and something ELSE ridiculous on the news
the first story on the local news after meet the press: georgia has just overhauled their voting procedure. the biggest change: to vote in georgia, you now must present one of 6 forms of government-issued PHOTO id. previously, there were 17 acceptable IDs, including social security cards, birth certificates, and utility bills.
i think this is one of the best pieces of legislature to come out of the georgia congress in quite some time. the fact that we currently DON'T require photo id, and that only 7 other states currently do have this requirement, boggles my mind. why should you be able to vote if you cannot prove your identity? with many elections being decided by only a few hundred votes, it is imperative that we do everything to cut down on voter fraud.
before you go "but megan, what about poor people that can't pay for an id," bite me. provided in the bill is that if you do not have the financial means to afford a photo id, then one will be provided to you free of charge. not to mention, how many people don't have photo id's? if you drive, buy liquor or cigarettes, or use checks or credit cards, you already have a photo id.
but being the whiny bitches that they are, democrats are opposing this bill, saying it targets minorities and the elderly - apparently they don't have ID's, can't afford them, and can't get to the facilities that issue them. however, currently you can order an absentee ballot for any reason, and without id and it will be delivered by mail to your place of residence. these people could very easily then just order absentee ballots. but the democrats also say that we should be MORE restrictive with absentee ballots. so what exactly do they want?
it basically comes down to a good bill, but both parties trying to work it to their advantage and not giving a fuck about the actual issue of voter fraud. absentee ballots should require some ID as well, but republicans don't want that because absentee ballots usually go in favor of the R party. dems call this out, saying the bill is written with rep bias. on those grounds, the dems oppose the whole bill, even though the idea of presenting photo id would cut down on voter fraud at the poles.
example: how difficult would it be to recognize that your neighbor is disabled and jack his utility bill to go vote in his place? how many times has this happened without anyone knowing?
why are so many people apathetic about our voting system? maybe because fraud is rampant, and politicians make it clear that the actual integrity of the system isn't important; it's just important that they come out on top.
bottom line: republicans should have put some sort of ID requirement in for absentee ballots, instead of inviting democratic criticism. and democrats should look at making ID's more accessible (making it possible to obtain them at post offices just like passports, or making passports free to people obtaining them for voting purposes, or creating more satellite stations to issue IDs in rural areas) instead of canning a bill that would make you prove your identity as the american citizen that you say you are to choose my government officials.
dems not only think you shouldn't need to prove who you are, but if you are a felon, you should also be able to vote once you've served your time. also an interesting note: they bring this up, but according to all my research... felons already CAN vote after release. so what are they bitching about? mmm inflammatory propaganda.
they claim that laws against felon voting disproportionately affect minorities. this might be true, but the discrimination isn't inherent in the voting laws, and isn't intentionally discriminatory. the problem shouldn't be amended by allowing all felons to vote. the problem is two-fold, stemming from racism in the justic system and attitude within high-crime communities. the solution: 1. be tougher on the justice system, making damn sure that racial profiling is not taking place, and 2. work to change the attitude within high-crime areas so minorities will stop committing the crimes that land them in jail.
in my opinion, your rights as a citizen are inalienable only by other people. status as a citizen is a contract between yourself and the state: you agree to the laws of the state, and the state agrees to protect your rights. if you choose to alienate yourself by breaking that contract, then even after you've served your time, you shouldn't get all of your rights back. i don't care how long you were in jail, if you found jesus, if you are a "new person": after you have raped, murdered, or violently assaulted another individual, you should NEVER have a say in who runs the country.
andrew (jess's bf) brought up the issue of his grandfather who stole a car when he was 16 and hasn't been able to vote ever since. i'll concede that the laws ought to altered; nonviolent felons ought to be able to vote after they serve their time. grand theft auto, nonviolent drug offenses, etc... these people, while making a stupid mistake, have at worst impeded on other's right to property, and in the case of drug offenses, not even that (although this brings up the issue of victimless crimes and their absurdity, which is another topic altogether); they haven't taken life or liberty from another individual. but violent offenders should not be given those rights back. some choices should be unforgivable by the state, and the consequences should last a lifetime.