Jim Cramer's Dad couldn't vote in PA because of VoterID

[AznAnarchy99]

My question is if they can't make it to the DMV how could they make it to the polls to stand in line there for a few hours?

I frankly do not give a damn on this issue, just wondering.

Does it take hours to vote in other states? I've ran the polls here in CA and the wait is never more than 5-10 minutes during big elections and no wait during all other elections.

 

[monovillage]

Does it take hours to vote in other states? I've ran the polls here in CA and the wait is never more than 5-10 minutes during big elections and no wait during all other elections.

It's not a huge wait and it is easy to get an ID or to vote absentee or do a number of other things. You just have a handful of whiny little bed wetting liberals in here that think for some reason that minimal security protecting the integrity of voting is a bad thing. You'd think they'd get a little worn out from all the faux outrage and crocodile tears, but they keep acting as if it's a huge hardship to vote.

 

[cybrsage]

Yet while they are crying about voter suppression via photo id, they support voter suppression via registration.

 

[Jhhnn]

Wow, you just like showing yourself to be ignorant of the Constitution on a regular basis. The 26th Amendment was adopted in 1971. Before that amendment, there was no voting age minimum listed in the Constitution.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Heh. The 14th amendment, from 1868, sets the minimum voting age at 21. Prior to that, Male suffrage at 21 had been the general rule, pursuant to English common law. N Carolina was the last state to extend the franchise to non- property owning males in 1856.

A brief voting rights timeline-

http://www.kqed.org/assets/pdf/education/digitalmedia/us-voting-rights-timeline.pdf

When attempting duh-version, it's best to get the facts straight.

 

[Jhhnn]

I know you are not bright, but I really thought you knew the difference between New York City and Pennsylvania. I admit I was wrong, you do not actually know the difference. My mistake.

New York City is in New York state. Pennsylvania (which is actually a Commonwealth) is a different political entity. Now that you know, you can stop using New York City information when discussing Pennsylvania.

And there we are, the tired old liberal tactic of "I already did answer it, and will refuse to show you where I did since we both know I did not". Sad that you so quickly resort to that one.

I am not going to let you off that easy. I am still waiting for you to explain why you say voter suppression is fine wrt voter registration. You at first tried to claim every single legitimate voter is registered - but dropped that lie just as fast, it was just too big for you to continue with. Then you tried to say paying money is not a poll tax - but that failed.

Now you are claiming that having to do something in order to vote is fine, but having to do something else in order to vote is evil and must be stopped. But you have failed to provide a logical reason why it is ok to disenfranchise people by forcing them to register.

Feeling trapped? Desperate? Resorting to lies & obfuscations? False equivalency? Obviously.

Quote me where I claimed that every single legit voter is registered. I pointed out that there is no registration in N Dakota, and certainly have not denied the legitimacy of N Dakota voters.

You claimed that the number of voting machines was determined by population, rather than the number of registered voters. I offered a counter example, NYC, at which point you claim that it's different in Pennsylvania, offering no proof whatsoever. I pointed out that optical scan voting machines, widely used, require paper ballots. You refuse to acknowledge that.

Registration actually serves to make voting more accessible when properly implemented, as in NYC & obviously in other jurisdictions, insuring the adequacy of voting materials where needed, reducing lines & waiting times. Surely Pennsylvania is smart enough to do the same.

In technical terms, registration is free, with the ability to mail in the documents an added low cost convenience. There are no hidden costs, unlike picture ID for voters. In states lacking strong voter suppression tendencies, online registration has been established.

My favorite part of your dishonest argument-

Now you are claiming that having to do something in order to vote is fine, but having to do something else in order to vote is evil and must be stopped.

Obviously, you're not advocating no registration, nor are you advocating no requirements whatsoever. What it comes down to is what measures actually promote & enable citizens voting. As I've shown, registration can aid in that. Picture ID does not- it attempts to limit the franchise.

The history of voting rights in this country is not the pretty picture painted by modern conservatives, at all. Conservatives often held slaves in early America, who obviously couldn't vote. Conservatives opposed extending the franchise to non- property owners. Conservatives opposed the end of slavery, and managed to prevent many people of color from voting for nearly a century after the Civil War. Conservatives made it illegal to teach black people to read in some states, then instituted literacy tests for voting. Conservatives opposed citizenship & voting for Native Americans & Chinese immigrants. Conservatives opposed women's suffrage. Conservatives opposed lowering the voting age to 18. Conservatives still oppose voting by ex-offenders in many parts of the country. Conservatives engage in partisan Jihadist purges of voter rolls when they can, obviously not purging themselves in the process.

Conservatives have a long & sordid history of voter suppression, and Voter ID is no different. It's a defining characteristic of Conservatives throughout our history.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

 

[cybrsage]

Heh. The 14th amendment, from 1868, sets the minimum voting age at 21. Prior to that, Male suffrage at 21 had been the general rule, pursuant to English common law. N Carolina was the last state to extend the franchise to non- property owning males in 1856.

A brief voting rights timeline-

http://www.kqed.org/assets/pdf/education/digitalmedia/us-voting-rights-timeline.pdf

When attempting duh-version, it's best to get the facts straight.

Even when shown facts you pretend the 26th did not set a new voting age. Why do you pretend stupid things like that? Is it because you like showing people you are stupid?

 

[cybrsage]

You claimed that the number of voting machines was determined by population, rather than the number of registered voters. I offered a counter example, NYC, at which point you claim that it's different in Pennsylvania, offering no proof whatsoever. I pointed out that optical scan voting machines, widely used, require paper ballots. You refuse to acknowledge that.

Again, New York is not Pennsylvania. I realize such well known facts are hard for you to accept, but you continue to show yourself to be stupid when you claim the State of New York and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are the same place.

Using your logic, we should use voting information from Afghanistan to explain how things are done in Pennsylvania. Yeah, your logic is just that stupid.

In technical terms, registration is free, with the ability to mail in the documents an added low cost convenience. There are no hidden costs, unlike picture ID for voters. In states lacking strong voter suppression tendencies, online registration has been established.

In real terms, it disenfranchises a segment of the population who are otherwise legitimate voters. You support this disenfranchisement. Why do you support this? Give me a reason which also is not usable in support of voter ID.

So far, you have only given reasons which either support voter ID as well or show voter registration is just as evil as you claim voter ID is.

At least Bowfinger admits he holds an illogical double standard. I give him credit for not proving himself to be a complete idiot as you continue to do.

 

[Pens1566]

Even when shown facts you pretend the 26th did not set a new voting age. Why do you pretend stupid things like that? Is it because you like showing people you are stupid?

"setting a new voting age" is not what you claimed.

Wow, you just like showing yourself to be ignorant of the Constitution on a regular basis. The 26th Amendment was adopted in 1971. Before that amendment, there was no voting age minimum listed in the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

And you were wrong. 14th lists it as 21.

 

[cybrsage]

"setting a new voting age" is not what you claimed.

And you were wrong. 14th lists it as 21.

You are still pretending the 26th amendment is the 14th. The only reason I can think of why you are pretending that is because you love looking stupid. Do you have a different reason?

EDIT: Also, that does not list a voting minimum age. It simply says that if a state denies voting to anyone 21 or older, that state will have its representation in Congress reduced to the level as if they denied people never existed as a punishment. Read it for yourself: It does not say "shall not be denied or abridged" or any such phrase. This means it is a rule which you do not have to follow if the state is fine with suffering the penalty for not following it.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

However the 26th Amendment (please follow along, 26 is not 14 - I know you easily confuse them), DOES say "shall not be denied abridged", making it a rule which must be followed.

Amendment XXVI

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxvi

 

[Jhhnn]

In real terms, it disenfranchises a segment of the population who are otherwise legitimate voters.

How does free registration accomplish that, exactly?

I support election day registration, btw, as it is practiced in some states.

 

[Jhhnn]

You are still pretending the 26th amendment is the 14th. The only reason I can think of why you are pretending that is because you love looking stupid. Do you have a different reason?

EDIT: Also, that does not list a voting minimum age. It simply says that if a state denies voting to anyone 21 or older, that state will have its representation in Congress reduced to the level as if they denied people never existed as a punishment. Read it for yourself: It does not say "shall not be denied or abridged" or any such phrase. This means it is a rule which you do not have to follow if the state is fine with suffering the penalty for not following it.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

However the 26th Amendment (please follow along, 26 is not 14 - I know you easily confuse them), DOES say "shall not be denied abridged", making it a rule which must be followed.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxvi

Dance, Cybr! Dance!

 

[cybrsage]

How does free registration accomplish that, exactly?

Some people who are otherwise eligable to vote will not register and therefor they will not be allowed to vote.

I support election day registration, btw, as it is practiced in some states.

Why do you still demand registration?

 

[cybrsage]

Dance, Cybr! Dance!

Do you also think the 26th and the 14th amendmends are the same thing? What a loser you are.

 

[Bowfinger]

Dance, Cybr! Dance!

I see perhaps someone else has recognized it is absolutely pointless to attempt discussion with Cybrsage. He has no interest in fruitful discussion. His only goal here is disrupting the thread to draw attention away from the OP, a potentially damaging real-world example of how the GOP voter suppression laws are being sold dishonestly. Notice how he and his BS non-issue have become the focal point of this thread, just as it has in dozens of other threads critical of Republican causes.

 

[cybrsage]

I see perhaps someone else has recognized it is absolutely pointless to attempt discussion with Bowfinger. He has no interest in fruitful discussion. His only goal here is disrupting the thread to draw attention away from the falseness of the OP, a potentially damaging real-world example of how there is no voter suppression laws. Notice how he and his BS non-issue have become the focal point of this thread, just as it has in dozens of other threads critical of idiotic liberal causes.
__________________
If you never encounter anything in your community that offends you, you're not living in a free society.

 

[Bowfinger]

Lulz. The last refuge of the obnoxious child, repeating everything somebody else says. Here's a hint Cybr: we already know you're a well-trained parrot.

 

[cybrsage]

Lulz. The last refuge of the obnoxious child, repeating everything somebody else says. Here's a hint Bow: we already know you're a well-trained parrot.
__________________
If you never encounter anything in your community that offends you, you're not living in a free society.

 

[Jhhnn]

Some people who are otherwise eligable to vote will not register and therefor they will not be allowed to vote.

Not with election day registration. So, uhh, do you think that would be more or less people who won't be allowed to vote over picture ID?

Obviously, you don't support registration-less voting in the slightest, but use it as false equivalency for picture ID. Registration is free & easy, obtaining picture ID not necessarily so.

Why do you still demand registration?

As I already explained, to aid in a smooth voting process for everybody, to best allocate voting resources. The vast majority of people who intend to vote will register, and the stragglers can register on the spot, when they go to vote. In very rare circumstances, they can cast a provisional ballot, demonstrate their eligibility later.

 

[Paratus]

Lulz. The last refuge of the obnoxious child, repeating everything somebody else says. Here's a hint Bow: we already know you're a well-trained parrot.
__________________
If you never encounter anything in your community that offends you, you're not living in a free society.

 

[Pens1566]

Lulz. The last refuge of the obnoxious child, repeating everything somebody else says. Here's a hint Bow: we already know you're a well-trained parrot.
__________________
If you never encounter anything in your community that offends you, you're not living in a free society.

That only works if he's the one repeating others like a pedantic child, dumbass.