You don’t have to prove your identity with some form of identification when you vote in Canada?
Again I’m going to use the word ‘tone,’ here to try to explain my reaction.
(1) We should change the law to X, to avoid Y.
(2) When a law is Y, it’s unacceptable.
(3) You can’t have a law that says Y.
These are obviously not exact quotes for any dialog, but I argue that each captures a possible tone for statements. (Of course, tone being continuous function, not a discrete function, there are many other possible examples).
What I tend to hear in these threads is a strong showing of (2) and a good leavening of (3) and very little (1).
I don’t have people trying to restrict the required identification based on partisan advantage. The people making the rules are not themselves elected officials (or their toadies) who would directly benefit from gaming the system. What we have is not free of scandals or problems, but I’m glad to say we’re not at the stage where American-style gerrymandering and American-style statistical scale-thumbing is considered normal and even (!) ethical.
So, is that a yes or a no? Do you have to prove your identity with some form of identification when you vote in Canada?
The issue in the US isn’t showing ID, but *getting *ID. That’s a real obstacle for a significant number of people (a far larger number than any fraudulent in-person voting), the effective disenfranchisement of whom is the entire fucking point of the Republicans’ effort. By now, it takes some real willfulness not to get that.
Thanks for sharing, but doesn’t answer the question of whether or not a voter in Canada has to prove their identity with some form of identification before they vote.
Yes, but the key difference I can tell you want to overlook is that the list of acceptable identification is long and nobody is trying to restrict it based on trumped-up fears of voter fraud. Add to that a registration process which is damn-near automatic, and I can be pretty confident that the people overseeing my elections aren’t trying to fuck me over because I might vote the wrong way.
That’s real voter confidence, by the way, not the toxic snake-oil brew of lies and fears the Republicans are pushing on you. They must really hold you guys in sneering contempt to lie to you so blatantly.
Hey, now, be fair! I have it on the best authority that only “some” of them actually know what they’re doing!
Can’t is a word that is used carelessly by almost everyone everywhere. I am told what I can and cannot do all the time, even though the physical things that I am forbidden from all entirely possible, just unwise or illegal. Unless it is insistence that it is an impossibility I usually consider statements of can or cannot as should or should not.
This works its way to 2, where I have seen the formulation you say, but it usually continues with a reason as to why the poster considers it to be unacceptable, not just a fiat declaration of fact.
And that works its way on up to 1, where posters say that we should change the law, because it says “Y” and it should not, as it is unacceptable for Z, Q, and R reasons, and changing the law would avoid “Y”.
I do get what you are saying, but where I see people pointing out the problems as they perceive them, along with possible (if unworkable) solutions, you are seeing (2) and (3) as people demanding that their opinion be the only one that counts.
If I give my opinion on the way I think things should be, I am not demanding that my opinion be unquestioningly followed, and I doubt that there are that many here that do. I am, however, trying to convince others that my opinion is in fact the right and correct way of thinking about things, while you are doing the same.
I also have it, on the best authority, that even the ones eagerly looking forward to disenfranchising certain citizens are on firm ethical ground. Not as firm as for some people, but pretty durn firm, you betcha! Heck, since they don’t otherwise embrace lib’rul balderdasheries, these people are downright saintly!
Ref: #306
Here’s what post 306 says:
Note that it doesn’t say they’re on firm ethical ground. It says you are. You might believe that this is intended to signal that they are also on firm ground. But of course, if you’re on “much firmer” ground, then it’s not clear to me how they could ALSO be on firm ground.
Really? I was exaggerating, of course, but if you want a serious parsing of your statement to explore its complete syllogistic range… well… no, I’m not going to waste the time or effort. Suffice it to say, it would be perfectly consistent with your statement if I was standing on metaphorical concrete and people seeking systematic disenfranchisement (or at least throwing up enough useless barriers to have the same effect as disenfranchisement) of their fellow Americans - possibly based on racist stereotypes - are standing on a slightly-inferior grade of metaphorical concrete. After all, “much firmer” is a relative comparison. We could say that Grade A concrete that could support an M1 Abrams is “much firmer” than Grade B concrete which would crack under such a load, though the two grades are indistinguishable under any lesser test.
Let’s just be blunt - these people want to hurt your fellow citizens so their team can win elections. Is that a “firm” enough assessment for you?
Ah. Of course.
They do. And that’s very loose, extremely loose, quicksand-level ethical grounding.
Just to avoid the need for any other exaggeration.
I’d personally view it as an ethical sinkhole, myself, not something that might offer minimal support as quicksand can (survival tip; if you’re in quicksand, lie flat and you’ll float on the surface and be able to crawl to safety, unless you happen to be carrying a heavy backpack or something similar, in which case you should get rid of it ASAP) but actually something that actually seems to disintegrate under you and pull you down.
Well, I’ll take your damnation with faint praise in the spirit it was intended. I’m on much firmer ethical grounding than saboteurs of democracy, apparently, though that advantage is “narrowed” because of my other views.
Yes, but why does your country unethically require ANY form of ID before voting? In my great state of Maryland, I don’t need to show ANY identification to vote. Not an electric bill, or library card or anything. And I definitely don’t have to get another person to swear that I am who I am. You should probably work on fixing your own country’s unethical voter ID practices before moving to discussing those in the US.
The Texas bill that got shot down didn’t require a person without ID to have ANOTHER person swear to their address. They could certify for themselves that they couldn’t get an ID. YOUR country requires a whole other person to swear to a person’s address if they don’t have ID. That seems unethical to me, that you need to involve other people who know you just so you can cast your vote. You should probably fix that, especially since the showing of ID, or the swearing to your address by another person, solves no problem, and contributes nothing to voting or your elections.
Only thing worse than liberal hypocrisy is Canadian liberal hypocrisy! Certainly settles this question!
Oh my God, every election in the history of Maryland has probably been stolen by voter fraud! Or at least could have been! We don’t know, really!
The ID requirement is not in and of itself the issue. It’s actually two-fold:
- The spreading of lies that voter fraud is stealing American elections, and
- The response to (1) being selective tightening of voter standards as well as reduction of voter services, which by astonishing coincidence tends to happen in neighborhoods with a history of supporting the party other than the one pushing the lies and the tightening.
If you actually want to compare Canadian elections to American elections, you’re starting from the massive disadvantage that the people deciding on the rules for American elections are themselves elected officials. Right off the bat, that’s a temptation to unethical behaviour.
If you don’t like that I’m discussing the election process in your country… suck it up, buttercup.
There really does seem to be a disconnect in terms of how the people in this thread view the purpose of holding an election. From my point of view it would seem that the goal is as best as possible to determine the will of the eligible citizens of whatever country, state, county, town, or school is being polled. So that the ideal number would be the result if every eligible citizen who had a preference cast a vote without counting any who were ineligible. To me, election laws should be evaluated by the extent to which they approximate this ideal within the bounds of feasibility. An election law which removes 5-10 erroneous votes that were randomly distributed among the two sides, but which in the process eliminates hundreds of thousands of legitimate votes from one side, then that is a counter productive law that brings us further from the ideal.
With Bricker it seems that all that matters is that a process if followed. There is no democratic ideal that polling is trying to emulate, the right answer is whatever the process says it is. So the effect of any adjustment to the process is irrelevant so long as the process was followed in making that change. Any positive correlation between the results of the process and the average thoughts of the citizenry is just icing on the cake.
You can discuss the election process in my country. Just seems strange that your own country has more onerous rules for voter ID then one of the the very laws that you are railing against.
Pretty correct, yes.
Because I don’t concede to you the authority to define the “democratic ideal” or the authority to define whether a given process has more or less fidelity to that ideal. If you think there’s an ideal, then elect representatives that will enact a process that implements it.
Instead, you want to complain when people who don’t agree with you have their own ideas, and you aver this must be the result of evil political operatives telling lies, which the easily-duped populace believes.
The thought that the bulk of the public simply doesn’t agree with you is impossible to contemplate.
But this is precisely why I argue only the process. You have a million different reasons that your losses shouldn’t really count. I don’t care. The result was arrived at via the process we agreed to ahead of time. No backsies.