2012 Elections in the USA

[QUOTE=Member #2041; 426694]Well duh, if the polling place is 1 mile away, but the DMV is 100 miles away, yes, it stands to reason that the DMV would be MUCH harder for a non-driver to get to. It's really not that complex, actually.

And BTW, they might need an I'd, but not a PHOTO I'd. In any case, as I said, using fingerprints or any other mechanism that would allow doing it entirely by mail, would not be onerous at all, and I would have no issue with that system were it to be implemented. But of course, these I'd schemes are SUPPOSED to be onerous to the folks that don't drive and don't have bank accounts.

BTW, if the Right wing position on this issue was about logic, rather than an attempt to disenfranchise the poor, how come they never seem to come up with a simple mechanism that would enable voter I'd by mail, that doesn't impose a substantial burden on poor folks who don't drive? Talk about an obvious flaw in an argument. That right there is a pretty glaring one.[/QUOTE]Okay, let me rephrase it:

Some people are too poor / dumb / stupid to get themselves to a DMV that might be more than 1 mile away to get an ID card, but they're not too poor / dumb / stupid to get themselves to a polling place that might or might not be more than 1 mile away?

And where the fuck are these people who might be more than 100 miles away from a DMV actually living?

Please give me one example of a zip code more than 100 miles away from a DMV, because I couldn't find any such places myself.

If they're so fucking far away from civilization without any form of transportation, then how do they buy food?

For that matter, how fucking poor / dumb / stupid do you have to be to deliberately live 100+ miles from civilization with no form of transportation?

What do you believe is the percentage of people who live more than 100 miles from civilization and who do not own some form of transportation? .0000001%?

Showing identification to vote just makes sense, which is why the liberals can't understand it.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson; 426699]Okay, let me rephrase it:

Some people are too poor / dumb / stupid to get themselves to a DMV that might be more than 1 mile away to get an I'd card, but they're not too poor / dumb / stupid to get themselves to a polling place that might or might not be more than 1 mile away?

And where the fuck are these people who might be more than 100 miles away from a DMV actually living?

Please give me one example of a zip code more than 100 miles away from a DMV, because I couldn't find any such places myself.

If they're so fucking far away from civilization without any form of transportation, then how do they buy food?

For that matter, how fucking poor / dumb / stupid do you have to be to deliberately live 100+ miles from civilization with no form of transportation?

What do you believe is the percentage of people who live more than 100 miles from civilization and who do not own some form of transportation? .0000001%

Showing identification to vote just makes sense, which is why the liberals can't understand it.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]For starters, I personally would never live in any state that is so undeveloped that the nearest DMV is 100 miles away, but it's a fact that places like this exist, in Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Texas, Alaska, and Oklahoma. These people may not CHOOSE to live there, but these locations are typically dirt cheap, and the poorest people might have no choice but to live there. And perhaps you might not realize this, but grocery stores and supermarkets can be found even not near any DMVs. I feel sorry for you if you've never lived anywhere that only had food markets located near the DMV, and nowhere else. BTW, if this were the case, the entire state of California would only have something on the order of 200 supermarkets to serve the entire state.

In any case, it's a FACT that this situation exists, and even if you believe someone needs to be stupid to live in such a place, that does not in any way justify disenfranchising them for the misfortune of their situations. And that's 100 miles. Lower the distance to 20 miles, and the same situation holds in almost every state in the country - and 20 miles is still a burden to folks who don't drive, and don't live near really good public transportation - heck, even in San Diego where I live, it would be a challenge to get to the DMV that's 8 miles from my house by public transit - I'd have to take a cab, and that would end up costing at least $40-50 round trip. And that's a real burden for folks that are poor and don't drive.

But that's simply a canard. These voter ID laws are all about making things difficult. Whereas, it would be trivially easy to make the ID process all doable by mail. But that has NEVER been offered as a mechanism in ANY of these voter I'd schemes, because they are not about making having a proper ID easy, rather, they are about making it HARD for poor people who don't drive. As soon as someone actually proposes a voter ID law that doesn't add substantial costs to poor folks who can't drive, by allowing them to do it by mail, I support it 100 percent. But it's very instructive that you have never suggested that this would be the correct way to implement voter ID in a manner that everyone COULD EASILY get one. That's really all that's needed. Make it easy for ANY registered voter to get an ID without requiring them to travel any significant distance, and I am then all in favor of it. But, it's quite obvious that this would defeat the REAL objective of these laws, which is to make it HARD, not easy, for poor folks to get one.

In any case, I SUPPORT any voter ID law that allows anyone who's a registered voter to do it entirely by mail at no cost. I wonder why the Conservatives on this very venue don't support making these IDs so easy for any legitimately registered voter to get by mail? It's because that would fail as a mechanism for disenfranchisement of the poor - which is the entire real goal of these laws.


BTW, Jackson, is there any way to turn off the auto-correcting software that converts ID to I'd all the time unless one goes back to edit it?

Member #2041,

Requiring voters to show a photo ID is just common sense, period.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson; 426701]Member #2041,

Requiring voters to show a photo I'd is just common sense, period.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]And if it were enabled in a manner that allowed doing so entirely by mail, for free, it would also be Constitutional, and entirely reasonable. But that would defeat the REAL purpose of these laws, which is to disenfranchise poor voters who don't drive. So long as that capability is NOT part of the laws in question, their true purpose becomes completely transparent.

I guess I still am left wondering why you don't see that this simple feature, which would make it easy for even poor folks to obtain these IDs, is a reasonable - even a necessary - thing to ensure is a part of any voter ID law that actually purports to eliminate fraud WITHOUT disenfranchising significant numbers of legitimate poor voters?

[QUOTE=Member #2041; 426702]And if it were enabled in a manner that allowed doing so entirely by mail, for free, it would also be Constitutional, and entirely reasonable. But that would defeat the REAL purpose of these laws, which is to disenfranchise poor voters who don't drive. So long as that capability is NOT part of the laws in question, their true purpose becomes completely transparent.

I guess I still am left wondering why you don't see that this simple feature, which would make it easy for even poor folks to obtain these IDs, is a reasonable. Even a necessary. Thing to ensure is a part of any voter I'd law that actually purports to eliminate fraud WITHOUT disenfranchising significant numbers of legitimate poor voters?[/QUOTE]Is this a broken record or what. LMAO. Damn, I am thinking about cancelling my week of fishing and checking into the clubhouse. Can't imagine a more fun time than discussing political issue with the 'NEW" member with the mostest. Sadly, I am committed to fishing with my buddies in corrienties. That said, there is nothing stopping you El Jeffe from leaving the confortable confines of your recoleta apartment (very near mine in fact) and relocating to the clubhouse so that your time with the "Member" can be maximized. IALOTFLMAO! This is rich dude!

You now have your answer why I rent my own apartment and have never stayed in the clubhouse. With my luck, I'd be sharing the house with Esten, WT69 and the new "Member with the Mosetest", then to make matters worse SnakeBoy would get evicted from his apartment and share the sofa in Esten's room. I'm getting into a cold sweat just thinking about it! Monger on El Jeffe. Embecile and Redneck Toymann

[QUOTE=Toymann; 426704]Is this a broken record or what. LMAO. Damn, I am thinking about cancelling my week of fishing and checking into the clubhouse. Can't imagine a more fun time than discussing political issue with the 'NEW" member with the mostest. Sadly, I am committed to fishing with my buddies in corrienties. That said, there is nothing stopping you El Jeffe from leaving the confortable confines of your recoleta apartment (very near mine in fact) and relocating to the clubhouse so that your time with the "Member" can be maximized. IALOTFLMAO! This is rich dude! [/QUOTE]

Thankfully, you have other plans.


BTW, I am hardly a "new" member. My first post is dated from 2004, although my first significant postings in Jackson's Argentina forum occurred in late 2007, prior to my previous trip to Argentina in early 2008. But of course, facts are not your strong suit, obviously, Toyboy.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 426701]Member #2041,

Requiring voters to show a photo I'd is just common sense, period.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Voting in the United States is a constitutionally guaranteed right for US citizens; however, there is no law that says any US citizen is required to have some form of photo identification in order to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights, which is why the United States has no mandatory national identification document for its citizens.

[QUOTE=SnakeOilSales;426706]Voting in the United States is a constitutionally guaranteed right for US citizens; however, there is no law that says any US citizen is required to have some form of photo identification in order to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights, which is why the United States has no mandatory national identification document for its citizens.[/QUOTE]It's odd how often the constitution is misquoted given how concise and relatively short that hallowed document is. Re-read and please quote what you're making up here please.

You won't be able. The constitution at the federal level only provides for your right as citizen to vote and few specific ways for loss of privilege to vote (eg felony, treason, etc). It specifically enumerates and leaves ALL means and manner for how you may qualify to vote and have that vote registered, processed and counted to the States.

If a state passes a law requiring photo ID to vote, that is then precisely in accord with the constitution as it left all rights to do that at the state level. Even a cursory glance at the constitution will confirm what we all learned in grade school. The founders were vehemently states rights oriented and other than guaranteeing at the broad level your general rights, the means and manner were left to the individual states.

[QUOTE=Member #2041; 426702]And if it were enabled in a manner that allowed doing so entirely by mail, for free, it would also be Constitutional, and entirely reasonable. But that would defeat the REAL purpose of these laws, which is to disenfranchise poor voters who don't drive. So long as that capability is NOT part of the laws in question, their true purpose becomes completely transparent.

I guess I still am left wondering why you don't see that this simple feature, which would make it easy for even poor folks to obtain these IDs, is a reasonable. Even a necessary. Thing to ensure is a part of any voter I'd law that actually purports to eliminate fraud WITHOUT disenfranchising significant numbers of legitimate poor voters?[/QUOTE]A fingerprint is not a photograph!

How exactly do you expect to administrate this? Would you have fingerprint experts stationed at every polling place taking voter's fingerprints and comparing them to the fingerprint on the photoless I'd card in their possession?

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Toymann; 426704]Is this a broken record or what. LMAO. Damn, I am thinking about cancelling my week of fishing and checking into the clubhouse. Can't imagine a more fun time than discussing political issue with the 'NEW" member with the mostest. Sadly, I am committed to fishing with my buddies in corrienties. That said, there is nothing stopping you El Jeffe from leaving the confortable confines of your recoleta apartment (very near mine in fact) and relocating to the clubhouse so that your time with the "Member" can be maximized. IALOTFLMAO! This is rich dude!

You now have your answer why I rent my own apartment and have never stayed in the clubhouse. With my luck, I'd be sharing the house with Esten, WT69 and the new "Member with the Mosetest", then to make matters worse SnakeBoy would get evicted from his apartment and share the sofa in Esten's room. I'm getting into a cold sweat just thinking about it! Monger on El Jeffe. Embecile and Redneck Toymann[/QUOTE]For the record, I do not pick my friends or my guests based on their political perspectives.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson; 426709]A fingerprint is not a photograph!

How exactly do you expect to administrate this? Would you have fingerprint experts stationed at every polling place taking voter's fingerprints and comparing them to the fingerprint on the photoless I'd card in their possession?

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Simple. You take a fingerprint when the person votes (just like is done all around the world) and IF the vote is challenged under probable cause, you compare the finger print to the one on the voter registration records. Just like anything else, the presumption is of innocence, and if there is probable cause to challenge the legitimacy of the vote, the records exist to validate them. But there is not a any presumption of guilt. Just the way the rest of our legal system operates. The burden of proof here lies where it is supposed to, with the challenge to the legitimacy of the vote, NOT the voter.

That being said, fingerprints need not be used, you could also have the person submit their own photos, by mail with the application for the ID, and the photos could be taken anywhere at their personal convenience, just like is done with passport applications. The person who votes still needs to look like the person in the photos.

[QUOTE=Mpexy; 426708]It's odd how often the constitution is misquoted given how concise and relatively short that hallowed document is. Re-read and please quote what you're making up here please.

You won't be able. The constitution at the federal level only provides for your right as citizen to vote and few specific ways for loss of privilege to vote (eg felony, treason, etc). It specifically enumerates and leaves ALL means and manner for how you may qualify to vote and have that vote registered, processed and counted to the States.

If a state passes a law requiring photo I'd to vote, that is then precisely in accord with the constitution as it left all rights to do that at the state level. Even a cursory glance at the constitution will confirm what we all learned in grade school. The founders were vehemently states rights oriented and other than guaranteeing at the broad level your general rights, the means and manner were left to the individual states.[/QUOTE]What exactly are you claiming I am making up in my post? There is nothing in the US Constitution that states a government issued identification card is necessary to utilize a citizen's right to vote and there is nothing in the constitution mandating acquisition of a federal identity document. The document the founding fathers authored prioritized states right for sure, but as I am sure you must know the original document has been amended twenty seven times. In fact, subsequent amendments have repeatedly rolled back the states' attempts to disenfranchise citizens and furthermore have expanded the vote to groups not authorized in the original document (see 15th. 17th. 19th. 24th, and 26th amendments, all of which EXPAND enfranchisement and / or strike down states' attempts to disenfranchise poor / minority groups).

[QUOTE=Jackson; 426709]A fingerprint is not a photograph!

How exactly do you expect to administrate this? Would you have fingerprint experts stationed at every polling place taking voter's fingerprints and comparing them to the fingerprint on the photoless I'd card in their possession?

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Forced fingerprinting as a prerequisite to vote would be unconstitutional as US citizens cannot be forced to succumb to fingerprinting unless they are placed under arrest.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;426705]Thankfully, you have other plans. BTW, I am hardly a "new" member. My first post is dated from 2004, although my first significant postings in Jackson's Argentina forum occurred in late 2007, prior to my previous trip to Argentina in early 2008. But of course, facts are not your strong suit, obviously, Toyboy.[/QUOTE]You are such a self proclaimed rock star. Two trips so far (counting the one you have yet to take). You go boy. Looking forward to your chica posts. Now crawl back under your rock. Monger On All but Member Idiot. Toymann

[QUOTE=Mpexy; 426708]It's odd how often the constitution is misquoted given how concise and relatively short that hallowed document is. Re-read and please quote what you're making up here please.

You won't be able. The constitution at the federal level only provides for your right as citizen to vote and few specific ways for loss of privilege to vote (eg felony, treason, etc). It specifically enumerates and leaves ALL means and manner for how you may qualify to vote and have that vote registered, processed and counted to the States.

If a state passes a law requiring photo I'd to vote, that is then precisely in accord with the constitution as it left all rights to do that at the state level. Even a cursory glance at the constitution will confirm what we all learned in grade school. The founders were vehemently states rights oriented and other than guaranteeing at the broad level your general rights, the means and manner were left to the individual states.[/QUOTE]

The crazy wild-ass liberals never let the facts get in the way. First beer on me later this week dude. You around? Monger on Dude. Toymann