Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314
Results 391 to 414 of 414

Thread: Voter Photo ID -- Is It Really Terrible?

  1. #391
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    I don't understand this one.

    It seems to be about names not being spelt exactly the same. This is something I can relate to as both my forename and surname have multiple spellings and most of the time if someone else writes my forename they do so incorrectly. It pisses me off if it is misspelt so I always spell it out.

    But I would imagine for both identification purposes and for applying to vote you fill in the paperwork yourself? So surely you'd spell your own name consistently? I would think numbers who can not spell their own name are very slim. I don't understand where these 50k errors are coming from unless third parties are getting involved?
    This "exact match" requirement is more strict than what we require for US passports. Which is ridiculous. It disproportionately effects non-whites and those that do manage to make it to the polls will still have their votes "approved" during counting. It's your standard GOP bullshit of trying to steal yet another election.

    I'm surprised they are going through this much effort. Last time they simply faked the numbers and destroyed the data, against court order, and it all got swept under the rug.
    "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."

  2. #392
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,234
    Close election by the looks of it.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  3. #393
    "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."

  4. #394
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,678
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    I don't understand this one.

    It seems to be about names not being spelt exactly the same. This is something I can relate to as both my forename and surname have multiple spellings and most of the time if someone else writes my forename they do so incorrectly. It pisses me off if it is misspelt so I always spell it out.

    But I would imagine for both identification purposes and for applying to vote you fill in the paperwork yourself? So surely you'd spell your own name consistently? I would think numbers who can not spell their own name are very slim. I don't understand where these 50k errors are coming from unless third parties are getting involved?
    Well, I can tell you right off that if there is any computer entry involved, than things like hyphens can cause problems because plenty of digital entry media (like the pin-pads my company uses for taking applications for store charge accounts) don't have a key for hyphens. It also might or might not let you include a space for multi-word surenames so multiple forms of, say, De La Rosa abound. Does the software just auto-capitalize everything? Another source for discrepancies. More than 12 or 16 characters? Better hope there isn't a limit on the entry field.

    There are a lot of ways for discrepancies to show up. A diligent person who really cares whether their name is entered as De La Rosa rather than dela Rosa or DelaRosa or De la Rosa, etc, speaking the same language as whoever they're interacting with will probably avoid most to all of them. You are apparently such a person. But maybe someone else doesn't really care exactly how the name gets rendered so long as someone can tell what it is, particularly when transliteration is an issue ("there's an accent on the E but how the hell do I do an accent on this thing?"?) Maybe there's confusion over the use of "last name" when what is actually meant is "legal surename." Maybe they can't really understand the thick accent of the guy behind the desk and just let it go. And that's not even beginning to address the issues caused by legal name changes and multiple databases.

    I know exactly where those 50k errors are coming from. The same place as subjective application of voter registration requirements under Jim Crow. Do they look/sound white and are registering for a well-off and Republican-leaning neighborhood? Than I'm sure there's not REALLY a discrepenacy. Is their name Shaquille Latoya, or are they registering from a neighborhood on the wrong side of the tracks? Well, then the ink is smudged and you just can't REALLY tell if that's supposed to be a B or a D. And there's no telling whether that's a dot on a lower-case I or a rather short lower-case L. Better toss it in the discrepancy pile. At least until after the guy running our whole agency wins election.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  5. #395
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    10,022
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Well, I can tell you right off that if there is any computer entry involved, than things like hyphens can cause problems because plenty of digital entry media (like the pin-pads my company uses for taking applications for store charge accounts) don't have a key for hyphens. It also might or might not let you include a space for multi-word surenames so multiple forms of, say, De La Rosa abound. Does the software just auto-capitalize everything? Another source for discrepancies. More than 12 or 16 characters? Better hope there isn't a limit on the entry field.

    There are a lot of ways for discrepancies to show up. A diligent person who really cares whether their name is entered as De La Rosa rather than dela Rosa or DelaRosa or De la Rosa, etc, speaking the same language as whoever they're interacting with will probably avoid most to all of them. You are apparently such a person. But maybe someone else doesn't really care exactly how the name gets rendered so long as someone can tell what it is, particularly when transliteration is an issue ("there's an accent on the E but how the hell do I do an accent on this thing?"?) Maybe there's confusion over the use of "last name" when what is actually meant is "legal surename." Maybe they can't really understand the thick accent of the guy behind the desk and just let it go. And that's not even beginning to address the issues caused by legal name changes and multiple databases.

    I know exactly where those 50k errors are coming from. The same place as subjective application of voter registration requirements under Jim Crow. Do they look/sound white and are registering for a well-off and Republican-leaning neighborhood? Than I'm sure there's not REALLY a discrepenacy. Is their name Shaquille Latoya, or are they registering from a neighborhood on the wrong side of the tracks? Well, then the ink is smudged and you just can't REALLY tell if that's supposed to be a B or a D. And there's no telling whether that's a dot on a lower-case I or a rather short lower-case L. Better toss it in the discrepancy pile. At least until after the guy running our whole agency wins election.
    Tell me again how bad a register held by the government is again?
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  6. #396
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,699
    Let's not forgot that the guy who makes the ultimate determination on these cases is running for governor. A tremendous conflict of interest.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  7. #397
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,234
    The new GOP slogan is "Recusals are for pussies."
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  8. #398
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    Tell me again how bad a register held by the government is again?
    I don't have a big problem with a register held by the government. But this "policy" is a type of "zero-tolerance" rule and while we haven't talked about those much lately I'm no more impressed with those than I was before. It is not possible nor reasonable to insist on the complete sanitization of a system with hundreds of thousands or millions of entries all with multiple accepted sources for valid registration. For a democracy to function, voting has to be accessible. I'd say that things like this are fetishizing making voting secure over it being functional but it's not actually about security anyway. As the others have said it's about disenfranchisement of voters who might not support specific candidates or slates of candidates.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  9. #399
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    10,022
    So, continue with the chaos that actually enables those who want to suppress minority voting? I am surprised at Americans insisting they can’t do what India is capable of doing.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  10. #400
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,234
    It's not about competence—it's about safeguarding the right to passively choose slavery. There are many (self-interested) rationalizations for why it's better for the state and for the nation and for the people to restrict voting. That it might be unfair to restrict voting in such a way that those harmed by the restrictions cannot easily vote to increase their freedom does not bother the (steadily shrinking) majority.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  11. #401
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    10,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    It's not about competence—it's about safeguarding the right to passively choose slavery. There are many (self-interested) rationalizations for why it's better for the state and for the nation and for the people to restrict voting. That it might be unfair to restrict voting in such a way that those harmed by the restrictions cannot easily vote to increase their freedom does not bother the (steadily shrinking) majority.
    Suppression of the right to vote is easiest when individual officials do the calling on who is an eligible voter and who isn't. The problem isn't in the photo ID, but in the chaotic rules about what is sufficient indentification. I am pretty certain that in a Swedish polling station my 'swedish' looks wouldn't get me a chance to cast a vote in your national elections, nor would your 'Bengali' looks be sufficient to stop you from casting a vote in the same elections. How is it that America does have a problem if similar people show up in their elections?
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  12. #402
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    So, continue with the chaos that actually enables those who want to suppress minority voting? I am surprised at Americans insisting they can’t do what India is capable of doing.
    At this point I'm not sure what you're saying considering the context is that they're replies to my posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    It's not about competence—it's about safeguarding the right to passively choose slavery. There are many (self-interested) rationalizations for why it's better for the state and for the nation and for the people to restrict voting. That it might be unfair to restrict voting in such a way that those harmed by the restrictions cannot easily vote to increase their freedom does not bother the (steadily shrinking) majority.
    The one measure restricting voting I can kinda get behind (but not the way it usually gets implemented which is straight voter-suppression) is purging the rolls. Usually they do it with elections coming up to try and deter some elements from voting and that's ridiculous. If you want to remove no-longer-valid entries, the time to do it would be not long AFTER an election. Probably send out letters in the six months prior soliciting confirmation that the registrant is still active at their listed address and warning that due to inactivity, discrepancies, apparent duplication, etc. that they will be removed at the end of the current cycle and would have to re-register to vote in subsequent elections without it. I wouldn't have a problem with a system where registration needs to be renewed periodically like most licenses either.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  13. #403
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    10,022
    The obvious solution is ending the situation in which citizens on the basis of haphazard regulations are obligated to identify themselves with equally haphazard methods of identification.

    The message is: set up a bloody civil register and issue citizens with free ID-cards that can be used for any situation. A happy side effect is that you know ahead who is a voter. And that you no longer easily can suppress minority votes.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  14. #404
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,678
    Identification is not and never has been a real issue, it's an invented problem. "Fixing" that imaginary problem doesn't do squat. And while I don't have a problem with a national id, just how is it that a federal id is supposed to be capable of establishing local residency which is what the electoral system is built on? It lets you know ahead who is a potentially eligible citizen, not who is a voter.

    Fun fact: There is no automatic right to vote from being a US citizen. The Constitution and its amendments merely lay out criteria which states are forbidden from using to deny voting eligibility. Currently, that is denial based on age over 18, sex, failure to pay taxes (federal elections only), and race/color/prior condition of servitude. If an individual state wanted to, it would be within its authority to re-emplace a property-owning requirement, although it would only apply to new registrations since they can't strip someone's registration without due process and the ex post facto rule would come into play. Individual states can choose to let non-citizens vote too, if they so wanted (Arkansas, the last state to ban such, only did so in 1926).
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  15. #405
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,699
    Aliens can't vote in federal elections (thanks to a federal statute).
    Hope is the denial of reality

  16. #406
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Aliens can't vote in federal elections (thanks to a federal statute).
    But if a state wanted to go back to allowing them they could be on the local voter rolls and vote in the local, county, state-wide, etc. elections which coincidentally are done at the same time, in the same polling places, using the same ballots. . .

    The point being, Hazir is focused on a particular tree (an artificial one, at that) in a forest ecosytem. Identification is not actually an issue and he's making a GGT-proposal to "fix" it.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  17. #407
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,699
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    But if a state wanted to go back to allowing them they could be on the local voter rolls and vote in the local, county, state-wide, etc. elections which coincidentally are done at the same time, in the same polling places, using the same ballots. . .

    The point being, Hazir is focused on a particular tree (an artificial one, at that) in a forest ecosytem. Identification is not actually an issue and he's making a GGT-proposal to "fix" it.
    Agreed. The GOP is the issue (along with their enablers in the judiciary). Just reread Shelby County v. Holder. Disgraceful.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  18. #408
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    15,144
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Identification is not and never has been a real issue, it's an invented problem. "Fixing" that imaginary problem doesn't do squat. And while I don't have a problem with a national id, just how is it that a federal id is supposed to be capable of establishing local residency which is what the electoral system is built on? It lets you know ahead who is a potentially eligible citizen, not who is a voter.

    Fun fact: There is no automatic right to vote from being a US citizen. The Constitution and its amendments merely lay out criteria which states are forbidden from using to deny voting eligibility. Currently, that is denial based on age over 18, sex, failure to pay taxes (federal elections only), and race/color/prior condition of servitude. If an individual state wanted to, it would be within its authority to re-emplace a property-owning requirement, although it would only apply to new registrations since they can't strip someone's registration without due process and the ex post facto rule would come into play. Individual states can choose to let non-citizens vote too, if they so wanted (Arkansas, the last state to ban such, only did so in 1926).
    Theoretically if a state wanted to let non-citizens vote, could a new government in that state strip non-citizens of that right or would the ex post facto rule work there too?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  19. #409
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,639
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post

    The one measure restricting voting I can kinda get behind (but not the way it usually gets implemented which is straight voter-suppression) is purging the rolls. Usually they do it with elections coming up to try and deter some elements from voting and that's ridiculous. If you want to remove no-longer-valid entries, the time to do it would be not long AFTER an election. Probably send out letters in the six months prior soliciting confirmation that the registrant is still active at their listed address and warning that due to inactivity, discrepancies, apparent duplication, etc. that they will be removed at the end of the current cycle and would have to re-register to vote in subsequent elections without it. I wouldn't have a problem with a system where registration needs to be renewed periodically like most licenses either.
    Good point. Voter registration is the one thing that never needs to be renewed (unlike driver's licenses or passports). If a person never moves or changes residency, but votes sporadically (or not at all) it's pretty hard to sort their eligibility by activity.

  20. #410
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,639
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    But if a state wanted to go back to allowing them they could be on the local voter rolls and vote in the local, county, state-wide, etc. elections which coincidentally are done at the same time, in the same polling places, using the same ballots. . .

    The point being, Hazir is focused on a particular tree (an artificial one, at that) in a forest ecosytem. Identification is not actually an issue and he's making a GGT-proposal to "fix" it.
    Hey, please don't use my name that way. If you disagree with Hazir, just state your position and leave me out of it. Thanks.

  21. #411
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,678
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Theoretically if a state wanted to let non-citizens vote, could a new government in that state strip non-citizens of that right or would the ex post facto rule work there too?
    Technically ex post facto would still apply. But what that really means here, since we're talking about voting in the future, is that they have to come up with a way that, following all due process, allows them to apply the new requirement on everyone going forward. There is no good way to do that to all state citizens who do not hold property. The state would run into all kinds of hurdles and barriers and it would affect way too many people. It would not be as difficult with non-citizens. You'd have less registered proportionally so it would be a more manageable number and the due process requirements would not be as onerous.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  22. #412
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,234
    https://www.kansas.com/news/business...220286260.html

    This is quite sad, but we have to have reasonable expectations of third world countries like, er, Kansas.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  23. #413
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    https://www.kansas.com/news/business...220286260.html

    This is quite sad, but we have to have reasonable expectations of third world countries like, er, Kansas.
    Not to mention what North Dakota is doing to suppress the vote of Native Tribes under new voter ID laws.

  24. #414
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    The left-wing intelligentsia is in an unusual position on the issue of voter ID. Outlets like the New York Times have published editorial after editorial whining about how new state laws requiring photo identification at the polls is a Republican ploy to hurt the Democratic/minority vote.

    Yet most people in the comments of these articles don't buy it, and the laws are otherwise passing without much opposition. I think most of the laws are, in principle, good. At the moment I can legally vote in four different states because of where I registered to vote at a given time. Because I don't need a photo ID, nothing is stopping me from going back and voting in those states again.

    Is there anyone here who thinks requiring photo ID to vote is as bad as it's made out to be and can give some more color to their view?
    So much has changed since your OP in 2011!

    Computerized and integrated data bases would know if you have declared multiple residences, or have more than one state driver's license. No, you can NOT legally vote from four different states for federal elections. But you may be eligible to vote in more than one local election if you're a property owner paying property taxes, depending on state law.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •