America's achilles heel - election system

Of course. Didn't work. Mueller is draining the swamp!

 

No, they are not "political appointees." They are appointed by the Parliament, not a party. They answer to the Parliament. The two top dogs can only be removed from the position by the Parliament asking the Governor to dismiss one or both of them.

You would not see, such as is happening in Ga., the local electoral authority closing polling places because they don't comply with legislation regarding people with disabilities. The premises would be fixed, people would be able to vote at their polling place. That is partisan politics in Ga. and it happens across the U.S. because the party in government controls the electoral system. That doesn't happen in Australia and I'd recommend it.

 

They are appointed government officials beholding to the politicians in the parliament.

OH you just spend millions fixing them. It's no different here that there give me a break. Sometimes it isn't worth remodeling it cost too much. What happens when the cost of making a very old building handicapped compliant cost more than the building is worth. They simply choose another place. We have a whole civic center about to come down because while it was grandfathered in when the American With Disabilities Act was passed but that time frame has passed and the cost to remodel it is WAY to exorbitant to justify the cost.

 

Look at the first page. "Proof of Identity" is just ONE of the things you need to provide. You also need proof of name, proof of date of birth, proof of Wisconsin residency and proof of U.S. citizenship.

If you don't have any of those, there is a petition process that involves a document search.

ALL of this requires a trip to the DMV with all sorts of documents. Which, as I have pointed out repeatedly, is a high barrier for hundreds of thousands of people, primarily the poor and elderly.

Without Voter ID, you fill out a registration form, mail it in, and the GOVERNMENT is responsible for verifying the information.

With Voter ID, you have to register AND get an ID. And the burden of getting the ID is entirely on the voter.

The result, unsurprisingly, is the disenfranchisement of thousands of legitimate voters.

All in the name of preventing a crime that is so vanishingly rare it might as well not exist.

 

BTW GA decided not to accept the reccomendations of the consultant and fired him.

 

Yet, in the age of Obamacare and centralized medical record keeping, critical personal identification is required to insure proper medical care and prescriptions are administered accurately.

Somehow, nobody complains about that.

 

And the same old irrelevant deflection. “Because we sometimes ask for ID for things that aren’t a Constitutional right, it’s okay to ask for ID for things that are a Constitutional right.”

No, placing unnecessary barriers between people and their right to vote is LESS okay than placing unnecessary barriers between people and optional things.

 

Optional things?

Obamacare is not optional. If one doesn't sign up, they are penalized.

Try again.

The point is, if exacting ID is required, and OK, to fulfill the governments requirements under Obamacare, why is obtaining ID an impossible task when it's connected to voting?

 

Obamacare policies are optional. You can choose to pay the fine instead of getting coverage. And buying Obamacare policies affects only one small part of the health-care system -- the individual market. The vast majority of people still get their health insurance through their employer.

Further, Obamacare does not collect or keep your personal information: it just requires you to have insurance. Whatever information you have to provide in order to get insurance is between you and your insurance company, not the government. And your medical records are between you and your doctor. You are conflating multiple optional interactions to try to make your deflection seem relevant.

You seem to be confusing laws with rights.

If you don't have health insurance, you might be breaking a (minor) law, but you are not being denied a Constitutional right.

If you are an eligible voter who is prevented from voting due to Voter ID requirements, you have been denied a Constitutional right.

Please address the following point:

Since in-person voting fraud (the only kind of fraud that Voter ID prevents) is vanishingly rare, if even TWO legitimate voters are denied their right to vote because of Voter ID, the law does more harm than good.

Given that, how can you justify Voter ID? It is like passing a law to ban unicorns, complete with an extensive compliance system to make sure nobody has an illegal unicorn in their house. It fails any sort of cost-benefit analysis, in spectacular fashion.

Then when you throw in that it effectively disenfranchises THOUSANDS of legitimate voters, it moves from "not worth it" to "actively harmful."

 

So you think the fine stemming from not meeting a legal requirement means Obamacare is optional?

That is not a logical statement.

Further, if one receives that medical care through an employer, that employer is required by law to confirm eligibility to work via proper identification.

Additionally, prior to the creation of Obamacare, the Democrats who are solely responsible for it created the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. It was funded with billons of dollars and has thousands of employees. It's task, collect and coordinate access to patient medical records nationally.

https://www.healthit.gov/

https://searchhealthit.techtarget.com/definition/HITECH-Act

So, all of the above requires accurate ID. Otherwise, misdiagnosis and potential fatal errors in prescriptions could occur.

Yet, the claim is, it's impossible for some to get proper ID in order to vote.

If one fraudulent vote is cast, it potentially negates a legal vote, rendering the legal voters rights voided.

That potential could be reduced if ID, already proven to be acceptably easy to obtain, were required to cast a vote.

 

This is true. But you continue to ignore the fact that in-person voter fraud is VANISHINGLY RARE, so it is not a realistic concern. Meanwhile, the efforts to prevent it effectively disenfranchise THOUSANDS of legitimate voters.

Does it make sense to you to prevent THOUSANDS of legitimate votes in order to avoid ONE fraudulent vote?

 

the pathologically duplicitous usual suspects never have a problem with America's democratic process until they lose...

when they win they mock the losers with 'elections have consequences', 'if you don't like something, go out and win an election', etc.

when they lose it's THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN!! GERRYMANDERING!! DISENFRANCHISEMENT!! RUSSIAN TROLLS!!

 

Read past the first line.

You do not need to do any of the things you listed.

You FAIL. And you FAIL utterly.

 

Um ... you are wrong. There is a petition process if you lack documentation, but the regular Voter ID requires the stuff listed on the page.

And you STILL keep dodging the point that in-person Voter ID fraud is vanishingly rare, so that there is no reasonable need for ANY of this.

 

I picked up persciptions at Walmart yesterday. I had to show an ID for one of them. I assure my voting is more "optional" than that medication. And it is the law that requires I show that ID.

 

SO WHAT????? Why do you keep repeating that canard?

 

It’s not a “canard”. It’s true. And because it is so vanishingly rare, efforts to fight it end up doing more harm than good. They spectacularly fail any cost-benefit analysis you care to name.

You keep trying to ignore it, which just shows you know how weak your position is.