When THEY Run Everything.

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Keith, you still haven't answered why Australians can't vote in the U.K. When the rest of the world can. You still haven't answered the most relevant question do aboriginals need photo ID to vote in your country. And you promised me a graph to show me why.
 

Keith

Moderator
Keith, you still haven't answered why Australians can't vote in the U.K. When the rest of the world can. You still haven't answered the most relevant question do aboriginals need photo ID to vote in your country. And you promised me a graph to show me why.

Working on it....
 

Pat

Supporter
I was using my grandmother as an example of the type of person who would be effected. But as we know, California does not have repressive voter ID laws.

Jim, if you register to vote in California you have to show ID. This is from the CA secretary of State Website:

"...If a voter registers to vote in a county on or after January 1, 2003, the registration is by mail, and the voter has not previously voted in that county, then the voter must either provide ID when he or she registers or provide ID when he or she votes.:

How does a voter prove ID?

Section 303(b)(2) specifies the ID requirements for voters who vote in person or by absentee ballot.

"In person" voters must show a "current and valid photo identification" or "a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter."

But then the Zombies seem to vote in your very own back yard. NBC Bay Area reported the following:

"NBC Bay Area found several other examples, too. People like Sara Schiffman of San Leandro who died in 2007 yet still voted in 2008, or former Hayward police officer Frank Canela Tapia who has voted 8 times since 2005, though he died in 2001. California, you have over 25,000 deceased voters on the rolls.

County election officials are responsible for removing names from the voter rolls.

NBC Bay Area gave Contra Costa County Clerk and Recorder Steve Weir a sample of more than 100 voters in his county who may have passed away. Around half a dozen of these voters have recorded votes since their death.IS that OK with you. What if they were part of the vast right wing conspiracy?? Are you not outraged???

Close to home, the mayoral election in Miami in 1997 was nullified by a judge because of widespread fraud, including a number of established cases of fraudulent votes cast in the name of dead people.

Election inspectors looking at the 1982 gubernatorial election in Illinois estimated that as many as 1 in 10 ballots cast during the election were fraudulent, including votes by the dead. THIS IS VOTER SUPPRESSION!

So you are OK with voter fraud? You don't see how that affects legitimate ballots? One of those votes may have actually cancelled out your granny's ballot choice for Ralph Nader and stolen her vote! What if they were Tea Party Nazis or worse, CONSERVATIVES!
 

Pat

Supporter
I was using my grandmother as an example of the type of person who would be effected. But as we know, California does not have repressive voter ID laws.

Jim, if you register to vote in California you have to show ID. This is from the CA secretary of State Website:

"...If a voter registers to vote in a county on or after January 1, 2003, the registration is by mail, and the voter has not previously voted in that county, then the voter must either provide ID when he or she registers or provide ID when he or she votes.:

How does a voter prove ID?

Section 303(b)(2) specifies the ID requirements for voters who vote in person or by absentee ballot.

"In person" voters must show a "current and valid photo identification" or "a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter."

But then the Zombies seem to vote in your very own back yard. NBC Bay Area reported the following:

"NBC Bay Area found several other examples, too. People like Sara Schiffman of San Leandro who died in 2007 yet still voted in 2008, or former Hayward police officer Frank Canela Tapia who has voted 8 times since 2005, though he died in 2001. California, you have over 25,000 deceased voters on the rolls.

County election officials are responsible for removing names from the voter rolls.

NBC Bay Area gave Contra Costa County Clerk and Recorder Steve Weir a sample of more than 100 voters in his county who may have passed away. Around half a dozen of these voters have recorded votes since their death. In October, KTVU Channel 2 cross-checked California's state death registry record across voter lists in the nine Bay Area counties, finding that in eight elections in the last ten years, "232 people with death certificates had voted after they had died – some more than once." 153 of these cases were from one county, Alameda.

Is that OK with you? What if they were part of the vast right wing conspiracy?? Are you not outraged???

Close to home, the mayoral election in Miami in 1997 was nullified by a judge because of widespread fraud, including a number of established cases of fraudulent votes cast in the name of dead people.

Election inspectors looking at the 1982 gubernatorial election in Illinois estimated that as many as 1 in 10 ballots cast during the election were fraudulent, including votes by the dead. THIS IS VOTER SUPPRESSION!

So you are OK with voter fraud? You don't see how that affects legitimate ballots? One of those votes may have actually cancelled out your granny's ballot choice for Ralph Nader and stolen her vote! What if they were Tea Party Nazis or worse, CONSERVATIVES!
 

Keith

Moderator
Basically, Aborigines cannot vote in the UK because they're bloody Austrllians mate.

Anyway, they can definitely vote in Oz because:

Ask Australians when Aborigines got the vote and most of them will say 1967. The referendum in that year is remembered as marking a turning point in attitudes to Aboriginal rights. In one of the few 'yes' votes since federation, 90.77 per cent of Australians voted to change the Constitution to allow the Commonwealth to make laws for Aborigines and to include them in the census.
But the referendum didn't give Aborigines the right to vote. They already had it. Legally their rights go back to colonial times. When Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania and South Australia framed their constitutions in the 1850s they gave voting rights to all male British subjects over 21, which of course included Aboriginal men. And in 1895 when South Australia gave women the right to vote and sit in Parliament, Aboriginal women shared the right. Only Queensland and Western Australia barred Aborigines from voting.
Very few Aborigines knew their rights so very few voted. But some eventually did. Point McLeay, a mission station near the mouth of the Murray, got a polling station in the 1890s. Aboriginal men and women voted there in South Australian elections and voted for the first Commonwealth Parliament in 1901.
That first Commonwealth Parliament was elected by State voters but when it met it had to decide who should be entitled to vote for it in future. Three groups attracted debate. Women had votes in some States but not in others, so had Aborigines. And there were some Chinese, Indian and other non-white people who had become permanent residents before the introduction of the White Australia immigration policy.
The debates reflected the racist temper of the times with references to savages, slaves, cannibals, idolaters and Aboriginal 'lubras' and 'gins'. The Senate voted to let Aborigines vote but the House of Representatives defeated them. The 1902 Franchise Act gave women a Commonwealth vote but Aborigines and other 'coloured' people were excluded unless entitled under section 41 of the Constitution.
Section 41 said that anyone with a State vote must be allowed a Commonwealth vote. South Australia got that clause into the Constitution to ensure that South Australian women would have Commonwealth votes whether or not the Commonwealth Parliament decided to enfranchise all Australian women. The Commonwealth did enfranchise all women so they did not need section 41. But that section did seem to guarantee that, except in Queensland and Western Australia, Aborigines would be able to vote for the Commonwealth because of their State rights.
But did it mean that? The first Solicitor-General, Sir Robert Garran, interpreted it to give Commonwealth rights only to people who were already State voters in 1902. So no new Aboriginal voters could ever be enrolled and, in due course, the existing ones would die out. The joint Commonwealth/State electoral rolls adopted in the 1920s give some idea of the number of Aborigines who voted for their State parliaments but were barred by the Commonwealth. The symbol 'o' by a name meant 'not entitled to vote for the Commonwealth' and almost always indicated an Aborigine.
Garran's interpretation of section 41 was first challenged in 1924, not by an Aborigine but by an Indian who had recently been accepted to vote by Victoria but rejected by the Commonwealth. He went to court and won. The magistrate ruled that section 41 meant that people who acquired State votes at any date were entitled to a Commonwealth vote. Instead of obeying that ruling the Commonwealth passed an Act giving all Indians the vote (there were only 2 300 of them and the immigration policy would see there were no more) but continued to reject Aborigines and other 'coloured' applicants under its own interpretation of section 41.
Some of the Commonwealth officials got even tougher. They came to believe that no Aborigines had Commonwealth voting rights. Besides refusing new enrolments they began, illegally, to take away the rights of people who had been enrolled since the first election in 1901.
It was not until the 1940s that anyone began to battle for Aborigines' political rights. Various lobby groups took up their cause and in 1949 the Chifley Labor government passed an Act to confirm that all those who could vote in their States could vote for the Commonwealth. The symbol 'o' disappeared from the electoral rolls. But not much was done to publicise the change and most Aborigines, told for so long that they couldn't vote, continued to believe it.
In the 1960s moral outrage at the way countries like South Africa and the United States treated their black populations stirred Australians to look at their own behaviour. Many changes in Aborigines' rights and treatment followed, including at long last full voting rights. The Menzies Liberal and Country Party government gave the Commonwealth vote to all Aborigines in 1962. Western Australia gave them State votes in the same year. Queensland followed in 1965. With that, all Aborigines had full and equal rights. In 1971 the Liberal Party nominated Neville Bonner to fill a vacant seat in the Senate. He was the first Aborigine to sit in any Australian Parliament.
There is a happy ending to this story of discrimination and neglect. The Australian Electoral Commission is now making up for the sins of earlier generations. For a time, through its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Electoral Information Service, it sent field workers all over Australia, especially to remote areas, to tell people about voting and encourage them to enrol. But funding cuts have since ended that service.
At election time it cooperates with Imparja, the Aboriginal television station at Alice Springs, to broadcast information about State and Commonwealth elections to the outback of Queensland, the Northern Territory, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia. A mobile polling program uses aircraft to enable remote people, black and white, to vote where they live rather than travel long distances to polling stations in town.
There's an irony there. Some of the strongest opposition to Aboriginal rights came from the outback. But equality with the Aborigines has brought its white settlers better electoral services than they ever achieved on their own.


Anyway, this might explain graphs and the curious relationship that our American friends have with them..


Graph_zpse7cbfb5e.jpg





Back to Aboes. Right, I have now discovered that the sneaky buggers cosied up to the EEC through Greece and so have a proxy vote under Greek EU Nationality. And this is how they did it. Keep yer eyes on the centre feller in blue Bruce. I know this is true 'cos man nappies have got cheaper as a result, and the rate of tinny recycling has gone through the roof mate, innit.



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-MucVWo-Pw"]Zorba the Greek Yolngu style - YouTube[/ame]
 

Keith

Moderator
Is - there - a (cough cough) - cure?

Another Graph for you....

gallgrafspeewreck01_zps45be044d.jpg


Sorry, I did agree with Tom before I knew what he said. Now I know what he said I agree with him. I think.

I used to be so decisive... but now.....:uneasy:
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Pat,

So you join the folks who think its OK change the rights granted in the Second and Fifteenth Amendments with a simple majority in the State Legislature.

As you said earlier, you cant have it both ways.
 

Keith

Moderator
Jim Craik, I think it's grossly unfair that they are ganging up on you again, so I've changed my mind. I DON'T agree with Pat anymore because I am a swing voter that is easily influenced.
 
Neither the Fifteenth nor the Nineteenth Amendments say anything about Photo ID. So you folks are OK being able to deny peoples Constitutional Right to vote, by a simple State Legislature vote? You are saying that just a simple majority in a state legislature, can deny their Fifteenth Amendment Rights, without amending the Constitution?

So Larry, Bob, Dave, Pat and Pete, I take it that you are also OK with State Legislatures changing folks Second Amendment rights with a simple majority as well? Or are you just a bunch of Hypocrits?

I'm going with Hypocrits!

Pat you said it best, "YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS"!!!

Neither of these amendments has anything to do with proving ones identification with an ID.

The U.S. Constitution stated in Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870:

"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

The Nineteenth Amendment (Amendment XIX) to the United States Constitution prohibits any United States citizen to be denied the right to vote based on sex. It was ratified on August 18, 1920. The Constitution allows the states to determine the qualifications for voting, and until the 1910s most states disenfranchised women. The amendment was the culmination of the women's suffrage movement in the United States, which fought at both state and national levels to achieve the vote. It effectively overruled Minor v. Happersett, in which a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to women or give them a right to vote.


 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Objectively, this issue is pretty simple.

1. The argument against Voter IDs is pretty weak. The burden of getting a free government ID is low; probably as low as having to take the time to go vote yourself. Yeah, there will be some impact on turnout, primarily among the poor and minorities, but it will be very low.

2. The argument for Voter ID is even weaker, and frankly disingenous. All studies show that voter fraud in the US is, these days and despite what people like Lonesome Nutjob think, infintesimal. Like far .00002% of all votes cast or something. So there is no glaring need for this, and the real motivation by the right wingers is in fact voter suppression. Which is silly because free government IDs won't really impact voter turnout.

The bottom line? More yelling and screaming by both sides over something that in the end shouldn't really matter to either.

America, Fuck Yeah!
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
But Jeff,

I find it incredably interesting to see just how quickly these pro 2nd Amendment folks abandon their sacred Constitutional Rights when it suits them?

Who cares about the 15th Amendment, we have elections to steal!
 
But Jeff,

I find it incredably interesting to see just how quickly these pro 2nd Amendment folks abandon their sacred Constitutional Rights when it suits them?

Who cares about the 15th Amendment, we have elections to steal!

WTF are you babbling about?

The U.S. Constitution stated in Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870:

"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
 
Jim, These are ID reqirements from random states, including California for guess what?

South Dakota
Certified U.S. birth certificate issued by state or county (no hospital birth-certificates)
Valid unexpired U.S. passport
Certificate of Naturalization
Certificate of Citizenship
Non-Citizens Need:

Valid unexpired permanent resident card
Valid unexpired employment authorization document
Foreign passport with valid unexpired U.S. Visa with I-94

Missouri
NAME, DATE OF BIRTH, PLACE OF BIRTH (U.S. Citizen)
•U.S. Birth Certificate - certified with an embossed, stamped or raised seal issued by a state or local government. (Hospital-issued birth certificates are not acceptable.)
•U.S. Passport (valid or expired)
•Certificate of Citizenship, Naturalization, or Birth Abroad
•U.S. Military Identification Card or Discharge Papers - Military document must be accompanied by a copy of U.S. Birth Certificate issued by a state or local government.

California
An acceptable birth date/legal presence or true full name document is issued by a county or state. This document is a certified copy of the original (the original is retained by the county or state) and contains an impressed seal or an original stamped impression.

Examples of acceptable birth date/legal presence documents are: U.S. Birth Certificate, Proof of Indian Blood Degree, U.S. Passport, U.S. Armed Forces ID Cards, Certificate of Naturalization, Permanent Resident Card, or a foreign passport or Mexican Border Crossing Card with a valid I-94. A complete list of birth date/legal presence documents is available online at www.dmv.ca.gov or in Fast Facts brochure Birth Date and Legal Presence Requirements (FFDL 05).

Examples of true full name verification documents are:

•Adoption documents containing your legal name as a result of the adoption.
•Name change documents containing your legal name both before and after the name change.
•Marriage Certificate.
•A certificate, declaration, or registration document verifying the information of a domestic partnership.
•Dissolution of marriage document containing your legal name, as a result of the court order.

Utah
Identity and Legal/Lawful Status Verification (must provide one)

•Valid, unexpired U.S. passport or passport card; or
•Certified copy of a birth certificate filed with the State Office of Vital Statistics or equivalent agency in the individual's state of birth (hospital document, birth registration, abstract of birth or small laminated official birth certificates issued by the Department of Health are not accepted); or
•Indian Blood and Affidavit of Birth issued by the Census Office; or
•Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) issued by the U.S. Department of State, Form FS-240, DS-1350, or FS-545; or
•Valid, unexpired Permanent Resident Card, Form I-551; or
•Certificate of Naturalization issued by DHS, Form N-550 or Form N-570; or
•Certificate of Citizenship, Form N-560 or Form N-561, issued by DHS.


Social Security Verification (must provide one)

•Social Security card issued by the U.S. Government that has been signed and has not been laminated; or
•If the Social Security card is not available, the applicant may present one of the following documents which contain the applicant's name and full SSN:
◦W-2 Form;
◦SSA-1099 Form;
◦Non SSA-1099 Form;
◦Pay stub showing applicant's name and full SSN; or
◦Letter from the Social Security Administration indicating ineligibility to obtain a Social Security number as a result of their legal/lawful presence status.


•Must display the applicant's name and principal Utah residence address (NO PO BOX), which may include:
◦Bank Statement (dated within 60 days);
◦Court documents;
◦Current mortgage or rental contract;
◦Major credit card bill (dated within 60 days);
◦Property tax notice (statement or receipt dated within one year);
◦School transcript (dated within 90 days);
◦Utility bill (billing date within 60 days), (cell phone bills will not be accepted);
◦Valid Utah vehicle registration or title;
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Keith thanks for the history lesson on my Indigenous brothers, quite enlightening for a grumpy old white guy. Not sure about the Zorba vid, they only invented man nappies after the white man arrived in their country and taught them about Christianity and how it was wrong to walk around starkers!

For once I agree with Jeff. "America fuck yeah".
 
Once had a chidhood gang of buddies. We would have a wonderful time exploring the mountains above our houses, playing war games, having rock fights, even had a fairly large pond to fish in and catch frogs when they grew out of being tadpoles and came on shore by the hundreds. The neighborhood would echo with the croaking of frogs months later. Then one day, Joey's Mom made Joey bring along his big brother who was "awkward" and didn't have any friends of his own. Well, eventually the old gang broke up because it always had to be Joey's brother's rules, and Joey's brother's subject of discussion, etc. sigh. :~(
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Tom, try and stick to the facts!

Your data is not correct, This is from the California Sec State

Is there any way a voter can avoid having to show ID when he or she votes?

First, the ID requirement only applies to voters who have never voted in the county in a federal election. Persons who were already registered as of January 1, 2003, or who change address within the county and re-register, are not required to show ID to vote.

Second, voters who do not register to vote "by mail" are not required to show ID to vote.

Third, Section 303(b)(3) states that if the voter provides his or her driver's license number, or the last 4 digits of his or her social security number, on the form to register to vote, and the elections official can verify the number is correct, then the ID requirement does not apply.
 
Last edited:
Tom, try and stick to the facts!

Your data is not correct, This is from the California Sec State

Is there any way a voter can avoid having to show ID when he or she votes?

First, the ID requirement only applies to voters who have never voted in the county in a federal election. Persons who were already registered as of January 1, 2003, or who change address within the county and re-register, are not required to show ID to vote.

Second, voters who do not register to vote "by mail" are not required to show ID to vote.

Third, Section 303(b)(3) states that if the voter provides his or her driver's license number, or the last 4 digits of his or her social security number, on the form to register to vote, and the elections official can verify the number is correct, then the ID requirement does not apply.

I was sticking to my facts, those are drivers license requirements. Important as voting for the president?
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Tom,

In a discussion about voting requirements you post ID reqirements from random states, including California. Anyone looking at your post would think those show required ID for voting.

But no they are not that at all.

You neglected to tell us that these are not VOTING ID REQUIREMENTS!

Tom, you post lies, distortions and misleading information...........................

Its people like you that have destroyed the Republican Party. Virtually every thinking person is aware that any statement or facts presented by a Consevative is suspect.

You have just confirmed that.

Tom, I enjoy a good debate, but life is too short to talk to you!

Good Day!
 
Back
Top