The GOP war on voting

[Gaspar]

Your last paragraph is perplexing having read your previous Libertarian, small government posts. Its not that i disagree with it. It would mean a large expenditure for a program that would be national and expensive, has no demonstrated need in fact, and that now belongs to each state to administer. A power grab by the Feds to solve a problem that doesn't exist and creates a new bureaucracy. So we can all have a good feeling about voting. Even in Florida. Just what DO you believe in?

The primary purpose of government is security.  Securing us against international threats, and securing our rights against infringement by others.  The constitution makes this very clear.  Our representative republic is based on the concept of democratic election.  Therefore to secure the integrity of the republic, it is necessary to secure the integrity of the voting process.  That cannot be done in a loose system where individual states have the power to establish voting eligibility.  

As a Libertarian there are several places where I believe that the government has no right to go, but when it comes to the defense of our country and our system of government, that is exactly where government needs to be.  If Nate, above, believes that acquiring an ID is just too hard for these poor poor people, then the process needs to be changed so that everyone has the ability to properly identify themselves at the polling place.  This helps the country, it does not hurt anyone.

[AquaMan]

The primary purpose of government is security.  Securing us against international threats, and securing our rights against infringement by others.  The constitution makes this very clear.  Our representative republic is based on the concept of democratic election.  Therefore to secure the integrity of the republic, it is necessary to secure the integrity of the voting process.  That cannot be done in a loose system where individual states have the power to establish voting eligibility.  

As a Libertarian there are several places where I believe that the government has no right to go, but when it comes to the defense of our country and our system of government, that is exactly where government needs to be.  If Nate, above, believes that acquiring an ID is just too hard for these poor poor people, then the process needs to be changed so that everyone has the ability to properly identify themselves at the polling place.  This helps the country, it does not hurt anyone.

National defense as an excuse for costly government expansion into states rights without reasonable suspicion of dereliction by the state?

I'm sorry. I just can't see if your eyes are darting left to right as you say such things. Or hear your voice move up as your sphincter tightens. I suspect you're sweating as well.

You haven't asked but I'll offer my solution to your voting qualms. I like your nationalization concept. I like the Scandinavian model where everyone is legally required to vote. They have 100% compliance. Just like having to register for Selective Service, file taxes or obtain licenses, you will be required to vote in national elections. Everyone should receive their ballots either by certified mail, in their e-mail, over their cell or available free at central locations (bus stations, dept. of human services, police stations, cell phone stores or movie theaters in the suburbs. Every ballot has an identifying control number. It is related directly to only those who have responded to the last census. Those who turn 18 within the 10 years after the census must request a form at any of the free sites. They may elect to receive the ballot on removeable memory sticks or dvd's if they wish. And its all free. Just be over 18 and a citizen. We don't even care if you're drunk or high.

We keep track of tax returns, we keep track of the population personally with census reports and we keep track of the mail. And its all free. This should be "simplement".

What? You think this is ripe for manipulation, fraud, counterfeit ballots, ballots for sale, etc.? You think lots of people are at risk for not being counted by the census? That its expensive and time consuming? You're right. Just like the current and proposed systems. You either have faith in your government and its people or you spend inordinate amounts of time and money proving that they are not worthy of your faith. Choose.

[nathanm]

The primary purpose of government is security.  Securing us against international threats, and securing our rights against infringement by others.  The constitution makes this very clear.  Our representative republic is based on the concept of democratic election.  Therefore to secure the integrity of the republic, it is necessary to secure the integrity of the voting process.  That cannot be done in a loose system where individual states have the power to establish voting eligibility.  

Really? It seems to have worked reasonably well for over 200 years. Funny how states rights are everything, except when they're not. Seems like you haven't fully bought into the Libertarian ideal. As a former little-l libertarian, I find the expectation that everyone have and carry their papers with them more than a little disturbing.

If [...] acquiring an ID is just too hard for these poor poor people, then the process needs to be changed so that everyone has the ability to properly identify themselves at the polling place.

Ok, how about we change the process for getting ID before disenfranchising a million people or more? Over 10% of registered Pennsylvania voters do not have photo ID. Yes, these are people who have already registered and voted in at least one previous election and have no photo ID.

Of course, any time you read a post of mine on the subject of voting, you have to remember that I'm the crazy guy who thinks that felons presently in prison should be allowed to vote. I take voting so seriously that I think that any citizen should be able to vote, period. I want more voting, not less. It seems that some folks believe less voting is the goal.

[Red Arrow]

I take voting so seriously that I think that any citizen should be able to vote, period.

I take voting seriously too,  so seriously that I believe that someone who has such little respect for our society by breaking serious laws and is convicted for the same, deserves a break from voting while paying their dues to society.  Once they have served their punishment for violating the rights of other citizens, then they could be reinstated as voters.

[Red Arrow]

Ok, how about we change the process for getting ID before disenfranchising a million people or more?

OK, change the process first.  Do you really think that people without ID now will get one until they are forced to get ID to be able to vote?  I don't. There will always be someone with an excuse for not having an ID.

[nathanm]

Just as there will always be people to blame them for their circumstances.

[Conan71]

Really? It seems to have worked reasonably well for over 200 years. Funny how states rights are everything, except when they're not. Seems like you haven't fully bought into the Libertarian ideal. As a former little-l libertarian, I find the expectation that everyone have and carry their papers with them more than a little disturbing.

Ok, how about we change the process for getting ID before disenfranchising a million people or more? Over 10% of registered Pennsylvania voters do not have photo ID. Yes, these are people who have already registered and voted in at least one previous election and have no photo ID.

Of course, any time you read a post of mine on the subject of voting, you have to remember that I'm the crazy guy who thinks that felons presently in prison should be allowed to vote. I take voting so seriously that I think that any citizen should be able to vote, period. I want more voting, not less. It seems that some folks believe less voting is the goal.

Did you bother to read the article from the Texas AG?  They are finding that Voter ID is actually increasing minority participation in the voting process, not disenfranchising them.

Secondly, how easy is it for you to fly without identifying documents?  I'm very Libertarian, yet I appreciate that the DMV, my bank, the grocer, etc. are willing to make sure I'm the one actually executing financial instruments (i.e. checks, cash back on deposits, using a credit or debit card- though I will admit I rarely get asked for my DL with a credit card purchase, other than when they flip the card over and see that I've inscribed "check ID" on the signature section).  I'm also cool with a cop asking for my DL if I get pulled over.

I really don't get the paranoia over carrying identifying documents when there's so much ID fraud these days.

[Red Arrow]

Just as there will always be people to blame them for their circumstances.

And people to blame "the system" for pretty much everything.

[nathanm]

I really don't get the paranoia over carrying identifying documents when there's so much ID fraud these days.

I don't get why what you happen to think is the best way for you to live your life means that everyone else has to give up that same freedom you choose to discard. Not that that is even the point. The point is that whether it's a good idea or not, whether it causes them other trouble or not, many people, including registered voters, lack the ID necessary to vote in some states.

Without a damn good reason, like some wave of voting fraud, I don't think it's a great idea to make it harder to exercise one of our most fundamental freedoms. By essentially eliminating their right to vote you're saying that people who can't or won't get photo ID don't deserve a say in any part of government, including whether or not they have the right to vote without some kind of extra hoop jumping. That's scary. Less racist than the original poll taxes and literacy tests, but no less pernicious.

We already have terribly low registration rates and terribly low turnout rates among those who are registered. Do we really want to reduce participation even further?

[Teatownclown]

I really don't get the paranoia over carrying identifying documents when there's so much ID fraud these days.

Crockoshit. Listen Conan, the lack of integrity and the lies need to stop. PROVE there's voter ID fraud of any significance. Prove what determines an ID is valid or invalid.

Do you cheat?

Reducing the electorate through this process is cheating. Are you a cheater?

Tom Corbett doesn't even know what his law says. He can't even say what's considered valid and he signed the requirement into law.

INCREASE THE VOTER POOL IN AMERICA...it's our tradition and it's patriotic. Are you a patriot? Voter suppression laws are designed to screw Obama out of hundreds of thousands of voters. Great for the cheaters and radicals... The horror.

[Red Arrow]

you're saying that people who can't or won't get photo ID don't deserve a say in any part of government,

So you are saying there is no personal responsibility that should be required to vote?

[TeeDub]

Seems easy enough to me.    The majority enacted a law requiring Photo ID to vote.   

As much as I hate to say it, the democratic process won out.

[AquaMan]

Seems easy enough to me.    The majority enacted a law requiring Photo ID to vote.   

As much as I hate to say it, the democratic process won out.

I don't remember voting on it or any of my representatives asking my opinion. Some court rulings have gone against the voting laws. That is democracy as well, yet, the majority party continues to appeal. When a new majority arrives will you all be happy when they repeal these laws? Its politics, not good legislation.

Even though there is little or no evidence of voter fraud nationwide I would believe that there is some fraud occurring in places like Florida, Texas and Illinois. LBJ, Kennedy, Nixon, Bush 2 all played fast and loose. But, I am reminded of what a banker once told me as a young man when I questioned one of their practices as being subject to loss. "Son, we spill more money than that just taking it to the vault."

My point is that if you think these laws are designed to clean up the process or would be effective at that goal you are mistaken. Every large scale operation has some spillage. Romney noted that at the London Olympics yesterday. As long as it is recognized and minimized you're fine.

This has a different goal and players at the state level are pretty blunt about it. That's why it isn't a national initiative. It would never pass muster. Its targeting strong Democratic areas in critical states.

[Gaspar]

This has a different goal and players at the state level are pretty blunt about it. That's why it isn't a national initiative. It would never pass muster. Its targeting strong Democratic areas in critical states.

Only 19 of the 50 (or 57) states allow you to vote without some form of ID.  Many are battleground states, and many are "fly-over" country for Democrats.  It's only natural that the push would be more prevalent in states that have more impact on the election, however, as stated above, all states should be held to the same standard.

[carltonplace]

This is nothing more than a Republican attack on miorities, the poor and the elderly which normally vote Democratic. There is nothing more or less sinister than that going on here.
If the government wants to require photo IDs before a citizen can vote then the government needs to deliver those IDs to the citizens.