Folks, please take a moment and consider your position on Voter ID laws.
I don't see how anyone can advocate Constitutional government and then square that position with a law that requires state-issued identification. And don't give me that "You have to show ID to buy a firearm or a beer" crap - those ID requirements are just as foul as voter ID.
Show me your papers!
F that.
Find another way, folks. They do it in third-world countries all the time with a simple ink.
And for the record, I do NOT believe in all this "democracy" crap, either. Not every FSA piece of garbage should get to pull the level in the voting booth. But "who" should be permitted to vote is a discussion for another day, we have to get our basics back in line before we start focusing on the peripheral issues.
Here's the link.
Kerodin
III
It's a matter of scale. If our elections were the size of smaller nations, both in total numbers and local sizes, then other methods might work. Also there is the fraud factor that local Democratic poll watchers appear to promote and participate in and no ink or poll listings will stop.
ReplyDeleteReduce our representation numbers down to the size they were meant to be in proportion of those represented and make us an actual Republic again without Mob Rule Democracy running the show and I would agree with you. Yet under the current fiasco we have, voter ID is about the only way to keep some order and limit fraud at least a little.
I can't accept the premise that because Dems are bad people who cheat, or because there are too many people who vote, that we turn to top-down police state tactics. Should we register firearms just because some bad person might steal them? Should we reduce every aspect of our lives to accommodate the lowest common denominator among us?
ReplyDeleteThe Principle involved is too important to surrender for expediency. There is no extra time in the polling place to stick one's finger into a jar of modified ink with a half-life of 24-48 hours.
K
"I don't see how anyone can advocate Constitutional government and then square that position with a law that requires state-issued identification."
ReplyDeleteIt's simple, really. Hierarchy--once you acknowledge that some men should rule over other men, the rest is only detail. As Americans, we like the "rules" set forth in the Constitution, because they're so rational and just, not to mention somewhat protective of the individual, at least in theory. Others seek their socialist nirvana, so they think the rules should read that way. Still others believe everyone should adhere to their version of morality, so the rules should dictate that.
LOL...IOW we're back to the OLD contradiction! In theory, the Constitution controls what the government does, not what individual Americans do. Too bad for us, we don't live in theory.
JK: I don't think anyone here has advocated that "...once you acknowledge that some men should rule over other men, the rest is only detail..."
DeleteMost of us see the Constitution as a mechanism by which we can "assign" and "give approval" of certain people to govern - which is NOT a dirty word if that governing is kept in-bounds. They are tasked with "governing/managing" certain tasks that we as a society have chosen to delegate to others.
That's all. None of us have ever voted and said "Go to Washington and RULE me!!" We've voted and said "Go to Washington and do those things in the charter - the Constitution."
Bad People break that agreement and go out of bounds. It is our responsibility to then spank those people, either by voting them out or hanging them from lamp posts, or something in between. Until we start spanking them, they will continue - as I have said many times, you will be abused only to the extent you permit.
What I find truly fascinating in these discussions is how many people think the world only began upon their birth, and the world should then begin to revolve around their whims, wishes and edicts. Anyone with a problem with the system they were born into should seek to fix it, and if one wants to assign blame, first blame the parents who brought you into said world. They should have moved to a "better place" for the arrival of their oh-so-special little darlin'.
This topic deserves a post...
K
"None of us have ever voted and said 'Go to Washington and RULE me!!' We've voted and said 'Go to Washington and do those things in the charter - the Constitution.'"
DeleteYou mean that's what we persuaded ourselves that we were doing. You're right about that.
I was talking about what we actually did, not what we imagined that we were doing. So yes, technically I should retract the word "acknowledge," and do.
OTOH, we (you!) don't have that excuse now.
Isn't your premise that..."Not every FSA piece of garbage should get to pull the level in the voting booth"...based on somewhat the same principle? If you, in example, limited voting to only productive, employed and self-supporting folks, don't potential voters have to prove they meet the basic qualifications and are who they say they are? Even if you restrict voting to a specific geographical enclave of property owners -- or lease holders -- within that enclave, don't the people by definition identify themselves as eligible voters?
ReplyDeleteYep - but it would not be state-issued ID. If it were property-based, one could simply show up with ownership papers as owner of X property. The poll worker crosses off X parcel, and no one else gets to vote on it. If there is a dispute, it can be settled between the parties. This would lead, by necessity, to landowners (in this example) becoming more involved locally and known to others.
DeleteIf sheer numbers are a problem, make smaller districts - remember that based on the ratio of Congressmen to population, if we kept the same ratio as was in place at ratification, we'd have more than 700,000 Congressmen right now in the House. So much for representation...
K
You're still doing the same thing -- verifying that only eligible voters are able to cast a vote. Whether you do it by property ownership or residency, you're requiring proof of eligibility. For now, if only people you can prove live in a geographical are allowed to vote it's the same concept -- restricting voting to people who actually have some sort of stake in the outcome.
ReplyDeleteWhether it's a council of "volunteer" property owners verifying ownership papers, or public drones (employees) following the rules by only issuing verifiable IDs to eligible folks, it's still the same concept -- a "governing or supervisory" body verifying eligibility.
Again, following your lead I'm not addressing the "who" of should be allowed to vote as that is a true can of worms (for example, if someone owns a successful business providing a necessary service/product to the community, but leases their work space from a landowner, should he/she be excluded from voting; or a person owns several non-contingent properties, are they allowed one vote per property?). For now the rules state that any person of a certain age residing in a geographical area is eligible to vote. All voter ID does is attempt to assure that voters meet that basic criteria and limits them to one vote per person. Essentially, it "pre-inks" eligible voters...
As far as numerical representation goes, it's a fantasy to meet the required number as stated by the Constitution (although having 700K congressional critters would assure deadlock and prohibit the glut of worthless legislation currently being churned out). Even on a state level -- if the autonomy of the individual states as provided for by the Constitution were honored -- the shear numbers are prohibitive. Even on the community level shear numbers prohibit most effective representation. Perhaps the best course of action would be to let people live their lives as they see fit so long as they don't intrude on or injure others. People can pick and choose their communities and whether or not to trade or interact with others.
Huge, huge difference between citizens policing one another versus the State deciding who may and may not cast a vote, via issued ID.
DeleteThe Framers left the details of Who and How regarding voting up to the individual states, until the Feds put a pistol to their heads and passed Voting Rights Act, taking that power from the states.
As to the representation issue - you're right, it would be deadlock as the Red areas in states get equal representation - which is exactly what the Framers wanted. ;) I'll choose deadlock/constitutional every trip of the train.
K
Here's the difference, buying and owning a firearm is a right without borders. Voting on the other hand has borders that must be proven so non-residents do not vote in the wrong place and about issues they have no business voting on.
ReplyDelete"if someone owns a successful business providing a necessary service/product to the community"
ReplyDeleteNow I know I'm in the Twilight Zone! Nothing about you or your comments, David; I both enjoyed and agreed with the logic.
But damn, I wish this show were over already.
I can't remember where I read it, but in additon to being a landowner, wasn't there a provision for someone who owned a business, thus being able to pay a certain amount of tax in support to run the government also eligiable to vote? Perhaps I'm thinking of something else altogether. I'm still a very green student so if my input seems silly it's not meant to be, I'm just trying to understand.
DeleteMiss Violet