Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The poor and destitute are far more likely not to have ID. Most likely is guess because of laziness.

Does that mean they shouldn't get to vote? Is voter fraud really a concern? I can tell you it's not

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

ID isn't free either. Last time I got one it was $70. And when you're talking about poor/low income, $70 just to vote is a pretty hefty expense, one that most could never justify and thus simply choose to not vote. It's a clear tactic to discourage voting, not to prevent voter fraud, which has been proven to be a non-issue.

Thats $70 here in Canada and I can tell you that if you're of qualifying lower income you can receive subsidies to the point where you arent charged for basics such as this.

I also note that Oliver completely ignores the fact that photo ID is required to collect US Federal subsidies such as Food Stamps and that again, lower income individuals can acquire Government issued ID free of charge.

So, yeah, its ID. I get that the Republicans are using it as a slimy political tactic but requiring ID to vote isnt crazy.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Locke

Thats $70 here in Canada and I can tell you that if you're of qualifying lower income you can receive subsidies to the point where you arent charged for basics such as this.

I also note that Oliver completely ignores the fact that photo ID is required to collect US Federal subsidies such as Food Stamps and that again, lower income individuals can acquire Government issued ID free of charge.

So, yeah, its ID. I get that the Republicans are using it as a slimy political tactic but requiring ID to vote isnt crazy.

Which is sort of the point. Not that the request itself is a big issue, but why it's being pushed as an issue. Voter fraud has never been a significant problem in any meaningful way. This was brought up for one reason, to boost GOP chances in elections. They don't care about voter fraud, and would almost certainly commit it if they could do so without getting caught. They're just looking for advantages, and have found one. Too bad the Dems don't retaliate with IQ tests as a voting requirement. Be interesting to see the GOP reaction to that one.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Which is sort of the point. Not that the request itself is a big issue, but why it's being pushed as an issue. Voter fraud has never been a significant problem in any meaningful way. This was brought up for one reason, to boost GOP chances in elections. They don't care about voter fraud, and would almost certainly commit it if they could do so without getting caught. They're just looking for advantages, and have found one. Too bad the Dems don't retaliate with IQ tests as a voting requirement. Be interesting to see the GOP reaction to that one.

Haha! Or a requirement to 'bring your religious scripture' in order to vote so they can see who is carrying a Scientology book so they can just throw those votes out before they're counted!

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I feel like we are partly having a discussion that isn't aligned. I really didn't support any suggestions for forced surgery or debate that the woman physically carries the child. I really hate to just repeat the same thing over and over so I'll just say that I think you need to read my posts and think about rights and responsibilities and how they pertain to pre and post birth. Is it 50/50 the whole time? If not, why not? Do you honestly believe that it should be 100/0 in favour of the mother until birth, then it should revert to 50/50? And if you do believe the father should have no say in whether or not his child is born or is aborted, how do you justify forcing that father to take responsibility once the child is born?

I'm not saying I have any solutions. All I'm saying is that I can't imagine that it is fair to break down responsibility of conception/pregnancy/raising a child as 50/50 for conception, 100/0 mother/father in pregnancy then revert to 50/50 in childbirth.

I'd recommend that we make a new thread for this to stop derailing but I think keeping this discussion hidden in the Last Week Tonight thread has kept it low key and allowed for some pretty civil back and forth.

The solution is obvious and should be available within the next decade. Temporary male birth control will allow men to have a much more reliable say in if they will have a child than they do today.

However, today it's just part of the risks involved. So long as you know the risks and your partner doesn't do anything malicious (like poking a hole in your condom,lying about birth control, etc) to force you to have a child, I think that ultimately you should be 50/50 responsible if she decides to carry it to term. I think that's fair. If you don't like it, have the discussion about what happens if she becomes pregnant before having sex. You can probably even make it legally binding to some extent. Legal precedent exists that your not responsible if your partner is malicious.

I don't think the consent argument here works any better than it does when people use it as an argument for abortion. Consent is irrelevant after you or your partner is pregnant. The only point i have any room for the withdrawal of responsibility for a potential child is before you have sex. Further, I think both sexes should be able to do so. However, I don't think that they should be able to do so completely. I think it's fair that a woman can require the man to be a primary care giver if she brings it to term and vice versa, but I don't think anyone should be able to get out of their financial commitments to a child they created. It's not fair to the child who will already be at a disadvantage being raised by a single parent.

Anyhow, why does a woman have 100% say today? Because she's the one affected for life by having the child (for good of for bad). As a man, your only affected for 18 years. A temporary financial commitment for a child you don't want is hardly the same as the permanent physical ailments some women get by having a child. Quite simply, the woman puts way more on the line (here life, quite literally) during pregnancy than the man and as such is given 100% of the final choice (though the law can require compensation if she goes against a contract she made with her partner).

So why then, does that change at birth? Simple, at this point, the question is no longer about the risks to the mother or the father, but rather, about the child. The question becomes, what is the best and fairest way to help this child become a productive adult. Until there is a way to ensure that the child is not raised in poverty because the father doesn't like the mother (or vice versa), it's only fair that there is an 18 year commitment to your offspring.

It's true that things are not equal the way they are. However, equality and fairness are often not the same thing. I vastly prefer a fair wold to an equal one, and I think the current compromise pretty much as close as we can get to fair until temporary male contraception is widely available.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Locke

Haha! Or a requirement to 'bring your religious scripture' in order to vote so they can see who is carrying a Scientology book so they can just throw those votes out before they're counted!

Scientology has a book? I thought those stress tests were their Bible?

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The poor and destitute are far more likely not to have ID. Most likely is guess because of laziness.

Does that mean they shouldn't get to vote? Is voter fraud really a concern? I can tell you it's not

The problem is that in many states, these ID's are not free or are not easy to get (as in, there is a lot of bureaucratic red tape and it can take months to successfully get your application process).

The solution in my mind is to make them free and easy to get. The bureaucracy surrounding getting these in some states makes it hard for the poor to get them.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

The problem is that in many states, these ID's are not free or are not easy to get (as in, there is a lot of bureaucratic red tape and it can take months to successfully get your application process).

The solution in my mind is to make them free and easy to get. The bureaucracy surrounding getting these in some states is very hard.

The easier solution is to not require voting identification at all because voter fraud is not a problem.

[corporatejay]

What if you don't have an address? Honest question? What do they put on your ID? "The Street"?

The point is that the right to vote should be absolute in a free and democratic society. It's up to the government to prove that you need to show ID for fear of fraud, not for you to show the government that it's too hard to get one.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The easier solution is to not require voting identification at all because voter fraud is not a problem.

How would you know if voter fraud is a problem without requiring some form of ID's?

There are ways to reduce it, like putting everyone on a list and crossing them out as their voter id cards come in, but that doesn't prevent someone from collecting or forging a bunch of different cards and voting multiple times that way.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

What if you don't have an address? Honest question? What do they put on your ID? "The Street"?

The point is that the right to vote should be absolute in a free and democratic society. It's up to the government to prove that you need to show ID for fear of fraud, not for you to show the government that it's too hard to get one.

General delivery, nearest postal code/zip code of course. Or just put down the city and province/state.

The point is identification / proof of citizenship, not fine grained location.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

How would you know if voter fraud is a problem without requiring some form of ID's?

There are ways to reduce it, like putting everyone on a list and crossing them out as their voter id cards come in, but that doesn't prevent someone from collecting or forging a bunch of different cards and voting multiple times that way.

Simple. We'd hear about it.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Simple. We'd hear about it.

And we have. There have been many reports of apparent voter fraud in pretty much every election without voter id requirements. Thing is, how do you tell if they are real or just people blowing smoke?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Scientology has a book? I thought those stress tests were their Bible?

Dianetics, yo. We're totally off topic now but it's worth watching Going Clear. Crazy movie.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

And we have. There have been many reports of apparent voter fraud in pretty much every election without voter id requirements. Thing is, how do you tell if they are real or just people blowing smoke?

No there haven't. They're one offs and extremely rare.

Here's the conundrum:

Enact laws to require photo ID will prevent extremely rare instances (very good data this) at the expense of disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters (in Canada, millions in the US).

You tell me, which is less democratic?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

How would you know if voter fraud is a problem without requiring some form of ID's?

There are ways to reduce it, like putting everyone on a list and crossing them out as their voter id cards come in, but that doesn't prevent someone from collecting or forging a bunch of different cards and voting multiple times that way.

I’ve been tracking allegations of fraud for years now, including the fraud ID laws are designed to stop. In 2008, when the Supreme Court weighed in on voter ID, I looked at every single allegation put before the Court. And since then, I’ve been following reports wherever they crop up.

To be clear, I’m not just talking about prosecutions. I track any specific, credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix.

So far, I’ve found about 31 different incidents (some of which involve multiple ballots) since 2000, anywhere in the country. If you want to check my work, you can read a comprehensive list of the incidents below.

To put this in perspective, the 31 incidents below come in the context of general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014. In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion ballots were cast in that period.

Some of these 31 incidents have been thoroughly investigated (including some prosecutions). But many have not. Based on how other claims have turned out, I’d bet that some of the 31 will end up debunked: a problem with matching people from one big computer list to another, or a data entry error, or confusion between two different people with the same name, or someone signing in on the wrong line of a pollbook.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-ballots-cast/

If Voter Fraud existed it would be observable statistically.

The REAL problem with american elections is not voter fraud but ELECTIONS fraud:

Wichita State University statistician Beth Clarkson requested Sedgwick County release election records for the recent election.

This week, Secretary of State Kris Kobach asked a judge to block that request.

Clarkson said the election results in some counties, including Johnson County, are impossible to audit.

During a celebration for the 95th anniversary of the 19th amendment, which gave women the right to vote, Clarkson said, “If we’re not being counted accurately, we’re losing our right to vote without even being aware of it.”

The mathematician wanted to examine the voting tapes after something didn’t add up.

Clarkson explained, “I don’t understand why those patterns are there, the patterns are very definitely real. But we don’t know what’s causing them or why they’re there. They do fit what would be expected if election fraud is occurring, and that’s very concerning.”

In Sedgwick County, the voting tapes record every stroke a voter makes on the machine.

The Election Commissioner there said the tapes are 385 feet long and are stored in 42 boxes.

However, in Johnson County, voting is done primarily on electronic machines where there is no automatic paper trail.

They’re machines which Clarkson said can be easily hacked.

“They’re basically saying you don’t need to look at these paper records, we can just trust the machine,” remarked Clarkson.

http://www.kshb.com/news/state/kansa...ts-dont-add-up

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

No there haven't. They're one offs and extremely rare.

Here's the conundrum:

Enact laws to require photo ID will prevent extremely rare instances (very good data this) at the expense of disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters (in Canada, millions in the US).

You tell me, which is less democratic?

False dichotomy.

3. Provide every citizen with a free government photo ID when they turn 18, renewable every 10 years if the person has no other form of government photo Id. This will prevent voter fraud in the rare close races where voter fraud could actually make a difference and provide everyone with the id they need to take more easily take advantage of government programs, open a bank account, etc.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

False dichotomy.

3. Provide every citizen a government photo ID when they turn 18, renewed every 10 years. This will prevent voter fraud in the rare close races where voter fraud could actually make a difference and provide everyone with the id they need to take more easily take advantage of government programs, open a bank account, etc.

Voter fraud does not exist in any capacity that influences even local elections.

It doesn't exist.

It's a unicorn.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

False dichotomy.

3. Provide every citizen with a free government photo ID when they turn 18, renewable every 10 years if the person has no other form of government photo Id. This will prevent voter fraud in the rare close races where voter fraud could actually make a difference and provide everyone with the id they need to take more easily take advantage of government programs, open a bank account, etc.

It's not a false dichotomy. It's a real dichotomy and you're simply trying to make one side seem less difficult. You're idea changes nothing. Firstly, it's incredibly expensive to fix a problem that isn't a real burden at all. Secondly, giving away free ID really doesn't change anything here.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Voter fraud does not exist in any capacity that influences even local elections.

It doesn't exist.

It's a unicorn.

Sure, you may be right, and I agree that election fraud is a far bigger issue. However, I still think that providing free government id's should be done regardless of id requirements in elections. Lack of government photo id is preventing some people from taking advantage of the resources that are available to them. If everyone had a government photo id, the voter id requirements would be a non-issue, which is my point. It would also prevent government from instituting such requirements for political gain by preventing the poorest from voting, as there would be no political gain of this sort to be had.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

It's not a false dichotomy. It's a real dichotomy and you're simply trying to make one side seem less difficult. You're idea changes nothing. Firstly, it's incredibly expensive to fix a problem that isn't a real burden at all. Secondly, giving away free ID really doesn't change anything here.

How does it not change anything here? Please explain. How would everyone having an id not change the conversation. After all, you claiming that there is a choice between hundreds of thousands of people not being able to vote and eliminating voter fraud (which is minimal).

That it's expensive is irrelevant.

Your saying it's a dichotomy doesn't make it so.