Damn illegal alien... Catholic.. nuns... no vote for you!
-
Patrick. Freedom from prison is a right that is taken away only after due process of law. Voting is a privilige, not extended to anyone who cannot provide proof they deserve it. Would you be arguing that everyone should be allowed to drive without bothering with getting a license?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
First, why put burden of proof on the voter? "Innocent until proven guilty" is one of the few things that clearly distinguishes western civilizations from commie/rogue dictatorships. Second, I find it weird that in a country where a universal government-ordered ID card is mostly looked at with suspicion, one such would be required for electing the government. It's somewhat like "sure we don't discriminate against girls, but if you want to play, you must be a boy". Third, I'm all for making voting a clear privilege. Say, weight votes by hours of community service done last year.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
The first victims of the new ruling on Voter ID were elderly nuns in Indiana.[^] So much for that argument. I don't know why this is so hard to understand - I'd rather chance that a few, or even alot more than a few, people with no right to vote here cast a ballot than to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands who DO have a right to vote and are denied it. It's like that "I'd rather 1000 guilty men go free than imprison one innocent one" idea. Sometimes I think people get so caught up in the vindictiveness of "justice" that they forget who pays its price.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
It isn't perfect but in the UK we have to present a card at the poll to identify that we are entitled to vote in that election. The card is sent to every household (and for each person) that registers as a voter (regardless of which party you vote for). As far as I can see this is entirely sensible since it stops cheating by being able to vote multiple times. We are also allowed to use postal voting or proxy voting. That isn't to say that cheating does not take place but it is, as far as I am aware, quite rare. You seem to be arguing for the right to cheat, not to vote and why would you happy with people who are not entitled to vote potentially swaying the outcome of an important election?
-
Patrick. Freedom from prison is a right that is taken away only after due process of law. Voting is a privilige, not extended to anyone who cannot provide proof they deserve it. Would you be arguing that everyone should be allowed to drive without bothering with getting a license?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Voting is a privilige
No; in this country, it is a right. Yes, a right granted under specific conditions which require proof of eligibility, but still a right. As such, the onus is on government to justify taking it away; not on the voter to justify claiming it. That, at least, is how our founders contemplated government; I realize that more recently, "the government is always right" seems to be the favored perspective.
Oakman wrote:
Would you be arguing that everyone should be allowed to drive without bothering with getting a license?
Driving is a privilege, though some may wish to argue it be a right. Consequently it isn't comparable to voting.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
It isn't perfect but in the UK we have to present a card at the poll to identify that we are entitled to vote in that election. The card is sent to every household (and for each person) that registers as a voter (regardless of which party you vote for). As far as I can see this is entirely sensible since it stops cheating by being able to vote multiple times. We are also allowed to use postal voting or proxy voting. That isn't to say that cheating does not take place but it is, as far as I am aware, quite rare. You seem to be arguing for the right to cheat, not to vote and why would you happy with people who are not entitled to vote potentially swaying the outcome of an important election?
digital man wrote:
You seem to be arguing for the right to cheat
No I'm not - that's a far too overly simplistic distillation of my argument. What I'm saying is that the balance between potential cheaters, and the value of the lost votes, must always favor the value of the lost votes. If ever that balance were to turn to the cheaters, we'd have a much larger problem than disenfranchisement anyway and this argument would be the least of our problems.
digital man wrote:
why would you happy with people who are not entitled to vote potentially swaying the outcome of an important election?
Because ultimately that is not as bad a thing as people make it out to be. Right or not, ultimately anyone voting here probably has a vested interest in the election's outcome and from a strictly utilitarian perspective their vote has at least some moral imperative behind it. I say "from a strictly utilitarian perspective" because that is also not my preferred outcome; nor is it even one I'm terribly comfortable with. But sometimes, you solve problems by figuring out where the wind is blowing, not trying to shout into it hoping you change its direction. If you ran into issues like vote rigging where large numbers of illegals started flooding in right before an election just to throw it, that falls under the "larger problems" I mentioned above.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
modified on Friday, May 9, 2008 4:09 AM
-
The first "victim" ... one of the two who challenged the law ... was a "Snowbird" registered to vote both in Indiana and in Florida and who was turned away from the polls in Indiana when she tried to use her Florida driver's license as ID. I realize that "facts" is just a word to you people.
You might try reading the article before replying to me. The article isn't about challengers to the law; it's about a group of nuns who fell victim to it on Tuesday in Indiana's primary.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
digital man wrote:
You seem to be arguing for the right to cheat
No I'm not - that's a far too overly simplistic distillation of my argument. What I'm saying is that the balance between potential cheaters, and the value of the lost votes, must always favor the value of the lost votes. If ever that balance were to turn to the cheaters, we'd have a much larger problem than disenfranchisement anyway and this argument would be the least of our problems.
digital man wrote:
why would you happy with people who are not entitled to vote potentially swaying the outcome of an important election?
Because ultimately that is not as bad a thing as people make it out to be. Right or not, ultimately anyone voting here probably has a vested interest in the election's outcome and from a strictly utilitarian perspective their vote has at least some moral imperative behind it. I say "from a strictly utilitarian perspective" because that is also not my preferred outcome; nor is it even one I'm terribly comfortable with. But sometimes, you solve problems by figuring out where the wind is blowing, not trying to shout into it hoping you change its direction. If you ran into issues like vote rigging where large numbers of illegals started flooding in right before an election just to throw it, that falls under the "larger problems" I mentioned above.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
modified on Friday, May 9, 2008 4:09 AM
Bottom line: if you can either prove who you are or have some other means of identifying your right to vote surely that is preferable to letting anyone vote regardless? What, for instance, would stop an unscrupulous character (i.e. a politician) from getting many other like minded people or supporters to go from poll to poll voting each time and skewing the vote in their favour? With something as important as a vote I think that anything that stops fraud is preferable to nothing at all. Your way is the way to vote rigging, cheating etc. That cannot be right: my vote is precious and I would mightily resent someone appropriating it or getting a vote that they are not entitled to and that may put into power someone that has won that right through cheating.
-
The first victims of the new ruling on Voter ID were elderly nuns in Indiana.[^] So much for that argument. I don't know why this is so hard to understand - I'd rather chance that a few, or even alot more than a few, people with no right to vote here cast a ballot than to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands who DO have a right to vote and are denied it. It's like that "I'd rather 1000 guilty men go free than imprison one innocent one" idea. Sometimes I think people get so caught up in the vindictiveness of "justice" that they forget who pays its price.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Patrick S wrote:
I don't know why this is so hard to understand - I'd rather chance that a few, or even alot more than a few, people with no right to vote here cast a ballot than to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands who DO have a right to vote and are denied it.
Fair enough, but is this likely to be a big problem long term? Are there really a lot of eligible would-be voters who can't manage to get themselves ID in order to vote? If they can't manage that, one wonders how they cope with the rest of their lives.
John Carson
-
First, why put burden of proof on the voter? "Innocent until proven guilty" is one of the few things that clearly distinguishes western civilizations from commie/rogue dictatorships. Second, I find it weird that in a country where a universal government-ordered ID card is mostly looked at with suspicion, one such would be required for electing the government. It's somewhat like "sure we don't discriminate against girls, but if you want to play, you must be a boy". Third, I'm all for making voting a clear privilege. Say, weight votes by hours of community service done last year.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighistpeterchen wrote:
First, why put burden of proof on the voter? "Innocent until proven guilty" is one of the few things that clearly distinguishes western civilizations from commie/rogue dictatorships.
To the best of my knowledge there are no western civilizations that allow people to walk in off the street and vote without providing their name and address so they can be checked against the voting rolls.
peterchen wrote:
Second, I find it weird that in a country where a universal government-ordered ID card is mostly looked at with suspicion, one such would be required for electing the government. It's somewhat like "sure we don't discriminate against girls, but if you want to play, you must be a boy".
Nope. It's more like "we don't discriminate against citizens registered to vote but to register to vote you must be a citizen." Not nearly as cute, but a lot more accurate.
peterchen wrote:
Third, I'm all for making voting a clear privilege. Say, weight votes by hours of community service done last year.
Me, too. Let's say you can't vote unless you have served in the military and been honorably discharged - in other words if you won't protect it, you can't use it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
Voting is a privilige
No; in this country, it is a right. Yes, a right granted under specific conditions which require proof of eligibility, but still a right. As such, the onus is on government to justify taking it away; not on the voter to justify claiming it. That, at least, is how our founders contemplated government; I realize that more recently, "the government is always right" seems to be the favored perspective.
Oakman wrote:
Would you be arguing that everyone should be allowed to drive without bothering with getting a license?
Driving is a privilege, though some may wish to argue it be a right. Consequently it isn't comparable to voting.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Patrick S wrote:
That, at least, is how our founders contemplated government
They contemplated a government in which white males with property could vote; no-one else could. Is that what you are suggesting? Voting isn't a privilge, but it is not a universal right - ask most convicts, everyone under the age of 18, and every legal alien living in this country. To expect people to provide proof of their identity is commonplace in the 21st century. If those nuns were so dumb they would have tried to cash a check without proof of identity, then I am just as glad they didn't get to vote. Call it an IQ test.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Patrick S wrote:
I don't know why this is so hard to understand - I'd rather chance that a few, or even alot more than a few, people with no right to vote here cast a ballot than to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands who DO have a right to vote and are denied it.
Fair enough, but is this likely to be a big problem long term? Are there really a lot of eligible would-be voters who can't manage to get themselves ID in order to vote? If they can't manage that, one wonders how they cope with the rest of their lives.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Are there really a lot of eligible would-be voters who can't manage to get themselves ID in order to vote?
You have indeed bottom-lined it. But there are a number of left-wingers (god, I sound like Stan!) who are aware that there are a number of illegal aliens - perhaps as many as 20 million - who could be used to commit massive voter fraud. It's highly unlikely that the fraud won't benefit any Republicans. There is already proof that Hillary received the maximum donation ($2300) from a great number of recent Chinese immigrants most of whom were apparently so enamoured with her return that they were donating about one fourth of a year's salary. Conveniently, these donations had been collected, tabulated and listed for the Clinton Campaign by a single, very rich Chinese immigrant. Many of the donors listed had moved from their domiciles and vanished by the time an investigation took place. . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
First, why put burden of proof on the voter? "Innocent until proven guilty" is one of the few things that clearly distinguishes western civilizations from commie/rogue dictatorships. Second, I find it weird that in a country where a universal government-ordered ID card is mostly looked at with suspicion, one such would be required for electing the government. It's somewhat like "sure we don't discriminate against girls, but if you want to play, you must be a boy". Third, I'm all for making voting a clear privilege. Say, weight votes by hours of community service done last year.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighistAnd how would you prove that you, the man at the polling station, is in fact the man that did those hours community service?
Pits fall into Chuck Norris.
-
The first victims of the new ruling on Voter ID were elderly nuns in Indiana.[^] So much for that argument. I don't know why this is so hard to understand - I'd rather chance that a few, or even alot more than a few, people with no right to vote here cast a ballot than to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands who DO have a right to vote and are denied it. It's like that "I'd rather 1000 guilty men go free than imprison one innocent one" idea. Sometimes I think people get so caught up in the vindictiveness of "justice" that they forget who pays its price.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Is it harder to get a government issue photo ID in the US than in South Africa? Here is is mandatory for a host of activities, and takes six weeks through a really efficient Home Affairs department, and can take years with bad ones. It takes ten days for just a stamped piece of paper for a temporary ID while you wait. We normally all get one when we turn sixteen, and only have to go through the process once, barring theft or loss of your ID document.
Pits fall into Chuck Norris.
-
Bottom line: if you can either prove who you are or have some other means of identifying your right to vote surely that is preferable to letting anyone vote regardless? What, for instance, would stop an unscrupulous character (i.e. a politician) from getting many other like minded people or supporters to go from poll to poll voting each time and skewing the vote in their favour? With something as important as a vote I think that anything that stops fraud is preferable to nothing at all. Your way is the way to vote rigging, cheating etc. That cannot be right: my vote is precious and I would mightily resent someone appropriating it or getting a vote that they are not entitled to and that may put into power someone that has won that right through cheating.
digital man wrote:
Your way is the way to vote rigging, cheating etc.
Zimerica?
Pits fall into Chuck Norris.
-
digital man wrote:
Your way is the way to vote rigging, cheating etc.
Zimerica?
Pits fall into Chuck Norris.
-
Zimbabwe + America
-
And how would you prove that you, the man at the polling station, is in fact the man that did those hours community service?
Pits fall into Chuck Norris.
A government-issued, mandatory photo-ID :shrug: It's not me who got a problem with that.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
peterchen wrote:
First, why put burden of proof on the voter? "Innocent until proven guilty" is one of the few things that clearly distinguishes western civilizations from commie/rogue dictatorships.
To the best of my knowledge there are no western civilizations that allow people to walk in off the street and vote without providing their name and address so they can be checked against the voting rolls.
peterchen wrote:
Second, I find it weird that in a country where a universal government-ordered ID card is mostly looked at with suspicion, one such would be required for electing the government. It's somewhat like "sure we don't discriminate against girls, but if you want to play, you must be a boy".
Nope. It's more like "we don't discriminate against citizens registered to vote but to register to vote you must be a citizen." Not nearly as cute, but a lot more accurate.
peterchen wrote:
Third, I'm all for making voting a clear privilege. Say, weight votes by hours of community service done last year.
Me, too. Let's say you can't vote unless you have served in the military and been honorably discharged - in other words if you won't protect it, you can't use it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
To the best of my knowledge there are no western civilizations that allow people to walk in off the street and vote without providing their name and address so they can be checked against the voting rolls.
Fair enough. However, even the most desperate countries organize Voter identification themselves - even if it's just marking their fingers with "permanent" ink. Of course it would be very American (in the bad sense) to say "don't bother me, it's their problem". For ther second: Is it possible to GET a photo ID just for voting purposes?
Oakman wrote:
Let's say you can't vote unless you have served in the military and been honorably discharged - in other words if you won't protect it, you can't use it.
So, say, Stephen Hawking may not vote? :cool: What about civil service?
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
A government-issued, mandatory photo-ID :shrug: It's not me who got a problem with that.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighistYou appeared to above: "First, why put burden of proof on the voter?" "Second, I find it weird that in a country where a universal government-ordered ID card is mostly looked at with suspicion, one such would be required for electing the government."
Pits fall into Chuck Norris.
-
Zimbabwe + America
Clang... the sound of a penny dropping in a cavernous and empty brain case.
-
Oakman wrote:
To the best of my knowledge there are no western civilizations that allow people to walk in off the street and vote without providing their name and address so they can be checked against the voting rolls.
Fair enough. However, even the most desperate countries organize Voter identification themselves - even if it's just marking their fingers with "permanent" ink. Of course it would be very American (in the bad sense) to say "don't bother me, it's their problem". For ther second: Is it possible to GET a photo ID just for voting purposes?
Oakman wrote:
Let's say you can't vote unless you have served in the military and been honorably discharged - in other words if you won't protect it, you can't use it.
So, say, Stephen Hawking may not vote? :cool: What about civil service?
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighistpeterchen wrote:
However, even the most desperate countries organize Voter identification themselves
That, apparently, is what is being complained about. Indiana passed a law requiring a photo ID. Whats the big deal?
peterchen wrote:
Is it possible to GET a photo ID just for voting purposes?
Absolutely. From the same place and through the same mechanism that one obtains a driver's license. However, it is not just for voting puirposes but would be accepted as proof of ID, age, etc. in a number of circumstances.
peterchen wrote:
So, say, Stephen Hawking may not vote
I cannot imagine that the armed services would be anything but glad to accept Stephen Hawkins and provide him with a brevet commission at whatever rank he thought he'd like. While the average joe like me may be required to learn how to fight, there are, today, plenty of folks who are given direct appointments as commissioned and warrent officers.
peterchen wrote:
What about civil service?
Seems to me that anyone who works for the government as a civil servant should be barred from voting for at least five years after termination.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface