OffGrid9 wrote:
First: In regard to the intent of v**er ID, you're confused. V****g is only a right of American citizens who have not committed felonies and thus lost their right to v**e. The drive to require identification as a prerequisite to v****g is not an attempt to limit the right of American citizens to v**e, be they Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, latino, black, caucasian, asian, male, female, homosexual, or of indeterminate sexual persuasion. PERIOD. It AIN'T a limit on any citizen. But it definitely IS an attempt to prevent non-citizens, dead citizens, and criminals from v****g. So...what's your beef? Are you in favor of allowing non-citizens, dead citizens, and criminals to v**e? Because it turns out that these types of v**ers usually v**e a straight Democratic ticket.
Second, in regard to the practice of jerrymandering, once again, you're confused. You do have a point, the practice of jerrymandering skews the results of e******ns. Here in Washington state, where Democrats have controlled state politics for decades, jerrymandering by Democrats has worked the opposite of what you describe in NC. It's archaic and wrong, but it isn't just Republicans who do it. But you know, whether its the practice of jerrymandering that you h**e, or the e*******l college, you have to realize that we are not a direct democracy. Although we use the model of a REPRESENTATIVE democracy for v****g purposes, we aren't a representative democracy, either. We are a republic, not a democracy. For a quick primer on the difference, try [ www.tmra2.org/images/democracyvsrepublic.pdf ]. It will open your eyes. Maybe you could then read the Declaration of Independence, and understand why it NEVER uses the word "democracy".
First: In regard to the intent of v**er ID, you'r... (
show quote)
Not confused. Laws already exist to deal with the restrictions of the right to v**e. Here in NC extensive studies have been done and not one case of v***r f***d was cited. So why is the party of small government passing a law for a non-existant issue? I think the Governor of Pennsylvania gave the game away when he stated that his state's law was meant to deliver Pa. to the Republican nominee.
Point 2: I have no issue with the NC Republican party redrawing the v****g districts. In fact, I pretty much supported the Republican analysis that 100 yrs of Dem rule in the state has led to an easy type of good old boy corruption and the state gov't needed some shaking up. On the other hand, they have gone so far to the right that they do not take into account that half the population disagrees with many of the policies enacted. In fact, they were in such a rush to pass any and all of their laws while they had a veto proof majority that no public hearings were held and once some of the implications of their bills were studied the effects were not what the legislation intended.