Study: black and Hispanic citizens are more likely than whites to face barriers at the polls
- Thread starter ComradeRedBoilermaker
- Start date
It's not anecdotal, though. This is aggregate data showing that lower income minority populations are less likely to be able to vote due to systemic limitations that don't exist for other people.
Given how hard, unlikely (very little evidence that it happens on any significant level), and a waste of time it is to impersonate another voter (who is seriously going to burn the majority of their day simply to cast 2-3 votes?), I'd much rather err on the side of not disenfranchising historically oppressed groups of people.
How is there "data showing people as less likely to be able..." to do anything? There's probably data showing that they aren't doing something. But "able" is the wrong word. Is it more difficult? Perhaps, but even that seems very subjective and subject to data manipulation to prove the desired outcome. Frankly, when I read these articles and studies that set out to prove one thing, they're obviously going to do so. Meanwhile, I have to drive forever to a DMV located in a poor neighborhood, wait in long lines aside mostly minority residents, often waiting all day for a 15-minute transaction if unable to book an appointment a month in advance.
Studies and papers can prove just about anything depending on their threshold. "Aggregate data shows someone is less able..." is practically an impossible statement.
As I said before, the argument about discrimination and gerrymandering is a major distraction away from the actual common sense reform, and that is you should have to prove who you are before you exercise your right to vote, just like you have to prove who you are before you do literally anything else in your own name from checking out a library book to working out at your local gym to accessing your bank, because the issue to me is not someone voting 2-3 times; it's someone who hasn't earned the right to vote as a citizen taking the opportunity from someone else.
Last edited:
I think we're on the same page with the goal being "ensure as many eligible people can vote as easily as possible," no?
As a tangent to this specific discussion, I'd like to also point out that that piece went beyond ID requirements. In red states, in particular, there are fewer polling locations per capita in poor urban areas, which increases travel and wait times. I guarantee you that depresses turnout in an appreciable way.
You need to be responsible enough to get an ID if required. Man you guys are dense.
Yea like take a drivers test with one question. Have a big red stop sign on the one page of a test. The sign will have, in big letters STOP. The question will be multiple choice. What does the sign mean. A) Run, B) Walk, C) A and B, D) STOP.
I see where you are going with this.
Why would I search for something you didn't say?
That phrase does not translate the way you think it does. You're just being triggered.
lol i don't get triggered. I just see things for what they are. A crybaby article about stupid things happening to people who are stupid. reminds me of 90 day fiance. Stupid american girl goes to get married in morocco. doesn't bring the proper paper work. gets denied. Is it because morocco is racist? No. it's because she's stupid.
The federal Government is not in charge of polling locations or the number of locations. The locations are selected by the local government (election board) and must meet certain federal requirements for the voting system and other requirements such as ADA, .
If the urban polling places are over crowded the local election board needs to buy more equipment and set up more stations. There are plenty of grants out there that will pay for up dated machines.
I stand by requiring an ID to vote.
Maybe the urban dems weren't happy with Hillary. I don't really care but what was the urban dem turnout for the 2004 election?
The urban dems had significant reason to turn out for the 2008 and 2012 election.
well one, voting is not a right, and although the meaning of "rights" is ill understood on this board, there is substantial reason to understand what that means in terms of our democracy. But mainly, it is an acceptable way to enforce voting laws. why do we have highway patrol? To deter and stop people from driving 150mph drunk in the wrong direction.
This is why I said you need to understand what rights are. ffs... No where does it say "The government shall not infringe on a person's right to vote". Now are things leaning that way? Certainly. But there is no implication about it. The government can absolutely cut off your right to vote if you don't fall under the protected classes in the constitution. Ask felons.
Is any voting barrier lawful as long as it does not discriminate against a protected class?
Of course, but I think those people should have to present ID, too. I don’t think that concept is fundamentally racist, and I think the liberal argument against ID because it is discriminatory is irresponsible and lazy. Figure it out so we can protect the most fundamental part of our democracy from simple corruption.
So all the evidence of Republicans legislatures singling out minorities is not actual evidence but is an irresponsible and lazy argument? Come on now, you're must better than that when discussing other topics. We just agreed earlier in the thread that the process to get an ID must be made much easier, and then make an ID mandatory to vote, no problem there. The availability to get an ID much happen first because again and again states have shown that they will not act in good faith and will instead use the issue as a voter suppression tactic. If you make an ID mandatory and then expect states to help get eligible voters the required ID you're fooling yourself, they won't.
No. There are specific ones called out in the amendments. No religious test, no poll tax, no written test, etc...and there are federal election laws in place. But otherwise...it's up to the local government on how to run them. Voting right for "everyone" is a relatively new concept on the scale of human societal evolution. Even in America, it's relatively new. The argument here is not who is a protected voter. That's pretty clear. The actual argument is what is a discriminatory act. in this terribly framed article, self reported survey data is purported to be discriminatory even though it doesn't stand up to even the tiniest bit of interrogation.
it's not that hard to get an ID. really it's not. And that's only an issue in a few states. And even those, the id requirement does generally not apply to absentee or mailed in ballots. So this is much ado about nothing from people who don't understand survey data. I live in virginia and it's a strict voter id state. Here's how "terrible" that really is...
-Valid United States passport
-Valid Virginia driver's license or ID card
-Valid Virginia DMV issued Veteran’s ID card
-Valid tribal enrollment or other tribal ID issued by one of 11 tribes recognized by the Commonwealth of Virginia
-Valid student ID card from within Virginia if it includes a photo
-Any other identification card issued by a government agency of the Commonwealth, one of its political subdivisions, or the United States
-Employee identification card containing a photograph of the voter and issued by an employer of the voter in the ordinary course of the employer’s business
It's not hard for you to get an ID, great. That's not the case across the country. I know asking someone on the right to put themselves in someones else's shoes is darn near impossible, but just try to imagine. You could read up on real life stories of people trying to get an eligible ID and see the hurdles they face, then scrounge up the slightest bit of empathy and see that we can fix the issue, and it's not just a matter of someone being stupid or lazy.
All of these cause the voter to absorb a cost. There should not be a fee, direct or indirect, for voting.
your "real life stories" are anecdotal. period. If you didn't know you needed an id and you show up without one, you are stupid and/or lazy. If you're that damn lazy, mail it in!
No shit? How do I qualify for this free mail? Does Bezos know about this? Is this what Trump is talking about re Amazon? Because if it is, that's total crap. Amazon should be paying for postage.
There's this: Free Absentee Ballots are balloting materials consisting of postcard applications, ballots, voting instructions, and envelopes that may be sent through the mail without prepayment of postage to overseas military personnel and their spouses. Certain other individuals may be eligible. The absentee ballot provisions for mailing without postage are for federal elections, including special elections of a federal nature.
I don't think we agree on what "it" is since you are clearly ignorant of all the options available to you.
I'm just asking questions.
The option that you presented does not appear to be available to everyone in every circumstance. Ergo, it's not a good solution.
My position, to the extent I have one, is that voting should be made easier and not more difficult or more costly. See, when a group tries to place conditions on voting, I start to question their motives because it seems, on its surface, that the group is trying to limit the number of people that vote rather than encourage higher voter turnout. See what I'm saying?
Last edited:
Is it Democratic singling out of wealthy white voters that I don’t have a DMV in my neighborhood and I have to get to a place 30 minutes from the house and 20 minutes from work in the poorest neighborhood in the county to stand in a line that’s hours long and vast majority Hispanic to do anything at a DMV? I’m a generally conservative voter in a majority liberal state. Am I now disenfranchised because it is less convenient for me to get an ID here?
I think the “evidence” is “cherry-picked” to make “anecdotal political arguments” because Democrats typically have a hard time motivating their base to vote in the first place, and thus want to eliminate any and all possible barriers for political gain, particularly when their candidates aren’t strong, and claiming “discrimination” is typically a very powerful argument to make even when it doesn’t explicitly exist, and Democrats know that. That’s what I think.
Otherwise, yes, I think we should make IDs easy to get with proper credentials, including running vans into poor neighborhoods if need be just to make sure we aren’t able to accuse either side of election fraud or disenfranchising voters.
Last edited:
