Voter ID - Reasonable or Disenfranchising?

[SaltyDawg]

Yes it is. Especially since the notion that people cannot get IDs is a non issue since the laws address that specific issue by providing free IDs.

Money is not the only reason people have trouble getting an ID. The law does nothing to address the other reasons people have trouble getting an ID (think 90 year old lady getting the run around at the DMV only to find that she needs to apply for her birth certificate in some other state that is 2000 miles away and she hasn't lived in for over 60 years).

 

[Scat]

Money is not the only reason people have trouble getting an ID. The law does nothing to address the other reasons people have trouble getting an ID (think 90 year old lady getting the run around at the DMV only to find that she needs to apply for her birth certificate in some other state that is 2000 miles away and she hasn't lived in for over 60 years).

Just as Dems currently round up voters and offer them some incentive to vote (booze, cigarettes, a meal, etc.), they would round up people and take them to get an ID so they could vote.

 

[Stoked]

Just as Dems currently round up voters and offer them some incentive to vote (booze, cigarettes, a meal, etc.), they would round up people and take them to get an ID so they could vote.

I saw what Salty posted from your quote. I have already stated that needs to be addressed in the laws and I think it can easily be done.

There is a new program where agencies can verify a BC from another state. Over 30 states have signed on and the holdouts are in negotiations to join. With the technology and appropriate laws I think this is a logical step to protect votes.

 

[Stoked]

Just as Dems currently round up voters and offer them some incentive to vote (booze, cigarettes, a meal, etc.), they would round up people and take them to get an ID so they could vote.

Can you prove this? Also both sides have get out the vote efforsts.

 

[Hartsock]

Maybe for you, but certainly not for everyone.

So what is the simplest most logical way then? Just ignore it and let anyone walk in and say they are anyone? Obviously it's not perfect but it makes complete sense and is the most logical way. Just because it's not the easiest thing for every single person out there doesn't mean it isn't the best way.

 

[Stoked]

So what is the simplest most logical way then? Just ignore it and let anyone walk in and say they are anyone? Obviously it's not perfect but it makes complete sense and is the most logical way. Just because it's not the easiest thing for every single person out there doesn't mean it isn't the best way.

That is exactly what the critics of these laws are pushing.

 

[SaltyDawg]

So what is the simplest most logical way then? Just ignore it and let anyone walk in and say they are anyone? Obviously it's not perfect but it makes complete sense and is the most logical way. Just because it's not the easiest thing for every single person out there doesn't mean it isn't the best way.

No, the simplest and most logical way would be to do what the banks do if you go online and fill out a loan application, or what your job does when you call IT and ask for a password reset.

ID cards are a technology that is becoming more and more obsolete everyday. Nobody absolutely needs one in order to prove who they are. Some agencies just require them because they have always been the standard in the past.

 

[Stoked]

Not sure about anyone else but I do not want "Fred" down that the local precinct having my name, address, mother maiden, dob, ssn... at his fingertips. So a state ID is far more logical in my opinion.

Edit: As for having to have and ID it is required for certain things. Such as a SSN. Try going into a SSA office and using your name, dob, place of birth and all that to get a social security card. It will not work. They want some form of physical proof.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Not sure about anyone else but I do not want "Fred" down that the local precinct having my name, address, mother maiden, dob, ssn... at his fingertips. So a state ID is far more logical in my opinion.

Edit: As for having to have and ID it is required for certain things. Such as a SSN. Try going into a SSA office and using your name, dob, place of birth and all that to get a social security card. It will not work. They want some form of physical proof.

If you don't trust the people running the elections, then perhaps that issue needs to be addressed before we start putting restrictions on the voters. These people running the elections should absolutely be trustworthy people. If they aren't, then that is far more important than a few voters who aren't trustworthy.

And then once we get nothing but trustworthy people running the elections, then we can trust them with the information they will have access to.

And in addition to that, I would say that if you would rather use an ID card, then you should be able to do that too. But you should not be required to use an ID card with no other option when there are clearly other options available.

 

[candrew]

Just as Dems currently round up voters and offer them some incentive to vote (booze, cigarettes, a meal, etc.), they would round up people and take them to get an ID so they could vote.

Man, how have I been missing out on this????

To think I've been voting all these years for free.

 

[Stoked]

If you don't trust the people running the elections, then perhaps that issue needs to be addressed before we start putting restrictions on the voters. These people running the elections should absolutely be trustworthy people. If they aren't, then that is far more important than a few voters who aren't trustworthy.

And then once we get nothing but trustworthy people running the elections, then we can trust them with the information they will have access to.

And in addition to that, I would say that if you would rather use an ID card, then you should be able to do that too. But you should not be required to use an ID card with no other option when there are clearly other options available.

There is a big difference between the people running the elections and the volunteers in the local voting places. Who did you think was going to verify your "security questions"?

You are never going to have "only" trustworthy people. Take any agency you want and I can guarantee you there are bad apples. The voting people have no need of my personal info. None.

Let's say you go in and want to vote and they ask you for your security questions. There has to be an underlying database. What is that based off of? Your Social Security number? Let us say it is since in this scenario that makes the most sense. So you spend 5 minutes filling all that very personal info out and supplying it to a local volunteer. They verify it and you go vote. Took at least 5 minutes (or more) in what should have been a 5 second scenario.

Also do the volunteers enter your SSN in and all your info comes up? What is to stop them from using that info for something else. They are volunteers and they could easily steal your credit. What happens if you moved and your address is different than the one they have? What if they misspelled your mother maiden name on their database? Do you get rejected and are now unable to vote because they cannot verify who you are?

Let us say they have to type your info in and then they get a yes (verified) or no (not verified) answer. Can you imagine the congestion that system will have when 100 millionish voters vote on the same day? Talk about system overload. That is both cost heavy and problematic. Makes no sense at all.

This could all have been avoided by providing an ID and having some volunteer look at it for 5 seconds.

 

[SaltyDawg]

There is a big difference between the people running the elections and the volunteers in the local voting places. Who did you think was going to verify your "security questions"?

You are never going to have "only" trustworthy people. Take any agency you want and I can guarantee you there are bad apples. The voting people have no need of my personal info. None.

Let's say you go in and want to vote and they ask you for your security questions. There has to be an underlying database. What is that based off of? Your Social Security number? Let us say it is since in this scenario that makes the most sense. So you spend 5 minutes filling all that very personal info out and supplying it to a local volunteer. They verify it and you go vote. Took at least 5 minutes (or more) in what should have been a 5 second scenario.

Also do the volunteers enter your SSN in and all your info comes up? What is to stop them from using that info for something else. They are volunteers and they could easily steal your credit. What happens if you moved and your address is different than the one they have? What if they misspelled your mother maiden name on their database? Do you get rejected and are now unable to vote because they cannot verify who you are?

Let us say they have to type your info in and then they get a yes (verified) or no (not verified) answer. Can you imagine the congestion that system will have when 100 millionish voters vote on the same day? Talk about system overload. That is both cost heavy and problematic. Makes no sense at all.

This could all have been avoided by providing an ID and having some volunteer look at it for 5 seconds.

Yes, I understand they are volunteers. I also understand our entire election process depends on their honesty. So if they aren't trustworthy, then that needs to be addressed first and foremost.

Maybe we could have police in there instead of volunteers?

The actual database would be no problem. If Visa can process millions of credit card swipes all at the same time with no trouble, then surely we can set up a database to identify voters with no problems.

I would also say that you verify this information and do a practice run when you register to vote. That way if something is spelled wrong or whatever, you get it sorted out before you try to actually vote. And again, you should have the option to use your ID card instead if you prefer. I just don't think anyone should be required to get an ID. Like I was saying, there are 90 year old ladies who haven't had a driver's license in over 30 years, so they have no ID. They can barely get out of the house to vote as it is. It's not really fair to expect them to go down to the DMV, get the run around for 2 or 3 hours, only to be told they to first get a birth certificate and then come back and do it all over again. Especially when their birth certificate is in a state that is 2000 miles away, they haven't lived there in 60 years, and they have no idea how to even start the long process of obtaining it.

If you would rather just use your ID that's fine, but obviously there are others who would much rather trust the people at the polls to be honest and use other means to prove their identity.

 

[Stoked]

Yes, I understand they are volunteers. I also understand our entire election process depends on their honesty. So if they aren't trustworthy, then that needs to be addressed first and foremost.

Maybe we could have police in there instead of volunteers?

The actual database would be no problem. If Visa can process millions of credit card swipes all at the same time with no trouble, then surely we can set up a database to identify voters with no problems.

I would also say that you verify this information and do a practice run when you register to vote. That way if something is spelled wrong or whatever, you get it sorted out before you try to actually vote. And again, you should have the option to use your ID card instead if you prefer. I just don't think anyone should be required to get an ID. Like I was saying, there are 90 year old ladies who haven't had a driver's license in over 30 years, so they have no ID. They can barely get out of the house to vote as it is. It's not really fair to expect them to go down to the DMV, get the run around for 2 or 3 hours, only to be told they to first get a birth certificate and then come back and do it all over again. Especially when their birth certificate is in a state that is 2000 miles away, they haven't lived there in 60 years, and they have no idea how to even start the long process of obtaining it.

If you would rather just use your ID that's fine, but obviously there are others who would much rather trust the people at the polls to be honest and use other means to prove their identity.

I might be online with changing who works polling stations. Depends on what they change and how.

As for them having that info. They do not need it. I do not need yet another agency having all of my personal info. I do not need yet another agency keeping tabs on me.

As for a practice run. Social Security has been running a database extremely similar to the one you are proposing. They have been doing so for decades. There are many, many errors in names, DOB, places of birth, addresses...and they have had years to "perfect it". Why? Becasue you have people moving, marrying, adopting, name changing... Asspects of a persons personal info change all the time. Not only that but you have people inputing everything the first time and inputting the changes. Human error builds up on a database that has over 300 million records.

So basically the difference comes down to personally responsibility. You want the government to control it all and I want it to be on the individual. If they are to lazy to get an ID (before you go off about they can't get one go back and read my replies to that pointless objection) then they do not vote. That is on them. I do not need even more people having all of my information at thie finger tips.

 

[Hartsock]

If you can't figure out how to get yourself an id if some kind than you probably shouldn't be voting in the first place.

 

[SaltyDawg]

I might be online with changing who works polling stations. Depends on what they change and how.

As for them having that info. They do not need it. I do not need yet another agency having all of my personal info. I do not need yet another agency keeping tabs on me.

As for a practice run. Social Security has been running a database extremely similar to the one you are proposing. They have been doing so for decades. There are many, many errors in names, DOB, places of birth, addresses...and they have had years to "perfect it". Why? Becasue you have people moving, marrying, adopting, name changing... Asspects of a persons personal info change all the time. Not only that but you have people inputing everything the first time and inputting the changes. Human error builds up on a database that has over 300 million records.

So basically the difference comes down to personally responsibility. You want the government to control it all and I want it to be on the individual. If they are to lazy to get an ID (before you go off about they can't get one go back and read my replies to that pointless objection) then they do not vote. That is on them. I do not need even more people having all of my information at thie finger tips.

Well it comes down to personal choice in the end. You choose to use ID because you don't want anyone having your personal information, and you already carry an ID. But there are many other people who are just as adamant against carrying an ID, as you are about people keeping tabs on you. It has nothing to do with laziness on either side. Some people think an ID is the mark of the beast and flat out refuse to have one. You may think they're nuts. Just remember that some others probably think you're nuts for worrying about the government keeping tabs on you. And then there are the others who just physically shouldn't be burdened with the process of getting an ID (like the 90 year old ladies). In the end, none of them should be denied their right to vote just because someone else thinks their beliefs are stupid or they're too lazy or whatever.

I'm fine with people proving their identity before they can vote. Where I disagree is when that proof is limited to only 1 specific way that is considered acceptable, when there are several alternative ways that are currently in use today.

 

[Stoked]

If you can't figure out how to get yourself an id if some kind than you probably shouldn't be voting in the first place.

In my opinion everyone who can legally vote should be. However if you are lazy or ignorant and do not vote that is on you.

 

[Stoked]

Well it comes down to personal choice in the end. You choose to use ID because you don't want anyone having your personal information, and you already carry an ID. But there are many other people who are just as adamant against carrying an ID, as you are about people keeping tabs on you. It has nothing to do with laziness on either side. Some people think an ID is the mark of the beast and flat out refuse to have one. You may think they're nuts. Just remember that some others probably think you're nuts for worrying about the government keeping tabs on you. And then there are the others who just physically shouldn't be burdened with the process of getting an ID (like the 90 year old ladies). In the end, none of them should be denied their right to vote just because someone else thinks their beliefs are stupid or they're too lazy or whatever.

I'm fine with people proving their identity before they can vote. Where I disagree is when that proof is limited to only 1 specific way that is considered acceptable, when there are several alternative ways that are currently in use today.

I have met people like that and they (from my experience interacting with them) are more against government control of any kind (which includes IDs and your database). If that is the case then good for them. However if they are unwilling to follow the rules society has established and they lose out on priviliges/rights (depends on what we are talking about) as a result then they have no one to blame but themselves.

Edit: I am not paranoid about the government keeping tabs on me. I work for "the man" if you will. However there is no valid reason, in my opinion, for another agency (that is what it would take - or a dramatic redirection of an existing agency database) having my info. There are already enough.

 

[SaltyDawg]

If you can't figure out how to get yourself an id if some kind than you probably shouldn't be voting in the first place.

This may be your opinion, but is is clearly not in the constitution. Our rights don't depend on how smart other people think we are. Everyone gets their rights, all the time. The only exception is if you get arrested/convicted/etc. Other than that, every citizen is entitled to all of their rights, at all times, regardless of how smart or stupid they are, rich or poor they are. And this is true even if you feel they are lazy. A good portion of the rest of the world thinks Americans are lazy in general. Just because you feel someone is lazy should not mean they start losing constitutionally guaranteed rights.

 

[SaltyDawg]

I have met people like that and they (from my experience interacting with them) are more against government control of any kind (which includes IDs and your database). If that is the case then good for them. However if they are unwilling to follow the rules society has established and they lose out on priviliges/rights (depends on what we are talking about) as a result then they have no one to blame but themselves.

Edit: I am not paranoid about the government keeping tabs on me. I work for "the man" if you will. However there is no valid reason, in my opinion, for another agency (that is what it would take - or a dramatic redirection of an existing agency database) having my info. There are already enough.

I should probably point out that I too don't necessarily want another database full of my personal info. But I also don't think it's fair to make some 90 year old lady who can barely walk go out and get an ID before she can vote, with no other alternative. If we're going to change the system to put extra burdens on people before they can vote, that burden should be shared by everyone. I also have an ID and would probably just use that.So it's not fair for me to say "ID should be the only option. I have one so it's no skin off my nose if some old lady can't vote because of the requirement. It was easy for me to get one, so it should be just as easy for anyone else to get one."

If you get arrested and you aren't carrying an ID, in almost all cases the cops will still identify you. And this is true even if you are flat out lying to them about who you are, and not giving them any of your own personal info. In fact, if you have an ID with someone else's name on it and you try to say you are that person, they will still almost always find out who you really are. I actually no a girl who had a sister get arrested for something and say she was her, and had her ID. Even though she looked a lot like her and knew her address, social security number, birth date, etc, they still found out the truth. I'm not saying we should have fingerprint scanners at polling locations, but I am saying it's stupid to limit the proof of identity to only 1 possible way, when every other aspect of society has several ways to prove identity.

 

[Hartsock]

Nothing about lazy or stupid .... More like illegal alien or a felon, more along those lines.