Ask Me Help Desk - Voter ID/Suppression

Quote:

he tells us there is an amendment process but you can be sure he would violently oppose it

that is just not true ! I have some ideas about about amendments that should be added.

Quote:

the last time some one had an original idea they had a civil war which cost hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of lives

There have been 15 amendments post Civil War. Some I agree with ;some I don't . Doesn't matter.. they are now the law of the land . None of them caused a violent civil war . I would also add that it was an activist court's unconstitutional decision that was the primary cause of the Civil War .

Quote:

equal access is not part of the original concept, it is an unfamiliar concept to the writers of the constitution who formed a gentleman's club to run the country and keep all those poor people in line, and it seems it is an unfamiliar concept today. Civil rights was an unfamiliar concept until people took to the streets and forced those states to change, perhaps it will take that again

I already addressed that in the various amendments . The "original concept " designed by the founders was that change would be addressed constitutionally through the amendment process. .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

All State laws must be Constutitutional . So long as there is equal access within a state there is equal access . period . If a State decides to have voter id and the law within the state applies equally then there is no issue. If a state determines that it doesn't need voter id then that is their business (although I think it compromises the integrity of the franchise ...which is as important in my opinion as equal access) .

Sorry Tom, but you are only supplying a tautology.

"So long as there is equal access within a state there is equal access.Period"

The whole idea of equal access is that access can be applied universally to all states. Not just the tautology you offer.

I think you have equal rights but not equal access. Equal rights doesn't mean equal access.

Tut

Quote:

The whole idea of equal access is that access can be applied universally to all states.

That would only be true if there were national elections... which there aren't .There are state elections . The result of each state election is independent of the other states ;even in a Presidential election. So you can only determine equal access within a state. PA has different rules governing their elections than my state of NY.. There are different rules for early voting ;even issues like polls open and closing times differ. So long as they apply equally to all voters WITHIN the state ;there is equal access.

Have you noticed we have come full circle?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

That would only be true if there were national elections ... which there aren't .There are state elections . The result of each state election is independent of the other states ;even in a Presidential election. So you can only determine equal access within a state. PA has different rules governing their elections than my state of NY .. There are different rules for early voting ;even issues like polls open and closing times differ. So long as they apply equally to all voters WITHIN the state ;there is equal access.

Hi Tom,

I see.

You don't have a Federal Electoral Commission? You don't have some sort of Federal funding available for Presidential elections? You don't have some sort of Federal Election Act?

Tut

States like to legislate things to favor the party in power. From redistricting to access. Of course they can't just say its to keep control, but voter fraud, and budgetary reasons works most times.

Try living in Illinois... it hurts. :)

No thanks I like it here less snow

Quote:

You don't have a Federal Electoral Commission? You don't have some sort of Federal funding available for Presidential elections? You don't have some sort of Federal Election Act?

Yes we do ;and their regulatory power is to ensure the Constitutional provisions ,and associated Federal law are complied with . In that regard ;there is a degree of uniformity .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Yes we do ;and their regulatory power is to ensure the Constitutional provisions ,and associated Federal law are complied with . In that regard ;there is a degree of uniformity .

Ok then.

What I am suggesting is that when you elect The President of the United States, you are actually having a Federal Election.

If you are having a Federal Election then equal access needs to be universal.

Tut

Quote:

Originally Posted by TUT317

If you are having a Federal Election then equal access needs to be universal.

Hello TUT:

Even if it's a state election, the 14th Amendment requires that everybody enjoys "equal protection under the law"...

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by TUT317

Ok then.

What I am suggesting is that when you elect The President of the United States, you are actually having a Federal Election.

If you are having a Federal Election then equal access needs to be universal.

Tut

Nope . The electorate is not voting for the President . They are voting for electors who represent the state in the Electoral College. It is the Electoral College that votes for the President .

Maybe that's where things should be changed, then maybe a candidate has to get more VOTES instead of more DELEGATES. It was the intent of the founding fathers to keep elections in the hands of the elite class rather than the working class and a classic example of voter suppression.

Break up the power of the elites, we may end up with some common sense from the electorate. Then maybe the whole election won't come down to just Florida, and local jiggering of delegates by one party or another. That alone would have saved us from the Bush years, or needing a Supreme Court to decide an election.

For sure asking a rich guy to give up his connections and influence to the will of the great unwashed is a formidable task. But then wouldn't lawmakers be more accountable to the people rather than the rich guy? Or the machinations of party bosses?

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello TUT:

Even if it's a state election, the 14th Amendment requires that everybody enjoys "equal protection under the law"...

excon

Everybody but babies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Everybody but babies.

Babies have that protection too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Maybe thats where things should be changed, then maybe a candidate has to get more VOTES instead of more DELEGATES. It was the intent of the founding fathers to keep elections in the hands of the elite class rather than the working class and a classic example of voter suppression.

Break up the power of the elites, we may end up with some common sense from the electorate. Then maybe the whole election won't come down to just Florida, and local jiggering of delegates by one party or another. That alone would have saved us from the Bush years, or needing a Supreme Court to decide an election.

For sure asking a rich guy to give up his connections and influence to the will of the great unwashed is a formidable task. But then wouldn't lawmakers be more accountable to the people rather than the rich guy? Or the machinations of party bosses?

No one has really made a serious move to amend. Some states have pledged to commit their electors to vote according to the national plurality . But that is the only effort made to change the current system.

The founders motives had nothing to do with what you ascribe to them. They in fact wanted to protect the minority from the majority . In this case there were some states like NY that would've had a disproportionate influence on the Republic based on it's large population. They wanted equal protection between the states .
This system works... the candidates can not ignore the small states ;they can't only concentrate their efforts in a few large urban centers .They have to attract enough of the vote from the WHOLE country to win in our system.

United States presidential election, 2000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lol Don't know what you are trying to prove . Al Gore violated the Constitutional procedures by introducing the judiciary into the President election process. But in honesty ,it was not a high water mark for either party;or for SCOTUS . The proper constitutional arbitrator for that election was Congress. .

Edit... I agree with those on Wiki who blame Nader for the Gore loss. That is typical unintended consequences of 3rd party candidacies.

Yes Tom freedom does have consequences