Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, of course, I agree with you in theory. So do a lot of Democrats. But what you describe is not what happens in practice. "Compromise" is a dirty word to the GOP. (Is it any wonder that most Republicans fear a primary more than they fear their Democratic opponent?) Just look at that three-ring circus going on in Wisconsin. Have any laws passed under Walker that had a single D vote?
So the question is: do Democrats continue to try playing nice with the GOP, hoping that someday there will be compromise? Do we keep our heads in the sand and keep chanting: "This time they'll compromise with us?"
Yes, of course, I agree with you in theory. So do a lot of Democrats. But what you describe is not what happens in practice. "Compromise" is a dirty word to the GOP. (Is it any wonder that most Republicans fear a primary more than they fear their Democratic opponent?) Just look at that three-ring circus going on in Wisconsin. Have any laws passed under Walker that had a single D vote?
So the question is: do Democrats continue to try playing nice with the GOP, hoping that someday there will be compromise? Do we keep our heads in the sand and keep chanting: "This time they'll compromise with us?"
In my opinion, hell no.
So when Republican legislators in Minnesota do not go along with the Democratic majority, it's because the Republicans won't support a bi-partisan compromise, but when Democrats in Wisconsin do not go along with the Republican majority, it's also because Republicans won't support a bi-partisan compromise?
So when Republican legislators in Minnesota do not go along with the Democratic majority, it's because the Republicans won't support a bi-partisan compromise, but when Democrats in Wisconsin do not go along with the Republican majority, it's also because Republicans won't support a bi-partisan compromise?
My point was that the Democrats (when in the majority) are looking for compromise; the Republicans (when in the majority) don't care.
My point was that the Democrats (when in the majority) are looking for compromise; the Republicans (when in the majority) don't care.
Both majorities would like to have the minority to capitulate to their views. Both call that bi-partisanship. In that regard, there's no difference between political parties.
I wonder if Mark Ritchie and the libs are going to continue to fight against requiring identification for voting after this one:
Yrgh. I'm not a fan of mocking diminutives like "libs" when talking about political opponents. ("mockutives?") I think it encourages flippant and disrespectful communications. Then again, if the plan is to draw frantic moths, buy a bright porch light.
However, I wonder sometimes about the dynamics of voter ID. It really does seem sometimes that both sides toss up straw men whenever this topic comes about. The left claims that any documentation requirement is the equivalent of a stormtrooper barking "show me ze papers!" The right claims that no documentation requirement means we'll be deluged with votes from people named "Notta Citizen." In my sense of things, both are kinda-sorta right.
Can someone on the Left say what they'd need to accept a documentation requirement? Considering that identification is required for so many things, why shouldn't we have some kind of national ID?
Can someone on the right say what they'd need to do without documentation? Should we all dip our fingers in ink at the polls? Should there be a more aggressive check for legal votes after elections?
I think both sides can see the value in ensuring that our voting system is untainted. There has to be some way to find agreement on this sort of thing. Maybe use the Census to identify people?
Yrgh. I'm not a fan of mocking diminutives like "libs" when talking about political opponents. ("mockutives?") I think it encourages flippant and disrespectful communications. Then again, if the plan is to draw frantic moths, buy a bright porch light.
However, I wonder sometimes about the dynamics of voter ID. It really does seem sometimes that both sides toss up straw men whenever this topic comes about. The left claims that any documentation requirement is the equivalent of a stormtrooper barking "show me ze papers!" The right claims that no documentation requirement means we'll be deluged with votes from people named "Notta Citizen." In my sense of things, both are kinda-sorta right.
Can someone on the Left say what they'd need to accept a documentation requirement? Considering that identification is required for so many things, why shouldn't we have some kind of national ID?
Can someone on the right say what they'd need to do without documentation? Should we all dip our fingers in ink at the polls? Should there be a more aggressive check for legal votes after elections?
I think both sides can see the value in ensuring that our voting system is untainted. There has to be some way to find agreement on this sort of thing. Maybe use the Census to identify people?
I believe the specific concern of conservatives here in Minnesota has to do with our relatively unique process that allows for voters to register on election day and without any proof of residence or identification, but simply based on the word of another registered voter residing in that precinct. There has been the suspicion among conservatives that this allows some individuals to register in different precincts and cast multiple votes. The aim of voter ID was to cut down on this specific type of activity.
I have never viewed it as a perfect solution in that it doesn't really completely address the issue of eligibility. How do we know that the person with the ID is a citizen and is not a felon? Can we get that information without being overly intrusive?
Some in this thread have advocated for electronic poll books with photos, so the voter is not carrying the photo ID but it's effectively the same thing. I kind of like that idea, but I am leery of putting more personal information into government hands, though I guess they have our drivers license photos stored in a database anyway.
I read of another idea one time on Scott Adams' blog (creator of Dilbert.) He was advocating direct voting on all issues in lieu of a legislature. The part I found appealing though is that prior to voting, you would take a test on the subject being voted on, and your vote would be weighted by the percent correct that you scored. Get all the answers and your vote counts 100%; get half the answers correct and you get half a vote.
This would be a vast improvement over the current system which allows anyone who breathes (and in Chicago, many who don't) to vote.
I believe the specific concern of conservatives here in Minnesota has to do with our relatively unique process that allows for voters to register on election day and without any proof of residence or identification, but simply based on the word of another registered voter residing in that precinct. There has been the suspicion among conservatives that this allows some individuals to register in different precincts and cast multiple votes. The aim of voter ID was to cut down on this specific type of activity.
Wow, really?!? I'm astonished.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenfield
Some in this thread have advocated for electronic poll books with photos, so the voter is not carrying the photo ID but it's effectively the same thing. I kind of like that idea, but I am leery of putting more personal information into government hands, though I guess they have our drivers license photos stored in a database anyway.
Hm. We could talk about any number of policy changes to improve validation, but without agreement that validation is desirable, we're ordering items that aren't on the menu. I agree a photo archive creates a different set of issues, but you're right: there's little difference from an archive of driver's license photos.
For what it's worth, I think it's a reasonable discussion. I feel that all rights should have community standards associated with them in the form of guidelines (whether we're talking about free speech, religion, guns, or what have you).
I can't really support a perspective that says universally-applied community guidelines are an unreasonable obstacle to exercising a right. If people want to buy guns, I think it's perfectly reasonable to require background checks and waiting periods. If people want to post on the City-Data forums, they need to have a membership and adhere to the terms of service and community guidelines. If people want to vote, each community needs to figure out what guidelines (such as baseline identification standards) they want to go with.
I tend to think that it would be better to propose and build a simple and free identification system, whatever form that takes, rather than declaring an identification system an unreasonable barrier to someone's civil or human rights. If the argument is that certain groups, such as people in retirement homes, have an undue burden due to the standard, a sensibly-designed system will include outreach for those groups to improve access.
Then, individuals can make a choice between more obvious options: whether they feel that it's better to disenfranchise some potential voters who do not participate within a highly accessible community standard, or whether it's better to enfranchise only those voters who participate within the community standard.
I read of another idea one time on Scott Adams' blog (creator of Dilbert.) He was advocating direct voting on all issues in lieu of a legislature. The part I found appealing though is that prior to voting, you would take a test on the subject being voted on, and your vote would be weighted by the percent correct that you scored. Get all the answers and your vote counts 100%; get half the answers correct and you get half a vote.
It sounds like a good idea until you think about it for 30 seconds. Who decides the questions? The questions, right down to the punctuation, would invoke humungous political brawls. Remember when Mark Richie tried to change the wording on the two amendments? Imagine that kind of fight for every issue. The questions wouldn't be fair. Lawsuits would tie up the election indefinitely.
Imagine this question if the issue were abortion:
(1) Should it be legal to kill babies?
Beyond that, look at how much time people spend with a ballot now. They'd be in the booth all day if we changed to this system. Now, I would be interested in learning about proposals where a one-time intelligence test is required to vote. Maybe you take a history exam and a current events exam too.
On the other hand, I would guess that the population who votes are more intelligent than non-voters anyway.
I read of another idea one time on Scott Adams' blog (creator of Dilbert.) He was advocating direct voting on all issues in lieu of a legislature. The part I found appealing though is that prior to voting, you would take a test on the subject being voted on, and your vote would be weighted by the percent correct that you scored. Get all the answers and your vote counts 100%; get half the answers correct and you get half a vote.
This would be a vast improvement over the current system which allows anyone who breathes (and in Chicago, many who don't) to vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199
It sounds like a good idea until you think about it for 30 seconds. Who decides the questions? The questions, right down to the punctuation, would invoke humungous political brawls. Remember when Mark Richie tried to change the wording on the two amendments? Imagine that kind of fight for every issue. The questions wouldn't be fair. Lawsuits would tie up the election indefinitely.
Imagine this question if the issue were abortion:
(1) Should it be legal to kill babies?
Beyond that, look at how much time people spend with a ballot now. They'd be in the booth all day if we changed to this system. Now, I would be interested in learning about proposals where a one-time intelligence test is required to vote. Maybe you take a history exam and a current events exam too.
On the other hand, I would guess that the population who votes are more intelligent than non-voters anyway.
Good grief, man. It was on Scott Adam's blog. The Dilbert cartoonist. It was a joke.
I do find it fascinating that you are advocating intelligence tests. How does it feel to the on the same side of an issue with Ann Coulter?
Understood. You did say you found it appealing though. Scott Adams is relatively intelligent; one could make the case that he wasn't being completely facetious.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
