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

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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 .

In that case you you do have a Federal Presidential Election.

It would make no difference if you had a situation whereby The President of the United States was chosen by the Governor of every state. All that is required is that the Governors get together and cast their vote. Once this is done then you have just had a Federal Election.

This would have course be a non-accessible election as far as the public is concerned, but it is still a Federal Election for a President. It is Federal because every state has one representative to vote for a National President.

The same argument applies to the Electoral College delegates. Once the delegates get together and vote there has been a Federal Election for the President.

What I am saying is that question of suffrage, directness and indirectness of the electoral process is irrelevant to the question as to whether a voting process is actually National. You can have a National election for a President without considering directness, indirectness and universal suffrage.

Tut

Tut, you can't change a closed mind with logic, these guys are indoctrinated regarding their system from early childhood, absolutely brainwashed, and will not entertain another view. It is like talking to a wall, or, as they say in the classics; "talk to the hand...

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

Hi Ex,

I understand how the 14th Amendment works but I am approaching this from a slightly different angle. I hope to work it something like this:

Imagine that in Australia we have a Federal Election for the Prime Minister (President). We don't actually, but imagine that we did. This is a National Election so every voter in every state gets to vote for the Prime Minister.

Because this is a National Election it is important that every state is uniform in the process. If every state in Australia had polling stations open for 3 hours on election day then every voter in every state would have equal access in terms of a time frame for voting. But if one state were to have their polling stations open for 12 hours on voting day then this would be unequal access. Either they are all open for 3 hours, or they are all open for 12 hours.

This wouldn't be a problem for a state election because everyone is subject to the same time limitation; but in terms of a Federal scale it is unequal access issue.

If you read my earlier posting you would see that I am arguing that you indeed hold a Federal Election for the Presidency. If this is the case then some states requiring voter I.D. and other states not requiring an I.D. is an example of unequal access when it comes to voting for a President.

I understand that voting for the President is an example of indirect voting, but I will be arguing that this changes nothing. Anyway, this is what I will be trying to do.

Tut

Tut you need to stop confusing these guys, our Prime Minister is not the equivalent of their President. Their President does not have to face a hostile opposition every day and to be personally called to account for policy implementation, nor is our Prime Minister elected by popular vote. The Party caucus is no different to their electoral college. We don't need an election to depose a Prime Minister

I agree with your logic, but good luck telling a republican we need more access not less. They believe in legal voter fraud tactics, to rig the system. Hey we all have tricks, but theirs is very blatant.

Not all of us has been so indoctrinated to this system though, and more are getting fed up with their tactics and excuses, especially this rigged electoral college deal that's way past its time for the scrap heap. You have to break up the local fiefdoms first, both republican, and democrats.

One rule for all, and one vote for all. Rich,or poor!!

Quote:

especially this rigged electoral college deal that's way past its time for the scrap heap.

Haven't seen a ground swell of public support for an amendment .

Opposition steadily grows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

I agree with your logic, but good luck telling a republican we need more access not less. They believe in legal voter fraud tactics, to rig the system. Hey we all have tricks, but theirs is very blatant.

That is totally, emphatically untrue. What do you have to fear from guaranteeing elections are legitimate?

I don't fear it just your version that makes IDS time critical, and limited hours to do it. FOUR hours of standing in line to vote! ABSURD!! Some of us like voting in person, it's a social thing.

How about the day off to do it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

I don't fear it just your version that makes IDS time critical, and limited hours to do it. FOUR hours of standing in line to vote! ABSURD!!! Some of us like voting in person, its a social thing.

How about the day off to do it?

I'd love the day off to do it, but good luck with that. Look, we cannot have open-ended voting, there HAS to be a time frame. We have early voting, mail-in ballots and we get 12 hours on election day. If people can't arrange to vote in that period that's just too darn bad. ID laws have already been held constitutional so all these attempts at reversing them are just political ploys. You're going to need an ID, get used to it.

P.S. Most states already have voting leave laws, so what's your next excuse?

I don't make excuses, but have empathy for elderly and working folks with no car. But then I am not a republican trying to get my candidate elected and using fraud as an excuse.

If you hadn't gotten caught, and called out on it, by admission of your own party, that fraud excuse would have been okay. But another example of right wing over reach, and throwing the baby out with the bath water.

You guys have good ideas, but the approach is an abomination. You could do better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

I don't make excuses, but have empathy for elderly and working folks with no car. But then I am not a republican trying to get my candidate elected and using fraud as an excuse.

If you hadn't gotten caught, and called out on it, by admission of your own party, that fraud excuse would have been okay. But another example of right wing over reach, and throwing the baby out with the bath water.

You guys have good ideas, but the approach is an abomination. You could do better.

There was no admission of anything, you guys are reading things into it that simply aren't there as usual. Like I said, you're going to need an ID, get used to it. And it has nothing to with empathy or the lack thereof.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

There was no admission of anything, you guys are reading things into it that simply aren't there as usual. Like I said, you're going to need an ID, get used to it. And it has nothing to with empathy or the lack thereof.

I don't have a problem with I.D.'s for STATE elections. So long as the I.D.'s are easily obtainable at a nominal cost. One the other hand, I think there is a real access problem when it comes to obtaining a Federal outcome at election time.

Every four years someone gets the title of, The President of the United States. This title is not inherited, nor does it come about through osmosis. It comes about because of some type of federal election process.

I think you will continue to have access issues so long as you regard Federalism as a by-product of the electoral process. I also think equal access issues are an immediate problem.

Tut

Tut they are "the democracy" every time you question them you emasculate them, they have no idea what a democracy is

We don't claim to be a 'democracy'. We are a constitutional Federal Republic .

it has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.(Alexander Hamilton )

Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
(John Adams )

Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.(James Madison)

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.(Thomas Jefferson)

"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." (John Marshall)

Democracy was the right of the people to choose their own tyrant.(James Madison)

And a bonus quote
Democracy passes into despotism. (Plato)

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Padre:

The issue ISN'T ID.. It's that LOTS of poor people don't HAVE the ID the state is requiring... Now, if the state issued a FREE ID along with the new requirement, I'd say their intention is voter integrity... But, if they DON'T, I'd say their intention is voter suppression. The guy in my link AGREES with me.

excon

Candidly Ex the state should have no opinion either way, but partisan politics being what it is... I'm wondering how long it will be before the tail wags the dog in the Ryan, Romney ticket

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

We don't claim to be a 'democracy'. We are a constitutional Federal Republic .

it has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.(Alexander Hamilton )

Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
(John Adams )

Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.(James Madison)

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.(Thomas Jefferson)

"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." (John Marshall)

Democracy was the right of the people to choose their own tyrant.(James Madison)

and a bonus quote
Democracy passes into despotism. (Plato)

Hi Tom,

What actually caught my eye was Plato's quote right at the end of out post. "Democracy passes into despotism" was an interesting choice.Well, as far as Plato was concerned he was hoping Athenian Democracy would pass into despotism ; but that's another story.

In essence Plato was trying to answer the question, "Who should rule?" Clearly from you point of view the answer is your Constitution. In Australia we are a democracy. We are a democracy in as much as we accept the intrusion of government into our lives.

In Australia we elect a government to implement policy. If we don't like it then we have to lump it. The good news for those who,' have to lump it' is that others can vote the existing government out of power and then it becomes the other sides turn to lump it.

To answers Plato's question from our point of view is that we are a government of men. And that government should rule. The proviso being that we can change our rulers.

As far as you guys are concerned the question is answered by saying that political dominance should be spread around as much as possible.

Tut

Quote:

Democracy passes into despotism.

remember you said that Tom because that is what is happening to your happy Constitutional Federal Republic which you admit is no democracy, so government by the people, for the people, has indeed perished in North America. What you have left is populism typified by the razzled dazzle, some what soggy this week, but razzle dazzle none the less and when it is over you will have what?

We have to be vigilant .

Quote:

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction

.(Ronald Reagan)

Freedom for who? The history of this country is that most have fought long and hard for their freedoms and rights to vote and along comes the right wing to roll back those gains and obstruct the very process of freedom.

Under the guise of fraud they TARGET specific peoples to deny and impede their rights while promoting increasing the extraction of the economy to those that have already extracted the lions share of blood,sweat and tears.

Now you can dress this up in all the quotes you want by dead presidents and statesmen, and debate intent, and interpretations but today's battles are real, and they are now, and Adams Plato, and Reagan are not here to consult with on philosophy, or policy.

Having freedom on paper and having the right to exercise those freedoms, is as we all know an ongoing battle due to the ever constant assault by the loony tunes who feel so threatened by the freedom of others, they would actively pursue a course of obstruction, and extraction to preserve the very gods that have long enslaved and impoverished them.

What kind of country do we have here that we reside in? We are about to find out aren't we? Adams and the boys can't vote.