Voting reform panel

[Jhhnn]

So the penalty for failure to appear really is denial of the right to vote by your standards, Shades of Grey? Funny how your nick and your pov don't match in this particular instance....

As I've pointed out, there's lots of room to establish picture ID as a voting standard, but that the process shouldn't be used to achieve other ends, otherwise it will disenfranchise legitimate voters. So long as it's free, without complications, transferrable state to state and includes automatic registration for the life of the document, I think it's a fine idea.

That's not what's currently happening, however... to use it as a law enforcement tool, or as a revenue gathering device defeats the purpose. Well, if the purpose is to have honest elections based on the broadest legitimate voter base possible...

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
So the penalty for failure to appear really is denial of the right to vote by your standards, Shades of Grey? Funny how your nick and your pov don't match in this particular instance....

As I've pointed out, there's lots of room to establish picture ID as a voting standard, but that the process shouldn't be used to achieve other ends, otherwise it will disenfranchise legitimate voters. So long as it's free, without complications, transferrable state to state and includes automatic registration for the life of the document, I think it's a fine idea.

That's not what's currently happening, however... to use it as a law enforcement tool, or as a revenue gathering device defeats the purpose. Well, if the purpose is to have honest elections based on the broadest legitimate voter base possible...

No, you still aren't looking at things in a realistic manner(or are purposely playing stupid).

If a person has a failure to appear WARRANT - they are NOT exempt from being detained if they go to USE GOVERNMENT systems. It has nothing to do with voting - it has to do with law enforcement. This should and could happen at the DMV, local building permit office, or whatever. The deal is - if you try to use the government and you have a WARRANT out for your arrest - what it is you are going to the Government for has no bearing on whether or not you can/should be detained. If you have a warrant for your arrest - you will be detained - PERIOD.

Also, you seem to ignore the fact that they could still get the ID even if they are detained. Nah, you don't want to look at reality - you just want to play a little game.

 

[Jhhnn]

As I pointed out earlier, Shades, what you're talking about depends largely on the jurisdiction and the govt office in question. People can easily have a warrant on them while not knowing about it. I recently was denied tags for my auto because of unpaid parking tickets, which was news to me. The clerk even told me that I had an outstanding warrant. I went immediately to the referee and sorted it all out, but have no doubt that things would have proceeded differently had I encountered a police officer... I'd also been to the building dept the same day over permits, where they had no idea about it, and no interest whatsoever.

At some point or another, priorities need to be set, some things obviously being more important than others. Taking the black and white "You will be busted!" by Big Brother attitude is precisely why greater government coordination and integration is often opposed- rightfully so.

There's already a lot of separation of powers in government and law enforcement, anyway- local police don't enforce immigration law around here, either. If they did, it'd be all they did, and that's not what they're getting paid to accomplish. Much the same can be said for picture ID staff, as well...

Unless there's some other underlying motive for such behavior, like limiting the electorate as has been done in the past, just with a new twist... kinda like states who prohibit felons from voting, and have a much higher % of blacks than whites convicted of felonies. Just coincidence, right?

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
As I pointed out earlier, Shades, what you're talking about depends largely on the jurisdiction and the govt office in question. People can easily have a warrant on them while not knowing about it. I recently was denied tags for my auto because of unpaid parking tickets, which was news to me. The clerk even told me that I had an outstanding warrant. I went immediately to the referee and sorted it all out, but have no doubt that things would have proceeded differently had I encountered a police officer... I'd also been to the building dept the same day over permits, where they had no idea about it, and no interest whatsoever.

At some point or another, priorities need to be set, some things obviously being more important than others. Taking the black and white "You will be busted!" by Big Brother attitude is precisely why greater government coordination and integration is often opposed- rightfully so.

There's already a lot of separation of powers in government and law enforcement, anyway- local police don't enforce immigration law around here, either. If they did, it'd be all they did, and that's not what they're getting paid to accomplish. Much the same can be said for picture ID staff, as well...

Unless there's some other underlying motive for such behavior, like limiting the electorate as has been done in the past, just with a new twist... kinda like states who prohibit felons from voting, and have a much higher % of blacks than whites convicted of felonies. Just coincidence, right?

You proved my point - it has nothing to do with voting. You yourself had a warrant - and you weren't even getting an ID. You are the one trying to bring this asinine line of thinking into the issue - not me. If you have a warrant out for you - you better take care of it before you expect to use the Government. For an ID, tags, etc.

So please tell me why someone who has a warrant out for their arrest should be able to go into the DMV and get an ID without being taken into custody? Is there any other place that people should be exempt from being arrested if they have a warrant?

This ought to be good.

 

[rahvin]

They could just tattoo barcodes on our foreheads, it would be far simpler for them to keep track of us errr make sure we only vote once.

 

[Jhhnn]

"You are the one trying to bring this asinine line of thinking into the issue - not me."

Yeh, and you're the one insisting that anybody who works for the govt has a primary duty to act as a law enforcement officer. No wonder people won't go near a govt office until they have to... Perhaps we should have law enforcement check ID at polling places while we're at it- I'm sure that will encourage voting, particularly in minority neighborhoods where the law is more feared than respected...

Control Freaks- gotta love 'em, bless their pointy little heads...

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"You are the one trying to bring this asinine line of thinking into the issue - not me."

Yeh, and you're the one insisting that anybody who works for the govt has a primary duty to act as a law enforcement officer. No wonder people won't go near a govt office until they have to... Perhaps we should have law enforcement check ID at polling places while we're at it- I'm sure that will encourage voting, particularly in minority neighborhoods where the law is more feared than respected...

Control Freaks- gotta love 'em, bless their pointy little heads...

"you're the one insisting that anybody who works for the govt has a primary duty to act as a law enforcement officer." - I've said nothing of the sort. Their primary job is whatever they were hired for. However, just like in your case - people who have warrants out for their arrest can be flagged - and hence detained. You really think the DMV should hand out drivers licenses or IDs to people with warrants?

I see you ignored the question though so I'll repeat it again:
"So please tell me why someone who has a warrant out for their arrest should be able to go into the DMV and get an ID without being taken into custody? Is there any other place that people should be exempt from being arrested if they have a warrant? "

 

[Jhhnn]

I already answered that question before you even posed it, Shades of Grey, in my initial post to this thread. Belabor it if you want, if it serves to obfuscate the simple fact that requiring picture ID can be used to tailor the electorate more to the liking of whitebread suburbia... by demanding that govt workers serve law enforcement functions as well as those they were hired to do...

I thought one of modern conservatism's big selling points was their rhetoric about containing big brother, about getting govt off people's backs. Somehow, I sense that's being selectively applied, at least if your pov is adopted in states requiring photo ID to vote...

Where I live, the only way you'll ever be apprehended on a warrant is to actually deal with a police officer, rather than to be ratted out by every petty bureaucrat we all have to deal with. Separation of powers is a concept that establishes a lot of the boundaries that govt has to respect, and I think that needs to be applied most assiduously by those who provide the means whereby citizens can vote. Failure to do things that way would be, well, unamerican...

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I already answered that question before you even posed it, Shades of Grey, in my initial post to this thread. Belabor it if you want, if it serves to obfuscate the simple fact that requiring picture ID can be used to tailor the electorate more to the liking of whitebread suburbia... by demanding that govt workers serve law enforcement functions as well as those they were hired to do...

I thought one of modern conservatism's big selling points was their rhetoric about containing big brother, about getting govt off people's backs. Somehow, I sense that's being selectively applied, at least if your pov is adopted in states requiring photo ID to vote...

Where I live, the only way you'll ever be apprehended on a warrant is to actually deal with a police officer, rather than to be ratted out by every petty bureaucrat we all have to deal with. Separation of powers is a concept that establishes a lot of the boundaries that govt has to respect, and I think that needs to be applied most assiduously by those who provide the means whereby citizens can vote. Failure to do things that way would be, well, unamerican...

Yeah, damn the rule of law. Warrants mean nothing - just go on about your day :roll:

And no, you haven't answered my questions. What sort of places should you be exempt from being arrested for a warrant? Also, you still haven't said why someone should be able to get an ID or Driver's license with out getting stopped because of a warrant. Hell, you got tagged - no?

This whole BS you created is nothing but diversionary apologism for people who CHOSE not to appear, or pay fines, or whatever else. That is not the fault of the government - it's the fault of the person who made those choices.

 

[Jhhnn]

No, shades of grey, I didn't get "tagged", at all. you need to brush up on reading comprehension. I was refused renewal of my automobile license plates, and informed that I had a warrant, which I promptly took care of. Big difference between that and going to jail, particularly if you can't afford the fine that will likely be imposed... nobody denied me the means to vote, either.

I also went to the building dept the same day, for building permits, and probably could have entered and done business in a couple of dozen other state or local govt offices without incident, other than the cop shop, even with that unknown warrant on me... which, I contend, is the way it should be. Everybody just does their own job, not the cops' job, too...

You really don't get it, that your pov is actually encouraging Big Brother conduct from the govt, do you? Every clerk and metermaid having the power and the obligation to bust your chops because of unrelated offences, even to have you arrested on the spot...

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
No, shades of grey, I didn't get "tagged", at all. you need to brush up on reading comprehension. I was refused renewal of my automobile license plates, and informed that I had a warrant, which I promptly took care of. Big difference between that and going to jail, particularly if you can't afford the fine that will likely be imposed... nobody denied me the means to vote, either.

I also went to the building dept the same day, for building permits, and probably could have entered and done business in a couple of dozen other state or local govt offices without incident, other than the cop shop, even with that unknown warrant on me... which, I contend, is the way it should be. Everybody just does their own job, not the cops' job, too...

You really don't get it, that your pov is actually encouraging Big Brother conduct from the govt, do you? Every clerk and metermaid having the power and the obligation to bust your chops because of unrelated offences, even to have you arrested on the spot...

I've suggested no such thing.

You still haven't answered the questions though. I suppose you'll just continue to ignore them but continue with your distortions of what I've said.

 

[Jhhnn]

Funny thing about the written word, shades of grey. It's tough to say one thing, and then claim that you never did. You said this-

"If a person has a failure to appear WARRANT - they are NOT exempt from being detained if they go to USE GOVERNMENT systems. It has nothing to do with voting - it has to do with law enforcement. This should and could happen at the DMV, local building permit office, or whatever. The deal is - if you try to use the government and you have a WARRANT out for your arrest - what it is you are going to the Government for has no bearing on whether or not you can/should be detained. If you have a warrant for your arrest - you will be detained - PERIOD. "

Before that, you said this-

"A person who fails to appear and has a warrant should not be given a free pass just to give you a warm and fuzzy feeling. People make choices in life - if you choose not to appear and a warrant is issued - you can and will be arrested no matter what you are attempting to do."

I had a lot of trouble finding any sort of shading in your statements, at all... that you basically contend that every govt office computer system tag the names of minor offenders with orders to have them arrested if they show their face... which, according to you, isn't big brother, at all, but something else entirely... I suppose it won't really be that until every credit card reader in north america serves the same function...

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Funny thing about the written word, shades of grey. It's tough to say one thing, and then claim that you never did. You said this-

"If a person has a failure to appear WARRANT - they are NOT exempt from being detained if they go to USE GOVERNMENT systems. It has nothing to do with voting - it has to do with law enforcement. This should and could happen at the DMV, local building permit office, or whatever. The deal is - if you try to use the government and you have a WARRANT out for your arrest - what it is you are going to the Government for has no bearing on whether or not you can/should be detained. If you have a warrant for your arrest - you will be detained - PERIOD. "

Before that, you said this-

"A person who fails to appear and has a warrant should not be given a free pass just to give you a warm and fuzzy feeling. People make choices in life - if you choose not to appear and a warrant is issued - you can and will be arrested no matter what you are attempting to do."

I had a lot of trouble finding any sort of shading in your statements, at all... that you basically contend that every govt office computer system tag the names of minor offenders with orders to have them arrested if they show their face... which, according to you, isn't big brother, at all, but something else entirely... I suppose it won't really be that until every credit card reader in north america serves the same function...

Way to project and exaggerate. I said nothing of the like however. I never said these places needed to go after people - I did however say people who have warrants shouldn't be exempt from being arrested. You see, you want to twist that into saying everyone should be an agent - arresting people. That simply is not the case. What I've stated and the quotes you pulled state - is that I don't believe you should be exempt from capture/arrest if you have a warrant - especially if trying to use the very government that has put a warrant out for your arrest. Try thinking about what I've said instead of continuously jumping to those asinine conclusions.

Now answer the questions:
"So please tell me why someone who has a warrant out for their arrest should be able to go into the DMV and get an ID without being taken into custody? Is there any other place that people should be exempt from being arrested if they have a warrant? "

 

[Jhhnn]

Funny how actually quoting you turns out to be a method to project and exaggerate, Shades of Grey. They're your words, and the meaning seems perfectly clear every time I read them-- hasn't changed a bit, except perhaps in your own mind...

"The deal is - if you try to use the government and you have a WARRANT out for your arrest - what it is you are going to the Government for has no bearing on whether or not you can/should be detained. If you have a warrant for your arrest - you will be detained - PERIOD. "

Obviously, there's not going to be a cop in every govt office at all times, so somebody has to summon them, or perform the actual detention you mention on their own, right?

"you will be detained - PERIOD." seems pretty clear to me, unless, of course, you'd care to explain how it actually means something else...

And while I've already pointed out that your "question" was answered even before you asked it, I'll humor you by quoting myself-

"While I agree that they should take care of such matters in a timely fashion, I don't agree that they should fundamentally be prevented from voting because of them... which is what an ID requirement would do... unless the practice of arresting minor miscreants when they appear to obtain ID is curtailed... "

Perhaps you just couldn't find it- it's the ninth post down, the first one under my nick...

Which means that such persons are fair game for the police under any other circumstances, not that every functionary will be required to rat them out, or attempt to stall them long enough for the police to arrive...

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Funny how actually quoting you turns out to be a method to project and exaggerate, Shades of Grey. They're your words, and the meaning seems perfectly clear every time I read them-- hasn't changed a bit, except perhaps in your own mind...

"The deal is - if you try to use the government and you have a WARRANT out for your arrest - what it is you are going to the Government for has no bearing on whether or not you can/should be detained. If you have a warrant for your arrest - you will be detained - PERIOD. "

Obviously, there's not going to be a cop in every govt office at all times, so somebody has to summon them, or perform the actual detention you mention on their own, right?

"you will be detained - PERIOD." seems pretty clear to me, unless, of course, you'd care to explain how it actually means something else...

And while I've already pointed out that your "question" was answered even before you asked it, I'll humor you by quoting myself-

"While I agree that they should take care of such matters in a timely fashion, I don't agree that they should fundamentally be prevented from voting because of them... which is what an ID requirement would do... unless the practice of arresting minor miscreants when they appear to obtain ID is curtailed... "

Perhaps you just couldn't find it- it's the ninth post down, the first one under my nick...

Which means that such persons are fair game for the police under any other circumstances, not that every functionary will be required to rat them out, or attempt to stall them long enough for the police to arrive...

So detaining people at the DMV is fine? Is there any place that they will be exempt from being detained?

Now again, NO WHERE did I say that it would be the responsibility of other agencies to detain people for warrants, but I did say that these places wouldn't provide a person a place of exemption. But ofcourse you can't see such simple things and have to complicate and imagine more than what is said. I'm not surprised though, I've read alot of your posts here and it's seems you make a habbit of distorting and projecting.

 

[351Cleveland]

If you broke the law, going to get an ID shouldnt be a get out of jail free card. That said, who is going to sit police at the BMV branch in the off chance someone with warrants against them comes in to vote?

Free ID's. Require them. Simple. Anything else is an attempt to "find" a flaw with the system so you can invalidate it and leave the door open for fraud. I say "you," I dont mean YOU.

You cannot make out an argument against ID's if they are free. Someone might get arrested? Too bad. Shouldn't have broken the law (or put yourself in the position where you are suspected of breaking the law... it really takes effort to get in that position).

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
So the penalty for failure to appear really is denial of the right to vote by your standards, Shades of Grey? Funny how your nick and your pov don't match in this particular instance....

As I've pointed out, there's lots of room to establish picture ID as a voting standard, but that the process shouldn't be used to achieve other ends, otherwise it will disenfranchise legitimate voters. So long as it's free, without complications, transferrable state to state and includes automatic registration for the life of the document, I think it's a fine idea.

That's not what's currently happening, however... to use it as a law enforcement tool, or as a revenue gathering device defeats the purpose. Well, if the purpose is to have honest elections based on the broadest legitimate voter base possible...

No, it isnt a penalty. I dont even know how you make this argument. The penalty for failing to show is being arrested. Your arguement is akin to saying penalty for failing to appear is that you miss your midday soaps because you were arrested.

Transfer state to state doesnt work. Each state has its own laws. Each state administers and maintains the voter rolls. Each state should issue it's own idea when you register to vote in that state.

It isnt dienfranchisement. Because you got arrested for allegedly (gotta throw that in there) breaking the law? It isnt as if you showed up at the polls and they wrote up a warrant right then and there.

Again I say, you are looking for it not to work because you dont want it to work.

 

[Jhhnn]

Your own words, Shades of Grey-

"The deal is - if you try to use the government and you have a WARRANT out for your arrest - what it is you are going to the Government for has no bearing on whether or not you can/should be detained. If you have a warrant for your arrest - you will be detained - PERIOD. "

"you will be detained - PERIOD. "

"you will be detained - PERIOD. "

"you will be detained - PERIOD. "

"you will be detained - PERIOD. "

Which seems to conflict with your latest bit of song and dance-

"Now again, NO WHERE did I say that it would be the responsibility of other agencies to detain people for warrants"

You're now specifying no agencies other than the DMV and the police, rather than the previous blanket endorsement of Big Brother-

" what it is you are going to the Government for has no bearing on whether or not you can/should be detained."

By your reasoning, the cops should hang out at the polling places on election day, so they can bust miscreants who've just snitched themselves off by showing ID...

I mean, it's perfectly OK with me if you want to revise your stance, but trying to do so without making the admission that you are is less than honest...

And it really doesn't change the fact that procedures such as you advocate will obviously deter more than a few folks from getting the ID necessary to vote, something I object to on principle alone.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Obviously, it shouldn't matter if you have an outstanding warrant if you don't know about it.

Can't people convicted of misdemeanors vote from jail, anyway?

 

[piasabird]

So you are against the requirement to have a photo ID to vote because you want to protect criminals?

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Your own words, Shades of Grey-

"The deal is - if you try to use the government and you have a WARRANT out for your arrest - what it is you are going to the Government for has no bearing on whether or not you can/should be detained. If you have a warrant for your arrest - you will be detained - PERIOD. "

"you will be detained - PERIOD. "

"you will be detained - PERIOD. "

"you will be detained - PERIOD. "

"you will be detained - PERIOD. "

Which seems to conflict with your latest bit of song and dance-

"Now again, NO WHERE did I say that it would be the responsibility of other agencies to detain people for warrants"

You're now specifying no agencies other than the DMV and the police, rather than the previous blanket endorsement of Big Brother-

" what it is you are going to the Government for has no bearing on whether or not you can/should be detained."

By your reasoning, the cops should hang out at the polling places on election day, so they can bust miscreants who've just snitched themselves off by showing ID...

I mean, it's perfectly OK with me if you want to revise your stance, but trying to do so without making the admission that you are is less than honest...

And it really doesn't change the fact that procedures such as you advocate will obviously deter more than a few folks from getting the ID necessary to vote, something I object to on principle alone.

No, it's not by my reasoning - it's by your assumptions, projections, and delusions that you think I'm saying cops should hang out at the polling places. ALL I've stated is that you shouldn't be exempt from arrest if you have a warrant out for your arrest just because you are getting an ID. If you have a warrant out for your arrest - you WILL BE DETAINED - PERIOD. IT doesn't matter where you are - you will be detained. YOU seem to think that people getting an ID should be able to do so without worry they'll be arrested.
So the only thing that is less than honest is your portrayal of what I've repeatedly stated. You can continue to jump to conclusions with your asinine reasoning and projection - but you can't call it the truth. I've repeatedly told you, you were WAY off base yet you still try make the same idiotic claims.

So please try to answer the questions. Is the DMV a place where authorities can detain people who have warrants out for their arrest? Is there any place that it is OK? What is off-limits in your mind?

 

[Jhhnn]

Let's examine the actual mechanism required to achieve the results of the "you will be detained- Period." rant you seem so intent upon defending, Shades.

Enter the Drivers' License Bureau, or any other state/local govt office. Notice that the people who work there are not police, they're civil servants, mostly clerks. Go to the window, present yourself to obtain ID or do business of one kind or another. They type your info into the computer, and it indicates that there are warrants for your arrest. How will you be detained, and by whom? What course of action leads to your detention? Should the police be stationed there during business hours just to handle the possibility, or should they be summoned when required? How is the whole scenario not a facet of the Rightwing version of Big Brother, where all govt functions are integrated into a single law enforcement mechanism?

You also ignore the basic contradiction and irony of the whole thing, anyway. If self identification in pursuit of the ID necessary for voting is sufficient cause for detention, under the right circumstances, why then is self identification not sufficient grounds for voting in the first place?

Or are we just entering into another effort to better shape the electorate to the desires of those currently in power, along the lines of literacy tests, poll taxes, prohibitions on former felons voting, having to register on the right kind of paper, having to re-register if you don't vote in one election, and having to wait in line for 7 or 8 hours in selected districts when there are no lines at all in neighboring districts more friendly to those currently in power?

Yeh, I know that the whole concept of "winning" has consumed the Right for years, but at some point or another the means to accomplish that become cancerous, threatening the whole concept of democracy. It's like claiming unemployment is down when the number of discouraged workers no longer seeking work is exploding- much the same kind of illusion is created by the vast number of discouraged and disallowed voters in this country. Given the time and tools, I'm sure that future election victories for the Rightwing can easily be overwhelming, much like those of Saddam Hussein...

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Let's examine the actual mechanism required to achieve the results of the "you will be detained- Period." rant you seem so intent upon defending, Shades.

Enter the Drivers' License Bureau, or any other state/local govt office. Notice that the people who work there are not police, they're civil servants, mostly clerks. Go to the window, present yourself to obtain ID or do business of one kind or another. They type your info into the computer, and it indicates that there are warrants for your arrest. How will you be detained, and by whom? What course of action leads to your detention? Should the police be stationed there during business hours just to handle the possibility, or should they be summoned when required? How is the whole scenario not a facet of the Rightwing version of Big Brother, where all govt functions are integrated into a single law enforcement mechanism?

You also ignore the basic contradiction and irony of the whole thing, anyway. If self identification in pursuit of the ID necessary for voting is sufficient cause for detention, under the right circumstances, why then is self identification not sufficient grounds for voting in the first place?

Or are we just entering into another effort to better shape the electorate to the desires of those currently in power, along the lines of literacy tests, poll taxes, prohibitions on former felons voting, having to register on the right kind of paper, having to re-register if you don't vote in one election, and having to wait in line for 7 or 8 hours in selected districts when there are no lines at all in neighboring districts more friendly to those currently in power?

Yeh, I know that the whole concept of "winning" has consumed the Right for years, but at some point or another the means to accomplish that become cancerous, threatening the whole concept of democracy. It's like claiming unemployment is down when the number of discouraged workers no longer seeking work is exploding- much the same kind of illusion is created by the vast number of discouraged and disallowed voters in this country. Given the time and tools, I'm sure that future election victories for the Rightwing can easily be overwhelming, much like those of Saddam Hussein...

Nice try with the diversion Jhhnn, but you are reading far too much into the situation. Remember, YOU started this whole "warrant" issue and yet here you sit constructing arguments I'm not even making.
Do you deny the fact that people who have warrants out for their arrest will be detained? Should there be any places or activities that people should be exempt from being detained if they do have such a warrant out for their arrest?
Why won't you address the questions? Why do you keep trying to project and making claims about what I've said?
Why do you then dive straight into the conspiracy waters and start flailing about some supposed Right-wing conspiracy?

Keep it up though, it's great entertainment and quite telling about how some on the far left think.

 

[Jhhnn]

I have addressed the questions, Shades, even before you asked them, and have now pointed that out three times.

You're starting to remind me of a now banned poster, CsG, whose very stubborness and selective comprehension skills are legendary, and who generally employed the same tactics of asking the same question repeatedly, even after answers had been provided. I suspect that you'll continue until you hear what you want to hear, rather than paying attention to what's actually been said.

You have a few answers to provide, yourself, particularly as to how such detentions will actually be accomplished, the mechanism employed to achieve such captures, and as to the desirability of making every public servant into an agent of the police.

Which, I'm quite confident you'll continue to ignore, simply because addressing them would reveal the poorly concealed authoritarian nature of your arguments... which are basically that only the "right people" should be allowed to vote, and that new mechanisms to achieve that end must be implemented whenever possible...

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Let's examine the actual mechanism required to achieve the results of the "you will be detained- Period." rant you seem so intent upon defending, Shades.

Enter the Drivers' License Bureau, or any other state/local govt office. Notice that the people who work there are not police, they're civil servants, mostly clerks. Go to the window, present yourself to obtain ID or do business of one kind or another. They type your info into the computer, and it indicates that there are warrants for your arrest. How will you be detained, and by whom? What course of action leads to your detention? Should the police be stationed there during business hours just to handle the possibility, or should they be summoned when required? How is the whole scenario not a facet of the Rightwing version of Big Brother, where all govt functions are integrated into a single law enforcement mechanism?

You also ignore the basic contradiction and irony of the whole thing, anyway. If self identification in pursuit of the ID necessary for voting is sufficient cause for detention, under the right circumstances, why then is self identification not sufficient grounds for voting in the first place?

Or are we just entering into another effort to better shape the electorate to the desires of those currently in power, along the lines of literacy tests, poll taxes, prohibitions on former felons voting, having to register on the right kind of paper, having to re-register if you don't vote in one election, and having to wait in line for 7 or 8 hours in selected districts when there are no lines at all in neighboring districts more friendly to those currently in power?

Yeh, I know that the whole concept of "winning" has consumed the Right for years, but at some point or another the means to accomplish that become cancerous, threatening the whole concept of democracy. It's like claiming unemployment is down when the number of discouraged workers no longer seeking work is exploding- much the same kind of illusion is created by the vast number of discouraged and disallowed voters in this country. Given the time and tools, I'm sure that future election victories for the Rightwing can easily be overwhelming, much like those of Saddam Hussein...

Nice try with the diversion Jhhnn, but you are reading far too much into the situation. Remember, YOU started this whole "warrant" issue and yet here you sit constructing arguments I'm not even making.
Do you deny the fact that people who have warrants out for their arrest will be detained? Should there be any places or activities that people should be exempt from being detained if they do have such a warrant out for their arrest?
Why won't you address the questions? Why do you keep trying to project and making claims about what I've said?
Why do you then dive straight into the conspiracy waters and start flailing about some supposed Right-wing conspiracy?

Keep it up though, it's great entertainment and quite telling about how some on the far left think.

Jhhnn argument is simple. He's saying "Let the People vote!!". You can't have a real democracy when you start curtailing the people's right to vote.