Is This Law Racist?

[Koko78]

Most blacks vote by showing up and have to show id

 

the majority of absentee ballots are by whites and they can just send in any damn thing they want from dead old aunt Sally or Uncle Al but no proof required.

 

While anyone can avoid this the intent is clearly to try and help Republicans. If you guys don't see that its because you are so strongly in favor of the Republican Party nothing else matters

 

So your position is that blacks are too stupid to vote by absentee ballot? FORWARD!

 

You libtards crack me up with such absurdity.

[ExiledInIllinois]

What is stopping black Americans from voting absentee?

 

I agree w/you 100%... If I were the dems, would surely expolit the flaw w/absentee in the system. You hit the nail right on the head.

[B-Man]

EVERYONE has the opportunity to vote by absentee ballot, or at the ballot box.

 

 

It is their choice.

 

 

there is no discrimination.

 

 

 

.

[IDBillzFan]

What is stopping black Americans from voting absentee?

 

I already told you: a pen, a mailbox and 46 cents.

 

Whites have long refused to give these very basic necessities to all black people, so they have to drag their asses to a polling place. It's racist, I tell you. Damn racist.

[ExiledInIllinois]

EVERYONE has the opportunity to vote by absentee ballot, or at the ballot box.

 

 

It is their choice.

 

 

there is no discrimination.

 

 

 

.

 

I agree. Absentee system is still flawed when it comes to ID. One needs an ID in person, yet if one mails their ballot absentee, all that is needed is a BS signature (BS affidavit), possibly a witness. Why not just require the same thing in person, with the election judge being the witness? Seems like there would be less "gaming" of the system going on. I am all for ID if they clamp down on the absentee loophole.

 

Maybe a photo copy of everybody's ID with every absentee ballot... And then separate them so there is no link to the ballot... Just ID's and ballot's cast. Better yet, just do it like Oregon does, and mail them all in... Get away from in person election day all together and go w/modern versions of voting.

 

Indiana is the worst... Especially with polls closing so early... Do away all together with physical polls.

 

 

 

I already told you: a pen, a mailbox and 46 cents.

 

Whites have long refused to give these very basic necessities to all black people, so they have to drag their asses to a polling place. It's racist, I tell you. Damn racist.

 

Not even the 46 cents... It can be postage paid... Probably cheaper in the long run.

Edited August 25, 2013 by ExiledInIllinois

[DC Tom]

So your position is that blacks are too stupid to vote by absentee ballot? FORWARD!

 

You libtards crack me up with such absurdity.

 

It's racist to insist that blacks and whites be treated equal, apparently.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

 

It's racist to insist that blacks and whites be treated equal, apparently.

 

They took down most of the free standing mailboxes in black neighborhoods... Of course after 911

 

;-) :-P

Edited August 25, 2013 by ExiledInIllinois

[unbillievable]

Scrap the whole system and go American Idol on that.... vote early; vote often.

Candidates perform on Monday, Election results broadcast Wednesday.

[dayman]

Do you deny that Democrats have committed voter fraud all over the country in the last 4 elections?

 

If so, then you aren't interested in solving problems either. This is because you aren't interested in beginning the problem solving process correctly: with proper problem definition.

 

Please define the problem for me then.

Edited August 25, 2013 by SameOldBills

[Keukasmallies]

The ultimate definition of the problem: When Democrats get elected they do dumb stuff.

[Rob's House]

Why is this? It should be even easier to vote, we should be doing this crap online in some way. Register to vote, and vote. It is that simple. There is no voter impersonation problem, plain and simple. It is not some huge problem that just so happens to have no evidence of it at all. The incentives to do it are simply not there. It is complete and utter idiocy, and everybody knows it including everyone on this board. If this were in some way flipped, "conservatives" (if that is what we are calling the "voter fraud" crackdown heroes) would be yelling about freedom and how voting is a fundamental right and core to our country and the goal should be to help get every single eligible citizen to vote in each election....Palin would be leading "don't tread on me" marches....but since it isn't flipped the attitude is that stupid/lazy/poor eligible voters should not be able to vote unless they go get an ID they otherwise would not get/don't have? Unbillievable.

 

TLDR: Encouraging all eligible voters to participate and making it as easy to do so as possible is a good thing. Making it harder or more of a pain in the ass for anyone is a bad thing (especially when it provides no benefit...for instance when it is to fix a problem that isn't a problem). Once upon a time this would have been common sense in this country to all people.

 

You've stated your premise - that more people voting is a good thing - twice without once supporting that premise. I don't for a second believe you and the left wing crowd give a flying !@#$ about greater representation. I think you know that the lazy, unintelligent, and uninformed vote will go disproportionately to Democrats, and that people without ID fall disproportionately into that category. Let's not pretend this is a principled stance you're taking.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

 

You've stated your premise - that more people voting is a good thing - twice without once supporting that premise. I don't for a second believe you and the left wing crowd give a flying !@#$ about greater representation. I think you know that the lazy, unintelligent, and uninformed vote will go disproportionately to Democrats, and that people without ID fall disproportionately into that category. Let's not pretend this is a principled stance you're taking.

It is a principled stance because it has to do with disenfranchised voters. Sure the ones disenfranchised happen to break Dem. There is no test to see if one can vote... Well @ least now there isn't. This is a very principled argument. The goal is to have as less disenfranchised voters as possible. In a perfect world, zero. I am sorry if this happens to work in the Dems favor. Why would you want people shut out of the process? Oh, I know why. Even if the voters broke the other way, against how I vote, I would still say the same thing. It is very shallow of you to think the way you do. I am sorry you are so cynical to think otherwise.

 

The game needs to be played with the most voters possible. Unrest and trouble comes from a disenfranchised underclass.

[Rob's House]

It is a principled stance because it has to do with disenfranchised voters. Sure the ones disenfranchised happen to break Dem. There is no test to see if one can vote... Well @ least now there isn't. This is a very principled argument. The goal is to have as less disenfranchised voters as possible. In a perfect world, zero. I am sorry if this happens to work in the Dems favor. Why would you want people shut out of the process? Oh, I know why. Even if the voters broke the other way, against how I vote, I would still say the same thing. It is very shallow of you to think the way you do. I am sorry you are so cynical to think otherwise.

 

The game needs to be played with the most voters possible. Unrest and trouble comes from a disenfranchised underclass.

 

"Disenfranchise" as you've used it here, and as it is most commonly used in modern parlance, is no more than a buzz word used by blow-hards to circumvent a substantive discussion. No one is being "disenfranchised," and to say so is hyberbole at best. They are merely being required to prove their identity which is fundamentally different from disenfranchisement - and yes, I already got SOB's take on disparate impact <yawn>.

 

And I find the argument that max participation is desirable to prevent unrest coming from a disenfranchised underclass unpersuasive. Not that I want a voter ID law for the purpose of weeding out the disinterested and uninformed, but I don't think we should go out of our way to make sure those that haven't the foggiest idea what's going on have an equally weighted say in what we do. When you have a federal government with ever increasing power and influence whose only check is the vote, it is not helpful to have a massive voting block that has no idea what's going on. Might as well govern with a Magic 8 ball or cut off a chickens head and do what the square the body lands in says.

[B-Man]

It is a principled stance because it has to do with disenfranchised voters. Sure the ones disenfranchised happen to break Dem. There is no test to see if one can vote... Well @ least now there isn't. This is a very principled argument.

 

The goal is to have as less disenfranchised voters as possible. In a perfect world, zero. I am sorry if this happens to work in the Dems favor.

 

Why would you want people shut out of the process? Oh, I know why.

 

Even if the voters broke the other way, against how I vote, I would still say the same thing. It is very shallow of you to think the way you do. I am sorry you are so cynical to think otherwise.

 

The game needs to be played with the most voters possible. Unrest and trouble comes from a disenfranchised underclass.

 

No.

 

This exactly where you go wrong, with your cynicism.

 

The GOAL is to have an honest election, where those who are eligible to vote, ..actually vote.

 

Not just to have the most voters possible...........what B.S.

 

And as for your............."I know why" bias , the less said the better...it makes you look foolish.

 

 

.

[dayman]

You've stated your premise - that more people voting is a good thing - twice without once supporting that premise. I don't for a second believe you and the left wing crowd give a flying !@#$ about greater representation. I think you know that the lazy, unintelligent, and uninformed vote will go disproportionately to Democrats, and that people without ID fall disproportionately into that category. Let's not pretend this is a principled stance you're taking.

 

LOL. Well you don't know me Rob. Sorry your are such a pessimist.

[Rob's House]

LOL. Well you don't know me Rob. Sorry your are such a pessimist.

 

You have obviously not spent enough time on the main board - "pessimist" is not the preferred nomenclature; "realist", please.

 

Also, I don't mean to be dismissive of your disparate impact analsysis, you were just explaining how the law works. I was preemptively ridiculing others who might try to stretch that rationale too far.

[dayman]

I just didn't realize that Americans voting and thus playing some small role in governing themselves was a premise that I needed to back with a mountain of support.

[Alaska Darin]

Why is this? It should be even easier to vote, we should be doing this crap online in some way. Register to vote, and vote. It is that simple. There is no voter impersonation problem, plain and simple. It is not some huge problem that just so happens to have no evidence of it at all. The incentives to do it are simply not there. It is complete and utter idiocy, and everybody knows it including everyone on this board. If this were in some way flipped, "conservatives" (if that is what we are calling the "voter fraud" crackdown heroes) would be yelling about freedom and how voting is a fundamental right and core to our country and the goal should be to help get every single eligible citizen to vote in each election....Palin would be leading "don't tread on me" marches....but since it isn't flipped the attitude is that stupid/lazy/poor eligible voters should not be able to vote unless they go get an ID they otherwise would not get/don't have? Unbillievable.

 

TLDR: Encouraging all eligible voters to participate and making it as easy to do so as possible is a good thing. Making it harder or more of a pain in the ass for anyone is a bad thing (especially when it provides no benefit...for instance when it is to fix a problem that isn't a problem). Once upon a time this would have been common sense in this country to all people.

I was in the military. I've showed my ID probably 10000 times for a variety of reasons. To get on base. To buy a soda at the commissary. To get in to a hanger that I was forced to go to to see President Clinton speak. To this day I have to show an ID and put in a PIN to get into MY office.

 

Showing an ID to vote is NO BIG DEAL and it isn't discrimination. The fact it's phrased that way and people actually continue to barf it out is pathetic. If our military personnel have to show their IDs to enjoy their "benefits", I'll be damned if the average guy/gal shouldn't be held to the same standard.

[dayman]

I was in the military. I've showed my ID probably 10000 times for a variety of reasons. To get on base. To buy a soda at the commissary. To get in to a hanger that I was forced to go to to see President Clinton speak. To this day I have to show an ID and put in a PIN to get into MY office.

 

Showing an ID to vote is NO BIG DEAL and it isn't discrimination. The fact it's phrased that way and people actually continue to barf it out is pathetic. If our military personnel have to show their IDs to enjoy their "benefits", I'll be damned if the average guy/gal shouldn't be held to the same standard.

 

Of course it isn't a big deal. The point is that voting should be more accessible not less, over time. Military =/= Voting btw. Things people in the service have to do is in no way analogous to what average joe should have to do to exercise his right to vote. The only reason voting should take any sort of registration or identification at all is to make it secure. There is no evidence elections have been compromised in any meaningful way by voter impersonation anywhere. I don't know why you guys can't just think logically about this one. Brainwash city. This isn't that hard of a thing to wrap your mind around. Your literally arguing for additional, unnecessary regulations. How is this conservative?

Edited August 26, 2013 by SameOldBills

[B-Man]

The Good Sense of Voter ID

 

It is either the case that African Americans, young people, old people, and poor people labor under some onerous yet curiously undetectable burden that keeps them from obtaining free, government-issued photo IDs, or it is the case that Hillary Clinton, the NAACP, et al. are full of bunk when they claim that voter-ID laws such as the one just adopted in North Carolina amount to “disenfranchisement.”

 

The evidence strongly suggests the presence of ambient bunk levels approaching toxicity. In general, Americans are very handy when it comes to acquiring free things issued by the government, and none of the groups that Democrats list as targets for “disenfranchisement” has shown itself disproportionately unskillful in doing so. The oldsters manage to sign themselves up for Social Security and Medicare, and anybody who has observed the effect the word “free” has on a group of young people must look askance at suggestions that they cannot be expected to stand in line a bit for something they want. The truth of the situation was more accurately described by Representative G. K. Butterfield, a North Carolina Democrat who in the course of denouncing the new voter-ID requirement told PBS: “Many people will not do that. They will choose not to vote.”

 

They will choose not to vote. That is rather a different thing from what transpired under the prefectship of Jim Crow. But even that milder formulation fails to honestly describe Democrats’ objections to the new election rules in North Carolina, which in addition to requiring photo identification reduce the number of early-voting days to ten and disallow the practice of same-day registration. The phrase essential to understanding Democratic objections to clean-election reforms is: “walking-around money.”

 

It is a time-honored practice in machine-run political jurisdictions — most prevalent in but not limited to Democrat-run cities — to task local political fixers (call them “community organizers”) with delivering the votes of a particular ward to a particular party. Doing so is vexatious and thirsty work, thus the payment of “walking-around money,” which is putatively for operational expenses but is used in effect to purchase votes. Go down to the local homeless shelter, day-labor corner, or wino encampment, pull up with vans, and distribute such benefits as may be motivational in exchange for the effort of the denizens therein to cast their ballots. In the 2000 presidential campaign, the practice was so aggressive that a Milwaukee homeless shelter had to chase away Gore operatives attempting to bribe their wards with cigarettes.

 

Long early-voting periods and same-day registration facilitate this process. Even the most able political machine can round up only so many people on Election Day, and those who are available for such rounding up often are not registered voters. Under the new rules, North Carolina will reduce the number of days for early voting from 17 to ten, which in our view is ten days too many, and there will be more early-voting locations, which will be open longer hours, resulting in no decrease in the total amount of time available for early voting. But even this non-reduction in early-voting hours is seen as aggression by the Democrats, even more so than the photo-ID rule.

 

But the photo-ID requirement is important, too, inasmuch as it is a worthwhile thing to be able to ensure that people showing up to vote are who they say they are. Guerrilla filmmaker James O’Keefe famously talked a District of Columbia voting clerk into giving him a ballot for one Eric Holder. As our John Fund has doggedly documented, the voting fraud that Democrats claim is so rare as to be practically exotic in fact happens all the time. Examples abound: A Democratic election volunteer during the hotly contested 2012 Ohio election voted twice. Al Franken very likely sits in the U.S. Senate as the result of votes cast by more than 1,000 ineligible Minnesota voters: In an election decided by 312 votes, 177 people already have been convicted — not just charged, but convicted — of fraud in that election. In Pennsylvania, election engineers were filmed coming out of a prison with boxes of ballots (it is illegal for incarcerated felons to vote in the state). Other examples abound.

 

Voter-ID laws will help reduce this, but more needs to be done.

 

Democrats, on the other hand, are inclined to do less, and are engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible rhetoric on this issue. North Carolina’s intentions here seem to be honorable, and a large majority of the state’s voters support the new rules. Which they should: According to state records, 97 percent of those who voted in the 2012 election had DMV-issued identification cards. The very least charitable take on the North Carolina reforms is that Republicans are hoping to block a set of dishonorable election practices exploited more heavily by Democrats. Hillary Clinton will have to wait a bit for her Profile in Courage.

 

{snip}

 

In North Carolina, voting now will require approximately the same amount of security clearance as purchasing certain cough medicines or, indeed, purchasing the state’s most famous agricultural product.

 

If good sense is bad news for the Democrats, there’s a lesson in that, too.