toldailytopic: Do you favor voter ID laws? Why or why not?

[genuineoriginal]

Three renters and a landowner vote on how much taxes the landowner should pay . . .

That's foul, rotten, arrogant, presumptuous, despicable, and pigheaded. You should be ashamed, you strutting clueless little peacock.:loser:

The proletariat renters start shouting about how the foul, rotten, arrogant, presumptuous, despicable, pigheaded, and bourgeoisie landowner is opressing them by owning land, so they vote that the landowner should pay 100% of his land in taxes.

The vote passes by 3:1 against the strutting clueless little peacock of a landowner.


Isn't Utopia wonderful?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Texas just had such a law rejected by the courts; it was just a little too targeted against minorities.

Or at least a judge became sold on the idea that it was targeted against minorities.

He might have considered the fact that the republican party is still under court supervision as a result of past voting fraud.

I remain skeptical.

Sometimes, even if you want to go straight, your history follows you. So if the police find you prying at a window, they just naturally assume you're back to burglary.

It's so unfair.

 

[OMEGA]

DELMAR said,
I believe that the "stimulus package" slowed what should have been a relatively quick recovery and I believe that Obama wants to do more of the same. I wish that Obama had only jacked the debt up by an additional 4 trillion, by the way!
=============================================

To me , Obama is like President Carter, a Peace Loving Good Hearted Guy.

To me , His Opponent is a Ruthless Businessman who buys companies and Turns them Around.

What does the USA Really Need at this time to Turn it around ??????:think:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Delmar]

What does the USA Really Need at this time to Turn it around ??????:think:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To know that taxes are not going to continue to rise, for one.

 

[fool]

Three renters and a landowner vote on how much taxes the landowner should pay . . .



The proletariat renters start shouting about how the foul, rotten, arrogant, presumptuous, despicable, pigheaded, and bourgeoisie landowner is opressing them by owning land, so they vote that the landowner should pay 100% of his land in taxes.

The vote passes by 3:1 against the strutting clueless little peacock of a landowner.


Isn't Utopia wonderful?

I see what you're saying.
People on welfare will vote for more welfare.
People who pay taxes will vote for less taxes.
Let's play with this idea, we have a "flat vote" (one man one vote) how about a flat tax?

Or

How bout the more tax you pay the more your vote counts?

 

[genuineoriginal]

I see what you're saying.
People on welfare will vote for more welfare.
People who pay taxes will vote for less taxes.
Let's play with this idea, we have a "flat vote" (one man one vote) how about a flat tax?

Or

How bout the more tax you pay the more your vote counts?

I have seen talk about both of those methods. They are usually shot down by the majority.

My thought on how to make it fair for all is to combine the legislative theories of the British Parliment with the American Congress.
Split the House of Representatives into two houses, one to represent the land owning citizens, one to represent the non-land owning citizens, and split the voters so they can only vote for their own representatives.
Remove Senators from general elections so they can go back to representing the State interests, as intended.
Remove the President from general elections and require the States to appoint a real electoral college to elect a President.

 

[sky.]

What happens when "disenfranchised" are the ones who actually vote legally?

 

[Alate_One]

I'm for reducing voter fraud, not using the law to commit it. So we need to make the process fair for those who aren't in a position to pay for it. In my community we know one another. I'd bet a number of poor and elderly blacks couldn't produce either birth certificate nor have ever possessed driver's licenses. Is the point of the law to deny them the vote when we can attest to their identity? If the law allows for that it is an instrument of tyranny and not fairness and protection.

The problem with all of these laws is none of them address absentee voter fraud. The type of fraud that's actually occurred to a large enough extent to change a few elections.

If any of this had anything to do with voter fraud, it would be going after absentee voters. But none of these laws do.

 

[Vaquero45]

That's foul, rotten, arrogant, presumptuous, despicable, and pigheaded. You should be ashamed, you strutting clueless little peacock.:loser:

Am I the only one who reads granite's listed out derisions in "Jesse Jackson" voice?

It would be way better tho' if the adjectives started with the same letter....

That's foul, fickle, facinorious, feeble, fraudulent, and factious........

Yes Im bored and yes I cheated to find those f-words

 

[fool]

I have seen talk about both of those methods. They are usually shot down by the majority.

My thought on how to make it fair for all is to combine the legislative theories of the British Parliment with the American Congress.
Split the House of Representatives into two houses, one to represent the land owning citizens, one to represent the non-land owning citizens, and split the voters so they can only vote for their own representatives.
Remove Senators from general elections so they can go back to representing the State interests, as intended.
Remove the President from general elections and require the States to appoint a real electoral college to elect a President.

Can you break that down a little more?
For one I don't get the thing about land ownership, a renter can wind up participating in the tax base more than an owner, and in a renting situation the property taxes are passed on to the renter anyway.
Also, what about mortgages? I'm an owner but really only maybe 30%, the bank owns the rest so should the bank be able to vote the other 70% of the base my land represents?
I pay the taxes but if I default then the bank will have to pay the taxes until they liquidate so it seems the bank's shareholders have an interest in what millages I'm voting for cause it could fall back on them.
And with the burst of the housing bubble there are myriad banks paying property taxes in every community, shouldn't the banks shareholders be voting the tax base that those properties represent?
In whatever porportion they are responsible?

 

[The Barbarian]

You can read the unanimous opinion of the three-judge-court of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at this link. Speaking very roughly, back in 1982 the Republican National Committee settled a case (through a court-enforced consent decree) brought by the Democratic National Committee claiming that Republican “ballot security” programs meant to combat supposed voter fraud constituted intimidation of minority voters in violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. Among other things, the consent decree requires the RNC to get permission from the court before implementing certain poll watching activities.

This decree has been in place for a long time, and recently the RNC argued that the consent decree should be modified or dissolved. The district court agreed to put an 8 year time limit on the rest of the decree (subject to the DNC arguing for additional extensions after 2017), but otherwise kept the key provisions in place. In today’s decision, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit unanimously affirmed the District Court’s decision not to weaken or dissolve the decree. The only point upon which the appellate court seemed to disagree with the district court was over whether it was appropriate to dissolve this in 8 years–the appellate court suggested that it might be improper to do so, because the mere passage of time is not enough to prove the decree should be dissolved.
http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/...ent-decree-for-voter-suppression-efforts.html

 

[fool]

The problem with all of these laws is none of them address absentee voter fraud. The type of fraud that's actually occurred to a large enough extent to change a few elections.

If any of this had anything to do with voter fraud, it would be going after absentee voters. But none of these laws do.

I haven't been to the polls since I voted for Ross Perot. (yes I was drunk).
Since then I've been a absentee voter.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Can you break that down a little more?
For one I don't get the thing about land ownership, a renter can wind up participating in the tax base more than an owner, and in a renting situation the property taxes are passed on to the renter anyway.

Land ownership has a degree of permanence that is lacking in rental agreements. In most places, a 30 year long rental agreement is unheard of, but a 30 year long mortgage agreement is commonplace. Land is often passed down from generation to generation, making for a stable segment of the community. Land owners are also more likely to care about property rights (both real property and chattel property).

Also, what about mortgages? I'm an owner but really only maybe 30%, the bank owns the rest so should the bank be able to vote the other 70% of the base my land represents?
I pay the taxes but if I default then the bank will have to pay the taxes until they liquidate so it seems the bank's shareholders have an interest in what millages I'm voting for cause it could fall back on them.
And with the burst of the housing bubble there are myriad banks paying property taxes in every community, shouldn't the banks shareholders be voting the tax base that those properties represent?
In whatever porportion they are responsible?

Banks are not able to represent the interests of the people in a community. Leave voting to the actual people.

 

[fool]

Am I the only one who reads granite's listed out derisions in "Jesse Jackson" voice?

It would be way better tho' if the adjectives started with the same letter....

That's foul, fickle, facinorious, feeble, fraudulent, and factious........

Yes Im bored and yes I cheated to find those f-words

He's a poet, and wasn't aware of it.

 

[Nick M]

The problem with all of these laws is none of them address absentee voter fraud.

Is that what it is called in Illinois (vote early vote often) for their democrats? Or when the dead in Wisconsin vote for democrats. Seems like it would be the latter.

 

[Eeset]

I agree with Nick M.

 

[Town Heretic]

Is that what it is called in Illinois (vote early vote often) for their democrats? Or when the dead in Wisconsin vote for democrats. Seems like it would be the latter.

First the Republicans complain when Democrats show a want of faith and now, when they clearly exercise a belief in the hereafter you jump all over them again. What's wrong with you people?

 

[Alate_One]

Is that what it is called in Illinois (vote early vote often) for their democrats? Or when the dead in Wisconsin vote for democrats. Seems like it would be the latter.

You do realize how difficult it is to pull off in person voter fraud? ID or no. You'd have to organize a large group of people, know all the names of said dead people, and then keep the names and precincts straight, drive around to all the locations, show up and vote.

The number of votes you need to change an election are much larger than grabbing out a handful of dead people and voting in their place. It's a waste of time if you want to change the outcome of an election. That's why there's so few documented instances of in-person voter fraud.

However, Absentee ballot fraud is common in some areas

Absentee ballot fraud is far and away more common than in-person fraud

But Republicans don't want to deal with absentee ballots? Why? Because they know changing the rules to require voter ID right before the election and not providing easy and free IDs to all will disenfranchise many people. And those people mostly vote Democrat. It's about as transparent as you can get.

 

[exminister]

After watching this, an ID is not enough.

Obama Supporters

I wonder if they would even know where to go to vote.

 

[exminister]

Can somebody explain this to me? I have been voting for decades in Virginia. I cannot think of one instance where they didn't ask me for some form of ID, which I always gave my drivers license. And then they looked me up in a list and put a check by my name.

Are there some states where I can just walk up and say I am Joe Smo and they will take my word for it and not look up my name in a list?