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

[Guest]

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

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

And who decides all that?

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

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

Not all legislatures, just the bad ones.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Are we talking about whether these laws are constitutional or whether they're good policy? I'm not all that interested in the first question. Lots of bad laws are constitutional.

 

[Rayderr]

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

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

And who decides all that?

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

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

Not all legislatures, just the bad ones.

What you consider bad, others consider good. And if the courts ok it, then it sucks to be you.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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

I think talk of suppressing votes is rhetorically apt when dealing with somebody like the governor (I think) of Pennsylvania who said that the voter ID law there would help Romney beat Obama. His goal was pretty plainly to reduce turnout among likely Obama voters, not so much to protect the integrity of the democratic process.But in this thread, when arguing with people like Ivan, I think talk of suppressing votes is misplaced.Making people register before voting makes it less likely that they will vote. So does making people show up at specified polling locations instead of sending government agents to everybody's house. As Matthias pointed out, this isn't a binary yes-no issue, where everything that makes it harder to vote counts as suppression or unwarranted infringement.For any given policy that makes it harder to vote, we should consider the benefits and the detriments of that policy before we jump to the conclusion that infringement, any infringement, is automatically bad.It's hard to consider the costs and benefits objectively, because we all have political preferences that can bias our analyses. Voter ID laws help Republicans get elected. That's going to subconsciously cause many Republicans to view them more favorably than they otherwise would, and many Democrats to oppose them more sternly than they otherwise would. But we can do our best to put those biases aside.What are the benefits of voter ID laws? Off the top of my head:1. Such laws make certain kinds of voter fraud less likely.2. In some ways, such laws help give the appearance of greater integrity in the electoral process (on account of reason #1).3. To the extent that such laws reduce voter turnout, the effect will be largest among the least motivated voters (who also tend to be the least well informed). The overall effect should be to increase how well informed the average voter is. Whether this is, on net, a benefit or a detriment is a complicated question, but I think there are legitimate reasons to consider it a benefit.The detriments?1. Such laws will cause people to waste time getting IDs, which is not inherently productive activity.2. Such laws will cost resources to issue and check IDs.3. In some ways, such laws will give the appearance of lesser integrity in the electoral process (because when some classes of people are prevented from voting, the process seems rigged).4. Such laws will reduce overall voter turnout. They will prevent some people from voting even though they wanted to, which is a bummer for them. And the effect might be to cause politicians to focus on getting out the vote rather than on appealing to the ideological median. This is the flip side of benefit #3, above, so like I said there, it's not immediately obvious whether the net effect is beneficial or detrimental.My own view is that benefits #1-2 and detriments #1-3, as a practical matter, are fairly trivial, and that the major issue is benefit #3 versus detriment #4. I give detriment #4 more weight, but I don't think it's some kind of slam dunk that makes voter ID proposals the modern analog of poll taxes or literacy tests.

 

[tommyGunZ]

... IMO, there is virtually no societal cost in policies that require prospective voters to jump through a few hoops before voting.

"It is not too bad" is not relevant when it comes to imposing upon individual freedoms. You need to have an actual, real identifiable problem. Your opinion that there will be a benefit doesn't cut it. When in doubt the default position is supposed to be liberty.

My opinion is meaningless, but pretty much all policies are based on someone's opinion. For instance, why 18 to vote instead of 16 or 20 or 25? Why do some states allow same-day registration while others don't? These are based on someone's opinion that these provide the most "benefit" for the least "cost". My personal opinion is that there isn't a real cost to ID laws, while there is some benefit in creating a more secure voting process.And before you start on absentee ballots, voting machine software, etc., I've already said we should fix those holes too.

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

You say I'm misreprenting your position, so please help me understand what you meant by the bold, in the context that you are well aware of the estimates that voter ID laws, if enacted nationally, would result in hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people not being able to vote.Because I don't see how anyone can rationally say that those hundreds of thousands, if not millions of otherwise eligible voters being ineligible to vote, is "no real cost". And if you do have that opinion, I don't see how I'm misrepresenting your position by stating that lawmakers value a citizen's right to vote more than you do.

I'm a proud lefty, but I'm not a carpet bombing extremist like jon_mx.

 

[The Commish]

Can someone explain to me the concept of "millions of otherwise eligible voters being ineligible" means? They become ineligible if they choose not to do the necessary things to become eligible. If they are ok with that choice, why wouldn't I be? Going back to the question I asked that nobody wanted to answer, if we came up with something that basically made everyone "ineligible" (though I'm not very fond of that term in this context) does this argument of disenfranchised go away? If the new system requires EVERYONE to take the SAME action, then what's the argument against it?

 

[Chaka]

Four years until the next Presidential election. Is that a reasonable amount of time to expect those who wish to vote in 2016 to procure identification or is it still racial and income driven suppression?

 

[RCon]

Are we talking about whether these laws are constitutional or whether they're good policy? I'm not all that interested in the first question. Lots of bad laws are constitutional.

I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that they are constitutional. I've been discussing whether they're good policy.

 

[RCon]

... IMO, there is virtually no societal cost in policies that require prospective voters to jump through a few hoops before voting.

"It is not too bad" is not relevant when it comes to imposing upon individual freedoms. You need to have an actual, real identifiable problem. Your opinion that there will be a benefit doesn't cut it. When in doubt the default position is supposed to be liberty.

My opinion is meaningless, but pretty much all policies are based on someone's opinion. For instance, why 18 to vote instead of 16 or 20 or 25? Why do some states allow same-day registration while others don't? These are based on someone's opinion that these provide the most "benefit" for the least "cost". My personal opinion is that there isn't a real cost to ID laws, while there is some benefit in creating a more secure voting process.And before you start on absentee ballots, voting machine software, etc., I've already said we should fix those holes too.

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

You say I'm misreprenting your position, so please help me understand what you meant by the bold, in the context that you are well aware of the estimates that voter ID laws, if enacted nationally, would result in hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people not being able to vote.Because I don't see how anyone can rationally say that those hundreds of thousands, if not millions of otherwise eligible voters being ineligible to vote, is "no real cost". And if you do have that opinion, I don't see how I'm misrepresenting your position by stating that lawmakers value a citizen's right to vote more than you do.

I'm a proud lefty, but I'm not a carpet bombing extremist like jon_mx.

Simple. People are only ineligible to vote if they don't perform the prerequisite action(s). In this case, those prerequisites would include registering to vote, obtaining a valid ID, and showing up at the polling place, as opposed to registering to vote and showing up at the polling place. In other words, people are only "ineligible to vote" by their own choice. I don't consider that an issue, any more than you consider it an issue for people who don't register to vote to be ineligible to vote. I just don't see a societal cost in slightly modifying the list of prerequisites. The right to vote isn't being "taken away".

 

[tommyGunZ]

... IMO, there is virtually no societal cost in policies that require prospective voters to jump through a few hoops before voting.

"It is not too bad" is not relevant when it comes to imposing upon individual freedoms. You need to have an actual, real identifiable problem. Your opinion that there will be a benefit doesn't cut it. When in doubt the default position is supposed to be liberty.

My opinion is meaningless, but pretty much all policies are based on someone's opinion. For instance, why 18 to vote instead of 16 or 20 or 25? Why do some states allow same-day registration while others don't? These are based on someone's opinion that these provide the most "benefit" for the least "cost". My personal opinion is that there isn't a real cost to ID laws, while there is some benefit in creating a more secure voting process.And before you start on absentee ballots, voting machine software, etc., I've already said we should fix those holes too.

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

You say I'm misreprenting your position, so please help me understand what you meant by the bold, in the context that you are well aware of the estimates that voter ID laws, if enacted nationally, would result in hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people not being able to vote.Because I don't see how anyone can rationally say that those hundreds of thousands, if not millions of otherwise eligible voters being ineligible to vote, is "no real cost". And if you do have that opinion, I don't see how I'm misrepresenting your position by stating that lawmakers value a citizen's right to vote more than you do.

I'm a proud lefty, but I'm not a carpet bombing extremist like jon_mx.

Simple. People are only ineligible to vote if they don't perform the prerequisite action(s). In this case, those prerequisites would include registering to vote, obtaining a valid ID, and showing up at the polling place, as opposed to registering to vote and showing up at the polling place. In other words, people are only "ineligible to vote" by their own choice. I don't consider that an issue, any more than you consider it an issue for people who don't register to vote to be ineligible to vote. I just don't see a societal cost in slightly modifying the list of prerequisites. The right to vote isn't being "taken away".

Even if that modification results in hundreds of thousands, if not millions being ineligible to vote due to the modification? With that outcome, shouldn't there be a legitimate interest being served by the modification?

 

[moleculo]

... IMO, there is virtually no societal cost in policies that require prospective voters to jump through a few hoops before voting.

"It is not too bad" is not relevant when it comes to imposing upon individual freedoms. You need to have an actual, real identifiable problem. Your opinion that there will be a benefit doesn't cut it. When in doubt the default position is supposed to be liberty.

My opinion is meaningless, but pretty much all policies are based on someone's opinion. For instance, why 18 to vote instead of 16 or 20 or 25? Why do some states allow same-day registration while others don't? These are based on someone's opinion that these provide the most "benefit" for the least "cost". My personal opinion is that there isn't a real cost to ID laws, while there is some benefit in creating a more secure voting process.And before you start on absentee ballots, voting machine software, etc., I've already said we should fix those holes too.

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

You say I'm misreprenting your position, so please help me understand what you meant by the bold, in the context that you are well aware of the estimates that voter ID laws, if enacted nationally, would result in hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people not being able to vote.Because I don't see how anyone can rationally say that those hundreds of thousands, if not millions of otherwise eligible voters being ineligible to vote, is "no real cost". And if you do have that opinion, I don't see how I'm misrepresenting your position by stating that lawmakers value a citizen's right to vote more than you do.

I'm a proud lefty, but I'm not a carpet bombing extremist like jon_mx.

Simple. People are only ineligible to vote if they don't perform the prerequisite action(s). In this case, those prerequisites would include registering to vote, obtaining a valid ID, and showing up at the polling place, as opposed to registering to vote and showing up at the polling place. In other words, people are only "ineligible to vote" by their own choice. I don't consider that an issue, any more than you consider it an issue for people who don't register to vote to be ineligible to vote. I just don't see a societal cost in slightly modifying the list of prerequisites. The right to vote isn't being "taken away".

Even if that modification results in hundreds of thousands, if not millions being ineligible to vote due to the modification? With that outcome, shouldn't there be a legitimate interest being served by the modification?

can you expand on why you think they would be ineligible?

 

[The Commish]

... IMO, there is virtually no societal cost in policies that require prospective voters to jump through a few hoops before voting.

"It is not too bad" is not relevant when it comes to imposing upon individual freedoms. You need to have an actual, real identifiable problem. Your opinion that there will be a benefit doesn't cut it. When in doubt the default position is supposed to be liberty.

My opinion is meaningless, but pretty much all policies are based on someone's opinion. For instance, why 18 to vote instead of 16 or 20 or 25? Why do some states allow same-day registration while others don't? These are based on someone's opinion that these provide the most "benefit" for the least "cost". My personal opinion is that there isn't a real cost to ID laws, while there is some benefit in creating a more secure voting process.And before you start on absentee ballots, voting machine software, etc., I've already said we should fix those holes too.

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

You say I'm misreprenting your position, so please help me understand what you meant by the bold, in the context that you are well aware of the estimates that voter ID laws, if enacted nationally, would result in hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people not being able to vote.Because I don't see how anyone can rationally say that those hundreds of thousands, if not millions of otherwise eligible voters being ineligible to vote, is "no real cost". And if you do have that opinion, I don't see how I'm misrepresenting your position by stating that lawmakers value a citizen's right to vote more than you do.

I'm a proud lefty, but I'm not a carpet bombing extremist like jon_mx.

Simple. People are only ineligible to vote if they don't perform the prerequisite action(s). In this case, those prerequisites would include registering to vote, obtaining a valid ID, and showing up at the polling place, as opposed to registering to vote and showing up at the polling place. In other words, people are only "ineligible to vote" by their own choice. I don't consider that an issue, any more than you consider it an issue for people who don't register to vote to be ineligible to vote. I just don't see a societal cost in slightly modifying the list of prerequisites. The right to vote isn't being "taken away".

Even if that modification results in hundreds of thousands, if not millions being ineligible to vote due to the modification? With that outcome, shouldn't there be a legitimate interest being served by the modification?

Again...their inaction results in them being ineligible, not the modification itself and no, self interest should not be put before the integrity of the system overall.

 

[tommyGunZ]

can you expand on why you think they would be ineligible?

The Brennan Center has compiled a long list of published studies on this topic here.

 

[tommyGunZ]

... IMO, there is virtually no societal cost in policies that require prospective voters to jump through a few hoops before voting.

"It is not too bad" is not relevant when it comes to imposing upon individual freedoms. You need to have an actual, real identifiable problem. Your opinion that there will be a benefit doesn't cut it. When in doubt the default position is supposed to be liberty.

My opinion is meaningless, but pretty much all policies are based on someone's opinion. For instance, why 18 to vote instead of 16 or 20 or 25? Why do some states allow same-day registration while others don't? These are based on someone's opinion that these provide the most "benefit" for the least "cost". My personal opinion is that there isn't a real cost to ID laws, while there is some benefit in creating a more secure voting process.And before you start on absentee ballots, voting machine software, etc., I've already said we should fix those holes too.

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

You say I'm misreprenting your position, so please help me understand what you meant by the bold, in the context that you are well aware of the estimates that voter ID laws, if enacted nationally, would result in hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people not being able to vote.Because I don't see how anyone can rationally say that those hundreds of thousands, if not millions of otherwise eligible voters being ineligible to vote, is "no real cost". And if you do have that opinion, I don't see how I'm misrepresenting your position by stating that lawmakers value a citizen's right to vote more than you do.

I'm a proud lefty, but I'm not a carpet bombing extremist like jon_mx.

Simple. People are only ineligible to vote if they don't perform the prerequisite action(s). In this case, those prerequisites would include registering to vote, obtaining a valid ID, and showing up at the polling place, as opposed to registering to vote and showing up at the polling place. In other words, people are only "ineligible to vote" by their own choice. I don't consider that an issue, any more than you consider it an issue for people who don't register to vote to be ineligible to vote. I just don't see a societal cost in slightly modifying the list of prerequisites. The right to vote isn't being "taken away".

Even if that modification results in hundreds of thousands, if not millions being ineligible to vote due to the modification? With that outcome, shouldn't there be a legitimate interest being served by the modification?

Again...their inaction results in them being ineligible, not the modification itself and no, self interest should not be put before the integrity of the system overall.

What if the hurdle is that one has to complete a marathon in order to be eligible to vote? That's okay with you as well, since your analysis apparently turns on "inaction" instead of a more logical cost/benefit analysis?

 

[RCon]

You say I'm misreprenting your position, so please help me understand what you meant by the bold, in the context that you are well aware of the estimates that voter ID laws, if enacted nationally, would result in hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people not being able to vote.

Because I don't see how anyone can rationally say that those hundreds of thousands, if not millions of otherwise eligible voters being ineligible to vote, is "no real cost". And if you do have that opinion, I don't see how I'm misrepresenting your position by stating that lawmakers value a citizen's right to vote more than you do.

I'm a proud lefty, but I'm not a carpet bombing extremist like jon_mx.

Simple. People are only ineligible to vote if they don't perform the prerequisite action(s). In this case, those prerequisites would include registering to vote, obtaining a valid ID, and showing up at the polling place, as opposed to registering to vote and showing up at the polling place. In other words, people are only "ineligible to vote" by their own choice. I don't consider that an issue, any more than you consider it an issue for people who don't register to vote to be ineligible to vote. I just don't see a societal cost in slightly modifying the list of prerequisites. The right to vote isn't being "taken away".

Even if that modification results in hundreds of thousands, if not millions being ineligible to vote due to the modification? With that outcome, shouldn't there be a legitimate interest being served by the modification?

 

[tommyGunZ]

You say I'm misreprenting your position, so please help me understand what you meant by the bold, in the context that you are well aware of the estimates that voter ID laws, if enacted nationally, would result in hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people not being able to vote.

Because I don't see how anyone can rationally say that those hundreds of thousands, if not millions of otherwise eligible voters being ineligible to vote, is "no real cost". And if you do have that opinion, I don't see how I'm misrepresenting your position by stating that lawmakers value a citizen's right to vote more than you do.

I'm a proud lefty, but I'm not a carpet bombing extremist like jon_mx.

Simple. People are only ineligible to vote if they don't perform the prerequisite action(s). In this case, those prerequisites would include registering to vote, obtaining a valid ID, and showing up at the polling place, as opposed to registering to vote and showing up at the polling place. In other words, people are only "ineligible to vote" by their own choice. I don't consider that an issue, any more than you consider it an issue for people who don't register to vote to be ineligible to vote. I just don't see a societal cost in slightly modifying the list of prerequisites. The right to vote isn't being "taken away".

Even if that modification results in hundreds of thousands, if not millions being ineligible to vote due to the modification? With that outcome, shouldn't there be a legitimate interest being served by the modification?

Right - you don't believe those folks not being able to vote is a cost. Which is why I don't understand why you're claiming I'm misrepresenting your position by stating that the right to vote isn't as important to you as it is to others.ETA: Apologies if this is frustrating, I just want to understand how I'm being unfair. There is no problem with us disagreeing on the issue - but I'm an intellectually honest debator, and I am really not trying to misrepresent your positon.

 

[Rayderr]

... IMO, there is virtually no societal cost in policies that require prospective voters to jump through a few hoops before voting.

"It is not too bad" is not relevant when it comes to imposing upon individual freedoms. You need to have an actual, real identifiable problem. Your opinion that there will be a benefit doesn't cut it. When in doubt the default position is supposed to be liberty.

My opinion is meaningless, but pretty much all policies are based on someone's opinion. For instance, why 18 to vote instead of 16 or 20 or 25? Why do some states allow same-day registration while others don't? These are based on someone's opinion that these provide the most "benefit" for the least "cost". My personal opinion is that there isn't a real cost to ID laws, while there is some benefit in creating a more secure voting process.And before you start on absentee ballots, voting machine software, etc., I've already said we should fix those holes too.

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

You say I'm misreprenting your position, so please help me understand what you meant by the bold, in the context that you are well aware of the estimates that voter ID laws, if enacted nationally, would result in hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people not being able to vote.Because I don't see how anyone can rationally say that those hundreds of thousands, if not millions of otherwise eligible voters being ineligible to vote, is "no real cost". And if you do have that opinion, I don't see how I'm misrepresenting your position by stating that lawmakers value a citizen's right to vote more than you do.

I'm a proud lefty, but I'm not a carpet bombing extremist like jon_mx.

Simple. People are only ineligible to vote if they don't perform the prerequisite action(s). In this case, those prerequisites would include registering to vote, obtaining a valid ID, and showing up at the polling place, as opposed to registering to vote and showing up at the polling place. In other words, people are only "ineligible to vote" by their own choice. I don't consider that an issue, any more than you consider it an issue for people who don't register to vote to be ineligible to vote. I just don't see a societal cost in slightly modifying the list of prerequisites. The right to vote isn't being "taken away".

Even if that modification results in hundreds of thousands, if not millions being ineligible to vote due to the modification? With that outcome, shouldn't there be a legitimate interest being served by the modification?

Again...their inaction results in them being ineligible, not the modification itself and no, self interest should not be put before the integrity of the system overall.

What if the hurdle is that one has to complete a marathon in order to be eligible to vote? That's okay with you as well, since your analysis apparently turns on "inaction" instead of a more logical cost/benefit analysis?

Why I've always thought getting an ID was just as hard as getting an ID.

 

[Chaka]

... IMO, there is virtually no societal cost in policies that require prospective voters to jump through a few hoops before voting.

"It is not too bad" is not relevant when it comes to imposing upon individual freedoms. You need to have an actual, real identifiable problem. Your opinion that there will be a benefit doesn't cut it. When in doubt the default position is supposed to be liberty.

My opinion is meaningless, but pretty much all policies are based on someone's opinion. For instance, why 18 to vote instead of 16 or 20 or 25? Why do some states allow same-day registration while others don't? These are based on someone's opinion that these provide the most "benefit" for the least "cost". My personal opinion is that there isn't a real cost to ID laws, while there is some benefit in creating a more secure voting process.And before you start on absentee ballots, voting machine software, etc., I've already said we should fix those holes too.

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

You say I'm misreprenting your position, so please help me understand what you meant by the bold, in the context that you are well aware of the estimates that voter ID laws, if enacted nationally, would result in hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people not being able to vote.Because I don't see how anyone can rationally say that those hundreds of thousands, if not millions of otherwise eligible voters being ineligible to vote, is "no real cost". And if you do have that opinion, I don't see how I'm misrepresenting your position by stating that lawmakers value a citizen's right to vote more than you do.

I'm a proud lefty, but I'm not a carpet bombing extremist like jon_mx.

Simple. People are only ineligible to vote if they don't perform the prerequisite action(s). In this case, those prerequisites would include registering to vote, obtaining a valid ID, and showing up at the polling place, as opposed to registering to vote and showing up at the polling place. In other words, people are only "ineligible to vote" by their own choice. I don't consider that an issue, any more than you consider it an issue for people who don't register to vote to be ineligible to vote. I just don't see a societal cost in slightly modifying the list of prerequisites. The right to vote isn't being "taken away".

Even if that modification results in hundreds of thousands, if not millions being ineligible to vote due to the modification? With that outcome, shouldn't there be a legitimate interest being served by the modification?

I wish you wouldn't throw around those numbers as if they were fact. They aren't. The Brennan Institute cannot predict the future.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Why I've always thought getting an ID was just as hard as getting an ID.

Which is wrong. It is quite a bit easier to obtain a photo ID, for example if you and/or the (any) state has a copy of your birth certificate.

 

[Guest]

I wish you wouldn't throw around those numbers as if they were fact. They aren't. The Brennan Institute cannot predict the future.

Either can anybody else but that doesn't stop every public policy decision being made on the basis of projections.

 

[Chaka]

I wish you wouldn't throw around those numbers as if they were fact. They aren't. The Brennan Institute cannot predict the future.

Either can anybody else but that doesn't stop every public policy decision being made on the basis of projections.

Okay.

 

[Magic Football Shoes]

Good grief, what a ##### slap fight in here.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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

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

Even though it would be bad for the good guys, I'd rather that there be real corruption rather than hypothetical corruption being addressed. I'd rather that real corruption be narrowly address rather than blanket solutions to deal with trivial "what ifs". Again when in doubt the default position should be the government does nothing, and when there is a need government should do the minimal required - even if it makes governing hard and less efficient (which is how it is supposed to work).Just like with voter id laws I'd being willing concede the "principled stand" of right and wrong when it is just not worth the fight. (If you actually go back in this thread like it was suggested I do you'll see that from a practical perspective I don't think the left should oppose voter id laws but instead shape them and concentrate on mitigating the damage created. That pragmatic position of course doesn't change that these laws are shames that serve no real legitimate purpose.)

 

[Rayderr]

Why I've always thought getting an ID was just as hard as getting an ID.

Which is wrong. It is quite a bit easier to obtain a photo ID, for example if you and/or the (any) state has a copy of your birth certificate.

Nope. Just as hard. For me to get an ID here in Ohio, it took 15 minutes. Granted 10 minutes of that was the driving test, but 15 minutes! I could've run a a marathon in that time.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I wish you wouldn't throw around those numbers as if they were fact. They aren't. The Brennan Institute cannot predict the future.

Nate Silver can, and he says that these laws tend to surpress the vote by something like "2-3 percent".

 

[RCon]

You say I'm misreprenting your position, so please help me understand what you meant by the bold, in the context that you are well aware of the estimates that voter ID laws, if enacted nationally, would result in hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people not being able to vote.

Because I don't see how anyone can rationally say that those hundreds of thousands, if not millions of otherwise eligible voters being ineligible to vote, is "no real cost". And if you do have that opinion, I don't see how I'm misrepresenting your position by stating that lawmakers value a citizen's right to vote more than you do.

I'm a proud lefty, but I'm not a carpet bombing extremist like jon_mx.

Simple. People are only ineligible to vote if they don't perform the prerequisite action(s). In this case, those prerequisites would include registering to vote, obtaining a valid ID, and showing up at the polling place, as opposed to registering to vote and showing up at the polling place. In other words, people are only "ineligible to vote" by their own choice. I don't consider that an issue, any more than you consider it an issue for people who don't register to vote to be ineligible to vote. I just don't see a societal cost in slightly modifying the list of prerequisites. The right to vote isn't being "taken away".

Even if that modification results in hundreds of thousands, if not millions being ineligible to vote due to the modification? With that outcome, shouldn't there be a legitimate interest being served by the modification?

Right - you don't believe those folks not being able to vote is a cost. Which is why I don't understand why you're claiming I'm misrepresenting your position by stating that the right to vote isn't as important to you as it is to others.ETA: Apologies if this is frustrating, I just want to understand how I'm being unfair. There is no problem with us disagreeing on the issue - but I'm an intellectually honest debator, and I am really not trying to misrepresent your positon.

Did you read IvanK's posts over the past few pages? He explains it pretty well.Basically, I don't see a societal cost in people not voting due to their own apathy.

 

[Chaka]

I wish you wouldn't throw around those numbers as if they were fact. They aren't. The Brennan Institute cannot predict the future.

Nate Silver can, and he says that these laws tend to surpress the vote by something like "2-3 percent".

Okay.

 

[StrikeS2k]

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

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

Even though it would be bad for the good guys, I'd rather that there be real corruption rather than hypothetical corruption being addressed. I'd rather that real corruption be narrowly address rather than blanket solutions to deal with trivial "what ifs". Again when in doubt the default position should be the government does nothing, and when there is a need government should do the minimal required - even if it makes governing hard and less efficient (which is how it is supposed to work).Just like with voter id laws I'd being willing concede the "principled stand" of right and wrong when it is just not worth the fight. (If you actually go back in this thread like it was suggested I do you'll see that from a practical perspective I don't think the left should oppose voter id laws but instead shape them and concentrate on mitigating the damage created. That pragmatic position of course doesn't change that these laws are shames that serve no real legitimate purpose.)

I posted a link to a proven case of real fraud/corruption affecting an election, in this very thread. That's the problem with 33 page threads. The proof you seek may already be there, but you either ignored it or forgot about it. But it's here.

 

[Guest]

I posted a link to a proven case of real fraud/corruption affecting an election, in this very thread. That's the problem with 33 page threads. The proof you seek may already be there, but you either ignored it or forgot about it. But it's here.

Nobody cares if there has ever been a case of voter fraud or corruption. Everybody has pretty much agreed that it happens. The question is voter fraud of the type that Voter IDs prevent. Everything else is just wasting time and trying to misdirect from the fact that this isn't that big of a deal.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I posted a link to a proven case of real fraud/corruption affecting an election, in this very thread. That's the problem with 33 page threads. The proof you seek may already be there, but you either ignored it or forgot about it. But it's here.

Nobody cares if there has ever been a case of voter fraud or corruption. Everybody has pretty much agreed that it happens. The question is voter fraud of the type that Voter IDs prevent. Everything else is just wasting time and trying to misdirect from the fact that this isn't that big of a deal.

This statement is kind of funny since both sides could say the exact same thing.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I posted a link to a proven case of real fraud/corruption affecting an election, in this very thread. That's the problem with 33 page threads. The proof you seek may already be there, but you either ignored it or forgot about it. But it's here.

Nobody cares if there has ever been a case of voter fraud or corruption. Everybody has pretty much agreed that it happens. The question is voter fraud of the type that Voter IDs prevent. Everything else is just wasting time and trying to misdirect from the fact that this isn't that big of a deal.

I posted a link to a proven case of real fraud/corruption affecting an election, of the very type that voter id would help prevent, in this very thread. That's the problem with 33 page threads. The proof you seek may already be there, but you either ignored it or forgot about it. But it's here.

 

[Slapdash]

Why I've always thought getting an ID was just as hard as getting an ID.

Which is wrong. It is quite a bit easier to obtain a photo ID, for example if you and/or the (any) state has a copy of your birth certificate.

Nope. Just as hard. For me to get an ID here in Ohio, it took 15 minutes. Granted 10 minutes of that was the driving test, but 15 minutes! I could've run a a marathon in that time.

It took me five hours in North Carolina, without a driving test.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I posted a link to a proven case of real fraud/corruption affecting an election, in this very thread. That's the problem with 33 page threads. The proof you seek may already be there, but you either ignored it or forgot about it. But it's here.

This? How does photo ids solve anything here?

 

[StrikeS2k]

I posted a link to a proven case of real fraud/corruption affecting an election, in this very thread. That's the problem with 33 page threads. The proof you seek may already be there, but you either ignored it or forgot about it. But it's here.

This? How does photo ids solve anything here?

On the witness stand, 90-year-old Bernard Roberts could barely hear the questions being shouted at him. Roberts, who lives in a retirement community in Surprise, Ariz., had received a subpoena to testify in a dispute over a City Council election in faraway Vernon. Roberts had voted in the Vernon election. Or, at least, someone had cast a ballot in his name. He had no memory of it. "I don't know what the hell I'm doing here," he testified. "I don't live here."

 

[Guest]

On the witness stand, 90-year-old Bernard Roberts could barely hear the questions being shouted at him. Roberts, who lives in a retirement community in Surprise, Ariz., had received a subpoena to testify in a dispute over a City Council election in faraway Vernon. Roberts had voted in the Vernon election. Or, at least, someone had cast a ballot in his name. He had no memory of it. "I don't know what the hell I'm doing here," he testified. "I don't live here."

This is mostly a case of voter registration fraud. They registered to vote saying they lived in the town and they didn't. It's also a case where there were only 70 registered voters in the whole voter pool. It's a terrible example to try to justify requiring IDs in a statewide election.

 

[StrikeS2k]

On the witness stand, 90-year-old Bernard Roberts could barely hear the questions being shouted at him. Roberts, who lives in a retirement community in Surprise, Ariz., had received a subpoena to testify in a dispute over a City Council election in faraway Vernon. Roberts had voted in the Vernon election. Or, at least, someone had cast a ballot in his name. He had no memory of it. "I don't know what the hell I'm doing here," he testified. "I don't live here."

This is mostly a case of voter registration fraud. They registered to vote saying they lived in the town and they didn't. It's also a case where there were only 70 registered voters in the whole voter pool. It's a terrible example to try to justify requiring IDs in a statewide election.

Someone voted in their place. Had ID been required those people might not have been allowed to vote. It's funny. You constantly say that there isn't any voter fraud ID would prevent, but you aren't even the slightest bit concerned when a proven case where it altered an election is posted.

 

[RCon]

On the witness stand, 90-year-old Bernard Roberts could barely hear the questions being shouted at him. Roberts, who lives in a retirement community in Surprise, Ariz., had received a subpoena to testify in a dispute over a City Council election in faraway Vernon. Roberts had voted in the Vernon election. Or, at least, someone had cast a ballot in his name. He had no memory of it. "I don't know what the hell I'm doing here," he testified. "I don't live here."

This is mostly a case of voter registration fraud. They registered to vote saying they lived in the town and they didn't. It's also a case where there were only 70 registered voters in the whole voter pool. It's a terrible example to try to justify requiring IDs in a statewide election.

Actually, a tiny precinct in which this type of vote fraud occurs is a great example to use. If even a small, closely knit precinct can't instantly recognize and prevent people from voting as others, how could we possibly expect large precincts where the poll workers don't know anyone to do so?

 

[The Commish]

... IMO, there is virtually no societal cost in policies that require prospective voters to jump through a few hoops before voting.

"It is not too bad" is not relevant when it comes to imposing upon individual freedoms. You need to have an actual, real identifiable problem. Your opinion that there will be a benefit doesn't cut it. When in doubt the default position is supposed to be liberty.

My opinion is meaningless, but pretty much all policies are based on someone's opinion. For instance, why 18 to vote instead of 16 or 20 or 25? Why do some states allow same-day registration while others don't? These are based on someone's opinion that these provide the most "benefit" for the least "cost". My personal opinion is that there isn't a real cost to ID laws, while there is some benefit in creating a more secure voting process.And before you start on absentee ballots, voting machine software, etc., I've already said we should fix those holes too.

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

You say I'm misreprenting your position, so please help me understand what you meant by the bold, in the context that you are well aware of the estimates that voter ID laws, if enacted nationally, would result in hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people not being able to vote.Because I don't see how anyone can rationally say that those hundreds of thousands, if not millions of otherwise eligible voters being ineligible to vote, is "no real cost". And if you do have that opinion, I don't see how I'm misrepresenting your position by stating that lawmakers value a citizen's right to vote more than you do.

I'm a proud lefty, but I'm not a carpet bombing extremist like jon_mx.

Simple. People are only ineligible to vote if they don't perform the prerequisite action(s). In this case, those prerequisites would include registering to vote, obtaining a valid ID, and showing up at the polling place, as opposed to registering to vote and showing up at the polling place. In other words, people are only "ineligible to vote" by their own choice. I don't consider that an issue, any more than you consider it an issue for people who don't register to vote to be ineligible to vote. I just don't see a societal cost in slightly modifying the list of prerequisites. The right to vote isn't being "taken away".

Even if that modification results in hundreds of thousands, if not millions being ineligible to vote due to the modification? With that outcome, shouldn't there be a legitimate interest being served by the modification?

Again...their inaction results in them being ineligible, not the modification itself and no, self interest should not be put before the integrity of the system overall.

What if the hurdle is that one has to complete a marathon in order to be eligible to vote? That's okay with you as well, since your analysis apparently turns on "inaction" instead of a more logical cost/benefit analysis?

huh?

 

[CBusAlex]

Republican investigation into voter fraud in Ohio finds a whopping 17 non-citizens voted

It should be noted that all 17 were in the US legally and had valid driver's licences, so an ID law would not have prevented them from voting anyway.

 

[StrikeS2k]

NAACP Holding Rally to Protest Voter ID Laws…Photo IDs REQUIRED to Attend

http://toprightnews.com/?p=1347

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

NAACP Holding Rally to Protest Voter ID Laws…Photo IDs REQUIRED to Attend

http://toprightnews.com/?p=1347

Nobody is required to provide a photo ID to attend the rally. It's just suggested that attendees have one, I guess in case of emergency or whatever.

ETA: Other items from the list are stuff like "bring a hat an comfy shoes." You think they'll be turning people away for being hatless?

 

[Parrothead]

NAACP Holding Rally to Protest Voter ID Laws…Photo IDs REQUIRED to Attend

http://toprightnews.com/?p=1347

Nobody is required to provide a photo ID to attend the rally. It's just suggested that attendees have one, I guess in case of emergency or whatever.

all the more reason everyone should have an ID

 

[jon_mx]

Why I've always thought getting an ID was just as hard as getting an ID.

Which is wrong. It is quite a bit easier to obtain a photo ID, for example if you and/or the (any) state has a copy of your birth certificate.

So Obama might not be able to vote???

 

[jon_mx]

Republican investigation into voter fraud in Ohio finds a whopping 17 non-citizens voted

It should be noted that all 17 were in the US legally and had valid driver's licences, so an ID law would not have prevented them from voting anyway.

But that is the problem, without voter ID it is impossible to even know, We have no idea if the people who voted are who they say they are and no investigation in the world could reveal it.

 

[Tchula]

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

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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

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

 

[Sand]

In other areas it seems the criteria for ID has gone up. Went and got a new driver's license a couple weeks back. I needed 5 forms of ID - my old DL, SS card, valid passport, and two bills with my address. Just an interesting observation.

 

[DSP]

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

 

[Rayderr]

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

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

Yard sales down?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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

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

Yard sales down?

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