democratic election themes and daily talking points

[wesw]

[Lord Jim]

boy, long run consistently makes good arguments and he consistently takes positions that I agree with completely.

Gee wes...

And I thought we had something special....

[wesw]

I just can t quit you , jim.....

[TPFKA@W]

@W - I feel about this like you feel about the 2nd amendment. So let's just agree on Trump and any woman crazy and/or sad enough to support him.

Dagnabbit just when I was getting all warmed up too. Anyway Longrun is right but I get it if it is just too much to continue arguing about it.

There are plenty of other things to fuss about and as I say you can't take this place too seriously. So take a deep breath and relax a bit, sounds like with your schedule you need it.

Give your Mamma a hug for me.

[Lord Jim]

VOTING IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT and there should be NO BARRIERS.

Quite right...

And this whole "registration" thing is a BARRIER..

People should be able to show up whenever they choose, wherever they choose, to vote...

They shouldn't even have to be able to prove that they're old enough to vote...(ageism)

All they should have to do is walk in and vote...(or not even that; they should have endless absentee ballots sent to them...)

Yeah, that might result in unqualified (or even qualified) people voting multiple times...

Prove it...


The most important consideration is that there should be "NO BARRIERS"...

Any other Constitutional or legal consideration be damned...

People should vote, (every last man, woman and child) with "NO BARRIERS"!

[MajGenl.Meade]

Certainly nothing personal and meaning no offense but...

Yes, it IS that hard, when you don't have resources or 100% of your capacity (mental/physical/emotional or otherwise).

I'd like people to vote based on something more than not having 100% of their mental capacity. So how CAN we get Trump supporters to be de-registered?

[Lord Jim]

If there really is a voter fraud (not registration, but actual voters) along the lines you have suggested,

Not "along the lines I have suggested"... "along the lines" I have produced enormous evidence for...

I am "suggesting" that the great billowing clouds of demonstrable, continuous smoke, "suggest" the existence of a real fire...

Given the enormous amount of proven, fraudulent registration, it would defy credulity to believe that fraudulent voting is not a problem...

The reason there's no "proof" of wide-scale fraudulent voting corresponding to the demonstrable and proven widescale fraudulent registration, is because it's not being legally pursued...

It's like saying, if there were a policy not to issue speeding tickets, we could conclude that there was no speeding going on....

[Lord Jim]

Republicans hate democracy and are doing everything they can to destroy it.


yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

The reason there's no "proof" of wide-scale fraudulent voting corresponding to the demonstrable and proven widescale fraudulent registration, is because it's not being legally pursued...

So why oh why—in the Republican-controlled states where the governments are making it harder to vote—is fraudulent voting "not being legally pursued" (or even investigated) BEFORE passing new laws to eliminate what may well be a nonexistent problem? It makes no sense at all. Why are they passing new laws INSTEAD OF trying to enforce existing laws????? Why are they passing new laws BEFORE even TRYING to prove that anyone is violating existing voter-fraud laws?????

Republicans hate democracy and are doing everything they can to destroy it.

Nah, it's more like the usual "I've already got mine, screw everyone else." ("If it's not MY problem, I refuse to believe that it's ANYONE'S problem.")

[Lord Jim]

Now don't get me started on Steve Goodman, Econo...

That will end our argument...

You know I think he's a musical genius...

My Whole World Lies Waiting Behind Door Number Three...

A one and a two:

[Guinevere]

Certainly nothing personal and meaning no offense but...

Yes, it IS that hard, when you don't have resources or 100% of your capacity (mental/physical/emotional or otherwise).

I'd like people to vote based on something more than not having 100% of their mental capacity. So how CAN we get Trump supporters to be de-registered?

You're a senior citizen, I believe (or close enough). Do you have all the same capacity you had at 18? It's not criticism, but brains change as we age. Some things get more difficulty or become more difficulty because our capacities are different than they used to be

I know at 40-something I no longer have the capacity I once did to pick up and drive 500 miles away for a weekend. I have to write down my to do list more often. My eyes focus differently. Does that mean I can't vote any longer? We all have that right to vote. It's the default, and before that right is compromised in any way the state needs to set forth a compelling interest. That is what is completely lacking in this discussion.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Fair comment, Guin. I must be a senior citizen - I get all these discounts and Buckeye cards (if I'd bother to apply)

Here's the compelling interest: voting is a right. It is not a right for everyone living in this country. It is a right for citizens of this country. Registering voters should require a higher bar than being alive and breathing (see Cook County) - it should require demonstration of the status to have that right. Now, heaven only knows, I might have an objection that a person with a utility bill hasn't exactly established that right - after all, I had utility bills in Ohio when I was a registered alien with no right to vote at all

So I guess that all that's being proven is an address - not even a right to register really, let alone vote. Hence, everyone should have a government issued photo ID to prove citizenship

[TPFKA@W]

Certainly nothing personal and meaning no offense but...

Yes, it IS that hard, when you don't have resources or 100% of your capacity (mental/physical/emotional or otherwise).

I'd like people to vote based on something more than not having 100% of their mental capacity. So how CAN we get Trump supporters to be de-registered?

You're a senior citizen, I believe (or close enough). Do you have all the same capacity you had at 18? It's not criticism, but brains change as we age. Some things get more difficulty or become more difficulty because our capacities are different than they used to be

I know at 40-something I no longer have the capacity I once did to pick up and drive 500 miles away for a weekend. I have to write down my to do list more often. My eyes focus differently. Does that mean I can't vote any longer? We all have that right to vote. It's the default, and before that right is compromised in any way the state needs to set forth a compelling interest. That is what is completely lacking in this discussion.

You are supposed to have stepped out of this debate. But since you have stepped back in...

I have proven with some googling and a phone call that this issue for the elderly is particularly unfounded. If they want to vote they will have the opportunity, but I believe that they need to present ID. Getting the ID is not that much of a hassle that any reasonable person would label as a barrier.

[Guinevere]

A point was specifically addressed to me, and I try not to ignore those. That doesn't mean I'm going to continue the endless circle of debate.

[Sue U]

You're all talking past each other and mixing up very different issues, which leads to different "solutions."

The very first thing -- and something that I think we can all agree on -- is that voting is a right for every citizen, not a privilege. Because it is a right, there must be a presumption that everyone is automatically entitled to vote, and that any restriction on that right has to be narrowly tailored and the minimum necessary to address a compelling state interest. Thus, it's perfectly okay to require that in first registering to vote, a voter must produce some competent proof to ensure meeting the three prerequisites for voting: citizenship, age of majority and residence, particularly if not already available to the elections board (e.g., through other government records). But because voting is a right and not a licensed privilege, the proofs of citizenship, voting age and residence should not be any burden to the registrant beyond what's absolutely necessary, and the government should seek to facilitate those proofs rather than impede them in any way.

However, a fundamentally different issue is presented by "voter ID" laws that require proof of identity when appearing at the polls to actually cast a ballot. These laws are problematic because they reverse the presumption of entitlement to exercise the right to vote, especially where a person is already duly registered. They allow the state to say, "Prove who you are before we let you vote," rather than requiring the state to say, "We have a reasonable belief you aren't who you say you are, so now we're going to require some ID." This is not a restriction that is narrowly tailored to meet some compelling state interest, particularly in the absence of any proof at all that voter impersonation at the polls is any kind of a problem. Even if the intent of these laws really was to maintain the integrity of the process rather than voter suppression, the approach is ass-backwards for a free society in which voting is a right.

National ID, suggested by Meade, is not only incompatible with American notions of freedom (i.e., we are not answerable to the state for our identity), it is a very large step toward the "Papers, please!" approach of a national security state.

[TPFKA@W]

Papers, please!" approach of a national security state.

I call Godwin's Law on this because we know what you mean.

And I believe I understand what people are saying and what they mean. I stand by saying it is no "barrier" to confirm that you are who you say you are when you go vote. If you did it to register there should be3no problem in doing it when you show up at the polls. Prove that you are who you say and that you are about to exercise your right.

[Sue U]

I call Godwin's Law on this because we know what you mean.

Oh, it's not only Nazis. There are many places in the world today where police can stop you and ask for your identity card, etc., without any reason at all. See also Electronic Frontier Foundation.

I stand by saying it is no "barrier" to confirm that you are who you say you are when you go vote. If you did it to register there should be3no problem in doing it when you show up at the polls. Prove that you are who you say and that you are about to exercise your right.

But that's exactly the point. You did it once to register. If it's your right, you shouldn't be required to prove it over and over again, every time you go to vote, unless there is some compelling state need for you to do so. Because after you've registered as a voter, it should be the state's burden to articulate some reason why it's necessary for you to have to prove your entitlement. That's what having a right is all about. If you have to come up with a reason you should be allowed to vote -- like proving your identity -- then voting simply isn't a right anymore.

[Lord Jim]

But that's exactly the point. You did it once to register.

That's exactly the crux of the problem...

People aren't being required to demonstrate they are qualified to vote at the time of registration anymore... other wise you wouldn't have huge numbers of non-citizens on the registration rolls...

I remember when I first registered to vote when I was 17, (in Virginia you could register to vote at 17 if you were going to turn 18 prior to election day) I was required to provide both my driver's license and my social security card...

When I registered to vote in California years later, I wasn't asked to show jack; I just filled out a card.

[TPFKA@W]

If you have to come up with a reason you should be allowed to vote -- like proving your identity -- then voting simply isn't a right anymore.

Which I think is absolutely ridiculous and that a right or not it is no real inconvenience and in fact should be a part of the process to prove you are who you say you are when you get to the polling place.

In spite of the fact that I have a right to move around freely and even leave the country I will need ID to do so. It being a right really has nothing to do with showing an ID.

[MajGenl.Meade]

National ID, suggested by Meade, is not only incompatible with American notions of freedom (i.e., we are not answerable to the state for our identity), it is a very large step toward the "Papers, please!" approach of a national security state.

Oh, oh, isn't that what the opponents of gun registration say? "American notions of freedom" are of course sacrosanct except when they are not.

It seems to me that when I reach the polling station there is no compelling reason why I should not have to demonstrate that I am, in fact, the same person who registered. I have a right to my vote and the state should not leave a loophole which would permit some person other than me to show up and cast "my" vote before I can do so.

Whether that happens or not is irrelevant - safeguards are put in place to stop things from happening that might happen.

Most whining about voter ID is because there is a fear that really marginal people (who all vote democrat) might not be able to figure out how to vote... present company excepted. Apparently stupid people are all democrats to judge by who makes the fuss about them being disenfranchised.