[Sayf-Allah]

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...ou-945294.html

Beyond this, there could be a 4 November surprise: the Republicans may try to steal the election. Again. They loudly claim to be concerned about voter fraud, even though a New York University study recently found that it "is more likely an individual will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls". But in the name of this paltry risk, they are effectively stripping millions of people – overwhelmingly black and Democrats – of their vote.

Their first vote-stripping tactic is to require elaborate voter identification that black people disproportionately lack. For example, in Indiana – a crucial swing state – Republicans have passed a law requiring voters to bring an official government document bearing their photograph to the polling station. But a study by the University of Wisconsin found that 53 per cent of black adults didn't have a passport or driving licence, compared to 15 per cent of white people. So they can't vote unless they travel for hours (often without a car) to a sparse government registry and queue for half a day to get the correct documentation. The former political director of the Texas Republican Party, Royal Masset, explains: "Requiring photo IDs could cause enough of a drop-off in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 per cent to the Republican vote." Their second tactic is to strip the electoral rolls of black names. In almost all US states, criminals lose their vote for life. This is shocking in itself – it disenfranchises a quarter of all black men in Kentucky, for one. But many states have a sloppy process where they simply scrub anyone with the same name as a criminal off the list. So if there is a criminal called "Chris Wayne" in a county, every black man called "Chris Wayne" loses their vote. That's a lot of Democrats. In Florida in 2000, black voters made up 13 per cent of the electorate yet they were 26 per cent of the people wrongly disenfranchised.

When a judge ordered the release of the paperwork, he found out why. The team under Florida governor, Jeb Bush, had ordered that black criminal names had to go – but Hispanic names were not to be touched. Black Floridians overwhelmingly vote Democrat, while Hispanics lean towards the Republicans. The Bush team said this was "absolutely unintentional" and "a coincidence".

This time, the Republicans have added another group to strip from the rolls. James Carabelli, a Republican Party chairman in Michigan, says: "We have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren't voting from those addresses." These voters are supposed to register from their new addresses – but many are out of time, or too stressed to do it. So the Republicans have launched a national "voter challenge campaign" against honest people who have lost their homes. They know that 60 per cent of sub-prime mortgages went to black voters, and virtually everyone who lost their home is angry with the Republicans.

Could you please stop exporting your version of democracy to the rest of the world? Thanks

[BRussell]

It's ridiculous. But one of Obama's specialities in law is civil rights and election law. I think they're very focused on it, and there are several organizations set up to counter the Republican campaigns. I guess there isn't much that can be done about the voter ID laws except try to get people to get their IDs.

[olePigeon]

Iraq has a theocracy, does that count?

[torsoboy]

About the foreclosed homes and photo IDs... maybe this is a wake up call that people need to think about the election before it happens.

The part about removing convicts' names is just ridiculous though. I hadn't ever heard that past convicts cannot vote. That's messed up.

One out of every four black men in Kentucky are convicts? Wowzer. I guess I wont be moving there any time soon.

[BRussell]

Harumph. The fiickers did it in my neighborhood just today.

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2...cal/news03.txt

The state Republican Party this week challenged the eligibility of 6,000 registered Montana voters in seven counties historically considered Democratic strongholds.

More than half of the people challenged statewide live, or previously lived, in Missoula County.

Montanans who are registered to vote in Missoula, Butte-Silver Bow, Lewis and Clark, Deerlodge, Glacier or Hill counties and who filled out a change-of-address card with the U.S. Postal Service in the past 18 months will likely have to verify their correct place of residence before the Nov. 4 election.

Ignoring the situation, at the very worst, could disqualify a person's ballot.

[Chuckit]

So basically, they've made a law that mainly affects morons and the Democrats are worried that this will disproportionately hurt them?

That says a lot.

[stupendousman]

Beyond this, there could be a 4 November surprise: the Republicans may try to steal the election. Again.

I stopped reading this thread after those two sentences. It's really clear that any commentary afterwords it pretty much meaningless.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So basically, they've made a law that mainly affects morons and the Democrats are worried that this will disproportionately hurt them?

That says a lot.

Only morons don't have driver's licenses or passports? Only morons have the same name as a criminal?

[vmarks]

This is pretty poor writing. I think I'll respond piece by piece.

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...ou-945294.html

Beyond this, there could be a 4 November surprise: the Republicans may try to steal the election. Again. They loudly claim to be concerned about voter fraud, even though a New York University study recently found that it "is more likely an individual will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls". But in the name of this paltry risk, they are effectively stripping millions of people – overwhelmingly black and Democrats – of their vote.

Their first vote-stripping tactic is to require elaborate voter identification that black people disproportionately lack. For example, in Indiana – a crucial swing state – Republicans have passed a law requiring voters to bring an official government document bearing their photograph to the polling station.

Most states require that a person verify that they're registered to vote. Their name has to be in the voter registration books at the polling place, and the voter has to present ID and sign that they received a ballot. Requiring government photo ID is a requirement for bank accounts, driving, and many other daily transactions. It isn't unreasonable. The only objection I have to it is that voting is meant to be anonymous, and polling places need to have some means of not tying the fact that a person voted to the way they voted. This law doesn't speak to that.

Can we get a bill number for this Indiana law? A general statute number? something to verify it with?

But a study by the University of Wisconsin found that 53 per cent of black adults didn't have a passport or driving licence, compared to 15 per cent of white people.

A study. No citation, no link, no name of the study or way of finding out the methodology used to conduct it?

BTW, there's a third form of government ID, also issued by the Dept. of Motor Vehicles. It's called an ID. Not a driver's license, just an ID.

So they can't vote unless they travel for hours

BS. There are multiple locations within every county.

(often without a car) to a sparse government registry and queue for half a day

Never spent more than an hour even in busy locations with lines out the door. No one likes the DMV, but there's no need to lie about it either.

to get the correct documentation. The former political director of the Texas Republican Party, Royal Masset,

I'm so glad we got a name. Let's remember that in a moment.

explains: "Requiring photo IDs could cause enough of a drop-off in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 per cent to the Republican vote." Their second tactic is to strip the electoral rolls of black names. In almost all US states, criminals lose their vote for life. This is shocking in itself –

Why is this shocking? (A) it's incorrect.
(B) Convicts don't lose the right to vote. People convicted of a Felony lose their right to vote. Misdemeanor? no problem.

it disenfranchises a quarter of all black men in Kentucky, for one.

Want to vote? Don't commit a crime, or don't get convicted of a felony. Pretty simple.

But many states have a sloppy process where they simply scrub anyone with the same name as a criminal off the list. So if there is a criminal called "Chris Wayne" in a county, every black man called "Chris Wayne" loses their vote. That's a lot of Democrats. In Florida in 2000, black voters made up 13 per cent of the electorate yet they were 26 per cent of the people wrongly disenfranchised.

When a judge ordered the release of the paperwork, he found out why.

A Judge? Which Judge? What's his or her name? We had a name a moment ago! Why can't we have one here? Sloppy, journalism you can't believe.

The team under Florida governor, Jeb Bush, had ordered that black criminal names had to go – but Hispanic names were not to be touched. Black Floridians overwhelmingly vote Democrat, while Hispanics lean towards the Republicans. The Bush team said this was "absolutely unintentional" and "a coincidence".

Where's the paperwork? What's the title of it? Where did the Bush team say this quote? What's the source? Sloppy, can't be believed.

This time, the Republicans have added another group to strip from the rolls. James Carabelli, a Republican Party chairman in Michigan, says: "We have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren't voting from those addresses." These voters are supposed to register from their new addresses – but many are out of time, or too stressed to do it. So the Republicans have launched a national "voter challenge campaign" against honest people who have lost their homes.

Actually, it sounds like the folks in Michigan are trying to prevent voter fraud by not allowing votes from addresses they know no one resides at.

They know that 60 per cent of sub-prime mortgages went to black voters,

Fact without citation. No evidence for this.

and virtually everyone who lost their home is angry with the Republicans.

Fact without citation or evidence.

Could you please stop exporting your version of democracy to the rest of the world? Thanks

You might do well to know how Barack Obama gained office in Illinois' State Senate. He did it by invalidating the signatures of voters who petitioned for his opponent to be on the ballot. By invalidating those voters' signatures, he arranged for himself to be the only one on the ballot.

As for the house foreclosures, it came about because legislation written and passed by Democrats forced the banks to write loans to people who weren't qualified. It all started with The Community Reinvestment Act, a federal law originally passed during the Carter administration and then ramped up during the Clinton years, that was originally designed to prevent racist lending practices by banks who wouldn’t loan money to minorities, even if they were qualified. Which was a fine idea. But over time the law was twisted to force banks to make loans to minorities even if they weren’t qualified — which all may sound very peachy keen in Fantasy Utopia Land but which inevitably spells long-term financial suicide for a bank.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...ou-945294.html

Could you please stop exporting your version of democracy to the rest of the world? Thanks

<abe>
We've got the best damn country on the planet with the best damn form of government and the best damn citizens supporting our government. And don't you forget it you muslim-terrorist-wannabe foreign agent.
</abe>



Watching the debate tonight my Mom actually agreed with Sarah Palin when she claimed America was the most exceptional country in the world. That makes it seem like a popularity contest and I told my Mom I categorically deny accepting such an idea (that there can be one single best country) let alone agreeing with the sentiment that if there were one best country that it would be the United States. My Mom got all huffy but then again she acts solely on emotion. So, whichever candidate she identifies with the most on an emotional basis will get her vote. (Her logic for choosing a candidate revolves around an emotional response to the person, things like "I like him. I think he is a nice person. He seems like a decent human being. He looks friendly", etc. Policy stances almost never matter to my Mom when she votes for a candidate. She is definitely one of those people who would have voted for Bush because she thought "he would be the kind of guy you want to have a beer with".)

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Their second tactic is to strip the electoral rolls of black names. In almost all US states, criminals lose their vote for life. This is shocking in itself – it disenfranchises a quarter of all black men in Kentucky, for one.

Only a liberal could read the above and not find the least thing wrong with thier attitude.

First off- WHAT IN THE FRIGGEN HELL IS A 'BLACK' NAME?

Without batting an eyelash, libs equate blacks with criminals and think absolutely nothing of doing so! Simply amazing.

But many states have a sloppy process where they simply scrub anyone with the same name as a criminal off the list. So if there is a criminal called "Chris Wayne" in a county, every black man called "Chris Wayne" loses their vote.

Chris Wayne? Chris Wayne? Are you friggen' kidding me, Chris Wayne?

"So if there's a criminal called Chris Wayne, every black man..." WAIT, WHAT???!!

What the hell is the matter with you liberal idiots even putting those two things together?

When a judge ordered the release of the paperwork, he found out why. The team under Florida governor, Jeb Bush, had ordered that black criminal names had to go.

Names like 'Chris Wayne?'

Let me guess, also black criminal names like Gary Smith. Maybe Ed Anderson. Heck, I bet he even ordered Steve Jones, black criminal name if I ever heard one, had to go.

Liberals are 100% insane.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Harumph. The fiickers did it in my neighborhood just today.

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2...cal/news03.txt

Butte >>> Missoula... 'Crazy Larry' said so

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Only a liberal could read the above and not find the least thing wrong with thier attitude.

Yeah, it was a poorly written article, but that doesn't change the basic facts there dontchaknow (I've decided to write all my posts from now on in Sarah Palin style).

[Sayf-Allah]

OK, a few more things I've heard about your election system. Could you please tell me if this is true?

1. The elections are on a weekday. Meaning you have to get time from work to go vote?
2. Your boss/supervisor decides if you are allowed to get time off work? The time it takes to vote is not paid by your employer but taken as a leave?Basically it's up to your boss if you are allowed to vote and how much it'll cost you?
3. You have to register some time in advance to vote? The places you register at are only open during office hours?
4. You have to have a permanent address to vote?

Then from that article:
1. Criminals are not allowed to vote? Is there a limit on how serious the crime is?
2. Is it true that some counties strike everyone with the same name as a criminal of the list of eligible voters?
3. "black criminal names had to go – but Hispanic names were not to be touched" - anyone know if this is true?


If any of this is true, do you think this (every step that is true) is fair and good for a democracy?

[Horsepoo!!!]

As long as there are people like Chuckit and vmarks around, the US will continue to self-destruct. Good thing too...I'm starting to really hate the US and the morons in that country that think everything is fine with their country and the world.

YES, THIS IS AN INSULT TO YOU VMARKS! YOU MAY BAN ME AGAIN, YOU CAPITALIST SACK OF ****. If you think I give two shits about the mods and this web site...think again! I really don't mind getting banned or perma-banned. I urge you to do it.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

OK, a few more things I've heard about your election system. Could you please tell me if this is true?

1. The elections are on a weekday. Meaning you have to get time from work to go vote?
CORRECT. There have been some national legislative proposals to move election day to a Sunday or to make election day a holiday but they have never made it through the legislative process.
2. Your boss/supervisor decides if you are allowed to get time off work? The time it takes to vote is not paid by your employer but taken as a leave?Basically it's up to your boss if you are allowed to vote and how much it'll cost you?
DEPENDS. Some categories of employment require the employer to give the employee time-off to vote with pay, some require the employer to give the employee time-off without pay, some don't require the employer to give the employee any time-off at all.
3. You have to register some time in advance to vote? The places you register at are only open during office hours?
CORRECT. Although most states have implemented "motor-voter" procedures so that when you go to get a driver's license (or equivalent non-driver's ID card) you can register to vote. I think the big problem here is the need to constantly update the poll records to reflect a current address. If you move often then you have to update your poll records often and the process for updating the poll records is a big pain and not convenient.
4. You have to have a permanent address to vote?
CORRECT.

Then from that article:
1. Criminals are not allowed to vote? Is there a limit on how serious the crime is?
CORRECT. On a federal level it applies just to persons convicted of a felony. On a state level it will vary state by state.
2. Is it true that some counties strike everyone with the same name as a criminal of the list of eligible voters?
NOT LIKELY. The article is poorly written and suggests that a questionable specific local practice to be applicable to the whole state or the whole country.
3. "black criminal names had to go – but Hispanic names were not to be touched" - anyone know if this is true?
DON'T KNOW. Again, the article is poorly written and makes general accusations without doing much in the way of offering means for verification.
(NOTE: In most governments at the local and state level the officials charged with running the election process are partisans (i.e.: they were either elected by running as a specific party candidate or were appointed by a leader with a particular party bias). As such, it is safe to assume that as partisans they want "their side" to do better in elections that the "other side". So, it is not surprising that a Republican election official wants to do things that will help the Republicans and hurt the Democrats. A Democrat election official would try and do just the opposite. I think the real problem here is not the specific actions highlighted in the article but the the fact that citizens seem okay with the idea of having their election officials be partisans for a specific political party.

If any of this is true, do you think this (every step that is true) is fair and good for a democracy?

Not really. But most politicians are more interested in advancing their own causes than in advancing the causes of democracy in general. So, we never get anywhere with proposals to make election day a national holiday or to standardize voter registration procedures or to standardize vote-taking procedures.

I would like to see a few major changes to the voting process in this country. I would like to see all elections (local, state, federal) held on the same day every year and that day being made a national holiday. I would like to see standardization of the voter registration process nationwide and much more transparency in how those records are created, processed, updated, and culled (for dead citizens); If, for no other reason, than to simplify the process of changing one's voter registration when one moves.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Only morons don't have driver's licenses or passports? Only morons have the same name as a criminal?

Honestly, I think you'd have to be a bit silly to have no way of identifying yourself and then go around being surprised when some people don't take you at your word about who you are. If you haven't gotten an ID in the past four years, I have a hard time believing it's that important to you.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

As long as there are people like Chuckit and vmarks around, the US will continue to self-destruct. Good thing too...I'm starting to really hate the US and the morons in that country that think everything is fine with their country and the world.

YES, THIS IS AN INSULT TO YOU VMARKS! YOU MAY BAN ME AGAIN, YOU CAPITALIST SACK OF ****. If you think I give two shits about the mods and this web site...think again! I really don't mind getting banned or perma-banned. I urge you to do it.

Well I for one don't want you banned.

I want you to take a dirtnap.

If you have ANY use to whatever society you are a member of, there is no evidence of that in anything you have ever posted here.

Only a childish moron asks to be banned. If you don't like it here…GO AWAY.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

YES, THIS IS AN INSULT TO YOU VMARKS! YOU MAY BAN ME AGAIN, YOU CAPITALIST SACK OF ****. If you think I give two shits about the mods and this web site...think again! I really don't mind getting banned or perma-banned. I urge you to do it.

Done and done.

[Dakar V]

The guy seems ripe for a dupe account.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

... What the hell is the matter with you liberal idiots even putting those two things together?

...

Liberals are 100% insane.

So you've pointed out that he's racist, but is the principle of the argument wrong? I've noticed that Conservatives like to concentrate on non-sequiturs to avoid addressing an issue when there's something very obviously wrong with it.

Also, I think the reason black people were brought up was because it is more likely to affect their demographic than any other. Blacks comprise over 40% of the prison population, but they make up only 13% of the overall U.S. population. The likelihood that a black person would affected by these laws is much higher than any other ethnicity.

[Chuckit]

I'm not sure how it's germane that it affects black people so much, except in that it makes the Republicans' actions more likely to affect people in the other party vs. their own. It's not a crime to be partisan, and it's not the Republicans' fault that black people disproportionately can't identify themselves. Like I said, if a black person wants to vote, he can easily do so with an ID card just like everybody else.

It seems to me that the correct response from the Democrats would be to get their people IDs so they're on the up-and-up, not to sit and complain about the Republicans' personal failings.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Yeah, it was a poorly written article, but that doesn't change the basic facts there dontchaknow (I've decided to write all my posts from now on in Sarah Palin style).

Vmarks already pointed out that it's just a list of unreferenced (read, ass-pulled) bullchit.

Basic facts?

So if a criminal commits a crime, a black person with that same name can't vote eh?

Really, you buy that?

But all the white people with the same name can vote?

Wait, of course there are no white people with the same name as criminals- only black people commit crimes according to race-baiting liberal twits. Black people with names like Chis Wayne.

By this amazing example of 'logic' if a guy named Li Yang commits a crime, then all the black men named Li Yang can't vote. WOW, what a huge problem!

I'll say it again, liberals are insane.

And don't possess a SHRED of logic.

[Chuckit]

I think the reason they're saying it would prevent black people from voting is because white people hypothetically have IDs to prove who they are and black people hypothetically don't.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

So you've pointed out that he's racist, but is the principle of the argument wrong?

No, of course not.

Chris Wayne and Joe Jones and Billy Jim Bob Smiths are black criminal names, therefore a make-believe "law" barring people having the same name as a criminal from voting only affects black people.

.... and then you people woke up and realized you were played by one of the dumbest articles ever posted around here, clearly written by some dippy lib who truly believes all black people are as bone-stupid as he is.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

.... and then you people woke up and realized you were played by one of the dumbest articles ever posted around here, clearly written by some dippy lib who truly believes all black people are as bone-stupid as he is.

It's the Independent. This is a viewspaper for people who think The Guardian is a tad too right-wing.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think the reason they're saying it would prevent black people from voting is because white people hypothetically have IDs to prove who they are and black people hypothetically don't.

It's liberal race-baiting at it's absolute worst.

But many states have a sloppy process where they simply scrub anyone with the same name as a criminal off the list. So if there is a criminal called "Chris Wayne" in a county, every black man called "Chris Wayne" loses their vote.

This isn't talking about proving you're Chris Wayne, it's trying to float that just being named Chris Wayne (which somehow then jumps to only affecting black men) loses their vote. Utter bullshit. Any such law would affect anyone, of any race.

It's written to try and scare people whom the author believes are as stupid as he is, and who don't require any facts or logic with their fearmongering- which in libby land of course translates to black people.

The article isn't just poorly written, it's inflammatory, race-baiting crap.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Honestly, I think you'd have to be a bit silly to have no way of identifying yourself and then go around being surprised when some people don't take you at your word about who you are. If you haven't gotten an ID in the past four years, I have a hard time believing it's that important to you.

It's not about having "no way of identifying yourself," the laws in question specifically require certain types of IDs, like driver's licenses and passports, that not everyone has or is required to have, despite your personal disdain for them. You might think people who are homeless are pathetic losers too, but I don't see how that fact should deprive them of the most basic right in a democracy.

And you've yet to explain how someone who happens to have the same name as a criminal is a "moron."

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Chris Wayne and Joe Jones and Billy Jim Bob Smiths are black criminal names, therefore a make-believe "law" barring people having the same name as a criminal from voting only affects black people.

No, it disproportionately affects black people. I already explained why.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

.... and then you people woke up and realized you were played by one of the dumbest articles ever posted around here, clearly written by some dippy lib who truly believes all black people are as bone-stupid as he is.

[TROPIC THUNDER]Hey! Whataya mean by "you people?!"[/TROPIC THUNDER] I was just pointing out why there should be some legitimate concern even if you think the author is racist.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

And you've yet to explain how someone who happens to have the same name as a criminal is a "moron."

No, just black.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It's written to try and scare people whom the author believes are as stupid as he is, and who don't require any facts or logic with their fearmongering- which in libby land of course translates to black people.

With 13% of the U.S. population representing 40% of the overall prison population, it should be a very large concern for voting black Americans. Yes, the law can affect other people as well, but not to the same extent as a black person.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Vmarks already pointed out that it's just a list of unreferenced (read, ass-pulled) bullchit.

Basic facts?

So if a criminal commits a crime, a black person with that same name can't vote eh?

Really, you buy that?

But all the white people with the same name can vote?

Wait, of course there are no white people with the same name as criminals- only black people commit crimes according to race-baiting liberal twits. Black people with names like Chis Wayne.

By this amazing example of 'logic' if a guy named Li Yang commits a crime, then all the black men named Li Yang can't vote. WOW, what a huge problem!

I'll say it again, liberals are insane.

And don't possess a SHRED of logic.

You're complaining about logic, but you can't seem to put together a coherent paragraph to rebut the facts in the article. Yes, the article was poorly written. But the fact is, in most states criminals lose voting rights. The fact is, Republicans have been passing new state voter ID laws. The fact is, Republicans have been challenging voter lists, putting up voting obstacles for people who happen to have the same name as a criminal, or who lost their home. The fact is, Republicans just yesterday challenged thousands of voters where I live, and they specifically targeted places (like college towns) with likely Democratic voters.

And about black names: There are some differences between blacks' and whites' names. If a name that is common among blacks but not among whites is challenged, it is reasonable to expect that more blacks would be challenged than whites. Yes, you've shown how the article is poorly written. So what? It's like saying a murderer is innocent because someone spelled his name wrong.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

With 13% of the U.S. population representing 40% of the overall prison population, it should be a very large concern for voting black Americans. Yes, the law can affect other people as well, but not to the same extent as a black person.

So that leaves 60% of the criminal populating without black criminal names ...like Chris Wayne.

Are white criminal names left of the "can't vote" list? We already know that Hispanic criminal names are. So if Jesus wants to vote, he's safe.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

You're complaining about logic, but you can't seem to put together a coherent paragraph to rebut the facts in the article. Yes, the article was poorly written.

I haven't seen a post from you answering what vmarks pointed out. What you have is a list of nonsense, blaming nameless 'Republicans' for things you've yet to provide a shred of proof for.

And about black names: There are some differences between blacks' and whites' names. If a name that is common among blacks but not among whites is challenged, it is reasonable to expect that more blacks would be challenged than whites.

So a name that is more common among whites, but not among blacks is challenged, is it reasonable to expect that more whites would be challenged than blacks?

Of course not- all criminals are black!

The stuff you libs can get your panties in a twist about.

[Sayf-Allah]

FFS.....

This isn't a Republican vs. Democrats issue.

This is about how your system of "democracy" works. How about addressing the points raised? If you don't believe them, could you address them anyway?

Or will you guys go on a (D) vs. (R) bi***fight once again?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Or will you guys go on a (D) vs. (R) bi***fight once again?

It's game season. And there's a game on.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

This isn't a Republican vs. Democrats issue.

C'mon, the very article you posted claims it's a partisan issue.

[BRussell]

It shouldn't be a partisan issue - everyone should want as many people to vote as possible, and no one should want to try to stop people from voting. But to pretend it isn't a partisan issue would be to ignore the most important fact about it.

[Sayf-Allah]

1st off, thanks for the reply.

CORRECT. There have been some national legislative proposals to move election day to a Sunday or to make election day a holiday but they have never made it through the legislative process.

Do you know why they haven't made it?

DEPENDS. Some categories of employment require the employer to give the employee time-off to vote with pay, some require the employer to give the employee time-off without pay, some don't require the employer to give the employee any time-off at all.

Couldn't this easily make it more difficult for "lower-class" people to vote? I don't know how long it takes to vote in the US but lets say a high number like 2 hours of work you'll miss. Isn't it possible that this might make poor people stay at work instead of voting?

Also, couldn't this result in a boss who leans to (R) or (D) to ban the employees he thinks will vote for the opposition? Or at least make the employees a bit worried about their jobs (as job security is usually lower in lower-income jobs)?

CORRECT. Although most states have implemented "motor-voter" procedures so that when you go to get a driver's license (or equivalent non-driver's ID card) you can register to vote. I think the big problem here is the need to constantly update the poll records to reflect a current address. If you move often then you have to update your poll records often and the process for updating the poll records is a big pain and not convenient.

Is there no social security number or something in the governments (or the state's or counties) record that proves you are a US citizen? If so, why wouldn't that be enough (if you have a legitimate ID)? I'm just wondering because I don't really get why people would have to register to vote.....

CORRECT.

What classifies as a permanent address? Here on Iceland we have a system of "legal residence" and "place of residence". Are we talking about a similar system? And what does that mean to homeless people? Can't they vote?

CORRECT. On a federal level it applies just to persons convicted of a felony. On a state level it will vary state by state.

Do most people agree with this? It seems a bit odd to say the least from where I come to take away one of the most basic human rights because someone might have made a mistake in his youth.

NOT LIKELY. The article is poorly written and suggests that a questionable specific local practice to be applicable to the whole state or the whole country.

Agreed. That point I found dubious. Sounds more like he's exaggerating the possible accidental striking of a name of a voting list. A quick google search doesn't show anything like this.

DON'T KNOW. Again, the article is poorly written and makes general accusations without doing much in the way of offering means for verification.

Agreed. I hope this isn't true.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Not really. But most politicians are more interested in advancing their own causes than in advancing the causes of democracy in general. So, we never get anywhere with proposals to make election day a national holiday or to standardize voter registration procedures or to standardize vote-taking procedures.

That's a sad state of affairs. To me as an Icelander many of these rules and regulations just sound bizarre. To me (and many other Europeans) these rules seem to be directed at keeping low-income voters from voting and giving the upper hand to the upper-middle class (and up).

That might not be true but those rules look like that from this side of the pond (or should I say from the middle of the pond.)

I would like to see a few major changes to the voting process in this country. I would like to see all elections (local, state, federal) held on the same day every year and that day being made a national holiday. I would like to see standardization of the voter registration process nationwide and much more transparency in how those records are created, processed, updated, and culled (for dead citizens); If, for no other reason, than to simplify the process of changing one's voter registration when one moves.

Yup, there are certain changes I could see just to make your system more democratic in our view. But If I'd mention them here some would cry foul over Bloody European Ideas™ infiltrating the good ol' USofA.

And sorry for all the questions. I'm trying to learn at the same time as I'm hoping there'll be some discussion on this.

Again, thanks for the answers.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Do most people agree with this? It seems a bit odd to say the least from where I come to take away one of the most basic human rights because someone might have made a mistake in his youth.

A felony is generally a bit more than a mistake. Like, "Oops, I joined a carjacking ring! Silly me!"

Yes, I think most people believe that child-rapists should not vote.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

A felony is generally a bit more than a mistake. Like, "Oops, I joined a carjacking ring! Silly me!"

From what I gather a felony is also aggravated assault/battery, burglary, drug abuse and distribution, grand theft and robbery.

All things not too uncommon in low-income neighbourhoods and something kids (18-25) can fall into. IMO it's a crime to deny these people their right to vote.

Yes, I think most people believe that child-rapists should not vote.

This touches on another question I have.

Will being sentenced for a felony bar you from voting ever again, or does the ban on voting only apply while you are doing your time in jail?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

A felony is generally a bit more than a mistake. Like, "Oops, I joined a carjacking ring! Silly me!"

Yes, I think most people believe that child-rapists should not vote.

Aren't you doing the mirror-image of what you're saying he's doing? (Or maybe that was your intent. )

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Will being sentenced for a felony bar you from voting ever again, or does the ban on voting only apply while you are doing your time in jail?

It depends on the state, but my understanding is that even in most states where you don't lose the right forever, you have to actually go through some bureaucracy to get it back, you don't just automatically get the right back. It's ridiculous.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

It depends on the state, but my understanding is that even in most states where you don't lose the right forever, you have to actually go through some bureaucracy to get it back, you don't just automatically get the right back. It's ridiculous.

OK. Because I can understand if someone doing time would be denied the right to vote. But that you lose your right after you get out just seems wrong to me.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

OK, a few more things I've heard about your election system. Could you please tell me if this is true?

1. The elections are on a weekday. Meaning you have to get time from work to go vote?
Not exactly. The elections are on a weekday, but the polls are open early (before most people go to work) and close late (hours after most people go home from work) so that you have time to go regardless of your job. Many people work on Saturdays and Sundays also, so regardless of the day some people would complain about it. You can also pre-vote if you are not going to be available during the actual election day.

2. Your boss/supervisor decides if you are allowed to get time off work? The time it takes to vote is not paid by your employer but taken as a leave?Basically it's up to your boss if you are allowed to vote and how much it'll cost you?
See above. The polls are open before work, during lunch time, and after work as well.

3. You have to register some time in advance to vote? The places you register at are only open during office hours?
This is true, but since you only have to register once each time you move you can generally find at least one day in a year that you are able to do this. Vacation days for example.

4. You have to have a permanent address to vote?
As far as I can tell, there isn't a rule like this. But since each person is assigned to a specific voting district, they need to know where you are living so that you have a place that you are supposed to vote at. You can list a parents address as your address and always vote by absentee ballots if you want to.

Then from that article:
1. Criminals are not allowed to vote? Is there a limit on how serious the crime is?
Serious crimes only. Not parking tickets, etc.

2. Is it true that some counties strike everyone with the same name as a criminal of the list of eligible voters?
I have read that this has happened, but that in addition to the names being the same, they also had to have similar birth dates. So the article may have been telling a half-truth to get some emotions running on that one.

3. "black criminal names had to go – but Hispanic names were not to be touched" - anyone know if this is true?
Unknown, but here is an article about the problems that happened in Florida: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...9749-2001May30

If any of this is true, do you think this (every step that is true) is fair and good for a democracy?
I think that most of it is decently fair, yes. The only ones I have a problem with are points #2 and #3 at the end. Obviously those aren't fair.

-----------------

If you want specific voter requirements for each state see here: http://usgovinfo.about.com/blvrbystate.htm

I found this interesting:

Residential Address Requirement
Homeless people who can identify a "home base"-- a specific location they consider their home base to which they return regularly and intend to remain for the present -- should not be denied the opportunity to register to vote solely because the home base is not a traditional dwelling. With respect to state elections, courts that have addressed the issue have held that states may not refuse to allow a homeless person to register to vote on the ground that they do not have a traditional residential address. As far as federal elections are concerned, the uniform "national mail voter registration form," which the NVRA requires states to accept as a means of registration, allows the applicant to draw a map to indicate where he or she lives "if the applicant lives in a rural district or has a non-traditional address." This means that homeless people who can identify a street corner, park bench, etc. as their home base by drawing a map should not be prevented from registering to vote for failing to provide a traditional residential address.

The previous quote came from here (a word document): http://www.nlchp.org/content/pubs/Ci...ess_People.doc

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

OK. Because I can understand if someone doing time would be denied the right to vote. But that you lose your right after you get out just seems wrong to me.

You can get your record expunged if you're persistent. The problem is that the information is already "out there" and it is some effort to clean it up.

[turtle777]

I, for one, am glad that states like Indiana closed the loophole for *potential* voter fraud.

If someone isn't even capable of getting some sort of government issued photo ID, he shouldn't be allowed to vote.

-t

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

From what I gather a felony is also aggravated assault/battery, burglary, drug abuse and distribution, grand theft and robbery.

These things can be a felony, but many can also be misdemeanors. Most drug abusers are not felons. If some 20-year-old steals a TV to pay for his coke habit, he's probably going to be able to plead down to a misdemeanor.

[vmarks]

Earlier point I forgot to make:

The whole notion of needing to take off time from work is a bit incorrect as well.

Many states have early voting, where you go before or after work anytime in the month preceding the election and vote at your convenience. The day of the election, you can go before or after work as well.

And, as for the 'oh no, I moved and forgot to update my driver's license and voters registration!' problem? It's a non-issue, too. You arrive at the polling place and tell them the address has changed. They issue you an absentee ballot more than likely. (again depends on state law.)

And in Oregon, balloting is done by mail. So really, looking at the US through the European lens and accusing 'racism!' doesn't work.

[placebo1969]

Same with many (if not all) counties in Washington. It's been vote by mail for a while now.