What are the other ways a person can prove who they are?Your poll choices may not be specific enough. I believe that everyone thinks that voters should identify themselves. The debate is about whether they may do so using some means other than a government-issued photo ID.
A person could show a facebook page, or a birth certificate, or a credit card, or a student ID card, or a Costco card, or a casino player's rewards card, or a bar membership card, or a phone bill, or some combination of stuff like that; or a person could sign a written statement under oath identifying himself; or he could make an oral affirmation. Of, if a person happens to be a celebrity such as Carolina Panthers WR Legedu Naanee, he could simply demand: "Don't you know who I am???"What are the other ways a person can prove who they are?Your poll choices may not be specific enough. I believe that everyone thinks that voters should identify themselves. The debate is about whether they may do so using some means other than a government-issued photo ID.
What is preventing minorities from getting ID?Same thing as the "grandfather clause." Another attempt to try and prevent minorities from voting.Sad.
Well, except that the Supreme court ruled that to be unconsitutional, whereas they've said voter ID laws are a-ok.Same thing as the "grandfather clause." Another attempt to try and prevent minorities from voting.Sad.
This isn't a political issue...it's a common sense issue.4-0....so far about what i expect....voter ID is a losing issue for Dems at the polls, especially when those votes are checked.
I don't get that sense at all in the other thread. Lots of folks there seem to think it's more than enough for you to take my word for who I am when I walk up to the table. No pictures, no signatures, no problem.Your poll choices may not be specific enough. I believe that everyone thinks that voters should identify themselves. The debate is about whether they may do so using some means other than a government-issued photo ID.
What does one have to do with the other? Why must one be solved before the other? They're two totally different issues and can be solved individually without any assistance from, or impact on the other.Let's look at this way, when we stop allowing Super PAC's to manipulate the rules/loopholes about disclosing who is funneling money through them THEN you can ask for voter ID, and not some Nationalized RFID chip ladened big brother BS either.It strikes me as effing hilarious that people are putting more energy worrying about voter fraud than worrying about foriegn interests pumping billions of dark money into our political system. You're focusing on the wrong ####### things sheeple!!!
Everyone understands what the issue is. Too much editorializing is what usually makes polls biased, i tried to keep it as straight-forward as possible.Your poll choices may not be specific enough. I believe that everyone thinks that voters should identify themselves. The debate is about whether they may do so using some means other than a government-issued photo ID.
Lots of people are driving around to six different districts just to vote?? Seems like too much work to me.I've moved about a dozen times and am probably still registered to vote in 6 different districts in town. What stop me from voting 6 times? I am certain lots of people do, just like the idiots who sign a petition a hundred times. Without I'd check there is no way to prove you did anything wrong.
A photo ID is better proof than some chicken scratch. Besides, it is a significant effort to come up with 6 fake realistic ID's. Right now it requires no effort to vote multiple times. The system is a joke and too easy to game.'Matthias said:They occasionally cross-check the registration lists, genious. And at least in the states that I live in, they have you sign the log book and match your signature that day against the one they have on file. Lastly, having photo IDs doesn't "prove" that you voted 6 times. It "proves" that 6 people checked someone's ID that matched their face and your name. It could've been fake.I've moved about a dozen times and am probably still registered to vote in 6 different districts in town. What stop me from voting 6 times? I am certain lots of people do, just like the idiots who sign a petition a hundred times. Without I'd check there is no way to prove you did anything wrong.
Wow, that is deep.You don't need a photo ID to prove who you are in order to get a photo ID, so why should you need one to vote?
In the other thread, I'm not sure this is true. There were folks opposed to it because it would "disenfranchise" people and "it would cost 10s of millions of dollars to implement". Neither of those people posted anything that would leave one to believe there was wiggle room. To them, the IDs were a bad idea all around.Everyone understands what the issue is. Too much editorializing is what usually makes polls biased, i tried to keep it as straight-forward as possible.Your poll choices may not be specific enough. I believe that everyone thinks that voters should identify themselves. The debate is about whether they may do so using some means other than a government-issued photo ID.
They understand the issue. They were just blowing smoke to cover their real concern, Democrats losing illegal votes.. Yes, it is a political issue, one the Democrats are trapped on the wrong side of.In the other thread, I'm not sure this is true. There were folks opposed to it because it would "disenfranchise" people and "it would cost 10s of millions of dollars to implement". Neither of those people posted anything that would leave one to believe there was wiggle room. To them, the IDs were a bad idea all around.Everyone understands what the issue is. Too much editorializing is what usually makes polls biased, i tried to keep it as straight-forward as possible.Your poll choices may not be specific enough. I believe that everyone thinks that voters should identify themselves. The debate is about whether they may do so using some means other than a government-issued photo ID.
Just going by what was said. The FFA seems like a pretty good collection of smart folks. I'd hope that if they were making something up, they could come up with something better than thatThey understand the issue. They were just blowing smoke to cover their real concern, Democrats losing illegal votes.. Yes, it is a political issue, one the Democrats are trapped on the wrong side of.In the other thread, I'm not sure this is true. There were folks opposed to it because it would "disenfranchise" people and "it would cost 10s of millions of dollars to implement". Neither of those people posted anything that would leave one to believe there was wiggle room. To them, the IDs were a bad idea all around.Everyone understands what the issue is. Too much editorializing is what usually makes polls biased, i tried to keep it as straight-forward as possible.Your poll choices may not be specific enough. I believe that everyone thinks that voters should identify themselves. The debate is about whether they may do so using some means other than a government-issued photo ID.
There is a political aspect to this issue, but it involves the loss of legal votes, not illegal ones. I think most people are willing to acknowledge that, with the exception of fringe sorts like jon_mx.Just going by what was said. The FFA seems like a pretty good collection of smart folks. I'd hope that if they were making something up, they could come up with something better than thatThey understand the issue. They were just blowing smoke to cover their real concern, Democrats losing illegal votes.. Yes, it is a political issue, one the Democrats are trapped on the wrong side of.
Why can't it also be a loss of illegal votes?There is a political aspect to this issue, but it involves the loss of legal votes, not illegal ones. I think most people are willing to acknowledge that, with the exception of fringe sorts like jon_mx.Just going by what was said. The FFA seems like a pretty good collection of smart folks. I'd hope that if they were making something up, they could come up with something better than thatThey understand the issue. They were just blowing smoke to cover their real concern, Democrats losing illegal votes.. Yes, it is a political issue, one the Democrats are trapped on the wrong side of.
I'm pretty pessimistic when it comes to our government officials. I don't think they care if they are legal or illegal as long as they are in their favor.There is a political aspect to this issue, but it involves the loss of legal votes, not illegal ones. I think most people are willing to acknowledge that, with the exception of fringe sorts like jon_mx.Just going by what was said. The FFA seems like a pretty good collection of smart folks. I'd hope that if they were making something up, they could come up with something better than thatThey understand the issue. They were just blowing smoke to cover their real concern, Democrats losing illegal votes.. Yes, it is a political issue, one the Democrats are trapped on the wrong side of.
DMVs close at 5pm and are unsually monday thru friday. The same time that most people work. Voting booths are open till 9-10pm. Take off work to get an ID to vote is not easy for those people.What is preventing minorities from getting ID?Same thing as the "grandfather clause." Another attempt to try and prevent minorities from voting.Sad.
So you think there are hundreds, thousands of illegal votes cast for the Democrats every election, do you? Laughable. There is one reason and one reason only that the Republicans want this and that is the hope of reducing the Democrat vote. Period.They understand the issue. They were just blowing smoke to cover their real concern, Democrats losing illegal votes.. Yes, it is a political issue, one the Democrats are trapped on the wrong side of.
It seems pretty apparent to most rational people that the number of legal votes that will not be cast as a result of these laws far exceeds the number of illegal votes. That's why we've spent so much time in this thread discussing whether it's bad when people don't vote because it's too inconvenient.Why can't it also be a loss of illegal votes?There is a political aspect to this issue, but it involves the loss of legal votes, not illegal ones. I think most people are willing to acknowledge that, with the exception of fringe sorts like jon_mx.
So it does involve the loss of illegal votes. Glad you're in agreement of that now.It seems pretty apparent to most rational people that the number of legal votes that will not be cast as a result of these laws far exceeds the number of illegal votes. That's why we've spent so much time in this thread discussing whether it's bad when people don't vote because it's too inconvenient.Why can't it also be a loss of illegal votes?There is a political aspect to this issue, but it involves the loss of legal votes, not illegal ones. I think most people are willing to acknowledge that, with the exception of fringe sorts like jon_mx.
Try to follow along the whole conversation. Jon_mx said that the primary political motivation for Democrats to oppose these laws is to protect voter fraud. It isn't. Not even close. To the extent there is any of this type of voter fraud going on, there isn't any clear indication that it is in support of Democrats rather than Republicans. But what is clear is that people without IDs, who are legally able to vote, predominately vote Democratic. And some of them won't vote if required to show IDs. The Democrats have a motivation to oppose these laws because of those people, not because of a possible small number of fraudulent voters that might just as easily be supporting Republicans.So it does involve the loss of illegal votes. Glad you're in agreement of that now.It seems pretty apparent to most rational people that the number of legal votes that will not be cast as a result of these laws far exceeds the number of illegal votes. That's why we've spent so much time in this thread discussing whether it's bad when people don't vote because it's too inconvenient.Why can't it also be a loss of illegal votes?There is a political aspect to this issue, but it involves the loss of legal votes, not illegal ones. I think most people are willing to acknowledge that, with the exception of fringe sorts like jon_mx.
Signed, Bob from SacramentoHow come we don't require IDs for this vote? What is to keep aliases from voting multiple times? You can't take a vote like this seriously unless and until you have anti-fraud safeguards in place.
Wat?DMVs close at 5pm and are unsually monday thru friday. The same time that most people work. Voting booths are open till 9-10pm. Take off work to get an ID to vote is not easy for those people.What is preventing minorities from getting ID?Same thing as the "grandfather clause." Another attempt to try and prevent minorities from voting.Sad.
That explains why only unemployed people have drivers' licenses.Wat?DMVs close at 5pm and are unsually monday thru friday. The same time that most people work. Voting booths are open till 9-10pm. Take off work to get an ID to vote is not easy for those people.What is preventing minorities from getting ID?Same thing as the "grandfather clause." Another attempt to try and prevent minorities from voting.Sad.
Clearly.That explains why only unemployed people have drivers' licenses.Wat?DMVs close at 5pm and are unsually monday thru friday. The same time that most people work. Voting booths are open till 9-10pm. Take off work to get an ID to vote is not easy for those people.What is preventing minorities from getting ID?Same thing as the "grandfather clause." Another attempt to try and prevent minorities from voting.Sad.
No ID here on Long Island. We sign in and they match signatures. But it's an affluent area ( hi Otis!) overall but my area has a bit more economic diversity. My community has a pop. Around 30k, we have a few voting locations all with multiple voting stations and all very well staffed. Usually with coffee and donuts.I've lived with it my whole life and it seems perfectly natural. Never thought twice about it.
I'm curious - anyone here ever been in a state or district that doesn't require voter ID?
How does the precinct or state verify that you haven't already voted?
How do they verify that you are voting in the right precinct?
How do they verify that someone else isn't voting in your stead?
They don't verify anything.I've lived with it my whole life and it seems perfectly natural. Never thought twice about it.
I'm curious - anyone here ever been in a state or district that doesn't require voter ID?
How does the precinct or state verify that you haven't already voted?
How do they verify that you are voting in the right precinct?
How do they verify that someone else isn't voting in your stead?
Tie it to employment and they'll be fine with it.Bring up a national ID card and watch Republicans scream about it.
National ID card only for "job creators" rule and watch them run to the local ID office.Tie it to employment and they'll be fine with it.Bring up a national ID card and watch Republicans scream about it.
we can't worry about both?Let's look at this way, when we stop allowing Super PAC's to manipulate the rules/loopholes about disclosing who is funneling money through them THEN you can ask for voter ID, and not some Nationalized RFID chip ladened big brother BS either. It strikes me as effing hilarious that people are putting more energy worrying about voter fraud than worrying about foriegn interests pumping billions of dark money into our political system. You're focusing on the wrong ####### things sheeple!!!
I typically show a combination of tweets, old gas station receipts and Subway punch cards when I fly commercial. If I'm going international I usually have to step up my game and show my High School yearbook.A person could show a facebook page, or a birth certificate, or a credit card, or a student ID card, or a Costco card, or a casino player's rewards card, or a bar membership card, or a phone bill, or some combination of stuff like that; or a person could sign a written statement under oath identifying himself; or he could make an oral affirmation. Of, if a person happens to be a celebrity such as Carolina Panthers WR Legedu Naanee, he could simply demand: "Don't you know who I am???"What are the other ways a person can prove who they are?Your poll choices may not be specific enough. I believe that everyone thinks that voters should identify themselves. The debate is about whether they may do so using some means other than a government-issued photo ID.
If by "valid" you mean the sort that would satisfy voter ID laws as they are typically proposed, it's something like 7%-9% of eligible voters, apparently. (It was a factual issue in the Wisconsin case, where the evidence showed it to be about 9%, but it's probably a bit lower in less rural states. I remember seeing a 7% estimate in another state.)The Big Guy said:How many people do we have in this country (legally I am talking about) that have not a single piece of valid id?
As important the gross number, IMO, would be the cross section of that 7-9% If they are somewhat representative of the electorate as a whole, no big deal.If by "valid" you mean the sort that would satisfy voter ID laws as they are typically proposed, it's something like 7%-9% of eligible voters, apparently. (It was a factual issue in the Wisconsin case, where the evidence showed it to be about 9%, but it's probably a bit lower in less rural states. I remember seeing a 7% estimate in another state.)The Big Guy said:How many people do we have in this country (legally I am talking about) that have not a single piece of valid id?