Voter ID - Reasonable or Disenfranchising?

[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.

 

[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.