BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2012 04:49 pm
@Mame,
Quote:
if it becomes a law, that's it. You have to do it. Like a driver's licence. I'm sure when they were introduced people said, "Why should I get a license? I'm a good driver."


Sorry we are dealing with a basic right of citizenship and the very foundation of the government claims that it power to rule come from the people.
cicerone imposter
 
  4  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2012 05:08 pm
@Mame,
It still doesn't remove the reasons why the GOP is establishing those laws; it's not out of necessity. They're only trying to create a handicap for voters.

Just because it's law doesn't mean it's moral or justified.
Lustig Andrei
 
  3  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2012 05:11 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Excellent point, c.i. It's not a question of whether the law has any potential merit. It's about the motivation behind ramming it through at this time in history.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2012 05:19 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
But that's not the issue; it's about a government photo ID card that is being required to reduce or eliminate fraud where there are none.

You can't claim there is absolutely no voter fraud at the polls. There has always been some fraud in the voting system. As long as it's not widespread, it's not easy to detect.

There certainly is fraud with absentee ballots, and they do make arrests on that one. And, while it is tangential to the topic of this thread, the issues are still worth considering.

And do you realize how many elderly folks suffering from dementia or other forms of severe cognitive impairment, many in assisted living facilities or nursing homes, and many living at home with a caretaker-relative, receive absentee or advance ballots so they don't have to vote in person at the polls? Despite the fact that these people may not know what year it is, or that an election is even taking place, let alone who is running for office, they may still receive a ballot because they are legally entitled to vote. No law specifically forbids a person with Alzheimer's disease or dementia from voting. Who actually fills out that ballot and returns it is a good question.
Quote:
September 22, 2004
Who Decides If People with Dementia Should Vote?

Are the four million Americans with Alzheimer’s disease or other forms of dementia entitled to vote this November? How do we prevent fraudulent voting on behalf of people in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities who have lost the capacity to vote? This problem cuts across all party lines, income levels, and racial identities. Who decides if people with dementia have the capacity to vote? How is that assessment made?

These questions were addressed by a multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional group of 11 experts in law, ethics, government, neurology, geriatrics and psychiatry, co-led by U.Va. law professor Richard Bonnie; Dr. Jason H. Karlawish, assistant professor of medicine at University of Pennsylvania and director of Penn’s Alzheimer’s Disease Center’s Education and Information Core; and Dr. Paul Applebaum, professor and Chair of Psychiatry at the University of Massachusetts. Their 18-month study, published in the Sept. 15 issue of Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), reveals an alarming inconsistency in voting policy regarding citizens with dementia. “We found that judges, family caregivers, and long-term care staff do not have adequate guidance to determine whether individuals with dementia have the capacity to vote,” said Karlawish.

By 2050, an estimated 15 million Americans will have dementia. Since age is the chief risk factor for the disease and voter turnout is highest in the 65 to 74 age bracket, the needs defined in this study will impact the electoral process for years.

“The 2000 election demonstrated how a small number of votes in a single state—in this case Florida, home to one of the nation’s largest concentrations of elderly persons—can affect the outcome nationwide,” said Bonnie. “Local elections are frequently decided by margins no greater than the number of residents in area nursing homes.”

The researchers looked at existing voting laws and discovered them to be inadequate. Most states disqualify people who have been found incompetent to care for their personal needs or financial affairs without a specific finding that they lack the ability to vote. As a result, these laws may well violate the Constitution, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Researchers recommend changing state laws to conform to modern constitutional principles, incorporating a test to assess competence to vote, simplifying ballots to eliminate voter confusion, educating the public regarding the appropriate assistance for voters with dementia, formulating policies for voting in long-term care settings, and further studies to develop more effective voting policies.

Even with a clear test for capacity to vote, there remains a risk that elderly persons’ choices will be impermissibly influenced by their caregivers. The limits of acceptable assistance are most difficult to define when absentee ballots are used, Bonnie said. “Nationwide, absentee voting rates are twice as high among voters 65 years and older than for younger age groups, and state laws are making it easier for people to vote as an “absentee” without giving any reason. Some experts predict that one fifth of the votes cast on November 2 will be by absentee ballot. But the potential for abuse is obvious, as it is never clear exactly who has completed the ballot. Sixty percent of all allegations of voter fraud in Chicago involve absentee ballots.”
http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2004_fall/eldervote.htm


Then there is the fact that the names of deceased voters can remain on the active voting rolls for quite some time. And people can "assume" those ghost identities for voting purposes at the polls--particularly if no form of ID has to be shown.

And some people are registered to vote in more than one state.

There's a lot of potential for fraud in the system, so you really can't declare there is no fraud.

And requiring some sort of voter ID at the polls would help to reduce any fraud.

firefly
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2012 05:27 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
the very foundation of the government claims that it power to rule come from the people.

And that power of the people is reflected in the state legislatures they elect to represent them. And it's those state legislatures that are proposing and passing these laws--and their actions are supported by a majority of Americans judging by the results of opinion polls, including Democrats and Liberals who support such laws.

Only 20 states require no form of voter ID at the polls.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2012 05:44 pm
@firefly,
All levels of government, elected by the people, are doing a piss-poor job for the American People.

Most are bankrupt or nearing bankruptcy; they won't increase taxes, but spend money they don't have now or in the future.

Just because the people elect them doesn't mean much in the way of managing their responsibilities with any sense of management skills or due diligence.

It used to be legal not to let women or blacks vote; those regulations were established by the people elected into office.

Being elected into office doesn't mean much. It's how they govern is what counts.

When states are able to establish laws that disenfranchises citizens their vote, the Supreme Court is not doing their job.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2012 05:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The Romney campaign in Poland: "Kiss my ass.....This is a holy site for the Polish people. Show some respect."

The irony on "respect."
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2012 07:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Voting is a RIGHT conferredthrough citizenship. Driving is a PRIVILEGE granted by the state based upon skills and proficiency and its granting is frequently checked so that the skill is maintained. Theres no similarity betwen the two conditions
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  0  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2012 08:17 pm
There seems to be such mass confusion going on in Pennsylvania, and such a lack of preparedness to implement the new voter ID law, that that alone may justify blocking implementation of the law until after election day.

http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-30/news/32924333_1_penndot-id-new-voter-id-law-voter-rolls

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/08/penndot_ill-equipped_to_effici.html

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/editorials/got-id-under-the-new-state-law-even-super-voters-dont-647143/
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2012 08:31 pm
@firefly,
The first article is almost humorous! Many of the people who has worked in their government doesn't show up as having the proper ID.

That's funny! Goes to prove that many states don't even know what problems they create for many government employees by trying to disenfranchise voters.

0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  4  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2012 11:00 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
And do you realize how many elderly folks suffering from dementia or other forms of severe cognitive impairment, many in assisted living facilities or nursing homes, and many living at home with a caretaker-relative, receive absentee or advance ballots so they don't have to vote in person at the polls?

Very few? Practically none? Given that someone must request to vote absentee, I'm not sure how many dementia sufferers are taking the time to fill out absentee ballot requests. But then it doesn't really matter if thousands or even millions are, since that's not something that voter ID laws address. Those laws only deal with people who show up at the polling place.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 12:37 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

The Romney campaign in Poland: "Kiss my ass.....This is a holy site for the Polish people. Show some respect."

The irony on "respect."


I see you have at least learned your lesson and are no longer trying to attribute the sotto voce "kiss my ass" comment to Mitt Romney.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 02:54 am
@firefly,
Quote:
You can't claim there is absolutely no voter fraud at the polls. There has always been some fraud in the voting system. As long as it's not widespread, it's not easy to detect


Sorry but you can not use the justification of a few cases of voters frauds at the very worst to take away the right of thousands of valid voters to vote and have a say in their government.

To do so greatly weaken you claims that you had make over and over on this website that we have a government of the people.


0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 03:01 am
@firefly,
Quote:
And that power of the people is reflected in the state legislatures they elect to represent them. And it's those state legislatures that are proposing and passing these laws--and their actions are supported by a majority of Americans judging by the results of opinion polls, including Democrats and Liberals who support such laws.


Sorry the majority do not have the moral and hopefully not the legal rights to take away the right to vote of valid voters.

Once in power they are going to make sure as best as possible that they will never be voted out of power.

But then Hitler party got into power by the legal processes in Germany and then begin to take the rights of citizenship away one group after another.

Your logic would had supported his government actions just as well as the actions of the PA legistatures.


BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 03:20 am
http://articles.philly.com/2012-08-03/news/33020794_1_id-law-penndot-id-data


ennsylvania voter ID law may hurt minorities most, study shows
August 03, 2012
Share on emailShare on printShare on redditMore Sharing Services


An analysis of state data related to Pennsylvania's new voter ID law suggests that minority voters in Philadelphia will have a tougher time than white voters in getting the credentials to vote in November.

The study was done by Tamara Manik-Perlman, a project manager and spatial data analyst at Azavea, the Philadelphia data-analysis and software firm that distinguished itself last year by providing population data and mapping tools to let citizens draw redistricting proposals for City Council.

Using data provided by Pennsylvania election officials, originally designed to show which voters do not have valid ID from the state Department of Transportation, Manik-Perlman mapped their voting addresses and correlated the information with census data on race and ethnicity.

The study found that voters in the city's most heavily African American voting divisions are 85 percent more likely to lack PennDot credentials than voters in predominantly white divisions.

And voters in heavily Hispanic neighborhoods are more than twice as likely to lack PennDot ID, the study showed. Manik-Perlman said there was a similar pattern in heavily Asian neighborhoods.

The analysis is only as good as the data it is based on. The Inquirer reported Sunday that the state data on PennDot ID is fraught with problems, mistakenly listing thousands of people as not having ID when they actually have it.

The state refuses to share PennDot licensing data with the public, making it impossible for Azavea to develop more accurate data on its own. The U.S. Justice Department requested the PennDot data last week for its own probe of whether the new state ID law violates the federal Voting Rights Act. - Bob Warner


Ads by Google
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 06:15 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Just because it's law doesn't mean it's moral or justified.


Yes could not agree with you more and for some here any law seems to be view in the same manner as religion dogma by the deeply faithful.

0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 07:37 am
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
Given that someone must request to vote absentee, I'm not sure how many dementia sufferers are taking the time to fill out absentee ballot requests. But then it doesn't really matter if thousands or even millions are, since that's not something that voter ID laws address.

I mentioned that the issue of absentee ballots was tangential to the topic of this thread. I brought it up because the issue of voter fraud does surface with absentee ballots.

In the case of dementia sufferers, the numbers voting by absentee ballot appear substantial, given the high percentage of elderly people who regularly vote by absentee ballot, and those ballots may be filled out by someone other than the voter without the voter's participation or awareness. While the voter ID laws may not address this type of fraud, I'm not sure it makes sense to say, "it doesn't really matter if thousands or even millions are," if one is concerned with the integrity of the electoral process since these fraudulent votes can influence the outcome of an election.


firefly
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 07:47 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
But then Hitler party got into power by the legal processes in Germany and then begin to take the rights of citizenship away one group after another.

So now you are comparing the Republican party, and Republican voters, to Hitler?

If these voter ID laws cannot withstand legal challenges, they will be struck down. That's what the courts are for.

BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 07:48 am
@firefly,
Quote:
In the case of dementia sufferers, the numbers voting by absentee ballot appear substantial, given the high percentage of elderly people who regularly vote by absentee ballot


Hell it we are going to look into mental abilities to cast a vote then there go the
GOP tea party base. Drunk

But this is after all just another attempt by you to get off the subject you have not been able to defend.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 07:58 am
@firefly,
Sure dear when the GOP take similar actions to the third Riech then to at least that degree you can surely compare them to it.

Getting into power in a legal manner and then taking steps with that power to make sure that they can maintain that power by taking away basic rights from their opponents is very similar to actions taken in Germany in the 1930s and PA in 2012.

Off hand I can not think of any more basic right of a citizen then the right to vote.

We won an election so we have the right to passes laws that interfere with those who disagree with us from voting

So your defense for interfering with that right is that the majority can do what the hell they wish to do to the minority sound like you would be right at home in Germany of the 1930s.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 05:30:00