Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Citizenship Certificates
#11
(22 Sep 2017, 22:26:02)frix Wrote: I mean whether you agree with the idea or not, you're being intellectually dishonest to say that the argument is just "ID requirement is apparently racist haha idiots".

how so? the entire argument is that requiring an ID to vote disenfranchises minorities and keeps them from exercising political power. Any time it is suggested or brought up, whoever does so is accused of racism and wanting to suppress minority votes. Are there other arguments? I haven't heard them, because as ridiculous as it is, once the racism card gets played, and that seems to be the go to move by those in the voter ID discussion, it's hard to really get it back on track.

I'm not being intelecutually dishonest at all. Voter fraud happens. I have seen it first hand, and it is almost impossible to prove after the fact, because you do not have to show an ID to vote.
"Sola Virtus Nobilitat!"
Virtue (Valor) Alone Enobles!

Ser John Marshall, Thegn of Siar Fordell

The Thegn-Hold of Siar Fordell

Wiki Page for Siar Fordell
#12
They’re racist because minorities are less likely to have a voter ID. The most common form of ID is a driver’s license, and minorities are less likely to have one, as they are less likely to own or need a car, and often live in urbanised areas, where public transport is more accessible, or don’t have the money to even own a car to begin with. This is why a 2005 study in Wisconsin found that while 80% of whites had a driver’s license, only about half of black and hispanics did. Another ID is passports, which are similar to driver’s licenses in that poor people aren’t likely to own one, and other ID forms are also often held less by minorities or are more difficult for them to get.

Additionally, the issues of voter fraud and voter impersonation, which are what voter ID laws are enacted to prevent, have been shown to be extremely rare, to the point of being virtually non-existent, and in many cases where either of these two are alleged, the issue can be put down to unintentional mistakes on the behalf of voters or election administrators. Furthermore, it is thought that by requiring voter ID, parties in power in a state can use the data collected from votes for the purpose of gerrymandering.

Therefore these laws are attempting to address an issue that, for the most part, doesn’t exist, while also managing to prevent a higher number minorities from voting, and are being introduced in mostly southern states. I think there’s more than just voter fraud that these laws are trying to prevent.
_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*Peace, Unity, Prosperity*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_
.......... * * * * * * * * * *-----------------------* * * * * * * * * * * *..........
#13
Don't be ridiculous. While yes, a driver's license is probably the most common type of ID, it is certainly not the only one, nor is a passport. You can get a government issued identification card for free in every state. You don't even have to be a US Citizen to be issued an ID in many states (that was a big issue recently in California, where the state government said that it is your right to have an ID, so that you could apply for benefits, even if you're in the country illegally) Seriously, ask yourself... do you actually know anyone who is old enough to vote that doesn't have some sort of ID? I don't and I have lived both in the rural south and in major urbanized areas.

The simple fact of the matter is that you have to have an ID to even function in society. You need one to hold a job, to open a bank account, to go to school, to have a cell phone plan, to apply for government benefits, to buy alcohol/tobacco, to pay utility bills, to donate blood, to have running water, to get into any movie not rated G, to get a library card, and also to REGISTER to vote (ya know, because you have to prove that you actually live in your area). Claiming that IDs are difficult for minorities to obtain is absolutely insulting and does an incredible disservice to them.

As far as voter fraud and impersonation, how have they been shown to be extremely rare when they are practically impossible to prove? (ya know, because no ID is required...) Like I said before, I have seen it happen first hand, and it is not hard to do on a fairly large scale. The voting rate in the United States - especially on smaller elections (like mayors, city laws, tax modifications, and even congressional seats) is dismal at best. All that a group has to do is cross reference the voting logs for the past few elections to see which names never vote, or vote by mail, and then they have a full list of pseudonyms to issue out to willing/paid participants who are then bussed to different locations in order to cast a ballot. This is also prevalent in military towns, where soldiers from one state or region and still registered to vote there, are stationed in another. These soldiers cast mail in ballots to their home districts while shady campaign managers and officials gather names and addresses from public records and military rosters and falsely register them vote in the region where they are stationed - and once again, they have a full list of pseudonyms to hand out to willing voters. We would receive warnings for this on military bases every election cycle and have to brief our commands to watch out for it. Every year some 19 year old private from South Dakota would receive mail declaring he had been registered to vote, against his will and knowledge, in Louisiana. (actually, this often went unnoticed until it was discovered that he was having state taxes withdrawn from his paycheck when he is not a citizen of that state... THEN he would notice and report it... or his wife would) Gerrymandering, as deplorable as it is, goes both ways (ask Illinois and New York how they isolate conservative areas into meaninglessness) and considering the ID would just be used to confirm an identity on a list of legal voters that already exists, how could that data be used in any way that it isn't currently used? You're still documenting who votes and who doesn't, without any type of association with how they vote or for who.

I have a friend who was an election volunteer in New Jersey last year. When a group of people came in the first man in line identified himself as someone she knew... her neighbor, actually, because the "voter" has to confirm the address with the name. She knew this was a false name and refused to allow him in to vote. The election site supervisor (probably one of those guys who makes the unintentional mistakes that you mentioned above) tells her she cannot keep him from voting, and cannot question if he is who he says he is. She was then asked to leave. She reported it to the election committee and got some form letter response saying "thank you for your concern. We are looking into the matter" - but what would they find? A list of names and addresses with some highlighted as having voted and others not... no way to prove, or even imply, any sort of fraud or impersonation, and even if it was fishy, it could just be chalked up to an "unintentional mistake on the behalf of the voter or administrator" - admittedly, this is anecdotal evidence, but rather than prove voter fraud, what it does is accurately describe the process that a report of voter fraud goes through, and how it goes exactly nowhere.

A coworker of mine immigrated from India and received his citizenship a few years ago. He was appalled when I told him he didn't need an ID to vote before the presidential election (he had a California ID long before he was a citizen) and his first question was "how do you keep people from committing fraud?" basically, we can't. Mexico, India, and South Africa all require ID's to vote, and all of these countries exist in abject poverty when compared to the United States. The argument that poor Americans, no matter their race, can't afford an ID to vote is laughable at best, and insulting at worst.
"Sola Virtus Nobilitat!"
Virtue (Valor) Alone Enobles!

Ser John Marshall, Thegn of Siar Fordell

The Thegn-Hold of Siar Fordell

Wiki Page for Siar Fordell
#14
(23 Sep 2017, 05:23:06)Covanese Republic Wrote: They’re racist because minorities are less likely to have a voter ID. The most common form of ID is a driver’s license, and minorities are less likely to have one, as they are less likely to own or need a car, and often live in urbanised areas, where public transport is more accessible, or don’t have the money to even own a car to begin with. This is why a 2005 study in Wisconsin found that while 80% of whites had a driver’s license, only about half of black and hispanics did. Another ID is passports, which are similar to driver’s licenses in that poor people aren’t likely to own one, and other ID forms are also often held less by minorities or are more difficult for them to get.

Additionally, the issues of voter fraud and voter impersonation, which are what voter ID laws are enacted to prevent, have been shown to be extremely rare, to the point of being virtually non-existent, and in many cases where either of these two are alleged, the issue can be put down to unintentional mistakes on the behalf of voters or election administrators. Furthermore, it is thought that by requiring voter ID, parties in power in a state can use the data collected from votes for the purpose of gerrymandering.

Therefore these laws are attempting to address an issue that, for the most part, doesn’t exist, while also managing to prevent a higher number minorities from voting, and are being introduced in mostly southern states. I think there’s more than just voter fraud that these laws are trying to prevent.

If what you’re saying is true—that minorities are less likely to have a photo ID, then your akipping a step by calling the voting law racist. The problem you need to address is why minorities don’t have photo IDs.

Considering all of the dead people who voted in the last election a policy like this couldn’t hurt. These policies are implemented in the south? Oh what, does geographical location now define racism?

i’m tired of race and identity politics. If you want to sit and obsess over how evil cisgendered white males are and you want to create “protected groups” and minorities to discriminate against—then you are as qualified to have a political discussion as the guy who says “this is America, speak English” and “all of the Mexicans are taking our jobs”.
[Image: 9768554.png]
Siwa Sopako Wogo Sani-Hong Kunoku
Manu ku awaso yo Tongowa Manuka hehe yoma tise.

If a post doesn't have a question mark, it isn't a question.
If it isn't a question, I'm not asking you anything, I'm telling you.
#15
[Image: image.jpg]
#16
(23 Sep 2017, 02:52:59)ThegnSiarFordell Wrote:
(22 Sep 2017, 22:26:02)frix Wrote: I mean whether you agree with the idea or not, you're being intellectually dishonest to say that the argument is just "ID requirement is apparently racist haha idiots".

how so? the entire argument is that requiring an ID to vote disenfranchises minorities and keeps them from exercising political power.

Exactly, now you're saying the entire (or at least most of the) argument. You didn't mention this earlier, you just said "because apparently it is racist". That's clearly phrased in a way to try and discredit the argument by not mentioning what you've just said now, which is being intellectually dishonest. Now you're not.
[Image: buy_email_lists_21819162.jpg]
In the words of  Bill Clinton
I did was not affiliated or part take in the actions of the hackers, Dreamlight Hackerz
#17
Well in Novia's case, the ID would probably be used to scan with the QR. Currently I think our voting database has three fields (ID, date, & vote). Currently you have to be logged into your account to vote online. In the scenario, in a public center, you'd scan your card, punch in your pin/password, maybe an extra security question, than hit yay or nay.

I've never voted in the US before but I think it's print, correct? A digital system would be the best I think, votes would be easier accounted for and probably verifiable. There's risk of having data tampered with, however, people can mishandle physical ballots as well.
[Image: Vdrm0xe.png]
#18
[ADMIN NOTE]

Please keep the thread on track, folks.
His Majesty Adam I, King of Überstadt &c.
Administrator, wiki and forum
#19
[Image: zTMeDvA.png]

Not sure if I ever shared this here or not. Anyway, here is a "Passport Card" concept I designed for Novapara. It isn't quite a full passport, it'd only be able to be used in certain countries like close allies or friendly, neighboring countries. It'd be digital, probably with a chip like to use in credit cards that'd verify your identity with idk... a touchID or faceID type thing I guess haha.

Note: Anne Frank is just a dear historical person I like to use as an alternative to "John Doe" or whatever.
If you haven't, her diary is a good read.
[Image: Vdrm0xe.png]
#20
I think the V.A.R. should try this out as well, I will pass the idea along the command chain to see if we can issue citizenship I.D.'s


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)