708
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] _number8_@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago

i'm very stupid -- i've never understood this whole registration system at all. why is it not just based on your ID or social security or something? (oh, so prisoners can't vote? great, i'm glad we introduced more complexity to disenfranchise more people.)

[-] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 34 points 1 year ago

Some Americans, particularly evangelical Christians and libertarians, are vehemently against the idea of a national identification system. To them it's either the beginning of a New World Order government or the Mark of the Beast or both. So having a national ID card will never fly. Social Security Numbers aren't even supposed to be used for identification, despite the fact that they're used that way everywhere.

There's also the case that not everyone has an ID. Racist southern states, for example, enact voter ID laws and then remove all places where you can get an ID from majority black areas. Having to show an ID to vote is, therefore, going to disenfranchise some people. You could get around this by broadening valid identification to include simply bringing a piece of mail with your name and address on it.

[-] Uprise42@artemis.camp 10 points 1 year ago

Actually SSN’s ARE supposed to be used that way now. It wasn’t intended when the system started because it was difficult to get everyone one. But once the system was established they started pushing federal agencies to use them. Then in the ‘60’s when the digital revolution began it just made sense to use them. But the law has been changed since 1943. The new cards don’t even have that line on them anymore.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/ssnreportc2.html

[-] Pieisawesome@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

They are terrible ids, they used to be assigned sequentially and geographically based. So you could figure out the first 3-5 digits from basic information and get in a ballpark number if you had a birthday.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

oh, so prisoners can't vote

It seems like not having a polling location inside the prison would also address that concern.

[-] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

You know weirdly in Australia it's mandatory to vote, all government departments exchange information and yet we still need to register to vote... you get fined for not voting and you can't get a passport if you're 18+ and not enrolled.

[-] neptune@dmv.social 6 points 1 year ago

To be fair, voting is handled by the states, so that is one reason it's complicated.

[-] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't know why Republicans wouldn't want prisoners to vote. The don't need to avoid consequences' group and acting overly tough to the point of making life much harder on themselves is their entire base

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

You can't be Tough On Crime^tm^ if you allow prisoners to vote. What if -gasp!- they vote to abolish all crimes! Our streets would be RAMPANT with undesirables! /s

Also, think about the demographic make-up of America's penal system, and you'll find another reason Republicans don't want prisoners to vote.

[-] be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Also, think about the demographic make-up of America’s penal system, and you’ll find another reason Republicans don’t want prisoners to vote.

Pretty sure that is the actual reason.

  • Lose civil war. Have to free your black slaves.

  • Create laws and law enforcement culture that disproportionately impact black folks.

  • Steadfastly pretend you have done neither of those things.

  • Lock 'em up!

  • Sorry, prisoners can't vote. Really, our hands are tied. Someone think of the children.

Closest thing to a confession I'm aware of:

“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people,” former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper’s writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.

"We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news."

"Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/nixon-adviser-ehrlichman-anti-left-anti-black-war-on-drugs-2019-7

Here's older evidence that goes back to much earlier.

Marijuana was Anslinger’s golden ticket. He used his office to trumpet the association between weed and violence, so that it could be criminalized. “You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother,” he was known to have said. McWilliams explains that in this effort, “Anslinger appealed to many organizations whose members were predominantly white Protestant.”

From the beginning, Anslinger conflated drug use, race, and music. “Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men,” he was quoted as saying. “There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.”

https://timeline.com/harry-anslinger-racist-war-on-drugs-prison-industrial-complex-fb5cbc281189

[-] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 4 points 1 year ago

When one thinks too hard about it, the whole "we can't trust prisoners to vote, they'll vote to legalize crime!" argument is pretty ridiculous too. Criminals don't just universally love crime, like a guy in for having weed isn't likely to want to legalize murder or something, he doesn't want to be murdered or see people murdered any more than anyone else, and anyone actually crazy enough to want to legalize that is going to be an irrelevant minority of the vote anyway (prisoners in general will be a minority, unless most of your population is locked up, in which case you either actually do have way too many crimes that shouldn't be illegal, or your society is so terminally dysfunctional that it's laws won't much matter anyway).

[-] Cabrio@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Oops, it looks like you tried having a deep thought, unfortunately thoughts deeper than surface level are dangerous to Conservative minds as they are prone to drowning, and have been subsequently banned.

this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
708 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19238 readers
2104 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS