USA Politics

Half of all Americans never go more than 50 miles away from where they're born. Most who do don't leave the country. It's just not an option for inner-city kids born in places like St Louis or New York or Denver. They're so far from the border. It's hard to understand when you live in a very small country, but very, very few Americans live within an 8 hour drive of a border.
 
True, since passports have been required to go to Mexico/Canada the number of Americans with one has increased, but as a percentage I am sure the US is pretty low compared to Europe. It is a long/expensive trip to leave the country for many Americans that do not live near a border, plus Mexico has not been as big of a destination with the issue down there (a bit overblown IMO), but still a factor.
 
Here quite some people also don't have a passport. But that does not prevent municpalities from knowing which Dutch citizens live within their borders. Everyone involved has an ID number and is registered.

edit:
To be frank, this form of registration wasn't always like that. The French started it all. ;-)
Before the French Rule, the Netherlands did not have a central registration of its population, which was introduced in some part of the country in 1796 by the French. In 1811, this registration was introduced throughout the country. The Dutch differentiate between the Gemeentelijke basisadministratie, an ongoing database of citizens' information, and the Burgerlijke Stand, which is a collection (at the municipal level) of documents evidencing certain events taking place in a given municipality, such as birth, marriage, civil union, and death.

Beginning on 1 January 1850, municipalities were obliged to keep citizen's records in bookform. Early in the twentieth century this system was replaced by a card system that registered families. The move toward individual registration took place in 1939 with the introduction of the persoonskaart, a single card registering a single individual, kept in the municipality. Information gathered on this card included family name, first names, gender, position within the family, date and place of birth, marital status, address, and church affiliation, besides information on when a person entered and left a municipality.


In 1940, the Dutch government did not want to mandate citizen's identification, but during World War II the German occupying government mandated it so they could assess who was to be sent to Germany as forced labor and to select Jewish citizens from the general population. When the war was over, mandatory identification was done away with.

In the 1990s all local registries were automated, and starting on 1 October 1994 the individual registration card was replaced with a digital list containing a person's information as collected by the Gemeentelijke basisadministratie van persoonsgegevens, kept and maintained at the municipal level. Municipalities exchange information through a closed network at the end of each day to a nationwide database, which can be consulted by officials online. Though it was generally considered "un-Dutch," in 1 January 2005 mandatory identification was reintroduced for everyone over 14; official identification is to be presented for all important transactions between citizens and government.
 
Yes, but again, the US government (and Canadian government) registers differently. There are also a lot more Americans than Dutch people. Like, a lot.

I live in the part of Canada that is furthest from a border, Atlantic Canada, and the majority of the population of Canada lives within a short drive of the USA. So many Americans live far from a border that even here we can't really "get" how hard it is for Americans to travel to another country. Interesting, but there it is.
 
Looks like I'm about 12 hours from the closest Canadian border.

I think our states sometimes compare to some European countries. We have people that traverse states like Europeans do countries, but some that never leave the state they live in.

Illinois:
Area: 51,914 square miles
Population: 12,869,257

Netherlands:
Area: 16,038 square miles
Population: 16,751,323

We just have a lot of space to cover to get outside of our country....
 
If you have more people, you can also use more people to organize something well. It's all relative. You need an X amount of people to register an Y amount of people.

Now distance.
Actually, my point was not about having passports or having reasons for crossing a border, but if you guys say distance has something to do with civil registration, then it should also be applied to registering for elections.
In other words: if distance is really such a problem, then why let people register themselves at every single election?

One day some bright figure must have said:"Yeah, we have this problem. Instead of having this problem less, we'll let everybody have this problem more often."
 
You do not need to register every election though .. rules vary by state, but in general most follow the rule that you must re-register when you move or if for some reason fall off the voting roles (mainly due to not voting for some time). For example, we moved into this house about 8 years ago, I registered then and have voted in most of the elections since then and have not needed to re-register since.

I think distance has something to do with why not many people do not have passports ... I just do not think Americans in general care for the notion of a formal civil registration.
 
Alright, this might sound like you don't live in the most bureaucratic state.
But why would not voting for some time mean falling off the voting roles (if nothing else has changed).
 
I believe it is for practical reasons ... namely it is assumed if you do not vote for some time, you either moved or are dead. It also helps ensure people who moved cannot vote in multiple precincts.

It might help to describe the voting process. I have only voted in California and Texas and the process was pretty similar in both places.

About a month before the election you get either a sample ballot or voter card in the mail (CA has the sample ballot, TX sends a voter card with a link to the ballot)

You show up to the polling place (which in my cases, I have voted in someone's garage, a town hall, a library, a school, and a church). The election officials ask for your name and you show and ID or the voter card and on the voting roll (which is paper), they mark you off and you sign that you voted. When the ballots were paper, they gave you the ballot. Now that they are computerized, you get a barcode which you scan in the machine. You vote, then get a receipt that you voted.

Since there is no registry, the voting roll helps ensure people vote where they are supposed to, vote only once, and enables the poll workers to only need to print out the names of people who have made a very minimal effort to show an interest that they might vote. I assume it also provides guidance as to what kind of staffing they will need at the polling place as well.
 
So guess what retarded thing I found speaking of State IDs. When I got my DUI I decided to get a State ID (since I wasn't driving due to a suspended license). I went to a bar with a friend and the doorman was an acquaintance of mine. He said, "For future reference, you need a DL as ID, most bars don't take State IDs." I told him my situation and then posed the question as to what if the person doesn't drive... what are they supposed to do then. He just shrugged, said it was bar policy.

You'd think bars would like to promote responsible drinking and to NOT drink and drive, yet they'll accept DLs over State IDs...
 
Alright, this is getting crazier and crazier. You actually need to show an ID to get into a bar or to order a drink (while you plainly look old enough to look legal)?

So what happens when you show a passport?
"Sorry, that's against out bar policy. We don't accept passports, we don't accept state IDs, we only accept DLs"

@Bearfan: thanks for the information!
 
If you're a foreigner, you can show your passport. At least in MA. A driver's license won't work.
 
You are supposed i.d. every bar or take out customer who looks 40 years or younger in Indiana. Why 40 I don't know since the drinking age is 21. If you are caught selling to a minor, then the excise police can and will fine the establishment and the bartender. If you get busted too many times they can and will take the bartender's liquor license and even close the bar downWhat sucks is the excise police will on purpose send a minor into a bar to try and catch them selling to minors, so in reality they are breaking the law. But it does no good to bitch about it. The bar I work part time at has been busted a couple of times. In fact just about a year ago one of the older bartenders got busted and was so upset that she actually had a heart attack and died that very same night. Now I'm sure there was more involved with her health, but I remember coming in and talking to her because she was so upset.
 
I'm not in favor of minors running around getting tanked ... but the liquor laws in the US are just stupid. If someone under 21 has a beer (even under cases of them being at home when a parent says "you can have one beer") some people think the world is coming to an end.

Some areas of the country just do not like the fact that bars exist and will do everything possible to see that new ones do not open (under zoning laws) and existing ones are closed (mainly serving minors).

It is insanity .. this varies a bit from state to state (some are better, some are worse).

The drinking age IMO should be 18, going under the "if you can be sent off to war, you should be able to have a beer theory". One state (I think Alaska) semi-recently tried to pass a law that members of the military over the age of 18 can drink ... the Feds threatened to cut off all their highway funds if the law passed.
 
I think the drinking age should be 18 as well. Anything later doesn't make any sense. And I think if you're in a restaurant you should be allowed a glass of wine at 16, or a beer, etc.
 
Totally agree ... in general, I think the US has a good society (not talking about politics or foreign policy so much .. but daily life and culture-- great museums, universities, parks, amusment parks, etc) given how old the country is compared to Europe.

However, the stupid morality plays against alcholol, recreational drugs, sex, and art that displays nudity makes zero sense to me. It has gotten better in some areas over time and I am sure after another generation or two it will be better yet, but for right now all the "save the children from seeing a boob, having a beer, etc" .. much less save the adults from themselves is a black mark on the country and how generally responsible citizens can live their lives.

If the country were able to get past this crap and focus on actual issues, we would have a much better place to live and a society with more freedom.

Obvioulsy quite a bit of this started from religion, but it is to the point where it is not just the religious nuts pushing this, but plenty of people on the left as well ... though their argument falls more in the "protect the children" category than "save people's souls" angle. Either way, it is wrong and just makes these problems worse IMO.

I have an 18 year old son who lives with me and I really do not think I should have to be under the threat of arrest or a large fine if I say "here, have a beer" when we are having a BBQ in my own back yard. It seems like having a drink with your Dad is a bit of a right of passage (at least it was for me with my Dad, but back then ... people were a bit less nuts about this topic).
 
People can drive, vote, take care of children, have children of their own, hold a job, and volunteer to die in a war before they can legally have a drink in many places in North America.
The issue is not use of alcohol, but abuse of alcohol.
The laws should reflect that.
 
The biggest problem we have here in the U.S. is too many people worry about other people's business. Things started to go haywire back in the 80's when the GOP started courting the moral majority and hypocrites like Jerry Falwell. And once those fucks got their claws in the GOP, they have never let go. Sorry but you cannot and should not try to legislate morality
 
What a coincidence. Looks like IDs are major issue at the moment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19804500
Judge blocks Pennsylvania voter ID law before election
A judge in the US state of Pennsylvania has stopped new ID requirements for voters from taking effect before November's presidential election. ...

... In June, a state legislator told a Republican dinner that the new measure would "allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania". Similar voter ID laws have been passed and upheld by courts in the states of Indiana, Georgia and New Hampshire. But such measures have been blocked in Texas and Wisconsin. A court is reviewing South Carolina's law.

...Nine states with a history of electoral discrimination, mostly in the South, must have changes to voting laws approved in Washington first...
 
This picture pretty much sums up my impression of the American sentiment against government meddling in our attempts to have fun. A shiny nickel to the first person to identify this great American patriot.

Popcorn-Gives-The-Finger.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top