Well then you’re wrong. What I’m trying to say is that if the Dems are complaining about voter ID laws because some Democrat voters don’t have photo ID, then why isn’t your party making the effort to get them ID?
The other solution which your side seems to have taken is the position that people should not have to prove who they are in order to vote. How well is that strategy working? Has one voter ID law been repealed at the state legislature/proposition level? All I hear is the best you can do is talk about it because apparently the Republicans can pass any law they want even if it is unconstitutional and so your party can’t actually take action. Y’all are starting to sound like Harry Reid.
Can you find anyone who takes this position? I’m not aware of anyone trying to repeal any of the centuries-old measures for proving who people are before they vote. That’s never been the issue-- The issue is making people jump through additional pointless hoops after they’ve already proven who they are.
That is *not *why we’re “complaining”. You would know that if you’d been paying any attention at all here.
Well enough that the alleged problem of significant voter fraud does not exist. Is that enough for you? Why is it not up to you to justify “fixing” it? :dubious:
Saint Cad, do you think the Republicans are sincere? Do you think that they honestly believe there is some dreadful problem with voter impersonation fraud, a crisis so fearful that action must be taken soonest? Or do you agree that the primary motivation here is to discourage Dem voters from going to the polls?
As I’ve already noted, voter ID is all they ever want to talk about, because its as close to a defensible position as can be offered here. Ask about curtailing early voting, Sunday voting, and voter registration drives, and they swiftly change the subject back to voter ID and pretend that’s what it’s all about. Because stuff like cramping early voting and forbidding polling stations to stay open for extended hours, stuff like that is indefensible.
Americans like simple answers that appeal to “common sense”. Well, shit, you need ID to buy cigarettes and drink in a bar, so why shouldn’t you need it to vote? Which makes the sort of facile common sense that is appealing. Except, of course, it is a solution to a problem that effectively does not exist.
Don’t these other initiatives reveal a sordid motivation? What problem is addressed by curtailing early voting, Sunday voting, extended polling hours, etc. and so on…what problem is being addressed other than the problem of too many people voting for Democrats?
So far, I’ve seen you as a pretty square deal kind of guy, so I’m curious as to why you insist on restricting your attention to the marginally defensible voter ID issue and steadfastly ignore all the rest. Is it legitimate, in your estimation, for the party in power to legislate itself an electoral advantage by changing the rules in its favor? Because that is what they are doing, you realize this, yes?
In non-voter ID states, do you have to prove who you are to vote or can you just walk up to the polls and vote under whatever name you give them?
Honestly, I’m the last person on this board you want to ask that question considering (as I’ve said before) I lost my right to vote when someone signed my name on the poll book. And yes it was my name and my last name is rare enough that I’m the only “Cad” in the book so it wasn’t a clerical error. As far as I’m concerned I was as much disenfranchised and a Pennsylvanian without ID. But according to many on this board (not all I admit), me being disenfranchished by lack of voter ID law is unimportant. Now if I were denied my right to vote because I lost my drivers license the day before (and were a Democrat) then OMG we need to fix that shit right now.
Wrong again. It’s not unimportant, disenfranchisement does matter. That’s why the discussion is about disenfranchising *many *to protect the rare, scattered instances of which you have had the misfortune to have been one. The point is that such protection is obviously not the goal, nor even the main result of these laws and proposed laws. The obvious main result is obviously the main intended result, and all the sanctimonious denials and rationalizations for it are simply sad.
A sincerely-intended voter-ID law would certainly allow for many methods. Do you know of any such?
Doesn’t it make sense to put safeguards in place so voter fraud does NOT become significant? That, and if the vote is so sacrosanct (which I believe it is), why should someone’s vote be nullified by someone voting who is not really able to?
You know, I bet that if we started a thread bitching and performing about an end to Sunday voting, curtailing early voting, polling place inequality and an end to same-day registration, we will get back a firm defense of voter ID.
“You know, it totally sucks, equality-wise, that people in the poor part of town have to wait eight hours to vote while the guy in the suburbs is in and out in an hour, tops!”
“You need ID to buy cigarettes and booze, which means you gotta have it to vote. Common sense.”
Doesn’t it make sense to consider the *actual *consequences of these laws? If so, what do you think they really are?
And doesn’t it make sense that, if it’s never been a problem in the past, that it isn’t likely to become one in the future? You people like to snicker “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, but here’s something that ain’t broke. Why do you think you’re *really *being told this is something that needs to be fixed?
Actually, never mind, you’ve previously shown us your willingness to support laws that actually hurt actual people just because you think something bad, something you can’t explain, might happen somehow in the future if we didn’t have those laws. So there’s no reason to expect you to respond differently this time, is there?
It’s something we should already have in place. Again, if one believes that the vote is sacrosanct, it should be protected. Those opposed to sensible safeguards try to paint the requirement of a photo ID as being SO outlandish, so crazy extreme. Yet, if you look around the world you’d see that it is simply the norm.
I do understand that some people don’t have an ID,and as long as the poor can get the IDs for free, with minimum hassle.
And again, I’d like to make this point. There two things I hear a to. One is that poor people of color will be (disproportionally) disenfranchised. When it is pointed out that the IDs can made available for free, the response is that some people live very far from a DMV or similar state office. But most poor people of color are concentrated in urban areas, where a DMV office is a bus ride away. It seems the people most affected by living possibly hours from a DMV or similar office are white people who are poor. Those on rural farms, etc.
Even if this was true, how is it any better? It’s okay as long as whites are disenfranchising other whites? Republicans are disenfranchising 100’s of thousands, but they weren’t racist about it?
I say we let reality intrude here. Take a look at the Pennsylvania law that was suspended by their State Supreme Court prior to the election. By the State of Pennsylvania’s own estimate 758,000 previously registered voters did not have proper ID under the new law to vote. Fox News placed the estimate at 759,000 previously eligible voters. Can you guess which part of Pennsylvania was most hit by the new law? Was it rural, predominately white areas like magellan01 suggests? Of course not. It was predominately Democratic (and highly urban) Philadelphia with 18% of previous voters becoming unable to meet the new law.
Furthermore these laws do directly target the poor and minorities in that obtaining a state issued ID is often much harder for them. Because of fears of terrorists obtaining them and then using their state ID to get on a plane or illegal aliens using them to… something, something drive around ruining America, there are typically required documents. It’s not as simple as showing up at the DMV and getting your picture taken. This was, incidentally, the exact reason the Pennsylvania law was suspended. The Legislature passed conflicting laws requiring State ID to be harder to obtain (to keep them from terrorists and illegals) and then passed the Voter ID law with assurance to the State Supreme Court that IDs would be easy to obtain. The Court decided that their assurances were not good enough.
In fact, older black women are the single most hit demographic of all these new ID laws. Not only did many never have a driver’s license, but many don’t have birth certificates since record keeping was notoriously lax for blacks born to a mid-wife in pre-civil rights South. Once you start adding in name changes after getting married, as a group they really struggle to prove who they are to the satisfaction of Republican law makers.
So Saint Cad, we agree that what happened to you sucked. It sucked giant donkey balls. How many people are you willing to share that pain with? 100,000? 200,000? 300,000? The 750,000+ that Pennsylvania proposed? Between 2002 and 2005 among all Federal votes .00000013% of them were fraudulent. Would you cut off 18% of Philadelphia to fix that? At what point is the cure worse than the disease?
My reply to you Oldeb as it has been all along is two-fold.
Just looking at Pennsylvania and given your number of 758,000 people, my question has always been how many of those people are absolutely unable to get a photo ID. Does that number say that all 758,000 people do not have a birth certificate or the $20-$50 to get their birth certificate or do not have access to online forms, etc. The Dem way of thinking is does not have ID = cannot get ID and the two are not synonymous.
Regardless of what the true numbers are of those disenfranchised because they cannot (as opposed to chooses not to have) photo ID, the numbers say that 3/4 of a million Pennsylvanians do not have photo ID. You Dems miss the point and think this is about voting.
Before I go on, let me ask a question. If every Pennsylvanian had photo ID, would the Dems still contend voter ID is a bad law? In other words, is the concept flawed or the implementation?
Anyways back to my point. So 3/4 of a million Pennsylvanians do not have ID which many would consider necessary for important life functions. What is the solution? According to the Pubs, fuck 'em and let them get photo ID. As bad as that is (as a Republican I do not agree with it) the Democrats are not much better sitting back and bitching about Voter ID laws. Let me clue you side into a fact you seem to have missed, as unAmerican as this sounds, if you do not have photo ID, not being able to vote every 4 years is a minor problem. The problem that really needs to be addresses is THEY DON’T HAVE PHOTO ID! How do they get a job, cash checks, use credit cards, drive or anything else that needs a photo ID. I find it odd that the only people that are saying that maybe the solution is to get the people photo ID or at the very least a voter ID card to show at the polls are the Republicans on this board.
You see, the Dems are just as guilty as the Pubs for their extremism on this issue. The answer is not "If they want to vote badly enough they’ll get ID"® but the answer likewise is not “Get rid of voter ID and let anyone show up and claim to be whomever.”(D) The answer is to get everyone a photo ID at state cost if the person is truly unable to afford it or at the very list have the counties send voter IDs which can easily be done when they send out sample ballots.
So explain to me why my solution is worse than yours?
Enough of them were unable to get them that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled against the law on the basis that Pennsylvania could not issue them IDs even if they wanted to. Whether that was because of a lack of documentation, physical difficult, or financial hardship is immaterial.
No offense, but if you think that you should be grateful your life is as sheltered as it has been. 11% of adults in the US do not have a valid, government-issue ID. That’s roughly 21 million people. In some cases they never had one, in others they’ve expired. Retired people have it even worse. In the 65+ age bracket that increase to one in five. Yes, 20% of all US citizens over the age of 65 lack a valid ID. Again, the reason is immaterial when discussing voter ID laws.
They don’t do any of those things. Again, not trying to be rude but you need to consider all the things you’ve been fortunate enough to take for granted. Not a single thing you listed is a requirement for living at a lower middle class lifestyle in the US. Especially if you’re retired or on disability. You may not know this, but all Federal Benefit money (whether Social Security or something else) is required by law to not be in the form of a paper check. You can either have it direct deposited (and if you’ve had that account for years many banks did let you establish it without photo ID) or as a Direct Express card that works exactly like a debit card. You don’t even need a bank account at all. Most, if not all, state programs work the same way.
Many “working poor” don’t use a bank. They’re cashing a paper check with a work ID or a social security card. Neither of which can be used to vote. A lot of businesses are also switching to the same model as the Federal government. Either they direct deposit or load your pay onto a debit card. Again, no ID required.
Maybe it’s being said, but that’s not what the Republican party is doing at all. Can you find any evidence for making it easier to obtain valid photo ID in the US? I can find plenty for making it harder with requirements that can’t be met. Can you find one that takes into account the fact that not everyone alive in the US was issued a birth certificate? Can you find one that while completely free doesn’t require documentation to be obtained that may itself cost money such as birth certificates or marriage licences?
Sure, that could be done. It isn’t. At all. Or are you arguing that we first need to disenfranchise people in order to know who to re-enfranchise? You can’t honestly think that the first step in this scenario isn’t to issue the IDs first. Yet that’s exactly what’s happening. In fact, can you even name one Republican official saying anything like this at all? Or even stating that it’s a multiple step process to fight that .00000013% of voter fraud? Because all I can find is a quote about how the new law will deliver Pennsylvania to Romney.
I don’t have a problem with issuing everyone in the country a national ID card. I even agree that it’d be okay to require it to vote. Of course you’re probably the only right leaning person in the country who’d accept one. Cause I guarantee you the first Republican to even remotely hint at such a thing would never hold office as part of the GOP again. Not only is that going to cause cries of Big Government (and probably UN domination), but the cost alone would insure they lose their next primary.
Furthermore even though I agree on a national ID card on a superficial level, I’d still expect it be free and required to take in to account the fact that millions of people lack birth certificates and government-issue ID now. Issuing them won’t be as simple as visiting the local DMV branch and getting your picture taken. I’m perfectly willing to see tax money spent correcting this problem. We both know that’s not what’s being done and there is absolutely no plan in place to do so. Supporting voter ID laws behind a future theoretical ID is nonsensical.
And the argument that it’s either a National ID card, which c’mon, we both know will not be done any time soon, if at all, or strict ID laws disenfranchising hundreds of thousands, if not millions, is extremely disingenuous. One is clearly being done. Opposing it is not extremism. Even if Obama proposed such an ID card tomorrow what are the odds it would be in place for the 2014 election? The 2016 election?
Way to miss the point. My point was not a national ID but that each person being entitled to a STATE ID and if the person is indigent and cannot obtain their records or afford the card it should be at state cost.
Also, I find it interesting that your first 3 “retorts” exactly makes my point that the issue is really getting every state resident a photo ID so they can take advantages of opportunities such as driving and banking.
Your 4th retort shows where I differ from my party. I will point out that some (maybe all?) states do allow you to sign an affidavit with witnesses and notarized that you are who you say you are. I don’t know if those can be used to establish citizenship but considering Federal Law says that all you have to do is claim to be a citizen to register I think that’s a non-issue.
Your 5th point again misses the point. Photo ID for all should be independent of voting. Here’s how the thinking should go.
Every state resident is entitled to a photo ID to fully participate in society.
Assistance is to be provided at state cost if a resident cannot get get the required documents/pay the required fee on their own.
Since every resident has photo ID after 1 and 2, we have photo ID needed for voting to ensure no one is voting under another name.
Your argument would perhaps be a little stronger if you could point out some of the other ways in which a photo ID would permit more people to “fully participate in society”. Doing so is a right, not a privilege.
So then we can agree that the current laws being pushed by the Republican party are in error? Yes or no here, since that’s kind of a big one.
Obviously we differ in that you feel they’re putting the cart before the horse by asking for IDs that are not yet available, while I feel they’re actively attempting to disenfranchise millions of US citizens by never making such ID available. But we both agree that what’s being done is not the correct action?
Not even remotely possible at the State level. This in one of those things that’s either Federal or not. And since these are for voting you’re going to need to be able to provide IDs on short notice. Certainly at least a temporary paper ID almost as soon as it’s applied for. Problems include but aren’t limited to:
[ul]
[li]Paying for this project. Not every state is going to be able or willing.[/li][li]Passing such laws 50 times. Not impossible, there’s 50 laws against murder after all, but it’s going to be hard.[/li][li]Verifying each person’s identity and residency status. Remember that this has only gotten harder and more time consuming post-9/11.[/li][li]Accounting for college students. They’ll need to be issued new ID cards when enrolling out of state.[/li][li]Accounting for recent transplants. I don’t know if you’ve ever moved between states, but I’m betting switching your ID was not first on your “to do” list.[/li][li]Accounting for residents of Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, and other protectorates and territories. They’re full US citizens and as such able to move to a state and immediately participate.[/li][li]The time requirement to allow people to go obtain their new ID. Not everyone can take a long lunch or afford a day at the DMV even if they can afford the ID itself. You’re going to need increased hours to handle the load.[/li][/ul]
None of that is technically impossible. Added up though it’s never going to happen at a state level. Especially the paying for it, which I can’t stress enough.
You’re still hung up on being able to drive as required for a better life and even outside the issue of ID that’s completely untrue. Ask any New Yorker. Nor is using a bank a requirement. But I agree that those without government ID would be better off with them.
Registering to vote is in no way comparable to being able to pass restrictive voter ID requirements or even obtaining a government issued ID. Pretending any correlation between the two is extremely disingenuous. Here’s a sample list of people who have struggled to obtain ID. All of them would have no trouble registering to vote anywhere in the US.
Sure. I agree. But you seem to feel that 1 and 2 are the responsibility of the Democratic Party while 3 is the responsibility of the Republicans. And that’s it’s not the fault of the GOP if the Democrats are slacking.
If you agree that steps 1 and 2 should be done first how can you not be opposed to the restrictive ID laws being passed by Republican states? How can you not feel that that quotes like, “Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done,” aren’t a blatant admission of manipulating the system to disenfranchise people who don’t vote the “right way”?