felt about earlier reforms.
So - how did you feel about earlier reforms? What, if anything, did you say about the Indiana voter ID law before it passed?
What European analogy - that European citizens usually (although not always, see our Norwegian example) have a national ID card, are usually required to have one and get one from the state? That e.g. German citizens don’t have to register to vote, because they are already registered with their residence, and four weeks before the election we automatically get a letter “The election for … is on Sunday the 27th of Oct., your election place is primary school in somesuchstreet, open from 8 am to 6 pm. If you are unable to come or out of town for important reasons, you can get a mail voting form by returning this signed letter or showing up at your local citizens office”.
So you are at peace with 15 percent of the poor being denied the right to vote. I guess they are just poor and don’t count to you. But the American idea is that all American citizens have the right to vote. That is why we eliminated the voters tests . That is why we dumped laws that stopped blacks from voting. That is why poll taxes are against the law.
Nobody should have their right to vote diminished by not having enough money or living in the country. You are not less of an American if you are poor.
Let me see if I’m following all the logic in these arguments.
It has been contended that these voter ID laws will not hinder the poor in voting, therefore the laws should be passed. This is good proof and can’t be questioned by anyone opposing the laws.
On the other hand, it’s been contended that the problems the voter ID laws are intended to solve don’t even exist. This is bad proof, otherwise why flog the laws at all?
Which is it? Proof good or proof bad?
Voter suppression - Wikipedia The new regulations are intended to suppress votes of likely Dem voters. You can see from this article that the intent has been to keep Dems from voting. Is it not to clean up elections because voter fraud is practically unknown. There is no reason to spend millions of dollars to prevent a crime that does not exist.
One question about voter registration itself I have:
So in order to vote on elections, people who are eligible (citizens, over 18 years, no felons*) must register, either with a party (Rep. or Dem) or as independent.
I assume they must do this before a deadline some time before the election, so the lists can be verified and compiled and distributed to the election stations.
On election day (Tuesday, a working day) John Smith goes down to the election station, shows his new photo ID, signature is compared, the volunteer crosses him off the list, he casts his ballot and goes home.
Or John Smith, who lives out in the boons and can’t afford gas/ is old/ handicapped, applies for an absentee ballot and votes by mail.
So what happens to the registration roll once the election is over? Is John Smith required to register again for the next election 2 years later (since House and President elections are only 2 years apart)? Is it valid until he moves? Does it vary by state?
- though that seems to vary