It looks as though the DNC has determined they want to make voting a major issue in the 2022 campaign.

They call it voter suppression. I cannot see how any any of the changes in any of the states suppress anybody, much less people of a specific race or ethnicity.

Kamala Harris thinks rural voters are both stupid and deprived, so that making a copy of their DL is a burden. Harris I, as you all know, live rurally and have most of my life. No problem making copies. But even if it were so, isn't the theory [in Washington) that most of the rural dwellers are gun-toting white supremacists? These are red districts. How do they figure this is a suppression of black voters?

The Texas Democrats are threatening to jump ship and subvert the entire democratic process over this issue.

I just need somebody from either side of the aisle to explain to me the problems. Most of the explanations I hear involve some convoluted hypothetical. Chicken Little hysteria. Really folks, (1) how do the proposed changes suppress voting, and (2) how is that suppression targeted to minorities?

I think it is a made-up, for the campaign, issue.

Ranchers talk



I am willing to listen if anybody is willing to talk.

Voter suppression, especially voter ID, has been debunked countless times:

Ami Horowitz: How white liberals really view black voters (03 Nov 2016)
Ami on the Street: Are voter ID laws racist and suppress the black vote? Satirist Ami Horowtiz goes to UC Berkeley and Harlem to find out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW2LpFkVfYk

(Sorry, I couldn't find anything covering East Texas ranchers and/or non university grads. Apologies if either individual interviewed in your original link is a college graduate, including EdD's from University of Delaware.)

I think it's a made-up, for the campaign issue.

Not having an ID keeps you from accessing the entirety of the American dream. If you choose not to carry it, that's your prerogative... but it SHOULD be the goal of the US government to make sure that everyone has access to an ID... so that they can open bank accounts and cash checks and get REAL jobs and access healthcare and all sorts of other aspects of life in America, INCLUDING voting... and not having their vote (or healthcare or anything else) 'stolen' by someone else posing as them.

This is the sheer lunacy of this argument. You can't get an 'above board' job without an ID. You pay huge fees to cash checks and have to deal in cash for everything, meaning you're at risk of being robbed.... You can't get credit... etc etc etc. Whether or not you use it to vote... why aren't we spending as much to get this done as we are to get people vaccinated?? We spend more on annual flu each year than on IDs.

and of course, something like 80% of the population (probably 90% of Reps and 70% of Dems) support voter ID.... so they can't just talk about voter ID being a bad idea (that's a losing argument)... they have to talk about 'voter supression'

(07-12-2021 09:49 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  Voter suppression, especially voter ID, has been debunked countless times:

Ami Horowitz: How white liberals really view black voters (03 Nov 2016)
Ami on the Street: Are voter ID laws racist and suppress the black vote? Satirist Ami Horowtiz goes to UC Berkeley and Harlem to find out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW2LpFkVfYk

(Sorry, I couldn't find anything covering East Texas ranchers and/or non university grads. Apologies if either individual interviewed in your original link is a college graduate, including EdD's from University of Delaware.)

Great video, Mersey, but I think you just suppressed any of our liberals from explaining why they think proposed changes are racist and suppressive.

Chilling to think those left coast libs are the leaders of tomorrow.

We don't have ID cards issued by any governmental unit here in the UK (save for PASS cards issued by the Bracknell Forest and Milton Keynes Councils). The Tories tried to push it, but the general public (especially everyone not Tory) were firmly against it. So they scrapped the plan in 2011.
Too much paranoia!!! --> You have to understand if a police officer stops you they basically can't ask you for identification unless they intend to charge you with an offence.

Instead we use our passports or driver's licences. There's also the aforementioned PASS (Proof of Age Standards Scheme) card (for verification of age and identity). PASS cards are issued by a number of organisations mainly private. The motivation here is primarily for 18 year olds (and above) to purchase alcohol and tobacco or play the lottery. Also identification is required to apply for a new job, rent a new home, visit premises (like prison), access services like transport, housing services or claiming benefits. Not everyone in their majority has a need for a driver's licence (or a passport). You 'simply' have to fill out a form, pay a fee, and have a referee vouch that they know you as said person and confirmed from 'official records'.

Next election I'll ask what happens if you don't have a passport, driver's licence, or PASS card. I generally just show my driver's licence that has my address along with the postcard I received as notification of a pending election.

We could change our election rules to adopt some of these other options, but they do require adaptation. Our voting is tightly tied to geography... and not merely for 'local' elections. If we instead removed this tie, or at least modified it, we could more easily adopt some alternatives.

(07-12-2021 10:44 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  We could change our election rules to adopt some of these other options, but they do require adaptation. Our voting is tightly tied to geography... and not merely for 'local' elections. If we instead removed this tie, or at least modified it, we could more easily adopt some alternatives.

You're not suggesting different rules for different elections are you?

According to Kamala, people can't figure out how to use their smartphone to get a photographic image of their driver's license. Asking anyone to apply different rules to different elections will only suppress voting, right?

(07-12-2021 10:51 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(07-12-2021 10:44 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  We could change our election rules to adopt some of these other options, but they do require adaptation. Our voting is tightly tied to geography... and not merely for 'local' elections. If we instead removed this tie, or at least modified it, we could more easily adopt some alternatives.

You're not suggesting different rules for different elections are you?

According to Kamala, people can't figure out how to use their smartphone to get a photographic image of their driver's license. Asking anyone to apply different rules to different elections will only suppress voting, right?

lol...

Good point, but I was only really referencing the idea that you might vote for a party as opposed to an individual and we might go to proportional representation

(07-12-2021 10:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-12-2021 10:51 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(07-12-2021 10:44 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  We could change our election rules to adopt some of these other options, but they do require adaptation. Our voting is tightly tied to geography... and not merely for 'local' elections. If we instead removed this tie, or at least modified it, we could more easily adopt some alternatives.

You're not suggesting different rules for different elections are you?

According to Kamala, people can't figure out how to use their smartphone to get a photographic image of their driver's license. Asking anyone to apply different rules to different elections will only suppress voting, right?

lol...

Good point, but I was only really referencing the idea that you might vote for a party as opposed to an individual and we might go to proportional representation

Well if we're going to let illegal aliens vote, I remember that certain third world, sorry developing, countries used symbols as not everyone could read.

Proportional representation has certain advantages and disadvantages. The Green Party in the UK has advocated for proportional representation for donkey years. With only one Parliamentarian out of 650, proportional representation (2.7% in 2019) would multiply their numbers (from 1 to 17) and provide them political power they could only dream of. With sufficient financial backing countless political parties could fragment the vote and result in an endless procession of coalition governments. Smaller parties could become 'king makers' if they joined up and leveraged their votes.

It cost £500 to run for Parliament. So for £325,000, you could run a slate of candidates for all 650 seats. For every 0.1538% of the vote you could seat someone in Parliament. In the last general election 0.1538% of the total votes cast would be under 50,000 (~49,200).

(07-12-2021 10:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-12-2021 09:49 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  Voter suppression, especially voter ID, has been debunked countless times:

Ami Horowitz: How white liberals really view black voters (03 Nov 2016)
Ami on the Street: Are voter ID laws racist and suppress the black vote? Satirist Ami Horowtiz goes to UC Berkeley and Harlem to find out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW2LpFkVfYk

(Sorry, I couldn't find anything covering East Texas ranchers and/or non university grads. Apologies if either individual interviewed in your original link is a college graduate, including EdD's from University of Delaware.)

Great video, Mersey, but I think you just suppressed any of our liberals from explaining why they think proposed changes are racist and suppressive.

Looks like I was right.

In other news:

Democrats planning to run

on private jets

Texas voting bill explained, sorta, kinda

Even this obviously biased and slanted explanation does not make a case that racism is part of it or that the goal is to suppress black voters in some way.

Democrats, are you proud of your representatives doing this? Of so, why? Wouldn't you rather they stayed in Austin to negotiate compromise positions, AKA the democratic way?

CNN says...

"Texas (and national) Democrats know that, of course. What their flight to Washington on Monday is really about is a) drawing national attention to the voting bill in the state b) buying themselves some time to strategize and c) giving themselves the only sort of leverage they can have in a state legislature totally dominated by the opposing party."

"The best-case scenario for Texas Democrats currently holed up in Washington is that, sometime in the next week or two, they enter into negotiations with Republican leaders in the state House about what -- in terms of legislative concessions -- might bring them back to the state to vote. If that happens (and much would depend on Republicans' willingness to placate Democrats on at least some issues in this voting bill), Texas Democrats can declare victory and likely count all of the fundraising dollars they raised from being in the national spotlight."

(bolding mine)

(07-12-2021 08:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  It looks as though the DNC has determined they want to make voting a major issue in the 2022 campaign.

They call it voter suppression. I cannot see how any any of the changes in any of the states suppress anybody, much less people of a specific race or ethnicity.

Kamala Harris thinks rural voters are both stupid and deprived, so that making a copy of their DL is a burden. Harris I, as you all know, live rurally and have most of my life. No problem making copies. But even if it were so, isn't the theory [in Washington) that most of the rural dwellers are gun-toting white supremacists? These are red districts. How do they figure this is a suppression of black voters?

The Texas Democrats are threatening to jump ship and subvert the entire democratic process over this issue.

I just need somebody from either side of the aisle to explain to me the problems. Most of the explanations I hear involve some convoluted hypothetical. Chicken Little hysteria. Really folks, (1) how do the proposed changes suppress voting, and (2) how is that suppression targeted to minorities?

I think it is a made-up, for the campaign, issue.

Ranchers talk



I am willing to listen if anybody is willing to talk.

They need to talk to this guy:



oops! he now raciss, too. Wow, imagine that-- SNL is raciss! Who knew?


(also....Opto...the Opster...Optominimeister..the OptOwl...Opto...Operator...making copies in the rural areas!...)

(07-13-2021 10:18 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(07-12-2021 08:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  It looks as though the DNC has determined they want to make voting a major issue in the 2022 campaign.

They call it voter suppression. I cannot see how any any of the changes in any of the states suppress anybody, much less people of a specific race or ethnicity.

Kamala Harris thinks rural voters are both stupid and deprived, so that making a copy of their DL is a burden. Harris I, as you all know, live rurally and have most of my life. No problem making copies. But even if it were so, isn't the theory [in Washington) that most of the rural dwellers are gun-toting white supremacists? These are red districts. How do they figure this is a suppression of black voters?

The Texas Democrats are threatening to jump ship and subvert the entire democratic process over this issue.

I just need somebody from either side of the aisle to explain to me the problems. Most of the explanations I hear involve some convoluted hypothetical. Chicken Little hysteria. Really folks, (1) how do the proposed changes suppress voting, and (2) how is that suppression targeted to minorities?

I think it is a made-up, for the campaign, issue.

Ranchers talk



I am willing to listen if anybody is willing to talk.

They need to talk to this guy:



oops! he now raciss, too. Wow, imagine that-- SNL is raciss! Who knew?


(also....Opto...the Opster...Optominimeister..the OptOwl...Opto...Operator...making copies in the rural areas!...)

The Optimizer would work.

Texas House votes to arrest Democrats

Popping my head into the Quad for the first time in months and months, so please be kind! I have never been a Texas resident (I maintained my Alaska residency through college and then moved to Louisiana after college), so my questions are genuine.

Is it currently easier to vote in Texas or buy a gun? Should one or the other be easier or more difficult? Do either currently require a photo ID? Does the law that Texas is currently trying to pass change the answer to any of my questions?

Just curious. I am totally fine with requiring a photo ID as long as state residents can get a photo ID without cost or unreasonable hassle (a nice phrase for attorneys to argue about!). Heck, maybe everyone should be allowed to apply for government ID at their local post office (in addition to what is offered by states)?

Also, I'm not trying to skip any of the other issues raised above. But I'm honestly no educated enough on this topic to offer personal opinions or conclusions.

(07-13-2021 02:35 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Is it currently easier to vote in Texas or buy a gun? Should one or the other be easier or more difficult? Do either currently require a photo ID? Does the law that Texas is currently trying to pass change the answer to any of my questions?

I'll take a stab, as I understand things, in order:

Vote.
Probably neither, as both are constitutional rights.
Both.
No.

(07-13-2021 02:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-13-2021 02:35 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Is it currently easier to vote in Texas or buy a gun? Should one or the other be easier or more difficult? Do either currently require a photo ID? Does the law that Texas is currently trying to pass change the answer to any of my questions?

I'll take a stab, as I understand things, in order:

Vote.
Probably neither, as both are constitutional rights.
Both.
No.

Thank you!

(07-13-2021 12:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Texas House votes to arrest Democrats

gee whiz, didn't know they were filming a remake so soon

(07-13-2021 02:35 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Popping my head into the Quad for the first time in months and months, so please be kind! I have never been a Texas resident (I maintained my Alaska residency through college and then moved to Louisiana after college), so my questions are genuine.

Is it currently easier to vote in Texas or buy a gun? Should one or the other be easier or more difficult? Do either currently require a photo ID? Does the law that Texas is currently trying to pass change the answer to any of my questions?

Just curious. I am totally fine with requiring a photo ID as long as state residents can get a photo ID without cost or unreasonable hassle (a nice phrase for attorneys to argue about!). Heck, maybe everyone should be allowed to apply for government ID at their local post office (in addition to what is offered by states)?

Also, I'm not trying to skip any of the other issues raised above. But I'm honestly no educated enough on this topic to offer personal opinions or conclusions.

1. To vote, all one has to do is show a valid Texas form of ID.

To buy gun, the state of Texas adds nothing more to the process than already exists at the Federal level. To buy a firearm, one has to show a valid Texas ID, fill out a 5 page questionnaire on their previous history (criminal, mental health, one on whether I have ever been refused on any previous attempted firearms purchases, and surprisingly 2 weird questions, one on what race I am and another on if I am something other than the traditional 2 sexes), do an instant validity check with the national do not buy list, and then they can purchase. Additionally, one cannot carry the firearm to the cash register, and may only take possession of the gun (literally cannot carry it) until money transfers.

2. My answer is that the exercise of either should be equivalent --- they are both protected activities under the Constitution.

3. Both, in Texas, require a Texas photo ID.

4. The current law, if passed, will make voting even easier. Voting by mail will be legalized and not require Texas photo ID. However, absentee voting at a poll would still need a such an ID as would voting in person on voting day.