Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DemocraticWing

(1,290 posts)
Mon Nov 10, 2014, 06:53 PM Nov 2014

This message was self-deleted by its author

This message was self-deleted by its author (DemocraticWing) on Sun Oct 10, 2021, 11:55 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
1. Elections are held by states and territories, not by the Federal Government. We do not have national
Mon Nov 10, 2014, 07:01 PM
Nov 2014

elections, just 50+ synchronized state elections. I don't think the Federal Government could force the states to accept one form of identification. The Federal Government does not, as I read the Constitution, have the power to hold elections.


Now, I do think it is a good idea. I have my doubts that it would pass a Constitutional test at the Supreme Court.

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,290 posts)
4. This ^^^^^^^ n/t
Mon Nov 10, 2014, 07:08 PM
Nov 2014

LonePirate

(13,414 posts)
8. An election reform amendment is a populist idea Dems should champion
Mon Nov 10, 2014, 07:24 PM
Nov 2014

Of course the Republicans would be against this idea because of their alleged love for states' rights. Still, Dems should be shouting from the rooftops for these sorts of changes in order to protect the integrity of elections and ensure everyone who can vote is able to vote.

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
9. The incredible dificulty inherant in amending the Constitution makes that unlikely.
Mon Nov 10, 2014, 07:41 PM
Nov 2014

Populists would need veto proof majorities in the House and Senate and a Populist in the Whitehouse.

I don't think that will happen in the foreseeable future.

WillowTree

(5,325 posts)
2. If it's all the same to you...
Mon Nov 10, 2014, 07:02 PM
Nov 2014

.......I'd really prefer that people should have to take.......and pass.......written and road driving tests before issuing them a driver's license.

DemocraticWing

(1,290 posts)
3. Haha, I hope so too.
Mon Nov 10, 2014, 07:05 PM
Nov 2014

I would hope that such a program would include a stipulation that the IDs wouldn't double as a driver's license unless a person had passed those tests.

Now let's hope the Republicans don't get hold of this and start demanding the government "get off the backs" of untested drivers.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
5. Yep.
Mon Nov 10, 2014, 07:09 PM
Nov 2014

fadedrose

(10,044 posts)
6. Maybe it can be done by request
Mon Nov 10, 2014, 07:11 PM
Nov 2014

by individuals who change their name, travel within the states and outcountry, and those who may rent and move often without a permanent address = an ID card with photo that will let them vote anywhere in any state in a federal election.

It should be obtainable at a Social Security office with a camera at a counter like the Drivers' license people have.

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
7. No elections are locally administered because they don't run on a national calendar
Mon Nov 10, 2014, 07:13 PM
Nov 2014

City\county elections are often different from the rest of the state.

msongs

(67,394 posts)
10. perhaps it could be done for federal elections only. most local/state jusidictions would shift
Mon Nov 10, 2014, 07:47 PM
Nov 2014

and follow eventually

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»This message was self-del...