I don’t believe we are missing the point with voter ID. Not everybody who would be disenfranchised wants to get a job or a driver’s license. For example, elderly housewives in the inner cities who have never driven and never will, never worked outside the home and never will, gain nothing from getting an ID other than not being disenfranchised.
Sure, I want everyone who wants a job to have one and I want everyone to participate in the economy, but I don’t want that to be a precondition of exercising their right to vote.
I have some problems with this statement:
1- There are always going to be some people in the shadows, some by their choice. Their right to vote should not be dependent on coming out of the shadows.
2- The degree to which one participates in society is voluntary and the right to vote doesn’t depend on level of participation.
3- Their votes are not wasted. They have as much interest in foreign and domestic policy as anyone, regardless of whether they have a job or drive or whatever.
I think only a low percentage of them do, which just adds to my sense that Democrats are tackling this the wrong way. Help them participate more fully in society, and you won’t just get back the paltry number of votes Republicans took away, but add a bunch more who weren’t previously voting under the old status quo.
Actually, I really kinda think it should, and does. I have mentioned before in other threads that I have worked GOTV for Democrats every two years since the late '90s (plus a special election or two). When we go out there and knock on people’s doors, we have lists drawn from the voter rolls that have people’s names, ages, addresses, and which elections they have voted in. That is not exactly staying in the shadows. When I make my rounds, I am also passing other people who are not on those lists. Some of them may not be on *anyone’s *list: they live with a roommate who has all the bills in their name, use a prepaid cell phone, etc.
Great, good job, dude: you are successfully in the shadows. But you are not voting then, even under the current/previous “no ID needed” system. Or are you advocating letting those people vote too? Just get rid of voter rolls altogether and have people use the honour system, or what?
SlackerInc: “Hey there. I see you are stuck down in a quarry. Here, have a photo Voter ID!”
What is not sinking in for you about the malodorous logic of this? You seem to have an air of high Broderism about this, with your attitude of “You all just don’t get this. You’re engaging in 180 degree oppositionalism. I’m so clever that I’m coming at it at 90 degrees!”
Unfortunately, high Broderism never makes any sense.
You may very well be running at a 90 degree angle, but you’re on a different plane altogether. That is to say that progressives oppose voter disenfranchisement. Efforts to improve more complete participation in the economy are a separate issue.
One more time to try to enhance comprehension - agreeing to photo voter IDs will have as much effect on full participation in the economy as opposing photo voter IDs. (In fact, it is arguable that opposing photo voter ID will actually work to improve full participation in the economy, since the folks who will be disenfranchised will also be those more likely to vote on issues in a way that enhances the opportunities of the economically marginalized.
Uh, because you don’t seem to get it, no matter how much I try to spell it out. Just less than three hours ago, I attempted to dispel your same misapprehension. I will quote myself one more time, but if it doesn’t sink in I give up:
So I will even try to spell it out a little more: let’s work on providing education, housing, medical care, and (for the non-disabled, non-elderly) living wage jobs to these people. As part of that, they are going to need an ID just as an incidental part of life when you fully participate in society. The ID is not the magic totem that provides all those other things, and I never claimed it was.
ETA:
You said people had the right to live in the shadows, and also vote. I pointed out that this was a contradiction in terms.
That’s all well and good, but your conclusion that we should therefore not oppose voter ID laws does not follow whatsoever. Agreeing to voter ID laws will achieve the outcome of having fewer people vote without doing anything to change their life circumstances. You describe it as incidental, but based on the conclusions you draw you don’t seem to grasp what incidental means.
You know who else had Mavericky positions on issues?
At any rate, I think the OP is onto something, but doesn’t quite have the story straight. Voter ID laws are pretty widely popular, and have majority support of Republicans, Independents and Democrats. Fight them at your peril, as you will seem to be far outside the political mainstream.
Instead, face the facts that they are going to be enacted, and fight against any truly extreme versions, make sure the IDs are easy to get, and focus on helping people get them. We should concentrate on expanding voting opportunities like vote-by-mail and early voting. I’m not convinced that they will have a significant effect on any elections as long as they are not enacted over night. The “controversial” North Carolina law, for instance, does not take effect for 2 years. And, contrary to a statement made upthread, they do not take away anyone’s right to vote who actually has the right to vote.
Why should it be? Should my right to vote be dependent on having utilities in my name, a bank account, or a driver’s license? If I choose to rent a room, walk to my job, and pay for my groceries in cash, does that mean I should lose the right to vote?
I work, I pay my taxes, and I’m a citizen of this country, why does this present a problem?
Well they wouldn’t totally be in the shadows, they would have to appear on a voter roll. You seem to be advocating that people whose lifestyle isn’t sufficiently similar to yours be denied the right to vote, an attitude which I find disturbing.
This is where you’re wrong. YOU have an ID, so of course you think an ID is necessary.
There are people who disagree with you. They are not outcasts. They are not downtrodden. They are not victims. They simply live differently than you, and they deserve a say in how they are governed.
Not everyone is a sophisticated city slicker like yourself. Some people are happy living a rural, disconnected life. State issued identification is not and should not be necessary. Any attempt to make it necessary is bullheaded and wrong.
People deserve the right to vote no matter how different their lifestyle is from yours, and hand wringing over how those poor fools need help being more like you isn’t going to change that.
“City slicker”, heh. Don’t I wish. I was one, once upon a time, but not since I was in my twenties–and I’m now well into my forties, with no immediate prospects for city living. (If you told me twenty years ago that would have been the case…well, I would not have been happy to hear it and would insist it was wrong.)
I don’t know what you mean about my story not being straight, as I think I have stated agreement with almost all of that. The one part I don’t agree with (vote by mail) I may have mentioned once a while back in a different thread.
How do we even know you are a citizen? This is just such a goofy attitude to take, and it makes progressives look either clueless or shady. Neither is a good look for swing voters.
I have a birth certificate. Granted, it’s not a Long Form Birth Certificate, so apparently I’m not eligible to be President.
I happen to know a citizen of this country who has no job, no utilities, no bank account, and no driver’s license.
He’s 5.
He’s a citizen. He has been a citizen for 5 years, and 13 years from today, he will have the right to vote, even if he never gets a job, never moves out, never drives, and is a huge disappointment to his suffering father.
Do you know the difference between the terms de jure and de facto?
Part of the judge’s decision to continue to ban the implementation of the voter ID law in Pennsylvania was in fact the concern that it would disenfranchise voters by creating undue hardship.
Are the majority of voters “low-information” or Republican?
Gosh, I wonder why the leading Democratic candidates don’t mention this factoid more often. I for one would be thrilled to hear the Democratic contenders announce frequently how the majority of voters are low-information or Republican. Why don’t they, I wonder?
