Democratic aggressors seek to strip Florida of its right to vote

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
That's retarded. Not having handy proof of citizenship is not equivalent to not being an adult citizen.

Is this directed at me? I said the act of larceny, not the state of being a minor. Where did that come from?

[Ramo]

You realize what the voter turnout rates are now, right? It's not going to get better if you put in a pointless bureaucratic step. One that the middle and upper class generally doesn't need to go through.

[Darius871]

Any individual that does seriously desire to vote will take the procedural steps necessary. If an individual is too lazy to do so, I'd posit that he/she wasn't all that interested in voting to begin with. Why should we care about encouraging someone that apathetic to influence policy?

[Ramo]

Is this directed at me? I said the act of larceny, not the state of being a minor. Where did that come from?

I don't think I'm the one who needs sock puppets.

You drew an analogy between a law against voter fraud and a law against larceny. You said that poor people are more likely to be malignantly affected by both, so the criticism against one as classist is equivalent to a criticism as the other as classist. But the the crime here is voter fraud, not the lack of having a handy proof of citizenship. This law effectively disenfranchises a bunch of adult citizens who don't have the time, awareness, or past experience to get through some bureaucratic asshatery in time to address a virtually non-existent problem.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo


I don't think I'm the one who needs sock puppets.

You drew an analogy between a law against voter fraud and a law against larceny. You said that poor people are more likely to be malignantly affected by both, so the criticism against one as classist is equivalent to a criticism as the other as classist. But the the crime here is voter fraud, not the lack of having a handy proof of citizenship.

No. The sole point of my analogy (as summarized in the last sentence) was that laws are intended to forbid or require acts or ommissions. Therefore, the race, gender, creed, or socioeconomic status of an individual is completely irrelevant to a law's application to his/her acts or ommissions.

Here the law requires that individual X procure a birth certificate, with the consequence of omission being temporary inability to vote. X's personal characteristics mean absolutely nothing; only the omission matters. I can't think of a way to make that concept any more clear.

[Ramo]

Any individual that does seriously desire to vote will take the procedural steps necessary. If an individual is too lazy to do so, I'd posit that he/she wasn't all that interested in voting to begin with. Why should we care about encouraging someone that apathetic to influence policy?

Because people who are really busy, and might not have the free time or the information to go through pointless bureaucracy a few months in advance of the election still have something to add to the conversation. Something that's not represented by the sort of people would don't have to go through said pointless bureaucracy...

[Ramo]

No. The sole point of my analogy (as summarized in the last sentence) was that laws are intended to forbid or require acts or ommissions. Therefore, the race, gender, creed, or socioeconomic status of an individual violator of a law is completely irrelevant to its application.

Let's go over this again. Real slow. The law effectively disenfranchises a bunch people who have the right to vote. These people are disproportionately poor. And problem that the law supposedly addresses is virtually non-existent. Therefore it's really, really bad. And TX Republicans are bad people for pushing it.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
Because people who are really busy, and might not have the free time

Even the busiest people can set aside 10 minutes, especially for something as important as voting. We're not talking about a tax return here.

Originally posted by Ramo
or the information

To my knowledge ignorantia legis neminem excusat is still the standard in modern democratic societies. As well it should be, especially for something as important as voting.

[Ramo]

I don't know where you get 10 minutes from. Finding out where you request a birth certificate and getting the form might take a little bit of time. 'Specially for poor, older people. And again, we're talking about ignorance regarding a new, pointless bureaucratic step specifically designed to make voting more difficult.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
Let's go over this again. Real slow. The law effectively disenfranchises a bunch people who have the right to vote. These people are disproportionately poor.

No, it requires that people show citizenship in order to vote. Only three categories of people are disenfranchised by this requirement:

1) Non-citizens, who never had the right to vote in the first place.
2) Perpetrators of voter fraud.
3) Citizens too irresponsible/stupid fill out a damn form in time.

If someone in group 3 happens to also be poor or minority, it doesn't matter. He/she is being "disenfranchised" solely for an omission that lands him in group 3.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Darius871
Any individual that does seriously desire to vote will take the procedural steps necessary. If an individual is too lazy to do so, I'd posit that he/she wasn't all that interested in voting to begin with. Why should we care about encouraging someone that apathetic to influence policy?

What kind of Nazi crap is this?

Fears of fraud should not be used as a justification to make voting unduly difficult. The safeguards that should be put in place should aim to catch voter fraud after the fact, not to prevent it from happening by suppressing the legitimate vote.

Honestly, do you people hate democracy or something?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
I don't know where you get 10 minutes from. Finding out where you request a birth certificate and getting the form might take a little bit of time. 'Specially for poor, older people.

Fine, let's just suppose it takes 30 minutes of internet searching or phone tag to get the form, and 10 minutes to fill it out. So a busy person can't set aside 40 minutes to ensure their vote? 50? 80? If it's not worth that miniscule investment, it's hard to imagine that he/she was very concerned about voting in the first place.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Agathon
What kind of Nazi crap is this?

Fears of fraud should not be used as a justification to make voting unduly difficult. The safeguards that should be put in place should aim to catch voter fraud after the fact, not to prevent it from happening by suppressing the legitimate vote.

Honestly, do you people hate democracy or something?

The point of contention here isn't whether we should "suppress the legitimate vote," but you're free to have fun with that straw man.

I'm only questioning whether this particular inconvenience is substantial enough to stop any reasonable person who seriously wants to vote from doing so.

[Ramo]

Fine, let's just suppose it takes 30 minutes of internet searching or phone tag to get the form, and 10 minutes to fill it out. So a busy person can't set aside 40 minutes to ensure their vote? 50? 80? If it's not worth that miniscule investment, it's hard to imagine that he/she was very concerned about voting in the first place.

And you have to drive or ride the bus to wherever this place happens to be (unless you happen to have a computer, internet, and a printer and are able to use them) and wait in line - probably during hours that roughly coincide with your job or other responsibilities (taking care of kids, etc.). And you have to do that at least a couple months before the election. And you have to throw down some money. All to "fix" a problem that is virtually non-existent.

[snoopy369]

What is the justification for not requiring solely a state-issued picture ID?