BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !

Subject: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 12:51 PM

While US servicemen die in Iraq for the Conservative conjob of Democracy for every Iraqi, here in the USA 33% of the population is prevented by US Laws from voting.

Isn't that a little odd from a Government which bases its appeal on good old fashioned Consurvative American values?


US Census Site

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 12:56 PM

Are we to imply that 33% of the voting age citizens have been prevented by US laws from registering? If so, we need evidence--with sources.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: jeffp
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 01:17 PM

There is nothing on that web page to support your allegation, sorefingers. In fact, it states that 72% of voting age citizens reported being registered to vote, which would leave only 28% unregistered. There is nothing at all in there referring to anyone being prevented from registering by law.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 01:20 PM

Interesting assertion, but completely unsupported. Even by that census bureau page, which only states that 28% of citizens aren't registered. Nothing about being "prevented" by "US laws."

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: Peace
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 01:25 PM

When you're bitten on the arse by a troll
Whose humour is a little dry and droll
When you're bitten on the ass
It's as well to let it pass
Like the people who go voting at the poll

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: Grab
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 01:56 PM

No such stats on that site. Maybe you meant to link somewhere else?

Some of the population probably will be prevented from voting - people under 18, in prison or on probation/parole are the main groups I can think of. All of which is fair enough. Laws on ex-offenders not being allowed to vote are more open to argument about legitimacy, but I don't know whether the US does this or not.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 02:19 PM

Sad to say, I have no doubt that SOME eligible voters will indeed be denied their right as a result of local election chicanery; it almost always happens. That's a far cry, however, from being prevented by "laws"

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: Peace
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 02:23 PM

Looks like bullshit, smells like bullshit and tastes like bullshit.

Good thing we didn't step in it!

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 02:34 PM

"Laws on ex-offenders not being allowed to vote are more open to argument about legitimacy, but I don't know whether the US does this or not." Grab

It may vary by state, Graham. In Alaska, ex-offenders in most cases are eventually reinstated. The exceptions are 'crimes of turpitude', and I never have had a clear idea of what that refers to.

The other category of being denied the vote is not being registered. I used to work at the Division of Elections and it is surprising how many people assume that they can walk in on Election Day and vote. "I'm a US citizen!"

So far as I know, every state requires registration, although some allow it up to and on Election Day. Other states, like Alaska, enforce a time period of 30 days before the big day.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 02:47 PM

There's been a major push on in most states to open the process. Even in "rock-ribbed" New Hampshire these days, you can register at the polls on election day, at least in some places.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 03:06 PM

Well....Here in old Taft Republican Ohio, the Dems are about to clean the GOP clocks. This was obvious from some time back and the current GOP office holders passed new "laws" which are being tested of course, but through Bushy courts!

We are now forced to provide "suitable ID"....a sop supposedly to 911 but in reality meant to disenfranchise poor, students, ethnic minorities.....you get the drift, you know.....probable Democratic voters. Before all that was needed was a signature check by the polling agents. On absentee ballots you MUST provide your Driver's License or Photo ID number. No big deal, except the most prominent number on the document is NOT the license number but some other number used only for internal purposes. Its very large and directly above the photo making the proper number not as likely to be used. If you use the wrong number, your absentee ballot will NOT be counted. This one is going back and forth in the courts and even a Republican judge looked at his own license and picked the wrong number.   Ther is some other additional paperwork needed now with your absentee ballot so those most likely to be rejected are the same group as above.

Go figger..............

What they figure is that although the GOP candidate for Senate is 20 pointsa behind in the polls, these "new rules" combined with another round of possible fraud from the computer voting machines could get the guy a 10 point WIN!!! Same with the Governor's race only moreso.

I hope we see both smoked badly with no op for a recount but.....................well, I'll wait and see.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 03:55 PM

Hell, Spaw, some people would ask for a recount even if the vote is 1,000 to 1.

In any case, we'll all see tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: NH Dave
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 04:41 PM

As I understand things, with the new voter registration laws, anyone with adequate identification can register and vote at the polling places, all across the country.

What has been a problem, especially in Florida, is producing what is locally considered to be adequate picture ID. These laws or local interpretations are being challenged in the courts.

What has happened, again in Florida, is that people with names near enough to those of convicted felons have been denied their right to vote.

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 04:57 PM

Ok I am overestimated the readers ability to research for themseves, but I see catspaw49 did some of that for everybody. The rest is very simple,
Puritanical rigthwing neo-con lunatics have barred millions from voting for being poor, for having moved to a new address and not informing Her Siezersssss new HomeSS about it. Then there are the millions of people rairoaded in states with contracted out detainment social education services ( IOW rent a jail dot inc ). They create crime on the side to keep their business running. Try Oklahoma Mississippi and any other poor state for the same kind of rubbish. Next all legal aliens are barred no matter how long they have lived in the USA. Last but not least the recent influx of Latinos who BTW have enormous political clout!

So instead of leaning on the troll button some of yall should be out there doing the folkie thing and making it hell for the conslobs who are such bunch of hypocrits!

The census does ask about registration BUT it does not report those who cannot vote, that figure is estimated from those who do not respond, so yes 33% is an accurate if low estimate of the number.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: NH Dave
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 05:11 PM

I'd like to address your notion that legal - green card - aliens should be allowed to vote.

Tell me one country where legal immigrants who have NOT become residents of that country are allowed to vote in that country's elections.

The US is not alone in this way of thinking, although there are some countries that allow you to become a citizen of their country without renouncing your US citizenship - Ireland for one - if I understand their citizenship laws correctly.

Getting back to my original point, if an immigrant to the US wishes to exercise his "right" to vote in US elections, s/he must become a naturalized citizen, requiring seven odd years of residence in the US, after becoming a legal alien, i.e. green card - which are actually a pinkish purple, BTW. In some cases, military service in the US military can reduce this wait time to become a US citizen.

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 06:15 PM

In all democracies, a person is legally allowed to vote in one, and only one, voting jurisdiction.

If a US citizen lives in Minnesotta for six months of the year and Florida for the other six months, he must claim one state or the other as his legal residence and vote there, by absentee ballot is necessary. He is not allowed to cast votes in both states.

Most foreigners who are residing in the US, legally or illegally, temporarilly or permanently, are allowed to vote by absentee ballot in elections in their home countries. Allowing them to vote in US elections would essentially be allowing them to cast two ballots.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 06:18 PM

And I still don't see any numbers from reliable documentary sources. I am doing the "folkie" thing - i.e. thinking for myself and questioning unsupported assertions. You (sorefingers) seem to confuse "the folkie thing" with automatic assumption that everything the gummnint does is wrong, and any claim of wrongdoing against someone I don't trust must be true.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 06:24 PM

Right, NH Dave. Residency - legal or not - has nothing to do with being able to vote in this country. Which is as it should be, imo. Anyone who holds citizenship in another country does not have a legal stake in what happens in his or her temporary country.

And sorefingers, I recognize that different states have different standards and different requirements but most of your summation does not hold water.

As David Letterman recently told Bill O'Reilly: I believe that about 60% of what you say is crap.

Nothing personal. Of course.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 06:32 PM

Ok you are responding partly to the 'tax payers without a vote' set of people. And Ok there is some sense to what you are trying to shove over on to these good hard working members of our society. But, and here I rely not on foreign factors, but on our very own common law inherited from Europe. Persons living and settled in a place for more than 5 years who BEAR all the burdens that citizenship demands. isby common law thereby AUTOMATICALY enfrancised. IOW You can't have your cake and eat it, or in US Constitutional Law, what was good enough for Revolutonary Republican Americans in 1776, is good enough for immigrant Republican Americans in 2006. No vote no tax! or paying tax is one pillar for enfrancisement.

Next, issue, dual citizenship. So what? There is nothing at all wrong with being both European and American at the same time. In fact, if that weren't so there would be no such thing as the United States Of America, because Europeans built this country. Yes this offends the average conslob, but who cares about what they think!

Residing in the USA is not an option for some immigrants, they escaped to the USA, so in effect they are prisioners of circumstance. Support libery and justice, then deal with those who are denied them.

IOW live in the USA, pay taxes in the USA, and be eligible for service in the defence forces of the USA is all that is needed to make a case under Common Law to establish the rest of the contract.

I do not see what your problem is, except perhaps moving the debate away from the majority of those recently disenfrancised by the Neo-cons.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 08:12 PM

"Our very own common law inherited from Europe" is an interesting but essentially meaningless statement. "Common law" (which is inherited from England, not Europe, BTW) is trumped by statute every time. If the law gives, as it does, specific legal requirements for acquiring citizenship and thus for voting, it really makes no difference what (if anything) English common law once said about it. This is not a law or policy recently established by any Neo-con.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 10:36 PM

This thread proves that any hockey puck can state any unsubstantiated and uninformed twaddle on the internet. Thankfully it also shows that there are informed people who will call them out on it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 11:07 PM

artbrooks, Common an English creation? Naw yer wrong Sir. Statutes trump Common Law, wrong again, in that case the effect is the other way around - see recent cases of Eminent Domain, for example.

US Constitutional Law - point not even addressed, shows you are not that well read in the subject.

My point is all the stronger for the trivial objections, and John in Wallihood shows just how silly the opposition is, as well as displaying all that is bad about Pom-speak. Darn it, can't you say anything good for your peers in this Republican America? or has selfishness become 'the' way of life for Englishmen out here?

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 01:35 AM

One pays taxes for a whole lot more than just the right to vote.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 07:47 AM

Actually, the right to vote is monetarily free. The poll tax was abolished ages ago. You pay taxes for other things entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: Grab
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 09:09 AM

for being poor

Evidence...? By "for being poor", are you talking "for being unable to read"? Or "for living in an area where it's further to the voting station"? Or what?

for having moved to a new address and not informing Her Siezersssss new HomeSS about it

Eh? Surely we're talking common sense here, right? Otherwise anyone could walk into any polling station, say "I just moved here, I want to vote", and then walk a few blocks down the road to the next one and repeat for as many votes as he wants. I don't know how the US works for this, but in the UK you need to give an address to be able to vote, and you get sent a permit kind of thing which lets you vote *once*.

I suppose this prompts a question: was there *ever* a time in the US (in, say, the last 50 years) when you didn't need an address to be registered for voting?

Then there are the millions of people rairoaded in states with contracted out detainment social education services ( IOW rent a jail dot inc ).

Translation: "criminals", right? Thanks, but for everyone's safety I'd rather the people running towns with substantial prisons were elected by the townspeople and not by the criminals.

Next all legal aliens are barred no matter how long they have lived in the USA.

Find a country where this isn't the case.

But, and here I rely not on foreign factors, but on our very own common law inherited from Europe

"Common law" is entirely a British creation. It consists of precedent established by court rulings, rather than written laws. For the US version, see http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c070.htm which I found with about 2 minutes Googling. As far as "no taxation without representation" goes, it is *entirely* an American invention. At the time of the American Revolution, the majority of the UK population had no right to vote - indeed, another quick search on Google shows that non-landowners only got the vote in 1832, and working-class men didn't get the right to vote until 1872, nearly a century later.

In other words, common law gives you no such right. You *could* argue that it should come from the views of the Founding Fathers - but the US Constitution is quite clear that only people born in the US or naturalised as US citizens are allowed to vote, which shows pretty clearly what the Founding Fathers thought about it.

Last but not least the recent influx of Latinos who BTW have enormous political clout!

For legal immigrants, see above. For illegal immigrants, see above.

I'm afraid it looks like every point you've brought up here is an absolutely standard situation in most countries, and has been the case in the US for many years. As much as I dislike "conslobs", I'm afraid I don't think you've got a shadow of a case here.

For sure, make a fuss about ballots designed to obscure the vote, about new conditions, about people being stopped from voting because their name happens to be similar to a criminal (even though they've got their voting papers), about deadlines being slipped for services personnel abroad, about voting stations being shut early or undermanned, about voting stations fitted with electronic voting systems that have been proved to be vulnerable to hacking and may not even function correctly. Now all *those* are real things to worry about. So I really don't see why you need to invent all those fake scare stories when there are so many genuine problems which you *should* be worried about.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 09:12 AM

For some civil rights and voting rights do not end with a cessation of a heart beat.

There are 70,000 New Yorkers who are registered to vote while currently dead. I have no proof that living enablers use dead people's voting priviledge but it is possible.

The 2000 election in Volusha County FL registered a whooping minus 16,000 votes. OF course the voting machines were Diebold.


Today there are new voting ID laws that will turn voters away if they do not have the new updated proof of their citizenship, address and voter registration.

I bet these restrictions are waved if you present a hedge fund reciept as ID.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: GUEST,MarkS
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 12:08 PM

Just got back from voting. Only had to state my name, and the clerk found my page in the registration book. Signed the book and voted. No challenge, no hassle, no problem.
If anything is simpler than voting in America please tell us. All you have to do is want to.
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 12:17 PM

The two polling places here in the Library opened at 8 a.m. Precinct 4 had 77 voters in the first hour and voting always picks up as the day goes on.

There have been four new registrants in Precinct 1, with no one being denied.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 12:42 PM

the US Constitution is quite clear that only people born in the US or naturalised as US citizens are allowed to vote, which shows pretty clearly what the Founding Fathers thought about it.

Though perhaps what your Founding Fathers thought shouldn't be treated as holy writ - after all, they didn't think that black people born in the United States should have any right to vote, nor the original inhabitants of the country. Nor women, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 12:50 PM

True, McGrath. And those flaws have been fixed by the amendment process that the Framers were wise enough to put in place (and also wisely made rather difficult) Are you advocating that we further amend our consitution to allow "whoever feels like it" to vote? Is that the way it works in the UK? Or anywhere? Or are you just taking an egregious shot at the Framers of the constitution, for being people of their time & place?

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 01:03 PM

Egregious shot? Not really. But I tend think their contemporary Samuel Johnson had a point when he said in reference to the Founding Fathers "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?"

I think it would be reasonable, in the light of the fact that large parts of the United States were historically Mexican, for a similar arrangement to exist between the United States and Mexico as does between the United Kingdom and Ireland, allowing citizens of each country to vote in the other if they are resident.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 01:09 PM

Another segue here: Kevin, has the UK always 'allowed' women to vote? (I say "allowed" because it is infuriating to me that women anywhere have been 'given' the vote, 'allowed' to vote, 'allowed' to be educated, etc. Who in the hell had the right -ever to decide what and whether and when any adult, as opposed to any other adult, should be able to do something?)

It is like saying 'man and wife', instead of 'husband and wife'. Our (largely) unconscious bias is huge.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: jeffp
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 01:17 PM

On 28th March, 1917, the House of Commons voted 341 to 62 that women over the age of 30 who were householders, the wives of householders, occupiers of property with an annual rent of £5 or graduates of British universities. MPs rejected the idea of granting the vote to women on the same terms as men.

And in the US: 1920 The Nineteenth Amendment, called the Susan B. Anthony Amendment, is ratified by Tennessee on August 18. It becomes law on August 26.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 01:25 PM

In all democracies, a person is legally allowed to vote in one, and only one, voting jurisdiction. BWL

Not quite true. Here in the UK, you can be registerd to vote in more than one location.*

You can vote in elections in either location. You can vote in different locations on the same day, so long as it is at different levels, ie Vote in the nationals in place A, and the Local council elections in B. Of course, such an open system is easy to abuse, so it will be probabaly be changed, to something more complicated which does nothing to address the problem of elctoral fraud...



* This only generally happens to people with a reasonable claim to live in more than one loctaion, such as students who live with their parents outside of term time, or otherwise divide their time between two locations.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: Peace
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 01:59 PM

Vote early and vote often.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 02:06 PM

All done. Now I wait and see.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 02:23 PM

"On 28th March, 1917, the House of Commons voted 341 to 62 that women over the age of 30 who were householders, the wives of householders, occupiers of property with an annual rent of £5 or graduates of British universities. MPs rejected the idea of granting the vote to women on the same terms as men.

And in the US: 1920 The Nineteenth Amendment, called the Susan B. Anthony Amendment, is ratified by Tennessee on August 18. It becomes law on August 26." JeffP

Jeff, this is absolutely NOT aimed at you- but it would be revealing to say, "The House of Commons, (all MEN) voted 341 to 62", etc and "The Nineteenth Amendmendment... is ratified by Tennessee (all MEN), etc.

It is possible that men today don't read that the same way as women of today do. To women - to THIS woman- it resounds of male smug arrogance and ignorance and insecurity. Of the past, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 03:25 PM

McGrath, I don't understand the connection between US & Mexico, and UK and Ireland. Mexico was never a province (or colony) of the US. Large chunks of territory that were once Mexican are now part of the US. The descendants of the Mexicans who lived there, if they live where their ancestors did, are US citizens now. What connection does that have with folks from Oaxaca who happen to be residing in California but aren't US citizens? The US used to be a colony of the UK; if I happen to take up residence in Belfast, should I automatically be allowed to vote there? (Or would I be? I plead ignorance, but somehow I suspect the UK requires more than "present" to be eligible to vote.)

I also don't understand the point of bringing up social and cultural facts that have not been in force for 140 years as if they had some bearing on the current issue. One could as easily tell Dr. Johnson to STFU because various Brit kings were nasty to the Irish and Scots.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 03:29 PM

Ebbie, since historically and factually the membership of these bodies (however wrong it may have been) were all men, they were the only ones who could have voted at the time. And, recognizing the need to correct a long-standing wrong, they did so.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 03:34 PM

Ebbie, in February 1920 Tennessee allowed limited suffrage: women were allowed to vote in Presidential and municipal elections and was the first of the "old confederacy" states to allow them to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: jeffp
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 03:48 PM

The passage of the 19th amendment was preceded by several states granting women the right to vote over a long period of years.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 03:55 PM

Well, well, well...

Another interesting twist is just who we let vote and not who we don't...

Case in point:

This morning while I was at the precinct casting my vote there was a very, very old man who had been led to the voting booth by a campaign worker... Now Virginia paper ballot ain't rocket science here because all you have to to is draw a 1/2 line that complets the middle of an arrow that points to your choice... Well, this poor ol' guy couldn't figure that out and was yellin' "What am I supposed to do?" A poll worker tried to explain it to him and was gettin' nowhere so I walked over to the guy and with my hands forms the front and back of an arrow and told him that all he had to do was draw the line connecting the two... He thnked me then went back to looking at the ballot as if is Greek... He was still there 2 minutes later when the P-Vine finished votin' and might still be there, for that matter...

Now, I know I'm going to get the blast for this, but why is this guy allowed to vote... If he isn't smart enough to draw a dnaged 1/2 inch line in front of the cnadidate of his choice then how in God's green Earth has he learned enough about the issues to qualify him to possibly cancell out my vote???

And, oh yeah... There was a van in the parking lot for party that I didn't vote for shuffling these folks in and out...

Tell ya' what folks, I think voting is a little like driving... Some folks can stay sharp enough right up to the end to vote responsibly but others just get used by the campaign workers who 'round 'um up out of nursing homes, give 'um a few goodies and take them like cattl;e off to vote in elections that these folks don't have a clue about???

Now back to the 33%

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 04:21 PM

Saying two situations have some kind of similarity is not the same as saying that they are the same in all respects, or even in most respects.

The historical relationship between Ireland and the UK is obviously very different from that between the USA and Mexico. But there are parallels - a powerful country and a much less powerful country tied together by a pretty bloody history, and yet with a great deal in common.

The shared voting and residential relationship which means that citizens of either country can live and work and vote in the other has worked pretty well for Ireland and the UK. Perhaps it might be worth considering for Mexico and the USA.

And it was you who mentioned the "Founding Fathers", Buck, and their thoughts about citizenship. It seemed relevant to consider what those thoughts actually included.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 06:59 PM

Fair enough. Let's just not start disqualifying the thoughts of anyone who ever had a bad one. But the parallels between UK/Ireland and US/Mexico don't really exist, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 07:09 PM

Well, I've got a godson whose father is Mexican and his mother is Irish, so maybe I'm a bit predisposed to see parallels.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 07:28 PM

State statutes lead to some peculiar situations.
Arizona requires photo ID but a passport is no good. AZ also requires that the photo ID must have the voter's address; U. S. passports don't have that.

A bit of humor this morning when the South Carolina governor was turned away for lack of proper identification; he had to make a second trip. Not sure what the requirements are for ID in that state.

Not completely true about voting in all countries being restricted to citizens. When I came to Canada I did not become a naturalized citizen for some time because there was a possibility that I would be transferred out of Canada to another Company affiliate.
Provincial law allowed me and other non-citizens to vote in local city elections if I was a property owner, which I was because I bought my house. When I came, about 12% of the city population held U. S., and an even larger percentage had UK citizenship. We all voted in local elections, and if I remember correctly, British citizens could vote in all elections if they owned property.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 07:44 PM

Q, I can see the 'dispensation' for property tax votes; if you have property in that jurisdiction you have a stake in it.

In the same way, in the US when you vote a 'questioned' ballot (basically meaning that they don't have a paper trail for you and will therefore examine your voted ballot more carefully in review) you may not be able to vote for local candidates or issues but you can always vote (if you are registered SOMEWHERE in the US) for federal issues like US Senate or House candidates or a presidential candidate.

Which again is how it should be.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: Grab
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 07:55 PM

Probably it was me who originally mentioned the Founding Fathers (mea culpa ;-) and sorefingers before...

In my Googling, I found a quirk you might appreciate, Ebbie. Originally in the UK it was only landowners who could vote, but that was *irrespective* of gender. Women landowners were actually disenfranchised by the later law that based voting rights on income and on men-only.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 08:15 PM

That's interesting, Grab. Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 08:21 PM

BuckMulligan said Large chunks of territory that were once Mexican are now part of the US. The descendants of the Mexicans who lived there, if they live where their ancestors did, are US citizens now. This is true, but for a very limited period of time. Strictly speaking, Mexico had been independent from Spain for only 25 years when those sections of the US southwest were seized in the Mexican War.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: pdq
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 09:14 PM

Spain relinquished its claim to Mexico in 1921. I twas more a matter of money and boredom than it was a military loss. Mexico was thought to have huge wealth in gold and silver and jewels. Although some booty was taken back the Spain, it was not the world of riches the Spanish had hoped for. They had better things to do than try to control an uncontrollable rabble that was/is Mexico.

Texas was claimed by the new government of Mexico, although the citizens were never asked. The demand that all Texas resident practice Roman Catholicism and pledge allegiance to Mexico did not sit well with Texans. That shit was just what they or their ancestors had left Europe to get away from.

Both California (in 1846) and Texas (in 1835) declared themselves to be independent republics against the imperial claims of Mexico. Here is a little bit about the Republic of Texas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Republic of Texas

By 1835, Antonio López de Santa Anna had established himself as a dictator in Mexico. Among Anglo-American colonists and Tejanos alike, the call for Texas independence grew louder. On March 2, 1836, a delegation at Washington-on-the-Brazos adopted the Texas Declaration of Independence, and thus was born the Republic of Texas.

Santa Anna had brought his army to Texas to put down the rebellion, and events followed in quick succession. At the time the Declaration was issued, many Texans were fleeing their homes eastward ahead of Santa Anna's army, in what became known as the Runaway Scrape. The Alamo fell to Santa Anna on March 6, and over 300 unarmed Texan prisoners were massacred at Goliad on March 27. Sam Houston's revolutionary army was also retreating eastward as Santa Anna drove for the coast to capture Texas seaports. On April 21, the Texan army took a stand in the bayou country near present-day Houston at a site called San Jacinto. They attacked Santa Anna's army while it was sleeping, and, in a battle lasting only 18 minutes, routed the Mexican army and captured Santa Anna.

Many Texans favored immediate annexation by the United States. However, the proposals went nowhere, because of the risk of continued war with Mexico and Texas' shaky financial status. Even after San Jacinto, Mexico refused to recognize Texas's independence and continued to raid the Texas border. The new government had neither money nor credit, and no governmental structures were in place. Rebuffed by the United States, Texans went about the business of slowly forming a stable government and nation. Despite many difficulties and continued fighting both with Mexico and with Indian tribes, the Texas frontier continued to attract thousands of settlers each year.

In 1841, Santa Anna again became president of Mexico and renewed hostilities with Texas. By this time, sympathy for the Texan cause had grown in the United States, and in 1845, annexation was at last approved. Hostilities with Mexico and the Indians reached a settlement, and Texas was admitted as a state on December 29, 1845. The Republic of Texas, after nine years, eleven months, and seventeen days, was no more.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 10:53 PM

Graham, your sources are unreliable because common law has been a check upon legislation since the earliest written accounts of such things. It is an arrogance of certain agencies which continues the myth which you repeat above.

One of the sources is the early writings which are incorporated into the OT or Torah. For example 'an eye for an eye'. Sure, in English law some of these things were obscured to the peasantry by Latinising them, others corrupted, but that does not establish their source there. Put the matter this way, because the English use Tea does NOT show that they invented it.

I find the attempt to railroad the dependency of Taxation upon enfrancisment utterly repulsive and unacceptable. I say, as the early American Republicans also said, no taxation without representation. It is not that complicated a thing to understand.

BTW Sorry about my typing and editing, I have very bad eye sight these days.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 12:10 AM

Several people here have argued about what the US Founding Fathers established as the "right to vote," and have made vigorous assertions about what "The Constitution says." It appears that few, including those making such assertions, have actually had a copy of the US Constitution and its amendments to consult on the subject.

In its original form, the US Constitution made no reference to the requirements for citizens to vote and provided no "definition of citizenship." There were detailed sections on how members of Congress shall conduct votes in Congress; but the requirements for individuals to be counted as citizens (to be eligible to vote) was left entirely to the states.

Each state was, and is, free to set its own requirements for voters. Many states then recognized citizenship for a far wider range of persons than were granted the right to vote, with ownership of a specified value in property being a very common criterion for voting. Membership in "the Church" was a requirement in some.

Several US Supreme Court decisions, and a few Amendments, have imposed limits on requirements that states may impose for voters, but most of those have been too recent to be called the "will of the Founders."

While the original Constitution requires that members of Congress be "citizens," there was no definition of what makes a person a citizen of the US or of any State. The first appearance that might be construed as "defining citizenship" appeared in 1898 with the 14th Amendment:

In part:

Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Indirectly, the subsequent paragraphs of Amendment IV established the requirement that anyone age 21 or older could not be denied voting rights on the basis of age alone.

Amendment XV requires that race alone shall not bar a person from having all the rights of citizenship.

Amendment XV - Race no bar to vote. Ratified 2/3/1870.
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.

The 19th Amendment provided that citizens could not be barred from voting because of their sex.

Amendment XIX - Women's suffrage. Ratified 8/18/1920.
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 sex.

The poll tax ban appeared only in 1964 with the 24th Amendment.

Amendment XXIV - Poll tax barred. Ratified 1/23/1964.
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

The age for voting was lowered to 18 by:

Amendment XXVI - Voting age set to 18 years. Ratified 7/1/1971.
1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Those who would like to make their own search for quibbles may find an excellent copy of the US Constitution: Amended at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html


Side note:

As indicated, the US Constitution specifies some things a state cannot do in determining who may vote, but requirements not prohibited still may be imposed by each individual state; and it is quite possible for a state to allow voting by persons who would not have that right in another state. It is not necessary that voting for national offices be subject to the same requirements as voting for state or local issues except for the above limitations, and there have been quite a few places where different requirements have been applied.

From Notable Kansas Women:

"Susanna Madora Salter, Argonia, was elected the first woman mayor in the United States. She and her husband Lewis Salter lived in the Sumner County community where she cared for their young children and became an officer in the local Woman's Christian Temperance Union. Nominated for mayor as a joke, Salter surprised the group and received two-thirds of the votes. She was elected in April 1887, just weeks after Kansas women had gained the right to vote in city elections."

John

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 01:23 AM

I'm afraid I'm also seeing much smoke and fumes in the debates about "the Common Law" here, with little flame or substance.

Each country, quite generally has its own body of Common Law, and as new judicial decisions enter into it, each body of Common Law continues to evolve.

The title of "The Classic Exposition of Common Law" in US jurisprudence might justifiably be applied to the book, The Common Law by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. This book was published in 1881, quite a while before Holmes became Chief Justice in Massachusetts and subsequently a Justice of the US Supreme Court. It is somewhat "dated" but remains a respected classic, and offers a reasonable notion of how Common Law has been incorporated into US Law.

A Dover Publications reprint was issued in 1991, with extensive (and helpful) notes and commentary. (ISBN 0-486-26746-6 for the US paperback) It's long, mostly boring, but necessary reading (perhaps) for anyone wanting to understand this aspect of the history and evolution of US law. Some supplemental sources may be needed to clearly discern a few "deviant" notions, or concepts that have evolved since publication.

It is quite clear that the body of Common Law most strongly incorporated into US practice comes directly and almost exclusively from British legal tradition. An attorney can present anything in argument, and anything accepted as "precedent" becomes part of the Common Law for that court that subsequent arguments may cite, but US courts traditionally have been most receptive to arguments based on British Common Law prior to the establishment of the US. There is thus, like the "UK Constitution" cited previously, no "fixed set of laws" that constitute the Common Law.

A possible exeption to the use of British Common Law, and a notable one if it's as it appears, occurs in Louisianna, where the state legal tradition is largely based on the Napoleanic Code.

There are few recent citations in court arguments going back to this older tradition, since a citation of the old law that has been accepted as precedent can itself be cited with better effect in the court where such precedent has been previously accepted.

There is no "law" that says that "the Common Law" is "the law" in any part of the US. Many local/state laws are "patterned after" precedents that derive from earlier (esp) British Common law, and earlier Common Law has had a strong influence on US legal precedent. That's about as far as it can be stretched.

John

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: Grab
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 12:21 PM

Which "myth", sorefingers? That common law is set by precedent in courts? That's what common law *is*. The English didn't invent it - as others have said, different countries have their own versions of court case precedent - but the US naturally shares more with the English version than with other countries' versions, and the English legal system *did* give that body of precedents the name we now use for it.

But what I was trying to get at is that you claimed, very specifically, that common law precedent inherited from England at the time of the American Revolution gave you the right to vote if you'd paid tax. My point was that this cannot be the case, for the simple reason that at the time of the American Revolution, most of the UK population had no right to vote in spite of paying tax. This means that there's no way there can have been a common law precedent for the US to inherit.

I don't have a problem with "if you pay tax, you get to vote". It seems a fair system, and although some argument is possible, I'd agree with you in principle.

But this is where registering your address comes in - if you can show that you own property and hence pay local taxes, giving you a vote in that area is sensible. But you'd need to prove you live there and pay taxes there, because just being in the area at the time of the election wouldn't qualify you! So the registering process is essential, and that's why I disagreed with you about "for having moved to a new address and not informing Her Siezersssss new HomeSS about it". If you've moved and you've not registered to vote, how would they know? That's your fault and not the state's. Maybe they could slick things up by basing voting on who's registered for tax, but there's a separate item in the Constitution about not being barred from voting if you don't pay tax, which could get in the way. Still, if you've moved and you don't tell anyone you've moved, that's your mistake.

My biggest problem with what you said though is that you're painting all this as being the actions of "a Government which bases its appeal on good old fashioned Consurvative American values" and "Neo-cons". As much as I dislike both of those groups, it seems clear that all the laws/rules you're talking about (dual-nationality, US citizenship, etc) have been in place for much longer than Bush has been around. Sure, fixing these conditions would be good, but the fact that these conditions exist is not down to the current administration.

And the current administration has enough wrong with it that picking stuff to protest about which *isn't* its fault is positively bizarre... :-/

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 01:27 PM

People pay taxes just by living and breathing and eating in a place. Unless you are living in a place where there are no sales taxes and so forth on anything they might need to buy.

The logical thing is that if you are legally living in a country you should be entitled to vote there.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 07:53 PM

Mr John-in-Kansas, well put and stated, but again sources are misleading you! First it's "English Common Law" according to them, and second it wasn't and isn't exclusively their's! They inherited their system from Rome. The Romans in their turn got their Laws from another source and so on. So they did not invent Justice either.

Common Law is 'court's precedent'. Ok, but what happens when one crooked judge has a politicians hand in his pocket and his own hand in the state treasury?

IOW Rubbish. Common Law is formed from several sources including relgious, moral, long established tradition and other practices. There IS no legal basis for it. That's the whole point. Priciples established in legislation and court rulings which take substance from it, for whatever reason, are relatively ephemeral. Now if you took a part of the Law of Sumer or Egypt and compared it to today's expression of a similar practice, then I can see why you might be getting confused. But you didn't. So I don't see why you have a problem with the3 biblical root for current common law intead of erroneous "English Common Law" ..which when examined closely BTW isn't really common law. I think when you read enough English Law, common or otherwise, you'll very soon realize it's really Regal, or Royal Law. IOW laws of the Monarchy for the 'people', or in their terminology ' subjects'.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 07:58 PM

Here's a link to comments by an expert in the subject.

Common law

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 12:18 AM

Sore -

There is an immense differece between the history of all common law and the derivation of the manner in which it is applied currently within any given legal jurisdiction.

For the sake of not arguing the point, which seems fruitless, I will concede that all common law derives from that instant when one big monkey whacked another monkey, because the second monkey had whacked another monkey. The big monkey said "don't do that again." That was the first law and all else derives from it.

John

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: GUEST,peaceandquiet4now
Date: 18 Nov 06 - 04:18 PM

From the UK Parliament site - stating clearly that citizens of Commonwealth countries may vote in British elections.


The following people are not entitled to vote in parliamentary elections:

peers and peeresses in their own right, who are members of the House of Lords
young people under 18 years of age
foreign nationals other than citizens of the Irish Republic resident in Britain (citizens of Commonwealth countries may vote)
patients detained under mental health legislation
sentenced prisoners
people convicted within the previous five years of corrupt or illegal election practices.