Is this the way of Democracy? they did the same in WI to prevent a vote

[togor]

You didn't answer the question.

[rayg]

I have no idea what your question was..Why don't you repeat it..And I see there's no comment by you on my post about the word stupid you said I post all the time! Lol

[togor]

I have no idea what your question was..Why don't you repeat it..And I see there's no comment by you on my post about the word stupid you said I post all the time! Lol

Post #14. I asked if you really wanted to know the Dem side of the story or not. Guessing "not".

[rayg]

OK lets hear it!

[togor]

OK lets hear it!

My understanding is this....

They note the GOP isn't alleging bad ballots in recent elections, but rather somehow "voter feelings about election integrity". So what the GOP did is look at how votes were delivered for different candidates of the different parties in different regions, and specifically target for further restrictions those which are disproportionately used by Democrats. Again, GOP isn't alleging actual fraud, just citing the vague idea of "voter feelings" as motivation.

If I have it wrong, I'm sure one of our members from Texas will gladly correct me.

But I would note that Democratic voters' feelings about election integrity do not appear to rank among GOP concerns.

[Art]

My understanding is this....

They note the GOP isn't alleging bad ballots in recent elections, but rather somehow "voter feelings about election integrity". So what the GOP did is look at how votes were delivered for different candidates of the different parties in different regions, and specifically target for further restrictions those which are disproportionately used by Democrats. Again, GOP isn't alleging actual fraud, just citing the vague idea of "voter feelings" as motivation.

If I have it wrong, I'm sure one of our members from Texas will gladly correct me.

But I would note that Democratic voters' feelings about election integrity do not appear to rank among GOP concerns.

You are essentially correct. I would add though, this thinking pervades every state where one party has long term dominance. Oregon has mail in only voting for the same reasons.

[togor]

You are essentially correct. I would add though, this thinking pervades every state where one party has long term dominance. Oregon has mail in only voting for the same reasons.

But which is the right way? Voters selecting their leaders, or leaders selecting their voters? If Oregon uses the convenience of mail to broaden the electorate, that is not in and of itself disenfranchising conservative voters is it? Whereas what the Texas GOP is doing is precision-targeting voting channels used by their opponents. The Texas GOP is openly taking the position that they want to win and they will rewrite the rules as often as necessary in order to keep winning. That they cite "voter feelings of election integrity" as a justification for doing so is certainly an insult to the intelligence of anyone who isn't all-in for the Texas GOP.

[Art]

But which is the right way? Voters selecting their leaders, or leaders selecting their voters? If Oregon uses the convenience of mail to broaden the electorate, that is not in and of itself disenfranchising conservative voters is it? Whereas what the Texas GOP is doing is precision-targeting voting channels used by their opponents. The Texas GOP is openly taking the position that they want to win and they will rewrite the rules as often as necessary in order to keep winning. That they cite "voter feelings of election integrity" as a justification for doing so is certainly an insult to the intelligence of anyone who isn't all-in for the Texas GOP.

The problem with the Oregon system is there is no practical deterrence to fraud, at least on the micro level, and the state knows it. In reality the state of Oregon knows, human nature being what it is, that people ineligible to vote who will vote using this system and others will cast multiple votes in various names. They may say this is a small price to pay for more universal enfranchisement but there it is. This is the unprovable but almost certain abuse the state of Texas will say it wishes to avoid on the other end. Now those in power in both cases may argue that the motives are "pure" but in the end both systems are self serving for the party in power and an attempt to help seal its control.

So, do you tolerate "irregularities" in the name of higher voter turnout, or do you inconvenience people by making them take some extra steps in the name of voter integrity? It depends on which side you sit.

Oregon and Texas are simply different sides of the same coin when it comes to voting rights.

One last aside, voting laws designed to help one side or the other don't always work as intended. California recently legalized a practice called "ballot harvesting" that allows a person to pick up and cast ballots for other people. This is illegal virtually everywhere except California. In some recent elections which resulted in Republican wins the Dems discovered that Republicans can harvest ballots just as well as they can.

[togor]

The problem with the Oregon system is there is no practical deterrence to fraud, at least on the micro level, and the state knows it. In reality the state of Oregon knows, human nature being what it is, that people ineligible to vote who will vote using this system and others will cast multiple votes in various names. They may say this is a small price to pay for more universal enfranchisement but there it is. This is the unprovable but almost certain abuse the state of Texas will say it wishes to avoid on the other end. Now those in power in both cases may argue that the motives are "pure" but in the end both systems are self serving for the party in power and an attempt to help seal its control.

That is interesting but it avoids the question: Which is the right way? Error on the side of more voter access, or less? And why? The conversation has to start there, before political parties enter the picture.

[Art]

That is interesting but it avoids the question: Which is the right way? Error on the side of more voter access, or less? And why? The conversation has to start there, before political parties enter the picture.

Believing that if you're too lazy to get to the polls and submit an ID, or personally request an absentee ballot; you've voluntarily disenfranchised yourself. I prefer a system more like Texas. I've held that opinion no matter where I've lived.

[lyman]

it still boggles the mind that you have to prove who you are in so many aspects of daily living,,

and yet the left has decided that the burden of proof does not apply to Voting,



all the histronics over handing out water during an election , which was proven to be an outright lie, should tell you all you need to know

[togor]

Believing that if you're too lazy to get to the polls and submit an ID, or personally request an absentee ballot; you've voluntarily disenfranchised yourself. I prefer a system more like Texas. I've held that opinion no matter where I've lived.

Fair enough, although I notice you're not really excusing what the Texas GOP is doing with that position, since those kinds of rules were in place before this recent legislation.

Out of curiosity, does Texas extend the same sort of red tape to gun transactions?

Not putting words in your mouth on this, but surely you know there are those who feel any obstacles to firearms transactions are an undue burden on liberty.

I would argue that restricting access to the polls with petty red tape is an even more sinister attack on liberty and citizens rights. Psychologically it doesn't play out that way at the individual level, with a firearm seeming to bring a greater sense of personal power than a vote. But applied over many people, the one is clearly more powerful in its exercise than the other.

[Mark in Ottawa]

A foreign perspective. Here in Canada you are expected to produce government issued photo ID to vote. If you don't have that, you can produce two non-photo ID documents or you can get an approved voter to swear that you are who you say you are. The ID must give your address to confirm that you are voting in the correct place. In most cases, a driver's licence will suffice but if you don't drive, (in Ontario at least) you can get a similar photo ID document that you can use for any circumstances that need photo Identification (see https://www.elections.ca/content.asp...t=index&lang=e for more detail if interested)

[lyman]

Fair enough, although I notice you're not really excusing what the Texas GOP is doing with that position, since those kinds of rules were in place before this recent legislation.

Out of curiosity, does Texas extend the same sort of red tape to gun transactions?

Not putting words in your mouth on this, but surely you know there are those who feel any obstacles to firearms transactions are an undue burden on liberty.

I would argue that restricting access to the polls with petty red tape is an even more sinister attack on liberty and citizens rights. Psychologically it doesn't play out that way at the individual level, with a firearm seeming to bring a greater sense of personal power than a vote. But applied over many people, the one is clearly more powerful in its exercise than the other.

you are comparing apples to Ribeyes,, and it is a very weak argument, and just makes your side look not only more ridiculous,



enlighten us on how having a voter show a simple ID,, that they already have in possession , it restricting access to the pols

- - - Updated - - -

A foreign perspective. Here in Canada you are expected to produce government issued photo ID to vote. If you don't have that, you can produce two non-photo ID documents or you can get an approved voter to swear that you are who you say you are. The ID must give your address to confirm that you are voting in the correct place. In most cases, a driver's licence will suffice but if you don't drive, (in Ontario at least) you can get a similar photo ID document that you can use for any circumstances that need photo Identification (see https://www.elections.ca/content.asp...t=index&lang=e for more detail if interested)

In VA, you can get a Drivers license,, or if you cannot drive for whatever reason, you can get a State ID card, from the DMV,

easy to get
and required, even to buy Alcohol

[Vern Humphrey]

A foreign perspective. Here in Canada you are expected to produce government issued photo ID to vote. If you don't have that, you can produce two non-photo ID documents or you can get an approved voter to swear that you are who you say you are. The ID must give your address to confirm that you are voting in the correct place. In most cases, a driver's licence will suffice but if you don't drive, (in Ontario at least) you can get a similar photo ID document that you can use for any circumstances that need photo Identification (see https://www.elections.ca/content.asp...t=index&lang=e for more detail if interested)

And you're right on. Ensuring that only qualified people vote is NOT "restricting access." ALLOWING nonqualified people to vote is voter FRAUD.