Texas Republican Party Seeks Ban on Critical Thinking

GasBandit · Jul 12, 2012

Necronic said:
I don't disagree that the state can abridge your right to vote. And really the argument of whether or not it is a fundamental right to be able to vote is a bit beside the point, because there is one place where it is explicity stated that it can't be abridged. In a poll tax. If the voter ID system costs money to vote ,it's a poll tax.

And I know you think that the 10-20$ that a voter ID is insignificant. But that's pretty much exactly the cost the old poll taxes were that started these things. Really the argument is "How is this NOT a poll tax?" It's the same amount of money. It disproportionately affects certain groups.

The thing is, based on your repeated statements, I think that you don't really have a problem with a poll tax. Which is a valid opinion.

Except that's it's unconstitutional.

So if we subsidized the $10 to get an ID, you'd have no objection to requiring a photo ID to vote?[DOUBLEPOST=1342109547][/DOUBLEPOST]Even that aside, there's got to be a limit here. The price of gas to go to the polls, the personal cost of having to take time off work to vote, all these things cost money and impact the poor more than the rich, but you have to do them to vote. Must a naked man be allowed to vote, because clothes cost money, so requiring him to buy clothes is a poll tax?

Necronic · Jul 12, 2012

In response to your first quesion, if it's subsidized and free of charge/financial obstruction, Im totally cool with it.

Wrg to the second part, I agree. The constitution only specifically states that you can't have a poll tax though, a fee for votif. Your examples are a bit hyperbolic, but it may be an issue. Right now though you're creating a slippery slope. Let's deal with this issue and if someone says that it's unconstitutional for him to have to wear pants then we'll deal with that as well. The similarities between this poll taxes and voter IDs seem far more significant than those between voter IDs and violating public indecency laws.

...but you know, maybe they could solve that by just having "loaner pants/shirt". For when a naked guy shows up, like in a shamcy restaurant.

Covar · Jul 12, 2012

Now I'm really tempted now to show up half-naked this November.

PatrThom · Jul 12, 2012

Yep. I made sure to characterize my statements as opinion, not fact.

Because the fact is that there is a system, and there are people who game that system. The people who made it, the people who use it, and the people who continue to hold up the system's "strengths" all game it because they believe that this system gives them some sort of advantage, and so they all have no incentive to change it. It's like one big, political man-in-the-middle attack on the democratic process and I roll my eyes that it was ever allowed to make it into reality. I agree that it makes the election process easier, but its black-or-white, us-or-them, all-or-nothing auto-quantization of the popular vote always makes me feel like the democratic process got replaced by electoral vote slot machines. Each candidate pulls the lever in each State until one of them wins that State's jackpot, and then that's the end of it.

--Patrick

Necronic · Jul 12, 2012

And don't get me wrong. It IS kind of stupid to be worried about 20$ when you are required to take the day off and drive there, the price of the former is generally insignifant to the latter. But...It's what the constitution says. I think it's dumb. I think it's poorly thought out with many unintended consequences. But it is what it is.

Covar · Jul 12, 2012

PatrThom said:
Yep. I made sure to characterize my statements as opinion, not fact.

Because the fact is that there is a system, and there are people who game that system. The people who made it, the people who use it, and the people who continue to hold up the system's "strengths" all game it because they believe that this system gives them some sort of advantage, and so they all have no incentive to change it. It's like one big, political man-in-the-middle attack on the democratic process and I roll my eyes that it was ever allowed to make it into reality. I agree that it makes the election process easier, but its black-or-white, us-or-them, all-or-nothing auto-quantization of the popular vote always makes me feel like the democratic process got replaced by electoral vote slot machines. Each candidate pulls the lever in each State until one of them wins that State's jackpot, and then that's the end of it.

--Patrick

If I could make one tweak to the current system it would be to get rid of the all or nothing electoral votes. The states should award an electoral vote to the candidate that wins the corresponding district, with the remaining 2 going to the winner of the state.

GasBandit · Jul 12, 2012

Covar said:
If I could make one tweak to the current system it would be to get rid of the all or nothing electoral votes. The states should award an electoral vote to the candidate that wins the corresponding district, with the remaining 2 going to the winner of the state.

Some states do proportionally allocate electors. It ensures no national candidate gives a crap about focusing on their state. Unfortunately, that's the way it is.

sixpackshaker · Jul 12, 2012

Why not bring back literacy tests. Where they had to read a sentence aloud before the could vote. The sentence for blacks was normally...

"If you vote today, you are going to die nigger."

Now just update it for Hispanics and the conservatives will be back in business.

wow, auto-edit is stupid.

Covar · Jul 12, 2012

GasBandit said:
Some states do proportionally allocate electors. It ensures no national candidate gives a crap about focusing on their state. Unfortunately, that's the way it is.

You're telling me that it would result in less campaigning in my State? :sohappy:

GasBandit · Jul 12, 2012

Covar said:
You're telling me that it would result in less campaigning in my State?

More like it would result in your state carrying less influence in all politics national. You'll still get national advertising, just no personal appearances and no consideration once the election is over.

Covar · Jul 12, 2012

GasBandit said:
More like it would result in your state carrying less influence in all politics national. You'll still get national advertising, just no personal appearances and no consideration once the election is over.

I'm in North Carolina, we're too schizophrenic to receive consideration after elections anyway. But yea, this would be a system that is ideally implemented across all 50 states (ha!).

GasBandit · Jul 13, 2012

So the USDOJ completely botched it's court case against the Texas Voter ID law. Might want to dig a little deeper than wikipedia next time, guys.

Necronic · Jul 13, 2012

Was looking around trying to find a better source than that one since it's got some pretty serious statements in it and it's a pretty unknown source to me for it not to have references, and couldn't find one (probably will be able to in a couple of hours, news is pretty recent), but I ran across this article which is fascinating. Basically it is stating that the VoterID issue itself isn't that serious (for either side). The important issue at stake here is that if this ends up going to the SCOTUS the court is very likely going to strike down the VRA (the law that gives the DOJ the right to look at this issue), which will not only give Texas the VoterID ability, but will also roll back close to 60 years of voting rights issues that have been dealt with under "Section 5" (the same way that the VoterID issue is being managed).

Not sure how I feel about this. It's quite strange to be honest.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/16885...-its-decades-long-fight-against-voting-rights

(I know, this is a pretty leftist newspaper but it's an interesting read. Doesn't really talk abut the chances for the DOJ to win, which probably implies that the DOJ is getting hammered as described in your link.)

jwhouk · Jul 13, 2012

Necronic said:
In response to your first quesion, if it's subsidized and free of charge/financial obstruction, Im totally cool with it.

Wrg to the second part, I agree. The constitution only specifically states that you can't have a poll tax though, a fee for votif. Your examples are a bit hyperbolic, but it may be an issue. Right now though you're creating a slippery slope. Let's deal with this issue and if someone says that it's unconstitutional for him to have to wear pants then we'll deal with that as well. The similarities between this poll taxes and voter IDs seem far more significant than those between voter IDs and violating public indecency laws.

...but you know, maybe they could solve that by just having "loaner pants/shirt". For when a naked guy shows up, like in a shamcy restaurant.

The problem is, places like Ohio and the People's Republic of Scott Walkerstan (fka "Wisconsin") allow people to apply for free voting ID's... but put it in small print at DMV's and instruct the DMV clerks to charge people for the ID's unless they specifically state they want the free ID's. That is an attempt at abridging a person's right to vote based on making them feel like they HAVE to pay a "tax" to get a voter ID.

And then there's the little old ladies living on rural farms who have never had ID's because they've never had to do so - and they've been on the voter rolls for DECADES - and they can't vote because they can't get a voter ID because they don't have any other form of identification (like a birth certificate).

Necronic · Jul 16, 2012

Or people who have outstanding traffic tickets that are afraid that getting the voter ID will get them arrested. I have problems with both of those. Voter IDs HAVE to be 100% hassle free to get. Which isn't hard. This is the part of the argument I don't get. The fact that there seems to be resistance against "hassle free" measures makes me think that the people in charge kind of DO want disenfranchisement.

GasBandit · Jul 16, 2012

Necronic said:
Or people who have outstanding traffic tickets that are afraid that getting the voter ID will get them arrested. I have problems with both of those. Voter IDs HAVE to be 100% hassle free to get. Which isn't hard. This is the part of the argument I don't get. The fact that there seems to be resistance against "hassle free" measures makes me think that the people in charge kind of DO want disenfranchisement.

Well, let's do the bubble rule, and follow Obama's lead with health care reform. Require ID to vote. Make it illegal not to vote. Problem solved?

Also, if you're a-skeered of getting arrested over your parking tickets... take care of your damn parking tickets.

Covar · Jul 16, 2012

I can't help but think that if you have enough unpaid parking tickets to get yourself arrested it's your own damn fault, and a government ID to vote has no impact on that fact.

PatrThom · Jul 16, 2012

If you have THAT many unpaid parking tickets, there's always the absentee ballot...

--Patrick

Necronic · Jul 16, 2012

I dunno why everyone went straight to parking tickets. It's easy to have a single speeding ticket.

Covar · Jul 16, 2012

It changes nothing. Either way it's a ridiculous argument.

Necronic · Jul 16, 2012

Not really. If a state does not specifically state that a misdemeanor traffic violation precludes your right to vote then it shouldn't be doing that. Honestly, why in the world should a misdemeanor traffic violation keep you from voting? If I could be a police officer with it, I should be able to vote with it.

Covar · Jul 16, 2012

If there's a warrant out for your arrest, I highly doubt you'd be able to become a police officer. That's the extent of your argument.

Because if you're afraid of getting arrested for parking or speeding tickets one of 2 things is going on.

You're a dumbass who thinks you're going to get arrested because you have a few parking tickets you haven't paid.
You have a warrant out for your arrest in which case you have much bigger issues on your hands than voting.

Necronic · Jul 16, 2012

Outstanding ticket does not mean warrant. Different things (and yes, a police officer can have an outstanding ticket, it does look bad if it's found though.) But it doesn't matter. The extent of my argument is that it makes ZERO sense for the two (outstanding ticket and voting) to be related. You know what makes more sense?

By that logic anyone who is delinquent on their taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote. It's far more serious of an offense.

Ravenpoe · Jul 16, 2012

I don't understand.... I've voted with outstanding speeding tickets.

Is it that you can't get a driving license with an outstanding speeding ticket? Wouldn't driving without a license be the more serious offense?

GasBandit · Jul 16, 2012

Necronic said:
By that logic anyone who is delinquent on their taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote. It's far more serious of an offense.

... I could get behind that, I suppose, if there wasn't such a problem with the IRS being an agency of retribution.

Norris · Jul 16, 2012

Ravenpoe said:
I don't understand.... I've voted with outstanding speeding tickets.

Is it that you can't get a driving license with an outstanding speeding ticket? Wouldn't driving without a license be the more serious offense?

The fear is that signing up for free voter IDs will be used as a "hunt you down" list for outstanding offenses.

Necronic · Jul 16, 2012

Right. And this is already done for getting a drivers license.

The reason it bothers me is that it is

1) Competely arbitrary: It is not intentional, it is simply an unintended consequence of managing it through the DMV. If it was intentional, it might not bother me except for

2) It's randomly punitive for almost no reason. The fact is that as it stands pretty much everyone does something that can get them a ticket on any given day. Almost all of us speed (there is no '10 mile over' law), and there are a million other little things like that. Just because the police happen to ticket someone who is unable to afford the repayment of the ticket should not put them in the same category as a felon when the only difference between them and everyone else is that they were unlucky enough to get caught and unlucky enoug to not be able to pay it off. I'm not saying that they shouldn't pay their ticket, they absolutely should. But it should not be tied to their right to vote. There is ZERO reason to tie these things together whatsoever.

Ravenpoe · Jul 16, 2012

Ok, so... if you have outstanding traffic tickets, and you don't have a drivers license (in which case, that would explain at least some of the traffic tickets) it's not that you -can't- get a government ID, it's that by doing so, you're giving them your information where they can find you to enforce the tickets you have.

That doesn't seem so bad to me. They're not stopping you from voting, but if you want to be a part of the governmental process, then you need to be willing to be a part of the system.

Necronic · Jul 16, 2012

As far as I can tell they WONT give you an ID, and in some cases they may arrest you on the spot.

But even if that's not the case, I still have a problem with the other part. It seems arbitrary and bound to affect certain groups far more than others. And don't say "criminals". It will affect lazy people. And lazy people deserve to vote too darnit.