Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
SpiceGIrl

Supreme Court, in 5–4 Decision, Allows States to Purge Voters for Their Failure to Vote

151 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, Guido2 said:

Noted

Addendum: I'm am nasty? Tell you what, contact HST and tell him to temper his cloaked hatred for whites.

Then I will calm down.

He posts here....I respond here. EOS. He uses fancy words, boring rhetoric...history lessons to insult everyone that happens to be white and doesn't share his obsession with white guilt. 

So get on his case....not mine. 

Funny....  I'm white as snow and I don't get 'insulted' by his posts.  I'm not sure why you do.

Could you explain?  Is it his ideas or the fact that he presents them so well?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, gonzoliberal said:

Funny....  I'm white as snow and I don't get 'insulted' by his posts.  I'm not sure why you do.

Could you explain?  Is it his ideas or the fact that he presents them so well?

 

Well good for you...you aren't insulted. 

I am. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It is my guiding thesis that people who claim a serious interest in America but consider racism to be a niche topic are divided against themselves. You can't understand American politics, without understanding the Civil War. You can't understand the suburbs, without understanding redlining. You can't understand the constitution, without understanding slavery. In effect if you are an American who avoids understanding the force of racism, you are avoiding an understanding of yourself and your country."

Link

I add that you can't understand this topic of voter purges without understanding race, and the history of racism and voter suppression, again and again and again.

its always been there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, bmore_ken said:

How hard is it to go to a school and cast a vote? I've been doing it for almost 40 years including when I was stationed in Germany and Japan. 

it depends on where you live. you live in a very rural area with no public transportation when you don't drive, fairly difficult. I lived in one of those types of communities in Texas....

I believe the solution is how Colorado does their voting....by mail. however those states bent on suppressing certain types of voters aren't going to follow this model.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, can you hear me now! said:

it depends on where you live. you live in a very rural area with no public transportation when you don't drive, fairly difficult. I lived in one of those types of communities in Texas....

I believe the solution is how Colorado does their voting....by mail. however those states bent on suppressing certain types of voters aren't going to follow this model.....

Do those certain types of voters give a damn enough to change that, or do they not care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bmore_ken said:

Do those certain types of voters give a damn enough to change that, or do they not care?

may be you've missed the protests and court cases about voter suppression....

I live in Texas, let me list the ways they've been suppressing votes... requiring photo id but closing several photo id centers in the rural parts of the state...disallowing the use of college ids (state issued), closing polling centers...want more or is that enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, can you hear me now! said:

may be you've missed the protests and court cases about voter suppression....

I live in Texas, let me list the ways they've been suppressing votes... requiring photo id but closing several photo id centers in the rural parts of the state...disallowing the use of college ids (state issued), closing polling centers...want more or is that enough?

What are the voters doing there to change the faces in office?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bmore_ken said:

What are the voters doing there to change the faces in office?

if you aren't allowed to vote then your voice is taken away and you can't effect any change.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ms maggie said:

Sadly, effective isn't the goal of many.

Funny if you think about it. Mail (electronic and snail) is fine for filing taxes but somehow not voting? Though there are some more enlightened places where mail is utilized. In time common sense will prevail.

 

2 hours ago, can you hear me now! said:

it depends on where you live. you live in a very rural area with no public transportation when you don't drive, fairly difficult. I lived in one of those types of communities in Texas....

I believe the solution is how Colorado does their voting....by mail. however those states bent on suppressing certain types of voters aren't going to follow this model.....

Voting by mail comes with it's own set of problems.  First is the cost.  Federal and State Governments would have to lay out the postage to mail some 200 million ballots in a presidential election.  I really don't know if that would be more or less than the current way of voting in person.  Then there is the return ballot postage.  If people are forced to buy their own stamp to return a ballot, it could be considered a poll tax.  And the inherent problems with lost mail.  Ever had a bill not reach you?  I have.  What happens when someone doesn't get their ballot and doesn't realize it until too late?  Also a well planned effort could steal a number of ballots from the mail and fill them out.  People have had SS checks stolen from their mail as well as tax refunds.  If someone says they never received a ballot, yet one has been returned in the mail, how do you prove it?  I think there is too much of a disconnect that can lead to problems when asking government to mail out ballots and collect returns.  Plus anyone who wants to vote by mail can do so today by simply applying for an absentee ballot.  

I think the best solution is a national voting ID.  It can be just like a credit card with a magnetic stripe and a chip.  Government can place card readers at government offices for those who have not voted in several elections yet want to retain their eligibility.  Simply swipe the card and it will be recorded as activity, the same way using a credit card would keep it from being deactivated.  The cost of this should not be transferred to the people in any way.   Instead the government should assume some of the cost, yet mandate that both the democrat and republican party pony up most of the cost from their war chests.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dystopia said:

I've been skeptical of the effect this will have on elections, but on the flip side of the coin can anyone articulate a good reason to do this? Other than political motivations, of course? Because I can't think of a good reason to remove anyone from a voter roll. 

All good IT departments clean and purge their databases on a regular schedule.  These voter rolls aren't simply kept in a huge filing cabinet.  They are all kept in databases.  The larger databases grow, the more storage, at taxpayer cost, is needed.  Plus the rolls are printed out every election.  Not purging the rolls means larger and larger printouts with every election.  That comes at a cost, plus being inefficient for the poll workers who need to verify people on election day.  It is really not efficient to allow everyone who has ever registered to vote to remain in the database and on the active voter rolls throughout all time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cprenegade said:

 

Voting by mail comes with it's own set of problems.  First is the cost.  Federal and State Governments would have to lay out the postage to mail some 200 million ballots in a presidential election.  I really don't know if that would be more or less than the current way of voting in person.  Then there is the return ballot postage.  If people are forced to buy their own stamp to return a ballot, it could be considered a poll tax.  And the inherent problems with lost mail.  Ever had a bill not reach you?  I have.  What happens when someone doesn't get their ballot and doesn't realize it until too late?  Also a well planned effort could steal a number of ballots from the mail and fill them out.  People have had SS checks stolen from their mail as well as tax refunds.  If someone says they never received a ballot, yet one has been returned in the mail, how do you prove it?  I think there is too much of a disconnect that can lead to problems when asking government to mail out ballots and collect returns.  Plus anyone who wants to vote by mail can do so today by simply applying for an absentee ballot.  

I think the best solution is a national voting ID.  It can be just like a credit card with a magnetic stripe and a chip.  Government can place card readers at government offices for those who have not voted in several elections yet want to retain their eligibility.  Simply swipe the card and it will be recorded as activity, the same way using a credit card would keep it from being deactivated.  The cost of this should not be transferred to the people in any way.   Instead the government should assume some of the cost, yet mandate that both the democrat and republican party pony up most of the cost from their war chests.  

There are states where voting is now done by mail. I would look at those actual experiences and evaluate from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, can you hear me now! said:

if you aren't allowed to vote then your voice is taken away and you can't effect any change.....

:lol: think that’d be pretty obvious...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cprenegade said:

All good IT departments clean and purge their databases on a regular schedule.  These voter rolls aren't simply kept in a huge filing cabinet.  They are all kept in databases.  The larger databases grow, the more storage, at taxpayer cost, is needed.  Plus the rolls are printed out every election.  Not purging the rolls means larger and larger printouts with every election.  That comes at a cost, plus being inefficient for the poll workers who need to verify people on election day.  It is really not efficient to allow everyone who has ever registered to vote to remain in the database and on the active voter rolls throughout all time.  

Actually, it is illegal to remove them because they haven't voted. The purge is to remove those voters who have moved. This is a ham-fisted way of doing it, there are more effective ways, but this comes with the added benefit of removing thousands of voters who are inclined to vote Democratic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, hst2 said:

.. but this comes with the added benefit of removing thousands of voters who are inclined to vote Democratic.

Wouldn't both parties be affected equally? 

What makes Democratic-inclined voters more likely to not vote in 3 consecutive federal elections (which is when this law would take effect)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cprenegade said:

 

Voting by mail comes with it's own set of problems.  First is the cost.  Federal and State Governments would have to lay out the postage to mail some 200 million ballots in a presidential election.  I really don't know if that would be more or less than the current way of voting in person.  Then there is the return ballot postage.  If people are forced to buy their own stamp to return a ballot, it could be considered a poll tax.  And the inherent problems with lost mail.  Ever had a bill not reach you?  I have.  What happens when someone doesn't get their ballot and doesn't realize it until too late?  Also a well planned effort could steal a number of ballots from the mail and fill them out.  People have had SS checks stolen from their mail as well as tax refunds.  If someone says they never received a ballot, yet one has been returned in the mail, how do you prove it?  I think there is too much of a disconnect that can lead to problems when asking government to mail out ballots and collect returns.  Plus anyone who wants to vote by mail can do so today by simply applying for an absentee ballot.  

I think the best solution is a national voting ID.  It can be just like a credit card with a magnetic stripe and a chip.  Government can place card readers at government offices for those who have not voted in several elections yet want to retain their eligibility.  Simply swipe the card and it will be recorded as activity, the same way using a credit card would keep it from being deactivated.  The cost of this should not be transferred to the people in any way.   Instead the government should assume some of the cost, yet mandate that both the democrat and republican party pony up most of the cost from their war chests.  

everything has a cost. Some costs are lowered by erasing people from the system, some costs are lowered by closing places to get an ID, some costs are saved by closing polling places, some costs are saved by reducing voting hours....do you know what else decreases with these cuts? the opportunity to exercise your right to vote. I don't think our democracy should come down to a cost/benefit analysis that supports the predetermined outcome of purging people. Funny how politicians want to stifle the voices of the very people they supposedly serve...

the national voting ID is an excellent idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SpiceGIrl said:

Wouldn't both parties be affected equally? 

What makes Democratic-inclined voters more likely to not vote in 3 consecutive federal elections (which is when this law would take effect)?

First, it is worth considering that this is the work of one party. If it affects both sided equally, then it would be bi-partisan. But this is just one of many Republican voter initiatives that have the effect of disproportionately suppressing voters who are poor or people of color: those who vote Democratic. Studies have shown Ohio’s purging practices disproportionately affect lower-income or minority households, which are less likely to vote regularly. Again, these tend to be Democratic voters.

Second, it is worth considering that there are more effective ways of removing voters who have moved from the voter rolls, but the Republicans have chosen a less effective and probably more costly method that serves to cast a wide net over communities that tend to vote Democratic.

From the article cited above: 

"A Reuters analysis of Hamilton County, which encompasses Cincinnati, found that 10 percent of registered voters were purged in heavily African-American areas compared to 4 percent in a predominantly white suburb. Across the three state’s three largest countries, Reuters found that "voters have been struck from the rolls in Democratic-leaning neighborhoods at roughly twice the rate as in Republican neighborhoods;" the former are likely to have larger minority population and higher shares of poor residents."

 

 

 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, hst2 said:

Actually, it is illegal to remove them because they haven't voted. The purge is to remove those voters who have moved. This is a ham-fisted way of doing it, there are more effective ways, but this comes with the added benefit of removing thousands of voters who are inclined to vote Democratic.

Not real sure if it is really illegal to remove people because they haven't voted, but I will take your word for it.  It is not illegal to make those voters inactive.  That is different from removing people because they have not voted.  I believe Maryland and Pennsylvania use a "Five year notice" process.  If you have not voted in a five year period that includes two presidential elections, and an overall three consecutive elections, you are mailed a notice of verification.  If you fail to contact the election board at that point, your registration is made inactive.  And even still you can vote via provisional ballot.  Quite honestly if you fail to vote in two consecutive presidential elections, three elections in general, and fail to return a verification notice, I have no sympathy if you whine about voter suppression.  And as I pointed out, anyone affected by it can still vote with a provisional ballot.  Nobody's voting right is being taken away.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, cprenegade said:

Not real sure if it is really illegal to remove people because they haven't voted, but I will take your word for it.  It is not illegal to make those voters inactive.  That is different from removing people because they have not voted.  I believe Maryland and Pennsylvania use a "Five year notice" process.  If you have not voted in a five year period that includes two presidential elections, and an overall three consecutive elections, you are mailed a notice of verification.  If you fail to contact the election board at that point, your registration is made inactive.  And even still you can vote via provisional ballot.  Quite honestly if you fail to vote in two consecutive presidential elections, three elections in general, and fail to return a verification notice, I have no sympathy if you whine about voter suppression.  And as I pointed out, anyone affected by it can still vote with a provisional ballot.  Nobody's voting right is being taken away.  

Your tepid support for voting rights is noted. In a democratic society, one would think there is a consensus that we want people to vote, not look for ways to take it away from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that the reason gerrymandering and voter-suppression scum are able to sleep soundly at night is because of a “feature” of the conservative and libertarian mindset.

In their world view anything that is “legal” is fair game and totally ethical regardless of the actual motivation.

One cannot simply point out that this ruling disenfranchises a segment of voters who are most likely to be democrats. In their minds, they agree! But of course their mouths will parrot the talking point about voter fraud or some other phony but “legal” pretext.

It’s the same kind of mindset that allows Jeff Sessions to justify forcibly separating the parents and children of families seeking asylum— all done by citing “law” and then giving a bible quote with a vile smirk.

Things are going to get ugly in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2018 at 1:11 AM, cprenegade said:

 

Voting by mail comes with it's own set of problems.  First is the cost.  Federal and State Governments would have to lay out the postage to mail some 200 million ballots in a presidential election.  I really don't know if that would be more or less than the current way of voting in person.  Then there is the return ballot postage.  If people are forced to buy their own stamp to return a ballot, it could be considered a poll tax.  And the inherent problems with lost mail.  Ever had a bill not reach you?  I have.  What happens when someone doesn't get their ballot and doesn't realize it until too late?  Also a well planned effort could steal a number of ballots from the mail and fill them out.  People have had SS checks stolen from their mail as well as tax refunds.  If someone says they never received a ballot, yet one has been returned in the mail, how do you prove it?  I think there is too much of a disconnect that can lead to problems when asking government to mail out ballots and collect returns.  Plus anyone who wants to vote by mail can do so today by simply applying for an absentee ballot.  

I think the best solution is a national voting ID.  It can be just like a credit card with a magnetic stripe and a chip.  Government can place card readers at government offices for those who have not voted in several elections yet want to retain their eligibility.  Simply swipe the card and it will be recorded as activity, the same way using a credit card would keep it from being deactivated.  The cost of this should not be transferred to the people in any way.   Instead the government should assume some of the cost, yet mandate that both the democrat and republican party pony up most of the cost from their war chests.  

Yep because the government takes good care of personal information. No thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bmore_ken said:

Yep because the government takes good care of personal information. No thanks.

The most spectacular failures concerning personal information have occurred with corporations, and not the government. Breaches  do occur in any organization, the thing that matters is their scope and response to them.

Part of the problem is that we rely on flimsy “secret” numbers for security. What we really need is a trusted and impartial 3rd party authentication service. This is a way for 2 entities to be confident that they both know who they are dealing with. 

Not going to happen anytime soon, but it is a role that governments are well-suited to perform. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, dogstarman said:

The most spectacular failures concerning personal information have occurred with corporations, and not the government. Breaches  do occur in any organization, the thing that matters is their scope and response to them.

Part of the problem is that we rely on flimsy “secret” numbers for security. What we really need is a trusted and impartial 3rd party authentication service. This is a way for 2 entities to be confident that they both know who they are dealing with. 

Not going to happen anytime soon, but it is a role that governments are well-suited to perform. 

All it takes is once

Quote

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Thursday revealed that 21.5 million people were swept up in a colossal breach of government computer systems that was far more damaging than initially thought, resulting in the theft of a vast trove of personal information, including Social Security numbers and some fingerprints.

Every person given a government background check for the last 15 years was probably affected, the Office of Personnel Management said in announcing the results of a forensic investigation of the episode, whose existence was known but not its sweeping toll.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/10/us/office-of-personnel-management-hackers-got-data-of-millions.html

Quote

It seems like the US government is more and more often falling prey to hackers, whether it’s from nation-sponsored organizations or independent organizations. Two government data breaches made the list of Network World’s list of ‘Biggest data breaches of 2015’ citing an IRS data breach and the massive US Office of Personnel Management data breach.

This year, the attacks haven’t let up, with four major national government organizations falling victim to data breaches.

https://securityscorecard.com/blog/how-big-is-the-u-s-government-cybersecurity-problem

 

Edited by bmore_ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ken ….very good point...

I always smh head when see ads on TV for the purchase of deep web scans and protections and such for you and your PC.

Being sold by the same company that lost millions of personnel records to the deep web in the first place. 

Talk about hypocrisy. Talk about creating a market ….then filling it.

I have a real issue with paying the same company to unscrew the screwup they created. :mad:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bmore_ken said:

All it takes is once

 

The OPM breach was bad but small in comparison to equifax and yahoo...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.csoonline.com/article/2130877/data-breach/the-biggest-data-breaches-of-the-21st-century.amp.html

The problem really comes down to trying to keep “secrets” that are in the form of numbers. That’s prone to failure by design. There are better ways.

of course if you feel that government incompetence is an axiom... there’s not really anything that can convince you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0