Systemic suppression of black voters.

[HerrDrFunk]

11 hours ago, Grapefruits said:

Well that is one way to look at it.  Or you can look at it as 2 cents a day over the 4 years. If someone really wants to vote bad enough, they will find a way to do it.

Or the government could just provided valid ID to low income people who can't afford the fees?

 

11 hours ago, Grapefruits said:

Besides, look at many of the voters who voted for the Democrats. Some of them are dead and they still managed to vote.

Been listening to Info Wars? 

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Or the government could just provided valid ID to low income people who can't afford the fees?

 

Been listening to Info Wars? 

its curious that the "rules are rules" folks value the form of ID over the ability of everyone to patriciate in a democracy. 

[Tortorella's Rant]

19 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

thats nice, putting up things you know are berries to poor people voting is ok in your books? interesting. There was nothing wrong with the system before, it didn't need this solution. 

It's not a barrier. You need personal identification to do anything nowadays as it is. How do you know anything to be true if you can't even show it to be true, in this context, how do you show you are who you say you are if you can't even show that to be true. By law, you need ID to buy a case of beer if they ask you for it. Are we going to cry about suppression there as well? 

[HerrDrFunk]

6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

its curious that the "rules are rules" folks value the form of ID over the ability of everyone to patriciate in a democracy. 

Yeah, I would have thought "every eligible voter should have the means to cast a vote" would be a pretty universally accepted idea but that just makes me trigged, fake and lazy apparently.

[HerrDrFunk]

11 minutes ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

It's not a barrier. You need personal identification to do anything nowadays as it is. How do you know anything to be true if you can't even show it to be true, in this context, how do you show you are who you say you are if you can't even show that to be true. By law, you need ID to buy a case of beer if they ask you for it. Are we going to cry about suppression there as well? 

I see you've once again read the thread but not actually paid attention to anyone's posts. No one in this thread is saying you should be able to vote without proving your identity. 

[Duodenum]

The Republicans HAVE to game the system because they are the less popular party (and refuse to improve upon their dated policies). In a straight-up election for the presidency where everyone got to vote (and 100% of people voted) and whomever received >50% of the vote wins the presidency, the democrats would win the vast majority of the time. 

 

So you gerrymander, make it more difficult for democratic groups to vote, etc. to give yourself a chance at winning. 

 

People voted Democrat 54.02% of the time in the past election yet the Republicans won 304 out of the 538 seats (56.5%, an over 10 point swing).

Overall, Hilary received over 2.8 million more votes than Trump. It's the first time in American History where a president won while also trailing their opponent by over 600,000 votes (and smashed right through the previous record of 543,816..which was Bush).

 

By all accounts, Trump should have lost, but didn't thanks to the way the Republicans have gamed the electoral college. 

 

 

[JM_]

38 minutes ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

It's not a barrier. You need personal identification to do anything nowadays as it is. How do you know anything to be true if you can't even show it to be true, in this context, how do you show you are who you say you are if you can't even show that to be true. By law, you need ID to buy a case of beer if they ask you for it. Are we going to cry about suppression there as well? 

but thats not whats really going on or the argument here. They have restricted old forms of ID that were just fine in previous elections for ones they know its harder for poor people to get. It might be legal but its designed to discourage people from voting. The restrictions are based on fake reports of widespread voter fraud. 

 

Why are you more concerned about the form of ID? shouldn't the US be doing all it can to promote voter participation? 

[Kragar]

15 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Right....people being denied their constitutional rights....NBD....

 

3 Million? Interesting number. Isn't that exactly how many illegals voted for Hillary, costing president Pinocchio the popular vote? It all makes sense now....

Did you stop reading at the bolded?  I did allow for impacted individual possibly being worked up over this, and in many cases legitimately so.  But, do you not agree that it is nowhere near as big as some are making it out to be?

 

I haven't read the whole thread, so I'm not sure if someone posted this link already.  Not only does it have a similar map to the first page (they list 35 states needing some kind of ID instead of 33), but it goes into detail on each state.  http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx

 

To elaborate on what I said before:

1. 15 (or 17 if you use the map on the first page) states have no ID requirements, including top 10 population states CA, IL, NY, PA, and NC, account for about 125 million people who have no ID requirements.

2. Another 17 states (or 15 if you use the map on the first page), do not require photo ID, and can use something like a utility bill, a bank statement, a social security card, school id, paystub (varies by state, and often more than one of these are acceptable), accounting for over 60 million people.

3. Places that "require" non-photo ID, but the voter doesn't have any?  Well, they can often just sign a form saying they are who they say they are, or get vouched for by the polling station, and vote.  If the signature doesn't match what is on record, their vote can be disqualified.  This includes a couple top-10 states, Florida and Texas, and overall accounts for another 77 million.

 

If you've been counting, that is about 265 million people (not eligible voters, I know... bear with me), out of 325 million, over 80% of the population.  Going to my original assumption of spreading the 3 million who cannot get photo ID for some reason (and it could be argued that more of these people may live in those urban areas that do not require ID at all), that's 600,000 people who are potentially affected.  If you read the site further, you will see that some of the states also have a provision for those indigent citizens.  Then apply the average voter turnout, and that impact gets less once more, getting down around 300,000 people.

 

This is still a molehill.  

 

Edit: Since you bring up constitutional rights... does this mean you now support the government making it easier for people to get guns?  

[Ilunga]

15 hours ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

It's not a barrier. You need personal identification to do anything nowadays as it is. How do you know anything to be true if you can't even show it to be true, in this context, how do you show you are who you say you are if you can't even show that to be true. By law, you need ID to buy a case of beer if they ask you for it. Are we going to cry about suppression there as well? 

Soon they are gonna treat like us cats and dogs and put a computer chip in us.

 

Wonder who is going to own us ?

[Ilunga]

Here in Aus when a person turns 18 one is required to provide ID when they enrol to vote

From then on at every election you turn up, get your name crossed off, vote then leave.

No ID required on the day.

[RUPERTKBD]

8 hours ago, Kragar said:

Did you stop reading at the bolded?  I did allow for impacted individual possibly being worked up over this, and in many cases legitimately so.  But, do you not agree that it is nowhere near as big as some are making it out to be?

 

I haven't read the whole thread, so I'm not sure if someone posted this link already.  Not only does it have a similar map to the first page (they list 35 states needing some kind of ID instead of 33), but it goes into detail on each state.  http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx

 

To elaborate on what I said before:

1. 15 (or 17 if you use the map on the first page) states have no ID requirements, including top 10 population states CA, IL, NY, PA, and NC, account for about 125 million people who have no ID requirements.

2. Another 17 states (or 15 if you use the map on the first page), do not require photo ID, and can use something like a utility bill, a bank statement, a social security card, school id, paystub (varies by state, and often more than one of these are acceptable), accounting for over 60 million people.

3. Places that "require" non-photo ID, but the voter doesn't have any?  Well, they can often just sign a form saying they are who they say they are, or get vouched for by the polling station, and vote.  If the signature doesn't match what is on record, their vote can be disqualified.  This includes a couple top-10 states, Florida and Texas, and overall accounts for another 77 million.

 

If you've been counting, that is about 265 million people (not eligible voters, I know... bear with me), out of 325 million, over 80% of the population.  Going to my original assumption of spreading the 3 million who cannot get photo ID for some reason (and it could be argued that more of these people may live in those urban areas that do not require ID at all), that's 600,000 people who are potentially affected.  If you read the site further, you will see that some of the states also have a provision for those indigent citizens.  Then apply the average voter turnout, and that impact gets less once more, getting down around 300,000 people.

 

This is still a molehill.  

 

Edit: Since you bring up constitutional rights... does this mean you now support the government making it easier for people to get guns?  

I guess it comes down to whether you believe that a political party actively attempting to keep certain demographics from voting is a "big deal". IMO, it is.

 

As far as your last sentence goes, I don't think the 2nd amendment calls requires the government "make it easier" to get guns. It's my opinion that gun ownership has "evolved" since the original text was written and that the current state of affairs could not have been foreseen by the FF. I also believe they'd be appalled if they could see what the 2nd amendment has engendered.

 

It is therefore left to the courts to interpret and that means that (once again) the politics of the SCOTUS justices comes into play. DC vs Heller was a 5-4 decision and was made pretty much along party lines. There is even mention of "The Scalia majority" in texts on the case.

 

Even so,that decision affirmed that the right to bear arms is not unlimited:
 

Quote

 

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

 

This is and has always been my position on gun ownership: The laws quoted in article (2) need to be expanded/strengthened in certain areas. I've already stated in multiple threads what areas I believe they should be. I won't reopen that debate ITT.

[mpt]

I think its crazy that you don’t even have to be a citizen to vote in the USA.  This is the main reason the left wants open borders and are fighting for DACA and the dreamers.  Unlimited election wins by non citizens.

[HerrDrFunk]

12 minutes ago, mpt said:

I think its crazy that you don’t even have to be a citizen to vote in the USA.  This is the main reason the left wants open borders and are fighting for DACA and the dreamers.  Unlimited election wins by non citizens.

Yes, that would be crazy if it were true. However, that is also a load of horse$&!# you just laid down. Non US citizens are not allowed to vote in elections and you can be fined, imprissoned and deported if you try to.

[mpt]

15 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Yes, that would be crazy if it were true. However, that is also a load of horse$&!# you just laid down. Non US citizens are not allowed to vote in elections and you can be fined, imprissoned and deported if you try to.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/20/us/noncitizens-vote-san-francisco/index.html

 

https://www.newsweek.com/immigrants-are-getting-right-vote-cities-across-america-664467

 

https://www.pressherald.com/2018/07/12/plan-renews-push-to-give-non-citizens-the-right-to-vote-in-portland/

[HerrDrFunk]

1 minute ago, mpt said:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/20/us/noncitizens-vote-san-francisco/index.html

That’s for a school board in a city. Want to guess if that applies to state and federal elections, genius?

[mpt]

7 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

That’s for a school board in a city. Want to guess if that applies to state and federal elections, genius?

I never said it applies to voting for the president.  Its still ridiculous and the trend is continuing across America.

 

It does apply for municipal elections, like in Portland.

 

It is also true that the left’s push for DACA and dreamers to become automatic citizens would make them eligible to vote in all elections

[mpt]

10 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

That’s for a school board in a city. Want to guess if that applies to state and federal elections, genius?

Here is another good article for you to read.

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973

[HerrDrFunk]

11 minutes ago, mpt said:

I never said it applies to voting for the president.  Its still ridiculous and the trend is continuing across America.

No, you just spoke in incredibly broad strokes that implied non-citizens are allowed to vote in whatever election they want. 

 

12 minutes ago, mpt said:

It is also true that the left’s push for DACA and dreamers to become automatic citizens would make them eligible to vote in all elections

And? If they're citizens they're entitled to vote. Simple as that. 

[mpt]

2 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

No, you just spoke in incredibly broad strokes that implied non-citizens are allowed to vote in whatever election they want. 

 

And? If they're citizens they're entitled to vote. Simple as that. 

No you just assumed.  One could argue what happens in your community elections has a bigger influence on your life then large centralized government arguing how much to tax people.

 

That $&!# isn’t happening in Canada.

[HerrDrFunk]

6 hours ago, mpt said:

Here is another good article for you to read.

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973

Did you actually read it yourself? That's the abstract and the actual paper is behind a paywall. I'm assuming you Googled papers that support your argument but you didn't actually read it either.