Should voters be required to show ID? (3 Viewers)

[Chaka]

I say no ID. If the president isnt a citizen then I dont see why the voters have to be

You're trying to hard again.

 

[jon_mx]

You should be required to show you paid taxes in order to be able to vote as well as an ID

Everybody of voting age has paid taxes. You can't buy clothes without paying taxes.

Yard sales down?

When the clothes are resold the price includes some portion, even if it is tiny of the original taxes paid.

BS....those costs have already been paid and the shirts value is what it is, free of taxes.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You should be required to show you paid taxes in order to be able to vote as well as an ID

Everybody of voting age has paid taxes. You can't buy clothes without paying taxes.

Yard sales down?

When the clothes are resold the price includes some portion, even if it is tiny of the original taxes paid.

BS....those costs have already been paid and the shirts value is what it is, free of taxes.

When we tax a corporation "those costs have already been paid and [their products and services] value is what it is, free of taxes."

 

[DSP]

I say no ID. If the president isnt a citizen then I dont see why the voters have to be

You're trying to hard again.

Im serious. Screw your stupid fish icon

 

[Chaka]

I say no ID. If the president isnt a citizen then I dont see why the voters have to be

You're trying to hard again.

Im serious. Screw your stupid fish icon

 

[BeaverCleaver]

I say no ID. If the president isnt a citizen then I dont see why the voters have to be

You're trying to hard again.

Im serious. Screw your stupid fish icon

Serious or fishing the bottom line is you're an idiot.

 

[jon_mx]

You should be required to show you paid taxes in order to be able to vote as well as an ID

Everybody of voting age has paid taxes. You can't buy clothes without paying taxes.

Yard sales down?

When the clothes are resold the price includes some portion, even if it is tiny of the original taxes paid.

BS....those costs have already been paid and the shirts value is what it is, free of taxes.

When we tax a corporation "those costs have already been paid and [their products and services] value is what it is, free of taxes."

Corporations don't pay that much in taxes and their tax structure is so complex it is impossible to factor in the cost into the products. Corporations get the maximum amount they can get in the free market with little regard to what taxes are.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You should be required to show you paid taxes in order to be able to vote as well as an ID

Everybody of voting age has paid taxes. You can't buy clothes without paying taxes.

Yard sales down?

When the clothes are resold the price includes some portion, even if it is tiny of the original taxes paid.

BS....those costs have already been paid and the shirts value is what it is, free of taxes.

When we tax a corporation "those costs have already been paid and [their products and services] value is what it is, free of taxes."

Corporations don't pay that much in taxes and their tax structure is so complex it is impossible to factor in the cost into the products. Corporations get the maximum amount they can get in the free market with little regard to what taxes are.

That just helped your cause.

 

[Mr.Pack]

You should be required to show you paid taxes in order to be able to vote as well as an ID

Everybody of voting age has paid taxes. You can't buy clothes without paying taxes.

What about people on welfare?

 

[Binky The Doormat]

You should be required to show you paid taxes in order to be able to vote as well as an ID

Everybody of voting age has paid taxes. You can't buy clothes without paying taxes.

What about people on welfare?

They don't get to vote.

 

[DSP]

You should be required to show you paid taxes in order to be able to vote as well as an ID

Everybody of voting age has paid taxes. You can't buy clothes without paying taxes.

What about people on welfare?

They pay taxes on goods they buy. Anyone who spent a single dollar has paid taxes somewhere along the route of commerce

 

[DSP]

You should be required to show you paid taxes in order to be able to vote as well as an ID

Everybody of voting age has paid taxes. You can't buy clothes without paying taxes.

What about people on welfare?

They don't get to vote.

So you dont believe every american has the same rights?

 

[proninja]

You should be required to show you paid taxes in order to be able to vote as well as an ID

Everybody of voting age has paid taxes. You can't buy clothes without paying taxes.

Yard sales down?

When the clothes are resold the price includes some portion, even if it is tiny of the original taxes paid.

BS....those costs have already been paid and the shirts value is what it is, free of taxes.

When we tax a corporation "those costs have already been paid and [their products and services] value is what it is, free of taxes."

Corporations don't pay that much in taxes and their tax structure is so complex it is impossible to factor in the cost into the products. Corporations get the maximum amount they can get in the free market with little regard to what taxes are.

Well that's cool. So we can tax them more and it won't affect prices at all?

 

[tommyGunZ]

You should be required to show you paid taxes in order to be able to vote as well as an ID

Everybody of voting age has paid taxes. You can't buy clothes without paying taxes.

What about people on welfare?

Are they nudists?

 

[jon_mx]

You should be required to show you paid taxes in order to be able to vote as well as an ID

Everybody of voting age has paid taxes. You can't buy clothes without paying taxes.

Yard sales down?

When the clothes are resold the price includes some portion, even if it is tiny of the original taxes paid.

BS....those costs have already been paid and the shirts value is what it is, free of taxes.

When we tax a corporation "those costs have already been paid and [their products and services] value is what it is, free of taxes."

Corporations don't pay that much in taxes and their tax structure is so complex it is impossible to factor in the cost into the products. Corporations get the maximum amount they can get in the free market with little regard to what taxes are.

Well that's cool. So we can tax them more and it won't affect prices at all?

It will cause them to work harder to avoid taxes, perhaps by relocating. It won't have a big impact on price.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

You should be required to show you paid taxes in order to be able to vote as well as an ID

Everybody of voting age has paid taxes. You can't buy clothes without paying taxes.

What about people on welfare?

Are they nudists?

Most of them are, probably.

 

[DSP]

I say no ID. If the president isnt a citizen then I dont see why the voters have to be

You're trying to hard again.

Im serious. Screw your stupid fish icon

Serious or fishing the bottom line is you're an idiot.

What a concise political arguement. FOX news could use someone of your caliber

 

[Rayderr]

You should be required to show you paid taxes in order to be able to vote as well as an ID

Everybody of voting age has paid taxes. You can't buy clothes without paying taxes.

Yard sales down?

When the clothes are resold the price includes some portion, even if it is tiny of the original taxes paid.

they really don't.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In general, Democrats favor reducing voter ID requirements and other obstacles to voting. Republicans favor enacting voter ID requirements and perhaps other obstacles to voting.

Some people think that's because Democrats are noble, and would favor greater democratic participation even if it didn't happen to favor their electoral chances. Republicans are the ones acting out self-interest on this topic, not Democrats.

Others are more skeptical, believing that just like Democrats and Republicans are constantly trading positions on stuff like the legitimacy of filibusters when it favors their own interests, they'd probably switch sides on increasing voter participation as well if their interests swapped on that issue.

I leaned toward the latter view, but I figured that we'd never have empirical evidence on the topic because we can't magically cause Democrats to benefit from lower voter turnout to see how they respond.

I was wrong on that latter point. It turns out that there actually are situations where Democrats benefit from lower voter turnout; and in those situations, it is generally the Democrats who favor policies that will reduce voter turnout while Republicans oppose those policies. The roles are indeed reversed. (When I refer to "Democrats" and "Republicans" here, I refer to politicians in those parties -- not necessarily to common citizens in those parties.)

FiveThirtyEight: How Democrats Suppress the Vote.

 

[the moops]

Didn't have to show an ID to vote yesterday. Decided to hit 12 different polling places and cast votes for my favorite people. Was surprisingly easy

 

[jon_mx]

In general, Democrats favor reducing voter ID requirements and other obstacles to voting. Republicans favor enacting voter ID requirements and perhaps other obstacles to voting.

Some people think that's because Democrats are noble, and would favor greater democratic participation even if it didn't happen to favor their electoral chances. Republicans are the ones acting out self-interest on this topic, not Democrats.

Others are more skeptical, believing that just like Democrats and Republicans are constantly trading positions on stuff like the legitimacy of filibusters when it favors their own interests, they'd probably switch sides on increasing voter participation as well if their interests swapped on that issue.

I leaned toward the latter view, but I figured that we'd never have empirical evidence on the topic because we can't magically cause Democrats to benefit from lower voter turnout to see how they respond.

I was wrong on that latter point. It turns out that there actually are situations where Democrats benefit from lower voter turnout; and in those situations, it is generally the Democrats who favor policies that will reduce voter turnout while Republicans oppose those policies. The roles are indeed reversed. (When I refer to "Democrats" and "Republicans" here, I refer to politicians in those parties -- not necessarily to common citizens in those parties.)

FiveThirtyEight: How Democrats Suppress the Vote.

I thought that was pretty obvious when the Democrats fought hard to throw out military ballots in the Gore vs. Bush election.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Thanks Maurile, that was a good article. What it shows me, though, is that maybe there is some room for compromise here that I never thought possible before. Republicans agree to drop ID laws that depress turnout in exchange for Democrats agreeing to hold local elections at the same time as national elections. One change benefits Democrats, one change benefits Republicans, but both changes benefit individuals by making it easier for them to vote. That seems like it would be a great outcome.

Hard to see it happening though.

 

[BowieMercs]

What's the deal with not showing an ID to vote? It only affects who runs federal & local govt. Seems to me that a state issued drivers license or for non drivers or those without means an "age of majority" photo id (paid for by the state). Or have the state dept issue passport/voter eligibility cards to the masses. Seems like this would solve a lot of issues. As a citizen, you have to show photo ids etc for your I-9 to get a job. If you can't/won't make an effort to get an ID, you probably wont drag your butt to the polls anyway. Unless one of the parties feeds you & provides transportation in exchange for your vote

 

[pantagrapher]

In general, Democrats favor reducing voter ID requirements and other obstacles to voting. Republicans favor enacting voter ID requirements and perhaps other obstacles to voting.

Some people think that's because Democrats are noble, and would favor greater democratic participation even if it didn't happen to favor their electoral chances. Republicans are the ones acting out self-interest on this topic, not Democrats.

Others are more skeptical, believing that just like Democrats and Republicans are constantly trading positions on stuff like the legitimacy of filibusters when it favors their own interests, they'd probably switch sides on increasing voter participation as well if their interests swapped on that issue.

I leaned toward the latter view, but I figured that we'd never have empirical evidence on the topic because we can't magically cause Democrats to benefit from lower voter turnout to see how they respond.

I was wrong on that latter point. It turns out that there actually are situations where Democrats benefit from lower voter turnout; and in those situations, it is generally the Democrats who favor policies that will reduce voter turnout while Republicans oppose those policies. The roles are indeed reversed. (When I refer to "Democrats" and "Republicans" here, I refer to politicians in those parties -- not necessarily to common citizens in those parties.)

FiveThirtyEight: How Democrats Suppress the Vote.

Commenter brings up some points questioning the headline conclusion.

The main problem with this analysis is that in the three blue states that voted for consolidation, a majority of Democrats voted for consolidation.In one of those three states - the most Democratic-leaning of the three - the Republicans voted against consolidation.

This suggests to me that the pattern may not be "Democrats are for voter suppression" but "minority parties are for off-cycle elections".Another important question to ask is whether the elections are being moved to "off-cycle" years (i.e. non-presidential race years) or presidential race years - that might also make a significant difference (Democrats want presidential-year elections, Republicans don't). The article makes no note of this, but the Democrats might object to such while the Republicans favored it for partisan reasons.

Failure to recognize these potential confounding factors is problematic.

 

[Statorama]

In general I favor laws that make it harder for someone to steal my vote.

Voter ID, while not the be-all-end-all, is a good start.

 

[The Commish]

stat

who's responsible for this id again???

 

[Chaka]

In general I favor laws that make it harder for someone to steal my vote.

Voter ID, while not the be-all-end-all, is a good start.

I've have been a consistent voice in favor of voter IDs, because I just don't see getting a state recognzed ID as the huge hindrance to the voting point of entry that some make it out to be. However I think the notion that some unscrupulous person is going to try and steal your vote has been fairly and thoroughly discredited. So I don't see that as a legitimate reason to support voter ID laws.

 

[Statorama]

In general I favor laws that make it harder for someone to steal my vote.

Voter ID, while not the be-all-end-all, is a good start.

I've have been a consistent voice in favor of voter IDs, because I just don't see getting a state recognzed ID as the huge hindrance to the voting point of entry that some make it out to be. However I think the notion that some unscrupulous person is going to try and steal your vote has been fairly and thoroughly discredited. So I don't see that as a legitimate reason to support voter ID laws.

Just because they haven't necessarily stolen my vote at this point doesn't mean I shouldn't be in favor of minimal safeguards to prevent it from happening. No one has robbed my house either, that doesn't mean I should leave my door open when I go to work

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In general I favor laws that make it harder for someone to steal my vote.

Voter ID, while not the be-all-end-all, is a good start.

I've have been a consistent voice in favor of voter IDs, because I just don't see getting a state recognzed ID as the huge hindrance to the voting point of entry that some make it out to be. However I think the notion that some unscrupulous person is going to try and steal your vote has been fairly and thoroughly discredited. So I don't see that as a legitimate reason to support voter ID laws.

Just because they haven't necessarily stolen my vote at this point doesn't mean I shouldn't be in favor of minimal safeguards to prevent it from happening. No one has robbed my house either, that doesn't mean I should leave my door open when I go to work

That's not really a response to Chaka's point because houses do actually get broken into. Over two million home burglaries were reported last year in the United States. It's a legitimate problem that isn't just made up for ideological reasons.

 

[Statorama]

In general I favor laws that make it harder for someone to steal my vote.

Voter ID, while not the be-all-end-all, is a good start.

I've have been a consistent voice in favor of voter IDs, because I just don't see getting a state recognzed ID as the huge hindrance to the voting point of entry that some make it out to be. However I think the notion that some unscrupulous person is going to try and steal your vote has been fairly and thoroughly discredited. So I don't see that as a legitimate reason to support voter ID laws.

Just because they haven't necessarily stolen my vote at this point doesn't mean I shouldn't be in favor of minimal safeguards to prevent it from happening. No one has robbed my house either, that doesn't mean I should leave my door open when I go to work

That's not really a response to Chaka's point because houses do actually get broken into. Over two million home burglaries were reported last year in the United States. It's a legitimate problem that isn't just made up for ideological reasons.

Maybe they should lock their doors

 

[bigbottom]

Am I correct to assume that those who think you should have to show an id to a poll worker to vote also favor eliminating absentee ballots? If not, what if a study showed that documented instances of voter fraud occur more frequently with absentee ballots than with impersonation at poll places which is what voter ID laws are designed to address?

Voter fraud generally rarely happens. When it does, election law experts say it happens more often through mail-in ballots than people impersonating eligible voters at the polls. An analysis by News21, a journalism project at Arizona State University, found 28 cases of voter fraud convictions since 2000. Of those, 14 percent involved absentee ballot fraud. Voter impersonation, the form of fraud that voter ID laws are designed to prevent, made up only 3.6 percent of those cases. (Other types included double voting, the most common form, at 25 percent, and felons voting when they were prohibited from doing so. But neither of those would be prevented by voter ID laws, either.)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/why-voter-id-laws-arent-really-about-fraud/

(Apologies if this has already been discussed. Haven't read the whole thread.)

 

[Statorama]

Am I correct to assume that those who think you should have to show an id to a poll worker to vote also favor eliminating absentee ballots? If not, what if a study showed that documented instances of voter fraud occur more frequently with absentee ballots than with impersonation at poll places which is what voter ID laws are designed to address?

Voter fraud generally rarely happens. When it does, election law experts say it happens more often through mail-in ballots than people impersonating eligible voters at the polls. An analysis by News21, a journalism project at Arizona State University, found 28 cases of voter fraud convictions since 2000. Of those, 14 percent involved absentee ballot fraud. Voter impersonation, the form of fraud that voter ID laws are designed to prevent, made up only 3.6 percent of those cases. (Other types included double voting, the most common form, at 25 percent, and felons voting when they were prohibited from doing so. But neither of those would be prevented by voter ID laws, either.)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/why-voter-id-laws-arent-really-about-fraud/(Apologies if this has already been discussed. Haven't read the whole thread.)

Am I correct to assume that those who think you should have to show an id to a poll worker to vote also favor eliminating absentee ballots? If not, what if a study showed that documented instances of voter fraud occur more frequently with absentee ballots than with impersonation at poll places which is what voter ID laws are designed to address?

Voter fraud generally rarely happens. When it does, election law experts say it happens more often through mail-in ballots than people impersonating eligible voters at the polls. An analysis by News21, a journalism project at Arizona State University, found 28 cases of voter fraud convictions since 2000. Of those, 14 percent involved absentee ballot fraud. Voter impersonation, the form of fraud that voter ID laws are designed to prevent, made up only 3.6 percent of those cases. (Other types included double voting, the most common form, at 25 percent, and felons voting when they were prohibited from doing so. But neither of those would be prevented by voter ID laws, either.)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/why-voter-id-laws-arent-really-about-fraud/(Apologies if this has already been discussed. Haven't read the whole thread.)

I'm sure you know this, but others should keep in mind that those statistics are based upon the idiots they've actually caught. I say idiots given how extraordinarily easy it is to commit vote fraud undetected.

I believe voter fraud is rampant. Others believe that it never (or almost never) happens. People have been caught fraudulently voting. Is it that far out of the realm of possibility to imagine that some do and are not caught?

To answer your question, I do believe that there should be tighter restrictions on absentee ballots, but I don't foresee it happening.

I am also a cranky old man who writes angry letters to makers of consumer goods.

 

[spreagle]

At the school my mother in law worked at (she always butted heads with the liberal teachers) they would actually schedule a concert on voting day so the old conservative fogies would have to park at the far end of the lot and walk a long distance to get to the polls. True blatant evil Democrat vote suppression and nothing can be done about it.

I'm convinced Democrats are against voter ID not because getting an ID is "difficult", it's because so many Democrat voters have outstanding warrants for their arrest (unpaid fines, behind in child support, not showing up to court for crimes, whatever) and they don't want an ID of any kind because that will make them easier to be found by the police. In some cities half of the residents have outstanding warrants for their arrest. A voter ID makes them choose between settling up with the legal process or not voting. Most would choose the latter. Is this true blatant evil Republican vote suppression .... first I'd like to hear a Democrat make an argument why a person with known outstanding warrants for their arrest should be allowed to vote.

 

[bigbottom]

.... first I'd like to hear a Democrat make an argument why a person with known outstanding warrants for their arrest should be allowed to vote.

Because the right to vote is a fundamental civil right and having a warrant out isn't remotely the same thing as being a convicted felon? I can't imagine a Republican or any right thinking person favoring a policy where citizens forfeit the right to vote simply because they have a warrant out on them.

 

[bigbottom]

To answer your question, I do believe that there should be tighter restrictions on absentee ballots, but I don't foresee it happening.

What restrictions do you recommend?

 

[spreagle]

.... first I'd like to hear a Democrat make an argument why a person with known outstanding warrants for their arrest should be allowed to vote.

Because the right to vote is a fundamental civil right and having a warrant out isn't remotely the same thing as being a convicted felon? I can't imagine a Republican or any right thinking person favoring a policy where citizens forfeit the right to vote simply because they have a warrant out on them.

It's nice to hear someone acknowledge that people with outstanding warrants can vote. This is halfway towards understanding why Democrats are against voter ID. Those fine citizens wouldn't forfeit the right to vote with a voter ID, it would just make it much more likely they would be caught by the long arm of the law.

 

[spreagle]

.... first I'd like to hear a Democrat make an argument why a person with known outstanding warrants for their arrest should be allowed to vote.

Because the right to vote is a fundamental civil right and having a warrant out isn't remotely the same thing as being a convicted felon? I can't imagine a Republican or any right thinking person favoring a policy where citizens forfeit the right to vote simply because they have a warrant out on them.

It's nice to hear someone acknowledge that people with outstanding warrants can vote. This is halfway towards understanding why Democrats are against voter ID. Those fine citizens wouldn't forfeit the right to vote with a voter ID, it would just make it much more likely they would be caught by the long arm of the law.

Now what if all all outstanding warrants came up on the computer screen when the person applied for their voter ID and law enforecment was waiting and arrested them on the spot. Would this be considered a poll tax.

 

[Reaper]

OF COURSE THEY SHOULD....

You freaking kidding me..... Not even reading this thread, it's just Stupid and deceptive to not need ID.

 

[bigbottom]

.... first I'd like to hear a Democrat make an argument why a person with known outstanding warrants for their arrest should be allowed to vote.

Because the right to vote is a fundamental civil right and having a warrant out isn't remotely the same thing as being a convicted felon? I can't imagine a Republican or any right thinking person favoring a policy where citizens forfeit the right to vote simply because they have a warrant out on them.

It's nice to hear someone acknowledge that people with outstanding warrants can vote..

Of course they can vote. Why shouldn't they be able to?