Mandatory Voting

[TLDR20]

Minority voting increased in TX after Voter ID went into effect?
I don't buy the minorities are too stupid to get a free I.D. card argument.
Easy solution, make EBT/WIC/Welfare cards a photo id card, problem solved with the low intelligence community.

Implying that the only way you would be on WIC/EBT/Welfare is if you have low intelligence is pretty damn ignorant.

 

[Brill]

Funny how requiring an ID to vote places too heavy of a burden on the electorate however requiring an ID to purchase alcohol or cigarettes isn't?

Anyone get medical care now without a valid picture ID? "No tickey...no laundry!"

I watched exactly 36 seconds of his bumbling BS and stopped when he mentioned decision making based on facts. If Obama won't follow his own advice, I won't either.

THAT is what disenfranchises voters: bullshit.

 

[Ranger Psych]

Considering that MC was the only one with a steady job when she got preggers thanks to an early morning ambush, and that her work once informed literally started paper trailing her to fire her... we've been on WIC before.

Hell, up until recently we've qualified for all of the above, we only did WIC because it was of the most useful benefit (food help, we don't need money since my disability pays all the bills. Fresh fruit is nice for the midget.) and also the least amount of hassle. Welfare and other stuff I have no clue how these people make eleventy billion bucks doing it.

It was a stopgap measure, that's what I always looked at the stuff as. Wasn't something I was happy about doing, but I figure I paid into the shit for enough years prior that a couple years of it was getting my dividend of investment.

 

[Rapid]

Fucking hell, I'd rather start by taking the vote away from more people.

 

[Salt USMC]

@Deathy McDeath I understand your post and tend to agree with it, but my problem is that he said it at all. He didn't just bring it up, he used certain demographics to illustrate his point, demographics which, and I'll bet you a dollar, tend to vote Democrat and not Republican.

Thanks for taking the time to read it all.

I see your point and understand your reasoning. You are right; the groups the Obama cited tend to lean Democrat. At least, youth and minorities do. There's a good amount of intersection between impoverished groups and minorities, but that doesn't paint the whole picture. It's fairly well-known that that 9 out of the 10 most impoverished states (as measured by levels of federal assistance AND median income adjusted for cost of living) went red in the last few Presidential elections. Though, as Politifact freely admits, the Presidential election is not a complete barometer for a state's party identity. Arkansas, for example, flipped between Democratic and Republican governors in the last few election cycles. Likewise, Mississippi has had a democratic governor since 2001. So as a general measure of accuracy, the Presidential results are pretty good, if inexact. What this tells us is that voters below the poverty line are not a single block, and encouraging them to vote is a bi-partisan measure. Anyone who cares about democracy should be able to get behind it. It should also be noted that a number of those states are listed in that graphic that I previously linked who restrict either early or absentee voting.

 

[racing_kitty]

Implying that the only way you would be on WIC/EBT/Welfare is if you have low intelligence is pretty damn ignorant.

I didn't take it that way. After all, the last time I had to go on some form of public assistance, I was required to provide photographic identification at the enrollment office. This requirement is often lost on the sycophants who are screaming about all voter ID laws disenfranchising poverty stricken minorities, and those sycophants are pretty fucking stupid. By allowing an EBT ID card (is there one? It's been a few years) to function as allowable identification to vote, you eliminate the platform that the low information community loves to harp from. They will, however, just move on to the next platform, as lemmings with voices are prone to do.

He could have phrased it differently, but I most certainly didn't get the same meaning from @DA SWO 's post that you did. Hmmmm...

 

[Salt USMC]

I didn't take it that way. After all, the last time I had to go on some form of public assistance, I was required to provide photographic identification at the enrollment office. This requirement is often lost on the sycophants who are screaming about all voter ID laws disenfranchising poverty stricken minorities, and those sycophants are pretty fucking stupid. By allowing an EBT ID card (is there one? It's been a few years) to function as allowable identification to vote, you eliminate the platform that the low information community loves to harp from. They will, however, just move on to the next platform, as lemmings with voices are prone to do.

He could have phrased it differently, but I most certainly didn't get the same meaning from @DA SWO 's post that you did. Hmmmm...

After reading your post and re-reading what @DA SWO posted, I'm inclined to see your interpretation of it. It could do without the inflammatory language, but I see that his point was to address the ideologues, rather than the welfare recipients themselves.

 

[DA SWO]

No, not everyone on EBT etc is low intelligence, my point was/is, those claiming that going to get a photo I.D. is too difficult won't have that problem if you make the cards a photo I.D.

My experience with the EBT crowd was damn unpleasant, getting bitched at because they couldn't use it to buy a slurpee for example. I've seen enough fraud to know the government doesn't care.

The temp recipients tend to use it the way it was designed, the long-term recipients act as if it's a paycheck.
YMMV.

 

[Scotth]

I'm all for letting citizens of the United States vote. The only way to prove that you are a legal citizen is to show a form of identification, which can be freely uptained.

Ignoring the point that voter fraud isn't even near a real issue. In Minnesota we had 3 elections in a row for state wide office that went to recounts. Conservative like to say Franken stole the election because of fraud but in the end they had about 70 cases of voter fraud in 3.6 million votes cast. Nearly all those cases of fraud were felons who voted before they were eligible to vote again.

First problem with some voter ID laws is not all states provide free ID. Second many people don't have access to get ID's. I have several very large retirement communities by my house and those residents don't drive themselves any more and almost everything they do is contained in that community. Voter ID laws would block the vast majority of those people from voting.

I haven't produced an ID since the early 80's in a liqueur store. About the only time I have to produce a drivers license is doing an in store pickup of something I bought online. Beyond that I rarely use my driver license.

Personally, I can tell you if voter ID only was the law I would have lost my right to vote twice in my life. First time I was 20 and lost my wallet and only had a paper driver license. If my roommate couldn't have vouched for me I would have been screwed. The second time I had just moved and got a new license because of the change of address. Even though I had the paper renewal and my old license, which was clipped, it still wasn't "legal" and I had to have a roommate vouch for me again.

In the end not all laws are created equal. When one party is pushing an idea you can be sure that party stands to gain from that idea. Neither party is out to do what is in the nations best interest. Motor voter registration was about getting more young people to vote with the majority of those voters going Democrat and that's why they pushed it. Voter ID laws by any measure reduces participation and that is the intended consequence as well. Purging voter registrations is another way to limit participation especially in states that don't have same day registration procedures.

 

[Gunz]

It's my belief that the liberal/socialist/progressive agenda, the empowerment of liberal causes at the expense of more conservative views is at the core of everything this president says or does, and if the Constitution gets in the way he's prepared to go around it.

 

[Salt USMC]

It's my belief that the liberal/socialist/progressive agenda, the empowerment of liberal causes at the expense of more conservative views is at the core of everything this president says or does, and if the Constitution gets in the way he's prepared to go around it.

The right to vote is enumerated in the amendments to the Constitution more often than any other right. At least four amendments deal directly with voting rights, with others indirectly addressing it. How is he going around the Constitution if he wants to, as he said, use the amendment process to Constitutionally remove barriers to the usage of the most Constitutional of rights? That's so Constitutional that I'm surprised a giant bald eagle wearing a tri-corner hat didn't fly into the room, perch on the flag, and shed a single tear while everyone said the pledge of allegiance!

 

[Gunz]

The right to vote is enumerated in the amendments to the Constitution more often than any other right. At least four amendments deal directly with voting rights, with others indirectly addressing it. How is he going around the Constitution if he wants to, as he said, use the amendment process to Constitutionally remove barriers to the usage of the most Constitutional of rights? That's so Constitutional that I'm surprised a giant bald eagle wearing a tri-corner hat didn't fly into the room, perch on the flag, and shed a single tear while everyone said the pledge of allegiance!

Deathly, my brother, I think you've done your research into this and you're a really smart guy. Admittedly I am biased against this man's politics (and others like him who hold similar views), and my statement that you quoted is my general impression of his presidency. I won't debate you on this because you and I will expend thousands of words and you'll probably win the battle. Suffice it to say I'm suspicious of most everything this man proposes and nothing you say, no matter how logical or rational, is going to change my mind.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

I am not ready to stick my toe into Deathy's debate right now, just wanted to share something:

My 12 year old son brought this topic up to me last night. Considering he spends more time on his XBox than he does watching Fox/CNN, I was compelled to ask how he became aware of the story. Josh to me that his Social Studies teachers told the class about it during "current events". His 6th grade class had a discussion about it and he said most kids were against it. I asked what he thought and he said, "dad, we are supposed to be a free country and voting is supposed to be a right.. How can we be free if we can be fined for not using our rights?"

Maybe I'm doing something right after all.

 

[Red Flag 1]

I am not ready to stick my toe into Deathy's debate right now, just wanted to share something:

My 12 year old son brought this topic up to me last night. Considering he spends more time on his XBox than he does watching Fox/CNN, I was compelled to ask how he became aware of the story. Josh to me that his Social Studies teachers told the class about it during "current events". His 6th grade class had a discussion about it and he said most kids were against it. I asked what he thought and he said, "dad, we are supposed to be a free country and voting is supposed to be a right.. How can we be free if we can be fined for not using our rights?"

Maybe I'm doing something right after all.

Your 12 year old should run for congress!

 

[Brill]

Second many people don't have access to get ID's. I have several very large retirement communities by my house and those residents don't drive themselves any more and almost everything they do is contained in that community. Voter ID laws would block the vast majority of those people from voting.

Voter ID laws by any measure reduces participation and that is the intended consequence as well. Purging voter registrations is another way to limit participation especially in states that don't have same day registration procedures.

How do those residents vote?

Where is the data to support the idea that voter ID laws reduce participation?

 

[Scotth]

How do those residents vote?

In our state the retirement home staff can vouch that the people live in the residence. In most cases these homes end up taking the people in bus loads to these types of events. You also see them bus loads of people to the grocery store weekly to allow the residents shop.

Where is the data to support the idea that voter ID laws reduce participation?

Here a pretty good non-biased piece that has links to studies and addresses both sides. 11% of voting age citizens don't have picture ID's. That's 21 million people.

http://www.propublica.org/article/everything-youve-ever-wanted-to-know-about-voter-id-laws

The funny thing most people will fail to know. The first picture ID requirement didn't happen anywhere in the nation until 2006.

 

[x SF med]

We have the right to vote, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States to all citizens of legal age, not in prison - in order to elect our representatives. If a right is turned into a taxable obligation, how much of the Constitution will that leave open t oammendment by Executive order, until one day, "Everything not forbidden is mandatory, Everything not mandatory is forbidden." (Thank you TH White, from "The Once and Future King").

What makes it a right is the ability to choose whether or not an individual wishes to exercise it, if one is taxed for not choosing to exercise a right, it becomes an edict.

Will the next step be allowing any resident, legally or illegally entered into the country the obligation to vote?

 

[policemedic]

I have to show ID--unexpired, government issued ID--to get on a plane, drive a car, or buy over-the-counter medicine. Most members on this board have to show an unexpired government document to exercise their right to bear arms. Hell, some have to do that just to possess arms.

On the 2nd Amendment issue, we accept (begrudgingly, in some cases) that the right is not absolute and can be regulated. So too, free speech and assembly. In comparison to free speech, you can successfully argue that voting is a civic duty to be discharged by qualified persons where free speech (except insofar as voting is an expression of political bent) is a right one can choose to exercise or not as one sees fit. To suggest that requiring one to show a valid ID to elect someone to the highest office of the land is to somehow disenfranchise a certain demographic is to demonstrate a lack of ability reason properly.

Voter fraud is not uncommon in this country; it's simply not reported and aggregated as well as we would like. In this way, it's similar to rape (which is interesting, since voter fraud rapes the electorate). If you doubt this, just search youtube for videos of people proudly claiming to have voted for Obama (just to pick a recent national contest) more than once. In fact, a very few minutes with the search engine of your choice will yield multiple instances of voter fraud surrounding the past two presidential elections.

If we as a country do not take affirmative steps to ensure that the person who is physically in the voting booth is qualified to cast a (single) ballot we may as well as remove any bar to voting because we have completely given up control. It is not unreasonable to require a legal form of ID that proves one is who one says they are and that they are a qualified elector.

 

[Shredder477]

I oppose voting all together as voting leads to the destruction of freedom. Why? Lets say you have radical Muslims who use the freedom of speech, and the freedom to vote to get rid of both. It leads to collectivism. If we had a state where freedom is held to the standard of untouchable by the state, then freedom will not be harmed. Voluntarism day is more effective and people have more power over the state than ever before. The state has no resources, all they have is what they have taken. But under nationalism and voluntarism people have the freedom to choose how much they want to give to the state. The money is an indication on how the leader is managing the money. If he is doing horrible, then they simply boycott the leader until the council pick a better alternative.

 

[x SF med]

@Shredder477 ....

You are trying to lecture people that have actually done country building on the evils of democratic process. You are 16 and have read about what you are spouting from revised textbooks with a bent toward leftism, and are trying to put a right handed spin on it.

If we had a state where freedom is held to the standard of untouchable by the state, then freedom will not be harmed.

This is a fallacious statement as you are employing a socio-anarchic model that has failed multiple times in the past, and is untenable in use. How does a state enforce what it is pledged and beholden to exempt, for who will protect those freedoms if the state cannot be involved. Circular logic.

The state has no resources, all they have is what they have taken. But under nationalism and voluntarism people have the freedom to choose how much they want to give to the state.

You have no understanding of economics, in a best case scenario the model you describe would last at most a year if people had to pony up to join your supposed state. If a state has no resources, it fails, period. Taxes are not voluntary, as they provide the services that allow the populace to create the goods that will then generate the revenues to pay for those protections.

All governments/states are collectives, there is no escaping that point. You must have just finished a course on comparative politics, and the parts that stuck were anarchism and socialism.

Your last 2 sentences are the epitome of tribal culture... and.... a tribal leader taxes his populace more heavily than an elected government.

You have a lot more studying to do... You need to read Locke, Smith, Machiavelli, Aquinas, Mao, Jefferson, Mills and de Toqueville's treatises on government and political economics as a start.