And to help all citizens to vote. The Mrs. and I visited my daughter in Washington DC this weekend. We toured and toured and toured some more. If you have not gotten there, you should do so. There are so many wonderful museums full of incredible history.
The only problem is that I think too much and the history of voting rights has me all riled up!!! :-O
The founding fathers gave a lot of thought to the topic originally, I mean we did not end up as some monarchy. Then we fought a MASSIVE war to free slaves and worked to give all men the right to vote. Then some incredible people worked for 50 years to get women the right to vote. Then there were decades of on going efforts to ensure that States did not rob minorities and women of their hard fought for rights. Given all of this history, I am trying to determine who sickens me more:
- The lazy women / minority citizens who do not get out vote?
- The self serving slime who want to make it harder for some Americans to vote?
On the upside, it did reinforce the importance of voting for me personally.
57 comments:
I heard a sermon this weekend, which basically argued that only God can make the world better so that political activism is pointless. The one exception that pastor would make is voting against politicians who are opposed to restrictions of abortion. He would advocate single issue voting, not because abortion is the most important issue, rather because it's the only issue that's important.
In terms of day to day political activism, I see political alienation as a tool Republicans use to achieve their goals, because it does not apply to pro life activism. The great political advantage single issue voting gives to political leaders is that as long as they stay pure on the single issue, they can run candidates who are completely hideous in practically every other way. Donald Trump is the prime example for that.
--Hiram
Please reserve some of your outrage for 1) those who would steal your vote, and 2) the hopelessly ignorant who DO turn out.
Hiram,
Agreed... As I often say... "Pro-Lifers only care about life until it passes the cervix..."
Jerry,
You would fit in well with the folks who tried to block the women and Blacks from voting.
I still remember when you were against Landlords helping to pass out voting materials.
It is so disappointing how the GOP has became the gerrymandering, block the vote party...
The discussion ends when you dismiss and demean those who disagree.
"fit in well" with the Republicans who passed the 14th and 19th amendments, and the 1960s Voting Rights Act? Do you even see how terribly you impugn those who disagree?
The GOP is not that GOP anymore. :-(
Remember that Romney was our hero in 2012.
Now many GOP voters see him as a villain.
While they see a lying narcissist as a hero.
Hopefully the pendulum swings back soon.
Politics and Voting Rights
"The discussion ends when you dismiss and demean those who disagree."
But the Democrats who FOUGHT the 14th and 19th amendment, and the civil rights act, are still the same as they were. Notice how stridently they attack black conservatives? It's all about ideology, not race.
I don't see modern DEMs working to make it harder for citizens to vote.
That is a very GOP action. As I said, it is sad to see the GOP fall so far.
You will not see DEMS "working to make it harder for citizens to vote." Quite the contrary, they want to make it easy for NON-citizens, non-existent persons, dead persons, duplicate persons and clones of real persons to vote. Please note that wherever election integrity laws are passed, voting participation tends to go UP. Courts consistently rule in favor of Voter ID, for example, because opponents (Democrats) cannot find a single person with "standing" that has been denied the right to vote under the law. MN Democrats are the worst in the country at enabling such improper voting. So, Republicans are to be shamed for wanting an honest vote?
Proof please.
And yet, when voter fraud is discovered, it's nearly always a Republican perpetrator.
Weird
Moose
Moose, Republican fraud is occasionally found, especially when those looking are Democrats. Democrat fraud, far more prevalent, is NEVER found by Democrats. Odd, yes?
John, you want proof, feel free to research my assertions. I and others like me have personally seen things like our Secretary of State changing election laws without legislative action, vote recounts that did not even come close to matching the number of paper ballots, knowing MN is the ONLY state in the union without provisional ballots OR strict voter ID, and many instances of Republicans denied access to the precincts, to the absentee ballot boards, or to observe the counting.
Of course, you will as usual simply dismiss those things we have personally witnessed, but that's lying to yourself.
Moose,
It is sad how true your statement is.
Jerry,
Leaving my window open is not proof of a robbery.
As I noted, you are working to destabilize our country with no proof of a crime.
Let's try a thought experiment.
Let's say that a significant number of non citizens vote in our elections. How would should we deal with this problem?
Something like one hundred and fifty million Americans voted in the last election. What should we have done to determine whether all of them were citizens?
--Hiram
So what should we do to ensure only citizens vote. I think we have to start from some basic principles. First, whatever we choose to do, it shouldn't burden voters. The burden of dealing with citizenship issues should be entirely on the government. Voters should be presumed to be citizens unless proven otherwise. It is up to the government, for example to prove that someone doesn't have a birth certificate proving birth in America. Prospective voters should not be required to produce birth certificates. Any problem with these basics?
Obviously, there is a problem here. The government will be asked to prove a negative 150 million times every four years. Is that something we want to do?
--Hiram
"Leaving my window open is not proof of a robbery." Interesting analogy.
No, leaving your window open is a sign of stupidity, and you have no right to complain when somebody steals your 60" flat screen. Your wife, however, has every right to be angry that you forgot to close the d**n window. Even if you /claim/ it was closed doesn't change the fact you were, or could have been, robbed.
Hiram, Start by not making them legal citizens, as Democrats seek to do. Then demand a valid ID, carrying citizenship status.
Jerry,
Well you sure like to focus on windows...
I am still waiting for some proof of actual wrong doing...
Proof is so extensive it is beyond the scope of this comment section. Much of it is personal experience, which I know you will deny, which makes no sense as a debating point. Who am I going to believe, my own eyes or your contention that I did not see what I saw?
You could also look at MN law, as many have done, and see the obvious loopholes/ "windows of opportunity" to election tampering. I've been privy to numerous analysis and reviews which prove to me that something is wrong, beyond any doubt. Was it enough to alter the election results, I cannot say, only that the lax election laws and procedures made it possible, and were such that Democrats gained an advantage.
Get back to me after you prove that no "windows" were left open.
Then demand a valid ID, carrying citizenship status.
So a hundred and fifty million Americans will have to have their citizenships verified, which would mean they could be issued an ID indicating citizenship status. Is a bill being proposed in our legislature or in Congress creating an agency and providing the funding for this monumental task?
There isn't of course, there never has been, and the reasons are pretty obvious. It would be impossible to do and it would cost too much. So what do we make of this? If Republicans are unwilling to do what they say needs to be done, what is the impact on their credibility? Maybe verification of citizenship isn't their real goal. Maybe it's something else.
--Hiram
The fact is, you don't need a loophole to break a law. Passing laws against robbery doesn't mean robberies don't happen. When robbers rob, they don't have to find a loophole in the law to do it.
If there are loopholes, one way to deal with them is to talk to people who find and exploit them. We could do that with non citizens who vote. The problem is that we don't know of any.
Jerry,
Our society is based on law, order and proof.
What you think you saw since you are a strongly biased observer is meaningless without proof.
The system needs to balance security and easy use in order to minimize fraud and maximize votes. Closing all the windows is not an acceptable solution because it makes it suppresses the vote for the poor and mobile citizens.
Hiram,
I would think that a lot of citizens already have Passports and even REAL IDs. I assume they both state citizenship status.
The jerry responses have become so reliable. Make bold assertion that makes no sense with nothing to back it up, then get indignant that no one believes it or asks for proof. Then say the proof is everywhere and easy to find, but he can't be troubled to actually share any of it.
I've actually taken the tack of asking for proof quite often with those making bold claims that don't make sense to me. I had a coworker yesterday tell me that in Austria, unvaccinated people are being treated like Jews during the Holocaust and being jailed just for not getting the shot. I asked him to send me an article about that since I hadn't heard anything about it. No info came so I did my own investigating. Turns out they have implemented pretty stringent lockdowns of the unvaccinated, but they are still allowed to go to work, shop for essentials, and deal with emergencies. Strikes me that they're telling them to stay out of bars and restaurants, which I don't have a problem with personally.
Anyway, yea, facts and evidence really do seem to get in the way of righteous anger.
I would think that a lot of citizens already have Passports and even REAL IDs. I assume they both state citizenship status.
My guess is that most people don't have passports. And if the intent is for them to be used for voting purposes, the government would have to do all the work and absorb all the cost associated with them. I have heard that proposed by voter ID advocates.
As for REAL Id's, they require a lot of effort to get. If we add citizenship verification that's a huge deal. And of course, the burden and cost must be entirely on the government.
The rule is people have a right to vote, and putting any burden on voters is a violation of that right. As in so many other areas, Republicans want things, they just don't want to pay for them.
--Hiram
You keep saying there is no proof. The post-election audits are documented, and clearly show it. Numerous court affadavits, official court actions and decisions, video evidence, official government paperwork (like the Secretary of State instructions) document it thoroughly, as well as s strict reading of statute law compared to known practice. Sorry, but you have the shoe on the wrong foot. What is needed to create confidence in the elections is for all these "windows" to be officially and transparently closed, so that burglars, real or imagined, cannot find them. Do NOT tell me that these things will go un-exploited by the partisans who believe it is their RIGHT to win elections.
Drewbie, look at it from my perspective. Somebody makes an assertion which my knowledge and experience (OK, and bias) denies. I say so, and then am asked for proof. Often, proof of the initial assertion (sources) halfway support the assertion, but not fully, and any reasonable search turns up, if not the contrary, at least a more cogent "truth," as you found. If I am not allowed to debate the initial assertion without "proof," then why is my assertion so readily questioned? Why should I do all the research for you? Prove me wrong.
Drewbie,
You are absolutely correct. The extreme Right and Left folks rely on Opinions that were formed via their Cognitive Errors and living within echo chambers of the similar.
They have little time for facts, data, proof, broader perspectives, etc. Remember one of my favorite sayings... "Not all old people are wise"
Hiram,
Actually proof of voter eligibility is often required by the citizen.
Jerry,
As long as you are okay being ignored, it is fine that you state your opinions with no proof.
I am pretty sure that the crazy guy on the street with the sign reading "THE WORLD IS ENDING" believes it. That is in no way going to convince others that he is not crazy.
Actually proof of voter eligibility is often required by the citizen.
I would assume that it is citizenship that is required for voter registration. In any event, all voter registration requires is the filling out of a simple form. No proof of anything is required. It doesn't even have to be notarized, that is, the filer doesn't have to swear that the information he provides is true.
As for post election audits, I think whenever you audit something done by 150 million people, you will find problems. That is particularly true in a world where the ubiquity of cell phones ensure us all that there will be an endless supply of grainy video of people doing seemingly inexplicable things.
--Hiram
I think you need to read the form.
The form does not require that proof of citizenship be provided.
--Hiram
That pretty well looks like swearing on quite a few things...
I certify that I:
• will be at least 18 years old on election day;
• am a citizen of the United States;
• will have resided in Minnesota for 20 days immediately preceding election day;
• maintain residence at the address given on the registration form;
• am not under court-ordered guardianship in which the court order revokes my right to vote;
• have not been found by a court to be legally incompetent to vote;
• have the right to vote because, if I have been convicted of a felony, my felony sentence has
expired (been completed) or I have been discharged from my sentence; and
•
have read and understand this statement, that giving false information is a felony punishable by
not more than 5 years imprisonment or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
sign hereX________________________________________________ date: _______/_______/ 20_______
And by providing one of these, I am pretty sure big brother can check if you are good or bad.
And if you do not have them, I assume you get a second look.
mark one box and provide the number that applies to you:
I have a MN-issued driver’s license or MN ID card number:
I do not have a MN-issued driver’s license or MN ID card
The last four digits of my Social Security Number are:
I do not have a MN-issued driver’s license, a MN-issued ID card, or a Social Security Number.
If simply saying you were eligible to vote, you wouldn't need voter ID. The fact is, you can have ID without being eligible to vote.
If ID is going to be evidence of a right to vote, it requires I suppose something more than simply saying you have the right to vote.
I don't know what behind the scenes effort goes into verifying voter registration. I suspect not much. But even if the risk is low, I can't imagine why someone who isn't qualified to vote would risk voting. It's hard enough to get people who are qualified to vote to vote.
--Hiram
I assume they enter the license number and name to see how things match up.
I do wish there was a national voter registration system, I think that would simplify things greatly.
Of course, I would tie lots of things to that dBase. (ie citizenship status, address, vote status, criminal record, etc) Not sure why we have thousands of databases that barely talk to each other.
Well except for all those people who fear Big Brother...
I do wish there was a national voter registration system, I think that would simplify things greatly.
I have always assumed that a lot of snow birds vote in multiple jurisdictions but I never thought it was worth billions to find out. Part of the absurdity of focusing so much on elections as opposed to say health care is that the terms are so short. The next election begins just before the current one ends. Why spend billions on election integrity, when nothing ever happens beyond the first couple of months in office. I am no both sider, but I can tell you Democrats and Republicans look a lot alike when neither is doing nothing.
--Hiram
With a single dBase, we would save money and eliminate the chance of dual registration.
With a single dBase, we would save money and eliminate the chance of dual registration
Can you imagine the huge cost it would take to create such an ebase? And it wouldn't solve the problem of dual registration. All to deal with Republicans who also vote from their vacation homes?
--Hiram
With a single dBase, we would save money and eliminate the chance of dual registration.
I have to ask, am I the only person who isn't that comfortable with spending tens of billions on a national computer system designed to keep track of me? In a world where people are terrified of giving their relationship status on Facebook, could creation of such a vast government information system possibly be popular? Does anyone think the use of it would be limited to checking voter registration?
--Hiram
"As long as you are okay being ignored, it is fine that you state your opinions with no proof." -- John
So, it is your stated policy that you will simply ignore any opinion that does not comply with your own, assuming it is completely without basis? Even rabid leftists have at least one "good reason" supporting their "talking point" opinions. Have you no curiosity whatever, as to why a different viewpoint exists? I often look at your cites, sometimes find them unconvincing, or go looking for the truth of the matter. I recommend it; it would go a long way towards "hosting open polite dialogue."
"I assume they enter the license number and name to see how things match up."
See, here is what I am talking about. The Secretary of State has put out instructions that a drivers license from another state is a valid form of ID for voter registration. Yet 15 states give drivers licenses to illegal aliens.
Besides that, there are only three states that do NOT have "provisional ballots"-- ballots cast by same-day registrants that don't count until their identity is checked-- and two of those require full photo ID. Guess which one does not? NOR require ANY ID to vote (and election judges are instructed NEVER to ask), if you are on the rolls?
"With a single dBase, we would save money and eliminate the chance of dual registration." -- John
Interesting, Trump tried just doing a one-time check, but blue states steadfastly refused to cooperate.
" Yet 15 states give drivers licenses to illegal aliens."
Every state that gives out DLs to non-citizens has wording on the DL that indicates it can't be used for voting.
"eliminate the chance of dual registration"
It's not illegal to be registered in more than one place. It is illegal to vote in more than one place.
Driver licenses are not, of course, evidence of an eligibility to vote. Millions of people who can't vote have driver licenses.
There is a tendency to conflate multiple issues with respect to voter ID. In it's purest and simplest form, voter ID does just that. It's a way of helping to make sure that the person who presents himself to vote is who he says he is. It has nothing to do with eligibility or qualification to vote. Everyone in the world has an identity but only a small percentage of them have a right to vote in American elections.
There does seem to be a tendency to demand more from Voter ID, that it be part of a process of determining whether the person asking to vote is qualified to vote. To do that would involve immense expenditure, and years if not decades of investigation, a lot of which could be quite invasive of privacy. And no one seems advocate creating the bureaucracy and infrastructure that would make that possible, or has offered any way to pay for it.
In this country where vaccine cards are a big issue, it simply amazes me that there are those who thing investigating the citizenship of hundreds of millions of Americans is a good idea, or even possible.
--Hiram
"Every state that gives out DLs to non-citizens has wording on the DL that indicates it can't be used for voting."-- Sean
Minnesota used to do that for legal (non-citizen) residents, but that has apparently disappeared and election judges are NOT told to look for such markers, as they used to be instructed. It seems our Secretary of State doesn't consider that important.
Jerry,
I have been hosting polite and professional dialogue for more than a decade, however how effectively you use it and what your idea of success is up to you.
Just like all discussions, the burden of proof is on the person stating the opinion. Like this fluff, who other than you is going to take that seriously.
"that has apparently disappeared and election judges are NOT told to look for such markers, as they used to be instructed. It seems our Secretary of State doesn't consider that important."
Hiram,
A database that contains ~20 fields for 330,000,000 citizens would be child's play in our modern world. And big Tech already has us all recorded, sliced and diced... You are concerned about the FEDs holding the data?
Jerry,
Trump's witch hunt was politically motivated and the current laws do not allow the states to share the data he wanted. That is probably the best argument for keeping the data separated.
Sean,
If they could only be registered in one state at a time, as record in one database... That would solve a lot of the concerns from both sides.
A database that contains ~20 fields for 330,000,000 citizens would be child's play in our modern world
The problem isn't with the database, it would be the collection of the information that would need to go into. The citizenship of 330,000,000 Americans would have to researched, a task beyond imagination.
Election judges, obviously, should not have the responsibility of determining qualifications. They aren't elected officials, they weren't confirmed by the senate.
--Hiram
Something to keep in mind about constitutional rights. You don't have to be a citizen to have them. The constitution tends to use the word person much more than citizen.
Aliens have most of the same rights under the constitution as citizens. They are protected by the fourteenth amendment. They can't be discriminated against on the basis of their race. I don't think they can be arbitrarily denied driver licenses. Aliens have the obligations associated with living in the United States too. They must pay taxes, if there is a military draft, they are subject to it. Many aliens serve in our armed forces. For many aliens, service in our military is in fact a pathway to citizenship. Becoming a naturalized citizen is encouraged in the military.
--Hiram
Seems pretty simple to me...
Almost all of us have SS numbers and are in the system already.
The Sec of States just need to submit the voting status...
What problem does using Social Security numbers address? People who vote in multiple jurisdictions?
Aliens have Social Security numbers too. And compiling Social Security numbers for three hundred million Americans is another daunting task. Bear in mind, the burden of providing Social Security numbers is on the government not the individual. I don't know exactly how the government could do that. And the government can do that now. It's not a point of voting issue. Since SS doesn't prove ID nor eligibility to vote, there is no reason to ask for it when you vote. But again, there is no Republican bill providing for the mechanism and paying the cost of what they are proposing. Could that be because they are not serious in proposing it? If it isn't a barrier to to voting, for Republicans, what's the point?
--Hiram
" Like this fluff, who other than you is going to take that seriously." Once again, you are telling me that I did not see what I clearly saw, that I should simply deny my own knowledge and experiece and agree with you. I'm trying to give you information in a "polite dialogue." You aren't having any of it. I have been having or hosting such discussions for 25 years or more. I have learned to count as success when "the other side" simply reverts to repeated assertions, to irrelevancies, to tu quoque, or descends into ad hominem.
This is what you do...
"the other side" simply reverts to repeated assertions, to irrelevancies, to tu quoque, or descends into ad hominem."
So we must be doing a wonderful job.
I do find it ironic that Republicans complain about election fraud, while entirely overlooking the fact that it is the leader of their party who was caught on tape trying to rig an election.
--Hiram
Hiram,
Excellent point.
Trump definitely was terrible
"This is what you do..." You mean count it a success when you folks "revert to repeated assertions, to irrelevancies, to tu quoque, or descend into ad hominem"? Yes, I do that, and you folks offer LOTS of opportunities. Great sport.
Post a Comment