Voter Identification

Doesn't matter who ya vote for. There are nothing but career politicians out there. Your vote doesn't count.

You just end up idiots, anyway.

They can't figure out why the states are broke? A fifth grader would tell you sending 1. something billion a week to Pakistan for how many years now allowed us to train them to kill us.

Who wouldn't hide Bin Laden while you pretend to be the friend, receiving all that money every week from the USA? How stupid are they?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

To the best of my recollection, for at least the past 20+ years, I have not been in possession of a voter registration card, nor have I been asked for one at the polls. I can't even remember when or even if I ever had one or was ever asked to present it. I have always been asked for a driver's license (which, by the way, I presented without whining).

The fact that you have misplaced your voter registration card is irrelevant, as is the fact that you haven't been asked for it. Here you are, demanding that other voters produce a photo ID, yet you can't even produce a card that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you're registered to vote?

"Oh, the Hypocrisy!"

"Oh, the Bullshit!"
Once again, I am not demanding anything of anyone that I am not demanding of myself.
If I was told that I couldn't vote without a voter registration card, I would begin the process of getting one before you could blink, but that has not been the case.

Apparently you don't remember, but when you registered to vote, you were specifically told that you would need that card to vote, Jack. Before Photo ID was required in your state, you were actually supposed to be showing your voter registration card. The only reason that you were allowed to vote is because the people at the polls were kind enough to let you vote with an alternative means of "proving" your eligibility. Of course, that "drivers license" that you used didn't always have a photo on it, did it?

The fact of the matter is that if a voter can show his or her voter registration card, there should be no need for any "photo" requirement A card is already provided, free of charge, to everyone who registers to vote. It doesn't get any more "proper and verifiable" than the voter registration card.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Of course, that "drivers license" that you used didn't always have a photo on it, did it?

We haven't always had 'horseless carriages', either, but since technology has advanced, don't you think it's wise to utilize the advances?

Sure, but the point is that the voter registration card is all that is really necessary to ensure "proper and verifiable" voting.

I don't have mine either, just like I don't keep grocery store frequent user cards, CPR cards, anything that doesn't have my picture on it. OK, I do keep the Red Cross donor card, because I get points at work for giving.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

There would be a lot more locations with the Feds handling it,like Post offices for example.

[bHow exactly will the poor black people get to the Post Office since ...[/b

Post offices are located within a fairly close proximity to where residents live. Much,much,closer than DMV facilities or county clerks. That by itself lowers the barrier.

Quote :

[bAnd how will the poor black people pay for those IDs?
Or are you suggesting that I should pay for them?
[/b

I think they should be given out for free,based on need.

Do you ever plan on addressing this?:

Quote :

Now explain to us why you think Jim Edgar R-Illinois fought so hard to prevent people from registering to vote at the same time they were applying for license or renewal of one?

[quote="happy jack"]

Artie60438 wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Do you ever plan on addressing this?:

No, I have no intention of addressing that, and I have no idea as to why you feel that I have some obligation to address whatever the hell your particular pet peeve involves. I never brought it up, I never commented on it, and I have absolutely no clue what you are ranting about.

Let me refresh your memory. Earlier in the thread,Scorpion replied to you:

Quote :

I know exactly what the rationale is behind these proposed election law changes, and so do you. (If you don't, then you're a frickin' idiot, and you have my pity.) It's certainly not any of the bogus rationales that you've been trumpeting.

You then countered with:

Quote :

Do you have any non-anecdotal evidence at all that supports this contention?

I later posted:

Quote :

Republicans have a long history of trying to make it as difficult as possible for everyone to vote. Here's an article going back to 1993 where IL Gov Jim Edgar-R fought tooth and nail to stop people from being able to register at the Drivers License facilities of all places.
Illinois Drops Motor Voter Appeal Edgar Wants To See Results Of Other States' Challenges

So I'll ask you once again....What do you think the rationale was behind Edgar's fight to ignore a Federal Law that was designed to make registering to vote easier by allowing registration at Illinois Driver License facilities at the same time people were receiving their licenses?

[quote="Artie60438"]

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

No, I have no intention of addressing that, and I have no idea as to why you feel that I have some obligation to address whatever the hell your particular pet peeve involves. I never brought it up, I never commented on it, and I have absolutely no clue what you are ranting about.

Let me refresh your memory. Earlier in the thread,Scorpion replied to you:

Quote :

I know exactly what the rationale is behind these proposed election law changes, and so do you. (If you don't, then you're a frickin' idiot, and you have my pity.) It's certainly not any of the bogus rationales that you've been trumpeting.

You then countered with:

Quote :

Do you have any non-anecdotal evidence at all that supports this contention?

I later posted:

Quote :

Republicans have a long history of trying to make it as difficult as possible for everyone to vote. Here's an article going back to 1993 where IL Gov Jim Edgar-R fought tooth and nail to stop people from being able to register at the Drivers License facilities of all places.
Illinois Drops Motor Voter Appeal Edgar Wants To See Results Of Other States' Challenges[/b]

So I'll ask you once again....What do you think the rationale was behind Edgar's fight to ignore a Federal Law that was designed to make registering to vote easier by allowing registration at Illinois Driver License facilities at the same time people were receiving their licenses?

I don't know - I've never spoken to Jim Edgar in my life.
Have you?

[quote="happy jack"]

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Let me refresh your memory. Earlier in the thread,Scorpion replied to you:
You then countered with:
I later posted:

So I'll ask you once again....What do you think the rationale was behind Edgar's fight to ignore a Federal Law that was designed to make registering to vote easier by allowing registration at Illinois Driver License facilities at the same time people were receiving their licenses?

I don't know - I've never spoken to Jim Edgar in my life.
Have you?

On second thought, this may have had a wee bit to do with his reluctance - you know, a governor actually placing the best interests of his state first and foremost.

State officials estimate that Illinoisans will be able to register at about 2,000 state, municipal and township social-service offices. This will require training for more than 3,000 government workers. In all, complying with the new law will cost state and county election officials about $8 million, state officials said.

With the exponential increase in the use of e-mail and electronic bill-paying, satellite branches are on the verge of extinction. How long do you seriously believe that there will be a post office

Artie60438 wrote:

located within a fairly close proximity to where those residents who don't even own a car and probably doesn't have easy access to public transportation

available to serve the needs of

Artie60438 wrote:

the huge majority of the demographic you're targeting doesn't even own a car and probably doesn't have easy access to public transportation

?
Then what?

[quote="happy jack"]

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

I don't know - I've never spoken to Jim Edgar in my life.
Have you?

[bOn second thought, this may have had a wee bit to do with his reluctance - you know, a governor actually placing the best interests of his state first and foremost.[/b]

State officials estimate that Illinoisans will be able to register at about 2,000 state, municipal and township social-service offices. This will require training for more than 3,000 government workers. In all, complying with the new law will cost state and county election officials about $8 million, state officials said.

Yeah,well you conveniently left this out

Quote :

But without a change in state law, which Republicans refused to make this spring, Illinois will have to create a dual system of voter registration.

and you also left this out:

Quote :

Orr said Edgar "has spent more money on legal fees" challenging the new law than the state will spend to put moter voter in place.

An Edgar aide said the cost of fighting motor voter "may approach six figures, but it will cost nowhere near what the law will (cost) to implement."

I'm sure that was just an oversight,right?
Edgars fight surely upped the cost of implementing it.

The vote Vote on the Motor Voter was 62-36 with 2 abstaining. Guess what party all the "Nay" Senators belonged to? Hint: It wasn't the Dems.

[quote="happy jack"]

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

There would be a lot more locations with the Feds handling it,like Post offices for example.

[bHow exactly will the poor black people get to the Post Office since ...[/b

Did you forget that I already answered that?

Quote :

Post offices are located within a fairly close proximity to where residents live. Much,much,closer than DMV facilities or county clerks. That by itself lowers the barrier.

It also makes it much less difficult to visit them.

Quote :

And how will the poor black people pay for those IDs?
Or are you suggesting that I should pay for them?
Incidentally, do you have any intention of addressing this?
How, precisely, will those "free" IDs be paid for?

Wow....Why so grumpy?
You mean you didn't even know that you already pay for them? If you can't afford to pay for a state ID card, you may be issued one for free if the proper documentation is presented. I would think this would be the case in most other states.

happy jack wrote:

Once again, I am not demanding anything of anyone that I am not demanding of myself.

Convenient that your demands prevent those don't need a photo ID and were responsible enough not to lose their voter registration cards from voting.

Yeah... This all about living up to your standards and not about voter suppression at all.

happy jack wrote:

Nothing is free, Einstein. If they are being given out for “free” by the government, I am paying for them.

That whole poll tax thing says we're gonna have to.

happy jack wrote:

So why is everyone so upset about this proposal?

Because it's completely unnecessary.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

and you also left this out:

Quote :

Orr said Edgar "has spent more money on legal fees" challenging the new law than the state will spend to put moter voter in place.

An Edgar aide said the cost of fighting motor voter "may approach six figures, but it will cost nowhere near what the law will (cost) to implement."

There seems to be some dispute here. Orr accuses Edgar of spending more than $8 million to fight the law. Since you are the one posting that assertion, can you provide some verification of that claim?

Actually,you were the one who first introduced the cost of implementation argument:

Quote :

On second thought, this may have had a wee bit to do with his reluctance - you know, a governor actually placing the best interests of his state first and foremost.

State officials estimate that Illinoisans will be able to register at about 2,000 state, municipal and township social-service offices. This will require training for more than 3,000 government workers. In all, complying with the new law will cost state and county election officials about $8 million, state officials said.

Therefore the burden is on you to provide verification of the 8 million figure.

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Once again, I am not demanding anything of anyone that I am not demanding of myself.

Convenient that your demands prevent those don't need a photo ID and were responsible enough not to lose their voter registration cards from voting.

Yeah... This all about living up to your standards and not about voter suppression at all.

Exactly. That was the whole point of my Voter registration card example. These new laws don't even recognize the Voter registration card as acceptable identification, even though in reality, the voter registration card is the "gold standard" when it comes to determining a voter's eligibility to vote.

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Nothing is free, Einstein. If they are being given out for “free” by the government, I am paying for them.

That whole poll tax thing says we're gonna have to.

Right again. I also pointed this out earlier in the thread. Tax payers are going to be forced to pay millions of dollars to provide Photo IDs to those who are already legally entitled to vote.

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

So why is everyone so upset about this proposal?

Because it's completely unnecessary.

It's the height of hypocrisy to bitch and whine about wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars, yet support this effort to disenfranchise 11% of the eligible voters. The mere cost of such a massive undertaking should be enough to stop these new laws in their tracks. Why in the hell should the rest of us have to pay for Photo IDs for people that are already legally registered to vote?

Of course, it's doubtful that all of the registered voters who currently lack a Photo ID will be able to absorb the other expenses associated with the acquisition of a new, totally unnecessary piece of identification, and that's what the Republicans are counting on. The working poor aren't going to be able to take time off work and lose wages in order to gather documents and essentially go through the whole process of securing a photo ID exclusively for voting purposes.

Any way you look at it, this legislation is designed to suppress voter turn out. A lower voter turn out is almost always good news for the Republicans. This is just a blatant, partisan attempt to disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters in 2012.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Of course, it's doubtful that all of the registered voters who currently lack a Photo ID will be able to absorb the other expenses associated with the acquisition of a new, totally unnecessary piece of identification, and that's what the Republicans are counting on. The working poor aren't going to be able to take time off work and lose wages in order to gather documents and essentially go through the whole process of securing a photo ID exclusively for voting purposes.

Any way you look at it, this legislation is designed to suppress voter turn out. A lower voter turn out is almost always good news for the Republicans. This is just a blatant, partisan attempt to disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters in 2012.

Are these millions of people poor and disenfranchised because they have, for a couple of generations, depended upon the Great Society, promised but undelivered by the Democrats?

Are they poor because they are Democrats, or are they Democrats because they are poor?

Chicken or the egg?

I really don't see what being poor has to do with the right to vote, Jack. They sure as hell shouldn't be disenfranchised because they are poor or because they are Democrats. Judging from your first question, I'm not really sure that you understand what "disenfranchised" means...

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

I really don't see what being poor has to do with the right to vote, Jack. They sure as hell shouldn't be disenfranchised because they are poor or because they are Democrats. Judging from your first question, I'm not really sure that you understand what "disenfranchised" means...

The word ‘disenfranchised’ should not have been included in that sentence - my mistake.
The remainder stands.

Are these millions of people poor because they have, for a couple of generations, depended upon the Great Society, promised but undelivered by the Democrats?

Are they poor because they are Democrats, or are they Democrats because they are poor?

Chicken or the egg?

Still has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread, Jack. I'm not certain, but it might be an interesting topic to discuss. Perhaps you should start another thread?