Good point. It puts me to mind of the 2000 election and how Joe Lieberman just kneecapped the Democrats by insisting, on live national TV, without consulting with anyone first, that we should accept all military absentee ballots, even if they had not been submitted in a timely fashion as the law required. Ugh, that sanctimonious schmuck.
Uh huh, You are so concerned with people being unfairly controlled, and you want the government to nanny them on when (i.e. effectively whether or not, as pointed out by many comments you still refuse to address) they get to exercise the franchise.
Your concern is noted.
You’re arguing for voter ID, right? If not, could you summarize what you’re arguing in a sentence or two?
I don’t think it went over my head. You’re arguing it is possible to make it easy to get an official ID, also implying that makes it okay to require voter ID. I pointed out that it is not easy to get ID in many places throughout the USA. The fact that it is possible or even easy in some places is not necessarily relevant.
Just as an example of the differences that can make it difficult, 48 or 49 states have a population density lower than Puerto Rico, and the continental USA as a whole also has a much lower density. What works in Puerto Rico won’t work in states like Texas, Kansas, North Dakota, and Wisconsin, all of which have strict voter ID laws. You can’t open enough DMVs in those states to make it easy to get an ID for everyone.
Most of these states requiring voter ID have at best not changed services for identification and in some cases reduced services since voter identification laws went into effect. Just saying “All it requires is effort by the local government” is worthless.
Voter ID is a terrible idea that disenfranchises many people at the expense of fixing a problem that is nearly non-existent.
It has been repeatedly explained to you that there are no extra logistics – it’s just a few more envelopes in the mail.
Anyone who hasn’t been on Mars for the past few decades knows the standard workaround for that. (You like getting Federal funds for this, that, and t’other? Pity if those got cut off…")
Actually, the workaround isn’t even needed for this one. The US Constitution already says “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members”, and thus Congress clearly has the power to make a law saying “if you weren’t elected under such-and-such rules, the Sergeant at Arms will show you out if you try to take a seat”.
I find it most amusing that because SlackerInc holds a different view on this topic, so many people here hint he’s a stealth Republican concern troll or maybe he should switch parties. Nevermind that he’s probably right that it’s a political loser stance for the Dems.
I mean, I think the percentage of mail in votes being hijacked by overbearing husbands is probably inconsequential but there’s no need to assume he’s a liar or a traitor for thinking about it.
Re: the 2000 absentees – Yeah but that one would have been another lose-lose one, who wants to be the one who does not Support The Troops[sup]TM[/sup]. You’d think if anyone would be conscientious about the need to comply with deadlines to the letter it would be them.
Part of the problem with doing “ID drives”, SlackerInc., is that some of the ID states have simultaneously made it more of a hassle to get an ID to begin with – closed MVA and voter registration offices in smaller towns and poorer neighborhoods, raised the cost of getting a license/state ID, etc. It’s still free to register to vote – poll taxes are forbidden – and registration can be handled outside of an actual government office, but not so to get a state ID, so most ID states are in effect imposing upon the potential voters an unfunded mandate.
Would be the best, but that runs into the long-running American politico-psychological argument about a universal ID document that follows you cradle-to-grave, and the more recent concern about such a system being vulnerable to ID theft.
Which is what I’ve just stated in my last post.
And no, the example is not “worthless”: it points out that WITHOUT an effort by the jurisdiction running the elections to make it happen, Voter-ID laws are suppressive and discriminatory and a concealed poll tax and THAT is why they are wrong. If a state really wanted to use voter ID for purposes of a secure vote they’d spend the money to do it right and give one to everybody.
(And no, we don’t open DMV’s in every hill and holler: what we do is when you go register to vote at your municipal office, a Voter photo-ID is issued right there on the spot, free.)
Yeah in this day and age it would be trivial to have a digital camera and a printer sitting there. Frankly they could set one up in a van and visit different neighborhoods.
As it is, as the system of voting ID is being enacted in the US, no, I cannot agree with it. Do I think it is a good idea? Yes, but it needs infrastructure that is not provided in the US.
You can’t or you don’t want? I’m sure the government could, but the state governments are not interested in setting up a small shop issuing voting IDs in Podunkland. The places to get voting ID in PR are small, and ONLY issue voting IDs and deal with registration/voting law. Therefore, if they are not willing to provide the support required for truly easily available voting IDs, they should not require voting ID laws.
I don’t see how it is worthless. It is a valid point. Voting ID laws are only truly democratic if local government puts the effort into make it easy to obtain voting IDs. If they’re not interested, then they should not have it.
Voting ID is a good idea. As it is implemented in most parts of the US, it is a terrible thing because of the issues you mentioned.
That is what they do back home! And in some cases you have more than one office per town, it is more like at least one office per voting precinct.
Also, I’ve voted absentee most of the time. It is a bit of a hassle, but it is not incredibly difficult or expensive. Just obtain proof that I’m in the categories allowed for absentee (alas, PR emigrants are not allowed to vote just so), along with filling out a form where I put my voting ID number. Then I get a letter confirming my status and the ballots are sent in several envelopes. I fill out the ballots, put them in the envelopes, and put them in yet another envelope and signed that in front of a notary, get the notarized seal and stamp, and then send it by mail.
Blah, blah, blah. Read the freaking thread.
Are you talking about yourself? Because you must have been living on Mars to miss the ruling about Medicaid expansion. I love how pig-ignorant people can’t even do basic legal analysis run around lecturing people about the law. As I already explained, given that Supreme Court ruling, it’s not clear at all the Federal government can coerce states in this manner. I don’t need a lecture from someone who can’t be bothered to go read a Supreme Court ruling. Read the freaking thread.
Actually, this is even stupider than your previous statement. Even if this clause meant what you are trying to claim it means (it doesn’t), it doesn’t apply to state and local elections. More pig-ignorant analysis.
So, many of these Voter ID laws are getting challenged in court, and in some cases, the courts are bouncing them as unconstitutional. But, if PR’s system has managed to survive court challenges (I don’t know if it’s ever been to court or not), then that would indicate a route for the Voter ID proponents to follow. And if PR’s system is also popular (or at least if most of the people are okay with it), then that allows argues that also argues for the political viability of PR’s system.
So, if the Voter ID proponents were really serious about putting in place a popular system that could potentially survive court challenges, they would start with looking at PR’s system and simultaneously propose a dramatic removal of barriers to obtaining the ID in the first place. Of course, most states would have to spend extra money to implement PR’s system, but if the trade-off is between spending extra money or denying people their right to vote, then I’m going to demand the extra spending.
As for how this issue would impact Democratic electoral prospects, most voters aren’t single-issue voters. The question isn’t whether or not voters support Voter ID, the question is whether this issue is enough to tip an election. Given the ambiguous nature of the polling data from the WaPo cite provided in this thread, I’m not seeing any significant impact to Democratic electoral prospects. Maybe if we had polling data that clearly showed that voters were going to vote against the Democrats solely based on this issue, that might be indicative of something. But I don’t think, say, a Trump voter is going to care if the Democrats support Voter ID or not, because the issues that Trump are drawing big on are so far apart from the Democratic party, that the Democrats are never going to appeal to his voters, no matter what their position is on Voter ID.
I’ll also point out that conventional wisdom is that Democrats have a problem with voter turnout and getting the votes counted for people who actually turn out – because of a number of problems related to voting, only one of which is Voter ID. So, the political calculations to oppose barriers to vote isn’t necessarily a bad one for the Democrats, and it might make the most political sense. Based on the types of problems that routinely crop up for low-income and minority voters in various places, I’m inclined to think it’s in the Democrats best interests to make sure voting is as easy as possible.
This idea of only worrying about an issue if it moves a large number of voters completely on its own is very bad politics. You can stack up a bunch of loser issues that way pretty quickly and be in serious trouble.
I’m glad someone gets amusement out of it, because it greatly irks me. :mad:
I lived in Missouri from 1994 to 2014. In St. Louis City and in St. Charles County. I voted early almost every time.
Clearly your information is obsolete and/or less than complete.
Ehhhh…wot?
When I click your link I see:
ETA: On closer look at your post, you somehow put the closing parenthesis outside the [ /url] coding. Here is the correct link: Missouri Early Voting Period, Amendment 6 (2014) - Ballotpedia
EATA: Seems the board software does it automatically; I had to correct this post to make sure the link was functional.
Huh, weird. In any case, it seems to me that LSL Guy is the one inhabiting a parallel universe version of Missouri.
I apologize. How soon we forget the arrangements in a prior place. You’re correct.
What I had been doing was visiting the elections office in the weeks before the election, obtaining an absentee ballot, then filling it out and handing it in. So *de facto *early voting, but not de jure.
On the point of your thread …
I agree with your half-point that opposing voter ID as such is a silly hill to die on.
The problem is preventing the Rs from grabbing the ball and running a few hundred yards the other way with it. Here we have one of those rare cases where taking a patently unreasonable line is the only way to prevent the opposition from taking an even more unreasonable line the other way.
If there was a way to reliably split the issues I’d be all for it. Not so much to reduce fraud, as to deprive the Rs of a noisy, pointless, yet effective wedge issue.
Honest elections and one secret accurate vote by each and every citizen ought to be Mom & Apple pie issues. That they aren’t says a lot about what’s wrong with America today.
Apology accepted, thanks. So what did you tell them was the reason you needed an absentee ballot? Just “I’m going to be out of town”, every time?
I’m just not convinced that stubborn intransigence is the way to ameliorate what Republicans are doing. Why not aggressively push for inclusion of various methods to make it easier for everyone to get an ID?
In my job I travel out of state 10-15 days per month for 3-4 days at a crack. And neither I nor my employer can guarantee my availability on election day. So I’ve got a 100% legit reason.
The form is simple and anyone can practically assert they’ll be absent; there’s no way for them to check. And furthermore there’s no legal requirement for the absence to be beyond your control. i.e. “I intend to drive to Chicago that day for a Kardashian autograph-signing session” is a perfectly acceptable 100% legit legal reason to request and obtain an absentee ballot.
As to the rest, any state that has a strong majority D legislature could do just that. The danger is the Rs are quite adept at subsequently overturning settled law by simply de-funding it. That goes down much more politically quietly than an actual repeal.
So we’d be left with a law mandating IDs and no programs to get them to people who need them. Soon enough the natural turnover as people grow up, or die, or move would cause there to be a large un-IDed population. But now they couldn’t vote.
Bottom-line: Not requiring ID is something the Rs have a much harder time sabotaging.