And again, would you like to install a laziness test for qualifications to vote? And have you any plans to equalize that, some test the the privileged but lazy will have to surmount to gain your approval?
I’m hard pressed to understand why the Kardashians are allowed to breed, much less vote, but for good and sound reasons, that isn’t my call to make. Nor yours. This is not a stunning new insight, nor was it the first ten times you said this stuff. You could at least phrase it differently once in a while.
Are you sure you read all of these that you are flinging before us? Because a casual glance
from the CalTech/MIT paper
from the Institute of Public Policy study
And if we are not talking about “dramatic” effects on turnout, but the more plausible trimming of the rolls by hindering a certain class of voters? Simply because dramatic effects are unlikely does not make less dramatic effects legitimate.
And why would we expect to apply “long-standing political science literature” to such a comparatively recent development?
Your second Caltech cite is a study about the popularity of photo voter laws, and appears to have been thrown in for no other point but to bulk out your citations. Tsk.
And I will read more Hans Spakovsky when you can make me.
As to the quoted part, there is, in fact, at least one such person in the Pennsylvania case discussed herein, she is named, she has testified, and you are wrong.
Further, the use of “disenfranchised” can only be a provocation rather than an illumination, as by now you must have read at least ten times about the distinction between “disenfranchisement” and “hindering”.
You did read the thread, right? That this is not about “disenfranchisement”, not about forbidding so much as hindering?
I mean, seriously? You cited Hans Spakovsky? So, it was kinda like “Well, if all of you guys can reference Daily Kos, then I get to pretend that Hans Spakovsky has some credibility outside the universe of the rightarded and deranged?”
Well, OK, I guess, if you don’t mind when we point and laugh. Has Herman Cain written any papers on the subject?
After 44 pages and the title of the thread to infer what the test could possibly be, I don’t know why’d you ask this.
Equalize it why? Not everyone is equal. The Olympics are on right now. Should we break people’s legs because they can run faster than others? Should we give lobotomies to people who are smarter? Who would be left to administer them once everyone is at the LCD? And frankly, given the numbers of religious in your country, you are getting close to the bottom as it is.
Let’s say a national ID system is implemented. What coverage would you accept for it to be sufficient for use as the ID required for voting? 50%? 99%? Or, will you only accept the unreachable 100% as the number? What effort should be expended to get to that number? What responsibility is there for the government and what is there for the citizen?
Except that we are talking about voting, and the ability of people to vote legally. And in that regards, everyone who isn’t suffering from a severe mental illness that hinders their independence as people or who isn’t still paying off their debt to society must be equal! In fact, that’s one of the most basic tenets of democracy right there – one man, one vote.
The number of people disenfranchised or discouraged from voting must be lower than the reasonably expected amount of voter fraud. Otherwise, the system has no point. It’s really, really simple, and I can’t figure out why you haven’t figured this out yet. In the current situation of the USA, yes, around 99.999% coverage would be necessary to make the equation work. Any worse, and it isn’t worthwhile. If there was literally 0% voter fraud, then 100% would be necessary.
Republicans want uniform voter ID laws, but Democrats say they disadvantage people who have a harder time getting IDs.
Democrats want uniform early voting rules, but Republicans say they disadvantage citizens living overseas, who need longer to get their votes in.
Of course, it is a complete coincidence that people who can’t get ID are more likely to vote Democrat, and overseas residents (primarily military) are more likely to vote Republican.
Does anyone really believe that either party wouldn’t just make it flat out illegal to vote for the opposing party, if they could?
Agreed. But I wasn’t denying that. I was saying that someone who can’t be bothered to make the effort in getting an ID has an opinion that is worth about as much as that effort. It doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be allowed to vote, but I don’t know why anyone would go out of their way to collect that opinion. Other than to collect the vote. I’ve said this before, though. You seem to think I’d deny his vote if I could which is definitely not the case.
Generally, I think the age limitation is reasonable. If you’re in jail for an indictable offence. I’d add if you are under the authority of another because of mental incapacity. Otherwise, I think you should be allowed to vote if you are a citizen. But you have to prove you are to do so and that you can vote in that particular jurisdiction.
How many people are blocked from voting under the current rules because they don’t have the necessary documents? Do you think that number is higher or lower than the bar you’ve set?
No, I do not believe that. In Minnesota when the Republicans proposed their Voter Restriction law, before they passed it without a single Democratic vote, Governor Dayton put out the word that he would not sign it. He said that he spoke with former Republican Governor Pawlenty who said he would not have signed it. He said that he spoke with former Republican Governor Carlson who said he would not wrap his walleye in it.
He even offered an alternative; Electronic Poll Books. Electronic poll books would actually mitigate the problems that the Republicans decry, though their law would not prevent and could be implemented for about ten million bucks. He scheduled a press conference with Republican supporters slated to speak. For some reason, the Republicans pulled a last minute “no-call, no-show.”
Forced coincidental conversion you say? Shanghai’d on the way to Damascus, MN? No, electronic poll books have already been in testing in Minnesota.
It sucks that I can’t have a driver take me to the DMV in a Rolls Royce and stand in line for me until my turn or have a secretary prepare my documentation.
But I’ve got to take a bus or some other mode of transportation to get where I’m going and fill out the damned forms myself. And yes, some people will find that even harder to do for numerous valid (and not so valid) reasons. But we don’t stop the flipping world just because some people find it harder. That’s not what they meant when they said ‘equal’.
Then what did they mean? Apparently you think “equal” does not include “having an equal right to participate in the responsibility for our government”. So what do you think the Continental Congress meant to include and exclude in the concept?
Max, I’ll tell you again, you’re wasting both your time *and *your dudgeon hoping for **Pricker **to respond with his views of the importance of democracy and its institutions. He doesn’t have any. He doesn’t recognize those issues even exist. He’s bemused by those who keep prattling on about them, and can only understand that behavior as being some preachy cover story for desiring partisan advantage. Partisan advantage is the highest principle he can grasp. Pig, sing, etc.
“having an equal right to participate in the responsibility for our government” is exactly what it means. It does not mean that given our respective means, that all people will find equally easier to exercise that right then others. No one is taking away that right.
Oh, and NEWSFLASH: Being really poor sucks and makes it harder to do a whole bunch of stuff. Including buying groceries or going to a doctor on the other side of town.
Everyone eligible has the right to vote. Responsibility also means meeting the requirements of voting. Some of those requirements are to have a valid ID.
