Supreme Court Voting Rights Act Decision — Section 4 invalid

[DC Tom]

yeah, not surprised that wasn't a popular plan with you all. how bout photos on social security cards? a year's grace to get it done at no cost to the citizen, no benefits without doing it after that? what would be the objection there?

 

How about social security cards as they are now? Your vote is identified with your SSN. Then you can only vote once, and illegals can't vote (theoretically...of course, they get illegal SSNs, but that's a different problem.)

 

Nah...managing electoral fairness via socialized medicine is a much better system.

[birdog1960]

Well, unless you live in Manhattan, you need new friends. So, a photograph every 10 years if it comes from the fed, is better than one every 2-3 years if it come from a state? What's the problem if it's free?

 

It would appear to me Yuri, that you're working on attaining a post on the central planning committee. Can't you just like divulge a bunch of secrets and fly off to Moscow?

you really are totally incapable of empathy aren't you?

 

what does the renewal date of the photo matter? for once, i agree with tom. just use the current ss card and number. make it as easy as possible. none of you has raised an objection against some iteration of this idea. except, of course, your ad hominem. sadly, it's probably your most effective debate tactic.

[TakeYouToTasker]

there are a disproportionate number of poor, old and black citizens without photo id. now, if everyone carried a photo id for national health insurance, that wouldn't be an issue. why is it that voter id is such a pet issue of republicans and detested by democrats? answer that and you have your answer. but why not national photo id cards? what's the argument against that? the whole thing goes away if that's enacted.

 

it appears ontario has this. http://www.ontario.c...ario-photo-card. don't know about the rest of canada. seems such an easy solution....what's the hold up?

Because single centralized plans never work effectively, largely because they become entrenched bureaucratic legacy nightmares politically, and because without competition there are no better models to compare them to functionally.

 

Additionally, the United States, being as large as it is geographically, and as diverse as it is demographically, can never be managed effectively as a single large entity. That's the importance of State autonomy and state law. The cultures are too different, and the folks living in different places have different priorities. It's not for you to tell them how to live, nor for them to tell you how to live.

[3rdnlng]

you really are totally incapable of empathy aren't you?

 

what does the renewal date of the photo matter? for once, i agree with tom. just use the current ss card and number. make it as easy as possible. none of you has raised an objection against some iteration of this idea. except, of course, your ad hominem. sadly, it's probably your most effective debate tactic.

 

Incapable of empathy? You're a joke. S.S. cards and numbers to be used as voter I.D.? Not only does that put your S.S. card number out there more frequently but as Tom alluded to there is already a certain degree of fraud with the use of S.S. cards and numbers. Why are you so adamant about not using properly updated voter photo I.D.'s like driver licenses? I think that you like the S.S. card deal because it's a "Federal" thing with the added benefit that without pictures Juan can more easily fill in for Jose at the voting booth.

[birdog1960]

Because single centralized plans never work effectively, largely because they become entrenched bureaucratic legacy nightmares politically, and because without competition there are no better models to compare them to functionally.

 

Additionally, the United States, being as large as it is geographically, and as diverse as it is demographically, can never be managed effectively as a single large entity. That's the importance of State autonomy and state law. The cultures are too different, and the folks living in different places have different priorities. It's not for you to tell them how to live, nor for them to tell you how to live.

what a load of feces. we're talking about id cards not something as complicated as assuring food and drug safety on a national level....oh, wait. passports are issued by the feds and have been efficiently distriuted and controlled. such an id program could easily be compared to what we currently have.

Edited June 27, 2013 by birdog1960

[TakeYouToTasker]

what a load of feces. we're talking about id cards not something as complicated as assuring food and drug safety on a national level....oh, wait. such a program could easily be compared to what we currently have.

Thank you for illustrating my points exactly.

 

Voting policy is for the states to administer. Processes and method are left entirely up to the states, and by comparison we can see whos methods are better for preventing both voter fraud and voter suppression; and we can find the best methods for both. What you suggest is that we shouldn't look for real solutions to real problems by casting a wide net, but should rather try one thing at a time in a cumbersome process which moves along at the speed of a glacier. The more schools of thought you have working on systemic problems, the more likely you are to produce more comprehensive solutions to those problems over time. 50 possible solutions is better than 1. Your position is anti-progress at best.

 

Also, I can't believe that you would use the FDA as an example of an effective government program which best serves it's people. This is an entity which has cost many lives through it's approval process, a process which is entirely self serving. The FDA causes higher prices for drugs, with an estimated average of 29% of development costs used for FDA testing. The FDA censors a huge market sector. The FDA has approved a massive amount of food and drug products which have later been deemed unsafe, many of which the FDA still supports. The FDA is subject to the whims of the Big Pharma and Big Agro lobbies. This is all possible because they opperate exactly as I outlined in the first paragraph of my initial post.

Edited June 27, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[birdog1960]

Thank you for illustrating my points exactly.

 

Voting policy is for the states to administer. Processes and method are left entirely up to the states, and by comparison we can see who's methods are better for preventing both voter fraud and voter suppression; and we can find the best methods for both. What you suggest is that we shouldn't look for real solutions to real problems by casting a wide net, but should rather try one thing at a time in a cumbersome process which moves along at the speed of a glacier. The more schools of thought you have working on systemic problems, the more likely yo are to produce more comprehensive solutions to those problems over time. 50 possible solutions is better than 1. Your position is anti-progress at best.

 

Also, I can't believe that you would use the FDA as an example of an effective government program which best serves it's people. This is an entity which has cost many lives through it's approval process, a process which is entirely self serving. The FDA causes higher prices for drugs, with an estimated average of 29% of development costs used for FDA esting. The FDA censors a huge market sector. The FDA has approved a massive amount of food and drug products which have later been deemed unsafe, many of which the FDA still supports. The FDA is subject to the whims of the Big Pharma and Big Agro lobbies. This is all possible because they opperate, exactly as I outlined in the first paragraph of my initial post.

no. what we can find with state administered voting is redistricting and thereby rigging of results, hanging chads and supreme court decisions over who won a presidential election, fairly frequent complaints of voter fraud, multiple historical attempts at removing the ability to vote for whole groups of society and lack of confidence in the system by significant swaths of the populace. the fda has some problems but overall does a very good job in my opinion. we arguably have the safest food supply in the world. few drugs have been approved without good evidence of their safety and effectiveness. problems discovered only after millions of patients are treated are impossible to predict. in general, drugs are approved more quickly and with less study in other countries. i'd choose the fda's more conservative approach every time. now if we had a nationa formulary, prices would come screaming down...

[B-Man]

no. what we can find with state administered voting is redistricting and thereby rigging of results, hanging chads and supreme court decisions over who won a presidential election, fairly frequent complaints of voter fraud,

 

multiple historical attempts at removing the ability to vote for whole groups of society

 

and lack of confidence in the system by significant swaths of the populace. the fda has some problems but overall does a very good job in my opinion. we arguably have the safest food supply in the world. few drugs have been approved without good evidence of their safety and effectiveness. problems discovered only after millions of patients are treated are impossible to predict. in general, drugs are approved more quickly and with less study in other countries. i'd choose the fda's more conservative approach every time. now if we had a nationa formulary, prices would come screaming down...

 

and there we have we have Bd's bias distilled into one phrase.

 

any good faith attempt to ensure the reliablity and trust of the American voting system, such as Voter ID, annual audits of voter rolls, or ensuring only those eligible by law to vote, are the ones voting, is simply explained away as racism and an attempt to deny people the right to vote

 

Those who keep spouting this line would rather impute motive than engage argument.

 

If you disagree with the left's suppression narrative, you must be demonized.

 

.

Edited June 27, 2013 by B-Man

[TakeYouToTasker]

no. what we can find with state administered voting is redistricting and thereby rigging of results, hanging chads and supreme court decisions over who won a presidential election, fairly frequent complaints of voter fraud, multiple historical attempts at removing the ability to vote for whole groups of society and lack of confidence in the system by significant swaths of the populace. the fda has some problems but overall does a very good job in my opinion. we arguably have the safest food supply in the world. few drugs have been approved without good evidence of their safety and effectiveness. problems discovered only after millions of patients are treated are impossible to predict. in general, drugs are approved more quickly and with less study in other countries. i'd choose the fda's more conservative approach every time. now if we had a nationa formulary, prices would come screaming down...

You have a very distorted and revisionist view of the history of the franchise.

 

It was overarching central federal law through which the franchise was denied to everyone but white, male, property owners. It was through the individual states that wrong was righted. All across the globe dictators are falsely propped up by rigged central election, unaccountable to any localized authority. Centralized power is easily abused by those who would seek to obtain it, which is why it is important to not centralize that power. The entirety of human history argues against you.

[birdog1960]

and there we have we have Bd's bias distilled into one phrase.

 

any good faith attempt to ensure the reliablity and trust of the American voting system, such as Voter ID, annual audits of voter rolls, or ensuring only those eligible by law to vote, are the ones voting, is simply explained away as racism and an attempt to deny people the right to vote

 

Those who keep spouting this line would rather impute motive than engage argument.

 

If you disagree with the left's suppression narrative, you must be demonized.

 

.

which of my the points in that paragraph do you believe to be false? ginsberg gave several recent examples of the part you bolded in her dissent.

[TakeYouToTasker]

which of my the points in that paragraph do you believe to be false? ginsberg gave several recent examples of the part you bolded in her dissent.

For godless socialists such as yourself, a completely unrestricted franchise, in which there is no scrutiny and no oversight is always best; else you cannot mobilize the masses to into institutionalized theft by voting themselves money they haven't earned. The lies you tell don't matter, because there is no higher moral authority you report to. Your humanist utopian vision is your end-all be-all.

 

There are multiple reasons for a stable and productive society to restrict holding a say over how government will function to those who have a direct stake in it's size and scope. It's the elephant in the room, and an issue neatly avoided by Ginsberg, and most jurists of the day.

Edited June 27, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[birdog1960]

For godless socialists such as yourself, a completely unrestricted franchise, in which there is no scrutiny and no oversight is always best; else you cannot mobilize the masses to into institutionalized theft by voting themselves money they haven't earned. The lies you tell don't matter, because there is no higher moral authority you report to. Your humanist utopian vision is your end-all be-all.

 

There are multiple reasons for a stable and productive society to restrict holding a say over how government will function to those who have a direct stake in it's size and scope. It's the elephant in the room, and an issue neatly avoided by Ginsberg, and most jurists of the day.

blah, blah, ayn rand liberterian, blah. which of my statements are untrue? and btw, i'm no athiest nor am i godless. i'm actually a quite dedicated believer. but what does that have to do with this?

Edited June 27, 2013 by birdog1960

[TakeYouToTasker]

blah blah blah. which of my statements are untrue?

All of them, save "blah blah blah," which was very insightful and condusive to discussion.

Edited June 27, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[birdog1960]

All of them, save "blah blah blah," which was very insightful and condusive to discussion.

about as insightful and specific as "all of them". care to expound on why "all of them" (the points about election issues) are untrue?

[TakeYouToTasker]

about as insightful and specific as "all of them". care to expound on why "all of them" (the points about election issues) are untrue?

I've already expounded on "why all of them". You didn't make any points which I haven't already refuted; and you've failed to address a single one of mine. Your ghettoized mind is out on full display even more than usual.

[birdog1960]

I've already expounded on "why all of them". You didn't make any points which I haven't already refuted; and you've failed to address a single one of mine. Your ghettoized mind is out on full display even more than usual.

you didn't refute that a prez election was recently decided by scotus because of irregularities in a state's election system, didn't refute that there's plenty of history of states attempting and often succeding in eliminating certain targeted groups voting rights, didn't address that allegations and sometimes proof of election fraud are present in the current system, didn't refute that there exists a lack of confidence in the election process among the populace. so, am i to assume that you agree that these premises are true and factual?

[TakeYouToTasker]

you didn't refute that a prez election was recently decided by scotus because of irregularities in a state's election system, didn't refute that there's plenty of history of states attempting and often succeding in eliminating certain targeted groups voting rights, didn't address that allegations and sometimes proof of election fraud are present in the current system, didn't refute that there exists a lack of confidence in the election process among the populace. so, am i to assume that you agree that these premises are true and factual?

I strongly disagree with your account of Bush v. Gore. The election was decided by the electoral college, and contested in court by the Democratic Party. The (lack of) Florida State laws of the time dictating a uniform standard for a hand-recount dictated that a recount would have violated the equal protection clause. This is not a problem that a federal standard could have accounted for, as it was an unforseeable first occurance. Since this first occurance, and stare decisis being created around the new legal language speaking to "the intent of the voter", states have moved to prevent this from happening again, and now have a legal baseline from which to opperate.

 

Speaking to your examination of individual states, I'm sure that, because of the nature of politics, politicians, and political activists; that the entire system is rife with varied levels of fraud and disenfranchisement. This fraud and disenfranchisement conducted at the state level absolutely pales in comparison to the whole sale rigged centralized elections seen around the world today in more centralized governments. This phenomenon doesn't somehoiw magically exempt America, the greatest disenfranchisemnet in the history of our country happened at the highest, most centralized, federal level. The reason our country has avoided many of the election problems of the banana republics is not because our people are special, but rather because the decentralization of our electoral system is.

[birdog1960]

I strongly disagree with your account of Bush v. Gore. The election was decided by the electoral college, and contested in court by the Democratic Party. The (lack of) Florida State laws of the time dictating a uniform standard for a hand-recount dictated that a recount would have violated the equal protection clause. This is not a problem that a federal standard could have accounted for, as it was an unforseeable first occurance. Since this first occurance, and stare decisis being created around the new legal language speaking to "the intent of the voter", states have moved to prevent this from happening again, and now have a legal baseline from which to opperate.

 

Speaking to your examination of individual states, I'm sure that, because of the nature of politics, politicians, and political activists; that the entire system is rife with varied levels of fraud and disenfranchisement. This fraud and disenfranchisement conducted at the state level absolutely pales in comparison to the whole sale rigged centralized elections seen around the world today in more centralized governments. This phenomenon doesn't somehoiw magically exempt America, the greatest disenfranchisemnet in the history of our country happened at the highest, most centralized, federal level. The reason our country has avoided many of the election problems of the banana republics is not because our people are special, but rather because the decentralization of our electoral system is.

so everywhere in the world that has national elections has more fraud and disenfranchisement than any of the us states? Is the UK a banana republic? Switzerland? Canada? Germany?... c'mon. you can do better than that. and what happened to your spelling and grammar? not that it matters but it's almost as if someone else typed this.

[TakeYouToTasker]

so everywhere in the world that has national elections has more fraud and disenfranchisement than any of the us states? Is the UK a banana republic? Switzerland? Canada? Germany?... c'mon. you can do better than that. and what happened to your spelling and grammar? not that it matters but it's almost as if someone else typed this.

Are you serious? The UK is well documented for having wide spread voter fraud conducted through it's national postal system, and has it's own documented problems with disfranchisement. They also still have a royal family, and lordships.

 

Germany can disfranchise any citizen by court order, and has actually convicted high ranking government officials up to, and including Prime Ministers, of election fraud in the last 20 years.

 

Canada has had major, well documented, incidents of voter suppression and election fraud in 2011 and 2013 respectively. Their Constitution also stipulates that their government can be dissolved by the royal crown of England, so there's that.

 

Switzerland doesn't just disfranchise citizens who are convicted of crimes, they revoke their citizenship and deport them. They also have a history of prosecuting individuals who protest elections claiming fraud.

 

Take off your rose colored glasses.

[B-Man]

WH Touts Kenyan Program to Obtain National ID Cards for Voter Registration

 

 

As President Obama and his family continue their tour of Africa, the White House put out a Fact Sheet entitled "U.S. Support for Strengthening Democratic Institutions, Rule of Law, and Human Rights in Sub-Saharan Africa." One of the first items highlighted by the White House is a $53 million program in Kenya that helps young people "obtain National identification cards, a prerequisite to voter registration."

Civil society and independent media play a critical role in any vibrant democracy. Across sub-Saharan Africa, the United States supports efforts to ensure civil society organizations and independent media can organize, advocate, and raise awareness with governments and the private sector to improve political processes, transparency, and government performance. Examples include:

• In Kenya, the $53 million Yes Youth Can program empowers nearly one million Kenyan youth to use their voices for advocacy in national and local policy-making, while also creating economic opportunities. In advance of Kenya’s March 2013 general elections,

Yes Youth Can’s “My ID My Life” campaign helped 500,000 youth obtain National identification cards, a prerequisite to voter registration,

and carried out a successful nationwide campaign with Kenyan civic organizations to elicit peace pledges from all presidential aspirants.

 

At an August 2012 press briefing, Jay Carney had the following to say about a Texas voter ID law:

 

'And on the voter ID case, I can tell you that, as you know, this administration believes it should be easier for eligible citizens to vote -- to register and vote. We should not be imposing unnecessary obstacles or barriers to voter participation.'

 

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wh-touts-kenyan-program-obtain-national-id-cards-voter-registration_737990.html