Argentbear
Active Member
considering one has to demonstrate that one can drive safely and competently it does make applicants better driversLook at it like a drivers license. It doesn't make anyone drive better, it makes them legal to drive.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
considering one has to demonstrate that one can drive safely and competently it does make applicants better driversLook at it like a drivers license. It doesn't make anyone drive better, it makes them legal to drive.
And the ruling makes the driver's licenses of about 80% of the people of Arizona invalid for identification to vote. As it stands millions have to reapply for new driver's licenses to vote in NovemberSorry but I don't care about the time or effort. I mean, it took me time and effort to get a driver's license for myself and then for my granddaughter, oh AND money!
1) Driving is not a right.Look at it like a drivers license. It doesn't make anyone drive better, it makes them legal to drive.
I'm sure you don't care. Anyone advocating for this doesn't care. Because it doesn't affect you. For some people the time and effort needed to go get an ID is asking a lot. Some work a lot and have trouble finding the time to do it. Some have trouble with transportation. There are a lot of aspects you and I don't think about because for us something like this is a minor annoyance, rather than a big deal.Sorry but I don't care about the time or effort. I mean, it took me time and effort to get a driver's license for myself and then for my granddaughter, oh AND money!
Hey, I was working. I didn't have transportation issues but I was working and had to work around that. And it was actually a pretty big deal because of my work schedule and having to come back over and over again.I'm sure you don't care. Anyone advocating for this doesn't care. Because it doesn't affect you. For some people the time and effort needed to go get an ID is asking a lot. Some work a lot and have trouble finding the time to do it. Some have trouble with transportation. There are a lot of aspects you and I don't think about because for us something like this is a minor annoyance, rather than a big deal.
As I said above, a driver's license is different. It's for a different purpose and isn't comparable to this.
Good, then you know why we shouldn't require something like that to vote. Since there's no actual problem it would solve, there's no reason to make people go through all that, especially since some people aren't even in as good a position as you were.Hey, I was working. I didn't have transportation issues but I was working and had to work around that. And it was actually a pretty big deal because of my work schedule and having to come back over and over again.
As I said, I had to come back over and over again, and I was working, so I had to take time off (unpaid, I might add).Good, then you know why we shouldn't require something like that to vote. Since there's no actual problem it would solve, there's no reason to make people go through all that, especially since some people aren't even in as good a position as you were.
Right, so you understand why we shouldn't require people to do that unnecessarily, especially for something as important as voting and especially since others aren't even in as good a position as yours (or mine).As I said, I had to come back over and over again, and I was working, so I had to take time off (unpaid, I might add).
Nope, sorry, don't understand it. I don't understand why I should be so inconvenienced and yet they shouldn't.Right, so you understand why we shouldn't require people to do that unnecessarily, especially for something as important as voting and especially since others aren't even in as good a position as yours (or mine).
I agree. My home has automated voter registration. People are required to register their home address with the city government anyway, so we just send them the invitation to vote whenever an election occurs.Personally, I think it is a touch stupid to abdicate voting such that it might as well be mandatory. Taxation, after all, is mandatory. Who in their right mind would abdicate having a say in how those mandatory taxes are being spent? Add that maintaining democracy in the first place requires civic engagement from the citizenry (in general if you expect to keep your mode of governance - democracy or otherwise - you need to actually put work in to sustain it)?
How authoritarian.You don't think voting is part of your civic duty when your nation is a democracy with mandatory taxation?
Personally, I think it is a touch stupid to abdicate voting such that it might as well be mandatory. Taxation, after all, is mandatory. Who in their right mind would abdicate having a say in how those mandatory taxes are being spent? Add that maintaining democracy in the first place requires civic engagement from the citizenry (in general if you expect to keep your mode of governance - democracy or otherwise - you need to actually put work in to sustain it)? Nah, mandatory voting is an obvious and sensible policy to deal with the nonsensical attacks on the voting system. No, Red and Blue, you don't get to filter who doesn't and doesn't vote - everybody votes, just like everybody pays taxes. Even if they turn in a blank ballot or zeroed out 1040 because they were unemployed the entire year.
Because you want to drive, and they don't. You're talking about a driver's license, not a voter ID. If you don't need to drive, you don't have to go through what you did.Nope, sorry, don't understand it. I don't understand why I should be so inconvenienced and yet they shouldn't.
1) Driving is not a right.
2) Getting a driver's license does make people better drivers on average. Having to learn how to drive and demonstrate proficiency makes a big difference.
3) Driver's licenses cost time and money. Voting should not come with those requirements.
The license itself doesn't make any one drive better. If you lost your license today would you automatically become a worse driver? You would be illegal but I doubt worse.considering one has to demonstrate that one can drive safely and competently it does make applicants better drivers
Please explain how something like mandatory taxes and/or mandatory voting is "authoritarian." Or do you define "authoritarian" as anything that isn't pure anarchy (e.g., all government is authoritarian)?How authoritarian.
Voting was never set up as compulsory in this country in the first place.Please explain how something like mandatory taxes and/or mandatory voting is "authoritarian." Or do you define "authoritarian" as anything that isn't pure anarchy (e.g., all government is authoritarian)?
True, but not sure why that would be relevant. When this country was set up, over half the population even didn't have the right to vote.Voting was never set up as compulsory in this country in the first place.
I wonder why democracies like Australia and Costa Rica have compulsory voting, then. If it is so clear and obvious it shouldn't be done, surely these democratic nations wouldn't be doing it. As such, it would make sense to explain these allegedly clear and obvious reasons. There are some potential problems with any sort of compulsory system (see - taxation in this country) but those problems are not inherent and depend on the specifics. I'm not seeing any reasoning here for throwing out the seeds with the soil. Especially when it can help resolve exactly the sort of problems this ruling introduces.Compulsory voting is just as bad as poll taxation was which was summarily discontinued for clear and obvious reasons.
North Korea has compulsory voting as well and we know how that went.True, but not sure why that would be relevant. When this country was set up, over half the population even didn't have the right to vote.
I wonder why democracies like Australia and Costa Rica have compulsory voting, then. If it is so clear and obvious it shouldn't be done, surely these democratic nations wouldn't be doing it. As such, it would make sense to explain these allegedly clear and obvious reasons. There are some potential problems with any sort of compulsory system (see - taxation in this country) but those problems are not inherent and depend on the specifics. I'm not seeing any reasoning here for throwing out the seeds with the soil. Especially when it can help resolve exactly the sort of problems this ruling introduces.
I still don't understand your objection - as mentioned, there are potential problems with any sort of compulsory system but those problems are not inherent and depend on the specifics. None of what you talk about here would be necessary to implement with mandatory voting. I'm pretty sure neither Costa Rica nor Australia have armed government officials going around to the homes of citizens demanding their ballots and that they be marked only with the "correct" candidates or face punishment. If they did, sure, that'd be authoritarianism. But neither mandatory taxation nor mandatory voting is inherently authoritarian. Again, I don't see the wisdom in throwing out the seeds with the soil.People shouldn't be forced to vote for something they don't want , and not voting makes as much a statement as voting , with the only difference is you're being forced to show up at a door likely at gun point and or robbing one of their money for non compliance , contrasted with not showing up at the door without having someone threatening you at gun point and or robbing you of your money , which is why it's distinctly authoritarian.