Lol, that was just repeating what I already said. Guess it took a few times to sink in.
Are you talking about yourself?
Posts like this are useless. Just because you have an anecdote about how easy it is for you to get an ID doesn’t mean it’s easy for everyone. It’s the equivalent of “I got mine so screw everyone else” or just claiming only your experiences are valid.
Getting a state-issued identification simply isn’t that easy for literally millions of people.
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/goVoteMissouri/howtovote#Forms
Not all voter ID laws requires photo id. Missouri, the only one I looked up cuz that’s where the OP lives, allows a utility bill, bank statement or government check with a name and address on it.
No, it went over your head. What JRDelirious and I are saying is that there is an active effort from the part of our local government to get people to be registered. That kind of effort is NOT present in many places with restrictive voting ID laws. Please read the last paragraph again.
Again, our public transportation in Puerto Rico is not the best, but that is why the ID-issuing offices are open sometimes 6 days a week, after regular working hours and especially during election seasons, go on the road to meet people at different public places.
Same as above.
Again, not the situation JRDelirious and I have. And a great part of our population IS poor, and a great majority of that IS registered to vote.
Please read carefully again, that while we live in a place that requires voting ID, the complete setup is different from what there is in another part of the US. If the idea is to make voting ID required, then the government has to go out of its way to ensure the majority of the citizens get registered. And that effort is clearly lacking in most places in the US.
And one which, so far, is compliant with HAVA and with the US Constitution (as we elect one Member of Congress subject to FEC rules).
In an unusual fit of good sense for our legislature, they realized that if we mandate voter ID, then justice demands we make it so that we issue free or near-free easy-to-get ID for voting purposes to everyone upon registering. If a US state adopted that model I’d be all for their doing so.
What’s the harm in the uv ink? One person, one vote. Is it more likely that people will accidentally expose themselves to uv ink on their thumbs, and not be able to vote, or are people going to be sprayed with uv ink to disenfranchise them? This seems the best way to make sure each person votes only once. As far as registering to vote, you should be registered automatically when you reach 18 according to your social security card issued at birth. if you are an immigrant, when you receive your citizenship. Any others, the situations could be sorted. The point is to make it easier to vote once. not to keep “those” people from voting. Whoever “they” are.
Right. The absentee ballots already come with suitable envelopes to send them to the right place. I’m just suggesting that if we require id of everyone who shows up in the US to vote, we can easily require it of soldiers. Just have them go somewhere, like the base post office, where a designated person can check their id, and then collect the sealed ballots and certify that Id was checked before mailing them home. There’s almost no additional overhead as compared to a mail-in ballot, and it would allow uniform id laws for all voters.
No, it doesn’t address random civilians who live abroad. Random civilians who visit abroad could go to their home town hall and show id and vote before they leave, just lie anyone else who had to be away. Those ballots would be stored until election day.
But citizens who actually live abroad would have no easy way to vote. Some could get to an embassy. Some couldn’t, and would be disenfranchised. But if we are going to disenfranchise anyone by requiring voter id, people who don’t even live in the country seem like a minor loss. And if they cared enough, they could vote, of course, just like people at home really can get id, it can just be enough of a burden that they don’t bother.
I am much less bothered if civilian ex-pats find voting burdensome than if poor and elderly folks who have to live with the results of the vote are unduly burdened.
Yeah, I’d have no objections to uv ink. Simple, cheap, easy to administer, wouldn’t prevent anyone from voting.
And of course, that’s why no one is pushing for it. Because no one (politically speaking) is actually worried about people voting repeatedly, they just don’t want certain people to vote.
“Preventing voter fraud” is this generation’s “States Rights.” Words carefully chosen to sound like a reasonable thing that everyone would want, while actually meaning “racist policy to prevent voting of people we think might vote against us or just don’t like.”
The arguments about whether fraud is happening or not are irrelevant, because these laws have absolutely nothing to do with it. That’s just cover because it would be unacceptable to state their real purpose. (Not that it stops everybody: Pennsylvania GOP Leader: Voter ID Will Help Romney Win State - TPM – Talking Points Memo)
What’s the polling number on Voter ID? Perhaps 60-70% of Americans support it?
If so, then whatever minority votes the Democrats might gain by opposing voter ID seem to be offset by the number of votes they lose by opposing Voter ID when the Republicans support Voter ID. This is one of the few issues on which the GOP remains more popular than the Democrats.
If we’re talking about a base in say, Germany, that would probably not be difficult to pull of. But if we’re talking about a hillside in Afghanistan, it’s going to be much more complex to pull the system you are describing off. The military would have to be the ones to okay that extra logistics, and I suspect that they aren’t going to want to deal with the added hassle. You are proposing a system that works fine in non-hostile territory, but brings with it all sorts of complications in-theater. Which is an issue I already raised, and which is an issue you keep ignoring.
Aside from that, let’s examine the legal issues here. The Federal government cannot dictate to states how to run their elections unless we can point to a clause in the US Constitution (such as the Equal Protection clause) allowing them to do so. Where does the Federal government, then, get the power to require IDs from its soldiers for voting? I mean, we could try to mount an argument that voter ID is necessary for the operation or order of the military, but that seems like a stretch, and I don’t think it’s going to go anywhere.
Or, the Feds could try to use their spending power to coerce the States into requiring voter ID for soldiers. Given the ruling in the Medicaid expansion case, though, I don’t think that’s going to go anywhere either.
The Feds could try inducing all the states to voluntarily change their laws to require voter ID for military ballots or maybe the Feds can propose a compact with all the states to get them to require voter ID for military ballots. But, I really have trouble believing that a lot of state-level politicians are going to get behind the idea of putting in extra voting requirements for a soldier (there was a huge outcry in 2000 in Florida about the possibility of military ballots not being counted, remember).
So, I think its extremely unlikely that you are ever going to get voter ID for military ballots in most states. And your arguments don’t address how to deal with voter ID in dangerous or hostile territory. Your arguments don’t address how to deal with the military’s input in changing its procedures. And your arguments don’t deal with all the convoluted legal issues. That’s not even to mention the political downsides of trying to put in an additional requirement on soldiers to vote.
Exactly. What a lot of people don’t seem to get is that “I know what your real motive is” is not a good reason to oppose the general concept, even if we should be opposing individual pieces of legislation. We have to counteroffer with our own versions that provide an expansive outreach to get people ID.
Furthermore, we are not very good Social Democrats if our response to people living such marginalized lives that they go through life without ID is to stand up for their rights to vote for us without the ID. If someone doesn’t have ID, they clearly have a lot of other problems which we should be trying to address. (In this respect, it reminds me of the fights over panhandling laws and laws against sleeping outside. Sticking up for someone’s rights to panhandle or sleep outside is missing the deeper point in a similar way.)
They have a way to vote now, and I’m not interested in changing it.
There is already a cite in this thread on the difficulty for people at home to get IDs. So, why do you think simply stating that “people at home really can get id” is supposed to convince me? No, I don’t think so.
And I’m much less bothered if people who are pretending to care about voter fraud when they really want to disenfranchise people don’t get their “voter ID” laws.
I think this is definitely true for younger people. I’m not sure it’s true for the largest group without ID, though, which is old people. I think a lot of old people without ID really do get along just fine without it, and if they do get it they’ll rarely if ever use it except to vote.
Exactly. What a lot of people don’t seem to get is that it is difficult for some people to get IDs and that these voter ID laws aren’t addressing that issue. And what a lot of people don’t seem to get is that we already allow a lot of people to vote without ID. And what a lot of people don’t seem to get is that until relatively recently in this country, many people could function just fine without ID and that some people don’t have a need for ID now (because they are retired and no longer drive and don’t travel, for example).
What a lot of other people don’t get is that fighting for people’s right to vote without ID looks really shady to a lot of people who don’t know anyone without ID. You’re basically saying, “let’s just use the honor system when it comes to selecting people who exercise incredible amounts of power in our state and federal government”. The argument “well, there’s no proof that the honor system has failed us thus far” just sounds laughable to such people, and I can understand why.
Again, I’m not denying for one second that the motives of the people pushing these ID laws are over in a much less reasonable/honorable place. But that group, like those vigorously opposing the laws, represents a small slice of the population. The real problem is that the vast majority of everyone else is sympathetic to the notion of requiring ID as almost a “common sense” type deal. So fighting against them is going to be a losing proposition, it’s not the hill to die on, and we should instead redirect our energies to making sure everyone gets IDs.
If the Republicans don’t want that to happen, how does the minority party enforce its will?
As far as the political tactics of the thing goes, there’s another factor. The Dems are on record as being the party that defends minority rights. The people who vote for them expect them to stand for such rights, expect them to object when the state legislature tries to pull a slow one. Expect them to object when their voting rights are insulted for partisan gain.
If, as they love to claim, America is basically a center right country, and most Americans are aligned with Republicans, how come they have to cheat to win?
Because most Americans are not aligned with Republicans.
As for your first question “how does the minority party enforce its will”, that’s an equally good question to ask the crowd that wants to just stand foursquare against voter ID and not budge an inch. In some states, they won’t get anywhere with either stance. But at least in terms of PR, they can say “we tried to offer a reasonable alternative that protected people’s rights, but the Republicans refused it, showing that they are just trying to disenfranchise minorities”. It might even strengthen court challenges. And then in some other states where the GOP is not quite as dominant, the alternative version Democrats offer might even hold sway.
But there’s another track here, aside from the legislative one. In states where voter ID laws are passed, Democrats should be doing ID drives just like they traditionally do voter registration drives. If the Freedom Riders could register African Americans in the South, why can’t a new generation of Democrats go out and find minority voters without ID, and simply help walk them through the process to get that ID? It might even prove helpful to them other than on Election Day! 
good point. The military need only check and certify id for those soldiers whose home States require it. They can apply a special stamp so certifying.
My argument is not that we need to check the id’s of soldiers, but that if a state requires id for people who physically go the polls, it should require it of everyone. None of this sloppy “but if you vote by mail we assume you are who you say you are.” You want to require id? Okay, require it of all voters.
that would be an even better outcome. But as others have said, voter id sounds reasonable and common sense to many. Okay, fine, states can do that, but if they do, it has to be in a way that inconveniences republican voters, too. None I’d this loosey goosey unverified mail-in ballots.