And, for completeness, “And what other problems are there that are far larger in reality but that we aren’t even pretending to address?”
The question “Are we telling the truth, including to ourselves, about the facts and our motives?” should be understood.
Solving: poor people in the United States are being harmed by not having access to ID.
Creating: none that do not exist under the current system, if and only if this isn’t a veiled attempt at disenfranchisement (i.e. if this is a genuine change and not the modern equivalent of literacy tests or the grandfather clause).
How nice. You tell them they have a problem that you’re going to fix for them. And if they go through all the expense of letting you fix that problem, then they’ll get to keep their vote. How nice. How very nice.
With respect to voting, no, they aren’t; the harm is *created *by the ID law.
Also wrong, given the difficulty and sometimes impossibility of complying with the laws you want passed.
What other reasonably possible explanation do you offer?
Are you saying they don’t have a problem, or that you don’t care about their problem?
I’m not threatening to take away anyone’s vote. I think access to ID is a necessary precursor to a voter ID law: the voting law can’t change until the ID issue is solved. But lack of access to ID can, in fact, be a problem, and one that the US should be able to solve: subsume the cost of IDs into the general budget, and allow every American a free passport every ten years. Problem solved.
Please. I’ve been clear enough. :rolleyes: With regard to voting, they don’t have a problem other than that caused by those attempting to disenfranchise them.
The evidence is to the contrary.
And why do you think helping ID be more readily available is not a part of these initiatives, then? Pure oversight, perhaps? :rolleyes:
If you’re going to stick to that line, it’s about time you added some specificity about what that problem entails. If it’s no more than “It provides some protection against being disenfranchised by the latest generation of Jim Crow laws”, I’ll be disappointed.
I’ve already mentioned that you need to prove citizenship in order to accept a job, since 1986 (under Reagan, wouldn’t you know): cite. Clearly, you think that poor people should either be excluded from employment, or employers should hire them under the table.
The same requirements should be the templates for voter ID, or else the law requiring showing identification to accept a job should be scrapped. Otherwise, you are saying “this population should be able to vote, but should be confined to the black market economy or making a living selling found objects.”
If they are able to live their lives without an ID, who are you to tell them that they “have a problem”?
If they are not in fact able to live their lives the way they want without ID, then they already know they have a problem. However, if they’ve gotten by this far without one, perhaps it is because lack of ID isn’t a problem, at least for any purpose other than voting. (Maybe because they are retired, or disabled, or already have a job.)
Look at the examples of people who have been disenfranchised by photo ID laws. Perhaps the most famous group, I believe, consisted of retired nuns. Please explain exactly how their lack of ID was a problem for retired nuns (for any purpose other than voting).
You’re right. If Sister Mary Alice is sure she’ll never work again, has no plans to ever board an airplane, is confident that she’ll never experience one of those asinine zero-tolerance policies when attempting to buy her booze and ciggies, will never need to open a bank account or credit card, is never going to encounter identity theft where she might need to establish who she is, will never need to establish credit when Sister Mary Esther burns down the nunnery and they have to rent an apartment… well, if she’s good with that, who am I to say different?
I’m not trying to patronizingly speak for the poor. What I’m saying is that it sucks to be in their situation, and it’s completely unnecessary. Unlike so many of our social ills, this is a solvable problem. The liberal side, which is normally the one I’m on, is so determined to protect the status quo in the face of Republican shenanigans that they are incapable of seeing the issue in perspective. Why not have our social services identify people like our retired nuns and help them? It seems cruel to condemn the most vulnerable to a life where they can never, ever experience the things that the rest of us take for granted, all because we have weird ideas about ID-free voting.
My husband is registering to vote in Canada next week. He has been told to bring two pieces of ID. The horror! And yet, if he did not have them and were too poor to get them, the government would actually help him instead of locking him in the ghetto.
This does come across as patronizing. The whole “vow of poverty” thing means she’s never going to have a bank account or credit card, or need to (or be able to) establish credit in her own name regardless of whether she has ID or not, and Sister Mary Alice isn’t really likely to be out buying booze or ciggies. She’s made her life choices, for better or for worse, and you telling her “it sucks to be in her situation” is more than a tad condescending.
I don’t disagree in principle with the notion that our social services SHOULD be helping here. They don’t. Right now in this country, we’re having a hard enough time trying to get services to provide adequate food, shelter, and health care. Current government-issued photo ID ranks way below for example adequate mental health care, in my book; the latter has been gutted in many states, so what leads you to conclude that in the current political climate we can get funding for the former? That’s not even touching on the question of whether we SHOULD be spending our energies and political capital to press for adequate ID in preference to other social services.
In the current climate, the choices are (1) require photo ID for voting, thus disenfranchising many, or (2) fighting against photo ID laws. I’m not seeing any realistic chance of a third option, adequate social services to identify and assist those without current photo ID.
That’s Canada, not Kansas. Her Majesty’s Government hasn’t figured out that there’s political rewards to be reaped from locking him in the ghetto.
Dude. :rolleyes:
I disagree. The requirements you list are inherently important in a government’s ability to run an election. The government needs to have a sense of who is allowed to vote in what district, we need to know who’s vote may be counted. We need to have elections on a specific day, or set of days, and people who want to vote absentee need to ask for a ballot, how else do we get them the ballot?
The past 100 years of voting without photo ID is evidence that we don’t actually NEED photo ID to run an election, and the people proposing it have never put any effort into proving the need.
There is a huge difference between being excluded by a requirement that’s necessary for the operation of an election and being excluded by an unnecessary requirement that is enacted for the sole purpose of excluding certain groups of people.
Is it your belief that Voter ID is about helping the most vulnerable to get IDs, and the folks fighting it want to condemn them to an ID-free life?
I think I’ve stepped into Bizzaro World.
No, it is not. That is an utter misrepresentation of what I have said. Voter ID, as it is currently legislated, is not about helping anyone. Voter ID, if it were implemented sensibly as suggested by the OP, might in fact help the most vulnerable get IDs; that in fact would be a necessary prerequisite. The folks fighting it do not seem to have a goal of condemning anyone; they just aren’t interested in the situation where people are already so condemned. They seem to think it’s not a big deal.
The OP’s suggestion, however, doesn’t actually do what you allege.
Suppose we make an all-out effort over the next couple of years to get photo ID cards for the folks who don’t have them. Then 2023 rolls around. Guess what?
Those ID cards issued in 2015 and 2016 and 2017, in most of the U.S., are now expired and worthless. The holders still can’t vote. What did you accomplish with your all-out effort?
Successful photo ID requires an ONGOING commitment to make renewing those documents accessible and affordable. Neither you nor the OP have touched on that. How is it “sensible” to make a one-time effort on something that requires regular renewal?
I addressed it in post #205. My suggestion may be impractical, but it’s a suggestion. It might be slightly more workable at the state level for state IDs. The cost of printing a wallet-sized plastic card is now negligible, and could easily be made less burdensome at the user end.
Your point, though, which was already made above, is a strong one: if ID is tied to address, that means it must be something that can be cheaply and easily renewed every time you move, which could be several times a year. I think the government should eat the production costs, and once you’ve registered to vote, every time you change your address with the registrar a new ID should be sent to you. Alternatively, ID could be by something like an ATM card with a chip and pin or electronic ID and password, where you log in at the polling place rather than relying on the person behind the desk to check ID. That would have the benefit of taking the fallible human out of the equation, and replacing it with a fallible machine.
I think identifying and solving problems is important. I’m not an expert; I’m just trying to have a conversation, and being told that the idea is completely unworkable despite the fact that other countries manage to do it.
Then it’s about time you started.
No, you’re *not *being told that. It’s unworkable as presented because the motivation behind these laws *requires *it to be unworkable. No effort is being made to implement improved or adequate access to voter ID because that would defeat the purpose. No *real *electoral-integrity problems are being addressed at all, in fact the same party that is pushing voter ID laws is actively fighting that.
How much more carefully does it need to be explained to you?
The problem that voter ID laws are intended to solve is “people who lack IDs are disproportionately poor and/or minority, and hence disproportionately likely to vote for Democrats.” The solution, therefore, is to make voting as burdensome and difficult as possible for people who are unlikely to vote for the party pushing these laws.
You’re looking at this as an honest and straightforward person, so the solutions you propose address the difficulty of getting IDs. That’s not the problem the people pushing these laws want to solve, so your ideas are political nonstarters at this time in this country. Until you understand the motivation behind the laws, your solutions will remain unworkable.
Voter ID, with or without long notice, doesn’t HELP anyone get ID. It may provide incentive for them to get ID, but it does absolutely nothing to help them accomplish the task.
If you want to help people get ID, fucking help them get ID. Make it easier for them to get ID. This isn’t some intractable problem that we haven’t figured out how to fix. Instead of sending non-drivers to a DMV that’s 20 miles away with no mass transit service, let them go to the local government office or a post office with their documentation.
What does tying your ability to vote to your ID have to do with getting ID anyway?