Fair isn't everyone getting the same thing. (1 Viewer)

[TobiasFunke]

I'm glad that it's important to you, but it's not important to everyone. Lots of people, blacks and whites, and rich and poor, won't vote if it's made less convenient. Whether you think those people should be accommodated or not doesn't matter, it's just a fact. So if you do something that makes it less convenient for poor people and people who live in cities (both groups being disproportionately black) you've passed a law that, while not racist on its face, disproportionately impacts black people. That's a terrible thing to do when we're talking about something as fundamental and important as voting.

Let's flip the script. Imagine that someone passed a law that said that polling places would only be located in places that have a population density of 10,000 people per square mile or greater. Here's a list of them. In states that don't have any such cities we'll set up polling stations only in the city with the greatest population.

That law would have a practical purpose that has nothing to do with the makeup of voters- it would save a ton of money and effort by centralizing polling where the most people live. In fact it makes a lot more sense than voter ID laws, the cost and difficulty of holding national elections is far greater than any problem we might have with voter fraud. Sure, some people would have a harder time getting to the polls than others. But like you said, if voting is important to you you'll find a way to get it done.

Sound like a good law to you?

If it's not important to them, why am I supposed to give a ####? Driving, getting a job, cashing checks, opening bank accounts, getting on any kind of gov't assistance, going to the doctor, and many other things all require a person to have ID. Are all of those things racist? At some point it is entirely reasonable to put the responsibility of achieving some goals on the individual.

Does your non applicable hypothetical sound like a good law to me? No, not really, but if it went down that way, I'd deal with it.

Let me ask you this. Why have any voter qualifications or registration at all? Sounds like one big inconvenience to me. Just let people walk into any polling station whenever they want and just tell them to be honest. No rolls or anything just a big unmanned computer. Make sure to tell all of the felons and illegal immigrants that they shouldn't be there because obviously they wouldn't do anything dishonest. Sound like a good idea to you?

Can someone point me to somebody who has been disenfranchised by voter ID laws? Seriously, why is this such a crucial issue to the Dems?

You seem not to understand the difference between individual impacts and societal ones. No single person is being disenfranchised, because anyone can get the necessary ID with some effort. That's not the point. The point is disparate impact. Stop thinking about how this might impact you, or some hypothetical person, and start thinking about how this impacts tens of millions of people, some of whom will not have IDs and won't have an easy way to get them, meaning it's now harder for some people to vote than it is for others. That is an absolute, undeniable fact. Can those people still vote? Sure. Will they? Some will, some won't and that favors one side of the aisle and will result in reduced turnout among the poor and black/hispanic voters.

You want to know why it's important to Dems? Because it changes the voter demographic in a way that would clearly favor Republicans. The same reason my hypo about only having polling in places with a certain level of population density would be strongly opposed by Republicans. Because even if the claimed rationale is a legitimate one, the impact would be unfair. You do understand that if we had a law that we'd only have polling places in locations with certain population density levels the result would be a government so liberal it would make Bernie Sanders look like Ted Cruz, right? That even though you might "deal with it," the vast majority of people who would not be willing to do so would be conservatives? If would so obviously favorable for Dems/liberals that you'd be suspicious of their motivation for pushing for it, right? Even though saving money and making voting and tallying of votes easier are legitimate goals, wouldn't you assume they actually were just trying to push out voters who don't vote for them?

As to why have any qualifications and registration at all ... because it seems to be working. Voting fraud is not a real thing on any significant scale. It's been proven time and time again. There's nothing wrong with the system we have now. People are pushing for change because they want to alter the demographics of voters, just as would be the case if Dems pushed my hypothetical "polling in dense population centers only" law. If you can't see that I don't know how else to explain it to you.

 

[B-Deep]

In an attempt to get away from Voter IDs and on to the topic of fairness here's some of my insight, take it for what it is.

My son attends our local pubilc school and requires a para-professional to accompany him all day. He also spends extensive time with an intrvention specialist as well as time in a 3rd grade classroom. He has a cognitive disability and is non verbal. He needs help to stay safe, to get to the right places for gym and music, to change his diaper, and many other things. It takes significantly more work for him to learn than others. He's in 3rd grade, uses his ipad (not a school purchase) to try and communicate. He'll never talk, he is learning to read books with his ipad. He can count and is learning some very simple math

I am sure it costs more to educate him than a typical child. If you only spent on him what you did on a typical child he'd never have learned anything and might not be able to safely navigate school. if you compare his academic knowledge to his classmates you might even think that the money is wasted

But i have seen a child who we were not sure could learn anything learn to spell, learn to read, learn to use a keyboard. He is getting his own water, he is helping change his own clothes. He is gaining independence and confidence that we thought was impossible.

Is it fair that he consumes more educational resources for less academic outcome?

I believe so, because you are giving him the best chance to have his own life. Because if you are not willing to spend more on special needs kids of all types than an entire class of citizens (many of whom can be "productive" in a traditional sense) get left behind and never reach their potential. Because he works harder than most of his typical peers to learn things that they find simple. Because when his teachers and his classmates get excited that he can use a special calculator to add numbers and participate in their activities it makes THEM better people, it makes them more inclusive.

I believe spending more time with kids who struggle, special needs or not, is fair because we want everyone to achieve what they can, even if that is somehow not as academically valued as what others can achieve.

But, i admit my view is bias and my definition of fairness is greatly impacted by my son. He's changed my view on everything, but that's part of why it is worth spending extra time and money on special needs children, because they have that power. They can redefine what you see as success, they can redefine how you value people. They can even redefine what you think is fair. My son has done all of that for me and it has made me a better person while it makes him a better person. I'd also like to believe it has made some of his classmates better people as well.

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

I think you're being too kind when you say less convenient. For people who have no drivers license (because they are too poor to need one) you're talking about now having to take an entire day off work to go to the DMV to get a license. And there is no law saying employers have to allow a day off to get those done. Which means the full day trip to the DMV could cost this person their job which would be pretty disastrous. Worst case scenario. Best case is you have to find a friend or relative with a car who can take you which means two people taking a day off work. So, it's worse than less convenient. It's an unreasonable burden to place on the poorest citizens just to maintain the right to vote.

How do people like those in your scenario, cash their paychecks without IDs?

Or rent scuba gear.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I'm glad that it's important to you, but it's not important to everyone. Lots of people, blacks and whites, and rich and poor, won't vote if it's made less convenient. Whether you think those people should be accommodated or not doesn't matter, it's just a fact. So if you do something that makes it less convenient for poor people and people who live in cities (both groups being disproportionately black) you've passed a law that, while not racist on its face, disproportionately impacts black people. That's a terrible thing to do when we're talking about something as fundamental and important as voting.

Let's flip the script. Imagine that someone passed a law that said that polling places would only be located in places that have a population density of 10,000 people per square mile or greater. Here's a list of them. In states that don't have any such cities we'll set up polling stations only in the city with the greatest population.

That law would have a practical purpose that has nothing to do with the makeup of voters- it would save a ton of money and effort by centralizing polling where the most people live. In fact it makes a lot more sense than voter ID laws, the cost and difficulty of holding national elections is far greater than any problem we might have with voter fraud. Sure, some people would have a harder time getting to the polls than others. But like you said, if voting is important to you you'll find a way to get it done.

Sound like a good law to you?

If it's not important to them, why am I supposed to give a ####? Driving, getting a job, cashing checks, opening bank accounts, getting on any kind of gov't assistance, going to the doctor, and many other things all require a person to have ID. Are all of those things racist? At some point it is entirely reasonable to put the responsibility of achieving some goals on the individual. Does your non applicable hypothetical sound like a good law to me? No, not really, but if it went down that way, I'd deal with it.

Let me ask you this. Why have any voter qualifications or registration at all? Sounds like one big inconvenience to me. Just let people walk into any polling station whenever they want and just tell them to be honest. No rolls or anything just a big unmanned computer. Make sure to tell all of the felons and illegal immigrants that they shouldn't be there because obviously they wouldn't do anything dishonest. Sound like a good idea to you?

Can someone point me to somebody who has been disenfranchised by voter ID laws? Seriously, why is this such a crucial issue to the Dems?

You seem not to understand the difference between individual impacts and societal ones. No single person is being disenfranchised, because anyone can get the necessary ID with some effort. That's not the point. The point is disparate impact. Stop thinking about how this might impact you, or some hypothetical person, and start thinking about how this impacts tens of millions of people, some of whom will not have IDs and won't have an easy way to get them, meaning it's now harder for some people to vote than it is for others. That is an absolute, undeniable fact. Can those people still vote? Sure. Will they? Some will, some won't and that favors one side of the aisle and will result in reduced turnout among the poor and black/hispanic voters.

You want to know why it's important to Dems? Because it changes the voter demographic in a way that would clearly favor Republicans. The same reason my hypo about only having polling in places with a certain level of population density would be strongly opposed by Republicans. Because even if the claimed rationale is a legitimate one, the impact would be unfair. You do understand that if we had a law that we'd only have polling places in locations with certain population density levels the result would be a government so liberal it would make Bernie Sanders look like Ted Cruz, right? That even though you might "deal with it," the vast majority of people who would not be willing to do so would be conservatives? If would so obviously favorable for Dems/liberals that you'd be suspicious of their motivation for pushing for it, right? Even though saving money and making voting and tallying of votes easier are legitimate goals, wouldn't you assume they actually were just trying to push out voters who don't vote for them?

As to why have any qualifications and registration at all ... because it seems to be working. Voting fraud is not a real thing on any significant scale. It's been proven time and time again. There's nothing wrong with the system we have now. People are pushing for change because they want to alter the demographics of voters, just as would be the case if Dems pushed my hypothetical "polling in dense population centers only" law. If you can't see that I don't know how else to explain it to you.

If we start focusing on the unintended, yet disparate impact of laws, can't you make an argument against passing virtually ANY new law?

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'm glad that it's important to you, but it's not important to everyone. Lots of people, blacks and whites, and rich and poor, won't vote if it's made less convenient. Whether you think those people should be accommodated or not doesn't matter, it's just a fact. So if you do something that makes it less convenient for poor people and people who live in cities (both groups being disproportionately black) you've passed a law that, while not racist on its face, disproportionately impacts black people. That's a terrible thing to do when we're talking about something as fundamental and important as voting.

Let's flip the script. Imagine that someone passed a law that said that polling places would only be located in places that have a population density of 10,000 people per square mile or greater. Here's a list of them. In states that don't have any such cities we'll set up polling stations only in the city with the greatest population.

That law would have a practical purpose that has nothing to do with the makeup of voters- it would save a ton of money and effort by centralizing polling where the most people live. In fact it makes a lot more sense than voter ID laws, the cost and difficulty of holding national elections is far greater than any problem we might have with voter fraud. Sure, some people would have a harder time getting to the polls than others. But like you said, if voting is important to you you'll find a way to get it done.

Sound like a good law to you?

If it's not important to them, why am I supposed to give a ####? Driving, getting a job, cashing checks, opening bank accounts, getting on any kind of gov't assistance, going to the doctor, and many other things all require a person to have ID. Are all of those things racist? At some point it is entirely reasonable to put the responsibility of achieving some goals on the individual. Does your non applicable hypothetical sound like a good law to me? No, not really, but if it went down that way, I'd deal with it.

Let me ask you this. Why have any voter qualifications or registration at all? Sounds like one big inconvenience to me. Just let people walk into any polling station whenever they want and just tell them to be honest. No rolls or anything just a big unmanned computer. Make sure to tell all of the felons and illegal immigrants that they shouldn't be there because obviously they wouldn't do anything dishonest. Sound like a good idea to you?

Can someone point me to somebody who has been disenfranchised by voter ID laws? Seriously, why is this such a crucial issue to the Dems?

You seem not to understand the difference between individual impacts and societal ones. No single person is being disenfranchised, because anyone can get the necessary ID with some effort. That's not the point. The point is disparate impact. Stop thinking about how this might impact you, or some hypothetical person, and start thinking about how this impacts tens of millions of people, some of whom will not have IDs and won't have an easy way to get them, meaning it's now harder for some people to vote than it is for others. That is an absolute, undeniable fact. Can those people still vote? Sure. Will they? Some will, some won't and that favors one side of the aisle and will result in reduced turnout among the poor and black/hispanic voters.

You want to know why it's important to Dems? Because it changes the voter demographic in a way that would clearly favor Republicans. The same reason my hypo about only having polling in places with a certain level of population density would be strongly opposed by Republicans. Because even if the claimed rationale is a legitimate one, the impact would be unfair. You do understand that if we had a law that we'd only have polling places in locations with certain population density levels the result would be a government so liberal it would make Bernie Sanders look like Ted Cruz, right? That even though you might "deal with it," the vast majority of people who would not be willing to do so would be conservatives? If would so obviously favorable for Dems/liberals that you'd be suspicious of their motivation for pushing for it, right? Even though saving money and making voting and tallying of votes easier are legitimate goals, wouldn't you assume they actually were just trying to push out voters who don't vote for them?

As to why have any qualifications and registration at all ... because it seems to be working. Voting fraud is not a real thing on any significant scale. It's been proven time and time again. There's nothing wrong with the system we have now. People are pushing for change because they want to alter the demographics of voters, just as would be the case if Dems pushed my hypothetical "polling in dense population centers only" law. If you can't see that I don't know how else to explain it to you.

If we start focusing on the unintended, yet disparate impact of laws, can't you make an argument against passing virtually ANY new law?

Yup. So the question is whether the benefit is worth the disparate impact. Here the answer IMO is clearly no, because voter fraud is not a significant problem, while any law that makes it harder for the people who most need a voice in government to have that voice obviously is a significant problem. At least I hope that's obvious. Nobody should want to do that, so the benefit of a voter ID law should have to be pretty substantial to make it worthwhile. And it's definitely not.