Death - should the departed's family have an intrinsic right to the body?

[delericho]

Yup, but if the federal guvernment issues a voter ID for all voters who register, the question of mandatory IDs is taken care of...

It would be. But the problem is that vested interests don't want that ID issue taken care of, because it is in their interest if the votes of the poor are suppressed (because they think they'll vote for the other guy).

And, unfortunately, it's those same vested interests that have their hands on the levers of power, and to get them out you would need to win the votes of the very people who have been suppressed. It's a very neat arrangement, because each problem could be solved if only one other problem were solved first, and yet because the dependencies are circular you actually can't solve any of them without solving all of them. Which, of course, you can't do.

 

[Umbran]

Now the urdle becomes registration, but that is another issue.

Maybe, maybe not - depends on what is necessary for registration. If, for example, you have to prove you are a citizen, or a resident, the exact same issues are involved. Making voter registration difficult is another common suppression tactic.

 

[Umbran]

It's a very neat arrangement, because each problem could be solved if only one other problem were solved first, and yet because the dependencies are circular you actually can't solve any of them without solving all of them. Which, of course, you can't do.

Well, there are some signs of cracks in that structure. Recently, the Supreme Court found that a commission set up in Arizona to do redistricting was Constitutional.

IIRC, the people voted for a commission of 5 - two republican, two Democrat, and a fifth chosen by the first four. This commission is separate from the state legislature, and not answerable to the legislature. Thus, gerrymandering power is removed from the people who most want to gerrymander. Then, you start getting districts that are no longer engineered to give particular results in elections, the will of the populace is more clearly represented.

Not a silver bullet, of course, but a step in the right direction.

 

[delericho]

Not a silver bullet, of course, but a step in the right direction.

Indeed.

 

[Kramodlog]

It would be. But the problem is that vested interests don't want that ID issue taken care of, because it is in their interest if the votes of the poor are suppressed (because they think they'll vote for the other guy).

And, unfortunately, it's those same vested interests that have their hands on the levers of power, and to get them out you would need to win the votes of the very people who have been suppressed. It's a very neat arrangement, because each problem could be solved if only one other problem were solved first, and yet because the dependencies are circular you actually can't solve any of them without solving all of them. Which, of course, you can't do.

Well, the very people who's right to vote is being attacked do vote as there are groups that fight for them. Obama's victories have been achieved in part because of minorities who's right to vote is under attack managed to vote for him. It isn't just tilted to one side, but is a never ending battle. This is why a national voter ID card could trump local voter ID laws that are ment to supress voter and end that particular battle. In theory at least.

Of course, if supressing votes is in the interest of one party, it means expending it is in the interests of another party. Protecting voter rights might not be done for the most noble ideals. But so what? Doing the right thing is what is important. Besides, maybe now minorities tend to vote for one party, but things can change. Black people use to vote for Republicans en mass until the 60s/70s.

 

[Kramodlog]

Maybe, maybe not - depends on what is necessary for registration. If, for example, you have to prove you are a citizen, or a resident, the exact same issues are involved. Making voter registration difficult is another common suppression tactic.

Indeed. I wonder how much registration is really necessary and what can but put into place instead.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yup, but if the federal guvernment issues a voter ID for all voters who register, the question of mandatory IDs is taken care of as that ID is provided. Now the urdle becomes registration, but that is another issue.

Yep- a constitutional one. Voting rights, by and large, are controlled at the State level. The Feds can only step in when the States start playing games about denying people the right to vote.

IOW, you'd probably need a constitutional Amendment to be able to issue a Federal Voter ID card.

(And, FWIW, the same issue applies to drivers licenses.)

 

[Kramodlog]

Yep- a constitutional one. Voting rights, by and large, are controlled at the State level. The Feds can only step in when the States start playing games about denying people the right to vote.

IOW, you'd probably need a constitutional Amendment to be able to issue a Federal Voter ID card.

(And, FWIW, the same issue applies to drivers licenses.)

The fed still can have a say in state elections when it is about civil rights. At least it use to, before scotus invalidated parts of the Voting Rights Act.

 

[billd91]

The fed still can have a say in state elections when it is about civil rights. At least it use to, before scotus invalidated parts of the Voting Rights Act.

The Feds still do. What the SCOTUS decision mainly did was kill the existing list of areas under Federal scrutiny. Congress can generate another set of areas, but they almost certainly won't as long as the GOP can torpedo efforts to do so. When there was the old list, it was seen as politically damaging to vote against any re-authorization. And while it may still be politically damaging to vote against anything involved in the existing Voting Rights Act, getting the political will and agreement together to set up the scrutiny anew is going to be very hard without a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and majority in the House.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The fed still can have a say in state elections when it is about civil rights. At least it use to, before scotus invalidated parts of the Voting Rights Act.

As noted, the Feds do still get involved with the civil rights aspects of voting laws- that's what I was talking about, albeit obliquely. (Sorry.)

But they cannot issue voter ID laws. That power is reserved to the states.