The Tipping Point

[hobbsyoyo]

You would not be on the voter roster if you weren't registered to vote. Therefore letting college kids use their college IDs to vote would still screen out non citizens. In addition, non-citizens don't actually try and vote much to the contrary of all the stupid crap Trump says on the matter.

On home location - I specifically said kids who have legally taken up residence in their college town. That's the same as changing their home of record in your example. It happens, I did it and so do lots of others for various reasons. And in the end if they live in a place for 6 months and one day they are entitled to call that home of they want to.

Requiring voter ID fights a non-existent problem in a counterproductive manner. I'm sure you might think of it as restrictions on ammunition capacity for firearms or something like that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This does kinda make sense though. The reason being that you don't have to be a US citizen to go to a US university, but you do have to be a US citizen to vote in our elections. So that means only showing a student ID with no other form of ID cannot be accepted as proof of citizenship.

Which is totally irrelevant, as most GOP arguments on the matter are. You have to prove citizenship to register to vote. All that should be required at the actual voting station is proof of identity, which a student ID provides just fine.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Shouldn't even need to prove identity because voter fraud is vanishingly rare to begin with.

Meanwhile it's somehow ok for Kemp to destroy voting records under subpoena and kick close to 10% of Georgian citizens from the rolls in the last decade.

 

[peter grimes]

The only reason I'm sort of okay with this is because of out-of-state students that attend universities. Of course, the reasoning I'm about to use really only applies to local and state elections so keep that mind.

I don't think it's really fair to allow out-of-state and out-of-city students to register as residents of that state/city/district while they are attending university because there is no guarantee they are going to remain a part of that community after they graduate. So it would be pretty unfair in my opinion for them to be allowed to be a part of the decision-making process for that community that could have long-lasting or even permanent effects only to have them say "peace out" once they graduate in 4 years...

I think that's effective disenfranchisement. I could possibly agree that students living in campus housing might be prevented from voting on town ordinances or something, but they should absolutely have a say in what is haplening at the district and state level where they attend college.

I lived off campus for most of my 4 years, and was only allowed to vote after a probationary period. Which is, of course, discriminatory. Had I not been attending college, but instead had moved to the same apartment while seeking employment instead of education I would have been allowed to register to vote the day my lease was signed.

Saying that they may peace out after 4 years is also ridiculous. We don't place those sorts of conditions on other populations, nor shoud we. Voting is a privilege afforded every citizen

 

[Arwon]

The only reason I'm sort of okay with this is because of out-of-state students that attend universities. Of course, the reasoning I'm about to use really only applies to local and state elections so keep that mind.

I don't think it's really fair to allow out-of-state and out-of-city students to register as residents of that state/city/district while they are attending university because there is no guarantee they are going to remain a part of that community after they graduate. So it would be pretty unfair in my opinion for them to be allowed to be a part of the decision-making process for that community that could have long-lasting or even permanent effects only to have them say "peace out" once they graduate in 4 years. With that said, out-of-state students should still be allowed to register in the state and district they originated from that way they can still vote in national elections.

A similar situation to demonstrate what I'm talking about would be active duty soldiers (meaning those that are full-time professional soldiers, not the National Guard or Reserves). Soldiers on active duty can be sent anywhere in the country, but when registering to vote, they register under their "home of record" which is the address they listed as their residence before they enlisted, rather than the address of their duty station. For example, I was stationed at Fort Lewis, WA and lived in Olympia. However, I was not registered to vote in Washington and did not vote in their state elections, but rather I remained registered in my hometown in Ohio and still voted in Ohio elections by mail.

This is a really bizarre take. Your residential address is your residential address. Restricting the franchise on the basis of excessive mobility, where mobility is defined as "might move in a couple of years" is no way to run an electoral democracy.

Requiring defence personnel to vote where they lived when they joined up is pretty weird too. That would cause my father, who joined the Royal Australian Navy in the 1970s, to be required to continue voting based on an address his parents moved away from decades ago, in a state he hasn't lived since the mid 1990s, on the other side of the country to where he owns a house. It would have prevented him voting in the district where we went to school, to where he and my mum accessed hospitals, where we learned to drive and got licenses, where they paid local rates, etc.

For that matter my sister joined up from an address our parents moved away from a few months later, our parents moving to another state. She's never had any connection to that town since then, and would have voted in 3 different states and territories, at all levels of government, in the ensuing few years.

Defence personnel are as much a part of the community where they're currently working as anyone else, of course they should get to register to vote in that location.

And yeah, same goes for higher education. I mentioned my parents moving interstate after my sister joined the navy? That also happened after I relocated to Sydney for university, so my parents moved away from the address I moved to university from. I lived in a privately rented apartment, had a job up there, and of course that's where I enrolled to vote. This proposal to restrict the franchise of tertiary students to their prior address? Would have left me either stuck enrolled at an address my parents no longer lived in, in a town hours away from where I lived. Or would have seen my enrollment moved interstate based on my parents' relocation. Despite being a grown ass adult living independently.

So yeah this idea that nobody in active military or higher education should be able to enroll and vote where they're working or studying, would have left my entire family disenfranchised or stuck voting in cities or states they had no connection to any more.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Shouldn't even need to prove identity because voter fraud is vanishingly rare to begin with.

I don't really mind the proof of identity requirement due to the complications that arise if someone does vote under the wrong name. If you got to the polling place and were told "hey, you already voted" it would suck for you. How do you prove you haven't? Since that vote has been blinded there's nothing that can be done at that point to invalidate it. I get that it doesn't happen much, but the fact is that it could happen and there's no real reason to invite it.

 

[Commodore]

Defence personnel are as much a part of the community where they're currently working as anyone else, of course they should get to register to vote in that location.

It's not so much that we weren't allowed to register in the area we were stationed, it's more that we had the choice. And since a lot of soldiers were already registered in their home of record, many just chose to keep it that way.

I'm pretty sure they set it up that way specifically because we have a lot of overseas bases, so allowing soldiers to remain registered in their home of record just makes being able to vote while outside the US a little easier on them.

 

[Arwon]

Yeah, that doesn't require a restricted franchise however. We lived in San Diego for two years when my father was on an exchange program with the USN, and my parents still managed to vote in the 2001 election based on their previous electorate.

And for major overseas deployments there is an actual official polling place set up at foreign bases, so Australians in Afghanistan just voted at the polling place at Tarinkot. They would have had to have the ability to provide ballots for 150 electoral districts and 8 senatorial races, but I assume they just printed as needed rather than ship a bunch over.

(I also managed to vote based on my former address while living in Spain in 2007, just by registering with the Electoral Commission as currently overseas, they sent me and the other exchange students our ballots and we signed each other's forms to witness them)

All you need is a competent electoral administration that understands how to manage overseas postal voting and isn't implicitly geared towards making it hard to vote and stay enrolled.

 

[cardgame]

I hate this kind of fearmongering. I hated it when Republicans would post the same kind of crap about Obama instituting martial law and and rounding up all the conservatives and putting them in FEMA camps. This kind of stuff doesn't help and only serves to further polarize the population no matter who is saying it.

Yeah, and that makes sense, and I agree with you completely, up until the point where liberals weren't repressing the vote or doing anything else to make peaceful remedies impossible.

You know, "those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." When Republicans defy 83-99% of the country's wishes and then disenfranchise them and remove our ability to vote them out of office, what solution is left but violence?

You only had a point when Obama signed NDAA into being; I will completely concede that. However, to my knowledge, it hasn't been used (so far).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think that's effective disenfranchisement. I could possibly agree that students living in campus housing might be prevented from voting on town ordinances or something, but they should absolutely have a say in what is haplening at the district and state level where they attend college.

I lived off campus for most of my 4 years, and was only allowed to vote after a probationary period. Which is, of course, discriminatory. Had I not been attending college, but instead had moved to the same apartment while seeking employment instead of education I would have been allowed to register to vote the day my lease was signed.

Saying that they may peace out after 4 years is also ridiculous. We don't place those sorts of conditions on other populations, nor shoud we. Voting is a privilege afforded every citizen

While I agree in principle, I have a related anecdote.

Spoiler :

In the city I was raised in municipal elections are held on an off Tuesday in April, with minimal publicity. This holds turnout down generally to single digits. 12% would be a record. There is a Baptist College, which is associated with a large church, which is a designated polling place. The student population arrives, usually having never registered to vote. They are encouraged to register, and classes on election day are organized around the students and faculty serving as volunteers at the poll. Realistically, the college is the only place in town where the fact that an election is happening is common knowledge. Student ballots can account for as much as ten percent of the total turnout.

The church, and college, are located on what was a full square mile parcel put together through the city redevelopment agency. Utilities, road improvements, everything required to turn a barren square in the middle of the desert into build ready property was provided at city expense after the property was sold to the church for below market value, making the land even more valuable. Construction of the church and college was funded through resale of about half the property, cashing in that profit. Of course the construction of the church and college raised those property values again, allowing the mayor, various council members, the city manager, the elders of the church, and other insiders who had bought from the church to cash another round of profits.

This glaring piece of corruption cost the city tens of millions in improvements that benefited about thirty to fifty citizens. Now, you might think that would get the mayor and city council booted out of office. But only if you missed that part about student ballots being as much as ten percent of the turnout. Needless to say, the pastor of the church provides unwavering endorsement for the mayor and whichever council candidates have sworn fealty to the mayor...and what level of independent research do we really expect from the students? 95% of student voters follow the endorsements of church leadership straight down the ballot.

I realize this is a case of corruption that happens to use student votes, not a general case against student voting, but because it has basically destroyed the city I was raised in I can't help but think it is important as an example.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I hate this kind of fearmongering. I hated it when Republicans would post the same kind of crap about Obama instituting martial law and and rounding up all the conservatives and putting them in FEMA camps. This kind of stuff doesn't help and only serves to further polarize the population no matter who is saying it.

The Irony is that Republicans have been richly rewarded for their gaslighting.

 

[Arwon]

It should also be noted that tweet about right wing death squads was a satirical exaggeration targeting centrist liberals and their faith in electoral process. Not so much just fear mongering.

 

[Commodore]

what solution is left but violence?

We could try using the other part of the 2nd Amendment to form citizen militias with the goal of protecting voters and ensuring polling stations let people vote. Of course that would probably end in violent clashes between said militias and law enforcement.

 

[Patine]

I think that's effective disenfranchisement. I could possibly agree that students living in campus housing might be prevented from voting on town ordinances or something, but they should absolutely have a say in what is haplening at the district and state level where they attend college.

I lived off campus for most of my 4 years, and was only allowed to vote after a probationary period. Which is, of course, discriminatory. Had I not been attending college, but instead had moved to the same apartment while seeking employment instead of education I would have been allowed to register to vote the day my lease was signed.

Saying that they may peace out after 4 years is also ridiculous. We don't place those sorts of conditions on other populations, nor shoud we. Voting is a privilege afforded every citizen

This is a really bizarre take. Your residential address is your residential address. Restricting the franchise on the basis of excessive mobility, where mobility is defined as "might move in a couple of years" is no way to run an electoral democracy.

Requiring defence personnel to vote where they lived when they joined up is pretty weird too. That would cause my father, who joined the Royal Australian Navy in the 1970s, to be required to continue voting based on an address his parents moved away from decades ago, in a state he hasn't lived since the mid 1990s, on the other side of the country to where he owns a house. It would have prevented him voting in the district where we went to school, to where he and my mum accessed hospitals, where we learned to drive and got licenses, where they paid local rates, etc.

For that matter my sister joined up from an address our parents moved away from a few months later, our parents moving to another state. She's never had any connection to that town since then, and would have voted in 3 different states and territories, at all levels of government, in the ensuing few years.

Defence personnel are as much a part of the community where they're currently working as anyone else, of course they should get to register to vote in that location.

And yeah, same goes for higher education. I mentioned my parents moving interstate after my sister joined the navy? That also happened after I relocated to Sydney for university, so my parents moved away from the address I moved to university from. I lived in a privately rented apartment, had a job up there, and of course that's where I enrolled to vote. This proposal to restrict the franchise of tertiary students to their prior address? Would have left me either stuck enrolled at an address my parents no longer lived in, in a town hours away from where I lived. Or would have seen my enrollment moved interstate based on my parents' relocation. Despite being a grown ass adult living independently.

So yeah this idea that nobody in active military or higher education should be able to enroll and vote where they're working or studying, would have left my entire family disenfranchised or stuck voting in cities or states they had no connection to any more.

I don't really mind the proof of identity requirement due to the complications that arise if someone does vote under the wrong name. If you got to the polling place and were told "hey, you already voted" it would suck for you. How do you prove you haven't? Since that vote has been blinded there's nothing that can be done at that point to invalidate it. I get that it doesn't happen much, but the fact is that it could happen and there's no real reason to invite it.

Of course, Dick Cheney, a lifelong Texas resident, gets to freely register as a VP candidate in a ranch in Wyoming he usually only visits when on hunting trips to get around a little issue in Constitutional law where if both the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidate on the same ticket are from the same, they can't carry the Electoral Votes of their home state, and there's no bureaucratic flack thrown at Cheney or blocking up this ambition at all, and certainly these self-same Republicans demanding a crackdown on "residential restrictions" would be all in support of Cheney's purely pragmatic move, because the thought of not having Texas' EV's on a technicality would have them aghast.

 

[HoloDoc]

I do not see any peaceful way of defeating this Republican coup. Especially since the "moderates" firmly stand against doing anything at all for fear of looking "biased".

I'd rather be back in Germany. Slightly better outlook for democracy there.

Germany in 1932 had a better outlook for democracy.

Yeah, that doesn't require a restricted franchise however. We lived in San Diego for two years when my father was on an exchange program with the USN, and my parents still managed to vote in the 2001 election based on their previous electorate.

And for major overseas deployments there is an actual official polling place set up at foreign bases, so Australians in Afghanistan just voted at the polling place at Tarinkot. They would have had to have the ability to provide ballots for 150 electoral districts and 8 senatorial races, but I assume they just printed as needed rather than ship a bunch over.

(I also managed to vote based on my former address while living in Spain in 2007, just by registering with the Electoral Commission as currently overseas, they sent me and the other exchange students our ballots and we signed each other's forms to witness them)

All you need is a competent electoral administration that understands how to manage overseas postal voting and isn't implicitly geared towards making it hard to vote and stay enrolled.

This so much. The Australian Electoral Commission is so efficient and respected that recent conservative attempts to stack me attack it have failed miserable. It's solicitor designed to be non-partisan in its charter, and attempts to cut its funding or damage its image usually end disastrously for the nutjob - see: Palmer, Clive - doing so. When the AEC somehow lost 1400 votes in th 2013 Senate election in NSW - which was their single biggest mistake in history, by far - they re-held the election. Most countries would shrug their shoulders.

And military voting is also well organised to the point that a group of less than one hundred soldiers being snap-deployed for a training exercise on Election Day in 2016 led to a scandal because the AEC hadn't been notified, and couldn't prepare. The AEC not being notified of snap military deployments was a scandal in this country, only diffused by letting them vote late. Which made zero difference in the outcome.

We could try using the other part of the 2nd Amendment to form citizen militias with the goal of protecting voters and ensuring polling stations let people vote. Of course that would probably end in violent clashes between said militias and law enforcement.

Most militias in your country actively support voter disenfranchisement. They're mostly made of of right-wing whack jobs who hate blacks, Jews, and anyone else who ain't white and God-fearin'! And the law enforcement isn't much better in most places.

 

[Commodore]

Most militias in your country actively support voter disenfranchisement.

That's why I said we should form new militias. I'm envisioning a militia that has maybe a squad-sized element posted at polling stations in districts known for voter suppression. They would have a little station set up where people could come and let them know that they were turned away without voting and at that point a few of the militia guys could go in and have a chat with the polling station staff and see if a solution can't be hashed out.

And who knows, if the idea of polling station militias catches on, they could expand their role to include negotiating with employers to actually give their employees time off to vote, which seems to be another problem with our elections.

See now you got my brain working on this idea to the point where I'm starting to work out details as to how this could possibly work.

 

[Broken_Erika]

You'd have to be very careful in selecting recruits though. Gotta keep the crazy ones out.

 

[Phrossack]

That's why I said we should form new militias. I'm envisioning a militia that has maybe a squad-sized element posted at polling stations in districts known for voter suppression. They would have a little station set up where people could come and let them know that they were turned away without voting and at that point a few of the militia guys could go in and have a chat with the polling station staff and see if a solution can't be hashed out.

And who knows, if the idea of polling station militias catches on, they could expand their role to include negotiating with employers to actually give their employees time off to vote, which seems to be another problem with our elections.

See now you got my brain working on this idea to the point where I'm starting to work out details as to how this could possibly work.

The issue is less about direct physical intimidation at the polls as it is about laws written specifically to disenfranchise as many people who lean Democrat as possible. I'm not clear on what you're wanting militias to do here--but if non-conservatives begin forming militias, then the whole country will be split between armed camps who hate each other and see each other as an existential threat. That's a recipe for civil war.

Germany in 1932 had a better outlook for democracy.

We're at the point where there are a few main possibilities:

1. Aggressive voter disenfranchisement, conspiracy theories pushed from the highest offices, gerrymandering, and rigging the courts results in a permanent Republican majority, which creates a vicious cycle of more power, more suppression, more power. Non-Republicans simply lose hope and give up.

2. The same, but instead of giving up, some people resort to violence because peaceful change has been made impossible.

3. Dems win some power but refuse/don't bother to/can't undo the voter suppression or gerrymandering. The Republican Party leadership spreads conspiracy theories that the election was rigged, refuse to acknowledge the Democratic wins, and threaten or carry out violent attacks.

Simply put, Republicans do not see Democrats as legitimate and lawful, and have been whipped into such a frenzy that they are very close to violence as a whole.

I don't see how America can realistically avoid civil war at this point other than Democats just giving up.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Let's not turn our polling stations into Bagdhad circa 2005. We should not militarize polling stations and instead enact laws that cuts these activities. The Voting Rights Act was a powerful tool for this until the Supreme Court invalidated it after 40 successful years.

 

[cardgame]

That's the thing, though, isn't it? How can we enact laws if the lawmakers are above the law and can't be voted out.