USA Presidential Election 2016

12122242627

Comments

  • voodooratvoodoorat Atlanta
    edited January 2017
    as @OldGriswold points out correctly, it's easy to think that getting a government id is easy when you're someone who has easy access to private transportation, a steady home address, speak english as your first language, have the ability to take time to go get it without having to find child care or take time off work, have proof of residence in the form of billing addresses, etc, etc.  it would be a little different if you had multiple jobs that you could not just arbitrarily take time off from, you had no car so had to take public transportation to wherever it was to get a new id (which you only need to vote, mind you), had to find whatever additional documentation you needed and if you were missing anything you'd have to go through this whole ordeal again, etc...  and all to exercise your *single most important and sacred right* as a citizen in a democratic republic?  

    i mean, it's not an insurmountable obstacle or anything, but it's a lot easier for a middle or upper class person with easy access to transportation, child care, discretionary time, etc, and as a middle or upper class person you have *no more right to vote* than anybody else does.  and suppressing the vote doesn't mean that you have to prevent every single person from voting that you don't want to vote--it just means you make it harder for them to vote, and therefore some percentage of them don't vote, so anything you can do to make it harder has an effect at the margins.  

    remember, voting is a zero-sum game so even a small advantage can be huge.  in michigan in this last presidential election, trump won by like 10k votes...  2,279,543 to 2,268,839.  if just *1 of every 400* votes that went to trump had instead voted for clinton (~5,699), she would have won michigan 2,274,538 to 2,273,844.  now, she's also have needed someplace else (she didn't lose because of michigan alone), but that should give some idea of how close this thing really can be--it doesn't take much to turn an election (which is why i think it's nuts that people discount the whole russia hacking and comey letters as possible game-changers).
    CretanBulldarwinfeeshyVasilnate1
  • Frakkin TFrakkin T Currently Offline
    tom_g said:

    Muslim ban went well.

    You know we're fucked when Dick Cheney and Michael Moore are both saying the same thing
    CretanBullMichelle
  • Soooo to add to the fun...it appears in the revamp of the Whitehouse.gov site someone "forgot" to add the Judicial branch as part of the government. Not easy to add photos on the app I use, so hopefully someone can help. Found it on twitter via @margarita
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Ok, but shouldn't we be helping these people get ID's instead of complaining that the law is unfair? Cuz you also need an ID to cash a paycheck, get welfare or government help, healthcare etc...
    Brawn
  • Ok, but shouldn't we be helping these people get ID's instead of complaining that the law is unfair?

    We can help people get IDs and fight against unfair laws at the same time.
  • Vasilnate1Vasilnate1 Salem, MA
    edited January 2017
    Yeah, but is the need for an ID the unfair part? Or is the fact that getting an ID is hard the unfair part? If it were easier to obtain, than the law would be moot
  • We should actually set up ad hoc RMV/DMV stations at certain voting stations, get an ID, register and vote all at the same location. Fight problems with solutions!
    voodooratTaraC73Brawn
  • edited January 2017

    Yeah, but is the need for an ID the unfair part? Or is the fact that getting an ID is hard the unfair part? If it were easier to obtain, than the law would be moot

    Well, the Constitution protects the right to vote. It says nothing about what type of ID is required for voting. Therefore, protecting a citizen's right to vote is more important than ensuring they have the correct identification.

    As for making IDs easier to obtain, I direct you to @OldGriswold and @voodoorat 's earlier comments. Just because someone is too busy to get an ID (that they don't need for anything besides voting) doesn't mean they don't have the right to vote.


    I didn't see this comment till after I posted:
    @Vasilnate "We should actually set up ad hoc RMV/DMV stations at certain voting stations, get an ID, register and vote all at the same location. Fight problems with solutions!"


    That would be a great idea. However, I would like to point out that it's usually the GOP that is against expanding the amount of public spending, DMVs included. So the GOP, that is the party fighting for stronger voter ID laws, are also the ones against expanding access to DMVs and other providers of public IDs.
    KingKobra
  • Ok? So while the left wants to just challenge every play, we just let the GOP keep snapping the ball and getting first downs? The left seems to complain a lot about unfairness, but dosnt seem to fight back with any creativity
  • Ok, but shouldn't we be helping these people get ID's instead of complaining that the law is unfair? Cuz you also need an ID to cash a paycheck, get welfare or government help, healthcare etc...

    You're right, in theory requiring ID isn't an obstacle in and of itself and isn't a horrible idea--why not validate that someone is who they say they are?  But in practice it is an obstacle to some voters, and it's also clear from the fact that rather than removing obstacles to getting a voter ID the same people in favor of these laws go out of their way to make it more difficult instead that in this case the obstacle itself is not a bug but a feature.  Moreover, as others have already pointed out, there's no way to validate mail-in ballots (which don't seem to be a problem to the same people--strange), and there's very little evidence of much intentional in-person voter fraud anyway (which makes sense, who is going to risk jail time to vote an extra time?  The scale of elections are such that it doesn't make sense--you would have to have a huge number of people individually all risk jail time for it to have an electoral effect).
  • kingbee67kingbee67 Los Angeles Ca.
    Dear future

    I'm sorry.

    Yours truly
    @ Kingbee67
  • We should actually set up ad hoc RMV/DMV stations at certain voting stations, get an ID, register and vote all at the same location. Fight problems with solutions!

    The Republican party runs on the premise that government cannot deliver solutions, then, guess what they do - they undermine government.  The Kock brothers do not want to pay for new RMV/DMV stations - what planet are you from?

    Voter ID laws are doing exactly what they are designed to do - as everyone here has explained.  You are calling for a solution to a problem that does not exist.
  • We should actually set up ad hoc RMV/DMV stations at certain voting stations, get an ID, register and vote all at the same location. Fight problems with solutions!

    The problem is, thats not as easy as you are saying. What happens is that the GOP controlled areas will be further controlled (they WANT to prevent people from voting). So if you set up a plan to try and get people signed up for IDs, guess what you'll face a near impossible task. They have set up laws purposefully to stop certain groups of people from voting.

    I live in a deep blue state and the DMV has been "gutted" in past years. Getting this together here even wouldn't be easy. These folks getting the ID will also need the funds to pay for said ID (reminding you that they only need it for voting l). At least in my state, when you get your licenece/state ID you can also register to vote.

    Most of the time the Voter ID law isn't to "prove" who someone is, it's to prevent groups of people from voting.
  • In effect, both the left and the right generally believe the same thing:  That long-term demographic trends will tend towards a majority-minority country and therefore unless the internal makeup of the parties change (which they will, or the parties will be replaced with two new opposition parties) the left can play a waiting game because in the end they will win.

    So the right has every incentive to use whatever tactics they can hold on to power (gerrymandering, disenfranchising/suppressing, etc) whereas the left thinks time is on their side.  And it probably is, but because the great empty space of American land itself has electoral power (as we've seen in this last election), and because the left has sort of treated the Presidency as the end goal when even if they'd held it (and they very nearly did), they still wouldn't have regained congress or statehouses/governorships.  And the tendency of left-leaning voters to cluster together works very much against their electoral interests.
  • Sounds like everyone is saying that's the way it is, and there is no solution?
  • The only solution is to hold this administration to account both constitutionally/legally and with a free and fair press so people are aware of what's happening and to vote in 2018 and 2020.  Oh, and to continue having minority babies if applicable, LOL.
  • How's this for some gangster shit... "Oh, you won't confirm my cabinet members, well I'll just put on my Muslim ban" so then tonight, when Chuck Schummer is looking for Repulican votes to lift the ban, they can say OK, I'll vote to lift the ban if you agree to confirm the cabinet. Mother fuckers
  • this was my favorite read over the weekend

  • Sounds like everyone is saying that's the way it is, and there is no solution?

    People will continue to fight and try to oppose the way things are, until those that WANT these things are out of power are out, "hands are tied" so to speak. If you look around people have been speaking out against these things (and some lawmakers trying to prevent it). It's a slow process (especially when you have the local gov't against what you are trying to do). So many of us know that hopefully in the future we will see things change, but until then be vigilant and speak out when possible.

    For instance, could you have a voter registration drive? Sure, but 1st I'd suggest having a funding drive to "pay" for the needed IDs of possible new voters. You'd then have to hope that those people have a way to get to you AND have the free time to get to you (not to mention the needed documents). All of this is possible, of course if someone that doesn't want this gets a snifff of what you are doing they could block all of your work be saying xyz is missing "sorry not sorry", or all of a sudden you find out that redistricting happened and now people will also need to keep on top of where and when they need to vote. The problem is much bigger than just IDs...
    Vasilnate1
  • Ok, but shouldn't we be helping these people get ID's instead of complaining that the law is unfair? Cuz you also need an ID to cash a paycheck, get welfare or government help, healthcare etc...

    The question is, what problem are you trying to solve?
    If it's people voting on behalf of someone else, first of all that is incredibly rare. So it is a solution looking for a problem.

    Also, keep in mind that people complain that the law is unfair when the law is unfair. You don't see people complaining about the ID law that exists in Connecticut, Rhode Island or Hawaii, three deep blue states. In fact, democrats created the voter ID laws in those states. Why aren't those two state laws controversial? Because they require IDs for both in person and absentee voting (at least the first time), they accept a wide range of forms of IDs, and they have procedures in place to help out people who don't have ID when they are first voting.

    Again, people don't complain about ID laws because they are against ID laws in general, forever and ever. They complain about ID laws because the vast majority of them are designed with the sole intent of reducing participation of people who don't vote Republican. If NC had passed an ID law like Connecticut's, they'd be fine. But they went so far as to get data on what type of ID  people have so that they could exclude all of those that are more common among minorities.
    KingKobraVasilnate1
  • DeeDee Adelaide

    Sounds like everyone is saying that's the way it is, and there is no solution?

    Compulsory voting? We have it - it's not without its own problems, but it makes people get off their arses and have a say rather than just whinging from the sidelines (or being deliberately sidelined by rich old bastards who don't want them voting).
    Vasilnate1
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • @akritenbrink i believe they usually do audits and can find out if 1) Dead people vote 2) People vote more than once 3) unregistered voters vote.

    Here is a related link....
    http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/post-election-audits635926066.aspx

    The "it's so rare" is based on previous recounts/audits which is how they know how rare it is.
    Travis


  • Speechless
  • Any tips on how to delicately calm down someone who's freaking out about Trump?

    I'm concerned myself and I can't completely discount the fears--it's very concerning having someone in control with no deference to the mores of the office and with nobody with both the balls (I'm looking at you, congressional Republicans who used to pretend they had principles) and the power to oppose him--just want to keep the threat posed in perspective so we can do useful stuff and not go all-in as doomsday preppers.
  • @voodoorat it all depends on the person. The best thing anyone can do is become politically active. Start calling your rep(s), join a group that is active, BE the change. For many of us this is "new ground", so actions will speak louder than words. Hopefully if the person starts being active it will calm them down. It may also be good to step away from social media for a while so that they don't keep feeding into their fears.
    Travisvoodoorat
This discussion has been closed.