|
Nurge posted:Since voter ID is such a hot issue I guess why doesn't the federal government just issue free photo IDs, required to be recognized by all states, to every citizen? As far as I am aware most western countries have some sort of social/health security card with photo or similar that's free to citizens that works as an ID card. That way you can actually expect everyone to have an ID and neither side can have hissyfits about it. Am I missing some reason this is a bad idea? I guess it would cost a bunch of money, but looking at it I'd think it would bring more good than harm. The same reason SSNs don't have the sequence 666 in them. Americans are angry idiots
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
Nurge posted:Since voter ID is such a hot issue I guess why doesn't the federal government just issue free photo IDs, required to be recognized by all states, to every citizen? As far as I am aware most western countries have some sort of social/health security card with photo or similar that's free to citizens that works as an ID card. That way you can actually expect everyone to have an ID and neither side can have hissyfits about it. Am I missing some reason this is a bad idea? I guess it would cost a bunch of money, but looking at it I'd think it would bring more good than harm. It would actually be very cheap and solve all the issues that voter ID proponents talk about without risk of stopping people from voting. But Republicans happily admit that their laws aren't really about voter fraud but are about stopping democrats from voting so you need to stop thinking of ways to actually let everyone vote because the GOP will never let them happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
duz posted:The same reason SSNs don't have the sequence 666 in them. It's not that, its that doing so wouldn't stop liberals and black people and the Mexicans from voting so why bother
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:It would actually be very cheap and solve all the issues that voter ID proponents talk about without risk of stopping people from voting. But Republicans happily admit that their laws aren't really about voter fraud but are about stopping democrats from voting so you need to stop thinking of ways to actually let everyone vote because the GOP will never let them happen. I'm not from the US so I didn't realize things were actually quite that insane. That explains a lot I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Nurge posted:Since voter ID is such a hot issue I guess why doesn't the federal government just issue free photo IDs, required to be recognized by all states, to every citizen? As far as I am aware most western countries have some sort of social/health security card with photo or similar that's free to citizens that works as an ID card. That way you can actually expect everyone to have an ID and neither side can have hissyfits about it. Am I missing some reason this is a bad idea? I guess it would cost a bunch of money to make them, but looking at it I'd think it would bring more good than harm. funny enough people that want voter id laws are, at the very least, in the same ideological group as folk that don't want state issued id since they think that's a literal satanic plot of the antichrist due to a popular interpretation of a passage from Revelations. politics is weird!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Because a large portion of the US population has no intent to stay somewhere permanently. I know the legislation is probably using it as a synonym for principle physical address, but even then I've had 3 or 4 years of my voting adulthood where I didn't have one of those either. And you originally used it to say college students shouldn't be able to vote, which means you clearly don't see it as referring to the principle physical synonym situation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Nurge posted:I'm not from the US so I didn't realize things were actually quite that insane. That explains a lot I guess. There were, in fact, numerous right wing lawmakers and high ranking officials who very literally, very directly stated that voter ID laws were winning elections for them, keeping "lazy blacks" from voting, and keeping Democrats from voting. There's no reading between the lines, these aren't said in private or in confidence. They've made official printed statements. These were just posted in the last couple pages. So, you know, these laws really aren't racist and bad. They don't have any impact (if you ignore all the studies showing their impact) and the impact is a rounding error (multiple percentage points at the very least) and they prevent voter fraud (that studies and empirical evidence show is, in fact, a small fraction of a percent at the absolute most) and the people who made them aren't racist (they just made these laws to keep "urbans" and "lazy blacks" from voting). Gosh, my confidence in the voting system sure is restored now
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
The specific legal reasoning is that discriminating against political parties is perfectly legal, so even if a policy disproportionately effects one race over another it's fine as long it's for political motivations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Almost all voting fraud is done via mail in or absentee ballots and not at the polls anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Because a large portion of the US population has no intent to stay somewhere permanently. I know the legislation is probably using it as a synonym for principle physical address, but even then I've had 3 or 4 years of my voting adulthood where I didn't have one of those either. And you originally used it to say college students shouldn't be able to vote, which means you clearly don't see it as referring to the principle physical synonym situation. It's permanently or indefinitely. A student who says "I'm going to move back home after graduation" would have to vote absentee from their parent's address, "I'm moving somewhere but no idea where yet" could vote from campus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Seriously this is an empirical question how have you guys not googled this already? Because facts have a well-known liberal bias.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:No but seriously is anyone, ever, going to bring to Scalia's attention that his dissent was extremely funny in light of his vote in Bush v. Gore? I don't mean officially, because that will never happen. But, like, on a personal level? In passing? At dinner? Just a little "haha, nice dissent, guy who was one of five to select the president who began the iraq war" or does being a Justice recuse you from any kind of metacognition or what He's a white male millionaire, he has no motivation not to be a hypocrite.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:It's permanently or indefinitely. A student who says "I'm going to move back home after graduation" would have to vote absentee from their parent's address, "I'm moving somewhere but no idea where yet" could vote from campus. Actually, it's not. Symm vs. US made it clear that a student's future plans were irrelevant. The county was prohibited from impeding students from registering to vote at the college they were attending, period. Their future plans and the rest were irrelevant, as the county could no longer ask the students about it. Students thus had the option of registering to vote in their college town or back home at their permanent address. The key is "where you consider yourself to be residing at the time of the election" without any caveats or conditions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Actually, it's not. Symm vs. US made it clear that a student's future plans were irrelevant. The county was prohibited from impeding students from registering to vote at the college they were attending, period. Their future plans and the rest were irrelevant, as the county could no longer ask the students about it. The county was prohibited from using a questionnaire that only applied to students. What the court actually said about residency is not ambiguous: quote:The only Supreme Court of Texas case relating to residency of students is Mills v. Bartlett, 377 S.W.2d 636 (Tex.Sup.Ct.1964). While the facts of Mills, supra, are not similar to any of the facts relating to any Prairie View student, the language of the Supreme Court is significant (377 S.W.2d at 637): The full quote from Mills: quote:Neither bodily presence alone nor intention alone will suffice to create the residence, but when the two coincide at that moment the residence is fixed and determined. There is no specific length of time for the bodily presence to continue. Here there was combined volition, intention and action. When Bartlett left Canton it was for a temporary absence with a fixed intention to return.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
College students are allowed to vote where they go to school. They can vote wherever they identify their "home" as. If that is in their college town, cool. Even if they plan on moving later, they can still vote there so long as that is their home and residence now. EDIT: Just think about this in terms of a general requirement. If I plan on moving in a month, can I vote in an election? Surely I can go and exercise my political rights. Why would a student's intentions be any different? Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Because they overwhelmingly vote Democrat or more left wing than that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:The county was prohibited from using a questionnaire that only applied to students. What the court actually said about residency is not ambiguous: College students are allowed to vote where they go to school: yes or no. And ID from the state where the student's parents live is capable of proving they are the person named in the voter registration: yes or no.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:College students are allowed to vote where they go to school: yes or no. depends quote:And ID from the state where the student's parents live is capable of proving they are the person named in the voter registration: yes or no. yes
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Nurge posted:I'm not from the US so I didn't realize things were actually quite that insane. That explains a lot I guess. They had to admit it because they were getting sued for violating all sorts of discrimination laws, since Voter ID and literacy tests and redistributing disproportionally targets black and hispanic voters, which is unconstitutional. Discriminating against your political opponents is illegal in some states, but not actually against the constitution so the supreme court might not do anything about it
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:depends Okay, so rejecting out of state IDs does nothing to ensure the integrity of the voting system but does add a nuisance barrier to voting, glad we could settle that without too much trouble
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Nurge posted:Since voter ID is such a hot issue I guess why doesn't the federal government just issue free photo IDs, required to be recognized by all states, to every citizen? As far as I am aware most western countries have some sort of social/health security card with photo or similar that's free to citizens that works as an ID card. That way you can actually expect everyone to have an ID and neither side can have hissyfits about it. Am I missing some reason this is a bad idea? I guess it would cost a bunch of money to make them, but looking at it I'd think it would bring more good than harm. corn in the bible posted:It would actually be very cheap and solve all the issues that voter ID proponents talk about without risk of stopping people from voting. But Republicans happily admit that their laws aren't really about voter fraud but are about stopping democrats from voting so you need to stop thinking of ways to actually let everyone vote because the GOP will never let them happen. This isn’t actually true, despite D&D’s penchant for hyperbole. Elections are organized at the state level, since most elections are for state representatives or state and local officials. This is why some states allow you to use your concealed carry permit or fishing license to vote and others don’t. Issuing some sort of nation-wide ID wouldn’t actually solve anything, because there really isn’t a way for the federal government to compel all 50 states to accept the new ID card. Some sort of health insurance card wouldn’t necessarily work (in part because healthcare is also organized at the state level) because the barriers to registering for health insurance are likely just as high if not higher than getting a DMV ID. There’s also the question of what the card is supposed to prove. If the government is supposed to bulk-mail out these cards, there isn’t really a federal database that lists where every citizen lives indexed to a recent photo. You could try tax records, but then you’re going to miss a lot of the poor, who don’t pay taxes or have a fixed address. If the citizen has to request the card, it’s likely to be as much of a burden to get ID from the federal government as it is to get one from your state.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
No, it would be much less of a burden, because the federal government wouldn't make the IDs intentionally hard to get by, say, making them only available at a DMV hundreds of miles away from poor towns which is only open three days per week during working hours. Come the gently caress on man. Yeah, in a world where the states were actually interested in ensuring an open, free, and uncorrupted voting system then sure of course there's no functional difference between the states issuing IDs and the federal government doing it. But you know drat well that's not the case and in this actual real world we have public statements by attorneys general openly admitting that the explicit goal of voter ID is to pervert democracy and disenfranchise people for political gain. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:No but seriously is anyone, ever, going to bring to Scalia's attention that his dissent was extremely funny in light of his vote in Bush v. Gore? I don't mean officially, because that will never happen. But, like, on a personal level? In passing? At dinner? Just a little "haha, nice dissent, guy who was one of five to select the president who began the iraq war" or does being a Justice recuse you from any kind of metacognition or what The man's head already didn't explode over being all about state's rights and ruling against Raich. He's obviously immune to cranial trauma. VitalSigns posted:No, it would be much less of a burden, because the federal government wouldn't make the IDs intentionally hard to get by, say, making them only available at a DMV hundreds of miles away from poor towns which is only open three days per week during working hours. I mean, for sure duder, no problems. Just look at how smoothly ACA rolled out. No way would they abuse it for other purposes either, at least that's what the NSA tells me. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:19
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
^^^ Well okay, I guess if you're a  who thinks national ID is the Mark of the Beast to allow Satan to track down and eliminate Christian sympathizers then you have a good point 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:^^^ Well okay, I guess if you're a Minus the Christian persecution hyperbole, is this really the approach you want to take post-Snowden? Especially if you could more easily summon the political will to extend equal VRA treatment to all states? Not that either one would be easy, one would just not automatically be impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
What on earth would the NSA use an ID card for they can't already do by tracking your credit card, phone number, internet access, social security number,
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No, it would be much less of a burden, because the federal government wouldn't make the IDs intentionally hard to get by, say, making them only available at a DMV hundreds of miles away from poor towns which is only open three days per week during working hours. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
your driver's license, car registration, insurance information, credit score,
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Even if we make the assumption that the Federal government has more ID-making offices in the state than the state itself, the barriers that people were complaining about earlier; having to acquire proof of birth, proof of residence, having to drive out to the federal ID office (which, like the rest of the federal government, works during regular business hours and isn't open nights and weekends) to get your picture taken would all still exist. You also didn't address that there's really no way to make the states accept federal ID. We can assume a federal law would have problems but likely wouldn't be actually designed to disenfranchise black people
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
I think I'd pay for Gilbert Gottfried reading Scalia's dissent on Obergefell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:What on earth would the NSA use an ID card for they can't already do by tracking your credit card, phone number, internet access, social security number, As I've read in here, lots of poor folk don't have regular access or use to/of these things. corn in the bible posted:your driver's license, car registration, insurance information, credit score, If you have a DL you wouldn't need a federal ID anyway for voting, so maybe consider the context of what you're saying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:which, like the rest of the federal government, works during regular business hours and isn't open nights and weekends There's a federal office a few blocks from me (the post office) which already lets me go apply for a national ID card (a passport) on Saturdays.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Minus the Christian persecution hyperbole, is this really the approach you want to take post-Snowden? Especially if you could more easily summon the political will to extend equal VRA treatment to all states? Not that either one would be easy, one would just not automatically be impossible. Omg I just realized I have a passport, the federal government knows I exist what have I done. They certainly don't have way more personal information about me from the federal tax return I file every year, it was definitely my passport photo that bound my soul to Satan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Issuing some sort of nation-wide ID wouldn’t actually solve anything, because there really isn’t a way for the federal government to compel all 50 states to accept the new ID card. I would think a state failing to recognize a national identity card would be a violation of the Full Faith And Credit Clause and the Supremacy Clause of the constitution, they don't have to compel anything. If national ID cards were created by an act of congress, all 50 states would have to suck it and accept it. Some might drag their feet and whine a whole lot about states rights but not even this court would weaken the constitution so much as to allow states to choose whether to recognize a federal ID card.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
There's something incredibly hilarious to me as an outsider about the idea that citizens of a country are afraid of their government knowing basic things about them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Could we split the discussion of arguing with voter ID trolls off into its own thread, maybe?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Nurge posted:There's something incredibly hilarious to me as an outsider about the idea that citizens of a country are afraid of their government knowing basic things about them. Would you approve of an EU identification and allow the EU to build databases about every citizen in their respective countries (assuming you're European)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Omg I just realized I have a passport, the federal government knows I exist what have I done. Hm yes a system of external passports is equivalent to internal ones because _________________ Countdown to "but they'd never let the TSA demand it for travel and/or expand it past just voter ID!" in 3, 2, 1... Nurge posted:There's something incredibly hilarious to me as an outsider about the idea that citizens of a country are afraid of their government knowing basic things about them. It's an American thang. You wouldn't understand. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Oh okay then, here's the case in question. Go ahead and point out the part that agrees with you: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=445+F.Supp.+1245&hl=en&as_sdt=40000003&case=16342110258677240465&scilh=0 Let's start with the very first case the panel cited: You aren't capable of reading a court decision unless you are also capable of reading all the later decisions that use or modify that decision. There is a specialized set of skills necessarily to read legal decisions, and just "how it reads to me as an English speaker" is far from sufficient. Law is a matter of not only legislation but of case law, meaning "how previous judges decided the issue". That particular decision, although it applies to one college in one place, has been interpreted by other judges as "students get to vote where they go to school." e: I agree, let's kill the voter ID problem. On-topic: what are the odds that Scalia actually gives himself an apoplexy? That is one angry, angry man. Arsenic Lupin fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
Only Europe seems to be suffering from beheadings so maybe they shouldn't throw stones? All their governments spy on its citizens and they get nothing out of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:44
|
|
