We’ll have to agree to disagree.
I have no obligation to let your bullshit stand unchallenged. It wouldn’t be fighting ignorance, now would it?
Tell us, what evidence leads you to conclude that the purported problem is real? If you have some, it would help us all, not just you, to present it.
Care to cite the evidence for significant amounts of voter fraud?
It’s worth opposing for no other reason than if you make a concession to a stupid useless law even under generous-seeming terms, it invites even stupider and more useless laws in future under stricter terms.
That said, “voter ID” by itself is vague. You mean the voter has to identify himself or herself? Okay, there are 50 or 60 ways to do that, at least. Will a utility bill suffice? If not, why not? Will a sworn statement that the voter is who he or she claims he or she is suffice? If not, why not? Exactly what kind of “voter ID” is being proposed, here, and pending specifics, I’ll abstain, and if specifics are not forthcoming, I’ll oppose, because I’m not agreeing to a vague governmental demand under any circumstances, especially one of questionable necessity.
And as I’ve explained to him numerous times, people favor voter ID. Not implementing voter ID in such a manner as to give one party an electoral advantage.
People support ice cream for dessert. They don’t support hurling containers of it at people from a moving car.
Well, in the city where I live…
So has “voter ID” been clarified or does it yet remain in the realm of the dog-whistle?
I answered “I opposed voter ID requirements, but now would support them in this case.” and thought that was the obvious winning answer. Instead it looks like that answer had ZERO support until I showed up. :smack:
I’m probably more of a law-and-order type than the average centrist, and always thought national ID would be a very good idea for several reasons. I do understand the desire for privacy, but I’m afraid in the age of Facebook and GPS that ship has already sailed.
I’ve never really opposed voter ID requirements per se. I oppose deliberate and malicious suppression of certain classes of voter for partisan purpose and, whether Webster’s Dictionary has caught up or not, that is what “voter ID” now means in super-polarized partisan America.
ETA: I take it for granted that during the 9 years, programs will be set up so all Americans can easily obtain free or inexpensive ID cards.
Yeah, funny how the political party/ideology that viciously opposes any form of new government regulation for:
- Guns
- Environment
- Banking
- Education
- Energy
- Hell…let’s just say that any business/industrial regulation is bad.
Is also the party in favor of government intrusion/control for Voter ID. Which specifically will NOT prevent the most prevalent* form of voter fraud which involves the manipulation of absentee ballots (no ID required!).
- Keep in mind that fraud of any kind is vanishingly small. It’s just that absentee fraud is easier than in-person fraud.
If you don’t want to go to the simple effort of getting an ID, you don’t care enough to want to vote. 9 years warning would just accentuate this. Anybody, however old paraplegic or whatever can easily get an ID in the US.
No fair being such a smarty pants! You know that won’t happen because there is NO EVIDENCE of significant voter fraud. The sneaky bastards are just too good at being sneaky.
Requiring even an inexpensive ID card to vote is hardly different than a type of poll tax. And free ID will never fly with the “no government handouts, EVAH!” crowd. So, I wouldn’t hold my breath.
In fact, the lack of evidence is actually evidence in itself!
Bullshit - define “simple” and explain why this “simple” effort is necessary.
I’m surprised you even got the 1 vote. Look (almost) everyone falls into one of two camps.
Camp 1) Voting is sacred. It is OK to open up the possibility that people who cannot legally vote will do so because there is no evidence that is a widespread problem and to deny one legal voter the right to vote is wrong.
Counterargument: No true studies have been done to show how widespread non-citizen voting is. Every illegal vote cancels out a legal vote so yes it does effectually take away citizens’ voting power. There are examples of legal citizens (like Saint Cad) who were unable to vote because someone walked in and without ID claimed their name to vote.
Response: La La La! I can’t hear you!
Camp 2) To allow something as important as voting to be so open doesn’t make sense. It’s bad enough no one has to prove actual citizenship to register - just pinkie swear under penalty of perjury that they are. If I need ID to return an item in a store then why not to vote? Plus voter ID laws allow a great deal of latitude in what constitutes “proper ID”. There is a duty to take reasonable methods to ensure fidelity in the voting system and ID is part of that.
Counterargument: The theory of “just get ID” fails if you cannot pay for your birth certificate or need internet access and don’t have it. Even with the “Get 3 people to swear you are who you say you are.” lenient requirement, do that if you have no clue what to do, what paperwork you need, can’t travel or can’t pay the notary. OK maybe we don’t know how many fraudulent votes there are but we do have a fair idea of how many people cannot meet Voter ID standards and that number is pretty high. High enough that it is a major disenfranchisement issue.
Response: La La La! I can’t hear you!
Here’s what pisses me off about both sides. They completely miss the point. Valid ID is so critical now a days that the focus should be looking at who doesn’t have ID (I think at the county level) and ensuring they all get at least a photo ID card. We should be updating record systems so that births can be verified county to county. Not to say my birth certificate should be free but considering its just a piece of paper and there is no actual link (like fingerprints or DNA) to link that paper to me then what does physical possession really mean? Yes me having Saint Cad’s birth certificate is better than someone saying “I’m Saint Cad.” but it is not so foolproof that it is ironclad proof. I should be able to take some evidence of who I am like pay stubs, car registration, etc. into any county/state office and knowing my county of birth they should be able to verify my identity/NBC status. And yes that means that people without birth certificates can be in the system if they can prove to county of birth/residence that they were born in the US. Solve that problem and voter ID is a non-issue.
You are supposing that the voter ID folks want to solve that issue. The very fact that it is difficult to get the required ID is a feature, not a bug.
That’s not true. Several of us in this thread have raised that very point. (Post #55 for me.)
We could establish ID when parents enroll their child in school. You need ID for so many things, including being hired for a legitimate job in America these days, that it seems like by allowing an adult to avoid having one, you are condemning them to the underclass. As has been brought up several times, ultimately all of our IDs are based on a “because-I-said-so” moment. For me I think it all proceeds from the Social Security number I got at age 12, by filling out a form (no verification required), and from a driver’s license at 16. I am sure I showed my birth certificate, but as has been pointed out, there’s nothing to connect the name on that paper with me but my say-so. Perhaps a parent (with established ID) vouched for me; I don’t remember.
To me, the fact that some people couldn’t vote without ID is the symptom of a larger problem, one that is a serious shame to America. How can we have so many people with so few resources?
I don’t know what your problem is, but if you aren’t grasping that there is no stated or implied purpose to these laws other than restricting the franchise, and that nothing in them promotes getting ID’s to those who don’t have it, then perhaps you shouldn’t be surfing the Elections forum.
You keep making these assertions, but I don’t see why I should accept your assertions as truth. Yes, the current spate of laws exists to disenfranchise. The OP was NOT about a current law, the OP was about a future hypothetical. For that reason, it seems valid to use my imagination to posit a compromise between the two sides and to allow others to do so.
You keep trying to cut off this angle of discussion, but you can’t seem to articulate why it’s impossible other than to repeat your assertions.
Look, I get that a lot of American racism is subtle. Things like (for example) banjos, watermelon, and fried chicken have become tainted, not because there’s anything inherently racist about the instrument or the food items, but because they have been tied to a broader complex of systematic oppression. Voter ID is the equivalent of watermelon here. It becomes difficult to discuss the subject without bringing in the whole ugly history. But it’s not impossible. Something that is a current tool of oppression, I assert, is not inherently a tool of oppression, and I (and others) give the examples of other systems in other countries.
You reply that those systems are invalid comparisons, for no good reason, and you assert that it is inherently a tool of oppression, because you said so. If you want to make that argument, I’m happy to listen. I agree that it is currently a tool of oppression, so it’s not like I’m a hostile audience.
The OP is rather like asking gun rights activists whether they would support gun regulation if such regulation in no way hindered anyone’s ability or desire to obtain or keep a firearm.
They would probably agree that they had no problem with such regulation, but that no one would ever bother to propose such regulation since it would serve no purpose, and that further any regulation that claimed it had no effect on anyone’s ability or desire to obtain or keep a firearm would be likely lying.