Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
OK fine. I personally know two illegal residents with CA drivers' license.
have you considered a run for the Senate?
|
|
froodish
Social climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Systems which require trust must be open-source so that they can be peer reviewed for flaws. The crypto folks learned this long-long ago.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
You're wrong. From the State Department:
*A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar's signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.
Beginning April 1, 2011, all birth certificates must also include the full names of the applicant's parent(s). For more information, please see New Requirement for all U.S. Birth Certificates.
You're acting a little dumber than you normally do.
As I suspected, you're making some assumptions (that are incorrect) based on your own experience. While that's not totally unreasonable, it doesn't make you less wrong.
The birther nonsense was to insist on a "long form" certificate when the "short form" is what is used for legal purposes.
Here's what CNN said:
Certificate of live birth
The Obama team and the state of Hawaii released a certification of live birth, which documents the president’s birth on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu. This is not the original birth certificate. In Hawaii and other states, original birth certificates are not released when requested later.
CNN has seen a copy of the document and verified that it is official.
The certificate, officials say, allows a person born in Hawaii to get a driver's license, purchase land and obtain a U.S. passport.
Try to refute that, admit you're wrong, or (most likely) post some more irrelevant gibberish about your personal experience and then blithely assume that somehow applies to everyone else.
You're the one who thinks most Americans can't prove they're citizens--what's your evidence? That you couldn't? lol
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
I quoted the state department site on passport qualifications. Take it up with The Man.
DMT
I don't need to take it up with The Man: he already gave me my passport based on my abstracted birth certificate.
So The Man doesn't agree with you, sorry dude.
Too bad you had a little snafu getting your passport, but for you to turn that into your belief that most people don't have docs to prove their citizenship is just weird. But by all means carry on with your delusion. (And to beat this beyond death, it's pretty clear what your reading problem is in this case: "some" does not mean "all.")
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
Why require anyone to register to vote? Many countries (even democracies) do not.
It is just another way to make voting difficult in the USA.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
The next interesting issue will be on-line voting. Should it be allowed, does it work, is it confidential and verifiable, etc etc. We're just starting to see it here.
It utterly mystifies Canadians that in much of the USA, you elect rather than appoint those who run your elections. It's an invitation to corruption, dishonesty and incompetence. Likewise that national elections are run by state or even local officials, rather than on a consistent basis.
However, in Canada, you must usually produce government issue ID, and/or your voter notification, to vote. They keep track of as many voters as possible, do enumeration, plus have procedures to allow people to register and vote on the day of the election, if they can provide plausible proof of eligibility.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Why require anyone to register to vote? Many countries (even democracies) do not.
It is just another way to make voting difficult in the USA.
Ummm, forgive me if this sounds condescending, I don't mean it to be but your question seems rather odd:
perhaps you're not aware of the fact that you're actually supposed to be a US citizen to vote in a US election?
Furthermore, not all citizens are allowed to vote. For example, in addition to age requirements, felons can't vote under some circumstances (those depend on state law).
How would an election work if there was no registration requirement? How would the people running the election know who was allowed to vote? I suppose the government could automatically register all qualified citizens--maybe that's a good idea and what other countries do.
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
Ummm, forgive me if this sounds condescending, I don't mean it to be but your question seems rather odd:
perhaps you're not aware of the fact that you're actually supposed to be a US citizen to vote in a US election?
Furthermore, not all citizens are allowed to vote. For example, in addition to age requirements, felons can't vote under some circumstances (those depend on state law).
How would an election work if there was no registration requirement? How would the people running the election know who was allowed to vote? I suppose the government could automatically register all qualified citizens--maybe that's a good idea and what other countries do.
I don't read it as condescending so no worries there. The USA is one of only some countries that requires registration. Others use things like tax rolls (among other things) to know who is on a list that makes them eligible to vote. Other countries use as a default that everyone who is a citizen and of age(and they know who you are don't they?) is eligible to vote. People can opt out, but the default is that your are registered automatically.
You can google this notion (of why require to register) and find some interesting stuff. See the many ways voting is handled. (Here's the google link for a start. We all know that it may be imperfect given it's the internet, but it offers lots of good info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_registration);. It's pretty widely agreed that our form of registering is used as a disincentive for folks to vote and this style is related to relatively low voter turnouts.
Another way we make it hard to vote is holding elections on weekdays. What's up with that? Other countries hold them on a weekend or make voting day a holiday. This makes it easier to vote. But the USA has not tried to make voting easy.
Interesting stuff I think.
(edit: My super dweeby Ph.D. is in Political Science though it's not the area I conduct research in any longer).
double edit: You raise something I've long wondered about...why deny any felon who has done his time the right to vote? What is up with that? I find that an odd policy honestly and one that some would say is to disenfranchise a particular group (poorer folks) moreso than others. That's another interesting area I think.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Another way we make it hard to vote is holding elections on weekdays. What's up with that? Other countries hold them on a weekend or make voting day a holiday. This makes it easier to vote. But the USA has not tried to make voting easy.
double edit: You raise something I've long wondered about...why deny any felon who has done his time the right to vote? What is up with that? I find that an odd policy honestly and one that some would say is to disenfranchise a particular group (poorer folks) moreso than others. That's another interesting area I think.
Some would argue that making voting as easy as possible isn't necessarily a good in and of itself. If some people either can't get it together to figure out how to vote or just don't care enough to spend a little time, perhaps they're not sufficiently informed to have a meaningful opinion?
My old boss (a very successful, i.e., rich, lawyer) thought that elections should work like they do in the corporate world, where you get to vote once per share you own. Shares would be represented by tax dollars paid. While that won't happen, it does have at lease some logic--why should people who don't pay anything to support the government get to decide how the government spends other people's money?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
why should people who don't pay anything to support the government get to decide how the government spends other people's money?
Check your constitution. That bit about everyone being equal and having equal rights, regardless of anything else. Most democracies abolished poll taxes, property rights as a determinant of voting rights, voting rights determined by race, and any other limitations on voting unrelated to age many decades ago.
It is no surprise given the growing inequality in the US that some of the wealthy, perhaps feeling threatened, now want to limit the rights of others. Not that they are without success in manipulating those with average or less income and property - the Republicans are largely about that. In future, it may be that looking back, political scientists will see the apogee of democracy in the US as being in the 1940s - 1960s, with a reversion to oligarchic republicanism since.
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
Some would argue that making voting as easy as possible isn't necessarily a good in and of itself. If some people either can't get it together to figure out how to vote or just don't care enough to spend a little time, perhaps they're not sufficiently informed to have a meaningful opinion?
My old boss (a very successful, i.e., rich, lawyer) thought that elections should work like they do in the corporate world, where you get to vote once per share you own. Shares would be represented by tax dollars paid. While that won't happen, it does have at lease some logic--why should people who don't pay anything to support the government get to decide how the government spends other people's money?
Enjoying the conversation!
The country began with very little available for the citizens to vote on. And those who could vote were property owning white males. (recall for instance, females did not have the right to vote.) We didn't get a say in who becomes President (that is true today as the Electoral College does this choosing for us - a terrible non-democratic institution! (It has changed over time and in some states the Electorates must vote the way the public voted, but in most states they can do whatever the heck they want). And in the beginning, Senators were not selected by vote by the public. (Note that Rick Perry wants to go back to this style). Really, we got to vote for the House of Reps person only at the federal level. Why? We were considered too stupid to be left with such an important responsibility.
The political science literature talks about the 'unsophisticated electorate.' Nice way of saying the public is largely uninformed. There is a lot of evidence that it is indeed the case.
But I think it comes down to the kind of country we want to be. Do we want to have decisions made by those who pass certain tests (IQ tests? Literacy tests? Make more money? Have testicles? College educated? Parents were able to vote so we can?).
Or do we want to be a country that values every person? No right or wrong answer really - it's a preference. We *say* we value every person, but do we?
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
I agree fully DMT.
The history of Texas voting is particularly sadly interesting. The effort put into disenfranchising Blacks is pretty stunning. Those in power went so far as to privatize the Democratic party at one point since they could then legally exclude Blacks and this in effect disenfranchised them. Amazingly awful efforts to keep Blacks from voting were ongoing in our own lifetime (well most of us; I forget exact dates, but into the 1970s if memory serves). It's so shameful imo.
edit: An interesting link - about southern disenfranchisement: http://www.umich.edu/~lawrace/disenfranchise1.htm.
BTW does anyone know what Juneteenth celebrates? It a holiday to many in Texas. It commemorates the date that the slaves learned they were free...two and a half years after the fact! No one one told them. Crazy!
From the web: "President Lincoln announced the Emancipation Proclamation, which granted freedom to slaves in Confederate states, on New Year’s Day in 1863. Word didn’t reach the African-American slaves of Galveston, Texas, until June 19, 1865, when a force of two-thousand Union soldiers arrived and informed them of their freedom. Although news indeed did travel slowly in those days, two and a half years is a long time; historians suspect Texas slaveholders knew of the proclamation and chose not to free their slaves until they were forced to."
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 2, 2011 - 06:15pm PT
|
The US has always excluded people from voting. Its a constant see saw battle between the forces of exclusion and inclusion.
So true Dingus. You state is so well.
But the Election Fraud that I'd like to address (if at all possible) is correctly count the folks who care enough to vote, and who are able to vote.
Is there anything we can do about it, or do we throw up our arms and, as you say, shout for the team we think will better run this ship?
Democracy is a good system, but when you have "winners" and "loosers" in an election, it discourages folks from voting. I'm not a PolySci major, but I believe it's the Parliament system that gives representation equal to the number of folks voting for each party. Maybe that would be good?
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
Proportional Representation.
It can make from strange bedfellows, but it seems to encourage cooperation which I'm a fan of. It'd take more changes than I think this country would stand for to get it here.
Here is the wikipedia version of it if interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Election Fraud: Acorn workers busing the "lower class" to the polls and paying them to vote for the Democrats.
FACT: Many "educated" Republicans privately believe this.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
We should make voters pass a simple test to qualify for voting...The first question should be; is the earth flat..The second question; Is Obama a US citizen...This would cull the morons from the voting process and hopefully elect better officials..
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
Model Legislation Public Safety and Elections VOTER ID ACT
SUMMARY
This legislation requires any United States citizen desiring to vote in a state to provide proof of identity at the polls, outlines permissible provisional ballots, and optionally[ii] provides for a free ID to those who do not have a driver's license.
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.
(a) "Proof of identity" means a document or identification card that: (1) Shows the name of the person to whom the document was issued; (2) Shows a photograph of the person to whom the document was issued; (3) Contains an expiration date, and is not expired. (4) Is issued by the United States or the State of Arkansas.
SECTION 2. IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT TO VOTE.
(b) Any person desiring to vote in this state shall present proof of identity to the election official when appearing to vote in person either early or at the polls on Election Day.
(c)(1) If the voter is listed on the precinct voter registration list but fails to provide proof of identity, the election official shall:
(A) Indicate on the precinct voter registration list that the voter did not provide proof of identity; and
(B) Request that the voter execute an affidavit in the presence of the election official containing:
(i) A written eligibility affirmation stating that he or she is a registered voter in the precinct in which he or she desires to vote and is eligible to vote; and
(ii) A statement that the voter cannot provide proof of identity because the voter:
(a) Does not have proof of identity available at the time of voting;
(b) Is indigent; or
(c) Has a religious objection to being photographed.
(2) If a voter executes an affidavit under subsection (c)(1)(B) of this section, the election official shall permit the voter to cast a provisional ballot.
(d) A provisional ballot cast by a voter who did not provide proof of identity shall be counted if:
(1)(A) The voter returns to the county board of election commissioners by 12:00 p.m. on the Monday following the election and provides proof of identity.
(B) If a voter does not return to the county board of election commissioners and provide proof of identity, the county board of election commissioners shall make a determination whether to count a provisional ballot cast by a voter who did not provide proof of identity based on the merits of each provisional ballot; and
(2) The voter has not been challenged or required to vote a provisional ballot for any other reason.
(e) An identification card shall be issued without the payment of a fee or charge to an individual who:
(1) Does not have a valid driver's license; and
(2) Will be at least eighteen (18) years of age at the next general election, special election, or municipal election.
(f) The provisions of this section concerning the presentation of proof of identity when appearing to vote shall not apply to a person who is a resident of a licensed nursing home, licensed residential care facility, licensed assisted-living facility, or any licensed facility that provides long- term medical or personal care.
SECTION 3. REPEALS. The following are repealed: . SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This [act] takes effect ___.
In its Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, ALEC also outlines suggested requirements for proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
[ii]Because numerous United States Supreme Court decisions have been interpreted to hold that government may not require citizens to pay any fee in exchange for the right to vote, bill drafters may wish to include a section that mandates the provision of publicly funded ID cards without cost to those citizens who request them.
Approved by the Public Safety and Elections Task Force on July 17, 2009. Approved by the ALEC Board of Directors on August 27, 2009.
??'
About Members Login Logout Events & Meetings Model Legislation Task Forces ALEC Initiatives Publications Home Join ALEC Contact News
http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/Civil_Rights
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
(a) "Proof of identity" means a document or identification card that: (1) Shows the name of the person to whom the document was issued; (2) Shows a photograph of the person to whom the document was issued; (3) Contains an expiration date, and is not expired. (4) Is issued by the United States or the State of Arkansas.
Ha! This reminds me of a great story. It was (and maybe still is) a requirement of airlines to show a "government issued ID" to board. So a friend of mine got one - we walked over and he got a Library of Congress Card. One only needs their driver's license for it.
Every time he'd go to get on a flight, he'd show it. They'd balk. He'd demand to know why it doesn't work - it is issued by the Fed Govt. and that is their only requirement. It made for some really excellent battles at the airport and he'd eventually win and fly to his destination.
He lost the overall battle with his wife though. She refused to go with him if he made such a big fuss each time.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!