No, the DMV "computer" doesn't register people to vote with the special license that is given to undocumented residents. If you have a normal license, you have proved quite exhaustively that you are a citizen (I know, having just done it for my son, who isn't even of voting age yet), but even then the DMV does not register you. It sends your data to the Department of State, which verifies your citizenship before it registers you.
If you are hearing otherwise, you need to question your news source. Obviously we don't want non-citizens messing with our elections, just as nobody else would.
No, a state law that allowed noncitizens to vote would be unconstitutional and a court would strike it down. Who gets to vote is pretty clearly defined in the constitution. And note those amendments about the slaves and women.
OK. Why then is monarchy not a better solution to an excess of democracy while a republic is? I am hearing that you like a particular setting on the dial of democracy without a justification of why just that point, rather than more or less, is good.
Well, since you would prefer a popular vote, can you give me some discussion of why what was a good reason 200 years ago is really still a good reason?
The formation of the original circuits was enacted by the very first Congressional session and George Washington signed it into law almost exactly two years after the constitution was ratified. But we could take this argument in the other direction and point at precursors in the British Common Law.
You're kidding yourself about State Sovereignty in the modern day, IMO. Once upon a time a state was a real sovereign entity which had to be persuaded to join a union. But that was two centuries ago, and I submit that state sovereignty is a fiction today in that there is no longer a reason for it to be more important than the voting rights of the individual.
And these so called sovereign states have their laws subordinate to the national and their courts under two levels of Federal appeal.
Yes. You're not considering that congress established the circuits in the Judiciary Act of 1789, not with the Judiciary Act of 1891 that moved the Appellate jurisdiction.
In this post I relate the mechanism by which illegal aliens are not allowed to vote in California. My kid is a 6th-generation Californian on his mom's side and they made us do a lot of work to document him before he could even get a learner's permit.
No, California goes to great lengths to make sure undocumented people don't vote. I have related my recent, personal experience in this post. We had to provide a lot of documentation. My son is a 6th-generation Californian on his mom's side and I have lived here since 1987, and it was still a pretty big hassle to document my kid.
Well, someone told you that California lets illegal aliens vote, but that's not true. Check out the Snopes rebuttal for example.
My son just got his California learners permit. The state of California put us to rather extreme lengths to demonstrate that he was a citizen, and if he was undocumented that would have appeared on his driver's license. He had to provide his birth certificate and a second form of identification, and I as his parent had to establish my proof of residency, and my wife had to sign the document as well. And you can't even download the form you have to fill out - you must get the paper document directly from the DMV, and I'm not clear what that's about but I suspect it's an additional security measure.
All of this is to make sure that people who haven't a right to vote are not granted one because of any mistake by the Department of Motor Vehicles. And it makes getting your driver's license a lot harder if you are a citizen.
Yes, I dismiss the priority of states over people in the modern age. Just as I dismiss the use of 16-bit-wide integers on modern systems, even though they were natural on my PDP-11 back in the day.
Once upon a time, it was necessary to convince Sovereign States to form a union. Today state sovereignty is ancient history and the states today should not be treated as those old sovereign entities were, as if we still today have to lure them into the union at the expense of the populance.
And this doesn't mean that I am ignorant of the Constitution or haven't learned my civics. It just means I believe it's time for change.
Fractal complexity in a district boundary is an indicator of gerrymandering. Even river boundaries run along the center line of the river and thus do not approach the fractal complexity of the banks. These high fractal order boundaries are carefully calculated to optimize the effect of one party.
You replied with a fallacy. I have indeed studied history and political science to some significant depth. And it didn't convince me that an artificial hierarchy of states and districts somehow eliminated the fictional evils of a fictional tyranny of polls. You should have stuck to actual argument and avoided the implication of ad-hominem in criticizing my education. Indeed, I could as easily use your argument (That is, what there is of your argument. You don't really give reasons why raw democracy is so harmful) to justify monarchy as a more sane alternative to raw democracy.
And if you don't think fundamental rights are up for a vote, just what news have you read, as well as what history or political science? Did you miss that Trump's platform includes a constitutional amendment?
There isn't really any reason for all of that artificial hierarchy other than that you like hierarchies. What reason would we possibly have for counties to have more rights in the election than people?
It was a viable thing to do when they were trying to get Sovereign States to join the union. But the states have been in the union for so long, and their sovereignty is long gone, and we're still giving them the vote amplification that got them to join as if states somehow still had sovereignty and as if they matter more than the will of the people.
Actually, it isn't a check against voter fraud. It moves the places where the fraudsters must work to smaller, well-defined areas. So, they won't work in NY and California, but they will work in the most populous counties of Ohio, etc. Just a little reprogramming of the voting machines there, and the job's done.
So as far as I can tell, it provides a simply optimizing process that amplifies the effect of voting fraud.
The electoral college was enacted at the same time that court "circuits" were established. A circuit was the route that the judge rode on his horse between towns. Once we had the telegraph the nation should have been a pure democracy.
The folks who aren't in NY and California (you aren't counting Texas?) should have the same size of vote as everywhere else, rather than an artificially larger vote.
And no, it doesn't reduce the effect of voter fraud. It just tells the fraudsters where the pressure points that they can act upon are. So, we won't have them practicing in NY and California, and we will have them in the so-called "swing states" where the effect of their fraud will be amplified.
The popular vote is not a mathematical fallacy, it's the simple sum of all of the people who voted. One Person, One Vote is fundamental to democracy and would be best enacted by simply counting the popular vote rather than having a fiction that states, rather than the people, elect the executive.
Once that is fixed, getting congressional district construction to be the job of a non-partisan body should be next. Gerrymandering has been taken to computer-optimized extremes and the result isn't democracy.
One Person, One Vote is fundamental to democracy. In the United States a majority of the people can vote for one person only to see another win the election, because of administrative distortion in allocating the effect of the votes of people according to their states.
Unfortunately, this all got a lot worse a few years ago when the Republicans were the first to use computer models in gerrymandering congressional districts. This gave them the "structural advantage" the news often talks about, especially when discussing seats in the House of Representatives. It substantially increased the administrative distortion that makes one person's vote not the same in its weight as another's, not only across state lines but this time across congressional district lines.
So yes, we need to have a pure popular vote without the Electoral College, and we need to move the construction of electoral districts to a carefully constituted non-partisan committee.
There's no proof that it has anything to do with Wikileaks, but in a world of IoT devices with no thought toward security, anyone who cares to do so can mount DDOS with the power of a national entity.
What's the point of doing what Assange and Wikileaks have been doing without any moral position? He isn't helping his own case.
No, of course it is not legal to set a trap to intentionally hurt someone, even if you expect that the trap could only be activated by the person committing property theft or vandalism. Otherwise, you'd see shotguns built into burglar alarms.
Fire alarm stations sometimes shoot a blue dye which is difficult to remove or one which only shows under UV. Never stand in front of one when pulling the lever! But they are not supposed to hurt you.
And of course these booby traps generally are not as reliable as the so-called "inventor" thinks and tend to hurt the innocent.
He's actually using the correct word. Affect has two meanings. One has to do with the emotions, the other means "have an effect upon". Lots of people get this wrong.
First, you're not realizing what I bill those customers. I don't want to wave money around on Slashdot but I assure you, you too would drink an unoffensive bottle of Soylent for that much. The main thing it buys me is freedom, and there is no shortage of pleasure coming from that. I can work on what I want most of the time, or not work, if I just keep a few of those customers.
Second, you can't have any of the real pleasures in life without your health. You are evolved to be attracted to foods that would have been infrequent windfalls throughout most of the evolution of human beings. Now, you can have them for every meal, and your body is sending you the signals to do so despite the fact that those foods will ultimately be detrimental to you. If you are still compelled to eat them, there's a pretty good chance that's the addiction talking.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the DMV "computer" doesn't register people to vote with the special license that is given to undocumented residents. If you have a normal license, you have proved quite exhaustively that you are a citizen (I know, having just done it for my son, who isn't even of voting age yet), but even then the DMV does not register you. It sends your data to the Department of State, which verifies your citizenship before it registers you.
If you are hearing otherwise, you need to question your news source. Obviously we don't want non-citizens messing with our elections, just as nobody else would.
No, a state law that allowed noncitizens to vote would be unconstitutional and a court would strike it down. Who gets to vote is pretty clearly defined in the constitution. And note those amendments about the slaves and women.
OK. Why then is monarchy not a better solution to an excess of democracy while a republic is? I am hearing that you like a particular setting on the dial of democracy without a justification of why just that point, rather than more or less, is good.
Well, since you would prefer a popular vote, can you give me some discussion of why what was a good reason 200 years ago is really still a good reason?
The formation of the original circuits was enacted by the very first Congressional session and George Washington signed it into law almost exactly two years after the constitution was ratified. But we could take this argument in the other direction and point at precursors in the British Common Law.
You're kidding yourself about State Sovereignty in the modern day, IMO. Once upon a time a state was a real sovereign entity which had to be persuaded to join a union. But that was two centuries ago, and I submit that state sovereignty is a fiction today in that there is no longer a reason for it to be more important than the voting rights of the individual.
And these so called sovereign states have their laws subordinate to the national and their courts under two levels of Federal appeal.
Yes. You're not considering that congress established the circuits in the Judiciary Act of 1789, not with the Judiciary Act of 1891 that moved the Appellate jurisdiction.
In this post I relate the mechanism by which illegal aliens are not allowed to vote in California. My kid is a 6th-generation Californian on his mom's side and they made us do a lot of work to document him before he could even get a learner's permit.
No, California goes to great lengths to make sure undocumented people don't vote. I have related my recent, personal experience in this post. We had to provide a lot of documentation. My son is a 6th-generation Californian on his mom's side and I have lived here since 1987, and it was still a pretty big hassle to document my kid.
Well, someone told you that California lets illegal aliens vote, but that's not true. Check out the Snopes rebuttal for example.
My son just got his California learners permit. The state of California put us to rather extreme lengths to demonstrate that he was a citizen, and if he was undocumented that would have appeared on his driver's license. He had to provide his birth certificate and a second form of identification, and I as his parent had to establish my proof of residency, and my wife had to sign the document as well. And you can't even download the form you have to fill out - you must get the paper document directly from the DMV, and I'm not clear what that's about but I suspect it's an additional security measure.
All of this is to make sure that people who haven't a right to vote are not granted one because of any mistake by the Department of Motor Vehicles. And it makes getting your driver's license a lot harder if you are a citizen.
Yes, I dismiss the priority of states over people in the modern age. Just as I dismiss the use of 16-bit-wide integers on modern systems, even though they were natural on my PDP-11 back in the day.
Once upon a time, it was necessary to convince Sovereign States to form a union. Today state sovereignty is ancient history and the states today should not be treated as those old sovereign entities were, as if we still today have to lure them into the union at the expense of the populance.
And this doesn't mean that I am ignorant of the Constitution or haven't learned my civics. It just means I believe it's time for change.
Fractal complexity in a district boundary is an indicator of gerrymandering. Even river boundaries run along the center line of the river and thus do not approach the fractal complexity of the banks. These high fractal order boundaries are carefully calculated to optimize the effect of one party.
You replied with a fallacy. I have indeed studied history and political science to some significant depth. And it didn't convince me that an artificial hierarchy of states and districts somehow eliminated the fictional evils of a fictional tyranny of polls. You should have stuck to actual argument and avoided the implication of ad-hominem in criticizing my education. Indeed, I could as easily use your argument (That is, what there is of your argument. You don't really give reasons why raw democracy is so harmful) to justify monarchy as a more sane alternative to raw democracy.
And if you don't think fundamental rights are up for a vote, just what news have you read, as well as what history or political science? Did you miss that Trump's platform includes a constitutional amendment?
There isn't really any reason for all of that artificial hierarchy other than that you like hierarchies. What reason would we possibly have for counties to have more rights in the election than people?
It was a viable thing to do when they were trying to get Sovereign States to join the union. But the states have been in the union for so long, and their sovereignty is long gone, and we're still giving them the vote amplification that got them to join as if states somehow still had sovereignty and as if they matter more than the will of the people.
Actually, it isn't a check against voter fraud. It moves the places where the fraudsters must work to smaller, well-defined areas. So, they won't work in NY and California, but they will work in the most populous counties of Ohio, etc. Just a little reprogramming of the voting machines there, and the job's done.
So as far as I can tell, it provides a simply optimizing process that amplifies the effect of voting fraud.
The electoral college was enacted at the same time that court "circuits" were established. A circuit was the route that the judge rode on his horse between towns. Once we had the telegraph the nation should have been a pure democracy.
The folks who aren't in NY and California (you aren't counting Texas?) should have the same size of vote as everywhere else, rather than an artificially larger vote.
And no, it doesn't reduce the effect of voter fraud. It just tells the fraudsters where the pressure points that they can act upon are. So, we won't have them practicing in NY and California, and we will have them in the so-called "swing states" where the effect of their fraud will be amplified.
The popular vote is not a mathematical fallacy, it's the simple sum of all of the people who voted. One Person, One Vote is fundamental to democracy and would be best enacted by simply counting the popular vote rather than having a fiction that states, rather than the people, elect the executive.
Once that is fixed, getting congressional district construction to be the job of a non-partisan body should be next. Gerrymandering has been taken to computer-optimized extremes and the result isn't democracy.
One Person, One Vote is fundamental to democracy. In the United States a majority of the people can vote for one person only to see another win the election, because of administrative distortion in allocating the effect of the votes of people according to their states.
Unfortunately, this all got a lot worse a few years ago when the Republicans were the first to use computer models in gerrymandering congressional districts. This gave them the "structural advantage" the news often talks about, especially when discussing seats in the House of Representatives. It substantially increased the administrative distortion that makes one person's vote not the same in its weight as another's, not only across state lines but this time across congressional district lines.
So yes, we need to have a pure popular vote without the Electoral College, and we need to move the construction of electoral districts to a carefully constituted non-partisan committee.
There's no proof that it has anything to do with Wikileaks, but in a world of IoT devices with no thought toward security, anyone who cares to do so can mount DDOS with the power of a national entity.
What's the point of doing what Assange and Wikileaks have been doing without any moral position? He isn't helping his own case.
No, of course it is not legal to set a trap to intentionally hurt someone, even if you expect that the trap could only be activated by the person committing property theft or vandalism. Otherwise, you'd see shotguns built into burglar alarms.
Fire alarm stations sometimes shoot a blue dye which is difficult to remove or one which only shows under UV. Never stand in front of one when pulling the lever! But they are not supposed to hurt you.
And of course these booby traps generally are not as reliable as the so-called "inventor" thinks and tend to hurt the innocent.
He's actually using the correct word. Affect has two meanings. One has to do with the emotions, the other means "have an effect upon". Lots of people get this wrong.
Like Boost, too much simple sugar.
The closest would be Boost Plus, which still comes in short on calories and way too much simple sugar. Look at the ingredients!
First, you're not realizing what I bill those customers. I don't want to wave money around on Slashdot but I assure you, you too would drink an unoffensive bottle of Soylent for that much. The main thing it buys me is freedom, and there is no shortage of pleasure coming from that. I can work on what I want most of the time, or not work, if I just keep a few of those customers.
Second, you can't have any of the real pleasures in life without your health. You are evolved to be attracted to foods that would have been infrequent windfalls throughout most of the evolution of human beings. Now, you can have them for every meal, and your body is sending you the signals to do so despite the fact that those foods will ultimately be detrimental to you. If you are still compelled to eat them, there's a pretty good chance that's the addiction talking.