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

[jon_mx]

... 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.

Oh ####### please, off with your high horse bullcrap. Having the right to vote does not mean anything if the results are not honest. What good is someone's right to vote if it is cancelled off by someone illegal vote? I am sorry you are so in favor of dishonest elections. There are two ways to spin crap and is why we never get anywhere.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

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.

Basically, yeah. Glad to see we're on the same page here.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

... 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. ...

Your opinion is that the real suppressing the ability of a small but measurable segment of voters (Ivan's lazy and disinterested) to vote isn't a real cost, while preventing those voters that supposedly vote as someone else despite any real evidence they actually exists (the really interested and motivated) is a measurable benefit.

 

[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.

Basically, yeah. Glad to see we're on the same page here.

Sure, now what is this honest position to support voter ids other than the social benefit of suppressing the votes of undesirables?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Oh ####### please, off with your high horse bullcrap. Having the right to vote does not mean anything if the results are not honest. What good is someone's right to vote if it is cancelled off by someone illegal vote? I am sorry you are so in favor of dishonest elections. There are two ways to spin crap and is why we never get anywhere.

Once you propose to infringe on rights it is your responsibility as the one proposing to solve an issue with "dishonest elections" to demonstrate that there are actually "dishonest elections" that could have been fixed by your solution.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

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.

Basically, yeah. Glad to see we're on the same page here.

Sure, now what is this honest position to support voter ids other than the social benefit of suppressing the votes of undesirables?

I'd support ID requirements even if they didn't weed out undesirables, on the grounds that they improve the overall integrity of the voting process. This is a similar argument to why electonic voting machines need to have clear paper trails -- it's not that I really think that anybody is going to hack a voting machine, but it's important for appearance's sake if nothing else. In other words, I'm pro-ID anyway. It's just that when somebody comes back and says "But requiring IDs suppresses the votes of people who just can't be bothered to visit the DMV once in the next two years," my response is "Yeah, they have that benefit too."

Like I said earlier, you're free to disagree with this analysis. Most people do. But what you don't get to do is say that there's anything dishonest about it.

 

[Guest]

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

Jesus Gunz.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I'd support ID requirements even if they didn't weed out undesirables, on the grounds that they improve the overall integrity of the voting process. This is a similar argument to why electonic voting machines need to have clear paper trails -- it's not that I really think that anybody is going to hack a voting machine, but it's important for appearance's sake if nothing else.

In other words, I'm pro-ID anyway. It's just that when somebody comes back and says "But requiring IDs suppresses the votes of people who just can't be bothered to visit the DMV once in the next two years," my response is "Yeah, they have that benefit too."

Like I said earlier, you're free to disagree with this analysis. Most people do. But what you don't get to do is say that there's anything dishonest about it.

So you are OK with suppressing rights of others for no other reason than a meaningless gesture for the sake of appearance?

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.

Or, does there need to be a real problem?

 

[Jutz]

Oh ####### please, off with your high horse bullcrap. Having the right to vote does not mean anything if the results are not honest. What good is someone's right to vote if it is cancelled off by someone illegal vote? I am sorry you are so in favor of dishonest elections. There are two ways to spin crap and is why we never get anywhere.

Once you propose to infringe on rights it is your responsibility as the one proposing to solve an issue with "dishonest elections" to demonstrate that there are actually "dishonest elections" that could have been fixed by your solution.

This particular subject sort of came up when they were creating the PA law. The people arguing for the law basically said there hasn't been any reported or recorded voter fraud they are aware of. Everyone started saying, well if there is no problem why are you making this law?Let's say there are no documented incidences of voter fraud. Do you honestly believe that voter fraud is not happening, regardless of weather there are any actual recorded incidences? I think there is definitely voter fraud happening, and would be surprised if anyone actually thinks "well, there are no recorded incidences so I guess it's not happening". Also, if there was voter fraud happening, who is responsible for catching them, is there any penalty... is there a 'voter fraud' police?If the bill is proposed and those that vote for it think it's a good idea, and it's constitutional, and it passes... does it really matter if voter fraud is happening or not right now? Majority rules?Do you honestly believe that voter id laws infringe on rights? Making a process more difficult does not necessarily mean infringing on rights. You have to register to vote now. This is essentially registering to vote with a more difficult process... but no rights are lost that I can see.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Oh ####### please, off with your high horse bullcrap. Having the right to vote does not mean anything if the results are not honest. What good is someone's right to vote if it is cancelled off by someone illegal vote? I am sorry you are so in favor of dishonest elections. There are two ways to spin crap and is why we never get anywhere.

Once you propose to infringe on rights it is your responsibility as the one proposing to solve an issue with "dishonest elections" to demonstrate that there are actually "dishonest elections" that could have been fixed by your solution.

This particular subject sort of came up when they were creating the PA law. The people arguing for the bill basically said there hasn't been any reported or recorded voter fraud they are aware of. Everyone started saying, well if there is no problem why are you making this law?Let's say there are no documented incidences of voter fraud. Do you honestly believe that voter fraud is not happening, regardless of weather there are any actual recorded incidences? I think there is definitely voter fraud happening, and would be surprised if anyone actually thinks "well, there are no recorded incidences so I guess it's not happening". Also, if there was voter fraud happening, who is responsible for catching them, is there any penalty... is there a 'voter fraud' police?

If the bill is proposed and those that vote for it think it's a good idea, and it's constitutional, and it passes... does it really matter if voter fraud is happening or not right now? Majority rules?

Do you honestly believe that voter id laws infringe on rights? Making a process more difficult does not necessarily mean infringing on rights. You have to register to vote now. This is essentially registering to vote with a more difficult process... but no rights are lost that I can see.

Do you honestly believe that voter id laws infringe on rights? Will at least one person be denied the right to legitimately vote in an election due to the lack of an ID?Making a process more difficult does not necessarily mean infringing on rights. That is the very definition of "infringing on rights".

does it really matter if voter fraud is happening or not right now? Yes it matter that there is a legitimate reason for "infringing on rights".

Majority rules? Not when it comes to "infringing on rights".

Do you honestly believe that voter fraud is not happening, regardless of weather there are any actual recorded incidences? Do you honestly believe that more dishonest votes are being cast than honest votes would be suppressed? That the dishonest votes being cast are altering results more than the suppression efforts of the right?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'd support ID requirements even if they didn't weed out undesirables, on the grounds that they improve the overall integrity of the voting process. This is a similar argument to why electonic voting machines need to have clear paper trails -- it's not that I really think that anybody is going to hack a voting machine, but it's important for appearance's sake if nothing else.

In other words, I'm pro-ID anyway. It's just that when somebody comes back and says "But requiring IDs suppresses the votes of people who just can't be bothered to visit the DMV once in the next two years," my response is "Yeah, they have that benefit too."

Like I said earlier, you're free to disagree with this analysis. Most people do. But what you don't get to do is say that there's anything dishonest about it.

So you are OK with suppressing rights of others for no other reason than a meaningless gesture for the sake of appearance?

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.

Or, does there need to be a real problem?

"The sake of appearances" is fine with me. It's important that people have confidence in the electoral process. Things like ID requirements and paper trails help out with that. And like I said, I don't mind making voting harder. You keep mentioning things about suppressing the right to vote as if you think I agree that that's automatically a bad thing. I don't agree with that, and I've said so a bunch of times.

 

[Guest]

This particular subject sort of came up when they were creating the PA law. The people arguing for the law basically said there hasn't been any reported or recorded voter fraud they are aware of. Everyone started saying, well if there is no problem why are you making this law?Let's say there are no documented incidences of voter fraud. Do you honestly believe that voter fraud is not happening, regardless of weather there are any actual recorded incidences? I think there is definitely voter fraud happening, and would be surprised if anyone actually thinks "well, there are no recorded incidences so I guess it's not happening". Also, if there was voter fraud happening, who is responsible for catching them, is there any penalty... is there a 'voter fraud' police?If the bill is proposed and those that vote for it think it's a good idea, and it's constitutional, and it passes... does it really matter if voter fraud is happening or not right now? Majority rules?Do you honestly believe that voter id laws infringe on rights? Making a process more difficult does not necessarily mean infringing on rights. You have to register to vote now. This is essentially registering to vote with a more difficult process... but no rights are lost that I can see.

Simple question.Should the IRS spend $10,000 (per person) auditing everybody's tax return if they believe that, on average, people cheat and claim five cents less than they actually owe?

 

[Guest]

And like I said, I don't mind making voting harder. You keep mentioning things about suppressing the right to vote as if you think I agree that that's automatically a bad thing. I don't agree with that, and I've said so a bunch of times.

It's not really the making voting harder that sticks in people's craw. It's that it makes it a lot harder for some people and not harder at all for others. But we've done this before.

 

[Jutz]

Do you honestly believe that voter id laws infringe on rights? Will at least one person be denied the right to legitimately vote in an election due to the lack of an ID?

Making a process more difficult does not necessarily mean infringing on rights. That is the very definition of "infringing on rights".

does it really matter if voter fraud is happening or not right now? Yes it matter that there is a legitimate reason for "infringing on rights".

Majority rules? Not when it comes to "infringing on rights".

Do you honestly believe that voter fraud is not happening, regardless of weather there are any actual recorded incidences? Do you honestly believe that more dishonest votes are being cast than honest votes would be suppressed? That the dishonest votes being cast are altering results more than the suppression efforts of the right?

Yes, I think at least one person will be denied the right to legitimately vote in an election due to the lack of an ID. I also think that every year at least one person will be denied the right to legitimately vote in an election due to them not registering to vote. Because of this, I don't see a difference. The people will always have the right to vote. Weather they do or not is their choice, so I don't see an infringement of rights.As far as what is happening more, dishonest votes or votes being supressed by a new law... I think if you have a year to get your id there would be very very small amount of votes suppressed and dishonest votes would be about the same or possibly more. I think that number would work it's way down to zero as people become more informed about the law. And I think a year is plenty of time to get an id.

Since I don't agree that there are any rights infringed upon in a voter id law I do believe majority rules. I also believe it is ok to pass laws to prevent future fraud as opposed to waiting for a problem. I think it is ok for lawmakers to be proactive. The law went to court and it was not deemed unconstitutional (in the PA case). If it is deemed constitutional, doesn't that verify that no rights have been infringed upon? How could it pass constitutionality if rights are in fact infringed upon as you keep suggesting?

ETA: making a process harder is not the very definition of infringing on rights. Infringing on rights means, to take a right away. People will still have the right to vote with id laws.

 

[The Commish]

Oh ####### please, off with your high horse bullcrap. Having the right to vote does not mean anything if the results are not honest. What good is someone's right to vote if it is cancelled off by someone illegal vote? I am sorry you are so in favor of dishonest elections. There are two ways to spin crap and is why we never get anywhere.

Once you propose to infringe on rights it is your responsibility as the one proposing to solve an issue with "dishonest elections" to demonstrate that there are actually "dishonest elections" that could have been fixed by your solution.

There's another side to this coin. It's not just about solving an issue that's already occurred. It's also about preventing an issue from occurring in the first place. The system is full of holes. Whether they've been exploited is irrelevant to me. They are holes, they need to be fixed. This goes well beyond identification though....the whole process needs to be overhauled. Identification is just one aspect. However, there seems to be this opinion of "since no ones bothered to use one of the holes, it's not a big deal". That's the lazy thinking that has gotten us the laws that we have today. It's the lazy thinking that's gotten us more exceptions to the tax code than actual rules. Voting costs us way more than it should as a result.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I'd support ID requirements even if they didn't weed out undesirables, on the grounds that they improve the overall integrity of the voting process. This is a similar argument to why electonic voting machines need to have clear paper trails -- it's not that I really think that anybody is going to hack a voting machine, but it's important for appearance's sake if nothing else.

In other words, I'm pro-ID anyway. It's just that when somebody comes back and says "But requiring IDs suppresses the votes of people who just can't be bothered to visit the DMV once in the next two years," my response is "Yeah, they have that benefit too."

Like I said earlier, you're free to disagree with this analysis. Most people do. But what you don't get to do is say that there's anything dishonest about it.

So you are OK with suppressing rights of others for no other reason than a meaningless gesture for the sake of appearance?

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.

Or, does there need to be a real problem?

"The sake of appearances" is fine with me. It's important that people have confidence in the electoral process. Things like ID requirements and paper trails help out with that. And like I said, I don't mind making voting harder. You keep mentioning things about suppressing the right to vote as if you think I agree that that's automatically a bad thing. I don't agree with that, and I've said so a bunch of times.

This dance started when I replied to you asking why voter id laws swing the pendulum to illegitimate. Since I reject that "the sake of appearances" is ever a legitimate reason to infringe on rights, no one can point to an actual problem that is fixed by voter IDs, and you acknowledge you are OK with suppressing the right to vote by making things harder I stand by my conclusion that other than suppressing the vote of others there are no honest (or legitimate if you prefer) positions to support voter id laws.

And I agree that "honest people" can disagree on the legitimate reasons to infringe on rights, but if you list "the sake of appearances" as one you are wrong!

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Since I reject that "the sake of appearances" is ever a legitimate reason to infringe on rights, no one can point to an actual problem that is fixed by voter IDs, and you acknowledge you are OK with suppressing the right to vote by making things harder I stand by my conclusion that other than suppressing the vote of others there are no honest (or legitimate if you prefer) positions to support voter id laws.

"Legitimate" and "Honest" are not synonyms in this context. When you say that somebody has no honest reasons for supporting X, you're accusing him of lying about his true motivations. That's very different from just saying that he's wrong.

 

[Sand]

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.

That would only help with one type of fraud. And a database like that would never be anonymous.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Oh ####### please, off with your high horse bullcrap. Having the right to vote does not mean anything if the results are not honest. What good is someone's right to vote if it is cancelled off by someone illegal vote? I am sorry you are so in favor of dishonest elections. There are two ways to spin crap and is why we never get anywhere.

Once you propose to infringe on rights it is your responsibility as the one proposing to solve an issue with "dishonest elections" to demonstrate that there are actually "dishonest elections" that could have been fixed by your solution.

There's another side to this coin. It's not just about solving an issue that's already occurred. It's also about preventing an issue from occurring in the first place. The system is full of holes. Whether they've been exploited is irrelevant to me. They are holes, they need to be fixed. This goes well beyond identification though....the whole process needs to be overhauled. Identification is just one aspect. However, there seems to be this opinion of "since no ones bothered to use one of the holes, it's not a big deal". That's the lazy thinking that has gotten us the laws that we have today. It's the lazy thinking that's gotten us more exceptions to the tax code than actual rules. Voting costs us way more than it should as a result.

Please devise a hypothetical where someone smart enough and motivated enough to attempt to change the out come of an election by choosing to pretend to someone else and/or orchestrating lots of people to pretend to be someone else. And that this is the most efficient means to achieve this result.So no, there is not an "other side of the coin" with ID laws. And it is not "lazy thinking" to conclude that a trivial risk is enough to disenfranchise a small, but significant number of the population.

 

[Guest]

ETA: making a process harder is not the very definition of infringing on rights. Infringing on rights means, to take a right away. People will still have the right to vote with id laws.

This is just flat-out wrong, btw.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Since I reject that "the sake of appearances" is ever a legitimate reason to infringe on rights, no one can point to an actual problem that is fixed by voter IDs, and you acknowledge you are OK with suppressing the right to vote by making things harder I stand by my conclusion that other than suppressing the vote of others there are no honest (or legitimate if you prefer) positions to support voter id laws.

"Legitimate" and "Honest" are not synonyms in this context. When you say that somebody has no honest reasons for supporting X, you're accusing him of lying about his true motivations. That's very different from just saying that he's wrong.

I am talking about positions, not people. Honest people hold dishonest positions all the time.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

ETA: making a process harder is not the very definition of infringing on rights. Infringing on rights means, to take a right away. People will still have the right to vote with id laws.

Wrong! Making it more difficult to exercise a right is infringing on the right. Infringing on a right is not necessarily wrong as long as certain conditions are met (those conditions also differ based on the type of right involved). The first condition for infringing on a right is to be addressing an actual societal problem. No problem, no legitimate reason for infringing on the right. Registering to vote solves the real problem of tracking who can vote and where, as well as tracking who did vote. Voter ID laws add nothing to solving that problem until you demonstrate that non trivial amounts of people are misidentifying themselves.

 

[Jutz]

ETA: making a process harder is not the very definition of infringing on rights. Infringing on rights means, to take a right away. People will still have the right to vote with id laws.

This is just flat-out wrong, btw.

So does that mean when the first requirements to register to vote came about that it was an infringement of rights?I actually looked it up on the innernets and it said infringement of rights meant: a violation, as of law, regulation, or agreement, a breach. An encroachment, as of a right or privdledge. It doesn't mention anything abuot making a process harder.

Also, if there was an an infringement as you suggest why wasn't the law deemed unconstitutional?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Registering to vote solves the real problem of tracking who can vote and where, as well as tracking who did vote. Voter ID laws add nothing to solving that problem

I think everybody on both sides of this issue would agree that ID laws help out with tracking who voted (by verifying their identities). People who are anti-AD don't dispute that, I think. Their position is that the costs exceed the benefits, not that there are no benefits.

 

[Guest]

ETA: making a process harder is not the very definition of infringing on rights. Infringing on rights means, to take a right away. People will still have the right to vote with id laws.

This is just flat-out wrong, btw.

So does that mean when the first requirements to register to vote came about that it was an infringement of rights?I actually looked it up on the innernets and it said infringement of rights meant: a violation, as of law, regulation, or agreement, a breach. An encroachment, as of a right or privdledge. It doesn't mention anything abuot making a process harder.

Also, if there was an an infringement as you suggest why wasn't the law deemed unconstitutional?

Look up encroachment.And rights get infringed and are still constitutional. There's a test for it (several, actually). And at the end of the day, you don't really have the right to vote. The best that you have is the right to vote equally with everybody else if somebody else decides to let you vote.

 

[Jutz]

ETA: making a process harder is not the very definition of infringing on rights. Infringing on rights means, to take a right away. People will still have the right to vote with id laws.

Wrong! Making it more difficult to exercise a right is infringing on the right. Infringing on a right is not necessarily wrong as long as certain conditions are met (those conditions also differ based on the type of right involved). The first condition for infringing on a right is to be addressing an actual societal problem. No problem, no legitimate reason for infringing on the right. Registering to vote solves the real problem of tracking who can vote and where, as well as tracking who did vote. Voter ID laws add nothing to solving that problem until you demonstrate that non trivial amounts of people are misidentifying themselves.

Then why didn't the judge in the voter id law in PA deem the law unconstitutional if rights were being infringed upon?

 

[Guest]

Registering to vote solves the real problem of tracking who can vote and where, as well as tracking who did vote. Voter ID laws add nothing to solving that problem

I think everybody on both sides of this issue would agree that ID laws help out with tracking who voted (by verifying their identities). People who are anti-AD don't dispute that, I think. Their position is that the costs exceed the benefits, not that there are no benefits.

Correct.

 

[Jutz]

ETA: making a process harder is not the very definition of infringing on rights. Infringing on rights means, to take a right away. People will still have the right to vote with id laws.

This is just flat-out wrong, btw.

So does that mean when the first requirements to register to vote came about that it was an infringement of rights?I actually looked it up on the innernets and it said infringement of rights meant: a violation, as of law, regulation, or agreement, a breach. An encroachment, as of a right or privdledge. It doesn't mention anything abuot making a process harder.

Also, if there was an an infringement as you suggest why wasn't the law deemed unconstitutional?

Look up encroachment.And rights get infringed and are still constitutional. There's a test for it (several, actually). And at the end of the day, you don't really have the right to vote. The best that you have is the right to vote equally with everybody else if somebody else decides to let you vote.

So if at the end of the day you don't really have the right to vote, then why do people keep saying their rights are being infringed upon... if there is no 'right' in the first place?

 

[Guest]

So if at the end of the day you don't really have the right to vote, then why do people keep saying their rights are being infringed upon... if there is no 'right' in the first place?

Shorthand. And probably because up until Bush v. Gore, everybody thought that you did have a right to vote. And lots of people still think that they do. They're just wrong about it.But in the context of a discussion like this, it kinda sorta doesn't matter. It's parsing. States are going to let people decide their electors by voting so states have to let everyone vote on an even basis. So you have attached due process rights on your elective right to vote.

 

[The Commish]

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.

That would only help with one type of fraud. And a database like that would never be anonymous.

All you need is a fingerprint and a voting center with a Y/N flag seeing if the person voted or not.

 

[Jutz]

So if at the end of the day you don't really have the right to vote, then why do people keep saying their rights are being infringed upon... if there is no 'right' in the first place?

Shorthand. And probably because up until Bush v. Gore, everybody thought that you did have a right to vote. And lots of people still think that they do. They're just wrong about it.But in the context of a discussion like this, it kinda sorta doesn't matter. It's parsing. States are going to let people decide their electors by voting so states have to let everyone vote on an even basis. So you have attached due process rights on your elective right to vote.

That makes sense... thanks.

 

[Jutz]

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.

That would only help with one type of fraud. And a database like that would never be anonymous.

All you need is a fingerprint and a voting center with a Y/N flag seeing if the person voted or not.

I don't know about the fingerprint, but in general I like the idea you put forth earlier of... hey, let's forget about the voter law for a second and try and go about this a different way. I would like to think there would be a better way, and hopefully easier to manage process, regarding voter id. Maybe the purple die on the finger they used in Iraq?

 

[Rich Conway]

... 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. ...

Your opinion is that the real suppressing the ability of a small but measurable segment of voters (Ivan's lazy and disinterested) to vote isn't a real cost, while preventing those voters that supposedly vote as someone else despite any real evidence they actually exists (the really interested and motivated) is a measurable benefit.

They can vote if they want to, so I don't consider it suppression in the slightest. It's no more suppression than requiring advance registration or requiring people to drive 15 minutes to the polling place, and we seem to be OK with those.

 

[The Commish]

Oh ####### please, off with your high horse bullcrap. Having the right to vote does not mean anything if the results are not honest. What good is someone's right to vote if it is cancelled off by someone illegal vote? I am sorry you are so in favor of dishonest elections. There are two ways to spin crap and is why we never get anywhere.

Once you propose to infringe on rights it is your responsibility as the one proposing to solve an issue with "dishonest elections" to demonstrate that there are actually "dishonest elections" that could have been fixed by your solution.

There's another side to this coin. It's not just about solving an issue that's already occurred. It's also about preventing an issue from occurring in the first place. The system is full of holes. Whether they've been exploited is irrelevant to me. They are holes, they need to be fixed. This goes well beyond identification though....the whole process needs to be overhauled. Identification is just one aspect. However, there seems to be this opinion of "since no ones bothered to use one of the holes, it's not a big deal". That's the lazy thinking that has gotten us the laws that we have today. It's the lazy thinking that's gotten us more exceptions to the tax code than actual rules. Voting costs us way more than it should as a result.

Please devise a hypothetical where someone smart enough and motivated enough to attempt to change the out come of an election by choosing to pretend to someone else and/or orchestrating lots of people to pretend to be someone else. And that this is the most efficient means to achieve this result.So no, there is not an "other side of the coin" with ID laws. And it is not "lazy thinking" to conclude that a trivial risk is enough to disenfranchise a small, but significant number of the population.

I've done all this earlier in the thread and I explained my position. I'll summarize by saying I think our voting process is the cornerstone of this country and if there are holes that can be fixed to solidify that cornerstone, I am for them. It's easy enough to implement a solution that puts no more/less burden on any one group. I posed a hypothetical above that no one really wanted to give opinion on. I get it. I'm not going to change anyone's mind. I'll ask this question to the notion of "disenfranchised" people. What about those today that are "disenfranchised" because it's not convenient for them to vote? I hear every election cycle comments like "I didn't have time to get to the voting place" and "I wasn't going to wait in that line to vote". Excuse after excuse for why folks don't vote. What's different between them (who we just ignore) and these people who claim they will be disenfranchised if they have to identify themselves? What if we drew a line in the sand and said, going forward everyone would have to provide a fingerprint? Would this "disenfranchised" person still exist?

 

[Rich Conway]

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

Jesus Gunz.

Yeah, you can feel to disagree, but don't misrepresent my position.Also, you're wrong. Most lawmakers don't particularly value the right to vote except when it helps them win.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Since I reject that "the sake of appearances" is ever a legitimate reason to infringe on rights

How do you feel about campaign finance laws that restrict the amounts that people can contribute to campaigns? Those have been upheld largely because of the appearance of corruption.

 

[jon_mx]

Every right we have comes with some reasonable restrictions. My freedom of speech is limited. I can't call for someone to be killed for instance. My right to bear arms is restricted by waiting periods and registrations. Freedom of religious expression is restricted in all kinds of ways. This idea that somehow voting rights can not be restricted in any reasonable manner to ensure the integrity of the election process is ####### absurd. Get off this extremist position that any requirement is too much. There has to be some kind of checks to make sure people who vote are legitimate.

 

[Rayderr]

Every right we have comes with some reasonable restrictions. My freedom of speech is limited. I can't call for someone to be killed for instance. My right to bear arms is restricted by waiting periods and registrations. Freedom of religious expression is restricted in all kinds of ways. This idea that somehow voting rights can not be restricted in any reasonable manner to ensure the integrity of the election process is ####### absurd. Get off this extremist position that any requirement is too much. There has to be some kind of checks to make sure people who vote are legitimate.

This is worth mentioning (again.) ID is required to legally buy a gun. How can that not be infringing on a person's rights but requiring ID to legally vote is?

 

[Guest]

Every right we have comes with some reasonable restrictions. My freedom of speech is limited. I can't call for someone to be killed for instance. My right to bear arms is restricted by waiting periods and registrations. Freedom of religious expression is restricted in all kinds of ways. This idea that somehow voting rights can not be restricted in any reasonable manner to ensure the integrity of the election process is ####### absurd. Get off this extremist position that any requirement is too much. There has to be some kind of checks to make sure people who vote are legitimate.

This is worth mentioning (again.) ID is required to legally buy a gun. How can that not be infringing on a person's rights but requiring ID to legally vote is?

They're both infringing someone's rights.HtH.

 

[Rayderr]

Every right we have comes with some reasonable restrictions. My freedom of speech is limited. I can't call for someone to be killed for instance. My right to bear arms is restricted by waiting periods and registrations. Freedom of religious expression is restricted in all kinds of ways. This idea that somehow voting rights can not be restricted in any reasonable manner to ensure the integrity of the election process is ####### absurd. Get off this extremist position that any requirement is too much. There has to be some kind of checks to make sure people who vote are legitimate.

This is worth mentioning (again.) ID is required to legally buy a gun. How can that not be infringing on a person's rights but requiring ID to legally vote is?

They're both infringing someone's rights.HtH.

So you're cool with doing away with all that nonsense to buy a gun?

 

[Guest]

Other examples of infringements of rights off of the top of my head....

* You can't falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater;

* You can't have your marching band go down Main Street at 2am;

* You can't publish obscene materials without any redemptive value;

* You can't publish defamation;

* You can't take a loaded gun into a school.

You're barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Guest]

Every right we have comes with some reasonable restrictions. My freedom of speech is limited. I can't call for someone to be killed for instance. My right to bear arms is restricted by waiting periods and registrations. Freedom of religious expression is restricted in all kinds of ways. This idea that somehow voting rights can not be restricted in any reasonable manner to ensure the integrity of the election process is ####### absurd. Get off this extremist position that any requirement is too much. There has to be some kind of checks to make sure people who vote are legitimate.

This is worth mentioning (again.) ID is required to legally buy a gun. How can that not be infringing on a person's rights but requiring ID to legally vote is?

They're both infringing someone's rights.HtH.

So you're cool with doing away with all that nonsense to buy a gun?

You're missing on it.

 

[Guest]

Every right we have comes with some reasonable restrictions. My freedom of speech is limited. I can't call for someone to be killed for instance. My right to bear arms is restricted by waiting periods and registrations. Freedom of religious expression is restricted in all kinds of ways. This idea that somehow voting rights can not be restricted in any reasonable manner to ensure the integrity of the election process is ####### absurd. Get off this extremist position that any requirement is too much. There has to be some kind of checks to make sure people who vote are legitimate.

All of this discussion is pretty much how to define these words in this context. Stop acting like you're 2 years old.

 

[Rich Conway]

Every right we have comes with some reasonable restrictions. My freedom of speech is limited. I can't call for someone to be killed for instance. My right to bear arms is restricted by waiting periods and registrations. Freedom of religious expression is restricted in all kinds of ways. This idea that somehow voting rights can not be restricted in any reasonable manner to ensure the integrity of the election process is ####### absurd. Get off this extremist position that any requirement is too much. There has to be some kind of checks to make sure people who vote are legitimate.

All of this discussion is pretty much how to define these words in this context. Stop acting like you're 2 years old.

Yup, kind of like tgunz on the other end, you're misrepresenting the arguments of Matthias/BottomfeederSports/fatguyinalittlecoat.

 

[Mello]

Every right we have comes with some reasonable restrictions. My freedom of speech is limited. I can't call for someone to be killed for instance. My right to bear arms is restricted by waiting periods and registrations. Freedom of religious expression is restricted in all kinds of ways. This idea that somehow voting rights can not be restricted in any reasonable manner to ensure the integrity of the election process is ####### absurd. Get off this extremist position that any requirement is too much. There has to be some kind of checks to make sure people who vote are legitimate.

This is worth mentioning (again.) ID is required to legally buy a gun. How can that not be infringing on a person's rights but requiring ID to legally vote is?

Both were/are mistakes.

 

[Rayderr]

Every right we have comes with some reasonable restrictions. My freedom of speech is limited. I can't call for someone to be killed for instance. My right to bear arms is restricted by waiting periods and registrations. Freedom of religious expression is restricted in all kinds of ways. This idea that somehow voting rights can not be restricted in any reasonable manner to ensure the integrity of the election process is ####### absurd. Get off this extremist position that any requirement is too much. There has to be some kind of checks to make sure people who vote are legitimate.

This is worth mentioning (again.) ID is required to legally buy a gun. How can that not be infringing on a person's rights but requiring ID to legally vote is?

They're both infringing someone's rights.HtH.

So you're cool with doing away with all that nonsense to buy a gun?

You're missing on it.

Please explain. In both cases, we got constitutional rights (one to bear arms, the other to vote.) Why is it ok to require ID for one but not the other?

 

[Guest]

Every right we have comes with some reasonable restrictions. My freedom of speech is limited. I can't call for someone to be killed for instance. My right to bear arms is restricted by waiting periods and registrations. Freedom of religious expression is restricted in all kinds of ways. This idea that somehow voting rights can not be restricted in any reasonable manner to ensure the integrity of the election process is ####### absurd. Get off this extremist position that any requirement is too much. There has to be some kind of checks to make sure people who vote are legitimate.

This is worth mentioning (again.) ID is required to legally buy a gun. How can that not be infringing on a person's rights but requiring ID to legally vote is?

They're both infringing someone's rights.HtH.

So you're cool with doing away with all that nonsense to buy a gun?

You're missing on it.

Please explain. In both cases, we got constitutional rights (one to bear arms, the other to vote.) Why is it ok to require ID for one but not the other?

It's not a question of whether or not a right is infringed or whether it's ok to infringe that right. From a constitutional POV, it's a question of whether it is necessary to burden that right, what the alternatives are, and what interest is being advanced by burdening that right. There's different tests based on how fundamental the right is deemed to be.From a public policy POV, you can just take a step back and ask yourself if what you're doing is necessary, worthwhile, and if this is the best way to achieve what you want to do.

But it's not just a binary yes/no, "are you infringing on a right."

 

[Rayderr]

Every right we have comes with some reasonable restrictions. My freedom of speech is limited. I can't call for someone to be killed for instance. My right to bear arms is restricted by waiting periods and registrations. Freedom of religious expression is restricted in all kinds of ways. This idea that somehow voting rights can not be restricted in any reasonable manner to ensure the integrity of the election process is ####### absurd. Get off this extremist position that any requirement is too much. There has to be some kind of checks to make sure people who vote are legitimate.

This is worth mentioning (again.) ID is required to legally buy a gun. How can that not be infringing on a person's rights but requiring ID to legally vote is?

They're both infringing someone's rights.HtH.

So you're cool with doing away with all that nonsense to buy a gun?

You're missing on it.

Please explain. In both cases, we got constitutional rights (one to bear arms, the other to vote.) Why is it ok to require ID for one but not the other?

It's not a question of whether or not a right is infringed or whether it's ok to infringe that right. From a constitutional POV, it's a question of whether it is necessary to burden that right, what the alternatives are, and what interest is being advanced by burdening that right. There's different tests based on how fundamental the right is deemed to be.From a public policy POV, you can just take a step back and ask yourself if what you're doing is necessary, worthwhile, and if this is the best way to achieve what you want to do.

But it's not just a binary yes/no, "are you infringing on a right."

And who decides all that?

 

[Guest]

Please explain. In both cases, we got constitutional rights (one to bear arms, the other to vote.) Why is it ok to require ID for one but not the other?

It's not a question of whether or not a right is infringed or whether it's ok to infringe that right. From a constitutional POV, it's a question of whether it is necessary to burden that right, what the alternatives are, and what interest is being advanced by burdening that right. There's different tests based on how fundamental the right is deemed to be.From a public policy POV, you can just take a step back and ask yourself if what you're doing is necessary, worthwhile, and if this is the best way to achieve what you want to do.But it's not just a binary yes/no, "are you infringing on a right."

And who decides all that?

Constitutionally? The courts.Public policy-wise? The legislature.Personally? Me.

 

[Rayderr]

Please explain. In both cases, we got constitutional rights (one to bear arms, the other to vote.) Why is it ok to require ID for one but not the other?

It's not a question of whether or not a right is infringed or whether it's ok to infringe that right. From a constitutional POV, it's a question of whether it is necessary to burden that right, what the alternatives are, and what interest is being advanced by burdening that right. There's different tests based on how fundamental the right is deemed to be.From a public policy POV, you can just take a step back and ask yourself if what you're doing is necessary, worthwhile, and if this is the best way to achieve what you want to do.But it's not just a binary yes/no, "are you infringing on a right."

And who decides all that?

Constitutionally? The courts.Public policy-wise? The legislature.Personally? Me.

The courts have upheld some of the voter ID laws. Legislature is passing these laws. Sounds like the problem is you.