Politics

[In Lou I Trust]

With all due respect to Mr. Denniston, he is either intentionally misstating both the issue and the law for political reasons, or he is simply mistaken. In either case, he is wrong (in my opinion - even the best judges in the world disagree on most legal issues but I would suspect I'd win this argument if we argued it in front of a panel of constitutional lawyers and judges).

You must be quite the accomplished lawyer. Lyle Denniston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[connor_in]

I get that this might be a nuanced point (although it shouldn't be), but the difference between buying booze or driving a car or getting into my office building and voting is that voting is a fundamental right. Which means that the government cannot infringe upon that right without a compelling reason (note: you may think the threat of fraud is a compelling reason, this is a legal term of art and is an almost impossible standard to satisfy - it is the highest standard in judicial review).

The same thing that may intuitively suggest to you that voter ID is so important is ironically the reason why it is probably unconstitutional: it's importance. The issue is that many poor people do not have drivers licenses, and forcing them to get one in order to vote is the equivalent of a poll tax (which is unconstitutional). If states wanted to give everyone a state-issued photo ID for free, that's probably ok. But the timing of getting them to everyone is an issue (must be done well ahead of time), and what do you do in the case where someone loses their ID? They lose their right to vote??

Will we be reqired to have ID to pay the mandatory tax for not buying our own health insurance?

 

[Rhode Irish]

You must be quite the accomplished lawyer. Lyle Denniston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know who he is, I am familiar with his site and have read it numerous times. Without getting too much into my background, I feel like I have a good enough handle in this issue to disagree with him. I'm sure he could find other respected scholars and judges who support his view; so could I. The nature of the law doesn't lend itself to an expert giving a definitive answer to a question like the one posed in his blog entry. It's largely opinion and interpretation. I think his opinion/interpretation of the issue and the controlling law is wrong in this instance. And I'm pretty confident I'd win in court (as the democrats repeatedly have).

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

I wonder if ND players support Obama......

 

[In Lou I Trust]

I wonder if ND players support Obama......

Probably. He identifies with kids more than Romney.

 

[GoIrish41]

So not to get off topic but I was talking to a coworker earlier about the Electoral College. What say y'all about it? Keep it or toss it?

If you lose it, small states "voice" would be drown out by big states. If you keep it, there is the possibility that a candidate can win the popular vote and still lose the election. I say keep it, although I was really, really torn about it when Gore lost the election.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

If you lose it, small states "voice" would be drown out by big states. If you keep it, there is the possibility that a candidate can win the popular vote and still lose the election. I say keep it, although I was really, really torn about it when Gore lost the election.

What if it weren't by popular vote either. What if it was by the number of states each candidate won?

 

[GoIrish41]

What if it weren't by popular vote either. What if it was by the number of states each candidate won?

Then the 1 million people who live in a small state would have much, much more political say than the 50 million who live in a big state. I don't think you could convince either California or Texas that this was a good idea.

 

[ab2cmiller]

I know who he is, I am familiar with his site and have read it numerous times. Without getting too much into my background, I feel like I have a good enough handle in this issue to disagree with him. I'm sure he could find other respected scholars and judges who support his view; so could I. The nature of the law doesn't lend itself to an expert giving a definitive answer to a question like the one posed in his blog entry. It's largely opinion and interpretation. I think his opinion/interpretation of the issue and the controlling law is wrong in this instance. And I'm pretty confident I'd win in court (as the democrats repeatedly have).

I thought that the voter id laws have been upheld in almost all of the states that have passed laws. The only victory democrats have had has been in regards to timing of when the law would be implemented. I definitely have not researched this to state it as fact.

 

[Downinthebend]

Play The Romney vs Obama Boxing Game

This is unfair! Why don't third party candidates have access to the Boxing Games!

 

[In Lou I Trust]

Does that really matter, though? We're already telling states that they're not as important because they aren't as crowded as other states. Iowa is a larger state than NY but we have 1/5th the amount of electoral votes. So since so much of our land is used for farming and we're not overpopulated we're less important than NY? I just think the current system is horrible and would like to see something else.

To be honest I think popular vote is the only true way to determine a winner.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Does that really matter, though? We're already telling states that they're not as important because they aren't as crowded as other states. Iowa is a larger state than NY but we have 1/5th the amount of electoral votes. So since so much of our land is used for farming and we're not overpopulated we're less important than NY? I just think the current system is horrible and would like to see something else.

There are just a lot more people in NY. A whole lot. I think that matters.

 

[GoIrish41]

Well, there are enough votes in to call it. Romney is President of Leprechaun Lounge.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

There are just a lot more people in NY. A whole lot. I think that matters.

I understand that but popular vote wouldn't make them any less important.

 

[ab2cmiller]

Does that really matter, though? We're already telling states that they're not as important because they aren't as crowded as other states. Iowa is a larger state than NY but we have 1/5th the amount of electoral votes. So since so much of our land is used for farming and we're not overpopulated we're less important than NY? I just think the current system is horrible and would like to see something else.

To be honest I think popular vote is the only true way to determine a winner.

I hope your not suggesting that Alaska gets 17.5% of the votes for president since they are by the largest state in size.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Does that really matter, though? We're already telling states that they're not as important because they aren't as crowded as other states. Iowa is a larger state than NY but we have 1/5th the amount of electoral votes. So since so much of our land is used for farming and we're not overpopulated we're less important than NY? I just think the current system is horrible and would like to see something else.

To be honest I think popular vote is the only true way to determine a winner.

Small states aren't as important as big states. Not the people who live in them, but the states themselves. I've never understood State's rights, they're not people. 1 person 1 vote. So, in the end, I agree with you, electoral college should go and it should be a popular vote.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I understand that but popular vote wouldn't make them any less important.

I've gone back and forth on that. But, I can't imagine a national recount in the event of a contested election. I think we're probably stuck with the best of lots of tough options.

 

[GoIrish41]

Does that really matter, though? We're already telling states that they're not as important because they aren't as crowded as other states. Iowa is a larger state than NY but we have 1/5th the amount of electoral votes. So since so much of our land is used for farming and we're not overpopulated we're less important than NY? I just think the current system is horrible and would like to see something else.

To be honest I think popular vote is the only true way to determine a winner.

Look at the states getting all of the attention today. Ohio has 18 electoral votes. It has many fewer than say, California. Nobody is focusing on California. Ohio matters big time in this election. That is because of the electoral college.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

I hope your not suggesting that Alaska gets 17.5% of the votes for president since they are by the largest state in size.

Hahaha... not at all. Nothing to do with state size.

 

[ab2cmiller]

You go to a popular vote and the candidates will spend time and money primarily in the biggest television markets and most everyone else will be ignored.

You keep the electoral college and only states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia etc get all the time and money. Most everyone else gets ignored.

I'm not sure which one is better.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

The electoral college is definitely imperfect, but most of the time the popular vote winner is also the EC winner, so it's almost no harm no foul most of the time.

There's also so little federalism left from the federal monstrosity we live under, that it's nice to see homage to it once every 4 years.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

Look at the states getting all of the attention today. Ohio has 18 electoral votes. It has many fewer than say, California. Nobody is focusing on California. Ohio matters big time in this election. That is because of the electoral college.

That's because California will always be Democrat just as Texas will always be Republican. They're talking about states that are a possible win by either candidate.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

The electoral college is definitely imperfect, but most of the time the popular vote winner is also the EC winner, so it's almost no harm no foul most of the time.

There's also so little federalism left from the federal monstrosity we live under, that it's nice to see homage to it once every 4 years.

If it was popular vote only, the game would be totally different. Candidates would spend lots more time in strongholds....Obama would be in California a lot to try to motivate the vote in LA. Romney would have been in Houston...EDIT: actually, maybe Utah.

I'm pretty sure that Muscatine, IA wouldn't get much play.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

I guess this all started because it blows my mind that one state (California) holds 1/5th of the needed electoral votes. I understand that it almost always agrees with popular vote but when it doesn't, I take issue with it.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

If it was popular vote only, the game would be totally different. Candidates would spend lots more time in strongholds....Obama would be in California a lot to try to motivate the vote in LA. Romney would have been in Houston...EDIT: actually, maybe Utah.

I'm pretty sure that Muscatine, IA wouldn't get much play.

Muscatine already gets no play. lol

 

[GoIrish41]

I understand that but popular vote wouldn't make them any less important.

Say there is an issue that only affects people who live on the coast, but has little impact on those who live inland. That issue would be addressed every time -- resources would be thrown at it -- because the nation's largest populations are on the coasts. The "coasties" would dominate political policy if it was just simply a popular vote.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

If it was popular vote only, the game would be totally different. Candidates would spend lots more time in strongholds....Obama would be in California a lot to try to motivate the vote in LA. Romney would have been in Houston. I'm pretty sure that Muscatine, IA wouldn't get much play.

Yes, the strategy would defintely be different. (Btw, Romney was in Houston and Obama was in LA, just for fundraising and not vote-getting).

 

[dshans]

The issue is that many poor people do not have drivers licenses, and forcing them to get one in order to vote is the equivalent of a poll tax (which is unconstitutional). If states wanted to give everyone a state-issued photo ID for free, that's probably ok.

It is not just the poor who might not have a drivers license. The notion of a "free" photo ID is a fallacy. There is a cost – whether borne by each and every individual or all through taxes. There is a cost to print forms. There is a cost for the salaries of those who review and process the forms. There is a cost for equipment and materials to take the photos and produce a physical identification card. There is a cost to mail the card should that be necessary. Why incur additional expense for something that has not been shown to be a problem?

As the saying goes, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

Barriers to the most basic American right of voting are abominable. That "the majority of voters see no problem with" any given law only illustrates what Alexis de Tocqueville termed "the tyranny of democracy." There may be safety in numbers, but numbers alone do not make something right. There are examples enough of that in American history. A number of those are referable to just who was allowed to vote and who was not.

That "fiscal conservatives" are the most vocal advocates of something that will only add unnecessary spending is telling to me.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Muscatine already gets no play. lol

You can get some great cantaloupe there. And Anamosa? Hit Pumpkinfest once...doesn't get much better.

 

[ab2cmiller]

If it was popular vote only, the game would be totally different. Candidates would spend lots more time in strongholds....Obama would be in California a lot to try to motivate the vote in LA. Romney would have been in Houston...EDIT: actually, maybe Utah.

I'm pretty sure that Muscatine, IA wouldn't get much play.

You are probably right. Presidential campaigns would probably become more skewed to motivating the base to turnout and vote then it would be to trying to appeal to independents.