I'm not really sure when things changed or how it is state to state, precinct to precinct. Used to I showed up at my polling place (local community center) stood in line, produced my ID to be checked on a registration list and got my sticker on the way out the door. Last time I voted, politics played with everything including mail in or voting early vs voting on polling day at local polling place. What a weird people human society is. Let's be free and fight over the freedom. Suddenly the term community center is ironic...
Where I voted, they just ask for your address. I suppose that eliminates the chances of voting more than 1x...but what if I voted by mail too? I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems we should be able to create a more secure voting system, from vote to tally, that provides quick and easy access to all voters.
Yeah. I grew up in a time when you didn't have to lock your front door. It wasn't all that long ago.
Times change, things and situations change. Realities change and with that so do needs.
Most of all, people change. The doors haven't changed. They always had locks. That people have changed is why we now have to lock our front doors.
I snort every time I read "We never had to lock our doors before! The world is going to Hell in a handbasket!"
Look: people have been stealing from each other since the beginning of recorded history and well before that. You can live in a Shangri-La where everyone's material and emotional needs are met and your neighbors are outwardly paragons of virtue—and there will still be theft, rape, murder, lying to conceal bad actions, etc.
Take a gander at the Ten Commandments. Do Commandments 5-10 instill faith in you that you don't need locks on your doors?
Locks on doors are at best a deterrent to immoral, amoral and criminal activity that are part of the normal spectrum of human behavior. If someone gets burgled and they're shocked that they now have to lock their doors, they're just experiencing the death of their naiveté.
I know the word privileged gets thrown around too often these days, but this post is an example of privilege. Depends on where you live, yo.
Yeah. I grew up in a time when you didn't have to lock your front door. It wasn't all that long ago.
Times change, things and situations change. Realities change and with that so do needs.
Most of all, people change. The doors haven't changed. They always had locks. That people have changed is why we now have to lock our front doors.
I snort every time I read "We never had to lock our doors before! The world is going to Hell in a handbasket!"
Look: people have been stealing from each other since the beginning of recorded history and well before that. You can live in a Shangri-La where everyone's material and emotional needs are met and your neighbors are outwardly paragons of virtue—and there will still be theft, rape, murder, lying to conceal bad actions, etc.
Take a gander at the Ten Commandments. Do Commandments 5-10 instill faith in you that you don't need locks on your doors?
We live a homeless crack meth town with nothing but rundown fast foods joints and heatwaves. We lock our house and have an array of burglar lights - several on each side - more than 10 motion sensors. We make sure nothing is delivered on days we are gone and empty the mailbox as soon as it arrives. Arsetown. Not racially/ethnically/etc. diverse.
We live in a very racially/ethnically/etc. diverse neighborhood in an old part of town. I have no reservations about not locking our door when we take our twice-daily walks.
We live a homeless crack meth town with nothing but rundown fast foods joints and heatwaves. We lock our house and have an array of burglar lights - several on each side - more than 10 motion sensors. We make sure nothing is delivered on days we are gone and empty the mailbox as soon as it arrives. Arsetown. Not racially/ethnically/etc. diverse.
We live in a very racially/ethnically/etc. diverse neighborhood in an old part of town. I have no reservations about not locking our door when we take our twice-daily walks.
No. We are required to by overreaching regulation is not the same as we need.
Every intrusion will be used to justify the next intrusion. That's why we have to fight the first one, the reasonable one, and appear as unreasonable zealotsâbecause the fight only gets harder as the stakes rise.
Yeah. I grew up in a time when you didn't have to lock your front door. It wasn't all that long ago.
Times change, things and situations change. Realities change and with that so do needs.
Most of all, people change. The doors haven't changed. They always had locks. That people have changed is why we now have to lock our front doors.
We live in a political world. While there has been no evidence of widespread past abuses, there is the "potential" The motivations of the half who are looking to have a more "secure" voting system may not be sincere, there are still those who see requiring ID as "common sense," while at the same time reasonably addressing the political half that are looking for change. Asking for ID to vote is not the equivalent of "papers please" The former is an attempt to secure a proper vote - the ID secures that right - whereas the latter (papers please) uses the ID to discriminate ps, are we really arguing that requesting voter ID is too burdensome?
We don't shouldn't add restrictions—any restrictions—to fundamental rights to appease a dishonest set of partisans. They will never be satisfied so long as the wrong people are voting at all. That's how we got literacy tests and poll taxes. Again, make your case. "It's reasonable" is not justification. It isn't a matter of being too burdensome, you need to justify the burden—any burden—and prove the measure does more good than harm at the bare minimum., but the burden thing goes deeper. Voting someone else's ballot is a crime. We prosecute people for that, but we have to prove they're guilty—they don't have to prove they're innocent. Putting up barriers to voting because people might break the law isn't how a free society works. Prosecute them if they break the law, but don't presume they are breaking it. Or turn in your penis because you might become a rapist. You know, to be consistent.
I'm afraid that this is unfortunately one of the most inconsistent areas of actuality in principle in a free society but nonetheless critical to hold on to. Now, let's talk Twitter...lol On second thought, let's not.
We live in a political world.
While there has been no evidence of widespread past abuses, there is the "potential"
The motivations of the half who are looking to have a more "secure" voting system may not be sincere, there are still those who see requiring ID as "common sense," while at the same time reasonably addressing the political half that are looking for change.
Asking for ID to vote is not the equivalent of "papers please"
The former is an attempt to secure a proper vote - the ID secures that right - whereas the latter (papers please) uses the ID to discriminate
ps, are we really arguing that requesting voter ID is too burdensome?
We don't shouldn't add restrictionsâany restrictionsâto fundamental rights to appease a dishonest set of partisans. They will never be satisfied so long as the wrong people are voting at all. That's how we got literacy tests and poll taxes.
Again, make your case. "It's reasonable" is not justification. It isn't a matter of being too burdensome, you need to justify the burden—any burden—and prove the measure does more good than harm at the bare minimum., but the burden thing goes deeper.
Voting someone else's ballot is a crime. We prosecute people for that, but we have to prove they're guiltyâthey don't have to prove they're innocent. Putting up barriers to voting because people might break the law isn't how a free society works. Prosecute them if they break the law, but don't presume they are breaking it.
Or turn in your penis because you might become a rapist. You know, to be consistent.
Again, this reverses the paradigm of a free society. Adding obstacles to exercising a constitutionally-protected right or franchise (like voting) requires justification, resisting them does not. If you think there is a harm that any of these measures presents, make your case—but the burden is on those who would impose the obstacles to prove that
1. there is actual harm being done 2. that this measure would prevent it, and 3. the burden imposed (and the harm caused) by the obstacles is outweighed by the harm the obstacles would prevent
Good luck with that.
We live in a political world. While there has been no evidence of widespread past abuses, there is the "potential" The motivations of the half who are looking to have a more "secure" voting system may not be sincere, there are still those who see requiring ID as "common sense," while at the same time reasonably addressing the political half that are looking for change. Asking for ID to vote is not the equivalent of "papers please" The former is an attempt to secure a proper vote - the ID secures that right - whereas the latter (papers please) uses the ID to discriminate
ps, are we really arguing that requesting voter ID is too burdensome?
I'm not really sure when things changed or how it is state to state, precinct to precinct. Used to I showed up at my polling place (local community center) stood in line, produced my ID to be checked on a registration list and got my sticker on the way out the door. Last time I voted, politics played with everything including mail in or voting early vs voting on polling day at local polling place. What a weird people human society is. Let's be free and fight over the freedom. Suddenly the term community center is ironic...
That we need an ID for almost every other activity in this USA and now possibly ID with proof of vaccination coming at us, somehow requiring ID to vote is unreasonable ?
Nope, nada. This ship has sailed.
No. We are required to by overreaching regulation is not the same as we need.
Every intrusion will be used to justify the next intrusion. That's why we have to fight the first one, the reasonable one, and appear as unreasonable zealots—because the fight only gets harder as the stakes rise.
Again, this reverses the paradigm of a free society. Adding obstacles to exercising a constitutionally-protected right or franchise (like voting) requires justification, resisting them does not. If you think there is a harm that any of these measures presents, make your caseâbut the burden is on those who would impose the obstacles to prove that
1. there is actual harm being done 2. that this measure would prevent it, and 3. the burden imposed (and the harm caused) by the obstacles is outweighed by the harm the obstacles would prevent
Good luck with that.
We live in a political world. While there has been no evidence of widespread past abuses, there is the "potential" The motivations of the half who are looking to have a more "secure" voting system may not be sincere, there are still those who see requiring ID as "common sense," while at the same time reasonably addressing the political half that are looking for change. Asking for ID to vote is not the equivalent of "papers please" The former is an attempt to secure a proper vote - the ID secures that right - whereas the latter (papers please) uses the ID to discriminate
ps, are we really arguing that requesting voter ID is too burdensome?
Again, this reverses the paradigm of a free society. Adding obstacles to exercising a constitutionally-protected right or franchise (like voting) requires justification, resisting them does not. If you think there is a harm that any of these measures presents, make your case—but the burden is on those who would impose the obstacles to prove that
1. there is actual harm being done 2. that this measure would prevent it, and 3. the burden imposed (and the harm caused) by the obstacles is outweighed by the harm the obstacles would prevent
Good luck with that.
That we need an ID for almost every other activity in this USA and now possibly ID with proof of vaccination coming at us, somehow requiring ID to vote is unreasonable ?
Nope, nada. This ship has sailed.
lol. At first it read "proof of vacillation" and I was thinking well, it is politics so...lolol
Again, this reverses the paradigm of a free society. Adding obstacles to exercising a constitutionally-protected right or franchise (like voting) requires justification, resisting them does not. If you think there is a harm that any of these measures presents, make your caseâbut the burden is on those who would impose the obstacles to prove that
1. there is actual harm being done 2. that this measure would prevent it, and 3. the burden imposed (and the harm caused) by the obstacles is outweighed by the harm the obstacles would prevent
Good luck with that.
That we need an ID for almost every other activity in this USA and now possibly ID with proof of vaccination coming at us, somehow requiring ID to vote is unreasonable ?
i agree with the "boot" comment, but that's not really answering the question of why you wouldnt want a secure election...require some way of verifying the person voting is who they say they are.
Maybe there is a good argument for not requiring some form of ID, but i have yet to hear it.
Again, this reverses the paradigm of a free society. Adding obstacles to exercising a constitutionally-protected right or franchise (like voting) requires justification, resisting them does not. If you think there is a harm that any of these measures presents, make your case—but the burden is on those who would impose the obstacles to prove that
1. there is actual harm being done
2. that this measure would prevent it, and
3. the burden imposed (and the harm caused) by the obstacles is outweighed by the harm the obstacles would prevent
We don't have a national ID card system in the US. We have historically resisted the paradigm of authorities growling "Show me your papers!"
At least, until recently. Factions that historically favored individuals over the state have developed a taste for boot when it looks like it will give them a partisan advantage.
As for the other items you mentioned in the earlier post...rather than demanding a reason for an absentee vote or voting by mail it seems to me the burden should go the other way: prove I shouldn't be able to do that.
And you can't scare me by calling me an extremist living in the mountains!
i agree with the "boot" comment, but that's not really answering the question of why you wouldnt want a secure election...require some way of verifying the person voting is who they say they are.
Maybe there is a good argument for not requiring some form of ID, but i have yet to hear it.
Seems to me everyone would want secure elections, freedom and secure elections can certainly co exist or are you one of those people who thinks that all ids are persecution of the state? Seems a rather hard line that is more fit for extremist groups gathering in the mountains. As for fitting in, some times the reason why most people do something a certain way is because it is basic common sense to do it that way and it seems this one fits that category nicely.
Seems to me everyone would want secure elections, freedom and secure elections can certainly co exist or are you one of those people who thinks that all ids are persecution of the state? Seems a rather hard line that is more fit for extremist groups gathering in the mountains. As for fitting in, some times the reason why most people do something a certain way is because it is basic common sense to do it that way and it seems this one fits that category nicely.
We don't have a national ID card system in the US. We have historically resisted the paradigm of authorities growling "Show me your papers!"
At least, until recently. Factions that historically favored individuals over the state have developed a taste for boot when it looks like it will give them a partisan advantage.
As for the other items you mentioned in the earlier post...rather than demanding a reason for an absentee vote or voting by mail it seems to me the burden should go the other way: prove I shouldn't be able to do that.
And you can't scare me by calling me an extremist living in the mountains!
the irony is very thick on this one.