I was under the impression that, for the most part, this was the case. Voters without an ID over the age of 65 would not be required to get one, they can mail it in. Anyone else would be able to get one at a DPS office. There are areas in West Texas that apparently don't have any offices in convenient proximity, but wouldn't most people already have a government issued ID? Most people over 16 have a driver's license. Those who don't should be able to get one at any government agency building. Local government buildings should suffice. Everyone is within decent proximity of a court house, DPS office, post office, or City Hall. MC, you claim that voter fraud is a myth, but how are you so sure? I am not so sure it's not, but if there is proof that just a few "fake ballots" have been cast, wouldn't it be reason enough to ensure that the entirety of the election is legitimate and secure? No law should be passed that disenfranchises voters, but that doesn't mean you can't have any voter-id laws. The issue no longer seems to be legitimate, it's more of a talking point. The Reps say fraud is rampant, the Dems say they're full of ****. Hard to prove either way, but if Wentworth's press release is factual in regards to the 239 deceased voters, I think there is enough proof right there. However, I think 239 voters died after they voted...
Very easy to prove. Show me a conviction. But to your point; are we willing to disenfranchise millions of completely eligible voters to catch a handful of people?
I quickly read over this, but doesn't it admit the numbers could be inflated. Regardless, it doesn't necessarily disenfranchise voters, from what I understand none of these voter-id rules (for Texas I am certain) are likely to be in place come November. If you give them proper time, and there is virtually no cost, why is it so bad? Are you that sure that not ONE person has fraudulently voted? It should be designed to give everyone access to voting, even if you live on the streets, that is for sure.
That only proves that they have caught someone. Doesn't prove there isn't fraud. I think a national id is a good idea. If we have a national database of voters that also can be used like E-Verify, we would seriously limit illegals from working, and voter fraud. I think we need to know who is here legally, who can vote, and who can't. BTW, I also believe that I read those numbers also include those with felony-convictions who can no longer vote. That is common in many states and there's plenty to argue on whether that is right or not, but I thought I should make note of it.
How exactly are we disenfranchising them? They still can vote, they just are inconvenienced by having to get another ID that should be free to them. I absolutely, wholeheartedly agree that if it costs them to get this identification it should not be required. The state should have a system to get people's DOB certificates free of charge.
I'd much prefer to have a system whereby each invidual receives a number of votes proportional to the amount of taxes they paid in the prior year, or over the prior 4 years, in the case of national elections. This would be the same concept of voting your shares in corporate governance. The concept makes perfect sense -- the citizens providing the most money to government should have the most say in how it is spent. Conversely, the citizens providing no money to government should not have any say how it is spent. It's bullcrap that inviduals selfishly vote for politicians that promise them the moon and the stars in handouts and freebies, while the people that have to pay for that are drowned out in the process. It also creates the perverse liberal incentive of expanding government to have greater than 50% of the voting public relying on handouts to live. And FURTHERMORE, it's bullcrap that people within my organization such as secretaries and janitors who are not trusted to make a single decision other than when they can file my memoranda or replace my trashcan's liner, have a say in who governs our country. Not only a say, but an equal say as to informed, decision making professionals. Can you imagine if we used a similar strategy in making corporate decisions? That's a funny joke, just thinking about it! The great tragedy of 2008 was not that an unqualified, inexperienced, naive politician was voted to be President. The great tragedy was that a voting public was proven to be so gullible and recklessly ignorant to vote for such a person.
Well, we do know Ann Coulter and Mitt Romney both have probably committed voter fraud. So no, I can't say for certain that no one has ever committed voter fraud. :grin:
... There is a reason we have two legislative chambers. It wouldn't be fair to the states with less population to have less representatives, just as it would be unfair for those with less money to have less representation in government. Rich people shouldn't get government favors, just like poor shouldn't get government handouts. Unfortunately, I think it's about even right now, we give a lot to the poor, and we give a lot to the rich in commissions and such. Republicans and Democrats aren't the problem, it's the mentality amongst the established, incumbent representatives who only worry about their next election. Dare I say term-limits?
Citing Brenan Voter ID studies is like citing McDonalds Obesity studies. Since they don't want to do real research, I'll do it for them. The Sauk City ID office is only open on the 5th Wednesday of the month because it is within 25 miles of an ID office that is open 7:00AM-5:00PM daily. Sorry, but one time 25 mile round trip is not unreasonable (you can renew your ID online). http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/about/locate/dmv/sauk.htm
We desperately need term limits in congress if we want any hope of preventing the wealthy and corrupt from completely and irrevocably subverting our democracy... and that's precisely why we won't get them without drastic measures. This is, of course, probably better left to another thread .... I think it's been awhile since we've had a thread on term limits.
Start er' up! You need enough time to be able to learn the ropes, but 25+ years? Maybe there are some who are capable of being champion fighters for their causes, but I feel most are just too corrupt, greedy, and just plane lazy to be effective for that long.
Disagree entirely. Term limits have been a total disaster in California. The loss of senior politicians significantly impacts how legislation flows and a basic understanding of the process. Your criticism is merited but you're criticizing the wrong thing. The problem is that our legislative districts are gerrymandered to ensure safe seats for current representatives. Term limits wouldn't fix that. Instead of the status quo where a democrat or republican gets re-elected indefinitely because of their district lines, you'd get another similar republican or democrat elected after the term limit is up. The solution is non-partisan drawing of legislative lines and strong rules to prevent gerrymandering. That will create more competitive elections that will allow local communities to actually hold their politicians accountable. If someone does a good job representing a properly drawn district, there is nothing wrong with getting elected multiple times. There's a reason why California continually gets voter referendums now to modify the term limits. It has been an utter failure and has ruined an older screwed up government.
Online public voting. Easy and completely transparent with a follow up verification or grievance period if the system is hacked or corrupted. Also voter fraud should be akin to treason.
Careful what you wish for. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-02-bill-gates-obama-fundraiser.html#jCp Buffett: I Support Obama 100% http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1620317393001/buffett-i-support-obama-100/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/obama-and-facebook-in-warm-embrace/ These men are the pinnacle of American innovation, and wealth. Whatever achievements you might imagine for yourself on the internet, they have surpassed you many times over.
Yes, but when does gerrymandering come into play? Every 10 years, unless requested and granted by someone (can't remember, too lazy to look it up), point is that we gerrymander every 10 years, only the established politicians successfully abuse this tool because they are the ones still there to take advantage of the demographic switch. I understand your point about senior politicians, but look how much damage they have done. If more years = more effective government, why are we in such a **** hole, considering the amount of "tenured" politicians.
Voting should be as easy as possible for the most amount of people. It is a fundamental right that allows the populace to control the distribution of all other rights. First it was completely non-landowning males, minorities, and women. Then it was poll taxes, and literacy tests. Now it is increasingly stringent voting ID laws and denying votes to those who have committed more and more types of crimes - all of which seem facially neutral and reasonable, but are only enacted because in practice they have a disparate impact on certain voting groups. The amount of people who are burdened to the point of not voting outweighs by a thousandfold the amount of voter fraud we might be averting. Of course, the only proof we will ever get about the intent to disenfranchise is when the back-room deals to get these laws on paper come out from on-the-outs Republican operatives who have nothing to lose. All the while, the ones still in power tell us that they propose these laws only to safeguard our democracy from the legion of those who might be committing voter fraud: http://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/fla_republican_we_suppressed_black_votes/ This is an issue that should cut-cross party lines as something that is wrong. When people propose increased burdens on the right to vote, the response should be as if it was banning religious ceremonies or prohibiting the use of anti-government speech restrictions in public places, but it isn't and I don't know why that is. The fact that less than half of all people in this country vote is a shame and we should be doing everything we can to encourage, not discourage voting.
