From one of those tangents that so often take conversations off track. In this case, it's this one from the "T*****r" topic. https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/tpr?p=3819216&t=222097

From the discussion about Trump and the suggestion that his foray into politics is perhaps one of the best examples of a move toward autocracy, to the counter-suggestion that the left is a better example, to the snarky remark… "You mean like making sure all Americans can v**e?" to the breakdown on e******n systems, which I think is worthy of its own topic.

The Brennan Center for Justice is tracking the bills in all the state legislatures and have counted up some totals that make a rational person wonder about what's really going on.

As of May 14, 2021, legislators have introduced As of 2018, there are 19,495 incorporated cities, towns and villages in the United States. 14,768 of these have populations below 5,000. with restrictive provisions in 48 states. Twenty-two bills with restrictive provisions have already been enacted. In addition, at least 61 bills with restrictive provisions in 18 states are moving through legislatures: 31 have passed at least one chamber, while another 30 have had some sort of committee action (e.g., a hearing, an amendment, or a committee v**e).

source: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/state-v****g-bills-tracker-2021

So what are they restricting? Am I correct in assuming that the Republicans responsible for ALL of these restrictive laws are pulling the same stunts that we've seen repeated throughout history, such as the Jim Crow laws that got around the 15th Amendment by cutting black people off from the b****t through restrictions on things common to black people other than skin color?

Or could it be that my conservative interlocutors are correct in assuming it's all for the sake of ensuring "secure and trustworthy" e******ns? Does it take 389 laws to do that?

Someone had suggested we break things down to the simplest elements and go from there. This is where I'd like this topic to start. That person suggested this basic requirement…

Our e******ns must be secure and trustworthy. There are 2 components to that:
1) That everyone who is eligible to v**e be on v***r r**********n rolls. This requirement includes a valid photo ID, and proof of eligibility.
2) When v****g, that person needs to be on the v***r r**********n rolls and possess a valid photo ID.

I already brought up a number of problems related to photo ID, which has NOT been the most reliable form of authentication since about 20 years ago. I also brought up the fact that "who is eligible" (being presented here as an inconsequential given) is in fact, the basis for most examples of v**er suppression throughout history.

I offered an alternative starting point. Just three rules…

Requirements for secure e******ns.
1) v**er is eligible
2) v**er is authenticated
3) v**er is limited to one v**e.

There are so many ways to meet these requirements and each state has the constitutional right to decide which methods to use. Personally, here's how I would like to see this implemented...

1. Any adult subjected to the laws of the land is eligible to v**e (not including visitors)
2. I prefer a modern system of authentication such a biometrics.
3. blockchain!

I might have to explain that last one… Blockchain is a relatively new technology in which t***sactions are recorded on a shared ledger supported by a peer-to-peer network. The beauty being that no one controls the ledger it is utterly decentralized. When a t***saction occurs, it's recorded everywhere and cannot be erased by anyone. Block chain is what all the crypto-currencies like Bitcoin are based on.

Using a block-chain it's possible to eliminate every opportunity to v**e more than once with the proof being beyond the control of any particular agency. I noticed that NONE of the 389 bills being pushed through in the name of "integrity" mention blockchain which would actually make 80% of those bills moot. So… is this because the lawmakers aren't aware of blockchain even though cryptocurrency is such an issue on the floor? Or is it because blockchain would take away the smoke screen of f**e concern for "e******n integrity" that v**er suppression always needs?

To my conservative friends, you may not know this but we liberals would LOVE a trustworthy e******n system just so we don't have to listen to all these conspiracy theories about c***ting every time we win an e******n.

I'm thinking about writing to my representative to encourage this idea and would appreciate any (rational) critique.

From one of those tangents that so often take conversations off track. In this case, it's this one from the "T*****r" topic. https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/tpr?p=3819216&t=222097

From the discussion about Trump and the suggestion that his foray into politics is perhaps one of the best examples of a move toward autocracy, to the counter-suggestion that the left is a better example, to the snarky remark… "You mean like making sure all Americans can v**e?" to the breakdown on e******n systems, which I think is worthy of its own topic.

The Brennan Center for Justice is tracking the bills in all the state legislatures and have counted up some totals that make a rational person wonder about what's really going on.

As of May 14, 2021, legislators have introduced 389 bills with restrictive provisions in 48 states. Twenty-two bills with restrictive provisions have already been enacted. In addition, at least 61 bills with restrictive provisions in 18 states are moving through legislatures: 31 have passed at least one chamber, while another 30 have had some sort of committee action (e.g., a hearing, an amendment, or a committee v**e).

source: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/state-v****g-bills-tracker-2021

So what are they restricting? Am I correct in assuming that the Republicans responsible for ALL of these restrictive laws are pulling the same stunts that we've seen repeated throughout history, such as the Jim Crow laws that got around the 15th Amendment by cutting black people off from the b****t through restrictions on things common to black people other than skin color?

Or could it be that my conservative interlocutors are correct in assuming it's all for the sake of ensuring "secure and trustworthy" e******ns? Does it take 389 laws to do that?

Someone had suggested we break things down to the simplest elements and go from there. This is where I'd like this topic to start. That person suggested this basic requirement…

Our e******ns must be secure and trustworthy. There are 2 components to that:
1) That everyone who is eligible to v**e be on v***r r**********n rolls. This requirement includes a valid photo ID, and proof of eligibility.
2) When v****g, that person needs to be on the v***r r**********n rolls and possess a valid photo ID.

I already brought up a number of problems related to photo ID, which has NOT been the most reliable form of authentication since about 20 years ago. I also brought up the fact that "who is eligible" (being presented here as an inconsequential given) is in fact, the basis for most examples of v**er suppression throughout history.

I offered an alternative starting point. Just three rules…

Requirements for secure e******ns.
1) v**er is eligible
2) v**er is authenticated
3) v**er is limited to one v**e.

There are so many ways to meet these requirements and each state has the constitutional right to decide which methods to use. Personally, here's how I would like to see this implemented...

1. Any adult subjected to the laws of the land is eligible to v**e (not including visitors)
2. I prefer a modern system of authentication such a biometrics.
3. blockchain!

I might have to explain that last one… Blockchain is a relatively new technology in which t***sactions are recorded on a shared ledger supported by a peer-to-peer network. The beauty being that no one controls the ledger it is utterly decentralized. When a t***saction occurs, it's recorded everywhere and cannot be erased by anyone. Block chain is what all the crypto-currencies like Bitcoin are based on.

Using a block-chain it's possible to eliminate every opportunity to v**e more than once with the proof being beyond the control of any particular agency. I noticed that NONE of the 389 bills being pushed through in the name of "integrity" mention blockchain which would actually make 80% of those bills moot. So… is this because the lawmakers aren't aware of blockchain even though cryptocurrency is such an issue on the floor? Or is it because blockchain would take away the smoke screen of f**e concern for "e******n integrity" that v**er suppression always needs?

To my conservative friends, you may not know this but we liberals would LOVE a trustworthy e******n system just so we don't have to listen to all these conspiracy theories about c***ting every time we win an e******n.

I'm thinking about writing to my representative to encourage this idea and would appreciate any (rational) critique.

From one of those tangents that so often take conversations off track. In this case, it's this one from the "T*****r" topic. https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/tpr?p=3819216&t=222097

From the discussion about Trump and the suggestion that his foray into politics is perhaps one of the best examples of a move toward autocracy, to the counter-suggestion that the left is a better example, to the snarky remark… "You mean like making sure all Americans can v**e?" to the breakdown on e******n systems, which I think is worthy of its own topic.

The Brennan Center for Justice is tracking the bills in all the state legislatures and have counted up some totals that make a rational person wonder about what's really going on.

As of May 14, 2021, legislators have introduced 389 bills with restrictive provisions in 48 states. Twenty-two bills with restrictive provisions have already been enacted. In addition, at least 61 bills with restrictive provisions in 18 states are moving through legislatures: 31 have passed at least one chamber, while another 30 have had some sort of committee action (e.g., a hearing, an amendment, or a committee v**e).

source: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/state-v****g-bills-tracker-2021

So what are they restricting? Am I correct in assuming that the Republicans responsible for ALL of these restrictive laws are pulling the same stunts that we've seen repeated throughout history, such as the Jim Crow laws that got around the 15th Amendment by cutting black people off from the b****t through restrictions on things common to black people other than skin color?

Or could it be that my conservative interlocutors are correct in assuming it's all for the sake of ensuring "secure and trustworthy" e******ns? Does it take 389 laws to do that?

Someone had suggested we break things down to the simplest elements and go from there. This is where I'd like this topic to start. That person suggested this basic requirement…

Our e******ns must be secure and trustworthy. There are 2 components to that:
1) That everyone who is eligible to v**e be on v***r r**********n rolls. This requirement includes a valid photo ID, and proof of eligibility.
2) When v****g, that person needs to be on the v***r r**********n rolls and possess a valid photo ID.

I already brought up a number of problems related to photo ID, which has NOT been the most reliable form of authentication since about 20 years ago. I also brought up the fact that "who is eligible" (being presented here as an inconsequential given) is in fact, the basis for most examples of v**er suppression throughout history.

I offered an alternative starting point. Just three rules…

Requirements for secure e******ns.
1) v**er is eligible
2) v**er is authenticated
3) v**er is limited to one v**e.

There are so many ways to meet these requirements and each state has the constitutional right to decide which methods to use. Personally, here's how I would like to see this implemented...

1. Any adult subjected to the laws of the land is eligible to v**e (not including visitors)
2. I prefer a modern system of authentication such a biometrics.
3. blockchain!

I might have to explain that last one… Blockchain is a relatively new technology in which t***sactions are recorded on a shared ledger supported by a peer-to-peer network. The beauty being that no one controls the ledger it is utterly decentralized. When a t***saction occurs, it's recorded everywhere and cannot be erased by anyone. Block chain is what all the crypto-currencies like Bitcoin are based on.

Using a block-chain it's possible to eliminate every opportunity to v**e more than once with the proof being beyond the control of any particular agency. I noticed that NONE of the 389 bills being pushed through in the name of "integrity" mention blockchain which would actually make 80% of those bills moot. So… is this because the lawmakers aren't aware of blockchain even though cryptocurrency is such an issue on the floor? Or is it because blockchain would take away the smoke screen of f**e concern for "e******n integrity" that v**er suppression always needs?

To my conservative friends, you may not know this but we liberals would LOVE a To my conservative friends, you may not know this but we liberals would LOVE a trustworthy e******n just so we don't have to listen to all these conspiracy theories about c***ting every time we win an e******n.

I'm thinking about writing to my representative to encourage this idea and would appreciate any (rational) critique.

People like you make me sick. "It's all the republicans fault". "If they would only do what we want, everything would be great". Both Democrats and Republicans have been complaining about this for as long as I can remember. Reality is, we do need to take a look at our v**er laws through out the country and considering at last reports we have 3,143 counties and county equivalents in the 50 states and District of Columbia, there are 19,495 incorporated cities, towns and villages in the United States. 14,768 of these have populations below 5,000. Considering those "facts", 389 bills recommending changes to ensure security in v****g, does not sound like a lot. Got anything else?

As I said before, photo IDs are fallible. They can be forged, the people checking them can be careless and no it's not the cheapest option. Here's my response to you from that other thread, in case you didn't read it.

One of the biggest reasons for why all the financial institutions in the western world is moving away from the photo ID is because it requires a paid human to verify. Automation is cheaper and passive devices can sit around 24/7 (at no cost) waiting for someone to authenticate their identity with the press of a finger.

If that's not enough, here's an entire white paper on the prohibitive cost of photo ID requirements published by Harvard.
https://today.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/FullReportV**erIDJune20141.pdf

I suspect the real reason for this demand that we use photo ID is that it opens up a whole world of v**er suppression possibilities. For instance, in 2011 Texas passed a law allowing gun licenses as a form of identification but not student IDs. With a fingerprint, it won't matter if the finger belongs to a h****r or a student, all that matters is that the person is who he says he is.

If you really, REALLY want to rely on an inferior system like photo IDs, I think the state should pay 100% of the cost for each and every resident to get a photo ID approved for use at the b****t. Every, resident... 100%, as in not just the cost of the ID, but the cost of acquiring all the documentation just to qualify for such an ID, including processing fees and t***sportation costs.

Otherwise, in the simplest terms possible... your preference is for suppression not integrity.

https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/e*******l-integrity-2020-us-e******ns

Excerpt from above...

"The E*******l Integrity Project at Harvard University has conducted a new expert survey of the 2020 US P**********l E******ns. The research gathered the views of almost 800 scholars of e******ns, parties and American state politics located in all 50 states plus DC. After the polls closed, these experts shared their experiences and observations of the e******ns and parties in their own state. The study found that experts overwhelmingly rejected claims of alleged fraud. Nevertheless, a series of flaws still undermine the quality of American e******ns, such as gerrymandering, campaign finance, and misinformation."