They certainly exist ...
They certainly exist ...
Yes, if driving too slow makes the other persons overtake you, thus endangering others. Say, how often did you drive in Germany or generally high-traffic streets? If you only drive in Sweden then I can understand your position, but know this: Not every country has such a low concentration of cars.Originally Posted by Aimless
Our driving schools tell us to "go with the flow". Which means that you should adapt your velocity to that of the others (inside the speed limits, of course). And if you're driving much too slow without discernible reason, you will get pulled over and you will be ticketed. Because you're forcing the others to needlessly overtake you, thus endangering them.
What I absolutely hate are those cars limited to 35 Km/h (some kind of special driver's license thing. Good thing they are so rare) because you don't expect a car to go that slow which usually means a hard brake if you encounter such a road block.
edit: It's actually a law. §3 of our StVO (traffic law): "You are not allowed to hinder the traffic flow by driving slowly without a valid reason." Which also means that farm tractors (usually not faster than 30) are required to let other cars pass them in regular intervals.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
You're kidding right? They make the road a high-stakes obstacle course composed of walkers. You're telling me that Swedes just let them litter the roadway?
Voter suppression as an equivalent manipulation mechanic to fraud is probably not a significantly bigger problem than fraud. If one is attempting to open the concept of suppression up to include anything that might induce someone not to vote as the writer(s) of the wiki article have then yeah it's a bigger problem but it's not really anything at that point, it's too broad. The fact that people would have to re-register when they change addresses is voter-suppression. Having elections run by the states is voter suppression. Having registration at ALL is voter suppression. So is the Constitutional limit of voting to citizens now that I think about it. I recall that you speculated once back at Atari about how everything with a potential stake in a decision really ought to have a say, meaning pretty much everything in the world when it comes to US foreign-policy making organs like the Presidency, in our current global power dynamics. Let's try and keep the discussion to attempts to manipulate the outcome in elections if possible.
Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 10-16-2011 at 06:00 PM.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Fuzzy raises a good point. But I also think that the magnitude of fraud is much more difficult to measure than suppression (at least using your definition of suppression).
The reason is, at least here, our state-level voting apparatus is highly clunky. Efforts to reform it with basic modern ID technology would help, as well as help people have solid ID for other purposes. Calling this common-sense goal racism and voter suppression is extraordinarily counter productive.
And I think the integrity of elections becomes questionable when the government relies on third parties (like universities, utilities, etc) to conduct ID checks. The idea that I can show my electrical bill as proof of residence to vote is ludicrous considering how easy it is to register for electricity with a fake SSN.You say photo ID isn't "voter suppression", even when aiminx linked studies showing it was. Somewhere around 25% of minorities, poor, and elderly don't have driver's licenses or gov't-issued photo ID. So, if it's not to prevent voter fraud, and you don't think it's a form of voter suppression, your only reason for a new ID program is to fix the rinky-dink state processes. Each state decides their own requirements. In Texas, state university students would not be able to use their school photo ID, but a non-photo gun permit is acceptable.
I was mostly thinking of this sort of thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_s..._United_States
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yes, I think that's what we all were reading.
Sorry, didn't realise you'd posted after Fuzzy. I wasn't sure Fuzzy was looking at those specific examples because his post seemed to focus on the problem of having an overly broad definition of "voter suppression".Yes, I think that's what we all were reading.
More links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/us.../09voting.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS...ion/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caging_...lity_in_the_US
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Btw, would these initiatives be cost-effective solutions for preventing problems with elections?
How much would it cost the states?
How much would it cost voters?
http://www.tnca.org/2011/08/10/free-...s-hard-to-get/
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Showing a utility bill is one part of voter registration to confirm residency, not "to vote". There's no reason a state university can't be relied upon to give valid photo ID to its students. Even a photo driver's license could have been issued in another state. Voter registration would still require proof of residency, ie a current utility bill or copy of a lease. It wouldn't matter if a SSN is fake, what would matter is if the address or name on the bill or lease is fake.
To me it seems the problem of a non-comprehensive register of citizens/residents is actually a root cause of low participation in US elections. People are lazy, and any extra step they need to make to vote makes them less likely to actually go out and vote. It's amusing to see that the attempts to fix this problem, that could potentially reduce the number of non-voters, now is been presented as a way to suppress voting
Hang on, they may still have to register and re-register every single time.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
[/QUOTE]
The stuff at the bottom is *mostly* legitimate stuff to complain about. One of the interesting differences between vote-suppression and voting fraud is that the former is "soft" manipulation. You effectively target a bunch of people and count the effort a success if it works for a portion of that total. Fraud, OTOH, is much more direct and produces hard numbers. It is, in that respect, a more effective and more efficient means of manipulating the totals. It's also more obviously criminal.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
My guess is that's partially related to 50 states each having different rules. Plus, some people concerned about federal "intervention" over state control, maybe even privacy using computer networks.To me it seems the problem of a non-comprehensive register of citizens/residents is actually a root cause of low participation in US elections. People are lazy, and any extra step they need to make to vote makes them less likely to actually go out and vote. It's amusing to see that the attempts to fix this problem, that could potentially reduce the number of non-voters, now is been presented as a way to suppress voting
Because one way to fix the whole mess would be to have one lifetime voting number assigned at registration (much like a SSN), entered into a computer data base, issuing a plastic card and UPC type code that's unique for every individual. Once it's been used to vote in an election, it couldn't be used again until the next election, the computer would spit it out.
But all states would have to agree, and connect to a nation-wide voter computer network. DMVs are already connected that way so police can check out-of-state or expired licenses. Maybe that's why the photo ID issued by DMV appeals to some people? Those concerned about privacy wouldn't like such a data base, let alone one administered by the gummint. SSN info has been lost/stolen/hacked, and driver's licenses can be stolen and altered/forged. Voting information should be totally private and unaccessible, though.
I must raise a bullshit alarm, because if that semi-anonymous description is correct it seems to plainly conflict with Tennessee's guidelines on this, available here: http://www.tn.gov/safety/photoids.shtml
It's pretty straightforward and non-threatening to democracy.
Utility bills can be used to establish residency, which in terms demonstrates your right to vote on the spot without prior registration. At least in many states. Plenty of non-citizens get utility bills with their names and addresses on them.
Mostly agreed.To me it seems the problem of a non-comprehensive register of citizens/residents is actually a root cause of low participation in US elections. People are lazy, and any extra step they need to make to vote makes them less likely to actually go out and vote. It's amusing to see that the attempts to fix this problem, that could potentially reduce the number of non-voters, now is been presented as a way to suppress voting
Again, that's a problem of 50 states with their own rules, instead of having a national and uniform standard. Some states do not have same-day registration, or "on-the-spot" registration. Ergo---it's only a problem in certain states. Any state being rinky dinky can change that on their own.
IMO, instead of taking this from a voter fraud or voter suppression angle, all states would do better to look at this from a simple legal residency angle. Much like the US Census does---you're counted where you live the majority of the year, even if that means you may move in the future (students back home with parents for a summer, or snowbirds down south for a winter season).
I can understand why politicians might want to restrict or "suppress" students-migrants-temp worker-tourist resident from voting in state elections. But they didn't seem to mind when those same people were counted as residents by the Census, and gained state representatives, did they?
Indeed, so some states are changing on their own to require photo IDs to prove residence. What isn't constructive is accusing those state legislators of being racist or trying to suppress votes.
It's still a valid argument that requiring photo IDs (from the DMV no less), doesn't prove residency either.
Edit:
Dread, I'm not sure why you can't see how this could/would lead to voter suppression for certain groups like the poor, working poor, or new (legal) immigrants. And how that can/does translate to either racism or discrimination, even if it's unintended.
Compare three groups, all living within 50-100 miles of a state border. (1) university student, (2) commuter worker, (3) migrant farm worker. Where do they vote? How do they know where they vote?
The commuter worker who lives in Chevy Chase, Maryland but works in DC or Virginia probably knows the answer. If they need dual photo IDs they can afford that, too. Not quite the same as the student who came from Utah but lives in Georgetown, but they could probably figure it out, too. Universities have dedicated Help for that kind of thing. Now think of the migrant farm worker who "lives" in Maryland, Virginia, Delaware and Pennsylvania during harvest seasons, but calls Texas their "home", because that's where their family lives. Where do they vote and how do they know where to vote?
It's suggested as racism or discrimination or voter suppression because it effects those least likely to be able to "figure it out", maneuver the complicated channels, or be able to pay for dual or redundant photo ID. Minorities, new immigrants, poor, and working poor make up our transient work force. Not to be confused with our commuter worker work force or university students.
Most people just want to know where to vote, and how to register to vote. Not "game" the system.
Last edited by GGT; 10-17-2011 at 05:14 AM.
Now what if government (county/state/federal, have your pick) would provide every citizen who applies for it with a free-of-charge ID card so that these people can use their card for identification when required and not just at the polls ?
Most people would get a card because a ID-card is very handy, and those who really have a great aversion to owning/carrying one don't have to.
yet you're the only one who keeps trying to force the discussion down this road
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
You seem to have missed the whole purpose of this registration thing; it is because 'they' don't know who's eligible to vote. That problem does not exist with a comprehensive system.
They already do. We get a voter ID card after registration that can be used as "government-issued ID" (including airports), just like a SSN ID card. They're paper cards, and neither have photos, though.
That's exactly not what I meant then. What I meant is an ID card that can be used for all sorts of purposes INCLUDING voting, which then would not need any exclusive voter registration process.
Because terms like "racism" and "voter suppression" implies deep and malicious intent. Verifying identification doesn't have malicious intent.
A poll tax or asking random math problems to qualify to vote was racism and voter suppression. We have an ugly history in that, which makes preserving the voting system even more important. Yet in many states we've now swung in the opposite direction. To an extent, we let people register to vote based on an honor system. That's not acceptable.
I think you are grossly misrepresenting voter ID efforts in certain regions, especially considering the evidence that already exists (and is ignored), when it comes to how the current ID systems that are spreading are cause lower voter turn out for certain groups. Not to mention how people are being silenced and fired for working within the system to make such efforts less burdensome for those that can least afford to adapt.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
See, I think it's the other way around, that you *and perhaps Minx* are grossly misrepresenting voter ID as a means of suppression. It is firstly and primarily another expression of the desire to "modernize" our electoral apparatus after the embarrassment/disaster that was the 2000 presidential election in Florida. Partisan interests/opposition to this or that mechanism enter into things much later and serve, at best, as icing on the cake. I don't think measures like this are required at all and the teething problems with its implementation could potentially be reasons to oppose a particular proposal, but it does not follow nor is it the least bit sensible for anyone but a raging partisan to see such efforts as akin to efforts like stuffing ballot boxes or sabotaging the other side's GOTV efforts. Opposing a measure that serves a worthwhile interest and is otherwise reasonable on its merits because you think it will happen to fall more heavily on your side than the other's has, IMO, more of the invidious partisan tinge you're alleging against the GOP here than what they're doing.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I don't understand the connection to the 2000 elections? Wasn't that whole mess about the voting technics and counting procedure? I don't remember voter registration having been a major concern back then.
And really confusing ballots.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
It provided the impetus for efforts to overhaul the entire election apparatus. Modernize the ballots. Well if we're modernizing the ballots why don't we do this too? Well we've done that, why haven't we done this other thing. And so on and so forth.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Sounds a bit too much like the butterfly effect to me.
I think this debate is so messy because not so long ago voter registration actually was actively hampered for minority groups in the USA on the one side and a large number of American citizens simply don't trust anything government does.
Sort of how OG and Cain get on the anti-side of this debate for an entirely different sets of believes.
No, I get that part. I just meant that requiring a photo id wouldn't necessarily obviate the need for repeated registration like eg. in the UK.
I don't mind photo ID, but if you're going to change a system it doesn't hurt to see both pros, cons and challenges
The issue of suppression is just something i became interested in. even if id requirements result in a form of suppression, suppression is probably not the intent. And who knows if democrats would be more suppressed
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote