Voter Id Laws: A Fake Solution To A Fake Problem

[kujo]

[quote name='abercius24' timestamp='1349451192' post='2490335']

So if you met a homeless person who was days from any food source, but he clearly had one meal in his possession, you wouldn't feel obligated to make sure he was going to be fed later? If you see the possiblity for trouble, you are obligated to avoid it.

And the problem is that people DO suspect that voter fraud is happening, they just can't prove who is doing it. We have found cases of dead people voting, we just don't know how it's happening. The concern for abuse is enough to do something about it. Confidence in the voting process is important, too.
[/quote]

Well, again, I am not willing to agree with the premise of your analogy, because there hasn't been much in the way of verifiable abuse to the current system.

But let's accept that there is a "problem" to be "solved" and examine the current legislation within the context of your analogy.

If I see a homeless person who was days away from any food source beyond the single meal in their current possession (again, how the heck can someone divine that a person has no food other than what's in front of them?), I am obligated to help them; however, the efforts to force people to acquire a special ID card in order to vote would be akin to "solving" the hungry homeless person's hunger by stealing the food out of someone else's hands. In other words, you're "solving" a "problem" by creating a different and, in this case, even larger one.

And I'm sorry, I simply can't believe that the overwhelmingly Republican engines behind these efforts are doing so with the express knowledge that it will disproportionately affect Democratic voters. I don't know whether it's the specific end that they're looking for, but it is without a doubt a consequence that exists no matter what their intentions are.

[abercius24]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1349539669' post='2490683']
Well, again, I am not willing to agree with the premise of your analogy, because there hasn't been much in the way of verifiable abuse to the current system.

But let's accept that there is a "problem" to be "solved" and examine the current legislation within the context of your analogy.

If I see a homeless person who was days away from any food source beyond the single meal in their current possession (again, how the heck can someone divine that a person has no food other than what's in front of them?), I am obligated to help them; however, the efforts to force people to acquire a special ID card in order to vote would be akin to "solving" the hungry homeless person's hunger by stealing the food out of someone else's hands. In other words, you're "solving" a "problem" by creating a different and, in this case, even larger one.

And I'm sorry, I simply can't believe that the overwhelmingly Republican engines behind these efforts are doing so with the express knowledge that it will disproportionately affect Democratic voters. I don't know whether it's the specific end that they're looking for, but it is without a doubt a consequence that exists no matter what their intentions are.
[/quote]

Who cares about what the Republicans want. And I agree their legislation is biased, but that doesn't mean we as the People can't push it in the right direction. And by the way, that link I posted above shows that Republicans are engaging in voter fraud themselves. I know there is corruption, and even if the establishment won't prove itself as corrupt, we know better. Like Capt. Jack Sparrow says, "What a man can do, he will do." The system is ripe for abuse, and its dangerous to ignore this vulnerability. And what good is the constitution's law that only citizens may vote if we don't have a realistic way of enforcing that requirement? Let's not fool ourselves that this vulnerability goes unabused. This is America. We have professionals here who are experts at abusing vulnerabilities!

[4588686]

[quote name='abercius24' timestamp='1349547808' post='2490717']


Who cares about what the Republicans want.
[/quote]

Any thinking person. It matters because they are crafting the legislation. They determine which forms of I.D. Are valid and their intentions matter a lot when they restrict voting hours in order to make it harder for black people to vote. This happens. I see it. To say nothing of the attempts at outright voter intimidation.

[abercius24]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1349564480' post='2490775']
Any thinking person. It matters because they are crafting the legislation. They determine which forms of I.D. Are valid and their intentions matter a lot when they restrict voting hours in order to make it harder for black people to vote. This happens. I see it. To say nothing of the attempts at outright voter intimidation.
[/quote]

Sure, but if you and I and everyone else tell them we want something more reasonable, that's what they'll do. That's how the system works. And if you're witnessing an instance of voter intimidation, you should be calling the police. There are laws against that.

[DiscerningCatholic]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1346602994' post='2477594']
I've always had to show my I.D. where I vote, along with my voter registration card ...


I remember the time I was in the convent. Just because I was wearing a habit along with my other sisters, a group of rabid liberals forcefully stopped us from entering the building where we were to vote. One of them sneered, "you all aren't allowed to vote!" They weren't kidding either... All it took was a stern look from Mother, and they parted like the Red Sea!
[/quote]

DON'T MESS WITH MOTHER ASSUMPTA.

[4588686]

[quote name='abercius24' timestamp='1349803700' post='2491681']
Sure, but if you and I and everyone else tell them we want something more reasonable, that's what they'll do.[/QUOTE]

No. They won't. They don't have to keep these laws on the books for ten years. If the law gets passed in the summer and the election is in the fall and the law is on the books until the courts can sort it out in January then they don't care. This isn't about really establishing an enduring system of protections against voter fraud. This is about grabbing the election. Kicking up enough dust and causing enough confusion to keep a few ten thousand students and minorities from voting on election day in a few key states.

[QUOTE]That's how the system works.[/QUOTE]

It is. Unless a large part of their constituency doesn't care, or perhaps even positively likes the idea, that a bunch of minorities and students will not get their chance to vote.
[QUOTE]And if you're witnessing an instance of voter intimidation, you should be calling the police.[/QUOTE]
Actually, in NC, you call the voter protection hotline.

[QUOTE]There are laws against that.
[/quote]

Kinds sorta. There are laws about voter intimidation but sometimes there is some gray about what is technically illegal and what isn't. Rachael Maddow has done some great stories about this, if you are interested. A lot of the tricky stuff does get deemed illegal and corrected, but that happens after the abuse occurs, you know, after the election. They'll find a new tactic in another 4 years.

And often times it doesn't get reported. So it's really not as simple as just "well then call the police.' I get up with somebody and they happen to mention to me that their neighbor got a letter in the mail saying (incorrectly) that he was ineligible to vote. The fact that I stumbled upon that is just dumb luck. Otherwise nobody would ever know.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Hasan

[Groo the Wanderer]

When I voted in the last primary, while standing in line, I said rather loudly "I hope I don't accidentally vote for Buchanan again." I was *this close* to getting removed from the polling place and becoming disenfranchised.

...and I had shown valid ID too.

[kujo]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1349921675' post='2492176']
When I voted in the last primary, while standing in line, I said rather loudly "I hope I don't accidentally vote for Buchanan again." I was *this close* to getting removed from the polling place and becoming disenfranchised.

...and I had shown valid ID too.
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure that most states have very strict rules about people not being allowed to engage in any sort of campaigning within a certain amount of distance from the voting booths. The idea is to allow voters to make their selections without being harassed or seized upon by overzealous volunteers and zealots.

So, you were *this close* from being removed because you were being a jackass, which, though constitutionally protected in other geographical places and dates and times, doesn't mean you get to cause a scene at your voting precinct on election day, no matter how lulzy your scene is.. Penalizing you wouldn't be "disenfranchisement," any more so than stopping you from voting after you decapitated someone in front of you in line at the pols would be.

Edited October 12, 2012 by kujo

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1350021613' post='2492662']
Penalizing you wouldn't be "disenfranchisement," any more so than stopping you from voting after you decapitated someone in front of you in line at the pols would be.
[/quote]
Those seem like two rather different scenarios to me.

[kujo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1350021820' post='2492665']
Those seem like two rather different scenarios to me.
[/quote]

Sure, they're different. And I went to the extreme for a laugh. But the principle holds--you can't campaign at the pols because it's against some law or another. Whether Groo's intention was to campaign or not, the workers at the precinct--who are donating their time and shouldn't be rewarded by having to deal with snarky comments or political BS--didn't want a scene to be made. I would've kicked him out of line, too!

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1350022266' post='2492672']

Sure, they're different. And I went to the extreme for a laugh. But the principle holds--you can't campaign at the pols because it's against some law or another. Whether Groo's intention was to campaign or not, the workers at the precinct--who are donating their time and shouldn't be rewarded by having to deal with snarky comments or political BS--didn't want a scene to be made. I would've kicked him out of line, too!
[/quote]
Honestly, I want them to have to deal with so much BS that nobody is willing to do it the next time around. Anything to get people out of the whole silly charade.

But that is beside the point. I am really just causing trouble.

[kujo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1350022417' post='2492675']
Honestly, I want them to have to deal with so much BS that nobody is willing to do it the next time around. Anything to get people out of the whole silly charade.

But that is beside the point. I am really just causing trouble.
[/quote]




What silly charade?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1350022518' post='2492676']




What silly charade?
[/quote]
Politics.

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1350021613' post='2492662']
I'm pretty sure that most states have very strict rules about people not being allowed to engage in any sort of campaigning within a certain amount of distance from the voting booths. The idea is to allow voters to make their selections without being harassed or seized upon by overzealous volunteers and zealots.

So, you were *this close* from being removed because you were being a jackass, which, though constitutionally protected in other geographical places and dates and times, doesn't mean you get to cause a scene at your voting precinct on election day, no matter how lulzy your scene is.. Penalizing you wouldn't be "disenfranchisement," any more so than stopping you from voting after you decapitated someone in front of you in line at the pols would be.
[/quote]


wow you jump to a lot of conclusions. You're just a butthat looking for an ecxuse to be a butthat

First, I was not campaigning - this was 8 years AFTER the Florida debacle. Second, I was speaking to my wife. The comment was not directed at anyone. Third, I did not cause a scene. Fourth, you are still a butthat.

[kujo]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1350062058' post='2492798']


wow you jump to a lot of conclusions. You're just a butthat looking for an ecxuse to be a butthat

First, I was not campaigning - this was 8 years AFTER the Florida debacle. Second, I was speaking to my wife. The comment was not directed at anyone. Third, I did not cause a scene. Fourth, you are still a butthat.
[/quote]

You said yourself--you said what you said "rather loudly." Clearly, you were trying to get attention, or am I mistaken?