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

[RCon]

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.

How do you feel about tax rates?

Wasn't specifically addressed to me, but I have lots of feelings on tax rates. Can you be more specific? More to the point, how are tax rates related? I'd maybe consider jury duty more closely related, and if you're asking, I don't think people should try to get out of jury duty either.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

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.

If officeholders know that people will be voting, they will make an effort to engage with those voters. That's a good thing in my opinion.

 

[RCon]

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.

If officeholders know that people will be voting, they will make an effort to engage with those voters. That's a good thing in my opinion.

If we're being honest, I'm pretty sure that most (not all, but most) of the people who wouldn't bother to get an ID probably aren't bothering to vote now.

 

[Parrothead]

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.

If officeholders know that people will be voting, they will make an effort to engage with those voters. That's a good thing in my opinion.

politicians (their staffs and vounteers) would surely provide assistance to potential voters in getting their free IDs, don't you think?

This will all work itself out.

 

[RCon]

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.

How do you feel about tax rates?

Wasn't specifically addressed to me, but I have lots of feelings on tax rates. Can you be more specific? More to the point, how are tax rates related? I'd maybe consider jury duty more closely related, and if you're asking, I don't think people should try to get out of jury duty either.

I think paying taxes is much more of a civic duty than voting is. Paying taxes is truly giving back to society. Voting is trying to get your guy into office. So if someone is going to bleed saying, "say true to your school" and that American really need to step up and do what's hard for the good of the society, then I'm wondering how he feels about stepping up.

Um... huh? If you're asking whether The Commish (or anyone else) pays taxes, I'm guessing he probably does. I know I do.

 

[The Commish]

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.

How do you feel about tax rates?

Want to be more specific? It's a pretty large topic.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I really don't understand how this is a debate. And if the only true argument is that it could be too expensive for someone with no money, or too hard for someone with no documentation, I'm fine coming up with a way to have free ID's based on something.

In New Jersey, I'm almost positive I regestered to vote once. And haven't had to since. I've had to update my address for the county registrar so that when I changed counties my registration went with me. Since that I have never had to show ID at the polling place because I'm registered. And these days, when you update DMV records the registration stuff comes to you. But I get that someone with no license has no access to DMV in that way.

But we also have provisional ballots. IF you aren't in the registration book when you get to the polls, they give you a provisional ballot. Name, address, phone number I think, and who you want to vote for. The local party's, Democrat and Republican, have workers in every county at almost every single polling place - and advertise that they have people at their local HQ's as well, that will assist people in obtaining a ballot is a poll worker stops them, by bringing them to the courthouse where there is always a judge on call to hear an emergency case to grant them the ballot - provisional or otherwise. Granted, it's a pain in the neck, but to me we already bend over backwards every way possible to get everyone to vote who has the right to, short of having the polls open for more than one day (which I may be ok with as well).

I just don't see a problem with requiring some form of ID somewhere in the voting process to ensure the person that votes has the right to vote. Nothing anti-poor or anti-seniors or anti-anything. It just seems like common sense to me. I see no harm in making sure only citizens that have the right to vote are the ones voting.

 

[RCon]

If we're being honest, I'm pretty sure that most (not all, but most) of the people who wouldn't bother to get an ID probably aren't bothering to vote now.

How are you "pretty sure" on something that is complete speculation?

Call it a gut feel. Also, it's not that big a stretch when total turnout is barely 50% even in the best years. But, back to the gut feel, I'd feel comfortable speculating that the current participation of this group (those who wouldn't be bothered to obtain a completely free ID) is substantially lower than that of the total population.

 

[The Commish]

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.

How do you feel about tax rates?

Wasn't specifically addressed to me, but I have lots of feelings on tax rates. Can you be more specific? More to the point, how are tax rates related? I'd maybe consider jury duty more closely related, and if you're asking, I don't think people should try to get out of jury duty either.

I think paying taxes is much more of a civic duty than voting is. Paying taxes is truly giving back to society. Voting is trying to get your guy into office. So if someone is going to bleed saying, "say true to your school" and that American really need to step up and do what's hard for the good of the society, then I'm wondering how he feels about stepping up.

Not sure it's your place to define everyone's motivation for doing things. For some, voting is about trying to do what's right for the country. For some people, paying their taxes isn't "giving" in their minds...it's being forced to give money to the government in exchange for the ability to live in this country. The rest of your post makes no sense to me. "Stepping up" by doing what exactly?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I really don't understand how this is a debate. And if the only true argument is that it could be too expensive for someone with no money, or too hard for someone with no documentation, I'm fine coming up with a way to have free ID's based on something.In New Jersey, I'm almost positive I regestered to vote once. And haven't had to since. I've had to update my address for the county registrar so that when I changed counties my registration went with me. Since that I have never had to show ID at the polling place because I'm registered. And these days, when you update DMV records the registration stuff comes to you. But I get that someone with no license has no access to DMV in that way.But we also have provisional ballots. IF you aren't in the registration book when you get to the polls, they give you a provisional ballot. Name, address, phone number I think, and who you want to vote for. The local party's, Democrat and Republican, have workers in every county at almost every single polling place - and advertise that they have people at their local HQ's as well, that will assist people in obtaining a ballot is a poll worker stops them, by bringing them to the courthouse where there is always a judge on call to hear an emergency case to grant them the ballot - provisional or otherwise. Granted, it's a pain in the neck, but to me we already bend over backwards every way possible to get everyone to vote who has the right to, short of having the polls open for more than one day (which I may be ok with as well).I just don't see a problem with requiring some form of ID somewhere in the voting process to ensure the person that votes has the right to vote. Nothing anti-poor or anti-seniors or anti-anything. It just seems like common sense to me. I see no harm in making sure only citizens that have the right to vote are the ones voting.

Haven't you argued in the past that only landowners should be allowed to vote?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

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.

How do you feel about tax rates?

Wasn't specifically addressed to me, but I have lots of feelings on tax rates. Can you be more specific? More to the point, how are tax rates related? I'd maybe consider jury duty more closely related, and if you're asking, I don't think people should try to get out of jury duty either.

I think paying taxes is much more of a civic duty than voting is. Paying taxes is truly giving back to society. Voting is trying to get your guy into office. So if someone is going to bleed saying, "say true to your school" and that American really need to step up and do what's hard for the good of the society, then I'm wondering how he feels about stepping up.

Really?

 

[cstu]

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.

But you don't think people should be able to use their birth certificate to prove who they are when voting.

Essentially that's what they would be doing but they'd also be providing their SS#, possibly their thumbprint and having their photo be put into the system to prevent fraud. I don't think it's too much to ask.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

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.

But you don't think people should be able to use their birth certificate to prove who they are when voting.

Essentially that's what they would be doing but they'd also be providing their SS#, possibly their thumbprint and having their photo be put into the system to prevent fraud. I don't think it's too much to ask.

Is there any way we can stick something in their hoo-has? That seems to be a popular thing to do these days.

 

[The Commish]

Not sure it's your place to define everyone's motivation for doing things.

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.

What's the problem?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I really don't understand how this is a debate. And if the only true argument is that it could be too expensive for someone with no money, or too hard for someone with no documentation, I'm fine coming up with a way to have free ID's based on something.In New Jersey, I'm almost positive I regestered to vote once. And haven't had to since. I've had to update my address for the county registrar so that when I changed counties my registration went with me. Since that I have never had to show ID at the polling place because I'm registered. And these days, when you update DMV records the registration stuff comes to you. But I get that someone with no license has no access to DMV in that way.But we also have provisional ballots. IF you aren't in the registration book when you get to the polls, they give you a provisional ballot. Name, address, phone number I think, and who you want to vote for. The local party's, Democrat and Republican, have workers in every county at almost every single polling place - and advertise that they have people at their local HQ's as well, that will assist people in obtaining a ballot is a poll worker stops them, by bringing them to the courthouse where there is always a judge on call to hear an emergency case to grant them the ballot - provisional or otherwise. Granted, it's a pain in the neck, but to me we already bend over backwards every way possible to get everyone to vote who has the right to, short of having the polls open for more than one day (which I may be ok with as well).I just don't see a problem with requiring some form of ID somewhere in the voting process to ensure the person that votes has the right to vote. Nothing anti-poor or anti-seniors or anti-anything. It just seems like common sense to me. I see no harm in making sure only citizens that have the right to vote are the ones voting.

Haven't you argued in the past that only landowners should be allowed to vote?

For sh***s and giggles, yes. I'm very curious about the possibility of an academic exercise in removing the right to vote based on certain things to see what happens with the polity in general. Not sex or race, but material and measurable things like property ownership and/or history of voting.I think a decent academic argument can be made that only land owners (and those that "own" with a mortgage) should have the right to vote. It calls into play a certain level of responsibility - or at least it did before the last economic crisis. I'm willing to be that not much changes if we were do this though, which is why I'm curious about it - to see if I am right.On the lack of voting history one, I wonder if having a law that says if you don't vote in 5 straight elections - or some such thing - you automatically lose the right to vote in future elections unless you do X (I haven't quite figured what X should be) would significantly change our polity, in that I think it may force people to take the extra few minutes to vote. I could be wrong. Again all academic.I get that some people just miss elections though. I realized recently that I missed the last local one because I was moving and changing jobs at the same time and I just didn't even think about it (it wasn't a contested election so I have some cushion for not doing so) and that was the first time I ever missed an election of any kind where I had the right to vote. It didn't phase me nearly as much as I thought it would when I was younger, but it did "affect" me enough that I remember it. I think some people really don't care and can't be bothered, and I wonder if we force the issue with them if they would care more.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I think paying taxes is much more of a civic duty than voting is. Paying taxes is truly giving back to society. Voting is trying to get your guy into office. So if someone is going to bleed saying, "say true to your school" and that American really need to step up and do what's hard for the good of the society, then I'm wondering how he feels about stepping up.

Really?

Really.

I can't fathom the rationale to get to that point, but to each his own. As much as you think you made a valid point by saying taxes are giving back, I can argue they are not in any way, shape or form, that. And voting is and can be much more than just getting your guy in office.

 

[The Commish]

I think paying taxes is much more of a civic duty than voting is. Paying taxes is truly giving back to society. Voting is trying to get your guy into office. So if someone is going to bleed saying, "say true to your school" and that American really need to step up and do what's hard for the good of the society, then I'm wondering how he feels about stepping up.

Really?

Really.

I can't fathom the rationale to get to that point, but to each his own. As much as you think you made a valid point by saying taxes are giving back, I can argue they are not in any way, shape or form, that. And voting is and can be much more than just getting your guy in office.

 

[roadkill1292]

I really don't understand how this is a debate. And if the only true argument is that it could be too expensive for someone with no money, or too hard for someone with no documentation, I'm fine coming up with a way to have free ID's based on something.In New Jersey, I'm almost positive I regestered to vote once. And haven't had to since. I've had to update my address for the county registrar so that when I changed counties my registration went with me. Since that I have never had to show ID at the polling place because I'm registered. And these days, when you update DMV records the registration stuff comes to you. But I get that someone with no license has no access to DMV in that way.But we also have provisional ballots. IF you aren't in the registration book when you get to the polls, they give you a provisional ballot. Name, address, phone number I think, and who you want to vote for. The local party's, Democrat and Republican, have workers in every county at almost every single polling place - and advertise that they have people at their local HQ's as well, that will assist people in obtaining a ballot is a poll worker stops them, by bringing them to the courthouse where there is always a judge on call to hear an emergency case to grant them the ballot - provisional or otherwise. Granted, it's a pain in the neck, but to me we already bend over backwards every way possible to get everyone to vote who has the right to, short of having the polls open for more than one day (which I may be ok with as well).I just don't see a problem with requiring some form of ID somewhere in the voting process to ensure the person that votes has the right to vote. Nothing anti-poor or anti-seniors or anti-anything. It just seems like common sense to me. I see no harm in making sure only citizens that have the right to vote are the ones voting.

Haven't you argued in the past that only landowners should be allowed to vote?

For sh***s and giggles, yes. I'm very curious about the possibility of an academic exercise in removing the right to vote based on certain things to see what happens with the polity in general. Not sex or race, but material and measurable things like property ownership and/or history of voting.I think a decent academic argument can be made that only land owners (and those that "own" with a mortgage) should have the right to vote. It calls into play a certain level of responsibility - or at least it did before the last economic crisis. I'm willing to be that not much changes if we were do this though, which is why I'm curious about it - to see if I am right.On the lack of voting history one, I wonder if having a law that says if you don't vote in 5 straight elections - or some such thing - you automatically lose the right to vote in future elections unless you do X (I haven't quite figured what X should be) would significantly change our polity, in that I think it may force people to take the extra few minutes to vote. I could be wrong. Again all academic.I get that some people just miss elections though. I realized recently that I missed the last local one because I was moving and changing jobs at the same time and I just didn't even think about it (it wasn't a contested election so I have some cushion for not doing so) and that was the first time I ever missed an election of any kind where I had the right to vote. It didn't phase me nearly as much as I thought it would when I was younger, but it did "affect" me enough that I remember it. I think some people really don't care and can't be bothered, and I wonder if we force the issue with them if they would care more.

We've all daydreamed at one time about having a more efficient electoral process. I've got ideas of my own (home ownership is a lousy criteria, however). But at the end it comes down to disenfranchising some number big or small and disenfranchisement makes governing that much more difficult. Even though people all too often fail to exercise their right to vote, at least they have a choice and that matters a lot.

 

[The Commish]

I can't fathom the rationale to get to that point, but to each his own. As much as you think you made a valid point by saying taxes are giving back, I can argue they are not in any way, shape or form, that. And voting is and can be much more than just getting your guy in office.

Getting your guy into office = promoting your policies, advancing your ideas, what you think is right, yadda yadda. It's ultimately a self-interested act. Even if you think your policies are to help others, you're ultimately pursuing your own happiness by trying to advance policies which you support. Other than the penalties for not paying them, we're much less self-interested in paying taxes. That's why they're not optional and voting is.

I pay my taxes so I can stay out of jail. I think that's incredibly self serving

 

[The Commish]

I can't fathom the rationale to get to that point, but to each his own. As much as you think you made a valid point by saying taxes are giving back, I can argue they are not in any way, shape or form, that. And voting is and can be much more than just getting your guy in office.

Getting your guy into office = promoting your policies, advancing your ideas, what you think is right, yadda yadda. It's ultimately a self-interested act. Even if you think your policies are to help others, you're ultimately pursuing your own happiness by trying to advance policies which you support. Other than the penalties for not paying them, we're much less self-interested in paying taxes. That's why they're not optional and voting is.

I pay my taxes so I can stay out of jail. I think that's incredibly self serving

RIF

First, I thought you were talking about tax penalties (monetary). If you are including going to jail in those penalties, why are you comparing a law to an option as if they are similar? Some people pay their taxes because of the laws. They want to stay out of jail or avoid paying fines. If I qualified my comments regarding voting with "other than the people voting to promote their self interests the public does it out of civic pride" that's equally obtuse and relatively pointless.

 

[dparker713]

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.

You're ignoring the government's duty to ensure the validity of the voter rolls.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I really don't understand how this is a debate. And if the only true argument is that it could be too expensive for someone with no money, or too hard for someone with no documentation, I'm fine coming up with a way to have free ID's based on something.

In New Jersey, I'm almost positive I regestered to vote once. And haven't had to since. I've had to update my address for the county registrar so that when I changed counties my registration went with me. Since that I have never had to show ID at the polling place because I'm registered. And these days, when you update DMV records the registration stuff comes to you. But I get that someone with no license has no access to DMV in that way.

But we also have provisional ballots. IF you aren't in the registration book when you get to the polls, they give you a provisional ballot. Name, address, phone number I think, and who you want to vote for. The local party's, Democrat and Republican, have workers in every county at almost every single polling place - and advertise that they have people at their local HQ's as well, that will assist people in obtaining a ballot is a poll worker stops them, by bringing them to the courthouse where there is always a judge on call to hear an emergency case to grant them the ballot - provisional or otherwise. Granted, it's a pain in the neck, but to me we already bend over backwards every way possible to get everyone to vote who has the right to, short of having the polls open for more than one day (which I may be ok with as well).

I just don't see a problem with requiring some form of ID somewhere in the voting process to ensure the person that votes has the right to vote. Nothing anti-poor or anti-seniors or anti-anything. It just seems like common sense to me. I see no harm in making sure only citizens that have the right to vote are the ones voting.

Haven't you argued in the past that only landowners should be allowed to vote?

For sh***s and giggles, yes. I'm very curious about the possibility of an academic exercise in removing the right to vote based on certain things to see what happens with the polity in general. Not sex or race, but material and measurable things like property ownership and/or history of voting.I think a decent academic argument can be made that only land owners (and those that "own" with a mortgage) should have the right to vote. It calls into play a certain level of responsibility - or at least it did before the last economic crisis. I'm willing to be that not much changes if we were do this though, which is why I'm curious about it - to see if I am right.

On the lack of voting history one, I wonder if having a law that says if you don't vote in 5 straight elections - or some such thing - you automatically lose the right to vote in future elections unless you do X (I haven't quite figured what X should be) would significantly change our polity, in that I think it may force people to take the extra few minutes to vote. I could be wrong. Again all academic.

I get that some people just miss elections though. I realized recently that I missed the last local one because I was moving and changing jobs at the same time and I just didn't even think about it (it wasn't a contested election so I have some cushion for not doing so) and that was the first time I ever missed an election of any kind where I had the right to vote. It didn't phase me nearly as much as I thought it would when I was younger, but it did "affect" me enough that I remember it. I think some people really don't care and can't be bothered, and I wonder if we force the issue with them if they would care more.

And people think liberals are the elitists?

 

[mad sweeney]

What are the "arguments" against people validating their identity at the voting booths? I've never understood why this is an issue.

I know I'm late to this party, and I've been voting by mail for 10 years because of my work inconsistencies, but I kind of thought you already had to. It's mind-boggling to me that one wouldn't have to do so or that anyone would object to this requirement.

 

[MaxThreshold]

What are the "arguments" against people validating their identity at the voting booths? I've never understood why this is an issue.

I know I'm late to this party, and I've been voting by mail for 10 years because of my work inconsistencies, but I kind of thought you already had to. It's mind-boggling to me that one wouldn't have to do so or that anyone would object to this requirement.

Well, poll after poll shows that about 75% to 80% of the country is for Voter ID, yet the Democrats somehow think they have the majority of support on this one and constantly try to defeat it whenever they can. Here in WI Voter ID was defeated several times (before it was passed last year) by the Democrats in the Legislature, yet a majority of WI residents support it and still support it.You're right when you say it's mind-boggling. Anyone who can't get up an get an ID is either lazy or paralyzed. As I said earlier, if you told them (the people whom Voter ID would supposedly "disenfranchise") that they could get a free 12 pack of beer with their FREE Voter ID then you would have ZERO citizens without one.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Well, poll after poll shows that about 75% to 80% of the country is for Voter ID, yet the Democrats somehow think they have the majority of support on this one and constantly try to defeat it whenever they can.

Maybe the Democrats are just trying to do what's right, even if it is unpopular.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

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.

You're ignoring the government's duty to ensure the validity of the voter rolls.

]I'm not ignoring anything.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think paying taxes is much more of a civic duty than voting is. Paying taxes is truly giving back to society. Voting is trying to get your guy into office. So if someone is going to bleed saying, "say true to your school" and that American really need to step up and do what's hard for the good of the society, then I'm wondering how he feels about stepping up.

Really?

Really.

I can't fathom the rationale to get to that point, but to each his own. As much as you think you made a valid point by saying taxes are giving back, I can argue they are not in any way, shape or form, that. And voting is and can be much more than just getting your guy in office.

Maybe "giving back" isn't the best choice of words, but is anybody (besides Ren, and I don't see him around) going to dispute that paying one's taxes is a civic responsibility? In the sense that if I cheat on my taxes, I've done something philosophically wrong in addition to having broken the law?

 

[dparker713]

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.

You're ignoring the government's duty to ensure the validity of the voter rolls.

]I'm not ignoring anything.

The government already restricts the right to vote in various ways. These arent a societal harms because it is the duty of the government to authenticate voters. Incidental disenfranchisement is instead an individual harm.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I'm not ignoring anything.

The government already restricts the right to vote in various ways. These arent a societal harms because it is the duty of the government to authenticate voters. Incidental disenfranchisement is instead an individual harm.

"Incidental disenfranchisement" is a societal harm just like "collateral damage" is a societal harm when we try to bomb the bad guys but blow up a school. Just because we have good intentions doesn't mean that our actions are harmless.

 

[Riversco]

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.

You're ignoring the government's duty to ensure the validity of the voter rolls.

]I'm not ignoring anything.

The government already restricts the right to vote in various ways. These arent a societal harms because it is the duty of the government to authenticate voters. Incidental disenfranchisement is instead an individual harm.

This is true, especially in the computer age. For instance, we restrict voting to showing up at a polling place or perhaps absentee ballots via mail in most cases. We could allow online voting, telephone voting, or sent people door-to-door to collect votes, but we don't do that. So there's already restrictions in place that no-one complains about. Why suddenly draw an arbitrary line at voter ID?

 

[MaxThreshold]

Well, poll after poll shows that about 75% to 80% of the country is for Voter ID, yet the Democrats somehow think they have the majority of support on this one and constantly try to defeat it whenever they can.

Maybe the Democrats are just trying to do what's right, even if it is unpopular.

But they aren't trying to do what's right at all. Even MOST of the people they represent want Voter ID. The government has an obligation to ensure valid and fraud-free elections.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

The government already restricts the right to vote in various ways. These arent a societal harms because it is the duty of the government to authenticate voters. Incidental disenfranchisement is instead an individual harm.

This is true, especially in the computer age. For instance, we restrict voting to showing up at a polling place or perhaps absentee ballots via mail in most cases. We could allow online voting, telephone voting, or sent people door-to-door to collect votes, but we don't do that. So there's already restrictions in place that no-one complains about. Why suddenly draw an arbitrary line at voter ID?

It isn't really arbitrary. Voter ID requirements are brand new, which is why we're complaining about them. I would support online and telephone voting if it were possible to do so in a secure manner with a minimal risk of fraud.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Well, poll after poll shows that about 75% to 80% of the country is for Voter ID, yet the Democrats somehow think they have the majority of support on this one and constantly try to defeat it whenever they can.

Maybe the Democrats are just trying to do what's right, even if it is unpopular.

But they aren't trying to do what's right at all. Even MOST of the people they represent want Voter ID. The government has an obligation to ensure valid and fraud-free elections.

I think the government has an interest both in reducing voting fraud and in making voting easy for people. The popularity of a law doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do.

 

[MaxThreshold]

But they aren't trying to do what's right at all. Even MOST of the people they represent want Voter ID. The government has an obligation to ensure valid and fraud-free elections.

Everything becomes degrees of confidence. Even if every state implemented Voter ID laws, fraud-free elections wouldn't be ensured. People can fake IDs.And when people try to rig elections, they don't do it by telling 5,000 people go through a poll and lying about who they are. They stuff ballots or they remove ballots. Bags of ballots go missing. They turn up in someone's car.

Nobody disagrees that fraud in elections are bad. I would say that we should minimize fraud by making it tougher to do the things that people who commit fraud actually do and which don't stop millions of legitimate people from voting.

I agree with everything you said except the bolded. IF (and that's a big IF) there are actually millions of people who can't get an ID I would say they are nothing but lazy or paralyzed. You can't do anything in a modern society without an ID. If you can't get off your ### and get an ID, I don't want you voting anyway because clearly you're also to lazy to stay informed on the relevant political issues and I don't want your input on the direction of the country.If you're paralyzed, then I'm sure someone you know or even the Govt can assist with that.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I agree with everything you said except the bolded. IF (and that's a big IF) there are actually millions of people who can't get an ID I would say they are nothing but lazy or paralyzed. You can't do anything in a modern society without an ID. If you can't get off your ### and get an ID, I don't want you voting anyway because clearly you're also to lazy to stay informed on the relevant political issues and I don't want your input on the direction of the country.If you're paralyzed, then I'm sure someone you know or even the Govt can assist with that.

This schizophrenic thinking keeps going through this debate. People who support Voter IDs keep holding 2 ideas in their head simultaneously.1: Getting a photo ID is extremely simple and easy.2: Getting a photo ID is extremely fundamental and necessary to function in our society.If both 1 & 2 are true, then everybody would have a photo ID. Empirically, they don't. Millions of adults don't.So which assumption isn't true? Number 1 or Number 2?

It's more like a syllogism.1. Getting a photo ID is extremely easy.2. Having a photo ID is essential for participating in a modern society.3. Therefore, people who don'th ave ID's are either really lazy or really disengaged, or both.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I agree with everything you said except the bolded. IF (and that's a big IF) there are actually millions of people who can't get an ID I would say they are nothing but lazy or paralyzed. You can't do anything in a modern society without an ID. If you can't get off your ### and get an ID, I don't want you voting anyway because clearly you're also to lazy to stay informed on the relevant political issues and I don't want your input on the direction of the country.If you're paralyzed, then I'm sure someone you know or even the Govt can assist with that.

This schizophrenic thinking keeps going through this debate. People who support Voter IDs keep holding 2 ideas in their head simultaneously.1: Getting a photo ID is extremely simple and easy.2: Getting a photo ID is extremely fundamental and necessary to function in our society.If both 1 & 2 are true, then everybody would have a photo ID. Empirically, they don't. Millions of adults don't.So which assumption isn't true? Number 1 or Number 2?

It's more like a syllogism.1. Getting a photo ID is extremely easy.2. Having a photo ID is essential for participating in a modern society.3. Therefore, people who don'th ave ID's are either really lazy or really disengaged, or both.

More like an enigma wrapped in a riddle. But I won't stand by and watch our government discriminate against the lazy.

 

[pantagrapher]

I agree with everything you said except the bolded. IF (and that's a big IF) there are actually millions of people who can't get an ID I would say they are nothing but lazy or paralyzed. You can't do anything in a modern society without an ID. If you can't get off your ### and get an ID, I don't want you voting anyway because clearly you're also to lazy to stay informed on the relevant political issues and I don't want your input on the direction of the country.If you're paralyzed, then I'm sure someone you know or even the Govt can assist with that.

This schizophrenic thinking keeps going through this debate. People who support Voter IDs keep holding 2 ideas in their head simultaneously.1: Getting a photo ID is extremely simple and easy.2: Getting a photo ID is extremely fundamental and necessary to function in our society.If both 1 & 2 are true, then everybody would have a photo ID. Empirically, they don't. Millions of adults don't.So which assumption isn't true? Number 1 or Number 2?

Good posting.

 

[Rayderr]

I brought this up in the other thread, but what about doing fingerprinting instead?

You go to vote, you put your finger on a scanner, if you are who you say you are, the fingerprint matches, and you can vote. Otherwise if the fingerprint doesn't match, you don't vote. Plus, if someone is registered in more than one district, a quick cross reference can determine if the fingerprint checked in twice.

And this can be used to solve the absentee ballot issues. You place your fingerprint on the absentee ballot, that way, we're sure it's the person and not the spouse of a deceased person voting.

And, who knows, maybe when people go to register their fingerprints, we'll get lucky and find out that their fingerprints match from a crime scene.

 

[pantagrapher]

I brought this up in the other thread, but what about doing fingerprinting instead? You go to vote, you put your finger on a scanner, if you are who you say you are, the fingerprint matches, and you can vote. Otherwise if the fingerprint doesn't match, you don't vote. Plus, if someone is registered in more than one district, a quick cross reference can determine if the fingerprint checked in twice. And this can be used to solve the absentee ballot issues. You place your fingerprint on the absentee ballot, that way, we're sure it's the person and not the spouse of a deceased person voting. And, who knows, maybe when people go to register their fingerprints, we'll get lucky and find out that their fingerprints match from a crime scene.

At first blush, I like this better than the photo ID. But it sounds just as expensive, if not more (I only know this from watching cops shows, but doesn't each individual fingerprint need to have distinguishing features and swirls marked before going into a database for analysis? That doesn't seem workable when you're talking about millions of ballots). And it's still basically a solution looking for a problem.

 

[Rayderr]

I brought this up in the other thread, but what about doing fingerprinting instead? You go to vote, you put your finger on a scanner, if you are who you say you are, the fingerprint matches, and you can vote. Otherwise if the fingerprint doesn't match, you don't vote. Plus, if someone is registered in more than one district, a quick cross reference can determine if the fingerprint checked in twice. And this can be used to solve the absentee ballot issues. You place your fingerprint on the absentee ballot, that way, we're sure it's the person and not the spouse of a deceased person voting. And, who knows, maybe when people go to register their fingerprints, we'll get lucky and find out that their fingerprints match from a crime scene.

Other than people being afraid of 1984 privacy issues and overall cost/feasibility, this would be fine with me. It would also require a nationalization of our election mechanisms which, imo, we should move ahead and do anyway.One lesser version of this is to require people to give the last 4 or 5 digits of their SS# in addition to their name. It's less secure (and creates the potential of someone misappropriating the info) but also less invasive.

yeah, that privacy thing. Why, if one has another persons fingerprint, why you can find out everything about them! Where they shop, what their PIN number is...

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I brought this up in the other thread, but what about doing fingerprinting instead? You go to vote, you put your finger on a scanner, if you are who you say you are, the fingerprint matches, and you can vote. Otherwise if the fingerprint doesn't match, you don't vote. Plus, if someone is registered in more than one district, a quick cross reference can determine if the fingerprint checked in twice. And this can be used to solve the absentee ballot issues. You place your fingerprint on the absentee ballot, that way, we're sure it's the person and not the spouse of a deceased person voting. And, who knows, maybe when people go to register their fingerprints, we'll get lucky and find out that their fingerprints match from a crime scene.

Other than people being afraid of 1984 privacy issues and overall cost/feasibility, this would be fine with me. It would also require a nationalization of our election mechanisms which, imo, we should move ahead and do anyway.One lesser version of this is to require people to give the last 4 or 5 digits of their SS# in addition to their name. It's less secure (and creates the potential of someone misappropriating the info) but also less invasive.

Why go through that much trouble and cost, though? To vote you need to register. Whether it's before hand or the day of there has be some relatively simple registration method. Some form of ID is necessary to get registered. I guess what I have a hard time wrapping my head around is that anyone that is a legal citizen is going to have a hard time having some form of proof of where they live. Utility bills, library card, health insurance card, employment ID, golf membership ID, shooting range ID, drivers license, professional ID, deed, lease, birth certificate, tax return, SSN card or W-2, and on and on. Through all the various things we have to do on a daily basis, I just find it near impossible that someone who takes the time to want to vote doesn't have the ability to come up with any combination or one of these things in order to get a photo ID if one of these isn't already.I'm fine with making it free. It's a small tax bill to pay from my point of view. I just don't see the black helicopters of trying to stop people from voting because having an ID is too much of a problem. I have 4 in my wallet now from my license, attorney ID, federal ID pass, golf membership. Granted, my job requires me to have these things (sans golf) on me at almost all times, and there are people that don't have that requirement, but they live somewhere, right? How hard is it to keep copies of a few bills and deed or lease or some variant in order to get your picture taken? I just don't buy the problem.

 

[timschochet]

I agree with everything you said except the bolded. IF (and that's a big IF) there are actually millions of people who can't get an ID I would say they are nothing but lazy or paralyzed. You can't do anything in a modern society without an ID. If you can't get off your ### and get an ID, I don't want you voting anyway because clearly you're also to lazy to stay informed on the relevant political issues and I don't want your input on the direction of the country.If you're paralyzed, then I'm sure someone you know or even the Govt can assist with that.

This schizophrenic thinking keeps going through this debate. People who support Voter IDs keep holding 2 ideas in their head simultaneously.1: Getting a photo ID is extremely simple and easy.2: Getting a photo ID is extremely fundamental and necessary to function in our society.If both 1 & 2 are true, then everybody would have a photo ID. Empirically, they don't. Millions of adults don't.So which assumption isn't true? Number 1 or Number 2?

Both of your points are irrelevant. This issue is not abput people who don't have IDs. Most of those people don't vote anyhow. It's about people who don't have IDs on them on the spur of the moment who are corralled by Democratic party activists and told to go vote, sometimes for cash. If they had to produce IDs maybe they couldn't be bothered. Republicans want to stop this, and Dems want it to continue. But as to your question, the answer is that there are millions of people who struggle to function in our society. Perhaps they are homeless. Perhaps they are mentally ill. And of course, there are the undocumented. In most cases, the question of voting is the least of their concerns. I believe that everyone should have documents, not for security purposes but so that we can widen our safety net to all those who are in need of it.

 

[pantagrapher]

I agree with everything you said except the bolded. IF (and that's a big IF) there are actually millions of people who can't get an ID I would say they are nothing but lazy or paralyzed. You can't do anything in a modern society without an ID. If you can't get off your ### and get an ID, I don't want you voting anyway because clearly you're also to lazy to stay informed on the relevant political issues and I don't want your input on the direction of the country.If you're paralyzed, then I'm sure someone you know or even the Govt can assist with that.

This schizophrenic thinking keeps going through this debate. People who support Voter IDs keep holding 2 ideas in their head simultaneously.1: Getting a photo ID is extremely simple and easy.2: Getting a photo ID is extremely fundamental and necessary to function in our society.If both 1 & 2 are true, then everybody would have a photo ID. Empirically, they don't. Millions of adults don't.So which assumption isn't true? Number 1 or Number 2?

Both of your points are irrelevant. This issue is not abput people who don't have IDs. Most of those people don't vote anyhow. It's about people who don't have IDs on them on the spur of the moment who are corralled by Democratic party activists and told to go vote, sometimes for cash.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Both of your points are irrelevant. This issue is not abput people who don't have IDs. Most of those people don't vote anyhow. It's about people who don't have IDs on them on the spur of the moment who are corralled by Democratic party activists and told to go vote, sometimes for cash. If they had to produce IDs maybe they couldn't be bothered.

 

[timschochet]

Hey I think it's funny too, but Republicans complain that it happens in every election. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. No way to prove it. Personally, I'm cynical enough to believe that its probably true. But that's what this whole issue is all about. Republicans think they will gain with these new laws, and Dems think they will lose.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Hey I think it's funny too, but Republicans complain that it happens in every election. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. No way to prove it. Personally, I'm cynical enough to believe that its probably true. But that's what this whole issue is all about. Republicans think they will gain with these new laws, and Dems think they will lose.

I agree that the political parties are motivated on this issue by what the predictable impact would be on voting. We're discussing whether it's good or bad public policy. So all the stuff Matthias has been talking about is very relevant. We don't really need you to repeat whatever you heard on talk radio yesterday.

 

[timschochet]

Hey I think it's funny too, but Republicans complain that it happens in every election. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. No way to prove it. Personally, I'm cynical enough to believe that its probably true. But that's what this whole issue is all about. Republicans think they will gain with these new laws, and Dems think they will lose.

I agree that the political parties are motivated on this issue by what the predictable impact would be on voting. We're discussing whether it's good or bad public policy. So all the stuff Matthias has been talking about is very relevant. We don't really need you to repeat whatever you heard on talk radio yesterday.

I never heard that on talk radio. When this issue comes up on talk radio, conservetives go on and on about voter fraud. They're full of ####.

 

[pantagrapher]

Is the Voting ID problem because you would have to be a legal citizen to get one?

Nope. I don't believe that line of reasoning has come up once.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Why go through that much trouble and cost, though? To vote you need to register. Whether it's before hand or the day of there has be some relatively simple registration method. Some form of ID is necessary to get registered. I guess what I have a hard time wrapping my head around is that anyone that is a legal citizen is going to have a hard time having some form of proof of where they live. Utility bills, library card, health insurance card, employment ID, golf membership ID, shooting range ID, drivers license, professional ID, deed, lease, birth certificate, tax return, SSN card or W-2, and on and on. Through all the various things we have to do on a daily basis, I just find it near impossible that someone who takes the time to want to vote doesn't have the ability to come up with any combination or one of these things in order to get a photo ID if one of these isn't already.I'm fine with making it free. It's a small tax bill to pay from my point of view. I just don't see the black helicopters of trying to stop people from voting because having an ID is too much of a problem. I have 4 in my wallet now from my license, attorney ID, federal ID pass, golf membership. Granted, my job requires me to have these things (sans golf) on me at almost all times, and there are people that don't have that requirement, but they live somewhere, right? How hard is it to keep copies of a few bills and deed or lease or some variant in order to get your picture taken? I just don't buy the problem.

In NY, at least, you don't need an ID to get registered. You need to give the last 4 digits of your Social. Christo asked earlier what the point of registering to vote was. I'm not sure what the original purpose was, but at this point I think it serves three functions. First, it makes it easy at the polls. Workers don't have to write in the name of everyone who shows up; they can compare it to an existing list. Second, it serves as validation. They can see the name and they can compare the signatures. Third, it serves to pre-screen the voting lists. Sometimes you'll see groups challenge voter registration lists on the basis of Person X is a felon who has lost the right to vote or Person Y is registered to vote in multiple districts.Producing paper documentation isn't a problem for someone who owns a house. You have a lot of things tied into your name and your address... your mortgage, your utilities, your bank statements, all come to one location and in all probability have done so for years. It's more of a problem for people on the fringes of society. Say they're renting, sharing, or living with family. They're not on the lease. The utility bills may come to some other member of the household. They may or may not have an account at a bank (there's a reason that cash-checking places make money for simply giving you the money which you have already earned).It's inconceivable to someone living a middle-class life that anyone could get by without these things building up in their life. But there are people for whom it is the case.

And I'm fine with figuring out a way to make it easier for those people in your last sentence. I'm still not sure I agree with you that there is a rather large segment of our population in that situation. I see people all the time in my line of work that you could stick in that kind of scenario that have something. I have no problem with giving those people truly free ID's to help them vote. It seems that both are arguing stuff, though, that the other simply can't believe. People on your side think it is some form of attack on people that have no ID as a means to stop them from voting (for the truly sinister version of your side) and people on my side are labeled the way you have. We are both chasing boogymen, but regardless there is a "real" problem. Every citizen that has the right to vote should be allowed to vote and we should make the process as easy as possible to allow them to. We should also be mindful that any fraud of any kind in the voting process is not something to ignore or go unchallanged and we should fix it if we can, whether it's one case or a million.The ID argument is such an easy one to me. The worse fraud issues are intimidation at polling places from both sides and the other shenanigans that go on that have nothing to do with ID's.

 

[cr8f]

I think in some form yes but here in Wisconsin student and job photo ID's weren't allowed(some are now with adjustments).

It isn't just govt ID's you need but DMV ID's, the place just about everyone hates. In some counties that means driving to another county for people without cars.

I'd say yes eventually but don't spring this on people this quickly.

Alabama has 3 cases of voter "fraud" in 3 years but 75,000 may not be able to vote. Here it will cost the state $6 million and not stop the few voter problems we have(voting at the wrong place, green card people not being able to vote).

Most are just honest mistakes.