Comments on: GOP: No, Seriously, We Hate Hispanics

By: Jon Swift

Jon Swift — Thu, 11 May 2006 07:05:32 +0000

Too Many Voters …

We don’t need more voters, we need more intelligent voters. And the way to accomplish that is to make it as difficult to vote as possible….

By: Terry S

Terry S — Wed, 10 May 2006 03:05:53 +0000

I’m sitting here reading this as I watch the Ron White comedy show, “You can’t fix stupid” and I can’t help but think about working people who vote Republican and I just can’t help but note the irony (and coincidence).

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Tue, 09 May 2006 17:05:25 +0000

Frank_D Says:
May 8th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
The League of Women Voters can print voting guides in any language they deem appropriate, including brief explanations of bond issues and such.
Your diatribe almost brought a lump to my … throat.
I say “almost”, because you ended with this lapse in logic: “Creating barriers which infiltrate this fundamental right is unjust.”
Who’s creating a barrier?
No one wants the ballot to be in English, to foil the attempt of non – English speaking voters to vote.
The ballot is already in English, and non – English speakers already don’t speak English.
The question is, “Why facilitate the right to vote of people who don’t speak English?”
Why can’t they learn enough English to vote?

By: cellulose

cellulose — Tue, 09 May 2006 16:05:48 +0000

If you weren’t suggesting that non-English-speakers are ill-informed, I have no reason why you said, “As Democrats well know, increasing the number of ill – informed voters increases their chances of winning elections.” Who are these ill-informed voters you’re talking about? What’s the red/blue split on ill-informed voting?

Anyway…

My point was that none of those things (knock-and-announce, Miranda) are actually in the Consitution, but they are required as read through the text Constitution. So when you point out that “Making it easier to vote isn’t in the Consitution” (it’s not), it’s not really all that compelling. There are a number of cases where laws have made it “easier” to exercise one’s rights. And I don’t see how this is any different. It seems reasonable to suggest that one’s right to vote is on the same plane of importance as one’s right to be free from illegal searches. That ‘representation’ thing seems pretty important in the US.

Saying that non-English speakers “shouldn’t” vote is one thing, but it has nothing to do with whether they should have the reasonable opportunity to do so. This including having materials which they can easily read and understand. It’s their choice, not your responsibility to put barriers in their way. Yes, even if that person is woefully uneducated about the issues. I assume, further, that a great percentage of the voting population isn’t ‘sufficiently informed’ on the issues. I’m talking about people who actually vote.

What about people who only get information from their Church? From CNN? From Rush? From Air America? Are those well-informed voters? Why not have a voting test? That would weed out the ill-informed voters.

Voting is so simple, so fundamental. It’s for educated, uneducated, informed and ill-informed voters. That’s how our system works. Creating barriers which infiltrate this fundamental right is unjust.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Tue, 09 May 2006 16:05:14 +0000

Who said only non – English speakers were ill – informed? Not me. That was your assumption. How “classy” are you?
People who don’t speak English well enough to read a ballot shouldn’t vote — wherever they were born. Does that mean they should lose their right to vote? No.
But I wish they wouldn’t vote. I don’t think it is so essential that people vote, that we should encourage people to vote who will vote for the candidate who spent the most on TV advertising…

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Tue, 09 May 2006 16:05:13 +0000

I don’t recall seeing anywhere that I was required to answer anyone’s questions, but…

I assume, Frank, you would have no problem with a 2-year waiting period for gun ownership. Let s make it 10 years!

The waitnig period should be no longer than it takes to determine if the person might use the gun for criminal purposes… No more than 30 days

Miranda Rights? Don t need those. (It would be helpful if you had been around in 1966}

Miranda rights were considered to be an extension of the “right to representation / freedom from self – incrimination” provisions: “If you don’t know your rights, you don’t have your rights” Of course, I’m not in favor of ruling out key evidence due to “the constable’s error.”

Knock and announce rules? Nah, we shouldn t make it easier for people to exercise their rights.

4th Amendment…

As you were saying?

By: cellulose

cellulose — Tue, 09 May 2006 15:05:28 +0000

Thank you, Frank, for addressing me personally but answering a grand total of zero of my questions. Nowhere did I state that the constitution says that We must “make it easy” to vote. It also doesn’t say anything about Miranda Rights, or Knock and Announce rules, nor is there anything in the Constitution that says we can’t have a 10-year waiting period for guns.

You also point out your view that non-English speakers are “ill-informed voters”, or somehow suggest that making voting easier will only lead to people who doesn’t ‘deserve’ to vote, to vote. Classy.

What’s ideal voter turnout for the Republicans? 15%? 40%? It’s not anywhere near 100%. Why are you scared of American people voting?

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Tue, 09 May 2006 12:05:24 +0000

cellulose and wilbur: There is nothing in the Constitution about “making it easy” to vote.
There is nothing about the definition of democracy that includes more people voting.
We are a representative, federal republic. That means we vote for representatives who vote for us. When the Constitution was first written, voters didn’t vote for senators, remember?
Finally, as I said above, “It isn t important that lots and lots of people vote; it s important that they vote intelligently.”
As Democrats well know, increasing the number of ill – informed voters increases their chances of winning elections. Why that is so is the subject of a whole new thread.
Elections are neither surveys nor are they popularity contests.

By: Wilbur

Wilbur — Tue, 09 May 2006 05:05:57 +0000

Once again we see that one party wants to make it easier for citizens to vote; the other party wants to make it harder.

One party is afraid of what would happen if the voice of the people were really heard; the other party considers that the point of the whole voting process.

One party is dedicated to democracy; the other party wraps itself in the flag but shows time and again that it hasn’t got a clue about what makes America great.

By: cellulose

cellulose — Tue, 09 May 2006 04:05:16 +0000

I assume, Frank, you would have no problem with a 2-year waiting period for gun ownership. Let’s make it 10 years!

Miranda Rights? Don’t need those.

Knock and announce rules? Nah, we shouldn’t make it easier for people to exercise their rights.

It’s not in the Constitution!!!!!!!11

By: drpedro

drpedro — Tue, 09 May 2006 04:05:11 +0000

Imagine how many starving ghetto children could be fed with all the money going into the Babelfish ballots….

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Tue, 09 May 2006 03:05:38 +0000

THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE! And we should make as easy as possible for every American to exercise their Constitutional rights
How does the RIGHT TO VOTE translate into “we should make as easy as possible for every American to exercise their Constitutional rights”
Who says?

By: JWG

JWG — Tue, 09 May 2006 01:05:24 +0000

Personally, I believe we should provide a translation for any common language upon request. Each polling station could have the trranslations available electronically so they could be printed if needed.
However, I completely understand the expectation that after the required 5 year naturalization process, a citizen should be able to have a basic understanding of English and could aquire a translation of pending referendums ahead of time if needed. (3 years if married to a citizen…but that should speed up the aquisition of English).
Does a citizen have no responsibility for their own understanding of what they’re voting on?

By: cellulose

cellulose — Mon, 08 May 2006 23:05:54 +0000

I can’t wait for my congressman to vote on The Voting Secuirty Freedom Initiative!

By: frameone

frameone — Mon, 08 May 2006 23:05:43 +0000

And JWG, since you want to throw around the racist charge, how exactly do bilingual ballots “increase the risk of election fraud” while having someone translate a ballot to someone who can’t read it doesn’t?

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Mon, 08 May 2006 23:05:27 +0000

The League of Women Voters can print voting guides in any language they deem appropriate, including brief explanations of bond issues and such.
The problem with bond issues is not that they are in legalese. The problem is that they are in “Politicianese”, i.e., language designed to obfuscate the more unpleasant details of the issue so that unsuspecting voters will approve them.

By: frameone

frameone — Mon, 08 May 2006 23:05:17 +0000

“If this is true then the Democrats should take the next logical step introduce a bill to nix the English language and American history requirements for US citizenship.”

Next logical step? In case no one told you Mike, once someone becomes a citizen, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE! And we should make as easy as possible for every American to exercise their Constitutional rights. Would you suggest that polling places do not have to be accessible to wheelchairs or that we shouldn’t print ballots in braille? Afterall, someone can always carry people in to vote or else read their ballots.

Any other republican idiots want to step up and defend this idea?

By: frameone

frameone — Mon, 08 May 2006 22:05:39 +0000

“… but I ve never seen one printed in English and Vietnamese.”

Where do you live? I live in Los Angeles and Oliver is exactly right. You’re statement is just one more indication of just how il-informed the right-wing anti-immigrant idiots are. Why I am not surprised to find that some on the right want to add obstacles to the voting process?

By: frameone

frameone — Mon, 08 May 2006 22:05:27 +0000

Hey why don’t we re-institute a poll tax? Afterall, everyone knows that the poor are poor because they’re stupid and lazy. Are these really the kinds of people we want deciding the nation’s future? Or better yet, how about if we restrict voting to land owners only? Or EVEN better, how about white male landowners only? Ya, that’s the ticket…

By: legion

legion — Mon, 08 May 2006 22:05:27 +0000

Frank and William,
One thing you both forget is that many (or most or even all, depending on where you live) election ballots cover more than just individuals running for office. Ballot initiatives, etc. are difficult enough to make sense of in my native tongue; I can’t imagine how difficult it must be for someone who wasn’t raised speaking english to comprehend what they’re voting on. And you’ll note that this service may be needed even by people who do speak english passably, but not well enough to deal with legalese…