Org Mobile Site
I'll wait.
What is the voter ID you are referring to, and how is it used?
your going to need to give us non US a little more to go on - right now this like a Fragony thread - provocative title - cryptic contents...
If I remember the argument correctly from when it was brought up on here a long time ago by MajorRobertDump, you have to pay to obtain said ID.
Since 'apparently' only black and ethnic minorities are poor, so cannot afford the ID and has issues with 'the man', it would distort the voting numbers significantly towards the Republicans, hence Democrat opposition to such reform.
Over in the UK, there are multiple versions of ID which can be used, such as driving license, passport, NUS Student card, Benefit/Welfare ID (Social Security in US?), etc. There isn't too much issue since people have these or are in access of receiving these.
I believe Birth Certificate and recent bill/bank statement via post for proof of Address combination is possible too...
Since 'apparently' only black and ethnic minorities are poor, so cannot afford the ID and has issues with 'the man', it would distort the voting numbers significantly towards the Republicans, hence Democrat opposition to such reform.
Over in the UK, there are multiple versions of ID which can be used, such as driving license, passport, NUS Student card, Benefit/Welfare ID (Social Security in US?), etc. There isn't too much issue since people have these or are in access of receiving these.
I believe Birth Certificate and recent bill/bank statement via post for proof of Address combination is possible too...
Did a quick google and the main argument seems to be that black people/minorities will be put off from getting these voter ID's because of the cost of going to collect them, and also minorities are more apathetic and less likely to bother collecting them. So Voter ID is seen as a needless obstacle to discourage minorities from voting.
I would doubt that Voter ID was truly intended for this purpose, however I suppose is seems possible that some small degree of minority disenfranchisement could be one of its consequences.
When the racial element to the debate is so tangential, it seems like a poor argument to make. I suppose this is down to the 'usual suspects' who like to race bait, and view everything purely through the term of racial struggle.
I would doubt that Voter ID was truly intended for this purpose, however I suppose is seems possible that some small degree of minority disenfranchisement could be one of its consequences.
When the racial element to the debate is so tangential, it seems like a poor argument to make. I suppose this is down to the 'usual suspects' who like to race bait, and view everything purely through the term of racial struggle.
like Rhyfelwyr I just got back from googling it.
I think the Racial aspect is a bit tenuous however I can see the argument it is an attempt to disenfranchise the poor - if they really wanted to limit voter fraud with an ID they should make it free - anything else is a bar to poor voters since there is now cost involved with voting.
I think the Racial aspect is a bit tenuous however I can see the argument it is an attempt to disenfranchise the poor - if they really wanted to limit voter fraud with an ID they should make it free - anything else is a bar to poor voters since there is now cost involved with voting.
It's racist because it's a fact that black people if implemented will have less sway on politics. They are more poor and more politically apathetic.
You want to live on in a la-la-land ignoring racial issues?
You need a racist to tell you why it's racist?
EDIT: Seems like a good law though, the more politically non-apathetic people who vote the more informed the vote will be.
You want to live on in a la-la-land ignoring racial issues?
You need a racist to tell you why it's racist?
EDIT: Seems like a good law though, the more politically non-apathetic people who vote the more informed the vote will be.
Can anyone explain why it is necessary to add bureaucracy and red tape as well as costs to elections when it only serves to discorage the one or two cases of voter fraud while it will cost the nation as a whole a whole lot of money? when was the last time a president won with one or two votes ahead? Wouldn't it make more sense to switch to a system with multiple (as in, more than two) viable parties, more compromise and more getting things done?
Originally Posted by Husar:
Can anyone explain why it is necessary to add bureaucracy and red tape as well as costs to elections when it only serves to discorage the one or two cases of voter fraud while it will cost the nation as a whole a whole lot of money? when was the last time a president won with one or two votes ahead? Wouldn't it make more sense to switch to a system with multiple (as in, more than two) viable parties, more compromise and more getting things done?
Now that is crazy Euro talk...Can anyone explain why it is necessary to add bureaucracy and red tape as well as costs to elections when it only serves to discorage the one or two cases of voter fraud while it will cost the nation as a whole a whole lot of money? when was the last time a president won with one or two votes ahead? Wouldn't it make more sense to switch to a system with multiple (as in, more than two) viable parties, more compromise and more getting things done?
The US is great as is, heck, it's so great it can start absolutely unneeded wars for humanitarian reasons and even get away with then leaving a bodily-waste-storm behind...
Yey for human progress in the second millenium!!
Originally Posted by Husar:
Wouldn't it make more sense to switch to a system with multiple (as in, more than two) viable parties, more compromise and more getting things done?
We wish, but then the Democrats and Republicans wouldnt be able to have a stranglehold on politics. A third party is dangerous to the establishment, and thus will never be implemented. Wouldn't it make more sense to switch to a system with multiple (as in, more than two) viable parties, more compromise and more getting things done?
As for OP's question, the answer has already been said: it adds more hoops to jump through for people who are not determined (or have the financial means) to vote. Whether or not the less-interested should be allowed to vote is out of the question, a fundamental right of this society is a right to vote and that should not be impeded by anything. If they elect a bad leader, then they deserve a bad leader.
How much does a voter ID cost?
Even if its cost is significant, it's a class not a racial issue. Regardless of their skin colour, only the poor people will have difficulties in obtaining it.
Now, the reason about why the black people have more chances to be poor might be racial or more accurately historical.
Even if its cost is significant, it's a class not a racial issue. Regardless of their skin colour, only the poor people will have difficulties in obtaining it.
Now, the reason about why the black people have more chances to be poor might be racial or more accurately historical.
Strike is right with his insinuation that voter ID's are not really racist. The idea of identifying yourself as a citizen able to vote is actually a no brainer if you want to have a representative democracy that is not stacked with fake votes (it has happened in the US before, it could happen now).
The problem, which Strike is probably aware of is that the implementation is the problematic part. Republicans have been known to write laws that deny a drivers license to be used as identification. Only a third (don't quote me on that) of US citizens have an official passport from the Federal government, so what else is there for a citizen to prove himself with?
The problem, which Strike is probably aware of is that the implementation is the problematic part. Republicans have been known to write laws that deny a drivers license to be used as identification. Only a third (don't quote me on that) of US citizens have an official passport from the Federal government, so what else is there for a citizen to prove himself with?
Seems less racist and more classist, either way smacks of election rigging in the vein of gerrymandering.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
Seems less racist and more classist, either way smacks of election rigging in the vein of gerrymandering.
Classist or racist, either way it works for the Republicans. They see the changing demographics, the only way for them to keep ahead while still pushing their current bat-Seems less racist and more classist, either way smacks of election rigging in the vein of gerrymandering.
crazy agenda is to reduce the number of votes from African-Americans, Hispanics, and young people. Any obstacle will accomplish this to a degree.Originally Posted by drone:
Classist or racist, either way it works for the Republicans. They see the changing demographics, the only way for them to keep ahead while still pushing their current bat- crazy agenda is to reduce the number of votes from African-Americans, Hispanics, and young people. Any obstacle will accomplish this to a degree.
Really makes no sense. If the Republicans wanted to, they could easily capture the Hispanic vote.Classist or racist, either way it works for the Republicans. They see the changing demographics, the only way for them to keep ahead while still pushing their current bat-
crazy agenda is to reduce the number of votes from African-Americans, Hispanics, and young people. Any obstacle will accomplish this to a degree.Originally Posted by :
Strike is right with his insinuation that voter ID's are not really racist. The idea of identifying yourself as a citizen able to vote is actually a no brainer if you want to have a representative democracy that is not stacked with fake votes (it has happened in the US before, it could happen now).
Where's Lemur when you need him?Strike is right with his insinuation that voter ID's are not really racist. The idea of identifying yourself as a citizen able to vote is actually a no brainer if you want to have a representative democracy that is not stacked with fake votes (it has happened in the US before, it could happen now).
Originally Posted by :
Really makes no sense. If the Republicans wanted to, they could easily capture the Hispanic vote.
Really makes no sense. If the Republicans wanted to, they could easily capture the Hispanic vote.
Many Hispanics are socially conservative and deeply invested in the catholic church. Am I wrong in saying that?
Jesse Ventura for president 2016
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
Really makes no sense. If the Republicans wanted to, they could easily capture the Hispanic vote.
You assume that the GOP leadership has control of the message as opposed to the nutbag wing. To get the Hispanic vote, they would need to silence the xenophobes.Really makes no sense. If the Republicans wanted to, they could easily capture the Hispanic vote.
Youtube Video
Originally Posted by Husar:
Can anyone explain why it is necessary to add bureaucracy and red tape as well as costs to elections
You can always count on the conservative small-government peeps to introduce a ton of unnecessary and unwieldy bureaucracy.Can anyone explain why it is necessary to add bureaucracy and red tape as well as costs to elections
While you should of course be able to identify yourself when voting, this can be solved by simply using a drivers license or credit card. No need to introduce yet another bungled piece of nonsense.
Because everyone knows black and Hispanic people don't have any money, so its like a poll tax. But gun permits can cost $1000 because that type of racism is OK.
I don't care about this issue. I want to destroy Federal bureaucracy, adding another layer doesn't help us with the controlled collapse of government.
I don't care about this issue. I want to destroy Federal bureaucracy, adding another layer doesn't help us with the controlled collapse of government.
@ people talking about it being a class issue, not a race issue... As if race had nothing to do with class. I don't mean I WANT it to be... I just say that the figures more or less stare you nakedly in the face
Hell YES it's racist. It's also a fact that the US has failed to include black people in society, much like, oh well, all enlightened societies have failed at it, at large.
It's also a good idea to keep completely politically apathetic people from voting. It's to these extremes you have to go in a multicultural society, to have any hope of it actually working.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Ah, but there's a distinction between racist, and racially motivated. Though I wouldn't call voter ID laws racially motivated, so much as I'd call them politically motivated. Whether they target blacks, old people, students, or illegal aliens, they're trying to suppress the democratic vote. And some of them aren't even subtle about it.
Is this so heinous? Eh. I won't judge, worse things are done regularly in the name of petty politics. But let's be honest here, voter fraud is basically a non-existent problem. The right is just trying stem the tide of liberal opinion, and doing a terrific job--for the other side!
*Geez, Kad, I think you're just wrong. If green people from mars lived in America and tended to vote Democrat, then the laws would be targeted at green people from mars. This is purely a political issue, but it is being perceived as a racial one. The effect of these laws has been to galvanize the minority populations in the concerned areas, though those reports may be overblown. We'll find out after the mid terms.
Geez GC, I don't think you will quite get away with whiffing me off as "just wrong". Ah, but there's a distinction between racist, and racially motivated. Though I wouldn't call voter ID laws racially motivated, so much as I'd call them politically motivated. Whether they target blacks, old people, students, or illegal aliens, they're trying to suppress the democratic vote. And some of them aren't even subtle about it.
Is this so heinous? Eh. I won't judge, worse things are done regularly in the name of petty politics. But let's be honest here, voter fraud is basically a non-existent problem. The right is just trying stem the tide of liberal opinion, and doing a terrific job--for the other side!
*Geez, Kad, I think you're just wrong. If green people from mars lived in America and tended to vote Democrat, then the laws would be targeted at green people from mars. This is purely a political issue, but it is being perceived as a racial one. The effect of these laws has been to galvanize the minority populations in the concerned areas, though those reports may be overblown. We'll find out after the mid terms.
Race is a factor in this game. You might not like it, heck, I don't like it. But cold hard facts kind of stare us in the face here.
Your notion of green men from Mars is just preposterous, let's keep this discussion on Planet Earth with all of it's implicit problems, shall we?
Again: Race matters in this as black people in the USA tend to be more on the poor side. They also tend to be more leaning towards not thinking democracy is important enough to bother getting a voter ID for (as to why is a whole other discussion, right now we ONLY focus on the fact that this is how it is - without questioning why).
These facts combined means that the idea of voter ID is, and is, and is racist.
Black people WILL be more alienated from democracy by this law.
You don't have to agree that it is right. You don't have to think it's how it should be.
You just have to accept that it is what it is.
Originally Posted by Sir Moody:
your going to need to give us non US a little more to go on - right now this like a Fragony thread - provocative title - cryptic contents...
Stop falling in love with me, I said it again and again, I am not into that sort of stuff. Please stop sending me PM's as well or I will report you. It ain't going to happen.your going to need to give us non US a little more to go on - right now this like a Fragony thread - provocative title - cryptic contents...
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
Geez GC, I don't think you will quite get away with whiffing me off as "just wrong".
Race is a factor in this game. You might not like it, heck, I don't like it. But cold hard facts kind of stare us in the face here.
So if a law is made to discriminate against poor people and even when blacks account for a minority of poor people, then that law is racist? Geez GC, I don't think you will quite get away with whiffing me off as "just wrong".
Race is a factor in this game. You might not like it, heck, I don't like it. But cold hard facts kind of stare us in the face here.
Seems like strange reasoning to me...
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
So if a law is made to discriminate against poor people and even when blacks account for a minority of poor people, then that law is racist?
Seems like strange reasoning to me...
afaik, the states pushing for stricter voter ID:s are mostly the ones that had Jim Crow laws in the past, so it has a poor history.So if a law is made to discriminate against poor people and even when blacks account for a minority of poor people, then that law is racist?
Seems like strange reasoning to me...
And you also have a disproponate laws. An UK law that hits 95% of all Sikhs and 10% of all Brits are probably racist and almost certainly aimed, even if most people affected aren't Sikhs.
I'm curious why photo ID isn't baseline in the US though. Here not having a photo ID equals living off the grid.
The DMV is a pain in the ass? They're responsible for State Non-Driver's Photo ID as well as Driver's Licenses.
Originally Posted by Ironside:
afaik, the states pushing for stricter voter ID:s are mostly the ones that had Jim Crow laws in the past, so it has a poor history.
And you also have a disproponate laws. An UK law that hits 95% of all Sikhs and 10% of all Brits are probably racist and almost certainly aimed, even if most people affected aren't Sikhs. .
Let's say some people decide to follow pre-Roman Celtic religion, or decide that they'd like to own slaves. Merely that 100% of them would fall foul of the bans on human sacrifice doesn't mean that this law is biased against them, merely that their practices are against modern society.afaik, the states pushing for stricter voter ID:s are mostly the ones that had Jim Crow laws in the past, so it has a poor history.
And you also have a disproponate laws. An UK law that hits 95% of all Sikhs and 10% of all Brits are probably racist and almost certainly aimed, even if most people affected aren't Sikhs. .
If groups want to have knives under the beds of their children due to their culture a ban doesn't make this aimed against them.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
It has racial consequences, but to say its racist means that the people who came up with the laws had the notion of targeting people of a certain race. That's not true, they are targeting people of a certain political persuasion. Neither is good, but if you can't see the difference its because race is an all-consuming factor in your posts of late...
I agree on the latest part, I have been rather obsessive. Just had a relative (cousin) assault raped by a black person. It has racial consequences, but to say its racist means that the people who came up with the laws had the notion of targeting people of a certain race. That's not true, they are targeting people of a certain political persuasion. Neither is good, but if you can't see the difference its because race is an all-consuming factor in your posts of late...
To answer the rest, if it's racially motivated has little to nothing to do with if it's racist or not. A law can in effect be racist regardless of the motivation of the law.
You can make laws forbidding people to dress as tents, because people don't like tents. The EFFECT of the law would still be racial though, as it would target arabic women.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Well if a law can be racist on that criteria, can't it also be classist on that criteria? The EFFECT is that it reduces the ease with which democratic voters (which includes many demographics) are able to vote.. You're obsessing. Sorry about your relative, but that doesn't excuse it. A newcomer to the backroom would be forgiven for thinking you're an outright bigot. Is that what you want?
I guess I am saying that there is a correlation between race and class. Can't we just agree it affects both lines of thinking? Well if a law can be racist on that criteria, can't it also be classist on that criteria? The EFFECT is that it reduces the ease with which democratic voters (which includes many demographics) are able to vote.. You're obsessing. Sorry about your relative, but that doesn't excuse it. A newcomer to the backroom would be forgiven for thinking you're an outright bigot. Is that what you want?
About my relative, wasn't looking for an excuse, I just state why I lately have upped my dislike of the multicultural experiment. You are right though, and thanks for telling me.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO