California strong arm

[Left Coast]

No. You didn't. You simply repeated what the article said. You repeated THAT it seems that ID laws cause a discrepancy in the vote, but not how or why.

Wrong, again. I said:

"In general it comes down to money. Racial minorities (black and Latino/a people specifically) are poorer on average than white people. Therefore things that cost money disproportionately affect them. You can read a summary of more of the "why" here: Oppose Voter ID Legislation - Fact Sheet "

You did not respond.

If the 'why,' is because there is a disproportionate number of 'people of color' who have no business voting...because they are not, in fact, citizens, that's not a problem with ID laws. That's a success.

That's not the why, for the third time. Voter fraud is a virtually nonexistent "problem."

Y'know, if you have a community of people, half of whom live on one side of a river, and the other half on the other side, and you hold community events only on one side so that the people on the other can't get to them, or have a say in how those events are held or paid for, you don't decide that there will be no more community events. You build a bridge, or throw half the events on one side, half on the other.

YOUR solution is to stop having parties, period.

Your analogy is confused. My solution isnt to stop having parties, it's to eliminate the pointless, laborious requirement to get into the party, when it should be their right to attend.

 

[Enoch07]

I used to think that myself until Trump won by the electoral college. That's when I realised the vast majority of the states are Republican/Conservative with the Socialists holed up in a few city states.

If the Electoral College was abolished, then the Democrat socialists would rule from only a few States leaving out the majority of Republican /Conservative states without any say in the federation.


I'm a huge proponent of states rights, and I realize the importance of why the founding fathers instituted it. That's why I changed my mind over the electoral college.

I agree to a certain extent, it does keep the entire U.S. from being oppressed by people from just 2 states (California and New York).

 

[dianaiad]

Wrong, again. I said:

"In general it comes down to money. Racial minorities (black and Latino/a people specifically) are poorer on average than white people. Therefore things that cost money disproportionately affect them. You can read a summary of more of the "why" here: Oppose Voter ID Legislation - Fact Sheet "

You did not respond.


That's not the why, for the third time. Voter fraud is a virtually nonexistent "problem."

You know, taking comments out of context is fallacious arguing.

Your analogy is confused. My solution isnt to stop having parties, it's to eliminate the pointless, laborious requirement to get into the party, when it should be their right to attend.

OK.

Suppose we change that analogy. Instead of only having the parties on one side of the river, so that the folks on the other side can't attend, how about we make the thing a little closer to what's happening here? The folks giving the party (the entire community) says that in order to attend, one must produce an invitation. Now, since it is a community party and everybody in the community (both sides of the river) lives in the community, everybody is sent an invitation. Non-residents are not sent invitations, and invitations are required at the door.

(that, I think, is a whole bunch closer to ID laws).

But many, if not most, of the folks who live on the other side of the river cannot use their invitations because they can't get to the parties.

YOUR solution is like saying 'well, let's just not require invitations, since it's obvious that people on the other side of the river don't want/can't get them. Which of course is stupid, because there is absolutely no reason that people of all stages and groups can't get ID.

In fact, the poorest of 'people of color' are more likely to have ID than, say, my father does at the moment. His driver's license is expired and getting him to the DMV to get a personal ID is quite a production. He's 93 and frail.

But MOST people aren't in my father's situation. They want food stamps or Section 8 housing or social services of all sorts; Social Security, disability, other things....for which they MUST produce ID. So they have it, as those folks 'across the river' have invitations.

So it's not the ID requirements or a 'lack of invitations' that is the problem. There's another problem, or two or three; the ID laws only show those problems up.

The people with the parties need to solve the problems that keep the folks across the river from coming to them and waving their invitations at the door. Simply not requiring invitations doesn't help. Bridges would help. Relocating the party venues would help. Providing transportation across the river would help. Getting rid of having to show an invitation leaves the folks across the river and the parties unattended.

Getting rid of ID laws doesn't solve, or even address, the reasons people don't want to, or can't, show ID's at a polling place.

And you claim that it is 'financial?" SERIOUSLY? How is 'financial" saying anything about 'people of color?" Where I live, poor people come in all colors. So do rich ones, and middle class ones. Figuring that poor people are poor because they are 'people of color' is a very racist attitude to take, frankly.

They are poor for many, many reasons. At THIS point, none of those reasons are because of the level of sunscreen any of 'em may require.

 

[Riders]

I don't think it is constitutional. So there is nothing to worry about really. That's the reason the bill hasn't passed so far, because of the constitutional ramifications. It's just an empty bluff, more dramatics and stage play. You'd think after Jussie Smollett they'd learn that real life doesn't work like in their TV shows. /shrug

Its been voted on 27 to 10 by congress that would mean your Republican Congress voted for it huh.
No they are saying it will go through sorry.
California Senate passes bill that would keep Trump off 2020 ballot unless he releases tax returns

 

[Riders]

Read the article. It's vague, and claims THAT there is such an effect, but there is absolutely no hint of 'how.'

That's a really important question, you know, the 'how.' One must ask how and why such laws would so discriminate when, in fact, there is no difference between the number of 'people of color' who have ID acceptable for voting (like a driver's license, state ID, passport, or whatever is required to obtain other government services) and 'white people.'

If the reason, for instance, is that those who are not actually citizens are no longer able to vote because of the ID law, I wouldn't call that a problem. If the reason is that those who are not eligible to vote because of felony convictions, or whatever, because of the ID law, that's not a problem either.

If the problem is that those who have ID's but don't want to show them to precinct workers because of some sense of fear...that's not the problem of the ID law. That must be addressed another way, and is, of course, rather stupid.

If the problem is that people of color find it difficult to get to precincts to vote, that's not a problem of the ID laws...and can be fixed with 'vote by mail.' My parents haven't voted in person for many years.



[QUOTE="Left Coast, post: 6092145, member: 66371False.

Absolutely true. Unless they live so far 'off the grid' that nobody can find them with three satellites, forty drones equipped with infra-red cameras and three psychics, People require some form of ID just in order to live here. The banks do. Paycheck loan places do. The IRS does. Any liquor store does. Wanna pay for something with a bill larger than a twenty? Produce ID. Want ANY government aid of any kind? Produce ID. Victims of human trafficking? They have bigger problems than a lack of ID, and the police had better fix that. If folks want gov. aid or the smallest ability to buy stuff here, they WILL get, and have, ID. So...produce it at the polls. If they don't, it's not because they can't GET ID.



[QUOTE="Left Coast, post: 6092145, member: 66371]False. You live in evil socialist California, remember? Hint: other states make it harder than we do.[/quote]

California makes getting a driver's license incredibly easy. Anybody can get one, even ill...er, undocumented workers. It's why California driver's licenses aren't considered 'good enough' ID for the feds. However, voter ID is a state matter, and they'll be good enough for that, darn it.



[QUOTE="Left Coast, post: 6092145, member: 66371]The evidence indicates otherwise.[/quote]

WHAT evidence? I read that article. I didn't see anything but weasel words, and unlike the title, it absolutely does not address the 'why' or the 'how.' In fact, even they had to admit that they didn't have enough good data to figure out 'that,' very well, considering the problems of elections and which elections they were examining.



[QUOTE="Left Coast, post: 6092145, member: 66371]LOL. No. Genuinely losing an election because your team simply has fewer voters is not "disenfranchisement." It's losing, fair and square. [/quote]

I addressed that, and someone else addressed it as well, with very similar points.

Y'know what, though?

From the history of 'my people,' (Mormons...hang in there with me here):

One of the big problems with the early Mormons in New York, Illinois and Missouri was that there were so many of them. In other words, a whole bunch of converts up and moved to be with Joseph Smith and the other new converts. When they got to their new place, they built things. Cities. Nauvoo, Illinois, was the third biggest city in the USA, next only to New York and that new upstart town, Chicago. Their non-Mormon slave holder neighbors did NOT like this. The Mormons sort of outvoted everybody, and their neighbors were scared silly that said Mormons, who were mostly abolitionists, would mess things up. This caused a considerable amount of dissension, and to this day, when I talk to people about this, the argument is that the Mormons got what was coming to them because they DID outvote all the other people in the area, and screwed up the politics. It was then, and is now, not considered a 'good thing' for one large group of people with a homogenious POV to outvote (take over) the entire territory and everybody who lived there. An electoral college might have saved a bunch of trouble...and lives.

Well, those who had been disenfranchised by the Mormons (and they were...absolutely; when you have a group that has a population three to four times that of the locals, those locals' votes simply aren't going to count for much in a direct democracy, are they?) decided that this was not a good thing. So...they killed people, got Missouri Executive Order 44 declared (and Governor Boggs, who signed it, called it the Extermination Order. We didn't ...you might want to look it up just for kicks and giggles) and the Mormons thrown all the way out of the USA. It wasn't pretty.

And it is still being justified because of the political problems of the Mormons out voting the locals. Don't believe me? Ask the evangelicals who claim that 'religious persecution' had nothing to do with it.

well, I'll acknowledge readily that the political problems of being outvoted had a LOT to 'do with it."

The point is the irony of those who would be on the 'winning' side without an electoral college using the problems of being without one as an excuse for the actions of Missourians way back when, and I find that happening all the time.

Not that you have. You probably have no idea what I"m talking about with this bit of history. However, when you look at it, think about it. That IS what happens in a direct democracy, and what WOULD happen if the electoral college were abolished. People who are disenfranchised do not take it well.



[QUOTE="Left Coast, post: 6092145, member: 66371]You can make this argument to dispute the results of virtually any democratic election, local, state, or national. Why should the people in the heavily populated part of town get "so much say" over what happens to the people in the less populated part of town?

The reality of life is that there are some places where lots of people live, and some places where not very many people live. Therefore, in fair democratic elections, the places where lots of people live are going to have lots more voters. That is completely unbiased and fair. Every vote carries equal weight, regardless of your address. That is the opposite of what we have now, where the voters in small/sparsely populated states are given disproportionately more weight in deciding who wins the presidency. It is irrational, unfair, and undemocratic.[/quote]

Uh huh.

So....you have the folks who live in three quarters of the USA whose votes simply do not count in a presidential election, and you are OK with that?

That's not "equal weight." Not even close.

And please note; the electoral college only steps in for the presidency. Senators and Representatives are elected directly, remember?



[QUOTE="Left Coast, post: 6092145, member: 66371]Then that is your choice to make. I don't think most people, given the choice, would want their vote to be disenfranchised.[/QUOTE]

No, I don't want that. The difference is that MY vote, in state and federal elections, doesn't count didley squat--not since Reagan, anyway. But my political opinions ARE my choice. I just do not want to see 3/4 of the USA being totally run by stupid people on the coasts.

So for me, the electoral college is a good thing.[/QUOTE]

Its called voting in a law now its a law.

 

[Enoch07]

Its been voted on 27 to 10 by congress that would mean your Republican Congress voted for it huh.
No they are saying it will go through sorry.
California Senate passes bill that would keep Trump off 2020 ballot unless he releases tax returns

It will be challenged on its legality then.

 

[Riders]

It will be challenged on its legality then.

Its been voted in as a law, its a law.

 

[Enoch07]

Its been voted in as a law, its a law.

If its unconstitutional then it can be revoked.

 

[Riders]

If its unconstitutional then it can be revoked.

We shall see what happens.

 

[Enoch07]

We shall see what happens.

Yes we shall.

 

[dianaiad]

Its called voting in a law now its a law.

Yes. The Electoral college is a law.

I approve of it.

Others do not. That's the question being debated. I'm not sure what your point is, Rider, but if it is that the law is OK because it's the law, that's a tad bit circular.

Unless I have completely misread your point and you were referring to some other law?

 

[Riders]

Yes. The Electoral college is a law.

I approve of it.

Others do not. That's the question being debated. I'm not sure what your point is, Rider, but if it is that the law is OK because it's the law, that's a tad bit circular.

Unless I have completely misread your point and you were referring to some other law?

Well no I do not have the political knowledge you guys have so that maybe. Im just hoping they find a way to keep Trump off the ballad even if it means we can get another Republican to run against him, Ill take anything. So remember Im not that smart about politics so some of that maybe over my head.

 

[Left Coast]

They can at least apply for a passport. It's possible to either budget your money or receive financial support from public welfare or private charities.

For people who live paycheck to paycheck, or are unemployed or disabled or retired, "budgeting your money" for something like passport is often not an option. I don't know what you mean by "public welfare" - TANF? That money is a drop in the bucket for most people. I don't know of any charities that give people money to go get an ID. I'd be interested in learning about them though.

I've already named driver's license and passport as two possible photo ID's which are universally accepted across all 50 states.

And I've already explained why it's unreasonable to expect every American to have one of those two forms of ID.

Many states accept other forms of identification that wouldn't be that expensive to get.

And others just forego the whole silly endeavor altogether, because they recognize the reality that "voter fraud" is a trumped-up non-issue.

If you're rural, you're not a "part of town" anymore.

You've never lived in a city large enough to have parts of town with many people and parts of town with fewer people? Needless to say, they exist. I live in one.

And state governments have elected officials from all different regions of the state, so everybody has their voice represented.

Just like how we have a national Congress with elected officials from all different regions of the country, so everybody has their voice represented. So directly electing the President, like directly electing a governor, doesn't detract from that. Thank you for making my argument for me.

By popular vote, Clinton won, sure. The popular vote has screwed conservatives and liberals about equally--3 times the vote has gone in favor of conservatives (Bush, Trump, Harrison), 2 times in favor of liberals (Adams and Hayes). Before this latest election, the tally was even on either side. The system that we have works evenly to the advantage and disadvantage of both parties.

LOL oh come on, be serious. Since the modern realignment of the parties in the 1960s, the electoral college system has decidedly favored the GOP. That's why they want to keep it. They know they can't legitimately win a popular vote of the American people.

 

[Left Coast]

You know, taking comments out of context is fallacious arguing.

What in the world are you talking about? You asked for an explanation why. I gave it to you. You claimed I didn't. I reminded you I did. Want to actually address it?

Suppose we change that analogy. Instead of only having the parties on one side of the river, so that the folks on the other side can't attend, how about we make the thing a little closer to what's happening here? The folks giving the party (the entire community) says that in order to attend, one must produce an invitation. Now, since it is a community party and everybody in the community (both sides of the river) lives in the community, everybody is sent an invitation. Non-residents are not sent invitations, and invitations are required at the door.

Except that if this analogy were accurate, everyone isn't sent an invitation. They have to apply for one. In some cases it costs money, or they have to pass a test to earn it. All this, to get into a party that it is their right to attend.

Which of course is stupid, because there is absolutely no reason that people of all stages and groups can't get ID.

Yet again, simply untrue, as I've now repeatedly explained to you.

In fact, the poorest of 'people of color' are more likely to have ID than, say, my father does at the moment. His driver's license is expired and getting him to the DMV to get a personal ID is quite a production. He's 93 and frail.

No doubt it must be quite difficult for him. We don't need to compete for the bottom of the bucket. Needless to say, it's tough out there for many people.

But MOST people aren't in my father's situation. They want food stamps or Section 8 housing or social services of all sorts; Social Security, disability, other things....for which they MUST produce ID. So they have it, as those folks 'across the river' have invitations.

Once again, you are simply mistaken on the facts. Part of the difficulty of many of the voter ID laws out there is they require specific TYPES of ID. Types of ID that are NOT required to get food stamps or the other programs you mentioned. The reality is, yes, many people really do not have an invitation. They aren't "sent" them by a long shot. I seriously suggest you do further research on this before commenting further.

The people with the parties need to solve the problems that keep the folks across the river from coming to them and waving their invitations at the door. Simply not requiring invitations doesn't help. Bridges would help. Relocating the party venues would help. Providing transportation across the river would help. Getting rid of having to show an invitation leaves the folks across the river and the parties unattended.

Both/and. We should both make it easier to vote, and solve the systemic reasons for poverty. Welcome to progressivism. Come on in, the water is fine.

And you claim that it is 'financial?" SERIOUSLY? How is 'financial" saying anything about 'people of color?" Where I live, poor people come in all colors. So do rich ones, and middle class ones. Figuring that poor people are poor because they are 'people of color' is a very racist attitude to take, frankly.

……

Blink. Blink.

Once again, I'm going to strongly suggest that before you comment again, you do some actual research on the things you're speaking about. You are simply uninformed on the facts.

Poverty is not distributed evenly between races in this country. People of color are much more likely to live below the poverty line.

Poverty Rate by Race/Ethnicity

Therefore, policies that harm the poor disproportionately harm people of color. I've now explained the straightforward logic of this a couple of times. Again, I would strongly suggest that you do some reading on the subject before commenting further.

 

[dianaiad]

Well no I do not have the political knowledge you guys have so that maybe. Im just hoping they find a way to keep Trump off the ballad even if it means we can get another Republican to run against him, Ill take anything. So remember Im not that smart about politics so some of that maybe over my head.

I don't think we are going to have another Republican running against Trump. people (whatever side) just don't do that to incumbent presidents. Unless something really untoward happens, he will be on the ballot.

Nobody wants to split the party and support someone against a sitting president. That would be, quite frankly, giving the election to the other side. The Dems are just as aware of this as the Republicans are.

That's why they are so determined to get him impeached and thrown out of office. If they can't do that, they WILL lose in 2020. They aren't going to be able to do that.

Be of peace, however. We have lived through Johnson tearing up Social Security to fund the war he is mostly responsible for (Vietnam). We lived through Carter. We lived through Nixon. We even lived through Buchanan (speaking of starting wars....he was more than a little responsible for the Civil War). It wasn't easy, but we did it. We lived through Obama.

You will live through Trump.

 

[Shad]

Wrong, again. I said:

"In general it comes down to money. Racial minorities (black and Latino/a people specifically) are poorer on average than white people. Therefore things that cost money disproportionately affect them. You can read a summary of more of the "why" here: Oppose Voter ID Legislation - Fact Sheet "

Extrapolation bias and never digs deeper than lump statistics. Do note it does not establish all people in X income bracket have no ID but that a percentage does. Now why does that percentage have no ID compared to the percentage of the same income bracket which does? Could it be individual choices not merely "government oppresses me!"

 

[Poisonshady313]

the electoral college system has decidedly favored the GOP. That's why they want to keep it. They know they can't legitimately win a popular vote of the American people.

In the last 32 elections, which goes back to Grover Cleveland's second term, Republican winners have failed to secure the popular vote twice. In that time, there have been 13 Republican presidents and 10 Democrat presidents.

They can indeed legitimately win a popular vote of the American people.

As far as I can tell, the only real reason they support the electoral college is because of the 2000 and 2016 elections. Flukes.

The electoral college doesn't actually make it easier for the GOP to win. If anything, it makes it harder.

If they ever figured that out, they'd find the next few elections a lot easier than usual, until things started to balance themselves out.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I agree to a certain extent, it does keep the entire U.S. from being oppressed by people from just 2 states (California and New York).

Before I respond to this, I want to make some things very clear:

I am not a Democrat.
I am not a Republican.
I didn't vote for Clinton.
I didn't vote for Trump.

2 main points :

1. In the last 32 elections, going back to Grover Cleveland's second term, the popular vote deviated from the electoral vote twice. Bush's 1st term and Trump. Over the span of those 32 elections, we've had 13 Republican presidents and 10 Democratic presidents. Stop pretending that the electoral college is the only thing standing between the White House and an eternal blue dynasty run by New York and California. Which brings me to point 2.


2. There is no state in this country where 100% of the state's population votes. Not everyone is eligible. For those that are eligible, not everyone is registered. For those that are registered, not all of them turn out to vote. And for all that vote, they don't all vote the same way.

In 2016, blue votes from CA and NY combined for approximately 8% of the total national popular vote. In any given election, that number might go up a little, or down a little. But it would absolutely never be as high as 15.6%

15.6% is currently the percentage of the electoral vote controlled by the combination of NY and CA.

If we add Illinois to the mix, the blue percentage of the 2016 popular vote from the 3 biggest blue states becomes 10.4%, while the percentage of the electoral vote becomes 19.3%

Get that? The popular vote would cut the blue influence of the biggest blue states in half, yet we keep hearing how NY and CA would prevent a Republican presidential candidate from ever winning again.

How do you even begin to attempt to justify such a claim?

 

[Left Coast]

In the last 32 elections, which goes back to Grover Cleveland's second term, Republican winners have failed to secure the popular vote twice. In that time, there have been 13 Republican presidents and 10 Democrat presidents.

The GOP lost the popular vote in 2016, 2012, 2008, and 2000. That's 4 times in the last 5 elections. I don't care about election data from before the 60s, because the parties and political landscape were completely different.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In the last 32 elections, which goes back to Grover Cleveland's second term, Republican winners have failed to secure the popular vote twice. In that time, there have been 13 Republican presidents and 10 Democrat presidents.

They can indeed legitimately win a popular vote of the American people.

As far as I can tell, the only real reason they support the electoral college is because of the 2000 and 2016 elections. Flukes.

The electoral college doesn't actually make it easier for the GOP to win. If anything, it makes it harder.

If they ever figured that out, they'd find the next few elections a lot easier than usual, until things started to balance themselves out.

Bill Clinton did not "secure the popular vote" either. In both of his wins he had a plurality, not a majority, of votes. If Ross Perot had not run it is rather doubtful that Clinton would have won.

But those are just minor asides. The electoral college is out dated. It is time to make sure that "every vote counts".