Message boards :
Politics :
Happy Birthday Voting Rights Act - And the Good fight continues
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
janneseti Send message Joined: 14 Oct 09 Posts: 14106 Credit: 655,366 RAC: 0 |
Democracy doesn't work unless you participate! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4IlKsbQ16c http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gail-zappa/voting-election-2012_b_2061440.html Ask not what your president has done for you lately -- ask what you have done for yourself, your neighbors, your friends, your countrymen, your countrywomen, your country-children, your environment, your planet. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
How many people are voting without an informed opinion? We don't know, but it seems like most these days. And that is their right. Throw darts at a board. Flip a coin. (Or my system, weigh the campaign mailers and vote for the guy who sends the least!) That is their right and you have no right to interfere with their right! It is here where you have proved that all you are interested in is discrimination. |
Cliff Harding Send message Joined: 18 Aug 99 Posts: 1432 Credit: 110,967,840 RAC: 67 |
Cliff, I detect some animosity in your posts. And I'm going to assume it is justified from your perspective. And I'm not going to claim you're wrong because I see something different from what you see, but my perspective is that I want *everyone* who has a *right* to vote, to vote. And I want everyone who has a *right* to vote, to vote *once*. I want these voters to be informed, I want some level of assurance that there are no shenanigans going on at any of the polls, and I want a future for this country that includes prosperity, individual liberty and happiness for all its citizens. Not really, its' just that when an African-American attempts to speak the truth, the first thing the conservatives come out with is an "Angry Black Man", while some times that may be true, most times, as in my case, it's not. Then came the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This act specifically focused on preventing racial discrimination against citizens wanting to vote. It was a good law because it effectively stopped the "idiotic thing(s) that the White Citizens committees could come up with that would prevent minorities from voting". That was 50 years ago. We have new problems now and this good law may need modifying in order to meet the challenges of these new problems. I agree that the Voting Right Act needs to be strengthen, but that will not happen until the Tea/Republican party has lost control of Congress. The best way to strengthen it is to restructure and strengthen Section V. That may sound like the words of an "Angry Black Man", but nevertheless it is the truth. And with the massive redistricting/gerryingmandering of Republican controlled states, I don't see that for at least 10 years from now. Let me also say that some of these redistricting/gerryingmandering plans have come under fire and have been deemed by the courts as being discriminational, thusly unconstitutional. These new problems that you speak of are the same problems that have always been there, how to keep minorities from voting. The only thing new is this constant chant of massive in-person voter fraud. The FBI investigates all cases of reported suspected voter fraud, and have found that the greater majority of them are just clerical errors. Those cases found to be actual fraud are prosecuted. This from the Brennan Center For Justice. In it is a 501 page report concerning the myth of in-person voter fraud. You say we need to be better informed, then I suggest that you start reading. https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/truth-about-voter-fraud There is a report out there somewhere, I have to research it again, that stated between 1970 and 2012 there were approx. 30k cases reported and prosecuted, that's with millions and millions, perhaps billions of votes over that 42 year period. I think that comes out to be .0000002%, so like I and others have been saying, massive in-person voter fraud is a myth. I think you're asking a question with a pre-loaded, false premise. Now, again, I'm not going to disagree with "because an African-American was voted into the highest office of this country not once, but twice, with not only the largest minority turn out but also lest I forget the largest WHITE WOMAN turnout in history of this country," but I will disagree (with) your claim, "simply because." I ask - simply because of what? And please don't say that you disagree of his policies. The greater majority of President Obama's policies were at one time the policies of the old Republican party, the party of Lincoln, and the Heritage Foundation, and if you do the research you will see that. Let's start with the ACA, which every president in the last 100 years, Republican & Democrat has tried to implement. He took the Mass. plan, under republican Gov. Mitt Romney, and turned it into a national plan. Are there problems with it, YES. Can it be strengthen, again YES. But, because HE was able to get it implemented and was confirmed and blessed by the conservative Supreme Court, the Tea/Republican party spent countless millions of $$$ in an attempt to abolish it. There have been 50+ votes to abolish the ACA in the House of Representatives during the 113th Congress and they are still voting to abolish it in 114th. I'm sure we could find instances of real racism, but I believe most want to tighten controls on our voting procedures for other reasons, such as saving our country from financial ruin. Do you really understand what the old Jim Crow laws were about and do you really understand what the new James E. Crow (Esq.) voter id laws are about or are you really stuck in the mire of the myth? Now if you really want to talk about voter fraud, let's talk about George W. Bush and how he stole the vote in Florida. What did they call it "Fluttergate" or something like that. Let's also talk about the "swift boat" action against then presidential candidate, our current Sec. of State - The Honorable John Kerry. Financial ruin. Let's take a look at this one, shall we. during the Great Depression of 1929/39, Herbert Hoover, a Republican, was president. When Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, took office of the the things was the "New Deal", which, I think everyone will agree was a great success. The only reason that it was not an outstanding success, was that Republicans in Congress argued that it is costing too much and when the program ended, the country almost went into another depression. Now fast forward to a Hollywood actor, named Ronald Reagan, a Republican and professed father of the modern Tea/Republican party, who began the plunge in financial ruin with his trickle down theory, which for the last 40 years has proven that it doesn't work, but the party still sticks to that theory. Fast forward again, and you have William J. Clinton, a Democrat, who working with a Republican Congress and when he left office, we had a surplus of billions/trillions in the treasury. Enter George W. Bush, a Republican, who even before September 11, 2001 was planning to invade Iraq to get possession of the oil. Sept. 11th gave him the excuse he needed, and with the lies of WMD invaded Iraq and squandered that surplus, which we are still trying to dig out today. During the run ups to both elections of President Barack Obama, the tea/republican candidates were asked if they would bail out the banks and the auto industry and they all said NO. Let them die and wither on the vine and plunge this country into a greater depression than it already was. Enter President Obama, in 2008, and continued the TARP bailout that Bush had started. Under President Obama, the auto industry was saved and flourishing, the banks were bailed out and are bigger than ever. The stock market is the highest in history. Now let's talk about jobs. Under Bush, we were seeing a massive loss of jobs of 200k+ a month. Under our current president, not counting January & February of 2009, has shown a steady growth in jobs until this day. Not bad for a Muslim born dictator/king/communist as the Tea/Republican party has been hard pressed to prove. I guess it's all Obama's fault. JOBS, JOBS, JOBS, the chant of the Tea/Republican party, but where are the jobs that they claimed that they could produce. There are republican job bills sitting on the Senate desk that were not brought to the floor, and the reason why was that every one of them had an amendment to abolish the ACA, and they knew that the Senate would not bring the to the floor. President Obama, had a massive job plan that was similar to FDR's "New deal" for fixing the country's infrastructure and that could have put millions to work at a decent wage. The Tea/Republicans shot it, and the others that he has proposed down, stating that there was no money for it and refused to even try to find the money. They didn't want to decrease the amount of defense spending, even though the DOD kept saying they didn't need all of the money. Heaven forbid, that you would ask the 1%ers to pay more in taxes to help fund the plan, but would tax the 99%ers more. Where in the recent history of this country has the Democrats lead this country into financial ruin? Then again I'll ask you how many Republicans have already done so? Just to let you know what my perspective is... it seems to me that any modicum of standard that is introduced these days is immediately attacked as racist. That modicum of standard has been relied on for decades. Your first two questions are ludicrous. f you have completely read this post and the included links, I don't mean to just read the words, but understand what is being said, and you still believe this myth of in-person voter fraud as others have had their minds so blinded, then there's no hope in changing it. As to your last question, I'll just say this. Since President Obama first came into office, the Tea/Republican party has depended almost entirely on the lies of Faux News, Brent Bart, the laughable, pill popping fat man, who most of the rest of the entire country calls the Rabbi/father of the party - Rush Limbaugh. The progressives of this country relies on all sorts of news outlets, both cable and print. We do research and then more research before we make up our minds, not just blind faith. Along with that research, it depends on who you talk to and how your conversation goes determines how informed you are. As for myself I talk with people on both sides of the sidewalk, and some on the other side I've been able to change their minds via pointing out all of that research. I don't buy computers, I build them!! |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Guy, you also seem to be conflating several issues into one. 1) Citizen. AFIK no state in the USA issues a citizenship document. Only the US State department issues such a document and the one it issues does not convey that a person is a citizen of any particular state, only the entire union of states. Citizens of the USA are free to move from state to state and do not have to renounce citizenship of the state they leave and swear loyalty to the state they enter, there is no customs to clear or any other of the things generally required to change citizenship. It is automatic and there is no government tracking of such changes. 2) Identification. Have a look at page 9 of Form I-9. Do you see Column A and Column B. Those are the documents that persons in the USA need to have one of to establish identity. Each is as valid as any other. 3) Domicile. As states don't have citizenship per say, then the only method left is domicile. How to establish that? Property tax bill? Utility bill? Mailing address? Tribal nation document? Well here Texas is free to establish its Column C, but it must assure that all persons domiciled in Texas will have at least one of the items on the list. 4) Registration. Obviously when you register you should have to prove the name you are giving is yours. Any document from column A or B will do that. Domicile, well that is a document that Texas decides shows that you presently live in Texas. 5) Casting a ballot. Texas does have a right to ascertain that the person is on the list of registered voters, so it may ask for identification, anything in column A or B establishes that and if they perhaps want to add the item of possession of a sample ballot sent via US Mail to the registered address to that list, good for them. I'm sure you are exploding about some of those documents in column A. Many of them disprove US citizenship. It is up to Texas to decide if in a local election Texas considers them citizens of Texas and can vote, obviously the USA does not permit them to vote in a national election. Oh and that is the rub. That gets mentioned in the constitution, so it is a power of the federal government, not one reserved to the states or the people! |
Cliff Harding Send message Joined: 18 Aug 99 Posts: 1432 Credit: 110,967,840 RAC: 67 |
Brutus - From a disabled vet to another vet, WELCOME HOME Brother!! Glad to see you back. but please don't give up the conversation on my account. This is a forum where we all have a strong opinion on things and we encourage strong intelligent conversations, so please don't go. Generally speaking, all I've been trying to say is that there are lessons in recent history we are ignoring. And we are ignoring some new problems that have recently presented themselves. We, well at least me, would be very interested in the lessons that are being ignored, and some of the new problems that have presented themselves. This split government has been making things worse in recent years--we all agree on that, right? Let's just go ahead and put one side in charge of everything and see what happens. Either side... We've had administrations where one party or the other was in complete control and the government and country has progressed. The government has been increasingly partisan since the Reagan administration. I would like to hear your views on this point, especially on the split of the current administration. I don't buy computers, I build them!! |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Guy, I understand from your perspective where the world is black or white, that you can't stand the possibility of a handful of votes being cast that should not be. Military rules are very absolute. I remind you however that in the USA our criminal system was founded upon the belief that it was far more terrible to convict one innocent man than to let ten guilty free. It is far more important that every citizen be able to vote than to stop the occasional scofflaw. Where voter fraud has been looked for seriously the numbers found amount to a mere handful. Hardly enough to influence any race except a dead heat. The vast majority of persons follow the rules simply because they believe in them, not because there isn't some way to get around them, or some punishment waiting for them if they get caught. As to the true fraud, that is Citizens United. SCOTUS has allowed the forces to purchase both candidates before the election. The vote and the poll are now irrelevant, the exact same thing will happen no matter who wins. There is no need to manufacture votes, there is no economic gain in doing so. Bribery is easier, cheaper and legal via the 501(c)4. Perhaps you have never known an illegal. Had one as a coworker. Talked to him a bit about an upcoming presidential election. He had some strong opinions. I got around to asking him who he was going to vote for. Got a very surprising answer. He wasn't going to vote. He knew he wasn't supposed to vote and didn't want that vote on his record as that might have been used against him in his pending application for citizenship. That is when I found out he was an illegal, and e-verify said he was legal! Oh, he was one when his mother brought him to the USA, so he was as American as anyone having been raised here. The sad part was even though he had been through American schools from K to 12, he still had to study for the citizenship test as American schools don't teach a lot of the questions on the exam! He passed and swore his allegiance. |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
Actually, we do know, and the number is so incredibly low that it has no chance of affecting the outcome of an election. Even if you feel that this irrelevant portion of people committing voter fraud is somehow unacceptable, it would be immoral to counter it with racist and discriminatory measures to keep poor people and racial minorities out of the voting booth. But lets be honest here, the people that call for these measures (all of them conservatives) don't really give a damn about voter fraud or the democratic process, as shown by the fact that they have no problem intimidating or using violence to keep people from voting. They care about keeping people out that won't vote for their candidates. What they do is election fraud at best and tyranny at worst. Finally, having an informed opinion is not a legal requirement to vote. Until it is, you can complain all you want, its not a reason to keep people from voting. |
Darth Beaver Send message Joined: 20 Aug 99 Posts: 6728 Credit: 21,443,075 RAC: 3 |
Nice to see the Brain washing works . We have compolasery voting and you even have a choice weather to reister or not pity you don't . So i guess this dosn't count then if there is no voter fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies And then there was a recount here during the last election . Ballots even went missing . So only a fool would believe there is no voter rigging . So proving whom you are before voting should be law but you don't need any special ID as your photo car licence should be enough . Unless like a lot of things over your way drivers licences are easly forged witch they are not here . |
Cliff Harding Send message Joined: 18 Aug 99 Posts: 1432 Credit: 110,967,840 RAC: 67 |
Nice to see the Brain washing works . I think you are conflating the issue being discussed here, which is in-person voter fraud. There is a big difference between in-person voter fraud and voter suppression, which although can be seen as being connected, it is an entirely different subject altogether. As far as using drivers licenses are concerned, they are not the only form of identification currently used, but I do have a question for you. Using simple old common sense, if you had a forged license, would you use it to register to vote knowing that it could very well be checked with the DMV and have you arrested? I think not. As far as fictitious names are concerned, I went to school with a young lady named Mary Poppins, she had a terrible time with it. While in the Air Force I knew a Special Operations operator (combat weather) with the first name of Sueh, pronounced Sue. If you don't think that a big burly Special Operations guy didn't get plenty of ribbing and confusion from his name you are greatly mistaken. Mickey Mouse or Zorro, I can see, and those are usually ferreted out very quickly. There have been reports of people being registered on death rolls being registered. But, they have been mostly debunked as people that were alive when they registered, but died afterwards. That does not make those people of being falsely registering. If that person voted by mail, his vote should still count if he/she was alive at the time of the mailing, not discounted. I don't buy computers, I build them!! |
janneseti Send message Joined: 14 Oct 09 Posts: 14106 Credit: 655,366 RAC: 0 |
As far as fictitious names are concerned, I went to school with a young lady named Mary Poppins, she had a terrible time with it. While in the Air Force I knew a Special Operations operator (combat weather) with the first name of Sueh, pronounced Sue. If you don't think that a big burly Special Operations guy didn't get plenty of ribbing and confusion from his name you are greatly mistaken. Mickey Mouse or Zorro, I can see, and those are usually ferreted out very quickly. Here we have the Donald Duck Party:) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Duck_Party In the 2010 elections, the party received 107 votes, making it the largest party without pre-printed ballots, and the 21st largest party in the Swedish riksdag elections. |
Darth Beaver Send message Joined: 20 Aug 99 Posts: 6728 Credit: 21,443,075 RAC: 3 |
Cliff in the last election here there was voter fraud . People where voting at several boths and because they where not being asked to prove they where whom they claimed they where able to vote more than once. You can't get a forged Licence here . In fact a car licence is the hardest thing to obtain here . To register you need more than a drivers licence . a passport , naturalisation papers , birth cert , Medicare card , health card or a bill with your name and address (rate, gas , electric bills It is not against the law NOT to register but once you do you will be fined if you don't vote . People here are more aware of what there choice means . One of the biggest advantages of compulsory voting is the people are more politically savy and take more interest in politics than country's that don't have it |
janneseti Send message Joined: 14 Oct 09 Posts: 14106 Credit: 655,366 RAC: 0 |
We have compolasery voting and you even have a choice weather to reister or not pity you don't . I dont think countries in Europe have compulsory votings. Belgium is one though. Anyway the turnout in elections are for more higher here then in the US. On the other hand there is North Korea in Asia with a turnout of 99.99% :) |
OzzFan Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15691 Credit: 84,761,841 RAC: 28 |
I'm glad we don't have compulsory voting here in the US. I think the right not to vote (as patriotic as everyone is about voting) should be just as respected as those that choose to vote. Perhaps those that choose not to vote are exercising their right to refuse to vote for buffoons. |
Darth Beaver Send message Joined: 20 Aug 99 Posts: 6728 Credit: 21,443,075 RAC: 3 |
The problem Ozzie is that people over your way don't think there vote counts so they don't vote . Partly because your system does not let the people vote for the candidate . It's also the fact you don't have compulsory voting as people are just not as engaged in the political system because they don't need to . compulsory voting would change this You can still have your right not to vote with a compulsory system and I would say I have more rights than you lot do and I understand what those rights are more than most American's do Remember this . The Liberal party(Republicans) introduced compulsory voting because they thought it would help them win elections , there lost the first one after it was introduced. However because of what has happen'd in America in resent years they have now been calling for it to be dropped why should be asking It's because of your own system of not having compulsory voting and how it has allow'd your leaders to win with only 35% of the vote seeing as only 70% voted it is easer to win when a large part of the public don't vote The Liberal here see your system as being a advantage to winning elections in other words voter fraud by stealh , the tricks dishonest party's use . You are all dead peasants because the wrong people keep being elected and your system is open to much abuse |
Cliff Harding Send message Joined: 18 Aug 99 Posts: 1432 Credit: 110,967,840 RAC: 67 |
Folks, I'm not saying that there is no voter fraud anywhere in the world, such as the example given by Glenn, what I am saying that in-person voter fraud in this country is almost non-existent. Voter fraud in other countries is not germane to this conversation. I don't buy computers, I build them!! |
janneseti Send message Joined: 14 Oct 09 Posts: 14106 Credit: 655,366 RAC: 0 |
Voter fraud can only work if there are a very low turnout. So go out there and vote! |
Wiggo Send message Joined: 24 Jan 00 Posts: 34744 Credit: 261,360,520 RAC: 489 |
I'm always surprised by those who choose not to vote, but complain very loudly about the outcome. Cheers. |
OzzFan Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15691 Credit: 84,761,841 RAC: 28 |
I tend to agree with George Carlin when he said that it is actually the people who don't vote that have more of a right to complain loudly about the outcome. After all, it is the people that vote that put those people into office in the first place! And inevitably when I say something like that, the counter-argument is of course "well you could have voted to prevent that person from getting into office", but what if the other person is just as bad or worse? Voting to keep someone out of office is worse than voting for the lesser of two evils. End the career politicians. Put someone up that's worth voting for. I would love to see a near-zero voter turnout as a way to tell our government, through action, that we all have a vote of no confidence in their ability to lead. Perhaps then someone would stand-up and take notice. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.