Having a form of identification to vote.

Post Reply

Should people in your country of citizenship have to have some form of ID to vote?

No.
6
18%
Yes.
23
70%
It depends.
4
12%
 
Total votes: 33

User avatar
Tyrannical
Posts: 6468
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
Contact:

Re: Having a form of identification to vote.

Post by Tyrannical » Sat Aug 18, 2012 7:33 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:Image
Technically, hookers have to ask for an ID also else they could face statuary rape charges.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.

MrJonno
Posts: 3442
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:24 am
Contact:

Re: Having a form of identification to vote.

Post by MrJonno » Sat Aug 18, 2012 7:39 pm

No ID required for alcohol and driving here, for internal flights I'm pretty sure its up to the airliner whether you show ID they are more concerned about you grabbing someone else ticket but its possible that may have changed recently
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Having a form of identification to vote.

Post by Coito ergo sum » Sat Aug 18, 2012 7:54 pm

tantamount wrote: you seem to wince at the idea of 30 million people who were not covered being now covered.
The Affordable Care Act does not provide coverage. It mandates that they buy it.
tantamount wrote: Is "give" the wrong word? Sorry. Although, I'm sure they're grateful.
It's not in effect yet. Wait until the year when the single guy making $45,000 a year has to prove to the IRS that he bought an insurance policy. He'll be oh, so glad they forced him to buy what he had the same exact ability to buy previously....
tantamount wrote: Same for the people with preexisting conditions. And for people who have maxed out and are denied coverage. "Give" is the right word, when republicans want to "take" this away. I guess you already have health care, so it's not a big deal for you. Lucky guy.
Lucky? Don't pretend that 85% of Americans aren't already covered. Most of the "uninsured" are not uninsured because of preexisting conditions or that they can't get care. Most of them make enough money to buy it, but don't, or they are eligible for current government provided health insurance but haven't enrolled.
tantamount wrote:
Hm, you're upset about the mandate.
No, I just find it laughable that people this is some sort of law that provides people health care. It makes people buy insurance.
tantamount wrote: The, uh, republican mandate from 1993.
I'm not a Republican.
tantamount wrote: sorry, it wasn't what democrats wanted, either. we wanted single payer.
That isn't what the Democrats in Congress said when they were trying to pass health care reform. They said they weren't looking for single payer, and that it was conspiratorial to think that they were trying to use this to get to that kind of system....
tantamount wrote: but, republicans being what they are, and our health insurance companies being what they are, we can't get it. blame your republican representatives for their intransigence.
You wouldn't have had most Democrats voting in favor of single payer. And, you can't get much more power consolidation than in 2009 and 2010. Dems owned the House, the Senate and the Presidency. If that's not enough power to do what you need to do, then maybe what you want to do isn't what most people want.
tantamount wrote:
Health care really isn't the issue here, however. The thread regards Voter ID laws.

"no evidence was presented of a single person -- NOT ONE"
What are you talking about? As soon as one legal voter walks up to his polling station, who voted before, but is now denied due to forgotten or unacceptable (eg, student) ID, then you have your ONE person.
No such person was presented to the court. I quoted the court.

LOL -- and I love how some of you are all like "voter fraud is no big deal - nobody has proved that there would be widespread fraud!" But, of course, you're just willing to assume that requiring an ID will result in widespread incidents of people being too stupid to remember that that they have to identify themselves. The request for evidence is a valid request in both directions.
tantamount wrote:
That's the whole point of the law, to stop people without ID from voting. Everyone is going to remember to bring the ID? Everyone is going to have the correct ID? No. People are going to forget. People are going to go to work rather than stand in line again. It's statistics. And statistically, the democrats are going to get hit harder than republicans.
Only if you assume that they are stupider. According to the Democrat prevailing view, Democrats are way smarter than Republicans. Republicans have low IQs, but they are better able to remember to bring their drivers licenses?
tantamount wrote: (One anecdote I found very interesting: in one state, they will accept your gun permit license, but won't accept your college student ID-- that's kind of a giveaway.)

Finally, even if it didn't statistically hit democrats harder (students, elderly, minorities), it still is going to affect a lot of people. To "solve" a "problem" that doesn't exist. The study cited in the media was something like 10 proven cases of fraud in 2000-2012 (can't remember if this was just Presidential elections). So to remedy an average of 0.8 votes per year, we disenfranchise hundreds of thousands?

It's Republicans who always go on about "needless and harmful red-tape and regulation." Just how would one characterize these Voter ID laws?
Most western industrialized nations require that people provide ID to vote.

Funny how the "most western nations" line is supposed to be a slam dunk when it comes to anything else....not voting though. In the US, we want to make sure that the voter rolls are as loosey goosey as possible, right? Better that some ineligible people vote than require anyone to show an ID.... even if that ID is issued free of charge to those who can't afford it, multiple options are available and the person can cast a provisional ballot if all else fails... nothing is good enough except to let anyone who walks in off the street vote. Right?

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Having a form of identification to vote.

Post by Seth » Sat Aug 18, 2012 8:10 pm

tantamount wrote:When a certain percentage of the student/elderly/minority population is not allowed to vote because they do not have their ID, what word are you going to use instead of "deny."


"Self-imposed restriction."
They are legal voters.
Not if they don't bring their ID. To be a "legal voter" requires that you be properly identified as a "legal voter" which requires that you present valid government-issued ID. Otherwise you are just an anonymous person walking in off the street purporting to be a "legal voter."
They would have voted in this election, but for a law that prevents "voter fraud"-- a condition that is so rare it is virtually nonexistent-- but instead prevents "voters voting."
You're not a "voter" unless you can be properly identified as the correct person in the correct precinct who is legally entitled to vote.
I'll use the word "deny." You can use the word like "tricked" or "was stupid" [just guessing here].
It's no different than not being allowed to cast a ballot if you have failed to register in the precinct where you are legally permitted to vote. Fail to register and you don't get to vote because one of the requirements of being allowed to mark a ballot is that you can demonstrate that you have a legal right to do so, which requires BOTH registration in the precinct where you will vote (to prevent multiple voting which is a hoary old Democrat tradition, particularly in Obama's home town of Chicago) AND a government-issued photo ID at the polling place to ensure that you are the person who registered.

You only have a right to vote if you can prove that you have a right to vote, and that includes proving who you actually are.

As soon as one legal voter walks up to his polling station, who voted before, but is now denied due to forgotten or unacceptable (eg, student) ID, then you have your ONE person. That's the whole point of the law, to stop people without ID from voting. Everyone is going to remember to bring the ID? Everyone is going to have the correct ID? No. People are going to forget. People are going to go to work rather than stand in line again. It's statistics. And statistically, the democrats are going to get hit harder than republicans.


Voting is a right to those qualified to vote, and ONLY those persons. The rest of us have a right to be sure that the voting is lawful and accurate and that ONLY qualified voters decide the outcomes of our elections. If you don't care enough about voting that you forget your ID, that' s YOUR fault, not the law's. Don't forget your ID. If you don't have one and want to vote, go get one.

And if "statistically, the democrats are going to get hit harder than the republicans" it's because these "democrats" seem to have an entitlement mentality and not the slightest bit of personal responsibility or accountability for their own actions. Poor planning promotes piss-poor performance.
(One anecdote I found very interesting: in one state, they will accept your gun permit license, but won't accept your college student ID-- that's kind of a giveaway.)
That's because a gun permit is issued by the state, not by a school, and there is substantial checking in the issuing of a gun permit to verify the identity of the person obtaining it, whereas there are no such requirements for a school ID.
Finally, even if it didn't statistically hit democrats harder (students, elderly, minorities), it still is going to affect a lot of people.


Tough shit. Get an ID, register, bring the ID to the polling place. It's not rocket science. If you're too stupid or lazy to do those three things, you don't need to be voting in the first place.
To "solve" a "problem" that doesn't exist.
The problem does exist and has existed in the past. Chicago, for example, is historically notorious for Democrats "voting the graveyard" and election fraud and corruption are a hoary old custom there. The law is designed not only to solve an existing problem, but also to PREVENT people who are not qualified to vote (like illegal aliens) from doing so. We, the People, have a right to expect that our elections will be fair and honest, and if you can't be bothered to prove you have a right to vote, then you can justifiably be DENIED the right to cast a ballot.
The study cited in the media was something like 10 proven cases of fraud in 2000-2012 (can't remember if this was just Presidential elections). So to remedy an average of 0.8 votes per year, we disenfranchise hundreds of thousands?
No, THEY DISENFRANCHISE THEMSELVES by failing to follow the reasonable rules for voting in the US. Big difference. Huge.
It's Republicans who always go on about "needless and harmful red-tape and regulation." Just how would one characterize these Voter ID laws?
As reasonable regulations intended to protect the integrity of the voting process by denying those who have no right to vote and cannot prove that they have that right from voting. This is particularly necessary in a nation that houses more than 12 million illegal aliens, who, if allowed to vote through lax polling place security, would unconstitutionally and illegally affect the rights of the 300 million LAWFUL voters in the US.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

tantamount
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Having a form of identification to vote.

Post by tantamount » Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:36 pm

I think we've both presented the two sides of the argument. And what you and Seth has said is assuredly how the Republicans would respond. For me to participate further, I'd just be repeating myself. Perhaps observers will discern which is the stronger argument. My own opinion was initially, casually "Pro" Voter ID laws, but then when I looked at the actual, nuanced issue, its proposed implementation, and the cynicism behind it, I became strongly "Con."

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74298
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Having a form of identification to vote.

Post by JimC » Sat Aug 18, 2012 10:12 pm

CES wrote:

Most western industrialized nations require that people provide ID to vote.
Not as such in Oz. You go to your local polling station, they locate your name of a list, they ask you your current address (which is a check of sorts I suppose), rule a line through your name, and hand you your ballot paper (you are supposed to notify the electoral commission about a change of address, I think...)

There is a more complicated provision if you are voting somewhere other than your home electorate, but I've never used it, so I don't know the details, and also you can submit a postal vote. Both of these methods may well require identification.

I have never read anything about voter fraud being a problem...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Having a form of identification to vote.

Post by Ian » Sat Aug 18, 2012 10:13 pm

I don't know why, but I expected Seth to be on the right side of this argument. For someone who is always whining about the intrusive, freedom-hating hand of government, on this issue he's perfectly okay with wanting people to have to present more identification than they might already have. Funny how that works out.

Long thread short: voter fraud is a virtually nonexistent problem, and even the conservatives here are well aware of it. But they'll defend voter ID laws not because such laws correct an important issue, but because GOP campaign strategists see voter suppression as a viable strategy for their side. Therefore, they parrot this issue because they are mindless fucking sheep. Yes, that means YOU, you sheep.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Having a form of identification to vote.

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Aug 18, 2012 10:23 pm

BTW, it's been decades since I was carded at bar. I have shown my driver's license to police four times in 24 years. I've shown my driver's license to voting station personnel than I have to cops. Having to jump through extra hoops is unneeded and simply a way to deny "unloved" voters the franchise.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

tantamount
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Having a form of identification to vote.

Post by tantamount » Sun Aug 19, 2012 7:14 am

Bill Maher brought up another argument. What is the most popular form of picture ID that most people have: a driver's license. Who doesn't own a car: people who live in large cities. Who really doesn't own a car: poorer people in cities. How do "urban" people in cities vote: heavily Democratic. Voter ID: what a great way to disenfranchise urban minority voters.

Sure, people can say "Well just get ID." That's the point. Have you ever forgotten to make a bill payment, return a library book, buy milk on the way home? Getting ID if you don't have it will be a hoop that some will jump through and some will not. The word for those who don't, in the Republicans' playbook, is a "win." This election, there will undeniably be some statistic, some percentage of people, who will not be able to vote, who had been able to vote before, who are legal voters, whose intended vote will not count. And that percentage will undeniably be Democratic-leaning. By design.

Addendum: Many of these same states are not also making getting a picture ID convenient and free of charge. Ever try getting an out-of-state birth certificate? Voter ID laws will go down in history as the new poll tax.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Having a form of identification to vote.

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:58 am

See today's Doonesbury.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

MrJonno
Posts: 3442
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:24 am
Contact:

Re: Having a form of identification to vote.

Post by MrJonno » Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:11 pm

If anyone serious cared about fair elections identification would be linked to spending more public money to increase voter turnout. The fact it isn't shows all you need to know about what the ideology is behind it
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!

User avatar
MiM
Man In The Middle
Posts: 5459
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Having a form of identification to vote.

Post by MiM » Sun Aug 19, 2012 1:29 pm

MrJonno wrote:No ID required for alcohol and driving here, for internal flights I'm pretty sure its up to the airliner whether you show ID they are more concerned about you grabbing someone else ticket but its possible that may have changed recently
FACT: Last week I flew back and forth between two EU countries (Finland-Germany-Finland), without showing my id. And I never show an id for buying alcohol either (once I grew a beard).
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool - Richard Feynman

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41178
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Having a form of identification to vote.

Post by Svartalf » Sun Aug 19, 2012 2:04 pm

Wow, they did make me show ID in June for the Paris Athens flight... don't remember if I had to do it again on the way back
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Having a form of identification to vote.

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Aug 19, 2012 2:07 pm

Svartalf wrote:Wow, they did make me show ID in June for the Paris Athens flight... don't remember if I had to do it again on the way back
I'd make you show ID to leave your building. :read:
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41178
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Having a form of identification to vote.

Post by Svartalf » Sun Aug 19, 2012 2:22 pm

Pfffttt, once you know me, you can't mistake me for anybody else, or the reverse.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests