Should voters be required to show ID? (2 Viewers)

[Widbil83]

This is a total losing issue for the Obama DOJ. Unbelievable people still support these clowns.

 

[BassNBrew]

The reality is there is no proof at all of any kind of widespread voter fraud no matter how hard the conservatives look for it. None. The few found, and we are talking a handful out of 100's of thousands of votes, usually end up having an innocent enough explanation that lies in human error. So there is no need for this. It is just a way to keep voters that tend to vote Democrat, like students and minorities, from voting. That's it. Simply voter suppression.

Horse hockey. Everyone has a birth certificate or ss card. Students have student ids.Also, a handful of votes has decided plenty of elections.

 

[Guest]

Something tells me it won't matter, but, I've been part of trials before where my "word" wasn't good enough when it came to my identity. It wasn't good enough for an affidavit either. I always had to verify my identity by providing ID or other personal information.

I'm talking about more than verifying your identity.

Ok, we were talking about verifying identity. Not sure what you were talking about

We were talking about cases in which we take someone's word for something as a legally operable fact.

 

[NCCommish]

The reality is there is no proof at all of any kind of widespread voter fraud no matter how hard the conservatives look for it. None. The few found, and we are talking a handful out of 100's of thousands of votes, usually end up having an innocent enough explanation that lies in human error. So there is no need for this. It is just a way to keep voters that tend to vote Democrat, like students and minorities, from voting. That's it. Simply voter suppression.

Horse hockey. Everyone has a birth certificate or ss card. Students have student ids.Also, a handful of votes has decided plenty of elections.

This a solution looking for a problem.

 

[Chaka]

The reality is there is no proof at all of any kind of widespread voter fraud no matter how hard the conservatives look for it. None. The few found, and we are talking a handful out of 100's of thousands of votes, usually end up having an innocent enough explanation that lies in human error. So there is no need for this. It is just a way to keep voters that tend to vote Democrat, like students and minorities, from voting. That's it. Simply voter suppression.

How does it keep students and minorities from voting?

Students, minorities and the elderly are the least likely to have state issued ID's. Especially driver licenses. Further these same states are making it harder to actually get those ID's for those folks. Been plenty of reports on it.

I don't think that answers my question. I also am not certain how a state can make it difficult for one person to get an ID but easy for a different person.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Also, a handful of votes has decided plenty of elections.

I wouldn't say "plenty." There are examples, but they are pretty rare. If you tried to do this, you would be risking a felony for a very remote chance of it changing the outcome of the election.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I also am not certain how a state can make it difficult for one person to get an ID but easy for a different person.

Lots of people already have IDs. So they don't need to get one to vote. That's very easy.

 

[The Commish]

Something tells me it won't matter, but, I've been part of trials before where my "word" wasn't good enough when it came to my identity. It wasn't good enough for an affidavit either. I always had to verify my identity by providing ID or other personal information.

I'm talking about more than verifying your identity.

Ok, we were talking about verifying identity. Not sure what you were talking about

We were talking about cases in which we take someone's word for something as a legally operable fact.

Ok...we can switch to that. When I go into a trial, my testimony is considered with the rest of the evidence as part of the overall story. It's not the be-all-end-all. Then a jury goes and determines if I am lying or not. Granted, taxes, your correct. However, the IRS reserves the right to audit us also. Not quite like a person going in and simply telling some retiree they are person X, the retiree not having the authority to question them or ask for more proof etc.If you were going to compare apples to apples between a trial and walking in to vote, in a trial, you'd just need a person sitting there saying "he did it" and the jury having to accept his testimony as fact.

 

[Chaka]

I also am not certain how a state can make it difficult for one person to get an ID but easy for a different person.

Lots of people already have IDs. So they don't need to get one to vote. That's very easy.

Okay. But how is it more difficult for one person to get one than another person? I am only asking where the discrimination occurs. If it is difficult to get an ID wouldn't it be equally difficult for everyone?

 

[Sarnoff]

The reality is there is no proof at all of any kind of widespread voter fraud no matter how hard the conservatives look for it. None. The few found, and we are talking a handful out of 100's of thousands of votes, usually end up having an innocent enough explanation that lies in human error. So there is no need for this. It is just a way to keep voters that tend to vote Democrat, like students and minorities, from voting. That's it. Simply voter suppression.

"The reality is these horses have never left the barn before, so there's no reason to close the doors now."

 

[jplvr]

If everyone had free ID cards, would there still be an issue with requiring people to provide them before voting? This seems like an easy fix.

 

[B-Deep]

this seems like an easy compromise, provide free photo ids, and then require them. Make the law far enough in advance that everyone has a year to get the new free id if they need it.

simple

 

[Guest]

Ok...we can switch to that. When I go into a trial, my testimony is considered with the rest of the evidence as part of the overall story. It's not the be-all-end-all. Then a jury goes and determines if I am lying or not. Granted, taxes, your correct. However, the IRS reserves the right to audit us also. Not quite like a person going in and simply telling some retiree they are person X, the retiree not having the authority to question them or ask for more proof etc.If you were going to compare apples to apples between a trial and walking in to vote, in a trial, you'd just need a person sitting there saying "he did it" and the jury having to accept his testimony as fact.

And if you walk into the same polling place 10 times or get recognized at any of them, you go to jail. And for what? A couple of extra votes for a candidate? Stupid.

 

[Mario Kart]

Heres the rub. If our citizens voted like they should and had a >95% voter turnout, there would be little/no incentive for any fraud. Elections would be won by a larger than 5% margin most of the time with that kind of turnout. Since only about ~30-60% of the people vote in most elections, the basis to doing it goes up because he chances of getting caught goes way down.

The individuals that do not vote are as much of the problem as any part of this. Needless to say, voter fraud may not be widespread but that is partially because it is difficult to prove. Thus, if people had to show ID's there would be for certain no voter fraud.

If there was a way to ensure >99% accuracy in anything, wouldn't you do want it?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Also, a handful of votes has decided plenty of elections.

I wouldn't say "plenty." There are examples, but they are pretty rare. If you tried to do this, you would be risking a felony for a very remote chance of it changing the outcome of the election.

And increasing voter turnout makes it less likely that a handful of votes will affect the outcome. Reducing barriers to voting is in that sense a decent anti-fraud measure.

 

[Guest]

this seems like an easy compromise, provide free photo ids, and then require them. Make the law far enough in advance that everyone has a year to get the new free id if they need it.simple

I think part of it is the extra hurdles in getting a photo ID when you don't have one.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I also am not certain how a state can make it difficult for one person to get an ID but easy for a different person.

Lots of people already have IDs. So they don't need to get one to vote. That's very easy.

Okay. But how is it more difficult for one person to get one than another person? I am only asking where the discrimination occurs. If it is difficult to get an ID wouldn't it be equally difficult for everyone?

If the government required everyone to have a stuffed unicorn to be able to vote, I could vote very easily but it might be more difficult for you.* Even if there was a government office that sold or gave away stuffed unicorns.*I am guessing that you do not already own a stuffed unicorn.

 

[E Street Brat]

ETA: Can we at least compare apples to apples here please?

Voter fraud is fraud. You can go to jail for voter fraud.It's apples to apples.

How do prove voter fraud with out an id? It's like writing a speeding ticket with no radar.

 

[NCCommish]

The reality is there is no proof at all of any kind of widespread voter fraud no matter how hard the conservatives look for it. None. The few found, and we are talking a handful out of 100's of thousands of votes, usually end up having an innocent enough explanation that lies in human error. So there is no need for this. It is just a way to keep voters that tend to vote Democrat, like students and minorities, from voting. That's it. Simply voter suppression.

How does it keep students and minorities from voting?

Students, minorities and the elderly are the least likely to have state issued ID's. Especially driver licenses. Further these same states are making it harder to actually get those ID's for those folks. Been plenty of reports on it.

I don't think that answers my question. I also am not certain how a state can make it difficult for one person to get an ID but easy for a different person.

Portage County veteran, 86, doesn't vote after VA identification card rejected at polls

AURORA, Ohio – A Portage County World War II veteran was turned away from a polling place this morning because his driver’s license had expired in January and his new Veterans Affairs ID did not include his home address.

“My beef is that I had to pay a driver to take me up there because I don’t walk so well and have to use this cane and now I can’t even vote,” said Paul Carroll, 86, who has lived in Aurora nearly 40 years, running his own business, Carroll Tire, until 1975.

“I had to stop driving, but I got the photo ID from the Veterans Affairs instead, just a month or so ago. You would think that would count for something. I went to war for this country, but now I can’t vote in this country.”

Portage Elections Board Director Faith Lyon said she felt badly for Carroll, but said the law requires an address on even a veteran’s identification card.

“There are three requirements – name, photo and correct address,” she said. “Unfortunately, we’re finding that some don’t have addresses on them. I feel so bad, but we have to follow the law and voters don’t always understand that at the moment.”

Two local representatives for Veteran's Affairs said the decisions on the cards were likely made at the federal level, not locally.

However, because the ID cards are accepted at any Veteran's Affairs facility, "the actual address of a veteran isn't as critical to us," said Darlene Ehrler, a spokeswoman for the Ohio VA office in Cleveland.

Lyon said Carroll could have voted a provisional ballot at the polling place he visited, Harmon Middle School in Aurora.

Carroll said he was offered a provisional ballot, but that "the print looked very small, I didn't have my glasses and I was kind of perturbed by then."

Lyon said sometimes voters, especially elderly, don't trust the provisional ballot "because they think it’s not going to count,”

"But even though it wouldn’t have been counted tonight, it would have become part of the official vote totals," she said.

Carroll and Lyon later talked by telephone and he said he was assured he’d be sent a mail-in ballot for the Nov. 6 general election.

But his wife, Dee, who didn’t go to the polls today, still wasn’t pleased.

“I’m kinda glad I wasn’t there,” she said. “I would have really been incensed – he’s a veteran! I probably would have got on the phone right away and called the mayor or somebody.”

Cleveland.com

The biggest opponent of the state's new voter ID law just may be an 84-year-old woman who stands less than 5 feet tall, has lived in the same house nearly her entire life and has served on her Village Board since 1996.

Ruthelle Frank doesn't have a driver's license, doesn't have a birth certificate and hasn't been able to get a state identification card, which means that she could be out of luck the next time she tries to vote.

"The whole thing upsets me," Frank said Wednesday. "You could live in the U.S. of A., live in the same house all these years and you don't have the right to vote."

Frank is a plaintiff in the lawsuit filed Tuesday by the American Civil Liberties Union against the state over the new law that requires voters to show government-issued photo identification.

The ACLU argues that the measure violates the U.S. Constitution. Republican lawmakers and Gov. Scott Walker have expressed confidence the law will stand up to court challenge.

Frank takes the right to vote very seriously.

She said she started voting in 1948 and has rarely missed a chance to cast a ballot since.

For years, Frank said, she didn't even have to say her name to get a ballot.

"Everybody knows everybody around here," she said.

Frank said she tried to get a state identification card last month at a Division of Motor Vehicles office but was rebuffed when she couldn't produce a birth certificate. She did have a notarized baptism certificate, as well as a Social Security card, Medicare statement and a checkbook.

"I was about in tears," she said.

But she didn't cry. She grew angry. And she called her local newspaper, the Wausau Daily Herald, which told her story.

According to the newspaper, a record of Frank's birth does exist with the state register of deeds in Madison. She could get a birth certificate for a fee, $20. But Frank said that fee amounted to a poll tax.

There's another problem. Frank's maiden name of Wedepohl was misspelled by the physician who attended her home birth. To get the birth certificate amended, she could petition the court, a process that could take several weeks and cost at least $200, the newspaper said.

Shortly after the story hit the paper, Frank said, she was contacted by the ACLU.

There are two suits pending against the voter ID law, one filed by the ACLU and another by the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin. A third suit is expected to be announced Friday by Voces de la Frontera and the Milwaukee branch of the NAACP.

Meanwhile, Frank is at the center of a media squall. Her story has gone national, via the Internet and MSNBC. A few relatives from out of state have called her to find out what all the fuss is about.

Two of her children, Rochelle, 50, and Randy, 48, listen to her talk and try to boost her spirits. So does her husband, Henry, 85. They've been married for 58 years.

Frank is accustomed to a fight.

"I was born paralyzed on my whole left side, and I came out head first with a big scar at the top of my head," Frank said.

"My dad pushed me to be what I am," she added, recalling how her father, Elmer, tied her right hand to her body so that she would learn to use her left hand.

After graduating from high school, she worked eight years at the local paper mill. She also learned to sew, cook and dig in the garden.

"I can do anything I want to do, but sometimes it takes me a little bit longer," she said.

And one thing she wants to do is vote in person.

"You can get an absentee ballot as along as you're indefinitely confined to a residence," she said. "But I don't want to do that. That's not truthful. I'm capable of walking."

Her children back her fight.

"She has made all of us tough," Frank's daughter said.

Frank joined the Village Board in 1996. She said she plows her modest salary right back into the community, for things such as a swing set, flowers, a display for an old church bell and Christmas decorations.

"This is the best place in the world to live," she said.

Frank said she would like another term on the board and could be on the ballot next year.

Under the current situation, she said, "I won't be able to vote for myself."

JS Online

That's how. And requiring you to pay to vote is a poll tax. Poll taxes are illegal. Anyone in the class want to explain why they were instituted and who they were aimed at?

 

[Guest]

How do prove voter fraud with out an id? It's like writing a speeding ticket with no radar.

"I'm Janet Jones.""Janet Jones has already voted."

 

[Topes]

The reality is there is no proof at all of any kind of widespread voter fraud no matter how hard the conservatives look for it. None. The few found, and we are talking a handful out of 100's of thousands of votes, usually end up having an innocent enough explanation that lies in human error. So there is no need for this. It is just a way to keep voters that tend to vote Democrat, like students and minorities, from voting. That's it. Simply voter suppression.

Mostly just isolated cases.I don't show an ID when I vote. But I have to sign my signature next to the signature on file. That's a pretty good check.

 

[phishphan]

The reality is there is no proof at all of any kind of widespread voter fraud no matter how hard the conservatives look for it. None. The few found, and we are talking a handful out of 100's of thousands of votes, usually end up having an innocent enough explanation that lies in human error. So there is no need for this. It is just a way to keep voters that tend to vote Democrat, like students and minorities, from voting. That's it. Simply voter suppression.

Why don't these students and/or minorities have ID? I don't know any person old enough to vote who doesn't own some form of government issued ID.

 

[BassNBrew]

The reality is there is no proof at all of any kind of widespread voter fraud no matter how hard the conservatives look for it. None. The few found, and we are talking a handful out of 100's of thousands of votes, usually end up having an innocent enough explanation that lies in human error. So there is no need for this. It is just a way to keep voters that tend to vote Democrat, like students and minorities, from voting. That's it. Simply voter suppression.

Horse hockey. Everyone has a birth certificate or ss card. Students have student ids.Also, a handful of votes has decided plenty of elections.

This a solution looking for a problem.

Ahh...like global warming.

 

[Godsbrother]

If you don't have a drivers license it is easy enough to get an ID card, at least in Pennsylvania it is. I don't think it is too much to ask for the voter for the sake of reducing fraud.

 

[B-Deep]

this seems like an easy compromise, provide free photo ids, and then require them. Make the law far enough in advance that everyone has a year to get the new free id if they need it.simple

I think part of it is the extra hurdles in getting a photo ID when you don't have one.

if they are procedural not economic hurdles and reasonable time is given...the problem REALLY is thisthe GOP wants this specifically for what the Dems say, and the dems therefore fight it on general principle even though it is a common sense move that no one in their right mind should stand in the way oftherefore we have entrenched positions, and the GOP screams "voter fraud!" where there is none. REMEMBER, they are so concerned about the sanctity of the vote that their Iowa caucus goes vote on slips of hand written paper!!and likewise even the most balanced fair reasonable attempt to require the most basic of fraud prevention is shouted down by the democrats as an assault on the elderly and minoritiesboth sides are being ludicrous, as is the case in most political things today

 

[B-Deep]

oh yeah, the dems throw in "vhere ist your papers" hitler remarks too, forgot that in my prior post

 

[jamny]

How about showing some kind of identification? A bill with your name on it? A credit card?

No need to give any proof whatsoever?

 

[Chaka]

The reality is there is no proof at all of any kind of widespread voter fraud no matter how hard the conservatives look for it. None. The few found, and we are talking a handful out of 100's of thousands of votes, usually end up having an innocent enough explanation that lies in human error. So there is no need for this. It is just a way to keep voters that tend to vote Democrat, like students and minorities, from voting. That's it. Simply voter suppression.

How does it keep students and minorities from voting?

Students, minorities and the elderly are the least likely to have state issued ID's. Especially driver licenses. Further these same states are making it harder to actually get those ID's for those folks. Been plenty of reports on it.

I don't think that answers my question. I also am not certain how a state can make it difficult for one person to get an ID but easy for a different person.

Portage County veteran, 86, doesn't vote after VA identification card rejected at polls

AURORA, Ohio – A Portage County World War II veteran was turned away from a polling place this morning because his driver's license had expired in January and his new Veterans Affairs ID did not include his home address.

"My beef is that I had to pay a driver to take me up there because I don't walk so well and have to use this cane and now I can't even vote," said Paul Carroll, 86, who has lived in Aurora nearly 40 years, running his own business, Carroll Tire, until 1975.

"I had to stop driving, but I got the photo ID from the Veterans Affairs instead, just a month or so ago. You would think that would count for something. I went to war for this country, but now I can't vote in this country."

Portage Elections Board Director Faith Lyon said she felt badly for Carroll, but said the law requires an address on even a veteran's identification card.

"There are three requirements – name, photo and correct address," she said. "Unfortunately, we're finding that some don't have addresses on them. I feel so bad, but we have to follow the law and voters don't always understand that at the moment."

Two local representatives for Veteran's Affairs said the decisions on the cards were likely made at the federal level, not locally.

However, because the ID cards are accepted at any Veteran's Affairs facility, "the actual address of a veteran isn't as critical to us," said Darlene Ehrler, a spokeswoman for the Ohio VA office in Cleveland.

Lyon said Carroll could have voted a provisional ballot at the polling place he visited, Harmon Middle School in Aurora.

Carroll said he was offered a provisional ballot, but that "the print looked very small, I didn't have my glasses and I was kind of perturbed by then."

Lyon said sometimes voters, especially elderly, don't trust the provisional ballot "because they think it's not going to count,"

"But even though it wouldn't have been counted tonight, it would have become part of the official vote totals," she said.

Carroll and Lyon later talked by telephone and he said he was assured he'd be sent a mail-in ballot for the Nov. 6 general election.

But his wife, Dee, who didn't go to the polls today, still wasn't pleased.

"I'm kinda glad I wasn't there," she said. "I would have really been incensed – he's a veteran! I probably would have got on the phone right away and called the mayor or somebody."

Cleveland.com

The biggest opponent of the state's new voter ID law just may be an 84-year-old woman who stands less than 5 feet tall, has lived in the same house nearly her entire life and has served on her Village Board since 1996.

Ruthelle Frank doesn't have a driver's license, doesn't have a birth certificate and hasn't been able to get a state identification card, which means that she could be out of luck the next time she tries to vote.

"The whole thing upsets me," Frank said Wednesday. "You could live in the U.S. of A., live in the same house all these years and you don't have the right to vote."

Frank is a plaintiff in the lawsuit filed Tuesday by the American Civil Liberties Union against the state over the new law that requires voters to show government-issued photo identification.

The ACLU argues that the measure violates the U.S. Constitution. Republican lawmakers and Gov. Scott Walker have expressed confidence the law will stand up to court challenge.

Frank takes the right to vote very seriously.

She said she started voting in 1948 and has rarely missed a chance to cast a ballot since.

For years, Frank said, she didn't even have to say her name to get a ballot.

"Everybody knows everybody around here," she said.

Frank said she tried to get a state identification card last month at a Division of Motor Vehicles office but was rebuffed when she couldn't produce a birth certificate. She did have a notarized baptism certificate, as well as a Social Security card, Medicare statement and a checkbook.

"I was about in tears," she said.

But she didn't cry. She grew angry. And she called her local newspaper, the Wausau Daily Herald, which told her story.

According to the newspaper, a record of Frank's birth does exist with the state register of deeds in Madison. She could get a birth certificate for a fee, $20. But Frank said that fee amounted to a poll tax.

There's another problem. Frank's maiden name of Wedepohl was misspelled by the physician who attended her home birth. To get the birth certificate amended, she could petition the court, a process that could take several weeks and cost at least $200, the newspaper said.

Shortly after the story hit the paper, Frank said, she was contacted by the ACLU.

There are two suits pending against the voter ID law, one filed by the ACLU and another by the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin. A third suit is expected to be announced Friday by Voces de la Frontera and the Milwaukee branch of the NAACP.

Meanwhile, Frank is at the center of a media squall. Her story has gone national, via the Internet and MSNBC. A few relatives from out of state have called her to find out what all the fuss is about.

Two of her children, Rochelle, 50, and Randy, 48, listen to her talk and try to boost her spirits. So does her husband, Henry, 85. They've been married for 58 years.

Frank is accustomed to a fight.

"I was born paralyzed on my whole left side, and I came out head first with a big scar at the top of my head," Frank said.

"My dad pushed me to be what I am," she added, recalling how her father, Elmer, tied her right hand to her body so that she would learn to use her left hand.

After graduating from high school, she worked eight years at the local paper mill. She also learned to sew, cook and dig in the garden.

"I can do anything I want to do, but sometimes it takes me a little bit longer," she said.

And one thing she wants to do is vote in person.

"You can get an absentee ballot as along as you're indefinitely confined to a residence," she said. "But I don't want to do that. That's not truthful. I'm capable of walking."

Her children back her fight.

"She has made all of us tough," Frank's daughter said.

Frank joined the Village Board in 1996. She said she plows her modest salary right back into the community, for things such as a swing set, flowers, a display for an old church bell and Christmas decorations.

"This is the best place in the world to live," she said.

Frank said she would like another term on the board and could be on the ballot next year.

Under the current situation, she said, "I won't be able to vote for myself."

JS Online

That's how. And requiring you to pay to vote is a poll tax. Poll taxes are illegal. Anyone in the class want to explain why they were instituted and who they were aimed at?

That's a shame. OTOH it seems to me like the same isolated incident argument that is being made to suggest voter fraud isn't a problem.Seems like there would be easy fixes for both those examples.

 

[bagger]

so where do i go to get these stuffed unicorns everyone is talking about.

 

[Chaka]

I also am not certain how a state can make it difficult for one person to get an ID but easy for a different person.

Lots of people already have IDs. So they don't need to get one to vote. That's very easy.

Okay. But how is it more difficult for one person to get one than another person? I am only asking where the discrimination occurs. If it is difficult to get an ID wouldn't it be equally difficult for everyone?

If the government required everyone to have a stuffed unicorn to be able to vote, I could vote very easily but it might be more difficult for you.* Even if there was a government office that sold or gave away stuffed unicorns.*I am guessing that you do not already own a stuffed unicorn.

But it would be equally difficult for any individuals that did not have stuffed unicorns to acquire one.And if they were being given away it doesn't seem like much of a problem in acquiring one.I'm not seeing the argument against yet.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If everyone had free ID cards, would there still be an issue with requiring people to provide them before voting? This seems like an easy fix.

this seems like an easy compromise, provide free photo ids, and then require them. Make the law far enough in advance that everyone has a year to get the new free id if they need it.simple

This* seems, fine, but it would cost a fair amount of money. Would it be worth it?____*I'm imagining a scenario where a person approaches the voting booth, and there's a government agent there to ask his name, snap a picture, and give him an ID card right there on the spot, for free, which he can then show to the person who gave it to him in order to validate his identity.

 

[B-Deep]

If everyone had free ID cards, would there still be an issue with requiring people to provide them before voting? This seems like an easy fix.

this seems like an easy compromise, provide free photo ids, and then require them. Make the law far enough in advance that everyone has a year to get the new free id if they need it.simple

This* seems, fine, but it would cost a fair amount of money. Would it be worth it?____*I'm imagining a scenario where a person approaches the voting booth, and there's a government agent there to ask his name, snap a picture, and give him an ID card right there on the spot, for free, which he can then show to the person who gave it to him in order to validate his identity.

i am not sure it has to be quite as instant as you say.as for the money question, i don;t know if it is worth it. The GOP seems to think the integrity of our nation is at risk, if so they had better think it is worth it

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

If the government required everyone to have a stuffed unicorn to be able to vote, I could vote very easily but it might be more difficult for you.* Even if there was a government office that sold or gave away stuffed unicorns.*I am guessing that you do not already own a stuffed unicorn.

But it would be equally difficult for any individuals that did not have stuffed unicorns to acquire one.

Sure, but it's more difficult for all of them than it is for me.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

so where do i go to get these stuffed unicorns everyone is talking about.

Frankly, I can't understand how all these people manage to live their lives without already having a stuffed unicorn.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If everyone had free ID cards, would there still be an issue with requiring people to provide them before voting? This seems like an easy fix.

this seems like an easy compromise, provide free photo ids, and then require them. Make the law far enough in advance that everyone has a year to get the new free id if they need it.simple

This* seems, fine, but it would cost a fair amount of money. Would it be worth it?____*I'm imagining a scenario where a person approaches the voting booth, and there's a government agent there to ask his name, snap a picture, and give him an ID card right there on the spot, for free, which he can then show to the person who gave it to him in order to validate his identity.

i am not sure it has to be quite as instant as you say.

It ought to be. Even though the California DMV takes a few weeks to issue an ID, plenty of casinos will issue picture IDs (in the form of player's reward cards) instantly, on the spot. For free. So the technology exists. And the longer it takes to get an ID, the fewer people will get one before it's time to vote. So why not issue them instantly right there at the voting booth? Everyone who shows up gets one. Easy solution.

 

[B-Deep]

If everyone had free ID cards, would there still be an issue with requiring people to provide them before voting? This seems like an easy fix.

this seems like an easy compromise, provide free photo ids, and then require them. Make the law far enough in advance that everyone has a year to get the new free id if they need it.simple

This* seems, fine, but it would cost a fair amount of money. Would it be worth it?____*I'm imagining a scenario where a person approaches the voting booth, and there's a government agent there to ask his name, snap a picture, and give him an ID card right there on the spot, for free, which he can then show to the person who gave it to him in order to validate his identity.

i am not sure it has to be quite as instant as you say.

It ought to be. Even though the California DMV takes a few weeks to issue an ID, plenty of casinos will issue picture ID's (in the form of player's reward cards) instantly, on the spot. For free. So the technology exists. And the longer it takes to get an ID, the fewer people will get one before it's time to vote. So why not issue them instantly right there at the voting booth? Everyone who shows up gets one. Easy solution.

well i'd extend voting to a week, so i am probably the wrong person to askin ohio we get our IDs the same day

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

 

[B-Deep]

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.

i guess now that i think of it, this is only for renewalsi am not sure what i had to show to get a license the first time

 

[Rich Conway]

so where do i go to get these stuffed unicorns everyone is talking about.

Have a toddler daughter. You'll be swimming in them.

 

[phishphan]

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.

in TN, you have to have two forms of identification to get a DL. http://www.tn.gov/safety/driverlicense/dlidentify.shtml

 

[The Commish]

Ok...we can switch to that. When I go into a trial, my testimony is considered with the rest of the evidence as part of the overall story. It's not the be-all-end-all. Then a jury goes and determines if I am lying or not. Granted, taxes, your correct. However, the IRS reserves the right to audit us also. Not quite like a person going in and simply telling some retiree they are person X, the retiree not having the authority to question them or ask for more proof etc.If you were going to compare apples to apples between a trial and walking in to vote, in a trial, you'd just need a person sitting there saying "he did it" and the jury having to accept his testimony as fact.

And if you walk into the same polling place 10 times or get recognized at any of them, you go to jail. And for what? A couple of extra votes for a candidate? Stupid.

They don't have to prove that it was you at all those places?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

in TN, you have to have two forms of identification to get a DL. http://www.tn.gov/safety/driverlicense/dlidentify.shtml

I just looked up the California requirements. They require a social security number, which I don't specifically remember giving, but I'm sure I did if there was a place for it on the form. They require giving a thumb print, which I do remember giving.It also says they require ID to prove your name and birth date. I do remember not having to show any ID at all at any point in the process; I remember being fairly surprised by it. (I'd brought ID with me; I just never got it out.)

But I guess I was already in the system because I'd had a California driver's license when I was in high school. So that may explain it. When I got my CA license for the first time, they must have required a birth certificate or something. So never mind.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

If you don't have a drivers license it is easy enough to get an ID card, at least in Pennsylvania it is. I don't think it is too much to ask for the voter for the sake of reducing fraud.

If there's one thing I've learned from this thread, it's that there are a large number of people out there for whom it requires a herculean effort to swing by the DMV to pick up a free ID. And even though these people are apparently completely incapable of navigating their way through life, it's extremely important that they vote. I don't get it either, but that's the argument.

 

[cstu]

If you don't have a drivers license it is easy enough to get an ID card, at least in Pennsylvania it is. I don't think it is too much to ask for the voter for the sake of reducing fraud.

If there's one thing I've learned from this thread, it's that there are a large number of people out there for whom it requires a herculean effort to swing by the DMV to pick up a free ID. And even though these people are apparently completely incapable of navigating their way through life, it's extremely important that they vote. I don't get it either, but that's the argument.

 

[jplvr]

We're talking about a voter ID card here which presumably does nothing for you besides proving you're the voter on record during elections. Maurile's solution would work fine IMO, especially the first time around, but going prior to that, you could implement this at offices where ID's are already issued, which would eventually be the place to go, and the ID card would be provided when you register to vote the first time.

I see plenty of urban outdoorsman at the courthouse downtown, so it shouldn't be too hard for them to go inside to get a free card and portrait for their wallet.

 

[17seconds]

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.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

If you don't have a drivers license it is easy enough to get an ID card, at least in Pennsylvania it is. I don't think it is too much to ask for the voter for the sake of reducing fraud.

If there's one thing I've learned from this thread, it's that there are a large number of people out there for whom it requires a herculean effort to swing by the DMV to pick up a free ID. And even though these people are apparently completely incapable of navigating their way through life, it's extremely important that they vote. I don't get it either, but that's the argument.

What are your feelings about my stuffed unicorn law? I won't make it too tough to get a unicorn.

 

[E Street Brat]

How do prove voter fraud with out an id? It's like writing a speeding ticket with no radar.

"I'm Janet Jones.""Janet Jones has already voted."

And if the fake Janet Jones shows up first with no id what happens to the victim of the identity theft?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

If you don't have a drivers license it is easy enough to get an ID card, at least in Pennsylvania it is. I don't think it is too much to ask for the voter for the sake of reducing fraud.

If there's one thing I've learned from this thread, it's that there are a large number of people out there for whom it requires a herculean effort to swing by the DMV to pick up a free ID. And even though these people are apparently completely incapable of navigating their way through life, it's extremely important that they vote. I don't get it either, but that's the argument.

What are your feelings about my stuffed unicorn law? I won't make it too tough to get a unicorn.

No problems with it at all. If I had to pick up a stuffed unicorn to vote, I'd do so. The actual, real-life process of registering to vote when I moved to the state was at least as inconvenient as that.Edit: The actual process of voting, which requires that I drive 15 minutes each way to a rural town that I neither live nor work in is WAY more inconvenient than either of those, so I'm not very sympathetic to this argument.

 

[B-Deep]

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