Would It Make A Difference?

[quadraginta]

No, they aren't.

I'd be inclined to include the "moderate" group with the liberals since any die-hard conservative would.

In party candidate nominations races any Republican who self-identified as a moderate would be vilified as somewhere to the left of Karl Marx by the others in the race.

By conservative standards "moderate" has become the new "liberal'. They've been doing their best to make that a pejorative for years now.

If that's how they want to classify, I'm not going to argue with them. As the polls you cited show, that's just putting themselves into a minority.

 

[Dinwar]

How does a birth certificate work? I do not live in the town I was born in, and I never did. And I'd guess that holds true for 90%+ of the population.

Why would that matter? It's proof you were born here, and unless you've expatriated at some point you're still a citizen.

Now you're back to a government-issued ID, which the Democrats tell us is extremely racist.

I think they're wrong.

Nonsense, the Dems say any ID requirement is racist, even when they're free of charge.

We're supposed to uncritically accept their assertions.......why, exactly? The cynic in me wants to point out that eliminating ID requirements eliminates illegal alliens, who are in voting blocks that frequently vote Democrat. Not precisely an unbiased sorce of information there.

Besides, I don't think you fully understand what I was talking about. Government-issued IDs aren't, under my scheme, a requirement for voting; they are, rather, automatic registration for voting. I specifically left in a route for those who don't have government-issued IDs to register, because the goal was merely to simplify the process. Most people get driver's licenses in the USA; therefore, if you count a driver's license as voter registration, most people will automatically be registered to vote. They don't NEED to vote, but if they choose to they can just show up, show their license, and fill out the ballot. It's one among several options.

But I don't know why a birth certificate would work.

Okay, let's say it doesn't (any municipality or state that doesn't have tax records is too incompetant to operate an election, but let's ignore that). Other things work as well. I've got a copy of my mortgage agreement, and before that rental agreements--hard to establish residency beyond "Here's the agreement I signed to live here". It also quite neatly cuts the government out of the loop entirely for most people.

City-issued paychecks (police, fire-fighters, EMTs/medics, members of the city government, teachers, etc) would work as well, with the caveat that teachers would be a bit more tricky since they may not live in the area they teach in.

My point being, there are forms of evidence for residency that aren't government-issued IDs. If we accept that government-issued IDs are racist (a nonsensical notion that remains unsupported), there are other options. The point, after all, is merely to make sure that fraud does not occur. Goverrnment-issued IDs simplify the process tremendously, because they are used for other purposes and therefore have had the kinks worked out (as much as possible, anyway), but if we're willing to put the effort in, other proof of residency is possible. Moronic and a waste of time, but possible.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'd be inclined to include the "moderate" group with the liberals since any die-hard conservative would.

In party candidate nominations races any Republican who self-identified as a moderate would be vilified as somewhere to the left of Karl Marx by the others in the race.

By conservative standards "moderate" has become the new "liberal'. They've been doing their best to make that a pejorative for years now.

If that's how they want to classify, I'm not going to argue with them. As the polls you cited show, that's just putting themselves into a minority.

So the truth doesn't matter to you, just whatever spin will give you partisan advantage.

Got it.

 

[WildCat]

Why would that matter? It's proof you were born here, and unless you've expatriated at some point you're still a citizen.

It shows you're a citizen, but doesn't show what state you live in, what state and federal legislative district you live in, what county you live in, what ward you live in, what precinct you live in. All of which are necessary to know which ballot you get.

Besides, I don't think you fully understand what I was talking about. Government-issued IDs aren't, under my scheme, a requirement for voting; they are, rather, automatic registration for voting. I specifically left in a route for those who don't have government-issued IDs to register, because the goal was merely to simplify the process. Most people get driver's licenses in the USA; therefore, if you count a driver's license as voter registration, most people will automatically be registered to vote. They don't NEED to vote, but if they choose to they can just show up, show their license, and fill out the ballot. It's one among several options.

Okay, let's say it doesn't (any municipality or state that doesn't have tax records is too incompetant to operate an election, but let's ignore that). Other things work as well. I've got a copy of my mortgage agreement, and before that rental agreements--hard to establish residency beyond "Here's the agreement I signed to live here". It also quite neatly cuts the government out of the loop entirely for most people.

City-issued paychecks (police, fire-fighters, EMTs/medics, members of the city government, teachers, etc) would work as well, with the caveat that teachers would be a bit more tricky since they may not live in the area they teach in.

My point being, there are forms of evidence for residency that aren't government-issued IDs. If we accept that government-issued IDs are racist (a nonsensical notion that remains unsupported), there are other options. The point, after all, is merely to make sure that fraud does not occur. Goverrnment-issued IDs simplify the process tremendously, because they are used for other purposes and therefore have had the kinks worked out (as much as possible, anyway), but if we're willing to put the effort in, other proof of residency is possible. Moronic and a waste of time, but possible.

Those things you mention require active participation by the voter, so couldn't be done automatically. And a mailing address doesn't show residency either, nor do property records. Lots of people own multiple homes, but only one counts as a residency for voting purposes. I can get a PO box in Wisconsin, but that doesn't mean I can vote there.

 

[quadraginta]

So the truth doesn't matter to you, just whatever spin will give you partisan advantage.

Got it.

You misspelled "truthiness".

I was merely offering an opinion about conservatives' perceptions of and behavior toward self-described "moderates, as opposed to the Gallup poll classifications you seemed to be relying on.

I don't see anything particularly partisan about that.

The vehemence of your reply, on the other hand ...

Are you not aware of the disdain such outlets as Fox News apply to self- described "moderates". Or even the ones who don't describe themselves that way, but might, on a rare occasion, make some mention of something that could (by squinting) be viewed as less than whole-heartedly conservative?

"Moderate Republican" has become synonymous with "RINO" in most if not all conservative discourse.

I guess that makes me a partisan, somehow.

 

[Dinwar]

t shows you're a citizen, but doesn't show what state you live in, what state and federal legislative district you live in, what county you live in, what ward you live in, what precinct you live in. All of which are necessary to know which ballot you get.

All of which are available via records already on file with the government--for example, tax records. Again, any government institution too stupid to keep good tax records is too stupid to run an effective election anyway.

Those things you mention require active participation by the voter, so couldn't be done automatically.

There's only one thing that's automatic that I was discussing: a driver's license would automatically register one to vote. If we make voting automatic, it rather defeates the purpose. So I'm not sure what you're even saying here. The rest of the stuff I've mentioned is stuff that proves residency, without being government-issued IDs.

And a mailing address doesn't show residency either, nor do property records. Lots of people own multiple homes, but only one counts as a residency for voting purposes.

You must have signed a different mortgage than I have. Every one I've signed specifically asks if this home will be your primary residency. Granted, folks can purger themselves--but then, you can also get fake voter registration paperwork, so it's not much of an objection.

Again, I get that it'd take some effort to sort through. I specifically mentioned that, in fact. It would be somewhat nighmarish to deal with, truth be told. But we CAN use those to prove residency, is my only point. It's tricky, and there are ways to abuse the system, but there are already laws in place to address voter fraud (a recent xkcd comic comes to mind regarding your objection) and if we must do away with using government IDs (a stance that's unsupported by anything but "The Demms say it's racist") it IS possible.

 

[Ziggurat]

You misspelled "truthiness".

I was merely offering an opinion about conservatives' perceptions of and behavior toward self-described "moderates, as opposed to the Gallup poll classifications you seemed to be relying on.

Your opinion about conservatives' perception is irrelevant and off topic, as it had nothing to do with the claim I addressed, a claim which is demonstrably false.

 

[Lowpro]

It shows you're a citizen, but doesn't show what state you live in, what state and federal legislative district you live in, what county you live in, what ward you live in, what precinct you live in. All of which are necessary to know which ballot you get.


Those things you mention require active participation by the voter, so couldn't be done automatically. And a mailing address doesn't show residency either, nor do property records. Lots of people own multiple homes, but only one counts as a residency for voting purposes. I can get a PO box in Wisconsin, but that doesn't mean I can vote there.

Residency is determined by state law so it will serve as determining residency. I assume most voting laws have already had to answer these questions so let's fall back on those. The only issue with respect to automatic registration is how it follows...let's call it "provenance" for the individual. Social Security now is registered with your birth certificate (assuming your parents had some modicum of responsibility anyways; there are cases of homebirths that remain unregistered for awhile but eventually you'll get tracked down) so we can use that as an example of automatic voting registration.

If we use that example, when you're born, you're registered to vote, and your vote will be valid once your status in the law is recognized such as appropriate age, nationality, and all things already explicated in the law. The issues of ballot have no bearing on automatic registration, just the ballot you can vote for so it's irrelevant which means this discussion of residency is irrelevant (specifically, it's irrelevant to automatic voter registration. It's quite relevant to the ballot).

I think automatic voting registration at birth is a good idea. I don't know whether it will have much effect in changing voter fraud (not that there is much anyways) but you never know.

 

[Ziggurat]

All of which are available via records already on file with the government--for example, tax records.

No. Your filed returns indicate your primary residence state for the previous year, but they do not show your current residence (only your current mailing address). Other records (such as your employer W2 forms) only show mailing address, and not everyone is required to file a return. And not every eligible voter even has tax records. Those not employed may have nothing on file for the previous year, and college students may have nothing on record at all for any year.

So no, this is NOT all available already.

 

[Ziggurat]

The issues of ballot have no bearing on automatic registration, just the ballot you can vote for so it's irrelevant which means this discussion of residency is irrelevant (specifically, it's irrelevant to automatic voter registration. It's quite relevant to the ballot).

No. The issue of residency is not irrelevant at all to the issue of voter registration. You seem confused about what voter registration even means, and what its purpose is.

 

[quadraginta]

Your opinion about conservatives' perception is irrelevant and off topic,

No, it isn't. Certainly not just because you say so.

as it had nothing to do with the claim I addressed,

Yes, it does.

a claim which is demonstrably false.

Not if the only demonstration is the cite you offered.

That was my point. The terms are incredibly malleable. The overlap in this case between self-described "moderate" and "liberal" from the point of view of most self-described "conservatives" is huge. It may, in fact, amount to a distinction without a difference to them.

As I said, common usage by most self-described "conservative" media outlets certainly seem to perceive it that way.

This isn't partisan, this is observation.


(NB; The polls you cited were responses from "self-described" respondents. I guess they would have to be, since universally agreed upon definitions seem to be quite impossible in the political arena.)

 

[Dinwar]

No. Your filed returns indicate your primary residence state for the previous year, but they do not show your current residence (only your current mailing address).

Okay, so you vote where you lived last year. Not a terrible impossition for 99% of the population--the only time it would be a pain is if you move.

And I'm not saying to pick one here, either. The whole point of government-issued IDs is to have a great deal of info in one place, that would otherwise be scattered. If we disallow government-issued IDs, we'd need to accept multiple forms of proof of residence. I could bring in my W-2, with the understanding that if I have moved in the past year it's purgery and voter fraud. You could bring in a mortgage contract that specifies that it is your primary residence, along with a copy of your latest payment. tsig could bring in his voting record on the town council. And so on. In small enough towns I can imagine people just being accepted ("I know you live here, grandson; go on in"). Basically, anything that proves you lived there would have to be accepted.

Again, nightmarish. Again, tremendously difficult. Again, possible.

Social Security now is registered with your birth certificate (assuming your parents had some modicum of responsibility anyways; there are cases of homebirths that remain unregistered for awhile but eventually you'll get tracked down) so we can use that as an example of automatic voting registration.

For some reason I recall needing to wait a bit to fill out that paperwork for my son, back in California. I forget why. I know we filled it out before he was discharged, but he spent some time in the NICU, so I'm a tad fuzzy on the details. Anyway, it was fast enough that it happened before he could hold his own head up, much less vote, so for the purposes of this discussion it's irrelevant.

 

[Lowpro]

No. The issue of residency is not irrelevant at all to the issue of voter registration. You seem confused about what voter registration even means, and what its purpose is.

Oh if I'm confused then enlighten me. I mentioned the issue of provenance, which IS a matter of residency, matters. If automatic registration occurred at birth (similar to giving SSN's) then registration for the states is irrelevant, shifting instead to the residency at the time you cast your vote and that can be answered within the states' voting laws.

If that would not be the case then where is my mistake? Bear in mind I was saying residency is not an issue IN MY EXAMPLE, not in our current voting registration system.

 

[Ziggurat]

Okay, so you vote where you lived last year. Not a terrible impossition for 99% of the population--the only time it would be a pain is if you move.

Your percentages are off. Plus, tax records DO NOT solve the issue of residency even on a delayed basis. I don't need to tell the IRS where I actually live, only my mailing address (yes, they call it the home address, but you can put in whatever you want). State tax authorities need to know what state I live in, but often nothing more than that (except, again, a mailing address), which isn't sufficient. And for young voters who don't yet have a tax record history, you haven't even suggested a solution.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh if I'm confused then enlighten me. I mentioned the issue of provenance, which IS a matter of residency, matters. If automatic registration occurred at birth (similar to giving SSN's) then registration for the states is irrelevant, shifting instead to the residency at the time you cast your vote and that can be answered within the states' voting laws.

If that would not be the case then where is my mistake? Bear in mind I was saying residency is not an issue IN MY EXAMPLE, not in our current voting registration system.

Registration for the states is not irrelevant. Voting is handled at the state level by constitutional requirement. And even if it were handled federally, you're really just creating a two-step registration process ("register" at birth, then register again to indicate voting location) but refusing to call the second step "voter registration". Which, if your point is to simply not label it as "voter registration", sure, that'll work. But that's all you'll be able to do.

 

[Ziggurat]

That was my point. The terms are incredibly malleable. The overlap in this case between self-described "moderate" and "liberal" from the point of view of most self-described "conservatives" is huge. It may, in fact, amount to a distinction without a difference to them.

Tell me, quadraginta: do you think thaiboxerken is a self-described "conservative"?

 

[quadraginta]

Tell me, quadraginta: do you think thaiboxerken is a self-described "conservative"?

Shouldn't you ask him?

I was discussing the implications and interpretation of the poll you cited.

That's all.

 

[Ziggurat]

Shouldn't you ask him?

I already know the answer, he doesn't keep it a secret, which is why your response is irrelevant to my exchange with him.

 

[Dinwar]

And for young voters who don't yet have a tax record history, you haven't even suggested a solution.

This more than anything else cuts to the heart of the matter: You are assuming that my EXAMPLES are an exhaustive list. I pointed out that ANYTHING that establishes proof of residency would be sufficient--and I included voting record from a town council member to illustrate just how wide this net is. Member of a local church? Proof of residency. Attend a school in the area? Could be proof of residency; it was when I went to college (there were tax issues involved, since I was working for the university in the summer). Get put under house arrest? Proof of residency. Have a note witnessed by a notary saying "I live in this house"? Proof of registry. In all cases yes, it can be fraudulant--but every method of registration is subject to those, so that's not a counter-argument.

All of that was specifically to point out the flaws in refusing government IDs. Without those, we're left with the type of mayhem I've described.

 

[Lowpro]

Registration for the states is not irrelevant. Voting is handled at the state level by constitutional requirement. And even if it were handled federally, you're really just creating a two-step registration process ("register" at birth, then register again to indicate voting location) but refusing to call the second step "voter registration". Which, if your point is to simply not label it as "voter registration", sure, that'll work. But that's all you'll be able to do.

Actually I think that's still preferable overall. It divests the states from responsibility in accrediting a voting license, leaving that up to the "voting registration" you receive when you're born, and the capacity you can vote at the ballot is written in the state laws such as necessary age, residency etc etc. The state's no longer require you to provide that beforehand, and then take the time to process the request (or target registration drives' requests) or restrict early voting or end same-day registration because they no longer can. The vote is as valid as the provenance which is handled by the voter.

The obvious question then becomes how is the provenance evaluated to adhere to state laws: would that provenance have to be "registered". If the form is similar to Alabama's:

http://www.alabamavotes.gov/downloads/election/vr/nvra-2.pdf

Then age is inherent to the voter, citizenry is part of their "birth registration", and any disqualifications by felony or judicial decision are obtainable by law. Your county is inherent to your residence (which is defined in state law). This needs no registry from the state nor approval to allow that person to cast a vote (philosophically speaking of course). Any voter registration drive can do this per person and basically build that provenance for the individual and leaves it to them.

And if that blows your mind...North Dakota does this. They don't register voters because it's unnecessary. And they're doing just fine. The reason I like the "registration at birth" is to specifically divest all states of the capacity to establish voter registration per state. It shouldn't be there (again, philosophically speaking).