Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Voting Rights Infringement in Georgia

Georgia legislators have passed a law that sets a dangerous precedent on the issue of minority voting rights. The law, if approved by the Justice department, would stipulate that all voters in the state be required to present a government-issued form of identification before being permitted to vote. The primary concern with this law is the restriction it would potentially place on elderly African-American residents’ right to vote in Georgia. It is an undisputed fact that fewer elderly people in general have drivers’ licenses. However, the difference is much more exaggerated for black seniors, who also have a disproportionately smaller access to other forms of official identification, such as birth certificates.

This type of legislation certainly violates the Voting Rights Act, which was enacted in order to guard minorities against voting laws that have an adverse impact on particular communities such as the grandfather clauses and poll tax laws, common in the Jim Crow South. Such practices served as a legal means to keep blacks away from the polls and on the outside of the political process throughout most of the first half of the twentieth century.

It’s a good thing Congress has continued to reenact the Voting Rights Act in the years since it’s original expiration date. Cases such as this one in Georgia prove that, in spite of the sweeping advances of the Civil Rights Movement and the diversity of the country today, the Voting Rights Act is needed now more than ever.

See editorial in today's New York Times about Georgia voting rights law.

--Posted by Nicole Brown

29 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wjile I don't think the Georgia act is a good idea for reasons other than yours, you should understand that states usually offer id card services to people who can't drive, so if georgia did that thus enabling these minorities to vote, would it be cool with you?

12:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, since african americans can expect to receive far less in social security benefits than can people of other races because they have a lower life expectancy, will you agree that social security should be ended ASAP?

www.socialslavery.com

12:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I live in Georgia and see this as a great thing! Why would you be against people actually proving who they are at the polls? I don't see how this is discrimatory. You want to vote, show your ID card (anyone can get) and there you go. I thought people were ranting about double voting and other illegal activity at the polls and then Georgia says Ok we'll make people show ID at the polls to help curb this problem and then people flip out again. You just can't win.

Way to stereotype the South. We aren't racist down here like you think.

2:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Which is better: a few old poeple can't vote because they can't figure out how to get a gov't ID, or we continue to allow the unrestricted voter fraud that corrupts our voting system. I bet those same seniors you speak of have figured out how to get every penny of the gov't handouts offered to them, and your telling me they can't figure out how to get a gov't ID card. Get out of here with this garbage.

I love the way liberals think minorities are so stupid. Minorities are too stupid to compete with everyone in the work force, minorities are too stupid to get into college without special assistance, and now minorities are too stupid to obtain an ID card. It baffles me how minorities keep voting for the same people year after year.

2:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Holy god.

Are you SERIOUS?

This might be the nuttiest post Rock the Vote's made yet.

Requiring IDENTIFICATION to confirm that people WHO THEY SAY THEY ARE when they vote is no crime, and it is no discrimination.

One does not need a driver's license or anything to the sort in order to vote. Just get a state issued ID card, it is not that difficult and costs about $15.

It is things like this that make Rock the Vote- and the leftist interests that it promotes- lack credibility. You people wail "sexism" "racism" and "discrimination" at EVERYTHING, even if it is nothing to the sort, like this.

Stop whining, and get real. Voter fraud is a massive problem in this country, and requiring IDENTIFICATION is the only way to stop it.

7:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, Nicole, your utopia world of voter fraud already exists and I'd argue many people are getting fed up with there vote being canceled out by cheaters. If not ID's to confirm you are who you say you are, then what do you suggest? How would you fight voter fraud?

7:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Considering the fact that we're gonna have Diebold making all of our electronic voting machines in the future and that they have quite a record of voting machine irregularities, I think we should be way more concerned with getting voting machines working securely and properly before giving our government one more reason to require ID's for everyone. Committing voter fraud by carting people around falsely id'ing themselves is a very risky and expensive thing to do. I'm not denying that it might have even influenced a district or two's results but the biggest threat and the easest fraud is to screw with the voting machines. And I find it discouraging when Diebold's CEO promises to help Bush win Ohio in the 2004 elections in a fundraising letter. Voting machines integrity cannot be allowed to hinge on the integrity of a company or a government agency, particularly when there are solutions that let individuals verify their votes' integrity without trusting either entity.

www.blackboxvoting.org

"Democracy is more in the counting of the votes than the casting of them."
— Crispin Hull, Canberra Times, Australia


(the .org is important)

12:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Truly unbelievable. A sincere attempt at making something more fair turned into a racial issue by the Left. This is the kind of thing that keeps the country from making progress. Is there anyone out there that agrees with this blog? Anyone at all????

12:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would even take it further. If are not paying taxes in this country and are receiving gov't wefare, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. When you start contributing to society and stop being a leach, then you can help dictate how tax revenue is spent.

1:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, the Freepers just came out of the woodwork on this one!

I'm a liberal who strongly believes in equal rights for all citizens, but noid's right - ID cards are not difficult to get for anyone. My home state of Indiana recently passed a similar law with a provision to allow persons to vote without an ID under certain circumstances. That way, persons confined to their homes that cannot get to a license branch to attain a *free* ID card can still vote.

Regardless, this doesn't gurantee fair elections. If a group is determined to tip the scales in favor of one group over the other, they will find a way to do it. The real threat is (again, props to noid) non voter-verifiable elections. Elections need to have a paper trail. Citizens should have the right to find out if their vote was cast to the right candidate.

BTW: to those who are saying voter fraud is a "massive problem" in this country: show me the numbers. I don't believe it. Its a potential problem, sure; but massive? Come on.

2:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Plew, take a look at Washington's election for Governor if you want to see voter fraud in action. The had thousands more votes cast than registered voters in one area yet less than 200 votes decided the election.

ID cards are easy to obtain, you don't need a driver's license, but I fear these laws will do no good when you have states handing out licenses to illegal citizens. I do however agree with anon, if you're not paying any taxes and/or on welfare or government handouts then you should not be allowed to vote until you are contributing to society.

3:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alright Shawn, thanks for the info on Washington state. good enough for me. I still say the real issue is non voter-verifiable elections systems. Not that you were saying it wasn't, just wanted to re-state.

Tell you what, how about we add all minimum-wage earners to the list of people you want to ban from voting? I mean, they really don't 'contribute' either. We have to pay for their healthcare, don't we? Oh, and senior citizens too. Unless they can pass some sort of test to see if they're still contributing.

I totally agree that *some* welfare recipients are leeches, but your generalization of all persons recieving welfare as unworthy of the right to vote shows you've never been down that far and don't understand it fully. Welfare is by no means a good benchmark for voting rights.

Besides, why are you so bent out of shape about welfare recipients voting? Most people on welfare don't want to be there, and are working their way out of it. Yeesh.

6:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

D'oh! I meant sean not Shawn.

6:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Voter fraud problems exist all over the place.

Take a look at Philadelphia this past election, where there were more votes cast than registered voters in their districts. Take a look at Michigan and Wisconsin, both of which had similar problems. Washington, of course, is the biggest example of them all, which Sean cited.

Voter fraud is a very clear and evident problem, and the only way you're going to avoid it is by requiring people who vote to actually prove that they are who they say they are.

Shifting the topic to voting machines and how there should be a paper trail is a non-starter. It has nothing to do with whether people should have to show ID or not at the polls. Voter fraud is a much bigger and longer existing problem than voting machine problems have ever been.

People were stupid, and couldn't figure out how to use simple paper-based voting machines. So what did we do? We moved to an electronic system. Now, the same whiners from back then are the same whiners about electronic machines now. Stupidity is stupidity, and it should not be our job to make everything idiot-proof. Morons will always have problems with voting machines, electronic or not.

Perhaps creating a paper trail is a good idea. Maybe a "vote receipt" or something of that sort, but that also sets the stage for even more voter fraud. These things need to be thought out.

But one thing that does NOT have to be thought out is knowing that requiring IDs or identification of some sort is a good idea. Only the liberal left would oppose such an idea, because they can demagogue it as 'racism' and 'discrimination'- total garbage, but it riles up the minorities they treat as idiots- and because they know the most voter fraud exists in urban areas and urban states (see my examples cited above).

Liberals who oppose voter ID requirements are just as irrational on this issue as they are on the issue of the flat tax.

7:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice try Plew:

"Tell you what, how about we add all minimum-wage earners to the list of people you want to ban from voting? I mean, they really don't 'contribute' either. We have to pay for their healthcare, don't we? Oh, and senior citizens too. Unless they can pass some sort of test to see if they're still contributing."

No one said anything about not allowing minimum wage earners the right to vote nor senior citizens the right to vote. The only group that I don't want voting is the career welfare recipients. If you are 100% living off the gov't then you don't get to vote. I don't care if you don't want to be on welfare, that will be more incentive to get off. Whey should we allow this group to vote themselves a gov't raise?

As far as seniors, if you didn't have the right to vote your whole life because you lived off the gov't, well then you continue to not have the right to vote when you are a senior. If you are a senior that has contributed your whole life and had the right to vote your whole life, then you continue to have the right to vote when you are a senior.

Simple. Don't try to make it something it's not.

7:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We all have a right to an electoral process undiluted by voter fraud. As a young person, I demand that RTV support this legislation.

9:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

QUOTE:
Voter fraud problems exist all over the place.

Take a look at Philadelphia this past election, where there were more votes cast than registered voters in their districts. Take a look at Michigan and Wisconsin, both of which had similar problems. Washington, of course, is the biggest example of them all, which Sean cited.

Voter fraud is a very clear and evident problem, and the only way you're going to avoid it is by requiring people who vote to actually prove that they are who they say they are.
/QUOTE:

That's not really true. If you know how many registered voters you have in a district, each of them gets a secure "district token" in the mail (ever see an RSA SecurID token), and if each of them checks their vote in a voter-verifiable election, then any fraud can be detected without knowing who anyone is. However, without voter-verifiable elections, you all kinds of fraud are quite possible and in fact quite likely, even with all kinds of ID's.

QUOTE:
Shifting the topic to voting machines and how there should be a paper trail is a non-starter. It has nothing to do with whether people should have to show ID or not at the polls.
/QUOTE:

Yes, it has little to do whether people should have to show ID but everything to do with eliminating voter fraud, which is something that ID's won't even necessarily help with. For all we know, your examples of too many votes counted was the result of ballot stuffing by corrupt election workers which won't be solved by IDs. In fact as I think about it, since the ID problem really is about making sure people claimimg to be registered *are* the people on the registration list and anyone on the list can only vote once, it can't be an ID problem. If people are voting who aren't even registered, it's not an ID problem at all.

QUOTE:
Voter fraud is a much bigger and longer existing problem than voting machine problems have ever been.
/QUOTE:

To my knowledge, no U.S. election has actually used a voter verifiable system. Plain paper ballots aren't any better than machines in this respect. They would have to have information that would allow voters to check their votes. It's not a simple problem given all the constraints but the research done recently has gone a long way to solving the problem.

QUOTE:
People were stupid, and couldn't figure out how to use simple paper-based voting machines. So what did we do? We moved to an electronic system. Now, the same whiners from back then are the same whiners about electronic machines now. Stupidity is stupidity, and it should not be our job to make everything idiot-proof. Morons will always have problems with voting machines, electronic or not.

Perhaps creating a paper trail is a good idea. Maybe a "vote receipt" or something of that sort, but that also sets the stage for even more voter fraud. These things need to be thought out.

But one thing that does NOT have to be thought out is knowing that requiring IDs or identification of some sort is a good idea. Only the liberal left would oppose such an idea, because they can demagogue it as 'racism' and 'discrimination'- total garbage, but it riles up the minorities they treat as idiots- and because they know the most voter fraud exists in urban areas and urban states (see my examples cited above).

Liberals who oppose voter ID requirements are just as irrational on this issue as they are on the issue of the flat tax.
/QUOTE:

The fact that you base your desired course of action based on a lack of thought belies how full of it you are. Deploying ID's requires alot of thought if they are to be integrated into the voting system too, or else they could very easily make matters worse. For example, if we use drivers licenses then should all the info be public? Right now, all your voting registration info is including your signature, but this doesn't include your DL #, height, eye color, picture or fingerprint. Check this out. I already don't appreciate the lack of respect for my privacy that these databases imply but when you allow DL's mission to creep to things like voting records, you may end up doing things like making ID theft easier and/or allowing the federal govt to force states to comply to federal ID standards making things like the "UnReal ID" Act even worse.

Oh, and if we're gonna assume voter stupidity then we might as well not even have a voting system.

2:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nobody puts a gun to your head and demands you to vote, so let us not even bring "privacy" into this discussion. If you're so worried about having to throw down some personal information for a voter ID or a license-based voter ID system, then don't do it. As with anything else, you have a choice.

Furthermore, such a problem can easily be avoided by creating a special class of ID cards simply for voting purposes. Maybe it could even be included in a system to create a national ID card, which is a great idea despite what privacy fear mongers think. Throwing down your basic stats on a national ID card doesn't invade anyone's privacy, and it would help a great deal to prevent problems with illegal immigrants and other national security issues. And, of course, it helps prevent voter fraud.

You say that people may stuff ballots anyway, such as workers at the polls. This is true, and an ID card won't solve that problem. But what it WILL do is prevent people from voting more than once, prevent people from voting under the identity of others, and prevent people from committing fraud. These things happened very frequently over the last election, and you know it. As far as the election workers go, that's another issue, and once again you're throwing a non-starter into the discussion, like you did with bringing the electronic vs. paper voting machines discussion up.

This is about ID cards, and an ID card is simply a common sense way to reduce voter fraud. There is no "discrimination" or "disenfranchisement" here. Hell, it may even help end disenfranchisement, as anyone who was denied the ability to vote after having such an ID card would be able to easily challenge or report the disenfranchisement of the polling place they went to. They'd have a perfect case.

9:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

QUOTE:
Nobody puts a gun to your head and demands you to vote, so let us not even bring "privacy" into this discussion. If you're so worried about having to throw down some personal information for a voter ID or a license-based voter ID system, then don't do it. As with anything else, you have a choice.
/QUOTE:

Voting is my right, not just a priviledge and I will demand reasonable privacy when exercising any and all of my rights. The burden is on fascists like you to demonstrate that there is no other way to provide secure voting other than with ID cards and since there is, you are butt wrong.

QUOTE:
Furthermore, such a problem can easily be avoided by creating a special class of ID cards simply for voting purposes. Maybe it could even be included in a system to create a national ID card, which is a great idea despite what privacy fear mongers think. Throwing down your basic stats on a national ID card doesn't invade anyone's privacy, and it would help a great deal to prevent problems with illegal immigrants and other national security issues. And, of course, it helps prevent voter fraud.
/QUOTE:

IDs would only help prevent voter fraud if people were falsely claiming to be other registered voters on election day, and you haven't demonstrated the extent to which that is even a problem or whether it is at all. The examples of voter fraud you mentioned before regarding over-voting simply can't be this issue. Before you try to fix a problem, you should make sure it exists first and that if it does, that your solution actually will fix it.

And if ID Cards *are* used, it'll be done just as Georgia is doing, through one single card whose mission has been allowed to creep to all kinds of different things. This means that all your information is linked in one giant database regardless. There definitely won't be a seperate voting card if Georgia-style laws are allowed to happen everywhere. That would cost too much money and be too troublesome. Now you're thinking, "hey I don't care, I have nothing to hide." Leaving aside the fact that I have every right to not want to all my info linked like that in one database in order to exercise my rights to vote, the fact is such a thing makes things *less secure*. For example, bars and nightclubs often scan people's ID's to make sure they're legally allowed to drink. This is because DL's function as age verification for adult activities. If their mission is allowed to creep into voting, then bars will also get to know all your voting registration info, making it easier for someone to steal your identitiy or direct marketing info to you. Putting all your information on one card and allowing it to serve for all kinds of purposes makes allows for a single point of failure, a failure whose damage is maximized.

QUOTE:
You say that people may stuff ballots anyway, such as workers at the polls. This is true, and an ID card won't solve that problem. But what it WILL do is prevent people from voting more than once, prevent people from voting under the identity of others, and prevent people from committing fraud. These things happened very frequently over the last election, and you know it. As far as the election workers go, that's another issue, and once again you're throwing a non-starter into the discussion, like you did with bringing the electronic vs. paper voting machines discussion up.
/QUOTE:

ID's won't solve the problem of people voting more than once. Right now, when you go and vote, even if you vote as someone else, that name isn't allowed to vote again. Now if that name was yours, and you show up, you'd know that voter fraud was committed. Thus the fraud would be detected. Additionally, they'd have to forge your signature which they might not be able to do and would thus be detected that way as well. This is why I'm very skeptical that this kind of fraud happens much at all. It would raise all kind of alarms and if people are just presently ignoring them, then that's the real problem. Screwing with ballots can happen undetected currently which is a much worse problem.

And what the hell is this b.s. about non-starters and voting mechanisms not being important to talk about in this discussion? We're talking about eliminating voter fraud, and one can't explain why IDs probably aren't even necessary let alone practically helpful without explaining voting mechanism problems and why they're the real problem. But I suppose a fascist like you would rather artificially limit the debate so that you don't have to look at real problems and solutions.

QUOTE:
This is about ID cards, and an ID card is simply a common sense way to reduce voter fraud. There is no "discrimination" or "disenfranchisement" here. Hell, it may even help end disenfranchisement, as anyone who was denied the ability to vote after having such an ID card would be able to easily challenge or report the disenfranchisement of the polling place they went to. They'd have a perfect case.
/QUOTE:

No, you're the one who thinks this is about ID cards because you're a fascist with a hard-on for fascism. For normal people, this discussion is really about eliminating voter fraud using the best means possible and the biggest problem we have is the mechanism for voting. So the solution should *start* with fixing the mechanism so that we first know that the results are being tabulated correctly for every physical voter.

Oh and one more thing that everyone should consider. We all take for granted that when we vote, we do so in privacy either behind a curtain or in our own cubicle. This was not always the case. This was recognized as important after elections where people were beaten for voting the "wrong" way by a candidates friends. So privacy in voting is important to ensure the integrity of the results, which people today take for granted. This also complicates getting the voter-verifiable mechanism correct since just giving people a receipt with their candidates listed isn't a solution. But there are solutions that work, provided that the voter can follow a few verification steps correctly.

1:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Fascist, fascist, fascist!!!"

This is why so many of you lack credibility in discussions such as this. Someone presents an alternate view, and what do you do? Immediately label them "Nazi", "fascist," or any number of other derogatory comments that really have nothing to do with anything.

What I find to be most fascinating here is that these attacks are coming from noid- someone who is so out of the mainstream that he actually opposes both Social Security as it currently exists AND also opposes Social Security reform.

And you want to call OTHER PEOPLE fascists? That's flat out laughable.

By the way, Noid, you're flat out wrong that once someone votes under a name, no one under that name can vote again. Ohio had this very problem in the last election, with people getting away with voting in districts outside of their own, thus being able to manipulate the voter rolls. With a paper-based system, such manipulation is extremely easy to do, hence even more of a reason why the electronic systems should continue to be implemented.

Voter IDs (or ID requirements of some sort) are simple and common sense, and so are electronic systems. You combine the two and you'll have the perfect way to prove people are who they say they are, AND you'll be able to easily identify who has and has not voted. A paper receipt is an excellent idea, because it could easily be set up to both protect people's personal votes, AND correspond to the voting database system. Anyone who knows anything about encryption, databases or database-driven applications knows that a simple system can be set up to give out receipts without your so-called "privacy" being violated, and it can be a system that corresponds with the voter IDs to solve both problems at once.

All of this whining about "Privacy" is nothing more than a whine from those of you who are so far outside the mainstream that you'd like to stifle any reform simply by whining about problems that are nonexistent.

Showing a driver's license or any other form of ID does not violate anyone's "privacy." So let us take that red herring out of this argument. If you think voter IDs are violations of privacy, you must also think the fact that people have to drive with driver's licenses, or the fact that people need Passports to travel internationally must also be violations of your "privacy."

And once again, you've chosen to totally ignore the fact that voter IDs CAN help cut down voter fraud. Since you're so obsessed with "fighting the man" by opposing voting mechanisms, you chose to totally throw out another part of the solution to solving voter fraud.

Stop whining, and get real. And stop it with the "YOU ARE HITLER" type comments.

9:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

QUOTE:
"Fascist, fascist, fascist!!!"

This is why so many of you lack credibility in discussions such as this. Someone presents an alternate view, and what do you do? Immediately label them "Nazi", "fascist," or any number of other derogatory comments that really have nothing to do with anything.
/QUOTE:

When someone proposes National ID Cards as a "no-brainer" without any thought given to how they'll affect other security systems and dismisses all privacy concerns as "whining" then sorry, that's what you are. Plus I was hoping to invoke Godwin's Law.

QUOTE:
What I find to be most fascinating here is that these attacks are coming from noid- someone who is so out of the mainstream that he actually opposes both Social Security as it currently exists AND also opposes Social Security reform.
/QUOTE:

So you apparently must have liked Al Gore's mantra of being in agreement with "most americans", yes? If you read my socialist insecurity posts on this site, I am in favor of reform, just not Bush's. As this site suggests, I am generally in favor of solutions that lead to the elimination of the program altogether, or failing that, a solution that involves neither congress wasting the payroll tax revenue on general government spending or allowing the feds to control stock market investment. Spending it on bond buybacks or allowing people to just divert their contributions to *bank accounts / CD's* would both be reasonable steps to take and such sentiments would have both the heritage foundation's and the Cato Institute's approval. Hardly way out of the mainstream.

QUOTE:
And you want to call OTHER PEOPLE fascists? That's flat out laughable.

By the way, Noid, you're flat out wrong that once someone votes under a name, no one under that name can vote again. Ohio had this very problem in the last election, with people getting away with voting in districts outside of their own,
/QUOTE:

No I'm not. If someone shows up at a district, votes under name N, then someone else tries the same name, the fraud will be detected. That's the only scenario in which presenting ID cards when voting would help and the fraud is detectable anyway. The scenario you outline is that people can register in their own names at two or more locations, correctly identify themselves at each polling place and vote multiple times. That wouldn't be solved by presenting ID cards when voting.

QUOTE:
thus being able to manipulate the voter rolls. With a paper-based system, such manipulation is extremely easy to do, hence even more of a reason why the electronic systems should continue to be implemented.
/QUOTE:

You're just so ignorant. Could you please read some stuff on blackboxvoting.org or something. It's not the technology you use that matters, it's the mechanisms and procedures to ensure voter privacy and verifiability that make an election have integrity

QUOTE:
Voter IDs (or ID requirements of some sort) are simple and common sense, and so are electronic systems. You combine the two and you'll have the perfect way to prove people are who they say they are, AND you'll be able to easily identify who has and has not voted. A paper receipt is an excellent idea, because it could easily be set up to both protect people's personal votes, AND correspond to the voting database system. Anyone who knows anything about encryption, databases or database-driven applications knows that a simple system can be set up to give out receipts without your so-called "privacy" being violated, and it can be a system that corresponds with the voter IDs to solve both problems at once.
/QUOTE

Or you could not have voter ID cards and still have secure elections that don't require DL's to be used for yet another purpose, thereby making our identity systems more vulnerable. And anyone who knows anything about security also knows how full of it you are. For example, why don't you check this
out.

QUOTE:
All of this whining about "Privacy" is nothing more than a whine from those of you who are so far outside the mainstream that you'd like to stifle any reform simply by whining about problems that are nonexistent.
/QUOTE:

Yeah, because the ACLU, Bruce Schneier, EPIC and the EFF are all way outside the mainstream. No, these groups and I just ask that people think about the consequences of ID card usage before using them.

QUOTE:
Showing a driver's license or any other form of ID does not violate anyone's "privacy." So let us take that red herring out of this argument. If you think voter IDs are violations of privacy, you must also think the fact that people have to drive with driver's licenses, or the fact that people need Passports to travel internationally must also be violations of your "privacy."
/QUOTE:

No I musn't. There are issues of when one should have to produce what card or any card in many contexts but the system has to be considered as a whole. It's definitely not as simple as you think it is.

QUOTE:
And once again, you've chosen to totally ignore the fact that voter IDs CAN help cut down voter fraud. Since you're so obsessed with "fighting the man" by opposing voting mechanisms, you chose to totally throw out another part of the solution to solving voter fraud.
/QUOTE:

What the hell are you talking about? Opposing voting mechanisms? First of all that doesn't make any sense. Opposing voting mechanisms would basically mean opposing voting period since you have to have some mechanism for doing so. But also, I have stated that the focus should start with the mechanism for tabulating votes since that's where the voting process is most vulnerable.

QUOTE
Stop whining, and get real. And stop it with the "YOU ARE HITLER" type comments.
/QUOTE:

I'll stop calling you a fascist when you stop being one.

10:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's pretty sad (or perhaps it's actually good) to see how far left RTV has gone. Now a mere effort to verify that a voter is who he/she claims to be is "racist" or Jim Crowe all over again.

Judging by the message board responses, RTV's reflexive leftism went a leeeeeeetle to far on this issue.

This young, 20-someting voter will encourage his friends to Rock-The-Brain and ignore the leftist, celebrity-driven partisan hack group that is Rock-The-Vote.

3:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's pretty sad (or perhaps it's actually good) to see how far left RTV has gone. Now a mere effort to verify that a voter is who he/she claims to be is "racist" or Jim Crowe all over again.

Judging by the message board responses, RTV's reflexive leftism went a leeeeeeetle to far on this issue.

This young, 20-someting voter will encourage his friends to Rock-The-Brain and ignore the leftist, celebrity-driven partisan hack group that is Rock-The-Vote.

3:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Key Democrats Supported Social Security Accounts in 2001
The Hyde Park Declaration set goal for creation by 2010.

We believe in shifting the focus of America's anti-poverty and social insurance programs from transferring wealth to creating wealth.

5. Balance America's Commitments to the Young and the Old
An ever-growing share of the federal budget today consists of automatic transfers from working Americans to retirees. Moreover, the costs of the big entitlements for the elderly -- Social Security and Medicare -- are growing at rates that will eventually bankrupt them and that could leave little to pay for everything else government does. We can't just spend our way out of the problem; we must find a way to contain future costs. The federal government already spends seven times as much on the elderly as it does on children. To allow that ratio to grow even more imbalanced would be grossly unfair to today's workers and future generations.
In addition, Social Security and Medicare need to be modernized to reflect conditions not envisioned when they were created in the 1930s and the 1960s. Social Security, for example, needs a stronger basic benefit to bolster its critical role in reducing poverty in old age. Medicare needs to offer retirees more choices and a modern benefit package that includes prescription drugs. Such changes, however, will only add to the cost of the programs unless they are accompanied by structural reforms that restrain their growth and limit their claim on the working families whose taxes support the programs.

Goals for 2010

• Honor our commitment to seniors by ensuring the future solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
• Make structural reforms in Social Security and Medicare that slow their future cost growth, modernize benefits (including a prescription drug benefit for Medicare), and give beneficiaries more choice and control over their retirement and health security.
• Create Retirement Savings Accounts to enable low-income Americans to save for their own retirement.

Signatories include:
Evan Bayh, United States Senator, Indiana
John Breaux, United States Senator, Louisiana
Lee Brown, Mayor, Houston, Texas
Bob Buckhorn, City Councilman, Tampa, Fla.
Tom Burroughs, State Representative, Kansas
Kevin Cahill, State Assemblyman, New York
Ken Cheuvront, State Representative, Arizona
Michael Coleman, Mayor, Columbus, Ohio
Pat Colwell, State Representative, Maine
Kathleen Connell, State Controller, California
Marti Crow, State Representative, Kansas
Donald T. Cunningham Jr., Mayor, Bethlehem, Pa.
Wayne Curry, County Executive, Prince George's County, Md.
Jim Davis, United States Representative, Florida
Dan DeMarco, Commissioner of Ross Township, Pennsylvania
Dana Lee Dembrow, State Delegate, Maryland
Calvin Dooley, United States Representative, California
Douglas M. Duncan, County Executive, Montgomery County, Md.
John A. Fritchey, State Representative, Illinois
Jeff Gombosky, State Representative, Washington
Ron Gonzales, Mayor, San Jose, California
James S. Gregory, City Councilman, Bethlehem, Pa.
Daniel Grossman, State Representative, Colorado
Lars A. Hafner, State House Democratic Caucus Chairman, Florida
Bob Hagedorn, State Representative, Colorado
Karen Hale, State Senator, Utah
Robert Henriquez, State Representative, Florida
Scott N. Howell, State Senate Democratic Leader, Utah
Sam Hoyt, State Assemblyman, New York
Calvin Johnson, State Representative, Arkansas
Paula F. Julander, State Senate Minority Whip, Utah
Ember Reichgott Junge, State Senate Assistant Majority Leader, Minnesota
Delores G. Kelley, State Senator, Maryland
John F. Kerry, United States Senator, Massachusetts
Kwame Kilpatrick, State Representative, Michigan
Mary Landrieu, United States Senator, Louisiana
Thomas Lazieh, City Councilman, Central Falls, R.I.
Joseph Lieberman, United States Senator, Connecticut
Blanche Lambert Lincoln, United States Senator, Arkansas
Duane E. Little, Assessor, Shoshone County, Idaho
Dannel P. Malloy, Mayor, Stamford, Conn.
Jennifer Mann, State Representative, Pennsylvania
Jack Markell, State Treasurer, Delaware
Stan Matsunaka, State Senator, Colorado
Jonathan Miller, State Treasurer, Kentucky
Tom Miller, State Attorney General, Iowa
Bobby Moak, State Representative, Mississippi
James P. Moran Jr., United States Representative, Virginia
Eva Moskowitz, City Council Member, New York
Ed Murray, State Representative, Washington
Janet Napolitano, Attorney General, Arizona
Martin O'Malley, Mayor, Baltimore, Md.
Marc R. Pacheco, State Senator, Massachusetts
John D. Porcari, State Secretary of Transportation, Maryland
David Quall, State Representative, Washington
Joe Rice, Mayor, Glendale, Colo.
John Riggs IV, State Senator, Arkansas
Antonio R. Riley, State Representative, Wisconsin
Stacy Ritter, State Representative, Florida
Charles Robb, United States Senator, Virginia
Carroll G. Robinson, City Councilman, Houston, Texas
Tim Roemer, United States Representative, Indiana
Linda J. Scheid, State Senator, Minnesota
Allyson Schwartz, State Senator, Pennsylvania
Kathleen Sebelius, State Insurance Commissioner, Kansas
Eleanor Sobel, State Representative, Florida
Ellen O. Tauscher, United States Representative, California
Michael L. Thurmond, State Labor Commissioner, Georgia
Tom Vilsack, Governor, Iowa
Kirk Watson, Mayor, Austin, Texas
J.D. Williams, State Controller, Idaho
Philip Wise, State Representative, Iowa
Jane Wood, State Representative, New Hampshire

2:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

QUOTE:
• Honor our commitment to seniors by ensuring the future solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
• Make structural reforms in Social Security and Medicare that slow their future cost growth, modernize benefits (including a prescription drug benefit for Medicare), and give beneficiaries more choice and control over their retirement and health security.
• Create Retirement Savings Accounts to enable low-income Americans to save for their own retirement.
/QUOTE:

How about just leaving me the f--- alone so that I can save for myself?

www.socialslavery.com

4:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"How about just leaving me the f--- alone so that I can save for myself?"

Now noid, you know you're not smart enough to do that on your own! Individualism is not what we promote here in the US, or didn't you hear Ted Kennedy when he declared a war against the concept of the individual? No? Well then did you get the memo from Hillary Clinton when she stated that its society's job to raise a child? Only a village can know whats right for an individual and all that.

So you see the government knows whats best for you and it certainly can spend you money better and more efficiently than you. Besides, if we left spending your money up to you who would buy all of those $50,000 hammers? Or send hundreds of thousands of dollars to the rock and roll museum? The answer, no one, and thats dangerous. We need these programs for the greater good and to promote the general welfare of this country, because without 50 years of rock and roll history this grand experiment called America would surely crumble to the ground just like the Rome.

3:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The lead to this site on google, quoted Gov Perdue as saying that all they had to do was to go the DMV and the ID was free... I am told that they have to pay, $20.00.
Now that may not sound like much unless you are on disability and get $49.00 a month, and the husband lost his job by a factory closing, and took early retirement at 63. At the Social Security office they told him that he had to have a photo Id. I remember Orwell's 1984, it was fiction when I read it.. but no longer.

8:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I live in Georgia, and I will be the first to agree that some small towns around here still have racial issues. We had an incident this year in our town where a student was singled out by a lay coach at the high school. The things that were said and done to this child and others in my small town made my stomach turn; yet no help was offered, not even from the NAACP, or law enforcement.They didnt want to rock the boat with the rednecks being the majority. Can you believe that in todays world an adult went on to the high school field and called this kid a racial slur and then offered another ball player money to beat him up? All because he is black and the white daddy had a problem with his daughter seeing him. This is the year 2005 and we still have these issues. It kills me the way I still see such blantant acts of discrimination in my town and yet EVERYONE in leadership positions, white and black are fine just brushing it under the rug. But, let something political happen that the media is all over and suddenly, someone is having their rights infinged upon. Showing proper ID protects all of us as citizens in this country--especially in the south where good ole boy politicing' is still alive and well. Look at it this way, now because you have to show ID; those good ole boys have less ability to perform voter fraud! But if you you want to find someone's rights being infringed upon, travel down I-20 into west georgia and spend the day. I'd love to read that blog!

9:06 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Yes ,I agree with ryan some old people cant vote because they face difficulties in getting govt ID.
Addiction Recovery Georgia

5:25 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Rock the Vote Blog