Reply With QuoteA photo ID does seem like such a little thing, especially if provided free by your government.
I could see things to justify both sides, however I do think if you can't be arsed to go get an ID (which doesnt' take much time or money in the grand scheme of things AND is useful for things other than voting) then you probably shouldn't be voting in the first place. I prefer people informed enough to understand the merits of owning a photo id in to be the people voting in elections.
A photo ID does seem like such a little thing, especially if provided free by your government.
It becomes, in effect, a poll tax.
Some of the most consistent voters I've ever met are amongst the most rabidly ideological, low-information people I've known. I don't think putting up barriers to the act itself will make for a better, more patriotic citizenry.Originally Posted by Harkonis
Not if the photo ID was supplied free of charge. I do understand that argument if those without ID's are required to buy them. Of course, if a taxpayer doesn't wish to buy an ID on their own then the government would have the right to tax them. :)
Even if the state will issue you an official ID free of charge, it's also a question of the time involved to get your butt to the DMV office or wherever, stand in line for who knows how long, etc. Especially onerous if you don't have a car (as is the case with many poorer people) or have to work more than a full time schedule just to make ends meet.
This is CLEARLY an effort to disenfranchise Democratic-leaning voting blocks. Why else would the GOP be pushing so hard for it?
Ah, OK. You're suggesting a new ID system, not piggybacking on one already in place. That does still get into the opportunity costs of obtaining such an ID and whether that constitutes a poll tax, but it's a trickier argument there.
Sure, so long as that ID isn't then required for voting. ;)Of course, if a taxpayer doesn't wish to buy an ID on their own then the government would have the right to tax them. :)
This is silly though. You are starting with the assumption that the goals of a party are too disenfranchise voters.
If you are willing to start with such an assumption, then you can flip it around and say that obviously the lack of a voter id system promotes voter fraud, because why else would the democrats oppose it? It's a silly, empty argument.
A scarce vacation day being one charge, bear in mind - so figure opening that office at the weekends...
No it's not. The burden of argument is on those trying to keep people from voting. If "voter fraud" is so easy, surely it's open to would-be GOP-leaning fraudsters, so where's the partisan advantage?
If voter fraud is, in fact, quite rare, what other motivation could there be? People in support of strict voter ID requirements are either stupid or want to depress minority turn-out. There is no third option.
I'm suspicious of any attempt to filter out voters.
If I properly register to vote, as required, and show up, and my name is on their list, why the hell should anyone at that point be able to stop me and say "Not so fast bub, now you have to show us your..." in order for me to vote?
Shouldn't the burden be on them to present evidence why I can't vote? I think so. Instead, it appears certain people want to assume everyone is voting fraudulently until voters prove otherwise.
If voting is that most sacred of rights then shouldn't voters be willing to do what is necessary to be willing to secure the legality of all the votes cast.
If you are too lazy, unwilling, can't find a way there etc....aren't those just excuses. As stated above I am sure the democratic party would help and encourage getting the "voters" out.
Name anything else you can do (this important) without having to "prove" who you are. Can you pick up a package, get credit, buy a drink, cash a check etc. all based on your say so?
Throwing away one of your VERY scarce vacation days is not a small sacrifice. Assuming you HAVE vacation days, a not insignificant proportion of poor Americans don't! Throwing away your job to get registered to vote is...not smart.
(Shit, I can't think of a non-shift employer in the UK who wouldn't let you take an extra hour one lunch to go to do this, but in America? Ha!)
If you want to start talking about a special right in terms of voter registration...well...you're fixing a problem you've caused.
So your not even going to pretend its about preventing voter fraud and instead admit its to keep the poor and the lazy from voting. At least your honest that you want to purposefully depress the turnout of people you consider unworthy to vote.
The statistics on voter fraud indicate that we are already doing this; there is no need for photo ID laws for this non-existent problem.
Speech.
Not a single one of those is a right - they're all business transactions that operate by the rules set up by the operators. There's nothing stopping me from starting a shipping company that doesn't require ID to retrieve packages, but by virtue of voting being a right afforded to all citizens (except in very few specific cases), I can't run a voting station and require voters prove to me that they're worth > $1m prior to letting them vote.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ws-charts-maps
Voter fraud from aliens will be the next 'fear' from the GOP. Though I'll enjoy watching Louie Gohmert demagoguing about them in 3. . .2 . . .1 . . . .
Thanks for reading the entire post and jumping to the conclusion you wanted to jump too. Your right, it is all about me and my evilness.
I do love how difficult it is, how much a person must truly give up in order to exercise that sacred right of voting.
And every few years when you need to renew your drivers license in person it is no problem for those "rich" people as their bosses understand. Don't be stupid with your arguments. At least come at it from an intelligent angle.Throwing away one of your VERY scarce vacation days is not a small sacrifice. Assuming you HAVE vacation days, a not insignificant proportion of poor Americans don't! Throwing away your job to get registered to vote is...not smart.
(Shit, I can't think of a non-shift employer in the UK who wouldn't let you take an extra hour one lunch to go to do this, but in America? Ha!)
If you want to start talking about a special right in terms of voter registration...well...you're fixing a problem you've caused.
And I am here to learn. It does seem to be a non-issue if there are no real recorded mass instances of voter fraud. I know the only time I can remember voter fraud locally actually involved someone in the voting office illegally counting signatures.
So a business needs to know who a person is but a voting official at a polling place doesn't. Okay.
Scuzz - in response to your original question, I'm going to have to go with it not being a partisan bill. I'd say that 110% (the extra 10% being filed by the dead people :)), of the bills proposed have been proposed in order to limit the access of traditional Democratic Voters to vote (minorities, college students, etc.). Because there have been so many, and most have been written by ALEC in one form or another, I have a harder time accepting one.
I guess I need my sense of fairness to kick in, and since most of these are based on ALEC model legislation, and not written in a bi-partisan fashion, I don't see them as anything but political sledgehammers, and not something that could be fixed.
I guess I see this as a non-problem that probably isn't worth the money required to supply photo ID's to everyone. I don't think it really boils down to someone having the time or money to obtain a photo ID, but I also don't think there is any true evidence of organized fraud requiring the time and expense.
Having grown up hearing and reading about Kennedy "stealing" the 1960 election, and other elections (notably in Philadelphia) where private groups controlled elections for years it just seemed like the idea of voter fraud wasn't so far fetched.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...of-voter-fraud
Question...Is US News & World Report considered a left/right magazine? I don't think I have read one in years.
I haven't read one in a long time either. That article is fairly representative of what I would consider the non-shrill, left position however.
The notion that voter fraud is quite rare is based simply on the fact that it is not often actually caught. That doesn't mean it cannot be occurring, especially in a system that doesn't try particularly hard to counter it.
That being said, there are huge "irregularities" that show up commonly in various locations. My old hometown of philly, for instance, has seemingly chronic problems with elections. They routinely have precincts which have more votes than are possible... in the 2011 primaries, 5 percent of the precincts reported more votes from the voting machines than people who actually signed in to vote. Something clearly was incorrect about the results they turned in.. but since no clear case could be made that someone intentionally rigged the results, it could not be considered fraud. But Philly's city commissioner hasn't been able to explain the non-trivial number of over-votes which had occurred. And that was in a relatively tiny nothing election.
This isn't to suggest that all of such problems would magically be fixed by voter ID systems.. but the idea that voter fraud doesn't exist is kind of naive.
The reality is, things like deciding the presidency of the US is one of the most important political decisions in the entire world. It impacts everything around the globe. The incentive to swing such an election is immense.
The notion that any attempt to prevent voter fraud is actually a secret plot to oppress minorities is a ridiculous argument.
Your ability to bury your head in sand is impressive.
On the flip side, this legislation gets a lot of support from the GOP base because of ACORN. Why? Because they were misinformed by their preferred media outlets and now believe that ACORN resulted in actual voter fraud.
Really? Where and cite please.
Center right.
These are not constitutionally protected rights. Voting is. That changes everything.
In Pennsylvania, the GOP legislators actually came out and admitted it:
Posting Permissions