–> /dev/null
Bye!
I’m not Frank. But the problem I’m seeing is that 74% of the American public is misinformed. The better solution is to provide them with the correct information not give in to their misunderstanding.
I just read this article, and seriously?
[QUOTE=the article]
Almost three-quarters of all Americans support the idea that people should have to show photo identification to vote, even though they are nearly as concerned about voter suppression as they are about fraud in presidential elections
[/QUOTE]
The lead paragraph in the article talks about how people are “nearly as concerned” about voter suppression. And the rest of the article indicates that it’s not nearly as clear-cut as you are trying to pretend it is. :rolleyes:
Please spare me the insinuation of being a stealth Republican concern troll. I have a long posting history of over a decade, and although I diverge from liberal orthodoxy from time to time, I am confident an examination of it will find nothing that can reasonably be interpreted as an exhortation to vote Republican.
And in fact it is the potential for abuse–at work, by anti-labor employers, and at home, by Archie Bunker patriarchs–that is at the root of my opposition.
No it doesn’t. You don’t have your name on the actual ballot. I’ve voted absentee twice, and the way it works is that you fill out a form ahead of time. They then send you a ballot. Your filled out ballot goes inside an envelope, and your name goes on a separate document. The court house accepts the first envelope, and sends the second one, unopened, to be counted.
As for the rest of your thread, we’ve had this discussion. What you are proposing will inevitably disenfranchise voters. There isn’t a system that gives people ID that has any value that doesn’t involve them having to do some work to prove who they are. Work that those who already don’t have ID are the least capable of doing.
The Democratic Party is the party that cares about poor people. We’re the party that denies our privilege. It would be completely inconsistent to push for a system that, for it to have any worth, will disenfranchise people who are the worst off.
Our goal is to keep the GOP from making it about Democrats committing fraud. They can do what they want with their base, but, as far as I can tell, none of the moderates are taking the bait. Because we are very outspoken about our problems with the system.
You want to reduce the rights of some people to vote, you need a good reason. You say that reason is fraud, then you need to prove that fraud is a problem. You don’t get to take away liberties because you think there might be a problem.
And being a “big tent” party doesn’t mean the same thing as being the populist party. It just means taking on a lot of different issues from different groups. It doesn’t mean we have to accept every idea.
Voter ID goes against what the Democrats stand for. It’s hardest on the lower classes and does nothing to anyone else. We tend to be against those sorts of things.
(And, yes, Bricker. We know of your thumbprint idea. But that’s so different from how ID is being pushed that it’s pretty much irrelevant. It just ensures no one votes twice.)
No, you’re not getting it. I mean that people you know–your employer, your domineering husband or father, even an old fashioned political machine–can gather everybody together to fill out the ballots. The wife who secretly votes Democratic in the privacy of the voting booth loses that opportunity.
Yes, precisely.
If an employer tried to demand that I show him my ballot before I mail it in, that’s against the law. Same for a political machine. As for family, if you’re in an abusive relationship, a voting booth isn’t going to be some magic cure.
But, I have noticed that you have not addressed any of the other issues laid out in this thread. So, I’ll just reiterate one of the questions. How do you deal with military or overseas ballots without mail-in? Lay it out for me.
You don’t. But you keep the law as it is, requiring extenuating circumstances rather than making mailed ballots the norm.
And while it may sound callous, I’m not talking about curing someone in an abusive relationship. I just want that vote!
And it’s not just abusive relationships. I said Archie Bunker, and he wasn’t abusive. Your average FOX News watcher is who I had in mind.
Um, the law as it is says I get to do a mail-in ballot year round for any reason.
Oh, do tell. List for us all the circumstances where mail-in is acceptable to you. We can see if the rest of us agree with it. And then we can try to determine how to combat voter fraud in these specific circumstances. Lay it out for us! I’m willing to see what this brand new voting system you propose is.
Yes, we all want that vote! We are concerned about disenfranchising people, which is why we are fighting for that vote!
So, the rest of us should live under some voting system that you can’t even delineate because of some hypothetical FOX viewers? I don’t think so.
The law as it is says I can vote by mail just by filling out a form requesting a mail-in ballot. Which works great for me - I wouldn’t always vote in off-years if I didn’t have the convenience of a mail-in ballot.
Despite having this system in place for at least twenty years (as long as I’ve been doing it) there still haven’t been any cases of wide-spread voter fraud out here. Also, despite not having a voter ID requirement, there also haven’t been any cases of wide-spread voter fraud.
Now, contrast this with massive, systemic cases of entire categories of people being disenfranchised because of things like poll taxes, competency tests, and, yeah, ID laws.
Fine, as it is where I live. You have to go to the courthouse and fill out a form explaining why you will be gone or indisposed on Election Day.
And you have no fucking idea how much my scenario happens. It’s undetectable. If I had adult children living under my roof and eating my food, I would be mighty tempted to do it myself!
There’s all kinds of ideas that would work. Assuming that was what was wanted, something that would prevent unicorn stampedes without hindering anyone from voting. If they had wanted to do that, they could have done it easily.
They didn’t want to.
As I see it, the strategery had two parts. One, gerrymander the districts very carefully, so that Republicans spread out their numbers precisely, just enough in each district to carry the day in that district, and a few Dem districts that are overwhelmingly Dem.
Then, hedge the bet. Not by some scheme to massively suppress the Dem vote, but to make it a hassle and a problem, trim away just enough Dem voters…maybe 2%, 3…to make that much safer. Remember, this scheme was cooked up when Republicans were winning districts by a hair’s breadth.
Why suppress or disenfranchise when you can do it simply by hassle and inconvenience?
Its the kind of careful political surgery that resulted in the miracle of getting less popular votes for the house (by a million!) and still getting the majority of the seats. They have found out what America wants and they are giving it to us good and hard.
Seems onerous to me, but how is the Voter ID checked when you file the ballot? It isn’t, is it? Nobody comes to your house and looks at your ID as you’re filling out the ballot, do they? So, you are telling us that the place you live allows a person to send in a ballot without a Voter ID check. Which is what we have been saying all along here in this thread.
Several points have been raised in this thread, which you have completely ignored. Are you actually going to respond to them? You are telling us that we should change our voting system, but you refuse to deal with the issues raised here and refuse to tell us how we should change it. Why should we agree to that?
And I have no idea what your scenario is. But if your scenario is one in which it makes it difficult or impossible for you to vote or get ID, then I would want a mechanism to deal with that. And the current spate of Voter ID laws are not addressing that issue properly.
Yes, exactly. If the goal was to both combat voter fraud and make sure people can vote as easily as possible, these laws would be structured very differently. When we raise the point that it’s difficult for some people to get ID, and that gets pooh-poohed away, it becomes clear what the real motive is.
“Undetectable?” Really? You think there’s a statistically significant number of people out there being coerced into casting votes by unscrupulous bosses and abusive husbands, and this never once comes up in divorce hearings? Wrongful dismissal cases? Abuse prosecutions? You really think there’s a whole lot of people out there being illegally compelled to vote in particular ways, and none of the victims ever report it?
You know what else is undetectable? Invisible tigers. But they’re out there, waiting to pounce! Luckily, I just happen to have this magic tiger repelling rock for sale, at a very affordable price…
Birth Certificate $5; free for seniors and veterans. Baptismal certificate I suppose whatever the particular church says.
When I voted absentee, my ID was still checked. In fact, I still voted on a machine.
With Oregon-style mail voting, again, it’s not just abusive patriarchs I’m concerned about. Social pressure is a powerful thing. It doesn’t have to be explicit or even conscious. “Honey, let’s get these ballots filled out, so I can mail them on the way to work.”. Archie assumes Edith likes Trump every bit as much as he does, and it doesn’t occur to him that she felt unspoken pressure to vote the way he did. But she knew he would lose it if she voted Hillary, and doesn’t want the headache–and also knows he will find it weird and suspicious if she fills it out and seals it privately. After all, he is not afraid to let her see his, right?
Let me make one other thing clear. I know the GOP isn’t passing these laws with pure, highminded intent. Duh. They want to suppress minority votes, obv. They are sneaky rat bastards. But they have the perfect cover! Not the hill to die on. Instead, we need a full court press to get all our voters ID.
Not only that, but birth certificates are required for so many things here that it is certain almost anyone has at least one copy somewhere in their house or their parents’ house. Plus like JRDelirious said, you have alternate forms of identification.
Also, the places that would issue such IDs are open extra hours (including later evenings and weekends) near election time, plus they also do field work and set up a temporary office at a plaza, mall, community center, prison (yes, they can vote in PR), university, etc. Plus there are campaigns and ads urging the public to get registered and vote, and telling them of the extended hours.
Heck, I went to PR during Christmas season and I got my new ID issued on Christmas Eve (the main office was open half-day). And all I needed to present was my current driver’s license and that was it. It also helped I was with my mother, who is already a registered voter, but there was no real questioning. I was already on the system, so they just verified the information and had me sign.
I do like voter registration, but it really has to be easy on the people. Go to the high schools and register seniors, go to the nursing homes and make sure those seniors get registered, go set shop next to the supermarket on a weekend. That sort of government drive is what I see is lacking.
I’m relatively new here, but preventing people from voting twice is at least 90% of the value if any voter id scheme. I oppose voter id, but I’d be okay with dipping your thumb in purple ink right after you vote. That would be a really minimal inconvenience, and we’d all accept that lots of people would have purple thumbs for a few days.
Military are easy. Set up a voting site on each base, let them vote in person, showing their id, and seal their ballots in envelopes addressed to their home district. The base is responsible for mailing them back to the home district in a secure way. Any race close enough that the mailed ballots matter couldn’t be called until they arrived and were counted.