Were voter's "really" disenfranchised?

FredHayek wrote: 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?

From an "apathy" perspective, it would seem to me that when you get a low voter turnout (link previously shared, but sharing again just for you www.electproject.org/2014g ), the election results can be significantly skewed in one party's favor especially if that particular party reinforces that skewing by being behind more restrictive voter ID laws.

Add to all of this the money in politics that we are now seeing, and the adage, "you get what you don't vote for", rings very true as far as I'm concerned.

ZHawke wrote: ...........

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

Yes, Yes address it. It does not appear to me that the left yet understands what their governance has wrought. That being the case the best thing they can do is to continue and focus on rationalizations.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt. I find these two pieces encouraging.

www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/opinion/paul-...=0#story-continues-4

www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/leaving...-chief-the-sidelines

Leaving the Campaigner in Chief on the sidelines
11/07/14 12:12 PM
facebook twitter 3 save share group 46
By Steve Benen

Encouraging from a perspective of what, exactly? That Democrats might somehow find their missing backbones now that they lost the Senate and do their jobs? It's been going on back and forth, back and forth, back and forth ad nauseum as to whom is to blame for the obstruction and the inaction - Congress or the President, the President or Congress, Congress or the President - and all the ineffectiveness going on in Washington, D.C. Why must it be a Democrats wrought this, or Republicans obstructed that? Why can't it just be working together for their constituencies? Frankly, I don't give a rat's patootie who's to blame.

IF the "problem" with requiring photo ID in order to vote is due to variable requirements for obtaining photo ID, then why don't we concentrate on setting standards for what are/are not acceptable requirements, so that states which wish to pass laws requiring photo ID can pass/amend laws which meet those standards?

Wouldn't this make a lot more sense than continually arguing about whether such laws are discriminatory? Or would making sense automatically make it a non viable political solution?

jf1acai wrote: IF the "problem" with requiring photo ID in order to vote is due to variable requirements for obtaining photo ID, then why don't we concentrate on setting standards for what are/are not acceptable requirements, so that states which wish to pass laws requiring photo ID can pass/amend laws which meet those standards?

Wouldn't this make a lot more sense than continually arguing about whether such laws are discriminatory? Or would making sense automatically make it a non viable political solution?

A "national" standard? Or do we go state by state? That's part of the current issue. Those states that do have more restrictive voter ID laws in-place now are some of the same states that were under scrutiny for violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. When that went away via a SCOTUS ruling ( www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-co....html?pagewanted=all ), it seemed like the rush was on.

Perhaps you could explain to me, because I really do not understand it, why it would be so difficult to develop a national 'standard' for what should be accepted as requirements for a photo ID? It seems to me whatever 'standard' is accepted should be adequate to prove that the individual is a legal, non felon, citizen of the United States and of adequate age to meet the voting requirements. Do those things really vary among the states, and if so, should they? If in fact they do and should, surely something can be accepted as minimum requirements for an acceptable photo ID, and additional requirements for voting could be added by individual states?

jf1acai wrote: Perhaps you could explain to me, because I really do not understand it, why it would be so difficult to develop a national 'standard' for what should be accepted as requirements for a photo ID?

It shouldn't be that difficult. However, for many out there, I believe two words will come to mind immediately with all the attendant hoopla - "National Registry".

jf1acai wrote: It seems to me whatever 'standard' is accepted should be adequate to prove that the individual is a legal, non felon, citizen of the United States and of adequate age to meet the voting requirements.

It should. I agree. Again, the issue won't be whether it would be adequate or not. Rather, I believe the issue will boil down to whether or not this would constitute one of those over-reaches of the Federal government. In other words, is this something enumerated in the Constitution? Or should it be something reserved to the individual states to decide? Because there is disagreement, as we speak, on whether voter disenfranchisement and voter fraud are even issues or not, I believe a "national" ID card initiative would be met with even more opposition.

jf1acai wrote: Do those things really vary among the states, and if so, should they?

That was pretty much the question SCOTUS tried to address when they ruled on the Voting Rights Act of 1965. With their ruling, they basically said that states no longer needed to be monitored and that voting discrimination arguably no longer existed ( www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-co...?pagewanted=all&_r=0 ). My understanding is that, yes, variances do exist state to state. As to whether they should or not, that's the million dollar question. I personally do not view differences from state to state as something good, necessarily. I base that opinion on the demographics of each state.

jf1acai wrote: If in fact they do and should, surely something can be accepted as minimum requirements for an acceptable photo ID, and additional requirements for voting could be added by individual states?

Here again, the issue of a "national registry" comes into play. Add to that the possibility of the Federal over-reach position, and even the possibility of it being a "states rights" issue, and the answer becomes pretty muddled with potential pitfalls.

ZHawke wrote:

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.

ZHawke wrote:

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.

Yes Z, I wouid agree that a universal ID (like a state id or drivers license) is ample to get health insuirance. If you want a special ACA ID, that's fine too but it would be no more onerous a task to get than a state ID. But I guarantee this still would not satisfy the lefties who think it's best to be able to vote without having to prove who you are.

And do you really not think it's common sense to require an ID in order to get ACA coverage? As for my being able to "grasp" a problem we disagree on, isn't that one of those condescending words you like to chastise PS for? It doesn't bother me a bit, but you may want to think about what you are preaching.

Rick wrote: Yes Z, I wouid agree that a universal ID (like a state id or drivers license) is ample to get health insuirance. If you want a special ACA ID, that's fine too but it would be no more onerous a task to get than a state ID. But I guarantee this still would not satisfy the lefties who think it's best to be able to vote without having to prove who you are.

And do you really not think it's common sense to require an ID in order to get ACA coverage? As for my being able to "grasp" a problem we disagree on, isn't that one of those condescending words you like to chastise PS for? It doesn't bother me a bit, but you may want to think about what you are preaching.

Maybe I should have used the word "understand" instead of "grasp":

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.

My response was with regard to the tone expressed in the above post. Regardless, my response was, in fact, inappropriate. My apologies.

A "universal" ID should, in fact, be adequate to obtain health insurance. I propose it should also be adequate for a voting ID. In some states, such as Texas, it is not adequate. There are certain "conditions" placed on a certified voting ID. That, in a nutshell, is my issue with voting IDs - not that one should or should not be required. There are stories I've seen of the elderly who've voted their entire lives up until this mid-term election. The same goes for students who have valid drivers licenses, but not the requisite ID of current residence at the University/college they attend. Turned away.

A requisite, universal ID should be all it takes. That's what jf1acai and I were discussing previously. That some states put such onerous conditions on voting that are arguably aimed at specific groups to make it harder for them, specifically, to vote is what I'm trying to get across here.

Voters everywhere are required to register in order to vote. I have no problem with a picture ID being issued at that specific time for those currently having no other form of photo ID. That being said, what kind of certifiable ID should be required in order to get a photo ID in order to vote? Some states, again, Texas as a prime example, that place what I consider to be an inordinate onus on certain groups in this regard.

My understanding is that Texas accepts handgun permits as a certified voting ID but does not accept student photo IDs for voting purposes. To me, that just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.