2016 US Election

[thejeff]

Abraham spalding wrote:

Turin the Mad wrote:

More than fair enough.

Regarding work hours interfering: I know how that can be, it was far more tedious back in the pre-internet days, although even then the DMV offices had Saturday hours.

It's a sad, pathetic administration that only offers such sorry service windows as 1/month on a weekday!

Just ... wow.

Or it's explicit action by the same legislative body in a separate bill that passes about the same time the id laws pass.

You know to "balance the budget".

Part of that pattern that led the Court to determine it was indeed racial discrimination.

As I said earlier, other voter id laws that were less targeted and made more accommodations for getting ids to those less likely to have them, have withstood constitutional challenges. That these didn't is actually a big deal.

[Abraham spalding]

Agreed, in related news Oregon has an interesting new law; you are registered to vote unless you opt out.

[Grey Lensman]

captain yesterday wrote:

In the small town I used to live in, the county DMV office was only open every other Tuesday.

Good luck getting an I.D. with those hours.

In one county in Wisconsin the DMV is open every 5th Wednesday. That's not a typo, I mean it's open for just one day every three months. And In Alabama, many county DMVs were just closed outright for 'budgetary reasons.' Any guesses as to which party those counties tend to vote for?

[Krensky]

Plus there's a whole pile of incidents of the state or local GOP officials admiring publicly or on the record that the point of the whole voter ID things is about disenfranchising traditionally democratic voters.

[Caineach]

Turin the Mad wrote:

Wow! o.O

For obvious reasons I'm accustomed to where I live. Getting an ID is very easy, to the point that very, very few persons should have any problem getting one in short order. The only stumbling block here is self-inflicted.

Not to mention that actually getting the documentation required to get a valid ID is often impractical. Birth Certificates can be a b~%@% since the laws standardizing them are recent and older ones may not be valid for legal purposes, and getting new, proper ones can be very tricky.

[thejeff]

Krensky wrote:

Plus there's a whole pile of incidents of the state or local GOP officials admiring publicly or on the record that the point of the whole voter ID things is about disenfranchising traditionally democratic voters.

Though they often backpedal and claim what they meant was "Democrats won't be able to steal the election".

[Ajaxis]

So how do you make make voter fraud less likely without disenfranchising people? I have no problem with registration, in fact I think it is a necessity to prevent voter fraud. How do we get there without disenfranchisement?

Free I.D.'s to every living citizen of voting age?
Require an I.D. when requesting social services to encourage people to get one?
Require census participation to get an I.D.?

[captain yesterday]

Voter fraud is a myth, it doesn't exist enough to warrant action.

[thejeff]

Caineach wrote:

Turin the Mad wrote:

Wow! o.O

For obvious reasons I'm accustomed to where I live. Getting an ID is very easy, to the point that very, very few persons should have any problem getting one in short order. The only stumbling block here is self-inflicted.

Not to mention that actually getting the documentation required to get a valid ID is often impractical. Birth Certificates can be a b@+$& since the laws standardizing them are recent and older ones may not be valid for legal purposes, and getting new, proper ones can be very tricky.

Most people have or can get something, even if it doesn't qualify for voting and that might cost more in both time & money.

Bootstrapping id from nothing at all is really hard, but not quite the same problem. Mostly applies to kids/young adults estranged from their parents and such.

[thejeff]

Ajaxis wrote:

So how do you make make voter fraud less likely without disenfranchising people? I have no problem with registration, in fact I think it is a necessity to prevent voter fraud. How do we get there without disenfranchisement?

Free I.D.'s to every living citizen of voting age?
Require an I.D. when requesting social services to encourage people to get one?
Require census participation to get an I.D.?

Basically, what captain yesterday said.

But also, registration and voter id are different things. We still require registration everywhere - this lets the board of elections know who to expect where.
Even if you were going to require id, make it not just free, but actually esily available - none of this "only open on the 5th Wednesday for two hours" nonsense. Make existing ids count - like the "public assistance IDs" referenced by the court.

It's possible to do fairly, though I'm far from convinced it's necessary. The courts have agreed with voter id laws in the past, as long as sufficient provision was made and the laws didn't show discriminatory intent or too much likely effect.

[Grey Lensman]

Ajaxis wrote:

So how do you make make voter fraud less likely without disenfranchising people? I have no problem with registration, in fact I think it is a necessity to prevent voter fraud. How do we get there without disenfranchisement?

Free I.D.'s to every living citizen of voting age?
Require an I.D. when requesting social services to encourage people to get one?
Require census participation to get an I.D.?

Voter ID does nothing to prevent much more dangerous forms of election fraud, like ballot box stuffing (for example). A fake voter can cast on vote, after standing in line for hours and risking 10 years in prison. That's in order to cast one illicit vote.

A single stuffed ballot box could have thousands of illicit votes in, and unlike that one person standing in line, has actually changed the results of elections.

[thejeff]

Trump is of course doubling down on the rigged election thing, because doubling down is what he does when called on something:

Quote:

I don’t want to jump the gun. I don’t want to talk about that. I’m just saying that I wouldn’t be surprised if the election . . . there’s a lot of dirty pool played at the election, meaning the election is rigged. I would not be surprised. The voter ID, they’re fighting as hard as you can fight so that that they don’t have to show voter ID. So, what’s the purpose of that? How many times is a person going to vote during the day? If you don’t have voter ID . . .

Now the question is, is this preparation for challenging a loss? Or just a way he can save face when he does lose? ("I didn't really lose to her. It was stolen!") Or is Trump just running off his mouth as usual?

If this rhetoric keeps up, his supporters are going to get really ugly when he loses. They already know Clinton is crook who should be locked up, how are they going to react when she steals the election too?

[Pan]

thejeff wrote:

Trump is of course doubling down on the rigged election thing, because doubling down is what he does when called on something:

Quote:

I don’t want to jump the gun. I don’t want to talk about that. I’m just saying that I wouldn’t be surprised if the election . . . there’s a lot of dirty pool played at the election, meaning the election is rigged. I would not be surprised. The voter ID, they’re fighting as hard as you can fight so that that they don’t have to show voter ID. So, what’s the purpose of that? How many times is a person going to vote during the day? If you don’t have voter ID . . .

Now the question is, is this preparation for challenging a loss? Or just a way he can save face when he does lose? ("I didn't really lose to her. It was stolen!") Or is Trump just running off his mouth as usual?

If this rhetoric keeps up, his supporters are going to get really ugly when he loses. They already know Clinton is crook who should be locked up, how are they going to react when she steals the election too?

Better lame excuse for losing than Rudy G had in the senate race against Clinton.

[thejeff]

Grey Lensman wrote:

Ajaxis wrote:

So how do you make make voter fraud less likely without disenfranchising people? I have no problem with registration, in fact I think it is a necessity to prevent voter fraud. How do we get there without disenfranchisement?

Free I.D.'s to every living citizen of voting age?
Require an I.D. when requesting social services to encourage people to get one?
Require census participation to get an I.D.?

Voter ID does nothing to prevent much more dangerous forms of election fraud, like ballot box stuffing (for example). A fake voter can cast on vote, after standing in line for hours and risking 10 years in prison. That's in order to cast one illicit vote.

A single stuffed ballot box could have thousands of illicit votes in, and unlike that one person standing in line, has actually changed the results of elections.

Or the even more serious problems with elections, many of which can be seen in the laws that were struck down and all of which add up to disenfranchised voters: caging and other ways of purging real voters from the rolls, disparate allocation of resources so that your voters have short waits, while opposing voters have to wait hours, other things that discourage or prevent voting rather than getting extra votes.

[thunderspirit]

I don't see any evidence that voter fraud (in the pretending-to-be-someone-else sense, at least) is a widespread problem, and as a result I consider most voter ID laws to be a solution in search of a problem.

However, if you're going to implement them, such an ID needs to be:

1) free, to avoid running afoul of the 24th Amendment;
2) not disproportionately applied to geographic areas, in violation of the 15th Amendment; and
3) easily obtainable, to preserve an equitable standard for all.

Since these three things would each cost money, it's not surprising there's little-to-no inclination to do them, even among those who aren't motivated to use such laws as a means to disenfranchise particular segments of the population.

[Turin the Mad]

Depends on how things develop.

He seems to be finding that vast swathes of the GOP are bowing out on supporting the campaign. He may decide to take his ball and go home if his high profile support disintegrates.

He may hang around just long enough to decide "meh, I'm bored, no one likes me anyway" and other whining, moaning and complaining before bailing just inside the minimum time window to get another candidate on the ballot.

It seems most likely he'll stay the course long enough to see the results.

[thejeff]

Turin the Mad wrote:

Depends on how things develop.

He seems to be finding that vast swathes of the GOP are bowing out on supporting the campaign. He may decide to take his ball and go home if his high profile support disintegrates.

He may hang around just long enough to decide "meh, I'm bored, no one likes me anyway" and other whining, moaning and complaining before bailing just inside the minimum time window to get another candidate on the ballot.

It seems most likely he'll stay the course long enough to see the results.

It's not entirely clear to me what that window is. Or how it could be handled.

That said, watch the money. If the campaign contributions really dry up, he's out. If he uses a good chunk of them to pay off the loan he made to the primary campaign, he's getting out - though we likely won't know that until the month's financial disclosures come up and that might well be after the fact. Most likely though, he'll ride the gravy train as long as he can. Funnel as much campaign money as possible to Trump companies and political allies and only bail if the ride comes to an end.

As long as he's still drawing crowds, he'll keep going. It'll still be fun. And he's got his built-in excuse, so it's not like he'd be a loser or anything.

[Caineach]

thejeff wrote:

Caineach wrote:

Turin the Mad wrote:

Wow! o.O

For obvious reasons I'm accustomed to where I live. Getting an ID is very easy, to the point that very, very few persons should have any problem getting one in short order. The only stumbling block here is self-inflicted.

Not to mention that actually getting the documentation required to get a valid ID is often impractical. Birth Certificates can be a b@+$& since the laws standardizing them are recent and older ones may not be valid for legal purposes, and getting new, proper ones can be very tricky.

Most people have or can get something, even if it doesn't qualify for voting and that might cost more in both time & money.

Bootstrapping id from nothing at all is really hard, but not quite the same problem. Mostly applies to kids/young adults estranged from their parents and such.

It took 6+ months for my brother to get a valid birth certificate for a passport because in 1981 Florida hospitals did not issue certificates that meet the current standards and there was an error on the one they filed with the state. He had to run around collecting data from other sources to correct the error. Amusingly, all the documentation used to correct the error was based off of the not accepted birth certificate, and if my mom was dead he would not have been able to get the correct documents. All of that also required money, at least $100, and this was only 35 years ago. Who knows what older people face if their documentation is lost or deemed invalid.

[captain yesterday]

ABC has a story about republican leadership looking into options should Trump drop out, supposedly he would have to drop out by mid September for them to get someone else.

[bugleyman]

"Voter ID" laws are a 21st century poll tax, plain and simple.

[Krensky]

captain yesterday wrote:

ABC has a story about republican leadership looking into options should Trump drop out, supposedly he would have to drop out by mid September for them to get someone else.

It's a little more complex, and depends somewhat on if he drops out or they declare him unfit and thereby create a vacancy.

[Kolokotroni]

thunderspirit wrote:

I don't see any evidence that voter fraud (in the pretending-to-be-someone-else sense, at least) is a widespread problem, and as a result I consider most voter ID laws to be a solution in search of a problem.

However, if you're going to implement them, such an ID needs to be:

1) free, to avoid running afoul of the 24th Amendment;
2) not disproportionately applied to geographic areas, in violation of the 15th Amendment; and
3) easily obtainable, to preserve an equitable standard for all.

Since these three things would each cost money, it's not surprising there's little-to-no inclination to do them, even among those who aren't motivated to use such laws as a means to disenfranchise particular segments of the population.

It literally isn't a problem. Texas had 3 cases of the kind of fraud voter id laws would prevent over the course of YEARS. 3. That is among MILLIONS of ballots cast. 3 out of millions is statistically zero.

There isn't actually a problem. Like none. Anyone who claims to be worried about the integrity of the ballot (for this specific reason) is either unaware how numbers work, or is trying to disenfranchise people they think wont vote the way they want. Those are the only possibilities.

That said, I dont oppose efforts to actually help people get identification. But you then have to actually put the burden on the state not the individual. For instance, New York City has a program for every citizen to be able to sign up and get a government photo id. That was free AND you could make an appointment over a wide range of hours 7 days a week. It did however cost a lot of money to do. And we have a perfectly functioning dmv, but it isn't properly set up to help people not already in the system (Adults who dont already have an id of some kind) get sorted out.

That's the reality. If you want to do it properly you actually have to set up more government infrastructure. Don't want more government? That's fine, but then back the heck off the laws that require said institutions to prevent becoming a modern Poll Tax.

[bugleyman]

"Donald Trump's demagoguery has undermined the fabric of our national character."

All hands abandon ship! Warp core breach on decks 7,8, and 9!

[Orfamay Quest]

Krensky wrote:

captain yesterday wrote:

ABC has a story about republican leadership looking into options should Trump drop out, supposedly he would have to drop out by mid September for them to get someone else.

It's a little more complex, and depends somewhat on if he drops out or they declare him unfit and thereby create a vacancy.

I don't think they can "declare him unfit." From the relevant ABC article, "First, Trump would have to voluntarily exit the race. Officials say there is no mechanism for forcing him to withdraw his nomination."

[bugleyman]

It appears this may be the beginning of the end for Trump (a.k.a. sanity reasserting itself). I'm actually torn, because if Trump does implode, the GOP may just nominate someone electable.

[Kryzbyn]

There's a lot of people that could beat Hillary, I imagine. Thing is, if they swap candidates, how much does that screw up HRC's campaign? If she's spending money on anti-Trump adds (not that she has to, that man is a poster child for bizzaro world), how does that mess up things? Would she have any recourse?

[thejeff]

OTOH, anyone coming in now (or in a month or more), is going to face backlash from Trump's fans, especially if they think he's been forced out.
They're also going to be trying to put together a campaign and fundraise starting from near scratch.

And that's ignoring all the wrangling and infighting over who it would be. Who has the recognition and both the base and establishment support? Who actually decides who gets to run?

The downside here isn't all on Clinton's side.

Edit: Honestly, I'd love it. It would be as clear a statement as possible that America really doesn't support the Trump level of crazy and I really don't think it gives the Republicans much hope of winning in the fall.

[Kryzbyn]

Oh I know that. I just wonder what kind of regulatory (if any) recourse she may have.

[Scott Betts]

Kryzbyn wrote:

There's a lot of people that could beat Hillary, I imagine. Thing is, if they swap candidates, how much does that screw up HRC's campaign? If she's spending money on anti-Trump adds (not that she has to, that man is a poster child for bizzaro world), how does that mess up things? Would she have any recourse?

She's reserving ad time/space. She can choose what ads appear later.

Doesn't matter though. I can't imagine them ditching Trump at this point. That ship has sailed.

[thejeff]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Oh I know that. I just wonder what kind of regulatory (if any) recourse she may have.

In what sense? What would she be looking for? She could obviously pull any anti-Trump ads she was running and replace them with more generic pro-Hillary ads in the short run and then target the new candidate when they have one.

What kind of regulatory action would she be looking for?

[Kryzbyn]

I have no idea, this hasn't happened before that I'm aware of. I'm just asking the question. While I think she's horrible, there's no bias in the question, just asking about a potential candidate getting screwed by the other side completely changing things up with only a few months left, and if there's and guidelines or rules about it.

[Kryzbyn]

Scott Betts wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

There's a lot of people that could beat Hillary, I imagine. Thing is, if they swap candidates, how much does that screw up HRC's campaign? If she's spending money on anti-Trump adds (not that she has to, that man is a poster child for bizzaro world), how does that mess up things? Would she have any recourse?

She's reserving ad time/space. She can choose what ads appear later.

Doesn't matter though. I can't imagine them ditching Trump at this point. That ship has sailed.

I don't think it's a question of them dumping Trump, but him taking his ball and going home.

[thejeff]

Kryzbyn wrote:

I have no idea, this hasn't happened before that I'm aware of. I'm just asking the question. While I think she's horrible, there's no bias in the question, just asking about a potential candidate getting screwed by the other side completely changing things up with only a few months left, and if there's and guidelines or rules about it.

As you said, it's unprecedented. I'm just not sure exactly how she'd be getting screwed by it.

But mostly I agree with Scott. Not happening. I think it's more likely than any past election I can think of, but that's still putting it down in the near impossible category. Only marginally more likely than him just dropping dead.

[captain yesterday]

His ego is too ravenous to quit now. :-)

[Kolokotroni]

Kryzbyn wrote:

I have no idea, this hasn't happened before that I'm aware of. I'm just asking the question. While I think she's horrible, there's no bias in the question, just asking about a potential candidate getting screwed by the other side completely changing things up with only a few months left, and if there's and guidelines or rules about it.

The method by which parties pick their nominee is actually exceptionally free of regulation. They are after all private clubs. It wasn't long ago that that the conventions were actually where party big wigs got together and just decided. All the primary process is just something the parties accepted by way of public pressure. As far as I know there are no laws that demand they stick to them. I would assume that technically the only requirement is that the nominee sign up to run whenever the deadline is for everyone.

I highly doubt Hilary or any candidate would have legal recourse. They would have plenty of fodder in the public eye though. I am pretty sure The republicans backing out NOW would be glorious for the Hilary campaign, even if they somehow found the perfect conservative candidate (hint: at this point I don't think there such a person) she could easily tought the fact that they spent weeks and weeks talking up friggan Donald trump as their candidate and then are not turning tail. That would be a public disgrace for the GOP the likes of which I cant even fathom.

[thejeff]

captain yesterday wrote:

His ego is too ravenous to quit now. :-)

And if he does hint at dropping out - just have Warren put out a tweet taunting him about it and he won't be able to resist.

[Samy]

Wow, I had absolutely no idea how difficult it is to get ID in the US.

Here, you can arrange to get one at any police station. You can make an application and upload a photo via Internet, and come pick it up at the station you chose.

[Krensky]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Krensky wrote:

captain yesterday wrote:

ABC has a story about republican leadership looking into options should Trump drop out, supposedly he would have to drop out by mid September for them to get someone else.

It's a little more complex, and depends somewhat on if he drops out or they declare him unfit and thereby create a vacancy.

I don't think they can "declare him unfit." From the relevant ABC article, "First, Trump would have to voluntarily exit the race. Officials say there is no mechanism for forcing him to withdraw his nomination."

The GOP's rules are a little fuzzy and it would certainly lead to lawsuits and destroy the party as it exists now (which may not be too small a price to pay depending on how crazy Trump acts). The party rules let them fill a vacancy for death, illness, resignation, blah blah blah, and any other reason. The party leaders declaring him unit for office an 'other reason'. Shakey ground, and somewhat like using a bomb to get rid of a whale carcass, but it's possible. Not likely, but possible.

But what ever reason, there are ballot deadlines fast approaching, and Delaware's has already passed.

[thejeff]

Samy wrote:

Wow, I had absolutely no idea how difficult it is to get ID in the US.

Here, you can arrange to get one at any police station. You can make an application and upload a photo via Internet, and come pick it up at the station you chose.

Thing is, we don't have an actual national ID system. Because we're paranoid or something.

Mostly we make do with state issued driver's licenses, which have basically all of the drawbacks of a national id and few of the advantages. Since that covers the vast majority of people, including everyone with any power or influence, there's little provision made for those who fall through the cracks.

[bugleyman]

Samy wrote:

Wow, I had absolutely no idea how difficult it is to get ID in the US.

It really depends on the state where you live. The joys of federation. :P

[bugleyman]

thejeff wrote:

Thing is, we don't have an actual national ID system. Because we're paranoid or something.

Mostly we make do with state issued driver's licenses, which have basically all of the drawbacks of a national id and few of the advantages. Since that covers the vast majority of people, including everyone with any power or influence, there's little provision made for those who fall through the cracks.

It may even be worse than that. Here in AZ, we stamped our feet and refused to update our driver's licenses to meet the necessary standards for federal air travel, because it was going to be "too expensive." We then turned around and created an entirely new form of ID card that does comply, meaning now anyone who wants to both drive and fly has to get BOTH forms of identification.

Really.

[Krensky]

Well, there's always a passport, but that's almost $200 and a six week wait.

[Samy]

Interestingly enough, a passport is cheaper here than an ID card. Surprised me when I checked just now. Passport 48 euro, ID card 54 euro.

Also, I had forgotten that instead of picking the passport up at the police station (which, now that I checked, have many of the same opening hour limitations as you are dealing with with the DMV), you can choose to have it delivered to the local equivalent of 7-11 where you can pick it up with much broader opening hours.

[CrystalSeas]

Krensky wrote:

Well, there's always a passport, but that's almost $200 and a six week wait.

A passport doesn't let you drive. You're still in the one-to-fly another-to-drive dilemma

[NobodysHome]

IDs are all kinds of interesting around here. My 15-year-old son has an annual pass to Disneyland that should get him a 15-20% discount throughout the park...
...except it requires a photo ID, and they wouldn't accept his high school ID card. "Has to be a driver's license" is a standard response when you try to produce ID in this country.

I'm ornery. I present my passport card. You'd be surprised how often locations refuse and demand a valid driver's license instead.

So not only is there no "national ID" card, but many forms of identification are rejected out-of-hand and there is a demand for a driver's license. Because everybody has one, right?

EDIT: To be 100% clear, I have never had my passport card rejected at a government office, so this is NOT a claim of voter disenfranchisement. I'm just joining the chorus of, "IDs in this country are weird" derailment...

[CrystalSeas]

I long ago lost my social security card, although I have the digits memorized. I've always used my passport as my federal identification document.

A major chain store was putting me through an on-boarding process, and it took them two days to get confirmation from HQ that my passport was a legal document showing that I was allowed to work in this country.

[Abraham spalding]

I have a USA ID due to my job and I have had states tell me it is no good for a picture ID for their purposes.

Which is ridiculous due to the fact it is much harder to qualify for and keep than their licence.

[Krensky]

That's really sad because the I-9 lists the acceptable documents on the last page.

[bugleyman]

Krensky wrote:

Well, there's always a passport, but that's almost $200 and a six week wait.

I have one for unrelated reasons.

It just really bothers me that the AZ state government is willing to massively inconvenience a huge number of citizens just to avoid admitting their own bone-headed intransigence.

Hmmm...that sounds like someone else I know... *cough* Trump *cough* :P

[CrystalSeas]

Krensky wrote:

That's really sad because the I-9 lists the acceptable documents on the last page.

Apparently "I was told I had to see a Social Security card" overrides plain English on Federal forms