Were voter's "really" disenfranchised?

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote: Well Z, if you don't understand the message of that race baiting flyer, I may as well go talk to the wall.

It's not that I don't "get" the implied message. It's that the flyer, itself, doesn't lie, nor does it tell the truth. I believe because both are unknown at this point in time with regard to Michael Brown. Trayvon Martin is another story altogether. And Dantre Hamilton I need to do more research on.

"Don't let anyone silence your voice"... how were those three voices silenced, wasn't it from bullets? So basically the message is that these young men were silenced by being "unjustly" murdered and you should vote for the party that would prevent future murders like these. Is this really an honest way to direct a voting base to act? It's a dishonest scare tactic that preys on the uninformed... it also promotes more division.

It would be just as bad to replace those three young men with three torn apart fetuses, with the same phrase... and I'm sure you could figure out which party put the flyer out.

A poll tax has had two historical meanings. The older is that of a fee that had to be paid to satisfy taxpayer requirements in voting laws. In some places, only people who could demonstrate a financial tie to a community were permitted to vote in that community. For those who did not otherwise own property or pay taxes, this sort of poll tax was sufficient to allow voting.

The other meaning for poll tax is a tax that must be paid by anyone wishing to cast a vote. Poll taxes of this sort were generally low, perhaps a dollar or two, but high enough to make voting uneconomical for poor people.

- home.lorettotel.net/~lcarchives/polltaxdefinition.htm

The minimal cost of photo ID has nothing to do with taxpayer requirements, nor does it have to be paid by anyone wishing to cast a vote. It is not a tax, it is a fee to partially cover the expense of issuing the ID. It affects only the small minority who do not already have a valid ID as required to do many other things commonly done by the majority of adults.

Therefore, no, it is not a poll tax.

Rick wrote: "Don't let anyone silence your voice"... how were those three voices silenced, wasn't it from bullets? So basically the message is that these young men were silenced by being "unjustly" murdered and you should vote for the party that would prevent future murders like these. Is this really an honest way to direct a voting base to act? It's a dishonest scare tactic that preys on the uninformed... it also promotes more division.

It would be just as bad to replace those three young men with three torn apart fetuses, with the same phrase... and I'm sure you could figure out which party put the flyer out.

That's been done, Rick. Both sides do it - two thongs don't make a right, remember. If we really decide to go down this particular road, this thread will get filled with memes/photos on both sides. I just don't believe it's exclusive to one side or the other.

Edited to add: nor do I think that kind of negativity accomplishes anything other than to divide and conquer. Just look what it does right here in this forum.

jf1acai wrote:

A poll tax has had two historical meanings. The older is that of a fee that had to be paid to satisfy taxpayer requirements in voting laws. In some places, only people who could demonstrate a financial tie to a community were permitted to vote in that community. For those who did not otherwise own property or pay taxes, this sort of poll tax was sufficient to allow voting.

The other meaning for poll tax is a tax that must be paid by anyone wishing to cast a vote. Poll taxes of this sort were generally low, perhaps a dollar or two, but high enough to make voting uneconomical for poor people.

- home.lorettotel.net/~lcarchives/polltaxdefinition.htm

The minimal cost of photo ID has nothing to do with taxpayer requirements, nor does it have to be paid by anyone wishing to cast a vote. It is not a tax, it is a fee to partially cover the expense of issuing the ID. It affects only the small minority who do not already have a valid ID as required to do many other things commonly done by the majority of adults.

Therefore, no, it is not a poll tax.

In the truest sense of the word/definition, I agree - voter ID is not a poll tax. However, there are some who would argue that it is actually an "indirect" tax on those who cannot afford any fee, those with infirmities, and the aged. Whether that can be classified as a poll tax would, in my opinion, depend upon its relationship to voting, in general.

Edited to add: Also, when one includes indirect costs, such as travel to and from to get one which has been shown to sometimes involve multiple trips, securing the proper certification identification in order to comply with the voter ID, etc., etc., we may not call it a "poll tax" specifically. But some would argue it goes indirectly in that direction.

ZHawke wrote:

jf1acai wrote:

A poll tax has had two historical meanings. The older is that of a fee that had to be paid to satisfy taxpayer requirements in voting laws. In some places, only people who could demonstrate a financial tie to a community were permitted to vote in that community. For those who did not otherwise own property or pay taxes, this sort of poll tax was sufficient to allow voting.

The other meaning for poll tax is a tax that must be paid by anyone wishing to cast a vote. Poll taxes of this sort were generally low, perhaps a dollar or two, but high enough to make voting uneconomical for poor people.

- home.lorettotel.net/~lcarchives/polltaxdefinition.htm

The minimal cost of photo ID has nothing to do with taxpayer requirements, nor does it have to be paid by anyone wishing to cast a vote. It is not a tax, it is a fee to partially cover the expense of issuing the ID. It affects only the small minority who do not already have a valid ID as required to do many other things commonly done by the majority of adults.

Therefore, no, it is not a poll tax.

In the truest sense of the word/definition, I agree - voter ID is not a poll tax. However, there are some who would argue that it is actually an "indirect" tax on those who cannot afford any fee, those with infirmities, and the aged. Whether that can be classified as a poll tax would, in my opinion, depend upon its relationship to voting, in general.

Edited to add: Also, when one includes indirect costs, such as travel to and from to get one which has been shown to sometimes involve multiple trips, securing the proper certification identification in order to comply with the voter ID, etc., etc., we may not call it a "poll tax" specifically. But some would argue it goes indirectly in that direction.

How in the world are these old sick "infirm" people ever going to get health care if they have no way of proving who they are? Show me one hospital or clinic that will accept a patient's insurance without showing an ID.

Rick wrote: How in the world are these old sick "infirm" people ever going to get health care if they have no way of proving who they are? Show me one hospital or clinic that will accept a patient's insurance without showing an ID.

At least listen to the first video in this article.

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/governm...ody-have-a-voter-id/

Low voter turnout ( www.electproject.org/2014g ) one can attribute to voter apathy and/or disillusionment plus alleged disinfranchisement ( billmoyers.com/2014/11/07/voting-restric...s-key-midterm-races/ ) may, in fact, have played a role in this election.

Whether we want to admit disenfranchisement is an issue or not, it needs to be addressed, in my opinion.

Why does it need to be addressed? If your party's voters don't feel like voting, tough luck.
Past elections seem to show that rain will decrease the number of Democrat votes. Should we wait to hold the election until we get a sunny day?

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote: How in the world are these old sick "infirm" people ever going to get health care if they have no way of proving who they are? Show me one hospital or clinic that will accept a patient's insurance without showing an ID.

At least listen to the first video in this article.

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/governm...ody-have-a-voter-id/

I did and the video doesn't address my question. Can YOU answer it? Not trying to be pushy, just trying to inject a little common sense into this voter ID "problem".

Rick wrote: I did and the video doesn't address my question. Can YOU answer it? Not trying to be pushy, just trying to inject a little common sense into this voter ID "problem".

Point taken. With regard to your question, I'll also ask you whether or not you believe an ACA ID should suffice as certification of voter eligibility? Also, in answer to your question, there are arguably many old, sick, infirm folks who do not have photo ID that meets the voter ID requirements. That's the issue - not how in the world will they get health insurance. Truth is, according to the ACA, any photo ID requirements are arguably less restrictive than the voter ID laws enacted in several states ( www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Fil...umerGuidehighres.pdf ).

Your definition of "common sense" might just be a little different than mine on this issue. That you can't seem to grasp the problems associated with the groups mentioned in getting appropriate voter IDs, and the hoops they are now required to go through to get it, isn't very common sense from my perspective.