People who favor these laws, by definition, must either be misinformed or Republican. We can’t cure Republicanism but we can cure disinformation.
Or turn your attention to more profitable ventures rather than fight a losing battle that makes us look bad. Just a thought.
Please. There are plenty of threads for this. I’m beseeching you. Why make this into a generic copy of all the others instead of a special snowflake?
ETA: Bob, I’d love to see you tell Jimmy Carter he’s “misinformed”. (Presumably you don’t believe he’s a Republican.) Pfffffffft.
ETA2: And just FYI, even in situations involving truly misinformed voters, the notion that “we can cure misinformation” does not appear to be true most of the time.
Hmmmm. Well, if you do set aside the idea that some legitimate voters will not vote due to undue hardship, then yeah, there’s no good reason for progressives to oppose voter ID. Congrats, you win the argument!
So, how we gonna do that, beyond helping them get ID?
Job programs, housing programs, education and training, more social workers dispatched to these areas, more robust medical services for these folks. How’s that for a start?
Sure, technically that is true. Technically it was true of the old Jim Crow literacy tests, too. Would you care to defend those? In practice, voter ID laws do, and are designed to, take away certain people’s right to vote.
Carter’s a reasonable dude. He probably hasn’t given this enough thought to come up with the right opinion.
And you want to get these by preventing them from voting for politicians who might want to help them? You might be astounded to learn that these people that you hold in such low esteem have as much right to vote as you do.
It seems to me like your OP was mis-stated. Instead, you should have said something like
“Voter ID laws are being passed whether you like it or not, and our (progressives) opposition to them will cost us votes and, in the long run, harm our cause. We should drop our opposition, and instead focus on making sure everyone has a photo ID that can be used for elections.”
Isn’t that really your point?
Is it “really” my point? Well, technically, I think not. I was inspired to start this thread by the NPR story, and the OP reflects my specific thoughts after hearing that story. However, the encapsulation you stated in quotes is something that I do also believe, have stated in the usual threads, and have actually believed much longer than just the relatively short time since I listened to the NPR story and formulated the line of argument used to create this thread.
Does Carter put sugar on his porridge?
And that’s just it.
Look, I surrender to NO one here in my Democratic Party work. Unless you have volunteered, knocked doors, organized volunteers, set up phone banks, arranged for mailing, escorted people to the polls, chaired state-level committees and run for office…my political cred is better than yours.
And I don’t think the Voter ID thing is a winner.
Even though the arguments being advanced in favor of it (vote fraud! AGH!) are pretty clearly bullshit, it’s an argument that is resonating because it has the veneer of reasonableness. And that’s difficult to overcome. Yelling that we have to do better on education is too much pissing in the wind.
What’s going to be required is that we - the progressives of the USA - again rise to the occasion and make sure that our voters get their IDs and get to the polls and vote. We need to continue doing that so that we can eventually turn the tide in the 2020 elections and begin working redistricting in our favor for once. Our opponents completely beat us there and we’ll be years paying for it.
But that doesn’t mean it can’t be done, it just means we’ll have to organize a bit tighter. But that’s something we really know how to do. But no shouting and screaming will help - in fact they’ll likely work against us over the long haul.
I completely agree that the thing to do is to help the voters get their IDs. That’s called hedging your bets and it is always the smart thing to do.
I disagree that opposing the voter ID concept is foolish, and I don’t think that the vote of a person who lacks the wherewithal to get an ID, or who simply has not done so for whatever reason, is a wasted vote or necessarily less informed and valid than most other people’s. But the point about forgetting that action is needed on underlying causes is true I think.
There are lots of issues where this is the case. Abortion on demand is one of them (yes, I know, I feel the virtual flames aflickering nearer…). There is no doubt that there are many women who have abortions because they are poor and/or unable to get support from the fathers for the children they are already trying to provide for. I’m often told that because I oppose routine abortion I should be supporting mothers and families in crisis pregnancies (and I do this to the best of my ability). But it seems as if those who disagree with me ought to be thinking about those problems and working on solutions as well–that women should be basically forced to abort due to poverty should be a matter of grave concern for everyone.
Not nearly as much fun as watching Paul and Christie. Or the squabbles in the clown car.
Voter rolls are publicly available. I have the one for my city from a few years back when I did some data processing work for a friend who was running for school board. It has name, address, party affiliation, the number of elections voted in over the past several years, and I believe a phone number. That is not information someone living in the shadows wants to have freely available.
I still don’t see why anyone wants to spend billions of dollars on a problem that doesn’t exist.
Its all marketing. Its like the TV ads for the wonderpill, ads that feature people who are pushing 40 with a light dusting of grey in their hair and pretending that’s what the 70 year old viewer looks like, or would look like, if he took the wonderpill. Then the voice-over starts talking really really fast “May cause unexpected reversal of sexual orientation, massive hemorrhages and the sudden arrival of pennies on your eyes…”
Voter ID is sold as a common-sense solution to the dreadful problem of voter fraud, which is like marketing a common sense solution to the problem of unicorn stampedes. Its a direct and obvious way to cure a disease that, for all practical purposes, does not exist. But the packaging is nice, it looks good, until you look inside and find out its full of rattlesnakes and bedbugs.
If the people pushing this crapola really wanted to get id into the hands of every legitimate voter, nothing could be easier. Any of us here could come up with ten sensible and convenient ways to do it. But we probably wouldn’t be telling people to go to the DMV and then close the local DMV. We probably wouldn’t be saying that state issued photo id is the standard, and then in the next breath say that state issued voter id from a state university doesn’t count because freedom.
Most likely, we wouldn’t be including provisions to make voter registration drives more difficult and potentially criminal. Definitely we would not be including provisions that have nothing whatever to do with voter id, like cutting back on early voting and the Sunday voting drives so popular among black people.
These sorts of provisions aren’t fixes for voter id, they are insults to the voters intelligence, they are offering a sow in a negligee for a lap dance. We can start by refusing to offer any legitimacy to that argument, that we are arguing about voter id when the real poison is all the other stuff thrown in.
We can start by refusing to pretend that voter id is the issue, it isn’t. Its a scam. Didja notice that’s all they want to talk about? “Well, shit, gotta show ID to buy booze and cigarettes, whats the big deal, here?”. That works for them, because its simple, direct, and total horseshit. The more honest amongst them will briefly note that, yes, those aren’t very good ideas, and they shouldn’t happen, but if they are included in the package, well, heck, we gotta have voter id, I guess we’ll just have to accept a permanent Republican majority if we want to protect ourselves from the dreadful scourge of voter fraud.
And Slack? With all due respect, your plan puts the cart before the horseshit. Yes, we want to do these things, they are good and worthy. But we have to get there first! This way, you end up saying that we can remove the bowling balls tied to our shoes just as soon as we win the fifty yard dash.
Hell, maybe we could, but if it looked like we could, we had best check to see if the starter’s pistol has real bullets and maybe pointed at our knee.
I scanned the thread but I’m not sure if this was addressed -
How many people without currently acceptable id’s are there compared to the number of people simply not the least bit interested in voting (id or no)?
I realize we can do more than one thing at once; try to get people interested in voting AND make sure people are not disenfranchised from doing so. However, money, time, resources being finite when solving problems such as these, is it not better to spend effort in getting people engaged in participating in the democratic process? And wouldn’t doing so also reduce the likelyhood of exclusion due to lack of valid ID?
Also, can a person unfortunate enough to be living in a box (no formal address) even vote?
Voter ID laws are putting a Band-Aid on a problem that doesn’t exist.
No, the question is whether he puts gravy on his grits.
And its a used band-aid, recycled from a leper colony.