Voter ID - Reasonable or Disenfranchising?

[Stoked]

Nothing is ever going to be perfect Salty. We have both acknowledged that.

However these laws are addressing (as they should) the people that would have a harder time than normal getting an ID. It is often being spoon fed to them. Existing databases already address alot of the requirements for a ID. The states are just being stubborn becasue they want the revenue. However if provisions for that are in the laws as they are drafted than I really do see the examples of people not getting one as a dead point.

 

[Scat]

This may be your opinion, but is is clearly not in the constitution.

LOL I bet I and others here could name a couple dozen federal programs that are "not in the Constitution" but you would probably cry foul if they were eliminated.

 

[Hartsock]

Salty - it feels like your reasoning is more out of principle than out of logic. Like Stoked said, sure there could be a lot of different ways to go about making sure the right person is voting but none of them make any logical sense compared to plain old simple photo id ( which can be obtained for free or for a very minimal charge ) if a little old lady can't take the time to get one, than why is she taking the time to drive down to her local poll, waiting in line, voting, and hopefully making it home without running into another car. Your points just don't seem to hold any water. But then again I don't know ****, and I could be way off base.

 

[SaltyDawg]

LOL I bet I and others here could name a couple dozen federal programs that are "not in the Constitution" but you would probably cry foul if they were eliminated.

What does that have to do with anything? You can bet if these programs were guaranteed in the constitution, then I certainly would not be for eliminating them.

 

[Hartsock]

Do you really think the constitution is bullet proof? Infallible? Never needing a tweak or two? Perfect? I'm not sure I have an opinion either way, I'm just curious what others think.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Salty - it feels like your reasoning is more out of principle than out of logic. Like Stoked said, sure there could be a lot of different ways to go about making sure the right person is voting but none of them make any logical sense compared to plain old simple photo id ( which can be obtained for free or for a very minimal charge ) if a little old lady can't take the time to get one, than why is she taking the time to drive down to her local poll, waiting in line, voting, and hopefully making it home without running into another car. Your points just don't seem to hold any water. But then again I don't know ****, and I could be way off base.

I don't think that is the case here. Most people vote at a polling station right in their own neighborhood. The don't have to travel very far at all. And that is if they ever travel, you can vote by mail in a lot of places these days. Seriously though, most people only have to travel a few blocks to vote. My polling station is actually in the lobby of a retirement home, lol.

Even so, the longest I have ever waited in line at a polling station pales in comparison to the average time I wait at the DMV (specifically the drivers license division). It's not the same at all, not even close.

I seriously can't understand why people (especially right wingers) insist on there being only one possible way to prove your identity. The fact is, in every facet of life that requires you to prove your identity, there is always more than one way to establish that proof. I fail to understand why voting should be any different. Are you less of an American just because you don't have an ID? Of course not.

Like I've already posted, I'm fine with people proving their identity. I just disagree that the only acceptable proof is an archaic ID card that is being (or has already been) fazed out in most industries.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Do you really think the constitution is bullet proof? Infallible? Never needing a tweak or two? Perfect? I'm not sure I have an opinion either way, I'm just curious what others think.

Of course not. If it never needed a tweak or anything, then there wouldn't be any amendments.

However, once you start tweaking it to take away rights, then you have Animal Farm.

 

[Gameface]

To me this falls in line with what I see as a large group of people wanting the US to be an exclusive club. I don't see the US that way. I want completely open boarders. I say let whomever wants to vote have a vote. Now of course, that only works if the government can't (doesn't have the power or authority to) provide special privileges, services, or advantages to organizations, industries, or businesses. What I think people fail to understand about the extreme libertarian philosophy is that you take away large corporations ability to gain advantages or take advantage of people by taking away the government's ability to provide them that power. Also, there is no fear of outsiders coming in and taking all the government goodies if there aren't any free goodies to be had.

The very idea that we need to verify that the people voting "deserve" to be able to vote is absurd to me.

 

[Stoked]

To me this falls in line with what I see as a large group of people wanting the US to be an exclusive club. I don't see the US that way. I want completely open boarders. I say let whomever wants to vote have a vote. Now of course, that only works if the government can't (doesn't have the power or authority to) provide special privileges, services, or advantages to organizations, industries, or businesses. What I think people fail to understand about the extreme libertarian philosophy is that you take away large corporations ability to gain advantages or take advantage of people by taking away the government's ability to provide them that power. Also, there is no fear of outsiders coming in and taking all the government goodies if there aren't any free goodies to be had.

The very idea that we need to verify that the people voting "deserve" to be able to vote is absurd to me.

Sounds to me like you are advocating basically a world order where corporations do not have power over the people. Nice Utopian dream but will never be realised due to humanities on desire for seperation.

 

[Scat]

“This is not a billy club,” “This is not a fire hose,” “This is not Jim Crow, though some people say it is.” (all said while holding up his driver’s license.)

“How is it that this tiny [I.D] little thing that I can hold in my hand is causing such a stir?”

“Rights don’t mean that you don’t have responsibilities, you’re not auto-enrolled to vote.”

“Where is this notion that if I have a right that I don’t have to be bothered with responsibility?”

“We have to be one country, but the way you become one country is you stop acting like a country that’s divided into different buckets and baskets of people.”

Former Alabama rep. Artur Davis

 

[One Brow]

Former Alabama rep. Artur Davis

Would you support being required to carry an ID to walk down the street? Can you make a case, based on a real threat, why one right needs to be restricted more than the other?

 

[Scat]

Would you support being required to carry an ID to walk down the street?

To what end? Preventing "walking fraud"? I hear it's rampant in NYC.

 

[Gameface]

Well, people need to prove that they deserve to be walking on U.S. soil.

 

[TroutBum]

Would you support being required to carry an ID to walk down the street? Can you make a case, based on a real threat, why one right needs to be restricted more than the other?

To what end? Preventing "walking fraud"? I hear it's rampant in NYC.

This is why labeling someone as left or right is stupid. Scat is Sean Limbaugh, and OneBlow is Olberman, but both have great points occasionally. Take this for an example.

 

[One Brow]

To what end? Preventing "walking fraud"? I hear it's rampant in NYC.

Illegals walking around the street is much more commonplace than voter fraud.

So, what's your answer?

 

[Stoked]

Illegals walking around the street is much more commonplace than voter fraud.

So, what's your answer?

I see the point you are trying to make but your example is flawed. Walking around on the street does not have the national and international imprtance that voting for our leaders does. The sheer difference in importance between the two activities undermines your example.

 

[One Brow]

I see the point you are trying to make but your example is flawed. Walking around on the street does not have the national and international imprtance that voting for our leaders does. The sheer difference in importance between the two activities undermines your example.

In what way is that importance actually (not potentially) protected by Voter ID?

 

[Stoked]

In what way is that importance actually (not potentially) protected by Voter ID?

It makes sure that the correct person is voting.

Perhaps that would have helped avoid what happened with Bush and Gore down in Florida...

 

[One Brow]

It makes sure that the correct person is voting.

Perhaps that would have helped avoid what happened with Bush and Gore down in Florida...

In what way? If you show up at the polls with an ID, and your name has been removed from the voter rolls because it was similar to some other person that was a felon, how does the ID allow you to get your name back on the rolls?

I not going to pretend that I think you have a reasonable answer to this, but I'm aware enough of my own ignorance that, if you do have one, I would like to learn something.

 

[Stoked]

In what way? If you show up at the polls with an ID, and your name has been removed from the voter rolls because it was similar to some other person that was a felon, how does the ID allow you to get your name back on the rolls?

I not going to pretend that I think you have a reasonable answer to this, but I'm aware enough of my own ignorance that, if you do have one, I would like to learn something.

Well that is why it should not be implemented right now. A system would need to be put in place to iron out all of these wrinkles.

One thing you could use as a basis for the system is your Social Security number. Behind that number is your name, DOB, place of birth, parents names (mothers maiden). Once the number is used it is gone. They do not recycle it.

On a side note I think once you are released from prison you should be allowed to vote. You served your time and paid your dues.

I think it is the personal responsibility of the voters to ensure that they are registered and ready to vote. Their clearly needs to be a mechanism in place to easily and conveniently allow that to happen but the federal government is not our baby sitters. The voters need to get up off their asses and prepare themselves.

Spare me the poor, 100 year old woman in timbuktu story. We went over that.

Edit: the SSN comment was just a thought that occured to me. T he database is already there and would decrease the cost of implementing such a system. Not sure how much I like that idea though.