Should voters be required to show ID? (1 Viewer)

[jon_mx]

Wtf is the big deal about showing an ID to vote? How is a voting system legit if we have no assurance that all the votes were done properly. Stupidest debate ever. Sure there are self-serving motivations on each side, it does not change it

How is the voting system legit if votes are suppressed?

This is like crying rape because some guy looked at a girl. You guys having cheapened the meaning of suppression to the point it is meaningless. It is ####### ridiculous.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Wtf is the big deal about showing an ID to vote? How is a voting system legit if we have no assurance that all the votes were done properly. Stupidest debate ever. Sure there are self-serving motivations on each side, it does not change it

How is the voting system legit if votes are suppressed?

This is like crying rape because some guy looked at a girl. You guys having cheapened the meaning of suppression to the point it is meaningless. It is ####### ridiculous.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Wtf is the big deal about showing an ID to vote? How is a voting system legit if we have no assurance that all the votes were done properly. Stupidest debate ever. Sure there are self-serving motivations on each side, it does not change it

How is the voting system legit if votes are suppressed?

We suppress votes all the time. For example, if you aren't over 18, you don't get to vote. If you never bother to register, you don't get to vote. If you don't show up at one of the designated polling places or request an absentee ballot, you don't get to vote. ID requirements just add one more step to the process, and it's not clear at all that that final step should be the one that swings the system from "legit" to "not legit."

 

[Guest]

Wtf is the big deal about showing an ID to vote? How is a voting system legit if we have no assurance that all the votes were done properly. Stupidest debate ever. Sure there are self-serving motivations on each side, it does not change it

How is the voting system legit if votes are suppressed?

We suppress votes all the time. For example, if you aren't over 18, you don't get to vote. If you never bother to register, you don't get to vote. If you don't show up at one of the designated polling places or request an absentee ballot, you don't get to vote. ID requirements just add one more step to the process, and it's not clear at all that that final step should be the one that swings the system from "legit" to "not legit."

Legitimate versus non-legitimate is strong, but just providing a laundry list for justification doesn't get you very far. There's all sorts of silly examples you could insert here of, "Well, since we restrict this freedom in this way, there's nothing really wrong with restricting this other freedom." What matters are the effects and the purposes. We don't allow 15-year-olds to vote because we don't want Justin Bieber to be a candidate for national office. We have varying registration requirements to provide a record of who showed up and so that we can compare their names against various ineligible-to-vote lists. We have designated (although previously increasingly flexible) times to vote because eventually you have to place some limit on things. We screen for picture IDs because we don't want poor and/or black Democrats to vote. You guys can kid yourselves all you want, but that's the reason it exists as a national issue. It's an anti-democratic measure to suppress a very specific demographic of vote with predictable voting patterns in order to influence elections. Republicans are having increasing problems convincing more people that they have good ideas so they're relying more on rigging the rules of the game.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

We don't allow 15-year-olds to vote because we don't want Justin Bieber to be a candidate for national office.

I believe Justin Bieber is ineligible for the Presidency due to his Canadian birth. I heard that there may be a vacancy for Secretary of State, though, maybe he can do that.

 

[Guest]

We don't allow 15-year-olds to vote because we don't want Justin Bieber to be a candidate for national office.

I believe Justin Bieber is ineligible for the Presidency due to his Canadian birth. I heard that there may be a vacancy for Secretary of State, though, maybe he can do that.

You start letting the Beeb-followers to vote and amending the Constitution to allow Canadians to run things will follow shortly thereafter.

 

[jon_mx]

Wtf is the big deal about showing an ID to vote? How is a voting system legit if we have no assurance that all the votes were done properly. Stupidest debate ever. Sure there are self-serving motivations on each side, it does not change it

How is the voting system legit if votes are suppressed?

This is like crying rape because some guy looked at a girl. You guys having cheapened the meaning of suppression to the point it is meaningless. It is ####### ridiculous.

I figured that was the best you had.

 

[Guest]

Wtf is the big deal about showing an ID to vote? How is a voting system legit if we have no assurance that all the votes were done properly. Stupidest debate ever. Sure there are self-serving motivations on each side, it does not change it

How is the voting system legit if votes are suppressed?

This is like crying rape because some guy looked at a girl. You guys having cheapened the meaning of suppression to the point it is meaningless. It is ####### ridiculous.

You're the Todd Akin of the FFA.

 

[jon_mx]

Wtf is the big deal about showing an ID to vote? How is a voting system legit if we have no assurance that all the votes were done properly. Stupidest debate ever. Sure there are self-serving motivations on each side, it does not change it

How is the voting system legit if votes are suppressed?

This is like crying rape because some guy looked at a girl. You guys having cheapened the meaning of suppression to the point it is meaningless. It is ####### ridiculous.

You're the Todd Akin of the FFA.

suppress [səˈprɛs]vb (tr)1. to put an end to; prohibit2. to hold in check; restrain I was obliged to suppress a smile3. to withhold from circulation or publication to suppress seditious pamphlets4. to stop the activities of; crush to suppress a rebellionSeriously, how is requiring people to show an ID which is either freely available or very inexpensive suppression. By the logic by the left, making people go to the polling station to vote is suppression. We are not prohibiting, stopping, withholding, or crushing anyone's ability to vote. We are suggesting a simple check in the system which ensures the person who is voting are who they say they are.

 

[Rich Conway]

Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason they pushed new election law

I freely admit there are lots of douchebags in the GOP, and that many of them advocate certain policies for the wrong reasons. That doesn't necessarily make the policy itself wrong. Pretty sure I've stated this exact thing previously in one of these threads, and that some advocates were doing so for the wrong reason.

The policy itself is wrong.

We're all aware that's your opinion. But you're not right just because you say you are. In this particular instance, you're wrong.

 

[Guest]

Wtf is the big deal about showing an ID to vote? How is a voting system legit if we have no assurance that all the votes were done properly. Stupidest debate ever. Sure there are self-serving motivations on each side, it does not change it

How is the voting system legit if votes are suppressed?

This is like crying rape because some guy looked at a girl. You guys having cheapened the meaning of suppression to the point it is meaningless. It is ####### ridiculous.

You're the Todd Akin of the FFA.

suppress [səˈprɛs]vb (tr)

1. to put an end to; prohibit

2. to hold in check; restrain I was obliged to suppress a smile

3. to withhold from circulation or publication to suppress seditious pamphlets

4. to stop the activities of; crush to suppress a rebellion

Seriously, how is requiring people to show an ID which is either freely available or very inexpensive suppression. By the logic by the left, making people go to the polling station to vote is suppression. We are not prohibiting, stopping, withholding, or crushing anyone's ability to vote. We are suggesting a simple check in the system which ensures the person who is voting are who they say they are.

If you want to be definition-y about it....Voter suppression

Voter suppression is a strategy to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing people from exercising their right to vote. It is distinguished from political campaigning in that campaigning attempts to change likely voting behavior by changing the opinions of potential voters through persuasion and organization. Voter suppression instead attempts to reduce the number of voters who might vote against the candidate or proposition advocated by the suppressors.

And you're not "suggesting" anything. You're reflexively parroting the stance which has been fed to you.

 

[parasaurolophus]

It is much more suppressive to make people have to vote in their districts for national and statewide elections. The place I would have to vote is always a complete zoo. There is a polling place right by where I work that pretty much never has anybody there. Where is the outrage for this policy?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Wtf is the big deal about showing an ID to vote? How is a voting system legit if we have no assurance that all the votes were done properly. Stupidest debate ever. Sure there are self-serving motivations on each side, it does not change it

How is the voting system legit if votes are suppressed?

We suppress votes all the time. For example, if you aren't over 18, you don't get to vote. If you never bother to register, you don't get to vote. If you don't show up at one of the designated polling places or request an absentee ballot, you don't get to vote. ID requirements just add one more step to the process, and it's not clear at all that that final step should be the one that swings the system from "legit" to "not legit."

Legitimate versus non-legitimate is strong, but just providing a laundry list for justification doesn't get you very far. There's all sorts of silly examples you could insert here of, "Well, since we restrict this freedom in this way, there's nothing really wrong with restricting this other freedom." What matters are the effects and the purposes.

I agree. That's why just saying "voter supression" doesn't settle the issue like Anthony seems to think it does. You have to engage the case for ID requirements on its own merits.

We don't allow 15-year-olds to vote because we don't want Justin Bieber to be a candidate for national office. We have varying registration requirements to provide a record of who showed up and so that we can compare their names against various ineligible-to-vote lists. We have designated (although previously increasingly flexible) times to vote because eventually you have to place some limit on things.

Exactly. Agreed on all counts.

We screen for picture IDs because we don't want poor and/or black Democrats to vote. You guys can kid yourselves all you want, but that's the reason it exists as a national issue.

You'll need to take that one up with somebody who has a problem with poor, black Democrats voting. I'm fine with that demographic being able to vote.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Wtf is the big deal about showing an ID to vote? How is a voting system legit if we have no assurance that all the votes were done properly. Stupidest debate ever. Sure there are self-serving motivations on each side, it does not change it

How is the voting system legit if votes are suppressed?

We suppress votes all the time. For example, if you aren't over 18, you don't get to vote. If you never bother to register, you don't get to vote. If you don't show up at one of the designated polling places or request an absentee ballot, you don't get to vote. ID requirements just add one more step to the process, and it's not clear at all that that final step should be the one that swings the system from "legit" to "not legit."

Having an actual state interest based on a real problem is pretty much the necessary prerequisite component of any legitimate act of the state to infringe on the liberties of the people.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

It is much more suppressive to make people have to vote in their districts for national and statewide elections. The place I would have to vote is always a complete zoo. There is a polling place right by where I work that pretty much never has anybody there. Where is the outrage for this policy?

Hopefully secure online voting will become a reality in the next decade or so. That'll change everything.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I agree. That's why just saying "voter supression" doesn't settle the issue like Anthony seems to think it does. You have to engage the case for ID requirements on its own merits.

Other than suppressing the votes of those that might vote for the other side, there are no honest merits for ID requirements.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Wtf is the big deal about showing an ID to vote? How is a voting system legit if we have no assurance that all the votes were done properly. Stupidest debate ever. Sure there are self-serving motivations on each side, it does not change it

How is the voting system legit if votes are suppressed?

We suppress votes all the time. For example, if you aren't over 18, you don't get to vote. If you never bother to register, you don't get to vote. If you don't show up at one of the designated polling places or request an absentee ballot, you don't get to vote. ID requirements just add one more step to the process, and it's not clear at all that that final step should be the one that swings the system from "legit" to "not legit."

Having an actual state interest based on a real problem is pretty much the necessary prerequisite component of any legitimate act of the state to infringe on the liberties of the people.

Obviously I agree completely.

 

[Guest]

It is much more suppressive to make people have to vote in their districts for national and statewide elections. The place I would have to vote is always a complete zoo. There is a polling place right by where I work that pretty much never has anybody there. Where is the outrage for this policy?

Hopefully secure online voting will become a reality in the next decade or so. That'll change everything.

I, for one, eagerly await our new president moot.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I agree. That's why just saying "voter supression" doesn't settle the issue like Anthony seems to think it does. You have to engage the case for ID requirements on its own merits.

Other than suppressing the votes of those that might vote for the other side, there are no honest merits for ID requirements.

Starting off from the assumption that everybody on the other side is totally dishonest probably isn't best.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I agree. That's why just saying "voter supression" doesn't settle the issue like Anthony seems to think it does. You have to engage the case for ID requirements on its own merits.

Other than suppressing the votes of those that might vote for the other side, there are no honest merits for ID requirements.

Starting off from the assumption that everybody on the other side is totally dishonest probably isn't best.

Sure thing. Totally irrelevant to the fact ID requirements are a much more serious threat to honest elections than they could ever thwart even in the wildest hypotheticals one could dream up.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I agree. That's why just saying "voter supression" doesn't settle the issue like Anthony seems to think it does. You have to engage the case for ID requirements on its own merits.

Other than suppressing the votes of those that might vote for the other side, there are no honest merits for ID requirements.

Starting off from the assumption that everybody on the other side is totally dishonest probably isn't best.

Sure thing. Totally irrelevant to the fact ID requirements are a much more serious threat to honest elections than they could ever thwart even in the wildest hypotheticals one could dream up.

If you've read even a page or two of this thread, you should know that those of us on the pro-ID side disagree with that, and we've explained why repeatedly. Personally, decided a long ago to just agree to disagree with Matthias and others who argue that getting an ID is a really big deal and that the costs of these requirements outweigh the benefits. I understand where they're coming from, but we've reached the point where no amount of argumentation is likely to change anyone's mind about the cost/benefit calculation. Similarly, if you want to disagree with my position on this, that's completely fine and understandable. But I've been quite honest about my reasoning all the way through this thread, as well as the others that we've done on this topic over the years.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

If you've read even a page or two of this thread, you should know that those of us on the pro-ID side disagree with that, and we've explained why repeatedly. Personally, decided a long ago to just agree to disagree with Matthias and others who argue that getting an ID is a really big deal and that the costs of these requirements outweigh the benefits. I understand where they're coming from, but we've reached the point where no amount of argumentation is likely to change anyone's mind about the cost/benefit calculation. Similarly, if you want to disagree with my position on this, that's completely fine and understandable. But I've been quite honest about my reasoning all the way through this thread, as well as the others that we've done on this topic over the years.

Maurile claims that this thread and others like it changed his mind on the issue. I'm still holding out hope for you.

 

[Rich Conway]

I agree. That's why just saying "voter supression" doesn't settle the issue like Anthony seems to think it does. You have to engage the case for ID requirements on its own merits.

Other than suppressing the votes of those that might vote for the other side, there are no honest merits for ID requirements.

You state this like it's fact, rather than opinion. It's quite clearly an opinion, and reasonable people can disagree.

 

[Rayderr]

If you've read even a page or two of this thread, you should know that those of us on the pro-ID side disagree with that, and we've explained why repeatedly. Personally, decided a long ago to just agree to disagree with Matthias and others who argue that getting an ID is a really big deal and that the costs of these requirements outweigh the benefits. I understand where they're coming from, but we've reached the point where no amount of argumentation is likely to change anyone's mind about the cost/benefit calculation. Similarly, if you want to disagree with my position on this, that's completely fine and understandable. But I've been quite honest about my reasoning all the way through this thread, as well as the others that we've done on this topic over the years.

Maurile claims that this thread and others like it changed his mind on the issue. I'm still holding out hope for you.

It changed my mind. I don't think ID cards are the answer (tho I do believe everyone should have one.) I now think fingerprints are the way to go.

 

[tommyGunZ]

If you've read even a page or two of this thread, you should know that those of us on the pro-ID side disagree with that, and we've explained why repeatedly. Personally, decided a long ago to just agree to disagree with Matthias and others who argue that getting an ID is a really big deal and that the costs of these requirements outweigh the benefits. I understand where they're coming from, but we've reached the point where no amount of argumentation is likely to change anyone's mind about the cost/benefit calculation. Similarly, if you want to disagree with my position on this, that's completely fine and understandable. But I've been quite honest about my reasoning all the way through this thread, as well as the others that we've done on this topic over the years.

Color me surprised that a guy like you whose brain is literally on cost/benefit autopilot supports a policy with such enormous costs and miniscule benefits. You're usually far more practical than this IK.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

If you've read even a page or two of this thread, you should know that those of us on the pro-ID side disagree with that, and we've explained why repeatedly. Personally, decided a long ago to just agree to disagree with Matthias and others who argue that getting an ID is a really big deal and that the costs of these requirements outweigh the benefits. I understand where they're coming from, but we've reached the point where no amount of argumentation is likely to change anyone's mind about the cost/benefit calculation. Similarly, if you want to disagree with my position on this, that's completely fine and understandable. But I've been quite honest about my reasoning all the way through this thread, as well as the others that we've done on this topic over the years.

Color me surprised that a guy like you whose brain is literally on cost/benefit autopilot supports a policy with such enormous costs and miniscule benefits. You're usually far more practical than this IK.

IK and Rich Conway and others don't seem to see the costs as significant. If people aren't willing to expend the effort to get an ID, then they obviously don't value voting very much. At least that's how I read their position.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

If you've read even a page or two of this thread, you should know that those of us on the pro-ID side disagree with that, and we've explained why repeatedly. Personally, decided a long ago to just agree to disagree with Matthias and others who argue that getting an ID is a really big deal and that the costs of these requirements outweigh the benefits. I understand where they're coming from, but we've reached the point where no amount of argumentation is likely to change anyone's mind about the cost/benefit calculation. Similarly, if you want to disagree with my position on this, that's completely fine and understandable. But I've been quite honest about my reasoning all the way through this thread, as well as the others that we've done on this topic over the years.

Color me surprised that a guy like you whose brain is literally on cost/benefit autopilot supports a policy with such enormous costs and miniscule benefits. You're usually far more practical than this IK.

IK and Rich Conway and others don't seem to see the costs as significant. If people aren't willing to expend the effort to get an ID, then they obviously don't value voting very much. At least that's how I read their position.

Right. To the extent that ID requirements actually screen out voters, my position is that they tend to do so in a way that's socially desirable by weeding out the lazy and alienated. So whereas some would (understandably from their POV) see a decrease in voter participation as a large cost, I tend to view it as more like a benefit.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

IK and Rich Conway and others don't seem to see the costs as significant. If people aren't willing to expend the effort to get an ID, then they obviously don't value voting very much. At least that's how I read their position.

Right. To the extent that ID requirements actually screen out voters, my position is that they tend to do so in a way that's socially desirable by weeding out the lazy and alienated. So whereas some would (understandably from their POV) see a decrease in voter participation as a large cost, I tend to view it as more like a benefit.

One of my big problems with this, though, is that the lazy and alienated are not screened out in anything even close to a uniform fashion. If you're lazy but happen to have an ID for some other reason, you can vote. If you really want to screen out the lazy, then support a law that makes everybody jump through hoops to vote. Not just the small minority of people without IDs.

 

[Rayderr]

IK and Rich Conway and others don't seem to see the costs as significant. If people aren't willing to expend the effort to get an ID, then they obviously don't value voting very much. At least that's how I read their position.

Right. To the extent that ID requirements actually screen out voters, my position is that they tend to do so in a way that's socially desirable by weeding out the lazy and alienated. So whereas some would (understandably from their POV) see a decrease in voter participation as a large cost, I tend to view it as more like a benefit.

One of my big problems with this, though, is that the lazy and alienated are not screened out in anything even close to a uniform fashion. If you're lazy but happen to have an ID for some other reason, you can vote. If you really want to screen out the lazy, then support a law that makes everybody jump through hoops to vote. Not just the small minority of people without IDs.

I'd say that those who have gotten ID's are not as lazy as those who haven't.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

IK and Rich Conway and others don't seem to see the costs as significant. If people aren't willing to expend the effort to get an ID, then they obviously don't value voting very much. At least that's how I read their position.

Right. To the extent that ID requirements actually screen out voters, my position is that they tend to do so in a way that's socially desirable by weeding out the lazy and alienated. So whereas some would (understandably from their POV) see a decrease in voter participation as a large cost, I tend to view it as more like a benefit.

One of my big problems with this, though, is that the lazy and alienated are not screened out in anything even close to a uniform fashion. If you're lazy but happen to have an ID for some other reason, you can vote. If you really want to screen out the lazy, then support a law that makes everybody jump through hoops to vote. Not just the small minority of people without IDs.

I do. That's why I don't like stuff like same-day registration.

 

[bigbottom]

If you've read even a page or two of this thread, you should know that those of us on the pro-ID side disagree with that, and we've explained why repeatedly. Personally, decided a long ago to just agree to disagree with Matthias and others who argue that getting an ID is a really big deal and that the costs of these requirements outweigh the benefits. I understand where they're coming from, but we've reached the point where no amount of argumentation is likely to change anyone's mind about the cost/benefit calculation. Similarly, if you want to disagree with my position on this, that's completely fine and understandable. But I've been quite honest about my reasoning all the way through this thread, as well as the others that we've done on this topic over the years.

Color me surprised that a guy like you whose brain is literally on cost/benefit autopilot supports a policy with such enormous costs and miniscule benefits. You're usually far more practical than this IK.

IK and Rich Conway and others don't seem to see the costs as significant. If people aren't willing to expend the effort to get an ID, then they obviously don't value voting very much. At least that's how I read their position.

Right. To the extent that ID requirements actually screen out voters, my position is that they tend to do so in a way that's socially desirable by weeding out the lazy and alienated. So whereas some would (understandably from their POV) see a decrease in voter participation as a large cost, I tend to view it as more like a benefit.

In that event, couple voter ID laws with the elimination of absentee ballots.

 

[Jutz]

If you've read even a page or two of this thread, you should know that those of us on the pro-ID side disagree with that, and we've explained why repeatedly.

Personally, decided a long ago to just agree to disagree with Matthias and others who argue that getting an ID is a really big deal and that the costs of these requirements outweigh the benefits. I understand where they're coming from, but we've reached the point where no amount of argumentation is likely to change anyone's mind about the cost/benefit calculation.

Similarly, if you want to disagree with my position on this, that's completely fine and understandable. But I've been quite honest about my reasoning all the way through this thread, as well as the others that we've done on this topic over the years.

Color me surprised that a guy like you whose brain is literally on cost/benefit autopilot supports a policy with such enormous costs and miniscule benefits. You're usually far more practical than this IK.

IK and Rich Conway and others don't seem to see the costs as significant. If people aren't willing to expend the effort to get an ID, then they obviously don't value voting very much. At least that's how I read their position.

Right. To the extent that ID requirements actually screen out voters, my position is that they tend to do so in a way that's socially desirable by weeding out the lazy and alienated. So whereas some would (understandably from their POV) see a decrease in voter participation as a large cost, I tend to view it as more like a benefit.

I definitely see it as a benefit for the same reasons you mentioned.I think the way they are doing it in PA is pretty fair. I honestly don't know if there has been any further rulings, appeals, etc. but it sounded to me like they basically said... the voter ID law is ok, it checks out as constitutional, but you need to give people time to get their stuff together so we are putting it in place next year.

I looked up the requirements to get an id and they were a birth certificate, 2 proofs of residence (utility bill, lease agreement, etc.) and an SS card. The only cost to the person registering is if, and only if, they do not have a copy of their birth cert. If they don't have their birth cert, they can order one for $10 online. So the cost per person that does not have a birth cert. is $10. It's free to get replacement ss card if you don't have one.

Since PA pushed off the law for a year, that gives everyone a year to get their forms of id ready, and find a way to make it to the DMV to get an id. If they are too lazy to get this information together and fill out the necessary forms, a task they have a year to do, then I feel that is ok if they don't get to vote.

 

[Guest]

I definitely see it as a benefit for the same reasons you mentioned.I think the way they are doing it in PA is pretty fair. I honestly don't know if there has been any further rulings, appeals, etc. but it sounded to me like they basically said... the voter ID law is ok, it checks out as constitutional, but you need to give people time to get their stuff together so we are putting it in place next year.I looked up the requirements to get an id and they were a birth certificate, 2 proofs of residence (utility bill, lease agreement, etc.) and an SS card. The only cost to the person registering is if, and only if, they do not have a copy of their birth cert. If they don't have their birth cert, they can order one for $10 online. So the cost per person that does not have a birth cert. is $10. It's free to get replacement ss card if you don't have one.Since PA pushed off the law for a year, that gives everyone a year to get their forms of id ready, and find a way to make it to the DMV to get an id. If they are too lazy to get this information together and fill out the necessary forms, a task they have a year to do, then I feel that is ok if they don't get to vote.

There's people who don't have birth certificates (as in, never had one, won't have one on file). No shtick.

 

[Guest]

One of my big problems with this, though, is that the lazy and alienated are not screened out in anything even close to a uniform fashion. If you're lazy but happen to have an ID for some other reason, you can vote. If you really want to screen out the lazy, then support a law that makes everybody jump through hoops to vote. Not just the small minority of people without IDs.

I'd say that those who have gotten ID's are not as lazy as those who haven't.

Expenditure of effort isn't uniform and the benefits aren't uniform.In one of these things, I proposed that everyone be required every year to go down to the DMV or whereever to get a special Voters Card that would allow them to vote to distribute the effort more equally. People didn't care for it.

 

[Guest]

One of my big problems with this, though, is that the lazy and alienated are not screened out in anything even close to a uniform fashion. If you're lazy but happen to have an ID for some other reason, you can vote. If you really want to screen out the lazy, then support a law that makes everybody jump through hoops to vote. Not just the small minority of people without IDs.

I do. That's why I don't like stuff like same-day registration.

I'm not sure what this means unless you're just saying that you have an ID to screw everybody else.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

One of my big problems with this, though, is that the lazy and alienated are not screened out in anything even close to a uniform fashion. If you're lazy but happen to have an ID for some other reason, you can vote. If you really want to screen out the lazy, then support a law that makes everybody jump through hoops to vote. Not just the small minority of people without IDs.

I do. That's why I don't like stuff like same-day registration.

I'm not sure what this means unless you're just saying that you have an ID to screw everybody else.

I mean that I don't have a problem with laws requiring everybody to jump through hoops, with one example being rules requiring advance registration. I also wouldn't have a problem with your suggestion that everybody has to get a voting card every two years (or whenenver). That said, the fact that some people already have IDs and others don't doesn't bother me at all either. Some people live right next door to their polling place, while other of us have a 15 minute drive to and from the voting booth. That's life.

 

[Jutz]

I definitely see it as a benefit for the same reasons you mentioned.I think the way they are doing it in PA is pretty fair. I honestly don't know if there has been any further rulings, appeals, etc. but it sounded to me like they basically said... the voter ID law is ok, it checks out as constitutional, but you need to give people time to get their stuff together so we are putting it in place next year.I looked up the requirements to get an id and they were a birth certificate, 2 proofs of residence (utility bill, lease agreement, etc.) and an SS card. The only cost to the person registering is if, and only if, they do not have a copy of their birth cert. If they don't have their birth cert, they can order one for $10 online. So the cost per person that does not have a birth cert. is $10. It's free to get replacement ss card if you don't have one.Since PA pushed off the law for a year, that gives everyone a year to get their forms of id ready, and find a way to make it to the DMV to get an id. If they are too lazy to get this information together and fill out the necessary forms, a task they have a year to do, then I feel that is ok if they don't get to vote.

There's people who don't have birth certificates (as in, never had one, won't have one on file). No shtick.

*If they do not have a birth certificate with a raised seal and are a Pennsylvania native; and do not have one of the acceptable, alternative forms of photo identification to vote; and will provide a signed oath/affirmation form, when visiting the PennDOT driver license center, they must:- Tell the PennDOT customer service representative they are a Pennsylvania native who needs a photo ID for voting purposes, and do not have a certified copy of their birth certificate; - Sign an oath/affirmation that they do not have an acceptable form of ID for voting purposes and the photo ID is needed for voting purposes; - Show a Social Security card and two proofs of residence, such as a deed, lease, tax bill, or utility bill; - Fill out a DL-54A form requesting a non-driver photo ID and; - Complete the HD01564F (Request for Certification of Birth Record for Voter ID Purposes Only) form, which collects information such as birth name, mother and father's name and place of birth. This Department of Health form is available at all Driver Licensing Centers. *PennDOT will attempt to certify the birth record with the Department of Health.

 

[Rich Conway]

One of my big problems with this, though, is that the lazy and alienated are not screened out in anything even close to a uniform fashion. If you're lazy but happen to have an ID for some other reason, you can vote. If you really want to screen out the lazy, then support a law that makes everybody jump through hoops to vote. Not just the small minority of people without IDs.

I'd say that those who have gotten ID's are not as lazy as those who haven't.

Expenditure of effort isn't uniform and the benefits aren't uniform.In one of these things, I proposed that everyone be required every year to go down to the DMV or whereever to get a special Voters Card that would allow them to vote to distribute the effort more equally. People didn't care for it.

That would be OK with me. In fact, I would definitely support such a law.

 

[Rich Conway]

If you've read even a page or two of this thread, you should know that those of us on the pro-ID side disagree with that, and we've explained why repeatedly. Personally, decided a long ago to just agree to disagree with Matthias and others who argue that getting an ID is a really big deal and that the costs of these requirements outweigh the benefits. I understand where they're coming from, but we've reached the point where no amount of argumentation is likely to change anyone's mind about the cost/benefit calculation. Similarly, if you want to disagree with my position on this, that's completely fine and understandable. But I've been quite honest about my reasoning all the way through this thread, as well as the others that we've done on this topic over the years.

Color me surprised that a guy like you whose brain is literally on cost/benefit autopilot supports a policy with such enormous costs and miniscule benefits. You're usually far more practical than this IK.

IK and Rich Conway and others don't seem to see the costs as significant. If people aren't willing to expend the effort to get an ID, then they obviously don't value voting very much. At least that's how I read their position.

This is exactly correct, and what tgunz and others refuse to acknowledge. "The costs" and "the benefits" don't have definable values in a mathematical way like 2+2=4. They hold different values for different people. For me, discouraging a lazy person from voting has no societal cost. For tgunz, it's an "enormous cost", for some reason.

 

[tommyGunZ]

If you've read even a page or two of this thread, you should know that those of us on the pro-ID side disagree with that, and we've explained why repeatedly. Personally, decided a long ago to just agree to disagree with Matthias and others who argue that getting an ID is a really big deal and that the costs of these requirements outweigh the benefits. I understand where they're coming from, but we've reached the point where no amount of argumentation is likely to change anyone's mind about the cost/benefit calculation. Similarly, if you want to disagree with my position on this, that's completely fine and understandable. But I've been quite honest about my reasoning all the way through this thread, as well as the others that we've done on this topic over the years.

Color me surprised that a guy like you whose brain is literally on cost/benefit autopilot supports a policy with such enormous costs and miniscule benefits. You're usually far more practical than this IK.

IK and Rich Conway and others don't seem to see the costs as significant. If people aren't willing to expend the effort to get an ID, then they obviously don't value voting very much. At least that's how I read their position.

This is exactly correct, and what tgunz and others refuse to acknowledge. "The costs" and "the benefits" don't have definable values in a mathematical way like 2+2=4. They hold different values for different people. For me, discouraging a lazy person from voting has no societal cost. For tgunz, it's an "enormous cost", for some reason.

I think our democracy is stronger if more folks participate. Adding hurdles like voter ID laws that serve no practical purpose on a statistical basis and results in lots of poor, less fortunate folks not voting seems ridiculous and counter to the idea of democracy in the first place.

 

[The Commish]

IK and Rich Conway and others don't seem to see the costs as significant. If people aren't willing to expend the effort to get an ID, then they obviously don't value voting very much. At least that's how I read their position.

Right. To the extent that ID requirements actually screen out voters, my position is that they tend to do so in a way that's socially desirable by weeding out the lazy and alienated. So whereas some would (understandably from their POV) see a decrease in voter participation as a large cost, I tend to view it as more like a benefit.

One of my big problems with this, though, is that the lazy and alienated are not screened out in anything even close to a uniform fashion. If you're lazy but happen to have an ID for some other reason, you can vote. If you really want to screen out the lazy, then support a law that makes everybody jump through hoops to vote. Not just the small minority of people without IDs.

This comment got me thinking....I'm wondering if we changed the discussion from "required to show ID" to "required to be identified" does that change opinions on either side? In other words, say we start today telling everyone that in 2016 there will be a bio-metric recording that will represent the person's identity (be it a finger print or whatever) do folks still have a problem with it if everyone has to go through it?

 

[Sand]

IK and Rich Conway and others don't seem to see the costs as significant. If people aren't willing to expend the effort to get an ID, then they obviously don't value voting very much. At least that's how I read their position.

Right. To the extent that ID requirements actually screen out voters, my position is that they tend to do so in a way that's socially desirable by weeding out the lazy and alienated. So whereas some would (understandably from their POV) see a decrease in voter participation as a large cost, I tend to view it as more like a benefit.

One of my big problems with this, though, is that the lazy and alienated are not screened out in anything even close to a uniform fashion. If you're lazy but happen to have an ID for some other reason, you can vote. If you really want to screen out the lazy, then support a law that makes everybody jump through hoops to vote. Not just the small minority of people without IDs.

This comment got me thinking....I'm wondering if we changed the discussion from "required to show ID" to "required to be identified" does that change opinions on either side? In other words, say we start today telling everyone that in 2016 there will be a bio-metric recording that will represent the person's identity (be it a finger print or whatever) do folks still have a problem with it if everyone has to go through it?

The problem here for me with this kind of database (fingerprint, palm print, retina, etc.) isn't an objection for its intended use. It would be for all the uses that it would get turned to once it existed. Hey, there was a crime in Salem - let's run that palmprint through the national database. Hey, the NSA wants to have full, unfettered access to this for national security purposes - boom, done. Hey, Anonymous wants to spread the wealth and let everyone have everyone's identity - huzzah, freedom for all.

 

[The Commish]

IK and Rich Conway and others don't seem to see the costs as significant. If people aren't willing to expend the effort to get an ID, then they obviously don't value voting very much. At least that's how I read their position.

Right. To the extent that ID requirements actually screen out voters, my position is that they tend to do so in a way that's socially desirable by weeding out the lazy and alienated. So whereas some would (understandably from their POV) see a decrease in voter participation as a large cost, I tend to view it as more like a benefit.

One of my big problems with this, though, is that the lazy and alienated are not screened out in anything even close to a uniform fashion. If you're lazy but happen to have an ID for some other reason, you can vote. If you really want to screen out the lazy, then support a law that makes everybody jump through hoops to vote. Not just the small minority of people without IDs.

This comment got me thinking....I'm wondering if we changed the discussion from "required to show ID" to "required to be identified" does that change opinions on either side? In other words, say we start today telling everyone that in 2016 there will be a bio-metric recording that will represent the person's identity (be it a finger print or whatever) do folks still have a problem with it if everyone has to go through it?

The problem here for me with this kind of database (fingerprint, palm print, retina, etc.) isn't an objection for its intended use. It would be for all the uses that it would get turned to once it existed. Hey, there was a crime in Salem - let's run that palmprint through the national database. Hey, the NSA wants to have full, unfettered access to this for national security purposes - boom, done. Hey, Anonymous wants to spread the wealth and let everyone have everyone's identity - huzzah, freedom for all.

It's easy enough to keep things anonymous. You don't have to have a person's name and personal information out. All you're after is the ability to uniquely identify a person. A finger print does that.

 

[jon_mx]

Wtf is the big deal about showing an ID to vote? How is a voting system legit if we have no assurance that all the votes were done properly. Stupidest debate ever. Sure there are self-serving motivations on each side, it does not change it

How is the voting system legit if votes are suppressed?

This is like crying rape because some guy looked at a girl. You guys having cheapened the meaning of suppression to the point it is meaningless. It is ####### ridiculous.

You're the Todd Akin of the FFA.

suppress [səˈprɛs]vb (tr)

1. to put an end to; prohibit

2. to hold in check; restrain I was obliged to suppress a smile

3. to withhold from circulation or publication to suppress seditious pamphlets

4. to stop the activities of; crush to suppress a rebellion

Seriously, how is requiring people to show an ID which is either freely available or very inexpensive suppression. By the logic by the left, making people go to the polling station to vote is suppression. We are not prohibiting, stopping, withholding, or crushing anyone's ability to vote. We are suggesting a simple check in the system which ensures the person who is voting are who they say they are.

If you want to be definition-y about it....Voter suppression

Voter suppression is a strategy to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing people from exercising their right to vote. It is distinguished from political campaigning in that campaigning attempts to change likely voting behavior by changing the opinions of potential voters through persuasion and organization. Voter suppression instead attempts to reduce the number of voters who might vote against the candidate or proposition advocated by the suppressors.

And you're not "suggesting" anything. You're reflexively parroting the stance which has been fed to you.

What a lame argument. I rarely watch news or listen to talk radio. Nobody feeds me anything. Why not stick to debating facts and ideas instead of making baseless accusations?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

If you've read even a page or two of this thread, you should know that those of us on the pro-ID side disagree with that, and we've explained why repeatedly. Personally, decided a long ago to just agree to disagree with Matthias and others who argue that getting an ID is a really big deal and that the costs of these requirements outweigh the benefits. I understand where they're coming from, but we've reached the point where no amount of argumentation is likely to change anyone's mind about the cost/benefit calculation. Similarly, if you want to disagree with my position on this, that's completely fine and understandable. But I've been quite honest about my reasoning all the way through this thread, as well as the others that we've done on this topic over the years.

Color me surprised that a guy like you whose brain is literally on cost/benefit autopilot supports a policy with such enormous costs and miniscule benefits. You're usually far more practical than this IK.

IK and Rich Conway and others don't seem to see the costs as significant. If people aren't willing to expend the effort to get an ID, then they obviously don't value voting very much. At least that's how I read their position.

Right. To the extent that ID requirements actually screen out voters, my position is that they tend to do so in a way that's socially desirable by weeding out the lazy and alienated. So whereas some would (understandably from their POV) see a decrease in voter participation as a large cost, I tend to view it as more like a benefit.

What state issue is created by allowing the "lazy and alienated" exercising their right to vote? How does requiring ID effectively address this state issue? Is there really no other means available to the state that would more narrowly address this issue?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I mean that I don't have a problem with laws requiring everybody to jump through hoops...

... to exercise a fundamental right in a democracy for no reason other than the benefit of making it difficult to exercise that right would weed out those that you believe aren't as worthy to have their vote count like yours.

 

[Rich Conway]

If you've read even a page or two of this thread, you should know that those of us on the pro-ID side disagree with that, and we've explained why repeatedly. Personally, decided a long ago to just agree to disagree with Matthias and others who argue that getting an ID is a really big deal and that the costs of these requirements outweigh the benefits. I understand where they're coming from, but we've reached the point where no amount of argumentation is likely to change anyone's mind about the cost/benefit calculation. Similarly, if you want to disagree with my position on this, that's completely fine and understandable. But I've been quite honest about my reasoning all the way through this thread, as well as the others that we've done on this topic over the years.

Color me surprised that a guy like you whose brain is literally on cost/benefit autopilot supports a policy with such enormous costs and miniscule benefits. You're usually far more practical than this IK.

IK and Rich Conway and others don't seem to see the costs as significant. If people aren't willing to expend the effort to get an ID, then they obviously don't value voting very much. At least that's how I read their position.

This is exactly correct, and what tgunz and others refuse to acknowledge. "The costs" and "the benefits" don't have definable values in a mathematical way like 2+2=4. They hold different values for different people. For me, discouraging a lazy person from voting has no societal cost. For tgunz, it's an "enormous cost", for some reason.

I think our democracy is stronger if more folks participate. Adding hurdles like voter ID laws that serve no practical purpose on a statistical basis and results in lots of poor, less fortunate folks not voting seems ridiculous and counter to the idea of democracy in the first place.

The point is that the above is your opinion, not quantifiable fact. IMO, there is virtually no societal cost in policies that require prospective voters to jump through a few hoops before voting.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

... IMO, there is virtually no societal cost in policies that require prospective voters to jump through a few hoops before voting.

"It is not too bad" is not relevant when it comes to imposing upon individual freedoms. You need to have an actual, real identifiable problem. Your opinion that there will be a benefit doesn't cut it. When in doubt the default position is supposed to be liberty.

 

[Rich Conway]

... IMO, there is virtually no societal cost in policies that require prospective voters to jump through a few hoops before voting.

"It is not too bad" is not relevant when it comes to imposing upon individual freedoms. You need to have an actual, real identifiable problem. Your opinion that there will be a benefit doesn't cut it. When in doubt the default position is supposed to be liberty.

My opinion is meaningless, but pretty much all policies are based on someone's opinion. For instance, why 18 to vote instead of 16 or 20 or 25? Why do some states allow same-day registration while others don't? These are based on someone's opinion that these provide the most "benefit" for the least "cost". My personal opinion is that there isn't a real cost to ID laws, while there is some benefit in creating a more secure voting process.And before you start on absentee ballots, voting machine software, etc., I've already said we should fix those holes too.

 

[tommyGunZ]

... IMO, there is virtually no societal cost in policies that require prospective voters to jump through a few hoops before voting.

"It is not too bad" is not relevant when it comes to imposing upon individual freedoms. You need to have an actual, real identifiable problem. Your opinion that there will be a benefit doesn't cut it. When in doubt the default position is supposed to be liberty.

My opinion is meaningless, but pretty much all policies are based on someone's opinion. For instance, why 18 to vote instead of 16 or 20 or 25? Why do some states allow same-day registration while others don't? These are based on someone's opinion that these provide the most "benefit" for the least "cost". My personal opinion is that there isn't a real cost to ID laws, while there is some benefit in creating a more secure voting process.And before you start on absentee ballots, voting machine software, etc., I've already said we should fix those holes too.

Thankfully lawmakers value the right to vote more than you do.