Obviously, the issue is that the cost incurred is different for different people, and for some people, the cost is indeed too great.
As I mentioned before, there are about 1.5 million Americans who live on less than $2 of cash a day (they have other sources of in-kind “income”, like food or housing provided, but you can’t use those to pay state ID fees).
And, on the other hand, almost anyone who makes much more than the poverty line probably already has the id required.
That seems remarkably inequitable to me. But I guess you know all that and just don’t care.
You keep arguing some variant of this point, and I’m not sure I understand why you are arguing it. I understand deferring to the wisdom of the legislature on issues you’re not informed about. But you’re clearly informed about this issue. You’ve spent significant time debating it. So what do you think it should be? I’m not asking you to dispute the very concept of our government and how it creates laws.
Legislatures can be wrong. That doesn’t make the laws they pass invalid, or the system unworkable. But you can take a position on a law other than “I agree we should have laws passed by a legislature”.
So, I’ll take a position that any law that requires identification and doesn’t make the procurement of that identification, including any prerequisites, equally available to people, regardless of financial resources, is a bad law. I don’t want it, and I’d strongly consider voting against any legislator who supported it.
You could take a position, too, and it wouldn’t mean you think we shouldn’t have laws.
And most of them already have ID, because they obtain government assistance of some kind that already mandates ID.
Why do you suppose opponents of these laws have such trouble finding actual people who are in the position of supposed woe?
It’s because, when you drill down, you almost always find that there is an equitable answer. The people that actually worry you are not the people with a strong desire to vote. It’s the indifferent voter who might vote if he thinks of it but is unwilling to invest any real effort in the issue. Right?
Sure you are. Because I have an opinion and it differs from yours. So I’m pointing out two basic truths:
This is not an issue that permits an objective resolution. It depends on how the competing interests are weighed. So the fact that I weigh them differently than you do does not mean I am wrong any more than it means you are wrong. We cannot place the issues on a scale and observe that voter confidence weighs 12.4 kilocivics and ease of ballot access weighs 19.2 kilocivics and therefore voter confidence is outweighed.
In our government system, when citizens disagree about what laws are wise, there is a way to resolve the disagreement.
My position is that Indiana’s Voter ID scheme, and others like it, create such a small burden on the voter that their benefits are well worth it.
No, those really aren’t the people who worry me. Although I think that it’s telling that you think that pre-registering, going to a polling place, waiting in line (generally for a lot longer if you’re black), filling out a ballot, and turning it in aren’t enough evidence of a lack of indifference.
This statement makes me think that you’re actually in favor of arbitrary restrictions to voting, since they’d result in fewer people without a “strong desire to vote” doing so.
Yeah, I get that. It just seems to me to be the weakest possible argument to make on a message board. On a message board, when posters disagree about an issue, they try to make convincing arguments for their position.
All you’re doing is asserting that there must be an argument that’s convincing, because look, something convinced the lawmakers.
So, maybe expand on your idea of “voter confidence”? What argument can you make that it’s actually served by this law? Could we achieve it in some other way, that didn’t make it harder for poor black people to vote?
Personally, this voter would be more confident in elections if I thought that everyone who had a legal right to vote and showed up at the polling place could do so.
Yes, shockingly, the Center for American Progress shares your views, but like you is unable to identify specific people who, when their cases are closely examined, lack an equitable solution.
No, I’m in favor of only those restrictions that relate to assuring voter confidence and integrity of results.
That ship has sailed. The crux of our disagreement here is not susceptible to convincing argument, since that crux rests on how much subjective value we each assign to the different aspects in play.
And the public.
Yes. I have long argued that we collect fingerprints from every voter. This could convict an illegal voter even better than Voter ID.
But neither Democrats not Republicans are interested in this common-sense solution.
Wait a minute. My previous link mentioned a specific individual who had been unable to get a voter id because he lacked the funds to pay court costs to fix a clerical error on his birth certificate. You disregarded that case because (I think) you misinterpreted it as someone who had voluntarily changed his name and maybe hadn’t completed the paperwork?
I don’t know how common clerical errors like that are. Anecdotes aren’t data, but my son’s birth certificate also had a clerical error on it when it was first issued. Luckily, his parents are literate and comfortable enough navigating bureaucracy to get it fixed. I bet the guy in the article wasn’t so lucky.
Would you describe the fact that less-devoted voters are less likely to vote the more restrictions there are as an unfortunate side effect, a convenient benefit, or totally value-neutral?
That is where our disagreement lies, but I don’t think you’re right that subjective value is something that’s totally immune to argument.
On a personal note, I believe you are a man of integrity, and I do not think you are racist. And you are generally good at making your case. You have caused me to change my mind about some issues over the years. I am open to changing my mind about this issue. But your arguments have not been convincing. I’ll be away from the internet for several weeks, so if you want to leave this as agree to disagree, that’s fine. If you’re interested in continuing the discussion later, I am too.
Interesting. My first reaction is that I don’t want the government to have my fingerprints on file. But I’ll think about this.
None of them showed a desire to expend the requisite effort to meet reasonable standards. A person who is born overseas cannot show any proof that she is now a citizen. And her expectation appears to be, “Well, just trust me.”
AT what point is he responsible for doing the normal stuff that people do, like getting photo ID?
I have a personal opinion that’s a slight positive, because I think the electorate’s decisions are better when people are involved. But that’s my own opinion only.
Happy to – and thank you for the kind words.
You’re not alone…but think about it. It’s an unambiguous ID that every already has for free. What about your concern outweighs those benefits?
The point was that she did show that it was reasonable. Besides pointing that you did even ignore that indeed many do show an effort to vote, what it is not reasonable here is to deny what took place.
Insist on “reasonable standards” for voters to meet.
Define “reasonable standards” as “requirements it’s easy for me to meet but which may very likely be less easy for people who tend to vote differently from me to meet”.
When some of those people fail to meet those standards, blame them for not wanting to vote enough and suggest that this proves that the system works.
Claim “voter confidence” has been increased.
Define “voter confidence” as “confidence that the system works in my favour”.
Be very careful not to define “voter confidence” as “confidence that the system is designed to facilitate participation by all eligible voters, thus achieving a more representative and democratic result”.
Repeatedly remind critics that this approach is perfectly legal and therefore must be right.
It has the pointed here that I never claimed this to be a science, and neither you are using it in this subject. The item to measure is that the person being talked about here did vote with no issues for 18 years and only a new regulation changed that. A regulation that actually made it a big burden under her circumstances.
The fact in this case are that even the ones making the rules in the state realized that the rules were really out of whack for her case and for several others. And that many judges have realized that many of the proponents of the new rules are indeed using fig leafs to target people that usually vote Democratic.
Correction of last post:
*
It needs to be pointed out here* that I never claimed this to be a science, and neither you are using it in this subject. The item to measure is that the person being talked about here did vote with no issues for 18 years and only a new regulation changed that. A regulation that actually made it a big burden under her circumstances.
The facts in this case are that even the ones making the rules in the state realized that the rules were really out of whack for her case and for several others. And that many judges have realized that many of the proponents of the new rules are indeed using fig leafs to target people that usually vote Democratic.
And many other judges have not, most especially six justices of the US Supreme Court.
So if a particular state law is too onerous, and the courts strike it, I am fully supportive of that outcome. But since the basic elements of Voter ID were upheld by a 6-3 ruling of the US Supreme Court, what’s the use of pointing out other judges’ views? Those judges can’t make final rulings in the federal system.
So you agree this is not a science, but still want me to accept the claim that the burden on the voter is too big. But I don’t agree it’s too big. You can’t tell me how many millicivics the burden even weighs; why do you assert that I must accept your judgement that it’s too heavy?
You really do miss a lot form many previous discussions, the judgment is that it should not be too heavy all right, but as the example showed what the government should do is not to just concentrate on the part about making the IDs the rule (something that many do accept as a valid thing to do) but then they willfully ignore how the rule does affects the most people that for some “unfathomable” reason are the people that one opposes.
Yeah, that other part of what the new rules should integrate (making it easier for the ones affected to get the IDs) can be due to political reasons, but those blocks have some racial and class warfare reasons coming from the history of most of the places were the abuses are taking place