Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
medium aristotle

Should voters be required to show ID?

1,688 posts in this topic

this should not be hard to solve, there is some cost, but if it makes elections more secure it is worht it. The problem is no one in power wants it solved

Here's the rub.Some people, including myself, don't actually believe that Voter IDs make elections more secure. As much as "voter fraud" gets bantered around nobody actually ever finds real examples of somebody trying to vote as somebody else. And even if we would enact this, people can still vote absentee without an ID. So why do we keep pursuing it?
Exactly. How does anyone doing a cost/benefit analysis come to the conclusion that we need to pour 10s of millions of dollars into a "voter ID" program?NCC is dead on - this is a solution searching for a problem.
List of things that you need an id for...Buy beer or tobaccoCash a checkBuy a hunting licenseCheck out a library bookUse an ATMDriveObtain gov't assistanceAttend a universityPlease provide a list of people who aren't felons that don't do at least one of those things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't make sense to take the vote away from approx. 15% of the country

Most states require that you show up at a particular location on a particular day to cast a vote. Why is that okay, but asking somebody to stop by the DMV at their convenience isn't? Why does the latter amount to "taking away their vote" but not the former?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think requiring some proof of who is voting is common sense

It doesn't make sense to take the vote away from approx. 15% of the country when there is zero or almost zero evidence that anybody has ever voted as somebody else.That doesn't make common sense. It's spending $20,000/yr to buy earthquake insurance in the middle of Kansas.
Who's "taking it away" from anyone? Seems like a strawman to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think requiring some proof of who is voting is common sense

It doesn't make sense to take the vote away from approx. 15% of the country when there is zero or almost zero evidence that anybody has ever voted as somebody else.That doesn't make common sense. It's spending $20,000/yr to buy earthquake insurance in the middle of Kansas.
Neither does solving global warming since nothing drastic has happened yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think requiring some proof of who is voting is common sense

It doesn't make sense to take the vote away from approx. 15% of the country when there is zero or almost zero evidence that anybody has ever voted as somebody else.

That doesn't make common sense. It's spending $20,000/yr to buy earthquake insurance in the middle of Kansas.

Why do you think people would be so apathetic as to not get a free voter ID card? They make it to the polls already.
:shrug:

Number of reasons but time, expense, and the required supporting documents would be up there. But there is a number (11% according to here) of eligible voters who currently don't have a government-issued photo ID. So I guess my question would be: why does anybody think that number is going to go down?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Number of reasons but time, expense, and the required supporting documents would be up there. But there is a number (11% according to here) of eligible voters who currently don't have a government-issued photo ID. So I guess my question would be: why does anybody think that number is going to go down?

Lots of people don't have health insurance. Do you think that the mandate will have no effect on those numbers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't make sense to take the vote away from approx. 15% of the country

Most states require that you show up at a particular location on a particular day to cast a vote. Why is that okay, but asking somebody to stop by the DMV at their convenience isn't? Why does the latter amount to "taking away their vote" but not the former?
There's a legitimate government interest and concern in having polls open up on a certain day. There's costs involved. If they wanted to expand those periods, I'd be all for it.There's no legitimate government interest in a requirement that doesn't do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think requiring some proof of who is voting is common sense

It doesn't make sense to take the vote away from approx. 15% of the country when there is zero or almost zero evidence that anybody has ever voted as somebody else.That doesn't make common sense. It's spending $20,000/yr to buy earthquake insurance in the middle of Kansas.
Neither does solving global warming since nothing drastic has happened yet.
Shtick or inability to conceive of ideas except as political jargon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Number of reasons but time, expense, and the required supporting documents would be up there. But there is a number (11% according to here) of eligible voters who currently don't have a government-issued photo ID. So I guess my question would be: why does anybody think that number is going to go down?

Lots of people don't have health insurance. Do you think that the mandate will have no effect on those numbers?
Apples-oranges. Different C-B analyses.

Do you think the government should be able to burden your rights so long as you can denigrate the burdens as trivial and only affecting 11% of the population?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think requiring some proof of who is voting is common sense

It doesn't make sense to take the vote away from approx. 15% of the country when there is zero or almost zero evidence that anybody has ever voted as somebody else.That doesn't make common sense. It's spending $20,000/yr to buy earthquake insurance in the middle of Kansas.
Neither does solving global warming since nothing drastic has happened yet.
B-Deep> This actually is what's wrong with our political discourse, btw. It's a total disregard of what is actually underlying either issue but just perceiving them as a my side/your side thing so let's try to play "gotcha".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Number of reasons but time, expense, and the required supporting documents would be up there. But there is a number (11% according to here) of eligible voters who currently don't have a government-issued photo ID. So I guess my question would be: why does anybody think that number is going to go down?

Lots of people don't have health insurance. Do you think that the mandate will have no effect on those numbers?
Apples-oranges. Different C-B analyses.

Do you think the government should be able to burden your rights so long as you can denigrate the burdens as trivial and only affecting 11% of the population?

BS on 11%. How do you cash a check?

eta: It's OK for the gov't to do it with hunting licenses.

Edited by BassNBrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't make sense to take the vote away from approx. 15% of the country

Most states require that you show up at a particular location on a particular day to cast a vote. Why is that okay, but asking somebody to stop by the DMV at their convenience isn't? Why does the latter amount to "taking away their vote" but not the former?
There's a legitimate government interest and concern in having polls open up on a certain day. There's costs involved. If they wanted to expand those periods, I'd be all for it.There's no legitimate government interest in a requirement that doesn't do anything.
The government definitely has a legitimate interest in ensuring the integrity of elections and making sure that people have confidence in the results. Even if you don't think ID requirements have any concrete effect, they're good appearances sake if nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens if these lazy bums get motivated to go get a driver's license? Are we talking about a government shutdown because of the "expense"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Number of reasons but time, expense, and the required supporting documents would be up there. But there is a number (11% according to here) of eligible voters who currently don't have a government-issued photo ID. So I guess my question would be: why does anybody think that number is going to go down?

Lots of people don't have health insurance. Do you think that the mandate will have no effect on those numbers?
Apples-oranges. Different C-B analyses.
The difference in the cost-benefit analysis has nothing to do with the post to which I was responding. I bolded the key part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BS on 11%. How do you cash a check?

Secondary endorsements? Cash only? Some dodgy check-cashing place that charges you 5%?You not being able to conceive of it <> it not existing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government definitely has a legitimate interest in ensuring the integrity of elections and making sure that people have confidence in the results. Even if you don't think ID requirements have any concrete effect, they're good appearances sake if nothing else.

That was the tact that Scotus chose when they ruled for these things. Personally, I think it's bumpus absence any real evidence of wrong-doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think requiring some proof of who is voting is common sense

It doesn't make sense to take the vote away from approx. 15% of the country when there is zero or almost zero evidence that anybody has ever voted as somebody else.

That doesn't make common sense. It's spending $20,000/yr to buy earthquake insurance in the middle of Kansas.

Why do you think people would be so apathetic as to not get a free voter ID card? They make it to the polls already.
:shrug:

Number of reasons but time, expense, and the required supporting documents would be up there. But there is a number (11% according to here) of eligible voters who currently don't have a government-issued photo ID. So I guess my question would be: why does anybody think that number is going to go down?

In this nest of quotes, you've said we'd waste money providing free cards and alienate 15% of the population when only 89% of the population already has a photo ID. I know your first number was a guess, and the second was confirmed, but I don't know how you could possibly think the number wouldn't go down.

If you provide the voter ID service at the poll during the first presidential election, you'd take all the burden away from those voters. It's also not much of a burden to stand in line one freaking time at the courthouse if you did not take care of this at the previous election. Provide the service at voter registration as well to eliminate the burden for first time registrants.

The number would go down tremendously, assuming the entire 11% cared to vote in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this nest of quotes, you've said we'd waste money providing free cards and alienate 15% of the population when only 89% of the population already has a photo ID. I know your first number was a guess, and the second was confirmed, but I don't know how you could possibly think the number wouldn't go down.If you provide the voter ID service at the poll during the first presidential election, you'd take all the burden away from those voters. It's also not much of a burden to stand in line one freaking time at the courthouse if you did not take care of this at the previous election. Provide the service at voter registration as well to eliminate the burden for first time registrants.The number would go down tremendously, assuming the entire 11% cared to vote in the first place.

Then you come back to MT's question. Do you just have a gov't employee stand there, take a picture of someone, give them their ID, and then have the person show the ID back to them to validate it? There actually is an underlying issue of supporting documentation.So say the # goes down from 11% to 7%. Is that ok then to fix a problem that doesn't exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference in the cost-benefit analysis has nothing to do with the post to which I was responding. I bolded the key part.

See above. I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this nest of quotes, you've said we'd waste money providing free cards and alienate 15% of the population when only 89% of the population already has a photo ID. I know your first number was a guess, and the second was confirmed, but I don't know how you could possibly think the number wouldn't go down.If you provide the voter ID service at the poll during the first presidential election, you'd take all the burden away from those voters. It's also not much of a burden to stand in line one freaking time at the courthouse if you did not take care of this at the previous election. Provide the service at voter registration as well to eliminate the burden for first time registrants.The number would go down tremendously, assuming the entire 11% cared to vote in the first place.

Then you come back to MT's question. Do you just have a gov't employee stand there, take a picture of someone, give them their ID, and then have the person show the ID back to them to validate it? There actually is an underlying issue of supporting documentation.So say the # goes down from 11% to 7%. Is that ok then to fix a problem that doesn't exist?
:confused: 7% of the voters still wouldn't have an ID, right? That's the issue/problem we are talking about right? Why wouldn't the problem/issue still exist if it went from 11 to 7%?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:confused: 7% of the voters still wouldn't have an ID, right? That's the issue/problem we are talking about right? Why wouldn't the problem/issue still exist if it went from 11 to 7%?

It would. That's what I'm saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Number of reasons but time, expense, and the required supporting documents would be up there. But there is a number (11% according to here) of eligible voters who currently don't have a government-issued photo ID. So I guess my question would be: why does anybody think that number is going to go down?

Lots of people don't have health insurance. Do you think that the mandate will have no effect on those numbers?
Apples-oranges. Different C-B analyses.

Do you think the government should be able to burden your rights so long as you can denigrate the burdens as trivial and only affecting 11% of the population?

The C-B analysis is going to be completely different depending on your position on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BS on 11%. How do you cash a check?

Secondary endorsements? Cash only? Some dodgy check-cashing place that charges you 5%?You not being able to conceive of it <> it not existing
Well the elderly get ss checks which have to be cashed. I guess there could be some younger non-drinkers, non-smoker, non-hunter, non-driving, non-felons out there operating strictly on cash and paying their required taxes. Sounds like 11-15% of the population to me.And if they can pee away 5% cashing a check, they can afford a taxi ride to get an ID. In this case requiring IDs would actually help the poor, not that we care about them except for their vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the elderly get ss checks which have to be cashed. I guess there could be some younger non-drinkers, non-smoker, non-hunter, non-driving, non-felons out there operating strictly on cash and paying their required taxes. Sounds like 11-15% of the population to me.And if they can pee away 5% cashing a check, they can afford a taxi ride to get an ID. In this case requiring IDs would actually help the poor, not that we care about them except for their vote.

I'm 38. I don't get carded to buy alcohol or tobacco or to deposit checks to my account (although I think I needed one when I set one up). Ya'll act like you have your photo ID checked several times a day. I hardly ever need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Number of reasons but time, expense, and the required supporting documents would be up there. But there is a number (11% according to here) of eligible voters who currently don't have a government-issued photo ID. So I guess my question would be: why does anybody think that number is going to go down?

Lots of people don't have health insurance. Do you think that the mandate will have no effect on those numbers?
Apples-oranges. Different C-B analyses.

Do you think the government should be able to burden your rights so long as you can denigrate the burdens as trivial and only affecting 11% of the population?

The C-B analysis is going to be completely different depending on your position on the matter.
What's the benefit to spending 10s of millions of dollars to solve a problem that doesn't exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the elderly get ss checks which have to be cashed. I guess there could be some younger non-drinkers, non-smoker, non-hunter, non-driving, non-felons out there operating strictly on cash and paying their required taxes. Sounds like 11-15% of the population to me.And if they can pee away 5% cashing a check, they can afford a taxi ride to get an ID. In this case requiring IDs would actually help the poor, not that we care about them except for their vote.

I'm 38. I don't get carded to buy alcohol or tobacco or to deposit checks to my account (although I think I needed one when I set one up). Ya'll act like you have your photo ID checked several times a day. I hardly ever need it.
I get checked at least once a week doing jobs in the city. Can't get past security without photo ID.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BS on 11%. How do you cash a check?

Secondary endorsements? Cash only? Some dodgy check-cashing place that charges you 5%?You not being able to conceive of it <> it not existing
Well the elderly get ss checks which have to be cashed. I guess there could be some younger non-drinkers, non-smoker, non-hunter, non-driving, non-felons out there operating strictly on cash and paying their required taxes. Sounds like 11-15% of the population to me.And if they can pee away 5% cashing a check, they can afford a taxi ride to get an ID. In this case requiring IDs would actually help the poor, not that we care about them except for their vote.
BnB for bigger gov't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Number of reasons but time, expense, and the required supporting documents would be up there. But there is a number (11% according to here) of eligible voters who currently don't have a government-issued photo ID. So I guess my question would be: why does anybody think that number is going to go down?

Lots of people don't have health insurance. Do you think that the mandate will have no effect on those numbers?
Apples-oranges. Different C-B analyses.

Do you think the government should be able to burden your rights so long as you can denigrate the burdens as trivial and only affecting 11% of the population?

The C-B analysis is going to be completely different depending on your position on the matter.
What's the benefit to spending 10s of millions of dollars to solve a problem that doesn't exist?
It would be funny if you didn't actually think that. Remarkable to me how people refuse to even acknowledge that some one may see something differently than they do, and it doesn't make them wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in ohio we get our IDs the same day

What do you need to show in order to get one?In California, I got my driver's license by filling out a form, taking a written test, posing for a picture, and paying $31. They never asked for my birth certificate or even my Costco card. They accepted my identity just on my own say-so.
Ever since I moved to California, and was surprised at how lax the ID issue is at the voting booth, I've been conducting experiments every Election Day to see how little info I could give and still be allowed to vote.I vote in a building that is the polling place for two districts, they are segregated inside by a rope line, so when you walk in you go left for district 1 and right for district 2. It's printed on the sample ballot everyone gets in the mail before election day. Last time I voted, someone at the front asked to see my mailer to tell me were to go, when asked, I responded "You're not allowed to look at it, and it's against California law for you to ask." She just shrugged and I moved to my district table. "Name please?" I said "It starts with an S, flip to that page and I'll tell you." So she opened the big voter roll to the S's. I pointed toward the page. "That one. That's me." She gave me a pen to sign and I made a mark. She gave me a ballot.I couldn't be more suspicious as an illegal voter, but no one thought I was up to anything. :shrug: Guess if they're going to take your word when getting ID, might as well be consistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a philosophical difference that nobody has mentioned directly...Liberals believe that every adult inside the US with a pulse should be able to vote. The bar should be very low because it's a fundamental right, without qualification. Conservatives believe you should be legally qualified and able prove it.

a conservative spin on the mattera liberal spin would be everyone eligible to vote should be allowed to, the conservatives think only those who have jumped through whatever hoops they require shouldthe truth is in the middle, but this is no longer a fraud or right to vote issue, it's a political tool used by both sides
Being able to demonstrate you are who you say you are is a hoop?
that would depend on HOW you do that, what is required, and the costtherein is the rub
How about as I asked earlier. Bring some sort of ID. A bill with your name on it, a credit card, a library card.Is that too much to ask?
How about a voter registration card?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think requiring some proof of who is voting is common sense

It doesn't make sense to take the vote away from approx. 15% of the country when there is zero or almost zero evidence that anybody has ever voted as somebody else.That doesn't make common sense. It's spending $20,000/yr to buy earthquake insurance in the middle of Kansas.
Or let's put some numbers on this.There's about 220mm eligible voters in the US.Say half the people without gov't IDs (11%) get them after it being required. So 5% lack it.Say 30% of them would have voted. That's about the average.1.5% of the 220mm voters who would have voted wouldn't.That's 3.3 million voters.On the other hand, say there's 1,000 cases of genuine voter fraud in an election. That would be an extraordinarily high number. When they litigated this at the Supreme Court, the states had to drag out voting fraud cases from the 1800s to try and make this appear like a problem.So take those numbers.A guy asks you if you want insurance on your $1,000 motorbike. You ask him how much it would cost. He tells you the insurance will be $3.3 million. What's the common sense answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think requiring some proof of who is voting is common sense

It doesn't make sense to take the vote away from approx. 15% of the country when there is zero or almost zero evidence that anybody has ever voted as somebody else.That doesn't make common sense. It's spending $20,000/yr to buy earthquake insurance in the middle of Kansas.
Or let's put some numbers on this.There's about 220mm eligible voters in the US.Say half the people without gov't IDs (11%) get them after it being required. So 5% lack it.Say 30% of them would have voted. That's about the average.1.5% of the 220mm voters who would have voted wouldn't.That's 3.3 million voters.On the other hand, say there's 1,000 cases of genuine voter fraud in an election. That would be an extraordinarily high number. When they litigated this at the Supreme Court, the states had to drag out voting fraud cases from the 1800s to try and make this appear like a problem.So take those numbers.A guy asks you if you want insurance on your $1,000 motorbike. You ask him how much it would cost. He tells you the insurance will be $3.3 million. What's the common sense answer?
I think that's what passes for "fiscal conservatism" these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republican- We need to have this in order to fight voter fraud!

What he really means- We need this in order to suppress black voting. The less blacks vote, the more likely it is that Republicans will win elections.

Democrat- Voter fraud really isn't happening, so this is unnecessary. Plus, it's antidemocratic.

What he really means- There's a lot of people out there who won't bother to vote if this goes down, mainly poor blacks who we have manipulated for years to vote how we want them to. If these people (who really don't care too much anyhow) don't vote, that shrinks down our power base.

Overall, I'm for this. But forgive me if I'm a little cynical of the motivations of both sides.

Edited by timschochet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republican- We need to have this in order to fight voter fraud!

What he really means- We need this in order to suppress black voting. The less blacks vote, the more likely it is that Republicans will win elections.

Democrat- Voter fraud really isn't happening, so this is unnecessary. Plus, it's antidemocratic.

What he really means- There's a lot of people out there who won't bother to vote if this goes down, mainly poor blacks who we have manipulated for years to vote how we want them to. If these people (who really don't care too much anyhow) don't vote, that shrinks down our power base.

Overall, I'm for this. But forgive me if I'm a little cynical of the motivations of both sides.

This is only a case of one-way cynicism. If the left was simultaneously trying to fight this but then supress voters in the South or the suburbs, then I could see being cynical both ways. But there's a right fight here. It's not cynical to be on the right side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think requiring some proof of who is voting is common sense

It doesn't make sense to take the vote away from approx. 15% of the country when there is zero or almost zero evidence that anybody has ever voted as somebody else.That doesn't make common sense. It's spending $20,000/yr to buy earthquake insurance in the middle of Kansas.
Or let's put some numbers on this.There's about 220mm eligible voters in the US.Say half the people without gov't IDs (11%) get them after it being required. So 5% lack it.Say 30% of them would have voted. That's about the average.1.5% of the 220mm voters who would have voted wouldn't.That's 3.3 million voters.On the other hand, say there's 1,000 cases of genuine voter fraud in an election. That would be an extraordinarily high number. When they litigated this at the Supreme Court, the states had to drag out voting fraud cases from the 1800s to try and make this appear like a problem.So take those numbers.A guy asks you if you want insurance on your $1,000 motorbike. You ask him how much it would cost. He tells you the insurance will be $3.3 million. What's the common sense answer?
I think that's what passes for "fiscal conservatism" these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republican- We need to have this in order to fight voter fraud!

What he really means- We need this in order to suppress black voting. The less blacks vote, the more likely it is that Republicans will win elections.

Democrat- Voter fraud really isn't happening, so this is unnecessary. Plus, it's antidemocratic.

What he really means- There's a lot of people out there who won't bother to vote if this goes down, mainly poor blacks who we have manipulated for years to vote how we want them to. If these people (who really don't care too much anyhow) don't vote, that shrinks down our power base.

Overall, I'm for this. But forgive me if I'm a little cynical of the motivations of both sides.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republican- We need to have this in order to fight voter fraud!

What he really means- We need this in order to suppress black voting. The less blacks vote, the more likely it is that Republicans will win elections.

Democrat- Voter fraud really isn't happening, so this is unnecessary. Plus, it's antidemocratic.

What he really means- There's a lot of people out there who won't bother to vote if this goes down, mainly poor blacks who we have manipulated for years to vote how we want them to. If these people (who really don't care too much anyhow) don't vote, that shrinks down our power base.

Overall, I'm for this. But forgive me if I'm a little cynical of the motivations of both sides.

You know, it's possible for people to have an opinion on the subject that is not politically motivated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of the jobs we can create if we started a new government department devoted to issuing ID cards to everyone in the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republican- We need to have this in order to fight voter fraud!

What he really means- We need this in order to suppress black voting. The less blacks vote, the more likely it is that Republicans will win elections.

Democrat- Voter fraud really isn't happening, so this is unnecessary. Plus, it's antidemocratic.

What he really means- There's a lot of people out there who won't bother to vote if this goes down, mainly poor blacks who we have manipulated for years to vote how we want them to. If these people (who really don't care too much anyhow) don't vote, that shrinks down our power base.

Overall, I'm for this. But forgive me if I'm a little cynical of the motivations of both sides.

You know, it's possible for people to have an opinion on the subject that is not politically motivated.
Oh absolutely. I certainly do. I think most people here do. But when it comes to the politicians, this is what they're thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republican- We need to have this in order to fight voter fraud!

What he really means- We need this in order to suppress black voting. The less blacks vote, the more likely it is that Republicans will win elections.

Democrat- Voter fraud really isn't happening, so this is unnecessary. Plus, it's antidemocratic.

What he really means- There's a lot of people out there who won't bother to vote if this goes down, mainly poor blacks who we have manipulated for years to vote how we want them to. If these people (who really don't care too much anyhow) don't vote, that shrinks down our power base.

Overall, I'm for this. But forgive me if I'm a little cynical of the motivations of both sides.

You know, it's possible for people to have an opinion on the subject that is not politically motivated.
Oh absolutely. I certainly do. I think most people here do. But when it comes to the politicians, this is what they're thinking.
Oh yes, those evil, evil people we choose to represent us.

Please stop tim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.