home

The Voter ID Proposal

by TChris

As TalkLeft reported here, the Commission on Federal Election Reform presented Congress yesterday with a series of proposals, including the sensible idea that voting machines should produce paper copies of votes to permit an audit that would assure a machine is recording votes accurately. A NY Times editorial today addresses a more troubling proposal: "a voter identification requirement that would prevent large numbers of poor, black and elderly people from voting."

[T]he bombshell recommendation is for the states to require voters to have drivers' licenses or a government-issued photo ID. That would not be a great burden for people who have drivers' licenses, but it would be for those who don't, and they are disproportionately poor, elderly or members of minorities. These voters would have to get special photo ID's and keep them updated. If they didn't have the ID's, their right to vote would be taken away. The commission recommends that the cards be free. But election administration is notoriously underfinanced, and it is not hard to imagine that states would charge for them. Georgia is already charging $20 and more for each of its state voter cards.

The right wing bleats about voter fraud, but as the editorial points out, there's precious little evidence of widespread voting under a false identity. There are ways of addressing a minor problem that won't disenfranchise large segments of the population.

The states could require uniform ID's, but allow each voter without one to sign an affidavit attesting to his or her identity, a system some states use now. It is little wonder that a dissent came from the former Democratic leader in the Senate, Tom Daschle, a commission member. He said that "for some, the commission's ID proposal constitutes nothing short of a modern-day poll tax."

It's difficult to get even half the country to cast a ballot in a presidential election. Voting should be encouraged; it shouldn't be a burden.

< Trial Against Wal-Mart Commences | R.I.P. Simon Wiesenthal >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    With all due respect, Charley, some of those voters who don't have photo IDs will be Republicans as well, so it's not a totally one-sided issue. However, that Tom Daschle, the New York Times, and apparently TalkLeft, cannot see that there is a simple, viable, affordable, solution to these worries says something, I think, about their real motives. A national ID card, provided by the federal government, with an implanted microchip which carries the necessary personal identifiers, would not require a photograph for the purposes of elections, and as such could be mailed to every registered citizen voter. As a bonus, such a card will come in very handy when we move to the liberal dream of nationalized healthcare, and it would already be in place. This report is a starting point, not the end point. And it's a good place to start.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    I see Charley is still deluded in that only the Left manipulates elections to their advantage. Must be nice to be willfully blind to your own faults.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    I am sorry, but this is very disturbing to me. I live in a very rural part of Alabama and I know people with no car or hardly any food, and this is outrageous. One case in particular hits close to home. There is a black man that used to work for my great-grandfather that I have known all my life. He is a Korean Vet that is in bad health and cannot drive. If anyone deserves to vote he should, but he doesn’t have a PHOTO ID. I am sorry, but a proof of residence should be enough. All too often those who are better off in society don't stop to think about those who aren't. To hell with the political consequences, it is the fundamental right of everyone to vote, and that right should not be abridged because of income.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    I'm with Tal East, proof of residency is enough. Voting is an absolute right of every citizen, not just those who are able to get down to the DMV and pay $50 (or whatever it costs) for a photo id. I'm all for the paper trail for electronic voting, that is an absolute must to guarantee the integrity of electronic voting.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#5)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    To those who oppose requiring photo ID: should we try to ensure that each voter is who he claims to be? If so, how? Voting is one of the few justifiable "entitlements" IMO. I wouldn't mind footing the bill for poor voters' ID cards, either through taxes or a private charity. Every fraudulent vote cancels out a legal vote, so just letting people vote willy-nilly can actually work against the "fundamental right to vote". justpaul, A national ID is no more affordable that a state ID. A fancy electronical one would be less so. Somebody has to pay either way. If you want taxpayers as a whole to pay for the IDs, fine, but it's just as easy at a state level. An ID without a photo or biometrics doesn't help verify that the person holding the card is the person whose name is on the card. If somebody steals my wallet, they shouldn't be able to vote in my name.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#6)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    Kdog, How would you establish residency on election day? Roy, No, a national id card is not "just as affordable at the state level": No single state has the financial resources of the federal government. If we can spend hundred of billions of dollars rebuilding New Orleans or providing "free" medical care, we can afford the expense of setting up such a system and running it.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    I have never shown an ID while voting or registering. I verified my residency when I originally registered by showing a utility bill. Every time I vote I sign the voter rolls and an election worker verifies the signatures match to confirm identity. Everything goes smooth, I never had a problem voting or had someone try to use my vote. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The number of people affected by a photo id requirement would be minimal, but one person being denied their legal right to vote is too many. I can't support it.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#8)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    Kdog, Fair enough, for as far at it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. I could easily have second phone lines installed in the home of every friend who does not live in my voting district, in my name, and then use the utility bill to establish residency when I register to vote in those districts as well. Then, even with an id requirement, I would still be able to vote in multiple districts, and everyone of my extra votes would nullify the legitimate vote of someone else who voted for the other candidate (assuming the nauseatingly familiar two candidate race). The system is broke and it needs to be fixed.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#9)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    In the age of technology, why cant we be more efficient with this? How about this - Let's put a magnetic strip, like the one on credit cards, on the voter's registration card that every registered voter gets. Then, when you vote, you swipe your card to show that it has been used. That way people cant vote twice unless they get someone else's voter's registration card. Also, they could probably make the strip identify who you are and bring up a picture of you on a computer so that they know you have registered. That seems easy enough to me.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    I would guess that less than three percent of the people in this country do not have a driver's license, with photo, with picture. It would be easy for the state to provide the same ID, but without driving rights. What the Left won't tell you is this. If you use a driver license for voting ID, then the argument against giving illegal alien’s driver's licenses becomes bullet proof.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#11)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    What PPJ won't tell you is this: he's just made an argument against using a state-issued driver's license (which is only supposed to regulate driving safety, after all) as a national ID.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    Wow, I find myself agreeing in principle with kdog - denying someone their right to vote is more heinous than allowing someone to vote who doesn't have the right. It seems like a matter of degree, however. Is denying one person of his right to vote more heinous than allowing many others to vote who don't have the right? And, in a hell has fozen over moment, I also agree in principle with TChris: "There are ways of addressing a minor problem that won't disenfranchise large segments of the population." JimakaPPJ has suggested a solution. Whether it's the best one or not, he and TChris I believe are on the right path. If only the left (and to be fair, much of the right as well) would invoke TChris's fundamental sentiment everytime a societal "problem" is addressed...

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#14)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    Now I'm starting to worry about falsely excluding people because they don't look enough like their picture. Poll workers are usually volunteers with a tad of training. Mostly little old ladies in my experience, perhaps with bad eyesight and a "you negroes all look alike" mentality.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#15)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    the voter ID is a solution in search of a problem, since there's no evidence of any significant voter fraud at the ballot box. the only non-anecdotal evidence provided in support of this measure is for absentee ballots, which it will not affect. oddly enough, the only real evidence of fraud at the ballot box was committed by those in charge of the voting, not the voters themselves. again, this measure will have no impact on this either. it will, however, adversely affect those groups who historically vote democrat. amazing coincidence. i'm sure this never crossed the minds of those proposing the measure. nudge, nudge, wink, wink

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#16)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    Justpaul, I could easily have second phone lines installed in the home of every friend who does not live in my voting district, in my name, and then use the utility bill to establish residency when I register to vote in those districts as well. Then, even with an id requirement, I would still be able to vote in multiple districts, and everyone of my extra votes would nullify the legitimate vote of someone else who voted for the other candidate (assuming the nauseatingly familiar two candidate race). You would go through all of that just to nullify a couple of votes? That's not the kind of voter fraud that is the threat, and neither is a poor person in some rural county who walks to the polls. Voter ID cards will only disenfranchise a very large number of lower income voters and will not prevent the kind of computer-hacking voter fraud that can actually affect an election.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    I'm open to suggestions to limit voter fraud, I don't deny it's a problem. As long as every eligible voter gets to vote without having to spend money or being more than slightly inconvenienced, I'm for it. Non-driver ID's cost money, if the states want to give them out for free I suppose I could live with it being required, though I don't necessarily like it. Food for thought...penniless homeless people with no photo id have the right to vote too.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#18)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    You would go through all of that just to nullify a couple of votes? That's not the kind of voter fraud that is the threat Che, Less than 200 such votes, properly executed, in Palm Beach County would have changed the outcome of the 2000 Presidential election. It's not just me you have to worry about, it's a concerted effort, funded by a major party (you can choose your bogeyman as both are capable of it in my mind) which wouldn't be that hard to pull off as things stand now. Kdog, I suggested that the government could provide the ID's free of charge; it would certainly be a better use of our tax dollars than a bridge to nowhere in Alaska or another building with Robert Byrd's name on it. If done that way, the financial impediment is gone, so what's left? And I must disgaree about this being a solution in search of a problem. If voting is a right, then having your vote count is a right. Every illegal vote dilutes the legal votes. If we're going to be worried about making sure we can check the totals, we should first make sure that the totals actually represent the will of the lawful voters.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#19)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    Here in Canada we get a voter's card in the mail, which we take to the polling station on election day. It's a pretty simple solution. The voter does have to register with Elections Canada ahead of time. You can do that by checking a box on your tax return, for example. Or you can write to them. Other countries have different systems. Here is what I found on the web from the South African Electoral Commission:
    Take your green barcoded ID book with you to the voting station. (If you have lost your ID book, you may use a Temporary Identity Certificate [TIC] issued by the Department of Home Affairs – apply for it as soon as possible). 1. Your ID book/TIC will be checked and your name marked off on the voters’ roll. 2. Your thumbnail will be marked with visible indelible ink. 3. You will be issued with either two or three ballot papers of various colours – the number of ballot papers will depend on what type of municipality you live in. 4. You will mark these ballot papers in secret. 5. You will put the marked and folded ballot papers in the ballot box. Physically disabled voters who need help with voting may be assisted by a person of their choice. The Presiding Officer (the IEC official in charge of the voting station) will assist voters who cannot read. Voting stations will open at 07:00 in the morning and close at 21:00 in the evening. As long as you are inside the boundary of the voting station by 21:00, you will be allowed to vote. Once you’ve voted, your part in the elections is over. The IEC’s job will continue until all the ballot papers have been counted, and all the results have been tallied, checked and announced. To say nothing of all the packing away and tidying up!
    This is the system that got Nelson Mandela elected.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    The greatest problem with US voting is the REMOVAL OF RECOUNT RIGHTS from THIRTY STATES. Glad to see all the white-supremacist crowd come up with the CANARD of voter-fraud, which the rightwing has been propagandizing intensively for the last several years. It's the New Poll Tax. It's the New Literacy Test. It's the New Grandfather Clause. It's the New Private Primary. It's the New Jim Crow SECRET software reporting results from elections with NO PAPERTRAIL is the problem. Attacking voter registration is the chosen dodge.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#21)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    PiL, Requiring a paper trail is part of the proposal we're all calmly and politely discussing. At the risk of putting words in others' mouths, nobody brought it up because we all think it's a good idea.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    I will throw a sticky wicket in: In Oregon we vote by mail. Of course, we also have Photo ID's along with our drivers licenses; but it doesn't matter because I vote in my living room. So much for the reciept at the polling station.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#23)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:07 PM EST
    It's the New Poll Tax. It's the New Literacy Test. It's the New Grandfather Clause. It's the New Private Primary. It's the New Jim Crow It's a list of bullet points someone hung on the bulletin board in the asylum rec-room, regurgitated for your amusement.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:07 PM EST
    Posted by roy: "Requiring a paper trail is part of the proposal we're all calmly and politely discussing." You get all polite and calm as you like, roy. It ain't no virtue in a time of TREASON. "At the risk of putting words in others' mouths, nobody brought it up because we all think it's a good idea." I doubt if you know anything about it. If EVERYONE agrees on its value, then HOW COME it was removed so that Bush could steal the office -- TWICE? And now the people who did the dirty deed, including Diebold, the Vote-Fraud Company, want to 'add it back in,' but not in a way that is actually restoring our right to a secret ballot. They have a 'right' to secret SOFTWARE? No they don't. In California, the R election officials are trying to sell the state a MACHINE RECOUNT AUDIT. In other words, just run the machines a second time. The paper trail law that SecState Shelley put into effect in 2006 is BEING FOUGHT by the companies and their lackeys in state and local gov't. When they are stealing and vote-flipping millions of votes, you want to give justpaul his JIM CROW MOMENT? That's just stinking lovely.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:07 PM EST
    justpaul: "It's a list of bullet points" It's the HISTORY of black disinfranchizement, which is still be carried on TODAY. And you know it, justpaul. In Cuyahoga county (Ohio), in 2004, black voters had to wait UP TO TWENTY-TWO HOURS to vote. Most waits for black voters were MINIMUM of two hours. Just keep on lying, justpaul -- the pretense goes with the smell.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#26)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:07 PM EST
    requiring a paper trail, for computerized voting machines, has nothing whatever to do with voter fraud, and everything to do with the fraud of those running the vote. again, voter ID cards will not address this problem. i'm still waiting for the documented evidence of statistically significant voter fraud that this measure's supporters claim it will address. i wait in vain, because there isn't any. an unconstitutional "poll tax" is any impediment to your right to vote that doesn't have a legitimate basis, and unreasonably impairs your ability to vote in any election you are eligible to. just be honest about it and reinstitute the "literacy" test.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:07 PM EST
    Have States or Counties issue photo ID cards to those that do not have a driver's license. Make them free to those who can't afford the fee. Asking someone for proof-positive ID to vote seems sensible. No it is not a poll tax. It is just common sense. I need a photo ID to drive, get on an airplane, cross the border, apply for a job, cash a check etc. Claiming that a simple ID card is somehow an extreme burden on anyone is just a bunch of horsesh*t. If someone wants to vote they will get an ID because they care enough to vote in the first place. Creating some sob-story about some poor disenfranchised fellow who wants to vote but can't be bothered with those inconvenient details just does ring true. I can't imagine that a photo ID is what is disenfranchising voters. Its more likely the lack of quality candidates and the political culture which has turned nasty and personal. Some decent folks don't like that nonsense and would prefer that strawmen were used for scaring birds from the garden not political punditry.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:07 PM EST
    The only principals that matter to anyone in our government anymore are the principals of totalitarianism. Voting should be absolutely free. That statement brings to mind the idea of people being forced to pay at the polls. Whether you are forced to pay at the polls or pay to be included in any system to avoid being turned away from the polls, it is the same thing. People are disenfranchised and those people are poor, uneducated, or are in the unfortunate circumstance of having a really bad job. People shouldn't be forced to stand in 1-2 hour long waiting lines to get government ID cards if they choose not operate/own a motor vehicle. People working bad hourly jobs have a hard enough time getting time off when they're sick, much less any consideration for time to run errands (or Vote in person, I might add). You usually cannot renew your DL by mail in Florida. In Florida, you cannot legally own a car if you cannot afford to pay for car insurance - regardless if it is driven or being stored on private property - NO CAR, working or not. If you have a Florida title and no insurance, your State Drivers license is suspended and you have to (1) pay an inordinate amount of time and money to reinstate it and then (2) your insurance premiums are increased. You forget (or can't) pay your insurance, you lose your drivers license AND NOW your right to vote. That's not even speaking to the multitude of trivial reasons your license could be suspended. All of those people - disenfranchised come election day - the majority of which whose licenses were not suspended for felony offenses. Even in cases that aren't trivial, perhaps some of the idiots in our government should exam the constitution and see if the founding fathers ever intended for people with multiple moving violations to be kept from the polls. Given the record the State of Florida has for charging fees for its citizens to obtain the most basic of "privileges", I have no desire to give the State the opportunity to disenfranchise Voters anymore than they currently do. Remember, this is the State with the long list of "Felons" who had never committed a felony as of last Election Day when they were disenfranchised. Isn't that nice, when you consider that we're also one of the only States with the Internet database of Felons. The rest of you who think this is a good idea are proto or neo fascisti. If you like strict government oversight of elections, move to Iran, I hear they have that under control.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:07 PM EST
    Posted by jimcee: "Asking someone for proof-positive ID to vote seems sensible." Just seems sensible, eh? Having a paper trail sounds pretty sensible. So why don't you figure out why REPUBLICAN BUSH-BACKERS took it away, eh? Jimcee just wants to be sensible and to help people. He wants to treat the nigrahs swell.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#30)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:07 PM EST
    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:07 PM EST
    PIL writes:
    In Cuyahoga county (Ohio), in 2004, black voters had to wait UP TO TWENTY-TWO HOURS to vote. Most waits for black voters were MINIMUM of two hours.
    Hmmm, seems extreme to me. I wonder why it didn't make the news? PIL, how about a link???

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:07 PM EST
    Why don't you read the Conyers report, if you are so uninformed? "I wonder why it didn't make the news" is HILARIOUS. Maybe in part because boneheads spent the entire month demanding that any audit of the election was unpatriotic and inherently partisan. YOU lot were here within hours, insisting that there was nothing to audit. And, this time, you were right. With no audit trail in thirty states, it was pretty hard to audit. Just worked out that way? No, it was DESIGNED that way, and Bush-backer partisans continue to this day to try to remove more of our voting rights, so they can avoid this democracy thing like the plague.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:08 PM EST
    This is another thing that is totally screwed with US voting system. Why the heck do people have to register to vote?? It is absolutely senselessly stupid. I have in my life voted in several countries and what you do is to show up with your ID and cast your ballot. What is it with this registering? If this society is so primitive that you dont have a way of registering on beforehand who is who, use INK on the index finger! They do it in Afghanistan and it works like a charm. But of course this registering crap is there so that not just ANYONE can come vote.... But hey, that is what democracy is! Every single bastard is supposed to vote, otherwise it is not democracy. What is it now? 25 to 30% that vote in the US? It is of course pathetic. But I refuse to believe that the reason is that people in this country dont want to participate in changing things for the better. And the first things that leaps to mind is that the system must be too bloody stupid, too complex, both for the voters to be able to cast their vote, but also for people to run for elections. And another thing is the voting machines. What the hell happened to the PENCIL?! Why cant people in the US put a cross by the name of the person they would like to vote for on a piece of paper?? This is just rediculous. Especially as this is the US that is running around the world with their civic books teaching the world democracy.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:08 PM EST
    Why the heck do people have to register to vote?? Um, maybe so that it can be determined who was elected to fill which seat in Congress? Any system which includes representation based on apportionment has some similar system for determining which voters are electing which member of the government.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:08 PM EST
    PIL - If you have a report, why don't you just link us to it? I'm not saying it didn't happen, but 22 hours is a long time... Your turn.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#36)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:08 PM EST
    I don't know whether anyone had to wait 22 hours, but I was supervising poll watchers in a predominantly black ward of Cleveland, Ohio on Nov. 2, and I can tell you that a number of polling places in my ward were FUBAR. Extremely long lines and waiting periods were only part of the problem.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:09 PM EST
    If I have a report? Why, because all you need is the facts to change your mind about something? Never worked that way before. Conyers' Report (link at bottom of this summary to the full report) On page 24 of the full report you will find a link to a Washington Post article that reports TEN HOUR waits in line where Bush Campaign Chair/SecState Katherine Blackwell didn't supply voting machines to Democratic precincts (machines that were sitting in warehouses, unused). Can YOU wait in line for ten hours to vote? This disinfranchized the elderly, parents, anyone with a job, the ill and infirm, the handicapped, and any other Democrat who could not stand on a line approximately 9 hours and 55 minutes longer than I did in Los Angeles -- or that Republicans did in neighboring Republican Ohio precincts.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:10 PM EST
    Um, maybe so that it can be determined who was elected to fill which seat in Congress?
    Thats not it. Every citizen has a registered address, or if he is homeless a community he is registered in, be it a parish, county or whatever, indicating exactly which area his vote belongs to. That person showing up with his ID at election day should be (and is in most of the world) enough to be allowed to vote in a country that is interested in upholding the democratic process as their way of choosing goverment.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#39)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:10 PM EST
    I was a poll watcher at the local college. Overwhelmingly Dem. 8 hr wait

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:10 PM EST
    Thats not it. Every citizen has a registered address, or if he is homeless a community he is registered in, be it a parish, county or whatever, indicating exactly which area his vote belongs to. Adrazar, you are clearly confused. If every citizen has a registered address, every citizen is registered, you're only objection then is how it's done and who keeps the list. Now, if we use your method, which would require cross-checking some mythological database of people's addresses against ballots to determine which seat a person was voting to fill, we would also have to have your name written on the top of the ballot you marked. This is so far removed from our system, as well as any other in general use anywhere in the world, that it will not fly, but go ahead and try suggesting that everyone should have to identify which ballot is theirs so that those fine people at the polling place and in the political parties can check on who you voted for. As for yor claim that this is how it is done elsewhere, please provide an example of such that is not in a system which has no contested elections, meaning more than one person running for a given seat. It's easy to do this if you're simply talking about a Kim Jong Il or Saddam Hussein election, where the only choices are "yes" and "no" and the "yes" boxes are filled in ahead of time, but it will not work in a system like ours where you actually have the right to choose your specific representative from a list of candidates. I'd also like to see some evidence of our master list of where every homeless person lives and is entitled to vote. I doubt very much such a list exists.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:11 PM EST
    It is very obvious that such list does not exist in the US when after the hurricane people went "WTF where did all those poor people come from??" The countries I have lived in have a register of where every citizen lives, for different purposes. They need to know where official services are needed like; schools, hospitals, child care, elder care etc. It is used by the IRS and of course when people vote. You are registered at birth and the register is updated when you move... it is quite simple really. I personally have lived in Norway, Denmark and Iceland and this is how it works there (and no, there is no Kim IL Yong in any of those places :p). As far as I know this is also how it works in the rest of Europe as well. Point is that the government realizes that it's only function is to take care of its citizens, noting else and to be able to do so in some sort of efficient way, the first thing they need to know is who is who and where they live. Now, I realize that the system is different in the US and it is quite obvious because it does not work. Not for the people at least. When between 12 and 15 percent of the voters can run the country, the government does not represent the will of the people. And lastly... IF you lived in a country like North Korea, I would not give a rat's ass how you managed your elections. But you don’t. You live in a country where the leaders walk the earth with a big stick in one hand and the other hand deep up each others ass shouting: "If you are not with us, you are against us!" I know these people do not represent the majority of the US people, far from it and it will continue to be so as long as there are people like you defending the way they get to power with only a fraction of the people behind them.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#42)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:11 PM EST
    Adrazar, You list three countries, none of which is larger than the state of New Jersey and which probably have less population combined than just that one state, and you want to use their system, which also happens to be based on a heavily socialized government structure in which people are used to having big brother watching over them all the time and keeping tabs on where they are at any moment. Fair enough, but it's not going to happen here, and I for one would rather have to go through the rather simple process of keeping my voter registration up-to-date (it's not hard, they send out postcards for doing so when you move into an area and it happens automatically when you get a driver's license) than have one more level of government just to keep tabs on who lives where at all times. Plus, registration has the added advantage of letting your know where you should go to vote come election day. But that's just my preference for personal freedom at the cost of personal inconvenience. Maybe in Europe the government does believe that it's only purpose is to care for it's citizens, but if so I can think of an awful lot of european countries that are failing that test miserably. We do it differently here; we don't expect the government to hold our hand from birth to death and to charge someone else for everything we can't be bothered to do for ourselves. If you don't like it that way, there's always Europe. As for whether the system works here: It works as well as any system does anywhere else. Elections are not won with 15% of the vote, and it's not 15% of the people calling the shots. That's just the usual populist BS that every would be politician uses to get elected and then tosses out the window when they have the reins. You think it's different in Europe? Go ask the arabs living in slums outside of Paris if they feel represented. Go ask the immigrants in Germany. Hell, go ask the entire nation of Turkey how it feels about the EU. Go ask the Bosnians how well they were served by Europe's leadership when the Serbs were killing them by the thousands and the U.S. had to come to the rescue. Sure, Europe has all the answers. And as for what you know about these people not representing the majority of the U.S.: On what grounds do you make this claim? Do you have some secret petition you've compiled with the signatures of 140+ million Americans saying they don't approve? Or is this just more liberal rhetoric from Europe quoted as fact?

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:11 PM EST
    Errr... I never said Europe had all the answers. By all means, we are indeed a bunch of quarreling, stubborn and eccentric perverts. But that does not make the US election system any better. And no, I do not have a poll saying the majority of the US people are unhappy with the system. What I do have is what comes out of the US media. You see, the ONLY thing you need to determine a system like this is bad is ONE group of people rightfully claiming they are marginalized, for example tricked out of their rights to influence the government. That is basically what kept the IRA alive in Northern Ireland for years and that is a good part of the troubles in the Balkans, though in a very complicated form. Usually though, we in Europe have sorted out how we want to run our countries in a civilized and peaceful manner. But these rights are precious to people, whatever side of politics they are on and in your country there are undeniable a lot of people that feel they are robbed of their most basic democratic rights. A lot of people that come from identifiable groups in society. And that can not go on forever. People get fed up with it and given enough time they get violently fed up with it. I should know, I am from Europe. About the Arabs in Paris or Turks in Germany I don’t know, I do know that in Holland and Norway immigrants are more than adequately represented in parliament and I have no reason to believe it is any different in France or Germany. And concerning Turkey... the politicians running the EU would dearly like to see them join, but they do not dare, the people in the EU do by large not want them in because of their appalling human rights record. And they will not be allowed to join for decades to come. And you talk about BS rhetoric… calling the countries I named socialistic Big-Brother states says more about your knowledge of the world around you than anything else. Do you have any idea how silly your criticism sounds when in these countries we have election participation of around 80% every four years and there are 4 to 8 political parties participating? The way these countries are run, is by a system developed the last hundred years by governments elected through probably the most populous and transparent democratic process in history. It is true that the governments in these countries know more about the lives and well being of the people than the US government does and with your homeland security department in order, the UD government probably knows things about US citizens most European governments have not been interested in knowing since Nazi Germany. The two key elements here are that government is supposed to serve the people, not vice versa. And that the voting system needs to be so simple that the citizen with the least resources needs to be able to understand and use it. That is the bottom line.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:11 PM EST
    "..in order, the UD government probably .." Supposed to be "..in order, the US government probably .." sowwy

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#45)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:11 PM EST
    Adrazar, You must be joking. The EU wants to bring Turkey in? Sure they do, which explains why they keep refusing to let them in. And it's supposedly based on a human rights record? Yet Germany is in? Talk about revisionist history! And those nations aren't socialist states? Or that is somehow a nonissue because, as you put, the systems have developed over 100 years? Hardly the point, Adrazar, which was only that the people in those countries are used to having their government always looking over the shoulders. And that is true regardless of how the systems came into being. You may not know about the arabs in France or immigrants in Germany, but you should check into it before your start yapping at other countries across the ocean. The media is filled with stories about the squalid living conditions of the arab communities in France and how they generally feel excluded from society, just as it is with stories about the restrictions placed on immigrants in Germany. I would have thought someone as knowledgable as you would have seen this, but I guess if you just read the liberal press, you won't hear these things. Speaking of which, I don't know what world you live in, but if the only requirement for proving that a system is broken is that a group of people claim to have been disenfranchised or feel their rights have been violated, it's not this one. Here (meaning this world, not TalkLeft) we actually require some evidence, not just empty rhetoric. So Let's recap, shall we? First you claimed there is no need for voter registration at all, and that other countries don't use it. Then you say that those countries don't need registration because they already have defacto registration through omnipotent government entities who keep track of everyone as they come and go (how this differs in effect from voter registration is a point you haven't yet bothered to clarify, but I don't think you're going to win a lot of support here, meaning TalkLeft, for any scheme that requires the government to spend more time and money keeping tabs on everyone). The end result would appear to be that you prefer a system where the government does the registration for you, which we already have here in the form of motor-voter laws, but you still haven't shown why registration itself is not required since it is required in order to determine who is being elected to what seats. (You also still face the fact that your preferred system requires you to sign your ballot so that your government entity can then determine which seats in government you were eligible to vote for; another idea unlikely to be popular with the ACLU crowd here). All of which ignores the issue at hand, which is a question of ID requirements at voting stations. Given how you see the system working, you must be in favor of this, as otherwise there would be no way of knowing who was voting, which would make it impossible to check those magic lists you referred to where everyone is tagged as belonging to which district. On this, at least, we can agree. I too favor an ID requirement at polling places. But just in case that isn't true; just in case you now wish to state that you oppose such requirements, please explain how you propose to do away with registration and id requirements and still hold a valid election in which only those citizens actually eligible to vote are allowed to do so (so that we don't have Parisians voting in Danish election and such). As for what the U.S. government knows about me or anyone else: It's almost certainly too much in my book, and it definitely is in regard to me. I never said otherwise.

    Re: The Voter ID Proposal (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:12 PM EST
    Yep, big business in Europe would like Turkey in and with them a certain portion of politicians do too, to provide the EU zone with cheap labor. Yet Germany is in? Umm, you must be joking. Or are you one of the people that want to kill Jews for murdering Jesus and American Indians for being in the way? What happened in the Third Reich has never been any secret, the people that were guilty more or less were punished (except the “good” Nazi’s that the US imported after the war) and Germany made an unprecedented effort to change it’s ways after the war. There was no revising of history here, only the sensible “you should not pay for the sins of your father” principle. I did say Turkey would not join for decades. That does not mean they would never join. If the rest of your reply is as stupid as this one, there is no reason to continue… lets see. Yepp, you miss the point there too. My good justpaul, your main problem is that you pass judgment too easily on people. Socialism is totally perfect for a nation if the majority of the people feel it is the right thing for them. Conservativism is absolutely top as well, as long that is what people want. (and btw, the right wing conservatives have been in power in Iceland the last 16 years, in Norway the last 4 and in Denmark the last 8 years I think) I have made my points here and find no reason shoveling your dirt off them. The few souls that read this will just have to make up their minds themselves: ) Next topic!