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

[Chaka]

There's a philosophical difference that nobody has mentioned directly...Liberals believe that every adult inside the US with a pulse should be able to vote. The bar should be very low because it's a fundamental right, without qualification. Conservatives believe you should be legally qualified and able prove it.

a conservative spin on the mattera liberal spin would be everyone eligible to vote should be allowed to, the conservatives think only those who have jumped through whatever hoops they require shouldthe truth is in the middle, but this is no longer a fraud or right to vote issue, it's a political tool used by both sides

Being able to demonstrate you are who you say you are is a hoop?

 

[B-Deep]

There's a philosophical difference that nobody has mentioned directly...Liberals believe that every adult inside the US with a pulse should be able to vote. The bar should be very low because it's a fundamental right, without qualification. Conservatives believe you should be legally qualified and able prove it.

a conservative spin on the mattera liberal spin would be everyone eligible to vote should be allowed to, the conservatives think only those who have jumped through whatever hoops they require shouldthe truth is in the middle, but this is no longer a fraud or right to vote issue, it's a political tool used by both sides

Being able to demonstrate you are who you say you are is a hoop?

that would depend on HOW you do that, what is required, and the costtherein is the rub

 

[cstu]

in ohio we get our IDs the same day

What do you need to show in order to get one?In California, I got my driver's license by filling out a form, taking a written test, posing for a picture, and paying $31. They never asked for my birth certificate or even my Costco card. They accepted my identity just on my own say-so.

Were you moving here and already had a driver's license in a different state? I can't remember if I had to show mine, but they may have access to that information when you apply.

 

[17seconds]

There's a philosophical difference that nobody has mentioned directly...Liberals believe that every adult inside the US with a pulse should be able to vote. The bar should be very low because it's a fundamental right, without qualification. Conservatives believe you should be legally qualified and able prove it.

a conservative spin on the mattera liberal spin would be everyone eligible to vote should be allowed to, the conservatives think only those who have jumped through whatever hoops they require shouldthe truth is in the middle, but this is no longer a fraud or right to vote issue, it's a political tool used by both sides

Being able to demonstrate you are who you say you are is a hoop?

that would depend on HOW you do that, what is required, and the costtherein is the rub

But, see, I think you feel that way because you don't want barriers for voting.We require ID for all manner of other things. There's no reason why you'd think voting should be different unless you believe it should be as inclusive as possible. That's my point.

 

[jamny]

There's a philosophical difference that nobody has mentioned directly...Liberals believe that every adult inside the US with a pulse should be able to vote. The bar should be very low because it's a fundamental right, without qualification. Conservatives believe you should be legally qualified and able prove it.

a conservative spin on the mattera liberal spin would be everyone eligible to vote should be allowed to, the conservatives think only those who have jumped through whatever hoops they require shouldthe truth is in the middle, but this is no longer a fraud or right to vote issue, it's a political tool used by both sides

Being able to demonstrate you are who you say you are is a hoop?

that would depend on HOW you do that, what is required, and the costtherein is the rub

How about as I asked earlier. Bring some sort of ID. A bill with your name on it, a credit card, a library card.Is that too much to ask?

 

[cstu]

There's a philosophical difference that nobody has mentioned directly...Liberals believe that every adult inside the US with a pulse should be able to vote. The bar should be very low because it's a fundamental right, without qualification. Conservatives believe you should be legally qualified and able prove it.

a conservative spin on the mattera liberal spin would be everyone eligible to vote should be allowed to, the conservatives think only those who have jumped through whatever hoops they require shouldthe truth is in the middle, but this is no longer a fraud or right to vote issue, it's a political tool used by both sides

Being able to demonstrate you are who you say you are is a hoop?

that would depend on HOW you do that, what is required, and the costtherein is the rub

If someone can't figure that out and doesn't have $10 for a duplicate birth certificate then they should not be voting.

 

[B-Deep]

FOR EXAMPLE

having a check box on the same form as a $28 id that makes it a free id and sending a memo to DMV workers telling them NOT to point that out to people does nothing to improve the integrity of an election, it is putting up obstacles

on the other hand, providing a free id with sufficent evidence required to obtain it, sufficient places to obtain it, and sufficient time to obtain it prior to an election does NOT amount to an attempt to screw minorities and elderly

somehow we are completely unable to find any sort of a compromise here

because neither side wants to, this is a tool both sides love

the GOP loves playing the "dems never win elections they steal them" card and the dems love playing the "GOP hates poor people and wants their votes not to count!" card

this should not be hard to solve, there is some cost, but if it makes elections more secure it is worht it. The problem is no one in power wants it solved

 

[B-Deep]

There's a philosophical difference that nobody has mentioned directly...

Liberals believe that every adult inside the US with a pulse should be able to vote. The bar should be very low because it's a fundamental right, without qualification. Conservatives believe you should be legally qualified and able prove it.

a conservative spin on the matter

a liberal spin would be everyone eligible to vote should be allowed to, the conservatives think only those who have jumped through whatever hoops they require should

the truth is in the middle, but this is no longer a fraud or right to vote issue, it's a political tool used by both sides

Being able to demonstrate you are who you say you are is a hoop?

that would depend on HOW you do that, what is required, and the costtherein is the rub

If someone can't figure that out and doesn't have $10 for a duplicate birth certificate then they should not be voting.

a liberal spin would be:so in other words poor people don't deserve the vote

 

[B-Deep]

There's a philosophical difference that nobody has mentioned directly...Liberals believe that every adult inside the US with a pulse should be able to vote. The bar should be very low because it's a fundamental right, without qualification. Conservatives believe you should be legally qualified and able prove it.

a conservative spin on the mattera liberal spin would be everyone eligible to vote should be allowed to, the conservatives think only those who have jumped through whatever hoops they require shouldthe truth is in the middle, but this is no longer a fraud or right to vote issue, it's a political tool used by both sides

Being able to demonstrate you are who you say you are is a hoop?

that would depend on HOW you do that, what is required, and the costtherein is the rub

How about as I asked earlier. Bring some sort of ID. A bill with your name on it, a credit card, a library card.Is that too much to ask?

the devil is in the detailson its face this is easy to solvein practice it is not, because there are agendas

 

[B-Deep]

and that's how we get where we are

NOTHING is easy anymore, if one side wants it the other has to oppose it, nature of the beast

so who cares if there is voter fraud, none of it matters worth a damn anyway

 

[tommyGunZ]

this should not be hard to solve, there is some cost, but if it makes elections more secure it is worht it. The problem is no one in power wants it solved

Here's the rub.Some people, including myself, don't actually believe that Voter IDs make elections more secure. As much as "voter fraud" gets bantered around nobody actually ever finds real examples of somebody trying to vote as somebody else. And even if we would enact this, people can still vote absentee without an ID. So why do we keep pursuing it?

Exactly. How does anyone doing a cost/benefit analysis come to the conclusion that we need to pour 10s of millions of dollars into a "voter ID" program?NCC is dead on - this is a solution searching for a problem.

 

[The Commish]

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

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

I haven't gotten this at all. It's the opposite, or so it seems. If it's a herculean effort to get an ID, then it's probably best that they AREN'T voting. What am I missing?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

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

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

I haven't gotten this at all. It's the opposite, or so it seems. If it's a herculean effort to get an ID, then it's probably best that they AREN'T voting. What am I missing?

Try reading my post again, only this time imagine me using my "sarcastic" voice.

 

[B-Deep]

and that's how we get where we are

NOTHING is easy anymore, if one side wants it the other has to oppose it, nature of the beast

so who cares if there is voter fraud, none of it matters worth a damn anyway

It's not that simple!Everyone is so gaga over the idea that everything is just ####### partisan and nothing means anything any more. I'm ####### sick of it.

If I said I was afraid of illegal babies being born to non-American mothers married to American husbands, so wanted to require DNA testing of all newborns and match against their purported American fathers, someone doesn't need a political agenda to oppose it. It's just a stupid ####### idea.

Voting IDs are just a stupid ####### idea.

i think requiring some proof of who is voting is common sense

 

[The Commish]

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

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

I haven't gotten this at all. It's the opposite, or so it seems. If it's a herculean effort to get an ID, then it's probably best that they AREN'T voting. What am I missing?

Try reading my post again, only this time imagine me using my "sarcastic" voice.

Sorry....I haven't had much interaction with you lately and I never know in these threads.

 

[jplvr]

i think requiring some proof of who is voting is common sense

It doesn't make sense to take the vote away from approx. 15% of the country when there is zero or almost zero evidence that anybody has ever voted as somebody else.That doesn't make common sense. It's spending $20,000/yr to buy earthquake insurance in the middle of Kansas.

Why do you think people would be so apathetic as to not get a free voter ID card? They make it to the polls already.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It doesn't make sense to take the vote away from approx. 15% of the country

Most states require that you show up at a particular location on a particular day to cast a vote. Why is that okay, but asking somebody to stop by the DMV at their convenience isn't? Why does the latter amount to "taking away their vote" but not the former?

 

[BassNBrew]

this should not be hard to solve, there is some cost, but if it makes elections more secure it is worht it. The problem is no one in power wants it solved

Here's the rub.Some people, including myself, don't actually believe that Voter IDs make elections more secure. As much as "voter fraud" gets bantered around nobody actually ever finds real examples of somebody trying to vote as somebody else. And even if we would enact this, people can still vote absentee without an ID. So why do we keep pursuing it?

Exactly. How does anyone doing a cost/benefit analysis come to the conclusion that we need to pour 10s of millions of dollars into a "voter ID" program?NCC is dead on - this is a solution searching for a problem.

List of things that you need an id for...Buy beer or tobaccoCash a checkBuy a hunting licenseCheck out a library bookUse an ATMDriveObtain gov't assistanceAttend a universityPlease provide a list of people who aren't felons that don't do at least one of those things.

 

[The Commish]

i think requiring some proof of who is voting is common sense

It doesn't make sense to take the vote away from approx. 15% of the country when there is zero or almost zero evidence that anybody has ever voted as somebody else.That doesn't make common sense. It's spending $20,000/yr to buy earthquake insurance in the middle of Kansas.

Who's "taking it away" from anyone? Seems like a strawman to me.

 

[BassNBrew]

i think requiring some proof of who is voting is common sense

It doesn't make sense to take the vote away from approx. 15% of the country when there is zero or almost zero evidence that anybody has ever voted as somebody else.That doesn't make common sense. It's spending $20,000/yr to buy earthquake insurance in the middle of Kansas.

Neither does solving global warming since nothing drastic has happened yet.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Number of reasons but time, expense, and the required supporting documents would be up there. But there is a number (11% according to here) of eligible voters who currently don't have a government-issued photo ID. So I guess my question would be: why does anybody think that number is going to go down?

Lots of people don't have health insurance. Do you think that the mandate will have no effect on those numbers?

 

[BassNBrew]

Number of reasons but time, expense, and the required supporting documents would be up there. But there is a number (11% according to here) of eligible voters who currently don't have a government-issued photo ID. So I guess my question would be: why does anybody think that number is going to go down?

Lots of people don't have health insurance. Do you think that the mandate will have no effect on those numbers?

Apples-oranges. Different C-B analyses.Do you think the government should be able to burden your rights so long as you can denigrate the burdens as trivial and only affecting 11% of the population?

BS on 11%. How do you cash a check?eta: It's OK for the gov't to do it with hunting licenses.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It doesn't make sense to take the vote away from approx. 15% of the country

Most states require that you show up at a particular location on a particular day to cast a vote. Why is that okay, but asking somebody to stop by the DMV at their convenience isn't? Why does the latter amount to "taking away their vote" but not the former?

There's a legitimate government interest and concern in having polls open up on a certain day. There's costs involved. If they wanted to expand those periods, I'd be all for it.There's no legitimate government interest in a requirement that doesn't do anything.

The government definitely has a legitimate interest in ensuring the integrity of elections and making sure that people have confidence in the results. Even if you don't think ID requirements have any concrete effect, they're good appearances sake if nothing else.

 

[The Commish]

What happens if these lazy bums get motivated to go get a driver's license? Are we talking about a government shutdown because of the "expense"?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Number of reasons but time, expense, and the required supporting documents would be up there. But there is a number (11% according to here) of eligible voters who currently don't have a government-issued photo ID. So I guess my question would be: why does anybody think that number is going to go down?

Lots of people don't have health insurance. Do you think that the mandate will have no effect on those numbers?

Apples-oranges. Different C-B analyses.

The difference in the cost-benefit analysis has nothing to do with the post to which I was responding. I bolded the key part.

 

[jplvr]

i think requiring some proof of who is voting is common sense

It doesn't make sense to take the vote away from approx. 15% of the country when there is zero or almost zero evidence that anybody has ever voted as somebody else.That doesn't make common sense. It's spending $20,000/yr to buy earthquake insurance in the middle of Kansas.

Why do you think people would be so apathetic as to not get a free voter ID card? They make it to the polls already.

Number of reasons but time, expense, and the required supporting documents would be up there. But there is a number (11% according to here) of eligible voters who currently don't have a government-issued photo ID. So I guess my question would be: why does anybody think that number is going to go down?

In this nest of quotes, you've said we'd waste money providing free cards and alienate 15% of the population when only 89% of the population already has a photo ID. I know your first number was a guess, and the second was confirmed, but I don't know how you could possibly think the number wouldn't go down.If you provide the voter ID service at the poll during the first presidential election, you'd take all the burden away from those voters. It's also not much of a burden to stand in line one freaking time at the courthouse if you did not take care of this at the previous election. Provide the service at voter registration as well to eliminate the burden for first time registrants.

The number would go down tremendously, assuming the entire 11% cared to vote in the first place.

 

[The Commish]

In this nest of quotes, you've said we'd waste money providing free cards and alienate 15% of the population when only 89% of the population already has a photo ID. I know your first number was a guess, and the second was confirmed, but I don't know how you could possibly think the number wouldn't go down.If you provide the voter ID service at the poll during the first presidential election, you'd take all the burden away from those voters. It's also not much of a burden to stand in line one freaking time at the courthouse if you did not take care of this at the previous election. Provide the service at voter registration as well to eliminate the burden for first time registrants.The number would go down tremendously, assuming the entire 11% cared to vote in the first place.

Then you come back to MT's question. Do you just have a gov't employee stand there, take a picture of someone, give them their ID, and then have the person show the ID back to them to validate it? There actually is an underlying issue of supporting documentation.So say the # goes down from 11% to 7%. Is that ok then to fix a problem that doesn't exist?

7% of the voters still wouldn't have an ID, right? That's the issue/problem we are talking about right? Why wouldn't the problem/issue still exist if it went from 11 to 7%?

 

[humpback]

Number of reasons but time, expense, and the required supporting documents would be up there. But there is a number (11% according to here) of eligible voters who currently don't have a government-issued photo ID. So I guess my question would be: why does anybody think that number is going to go down?

Lots of people don't have health insurance. Do you think that the mandate will have no effect on those numbers?

Apples-oranges. Different C-B analyses.Do you think the government should be able to burden your rights so long as you can denigrate the burdens as trivial and only affecting 11% of the population?

The C-B analysis is going to be completely different depending on your position on the matter.

 

[BassNBrew]

BS on 11%. How do you cash a check?

Secondary endorsements? Cash only? Some dodgy check-cashing place that charges you 5%?You not being able to conceive of it <> it not existing

Well the elderly get ss checks which have to be cashed. I guess there could be some younger non-drinkers, non-smoker, non-hunter, non-driving, non-felons out there operating strictly on cash and paying their required taxes. Sounds like 11-15% of the population to me.And if they can pee away 5% cashing a check, they can afford a taxi ride to get an ID. In this case requiring IDs would actually help the poor, not that we care about them except for their vote.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Number of reasons but time, expense, and the required supporting documents would be up there. But there is a number (11% according to here) of eligible voters who currently don't have a government-issued photo ID. So I guess my question would be: why does anybody think that number is going to go down?

Lots of people don't have health insurance. Do you think that the mandate will have no effect on those numbers?

Apples-oranges. Different C-B analyses.Do you think the government should be able to burden your rights so long as you can denigrate the burdens as trivial and only affecting 11% of the population?

The C-B analysis is going to be completely different depending on your position on the matter.

What's the benefit to spending 10s of millions of dollars to solve a problem that doesn't exist?

 

[jamny]

Well the elderly get ss checks which have to be cashed. I guess there could be some younger non-drinkers, non-smoker, non-hunter, non-driving, non-felons out there operating strictly on cash and paying their required taxes. Sounds like 11-15% of the population to me.And if they can pee away 5% cashing a check, they can afford a taxi ride to get an ID. In this case requiring IDs would actually help the poor, not that we care about them except for their vote.

I'm 38. I don't get carded to buy alcohol or tobacco or to deposit checks to my account (although I think I needed one when I set one up). Ya'll act like you have your photo ID checked several times a day. I hardly ever need it.

I get checked at least once a week doing jobs in the city. Can't get past security without photo ID.

 

[tommyGunZ]

BS on 11%. How do you cash a check?

Secondary endorsements? Cash only? Some dodgy check-cashing place that charges you 5%?You not being able to conceive of it <> it not existing

Well the elderly get ss checks which have to be cashed. I guess there could be some younger non-drinkers, non-smoker, non-hunter, non-driving, non-felons out there operating strictly on cash and paying their required taxes. Sounds like 11-15% of the population to me.And if they can pee away 5% cashing a check, they can afford a taxi ride to get an ID. In this case requiring IDs would actually help the poor, not that we care about them except for their vote.

BnB for bigger gov't.

 

[humpback]

Number of reasons but time, expense, and the required supporting documents would be up there. But there is a number (11% according to here) of eligible voters who currently don't have a government-issued photo ID. So I guess my question would be: why does anybody think that number is going to go down?

Lots of people don't have health insurance. Do you think that the mandate will have no effect on those numbers?

Apples-oranges. Different C-B analyses.Do you think the government should be able to burden your rights so long as you can denigrate the burdens as trivial and only affecting 11% of the population?

The C-B analysis is going to be completely different depending on your position on the matter.

What's the benefit to spending 10s of millions of dollars to solve a problem that doesn't exist?

It would be funny if you didn't actually think that. Remarkable to me how people refuse to even acknowledge that some one may see something differently than they do, and it doesn't make them wrong.

 

[Sarnoff]

in ohio we get our IDs the same day

What do you need to show in order to get one?In California, I got my driver's license by filling out a form, taking a written test, posing for a picture, and paying $31. They never asked for my birth certificate or even my Costco card. They accepted my identity just on my own say-so.

Ever since I moved to California, and was surprised at how lax the ID issue is at the voting booth, I've been conducting experiments every Election Day to see how little info I could give and still be allowed to vote.I vote in a building that is the polling place for two districts, they are segregated inside by a rope line, so when you walk in you go left for district 1 and right for district 2. It's printed on the sample ballot everyone gets in the mail before election day. Last time I voted, someone at the front asked to see my mailer to tell me were to go, when asked, I responded "You're not allowed to look at it, and it's against California law for you to ask." She just shrugged and I moved to my district table. "Name please?" I said "It starts with an S, flip to that page and I'll tell you." So she opened the big voter roll to the S's. I pointed toward the page. "That one. That's me." She gave me a pen to sign and I made a mark. She gave me a ballot.I couldn't be more suspicious as an illegal voter, but no one thought I was up to anything. Guess if they're going to take your word when getting ID, might as well be consistent.

 

[bigbottom]

There's a philosophical difference that nobody has mentioned directly...Liberals believe that every adult inside the US with a pulse should be able to vote. The bar should be very low because it's a fundamental right, without qualification. Conservatives believe you should be legally qualified and able prove it.

a conservative spin on the mattera liberal spin would be everyone eligible to vote should be allowed to, the conservatives think only those who have jumped through whatever hoops they require shouldthe truth is in the middle, but this is no longer a fraud or right to vote issue, it's a political tool used by both sides

Being able to demonstrate you are who you say you are is a hoop?

that would depend on HOW you do that, what is required, and the costtherein is the rub

How about as I asked earlier. Bring some sort of ID. A bill with your name on it, a credit card, a library card.Is that too much to ask?

How about a voter registration card?

 

[tommyGunZ]

i think requiring some proof of who is voting is common sense

It doesn't make sense to take the vote away from approx. 15% of the country when there is zero or almost zero evidence that anybody has ever voted as somebody else.That doesn't make common sense. It's spending $20,000/yr to buy earthquake insurance in the middle of Kansas.

Or let's put some numbers on this.There's about 220mm eligible voters in the US.Say half the people without gov't IDs (11%) get them after it being required. So 5% lack it.Say 30% of them would have voted. That's about the average.1.5% of the 220mm voters who would have voted wouldn't.That's 3.3 million voters.On the other hand, say there's 1,000 cases of genuine voter fraud in an election. That would be an extraordinarily high number. When they litigated this at the Supreme Court, the states had to drag out voting fraud cases from the 1800s to try and make this appear like a problem.So take those numbers.A guy asks you if you want insurance on your $1,000 motorbike. You ask him how much it would cost. He tells you the insurance will be $3.3 million. What's the common sense answer?

I think that's what passes for "fiscal conservatism" these days.

 

[timschochet]

Republican- We need to have this in order to fight voter fraud!

What he really means- We need this in order to suppress black voting. The less blacks vote, the more likely it is that Republicans will win elections.

Democrat- Voter fraud really isn't happening, so this is unnecessary. Plus, it's antidemocratic.

What he really means- There's a lot of people out there who won't bother to vote if this goes down, mainly poor blacks who we have manipulated for years to vote how we want them to. If these people (who really don't care too much anyhow) don't vote, that shrinks down our power base.

Overall, I'm for this. But forgive me if I'm a little cynical of the motivations of both sides.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

i think requiring some proof of who is voting is common sense

It doesn't make sense to take the vote away from approx. 15% of the country when there is zero or almost zero evidence that anybody has ever voted as somebody else.That doesn't make common sense. It's spending $20,000/yr to buy earthquake insurance in the middle of Kansas.

Or let's put some numbers on this.There's about 220mm eligible voters in the US.Say half the people without gov't IDs (11%) get them after it being required. So 5% lack it.Say 30% of them would have voted. That's about the average.1.5% of the 220mm voters who would have voted wouldn't.That's 3.3 million voters.On the other hand, say there's 1,000 cases of genuine voter fraud in an election. That would be an extraordinarily high number. When they litigated this at the Supreme Court, the states had to drag out voting fraud cases from the 1800s to try and make this appear like a problem.So take those numbers.A guy asks you if you want insurance on your $1,000 motorbike. You ask him how much it would cost. He tells you the insurance will be $3.3 million. What's the common sense answer?

I think that's what passes for "fiscal conservatism" these days.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Republican- We need to have this in order to fight voter fraud!

What he really means- We need this in order to suppress black voting. The less blacks vote, the more likely it is that Republicans will win elections.

Democrat- Voter fraud really isn't happening, so this is unnecessary. Plus, it's antidemocratic.

What he really means- There's a lot of people out there who won't bother to vote if this goes down, mainly poor blacks who we have manipulated for years to vote how we want them to. If these people (who really don't care too much anyhow) don't vote, that shrinks down our power base.

Overall, I'm for this. But forgive me if I'm a little cynical of the motivations of both sides.

 

[bigbottom]

Republican- We need to have this in order to fight voter fraud!

What he really means- We need this in order to suppress black voting. The less blacks vote, the more likely it is that Republicans will win elections.

Democrat- Voter fraud really isn't happening, so this is unnecessary. Plus, it's antidemocratic.

What he really means- There's a lot of people out there who won't bother to vote if this goes down, mainly poor blacks who we have manipulated for years to vote how we want them to. If these people (who really don't care too much anyhow) don't vote, that shrinks down our power base.

Overall, I'm for this. But forgive me if I'm a little cynical of the motivations of both sides.

You know, it's possible for people to have an opinion on the subject that is not politically motivated.

 

[Riversco]

Think of the jobs we can create if we started a new government department devoted to issuing ID cards to everyone in the country.

 

[timschochet]

Republican- We need to have this in order to fight voter fraud!

What he really means- We need this in order to suppress black voting. The less blacks vote, the more likely it is that Republicans will win elections.

Democrat- Voter fraud really isn't happening, so this is unnecessary. Plus, it's antidemocratic.

What he really means- There's a lot of people out there who won't bother to vote if this goes down, mainly poor blacks who we have manipulated for years to vote how we want them to. If these people (who really don't care too much anyhow) don't vote, that shrinks down our power base.

Overall, I'm for this. But forgive me if I'm a little cynical of the motivations of both sides.

You know, it's possible for people to have an opinion on the subject that is not politically motivated.

Oh absolutely. I certainly do. I think most people here do. But when it comes to the politicians, this is what they're thinking.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Republican- We need to have this in order to fight voter fraud!

What he really means- We need this in order to suppress black voting. The less blacks vote, the more likely it is that Republicans will win elections.

Democrat- Voter fraud really isn't happening, so this is unnecessary. Plus, it's antidemocratic.

What he really means- There's a lot of people out there who won't bother to vote if this goes down, mainly poor blacks who we have manipulated for years to vote how we want them to. If these people (who really don't care too much anyhow) don't vote, that shrinks down our power base.

Overall, I'm for this. But forgive me if I'm a little cynical of the motivations of both sides.

You know, it's possible for people to have an opinion on the subject that is not politically motivated.

Oh absolutely. I certainly do. I think most people here do. But when it comes to the politicians, this is what they're thinking.

Oh yes, those evil, evil people we choose to represent us. Please stop tim.

 

[timschochet]

Republican- We need to have this in order to fight voter fraud!

What he really means- We need this in order to suppress black voting. The less blacks vote, the more likely it is that Republicans will win elections.

Democrat- Voter fraud really isn't happening, so this is unnecessary. Plus, it's antidemocratic.

What he really means- There's a lot of people out there who won't bother to vote if this goes down, mainly poor blacks who we have manipulated for years to vote how we want them to. If these people (who really don't care too much anyhow) don't vote, that shrinks down our power base.

Overall, I'm for this. But forgive me if I'm a little cynical of the motivations of both sides.

This is only a case of one-way cynicism. If the left was simultaneously trying to fight this but then supress voters in the South or the suburbs, then I could see being cynical both ways. But there's a right fight here. It's not cynical to be on the right side.

Wrong. The civil rights people who are shouting "racism" are the same ones who are busing minorities to voting booths and telling them who to vote for.

 

[timschochet]

Republican- We need to have this in order to fight voter fraud!

What he really means- We need this in order to suppress black voting. The less blacks vote, the more likely it is that Republicans will win elections.

Democrat- Voter fraud really isn't happening, so this is unnecessary. Plus, it's antidemocratic.

What he really means- There's a lot of people out there who won't bother to vote if this goes down, mainly poor blacks who we have manipulated for years to vote how we want them to. If these people (who really don't care too much anyhow) don't vote, that shrinks down our power base.

Overall, I'm for this. But forgive me if I'm a little cynical of the motivations of both sides.

You know, it's possible for people to have an opinion on the subject that is not politically motivated.

Oh absolutely. I certainly do. I think most people here do. But when it comes to the politicians, this is what they're thinking.

Oh yes, those evil, evil people we choose to represent us. Please stop tim.

I don't think they're evil.

 

[jplvr]

Think of the jobs we can create if we started a new government department devoted to issuing ID cards to everyone in the country.

Yeah, it's too bad we don't have several systems in place to issue government, photo ID cards which could easily be subsidized to also issue free, photo ID cards for voting purposes only. Any county office could issue a card and send in a simple request for reimbursement.I want anyone who wants to vote to be able to vote, but I'd like to know we actually care that every vote is actually from a living, registered voter, and actually the person they say they are. I really don't care if this is an epidemic, small problem, or no problem at all. It's just common sense to me.

 

[dparker713]

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

I'm talking about more than verifying your identity.

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

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

Actually, you're referring to instances where we impose criminal liability to an attestation, so the attestations are legally operable, the veracity of those attestations is not legally operable.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Think of the jobs we can create if we started a new government department devoted to issuing ID cards to everyone in the country.

Yeah, it's too bad we don't have several systems in place to issue government, photo ID cards which could easily be subsidized to also issue free, photo ID cards for voting purposes only. Any county office could issue a card and send in a simple request for reimbursement.I want anyone who wants to vote to be able to vote, but I'd like to know we actually care that every vote is actually from a living, registered voter, and actually the person they say they are. I really don't care if this is an epidemic, small problem, or no problem at all. It's just common sense to me.

Re-read this excellent analogy from Matthias - that's common sense?

Or let's put some numbers on this.There's about 220mm eligible voters in the US.Say half the people without gov't IDs (11%) get them after it being required. So 5% lack it.Say 30% of them would have voted. That's about the average.1.5% of the 220mm voters who would have voted wouldn't.That's 3.3 million voters.On the other hand, say there's 1,000 cases of genuine voter fraud in an election. That would be an extraordinarily high number. When they litigated this at the Supreme Court, the states had to drag out voting fraud cases from the 1800s to try and make this appear like a problem.So take those numbers.A guy asks you if you want insurance on your $1,000 motorbike. You ask him how much it would cost. He tells you the insurance will be $3.3 million. What's the common sense answer?

 

[jon_mx]

Republican- We need to have this in order to fight voter fraud!

What he really means- We need this in order to suppress black voting. The less blacks vote, the more likely it is that Republicans will win elections.

Democrat- Voter fraud really isn't happening, so this is unnecessary. Plus, it's antidemocratic.

What he really means- There's a lot of people out there who won't bother to vote if this goes down, mainly poor blacks who we have manipulated for years to vote how we want them to. If these people (who really don't care too much anyhow) don't vote, that shrinks down our power base.

Overall, I'm for this. But forgive me if I'm a little cynical of the motivations of both sides.

Yes, we get it. You believe every republican position revolves around hating the black man. It has nothing to do with not wanting people to vote multiple times or not allowing ineligible people to vote. It is about hating black people.

 

[Jim11]

Think of the jobs we can create if we started a new government department devoted to issuing ID cards to everyone in the country.

Yeah, it's too bad we don't have several systems in place to issue government, photo ID cards which could easily be subsidized to also issue free, photo ID cards for voting purposes only. Any county office could issue a card and send in a simple request for reimbursement.I want anyone who wants to vote to be able to vote, but I'd like to know we actually care that every vote is actually from a living, registered voter, and actually the person they say they are. I really don't care if this is an epidemic, small problem, or no problem at all. It's just common sense to me.

It's not just coincidence that the left is against voter IDs. They would lose part of their core voters if IDs were mandatory, such as dead people and people who vote multiple times.