I’ll support it as long as it’s linked to a Universal ID law, and may not be implemented until 100%*** of the voting population has ID in hand for the election 9 years hence.
*** or as close to 100% as is practical in a society of individuals. People will choose to live like hermits in the wilds of Idaho, can’t help that. But the poor, infirm, old lady living in the projects, she’s getting a visit from a social worker who will take her picture, submit her forms and make sure the ID arrives in the mail.
A question: let’s say that you could snap your fingers and that tomorrow every American eligible to vote would have a valid ID. And in the future, every American would receive one automatically when they turned eighteen. Would/could you then support requiring and ID to vote?
I would, for what it’s worth. My problem isn’t with ID in concept, it’s that currently the people without one mostly fall into one party. And believe it or not, I’d feel the same even if it were Republicans that were being shaved of votes.
But all of the non-citizens that vote for that party make up for it.
Whether the two equal . . . we don’t know.
Can you please cite non-citizen voting numbers and contrast it with the recent GAO report.
Thanks.
Why not find out before disenfranchising thousands of citizens?
Good to know. But I’ve questioned the accuracy of what you claim here before. It might very well be true, but the people who would have the hardest time getting an ID would be the poor people who live in remote in very rural areas. Poor minorities tend to live in urban areas, while poor whites tend to live in rural areas. So, I wouldn’t be surprised if the reality was that poor whites would be most affected by ID requirements. And I assume that that group wouldn’t skew as heavily Dem as poor minorities. They might even skew Rep. No?
Piffle. If that was the case, Republicans wouldn’t be pressing ID. Or they figure it doesn’t matter if Pisshole County, Kansas, has a Republican victory margin of 212 to 15 or 209 to 15.
That obtaining a voter id is free is technically true. It’s all the hoops one must go through and the costs involved with them in time and money and effort that is not free. A case of the visible iceberg and the 90% hidden beneath the surface.
It’s also a perfect example of a Mapcase Law 23: If your argument is based on something that is technically true, then you are deliberately perpetrating a falsehood.
But the same is true of the actual act of voting itself. You have to drive, stand in line, spend gasoline, spend time, etc.
That someone can perform one potentially time-consuming, costly action, doesn’t mean that they can easily perform another. Plus the voting part is the actually necessary part of the whole affair.
Unless you vote in absentee. In my state, there are counties in which half of the ballots are cast absentee. However, there are no provisions to obtain a government-issued photo ID via some absentee method.
According to the GAO report that came out recently:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/220147-gao-voter-id-laws-stunted-turnout-in-kansas-and-tennessee
My point was we don’t know so while I can’t claim it is significant you can’t claim it’s insignificant because WE DON’T KNOW but it also means both sides are working with incomplete data.
And it’s not fair to accuse me of advocating disenfranchising voters when I am one of the few in this discussion advocating spending public money to ensure everyone has ID which also happens to resolve the voter ID issue.
No. Voter fraud is so miniscule a problem that even assuming complete honesty on the part of those doing the verifying, the inevitable errors in verifying those IDs will disenfranchise far more valid voters than they will stop invalid voters. It’s a classic example of the cure being worse than the disease.
I dispute the logic here, and I give you the example of Canada.
It is not difficult to verify ID: this is something we require of liquor store clerks, DMV employees, and the TSA. I would assert that this is perhaps not the best and the brightest of the US population as a whole. I can’t see that verifying a voter ID would be inherently more difficult than scrutinizing ID at the airport or at the DMV. If you think it is, though, you could make it as easy as it is for the liquor store clerks, and just put a little bubble that says CAN VOTE AT THE LISTED ADDRESS.
If you can design an honest system that would make voting easier, put it out there. I’d be in favor of it.
But what you’re arguing for is adding more difficulty to the process. You’re taking all of the existing steps required to vote and adding in a bunch of additional steps to acquire an ID.
What is YOUR cite for this? Your side constantly wants us to come up with numbers to back up our argument so where are your numbers? IIRC there are 11,000,000 illegal immigrants in the US. If 1% of them votes that is 110,000 votes. Do you have any evidence that those numbers are too big?
It has nothing to do with it being difficult. It’s that the level of voter fraud is so minuscule that even the small number of inevitable errors will disenfranchise far more legitimate voters than they will stop fraudulent voters.
Liquor store clerks aren’t trying to turn away customers.
The problem with voter ID programs is the likelihood approaching certainty that they will be abused. They will be used as a means to selectively disenfranchising voters in order to influence the outcomes of elections.