Why would anyone oppose requiring an ID to vote?

Great Debates
41

This raises a different question–theoretically, in order to become a U.S. citizen, an applicant must demonstrate facility with the English language. If someone can’t read the ballot in English, should they be voting?

To answer Doc Cathode, it doesn’t make any sense to me that a non-driver ID would have an expiration date. Driver’s licenses expire partly to make drivers come in periodically for an eye test and to pay up on the tickets they’ve ignored. But there is no reason to do that with a non-driver ID. (Birth certificates and social security cards don’t expire, and even an expired passport can be used as ID when you apply for a new one.) I would argue that the ID card you have should be enough to prove your identity, and a rent receipt or utility bill should be enough to prove your current residence. By “non-participant” in the society, I meant someone who doesn’t have any of that: no ID, no bank account, no legal job, no welfare check, nothing. We could differ about who is a “non-participant,” but I think someone who has no stake in public policy issues should not be voting on them.

It really sounds like there are two separate questions to consider:

1/ What process should be used to be sure that a person presenting himself at the polling place is entitled to vote in that district? If ID of some kind is NOT required there, what substitute is suitable? Proving identity at registration and maintaining a computerized list at the poll might be enough. But what would prevent someone from giving somone else’s name if he didn’t have to show some kind of ID?

2/ If ID is required, what is suitable? People shouldn’t be denied their vote because they can’t afford a driver’s license or non-driver ID. What substitute or combination of documents would be reasonable?

42

How about something you can’t lose? Say, an ID number in ink that only shows up under UV light, tattooed on your hand or forehead . . . say, 666-XXXXXXX . . .

43

***To answer Doc Cathode, it doesn’t make any sense to me that a non-driver ID would have an expiration date. * **

If it has a photo on it the photo would have to be retaken on a regular basis.

44

I was waiting for somebody to bring that up lol. At birth we all could be implanted with a chip, similar to the ones used to help find lost pets. All of our information could be stored at a central location. We could go shopping and wave our hand over the scanner and money could be transferred from our account to the store’s. If we go to the hospital they could scan the chip and have all of our medical records and insurance info right away. We wouldn’t need to carry keys anymore, our chip would unlock doors and start cars. No more filling out stacks of paper work for a mortgage, the bank would scan our chip and we could be approved in seconds.
That Big Brother would know our every move is a small price to pay for such convenience :wink:

45

My $.02
If you’re a citizen in good standing of the US, and a citizen in good standing of the jurisdiction in which you intend to vote, you will have at least one gov’t issued ID at your disposal to show to whoever (with the authority to do so) requests it. I don’t honestly see the issue here.

This is all IMO, so take it for what it’s worth…

If you’re homeless, sorry about your luck, but that takes you out of the ‘good standing’ pool of tax paying, contributing citizens.

If you’re a felon, same deal.

If you’re an illegal immigrant, ditto,

If you’re a foreign national, you guessed it.

I’ll show my ID because voting, like driving, is a privilege. It’s not a right guaranteed to anyone and everyone (see above examples) because if it were, things would be infinately more difficult to manage than they are now.

Having said all that, I know I will have honked more than a few people off, but cest la vie.

I don’t want some shady politician rounding up the homeless, taking them to register, and trying to buy their votes with food, booze, or the promise of something material. (I live in Chicago i’ve seen it happen)

Having been close to homeless at one point in my life, I understand, and even on some level sympathize, but as far as the major issues that many campaigns focus on, I can’t quite take seriously the opinion of someone who chooses a life eating from dumpsters and panhandling, and I don’t want that person to be a part of the process until they can become a part of society. Yeah, i suppose that makes me an asshole in the view of some. Too bad.

In as far as illegal immigrants are concerned; I think that they should be allowed to live here for up to a year before citizenship is mandated, that is to say if they come here, they can stay without penalty for one year.

After that, if you choose not be a citizen, then OUT YOU GO. Period. Legal work visas and visitors etc are obviously exempt.

We’re far too easy on immigration, hell, you try to be an illegal immigrant in another country, and see what happens.

“Oh, but they’re just trying to make a better life” some will complain. Yeah, well, a better life comes with rules, and if you don’t want to follow the rules, no better life for you.

“Well, they’re just doing the job that Americans don’t want to do anyway”
To which i say Bollocks.
If you want to vote, IMO, be a citizen, and in good standing. (this means only that you’re a naturalized citizen, have a place to live, and a job.) It doesn’t matter if your job is day labor and you live in an SRO, it only matters that you contribute to the common good, even a little.

46

Paying taxes and making useful contributions to society are not requirements for voting and there is no reason why they should be. Election day is the time when the people judge the government, not the other way around. And homeless bums are as much “the people” as you are. And nobody needs a political voice more than those who have nothing else.

Felons are allowed to vote in many states, and should be allowed in all of them. Same reasons.

47

We disagree. Paying taxes and making useful contributions ought to be requirements for voting. Of course, I’m not referring to the infirm or insane or the like, but those who are able but refuse to work and contribute. I don’t see the homeless or downtrodden as victims of society. Not in 2004 America, I see them as victims of their own poor choices. Certianly, it’s difficult to get back on your feet. No doubt about it, been there myself. No phone, no heat, barely an address, but you decide you’re going to move up, and you do it, or you wallow in the mire. Wallowing in the mire is something I’m not willing to pay for others to do, yet I do it every day with my tax money.

Sure, the homeless are still citizens, and they are ‘the people’ but ‘the alley behind the bakery’ isn’t a street address sufficient enough to establish residency in a jurisdiction to vote. If you’re itinerant, if you want to be free to roam and do as you please ouside of the system, then say adios to your vote, IMO.

Get a place to stay, and viola! You can vote again!
I’d agree with the felon thing though, depending on the crime. Treason, for instance, no more voting. (though when’s the last time you heard of someone convicted for treason) AWOL from the Military? Nope. But someone convicted of a non-violent felony? Meh. Nothing altogether huge about that, vote on.

48

I thought our society jetissoned that “stake in society” thinking in Andrew Jackson’s time, when the colonial and post-colonial property requirements for the franchise were abolished. (In most states. In the South, it didn’t happen until Reconstruction.) And I thought we put the final nail in its coffin in the '60s, when poll taxes and literacy tests were abolished.

Look, what do you think voting is for? In a democracy, a voter is not allowed to vote so that he or she can give the body politic the benefit of his or her wisdom, such as it is. And not because he or she has done anything to “earn” a political voice in the society he or she has to live in. He/she is allowed to vote in order to make his/her will known and acted upon, and to defend and protect his/her own interests. The assumption is that in a democracy or republic the state belongs to its citizens, and we are all citizens equally, all equally people and all equally owners of our government, even if we are not equal in any other respect.

And it really does make a difference whether a given group is allowed to vote or not. When women got the vote in 1920, we did not get the compassionate, pacifist social utopia some suffragists had predicted. But we did get a society where the law and public policies became (by gradual stages) much fairer to women than they had been before, because now politicians had to worry about getting support from female voters. In South Africa under Apartheid, the whites, who could vote, were effectively living in a free republican society where they enjoyed civil liberties, while the blacks, who could not, were effectively living under a dictatorship. Political scientist Robert Dahl studied these issues in depth in his classic Polyarchy (1971).

I don’t know what country or what year you’re living in, but it ain’t America and it ain’t 2004.

Are you citing a law or proposing one?

49

Apples and oranges.

Not allowing people to vote based on their gender and/or skin color is as wrong as wrong can be. .

Not allowing someone to vote based on the fact that they’ve chosen not to be a part of society is another matter altogether.

The two things are not nearly the same

I get that. Really. I just disagree. I’m the same citizen as the guy that sleeps on the subway grate. Still, I help supply some of the aid he recieves, and in turn he does what? Cleans up a parkway? Washes windows? Picks up garbage? No. He continues to sleep on the sewer grate, because the programs I help fund pay him to do it. What’s more, he has no interest in changing to become productive in any way, so he is a societal drain.

Do i think I’m a better person than the man on the grate? Nope. Not even a little. Do I think I’m better for society? Damn right I do. Grate man has a place in society, but perhaps it ought not be in the voting booth.

The need for an actual street address is rather implicit in the Illinois Voting Rules

Not sure about other states though.

It’s the society we’ve created, sure it would be grand if every crack head and bum got the same treatment as your Donald Trumps and Bill Gates’ but they don’t. They don’t merit the same treatment, because their contributions aren’t as meaningful. I’ve saved three lives in my 14 years on the fire department. Bill Gates’ product may have saved hundreds, if not thousands, so should his vote count more than mine? Yep. It already does, because if he votes one way, people who look up to him will likely vote that way too, but if I vote one way, no one gives a damn, and would probably vote the opposite way just because they think i’m an asshole.

Capitalism has taken over the republic. We’re powered by money and greed, rather than morality and ideals. Good and evil, right and wrong, have given way to crass commercialism and corporate sponsorship, and I’m not saying I wouldn;t like it to be the other way, but it just isn’t, and most likely it’s not going to go that way either.

50

Can’t it be argued that unless a suitable I.D. can be had completely free of charge, the 24th Amendment is being violated?

51

Indeed it could be. But then you’d have to afford a lawyer to, you know, argue it.

52

You will? What agency issues the “citizen in good standing” photo-ID that you will have? If you’re not a driver and never travel by air or abroad, all you need to carry on with your life is a Social Security card, which is NOT a valid “ID”.

Of course, here in PR we have taken care of this issue since 1980 by having our voter-registration card BE a photo-ID, with our face, reg. number, signature, and address, issued free of charge at the registration office (at least one in each town, plus one more for each district in multi-district municipalities; eight in San Juan alone!). You bring in your birth certificate, and some sort of proof of residence or two already-registered voters who’ll attest to who you are, and file a sworn statement. The registration-office staff is a multipartisan team of people who are familiar with the town, with a database with the list of inhabitable addresses and of the pictures and names of every other voter. Not only that, during the time period leading to the election the election the parties will give the list of voters and addresses to their ward bosses so they can check out if you’re for real, and if necessary flag you on the list. And this system registers a stupendous proportion of the eligible population, something like 90%, including the poor and even some homeless. FTR, my late grandfather, a citizen in good standing if there was one, had NO government-issued photo ID other than his voter card.

We ALSO use the US-style sign-up Big Book of Registered Voters at the polling station, PLUS an international-style inkstamp – UV, so as not to be unaesthetic.

53

bj: Capitalism has taken over the republic. We’re powered by money and greed, rather than morality and ideals. Good and evil, right and wrong, have given way to crass commercialism and corporate sponsorship, and I’m not saying I wouldn;t like it to be the other way, but it just isn’t, and most likely it’s not going to go that way either.

Doesn’t mean that we have to just meekly bend over and take it. Not to the extent of denying US citizens of legal age their constitutionally guaranteed right to vote just because they’re homeless or can’t afford a photo ID.

You seem to be arguing that since we’re irreversibly being taken over by Borg Inc. then we might as well give up, get with the program, and get rid of any remaining shreds of democratic egalitarianism as fast as we can. C’mon dude, I thought firefighters had more spine than that. :slight_smile:

54

But what are you so afraid of? In terms of money, it costs society little to nothing to give “grate man” a chance to vote. What are you afraid will happen if he is allowed to vote?

Still – because of who you are and what you do, you do have somewhat more public influence than “grate man,” and Bill Gates has more public influence than you – in affecting other peoples’ voting decisions and a lot of other ways. Isn’t that enough? The individual voting decision is the one place where everybody has an equal voice. Why do anything to detract from that?

And how is disenfranchising the desperately poor supposed to help that situation any? Seems to me that, in terms of your own values, you’re pushing in exactly the wrong direction regarding voting-rights policy.

55

That’s absurd. A legal resident alien has always been allowed to obtain a driver’s license even if he’s not a citizen. Anybody who assumes a driver’s license is proof of citizenship is crazy.

Ed

56

Having recently helped my wife obtain a state I.D. card, I’ve got some experience here. Especially after the terrorist attacks in 2001, several states have made it very difficult to obtain state identification. We were required to gather five or six types of evidence of identity and residence, including a passport, a birth certificate, a marriage license, a lease agreement or mortgage, a utility bill sent through the U.S. Mail, a social security card, etc.

And keep in mind that obtaining several of these pieces of paper required the possession of several others. It can be quite a puzzle. I had to work out a rather complex flow chart in my mind. And there were several steps along the way that required us to persuade the agency in question that what we were showing them was legitimate – the Social Security Administration requires a birth certificate; well, there just wasn’t one, so we had to persuade them to accept an after-the-fact certification from the state based on a sworn affidavit by her mother that she had, in fact, been born (it wasn’t easy) – and the Virginia D.M.V. at first refused to believe that the Ohio marriage certificate was, in fact, a marriage certificate.

We have the fortune of being educated and having jobs that financed our wild goose chase and gave us paid leave to do so. I am not surprised at all that there would be many people without sufficient education, without experience with government bureaucracy, without money from a job or sufficient time off or transportation who just would not be able to get it done. And keep in mind that a very large percentage of Americans were never issued a birth certificate.

57

[hijack]

A single, all-purpose national ID card could solve all those problems, couldn’t it?

[/hijack]

58

According to the elections administrator of Maryland , you don’t need the license itself to register to vote; you only need to apply for a license, which anyone can do. Logically, one would expect the list of people who registered through “motor voter” to be checked for illegal aliens, but the federal government refuses to provide the data so states can do it. Apparently the privacy rights of immigrants are more important than having clean voter rolls.

59

You’re right, it doesn’t, but the only solution is to remove the money from politics, and you’re not going to do that anytime soon, no matter how much spine you have. The people can gather together and fight a visible enemy. If there were invaders, we could repel them. If there were zombies walking the streets, we could destroy them, but the cash flow from special interests is the invisible enemy of freedom. I’d fight to the death to protect this country, but I can’t pick up a gun against a pile of money, and even the most idealistic politicians eventually get jaded out of their principles.

60

bj: I’d fight to the death to protect this country, but I can’t pick up a gun against a pile of money, and even the most idealistic politicians eventually get jaded out of their principles.

I agree. But you’ve been suggesting here that we ought to be even more subservient to money power, and even more willing to deny or restrict voting rights for the indigent, than the law currently requires:

bj: *If you’re a citizen in good standing of the US, and a citizen in good standing of the jurisdiction in which you intend to vote, you will have at least one gov’t issued ID at your disposal […] If you’re homeless, sorry about your luck, but that takes you out of the ‘good standing’ pool of tax paying, contributing citizens. […] Paying taxes and making useful contributions ought to be requirements for voting. […] Grate man has a place in society, but perhaps it ought not be in the voting booth. *

This sounds as though you’re encouraging the disenfranchisement of people who don’t meet some kind of property qualification. It’s one thing to argue that the dominance of politics by the haves, and the disenfranchisement of the have-nots, is inevitable and we can’t really fight it. (I might disagree with you somewhat on that, but I’d see your point.) But what you seem to be doing here is not just arguing that the process is inevitable, but actively supporting it.