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

[tommyGunZ]

I'd like links to places saying it would cost "10s of millions of dollars" and that millions of voters would be "disenfranchised" I'd also like us to create a FFA dictionary for all the terms we use to mean other things so I can keep it all straight.....TIA.

The Brennan Center study has been mentioned several times in this thread Commish. A little googling and you can inform yourself, and stop asking these basic questions.

If this is what you're talking about, I've read it. It doesn't speak to what it would cost to get everyone an ID, nor does it speak to how many people would be "disenfranchised" with having to do so. I'll say again, this isn't about politics for me. It's about seeing a possible exploitation and closing it before it IS used.You guys against this ID stuff are the equivalent of a developer leaving a clear and easy path into anyone's bank account and saying "well, they haven't used this way in yet, so I don't think it's worth the time to fix it". It makes zero logical sense.

20 seconds of searching - here you go Commish:Cost of Voter ID laws

Link to more Brennan Center data if you are curious

 

[tommyGunZ]

You guys against this ID stuff are the equivalent of a developer leaving a clear and easy path into anyone's bank account and saying "well, they haven't used this way in yet, so I don't think it's worth the time to fix it". It makes zero logical sense.

Great point, other than the fact that it appears current laws and the absolute irrational nature of massive voter fraud effectively prevent it from being a problem in the first place.

 

[RCon]

I'm pretty sure I had to do all of that when I registered to vote, except for the $15 fee. And I think all of us are agreeing that the state should pick up the fee for an ID.

Not sure how South Dakota works, but normally registering to vote requires nothing. You write your name and your address and you're done. That's why you see get out the vote volunteers with their clipboards at outside events in the summer. They're getting people registered.

Then they should change that policy as well.

 

[The Commish]

I'd like links to places saying it would cost "10s of millions of dollars" and that millions of voters would be "disenfranchised" I'd also like us to create a FFA dictionary for all the terms we use to mean other things so I can keep it all straight.....TIA.

The Brennan Center study has been mentioned several times in this thread Commish. A little googling and you can inform yourself, and stop asking these basic questions.

If this is what you're talking about, I've read it. It doesn't speak to what it would cost to get everyone an ID, nor does it speak to how many people would be "disenfranchised" with having to do so. I'll say again, this isn't about politics for me. It's about seeing a possible exploitation and closing it before it IS used.You guys against this ID stuff are the equivalent of a developer leaving a clear and easy path into anyone's bank account and saying "well, they haven't used this way in yet, so I don't think it's worth the time to fix it". It makes zero logical sense.

20 seconds of searching - here you go Commish:Cost of Voter ID laws

Link to more Brennan Center data if you are curious

I read your first link as well. It doesn't put dollar amounts around the costs you are claiming. Nor does it suggest a number of people who'd be "disenfranchised". I will say that the report in your first link does give food for thought as to some of the issues, but I don't see any there that are insurmountable. Especially if you allowed them to obtain their cards at the voting site. All the sites are already hooked up to the respective government networks, you'd need to add a camera, printer and filing cabinet to handle all the documentation. You'd probably have to have an agent of the state on hand at each place to make sure things went smoothly as well.

 

[The Commish]

You guys against this ID stuff are the equivalent of a developer leaving a clear and easy path into anyone's bank account and saying "well, they haven't used this way in yet, so I don't think it's worth the time to fix it". It makes zero logical sense.

Great point, other than the fact that it appears current laws and the absolute irrational nature of massive voter fraud effectively prevent it from being a problem in the first place.

This is what I'm talking about. You either can't or don't want to see the forest for the trees. I've said at least a dozen times in this thread, I don't think it's a problem today. That does NOT mean it can't become one in the future. Personally, I don't think the current laws are a deterrent. I doubt many people know what the fines/penalties are for voter fraud. I didn't until I read some other sites trying to validate your claims. There is absolutely NOTHING stopping a person in Topes' state from walking up and committing fraud if they want to. They'd probably go under the radar for years, maybe for as long as they live. Because it's not happened yet, doesn't mean it's been "prevented" by anything. It just means it's not happened yet.

 

[MaxThreshold]

You guys against this ID stuff are the equivalent of a developer leaving a clear and easy path into anyone's bank account and saying "well, they haven't used this way in yet, so I don't think it's worth the time to fix it". It makes zero logical sense.

Great point, other than the fact that it appears current laws and the absolute irrational nature of massive voter fraud effectively prevent it from being a problem in the first place.

Great opinion piece.However, I still think we should do whatever we can to stamp out ANY voter fraud. It doesn't have to be massive fraud, just fraud in general. When you say things like "massive'" then you're opening up for others to define what "massive" really is - and your side will say "massive" is 90% of the voters committing fraud and anything under that is inconsequential. The goal posts will alway be moving to just quite NEVER be enough to justify VoterID.Of course I'm exaggerating, but you get the point.

 

[tommyGunZ]

You guys against this ID stuff are the equivalent of a developer leaving a clear and easy path into anyone's bank account and saying "well, they haven't used this way in yet, so I don't think it's worth the time to fix it". It makes zero logical sense.

Great point, other than the fact that it appears current laws and the absolute irrational nature of massive voter fraud effectively prevent it from being a problem in the first place.

This is what I'm talking about. You either can't or don't want to see the forest for the trees. I've said at least a dozen times in this thread, I don't think it's a problem today. That does NOT mean it can't become one in the future. Personally, I don't think the current laws are a deterrent. I doubt many people know what the fines/penalties are for voter fraud. I didn't until I read some other sites trying to validate your claims. There is absolutely NOTHING stopping a person in Topes' state from walking up and committing fraud if they want to. They'd probably go under the radar for years, maybe for as long as they live. Because it's not happened yet, doesn't mean it's been "prevented" by anything. It just means it's not happened yet.

Other than the 5-10 yrs in jail and $5k-10k in fines in order to get an extra vote in?

 

[MaxThreshold]

You guys against this ID stuff are the equivalent of a developer leaving a clear and easy path into anyone's bank account and saying "well, they haven't used this way in yet, so I don't think it's worth the time to fix it". It makes zero logical sense.

Great point, other than the fact that it appears current laws and the absolute irrational nature of massive voter fraud effectively prevent it from being a problem in the first place.

This is what I'm talking about. You either can't or don't want to see the forest for the trees. I've said at least a dozen times in this thread, I don't think it's a problem today. That does NOT mean it can't become one in the future. Personally, I don't think the current laws are a deterrent. I doubt many people know what the fines/penalties are for voter fraud. I didn't until I read some other sites trying to validate your claims. There is absolutely NOTHING stopping a person in Topes' state from walking up and committing fraud if they want to. They'd probably go under the radar for years, maybe for as long as they live. Because it's not happened yet, doesn't mean it's been "prevented" by anything. It just means it's not happened yet.

Other than the 5-10 yrs in jail and $5k-10k in fines in order to get an extra vote in?

Well, here in WI they are trying to get an extra 6-9 votes in.Edit: I know it's a recall petition, but I used it to prove a point.

 

[RCon]

I'm pretty sure I had to do all of that when I registered to vote, except for the $15 fee. And I think all of us are agreeing that the state should pick up the fee for an ID.

Not sure how South Dakota works, but normally registering to vote requires nothing. You write your name and your address and you're done. That's why you see get out the vote volunteers with their clipboards at outside events in the summer. They're getting people registered.

Then they should change that policy as well.

Why, for heaven's sake?

Because we should be sure that each voter is, in fact, who they say they are.

 

[The Commish]

Especially if you allowed them to obtain their cards at the voting site. All the sites are already hooked up to the respective government networks, you'd need to add a camera, printer and filing cabinet to handle all the documentation.

I'm going to go with, "ummmmmm....... no" on that one. Polling locations are whereever they can find a central-esque public building which can accommodate the traffic. Schools, fire stations, town halls, community centers.... all sorts of spots are where people actually vote. Most times, their connection to the government network is a paper ledger in which they have all the names and signatures of the people registered for that precinct.

I live in hillbilly hell and we have connections. Either way, if they are not connected, that just means a larger filing cabinet for the day.

 

[jplvr]

I'm pretty sure I had to do all of that when I registered to vote, except for the $15 fee. And I think all of us are agreeing that the state should pick up the fee for an ID.

Not sure how South Dakota works, but normally registering to vote requires nothing. You write your name and your address and you're done. That's why you see get out the vote volunteers with their clipboards at outside events in the summer. They're getting people registered.

I thought you also needed to do something to show where you lived. I know I'm registered in one, more rural area, and now I live in another. It's not an issue to get there for me, and I still own property there, so I haven't bothered to vote in the district I currently reside.

 

[The Commish]

You guys against this ID stuff are the equivalent of a developer leaving a clear and easy path into anyone's bank account and saying "well, they haven't used this way in yet, so I don't think it's worth the time to fix it". It makes zero logical sense.

Great point, other than the fact that it appears current laws and the absolute irrational nature of massive voter fraud effectively prevent it from being a problem in the first place.

This is what I'm talking about. You either can't or don't want to see the forest for the trees. I've said at least a dozen times in this thread, I don't think it's a problem today. That does NOT mean it can't become one in the future. Personally, I don't think the current laws are a deterrent. I doubt many people know what the fines/penalties are for voter fraud. I didn't until I read some other sites trying to validate your claims. There is absolutely NOTHING stopping a person in Topes' state from walking up and committing fraud if they want to. They'd probably go under the radar for years, maybe for as long as they live. Because it's not happened yet, doesn't mean it's been "prevented" by anything. It just means it's not happened yet.

Other than the 5-10 yrs in jail and $5k-10k in fines in order to get an extra vote in?

Ignorance is bliss

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

No one will be disenfranchised. Disenfranchised means they are denied the right to vote, which wouldn't be the case. They could vote, they just have to choose to obtain an ID first. It's no different than choosing to register to vote first. Yes, you and I will never see eye to eye on this.

I agree, we will never see eye to eye. Apparently you're so far removed from the situations of folks who would be disenfranchised by this new hurdle, that you seem to think they're expendable and don't care that they won't be participating in their own democracy. I think the country is better off when more voices, including those of the least fortunate, are heard.

We don't have a democracy. We have a representative republic.

I hate when people say this when it's completely meaningless to the point being made.

Also, we do have a democracy. "In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative." — Wikipedia.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

You guys against this ID stuff are the equivalent of a developer leaving a clear and easy path into anyone's bank account and saying "well, they haven't used this way in yet, so I don't think it's worth the time to fix it". It makes zero logical sense.

Great point, other than the fact that it appears current laws and the absolute irrational nature of massive voter fraud effectively prevent it from being a problem in the first place.

This is what I'm talking about. You either can't or don't want to see the forest for the trees. I've said at least a dozen times in this thread, I don't think it's a problem today. That does NOT mean it can't become one in the future. Personally, I don't think the current laws are a deterrent. I doubt many people know what the fines/penalties are for voter fraud. I didn't until I read some other sites trying to validate your claims. There is absolutely NOTHING stopping a person in Topes' state from walking up and committing fraud if they want to. They'd probably go under the radar for years, maybe for as long as they live. Because it's not happened yet, doesn't mean it's been "prevented" by anything. It just means it's not happened yet.

One of the primary ways we allocate resources to law enforcement is by looking at what crimes people are actually likely to commit (in addition to the seriousness of the offense and some other considerations).

 

[dparker713]

No one will be disenfranchised. Disenfranchised means they are denied the right to vote, which wouldn't be the case. They could vote, they just have to choose to obtain an ID first. It's no different than choosing to register to vote first. Yes, you and I will never see eye to eye on this.

I agree, we will never see eye to eye. Apparently you're so far removed from the situations of folks who would be disenfranchised by this new hurdle, that you seem to think they're expendable and don't care that they won't be participating in their own democracy. I think the country is better off when more voices, including those of the least fortunate, are heard.

We don't have a democracy. We have a representative republic.

I hate when people say this when it's completely meaningless to the point being made.

Also, we do have a democracy. "In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative." — Wikipedia.

We have plenty of words in the English language. No need to let a word be bastardized for the sake of laziness. Besides, the frequency, pooling and purpose of voting has a direct impact on the ramifications of voting restrictions.

 

[Topes]

I agree, we will never see eye to eye. Apparently you're so far removed from the situations of folks who would be disenfranchised

It doesn't help your case when you refer to ID requirements as "disenfranchisement." Nobody is being disenfranchised. Anybody who is currently eligible to vote will still be eligible to vote, provided that they get an ID. This is a vastly less-encumbersome requirement than the requirement that voters show up at a particular place on a particular day to case their vote in the first place. It's roughly the same amount of work as registering to vote, and nobody considers registration requirements to be disenfranchisement. When you resort to hyperbole, the reader is left to assume that you don't have any valid arguments, which is why you're resorting to table-pounding.

Registering to vote is filling out a form.In my state, to get a non-driver photo ID, one needs to come in person, bring proof of name, proof or residence, birth certificate and Social Security card, and the $15 fee. This is hardly trivial for many people. For somebody not in possession of either their original birth certificate or Social Security card, getting replacements is a time-intensive process that can cost a good deal of money.

It's not hyperbole. It's enough of a pita that many people just won't bother.

I'm pretty sure I had to do all of that when I registered to vote, except for the $15 fee.

So, for you, it was easy. For many, it is not.

 

[The Commish]

I agree, we will never see eye to eye. Apparently you're so far removed from the situations of folks who would be disenfranchised

It doesn't help your case when you refer to ID requirements as "disenfranchisement." Nobody is being disenfranchised. Anybody who is currently eligible to vote will still be eligible to vote, provided that they get an ID. This is a vastly less-encumbersome requirement than the requirement that voters show up at a particular place on a particular day to case their vote in the first place. It's roughly the same amount of work as registering to vote, and nobody considers registration requirements to be disenfranchisement. When you resort to hyperbole, the reader is left to assume that you don't have any valid arguments, which is why you're resorting to table-pounding.

Registering to vote is filling out a form.In my state, to get a non-driver photo ID, one needs to come in person, bring proof of name, proof or residence, birth certificate and Social Security card, and the $15 fee. This is hardly trivial for many people. For somebody not in possession of either their original birth certificate or Social Security card, getting replacements is a time-intensive process that can cost a good deal of money.

It's not hyperbole. It's enough of a pita that many people just won't bother.

I'm pretty sure I had to do all of that when I registered to vote, except for the $15 fee.

So, for you, it was easy. For many, it is not.

For those that this is "hard" for, is it the transportation back and forth or that they have to carry a document or two with them?ETA: And would it be easier to have the ID service at the polling center?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm pretty sure I had to do all of that when I registered to vote, except for the $15 fee. And I think all of us are agreeing that the state should pick up the fee for an ID.

Not sure how South Dakota works, but normally registering to vote requires nothing. You write your name and your address and you're done. That's why you see get out the vote volunteers with their clipboards at outside events in the summer. They're getting people registered.

Maybe I'm thinking of getting my DL. This was well over a decade ago, so I may be getting mixed up. Sorry.

 

[cstu]

I agree, we will never see eye to eye. Apparently you're so far removed from the situations of folks who would be disenfranchised

It doesn't help your case when you refer to ID requirements as "disenfranchisement." Nobody is being disenfranchised. Anybody who is currently eligible to vote will still be eligible to vote, provided that they get an ID. This is a vastly less-encumbersome requirement than the requirement that voters show up at a particular place on a particular day to case their vote in the first place. It's roughly the same amount of work as registering to vote, and nobody considers registration requirements to be disenfranchisement. When you resort to hyperbole, the reader is left to assume that you don't have any valid arguments, which is why you're resorting to table-pounding.

Registering to vote is filling out a form.In my state, to get a non-driver photo ID, one needs to come in person, bring proof of name, proof or residence, birth certificate and Social Security card, and the $15 fee. This is hardly trivial for many people. For somebody not in possession of either their original birth certificate or Social Security card, getting replacements is a time-intensive process that can cost a good deal of money.

It's not hyperbole. It's enough of a pita that many people just won't bother.

I'm pretty sure I had to do all of that when I registered to vote, except for the $15 fee.

So, for you, it was easy. For many, it is not.

For those that this is "hard" for, is it the transportation back and forth or that they have to carry a document or two with them?ETA: And would it be easier to have the ID service at the polling center?

What, and make the disenfranchised have to carry their birth certificates all the way to the polling center?

 

[jon_mx]

omg, i never knew having to get an id was such an insurmountable task....hell, many stores have 100 percent id check for the purchase of alcohol here...you need id to check into hotel.....fly an airplane....

 

[jon_mx]

I really hope we can make it so the blood sucking people who its too difficult too get an id for, can sit on their ### at home to vote. I am sure the chore of figuring out where to go to vote is just way too much for them to handle.. Don't want to disinfranchise lazy ### people.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I'm pretty sure I had to do all of that when I registered to vote, except for the $15 fee. And I think all of us are agreeing that the state should pick up the fee for an ID.

Not sure how South Dakota works, but normally registering to vote requires nothing. You write your name and your address and you're done. That's why you see get out the vote volunteers with their clipboards at outside events in the summer. They're getting people registered.

Maybe I'm thinking of getting my DL. This was well over a decade ago, so I may be getting mixed up. Sorry.

No problem.Do different facts change your analysis?

Assume:

* Registering to vote is a painless and requirementless process;

* Getting to a polling place is a non-issue*;

* Getting a photo ID can be a major deal for someone with low income and lacking the foundational documents required to get the photo ID.

So you currently have a relatively low bar/pretty easy to register to vote and to go to vote. You're now changing it so that, for some, being able to vote could be a difficult process that they won't do. Do you still feel the same way about requiring IDs to vote?

* In major metros, voting precincts are often a matter of 20 or so square blocks. So, in cities, traveling to where you vote is a non-issue.

I don't think it will change IK's analysis because, like a bunch of people in this thread, he thinks it is a good thing if less motivated voters are discouraged from voting by being forced to jump through hoops. He supports a law requiring all voters to bring a stuffed unicorn to the polls.

 

[The Commish]

I'm still trying to understand the "complexity" of getting the id. Why is it so hard? What documents are hard to come by and cost so much people can't afford them? Every document I could ever need is at our local court house and can be ordered online. I spent approx 5 minutes on the phone with the social security office to get my daughter's ssn card ordered and it's being delivered to my house.

 

[jon_mx]

I'm still trying to understand the "complexity" of getting the id. Why is it so hard? What documents are hard to come by and cost so much people can't afford them? Every document I could ever need is at our local court house and can be ordered online. I spent approx 5 minutes on the phone with the social security office to get my daughter's ssn card ordered and it's being delivered to my house.

5 minutes....and $5 maybe......not everyone has that kind of time and disposable cash.

 

[Thunderlips]

I'm still trying to understand the "complexity" of getting the id. Why is it so hard? What documents are hard to come by and cost so much people can't afford them? Every document I could ever need is at our local court house and can be ordered online. I spent approx 5 minutes on the phone with the social security office to get my daughter's ssn card ordered and it's being delivered to my house.

There are still a lot of people who wouldn't know the first thing about getting something online. People of a certain age simply don't trust the "online" to do things for them. They hear to many horror stories of bank accounts cleared and identity theft to want to venture into the online. There are still a lot of elderly people who, for them, it's a struggle to get to a court house (although admittedly, if they can't get to the courthouse....how are they going to get to the voting place?).

 

[The Commish]

I'm still trying to understand the "complexity" of getting the id. Why is it so hard? What documents are hard to come by and cost so much people can't afford them? Every document I could ever need is at our local court house and can be ordered online. I spent approx 5 minutes on the phone with the social security office to get my daughter's ssn card ordered and it's being delivered to my house.

There are still a lot of people who wouldn't know the first thing about getting something online. People of a certain age simply don't trust the "online" to do things for them. They hear to many horror stories of bank accounts cleared and identity theft to want to venture into the online. There are still a lot of elderly people who, for them, it's a struggle to get to a court house (although admittedly, if they can't get to the courthouse....how are they going to get to the voting place?).

Pick up the phone then I appreciate your answer here, but I am beginning to think the lack of answers (sans yours) is telling me it's really not a legit issue and it comes down to some viewing it as a PITA.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

ETA: And would it be easier to have the ID service at the polling center?

 

[Thunderlips]

I'm still trying to understand the "complexity" of getting the id. Why is it so hard? What documents are hard to come by and cost so much people can't afford them? Every document I could ever need is at our local court house and can be ordered online. I spent approx 5 minutes on the phone with the social security office to get my daughter's ssn card ordered and it's being delivered to my house.

There are still a lot of people who wouldn't know the first thing about getting something online. People of a certain age simply don't trust the "online" to do things for them. They hear to many horror stories of bank accounts cleared and identity theft to want to venture into the online. There are still a lot of elderly people who, for them, it's a struggle to get to a court house (although admittedly, if they can't get to the courthouse....how are they going to get to the voting place?).

Pick up the phone then I appreciate your answer here, but I am beginning to think the lack of answers (sans yours) is telling me it's really not a legit issue and it comes down to some viewing it as a PITA.

I don't disagree. The people that I've described above are worst case scenarios....and if they showed an interest in voting, I know the local political machines would assist them in enabling them to vote. I don't really think that there are a lot of those yearning to vote who don't have the means to get some sort of ID to vote. Any cost of obtaining an ID MIGHT prohibit someone from voting but, A) it seems like people sides of the aisle don't have a problem with it being free and B) I think that someone that is complaining about the token cost is only complaining to complain.....they don't view voting as high on their priority scale anyway.To me, the only remotely legit (and I don't really buy it) rebuke against voter ID would be the, "I am who I am.....I have a right to vote...who are you to ask me for my "papers"?"......and to be intellectually honest, I don't sympathize with them when they try that tactic with law enforcement.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I am beginning to think the lack of answers (sans yours) is telling me it's really not a legit issue and it comes down to some viewing it as a PITA.

I don't see why those views are contradictory. The fact that it's a PITA makes it a legit issue in my mind.

 

[The Commish]

I'm still trying to understand the "complexity" of getting the id. Why is it so hard? What documents are hard to come by and cost so much people can't afford them? Every document I could ever need is at our local court house and can be ordered online. I spent approx 5 minutes on the phone with the social security office to get my daughter's ssn card ordered and it's being delivered to my house.

There are still a lot of people who wouldn't know the first thing about getting something online. People of a certain age simply don't trust the "online" to do things for them. They hear to many horror stories of bank accounts cleared and identity theft to want to venture into the online. There are still a lot of elderly people who, for them, it's a struggle to get to a court house (although admittedly, if they can't get to the courthouse....how are they going to get to the voting place?).

Pick up the phone then I appreciate your answer here, but I am beginning to think the lack of answers (sans yours) is telling me it's really not a legit issue and it comes down to some viewing it as a PITA.

I don't disagree. The people that I've described above are worst case scenarios....and if they showed an interest in voting, I know the local political machines would assist them in enabling them to vote. I don't really think that there are a lot of those yearning to vote who don't have the means to get some sort of ID to vote. Any cost of obtaining an ID MIGHT prohibit someone from voting but, A) it seems like people sides of the aisle don't have a problem with it being free and B) I think that someone that is complaining about the token cost is only complaining to complain.....they don't view voting as high on their priority scale anyway.To me, the only remotely legit (and I don't really buy it) rebuke against voter ID would be the, "I am who I am.....I have a right to vote...who are you to ask me for my "papers"?"......and to be intellectually honest, I don't sympathize with them when they try that tactic with law enforcement.

We haven't even talked about this. I had the same initial thought.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm pretty sure I had to do all of that when I registered to vote, except for the $15 fee. And I think all of us are agreeing that the state should pick up the fee for an ID.

Not sure how South Dakota works, but normally registering to vote requires nothing. You write your name and your address and you're done. That's why you see get out the vote volunteers with their clipboards at outside events in the summer. They're getting people registered.

Maybe I'm thinking of getting my DL. This was well over a decade ago, so I may be getting mixed up. Sorry.

No problem.Do different facts change your analysis?

Assume:

* Registering to vote is a painless and requirementless process;

* Getting to a polling place is a non-issue*;

* Getting a photo ID can be a major deal for someone with low income and lacking the foundational documents required to get the photo ID.

So you currently have a relatively low bar/pretty easy to register to vote and to go to vote. You're now changing it so that, for some, being able to vote could be a difficult process that they won't do. Do you still feel the same way about requiring IDs to vote?

* In major metros, voting precincts are often a matter of 20 or so square blocks. So, in cities, traveling to where you vote is a non-issue.

I don't think it will change IK's analysis because, like a bunch of people in this thread, he thinks it is a good thing if less motivated voters are discouraged from voting by being forced to jump through hoops. He supports a law requiring all voters to bring a stuffed unicorn to the polls.

This is right, but it's a separate issue. Getting and ID is still pretty easy. I'll withdraw the point about getting an ID being exactly as easy as registering to vote, but it's still easy enough that I don't consider it to be a major issue.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I think that someone that is complaining about the token cost is only complaining to complain.....they don't view voting as high on their priority scale anyway.

Voting isn't high on a lot of folks' priority scale. If we required everybody to get a special ID just for voting, I suspect the number of voters would go down considerably. I view that as a bad thing, though it seems like a number of people in this thread disagree and think it would be great if we limited voting only to people that really, really want to vote.I view this as even worse than a situation where everyone is forced to jump through a hoop to vote, because there is a certain subset of low-interest voters who are likely to be deterred by the requirement (those who don't already have IDs), while other low-interest voters will continue to cast ballots.

 

[bigbottom]

I really hope we can make it so the blood sucking people who its too difficult too get an id for, can sit on their ### at home to vote. I am sure the chore of figuring out where to go to vote is just way too much for them to handle.. Don't want to disinfranchise lazy ### people.

Absentee ballots?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I really hope we can make it so the blood sucking people who its too difficult too get an id for, can sit on their ### at home to vote. I am sure the chore of figuring out where to go to vote is just way too much for them to handle.. Don't want to disinfranchise lazy ### people.

Absentee ballots?

Those will have to be outlawed.

 

[RCon]

I'm pretty sure I had to do all of that when I registered to vote, except for the $15 fee. And I think all of us are agreeing that the state should pick up the fee for an ID.

Not sure how South Dakota works, but normally registering to vote requires nothing. You write your name and your address and you're done. That's why you see get out the vote volunteers with their clipboards at outside events in the summer. They're getting people registered.

Maybe I'm thinking of getting my DL. This was well over a decade ago, so I may be getting mixed up. Sorry.

No problem.Do different facts change your analysis?

Assume:

* Registering to vote is a painless and requirementless process;

* Getting to a polling place is a non-issue*;

* Getting a photo ID can be a major deal for someone with low income and lacking the foundational documents required to get the photo ID.

So you currently have a relatively low bar/pretty easy to register to vote and to go to vote. You're now changing it so that, for some, being able to vote could be a difficult process that they won't do. Do you still feel the same way about requiring IDs to vote?

* In major metros, voting precincts are often a matter of 20 or so square blocks. So, in cities, traveling to where you vote is a non-issue.

They don't change mine, because I find your assumptions to be so wrong that they're just unrealistic.* Registering to vote is a painless and requirementless process;

It shouldn't be a requirementless process. If it is in certain places, that should be changed immediately.

* Getting to a polling place is a non-issue*;

Also a poor assumption. Whether we're talking about major metros or rural locations, the process or burden of getting to an ID place will be roughly equivalent to the process of getting to the polling location.

* Getting a photo ID can be a major deal for someone with low income and lacking the foundational documents required to get the photo ID.

It shouldn't be a "major deal". If it is, the question we should be answering is what can be done to make it not a major deal.

 

[roadkill1292]

I think that someone that is complaining about the token cost is only complaining to complain.....they don't view voting as high on their priority scale anyway.

Voting isn't high on a lot of folks' priority scale. If we required everybody to get a special ID just for voting, I suspect the number of voters would go down considerably. I view that as a bad thing, though it seems like a number of people in this thread disagree and think it would be great if we limited voting only to people that really, really want to vote will vote the same way they will.

There are plenty of people on this board who would be very comfortable if only a couple of hundred people in the whole country were allowed to vote. Of course, they assume that they will be among the qualified few.

 

[bigbottom]

* Getting to a polling place is a non-issue*;

Also a poor assumption. Whether we're talking about major metros or rural locations, the process or burden of getting to an ID place will be roughly equivalent to the process of getting to the polling location.

I would think there would be an appreciable difference in terms of distance.

* Getting a photo ID can be a major deal for someone with low income and lacking the foundational documents required to get the photo ID.

It shouldn't be a "major deal". If it is, the question we should be answering is what can be done to make it not a major deal.

Agree 100%. I'm not ideologically opposed to the presentation of identification at the polls. But if the requirement is imposed in such a manner as to put unnecessarily burdensome barriers to voting, as I believe was the case in Texas, that's when I take issue. There have definitely been some good ideas in this thread about how to make getting such IDs more accessible. As ridiculous as it may sound, I think the FFA is more functional at fleshing out these issues and coming up with solutions than some of our legislatures.

 

[jamny]

Pa. House passes voter ID bill

HARRISBURG - Pennsylvania's House of Representatives has approved the so-called Voter ID bill, setting the stage for Pennsylvania to become the 16th state to require voters to show photo identification at the polls.

The House on Wednesday voted 104-to-88 - and almost strictly along partisan lines -- to pass the measure, which would be in effect in time for the fall presidential election.

Gov. Corbett has said he will sign it "right away."

Democrats, civil liberties groups, labor unions, the NAACP and others have complained that the bill will disproportionately hurt the elderly, the poor and the disabled, who make up the lion's share of voters who typically do not have photo IDs. Those groups also tend to vote Democratic.

Other states with voter ID laws have been facing legal challenges. In Texas, the U.S. Department of Justice's civil right division on Monday objected to a photo voter identification law because it found it would have a greater impact on Hispanic voters. As a state with a history of voter discrimination, Texas is required under the Voting Rights Act to get advance approval of voting changes from either the Justice Department or the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

Also Monday, a second judge in Wisconsin struck down that state's voter identification law, calling it unconstitutional because it would restrict the right to vote. That came less than a week after another judge ordered a temporary injunction on it.

And in December, the Justice Department rejected South Carolina's voter ID law on grounds it makes it harder for minorities to cast ballots. It was the first voter ID law to be rejected by the department in nearly 20 year.

In Pennsylvania, the ACLU, as well as Democrats in the Senate, have said they will challenge the bill in court as soon as it becomes law.

The bill would mandate that voters show a photo ID such as a driver's license; a student, county, or municipal card; or IDs from a personal-care home.

If voters show up without a photo ID, they would be allowed to cast a provisional ballot, and then would have six days to present election officials with an acceptable ID.

The state Department of Transportation would also be required to issue free identification cards to those who apply and swear they had no other acceptable proof of identity for voting.

Why is the Federal Government getting involved in something that should be a state issue? It's not like there's a uniform voting procedure across the country.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Why is the Federal Government getting involved in something that should be a state issue? It's not like there's a uniform voting procedure across the country.

Al Gore agrees with you.

 

[RCon]

They don't change mine, because I find your assumptions to be so wrong that they're just unrealistic.

* Registering to vote is a painless and requirementless process;

It shouldn't be a requirementless process. If it is in certain places, that should be changed immediately.

Thinking something should be otherwise isn't the same as assuming how things are is wrong. FWIW, as far as I know, registering to vote isn't easy in certain places. It's easy everywhere. I'm not going to spend the energy to look up the registration req's in every state but I think if you wanted to, you'd find that I'd be right. It's certainly easy to register to vote in all four states that I've lived in.

Registering to vote should be relatively easy. It absolutely should not be "requirementless". You should need to prove that you are who you say you are.

* Getting to a polling place is a non-issue*;

Also a poor assumption. Whether we're talking about major metros or rural locations, the process or burden of getting to an ID place will be roughly equivalent to the process of getting to the polling location.

Depends upon how you define "roughly equivalent" but there are differences.

I think we can agree that in some locations it will be a hassle to get to both, and in other locations it won't be a hassle to get to either. I'm good with that.

* Getting a photo ID can be a major deal for someone with low income and lacking the foundational documents required to get the photo ID.

It shouldn't be a "major deal". If it is, the question we should be answering is what can be done to make it not a major deal.

Agree. But right now it can be a big deal. And so the question is, is this something that is good and fair to do given how things stand? If we first fixed it so that this didn't have the effect that it did, my answer would change.

How can fix it before it exists? Put the requirement in place in such a way that it's not a "major deal". I'm with you on this, in that certain voter ID laws aren't practical (including some that have already been passed), but I'm not with you in that you seem to think it's not possible to create and implement one that is fair to everyone.

 

[The Commish]

I am beginning to think the lack of answers (sans yours) is telling me it's really not a legit issue and it comes down to some viewing it as a PITA.

I don't see why those views are contradictory. The fact that it's a PITA makes it a legit issue in my mind.

Why? Doing anything with the government is a general PITA wouldn't you agree? Granted the coming of the internet has made things much easier, but generally speaking, what ISN'T a PITA when dealing with the government? This would be no different that I can see.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I am beginning to think the lack of answers (sans yours) is telling me it's really not a legit issue and it comes down to some viewing it as a PITA.

I don't see why those views are contradictory. The fact that it's a PITA makes it a legit issue in my mind.

Why? Doing anything with the government is a general PITA wouldn't you agree? Granted the coming of the internet has made things much easier, but generally speaking, what ISN'T a PITA when dealing with the government? This would be no different that I can see.

You're looking at it as a harm solely to the potential voter. Either he has to be inconvenienced or he has to give up his right to vote.I'm looking it as a harm to the democratic process. If otherwise eligible people aren't voting because they don't have the right ID, I view that as a societal harm. Even if they could have voted if they really wanted to.

 

[rick6668]

I am beginning to think the lack of answers (sans yours) is telling me it's really not a legit issue and it comes down to some viewing it as a PITA.

I don't see why those views are contradictory. The fact that it's a PITA makes it a legit issue in my mind.

Why? Doing anything with the government is a general PITA wouldn't you agree? Granted the coming of the internet has made things much easier, but generally speaking, what ISN'T a PITA when dealing with the government? This would be no different that I can see.

You're looking at it as a harm solely to the potential voter. Either he has to be inconvenienced or he has to give up his right to vote.I'm looking it as a harm to the democratic process. If otherwise eligible people aren't voting because they don't have the right ID, I view that as a societal harm. Even if they could have voted if they really wanted to.

If otherwise eligible people aren't voting for any reason is that a harm to the democratic process? 1 inch of rain can reduce turnout by slightly less than 1 percent. Maybe we should have a rain date for those voters who can't make it out on rainy election days.

 

[cstu]

What, and make the disenfranchised have to carry their birth certificates all the way to the polling center?

I think it's more an issue of not having a copy of your birth certificate available to you. But assuming that it's a matter of going down to get the ID....Person 1: Why don't you take birth certificates in order to be able to vote?Poll Person: Well, we need your photo ID.Person 1: Why do you need a photo ID?Poll Person: So we know that you are who you say you are.Person 1: Ok. How do I get a photo ID?Poll Person: You show me your birth certificate.Person 1: Um, ok. Here's my birth certificate.Poll Person: Great. Let me take your picture.[snaps picture]Poll Person: Here's your photo ID.Person 1: So now can I vote?Poll Person: I'll need to see your photo ID.Person 1: You mean the one that you just printed?Poll Person: Whatever you have.Person 1: Ok. Here go.[passes over table newly-minted photo ID]Poll Person: Yes, this looks like you. You can vote now.Person 1: ************This is a more verbose, and thus less elegant, way of saying what I think MT was getting at.

Same thing happens when you get a driver's license - you provide a birth certificate, write down your SS#, get your picture taken and they hand you a photo ID that the police will accept as proof that you are who you say you are.

 

[The Commish]

I am beginning to think the lack of answers (sans yours) is telling me it's really not a legit issue and it comes down to some viewing it as a PITA.

I don't see why those views are contradictory. The fact that it's a PITA makes it a legit issue in my mind.

Why? Doing anything with the government is a general PITA wouldn't you agree? Granted the coming of the internet has made things much easier, but generally speaking, what ISN'T a PITA when dealing with the government? This would be no different that I can see.

You're looking at it as a harm solely to the potential voter. Either he has to be inconvenienced or he has to give up his right to vote.I'm looking it as a harm to the democratic process. If otherwise eligible people aren't voting because they don't have the right ID, I view that as a societal harm. Even if they could have voted if they really wanted to.

It's a "harm" to the process if the folks choose to make it such. If they choose to not participate because they can't be inconvenienced that's on them, not the process.

 

[The Commish]

I am beginning to think the lack of answers (sans yours) is telling me it's really not a legit issue and it comes down to some viewing it as a PITA.

I don't see why those views are contradictory. The fact that it's a PITA makes it a legit issue in my mind.

Why? Doing anything with the government is a general PITA wouldn't you agree? Granted the coming of the internet has made things much easier, but generally speaking, what ISN'T a PITA when dealing with the government? This would be no different that I can see.

You're looking at it as a harm solely to the potential voter. Either he has to be inconvenienced or he has to give up his right to vote.I'm looking it as a harm to the democratic process. If otherwise eligible people aren't voting because they don't have the right ID, I view that as a societal harm. Even if they could have voted if they really wanted to.

If a person/people are voting illegally, is that a "societal harm" as well?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

If otherwise eligible people aren't voting for any reason is that a harm to the democratic process? 1 inch of rain can reduce turnout by slightly less than 1 percent. Maybe we should have a rain date for those voters who can't make it out on rainy election days.

I think a similar hypo was put up in the other thread, and Ray's response was (paraphrasing from memory), "No, but our government shouldn't go out of its way to schedule election days on historically rainy days, either." Which makes sense. Although I'd also support having an election week instead of an election day.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

You're looking at it as a harm solely to the potential voter. Either he has to be inconvenienced or he has to give up his right to vote.I'm looking it as a harm to the democratic process. If otherwise eligible people aren't voting because they don't have the right ID, I view that as a societal harm. Even if they could have voted if they really wanted to.

It's a "harm" to the process if the folks choose to make it such. If they choose to not participate because they can't be inconvenienced that's on them, not the process.

You seem preoccupied with assessing blame. I'm more concerned with promoting policies that encourage voting.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

You're looking at it as a harm solely to the potential voter. Either he has to be inconvenienced or he has to give up his right to vote.I'm looking it as a harm to the democratic process. If otherwise eligible people aren't voting because they don't have the right ID, I view that as a societal harm. Even if they could have voted if they really wanted to.

If a person/people are voting illegally, is that a "societal harm" as well?

Yes it is. I think we need to balance the harms. If the ID requirement discourages lots of people from voting legally, but only a handful of people from voting fraudulently, it strikes me as a bad balance.

 

[The Commish]

You're looking at it as a harm solely to the potential voter. Either he has to be inconvenienced or he has to give up his right to vote.I'm looking it as a harm to the democratic process. If otherwise eligible people aren't voting because they don't have the right ID, I view that as a societal harm. Even if they could have voted if they really wanted to.

It's a "harm" to the process if the folks choose to make it such. If they choose to not participate because they can't be inconvenienced that's on them, not the process.

You seem preoccupied with assessing blame. I'm more concerned with promoting policies that encourage voting.

It's not about blame. It's about personal responsibility. If I'm being completely honest, I find the "it's too much work" or "it's too hard" excuses to be nauseating when it comes to carrying out our civic duties. Somehow this attitude of, "well, I'll do it if it's not too hard" is reeking havoc on our society. I don't honestly know why anyone would want to perpetuate that by keeping the standards lowered when there is a potential problem with doing so.