Why does the US give so many legal powers to the states? Surely the US would want to drag some of the more racist states into this century by stopping this type of discrimination, which is easier if you make them all do it at once.
PSN: Osc89
NNID: Oscar89
thismeintiel said:
Lol, and how does it restrict minorities? Do they have it where there are white only voter ID stations, and the black/hispanic ones are in little shops that are hard to come by? Or are you suggesting that minorities are too stupid and/or lazy and can't/won't do the things that white people of all income brackets would have to do to get a voter ID card? That sounds pretty racist to me. |
Minorities and low income people are less likely to find out the law has changed. They are also less likely to carry an ID at any given time. Voter ID itself isn't the only thing meant to limit minorities and low income people. It is just one part of a larger scheme.
By the way I said low income people, which just happens to include white people. Please don't call me racist.
gergroy said:
The truth is, that the whole issue is just a poltical punching bag for both sides. States have had voter id laws for decades without it ever being an issue before. It only became an issue when the battleground states started doing it. Honestly, I think it is stupid that they even let people vote in some states without somekind of proof of who you are... |
This is about the voting rights act, not about voter ID. The reason it's a big deal is because the states that the law was made for or applied to were historically racist states that tried to or did pass laws to limit minority and low income voting.
ShinmenTakezo said:
This is about the voting rights act, not about voter ID. The reason it's a big deal is because the states that the law was made for or applied to were historically racist states that tried to or did pass laws to limit minority and low income voting. |
Well, theprof was obviously talking about voter id, and the voting rights ruling was because of voter id laws. I would say this is very much about voter id.
historically racist states should not be considered racist for all eternity. If they start bringing back vote tax or jim crow laws than we can revisit the issue, but if a state wants to require some form of proof of identity before it allows somebody to vote than they should be allowed to do that.
gergroy said:
historically racist states should not be considered racist for all eternity. If they start bringing back vote tax or jim crow laws than we can revisit the issue, but if a state wants to require some form of proof of identity before it allows somebody to vote than they should be allowed to do that. |
That's the thing though there is still attempts at voter supression happening.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasmine-rand/freeze-drop-your-ballot-t_b_3480970.html
You already have to show ID and proof of residence to register to vote, so why the need for more? There is no logical reason for voter ID laws when you already have to provide your info to register.
| Osc89 said: Why does the US give so many legal powers to the states? Surely the US would want to drag some of the more racist states into this century by stopping this type of discrimination, which is easier if you make them all do it at once. |
Why should states that have had some rather shameful episodes in their history (and frankly, which states don't?) suffer being treated as pariahs forever based on outdated data? Surely the Supreme Court would want to drag the federal government into this century by stopping this type of discrimination.
Who is to say which state is more racist? Why is Texas or South Carlolina racist forever because of laws that were eradicated half a century ago while New York City maintains a sterling reputation as an enlighted liberal bastion despite its horrendously racist stop and frisk policies and its warrantless wiretapping of mosques... in New Jersey?
| Slimebeast said: That seems unfair. Politicians, in this case Republicans I suppose, playing dirty again. It shouldn't be up to each individual state to determine any voting criteria for national elections. That's awkward. |
Well, you have to understand that an individual's vote doesn't matter in a national election. The only national elections are the presidential ones, and technically the states and not the citizens vote for the president (which is why it's based on electoral votes and not the popular vote). So the states have historically been allowed to determine who could vote and how.
| badgenome said: Why should states that have had some rather shameful episodes in their history (and frankly, which states don't?) suffer being treated as pariahs forever based on outdated data? Surely the Supreme Court would want to drag the federal government into this century by stopping this type of discrimination. Who is to say which state is more racist? Why is Texas or South Carlolina racist forever because of laws that were eradicated half a century ago while New York City maintains a sterling reputation as an enlighted liberal bastion despite its horrendously racist stop and frisk policies and its warrantless wiretapping of mosques... in New Jersey? |
Well an easy example that was on TV was that some elderly black woman now needed to show her birth certifcate.. Which she didn't have to use before when voting and will probably be a hard time to find for her cause her parents didn't registered her cause of the racism back in the 1950's... Just because the laws have changed by now doesn't mean don't still have an affect on people nowadays..
Face the future.. Gamecenter ID: nikkom_nl (oh no he didn't!!)
| NiKKoM said: Well an easy example that was on TV was that some elderly black woman now needed to show her birth certifcate.. Which she didn't have to use before when voting and will probably be a hard time to find for her cause her parents didn't registered her cause of the racism back in the 1950's... Just because the laws have changed by now doesn't mean don't still have an affect on people nowadays.. |
She can't get a passport, either. Or a job. Or drive in some places. (Not that I'm advocating letting women drive anywhere.)
I don't think that dwelling on one person's exceptional situation is useful for evaluating voter ID laws as a whole, and it really doesn't have anything to do at all with whether or not certain states should be able to have such laws (like Rhode Island) while certain ones can't (like basically the entire South).
ShinmenTakezo said:
You do have to prove who you are before already, it's called voter registration. You must register before you are allowed to vote. You must provide ID and proof of residence to register. Voter fraud isn't a problem. It is not very common. It's a strawman used to get people to Vote for voter ID laws. Voter ID laws are used to limit minority and low income votes. |
That's actually not true. There are very few cases of voter fraud being found out and prosecuted.
That doesn't mean voter fraud isn't very common.
It's like saying you never do invetory in your store, and it's not needed because almost none of your employees have been caught stealing.
There is nobody reallly comprehensivly checking who's voting because its really expensive, and really counterproductive to prosecute indviduals for voter fraud. Which is why actual checks are required.
There have been a few cases that have found that it's very probable that illegal voting has occured by quite a big of people. Cases done by media, instead of government.
http://www.nbc-2.com/story/16662854/2012/02/02/nbc2-investigates-voter-fraud
That's just the very tip of an iceberg of the sort of investigation it would take to actually know how widespread a problem it is.
It's easy to not see a problem when you have your eyes closed.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
