Poll: Voter ID? (1 Viewer)

[Binky The Doormat]

I'm not opposed to voter ID, but I'm certainly opposed to ridiculous implementations.  An ID issued by the state/federal govt should more likely than not be accepted.  I can see an argument against college IDs because I don't think they have any type of anti-counterfeit measures like you'd find on a driver's license.  If they do, the should be accepted also.

At some point in someone's life, they should've made some minimum effort to identify themselves to a state or fed agency that resulted in them getting a photo ID card.

Those people who live on the margins of society, not using banks and such are still showing ID at check cashing places.




 

Driver's License or state-issued picture ID.

I don't understand the problem.  

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Getting an ID can be hard.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/lifestyle/magazine/what-happens-to-people-who-cant-prove-who-they-are/2017/06/14/fc0aaca2-4215-11e7-adba-394ee67a7582_story.html

 

[whiskey7]

Getting an ID can be hard.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/lifestyle/magazine/what-happens-to-people-who-cant-prove-who-they-are/2017/06/14/fc0aaca2-4215-11e7-adba-394ee67a7582_story.html

I don't mean to be flip, but (if a person has nothing more than their word to say who they are) it should be difficult to get an ID, no?

It is unfortunate that there are some honest people out there who have to go through the gauntlet to get a govt issued ID because they (for a variety of reasons) don't have the required paperwork. I am sure that is majorly frustrating. What are you going to do, though? The amount of crooks/cons/scammers/etc dictate that the more you give people the benefit of the doubt, the more you will get taken for.  

Even if we started implanting a scannable chip with SSN (or some other unique identifier) in each child born in a US medical facility, that still wouldn't cover everyone and there would still be people who end up not being able to back-up their claim of who they are. And people would figure out a way to game that system, too. There is just no silver bullet when it comes to people 

 

[Nugget]

When I tried to get a Kansas DL in 2014, I went to the DMV with the following:

• Current California Driver's License
  
• Current Passport
  
• Original Birth Certificate
  
• Copy of my SS Card
  
• Mortgage statement
  
• City Electric Bill
  
• Cable Bill
  

I was unable to get a KS Drivers License because the SS card was only a color photo copy and not the original.  I had to go to the SSA, apply for a duplicate card, and wait a couple weeks for it to be delivered.  Luckily I have transportation and a flexible job that allows me to deal with the excess BS that the state decided was necessary.

I will not be voting for Kris Kobach for governor.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Getting an ID can be hard.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/lifestyle/magazine/what-happens-to-people-who-cant-prove-who-they-are/2017/06/14/fc0aaca2-4215-11e7-adba-394ee67a7582_story.html

I don't mean to be flip, but (if a person has nothing more than their word to say who they are) it should be difficult to get an ID, no?

I don't really have a position on how hard it should be. I'm just providing evidence that for many people, it is in fact hard. Some people in these threads profess not to believe it, so I figured the stories in that article would be worth sharing.

 

[Chadstroma]

What are all the things you can not do these days with an ID? 

-Drive

-Fly

-Get married

-Have a bank account

-Get a loan

-Buy alcohol

-Buy ciggarettes 

-Apply for Welfare

-Apply for food stamps

-Apply for unemployment benefits

-Apply for Medicaid/Social Security

-Purchase a gun

-Get/have a concealed carry license 

What else am I missing?

So, the argument against ID for voting is that is it really about being racist because minorities are the ones that don't have ID. Yet, apparently they are perfectly ok with these minorities being treated as second class citizens for all of this and more? Further, liberals are currently losing their minds about the 'integrity' of the voting process because..... Russia. It has been really hard for me to take any liberal seriously when they rant about Russia and Trump (though I certainly agree that this whole thing should be throughly investigated) when they don't seem to care about the integrity of the voting process when it comes to simply making sure the person voting is actually the person. 

It seems it is a small thing to require ID before you vote. If those so worried about protecting minorities really cared about them- why not co-sponsor a law that would actually help them. For example- Yes, you are required to show ID and if you are financially unable to pay the $20 (in Illinois, that is the cost) then the state will provide you one for free. Those who are treated as second class citizens have been elevated and the voting process is ensured a higher degree of integrity. That makes sense.... Unless your objection has nothing to do with how minorities will not be able to vote. What would that be then?

 

[TobiasFunke]

What are all the things you can not do these days with an ID? 

-Drive

-Fly

-Get married

-Have a bank account

-Get a loan

-Buy alcohol

-Buy ciggarettes 

-Apply for Welfare

-Apply for food stamps

-Apply for unemployment benefits

-Apply for Medicaid/Social Security

-Purchase a gun

-Get/have a concealed carry license 

What else am I missing?

So, the argument against ID for voting is that is it really about being racist because minorities are the ones that don't have ID. Yet, apparently they are perfectly ok with these minorities being treated as second class citizens for all of this and more? Further, liberals are currently losing their minds about the 'integrity' of the voting process because..... Russia. It has been really hard for me to take any liberal seriously when they rant about Russia and Trump (though I certainly agree that this whole thing should be throughly investigated) when they don't seem to care about the integrity of the voting process when it comes to simply making sure the person voting is actually the person. 

It seems it is a small thing to require ID before you vote. If those so worried about protecting minorities really cared about them- why not co-sponsor a law that would actually help them. For example- Yes, you are required to show ID and if you are financially unable to pay the $20 (in Illinois, that is the cost) then the state will provide you one for free. Those who are treated as second class citizens have been elevated and the voting process is ensured a higher degree of integrity. That makes sense.... Unless your objection has nothing to do with how minorities will not be able to vote. What would that be then?

I'll explain it for you.

There is overwhelming evidence that Russia engaged in illegal activity in an effort to improperly influence our elections in a significant and meaningful way.

There is overwhelming evidence that voter ID requirements have influenced our elections in a significant and meaningful way.

There is zero evidence that anyone has ever engaged in any behavior to improperly influence our elections in a significant and meaningful way that has been/would be curbed by voter ID requirements.

Voila.

 

[tommyGunZ]

What are all the things you can not do these days with an ID? 

-Drive

-Fly

-Get married

-Have a bank account

-Get a loan

-Buy alcohol

-Buy ciggarettes 

-Apply for Welfare

-Apply for food stamps

-Apply for unemployment benefits

-Apply for Medicaid/Social Security

-Purchase a gun

-Get/have a concealed carry license 

What else am I missing?

So, the argument against ID for voting is that is it really about being racist because minorities are the ones that don't have ID. Yet, apparently they are perfectly ok with these minorities being treated as second class citizens for all of this and more? Further, liberals are currently losing their minds about the 'integrity' of the voting process because..... Russia. It has been really hard for me to take any liberal seriously when they rant about Russia and Trump (though I certainly agree that this whole thing should be throughly investigated) when they don't seem to care about the integrity of the voting process when it comes to simply making sure the person voting is actually the person. 

It seems it is a small thing to require ID before you vote. If those so worried about protecting minorities really cared about them- why not co-sponsor a law that would actually help them. For example- Yes, you are required to show ID and if you are financially unable to pay the $20 (in Illinois, that is the cost) then the state will provide you one for free. Those who are treated as second class citizens have been elevated and the voting process is ensured a higher degree of integrity. That makes sense.... Unless your objection has nothing to do with how minorities will not be able to vote. What would that be then?

You didn't read the article MT linked above, did you?

 

[Chadstroma]

You didn't read the article MT linked above, did you?

Which only makes liberals against ID voting even funnier.

A liberals thinking....

Government must help those in need. We need more government to help and more taxes to pay for it. 

These poor people are disadvantaged BECAUSE of government. 

The answer must be to not do anything logical like fix the problem but feel better as an elite (often white) liberal helping the poor (often minority) disadvantaged against the evil racists that would dare want something like simply showing you are the person that is suppose to vote. 

Let me make it simple for those against ID in voting. THE problem is not voting. THE problem is that these people need ID's. WITHOUT ID they are truly second class citizens. FIX the problem with waiving cost and beating back the government beauracies that make getting an ID hard or impossible for those in unique situations. 

Why not? Oh.... I know. Because racist. 

 

[tommyGunZ]

Which only makes liberals against ID voting even funnier.

A liberals thinking....

Government must help those in need. We need more government to help and more taxes to pay for it. 

These poor people are disadvantaged BECAUSE of government. 

The answer must be to not do anything logical like fix the problem but feel better as an elite (often white) liberal helping the poor (often minority) disadvantaged against the evil racists that would dare want something like simply showing you are the person that is suppose to vote. 

Let me make it simple for those against ID in voting. THE problem is not voting. THE problem is that these people need ID's. WITHOUT ID they are truly second class citizens. FIX the problem with waiving cost and beating back the government beauracies that make getting an ID hard or impossible for those in unique situations. 

Why not? Oh.... I know. Because racist. 

Fix what problem?

And again, you obviously didn't read MT's linked article.  The fee for gov't issued IDs is only one of the hurdles faced by those without ID. Why are we supposed to take you opinion seriously when you can't even be bothered to read an article to educate yourself on the issue? 

 

[Chadstroma]

Fix what problem?

And again, you obviously didn't read MT's linked article.  The fee for gov't issued IDs is only one of the hurdles faced by those without ID. Why are we supposed to take you opinion seriously when you can't even be bothered to read an article to educate yourself on the issue? 

The problem of people not having ID's!!! 

THAT IS THE PROBLEM! Seriously? Did you see my PARTIAL list of the things you CAN NOT do without an ID? 

Oh. Well, that sucks for them. Obviously there is nothing we can do about it because you know the laws and regulations of how you get ID's have been mystically handed down to us mortals from the gods of bearucracy. I guess it is ok for them to be second class citizens just as long as we make sure the racists don't block them from voting! 

Come on now. 

 

[tommyGunZ]

The problem of people not having ID's!!! 

THAT IS THE PROBLEM! Seriously? Did you see my PARTIAL list of the things you CAN NOT do without an ID? 

Oh. Well, that sucks for them. Obviously there is nothing we can do about it because you know the laws and regulations of how you get ID's have been mystically handed down to us mortals from the gods of bearucracy. I guess it is ok for them to be second class citizens just as long as we make sure the racists don't block them from voting! 

Come on now. 

Acknowledging that not having ID is a problem and then supporting policies that restrict a fundamental right by requiring an ID seems like a weird way of "fixing" the problem.

If you were truly concerned about the issue, support policies that help these folks get IDs, but don't require ID for voting.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

What are all the things you can not do these days with an ID? 

-Drive

-Fly

-Get married

-Have a bank account

-Get a loan

-Buy alcohol

-Buy ciggarettes 

-Apply for Welfare

-Apply for food stamps

-Apply for unemployment benefits

-Apply for Medicaid/Social Security

-Purchase a gun

-Get/have a concealed carry license 

What else am I missing?

You can do a great many of those things without a valid state-issued ID. I've done a number of them myself.

For example, having a bank account is super easy. Open one with a valid ID, let your ID expire, and keep banking as normal for the following several decades without any issues.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Acknowledging that not having ID is a problem and then supporting policies that restrict a fundamental right by requiring an ID seems like a weird way of "fixing" the problem.

Voting is not a fundamental right.  We restrict voting rights in ways that would never survive even cursory scrutiny when it comes to the right to free speech, freedom of religion, etc.  Folks who are under the age of 18 have free speech rights.  Non-citizens have the right to a jury of the peers.  Etc.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Voting is not a fundamental right.  We restrict voting rights in ways that would never survive even cursory scrutiny when it comes to the right to free speech, freedom of religion, etc.  Folks who are under the age of 18 have free speech rights.  Non-citizens have the right to a jury of the peers.  Etc.

The Supreme Ct has called the right to vote "fundamental".  I agree that recent jurisprudence hasn't always been consistent thus causing confusion. I think courts have erred by not applying strict scrutiny when voting rights are being curtailed. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Voting is not a fundamental right.  We restrict voting rights in ways that would never survive even cursory scrutiny when it comes to the right to free speech, freedom of religion, etc.  Folks who are under the age of 18 have free speech rights.  Non-citizens have the right to a jury of the peers.  Etc.

It's a fundamental right for citizens over 18.

The distinction between fundamental rights and non-fundamental rights isn't all that clear cut, but "fundamental" rights usually refer to those rights that are (a) specifically mentioned in the federal Constitution, or (b) so ingrained in our culture and society that refusing to recognize them would something something Roe v. Wade.

So to a first approximation, fundamental constitutional rights are basically specifically enumerated rights plus privacy.

The Constitution does specifically mention voting. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment says: "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age." (Other Amendments forbid denying voting rights on other bases, such as sex, ethnicity, etc.)

So I don't think the fact that restricting voting rights to citizens at least 18 years old makes the right to vote non-fundamental.

 

[[scooter]]

What are all the things you can not do these days with an ID? 

-Drive

-Fly

-Get married

-Have a bank account

-Get a loan

-Buy alcohol

-Buy ciggarettes 

-Apply for Welfare

-Apply for food stamps

-Apply for unemployment benefits

-Apply for Medicaid/Social Security

-Get/have a concealed carry license 

What else am I missing?

None of these things are rights protected by the Constitution. Seems like an important distinction.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It's a fundamental right for citizens over 18.

The distinction between fundamental rights and non-fundamental rights isn't all that clear cut, but fundamental rights usually refer to those rights that are (a) specifically mentioned in the federal Constitution, or (b) so ingrained in our culture and society that refusing to recognize them would something something Roe v. Wade.

So to a first approximation, fundamental constitutional rights are basically specifically enumerated rights plus privacy.

The Constitution does specifically mention voting. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment says: "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."

So I don't think the fact that restricting voting rights to citizens at least 18 years old makes the right to vote non-fundamental.

Like you mentioned, we offer this "right" only to people over 18.  They also have to be citizens.  In many states, they must not have a felony conviction.  And they have to have IDs.  I don't think you can really say it's a "fundamental right" when we already place a bunch of restrictions on it.

I see voting as being a right in the same way that driving is a right.  You can't ban someone from driving because they're they're old.  But you can ban them from driving if they can't demonstrate a basic level of competence, either by failing a driving test or getting too many violations.  I think we should be actively looking for ways to get incompetent voters out of the electorate.  Maybe we should adopt a system where you have to pass the citizenship test to be allowed to vote.  Or maybe ID requirements are an acceptable screening tool.  But we all of suffer when we let incompetent, dangerous people behind the wheel or let them enter a voting booth.  

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Like you mentioned, we offer this "right" only to people over 18.  They also have to be citizens.  In many states, they must not have a felony conviction.  And they have to have IDs.  I don't think you can really say it's a "fundamental right" when we already place a bunch of restrictions on it.

I see voting as being a right in the same way that driving is a right.  You can't ban someone from driving because they're they're old.  But you can ban them from driving if they can't demonstrate a basic level of competence, either by failing a driving test or getting too many violations.  I think we should be actively looking for ways to get incompetent voters out of the electorate.  Maybe we should adopt a system where you have to pass the citizenship test to be allowed to vote.  Or maybe ID requirements are an acceptable screening tool.  But we all of suffer when we let incompetent, dangerous people behind the wheel or let them enter a voting booth.  

Without looking anything up, I think the rational basis test applies to restrictions on driving (unless the restriction in question is based on sex or some other criterion that would trigger heightened scrutiny). I think elevated scrutiny generally applies to restrictions on voting (which is where fundamentalness comes in). And I think that's appropriate.

 

[Chadstroma]

Acknowledging that not having ID is a problem and then supporting policies that restrict a fundamental right by requiring an ID seems like a weird way of "fixing" the problem.

If you were truly concerned about the issue, support policies that help these folks get IDs, but don't require ID for voting.

Uh.....

 

[Chadstroma]

You can do a great many of those things without a valid state-issued ID. I've done a number of them myself.

For example, having a bank account is super easy. Open one with a valid ID, let your ID expire, and keep banking as normal for the following several decades without any issues.

Being in banking for over 20 years let me respond with 

But you right..... These poor people are perfectly find without ID's as long as they can vote. 

 

[Chadstroma]

None of these things are rights protected by the Constitution. Seems like an important distinction.

Yet- the ability to not be able to do these things makes someone without ID decidedly a second class citizen.... And those who valiantly fight against the evil racists who want someone to show ID to vote, don't seem to have a care in the world about it. 

Interesting. 

 

[tommyGunZ]

Yet- the ability to not be able to do these things makes someone without ID decidedly a second class citizen.... And those who valiantly fight against the evil racists who want someone to show ID to vote, don't seem to have a care in the world about it. 

Interesting. 

Why are you suggesting that liberals do not want poor people without IDs to get IDs?  

 

[tommyGunZ]

Being in banking for over 20 years let me respond with 

But you right..... These poor people are perfectly find without ID's as long as they can vote. 

I've been with BoA for 19 years now - haven't ever shown my ID since opening my account.  

 

[TobiasFunke]

Why are you suggesting that liberals do not want poor people without IDs to get IDs?  

youre gonna throw out your back building that straw man, Chad.  Having taxpayers bear costs of basic citizenship privileges for the less fortunate doesn't sound like something liberals would fight.  It sounds like something they'd embrace.  Conservatives on the other hand ...

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Without looking anything up, I think the rational basis test applies to restrictions on driving (unless the restriction in question is based on sex or some other criterion that would trigger heightened scrutiny). I think elevated scrutiny generally applies to restrictions on voting (which is where fundamentalness comes in). And I think that's appropriate.

I don't think I have a problem with that either.  Admittedly, I haven't poured a lot of thought into what precise bucket of legal scrutiny should be applied here, and I'm not well-placed to make that determination.  The important thing that I've always thought that we need to have a way to screen out incompetent voters.  One my the main lessons I drew from 2016 is that society has the most compelling possible interest in doing so.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I don't think I have a problem with that either.  Admittedly, I haven't poured a lot of thought into what precise bucket of legal scrutiny should be applied here, and I'm not well-placed to make that determination.  The important thing that I've always thought that we need to have a way to screen out incompetent voters.  One my the main lessons I drew from 2016 is that society has the most compelling possible interest in doing so.

A more effective way to ensure incompetent voters are screened out moving forward would be to strip 2016 Trump voters of their right to vote.  

 

[Chadstroma]

youre gonna throw out your back building that straw man, Chad.  Having taxpayers bear costs of basic citizenship privileges for the less fortunate doesn't sound like something liberals would fight.  It sounds like something they'd embrace.  Conservatives on the other hand ...

I am a conservative and that is my entire position. 

Eliminate the obstacles that government has created in getting ID. Pay the nominal fee for those who can not afford it. Agreed? Great! Then it is done. 

Now surely there would be no opposition to a requirement for ID. 

Everyone is happy and we have come together to make the world a better place for all. 

Unless.... 

 

[Ditka Butkus]

I am a conservative and that is my entire position. 

Eliminate the obstacles that government has created in getting ID. Pay the nominal fee for those who can not afford it. Agreed? Great! Then it is done. 

Now surely there would be no opposition to a requirement for ID. 

Everyone is happy and we have come together to make the world a better place for all. 

Unless.... 

If you can't afford a 20 dollar ID you have made some horrible decisions in life and don't need to be deciding who our president should be.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I am a conservative and that is my entire position. 

Eliminate the obstacles that government has created in getting ID. Pay the nominal fee for those who can not afford it. Agreed? Great! Then it is done. 

Now surely there would be no opposition to a requirement for ID. 

Everyone is happy and we have come together to make the world a better place for all. 

Unless.... 

Note for anyone in this thread - this is the 2nd time Chad has suggested that waiving the nominal fee for poor people would solve the problem, which proves that he didn't take the time to read the article MT linked (or any article criticing voter ID).

Let's just ignore his posts moving forward until he bothers to take the 5-10 minutes to inform his ignorance on this topic.  

Thanks.  

 

[whiskey7]

A more effective way to ensure incompetent voters are screened out moving forward would be to strip 2016 Trump voters of their right to vote.  

How bout a simple matching exercise before voting? If someone can not accurately match the candidate they want to vote for (any candidate of any affiliation) with his/her core issues campaigned on, they cant vote for that candidate nor his/her opposition. Basically, they fail out of that category. Essentially, force people to prove they know at least a little bit about what the candidate stands for before they can vote for someone.

I think we've all seen the videos (often on late night talk shows) where they interview random people who enthusiastically endorse a certain candidate and then cant answer even one question about why.

 

[Chadstroma]

I've been with BoA for 19 years now - haven't ever shown my ID since opening my account.  

Most well to do white American elites like yourself have very little need to visit a branch regularly. Even more so with technology ever increasing the additional ways to bank that would not require an ID upon transaction such as online banking, mobile banking, direct deposit, etc. 

However, it is a ridiculous position to say that you don't need ID but once in your life. Beyond the obvious fact that you needed your ID to open the account in the first place there are innumerable ways that you would need ID AFTER the account opening. Sure, you could go 19 years without the need to do so. But, let's say this.... I know for a fact that you have shown your ID in transacting financial business within that span of 19 years. 

Finally, are you trying to tell me that people without ID are not second class citizens and it is not a hardship to be without? Are you trying to say that the only thing that could potentially harm someone without ID would be if there was a law to show ID upon voting? I am not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. The fact is that if you do not have an ID- you ARE a second class citizen. It might hurt your sensibilities that you have never noticed this before and now you do not feel as superior in your righteous fight against racists who want someone to verify they are the person voting but the truth is- take the whole voting thing away and it is a huge problem for anyone to not have an ID in this day and age. 

 

[Chadstroma]

If you can't afford a 20 dollar ID you have made some horrible decisions in life and don't need to be deciding who our president should be.

People can be down on their luck. I know I have been at times in my life. 

 

[Chadstroma]

Note for anyone in this thread - this is the 2nd time Chad has suggested that waiving the nominal fee for poor people would solve the problem, which proves that he didn't take the time to read the article MT linked (or any article criticing voter ID).

Let's just ignore his posts moving forward until he bothers to take the 5-10 minutes to inform his ignorance on this topic.  

Thanks.  

For being a lawyer, your reading comprehension sucks my friend. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

I am a conservative and that is my entire position. 

Eliminate the obstacles that government has created in getting ID. Pay the nominal fee for those who can not afford it. Agreed? Great! Then it is done. 

Now surely there would be no opposition to a requirement for ID. 

Everyone is happy and we have come together to make the world a better place for all. 

Unless.... 

Eliminate ALL the obstacles?  So subsidize transportation to get the ID (including assistance for the handicapped) mandate that employers allow leave to do so, and keep the government offices that issue IDs open 7 days a week and staffed with enough people to ensure there are no long waits even in high-population areas?

Assuming you're paying for it with tax increases on the wealthy and corporations rather than cuts to other programs, then yes, I am fine with that plan. Sure seems like a lot of time and money to devote to something that we have no evidence is a real problem though.

 

[Chadstroma]

Eliminate ALL the obstacles?  So subsidize transportation to get the ID (including assistance for the handicapped) mandate that employers allow leave to do so, and keep the government offices that issue IDs open 7 days a week and staffed with enough people to ensure there are no long waits even in high-population areas?

Assuming you're paying for it with tax increases on the wealthy and corporations rather than cuts to other programs, then yes, I am fine with that plan. Sure seems like a lot of time and money to devote to something that we have no evidence is a real problem though.

You need evidence that not having ID impedes a persons ability to live a quality of life the same of which you live? Really? 

 

[TobiasFunke]

You need evidence that not having ID impedes a persons ability to live a quality of life the same of which you live? Really? 

I was speaking of the voter fraud issue.  Youre right though, it's a good idea for other reasons.  Like I said, so long as the presumably significant costs are covered entirely through taxes on the wealthy and on businesses, it sounds like a great program. The needed transportation services and long hours for government facilities could even provide jobs in densely populated areas.  Sign me up

 

[IvanKaramazov]

How bout a simple matching exercise before voting? If someone can not accurately match the candidate they want to vote for (any candidate of any affiliation) with his/her core issues campaigned on, they cant vote for that candidate nor his/her opposition. Basically, they fail out of that category. Essentially, force people to prove they know at least a little bit about what the candidate stands for before they can vote for someone.

I think we've all seen the videos (often on late night talk shows) where they interview random people who enthusiastically endorse a certain candidate and then cant answer even one question about why.

People on this forum generally have no idea how ignorant the electorate is.  Most of us are highly educated, and we work around highly educated people.  Our families and friends are probably highly educated.  What we think of as ignorance and stupidity doesn't even approach the ignorance and stupidity that actually exists among the rest of the population.

There is a whole cottage industry devoted to documenting this.  As one example, here is a 2014 survey showing that only 38% of Americans knew which party controlled the House of Representatives.  Think about that for a second.  If people where truly ignorant and had no idea which party controlled the House and simply guessed, that would get you to 50%.  The actual pubic did a worse job on this question than a pack of chimpanzees would do.  They are literally worse than ignorant.  

I have no problem with people being politically ignorant and incompetent, but they should not have the right to inflict their incompetence on the rest of us. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Finally, are you trying to tell me that people without ID are not second class citizens and it is not a hardship to be without? Are you trying to say that the only thing that could potentially harm someone without ID would be if there was a law to show ID upon voting? I am not exactly sure what you are trying to say here.

Not to speak for tommyGunZ, but I suspect he might be saying that going without an ID is a hardship for about 28 different reasons, and he'd like to see that reduced to 27 reasons while it seems like you favor keeping it at 28.

 

[whiskey7]

Not to speak for tommyGunZ, but I suspect he might be saying that going without an ID is a hardship for about 28 different reasons, and he'd like to see that reduced to 27 reasons while it seems like you favor keeping it at 28.

I cant speak for chad but I read him the other way...he wants to see it go from 28 to 0 and its ridiculous to him that people get so worked up and outraged over 1 of those 28 and not the other 27 (which should negatively impact folks on a more regular basis than the 1). It kinda makes ya think the outrage is a little fraudulent.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The important thing that I've always thought that we need to have a way to screen out incompetent voters.  One my the main lessons I drew from 2016 is that society has the most compelling possible interest in doing so.

I've always been against screening out incompetent voters for a bunch of reasons. Measuring incompetence involves subjective choices that will be politicized. Even incompetent voters have a stake in how the government is run. Etc. Moreover, I believed that a larger voting population, regardless of competence, would generally be less prone to voting for extremists than would a smaller subsection of the population.

That last reason has been strongly challenged by the 2016 election. It looks like ignorant voters may be much more prone to vote for extremists based on their susceptibility to fake news and the like, so eliminating their votes may be helpful even if it decreases the size of the electorate.

My aversion to screening out incompetent voters has therefore weakened somewhat, although I still think the practical problems associated with designing and conducting the screen may be prohibitive.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I cant speak for chad but I read him the other way...he wants to see it go from 28 to 0 and its ridiculous to him that people get so worked up and outraged over 1 of those 28 and not the other 27 which should negatively impact folks on a more regular basis. It kinda makes ya think the outrage is a little fraudulent.

Starting at 28, 27 is on the way to 0, so why not start there? It gets us going in the right direction...

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I've always been against screening out incompetent voters for a bunch of reasons. Measuring incompetence involves subjective choices that will be politicized. Even incompetent voters have a stake in how the government is run. 

For the first point, the US Citizenship test is non-political and is probably a very strong proxy for voter ignorance.  If you're asking people whether man-made climate change is real or whether evolution is true, or things like that, then yeah there is too much scope for putting one's finger on the scale.  Asking people to correctly identify what the cold war was about or to name one of the countries we fought against in WWII is much different.

For the second point, I have a stake in making sure my flight to Chicago arrives safely.  It doesn't follow that I should be allowed to fly the plane or have any say in who the pilot is.

 

[whiskey7]

Starting at 28, 27 is on the way to 0, so why not start there?

Sure. But voting comes around how often? Seems like some of the other things folks cant do without an ID negatively impacts them far more often. I would think we'd wanna start there yet we don't hear nearly the same level of outrage that folks cant do those things. Seems a lot of people are not so worried about all the things some of these poor folks without IDs cant do but then get real, real interested when voting is one of them. Wonder why that is?

 

[Yenrub]

What are all the things you can not do these days with an ID? 

-Drive

-Fly

-Get married

-Have a bank account

-Get a loan

-Buy alcohol

-Buy ciggarettes 

-Apply for Welfare

-Apply for food stamps

-Apply for unemployment benefits

-Apply for Medicaid/Social Security

-Purchase a gun

-Get/have a concealed carry license 

What else am I missing?

So, the argument against ID for voting is that is it really about being racist because minorities are the ones that don't have ID. Yet, apparently they are perfectly ok with these minorities being treated as second class citizens for all of this and more? Further, liberals are currently losing their minds about the 'integrity' of the voting process because..... Russia. It has been really hard for me to take any liberal seriously when they rant about Russia and Trump (though I certainly agree that this whole thing should be throughly investigated) when they don't seem to care about the integrity of the voting process when it comes to simply making sure the person voting is actually the person. 

It seems it is a small thing to require ID before you vote. If those so worried about protecting minorities really cared about them- why not co-sponsor a law that would actually help them. For example- Yes, you are required to show ID and if you are financially unable to pay the $20 (in Illinois, that is the cost) then the state will provide you one for free. Those who are treated as second class citizens have been elevated and the voting process is ensured a higher degree of integrity. That makes sense.... Unless your objection has nothing to do with how minorities will not be able to vote. What would that be then?

Meet Mildred the 80-year-old retiree who owns her house which is located about 3 miles from her church and a local grocery store.

Sure Mildred should have a drivers license but she doesn’t because what police officer is going to bother Mildred on her Sunday afternoon drive to and from church because she is going too slow in her Caprice Classic?

Yes Mildred likes to get her sip on with a little wine from time to time but who at the grocery store is actually going to card her?

Her son showed her how the new fangled ATM’s can deposit checks so as long as she can remember her PIN (it’s his birthday) she is good to go.

Mildred has been getting unemployment and social security for almost 20 years now 

Mildred is afraid to fly so she doesn’t travel much unless she rides with the son’s family (happens every other year)

Mildred is doing just fine without a valid ID

 

[Bogeys]

Meet Mildred the 80-year-old retiree who owns her house which is located about 3 miles from her church and a local grocery store.

Sure Mildred should have a drivers license but she doesn’t because what police officer is going to bother Mildred on her Sunday afternoon drive to and from church because she is going too slow in her Caprice Classic?

Yes Mildred likes to get her sip on with a little wine from time to time but who at the grocery store is actually going to card her?

Her son showed her how the new fangled ATM’s can deposit checks so as long as she can remember her PIN (it’s his birthday) she is good to go.

Mildred has been getting unemployment and social security for almost 20 years now 

Mildred is afraid to fly so she doesn’t travel much unless she rides with the son’s family (happens every other year)

Mildred is doing just fine without a valid ID

Umm, I do not want Mildred on the street.  If she doesn't have a valid license, how is she getting insurance?  Danger and a hazard to all of those that happen to be within 3 miles of her house. 

Don't really have too much of an opinion for the original topic (have been swayed back and forth by some of the posters in the thread), but just putting in my opinion on dear old Mildred.

 

[[scooter]]

The important thing that I've always thought that we need to have a way to screen out incompetent voters.  One my the main lessons I drew from 2016 is that society has the most compelling possible interest in doing so.

You are a conservative, correct? You also believe that Trump is incompetent, never should have been elected, and/or should be impeached and removed from office, correct?

So....if all of the incompetent voters were removed from the voter rolls, wouldn't that give an advantage to Democrats?

Sure, there are incompetent voters on both sides...but it seems like you're saying that a higher percentage of them voted R in 2016.

 

[tommyGunZ]

People on this forum generally have no idea how ignorant the electorate is.  Most of us are highly educated, and we work around highly educated people.  Our families and friends are probably highly educated.  What we think of as ignorance and stupidity doesn't even approach the ignorance and stupidity that actually exists among the rest of the population.

There is a whole cottage industry devoted to documenting this.  As one example, here is a 2014 survey showing that only 38% of Americans knew which party controlled the House of Representatives.  Think about that for a second.  If people where truly ignorant and had no idea which party controlled the House and simply guessed, that would get you to 50%.  The actual pubic did a worse job on this question than a pack of chimpanzees would do.  They are literally worse than ignorant.  

I have no problem with people being politically ignorant and incompetent, but they should not have the right to inflict their incompetence on the rest of us. 

What about the really smart folks like you who inflict their incompetence on the rest of us with your votes?

I kid...

 

[tommyGunZ]

You are a conservative, correct? You also believe that Trump is incompetent, never should have been elected, and/or should be impeached and removed from office, correct?

So....if all of the incompetent voters were removed from the voter rolls, wouldn't that give an advantage to Democrats?

Sure, there are incompetent voters on both sides...but it seems like you're saying that a higher percentage of them voted R in 2016.

IK is one the few (Yankeefan is another) conservatives on this board who passed the 2016 litmus test with flying colors.