Prepare for the new I.D.law to be upheld. It's the only way the Justices can do their part to insure Republican victories at the polls. Without massive voter suppression the Republican party would see election loses across the nation.

Florida wasn't lost because of confusing ballots. It was lost because of a massive and concerted effort to prevent Democratic votes from either being cast or counted. The country knows it as does the media.

I loved Jon Stewart's comment last night to Evo Morales, "Voting in America is a little rigged."

Re: your comment, Jeffrey, "It is astonishing that the process of voting is so bad in the world’s greatest democracy."

You may want to re-think the jingoistic "world's greatest democracy" comment. If there is one, we're not it. Until we have publically funded elections, we are a "coproratocracy."

The butterfly ballot may have been incompetently designed, but the effort to steal the election was deliberate, beginning with the illegal purging out thousands of people from the voter rolls. That right there is your evidence of a conspiracy.

It's a fundamental law of nature that if someone makes a mistake which benefits them, they will continue to make the same mistake. At some point, you've got to let go of the incompetence dodge and realize that there our election processes are corrupted top to bottom with people who steal elections and people who refuse to see it happening.

Societies, perhaps, but not empires. Empires eat themselves to death.

Jeffrey,

Thanks for your insightful work.

As an attorney, I'd like to hear your take on the "political question" doctrine, as it applies to Bush v. Gore. I was a bit surprised that this doctrine did not figure more prominently in the opinion, much less in the discussion that followed.

Any thoughts? Was it simply cynical avoidance of a straightforward disposition of the matter?

nevasayneva - what do you make of these numbers. Gore-51,003,238: Bush-50,459,624: Nader-2,882,985: Buchanan-449,120: Browne (Libertarian)-384,440: Other-232,922. Looked at another way, the left-of-center majority over the right-of-center majority was 2,593,039---Gore-Nader 53,886,223: vs Bush-Buchanan-Browne 51,293,184.

"...the passion on Bush v. Gore doesn't fade..." reminds me of what Galileo said when hauled before the Inquisition, "I, Galileo...abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies and I swear that I will never again say or assert that the Sun is the center of the universe and immovable and that the Earth is not the center and moves."

Before he was led away to spend the rest of his life under house arrest, he kicked the ground and muttered, "Eppur si muove"---"But still, it moves."

I really don't understand what the objection is to showing an ID before you vote.  How many people really get by without any means of identification?

Is the point really that democratic party voters are all so unconnected with the world that they don't have so much as a driver's license, or any document to show who they are?  You need an ID to rent an apartment, to apply for a job, to cash a check, to do any number of things that people do every day.  How does requesting personal identification (which seems to me completely reasonable) discriminate against Democrats?

It seems to me that it would mainly discriminate against people who don't have the right to vote in the first place.  I am willing to be educated on this, but it seems to me that if a personal id were required and a person HAD that ID, it would help PREVENT voter supression (of legitimate voters that is). 

Florida could turn away people because those people couldn't PROVE they had the right to vote.  If they had that proof in thier hands, how could that be a bad thing?  I know there are cases of people whose records are lost.  That is a problem to be solved rather than a reason to say that no one should have to show proof of identity before they walk in and vote.  As it is, the same person could go and vote for all his brothers if he knows where they vote.  Even Ann Coulter might have thought twice about her voter-fraud issue (which I understand she has had no consequences for).

How is this a Democrat/Prepublican issue?  Are Republicans more likely than Democrats to have driver's licenses?

PS.  I know it is true that many more Democratic voters are poor than Republican voters.  That said, they still have jobs, Social Security numbers, and many drive.  They are poor, not stupid.   I dislike the notion that Democratic voters have to be helped to the ballot box -- er -- touch-screen. 

Jan

The reality is though that there _are_ a fair number of poor and marginal citizens (let's stick with native-born for this discussion) who do not have drivers licenses or official photo identification. They drive without a license, they work for cash, they live in apartments with family or 5 friends and don't have an electric bill with their name on it (assuming they haven't jumpered the electric meter anyway). They don't have a copy of their birth certificate and if they did they don't have time to go to the DMV between 10-4 to get a non-drivers ID.

I think the underlying Republican argument is that the process of getting a photo ID is a filter that prevents utterly rootless and unqualified people from voting. Problem is that this make the photo ID the equivalent of a literacy test/poll tax and we have made a social decision that everyone over 18 capable of pulling the lever is entitled to vote, and that specifically there cannot be any poll taxes or literacy tests. We visited that question in the 1860s, 1920s, and 1950s and the process was not pleasant.

sPh

Naaa.
Gotta remember the number one rule of the GOP:
IOKIYAR

"Florida could turn away people because those people couldn't PROVE they had the right to vote."

It is my impression (without benefit of any particular research) that the overwhelming majority of those Floridians (ditto other red state dwellers?) wrongfully refused ballot access were victims of a "purge list" generated with no notice to the "purgees", and hence, no recourse once the wrongfully denied voter (having braved the long lines, etc.) finally confronted the poll worker whose only option was to try to call a perpetually busy phone number for guidance.

That said, it is really unarguable that the push for voter ID is INTENDED to ensure that close elections go Repugnant.

Another issue entirely is why the left is so wretchedly incompetent at organizing a political machine (Hint:It starts with block captains...) capable of dragooning those whose interests overwhelmingly dictate voting Democratic and getting their sorry asses to the polls.

It is a commonplace observation that the poor outnumber the rich by several orders of magnitude. They should have an easy win each November, and yet they lose.

Unless I am missing something (which is always possible) the numbers support my point. What I was concentrating on was the 97,000 votes Nader got in Florida.

“I despise idealogues masquerading as objective journalists.” - Bill O'Reilly, March 30, 2007

With respect, at least, to the ballot design, I agree.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor

I know I am way off the reservation here, but I still disagree.  What do you mean by this:

(let's stick with native-born for this discussion) who do not have drivers licenses or official photo identification.

 Who do you mean by native-born? 

How is getting an ID if you are a citizen, equivalent to a literacy, or poll tax?  I know many of my fellow TPMer's are scratching their heads at what I am saying, but this sounds like a Democratic talking point, and I think it is wrongheaded to say that requiring an ID to vote is the same as disenfranchisement.

If this is the answer... They drive without a license, they work for cash, they live in apartments with family or 5 friends and don't have an electric bill with their name on it (assuming they haven't jumpered the electric meter anyway). They don't have a copy of their birth certificate and if they did they don't have time to go to the DMV between 10-4 to get a non-drivers ID...

...as I said before, it is a problem to be solved with get-out-the-vote workers, etc, and not a reason to abandon the concept that you should identify yourself as a valid voter.

Jan

Re: I admire your optimism, but history doesn't favor your vision. The Dems had operational majorities many times in the past. They didn't put in a universal health care plan. They didn't rein in militarism, they didn't discuss over consumption and waste.

Your problem seems to be that the Democrats did not not usher in utopia. Sorry, that's never going to happen. Don't waste your time on it. But the Democrats have done a lot of good and useful things over the years when they were firmly in control of the country (and sometimes even with GOP presidents). Social Security and unemployment insurance. A sensible foreign policy (worlds different from the current Neoconism,-- come on admit it, you know it's true!) Medicare and Medicaid. The EPA and indeed the whole body of environemntal law and regulations. The Civil Rights acts (even though that cost them their majority ultimately). You're just disappointed because the Democrats haven't accomplishged since last January. Well, yes, I agree, but then there's a certain idiot in the White House blocking them, not to mention enough of his minions in Congress fouling up the works there. Yes, Bush is going to leave a mess behind, but if the Dems have adequete majorities I expect at least as many reforms as we got in the 60s. Eveything's right for it: the voters demand it, even the Big Money interests are on board for some things since Bush's GOP has been a disaster for them too. No, it won't be nirvana, but it will be a helluva lot better than what we have now. Heck we could just go back to the 90s and that would be true!

Re: It's "important", but still marginal.

that's a contradiction in terms. An important reform is not, by defintion, marginal.

Re: The top management of United Health Care got $2 billion in benefits last year.

Here's the difference between me and you: I don't care if people make money as long as they A) make it honestly and B) justice otherwise prevails. You seem to be about the politics of envy, a sort of updated puritanism less concerned about helping folks who need help than with a fear that someone somewhere may make a buck more than you. I just want people to get help they need, and with that I will be content even if the latter-day Great Gatsbys are still partying on their yachts and their private jets.

There is only one reason to require a voter ID.  (Well, two intertwined reasons: fixing elections for the GOP and racism.)

There is a third.  To make sure that the people who vote are legitimately registered voters.  Sorry, I just don't agree with your basic premise that Republicans are all able to present an ID, and the great unwashed, stupid, poor Democrats can't.

Jan

Re-read my post, I am not blaming Nader, I am blaming those who voted for him. The notion that there was no difference between Gore and Bush was insane. The likelihood that Nader would actually get elected was nil. The fact that Bush would at some point be able to appoint Justices to the Supremes was made very clear and that his model justice was Clarence Thomas was well known. People should vote for the good of the country and not based upon narcissism like the Nader voters did. We will pay the price of this foolishness for a generation.

“I despise idealogues masquerading as objective journalists.” - Bill O'Reilly, March 30, 2007

The notion that there was no difference between Gore and Bush was insane.

Then go ahead and call Gore insane, because he refused to articulate that difference.

Gore chose to pursue the same political ground and constituencies that Bush was pursuing. In doing so, he gave the back of his hand to a lot of Democratic constituencies. He worked hard to kick them out of the party and into Nader's camp.

You complain about the millions who voted for Nader. What about the millions more who never voted at all because Al Gore had no time for them and no interest in their votes.

It was close enough to steal. That was Gore's choice.

I have voted in both Missouri and in California, and in both places you have to sign your name on the election official's book of registered voters. Later, those signatures are compared to your signature on the registration form, and if they don't match your vote isn't counted. Now I am not naive enough to believe that every voter's signature is verified, or even ten percent of the signatures verified. But, that is a legitimate way to "show your identification" before you can vote.

With the technology available today there is no reason why the list of registered voters can't also contain a facsimile of your signature for instant ID verification. Those unable to sign their name for any reason would have to show some form of identification even if it was someone who knows them swearing they are the registered voter.

Everyone always "carries their signature" with them, so everyone can show that ID - minus the very small number unable to write their names. Even those would be semi-verifiable because their voter registration signature would also be a non-written one.

None of this is secret information. The states, the courts, the voting officials, and almost everyone who has ever voted knows all of this. That is why being required to possess and show an approved ID card is superfluous at best and simply a method for denying "undesirable" voters the right to vote in actuality.

Hoppy in Sacramento

We don't even qualify as a democracy, let alone as the world's greatest. In a democracy we would all get one vote for who we want to be president. In fact we don't get to vote for president. We only get to vote for "electoral college" electors, and we don't each get one vote. We, in California, get a tiny fraction of a vote compared to our fellow citizens in Montana, for example.

If we ever lose our fear of voters, and decide to become a democracy, we will amend the Constitution to eliminate the electoral college nonsense, and let us vote for someone for president. That will happen long after pigs fly.

Hoppy in Sacramento

"states where voters can register to vote at the polls when they vote"

Wouldn't this be a refreshing and cost-free reform (coupled with Sunday Voting it could change the world...) to mandate, via Federal Law, nationwide!

The hypocrisy of a political system (especially one that purports to "spread democracy")that puts utterly artificial and contrived barriers between the people and the ballot makes the gorge rise.

I agree with much of your analysis. Without a doubt, Bush v Gore had not ripened to the point of mustiness properly palatable for SCOTUS Review. The cert was by itself relativistic, given the increased scrutiny given to standing by the Court over the last few decades. The Court should not have prostituted itself on the partisan political stage either. As I posted earlier, Justice Stevens' dissent in Bush v Gore was the right call. The Court should not have debased itself by going down into the filthy mud on the Plane of Bipolar Polity, to choose sides in the never-ending tug-of-war. They looked uncommonly silly competing in their robes.

You are also right that the Florida balloting insanity should not be categorised as a conspiracy. The premise fails at its outset, for the same reason that always seems to trip them up: Conspiracy Theories posit a level of competency from the product of group-thought that has a probability of existing in the real world, which could be properly stated statistically as nil. That didn't stop either side from trying to game inanity after the fact though. It still does not excuse SCOTUS, and they have done little which carried with it redemption since that time.

My respect for the court had been greatly diminished before Bush v Gore. More often than not, it had been Scalia's opinions that had been the cause. I also had by that time, understood some of the damage that right-sided Big Tent of Conservatism had done to the Nation by obfuscating activism from the extreme right; providing it with a warm and fuzzy mantle of conservatism to masquerade under.

This has shifted the median on the political linearity right-wards, and now the people cannot even understand that the term Conservative Activist is an oxymoron. There are no true classical liberals in the Federal Judiciary; W.O Douglas, and T. Marshall retired a long long time ago. The judiciary is comprised of moderates, conservatives, and right-wing activists. It is a shame that the media analysts have for the most part failed to note that O'Connor wasn't really a 'moderate', but was instead a real conservative, as was Rehnquist.

Present company not included though. I did notice approvingly your depiction of Thomas as being well-right of Scalia, although I disagree strongly that there is anything interesting about a 21st century Supreme Court Justice who can best be described as a Lochner Court atavist, and also believe you may be assuming too much from TPMs members, and maybe should proffer a bit of background as insight into what is implied when you referenced the early New Deal Dissenting Court.

I was not a political science major, but have done a fair amount of personal reading of both SCOTUS Decisions and history in my adult life, at some times very intensely. A big turning away point was the convoluted Fulminante v Arizona, and Scalia's indefensible position as the swing vote for both Fulminante's confession being coerced by the state, and that this egregious violation of the 5th did not necessarily rise to a fatal trial error, but instead should be decided under "harmless error". His positions were laden with a very unconservative lifeboat rocking, wasp nest stick poking, and sleeping dog wakening precedent reversing actvism context. Personally illuminative, to say the least.

Here's a final anecdote you may appreciate. I have at times in the recent past engaged in strident discourses on some prominent 1st tier law university professor blogs. There are some of these who actually have been struggling to find an argument which would justify the American Government's imprimatur upon certain acts of human torture. God damned first tier law professors! There is nothing under the sun. the moon, heaven nor hell which could ever cause me to acquiesce to this inherent obscenity. 100 L.Tribes are preferable to even one of these tenured enemies of liberty, and yes, I am not one who could rightfully be called a Tribe fan.

Something else I discovered about these few professors; they are members of The Federalist Society. During the Scooter Libby trial and just after, I posted a few responses to their cries that injustice had been done to Libby with Scalia decision quotations. A favorite was his Brogan v US, because Scalia mused about not even a lemma, and Brogan had obviously been set-up by the FBI, who manufactured with malice and forethought, a situation where Brogan would most likely lie when queried about whether he'd taken bribes so long ago that the statute of limitations had mooted them, effectively reactivating these crimes under new charges of lying to Federal Investigators' questions, that they already knew the answers to, and had evidence to back it up as fact; to tag Brogan with new felonies. Poor Scooter was in the same not cruel dilemma that Brogan had been in, and his options were the same. he could have invoked his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, or he could have told the damn truth.

Now here the curious thing: I ran across an old Federalist Society page that cited Scalia's Brogan v US in the most glowing of back-patting terms. It disappeared from their site early to mid February of this year. The timing strikes me as being mighty suspicious, relativistically, as it offered a sledge hammer counter-argument for their defense of Libby, as well as was a messy loose-end should a SCOTUS appeal ever occur.

The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, although it doesn't offer a good clue as to when the page was erased, has clean archival copies of the newsletter . Whenever the next FedSociety website archive update gets posted, it may offer stronger evidence as to when it was removed too.

deleted unintentional doubled post

.> Who do you mean by native-born?

In order to simplify the discussion and prevent it from going off on tangents: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.".

sPh

I agree with Jan's point that an ID requirement shouldn't be onerous. Part of the problem is that as IDs are required for more and more things, there should not be a cost for getting one.

I am in favor of legislative ju jitsu whenever possible -- for example, why not go along with the voter ID legislation proposed by Republicans (acknowledging that it's a non-solution to a non-problem), but insist on amending the legislation to require that IDs be free to those who need them, and amending the bill so that tactics like caging are made illegal? In other words, present the legislation as an even more effective way to curb election fraud, by both individuals and parties who want to practice dirty tricks.

Actually I didn't expect anything to change after this past January. The Dems don't have control of anything except the house. All the federal agencies are still politicized and the senate is not functional.

I was thinking back to the Clinton years. He did nothing to counter the Republican congress. Some think this is because he was a poor politician, I think it was because his views aren't that different from theirs.

This is probably not the forum to get into yet another discussion of libertarian delusions that when A earns $2 billion it has no implications on B.

Citing all the good things that the Dems did 70 years ago (or 50 if you want to talk about civil rights) is irrelevant. The question is what have the Dems done more recently?

This country has only one political philosophy, it is capitalism supported by militarism. Both parties adhere to this. They differ only in things on the margins. The Dems will support more social spending, more regulation of private industry and some tweaking of the marginal tax rates.

Where they don't differ are on the big issues. A muscular military, the belief that growth will "lift all boats" and the denial that resource limits are a threat to world civilization. To me those are the big issues - everything else is "important" but marginal.

I'm not utopian, if anything I'm dystopian. I'll repeat what I said in my original comment:

So, will the Dems be better than the GOP? Yes. Will they be much better? No.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

It is your right as an American to intentionally refuse to come to grips with how American democracy works.

However, if you were unable to figure out how things would be different with Gore rather than Bush, you just weren't trying very hard. There is no "strategy" that Gore could have "chosen" to pursue that would have made that different.

Millions don't vote every time. Dems focus tons of time, energy, and money on getting more people motivated and to the polls every single election. There is no set of policies or candidate or magic words that will get big numbers of them to rise up and go to the polls. So you have to try to win over a majority of the electorate that we have.

I respectfully, and totally disagree.

If showing an ID is a hurdle, so is getting out of bed in the morning.  If you vote absentee, you have to put a freaking stamp on the envelope  -- another hurdle?

My two sons just applied to get voter registration cards.  Guess what?  They had to produce proof of citizenship --> Social Security Numbers!

If you can get on the voter rolls you HAVE to have SOME FORM OF ID!

IS EVERYONE AROUND HERE SO OPEN-MINDED THAT THEIR BRAINS FELL OUT?

I am getting the distinct impression that the point is to get ineligible people to vote (for our side).  Am I wrong?

Jan

If this is supposed to simplify things, you have left me.  According to what you say below, "native born," applies to everyone except non-citizens: 

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.".

So what is the point of "limiting the discussion to native-born?"  Who else is there?  Non-citizens?  Yes.  It would be onerous for them to get voter ID's.  I agree with that.

Jan

Motivation?  Does motivation have to be a bad thing?  What is the motivation behind taking your ticket when you go into a movie?   Or asking for the number on the back of your credit card when you order something? How about all the forms you have to fill out (and ID's to show) to get married?  Do the Republicans want only Republicans to wed?  How about the motivation behind all the forms you have to fill out when you apply for a job?  Is that also a Republican conspiracy?

Look, no one despises what Republicans stand for more than I do, but I find the whole idea of Democratic voters  being too pathetic to have ID's to be just insulting and I will never support that contention.  I agree totally that NONE of us should lose any sleep waiting for the Republicans to have a good faith effort at anything.  That doesn't mean we should give up whatever tiny modicom of respect we have left for ourselves -- which is becoming smaller by the day, BTW.

I am so enormously pissed about the General Betrayus-Congressional bend-over that I can hardly speak!

Jan

Jan, in my opinion you are wrong. This is comparable to Ohio's making voters in Democratic areas wait hours in a line before they could vote, while voters in Repub areas had very short waits. Of course voting is so important we all should be willing to wade thru Hell to get to vote, but in reality the more obstacle there are to voting, the fewer people will vote.

When you first register to vote in California you have to provide a SS number or a drivers license number, but you don't have to show that document to anyone. You do have to sign the registration form, and that signature is your ID for voting. It takes no more than a few seconds to verify a signature, and it takes almost no expense to have the signature on the list of registered voters in each precinct. That method works without being the slightest obstacle to voting.

If I vote absentee, and I always do now, I have to sign the envelope my ballot goes into, then put that envelope into another envelope to mail it in. My signature is checkedd against my registration signature or my ballot is discarded. Signatures do work for identification.

The GOP drive to require ID cards approved by the state before someone can vote would not be proposed unless it would reduce the votes by Democrats. That is as obvious as anything I can think of. And, that alone is good reason to fight it to the bitter end. (For example, Republican state voter registrars would be very reluctant to issue such cards to Democrats - wrong color ink, smudged writing, dirty corner on the form, submitted after office hours, etc.)

Hoppy in Sacramento

They may be zealots, but they have the right to be zealots.

Really, where is it written that a left-wing voter must vote for a hard right candidate simply because he is slightly less hard right than the other candidate?

Why should someone who lost their industrial job have to vote for a candidate who vociferously defended NAFTA? Why should someone who couldn't afford to pay for an operation for his kid vote for the first Democratic candidate in 50 years to repudiate a commitment to universal health care? Why should someone who believes in public financing of campaigns vote for a candidate who raised millions in corporate soft money from the White House and then excused himself by saying there was no controlling legal authority that prohibited his conduct? Why should a peacenik vote for a candidate who had supported numerous wars?

Look, personally I am not that far left, and I can see the argument for strategic voting, but saying that one has to strategically vote is arrogant. It will also ensure that the Democrats continue to nominate hard right reactionaries (the current frontrunner for 2008 being one example) ad infinitum.

Nader voters, perhaps, where casting a different type of strategic vote, strategizing that a big Nader turnout might cause the party to move somewhat to the left.

Conspiracy theory
People will never stop being angry…….

It is not that one is angry, though it must be weighed.
It is the defending of ones reality, the danger to values
being turned upside down, never to be put together again.

There is a great need for a thread at TMPCafe defining conspiracy theory.
A discussion about reality, and anything that challenges ones' reality or what we call worldview, ideology and/or psyche.

This is about ones' existence, being a part of a community, about crossing boundaries.
Meeting someone new or being presented with new views can present a question. Can I allow your worldview in past my boundaries? Also there is the question of, will you allow mine into your worldview if I let you in mine.

When there is a mutual sharing and overlap of space, ideas, and those things that makeup friendship at best and community, each has changed, and each has added more “territory” inside the boundaries that contain that thing we call ourselves.

Sounds like a mating dance doesn’t it?

What I am saying is that what may be at issue when one uses the word “conspiracy” is a reinforcing of one’s walls around their worldview boundary or what may be called psyche.

I do not know this view makes it a less painful experience (Who Moved My Cheese,) but the understanding and observations may keeps one in touch with the continuum of change fighting hard to keep family and friends also in this larger territory. Viewing change, as enlarging and shrinking territory that is one's self is a normal part of past, present and future existence for everyone on earth.

I am not at all saying this defense of boundary is the case in all labeling when conspiracy is used, but we very much need this conversation of resistance to growth and change not only here, but in the country as a whole.

What irony, to finally understand a small part of the establishment reaction of the 1960’s that is still alive today. This past is creating a lot of disconnects by trying to put the post 1960’s reality back into the pre-1960’s box. It will never fit.

As for ballot design in Florida, I am a great believer in incompetence…

When presented with actions that have created patterns of behavior in the past and the patterns can be verified by predicting future actions. I call this a working assumption, waiting on new experiences to confirm the facts in my belief system.

If these working assumptions can result in determent to one or benefit, I surley would act to observe and influence the outcome, maybe with the help of a friend or two!
A conspiracy theory? What else can I say about it.

Or, to put it more cynically, voter fraud suppression may be – and sometimes clearly is
an attempt to suppress minority (i.e. Democratic) votes.

Is this what is called the wrap, where the pundit gets to edge closer to their reality.

I am a great believer in incompetence
Hell no, lets get real!=

====================

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view "> World View
Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts in it. The German word is also in wide use in English, as well as the translated form world outlook. (Compare with ideology).

In psychoanalysis, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psyche_%28psychology%29 m "> psyche refers to the forces in an individual that influence thought, behavior and personality. The word was borrowed from ancient Greek, which referred concept of the self, encompassing the modern ideas of soul, self, and mind. The Greeks believed that the soul or "psyche" was responsible for behavior.

An Ideology is an organized collection of ideas.
Ideologies are systems of abstract thought (as opposed to mere ideation) applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought.

-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking

Jan - yes, you are wrong, or at least confused, but for admirable reasons. :-)

Brennan Center for Justice has done the studies as well as advocated on this issue.

Just a few of the findings:

• As many as 7% of United States citizens – 13 million individuals – do not have ready access to citizenship documents.
• Citizens with comparatively low incomes are less likely to possess documentation proving their citizenship.
• As many as 11 percent of United States citizens – more than 21 million individuals – do not have government-issued photo identification.
• Elderly citizens are less likely to possess government-issued photo identification.
• Minority citizens are less likely to possess government-issued photo identification. According to the survey, African-American citizens also disproportionately lack photo identification. Twenty-five percent of African-American voting-age citizens have no current government-issued photo ID, compared to eight percent of white voting-age citizens.10 Using 2000 census figures, this amounts to more than 5.5 million adult African-American citizens without photo identification.
• Citizens with comparatively low incomes are less likely to possess photo identification.

Download the file.

From the Policy Brief page:

Not only are minority voters less likely to possess photo ID, but they are also more likely than white voters to be selectively asked for ID at the polls. For example, in New York City, which has no ID requirement, a study showed that poll workers illegally asked one in six Asian Americans for ID at the polls, while white voters were permitted to vote without showing ID.

And in Georgia, which does have the ID requirement, although I think it's back in the courts:

• Thirty-six percent of Georgians over 75 do not have a driver’s license.

Those are some significant numbers. Take this in and then we'll get to the latest in vote caging. :-) It's good to see you here.

What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority. Molly Ivins

Jan, I haven't had a copy of my social security card in over 3 decades now, back to a time when they were composed of flimsy paper, and I washed it, along with my wallet in a pair of jeans. So far, I've been able to avoid the process of getting another copy of it, and I am aware that due to the capriciousness of Federal Politicians, I may well be forced to endure the ignominy of dealing with a federal bureaucracy.

Still, there is a very big difference from a registrar of voters requesting ID when someone registers to vote, and a poll volunteer, probably backed-up by a uniformed and armed security person, ordering someone to produce their papers before they are allowed to exercise their god-given liberty to vote. For many reasons, I am appalled that registrars of voters have been empowered by Congress to have the lawful authority to order the production of a Social Security Card before allowing someone to register to vote.

And again I think you should not view this as a Democratic/Republican issue without first viewing it as an Urban/Rural divide. Persons who tend to be Republican loyalists, who also would be persons that are too stubborn and/or simply cannot understand the utility in possessing a valid driver's license on their person, are going to be found away from the urban centers. There is also a much greater probability that these persons will not be asked to produce their ID either when registering to vote or at the time that they vote, no matter what laws have been enacted, because they will be known by someone involved in the process in both instances.

Cost is also a consideration. Recently in Nevada, the DMV switched to a policy of providing one free ID over some duration I am unsure of, for indigents, because the State Courts decided it was an onerous law, prejudicial to homeless persons, to require persons have valid ID considering the costs of acquiring one. (I believe the cost is $25 for non-drivers to acquire a state issued ID).

It strikes me as very dissonant that the Party which always touts "state's rights" is also the Party which is enacting standards of voter eligibility verification binding the individual states. There are many GOP politicians who were vocal during the Clinton Administration regarding "unfunded mandates" from the Federal government, which placed a financial burden upon the individual states, and they stated a belief at that time that all enacted legislation, as well as Administrative rules should assess the costs that were being forced upon the states, and possibly be remunerated for them by the Federal Government. More flip-flopping by the GOP it seems, who really were attempting a stealth attack on enactments that they disagreed with.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then, but I have one question.  How do all those people you note, who have no proof of citizenship -- no documents at all -- get on the voting roster in the first place?

By the way, I am not in favor of selective requests for ID's; I am in favor of everyone showing his/her ID when they walk up to sign in to vote.

Oh, I guess I have one other question.  Are Republicans in charge of all voting precincts?  It sounds like it from the arguments made here. 

Jan

You may be a green, but nonetheless, you are asking committed lefties to vote for a candidate who ran hard to the right.

That's what bothers me so much about these arguments. You are telling people they must vote for candidates they profoundly disagree with.

Again, take the last of my rhetorical questions. Suppose a person is a pacifist. You're telling that pacifist that they have to vote for a candidate who supported numerous wars, and was advocating a muscular foreign policy.

Basically you are telling the pacifist that he has no right to vote his actual beliefs, and must support candidates whom he thinks to be murderers. That's offensive.

Further, remember, the logic of your position would extend to congressional races. And the Democrats who were elected in 2000 gave Bush valuable bipartisan cover which allowed him to invade Iraq. Were Nader voters required to vote for those Democrats as well?

What you call "stupid" assumes that people believe the same things you do. But the reason Nader got votes is because people disagree with you. They are farther left than you are.

They are not being stupid, from their ideological perspective. They are trying to move this country to the left.

Let me ask you this-- do you believe in this on both ends? Must Ron Paul supporters vote for Giuliani, with his scary civil liberties record, in 2008?

No. Ron Paul's backers should take a good look at his record, and vote for Edwards.

Have fun in your ivory tower.I don't have the energy to debunk your house and your men of straw.

Most people are capable of simple math, and it has nothing to do with their ideological perspective. You insult them by saying so, as do many zealot pundirts, and frankly, that's the real insult, not your "panty-in-a-twist" version.

Sorry. You're stupid. Thanks for playing.

Now go console yourself that you're morally superor and more intelligent. It doesn't change the fact that your "morally superior" and "intelligent" positon landed the whole country with Bush and Cheney. I hope you choke on it.

Personally, I expect more from people. They don't generally disappoint, but then again, I have no illusions that I am other than average.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

My answer to your "argument" was that you don't have one. Period. In this case calling you on presenting a "stupid" argument is fully warranted.

Gore v Bush =/= Stalin v Pol Pot. Duh.

(Yawn) Gore is no hawk. Never has been a hawk, and likely will never be a hawk. Bush laughed at a female death row prisoner. The differences were quite clear regardless of what you and your fellow zealots pretend.

Take your theoretical strawman and try it out on someone that doesn't have a grip on reality.

I do.

Maybe if you didn't waste the limited brain cells you possess on hypothetical situations, you'd leave some room for a bit of common sense.

Enough nonsense. Those dim enough to vote for Nader certainly ARE responsible for the result. It's about time they developed a spine and admitted it.

Tell you what, dude, I'll let the ones that couldn't subtract 3 from 51 a break. They're just are too stupid to vote. How's that?

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

Your asinine levity only further validates my perception of the real. There is little difference in the root of motivation between many on either side of the linearity. Both are driven by a desire to coerce their distorted visions upon us. Both seek to destroy and to steal freedom and liberty. Both fear the open marketplace of ideas.

It is in the differences from which flows the concept of A Lamer of Evils. Your side will accept disparities, will attempt to rectify them within one whole. A true willingness to agree to disagree within their own body. The other side pretends, but they only assimilate, condense and streamline. This makes proper target acquisition exponentially more difficult to those who would never cause corollary casualties. It requires patience, and clear shots only at moments when the wolves have shed their mantle of disguise. Your side lumbers along, attempting to find a whole for the disparities. It slowly drags along its ends-testing partisans. Ducks in a line stretching out far behind. Enjoy your spring, blinded to the truth: it is not your side that won anything, but is instead the non-aligned which had grown weary of the dominant, that brought about your summer of bountiful harvest. Again, you dance, as a partisan fool, the joyous grasshopper jig of unwarranted self-adulations, instead of preparing for the inevitable seasons' change.

Last season's decoys and calls do not even require modification.

Quack, Quack, Mr. Mallard