From time to time I write about my embarrassment of black liberal politicians. Whether we like it or not, race is a sore subject that we can’t get away from, and what blacks do bothers me more than what others do because I’m black.
Take Chris Rock’s performance at the Oscars. I was angry about it and said so. I got a few equally angry e-mails from blacks who didn’t like my critique, but they had nothing to say about Rock’s clownish and stereotypical behavior.
Those feelings surfaced again when I read this cringe-worthy article (reg. req.). A little national security background first.
In the age of Islamic terrorism, we need to do everything we can, within reason, to protect ourselves. People who want to blow us up enter the country through porous borders or legally, but overstay their visas. Some of the Muslim thugs who attacked us on 911 had aroused suspicion before the attacks, but not wanting to hurt their feelings and/or get sued, government officials and others said and did nothing. Never again, they said. The gigantic Department of Homeland Security was tasked to secure the homeland. Frisking old ladies at airports is one of their bold new “security” initiatives.
Back to the cringe-worthy article. Requiring photo identification to vote is a small but important step toward securing our homeland. While fake IDs are readily available, the more we require this means of identification, the harder it is (in theory) to produce a convincing phony one, in my opinion. Photo IDs will also help reduce voter fraud, which is a good thing, right?
A bunch of black politicians in Georgia don’t think so. They staged a walkout because the governor wants voters to show identification before they vote. No, that’s not a typo. They walked out of the Capitol in protest because people who want to vote in Georgia will have to show valid, government-issued ID.
I didn’t need to read further than the first couple of paragraphs to get the gist of it. I could recite the rest of the story in my sleep. But for the sake of “research,” I read it all. An excerpt:
Democrats say it could prevent as much as 3% of the population from voting — especially poor, black and elderly Georgians, because they are less likely to have photo identification.The law now will go before the U.S. Department of Justice, which must review and approve it under the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 because Georgia has a history of vote suppression.
In March, leaders of the state Legislative Black Caucus compared the restrictions to Jim Crow-era methods of disfranchisement, like the poll tax or the literacy test.
“It’s announcing that the state is designed to look more like 1954 than 2005,” said state Senate Minority Leader Robert Brown, a Democrat from Macon. “It cuts to the core of the progress we’re making in Georgia.”
This is an example of what I mean when I say politicians treat blacks like children. Black so-called leaders and politicians disingenuously conjure up images of Jim Crow when they can’t get their way, without even realizing they’re playing to the negative stereotypes that plagued blacks for generations, hurting the “poor, black and elderly” they claim to care so much about.
“Poor, black and elderly” citizens don’t know how to go down to city hall or the DMV to get an identification card? First of all, why don’t they already have picture identification? Don’t they drive or hold jobs? How do they cash checks, both welfare and earned, and open accounts, without proof that they’re who they purport to be? Ridiculous.
Identification is such a basic requirement that for years I thought you were supposed to show ID when voting. I was surprised the first time I voted in the District of Columbia when the poll worker didn’t even look at my driver’s license, which I had in my hand. It turns out I didn’t even have to bring it!
I can certainly understand how poll taxes and literacy tests discouraged people (poor blacks and whites) from voting 50 years ago. Literacy tests were a blatant attempt to keep blacks from voting, and whites were often not even required to take the tests. Read about what they used to do in Alabama. This test (PDF) would be easy for most of us now, although I can imagine the difficulty for someone poor and undereducated at the height of Jim Crow.
But this is not 1954, and blacks are not still “overcoming.” We are a free people with all the rights and privileges (and RESPONSIBILITIES) of citizenship. Strangely enough, some blacks think that having less wealth or material possessions as someone white is evidence of racial discrimination. Unbelievable.
The most embarrassing (not to mention juvenile) behavior of these politicians is this:
[S]everal black elected officials sang protest songs, wept and wrapped themselves in shackles; many Republicans responded with puzzlement at their colleagues’ reactions. (Emphasis added)
Good grief. These people should be ashamed. Instead of taking a leadership role and helping “the poor” acquire ID cards, they stage ignorant protests like this. In 2005. Some of you may not know this, but slavery is over, and Jim Crow is dead.
If your reaction to reasonable voting requirements is to whine about “disenfranchisement” and act like buffoons, perhaps you shouldn’t be voting anyway. Your sense of history is warped if you think this is reminiscent of an era where your grandparents and great-grandparents had to jump through unfair yet legal hoops to vote.
Black politicians have gotten away with this drama for so long, nobody expects anything different. They’re accommodated, spoiled children. Whites are afraid of them, and too many blacks agree with them. Not only do they reinforce blacks-are-ignorant, blacks-are-victims stereotypes, they do damage to the memory of blacks who suffered bondage, legal segregation, and actual disenfranchisement.
And they show no respect for those who died fighting to erase those awful stereotypes.
Update: State-issued IDs will be free for those who can’t afford them. Will that be the end of it? Of course not. For every one problem solved, politicians will come up with ten more.
{ 10 trackbacks }
{ 113 comments }
La Shawn, every word of your post is absolutely RIGHT ON!! I do so appreciate your articulate, well thought out comments & commentary of the article, as well as your own related comments. Keep it up, pray for more & more people – black, white, whatever – to come to understand the truths in your last paragraph ~~
Black politicians have gotten away with this drama for so long, nobody expects anything different. They’re accomodated, spoiled children. Whites are afraid of them, and too many blacks agree with them. Not only do they reinforce blacks-are-ignorant, blacks-are-victims stereotypes, they do damage to the memory of blacks who suffered bondage, legal segregation, and actual disenfranshisement. They show no respect for those who died fighting to erase those awful stereotypes.
Nothings changes until something changes & the leadership needs to change.
Again, thanks!!
Senseless & juvenile indeed
La Shawn:
More shameful than the behavior of the Black politicians is that of the White wimps in the GA legislature – for not “calling their bluff”.
And I just don’t believe there is anyone alive who hasn’t got a driver’s license if they are physically and mentally capable. Those too lazy or incapable of simply requesting a photo ID should not be voting; this is not racial or rocket science.
Legal Immigrants must read and have photo IDs taken – why not native-born Americans – of any color?
I am tired of people making excuses for not being real Americans.
Someday soon, I hope the fattened White politicians in Georgia and elsewhere will gain the courage to say “enough”.
“Some of the Muslim thugs who attacked us on 911 had aroused suspicion before the attacks, but not wanting to hurt their feelings and/or get sued, government officials and others said and did nothing”
Was it really because the government didn’t want to hurt their feelings?
“While fake IDs are readily available, the more we require this means of indentification, the harder it is (in theory) to produce a convincing phony one, in my opinion.”
Or, the more that a phony one will get you. Requiring the ID doesn’t make it easier or harder to falsify. Making good ID’s is what makes them easy or hard to falsify.
What happens if the poll workers thinks you didn’t pass your literacy test or your ID isn’t good enough?
Their behavior is just as ludicrous as when Jewish politicians showing up with gold stars and wearing worn grey-and-white striped deathcamp jammies.
Oh. Wait. They don’t. Because they don’t engage in circus theatrics.
Actus, Nobody said anything about putting forth a literacy test in today’s time. As for the IDs, most people have them. Even people with epilepsy can get a photo ID issued from the state. It’s time to make people prove they are who they say they are. And FYI, if on voting day, a poll worker thinks that an ID looks fishy, they can call a phone number to verify the ID. It’s that easy.
“Jim Crow” is dead. Thank God for that.
La Shawn, your comments are, as always, thoughtful and pointed. I believe the liberals and the MSM perpetuate these stereotypes, because if they are gone, so is a good part of their base.
LaShawn, here is where I categorically vehemently and will always and forever disagree with you.
I don’t give a crap what ‘white people’ think about me, and the idea that we as blacks need to be concerned about what ‘white people’ think about us, is what is fundamentally wrong with black culture as I see it today.
I don’t see Asians, Hispanics, Jewish individuals or other ‘ethnic’ groups perpetually worried about what ‘white people’ think about them yet in the dichotomy that is being black and being American, we are somehow forced to always consider how we are viewed by the majority culture. To me this is a sociological sickness, which arbitrarily ascribes ‘whiteness’ as the ultimate form of America and Americanism.
With that being said, IF this legislation would have the impact that the political individuals thought it would have, I don’t have a problem with them addressing that. I don’t think it is a problem for people looking after the best interest of the groups that they represent and 3% is not a small number, and could swing many elections.
In addition, I also find a problem with putting impediments in front of people who are duly qualified to vote, WHEN WE ROUTINELY CRITICIZE THE PERCENTAGE OF TURNOUT AMONGST BLACKS. If the individual has went through the process of registering, and actually coming to the polls, I think we should make every accomodation to ensure they have the opportunity to vote.
However, I am not opposed to some form of compromise or ID program if this law is absolutely deemed necessary. I haven’t seen any huge numbers as it relates to voter fraud, but if this is a legitimate concern and can be proven to negatively effect the outcome of elections, I think something should be done to address with respect to the people the change would negatively effect.
Also, I am not sure why you equate ‘voting’ to ‘terrorism’ to me these are mutual exclusive and unrelated. An old lady voting without ID and a terrorist Bombing a building just isn’t connecting with me.
I am still amazed, and I wrote this on the other thread. For the party who supposedly is against federal intrusion, smaller government, and greater states rights, individuals on this board seem to be extremely big brotherish on many issues. Next I can see people advocating microchip implants on everyone born in America.
Frank “And I just don’t believe there is anyone alive who hasn’t got a driver’s license if they are physically and mentally capable”. That is rather elitist. If I don’t fly an airplane, Frank, should I have a pilot’s license, if I am physically and mentally capable? Many urban people do not have cars, why should they have a driver’s license? I do think they should have photo ID’s issued by the government. If people wish to vote, let them prove who they are.
Dell, the election results of Missouri, Washington, Wisconsin etc show that ID is absolutely necessary. Every case of voter fraud is yet another dilution of your own right to vote and be heard.
“And FYI, if on voting day, a poll worker thinks that an ID looks fishy, they can call a phone number to verify the ID.”
how is a person over the phone going to tell you that the bearer of the ID is properly identified by the ID? And is that poll worker going to stay on hold, as we all wait for the speedy DMV, or is that poll worker going to go back to getting people to vote?
Andy – Like I submitted then, I am not opposed to some form of comprise or agreement being reached. However, to arguing that people who are fighting for their constitutiency who will be disproportionately effected is misguided. That is called politics. Also to minimize the impact that it will have on people who traditionally get crapped on in America is also wrong, the seniors and the poor.
Already done. Thanks. – Admin
The same way you were worried about the gay rights becoming an open door for gay marriage the ruin or end of heterosexual marriages in this country, people have the right to be concerned that when you start requiring ID it could lead to something else.
This year it will be ID and five years later it’ll be a test to make sure you can read or that you’re informed.
A slippery slope.
Literacy is a good quality for a responsible and informed citizens to have. If I ran things, the ability to read, and read ENGLISH, would be a bare minimum requirement for voting in the United States. But since standards have been dumbed way down, I’d never run things. People who want to keep the citizenry dumb would never vote for the likes of me.
I don’t think it is wrong to require that a person prove they are who they say they are berfore letting then vote. We certainly require the same for cashing checks and renting videos.
My one concern is that it does cost money to get and maintain a Drivers Licence in GA. If State issued IDs for non-drivers are free, then the only cost would seem to be showing up to get one.
People often complain that we must not put barriers between the people and voting. I sometimes wonder about this attitude. I believe that we must not place discriminatory or overly restictive barriers in the way. But do we really want voting to be so easy that it can be done without thought? If you cannot bother putting in the effort to get an ID or register on time, what makes anyone think that any effort was put into thinking about the candidates or issues?
Likewise, I tend to oppose easy absentee balloting and favor longer polling hours. Unless you have some specific reason for being unable to get to the polls, I think it should be required that you do so if you want to vote.
A couple of weeks ago on Michael Medved’s radio program, he had as a guest one of the democrat state representatives who is so vehemently opposed to requiring voters to show ID. His arguments would have been hilarious if he hadn’t been serious. The best one was that it would be unfair to ask an elderly woman to travel over four counties (!) to get a picture ID; the cost in bus tickets or gas would be prohibitive. Now, I don’t live in Georgia but I have been there a couple of times, and I got the impression that the state isn’t so desolate or backwards that one would have to go on an odyssey to get an ID card. It seems clear to me that the sponsors of this bill are trying to play the race card, realize that people aren’t falling for it, and so drag in “the elderly” as another victim group to try to make their political games a bit less obvious.
To claim that requiring voters to show ID is a form of disenfranchisement is ridiculous. Virtually all adult Americans are routinely asked to show ID for everyday matters such as banking transactions, writing a check at the grocery store, using a credit card, when stopped by a police officer for driving too fast, etc. Are we to believe that Georgia has a significant fraction of citizens who are still living in the 19th century and DON’T do these things?
Why are the democrats so hell-bent on making sure that would-be voters don’t have to prove that they are eligible to vote? Are the inspired only by altruism, or could it be that they have another motive? Perhaps they object because requiring people to show ID makes it harder to pack felons, illegal aliens, and non-registered people into the voting booths to vote democrat, or because it makes it tougher for democrats to vote more than once. Could be…
Actus, people turned away at the polls because their ID looks suspicious would presumably do what they can do now: protest the action. As RepJ wrote, it wouldn’t be hard to verify the ID. The implication behind your question seems to be that race-based disenfranchisement is still a problem in the United States. There is no evidence of this beyond the hysterical cries of the media and certain black leaders who keep their leadership positions by practicing the politics of victimhood.
On the other hand, there are documented cases of voting fraud (as in Washington State) that could likely have been prevented had the poll workers required valid ID. Asking people to prove that they are eligible to vote is hardly placing an obstacle in their way. Rather, it provides some measure of assurance that elections aren’t being decided by ballot boxes stuffed with illegal votes.
Kyia,
No one can deny the POSSIBLITY of requiring ID could lead to attempts to add other requirements. It is possible that Ralph Nader may eventually win an election somewhere. I would not hold my breath waiting for either though.
There seems to me a large difference between saying “All who are eligible to vote must prove they are who they are at the polls” and “Only those who XXX are eligible to vote.” We are dealing with two different items, eligibility and proof of identity.
“Literacy is a good quality for a responsible and informed citizens to have. If I ran things, the ability to read, and read ENGLISH, would be a bare minimum requirement for voting in the United States.”
But being responsible and informed is not a pre-requisite to voting. If you want people to have literacy, teach them to read.
people who get welfare checks have to have id, to apply for medicaid you need id, most jobs require id, it is ignorant and untrue that “urban” people cant get id. ridiculous. everyone has an id card, I had one when I was a teenager these people should be voted out of office
Otis – “People often complain that we must not put barriers between the people and voting. I sometimes wonder about this attitude.”
Otis, the most basic right in a democratic society should always be the right of a citizen to vote on those whom they believe should represent them. I am amazed literally amazed that so many individuals on this thread believe otherwise. Potential fraud not withstanding, ultimately we should in a democracy be fighting for inclusion and participation in the process, not figuring out ways to exclude.
“Otis – I believe that we must not place discriminatory or overly restictive barriers in the way. But do we really want voting to be so easy that it can be done without thought?”
I agree, we have to preserve the integrity of the system as best as possible, and ensure that accuracy of count and accuracy of legitimate voters count, this I truly have no problem with.
However, what do you mean ‘without thought’ it is up to the individual to make the choice on who they want, not up to some etherial agency determining who has the sufficient IQ or ability to research determining who should vote and when. Scary dude, scary.
“Otis – If you cannot bother putting in the effort to get an ID or register on time, what makes anyone think that any effort was put into thinking about the candidates or issues?”
That is a fallacious and poor argument. 1st it is not up to me or you to decide what is ‘quality effort’ and what is a ‘quality vote’. Now we can determine what is a legal vote or illegal vote, but in a democratic society, if we begin aribitrarily limited those who have the legal right to vote because we think their decisions are ‘poor’ or not ‘well thought out’ we open up a pandora’s box to other exclusionary voting tactics. Is this what you are suggesting?
“LaShawn – Literacy is a good quality for a responsible and informed citizens to have. If I ran things, the ability to read, and read ENGLISH, would be a bare minimum requirement for voting in the United States.”
Same thing, you position yourself as the intellectual authority on who is sufficiently ‘educated’ enough to vote, who fits your model of what an appropriate democratic citizen is. Applying this back to the foundation of this country where the literacy rate wasn’t so high, in many of the agrarian communities ‘illiteracy’ was common, should they have been excluded to?
I think we all agree that the integrity of the system has to be paramount for the system to be effective and effectively administer democracy. However I am appalled by the sentiments leading towards exclusionary practices in our wonderful democratic system. “A government for the people, by the people”…remember that? Not ‘A government for the people, by the people you think are intellectual enough’.
Accomodate anyone willing to legal vote as much as reasonably possible, while simultaneously monitor the voting booth for potential fraud to presever the integrity of the system. I think there are many different ways to do this without potentially disenfranchising a percentage of the population.
High five to Dell! You rawk.
I sometimes cringe when LaShawn points out the foolishness of some black folk, not because it doesn’t need to be noted, but because some white need little to no excuse to blast black folks and paint us all with the same brush.
Dell, didn’t you read the whole comment? I wouldn’t be elected in the first place, so the issue of my “intellectual authority” is moot.
It almost seems as if Dell Gines is missing your point on purpose. There are a couple of things:
1. This ID thing is a state initiative. It has litle or nothing to do with the Feds.
2. It isn’t a matter of what Whites think of us. It’s a matter of these bozoes acting as if Blacks are a bunch of stupid babies who don’t have anything.
I agree with you completely. I get to see the same thing in DC (I live in Bowie) and occasionally in Prince Georges County. Black, Democratic politicians apparently think Black constituents are too stupid to tie there own shoes.
Hmmm. After re-electing Mayor Barely, as Mayor and as Councilman, maybe some of us ARE too stupid to tie our own shoes.
Melvin Jones
LaShawn, I agree. One caveat: if a person doesn’t have a drivers license, then another state provided id should be offered and made free.
Jim Crow is thankfully dead, deservedly so more for the harm it did whites than for the effect on blacks. Crow Jim, on the other hand, is alive and unwell.
An ID simply allows current election law to be carried out more effectively. One man, one vote. ID makes that more a certainty, and I hope we agree that making current law more effective is desirable. Let’s hope ID will work to that end.
Literacy requirements would be an entirely new electoral law. Given the historical racist taint of such requirements, I cannot imagine the politician who wants to commit political suicide by proposing them. I see the ID law to encourage present law’s integrity, if anything it is a slippery upward slope.
DarkStar – I once had a non-driver’s license ID. It looked the similar, except it was a different color and read “non-driver’s ID” or something like that. I don’t think it was free, though. I believe I paid $10 for it. I’m sure that people on welfare can get it for free or reduced price, like everything else they get.
Maybe because I’m living in Jesse Jackson’s town, I’m totally sick of the kind of political behavior that you’ve described. You are totally right. Unfortunately, you have to take a lot of heat from other black people about it, and the rest of us are considered racist for agreeing with you. It’s an “Emporer Wears no Clothes” kind of situation.
You’re right, La Shawn. Most states that I’m aware of issue “State IDs” to anyone who qualifies (that is, anyone who can prove he/she is a legal resident of the state in question) that takes the time to go the DMV. A person can prove his/her identity by showing 3 or 4 proofs of identity (including but not limited to a birth certificate, Social Security card, or a utility bill in the applicant’s name). An Illinois State ID card cost me $10.00 about three years ago, and I’m fairly certain it hasn’t gone up since. I’m not sure if senior citizens or welfare recipients can get them for free or at a reduced price, but it seems reasonable to me that they would be able to. I don’t know about other states, but I know Illinois IDs are good for five years, and are considered just as good as a driver’s license for the purpose of identification.
Isn’t there a provision in the bill that allows Georgia citizens who do not have a photo ID the opportunity to obtain one at no cost?
I’ve also noticed (and blogged about here and here) that infantilizing African-American’s is a peculiarly liberal tendency, and agree with you that it’s horrific that African-Americans are buying into this gross and demeaning canard. I think it’s excellent that you are adding your voice to the chorus of those saying that African-Americans are capable human beings, whose conduct, like anyone else’s can reach the heights and hit the depths.
Sounds like these black politicians are from the vote and vote often crowd.(voter fraud) Their minds are still on that big plantation in Georgia.
One has to wonder, if they can’t be bothered to get ID, how can they be bothered to register in the first place. Especially since after Motor Voter, the processes for an ID and voter registration are nearly identical.
Or is voter registration an attempt by the Man to keep the people down?
Like their cadillacs.
Yeah, the Escalades.
I resist the urge to use ad hominems, but I will simply say it is highly disrespectful to generalize whole groups in negative ways and I can point this occuring on this thread at least five times.
I have yet to see one intelligent well thought out post on this thread which significantly addressed some of the issues I have posed which are:
1. If it is true, and up to three percent of a certain group of voters will be negatively affected by this, why would not the politicians who represent this group demonstrate? For those of you who are polarization junkies, let us applying this to a scenario, you can think it up, where 3% of the conservative say, evangelical christian base would be effected in the election process by a law. Would you not expect those politicians who represent that segment to stand up and perform a ‘political’ act on behalf of this group of constituents?
2. The systems integrity needs to be preserved, simultaneously, every eligible voter should be allowed to vote. Now does this necessarily mean ID’s? Maybe, maybe not. The question becomes are there alternative means available to ensure that a provision does limit opportunities for people who want to participate in the democratic process.
Finally to Bookworm – “African-American’s is a peculiarly liberal tendency, and agree with you that it’s horrific that African-Americans are buying into this gross and demeaning canard. I think it’s excellent that you are adding your voice to the chorus of those saying that African-Americans are capable human beings, whose conduct, like anyone else’s can reach the heights and hit the depths. ”
Any time you would like to debate me on this subject on your blog as opposed to demeaning black americans without a response, my email is dellgines@excite.com . Your statement above is demeaning, insulting and disrespectful, not just to me but all the ‘African Americans’ who you imply are to stupid not to be conservative.
OK, put an amendment with the law that says if you can’t afford an ID that the state will give you an ID for free. No one is now disenfranchised, period, end of story. How hard can this be???
“The governor pointed out that state IDs would be given free to people who couldn’t afford the fee or said they planned to use the ID to vote.”
Sorry, Will. The link was too long. I’ll include it in the post. – Admin
I can’t buy the argument that driver’s licenses cost too much. A few bucks/year? The cost of a dozen packs of cigarettes?
Even my passport costs a few bucks/year.
I’m completely baffled by some of the anti-identification comments here. It’s perfectly rational and reasonable, not burdensome, and in no way discriminatory, to make a picture ID mandatory in order to help clear up voting fraud.
Speaking out in opposition to this requirement seems to be just another negative mantra from the permanent victimhood advocates.
If a voter can’t be bothered to show a simple ID, show up at the correct polling place, and get there during operating hours, I don’t have much sympathy. I’m certainly not buying the “voter suppression” nonsense. I work long hours, so it’s tough for me to vote without rearranging my schedule. Also, it’s a long way to my polling place, causing me to have to spend $3 or so on gas to get there and back. Neither of those things mean my vote is being suppressed.
FYI, all 50 states have a non-drivers ID offered by their DMV (or MVA etc). In most states, it looks almost identical to a drivers license, but says “ID only” “Non-Operator” or something of the like on the front.
The main reason was so that the blind and the invalid could have ID to cash checks, buy liquor/tobacco and other things where a state issues ID is required.
My sister has one in NJ, and I used to have one in PA.
With all of the vote fraud we’ve seen over the years, and the security issues, I don’t see why this is a problem. You need it to get on a plane… why not to pull the lever?
“Actus, people turned away at the polls because their ID looks suspicious would presumably do what they can do now: protest the action.”
That system works so well.
I agree, Frank, but standards have to be lowered for some people. That’s the way American society works now.
Dell, I have a question for you. Answer that, and we can proceed further.
People should only be eligible to vote in the US if they are US citizens. Agree or disagree?
WRT your first point – what is wrong with those politicians ensuring that the voter ID act requires the state to advertise it regularly, ensure that obtaining an ID is simple and easy for all citizens and ensuring that every county has the means to issue IDs upon proper identification?
WRT your second point – what alternate means would you propose to ensure that only eligible voters vote?
Finally, how does Bookworm’s comment demean African-Americans? It’s an observable fact that many (not all) African-Americans do buy in to the race-baiting of the Al Sharpton’s and the Jesse Jacksons. Many in Georgia, I feel certain, agree with the actions of the Georgia politicians.
How is that demeaning to African-Americans? Aren’t the politicians the ones who are demeaning African-Americans?
Dell Gines,
1) If it is true, and up to three percent of a certain group of voters will be negatively affected by this, why would not the politicians who represent this group demonstrate?
Who and where are these disenfranchised? Would that be the same source as the oft-cited and oft-debunk fallacy that millions were disenfranchised in Florida back in 2000? Furthermore, if someone can’t be bothered to get an ID, they have disenfrachised themselves.
2) The systems integrity needs to be preserved, simultaneously, every eligible voter should be allowed to vote. Now does this necessarily mean ID’s?
Duh!! Either that, biometrics or some positive proof like “purple fingers” to ensure that you only get one vote. Anyone that votes twice has effectively stolen a vote from me and that’s malacious disenfranchisement.
3) Plenty of blacks take issue with the term “African-American”. An immigrant, like Teresa Heinz may be “African-American”, technically Mozambique-American, but not black. A native, like Maxine Waters may be black, but not African-American.
Now that we’re straight on terminology, no one on this thread has disrespected whole groups as you imply. Either that or I’m dyslexic and missed reading the smear, not once but at least 5 times.
We can debate this until the cows come home, but the key that you missed is when some of us use “African-American” we’re talking about a distinct subset known as “African-Americanistas” who exploit the race-victim card at every opportunity.
Left unsaid in your comment, is also your contention that blacks commenters, in the above who, slam African-Americanistas are self-haters, hmm?
May I suggest that before you continue “debating” maybe you should check La Shawn’s category archives on “Dinosaurs”, “Faith”, “Liberals” & “Race Preferences” to see where she is coming from.
“People should only be eligible to vote in the US if they are US citizens. Agree or disagree?”
for federal elections? sure. Otherwise I don’t think its so clear. there’s a school board or something in the DC area that allows non-citizens with children in schools to vote for the school board. Sounds reasonable.
I agree, Frank, but standards have to be lowered for some people. That’s the way American society works now.
Let me make my point clear.
I think the identification card should be free for one reason: The voter registration card is free. My assumption is all states require a voter registration card, even if it is not checked.
actus writes, “for federal elections? sure. Otherwise I don’t think its so clear. there’s a school board or something in the DC area that allows non-citizens with children in schools to vote for the school board. Sounds reasonable.”
You think it’s reasonable, for people who are not citizens and don’t pay taxes, yet benefit from those taxes, to be able to vote on how the taxes are used?
I’ve got an idea. I’m not a member of your family, nor do I contribute any money to your family’s well-being. Apparently you wouldn’t mind if I told your family how to spend their money, however, so I’ll be sending you a list of items I think you should and shouldn’t purchase. (There goes cable!)
Fair enough?
I agree, Frank, but standards have to be lowered for some people. That’s the way American society works now.
I want to make my point clear. The reason I mentioned a free identification card is because voter registration cards are free. I assume that each state requires voters to have a voter registration card, even if it is not checked when voting.
docjim505 – “… people turned away at the polls because their ID looks suspicious would presumably do what they can do now: protest the action.â€
Actus – “That system works so well.”
Actually, over the long term (and probably in the immediate short term), it DOES work very well. If John Q. Public goes to a polling place to vote and is turned away because a poll worker thinks his ID looks “suspicious,” he can protest at the site. I’ve never been to a polling station that didn’t have more than one attendent, and the ID would have to look VERY suspicious to be rejected by more than one person. Further, most people carry more than one form of ID.
Assuming it was rejected, the would-be voter would have a great case to take the the canvassing board and any other group he could interest in his problem (and there would be a lot of them, starting with the party he planned to vote for). There would be one of two outcomes:
1. It would be found that the ID should have been questioned. This is the voter’s fault for letting his dog chew on his ID (or whatever). Given that people need their ID on an almost daily basis for reasons already listed, it doesn’t seem likely that a voter would present an illegible or otherwise questionable ID.
2. It would be found that the poll worker was incorrect in questioning the ID and turning away the voter. This would result AT A MINIMUM in improved regulations for dealing with questionable ID, and probably in a state / federal investigation, especially if it happened too many times in the same precinct(s).
Your distrust of “protesting” seems predicated on a belief that this is 1905 and that widespread disenfranchisement is still with us. The requirement for ID is a step toward making the system more honest and accountable, and that’s good for everybody.
right on docjim505
Just wanted to go on record as saying that this uber-liberal agrees with LaShawn (the end of times must be near)
that requiring ID’s to vote is very reasonable and not a burden.
Furthermore, I don’t think there should be same-day registration either… But I do think that local govt’s should be required to post a list of all eligible voters (say, 1 month prior to election) and that voters should be able to check their registration status ahead of time, and make corrections.
“Otherwise I don’t think its so clear. there’s a school board or something in the DC area that allows non-citizens with children in schools to vote for the school board. Sounds reasonable.”
Only if they are also paying the taxes that fund the schools.
For those interested, an anti-ID Georgia legislator is on Michael Medved right now.
http://www.krla870.com/
He just told Medved that he thinks 15 – 20% of black Georgians don’t have valid ID. Unbelievable!
One other thought that occured to me. Think of the contrast:
1965 – Black Americans and their white supporters were risking vicious dogs, beatings, fire hoses, prison, and murder to vote.
2005 – Black Americans and their white supporters are whining and crying because somebody’s thinking of asking them to show ID to vote.
Somehow, I don’t think that “Letter from an Atlanta DMV Office” has quite the same punch as “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”
Kudos, docjim505!
You’ve illustrated the absurdity very clearly.
“You think it’s reasonable, for people who are not citizens and don’t pay taxes, yet benefit from those taxes, to be able to vote on how the taxes are used?”
Who doesn’t pay taxes? Aren’t most school boards funded by property taxes? That are paid by all residents – owners and renters (renters via their rent)? And why does paying taxes matter? If my county has a sales tax to fund the schools, but I shop in another county, I shouldn’t have a say in my local education?
“Apparently you wouldn’t mind if I told your family how to spend their money, however, so I’ll be sending you a list of items I think you should and shouldn’t purchase.”
I don’t think you quite grasp the difference between my private family and a public school. Very scary.
Though the radical clerics would be very happy if they could run my family.
La Shawn,
Here in Oklahoma we face the same problems. In our recent city council race in Tulsa, one of the candidates lost by a very slim margin. A local radio station proved that some of the votes in the district were from non-existent voters, even going so far as to do a remote broadcast from a vacant lot that voted. When the radio station interviewed the local county election board chairman (a Democrat), he got very upset about their suggestion that perhaps asking for ID might not be a bad idea, until they revealed that the candidate who had the fraud committed against him was a Democrat (and Black to boot). Then the election chairman thought presenting ID might be a good idea! In the court ordered re-run of the election, the Democrat won, in this case the better man (local elections don’t seem to matter as much when it comes to Dem vs. GOP).
I wonder if the angst the Democrats exhibited in the case you cite was more over protecting their deceased and multiple time voters than worry over somebody’s voting rights.
LaShawn I hadn’t been to your blog in awhile and on this I do agree that these black politians need to quit insulting our people’s intelligence.But I do have to take issue with the term “liberal” I am a Black Democrat here in Alabama and these blacks are are nothing but a bunch of radical lefist, there is nothing liberal about em’!In classical since and by the defintions of websters dictionary,a classic liberal is a person has good moral character and they are about progress.These folks don’t fit that discription at all!Ms.Gale is correct when she says it is time to get rid of these pimps,because they don’t really do anything for us accept try collect their retirement.
Actus,
Encouraging people who live here illegally to stay by letting them vote, paying for their kids’ education, and, what the heck, paying them for adding to the local diversity is entirely up to the locality. You’re right. The wisdom of this notion can be seen in the performance of that locality’s schools and the health of that community.
Otis – “People often complain that we must not put barriers between the people and voting. I sometimes wonder about this attitude.â€
DELL – “Otis, the most basic right in a democratic society should always be the right of a citizen to vote on those whom they believe should represent them. I am amazed literally amazed that so many individuals on this thread believe otherwise. Potential fraud not withstanding, ultimately we should in a democracy be fighting for inclusion and participation in the process, not figuring out ways to exclude.”
Dell, you are presenting an arguement against a view no one holds. No one has said that anyone should be prevented from voting, only that we had a duty to confirm that those voting are doing so legally. You seem to think that asking someone to provide evidence of identity amounts to discrimination. We simply disagree with this premise.
“Otis – I believe that we must not place discriminatory or overly restictive barriers in the way. But do we really want voting to be so easy that it can be done without thought?â€
DELL – “I agree, we have to preserve the integrity of the system as best as possible, and ensure that accuracy of count and accuracy of legitimate voters count, this I truly have no problem with.
However, what do you mean ‘without thought’ it is up to the individual to make the choice on who they want, not up to some etherial agency determining who has the sufficient IQ or ability to research determining who should vote and when. Scary dude, scary.”
You are easily frightened it seems, choosing to see evil and ominous undertones in all views contrary to your own. I simply meant that it seems completely reasonable to me that participation in an election might require forethought and planning on the part of a voter. You have to register and you have to plan to have ID.
“Otis – If you cannot bother putting in the effort to get an ID or register on time, what makes anyone think that any effort was put into thinking about the candidates or issues?â€
Dell – “That is a fallacious and poor argument. 1st it is not up to me or you to decide what is ‘quality effort’ and what is a ‘quality vote’. Now we can determine what is a legal vote or illegal vote, but in a democratic society, if we begin aribitrarily limited those who have the legal right to vote because we think their decisions are ‘poor’ or not ‘well thought out’ we open up a pandora’s box to other exclusionary voting tactics. Is this what you are suggesting?”
Again with the missplaced fear and silly arguements. You continue to confuse verifying the right too vote with limiting that right.
And on the issue of “quality”, yes, it is true that each person is free to make up their own minds based on the facts and issues they deem important. This in no way diminishes the fact that some peoples votes ARE poorly thought out and possibly worthless in determining the person best suited for the job. Would you argue that an election worked if the vast majority decided that a coin toss was the best way to decide? I’m not saying that I would prohibit even these people from voting, but I would see little loss if they chose not to when informed that coins would not be allowed in the booth with them.
Voting is more than a right. It is a duty. As such we need to be willing to put some effort into it. To fail to do so cheapens it.
Anti-Media Good Questions:
“Dell, I have a question for you. Answer that, and we can proceed further.
People should only be eligible to vote in the US if they are US citizens. Agree or disagree?”
I think I have made abundantly clear my position on the integrity of the system.
“WRT your first point – what is wrong with those politicians ensuring that the voter ID act requires the state to advertise it regularly, ensure that obtaining an ID is simple and easy for all citizens and ensuring that every county has the means to issue IDs upon proper identification?”
I don’t necessarily have a problem with that, if you would have read both of my post you would have seen that, my problem is not with any requirement per se, my problem is with any requirement that would limit the number of eligible and WILLING voters, without providing a solution that these individuals could still vote not in a way that is reasonable to you, but reasonable to them. Remember, we are talking about people who have voting in the past if the estimates are correct, not a theoritical group of potential voters.
More in clarification, IS THERE alternative ways of identification, are there other ways to secure the system so that individuals can continue on with business as usual who are legal and eligible, none of these issues are addressed in anyone aboves post with clarity.
“WRT your second point – what alternate means would you propose to ensure that only eligible voters vote?”
First we have to ascertain the extent of the voter fraud problem. IE out of how many thousands of elections has a significant problem occured? If it is less than 1% statistically I would say that is in the realm of acceptable error in an imperfect human system. And if the indications are correct, it seems many of these are caught. I also would submit that all systems can be beat, so if imposing certain standards would limit LEGAL AND WILLING voters, for a system that fails less that 1% my question is why do it has an appropriate cost versus benefits scenario been review.
“Finally, how does Bookworm’s comment demean African-Americans? It’s an observable fact that many (not all) African-Americans do buy in to the race-baiting of the Al Sharpton’s and the Jesse Jacksons. Many in Georgia, I feel certain, agree with the actions of the Georgia politicians.”
You define race baiting as if the positions that these individuals take (and I am not a liberal so I disagree with many of their stances) are not real and relevent, instead you create strawman arguments as it relates to their positions and pigeonhole them with conservative terminology as opposed to addressing the validity of what they say. This is something both of the parties do, and it is a tool of the intellectually weak. Do you fall in that category?
Furthermore, provide me with statistical data since you speak on it with such authority that many African-Americans “buy” into this philosphy. Secondly even if this is the case, I can make a simultaneous opinionated argument that most white conservatives buy into the rhetoric of a Rush Limbaugh or Shawn Hannity, I would call it “white-baiting”.
“How is that demeaning to African-Americans? Aren’t the politicians the ones who are demeaning African-American?”
Hummmm…let me see…black elects or supports politician, politician is only manipulating blacks…black don’t have the mental capacity to see through the manipulation whereas you white conservatives do…implying that you are more intellectual, greater critical thinkers, and and have a higher level of understanding. Do you not see however banally steriotyping a whole group and implying that they are being stupid (which is what occurs so often on this site) because they legitimately believe and see a politician they feel will work “better” towards their self-interest than another is disrespectful and demeaning?
I don’t say all white conservatives are racist and insensitive to issues of social justice, economic bias, and don’t have a clue when evaluating there positions and perspectives. But this is the argument I hear white conservatives make towards blacks in reverse all the time. Yet you provide no compelling reason why blacks should vote anything other than democratic. Especially if the people who post on this site are a representative sample of what conservative ideology is all about.
“Encouraging people who live here illegally to stay by letting them vote”
I don’t think they allow illegals to vote. just non-US citizens.
I forgot to say,
What we do not hold dear, is easily lost.
Andy – Not so good questions
Dell Gines,
“1) If it is true, and up to three percent of a certain group of voters will be negatively affected by this, why would not the politicians who represent this group demonstrate?
Who and where are these disenfranchised? Would that be the same source as the oft-cited and oft-debunk fallacy that millions were disenfranchised in Florida back in 2000? Furthermore, if someone can’t be bothered to get an ID, they have disenfrachised themselves.”
We are basing an argument of an estimate of 3% of the individuals WHO HAVE VOTED (not a theoretical group) not having ID’s don’t skew the subject or shift the topic. If you have a question about the legitimacy of the number check the source of the article. And to say that individuals who LEGALLY AND WILLINGLY voted previous to having an ID are disfranchising themselves means you don’t know the what the word disenfranchise means. If they previously voted with no potential impediment in place, and these votes were legal votes, than any impediment placed in front of them major or minor, that would force them out of the block when they desired to do so would be dischenfranchisement. http://www.dictionary.com
“2) The systems integrity needs to be preserved, simultaneously, every eligible voter should be allowed to vote. Now does this necessarily mean ID’s?
Duh!! Either that, biometrics or some positive proof like “purple fingers†to ensure that you only get one vote. Anyone that votes twice has effectively stolen a vote from me and that’s malacious disenfranchisement.”
What is your point here? Or are you just blogging.
“3) Plenty of blacks take issue with the term “African-Americanâ€. An immigrant, like Teresa Heinz may be “African-Americanâ€, technically Mozambique-American, but not black. A native, like Maxine Waters may be black, but not African-American.
Now that we’re straight on terminology, no one on this thread has disrespected whole groups as you imply. Either that or I’m dyslexic and missed reading the smear, not once but at least 5 times.”
Maybe you feel steriotyping a group and marginalizing their intellect passively is not disrespectful. But then again whites are racist and have no concept of social justice, and vote for individuals who perpetuate there racial attitudes. Ummmmm…did I steriotype them right?
“We can debate this until the cows come home, but the key that you missed is when some of us use “African-American†we’re talking about a distinct subset known as “African-Americanistas†who exploit the race-victim card at every opportunity. ”
Go back and read the post I was specifically referring to. And what do you define as exploit, and what do you define as a race-victim? Please define your terminology. And why are you attempting to clarify someone elses statements? And if I say whites are racist, what do you imply that to mean?
“Left unsaid in your comment, is also your contention that blacks commenters, in the above who, slam African-Americanistas are self-haters, hmm?”
Give it a rest jack, LaShawn knows exactly how I feel about her, she also knows in general the areas I agree, and I am sure by now the areas I rabidly disagree. So attempting to stir up trouble is ridiculous.
May I suggest that before you continue “debating†maybe you should check La Shawn’s category archives on “Dinosaursâ€, “Faithâ€, “Liberals†& “Race Preferences†to see where she is coming from.
Finally, there is a difference between being political correct and avoid issues, and being disrespectful, many of you straddle that line off balance.
Two points:
1. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are not racists, so it’s difficult to assign that bizarre “white-baiting” label to them.
2. Blacks should stop voting Democrat because it’s the Democrats who are telling them they can’t succeed without the help of all those ever-so-caring liberals in government. That is a horribly condescending and racist idea.
Dell,
You say you support “a solution that these individuals could still vote … reasonable to them.” It isn’t difficult to understand why someone’s identity is important to ensure no one votes twice and everyone has a chance to vote once. I am sure you underestimate the reasoning power of these hypothetical voters and that they would find the importance of ID reasonable.
I think it’s also reasonable for conservatives to think their standpoint on issues is more enlightened. Certainly the liberals feel that the liberal posture is the correct one. Is it wrong to think you’re right? This notion gets a lot cloudier when race gets thrown around, and black Americans vote very predominantly liberal. But there are many white liberals and there are black conservatives. So the issue isn’t black/white, it is liberal/conservative. Liberals think conservative politicians manipulate their supporters. Conservatives think liberal pols manipulate theirs. I don’t see reason here to take umbrage, but I may have missed some of the post you respond to.
As a member of a team working on creating free software for electronic voting, I have studied this situation extensively. Here are answers to some of the questions asked in the comments:
1) What happens if an ID card looks fishy?
Simple, really. The person is allowed to vote
on a provisional ballot (said ballot to be
marked with the necessary ID information, later
to be verified before that vote is counted).
2) What if a person does not drive?
Every state also issues an photo identification
to those who request it that is, to all
intents and purposes, just as valid a form of
ID as is a drivers license.
3) What if a voter does not have a driver’s
license or state-issued photo-id?
The obvious intent here is simply to
authenticate an identity claim. Any
reasonably trustworthy identification
mechanism can do this.
My team is recommending that the same
identification allowed for employment be
used for voting identification, as well
as allowing for one additional form of
authentication.
Other options besides a drivers license include
a valid passport, military photo ID’s and
trust linkage (if a person with a valid ID
will agree to identify you, that establishes
a trust linkage).
As a public service, allow me to remind all
and sundry that in almost every case of voting
dispute, the person attempting to vote has the
right to request and fill out a provisional
ballot.
Election day protests are NOT required!
Thanks,
John S.
” Simple, really. The person is allowed to vote
on a provisional ballot (said ballot to be
marked with the necessary ID information, later
to be verified before that vote is counted)”
Doesn’t that make that vote non-anonymous?
LaShawn,
To me the fraud in the South fifty years ago was
that illiterate white pople could vote and educated black could not vote. I do not know about
all states, but a state id (no drivers license) is usually fraction of drivers license. Mostly, older people, who are much older than 18 (voting age) so no hassle with birth certificate proving you are old enough to drive. There were 16 year-olds trying to get ID to prove 21 for alcohol and cigarettes. There are fake ID’s that crooks and others can purchase.
James M. Barber
Dell, forgive me if my eyes glazed over while reading your responses. So I’ll just deal with the specific issues I have with what you wrote:
#8
————–
“I don’t think it is a problem for people looking after the best interest of the groups that they represent and 3% is not a small number, and could swing many elections.”
And 3% fraudlent votes are enough to swing an election, thereby robbing legitmate votes. Hence the need for positive identification. One voter – one vote.
Furthermore, you’re the one shifting the topic in your comment # 70:”We are basing an argument of an estimate of 3% of the individuals WHO HAVE VOTED (not a theoretical group) not having ID’s don’t skew the subject or shift the topic.”
I haven’t read that 3% refers specifically to past voters, just that 3% would be disenfranchised. But since you state that it is indeed those WHO HAVE VOTED, can you cite the source?
————–
“In addition, I also find a problem with putting impediments in front of people who are duly qualified to vote, WHEN WE ROUTINELY CRITICIZE THE PERCENTAGE OF TURNOUT AMONGST BLACKS. If the individual has went through the process of registering, and actually coming to the polls, I think we should make every accomodation to ensure they have the opportunity to vote.”
Impediments??? What impediments? Show me a functional citizen that doesn’t have ID and I’ll rethink. An individual goes thru the process of registering, yet can’t come up with an ID? Or are we talking about people who resgister in different home “districts” and feel impeded because they can’t vote at both? Even in primitive regions, the locals have ways of determining whether one has voted once already — indeligble ink. Seemed to work well in Afgahnistan & Iraq, IIRC.
————–
“However, I am not opposed to some form of compromise or ID program if this law is absolutely deemed necessary. I haven’t seen any huge numbers as it relates to voter fraud, but if this is a legitimate concern and can be proven to negatively effect the outcome of elections, I think something should be done to address with respect to the people the change would negatively effect.”
If you haven’t seen any numbers, then you haven’t been looking. To wit Washington State, Milwaukee/Racine Wisconsin, St. Louis just to mention 3 that did indeed negatively affect the election. Google will show you more example if you care to ask. Again, what’s big-brtherish about society saying “Ok you say you have the right to vote, prove it”?
#13
————–
I’ve re-read it several times and still can’t comprehend this statement: “However, to arguing that people who are fighting for their constitutiency who will be disproportionately effected is misguided. That is called politics. Also to minimize the impact that it will have on people who traditionally get crapped on in America is also wrong, the seniors and the poor”
And what do you propose to ensure that the seniors & poor won’t get crapped on by fraudulent votes?
#23
————–
“Otis, the most basic right in a democratic society should always be the right of a citizen to vote on those whom they believe should represent them. I am amazed literally amazed that so many individuals on this thread believe otherwise. Potential fraud not withstanding, ultimately we should in a democracy be fighting for inclusion and participation in the process, not figuring out ways to exclude.
Could you point me to the founding documents that state “voting” is the most basic right of a citizen? I always thot it was “…Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, Seems to me that for the most part, it’s up to the States to determine what and how the “consent of the governed” will be derived.
“–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” Dell, be carefull here. It’s plain to see that the founding fathers are admonishing us to be prudent AND conservative, lest we fall for weak and transient progresive ideas. This section also fits in nicely with the current debate over activist judges.
———-
“That is a fallacious and poor argument. 1st it is not up to me or you to decide what is ‘quality effort’ and what is a ‘quality vote’. Now we can determine what is a legal vote or illegal vote, but in a democratic society, if we begin aribitrarily limited those who have the legal right to vote because we think their decisions are ‘poor’ or not ‘well thought out’ we open up a pandora’s box to other exclusionary voting tactics.”
I beg to differ, again from the excepted document above, it is up to us to determine what is “quality effort” & “quality vote”. And we can very well determine the type of votes that will be excluded. For instance, typically, if you live in one district, you are excluded from voting in the affairs of another district.
———
Furthermore, you stated:
Again, who is being disenfranchised and why? If you’re saying that the requirement for ID is disenfranchising, give me a real example instead of moonbatic strawmen.
#38
————
“I resist the urge to use ad hominems, but I will simply say it is highly disrespectful to generalize whole groups in negative ways and I can point this occuring on this thread at least five times
I asked once before and I’ll ask again, please back your claim to at least 5 instances. Before you do that, re-read my comment #49 on “African-Americanistas”
#70
————
Again, I’m having a hard time following the pretzel logic.
Simply put, I have experienced disenfranchisement in more ways than one and probably in ways you never will except vicariously reading about it.
I’ve also experienced opportunity and that is what makes America greater than any other country in the history of man.
In closing, those dummocrats walked out to no avail, and the bill is now law, over their rhetorical dead bodies.
Now excuse me while I go and watch my favorite show of the week, 24. I love Jack making no bones about how to hunt & treat terror suspects
“Now excuse me while I go and watch my favorite show of the week, 24. I love Jack making no bones about how to hunt & treat terror suspect”
And people whine about the liberal media.
Dell, you’re beating around the bush. HOW does requiring ID “limit the number of eligible and WILLING voters”? Keep in mind that you can register to vote at any time. You don’t have to wait until the last possible minute before an election.
Shouldn’t the voters have SOME responsibility for following clear and understandable instructions?
Frankly, I’m uncomfortable with the concept that some flaws in the system should simply be accepted, as you seem to be. If you’re at all familiar with the problems in Washington state and Wisconsin in this most recent election then you should know that the problem is endemic in some places. We need a system that voters can trust so they know that their vote really does count. Anything less is a disservice to the voters.
WRT the race-baiting comment, you accuse me of using “strawmen” and “pigeonholeing” them with “conservative” arguments. I define race-baiting as blaming every problem you encounter on racial prejudice. Would you argue that that isn’t a valid definition of the tactics of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?
La Shawn, as usual, your logic is clear. This is 2005. While there are still shenanigans going on in the South (and elsewhere), I do not believe that requiring an ID to vote is one of them. I wish that clerks would be as adamant as I am about checking my ID when I use my credit card!
The sole point where we differ is here: I am NOT embarrassed at all by the puerile displays of those elected officials. For once, I don’t live in Georgia, so they don’t represent me. Secondly, their being Black doesn’t imprison me. They are individuals, so what they do is on THEM. I could care less what the rest of the world thinks. If someone is so small-minded as to think any ethnic group is monolithic, I have no words for them. The imprimatur of Jesus the Messiah is on me (Galatians 6:17), not the blemish of the actions of a few severely out of touch pols.
“And people whine about the liberal media
erm, seems the liberal media was wailing and gnashing teeth about Islamophobia on FOX just a few short weeks ago.
As usual, a crystal clear thought from LaShawn. I agree whole heartedly.
Yes, Jim Crow is dead but not so are all of the people who witnessed his misrule. I agree with the author that a lot of the Civil Rights era drama-tactics used by some today are unnecessary and unproductive because times have certainly changed and our means and methods in the continuing struggle must change too — we must adapt to the challenges that we face.
Nevertheless, those steppin-fetchit, boo-hooing, disingenuously-black-politicians-who-conjure-up-images-of-Jim-Crow may not be too far off the mark. The primary focus of their protest is poor is elderly-poor black voters. Those who knew Jim Crow all too well and who are now largely shut-in, transportation-less and even more so, often barely mobile. Many, if not most, eke by on fixed incomes heavily laden with the costs of medications still keeping them alive. And, they are the generation, many of them, who wiped the asses of inconsiderates like the author.
Without question, we live in a time where our concerns over security appear to supercede our more primal concern of quality living. When the methods we use in the name of security overburden quality of life, we need to be sure that the means justifies the ends. In this case, it can hardly be said that our concerns over terrorism justifies such a heavy burden on some segments of the elderly poor, without some reasonable accomodation.
I can understand the concern over voter fraud — but I also know too well its history. I know of the modern-day prosecutions in rural black-belt Alabama and other southern states for voter fraud arising out of issues with the same people that are the subject of the article: the black elderly poor. They may overlook their own person health (usually because of a lack of money), their houses may be rundown, and they can barely leave the confines of their homes — but they rarely, if ever, overlook what Jim Crow tried so desparately to keep them from doing — VOTE on election day. Those who can’t get a ride to the poll on election days, which often amounts to the few times they do get out, vote by absentee ballot.
They aren’t terrorists or likely to be — although Jim Crow and his progeny would today label their sacrifices of yesterday as such. They’re not boarding airplanes; they’re not laundering money – just barely getting their own laundry done; they’re not crossing any borders — except the ultimate one into death; and they’re not packing cars full of explosives — just packing up for the trip home, and they don’t need ID cards for those pursuits.
If we’ve come to the point in this country where national ID and voter ID is a must, then those who make that decision must make another one: [b]provide the easy means and funds for the elderly poor to exercise their most basic constitutional right. Exempt them from the costs of such ID, provide them with transportation to the ID center and/or provide them with a telephone number to call to have the ID man come to them; and provide a way that their absentee ballots can be identified.[/b]
If we don’t do that, somebody please tell me the difference in Jim Crow era poll taxes and this Neo-Jim Crow costs that over-taxes the elderly poor and results in the same damn denial of the right to vote.
QueEx
Que, I would be interested in the statistics showing how many elderly poor people who now vote would be prevented from voting if required to show a piece of identification.
Andy you Rawk!
Lisa Gilliam wrote, “In classical since and by the defintions of websters dictionary,a classic liberal is a person has good moral character and they are about progress.”
Yes. The classic definition of a liberal actually describes the Republican party today. As a centrist, I understand that the Republican party is a little to the left of center and the Democrat party is much farther left. Both parties are growing government. To go right of center you’d actually have to see a decrease in government spending or regulations or laws. Libertarians want to cut government by 80% so they are to the right of center but conservatives range more or less center today.
To align yourself with the dictionary definition is good. But if you use that as justification for voting Democrat (which you indicated in your post you are a Democrat) beware. This country’s government and policy has moved left every year since World War 2.
The conservative message is getting out though now. As a centrist I’m happy to see the debate of ideas starting to flourish because there is more than just ABC, CBS and NBC now. There is La Shawn Barber !
For 54 years basically the Democrat party had control of Congress, a majority of the governorships and state legislatures and from time to time the White House. Since 1994 this has CHANGED. Now it is Republicans in the Congress, state legislatures and majority of governorships. And as of the year 2000 in the White House also.
This has driven your party (Democrats) crazy mad, accusing every body of every shady behavior they can think of. Do not fall for it. Try to stay focused on the debate of ideas and what you stand for.
For example:
Are you for or against preferential treatment? Me. I’m against it. I have two daughters who are 5 and 8 and I do not believe while growing up and going to the same public schools as their classmates that they should be judged any differently based on their being half Asian and half Caucasian than anyone else. They should be judged on their merit.
What are the Republicans and Democrats stand on this issue?
Democrats are about 80% for preferential treatment and 20% against. In the national arena there isn’t one Democrat leader who will unequivocably state that they are against it.
Republicans are about 40% for preferential treatment and 60% against. Most will not touch the issue with a 10 foot pole.
The issue came up here in CA with Proposition 209 and was voted for OVERWHELMINGLY. It is now against the law for the CA state to have admissions for college or hire contractors with race based preferential treatment or discrimination.
Ward Connerly wrote the book “Creating Equal” (very good book) and authored the CA Civil Rights Initiative (Prop 209). While folks like Darkstar question Ward Connerly’s character or other Democrat leaders have tried to question Ward Connerly as a person on a personal level, I would hope that you would live up to the dictionary defintion of a liberal and have good moral character and work toward race relations progress in this country which conservatives believe can happen if there were no more race-preferences for our daughters.
/stepping down from my soap box.
Baklava, you rawk!!!
That’s 3 rawk’s in one thread. Whup now 4.
LaShawn, I thought you might be interested in this editorial from Christian Science Monitor that basically agrees with your position. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0427/p08s03-comv.html
were fast approching 1984 and big brother they want voter ID so they can prevent conservatives from voting against liberals of the left
QueEx – “If we don’t do that, somebody please tell me the difference in Jim Crow era poll taxes and this Neo-Jim Crow costs that over-taxes the elderly poor and results in the same damn denial of the right to vote.”
Poll taxes were unquestionably aimed at black Americans. By tacit and widespread agreement among white Southern pollworkers, the poll taxes were only demanded of black voters. The evidence is that poll taxes were a malicious conspiracy to deny the right to vote to a particular group of people. In contrast, I don’t believe that anybody has suggested that white voters will be either de facto or de jure exempt from the ID requirement. A measure that affects all voters by definition is not discriminatory.
Much has been made of the “burden” that this measure would place on the poor and elderly. As I stated in an earlier post, dragging the “elderly” into this is just a way for unscrupulous politicians (redundant) to camoflague their attempt to play the race card. In the same vein, complaining about burdening the “poor” plays right into the stereotype of black Americans as poor, ignorant victims confined to shanties or ghettos. There are poor white people, poor Asian people, poor Hispanic people, etc, in our country. Why isn’t this bill targetted at them?
As a personal note, my polling place is in a predominantly black neighborhood, and most of the poll workers are elderly black people who no doubt remember Jim Crow all too well. I really don’t think that they would be a party to discrimination, do you?
Requiring ID to vote is no more an obstacle – actually, it’s LESS of an obstacle – to voting than requiring people to get to a polling place, stand in line to vote, or even fill out an absentee ballot and mail it in. Are we to believe that political parties can afford to bus people to the polling places, but can’t afford to get them to the DMV? And that some of the millions of dollars spent to “get out the vote” wouldn’t be spent to pay for ID if required?
Those who cry “Jim Crow” because some states are considering the ID requirement are either so brain-washed by years of victimhood politics that they think “The Man” is always out to do them in, or else they have an ulterior motive. I believe that it is the latter. As we’ve seen in Washington State, St. Louis, and Wisconsin, lax voting requirements make it far too easy to stuff the ballot boxes. Requiring ID is a common-sense measure to protect the integrity of the voting process.
Doc Jim,
Thanks for your thoughts. I really appreciate them.
While folks like Darkstar question Ward Connerly’s character or other Democrat leaders have tried to question Ward Connerly as a person on a personal level
Baklava, I gave the context of the quote about Connerly. Given that I was referencing something that appeared in a magazine, and given that I stated how Democrats were not addressing Connerly’s campaign, I hereby now state that you are willfully lying about my position.
So tell us all…..
What is your position about Ward Connerly without stating what other people have said….
Actus asked:
Doesn’t that (attaching personal identification information) to the ballot make it not an anonymous vote?
Answer: Not necessarily. Think about voting by mail. When you vote by mail, you have to peroperly identify yourself, otherwise your vote can’t be counted.
But what happens is that your authenticity is first established, then your ballot and your ID are separated, the ballot is then sent to be counted.
If your authenticity can’t be authenticated, your personal ID and your ballot remain joined, and the ballot is saved in case of a challenge.
Just to be clear: provisional voting, and the requirement that you attach personal ID to your vote, is something that is independent of electronic voting, and is in no way new.
The obvious advantage of electronic voting is that you could attach your personal ID to your ballot, while retaining anonymity, thus allowing you to track your vote all the way through and to final tabulation.
Thanks,
John S.
Uh-oh, John S, you just opened a new can of worms with Actup regarding electronic voting.
No position Darkstar?
“The obvious advantage of electronic voting is that you could attach your personal ID to your ballot, while retaining anonymity, thus allowing you to track your vote all the way through and to final tabulation.”
Tracking your vote to tabulation is often seen as a liability, not a positive, because it allows people to prove who they voted for.
Still no position DS?
seen as a liability, not a positive, because it allows people to prove who they voted for
Seen as a negative by fear mongers
“It isn’t a matter of what Whites think of us. It’s a matter of these bozoes acting as if Blacks are a bunch of stupid babies who don’t have anything.”
It’s more than that.
It is the claim that for a person to spend 1 day out of the next 5-10 years (not annually!) to obtain an ID card is in some manner or form a “poll tax” or otherwise a barrier to the person from voting. Given the fact that renewing the ID card can be done via the mail and if there is a problem with the DMV underserving various regions of poor people, I’d like to think that the Democratic party’s response should be:
1- Build more DMVs where people need them
2- Offer mobile DMV offices to go to the places where these impoverished people live
3- Start a program, coupled with voter registration, to get these people ID cards.
If people want to vote, to participate in self-government, to exercise their rights as guaranteed to them, then I see no reason for the wailing and gnashing of teeth here. Democracy isn’t something to be spoon-fed to people; it’s something that requires a modest amount of effort, whether it’s attending council meetings, working for a candidate, going to the polling places, or obtaining a simple form of identification.
We already have “motor-voter” legislation so that people won’t be burdened by the horrible task of going to the courthouse to register to vote. Once we have set up the system (at considerable taxpayer expense) to hand-carry ID cards to people at no cost to them, what’s next? Shall we buy fleets of motor homes to bring voting machines to people’s homes, so that they won’t be burdened by the need to leave home to vote? Are absentee ballots to be considered unfair and burdensome because they require a modest effort on the part of the voter?
This can get ridiculous very quickly.
“Seen as a negative by fear mongers
Comment by Andy”
My gf’s mom was explaining how votign worked in philadelphia. party people would follow you into the booth to see who you voted for. And she, who was working as a poll monitor, had to face the fact that the voters were begging to have the party people in there because they needed to show to those party people who they voted for. This in order to not be picked on by the government, or to get access to government services. She thought the was protecting these people by keeping their booths sacred, but the people were practically begging to be able to prove their loyalty, because they feared the repercussions.
you want that to be facilitated?
Actus said: “you want that to be facilitated?”
How is that any different from party people watching you mark a paper ballot, or better yet, marking your absentee ballots for you? The problem is the party people and their warped co-dependent sense of protection cum reprercussions of their stooges, not the technology.
If people are too weak to stand for their right to vote as they please, they certainly don’t deserve to think their vote counts for anything. Heck, come voting day, why don’t these people just hand their vote to the party people since their big brother certainly knows best.
“If people are too weak to stand for their right to vote as they please, they certainly don’t deserve to think their vote counts for anything.”
Sorry. Thats wrong. A right to vote is a right. Not something that someone has to bargain for.
Seems the founding fathers would disagree with your lame excuse for people who won’t stand for their rights.
Anyhoo. You missed the thrust of my point, if they won’t stand for their rights, they may as well give it away and save themselves the time and effort to even show up at the polls. In effect their vote is meaningless in the sense, they voted to please their massah and not for what they really think.
“Seems the founding fathers would disagree with your lame excuse for people who won’t stand for their rights. ”
What? are you serious? What are rights then?
“In effect their vote is meaningless in the sense, they voted to please their massah and not for what they really think.”
Right. Thats what we try to prevent when we have secret ballots. You do understand why we have secret ballots don’t you?
Are you serious? Don’t they teach common sense in law school any more?
Make up your mind. Either either you condemn the party people for following voters into the booth at their request. Or you don’t. Paper or computer technology are both neutral vote tally enablers. Either can be abused when people don’t stand for their rights. Blaming the technology instead of the abusers is akin to blaming knives for stabbing victims.
Ever since comment #102, you just get more incoherent. Why don’t you quit while you’re down.
“Either can be abused when people don’t stand for their rights. Blaming the technology instead of the abusers is akin to blaming knives for stabbing victims.”
I’m saying that technology that allows someone to prove how they voted enables the sort of vote surveillance that you seem to be okay with. I think we should use technologies that don’t enable or facilitate this sort of vote surveillance. And for some reason you pooh-pooh my concerns.
I pooh-pooh the weak-minded and gullible that allow their vote to be “surveilled”.
As noted way back, provisional votes and absentee ballots have long been attached to the identity of the voter until right before it is counted.
The digital voter concept is based on the voter and only the voter has the key to his ballot in the form of Ballot ID # and can track it thru the tally process. On the other end of the transaction, there is no linkage to “trace” the ballot #. The only way the vote could be surveilled is for that voter to give the tracking number to his massah.
This type of one-way annonymous transaction happens all the time in other business models. A good example would be the lotto ticket.
“I pooh-pooh the weak-minded and gullible that allow their vote to be “surveilledâ€. ”
I’m sorry. I think the weak are precisely the ones we should care about. They are the weakest link in our democracy.
“The only way the vote could be surveilled is for that voter to give the tracking number to his massah.”
Which in my view would be easier than bringing the overseer into the voting booth. Of course the voter can say no. And of course whatever retaliation occurs will occur. And they’re just a weakling for that. Please.
As I’ve said before, democracy should not, and cannot, be spoon-fed to the citizenry. A certain amount of initiative is a minimum requirement for good citizenship. Going to the polls with at least a small amount of knowledge is not too much to ask of everyone.
“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.” –Thomas Paine
“As I’ve said before, democracy should not, and cannot, be spoon-fed to the citizenry.”
The problem is that we are all hurt by the fact that one person is being forced to vote a certain way. If you need a selfish justification.
Yep, all those dead guys who vote in Chicago are forced to vote Democrat.
Live people, on the other hand, can vote any way they choose.
“Live people, on the other hand, can vote any way they choose.”
Not really in the situation I described, is the problem. Not really in the situation that some would like that would make it easier for someone to be able to prove how they voted. Their weakness counts against you.
No their weakness counts against themselves in the long run. The stronger will recognize the coercive attempts and vote against them on principle.
To rehash your pathetic & clueless insinuation that Pope-is-a-Nazi. His father, like a few others paid the price for resisting the Nazis, meanwhile many (weak) took the easier and broader path and embraced the party in return for political/economic rewards. But in the end…
Again, you refuse to condemn the overseer. If you were truly concerned for the weak, you’d have long advocated laws and whistle-blower methods for the weak to shake off the massah. Instead, you rail against the tools rather than the abuser.
Ironically, your insistence on old-fashioned paper ballots means more dead trees, as well as the interpretation of chads. I would have thot that the progressives were all for saving trees and ensuring that every vote gets counted. Not to mention saving valuable time from waiting in lines and precious oil from having to drive to the polls by voting online from home.
Or is it that the donks have figured out how to game the current system and resist any change, since it would mean learning a new set of skills to game the digital system, eh?
“To rehash your pathetic & clueless insinuation that Pope-is-a-Nazi. ”
He’s not a nazi. He’s just an unwilling ex-member of the Hitler youth.
“Again, you refuse to condemn the overseer. ”
Of course I do. I’m trying to defend people.
“Ironically, your insistence on old-fashioned paper ballots means more dead trees, as well as the interpretation of chads. ”
This isn’t a choice between electronic votes and paper ballots. This is a choice between systems that allow voters to prove who they voted for and systems that don’t. That could happen with paper or electric.
Actus said:
“Tracking your vote to tabulation is often seen as a liability, not a positive, because it allows people to prove who they voted for.”
I’m not sure I understand your point here.
The ability to prove who you voted for is fundamental to the security and correctness of the voting process, unless you are comfortable with the inherent risks associated with the act of ambiguating a vote (double blind voting).
The most obvious of the inherent risks: ballot replacement. Second most obvious, ballot box stuffing.
Note that I agree that attaching asymetrically encrypted personal ID information to a ballot can indeed be used to prove who you voted for, but that is precisely the reason that it would attached . . . in case of a challenge, you could prove that a given ballot was and is yours, while with double blind voting (double blind: you don’t know that your ballot was counted, the counters don’t know whether or not you voted), you can’t.
Obviously, the choice to let some one else know how you voted is yours, and yours alone. I would expect that existing voter protection laws would be applied to protect some one from being forced to reveal their vote, and if necessary, that theses laws would be strengthened or expanded appropriately.
Did I understand your position?
Actus said:
“I’m saying that technology that allows someone to prove how they voted enables the sort of vote surveillance that you seem to be okay with. I think we should use technologies that don’t enable or facilitate this sort of vote surveillance. And for some reason you pooh-pooh my concerns.”
Technology that allows someone to prove how they voted does not enable vote surveillance. I apologise, I should have made it clear in my first post on this subject: The personal ID information attached to the ballot is encrypted using an asymetrical algorithm (IOW: it is VERY hard to crack such a code) and only the voter knows his own personal key.
Could a voter choose to prove to a third party how he voted using this process? Well, yes, that’s the whole point of it . . . to create a single blind instead of a double blind system that allows a voter, and only that voter, to treat his vote as a transaction. If a voter finds it necessary to challenge how his vote is tabulated, then of course that voter would have to reveal his key, but using a different key for each election is a sure-fire way to make sure that a voter’s voting history can’t then be tracked after the fact.
Laws already exist that provide reasonably heavy punishments for people who attempt to coerce a vote, or make voting a particular way a requirement for, well, anything.
If some one chooses to reveal their vote, then that is their personal choice, right?
I’m still not sure I understand your point. All I can say is this: in every engineering decision, there are tradeoffs. To get better vote tabulation, you must sacrifice something else. Minimizing the costs, while maximizing the benefits, is what a good engineer does. I believe that asymetrical encryption of personal ID information using a unique, voter-private key gives a very high return, for very low cost.
Am I correct in assuming you believe that the cost of being unable to correctly tabulate a vote is lower than the cost of allowing a voter to track his ballot?
Thanks for the input,
John S.
Comments on this entry are closed.