I understand that there many political/social/ideological aspects to this question, so I will promptly avoid them.
I will, however, repeat what I always say in these threads: Why do so many Americans think it’s sending-people-safely-to-Mars-and-returning-them difficult to give everyone a free ID?
I my, poor but improving, country voting is obligatory. Everyone has a national picture ID, even kids. Poor people don’t have to pay for ID. People who documentation has been destroyed can sign an affidavit with some authority vouching for them (police officer, school teacher, priest, well-known potato farmer) and that’s it. It’s only uncontacted (and specifically protected from contact by law) living in the deep jungle who don’t get them. Poor farmers in hamlets at 4500 m.a.s.l. have them. Some people in the SDMB make it sound like instead of “free ID” it’s “free, pocketable Large Hadron Collider”.
I cannot imagine that the most powerful nation in the world cannot give free ID to at least 99,99% of all who don’t have it right now and would need it. It’s only political will. I you manage to register, you get it.
Proposal: The **next **time you vote, whenever that is, you can still do it without ID, but you’re immediatley and freely given and ID.
One thing you should have gathered from these threads is that your government makes it easy to have an ID. For those who would be affected by these laws in the US, they are accompanied by measures that *make it *difficult. The reasons for that are the same as the reasons for passing these laws in the first place.
Pointing out how easy it could be, and even is elsewhere, given good faith, does not advance the discussion if the problem is that the faith of the proponents is so obviously *not *good, and they cannot honestly admit it either.
You are continuing to poison the well. Why can’t we discuss the issue? Let’s all take it as read that the current push for voter ID is because the Republicans are attempting to disenfranchise voters, and that disenfranchisement of voters is ethically the wrong thing to do.
That said, can we then move on and discuss how it might be possible to change? Voter IDs are not inherently a tool of disenfranchisement, even though they are as currently applied. Other countries provide a model. Why is it such a problem to even discuss the issue?
There’s nothing emotional about any of the debates except the hysteria that insists we need such a thing.
Do you comprehend the following rational statements?
The rate of voter identity fraud in the US is a pale shade of nil.
The penalty for voter identity fraud is quite steep.
The value of a few percent voter fraud (many orders of magnitude over what we now experience) would have little to no effect on any but the very smallest races.
Widespread voter fraud would be evident, if only by its footprints, and both corrected and prosecuted.
It is difficult for several segments of voter/citizens to get ID that is considered acceptable by Voter-ID laws.
These segments seem to be overwhelmingly Democratic voters.
The Voter-ID laws are supported by overwhelmingly Republican/far right bodies.
Implementation of those laws tend to greatly thin the ranks of Democratic voters in many districts where they are implemented.
So… where again is the need for voter ID laws? And where are the protections and support for the specific populations hardest hit by them - populations that often have a long history of being disenfranchised and discouraged from voting by past such tactics?
What would the be the effect if we continue to have an absolute ban on voter ID? That is, why do we need this sweeping law change in the face of nearly zero applicability?
Again: let’s say we don’t NEED such a thing. Let’s just discuss it as a possibility: were we to have such a thing, how could it come about without disenfranchising the poor? A great debate, if you will.
Moi? It was poisoned generations ago, as already discussed.
Why do we have to accept your definition of the issue?
You know why. As also already explained, it’s because the party promoting these laws, acting in bad faith as they are, actively *resists *any efforts to expand or even maintain the franchise.
You’re asking why they don’t act in a way consistent with their public statements. You’re willing to concede their true purposes, and now you’re wondering why they won’t act opposite to those purposes. There isn’t much to discuss there.
Why not make it bar codes tattooed on everyone’s hand or forehead? Exactly the same plane of debate, may as well carry it to logical extremes before wasting debate on it.
I’d say we don’t NEED such a thing, but look at all the possibilities!
American exceptionalism once again. Voter ID is pretty normal in many civilized countries. Americans can’t even discuss it. Why not? Reductio ad absurdem (it’s like branding people with bar codes!) or some weird Machiavellian plot (“the only reason to discuss the issue is to provide the thin end of the wedge for Republicans to institute their fiendish plot. There is no other possible reason for voter ID, and what works in other countries is impossible in America.”)
I’m being a bit facetious, but I just refuse to let Republicans own this issue to the extent that I can’t even consider it. Why should I give them the power to taint something? Guilt by association is another logical fallacy. Voter ID is not inherently Republican. It has benefits and drawbacks.
Do you have the same objections to presenting an ID to board a plane? That used to be something we were free to do once we were in possession of a ticket, and now it is not. That would seem to restrict people’s freedom of movement, but I don’t hear anyone objecting to it.
Not true, also given the price of a ticket and the effort it takes to travel people who have difficulty obtaining an ID are unlikely to have the resources to fly either. In any case, have a certain portion of the population not be able to fly doesn’t lead to a skewing of the political landscape for everyone. If it was the case that photo ID was equally available to both sides, then I wouldn’t have too much of a problem with it, as would pretty much even out due to the law of large numbers, and elections would still give us an accurate estimation of the overall will of the people. But as it stands now voter ID laws are designed to press a thumb down on one side of the balance with no counter balance on the other side.
As to how to make it better, I would support ID’s if the opportunity to get them could be brought into the community. For example, volunteers could sponsor voter ID drives much in the same way they do voter registration drives, going from door to door and setting up tables at local supermarkets. But as said above, this arrangement violates the purpose of such laws and so will never see the light of day.
It’s a fact that there is no significant evidence of the voter fraud on anything more than a miniscule scale that these ID proposals are supposedly meant to combat, and it’s also a fact that multiple Republican officials in favor of these proposals have outright stated that their purpose is to help them win elections.