5 ms·

The whole idea of "voter's fraud" is actually something unheard of in Europe because you will get government issued id (Citizen ID) when you reach 15 y/o and it

by Geof25 26d ago

The whole idea of "voter's fraud" is actually something unheard of in Europe because you will get government issued id (Citizen ID) when you reach 15 y/o and it is renewed every 10 years. You are then using it for voting and in general proving your identity. The later models are biometric so it is very hard to fake it The fact that USA never finished the Real ID thing as the Citizen ID in Europe is kind of mind blowing for me. It is elegant solution to everything what current administration is complaining about - prove of citizenship for ICE, prevention of voting fraud and especially business owners can tell who is citizen and who is not.

ycislost 26d ago
And no one would ever lie right? Each and every vote is counted! The people choose and it’s as simple as that! In fact the people chose with their hard earned votes for Kamala and Trump to run against each other for president didn’t they? Didn’t they? And Europe is even freer! So much global freedom and democracy where we all have a say :D
ericmay 26d ago
> The whole idea of "voter's fraud" is actually something unheard of in Europe because you will get government issued id (Citizen ID) when you reach 15 y/o and it is renewed every 10 years. You are then using it for voting and in general proving your identity. The later models are biometric so it is very hard to fake it > It is elegant solution to everything what current administration is complaining about - prove of citizenship for ICE, prevention of voting fraud and especially business owners can tell who is citizen and who is not. Well there are two things here. We don't in my opinion, have much of an issue with actual voter fraud - as claimed by those on the right. However, we also have a number of folks on the left who are against voter ID requirements because it might disenfranchise some voters who don't have an ID... an ID you need to do the vast majority of important tasks in life. I've always said if you're not responsible enough to get an ID we don't want you voting anyway (no I don't care about the downvotes). It's sort of funny how these have seemed to change over time. Folks on the right historically were very much against "big government" ID programs. On the left? In favor! Well, until you start using it for checking who is voting or something. It's also amusing and a little bit irritating that our national ID system is basically 50 state ID systems and they are all centered on having a license to drive a car.... Also Americans can get IDs at a younger age too (children over a certain age need a passport to travel outside the US for example) but we don't really as a society require an ID for many things in practice - it's not really the culture here, we prefer a little bit of anonymity, but once you hit 15 1/2 or 16 you can get a state level driver's license which you'll then carry for the rest of your life. For those who don't drive you are also able to get what counts to just a state ID. Not to make excuses but the US is a little hard to understand some times with these things because there's so much, especially in the news, emphasis on the federal level of the US government but it really is 50 sovereign states who send representatives to Washington DC. Unlike in, say, Estonia which from my very limited understanding is sort of one people, one country, some divisions. In the US you're from California, or Ohio, or Maine and the state manages most of your lifecycle affairs. > The fact that USA never finished the Real ID thing as the Citizen ID in Europe is kind of mind blowing for me. I actually refuse to get a "Real ID". I already have a passport. They can kiss my ass on paying an extra $25 for what amounts to the same ID card I already have. I'll take it for free but I'm not paying for it. I'll just carry my passport when I fly.
- k33n 26d ago
  American States are not sovereign entities. We fought an entire war over that.
  - ericmay 26d ago
    American states are sovereign entities. This is very well understood in Constitutional law, albeit a little confusing for the laymen as the common understanding of sovereignty would be something like, well France is sovereign because it has an army and it conducts trade and all of those sorts of sovereign things. But US states are sovereign entities who have, effectively, joined together to delegate some of their sovereign activities to a federal body (which has increased in power over the years) for the common good. They are very tightly bound to the federal government, but these matters don't refute their sovereignty. It's one of the reasons, maybe the primary one, for the US Senate - it's a vote of sovereignty by any individual state so that states with higher populations don't simply dictate rules to states with lower levels of population. Lower population states wouldn't have agreed to delegate some of their sovereign rights without some mechanism to not be run over by populists. 10th/11th Amendment
    - k33n 26d ago
      No, US States are not sovereign entities. They have no ability to conduct independent international diplomacy. They do not have independent militaries, and they have no right to secede. The supremacy clause (article 7) makes it clear that states cannot override federal law. With the way you’re characterizing the idea of sovereignty, every entity in the world is semi-sovereign. But sovereignty isn’t a spectrum. An entity is either sovereign or it’s not.
      - otterley 26d ago
        U.S. states are sovereign entities despite these limitations. See, e.g., Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/527/706/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/527/706/ "Although the Constitution establishes a National Government with broad, often plenary authority over matters within its recognized competence, the founding document "specifically recognizes the States as sovereign entities." Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, supra, at 71, n. 15; accord, Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U. S. 775, 779 (1991) ("[T]he States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact"). Various textual provisions of the Constitution assume the States' continued existence and active participation in the fundamental processes of governance. See Printz v. United States, 521 U. S. 898, 919 (1997) (citing Art. III, § 2; Art. IV, §§ 2-4; Art. V). The limited and enumerated powers granted to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of the National Government, moreover, underscore the vital role reserved to the States by the constitutional design, see, e. g., Art. I, § 8; Art. II, §§ 2-3; Art. III, § 2. Any doubt regarding the constitutional role of the States as sovereign entities is removed by the Tenth Amendment, which, like the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, was enacted to allay lingering concerns about the extent of the national power. The Amendment confirms the promise implicit in the original document: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." U. S. Const., Amdt. 10; see also Printz, supra, at 919; New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 156159, 177 (1992). The federal system established by our Constitution preserves the sovereign status of the States in two ways. First, it reserves to them a substantial portion of the N ation's primary sovereignty, together with the dignity and essential attributes inhering in that status. The States "form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The Federalist No. 39, p. 245 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison). "Second, even as to matters within the competence of the National Government, the constitutional design secures the founding generation's rejection of "the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States" in favor of "a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people who were, in Hamilton's words, 'the only proper objects of government.'" Printz, supra, at 919-920 (quoting The Federalist No. 15, at 109); accord, New York, supra, at 166 ("The Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States"). In this the Founders achieved a deliberate departure from the Articles of Confederation: Experience under the Articles had "exploded on all hands" the "practicality of making laws, with coercive sanctions, for the States as political bodies." 2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 9 (M. Farrand ed. 1911) (J. Madison); accord, The Federalist No. 20, at 138 (J. Madison and A. Hamilton); James Iredell: Some Objections to the Constitution Answered, reprinted in 3 Annals of America 249 (1976). "The States thus retain "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty." The Federalist No. 39, at 245. They are not relegated to the role of mere provinces or political corporations, but retain the dignity, though not the full authority, of sovereignty."
jeffbee 26d ago
The United States doesn't have a central registry of citizens. New births are supposed to be recorded by local officials, in about 3000 different jurisdictions, and they're only recorded locally. Many of those local jurisdictions are operated poorly, and in some cases they have refused to issue certificates of birth based on race, or other personal grudges held by officials. So we simply aren't in the position to issue such identifiers, and in particular we can't assume that a person without traceable documentation isn't a citizen.
- ericmay 26d ago
  > and in some cases they have refused to issue certificates of birth based on race, or other personal grudges held by officials. Just to be clear for our international friends, this is basically as unheard of. "In some cases" you could say well in some cases of murder someone is a cannibal too. It's a big country with over 340 million people under one roof. Shit happens.
  - jeffbee 26d ago
    No, it was typical of the Jim Crow South. Black mothers were not permitted in hospitals, and county clerks refused to register home births. It was all part of the system of oppression.
    - ericmay 26d ago
      We don't live in the Jim Crow South anymore - you're making an extreme stretch here to try and paint a picture that isn't accurate. My point stands.
      - jeffbee 26d ago
        Your point is laying in a ditch bleeding to death. There are loads of people alive today who personally suffered from Jim Crow. These practices continued right through 1968, and were revived in Texas between 2013 and 2016.

by Geof25 26d ago

ycislost 26d ago

And no one would ever lie right? Each and every vote is counted! The people choose and it’s as simple as that! In fact the people chose with their hard earned votes for Kamala and Trump to run against each other for president didn’t they? Didn’t they? And Europe is even freer! So much global freedom and democracy where we all have a say :D

ericmay 26d ago

> The whole idea of "voter's fraud" is actually something unheard of in Europe because you will get government issued id (Citizen ID) when you reach 15 y/o and it is renewed every 10 years. You are then using it for voting and in general proving your identity. The later models are biometric so it is very hard to fake it > It is elegant solution to everything what current administration is complaining about - prove of citizenship for ICE, prevention of voting fraud and especially business owners can tell who is citizen and who is not. Well there are two things here. We don't in my opinion, have much of an issue with actual voter fraud - as claimed by those on the right. However, we also have a number of folks on the left who are against voter ID requirements because it might disenfranchise some voters who don't have an ID... an ID you need to do the vast majority of important tasks in life. I've always said if you're not responsible enough to get an ID we don't want you voting anyway (no I don't care about the downvotes). It's sort of funny how these have seemed to change over time. Folks on the right historically were very much against "big government" ID programs. On the left? In favor! Well, until you start using it for checking who is voting or something. It's also amusing and a little bit irritating that our national ID system is basically 50 state ID systems and they are all centered on having a license to drive a car.... Also Americans can get IDs at a younger age too (children over a certain age need a passport to travel outside the US for example) but we don't really as a society require an ID for many things in practice - it's not really the culture here, we prefer a little bit of anonymity, but once you hit 15 1/2 or 16 you can get a state level driver's license which you'll then carry for the rest of your life. For those who don't drive you are also able to get what counts to just a state ID. Not to make excuses but the US is a little hard to understand some times with these things because there's so much, especially in the news, emphasis on the federal level of the US government but it really is 50 sovereign states who send representatives to Washington DC. Unlike in, say, Estonia which from my very limited understanding is sort of one people, one country, some divisions. In the US you're from California, or Ohio, or Maine and the state manages most of your lifecycle affairs. > The fact that USA never finished the Real ID thing as the Citizen ID in Europe is kind of mind blowing for me. I actually refuse to get a "Real ID". I already have a passport. They can kiss my ass on paying an extra $25 for what amounts to the same ID card I already have. I'll take it for free but I'm not paying for it. I'll just carry my passport when I fly.

k33n 26d ago
American States are not sovereign entities. We fought an entire war over that.
- ericmay 26d ago
  American states are sovereign entities. This is very well understood in Constitutional law, albeit a little confusing for the laymen as the common understanding of sovereignty would be something like, well France is sovereign because it has an army and it conducts trade and all of those sorts of sovereign things. But US states are sovereign entities who have, effectively, joined together to delegate some of their sovereign activities to a federal body (which has increased in power over the years) for the common good. They are very tightly bound to the federal government, but these matters don't refute their sovereignty. It's one of the reasons, maybe the primary one, for the US Senate - it's a vote of sovereignty by any individual state so that states with higher populations don't simply dictate rules to states with lower levels of population. Lower population states wouldn't have agreed to delegate some of their sovereign rights without some mechanism to not be run over by populists. 10th/11th Amendment
  - k33n 26d ago
    No, US States are not sovereign entities. They have no ability to conduct independent international diplomacy. They do not have independent militaries, and they have no right to secede. The supremacy clause (article 7) makes it clear that states cannot override federal law. With the way you’re characterizing the idea of sovereignty, every entity in the world is semi-sovereign. But sovereignty isn’t a spectrum. An entity is either sovereign or it’s not.
    - otterley 26d ago
      U.S. states are sovereign entities despite these limitations. See, e.g., Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/527/706/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/527/706/ "Although the Constitution establishes a National Government with broad, often plenary authority over matters within its recognized competence, the founding document "specifically recognizes the States as sovereign entities." Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, supra, at 71, n. 15; accord, Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U. S. 775, 779 (1991) ("[T]he States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact"). Various textual provisions of the Constitution assume the States' continued existence and active participation in the fundamental processes of governance. See Printz v. United States, 521 U. S. 898, 919 (1997) (citing Art. III, § 2; Art. IV, §§ 2-4; Art. V). The limited and enumerated powers granted to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of the National Government, moreover, underscore the vital role reserved to the States by the constitutional design, see, e. g., Art. I, § 8; Art. II, §§ 2-3; Art. III, § 2. Any doubt regarding the constitutional role of the States as sovereign entities is removed by the Tenth Amendment, which, like the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, was enacted to allay lingering concerns about the extent of the national power. The Amendment confirms the promise implicit in the original document: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." U. S. Const., Amdt. 10; see also Printz, supra, at 919; New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 156159, 177 (1992). The federal system established by our Constitution preserves the sovereign status of the States in two ways. First, it reserves to them a substantial portion of the N ation's primary sovereignty, together with the dignity and essential attributes inhering in that status. The States "form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The Federalist No. 39, p. 245 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison). "Second, even as to matters within the competence of the National Government, the constitutional design secures the founding generation's rejection of "the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States" in favor of "a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people who were, in Hamilton's words, 'the only proper objects of government.'" Printz, supra, at 919-920 (quoting The Federalist No. 15, at 109); accord, New York, supra, at 166 ("The Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States"). In this the Founders achieved a deliberate departure from the Articles of Confederation: Experience under the Articles had "exploded on all hands" the "practicality of making laws, with coercive sanctions, for the States as political bodies." 2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 9 (M. Farrand ed. 1911) (J. Madison); accord, The Federalist No. 20, at 138 (J. Madison and A. Hamilton); James Iredell: Some Objections to the Constitution Answered, reprinted in 3 Annals of America 249 (1976). "The States thus retain "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty." The Federalist No. 39, at 245. They are not relegated to the role of mere provinces or political corporations, but retain the dignity, though not the full authority, of sovereignty."

jeffbee 26d ago

The United States doesn't have a central registry of citizens. New births are supposed to be recorded by local officials, in about 3000 different jurisdictions, and they're only recorded locally. Many of those local jurisdictions are operated poorly, and in some cases they have refused to issue certificates of birth based on race, or other personal grudges held by officials. So we simply aren't in the position to issue such identifiers, and in particular we can't assume that a person without traceable documentation isn't a citizen.

ericmay 26d ago
> and in some cases they have refused to issue certificates of birth based on race, or other personal grudges held by officials. Just to be clear for our international friends, this is basically as unheard of. "In some cases" you could say well in some cases of murder someone is a cannibal too. It's a big country with over 340 million people under one roof. Shit happens.
- jeffbee 26d ago
  No, it was typical of the Jim Crow South. Black mothers were not permitted in hospitals, and county clerks refused to register home births. It was all part of the system of oppression.
  - ericmay 26d ago
    We don't live in the Jim Crow South anymore - you're making an extreme stretch here to try and paint a picture that isn't accurate. My point stands.
    - jeffbee 26d ago
      Your point is laying in a ditch bleeding to death. There are loads of people alive today who personally suffered from Jim Crow. These practices continued right through 1968, and were revived in Texas between 2013 and 2016.