OSCE invited to monitor U.S. election, Texas say F off.

[Austupaio]

You know, I had actually forgotten about disabled people; that's a fair point. Although, and this could be a culture-clash thing, it's extremely rare (especially for an elderly person) to not have ID. If you have health insurance and therefore are actually alive whilst being in that bad health; you have an ID.

15 USD is not 15 Pounds; and it's not just to vote. It's not a ticket to vote; it's an identification card. You need it to do anything, drive, apply for a job, make a large purchase with a credit/debit card, get into a bar.

Also, since you mentioned it, I bolded that bit. If you don't have an ID in the States, you're not trying to get employed.

In conclusion, this is a cultural misunderstanding; I didn't realise that having ID in the U.K. was rare. Does no one in your family have any?

Edit; also if there's any aggression being read, it's not actually there. I only started the **** you thing because you ended with the rusty nail bit. **** you, **** me, **** Hyperion.

 

[rejenorst]

The Federal Government can't make the states do anything in this regard. Election rules are left to the states. It's in the Constitution, FFS.

Lol yea the constitution. Like the Federal governments past and present haven't walked all over that already. In any case I did say I wasn't sure, however whether the Federal Government can make and enforce laws on the states is a bit of a grey area in the first place afaik:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

And FFS, stop treating Texas like it's some kind of representative of the rest of the country.

Its a ******** state that's part of the country. It represents a part of the country whether you like it or not. I understand that you would like me to take into account the fact that states can have various laws/opinions and leadership and I bow to that notion and am not blaming the U.S. government for this one  as a whole, but I still think that the leaders of those states would be a bunch of ******** hypocrites in light of the actions endorsements and position that their country is taking in general. That's if they adopt the position of prosecuting members of the OSCE for monitoring.

Texas is involved in all kinds of ****ed up **** that the rest of the country doesn't like. It's one of the most gerrymandered states in the country, for example.

I understand and I wouldn't care less if the U.S. wasn't busy pointing out everyone else's dirty laundry.

Why should I feel responsible for or need to defend anything that Texas does?

No one is asking you to. I personally don't like the leaders of your country and your countries policies and politicans but that doesn't mean that I don't like you or expect you to apologize for every **** up they do, since you don't represent the policies of your country.

The US national policy is very consistent - promote democracy, ensure proper voting guidelines are followed, and do what we can to ensure that elections are free and fair.

What good is national policy if it can be undermined by state policy? While the national policies of the federal government may be consistent I am still going to ***** about any state decision that departs from that national policy because it undermines the national policy and the U.S. diplomatic clout and credibility. * Pursuant to the condition that I actually agree with said policy in the first place.

WTF does Texas have to do with any of that? Nothing. I don't know why foreigners have so much trouble understanding that individual states can have very different policies than the nation as a whole, so long as they do not conflict with the Constitution and the state was previously guaranteed the power in question.

Because us foreigners are tired of the U.S. saying one thing (or telling another country to do something) and doing quite another thing. Simple. Is it that hard for you Americans to understand that side of the argument?

 

[Taimat396]

You know, I had actually forgotten about disabled people; that's a fair point. Although, and this could be a culture-clash thing, it's extremely rare (especially for an elderly person) to not have ID. If you have health insurance and therefore are actually alive whilst being in that bad health; you have an ID.

15 USD is not 15 Pounds; and it's not just to vote. It's not a ticket to vote; it's an identification card. You need it to do anything, drive, apply for a job, make a large purchase with a credit/debit card, get into a bar.

Also, since you mentioned it, I bolded that bit. If you don't have an ID in the States, you're not trying to get employed.

In conclusion, this is a cultural misunderstanding; I didn't realise that having ID in the U.K. was rare. Does no one in your family have any?

Edit; also if there's any aggression being read, it's not actually there. I only started the **** you thing because you ended with the rusty nail bit. **** you, **** me, **** Hyperion.

I have ID due to college students getting £10-30 a week maintenance allowance. That stopped after I left college, so my brother does not have ID. But it's not an issue, since we can use electricity/gas bills, birth cirtificates and the electoral roll for ID for most things - stuff everybody has. The electoral roll in particular being of note - at 18 you're automatically added to it. I believe it's related to the national insurance, which you do need your number for to apply for a job. Or maybe census data, I dunno.

Point being, it's not hard to be able to do this without requiring people to pay money which they might not have, or go somewhere they might not be able to. And the two groups most likely to fall into one of these categories are the poor and the elderly - Which is who these laws are designed to target.


And while I do hate bringing it up, adding barriers of entry for basic rights like voting for who you want to rule your country is just begging for a slippery slope argument to come up.

 

[Austupaio]

Slippery slope aside; I just can't imagine any but the most extreme of situation where a legal citizen who ought to be able to vote can't provide an identification card or at the very least their birth certificate.

 

[Mad Vader]

My crack babies ate my birth certificate, besides, my dealer says I need a photo ID to vote in my state. Why won't the state issue me a free one if it is required?

 

[Austupaio]

If you don't have a birth certificate I don't see how they're supposed to issue you an ID.

 

[Jhessail]

It's not always about the ID as well. I was unaware that all States are providing it for free, that's excellent if its actually true. But the argument that poor folks cannot take the time off to visit some bureaucracy and possibly waste half a day, is valid. In my experience, the mass transit system outside of the big cities is a ridiculous joke in the US - however, not everyone can afford a private car. Thus, just getting from home to work and back while getting groceries, can be a full day project. Plus, it's been shown that moving election day from a weekend to a weekday or changing election day from an obligatory holiday into a "normal" day disproportionally affect the participation of the poorest segments of society.

So while I agree that some people take the vote I.D laws too seriously, they are not without a due cause for alarm.

 

[Sir Saladin]

No, I'm not kidding you. Show me someone who doesn't have an ID but deserves to vote; it's not even a question of poor or not; if you don't have an ID; you don't have a legal job.

If your job isn't legal and you're don't have 15 bucks to get a license that you will need for the rest of your life, no, no I don't want you to vote.

All citizens of the U.S. have an ID and you don't need a special ID card to get a job you just need a social security number which everyone already has (Godfrey was right, the Beast has taken hold of us). The streets aren't paved with gold and the world doesn't need ditch diggers anymore so it's not hard to imagine that you might not want to spend your last dollar on a stinking ID card so that the guy you vote for can lose again.

EDIT: Social Security is a socialist program and the Republican party has wanted to do away with it for a long time, so by getting everyone used to getting these new ID cards it makes it that much easier to say that Social Security is outdated and old-fashioned so let's just throw everyone to the wolves.

Somewhere out there right at this moment a good Republican is grinding FDR's face off of his dimes and dreaming about putting Ronald Reagan's grinning mug on them. Some people will scoff and say that no one could ever get rid of Social Security or Medicare but if they keep voting for the ones who have promised to do it, it will happen. Of course the one running for election says the opposite of what he was saying for the past dozen years or so. "Oh, I'm running for president so I like Medicare now. honest I do." Haw haw.

 

[Mage246]

The Federal Government can't make the states do anything in this regard. Election rules are left to the states. It's in the Constitution, FFS.

Lol yea the constitution. Like the Federal governments past and present haven't walked all over that already. In any case I did say I wasn't sure, however whether the Federal Government can make and enforce laws on the states is a bit of a grey area in the first place afaik:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Generally speaking, yes there are some gray areas  when it comes to federal powers over the states. However, NOT when it comes to voting rules. It says that the states get to choose the voting rules right there in the Constitution, and the federal government has no power to change that at the Executive level. To do so REQUIRES a Constitutional Amendment. There's no gray area. This has been proven time after time - and is why Amendments dealing with voting rights are the most common type of Amendment.

And FFS, stop treating Texas like it's some kind of representative of the rest of the country.

Its a ******** state that's part of the country. It represents a part of the country whether you like it or not. I understand that you would like me to take into account the fact that states can have various laws/opinions and leadership and I bow to that notion and am not blaming the U.S. government for this one  as a whole, but I still think that the leaders of those states would be a bunch of ******** hypocrites in light of the actions endorsements and position that their country is taking in general. That's if they adopt the position of prosecuting members of the OSCE for monitoring.

How are the leaders of those states hypocrites? They have nothing to do with foreign policy and probably don't even give a **** about another country's election process.

The US national policy is very consistent - promote democracy, ensure proper voting guidelines are followed, and do what we can to ensure that elections are free and fair.

What good is national policy if it can be undermined by state policy? While the national policies of the federal government may be consistent I am still going to ***** about any state decision that departs from that national policy because it undermines the national policy and the U.S. diplomatic clout and credibility. * Pursuant to the condition that I actually agree with said policy in the first place.

It doesn't do anything to undermine national policy. The US has its own independent election monitors and a record of free and fair elections. Yes, even in Texas.

WTF does Texas have to do with any of that? Nothing. I don't know why foreigners have so much trouble understanding that individual states can have very different policies than the nation as a whole, so long as they do not conflict with the Constitution and the state was previously guaranteed the power in question.

Because us foreigners are tired of the U.S. saying one thing (or telling another country to do something) and doing quite another thing. Simple. Is it that hard for you Americans to understand that side of the argument?

As I've already proven, there's nothing inconsistent or hypocritical about any of this. Texas implemented a legitimate and common requirement that voters present valid ID. Everything else on the topic is just partisan politics and grandstanding.

And actually, I've done a little more research on this. The OSCE monitors weren't sent in response to the voter ID laws, the Texas group is just 1 part of a much larger group monitoring the elections nationwide (just as they did in 200. Texas didn't have any objection to it until the OSCE met with some anti-ID groups and pissed them off. So this whole topic is a lie .

 

[Almalexia]

How many voters (with or without IDs) actually do this? I would really like to know. It seems that the majority vote their favorite party, regardless of the candidates and their programs (and by programs I mean vague, ambigious reassurances).

If they aren't capable of thinking over who becomes leader of the world's sole superpower, armed with the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons and the largest military, they don't deserve democracy, in my opinion.  Sure, it might not matter to them who their party candidate is, but for millions of people around the world who are affected, and may very well die one way or another, as a result of US foreign policy, it very well does.

 

[AWdeV]

I don't think you guys deserve democracy anyway as you'll just muck it all up again. You might not elect romney but it's bad enough he's even seen as a serious candidate.

 

[Almalexia]

They both suck. Its just Romney sucks on social issues, and Obama sucks on economic issues. That said:

I don't think you guys deserve democracy anyway as you'll just muck it all up again.

Agreed.

 

[Mage246]

I don't think you guys deserve democracy anyway as you'll just muck it all up again. You might not elect romney but it's bad enough he's even seen as a serious candidate.

I don't think you guys deserve democracy anyway as you'll just muck it all up again.

Agreed.

You're talking to someone who likes dictatorship, remember AWdeV?

 

[Almalexia]

I do?  Color me surprised!

 

[Mage246]

Yeah, you do, unless I have you confused with someone else. Aren't you the one who went to China and thinks the Chinese system is great?

 

[AWdeV]

I wasn't talking to anybody, I just made a semi-mocking comment.

Although I will be jolly cross with all of you if you do manage to put Romney in the white house.

 

[Almalexia]

Yeah, you do, unless I have you confused with someone else. Aren't you the one who went to China and thinks the Chinese system is great?

Haven't gone to China yet. And I appreciate Confucianism only due to it being precedent for the functionality of meritocracy. An imperfect one, I'll grant, but still proof that it is possible and viable.

So yeah, I support meritocracy. Or at least some bastardized version of it I've been devising over the past 2-3 years. I guess take that as you will.

 

[Argeus the Paladin]

Except that, you know, one of the not-so-often-talked-about-these-day tenets of Confucianism has to do with "the laws applying commoners need not apply to the higher-born" or something along those lines. That is exactly why the late Warring States era gave rise to a school of learning that emphasized the rule of (extremely harsh, BTW) law and that "A king's son violates the law, punish the criminal scum like a commoner" (Oblivilol reference mine)

 

[Almalexia]

Except that, you know, one of the not-so-often-talked-about-these-day tenets of Confucianism has to do with "the laws applying commoners need not apply to the higher-born" or something along those lines. That is exactly why the late Warring States era gave rise to a school of learning that emphasized the rule of (extremely harsh, BTW) law and that "A king's son violates the law, punish the criminal scum like a commoner" (Oblivilol reference mine)

An imperfect one, I'll grant, but still proof that it is possible and viable.

That said, Confucius advocated that the ruling class should serve as the model for all those beneath them, and if they collapsed into corruption and hedonism, they have lost the Mandate of Heaven (signified by floods, disasters, etc. Many of these could indeed be seen as legitimate causes for unrest, and not just the works of a supposed esoteric, spiritual being. For example a levy or dam breaks, it is often due to neglect by a corrupt government who spends the money elsewhere) and thus the people are in the right to rebel. A discussion exemplified by the Water Margin.

 

[Argeus the Paladin]

The core flaw in that model is that it relies too much on the upper class' integrity, and failing to consider that they are, well, people and are as fallible as any and depending on the time are even more so than the simpleton peasant. It was the perfect model for the establishment and rooting of a historical absolute monarchy.

For example a levy or dam breaks, it is often due to neglect by a corrupt government who spends the money elsewhere

That's happened so, so very damn often in history it isn't even funny. Especially when you consider that every time that happened, it's a 2010 tsunami in terms of life cost.