Poll: Voter ID? (1 Viewer)

[RCon]

What it is like to live in a world, where no matter where you look, the only thing you're capable of seeing is racism? Must be awful.

It's certainly not the only thing. In fact, it's a very very small flaw in what is mostly a beautiful world.

Right now, thankfully, we do not have racism in voting booths in this country. I believe, however, that requiring voter IDs will increase the likelihood of racism, leading to the suppression of black voting (which I do believe is the intent of at least some of its promoters.) I attempted to show two examples of how that will work in my last two posts.

Just calling it like I see it. You think everything is some form of racism. No matter what the topic, you're always the first one to jump on the racism bandwagon.

 

[The Commish]

Some folks worry about fingerprints infringing on privacy. Not really the same concern with a photo.

Yeah, I don't get that distinction...especially with the facial recognition technologies out there today. They're virtually as unique...not quite but very close.

I'm not all that squeamish about fingerprints but I think the fear is of a database being used by law enforcement to accuse people of crimes.

Right....same can be done with pictures. That's my point. I can make an argument that faces would be an easier/quicker way of identifying people too.

 

[fatness]

Evidence in a two-week trial in September showed that Texas, the second-most-populous U.S. state, uncovered only two instances of in-person voter fraud among more than 62 million votes cast in all Texas elections during the preceding 14 years. The state’s photo-ID rules don’t address mail-in ballot fraud, which all parties agreed is a bigger problem.

Ramos ruled that voters lacking the required identity documents and the means to get them were disproportionately poor or minorities, and that the cost of acquiring these documents amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax.

Trial evidence showed that more than 600,000 registered Texas voters lost the right to vote at the polls since the law took effect.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-10/texas-voter-id-law-overturned-by-u-s-judge-as-unconstitutional.html

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Black area in Wisconsin:

I was waiting for a "you all look alike to me" version.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm not suggesting voter ID is the only viable method, but I believe we should implement something that has at least a reasonable chance of catching someone who might perform in-person voter fraud (ditto for absentee balloting, which is basically a license to cheat). I don't believe simply taking a picture at the time of voting does that.

It absolutely does, particularly now that we have sophisticated facial recognition technology. A dead person came in and voted? Let's look at the picture. Somebody came in to vote but they said he already voted? Let's look at the picture. There is ample opportunity to catch bad actors. And keep in mind that there is a tremendous personal incentive in robbing a bank. People are willing to take substantial risks for lots of money. People are far less likely to take a risk of jail time to cast a single vote that is highly unlikely even to change the outcome of a political race.

I didn't say it doesn't increase the chances of detection compared to the current system of doing nothing. It does.

But, it wouldn't help detect that a crime has been committed at all, which means there would rarely be a reason to attempt to find the perpetrator.

I guess this goes back to the perceived prevalence of voting impostors. My feeling is that it is already rare because it's an incredibly stupid way to try to get somebody elected. The digital photo thing would just make it that much stupider to try.

If there's one thing I've learned from the internet, it's that some people are more than a little crazy when it comes to politics. It wouldn't be surprising to me if idiots like cr8f weren't voting multiple times.

Not that I think it makes a big difference in election results. Again, I agree that it's nuts to do this. But when you can clear this sort of thing up at a very low cost -- possibly even a net benefit by getting the otherwise-disengaged to pick up an ID at least -- it's a no-brainer.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Some folks worry about fingerprints infringing on privacy. Not really the same concern with a photo.

Yeah, I don't get that distinction...especially with the facial recognition technologies out there today. They're virtually as unique...not quite but very close.

I'm not all that squeamish about fingerprints but I think the fear is of a database being used by law enforcement to accuse people of crimes.

Are you saying that some crazy people have this fear, or that you personally have this fear? It's not clear from your post.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Not that I think it makes a big difference in election results. Again, I agree that it's nuts to do this. But when you can clear this sort of thing up at a very low cost -- possibly even a net benefit by getting the otherwise-disengaged to pick up an ID at least -- it's a no-brainer.

Not worth doing this discussion again.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Some folks worry about fingerprints infringing on privacy. Not really the same concern with a photo.

Yeah, I don't get that distinction...especially with the facial recognition technologies out there today. They're virtually as unique...not quite but very close.

I'm not all that squeamish about fingerprints but I think the fear is of a database being used by law enforcement to accuse people of crimes.

Are you saying that some crazy people have this fear, or that you personally have this fear? It's not clear from your post.

I am not afraid of a fingerprint database. Other people are. They may or may not be crazy.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It amazes me that my civil-libertarian friends on this board are seriously arguing that "let's just take their picture when they show up to vote" and "let's just fingerprint them when they show up to vote" are somehow better than simply flashing the ID that all of us are walking around with. You guys need to seriously rethink this -- showing your ID is way less intrusive or intimidating than the the alternatives that you're proposing.

 

[timschochet]

Look Ivan, your arguments are fine. I can see where you're going with this and I think you're being honest about your opinion that it's a "no-brainer."

But my concern is that these laws are being pushed mostly in battleground states, and political scientists tell us that the net effect will be to reduce the number of minority voters, which means, effectively, that these laws are going to help Republicans win. And that makes me believe the whole thing is a cynical attempt to keep the GOP relevant in these states where the minority voters (black and Latino) continue to grow. Not saying that this is your intent, but I believe it's the intent of certain leaders in the Republican party. And that's why I'm opposed.

 

[nittanylion]

Tim,

The minorities you speak of have tremendously powerful political machines at their disposal to get all their constituents properly ID'd, if they'd choose to do so. Every district and municipality has them. Both Latinos and Blacks. They have the manpower, and are, to some degree, funded by our very own tax dollars to do so, again, IF. THEY. CHOOSE. TO follow through. Well, from my experience, they DON'T choose to do so, because doing so requires some actual effort, and it's easier just to argue against it, keep things bogged down in the mire, and maintain the status quo.

Not to mention that for the most part, in this society, and day in age, if anyone really, Really, REALLY wanted to vote. If it really, Really REALLY meant that much to them as an individual, they could find a way to obtain the ID means to do so. With minimal effort.

You have to be kidding, or disingenuous, if you think that some poor, downtrodden American Citizen, who really has their heart set on voting because it means so much to them personally couldn't find a way to get to the County Seat, or what have you and find a city or county government office or official and say to them "Hey, could you please help me out? I'm an American Citizen and I really want to exercise my Constitutional Right to vote in this upcoming election, but I need the means to identify myself." ... that some public servant or government employee wouldn't just either DO THEIR JOB, and either help the person directly, or find someone who could? Come on...not to mention the shameless politicians who could mine PR GOLD out of making a spectacle of their effort.

Personally, I'd much rather live in a society where, even if some folks who COULD legitimately vote, either choose not to, or are unable to - but it's guaranteed that everyone who actually DOES VOTE is legitimate and every vote that's cast is legitimate...

...infinitely more valuable than living in a society where, in order to make sure no one gets shut out of the process, opens the process itself up to potential fraud, allowing some folks to cast votes who have no legal business doing so.

Everyone who legally can, should vote. Despite personal responsibility and political machines, plenty don't. Probably as a lot to do with human nature.

I personally believe the world would be a much brighter place if people stopped trying to manipulate human nature, and quit implementing social engineering experiments, instead of just let folks do what folks do, and having to live with the consequences of their actions or inactions. People will either wake up, or the world will move on without them. Like it always has. Live within the laws, and stop trying to manipulate the market.

No one should be allowed to vote, if they have no legal standing to do so.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The racism angle does not appear to be entirely imagined. This article in the Washington Post describes a study in which white voters were more likely to support photo ID requirements if they were shown an image of a black voter rather than a white voter before giving their answer.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Look Ivan, your arguments are fine. I can see where you're going with this and I think you're being honest about your opinion that it's a "no-brainer."

But my concern is that these laws are being pushed mostly in battleground states, and political scientists tell us that the net effect will be to reduce the number of minority voters, which means, effectively, that these laws are going to help Republicans win. And that makes me believe the whole thing is a cynical attempt to keep the GOP relevant in these states where the minority voters (black and Latino) continue to grow. Not saying that this is your intent, but I believe it's the intent of certain leaders in the Republican party. And that's why I'm opposed.

Who cares what somebody else's intent is?

I actually agree with you that the intent of most of lawmakers pushing this are doing so as a political move. Here is the thing though, I believe all of the people fighting it are doing so as a political move. They don't really care about the people that they are professing to be fighting for their rights. This is where Ivan's argument really makes a ton of sense. If people like BFS and Tgunnz really cared so much about these people without IDs, they would realize that getting more and more people to a place in their life where an ID is commonplace is far more important than keeping their lives status quo, except status quo keeps them voting with their political party.

This should boil down to a simple question. Does it make sense to have people identify themselves in order to vote?

I kind of wish they would poll a bunch of random 8 year olds and ask them their thoughts on the matter. This just seems to me like it should be a "no-brainer". I find it hard to believe that if no data was known about which way people voted and how this would affect elections, that any sane person when asked "Does it make sense to have people show ID to vote" would ever argue no. That just seems like a crazy position to me.

 

[dino259]

Who cares what somebody else's intent is?

to keep the GOP relevant in these states where the minority voters (black and Latino) continue to grow. Not saying that this is your intent, but I believe it's the intent of certain leaders in the Republican party. And that's why I'm opposed.
I actually agree with you that the intent of most of lawmakers pushing this are doing so as a political move. Here is the thing though, I believe all of the people fighting it are doing so as a political move. They don't really care about the people that they are professing to be fighting for their rights. This is where Ivan's argument really makes a ton of sense. If people like BFS and Tgunnz really cared so much about these people without IDs, they would realize that getting more and more people to a place in their life where an ID is commonplace is far more important than keeping their lives status quo, except status quo keeps them voting with their political party.

This should boil down to a simple question. Does it make sense to have people identify themselves in order to vote?

I kind of wish they would poll a bunch of random 8 year olds and ask them their thoughts on the matter. This just seems to me like it should be a "no-brainer". I find it hard to believe that if no data was known about which way people voted and how this would affect elections, that any sane person when asked "Does it make sense to have people show ID to vote" would ever argue no. That just seems like a crazy position to me.

Too bad this isn't the intent of politics anymore. It's not about leading the country for the best of all, its about keeping "your" party in control.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Should we base all our policies on the judgments of random eight year olds or just this one?

 

[The Commish]

Should we base all our policies on the judgments of random eight year olds or just this one?

I'm game. Can't be any worse at this than the adults

 

[HellToupee]

What it is like to live in a world, where no matter where you look, the only thing you're capable of seeing is racism? Must be awful.

It's certainly not the only thing. In fact, it's a very very small flaw in what is mostly a beautiful world. Right now, thankfully, we do not have racism in voting booths in this country. I believe, however, that requiring voter IDs will increase the likelihood of racism, leading to the suppression of black voting (which I do believe is the intent of at least some of its promoters.) I attempted to show two examples of how that will work in my last two posts.

Just calling it like I see it. You think everything is some form of racism. No matter what the topic, you're always the first one to jump on the racism bandwagon.

Its his calling card . Old timmy one note

 

[tommyGunZ]

Look Ivan, your arguments are fine. I can see where you're going with this and I think you're being honest about your opinion that it's a "no-brainer."

But my concern is that these laws are being pushed mostly in battleground states, and political scientists tell us that the net effect will be to reduce the number of minority voters, which means, effectively, that these laws are going to help Republicans win. And that makes me believe the whole thing is a cynical attempt to keep the GOP relevant in these states where the minority voters (black and Latino) continue to grow. Not saying that this is your intent, but I believe it's the intent of certain leaders in the Republican party. And that's why I'm opposed.

Who cares what somebody else's intent is?

I actually agree with you that the intent of most of lawmakers pushing this are doing so as a political move. Here is the thing though, I believe all of the people fighting it are doing so as a political move. They don't really care about the people that they are professing to be fighting for their rights. This is where Ivan's argument really makes a ton of sense. If people like BFS and Tgunnz really cared so much about these people without IDs, they would realize that getting more and more people to a place in their life where an ID is commonplace is far more important than keeping their lives status quo, except status quo keeps them voting with their political party.

This should boil down to a simple question. Does it make sense to have people identify themselves in order to vote?

I kind of wish they would poll a bunch of random 8 year olds and ask them their thoughts on the matter. This just seems to me like it should be a "no-brainer". I find it hard to believe that if no data was known about which way people voted and how this would affect elections, that any sane person when asked "Does it make sense to have people show ID to vote" would ever argue no. That just seems like a crazy position to me.

This is a bizarre post. Do you think that imposing voter-ID laws which result in people without IDs being unable to participate in the democratic process helps those people get to "a place in their life where ID is commonplace"?

 

[Jim11]

Look Ivan, your arguments are fine. I can see where you're going with this and I think you're being honest about your opinion that it's a "no-brainer."

But my concern is that these laws are being pushed mostly in battleground states, and political scientists tell us that the net effect will be to reduce the number of minority voters, which means, effectively, that these laws are going to help Republicans win. And that makes me believe the whole thing is a cynical attempt to keep the GOP relevant in these states where the minority voters (black and Latino) continue to grow. Not saying that this is your intent, but I believe it's the intent of certain leaders in the Republican party. And that's why I'm opposed.

Who cares what somebody else's intent is?

I actually agree with you that the intent of most of lawmakers pushing this are doing so as a political move. Here is the thing though, I believe all of the people fighting it are doing so as a political move. They don't really care about the people that they are professing to be fighting for their rights. This is where Ivan's argument really makes a ton of sense. If people like BFS and Tgunnz really cared so much about these people without IDs, they would realize that getting more and more people to a place in their life where an ID is commonplace is far more important than keeping their lives status quo, except status quo keeps them voting with their political party.

This should boil down to a simple question. Does it make sense to have people identify themselves in order to vote?

I kind of wish they would poll a bunch of random 8 year olds and ask them their thoughts on the matter. This just seems to me like it should be a "no-brainer". I find it hard to believe that if no data was known about which way people voted and how this would affect elections, that any sane person when asked "Does it make sense to have people show ID to vote" would ever argue no. That just seems like a crazy position to me.

This is a bizarre post. Do you think that imposing voter-ID laws which result in people without IDs being unable to participate in the democratic process helps those people get to "a place in their life where ID is commonplace"?

It's bizarre that you don't support making elections more honest.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Look Ivan, your arguments are fine. I can see where you're going with this and I think you're being honest about your opinion that it's a "no-brainer."

But my concern is that these laws are being pushed mostly in battleground states, and political scientists tell us that the net effect will be to reduce the number of minority voters, which means, effectively, that these laws are going to help Republicans win. And that makes me believe the whole thing is a cynical attempt to keep the GOP relevant in these states where the minority voters (black and Latino) continue to grow. Not saying that this is your intent, but I believe it's the intent of certain leaders in the Republican party. And that's why I'm opposed.

Who cares what somebody else's intent is?

I actually agree with you that the intent of most of lawmakers pushing this are doing so as a political move. Here is the thing though, I believe all of the people fighting it are doing so as a political move. They don't really care about the people that they are professing to be fighting for their rights. This is where Ivan's argument really makes a ton of sense. If people like BFS and Tgunnz really cared so much about these people without IDs, they would realize that getting more and more people to a place in their life where an ID is commonplace is far more important than keeping their lives status quo, except status quo keeps them voting with their political party.

This should boil down to a simple question. Does it make sense to have people identify themselves in order to vote?

I kind of wish they would poll a bunch of random 8 year olds and ask them their thoughts on the matter. This just seems to me like it should be a "no-brainer". I find it hard to believe that if no data was known about which way people voted and how this would affect elections, that any sane person when asked "Does it make sense to have people show ID to vote" would ever argue no. That just seems like a crazy position to me.

This is a bizarre post. Do you think that imposing voter-ID laws which result in people without IDs being unable to participate in the democratic process helps those people get to "a place in their life where ID is commonplace"?

It's bizarre that you don't support making elections more honest.

Voter-ID does not make elections more honest.

 

[jon_mx]

Wouldn't be a good thing for everyone to have identification? Whether it is involves around giving/obtaining health care, driving, opening banking accounts, or whatever....there are legit reasons why it is a good that everyone has some kind of legal identification. Having ID to vote not only puts in a check for ensuring voters only vote once and are who they say they are, but it is an opportunity to get more people to have proper identification.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Wouldn't be a good thing for everyone to have identification? Whether it is involves around giving/obtaining health care, driving, opening banking accounts, or whatever....there are legit reasons why it is a good that everyone has some kind of legal identification. Having ID to vote not only puts in a check for ensuring voters only vote once and are who they say they are, but it is an opportunity to get more people to have proper identification.

You're a big gov't guy, eh jon?

 

[timschochet]

What it is like to live in a world, where no matter where you look, the only thing you're capable of seeing is racism? Must be awful.

It's certainly not the only thing. In fact, it's a very very small flaw in what is mostly a beautiful world. Right now, thankfully, we do not have racism in voting booths in this country. I believe, however, that requiring voter IDs will increase the likelihood of racism, leading to the suppression of black voting (which I do believe is the intent of at least some of its promoters.) I attempted to show two examples of how that will work in my last two posts.

Just calling it like I see it. You think everything is some form of racism. No matter what the topic, you're always the first one to jump on the racism bandwagon.

Its his calling card . Old timmy one note

When I see racism, I say racism. It probably seems like a lot to you guys because you NEVER see racism.

I think you would have to be naïve to believe that enforcing voter ID laws in battleground states doesn't have a tinge of race connected to it.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Wouldn't be a good thing for everyone to have identification? Whether it is involves around giving/obtaining health care, driving, opening banking accounts, or whatever....there are legit reasons why it is a good that everyone has some kind of legal identification. Having ID to vote not only puts in a check for ensuring voters only vote once and are who they say they are, but it is an opportunity to get more people to have proper identification.

You're a big gov't guy, eh jon?

Even the most extreme libertarians are usually okay with states issuing identification to their citizens.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Wouldn't be a good thing for everyone to have identification? Whether it is involves around giving/obtaining health care, driving, opening banking accounts, or whatever....there are legit reasons why it is a good that everyone has some kind of legal identification. Having ID to vote not only puts in a check for ensuring voters only vote once and are who they say they are, but it is an opportunity to get more people to have proper identification.

You're a big gov't guy, eh jon?

It's pragmatic, especially in today's society, for people to be able to be identified. It doesn't mean one is "big gov't." Personally, it kind of disgusts me that the SSN has become our main form of ID. Why does my gov't issued SSN number have to be used to open a bank account, or even an account with a pay TV service? The SSN was never intended to be identification. But it is. And we need something to identify ourselves. I don't particularly like it but that's just the way it is. It's not because I'm big gov't. It's because I'm pragmatic.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Wouldn't be a good thing for everyone to have identification? Whether it is involves around giving/obtaining health care, driving, opening banking accounts, or whatever....there are legit reasons why it is a good that everyone has some kind of legal identification. Having ID to vote not only puts in a check for ensuring voters only vote once and are who they say they are, but it is an opportunity to get more people to have proper identification.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it'd be good to deprive more people from getting IDs. If everyone who wanted to get an ID could easily get one, that'd be great. No argument there. But that means only that we should make it easier for people to get IDs -- not that we should make life harder for people who don't.

One of the problems with not having a picture ID is that it's more difficult to open a bank account or to buy beer. The solution isn't to also make it harder to vote. That's like relieving a toothache by also inducing a headache. Life is hard enough already without such relief.

 

[The Commish]

Wouldn't be a good thing for everyone to have identification? Whether it is involves around giving/obtaining health care, driving, opening banking accounts, or whatever....there are legit reasons why it is a good that everyone has some kind of legal identification. Having ID to vote not only puts in a check for ensuring voters only vote once and are who they say they are, but it is an opportunity to get more people to have proper identification.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it'd be good to deprive more people from getting IDs. If everyone who wanted to get an ID could easily get one, that'd be great. No argument there. But that means only that we should make it easier for people to get IDs -- not that we should make life harder for them if they don't.

One of the problems with not having a picture ID is that it's more difficult to open a bank account or to buy beer. The solution isn't to also make it harder to vote. That's like relieving a toothache by also inducing a headache. Life is hard enough already without such relief.

I am 100% confident that there isn't a "solution" that can do this if one is looking at it through any sort of political lens. I come to that conclusion based on the responses I got here when I offered this as a solution earlier in the this thread or the other voter thread...not sure which. Reality is, those pounding the drum to keep voter access just as it is are just as politically positioned as most of those who think ID should be required. It's sorta sad actually.

 

[[icon]]

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!!!

Is this anything like black ice?

 

[timschochet]

How about this compromise:

1. We make it easier for everyone to get IDs. (The government issues free IDs to whomever can't afford it.)

2. We continue this for a few years, however long it takes until statistics show that minority populations have the same percentage of IDs as the rest of the population.

3. Once step #2 has been done, we then examine voter booths in minority areas, and make sure they have enough people working in those booths as in majority areas, and that voter ID demands would not entail longer wait periods. If they need more people, the federal government pays. Also, we make SEVERE penalties for anyone working at a polling booth who uses voter ID requirements to deliberately restrict minority voting.

4. Only AFTER steps #1, 2 and 3 are completed so that there is NO way that voter ID requirements will depress minority voting, do we then install voter ID requirements.

Would this be acceptable?

 

[StrikeS2k]

How about this compromise:

1. We make it easier for everyone to get IDs. (The government issues free IDs to whomever can't afford it.)

2. We continue this for a few years, however long it takes until statistics show that minority populations have the same percentage of IDs as the rest of the population.

3. Once step #2 has been done, we then examine voter booths in minority areas, and make sure they have enough people working in those booths as in majority areas, and that voter ID demands would not entail longer wait periods. If they need more people, the federal government pays. Also, we make SEVERE penalties for anyone working at a polling booth who uses voter ID requirements to deliberately restrict minority voting.

4. Only AFTER steps #1, 2 and 3 are completed so that there is NO way that voter ID requirements will depress minority voting, do we then install voter ID requirements.

Would this be acceptable?

No. That's like what happened when Reagan passed amnesty for illegals. Push enforcement down the road. And it never happens. If you want to vote, and we make it easy for you to get an ID, then you need a freaking ID to vote. How difficult is that?

 

[jon_mx]

Wouldn't be a good thing for everyone to have identification? Whether it is involves around giving/obtaining health care, driving, opening banking accounts, or whatever....there are legit reasons why it is a good that everyone has some kind of legal identification. Having ID to vote not only puts in a check for ensuring voters only vote once and are who they say they are, but it is an opportunity to get more people to have proper identification.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it'd be good to deprive more people from getting IDs. If everyone who wanted to get an ID could easily get one, that'd be great. No argument there. But that means only that we should make it easier for people to get IDs -- not that we should make life harder for them if they don't.

One of the problems with not having a picture ID is that it's more difficult to open a bank account or to buy beer. The solution isn't to also make it harder to vote. That's like relieving a toothache by also inducing a headache. Life is hard enough already without such relief.

People are required to have health care. People can not sign up for Obamacare without government identification. Why is it all of a sudden a huge burden to get an ID when it applies to vote, but it is perfectly OK for Obamacare? People need ID to function in this country. Transportation, banking, government services, etc. Certainly they should be easy to obtain for citizens, and I think in most cases they are. They should be available free even, and in many states they are. If there are burdens which make it tough for a few people, let's address those issues.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

People need ID to function in this country.

Apparently not, otherwise everyone would have one.

 

[timschochet]

How about this compromise:

1. We make it easier for everyone to get IDs. (The government issues free IDs to whomever can't afford it.)

2. We continue this for a few years, however long it takes until statistics show that minority populations have the same percentage of IDs as the rest of the population.

3. Once step #2 has been done, we then examine voter booths in minority areas, and make sure they have enough people working in those booths as in majority areas, and that voter ID demands would not entail longer wait periods. If they need more people, the federal government pays. Also, we make SEVERE penalties for anyone working at a polling booth who uses voter ID requirements to deliberately restrict minority voting.

4. Only AFTER steps #1, 2 and 3 are completed so that there is NO way that voter ID requirements will depress minority voting, do we then install voter ID requirements.

Would this be acceptable?

No. That's like what happened when Reagan passed amnesty for illegals. Push enforcement down the road. And it never happens. If you want to vote, and we make it easy for you to get an ID, then you need a freaking ID to vote. How difficult is that?

thank you. If you're unwilling to attempt to resolve the concern that voter ID restrictions will depress minority voting, then that only confirms my prior suspicion that your purpose is to depress minority voting.

 

[Jim11]

Wouldn't be a good thing for everyone to have identification? Whether it is involves around giving/obtaining health care, driving, opening banking accounts, or whatever....there are legit reasons why it is a good that everyone has some kind of legal identification. Having ID to vote not only puts in a check for ensuring voters only vote once and are who they say they are, but it is an opportunity to get more people to have proper identification.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it'd be good to deprive more people from getting IDs. If everyone who wanted to get an ID could easily get one, that'd be great. No argument there. But that means only that we should make it easier for people to get IDs -- not that we should make life harder for them if they don't.

One of the problems with not having a picture ID is that it's more difficult to open a bank account or to buy beer. The solution isn't to also make it harder to vote. That's like relieving a toothache by also inducing a headache. Life is hard enough already without such relief.

How hard is it to get a photo ID? Here's the process in Mississippi:

HOW CAN I GET A MISSISSIPPI VOTER ID CARD?
It is EASY and FREE! Beginning in January 2014, all Mississippi Circuit Clerks will be authorized to issue Mississippi Voter Identification cards to all Mississippi registered voters who do not have any of the other acceptable forms of photo ID. See the list of clerk's offices.

1. You must first be a registered voter in Mississippi. Download a voter registration form.
2. Go to any Circuit Clerk's office during regular business hours. (Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) If you need a ride, call 1-855-868-3745.
3. Present ONE form of acceptable identification. Check the list of acceptable documents.
4. If you do not have any of the identification documents listed, the clerk may verify birth information free of charge if you provide your date of birth, the state where you were born, and your mother's maiden name.
5. Complete and sign a Voter ID Application. Assistance will be provided, if requested.View a sample application form.
   
6. Have your picture taken at the Circuit Clerk's office.
7. Your Voter ID card will be mailed to you.
8. If the next election is within 45 days, you will receive a receipt for your Mississippi Voter Identification Card from the Circuit Clerk. The receipt may be used as your photo ID when voting at the polls.

 

[The Commish]

How about this compromise:

1. We make it easier for everyone to get IDs. (The government issues free IDs to whomever can't afford it.)

2. We continue this for a few years, however long it takes until statistics show that minority populations have the same percentage of IDs as the rest of the population.

3. Once step #2 has been done, we then examine voter booths in minority areas, and make sure they have enough people working in those booths as in majority areas, and that voter ID demands would not entail longer wait periods. If they need more people, the federal government pays. Also, we make SEVERE penalties for anyone working at a polling booth who uses voter ID requirements to deliberately restrict minority voting.

4. Only AFTER steps #1, 2 and 3 are completed so that there is NO way that voter ID requirements will depress minority voting, do we then install voter ID requirements.

Would this be acceptable?

No. That's like what happened when Reagan passed amnesty for illegals. Push enforcement down the road. And it never happens. If you want to vote, and we make it easy for you to get an ID, then you need a freaking ID to vote. How difficult is that?

thank you. If you're unwilling to attempt to resolve the concern that voter ID restrictions will depress minority voting, then that only confirms my prior suspicion that your purpose is to depress minority voting.

Or, instead of the dog and pony show, simply provide access to IDs at the voting stations.

 

[Boston]

Two questions:

1-What is difficult about getting an ID?

2-If someone doesn't have a photo ID how do they survive in this country doing the basic things?

 

[timschochet]

How about this compromise:

1. We make it easier for everyone to get IDs. (The government issues free IDs to whomever can't afford it.)

2. We continue this for a few years, however long it takes until statistics show that minority populations have the same percentage of IDs as the rest of the population.

3. Once step #2 has been done, we then examine voter booths in minority areas, and make sure they have enough people working in those booths as in majority areas, and that voter ID demands would not entail longer wait periods. If they need more people, the federal government pays. Also, we make SEVERE penalties for anyone working at a polling booth who uses voter ID requirements to deliberately restrict minority voting.

4. Only AFTER steps #1, 2 and 3 are completed so that there is NO way that voter ID requirements will depress minority voting, do we then install voter ID requirements.

Would this be acceptable?

No. That's like what happened when Reagan passed amnesty for illegals. Push enforcement down the road. And it never happens. If you want to vote, and we make it easy for you to get an ID, then you need a freaking ID to vote. How difficult is that?

thank you. If you're unwilling to attempt to resolve the concern that voter ID restrictions will depress minority voting, then that only confirms my prior suspicion that your purpose is to depress minority voting.

Or, instead of the dog and pony show, simply provide access to IDs at the voting stations.

That won't work because those without IDs will have to wait much longer to get their IDs, meaning this will depress minority voting. The only way that voter ID laws won't discriminate against minorities is to mKe sure they have IDs in place BEFORE the restriction, even if that takes years to accomplish.

 

[jon_mx]

Wouldn't be a good thing for everyone to have identification? Whether it is involves around giving/obtaining health care, driving, opening banking accounts, or whatever....there are legit reasons why it is a good that everyone has some kind of legal identification. Having ID to vote not only puts in a check for ensuring voters only vote once and are who they say they are, but it is an opportunity to get more people to have proper identification.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it'd be good to deprive more people from getting IDs. If everyone who wanted to get an ID could easily get one, that'd be great. No argument there. But that means only that we should make it easier for people to get IDs -- not that we should make life harder for them if they don't.

One of the problems with not having a picture ID is that it's more difficult to open a bank account or to buy beer. The solution isn't to also make it harder to vote. That's like relieving a toothache by also inducing a headache. Life is hard enough already without such relief.

How hard is it to get a photo ID? Here's the process in Mississippi:

HOW CAN I GET A MISSISSIPPI VOTER ID CARD?
It is EASY and FREE! Beginning in January 2014, all Mississippi Circuit Clerks will be authorized to issue Mississippi Voter Identification cards to all Mississippi registered voters who do not have any of the other acceptable forms of photo ID. See the list of clerk's offices.

1. You must first be a registered voter in Mississippi. Download a voter registration form.
2. Go to any Circuit Clerk's office during regular business hours. (Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) If you need a ride, call 1-855-868-3745.
3. Present ONE form of acceptable identification. Check the list of acceptable documents.
4. If you do not have any of the identification documents listed, the clerk may verify birth information free of charge if you provide your date of birth, the state where you were born, and your mother's maiden name.
5. Complete and sign a Voter ID Application. Assistance will be provided, if requested.View a sample application form.
   
6. Have your picture taken at the Circuit Clerk's office.
7. Your Voter ID card will be mailed to you.
8. If the next election is within 45 days, you will receive a receipt for your Mississippi Voter Identification Card from the Circuit Clerk. The receipt may be used as your photo ID when voting at the polls.

What if they don't have a ride to the clerks office or a phone to call? Oh, the burdens are so high.

 

[Boston]

How about this compromise:

1. We make it easier for everyone to get IDs. (The government issues free IDs to whomever can't afford it.)

2. We continue this for a few years, however long it takes until statistics show that minority populations have the same percentage of IDs as the rest of the population.

3. Once step #2 has been done, we then examine voter booths in minority areas, and make sure they have enough people working in those booths as in majority areas, and that voter ID demands would not entail longer wait periods. If they need more people, the federal government pays. Also, we make SEVERE penalties for anyone working at a polling booth who uses voter ID requirements to deliberately restrict minority voting.

4. Only AFTER steps #1, 2 and 3 are completed so that there is NO way that voter ID requirements will depress minority voting, do we then install voter ID requirements.

Would this be acceptable?

No. That's like what happened when Reagan passed amnesty for illegals. Push enforcement down the road. And it never happens. If you want to vote, and we make it easy for you to get an ID, then you need a freaking ID to vote. How difficult is that?

thank you. If you're unwilling to attempt to resolve the concern that voter ID restrictions will depress minority voting, then that only confirms my prior suspicion that your purpose is to depress minority voting.

Or, instead of the dog and pony show, simply provide access to IDs at the voting stations.

That won't work because those without IDs will have to wait much longer to get their IDs, meaning this will depress minority voting. The only way that voter ID laws won't discriminate against minorities is to mKe sure they have IDs in place BEFORE the restriction, even if that takes years to accomplish.

100% honest question...why don't minorities have IDs?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

How about this compromise:

1. We make it easier for everyone to get IDs. (The government issues free IDs to whomever can't afford it.)

2. We continue this for a few years, however long it takes until statistics show that minority populations have the same percentage of IDs as the rest of the population.

3. Once step #2 has been done, we then examine voter booths in minority areas, and make sure they have enough people working in those booths as in majority areas, and that voter ID demands would not entail longer wait periods. If they need more people, the federal government pays. Also, we make SEVERE penalties for anyone working at a polling booth who uses voter ID requirements to deliberately restrict minority voting.

4. Only AFTER steps #1, 2 and 3 are completed so that there is NO way that voter ID requirements will depress minority voting, do we then install voter ID requirements.

Would this be acceptable?

No. #1 is fine and sufficient. The other three are silly. If people can't be bothered to pick up a free ID, that's on them.

 

[jon_mx]

How about this compromise:

1. We make it easier for everyone to get IDs. (The government issues free IDs to whomever can't afford it.)

2. We continue this for a few years, however long it takes until statistics show that minority populations have the same percentage of IDs as the rest of the population.

3. Once step #2 has been done, we then examine voter booths in minority areas, and make sure they have enough people working in those booths as in majority areas, and that voter ID demands would not entail longer wait periods. If they need more people, the federal government pays. Also, we make SEVERE penalties for anyone working at a polling booth who uses voter ID requirements to deliberately restrict minority voting.

4. Only AFTER steps #1, 2 and 3 are completed so that there is NO way that voter ID requirements will depress minority voting, do we then install voter ID requirements.

Would this be acceptable?

No. That's like what happened when Reagan passed amnesty for illegals. Push enforcement down the road. And it never happens. If you want to vote, and we make it easy for you to get an ID, then you need a freaking ID to vote. How difficult is that?

thank you. If you're unwilling to attempt to resolve the concern that voter ID restrictions will depress minority voting, then that only confirms my prior suspicion that your purpose is to depress minority voting.

Or, instead of the dog and pony show, simply provide access to IDs at the voting stations.

That won't work because those without IDs will have to wait much longer to get their IDs, meaning this will depress minority voting. The only way that voter ID laws won't discriminate against minorities is to mKe sure they have IDs in place BEFORE the restriction, even if that takes years to accomplish.

Why not just do both at the same time? It does not take years to accomplish. Hell, offer people $50 to come down to the clerks office to get their ID's. They will be lined up at that point.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

How about this compromise:

1. We make it easier for everyone to get IDs. (The government issues free IDs to whomever can't afford it.)

2. We continue this for a few years, however long it takes until statistics show that minority populations have the same percentage of IDs as the rest of the population.

3. Once step #2 has been done, we then examine voter booths in minority areas, and make sure they have enough people working in those booths as in majority areas, and that voter ID demands would not entail longer wait periods. If they need more people, the federal government pays. Also, we make SEVERE penalties for anyone working at a polling booth who uses voter ID requirements to deliberately restrict minority voting.

4. Only AFTER steps #1, 2 and 3 are completed so that there is NO way that voter ID requirements will depress minority voting, do we then install voter ID requirements.

Would this be acceptable?

No. That's like what happened when Reagan passed amnesty for illegals. Push enforcement down the road. And it never happens. If you want to vote, and we make it easy for you to get an ID, then you need a freaking ID to vote. How difficult is that?

thank you. If you're unwilling to attempt to resolve the concern that voter ID restrictions will depress minority voting, then that only confirms my prior suspicion that your purpose is to depress minority voting.

Or, instead of the dog and pony show, simply provide access to IDs at the voting stations.

That won't work because those without IDs will have to wait much longer to get their IDs, meaning this will depress minority voting. The only way that voter ID laws won't discriminate against minorities is to mKe sure they have IDs in place BEFORE the restriction, even if that takes years to accomplish.

100% honest question...why don't minorities have IDs?

Statistically, minorities are more likely to live in urban areas where they don't need a car (and hence don't need a license). They're also more likely to be poor, in which case they may not have a bank account and probably aren't travelling abroad.

Of course, this is all endogenous. There's no reason to assume that those folks wouldn't get an ID if they had a reason to acquire one, like for voting.

 

[StrikeS2k]

How about this compromise:

1. We make it easier for everyone to get IDs. (The government issues free IDs to whomever can't afford it.)

2. We continue this for a few years, however long it takes until statistics show that minority populations have the same percentage of IDs as the rest of the population.

3. Once step #2 has been done, we then examine voter booths in minority areas, and make sure they have enough people working in those booths as in majority areas, and that voter ID demands would not entail longer wait periods. If they need more people, the federal government pays. Also, we make SEVERE penalties for anyone working at a polling booth who uses voter ID requirements to deliberately restrict minority voting.

4. Only AFTER steps #1, 2 and 3 are completed so that there is NO way that voter ID requirements will depress minority voting, do we then install voter ID requirements.

Would this be acceptable?

No. That's like what happened when Reagan passed amnesty for illegals. Push enforcement down the road. And it never happens. If you want to vote, and we make it easy for you to get an ID, then you need a freaking ID to vote. How difficult is that?

thank you. If you're unwilling to attempt to resolve the concern that voter ID restrictions will depress minority voting, then that only confirms my prior suspicion that your purpose is to depress minority voting.

No, I think I made my point pretty clearly. Just remember this post the next time you accuse someone of misinterpreting or misquoting you. You're intentionally doing that here.

 

[Boston]

How about this compromise:

1. We make it easier for everyone to get IDs. (The government issues free IDs to whomever can't afford it.)

2. We continue this for a few years, however long it takes until statistics show that minority populations have the same percentage of IDs as the rest of the population.

3. Once step #2 has been done, we then examine voter booths in minority areas, and make sure they have enough people working in those booths as in majority areas, and that voter ID demands would not entail longer wait periods. If they need more people, the federal government pays. Also, we make SEVERE penalties for anyone working at a polling booth who uses voter ID requirements to deliberately restrict minority voting.

4. Only AFTER steps #1, 2 and 3 are completed so that there is NO way that voter ID requirements will depress minority voting, do we then install voter ID requirements.

Would this be acceptable?

No. That's like what happened when Reagan passed amnesty for illegals. Push enforcement down the road. And it never happens. If you want to vote, and we make it easy for you to get an ID, then you need a freaking ID to vote. How difficult is that?

thank you. If you're unwilling to attempt to resolve the concern that voter ID restrictions will depress minority voting, then that only confirms my prior suspicion that your purpose is to depress minority voting.

Or, instead of the dog and pony show, simply provide access to IDs at the voting stations.

That won't work because those without IDs will have to wait much longer to get their IDs, meaning this will depress minority voting. The only way that voter ID laws won't discriminate against minorities is to mKe sure they have IDs in place BEFORE the restriction, even if that takes years to accomplish.

100% honest question...why don't minorities have IDs?

Statistically, minorities are more likely to live in urban areas where they don't need a car (and hence don't need a license). They're also more likely to be poor, in which case they may not have a bank account and probably aren't travelling abroad.

Of course, this is all endogenous. There's no reason to assume that those folks wouldn't get an ID if they had a reason to acquire one, like for voting.

Also, I would believe the fact they live in an urban area would probably make it easier to accommodate these people in obtaining an ID as opposed to someone in a rural area who is probably not near any public buildings...

 

[jon_mx]

How do people get food stamps, receive social security checks, file taxes and receive refunds, get health care, attend school, collect unemployment, etc. Doesn't this stuff require some kind of ID?

 

[CBusAlex]

It amazes me that my civil-libertarian friends on this board are seriously arguing that "let's just take their picture when they show up to vote" and "let's just fingerprint them when they show up to vote" are somehow better than simply flashing the ID that all of us are walking around with. You guys need to seriously rethink this -- showing your ID is way less intrusive or intimidating than the the alternatives that you're proposing.

I don't know how on earth "take their picture when they show up to vote" could possibly be considered more intrusive than "make them find some documents, come to a government office, fill out some paperwork, and then take their picture before they can vote".

 

[The Commish]

How about this compromise:

1. We make it easier for everyone to get IDs. (The government issues free IDs to whomever can't afford it.)

2. We continue this for a few years, however long it takes until statistics show that minority populations have the same percentage of IDs as the rest of the population.

3. Once step #2 has been done, we then examine voter booths in minority areas, and make sure they have enough people working in those booths as in majority areas, and that voter ID demands would not entail longer wait periods. If they need more people, the federal government pays. Also, we make SEVERE penalties for anyone working at a polling booth who uses voter ID requirements to deliberately restrict minority voting.

4. Only AFTER steps #1, 2 and 3 are completed so that there is NO way that voter ID requirements will depress minority voting, do we then install voter ID requirements.

Would this be acceptable?

No. That's like what happened when Reagan passed amnesty for illegals. Push enforcement down the road. And it never happens. If you want to vote, and we make it easy for you to get an ID, then you need a freaking ID to vote. How difficult is that?

thank you. If you're unwilling to attempt to resolve the concern that voter ID restrictions will depress minority voting, then that only confirms my prior suspicion that your purpose is to depress minority voting.

Or, instead of the dog and pony show, simply provide access to IDs at the voting stations.

That won't work because those without IDs will have to wait much longer to get their IDs, meaning this will depress minority voting. The only way that voter ID laws won't discriminate against minorities is to mKe sure they have IDs in place BEFORE the restriction, even if that takes years to accomplish.

yeah, sorry....this is bull####.

Put this kind of availability in place at primaries and local elections as well as providing a service that will allow them to come in whenever they want to get a free ID...provide transportation if necessary. Lines wouldn't be an issue...especially after 1 or 2 presidential election cycles. You're excuse making isn't much different than what you just accused Strike of being and is exactly the type of response I was referring to when I was responding to MT just a few posts up.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It amazes me that my civil-libertarian friends on this board are seriously arguing that "let's just take their picture when they show up to vote" and "let's just fingerprint them when they show up to vote" are somehow better than simply flashing the ID that all of us are walking around with. You guys need to seriously rethink this -- showing your ID is way less intrusive or intimidating than the the alternatives that you're proposing.

I don't know how on earth "take their picture when they show up to vote" could possibly be considered more intrusive than "make them find some documents, come to a government office, fill out some paperwork, and then take their picture before they can vote".

People generally don't like being surveilled, and it seems to me that the "taking everyone's picture" thing is pretty close to that, whereas showing your ID is a standard part of life. Maybe that's just me. The suggestion to fingerprint people is absurd by anybody's standard.

 

[CBusAlex]

People generally don't like being surveilled, and it seems to me that the "taking everyone's picture" thing is pretty close to that, whereas showing your ID is a standard part of life. Maybe that's just me. The suggestion to fingerprint people is absurd by anybody's standard.

Your ID doesn't have your picture on it?

 

[Boston]

Wouldn't it make sense for community organizers to be involved with this...I know many of these organizations do a lot to get un-enrolled voters registered or set-up with public programs...while doing stuff like that they could piggyback those efforts with getting those people picture IDs...I would also see this as a plus for organizations trying to help those less fortunate...