Voter ID - Reasonable or Disenfranchising?

[jimmy eat jazz]

I do not feel that accurately reflects the bills on the table. It is, in my opinion, purely partisan spin.

These bills are providing free state IDs to those that for some reason cannot normaly acquire them. That right there should do away with the whole "disenfranchised" argument.

WTF??? Your comment might make sense has I tried to describe the bills on the table, which on reading my post carefully, should be clear I did not try to do.

I've merely asked questions related to the extent of the problem and raised issues related to the tradeoffs of marginal improvements in vote count accuracy and marginal reductions in voter enfranchisement. I have not made any assertion about the relative merits, but merely raised questions I think are worth asking before rushing to judgment.

Plus your response assumes that one's general party identification determines their position on this issue. I can assure you that there ARE Republicans/conservatives in the US who oppose such laws and there are Democrats/liberals who support them. Party ID is, for many people if not most, only a general guide to how they think on a particular issue.

So, IF one defines partisan as not thinking in lock-step with Stoked or the right wing ideologues pushing to gain political advantage with these laws, then I guess I"m being partisan. But if one defines it as it is meant to be defined, then I'm hard pressed to see how my answer implies partisanship.

I'm trying to be open minded here. As I've made clear, while I think the motivation behind such bills is obvious, the policy and social merits are not, which does not imply they don't exist, merely that they are not obvious.

It is much more your thinking on this issue that appears to be driven by partisanship, not mine.

 

[Stoked]

God you do not listen to anything said. You are not trying to be open minded at all in my opinion. I am completely open to debating/discussing anything with anyone as long as I feel they actually have an honest interest in the subject.

To me you come off as liking to hear youself talk and having no real interest in listening to anyone.

You bring up some points that are very valid. I tried to address some specific ones (and stayed clear of party affiliation) amd you go off about right wingers and all that other ********.

I have no more use for you.

 

[default]

Would you still believe that if you did not think it was reasonable to own a photo ID?

It's easy to say a photo ID should be required when you actually have one. But if you hated the thought of owning an ID for whatever reason, you would probably be in the camp that an ID should not be required in order to get your constitutional rights.

I hear you and like many of your previous posts, but it really sounds like you are just looking for controversy when common sense is all that is required on this issue.

 

[SaltyDawg]

I hear you and like many of your previous posts, but it really sounds like you are just looking for controversy when common sense is all that is required on this issue.

To me, the common sense thing to do is verify people the same way banks do for a credit application. No ID needed, no red tape, no hoops to jump through that could prevent eligible citizens from being allowed to vote.

That solves any alleged fraud issues, and doesn't potentially prevent eligible citizens form voting. How is that just looking for controversy and not common sense? it actually kills the existing controversy by using a simpler method.

 

[Maktub]

So you want everypolling location set up with the internet to verify their SSN and such? What if the voter can't remember their SSN? What it I don't trust them to give them that information?

 

[SaltyDawg]

So you want everypolling location set up with the internet to verify their SSN and such? What if the voter can't remember their SSN? What it I don't trust them to give them that information?

If you don't trust giving them that information, then you can show your ID instead.

Setting up internet access at every polling station would be easy though. You could just get a Verizon data connection if you don't want a landline.

 

[Maktub]

I have my name and address. That should be good enough, right?

 

[SaltyDawg]

I have my name and address. That should be good enough, right?

In my mind it should be. But if people are claiming there is a lot of fraud going on, to the point where they want to require ID, I'm just saying there are better alternatives to ID.

 

[franklin]

How significant of a problem is this? Is is a serious, systematic problem, or is it a minor problem that provides a widow of opportunity to be exploited by Republican partisans for the purpose disenfranchising, or at least making it more difficult to vote, for traditional Democrat constituencies as a stratagem for improving the electoral odds of fellow Republicans? I'm inclined to believe it's the latter, not the former.

Plus I would say that anyone who actually believes that this movement is motivated by a genuine concern to protect the integrity of the electoral system is a naive fool. Whether it is addresses an actual serious problem is separate question, but it's underlying motivation cannot be doubted. It's pure politics.

Looky here folks, we have a new SaltySlob. Getting a FREE ID card to vote is so damn hard that those who don't have the motivation to pick their lazy *** off the couch to get one should never be disenfranchised because their vote is soooo important. I mean, obviously people. Come on here.

-13, daily.

 

[franklin]

Say, aren't democrats still crying over hanging chads in Florida? Maybe you cheerleaders should consider how the opinion your news feeds tell you to have will come back to stick a caiman onto your *** for life.

 

[TroutBum]

Say, aren't democrats still crying over hanging chads in Florida? Maybe you cheerleaders should consider how the opinion your news feeds tell you to have will come back to stick a caiman onto your *** for life.

I love you.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

To me, the common sense thing to do is verify people the same way banks do for a credit application. No ID needed, no red tape, no hoops to jump through that could prevent eligible citizens from being allowed to vote.

That solves any alleged fraud issues, and doesn't potentially prevent eligible citizens form voting. How is that just looking for controversy and not common sense? it actually kills the existing controversy by using a simpler method.

So when I want to withdraw money from my bank account and they ask for ID?
You mean when I go to the bank and apply for a loan, and they ask for ID?

How is proving you are who you say you are "red tape"?

You saying I could steal a bunch of SSN's find out where those people live, and go vote for them under their number without proving I am that person... and that is preserving people's right to vote without red tape?

What is the method Banks use for a credit application that does not involve ID, and is it a bank you already have an account with and they know you, or is it a random bank you just waltz into?

I'm calling you out for wading up to your hips in a septic tank on this one.

Just because you don't like your picture taken does not mean you need to hold on to this irrational hate for photo ID.