Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Aardwolf on September 04, 2012, 12:08:30 am
-
...because in the other couple of threads it was just a side-topic.
Voter ID laws. Discuss.
My take:
Total lack of actual voter identity fraud + disproportionately affecting people who would vote Democratic + enacted by Republicans = power grab.
Having to go out of your way to get a photo ID you didn't previously need + having to pay money for it + it has to have an expiration date = poll tax = unconstitutional.
And the $ amount involved in getting a photo ID is more than what poll taxes were.
-
Well what do think they mean when they talk about true conservative values?
-
Dunno about voter IDs, but compulsory universal IDs are common in Europe, and I support those. It is important that government can easily and reliably identify its citizens when dealing with them, not just for voting but for plenty of other interactions. They should be issued for free, tough.
-
In Canada, we've always had to provide ID in order to vote...
Or am I going about this all wrong?
-
The republicans want voter ID laws for the wrong reasons, but I don't disagree with the concept. Why the hell can someone vote without showing ID? Who the hell doesn't have ID?
-
Who the hell doesn't have ID?
In the United States?
1) Elderly persons who no longer drive.
2) Urban residents who don't need a car to get where they're going.
3) University students who couldn't park on/near campus, even if they did have a car.
I actually fell into the third catagory for a midterm and a Presidential election, prior to getting my driver's license.
The second and third catagories are voting blocks that trend strongly Democratic and can be difficult to motivate to vote. Erecting roadblocks to that is a pretty naked voter-suppression tactic. It's even more exposed in states like Pennsylvania, where a driver's license is only a valid voter ID, if it was issued thirty days or more prior to the election, while a gun license is a valid voter ID from the moment it's issued. (Non-drivers trend Democratic, but non-driving gun-owners trend Republican.) It's more exposed still, when you note that there are larger vote fraud problems associated with absentee ballots, but none of the states instituting in-person voter ID requirements have implimented anything similar for absentee-voters, as absentee-voters tend to vote more reliably Republican than in-person voters. Then you get into the restrictions being placed on early voting in many of the same states as voter ID changes, and it just gets ludicrous.
Why the hell can someone vote without showing ID?
Because in the United States, voting is a privilege of citizenship, but holding a photo ID is not a responsibility of citizenship. The real question should be: Why should drivers, gun-carriers, and international travelers be a special class of citizen, while everyone else is reduced to a second-class status, who cannot vote?
-
"Second-class citizen," because you choose not to have ID (which is a terrible idea, by the way)? You can't be serious.
Government-issued identification is not expensive, nor is it a hassle to acquire. And I believe it IS a responsibility of citizenship. Just because the government doesn't require it all the time, doesn't mean you shouldn't take the initiative.
Again, yes, I agree with the assertion that the republicans want voter ID laws for the wrong reasons, and some of the current laws are blatantly intended to prevent non-whites and the poor in general from voting. But I don't think it's too much to ask that someone identify themselves before being allowed to take a (small) part in shaping the future of the country.
-
Government-issued identification is not expensive, nor is it a hassle to acquire. And I believe it IS a responsibility of citizenship. Just because the government doesn't require it all the time, doesn't mean you shouldn't take the initiative.
Any expense at all can be prohibitive if you're on a very tight budget, and it can be a real hassle to acquire if you're elderly, don't have much access to transportation, and live some distance away from your local DMV office (which generally also handles non-license IDs). If it was a completely-free process that presented no real hardships, it'd be one thing, but that's not the case right now.
-
I'm not really sure since I'm not from the US, but if the current system works practically without fault, the argument that identification for the purposes of voting is somehow necessary doesn't seem to hold.
-
Oh, and here's another level of complication: to get any sort of government ID, you're pretty much required to bring in your original birth certificate...and there are a lot of people out there who simply don't have one, or whose name has changed in some way, which opens up a whole new can of worms.
-
Government-issued identification is not expensive, nor is it a hassle to acquire. And I believe it IS a responsibility of citizenship. Just because the government doesn't require it all the time, doesn't mean you shouldn't take the initiative.
As I said in the OP, it's more expensive than poll taxes were.
Citation = my dad; anyone care to look this up and get some hard numbers?
-
just checked virginia's DMV page, a picture ID costs $10.
-
Hm... says on the wikipedia article "Poll tax (United States) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_%28United_States%29)", Jefferson Parish, Louisiana had a $1 poll tax in 1917, which is equivalent to $18.14 "today" (doesn't say when), and Mississipi had a $2 poll tax in 1966, which is equivalent to $14.33 today. Holy crap that's a lot of inflation.
So... dollar amount is more, but equivalent amount is less. But also extra work involved e.g. what Mongoose said. But then again, a driver's license needs to be renewed every 5 years, and federal elections are every 2 years... of course if you're only interested in presidential elections, that's every 4 years... and if you don't actually need to drive, so much for the side-effect benefits of having a driver's license.
Wait, does this mean you could lose your right to vote if a traffic judge revoked your driver's license? Can you get a picture ID aside from a driver's license / learner's permit?
Does anyone disagree with the assertion that "preventing voter identity fraud" is just a cover for "power grab"?
-
In Canada, anyone can get a provincially-provided federally-recognized ID. Drivers get it by default, but anyone can get them.
I don't knowing, showing ID to vote here is just such a habit that I really don't see this as a big deal, especially considering there are multiple ways to have government-issued photo ID:
-Passport
-Driver's License
-Firearms License
-Provincial Photo ID
-Citizenship ID card (for people who have immigrated)
Does anyone disagree with the assertion that "preventing voter identity fraud" is just a cover for "power grab"?
Yup. The whole "I don't have my birth certificate" argument doesn't hold water. There are precisely three ways you can prove citizenship: passport, birth certificate, or citizenship ID card (this is international law). If you cannot provide one of the three, you cannot prove your citizenship (granted the birth certificate can actually be issued by a foreign country if it shows parentage, but that's a more complicated scenario - this is why my son holds dual Canada-UK citizenship). I lost count of the number of Americans I had to explain that to at the border. A social security number is not proof of citizenship.
So yeah... this civil libertarian doesn't have a real problem with voter ID at elections. Non-citizens cannot vote; ergo, you should have to prove valid citizenship.
-
I didn't say "requiring identification is a cover for power grab", I said "preventing voter identity fraud is a cover for power grab".
-
Does anyone disagree with the assertion that "preventing voter identity fraud" is just a cover for "power grab"?
Yup. The whole "I don't have my birth certificate" argument doesn't hold water. There are precisely three ways you can prove citizenship: passport, birth certificate, or citizenship ID card (this is international law). If you cannot provide one of the three, you cannot prove your citizenship (granted the birth certificate can actually be issued by a foreign country if it shows parentage, but that's a more complicated scenario - this is why my son holds dual Canada-UK citizenship). I lost count of the number of Americans I had to explain that to at the border. A social security number is not proof of citizenship.
I'm not sure if you had another question in mind when you were answering, but regardless of how you see voter ID (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8)...
-
I was just about to go looking for the Daily Show clip that was talking about this issue.
It really isn't designed to prevent fraud. It's designed to give Republicans an edge in key states.
The Daily Show clip I mentioned. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-16-2012/daily-show--democalypse-2012---cockblock-the-vote)
-
I don't know what you're complaining about. In Poland, an ID is required for every darn thing that involves any sort of interaction with government employees. Around here, people carry their IDs around all the time. It's mandatory and IIRC, they aren't free. And for many things, you can't even do with a driver's license (I don't know about gun permits, they're uncommon), you need your personal ID card.
-
Hm... says on the wikipedia article "Poll tax (United States) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_%28United_States%29)", Jefferson Parish, Louisiana had a $1 poll tax in 1917, which is equivalent to $18.14 "today" (doesn't say when), and Mississipi had a $2 poll tax in 1966, which is equivalent to $14.33 today. Holy crap that's a lot of inflation.
So... dollar amount is more, but equivalent amount is less. But also extra work involved e.g. what Mongoose said. But then again, a driver's license needs to be renewed every 5 years, and federal elections are every 2 years... of course if you're only interested in presidential elections, that's every 4 years... and if you don't actually need to drive, so much for the side-effect benefits of having a driver's license.
Wait, does this mean you could lose your right to vote if a traffic judge revoked your driver's license? Can you get a picture ID aside from a driver's license / learner's permit?
yes. that's what i was talking about. and i don't see why i couldn't be made free if we're going to require it to vote.
Does anyone disagree with the assertion that "preventing voter identity fraud" is just a cover for "power grab"?
yes. voter ID is a valid and logical concept. it is required for a LOT less important things than voting. and as others have pointed out, it's common practice LOADS of other places. honestly, when i found out it didn't exist already, i was shocked (i've only been legal for the last election, and i used absentee voting). it's not hard to get an ID. i have 4 government issued picture IDs. many more than that if you count student IDs and such. if you can't be bothered to spend a day's effort to ensure you can vote, i don't want you voting anyway. much the same way as those morons who claimed the ballot was too confusing in florida. when i got my driver's license, i had lost my birth certificate or SSN card or something like that that i needed. i had to go through the crap of getting it replaced. yeah it's a pain in the ass, but it's not hard.
bottom line, you shouldn't get to strike down a valid law by saying "oh, but it will hurt people who can't be bothered to follow it!" just as you can say it's a power grab by the republicans trying to stop democrats from voting, you could say it's a power grab by the democrats looking the other way with their voters/liberal organizations committing fraud. and to me, stopping fraud FAR outweighs making people go stand in line at the DMV.
-
Does anyone disagree with the assertion that "preventing voter identity fraud" is just a cover for "power grab"?
Seriously, he's not saying "duh, voter id is bad... m'kay?". He's saying that the specific reasons presented for these laws by the (republican) politicians enacting them are bogus and enable them to disenfranchise voters. But I guess if a video of one of the architects of one of these laws admitting that and the fact that voter fraud (you know, the reason given) has such small numbers that it might as well not exist do nothing to make you see that, I'm not sure what will...
-
bottom line, you shouldn't get to strike down a valid law by saying "oh, but it will hurt people who can't be bothered to follow it!" just as you can say it's a power grab by the republicans trying to stop democrats from voting, you could say it's a power grab by the democrats looking the other way with their voters/liberal organizations committing fraud. and to me, stopping fraud FAR outweighs making people go stand in line at the DMV.
...except voter fraud is proven to be minuscule compared to the number of people who are being adversely affected by these new laws.
Let's try a different question: even if you (not just you personally, but in general) agree with the concept of voter IDs, do you at least agree that trying to shove the laws through a few months before the election that will be impacted by them is an extremely suspect move? Like, if the laws had instead implemented mandatory IDs by the 2016 or 2014 elections, I'd have far less of a problem with them. As it stands, there's a very clear ulterior motive at work, i.e. the two clips posted above. Man my state is awesome.
As far as the general concept of a national ID card goes, it's an idea that will pretty much never gain widespread traction here, and I'm inclined to agree with the dissenters. A valid ID is required for certain privileges, such as purchasing alcohol or operating a vehicle, but basic citizenship, and by extension voting, is a birthright. All you really need to validate citizenship is a birth certificate showing you were born here, or failing that, some sort of public notice of birth. (I know there's some way to get a birth certificate if you never had one, though I'm not sure of the exact requirements.) For the purposes of the federal government, your Social Security number serves as a de facto national ID, so why should there be another layer placed on top of that? It invites unnecessary bureaucracy, and certainly raises the "Big Brother" specter that gets people in this country very antsy.
-
As Mongoose said it really comes down to the timing. While I'm not apposed to being required to present a photo ID in order to vote it is irresponsible to force through such regulation less than 6 months before a major election. If it is to become the norm than citizens need proper time and awareness to comply with laws that effect their basic rights. If such laws were passed with enforcement to begin in 2014 or 2016 then it would be fine but as it stands now it does equate to a power grab as it disenfranchises a major support block for the competing party.
-
As Mongoose said it really comes down to the timing. While I'm not opposed to being required to present a photo ID in order to vote it is irresponsible to force through such regulation less than 6 months before a major election. If it is to become the norm then citizens need proper time and awareness to comply with laws that affect their basic rights. If such laws were passed with enforcement to begin in 2014 or 2016 then it would be fine but as it stands now it does equate to a power grab as it disenfranchises a major support block for the competing party.
Well said; you mostly echo my own thoughts on this issue.
That said, I am intensely disgusted with the state of political discourse in my country at this time. I've already made up my mind as to how I'm going to vote, and am actively blocking out any and all election news as it now has no bearing on my decision and will only serve to drive my blood pressure up.
Full disclosure: I'm voting for Romney solely because I disagree with Mr. Obama's policies. I hold no illusions that Romney is a "good" candidate, but I feel neither is his opponent. South Park (or rather the luminary minds behind it) once eloquently summarized the issue as: "a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich." I'm quite the social liberal (as in, I follow "live and let live") and an economic conservative (as in, "don't spend money we don't have"), so both candidates will leave me wanting something more.
I really wish this wasn't the case, but I've come to realize that it's not necessarily the politicians themselves that suck (though the American system is uniquely suited for sociopaths to advance), but rather the citizenry that the politicians emerged from.... perhaps America isn't exactly number one at the moment?
Thus ends IronBeer's 2012 political discourse. I'm willing to elaborate upon/ clarify some points I've raised earlier, but I will do so on my own timetable.
-
For the purposes of the federal government, your Social Security number serves as a de facto national ID, so why should there be another layer placed on top of that?
Social security numbers aren't proof of citizenship. Anyone who works can get one.
The timing is wrong, the reasons given right now are shady, but ultimately requiring photo ID to vote is a common practice in many democracies and there is nothing inherently wrong with that practice.
-
I don't think anyone is really dead-set in opposition to the idea of voter ID requirements.
-
For the purposes of the federal government, your Social Security number serves as a de facto national ID, so why should there be another layer placed on top of that?
Social security numbers aren't proof of citizenship. Anyone who works can get one.
I didn't say it was proof of citizenship, merely an identification for governmental purposes. As I said, all one really needs as proof of citizenship is a valid birth certificate. I've yet to see a compelling argument for why a national ID would be required on top of a state-issued driver's license or non-driver's ID.
-
Full disclosure: I'm voting for Romney solely because I disagree with Mr. Obama's policies. I hold no illusions that Romney is a "good" candidate, but I feel neither is his opponent. South Park (or rather the luminary minds behind it) once eloquently summarized the issue as: "a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich." I'm quite the social liberal (as in, I follow "live and let live") and an economic conservative (as in, "don't spend money we don't have"), so both candidates will leave me wanting something more.
How's about actually voting for someone good then? :p
-
I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson. I know it's essentially a wasted vote. But I cannot, in good conscience, vote for Romnobama.
-
How's about actually voting for someone good then? :p
Here's the way I see it: American presidential (and general, I guess) voting is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Axiom. I choose the lesser evil that, in my determinations, will do the most good (or least harm) for the country in the short run. In the long run, I work to promote "better citizenry" by attempting rational discussions and education of my fellows. Wasting a vote does no good, period. I think the self-reinforcing two-party system is bull****, and that the political system at large is far more corrupt than most people are comfortable to contemplate (we are not most people, ofc), but as a "mere citizen" I have to work within the dictated constraints. To promote better politicians, we need to build a better country. Breaking down ignorance, encouraging independent thought, fostering deep and intelligent discourse, these are all ways that I feel like I have an impact. Though I'll admit that it can be really friggin' difficult at times (ok, most of the time). But on any occasion when I can have a smart, deep conversation about religion or a hot-button issue with somebody who has opposite views without biting their head off, I feel a little hope for mankind. As far as human nature is concerned, I'm a "glass half-empty" person, but I hold out hope that the glass can be filled some more in the future. Perhaps my view is extra-rosy due to my current stay at a university, and a few years in the "real world" will swiftly turn me into a bitter old 20-something curmudgeon.
tl;dr- I vote for the lesser of two evils, fight derp and doesn't afraid of anything.
-
The problem with voting for the lesser of two evils are that,
1) Everyone does it because everyone does it.
2) You're still voting for evil.
-
As Mongoose said it really comes down to the timing. While I'm not apposed to being required to present a photo ID in order to vote it is irresponsible to force through such regulation less than 6 months before a major election. If it is to become the norm than citizens need proper time and awareness to comply with laws that effect their basic rights. If such laws were passed with enforcement to begin in 2014 or 2016 then it would be fine but as it stands now it does equate to a power grab as it disenfranchises a major support block for the competing party.
i seriously doubt anyone has any illusions of this passing and being enforced for the upcoming elections. sure, they'd LIKE to, but it's not going to happen. and you're all right, it IS a timing thing. the thing is though, this idea has been around a LOT longer than the past few months. personally, i find the timing of the big stink being raised about it right before the election to be the suspect part. smells like another ****-slinging fest at those stupid, radical, racist republicans to me. :rolleyes:
-
I'm not going to vote at all. Tired of being presented with a choice between two corrupt politicians.
I would vote for Ron Paul, but given the stuff I've seen him have to put up with this election year I won't be surprised if he doesn't even make it onto the ballet.
-
i seriously doubt anyone has any illusions of this passing and being enforced for the upcoming elections. sure, they'd LIKE to, but it's not going to happen. and you're all right, it IS a timing thing. the thing is though, this idea has been around a LOT longer than the past few months. personally, i find the timing of the big stink being raised about it right before the election to be the suspect part. smells like another ****-slinging fest at those stupid, radical, racist republicans to me. :rolleyes:
Um...at least in Pennsylvania, it already passed, and it's going to be enforced. It survived a court challenge too. The Jon Stewart clip kind of says as much.
-
I'm not going to vote at all. Tired of being presented with a choice between two corrupt politicians.
And that's exactly what they want you to do.
-
Oh-ho! I've been following up on some of this matter - the RNC has been nearly completely bought by fascists. To join the 2012 Nazi party, please endorse any candidate supported by the Koch brothers. Rachel Maddow has done some wonderfully insightful sessions on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QDmF0phB1w&feature=my_liked_videos&list=LLA4UdO-OPcfjIR1G_lEPbwA
...Lo and behold, every state with a Tea Party candidate, elected on the premice that they would uphold more "traditional" values, or what have you, was pretty much bought out, and then once elected, promptly introduced legislature which made it harder for the middle- and lower-classes to live and then, as you're seeing now, harder to vote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTKY5ZCPfMY&feature=BFa&list=LLA4UdO-OPcfjIR1G_lEPbwA
And, whether you like Cenk or not, the final proof of evil you possibly did not concieve of prior:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTUjYyae2zw&feature=BFa&list=LLA4UdO-OPcfjIR1G_lEPbwA
This video has been posted on some of these topics before, but it is especially relevant here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=35OXo9SSj5I
The RNC is now so brazenly callous that they will barely manage to cover up mass voter fraud, despite how obvious and clear it is. And you'll seldom hear about it, due to the money involved. Even if procecuted, as Romney is being at present, I doubt it will matter, because the capital here is so overpowering. They bought off a political movement about restoring Constitutional values and good sense in government, and by they I of course mean the Koch brothers and et al. Otherwise known as the Nazi party.
By sapping the unions, they damage a substantial source of income for the Democratic party. This in turn means the Democratic party might just need to resort to corporate capital to compensate. It thus appears that the DNC will also go to Hell in a handbasket, or rather, a purse. Granted, I may not support the wide-scale Federalism supported by the Democrats, but at least it was genuine, maybe. Now it's just a matter of time.
But ultimately, you'll be prompted (and the key word is indeed "prompted") to choose between two candidates, who are both basically different models of the same meat puppet that cannot uphold the oath to defend your Constitutional rights by repealing the Patriot Act and all the vile **** that goes with it. 2012 and beyond is looking...
...Unfathomably horrible.
-
The problem with voting for the lesser of two evils are that,
1) Everyone does it because everyone does it.
2) You're still voting for evil.
I'm not going to vote at all. Tired of being presented with a choice between two corrupt politicians.
And that's exactly what they want you to do.
Well, hmpf. ಠ_ಠ What would you suggest, then? Just for the sake of discussion.
-
The problem with voting for the lesser of two evils are that,
1) Everyone does it because everyone does it.
2) You're still voting for evil.
I'm not going to vote at all. Tired of being presented with a choice between two corrupt politicians.
And that's exactly what they want you to do.
Well, hmpf. ಠ_ಠ What would you suggest, then? Just for the sake of discussion.
I think the answer is obvious
(http://troglopundit.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/cthulhu-2012.jpg)
:nervous:
that or endorce a(nother) third candidate.
-
Ron Paul is, unless something very unexpected happens, officially out of the running. Despite my great disappointment in this matter, Gary Johnson is still there, and he gets my vote.
I'd urge you to vote Libertarian before you vote Green - environmentalists are not always scientists. Libertarians will at least uphold Constitutional law.
-
Libertarians have the unfortunate tendency to appeal to the idea of the Constitution, rather than its actual wording, rather like Tea Party types do with it.
-
Well, hmpf. ಠ_ಠ What would you suggest, then? Just for the sake of discussion.
Go in an spoil your ballot. Write "None of these ****ers, I want someone good". Get all your friends who won't vote to do it too. Basically, get people to see that there are a large number of people dissatisfied with the current crop of politicians who are still willing to vote. It's the last point that is important. No one cares that there are a large number who won't get off their arse. :)
The issue is that there are a large number of people like yourself who don't vote cause they can't stand either party. But in terms of their political power, their refusal to vote means that they have none at all. No politician cares about someone who won't vote. There's no need to chase after them.
Spoiling the ballot give you that power back. It makes the politicians realise you are a floating vote. That makes you important. If every person who says "I'm not going to vote in protest" instead said "I'm going to spoil my ballot in protest", the entire election would be very different.
-
As far as I'm concerned, people who won't get off their couches to vote forfeit their right to complain that the government doesn't represent them.
-
I 100% agree. Even if you don't like any of the candidates, make it clear that there is someone you would vote for.
-
Depending on the voting machines it may not be possible to spoil the vote. I don't remember being able to do anything except select a listed candidate and there was no place or even means of writing some thing in. I could be wrong though.
-
Maybe you could go in and time out the vote. :D
You could ask for a mail-in ballot too.
-
As far as I'm concerned, people who won't get off their couches to vote forfeit their right to complain that the government doesn't represent them.
George Carlin begged to differ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk). :D
-
If you pay taxes to the government, your voting or not voting is somewhat irrelevant; you still have the right of participation in its upkeep and maintenance.
-
As far as I'm concerned, people who won't get off their couches to vote forfeit their right to complain that the government doesn't represent them.
George Carlin begged to differ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk). :D
He's wrong. (but funny about it).
If his argument is that people get the government they choose to have, and that the issue is that many people who vote choose arseholes, what kind of choice are you making by deliberately leaving it up to people who vote choose arseholes? He did make a decision. He decided that he wanted an arsehole for president. He just didn't pick which arsehole. :p
That said, most of his point wasn't that different from mine. Remember I'm telling people to go in and not vote for the people on the ballot.
-
Who the hell doesn't have ID?
In the United States?
1) Elderly persons who no longer drive.
2) Urban residents who don't need a car to get where they're going.
3) University students who couldn't park on/near campus, even if they did have a car.
Drivers licenses are a form of id. You can get an id card without needing to get a license to drive. Not everyone owns a car, needs to drive, or can drive; and many even have driving restrictions. Most people without cars have id anyway (doesn't mean they're licensed to drive, a lot of people who don't have cars do have licenses, and a lot of people who don't have licenses don't have cars (although, many with cars don't have licenses, but still have id; not saying this is good, there's a lot of stupid people running about on the roads)). It costs $15 dollars where i'm at. Not exactly pricey.
-
@karajorma, do explain to me why voting is so great and how it can bring about change? I wanna hear your justification for going to vote.
My justification for NOT voting is that US politics has become a revolving door for crooks and con artists, and we always get presented with a choice between bad and worse. I shouldn't be forced to vote for the lesser evil - the lesser evil is still evil. If no one votes then it becomes obvious that the politicians have no support.
-
The problem is that is a general statement, just like one party is good and the other is bad. It blankets the issue with ignorance, and in a state of hopelessness, you choose to do nothing. That is the exact problem in the US now, I think. Many policies encourage ignorance, because if you knew just a little, even, you would be outraged. And not just you, a lot of people. And you would care about the problems, about justice, and what have you. Those things could then be combatted, and you might just not see all the crooks and liars in office.
Thus, education is the key - find out about who you might vote for, and not just the two blokes you hear about on the news. And when you learn something, make that known. The problem for corrupt politicians is that we can communicate more easily than ever before. You just need the drive to get other people to learn and listen.
-
The problem is that is a general statement, just like one party is good and the other is bad. It blankets the issue with ignorance, and in a state of hopelessness, you choose to do nothing. That is the exact problem in the US now, I think. Many policies encourage ignorance, because if you knew just a little, even, you would be outraged. And not just you, a lot of people. And you would care about the problems, about justice, and what have you. Those things could then be combatted, and you might just not see all the crooks and liars in office.
Thus, education is the key - find out about who you might vote for, and not just the two blokes you hear about on the news. And when you learn something, make that known. The problem for corrupt politicians is that we can communicate more easily than ever before. You just need the drive to get other people to learn and listen.
I've tried that. Unfortunately, a lot of people just have this huge mental block against any information of the sort. They are happy to listen to the talking heads on the TV and take it as gospel while never questioning a thing.
So rather then attacking it all at once, I find it much easier to chip away at established memes and slowly break down people's trust of authority - especially as I am being made to live with these people for the foreseeable future.
Hence, me attacking the idea that voting will magically change everything.
-
The point it this - you can start doing something, or you can continue doing nothing. It would certainly be better to do something.
-
@karajorma, do explain to me why voting is so great and how it can bring about change? I wanna hear your justification for going to vote.
The good guys never run cause they know they have no support. But if 50% of the electorate are going to the polls but not actually voting for anyone. Well that's a sign that maybe the do.
Basically I'm trying to start a peaceful revolution. With minimal effort, you can turn up on one day and protest that neither side are worth supporting.
-
I think this year showed very clearly that the good guys do run, but the media gives them no time or blocks them out. If the media isn't doing that, the blatantly obvious fraud in the Republican conventions, for example, did. Fortunately, there ought to be enough evidence to put a lot of people in prison, if the legal system can crawl out of the corruption it's in now.
...It was a sad day when Dr. Paul was forced out. I need to research the Libertarian candidate more (Johnson), but you still have options if you don't like either main party. You should also investigate the individuals running for your state elections. They're important, too.
-
The Pirate Party didn't bother to run this election, right?
-
The good guys never run cause they know they have no support.
Huntsman.
-
Wait, this is my thread. What am I doing letting it get derailed talking about "the lesser of two evils"? :ick: Oh right, because Thaeris made a rant about the **** the RNC has gotten away with, and concluded it with an "in order to stay in the game the DNC will have to take corporate $ too". Bleh.
Back on topic, consensus on this?
Effects:
Voter identity fraud:
Because there was (virtually) no voter identity fraud, (virtually) no voter identity fraud will be prevented by the enactment of these laws. I don't think anyone has contested this.
People getting photo IDs:
Some people will get the new required photo IDs, and some people won't. Regardless whether you want to condemn it as sloth, it puts one additional thing in the way of people who were otherwise able to vote, and who were statistically more likely to vote Democratic.
Motivation:
Apparently there isn't a consensus on this :confused: ...despite it being established by the actual legislators talking about it. They were aware that voter identity fraud wasn't a thing, and they were aware it would tip the vote in their favor. It was a power grab.
"In Principal":
Yes it makes sense that the person voting should be who they say they are. I think we have consensus on this.