Voter ID

CocheseUGA

CocheseUGA

CAGiversary!
Feedback
33 (100%)
Please, someone, anyone try and make a case why we shouldn't have voter ID.

Everytime voter ID is brought up, people will go out of their way to try and make it unconstitutional. When a poll tax is brought up, the cost for the IDs go away. Then another arguement comes up about how it will disenfranchise people. How? By having a picture ID to vote? The same thing you need to cash or write a check? To purchase alcohol or cigarettes? To rent a movie? To get a (legitimate) job?

I think it's a no-brainer to have poll workers be able to visually verify who you are. Right now, in Georgia, all you need is a utility bill. A utility bill (for those who didn't read it properly)? Something I can grab out of someone's car? Mailbox? Table? People (democrats, unfortunately to place a label) scream to high hell about disenfranchisement about voters not being able to vote. Listen, I need my ID when I go to the eye doctor, along with my insurance. I use my ID about ten times a week, and it has nothing to do with me having more money or being better off than anyone else. I could have seen the arguement when you had to pay $10 to get an ID, but they've removed it. There are thousands of volunteers from the DNC (and RNC) who will give you a ride to your polling place if you are so unable. Why can't these people give these same people a ride to the ID office (Hell, some are in Kroger) once every ten years?

Simple. It's not about the ability to get an ID. Every chance to protest having to show a picture ID has resulted in court orders (unfortunately, because the former CSA states are still governed by archaic Reconstruction-era federal laws) getting it overturned.

If it isn't about getting the ID, what is it? Liberals seem to have a rebuttal to every chance to get this law passed, but I haven't been able to discern the real reason. There was a question posed to a local DNC official, 'How about if the state came to the people and gave them picture IDs?' And the response was, 'You'd still be disenfranchising these voters.' How? Why did I feel the need to do a Lewis Black double-take when he said that?

And I know the first thing someone is going to say is I don't get it because I'm conservative/Republican, but I don't even feel I fall into a political party/theme anymore. I'm so split on the issues, you could call me either side depending on the day.
 
An interesting point you've glossed over is that time after time, without exception, laws requiring photo ID have been declared unconstitutional. There's got to be some legal merit there for it to be such a pervasive decision from state to state.

I understand your frustration, but there's a small implication in your post that just seems contrary to the fundamental ideals of being an American (I'm just sayin', I'm not being accusatory). That idea being the fundamental right to vote. Any attempt to rescind that vote is inherently anti-American. We've painted ourselves into a corner in this regard: Voter IDs are a worthwhile idea in the minds of many, but requiring them prevents a (small, assuredly) bloc of would-be voters from casting their vote. Not having an ID prevents them from participating in the most American act a person can make.

Is it a small number? Certainly. I'd like to see fraudulent voting versus disenfranchised voting data compared; problem is, the only people to measure those things are ostensibly the losers in an election, so there's no reliability there. ;)

Part of me wants to be accusatory, and say that the likely-negligible drop-off in voters that would occur due to requiring an ID doesn't affect the Republican party at all, so clearly it doesn't matter to you, but I don't view you in that cynical a manner.

Consider a voting bloc of people (many surely Democrats, given their socioeconomic status and minority concentration) who are consistently disenfranchised: felons. They are removed from the democratic process. I'm vehemently opposed to things that keep people reminded of their second-class status after release, and their collective inability to vote in many states does marginally benefit the Republican party. That's fine, and something to work on that isn't necessarily a national issue (outside of those making racial accusations underlying felon-disenfranchisement laws).

I'm blathering and ready for sleep: the short of what I'm saying is that any measure that unfairly restricts the ability of any American who has the right to vote is inherently unconstitutional, IMO; even one, unfortunately, that seems intuitively like a necessity.
 
But how do voter ID's restrict someone from voting? I share my fellow Augustan's frustration in this. If photo ID's are unconstitutional, then why isn't it unconstiutional to have driver's licenses or passports? Obviously there is a cynical answer to this but I'll let that rest.
 
But my point is, why is it unconstitutional? It's not a poll tax or a grandfather clause we're talking about. Why would it result in a drop-off in voters if everyone had an ID? It's more of a hypothetical question, as like I've said, it gets shot down every time. I wonder what the line is that using a utility bill or government check (which, last I checked, you needed an ID to cash anyways) is constitutional, whereas using a photo ID isn't. Are we challenging the Constitution in regards to everyone needs an ID? Is that the fundamental flaw? All I'm advocating is that, the government has taken adequate steps in recognizing the fact that you are who you say you are, and are allowed to vote. I don't understand why it is a Rep vs Dem thing, it should be a common sense thing. 'Hey, I can visually confirm your identity. You can go in now.' How hard is that?

But hell, people get pissed and claim disenfranchisement when they aren't bright enough to realize they aren't at the right polling station. Or if they make a scene and get escorted elsewhere. Any time someone doesn't get what they want, they're automatically disenfranchised. It's the 21st century equivilent of shouting 'racist.' I'm sorry, but being too lazy to actually double-check which polling station you're supposed to go to doesn't mean that. If you discourage yourself, you're just a moron. I've always advocated a 'know your current events' requirement for voting, but we all know that will never happen. It's sad, because we might actually get some people elected that are good for something.
 
Voter ID sounds cool but then again, I don't vote. What is everyone's vote power? 0.000000000000000000001%? lol.. I rather wave my power please. Give it to a needy family.
 
[quote name='BryceDraven']Voter ID sounds cool but then again, I don't vote. What is everyone's vote power? 0.000000000000000000001%? lol.. I rather wave my power please. Give it to a needy family.[/QUOTE]
Tell that to Miami-Dade.
 
To dopa and cochese, I though I addressed this, but I'll give it another shot: voting is a fundamental American right, whereas IDs are a choice (or a necessity if you engage in certain priveleges, like driving).

Unlike driving, voting is a guaranteed right for those over 18 who are legal citizens and not felons. To promise it as a guaranteed right becomes an empty promise once certain provisions are employed.

I'm loathe to say this, but it's true: the idiot who votes in the wrong district, or registers in the wrong district, (I'm looking at you, Ann Coulter), or whose voter registrations are turned down because they are on the wrong cardstock (I'm looking at you, Ken Blackwell), have their rights as Americans denied. Regretfully, stupidity should not get in the way of voting, or else it becomes less than what it is intended to be.

The short of it is this: voting is such a fundamentally guaranteed part of being an American that any attempt to curb or restrict it immediately becomes suspect and an infringment upon the rights of citizens. EVEN those who choose not to have IDs, or those too poor to have IDs, or those too stupid to have IDs. That's the bed we've made by legally considering voting as we have.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']To dopa and cochese, I though I addressed this, but I'll give it another shot: voting is a fundamental American right, whereas IDs are a choice (or a necessity if you engage in certain priveleges, like driving).

Unlike driving, voting is a guaranteed right for those over 18 who are legal citizens and not felons. To promise it as a guaranteed right becomes an empty promise once certain provisions are employed.

I'm loathe to say this, but it's true: the idiot who votes in the wrong district, or registers in the wrong district, (I'm looking at you, Ann Coulter), or whose voter registrations are turned down because they are on the wrong cardstock (I'm looking at you, Ken Blackwell), have their rights as Americans denied. Regretfully, stupidity should not get in the way of voting, or else it becomes less than what it is intended to be.

The short of it is this: voting is such a fundamentally guaranteed part of being an American that any attempt to curb or restrict it immediately becomes suspect and an infringment upon the rights of citizens. EVEN those who choose not to have IDs, or those too poor to have IDs, or those too stupid to have IDs. That's the bed we've made by legally considering voting as we have.[/QUOTE]

They aren't having their rights denied by requiring them to vote in their own district. These have been in place for a long time, from the basic (like, voting in your own state) to the specific (voting at your designated polling station). I know you don't mean or believe it, but writing that looks like you believe polling stations have a superior purpose other than to maintain order and the ability to efficiently calculate and handle all registered voters 'in a dignified manner.' If you can't show up to the proper place to vote (which is 95% of the time the closest and most accessible location to your residence-which, by the way, is printed on your registration card), you aren't being disenfranchised. By definition, you aren't being denied the right to vote. Like everything else in life, voting is governed by rules and regulations, and as long as you follow these, you can vote. It would be nice if we could go back to the early 1800s, where everyone knew who you were and we didn't have to go through this. However, with nearly 300 million people in this country, things need to be tweaked to include specific polling stations (and in my opinion, picture ID). As far as felony convictions and parole goes, I dunno. While it may not be fair to hand out a blanket sentence to all convicted of such, I don't think you should be able to ignore it, either. I'm thinking of a more case-by-case basis, which is done already.

Right now, the state of Georgia requires one of 17 forms of identification to establish your identity to vote at your polling station. 9 of those have a picture. 5 of the remaining are easily forged or stolen. And even if you don't have any of that, you could always sign an oath declaring who you are. That's it. Nothing more. It may just be me, but I see a fundamental flaw with that. I can go online and find out the names of people and go around and vote in their names all day long, and there isn't anything those voters can do about it. Talk about disenfranchising, that's where I'm coming from. And there will never be numbers to prove or disprove that point, given the low voter turnout you have (I think the last primary we had about 15% turnout). If I was really an unscrupulous campaign manager, I could go around and vote 30 times for my canidate, and probably make a difference in the election. Given the state of affairs in our government on all levels, is this really outside the realm of possibility? I'd bet even money that has a greater percentage of happening than the percentage of registered voters who do not have some form of state or federal ID (there was an estimate done by the SoS, but I can't find it).

I'd write more, but one of my girls is having a fit.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']To dopa and cochese, I though I addressed this, but I'll give it another shot: voting is a fundamental American right, whereas IDs are a choice (or a necessity if you engage in certain priveleges, like driving).

Unlike driving, voting is a guaranteed right for those over 18 who are legal citizens and not felons. To promise it as a guaranteed right becomes an empty promise once certain provisions are employed.

I'm loathe to say this, but it's true: the idiot who votes in the wrong district, or registers in the wrong district, (I'm looking at you, Ann Coulter), or whose voter registrations are turned down because they are on the wrong cardstock (I'm looking at you, Ken Blackwell), have their rights as Americans denied. Regretfully, stupidity should not get in the way of voting, or else it becomes less than what it is intended to be.

The short of it is this: voting is such a fundamentally guaranteed part of being an American that any attempt to curb or restrict it immediately becomes suspect and an infringment upon the rights of citizens. EVEN those who choose not to have IDs, or those too poor to have IDs, or those too stupid to have IDs. That's the bed we've made by legally considering voting as we have.[/QUOTE]

That still doesn't explain how issuing a voter ID limits one's ability to vote. The right to bear arms is a guaranteed consititutional right but the government "infringes" on it by doing background checks and waiting periods (which I believe the government should do). And if you're in the wrong district, you shouldn't get to vote in that election anyway. Wouldn't having a governement issued ID prevent such problems in the first place?

I would argue the opposite that having voter ID's helps to safeguard one's vote since it is less likely that your vote is minimized potential voter fraud. It's not the government's fault that somebody would then refuse to vote because of the "hassle" of getting a voter ID. If their vote means that little to them, then that's their choice.
 
[quote name='BryceDraven']Voter ID sounds cool but then again, I don't vote. What is everyone's vote power? 0.000000000000000000001%? lol.. I rather wave my power please. Give it to a needy family.[/QUOTE]

That's fine with me. That means my vote will count more :) .
 
[quote name='dopa345']That still doesn't explain how issuing a voter ID limits one's ability to vote.[/QUOTE]

Well, "issuing" is not the proper word for it; as the argument goes, you have two kinds of people who don't get IDs: those who cannot afford IDs (or those who cannot afford the myriad of legal documents they need to reacquire, such as a notarized birth certificate), and those who refuse to participate in any sort of "ID" program, for fear of government supervision.

IDs aren't feely given; they require (1) time to get to a government office on a typical business day, (2) the social skill necessary to get through the bureaucracy sufficient to get said paperwork, and (3) the superfluous income to pay for said items. Those are the primary reasons they are considered unconstitutional, because of the burden placed on the voter.

Cochese, you make some valid points about voting outside your district. I do know that your vote will not count if you do that, and in some cases, it's a punishable offense. I sometimes feel the need to (erroneously, apparently) defend the voting rights of the stupid. I will argue, however, that general election participation is vastly higher than primaries, so they aren't comparable. The % of voting population in generals is still really depressing, however.

With regard to schuerm's one-sentence-culled-from-Free-Republic claim that no IDs means more votes for the Democrats, where is the proof for your claim? If you want to suppress a "free reign" no-ID voting, then you're working against opportunities for people of any party to exploit the system; with that in mind, I'd like to say that you're full of it.

By forcing voter IDs, just like disenfranchising felons, I'd argue, you are knowingly suppressing *legal* votes, the majority of which would go to the Democrats. Yes. Looking forward, you'd be restricting Democratic votes; the current situtation, however, does not logically take on that more Democrats vote illegally. It is the case, 'smatteroffact, that anyone has any opportunity to illegally vote if you so desire.
 
[quote name='SpazX']How big is the problem of voting illegally? That's not rhetorical, does anybody have a link?[/QUOTE]


Like I said, there's really no way to put numbers to it, because it's almost impossible to prove and infinitely easy to get away with.


(HYPOTHETICAL!!!!!)
For example: In Georgia, next election, I could go over to the next district and claim I'm someone I'm not who is on the rolls at a polling place (easily done with the internet) and sign an oath claiming I am this person. I would then vote as this person however I chose. That person (if they wanted to) couldn't vote.

If this person didn't bother to vote in that election, no one would ever know. I'm not saying it exists on a large level, but it's damn easy to do. What I want to close is that possibility. People talk about 'stealing elections,' how come this is poo-pooed? I've seen a number of people on this very board talk about how Bush stole both elections (O RLY??). How come we want to rip apart electronic voting machines, but when a legitimate way to combat voter fraud is introduced (by the very same people some say stole these elections) we litigate?

I'm very much in favor of voter ID. I proudly show my DL anytime I vote. It's not that hard or difficult to obtain an ID, because I had to do it when I lost my license. But that's not really the point, because there have been attempts to compromise by taking away ANY difficulty in obtaining an ID. I looked up the requirements for obtaining a Georgia ID card, and they are the following:
*Proof of residence (utility bill, etc)
*First time applicants - personal identification (birth cert, etc)
*SS #

Now according to county regulations, you would have to show a valid ID to get your birth certificate. Catch 22? No. There are ways to get around that, as I had to do when my entire wallet was lost with my SS card. May take a little more time, but that's all.

If the IDs are free, and we can get the counties to give out the BC for free, and we give rides to the underpriveledged, then where's the arguement? Hell, you'd be doing most people a favor by helping them get a copy of their BC and a photo ID.

But then again, as vietgurl can tell you, people don't like giving their SSN to doctors that already have it on file. You can imagine what it would be like at Vital Records.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']An interesting point you've glossed over is that time after time, without exception, laws requiring photo ID have been declared unconstitutional. There's got to be some legal merit there for it to be such a pervasive decision from state to state.

I understand your frustration, but there's a small implication in your post that just seems contrary to the fundamental ideals of being an American (I'm just sayin', I'm not being accusatory). That idea being the fundamental right to vote. Any attempt to rescind that vote is inherently anti-American. We've painted ourselves into a corner in this regard: Voter IDs are a worthwhile idea in the minds of many, but requiring them prevents a (small, assuredly) bloc of would-be voters from casting their vote. Not having an ID prevents them from participating in the most American act a person can make.

Is it a small number? Certainly. I'd like to see fraudulent voting versus disenfranchised voting data compared; problem is, the only people to measure those things are ostensibly the losers in an election, so there's no reliability there. ;)

Part of me wants to be accusatory, and say that the likely-negligible drop-off in voters that would occur due to requiring an ID doesn't affect the Republican party at all, so clearly it doesn't matter to you, but I don't view you in that cynical a manner.

Consider a voting bloc of people (many surely Democrats, given their socioeconomic status and minority concentration) who are consistently disenfranchised: felons. They are removed from the democratic process. I'm vehemently opposed to things that keep people reminded of their second-class status after release, and their collective inability to vote in many states does marginally benefit the Republican party. That's fine, and something to work on that isn't necessarily a national issue (outside of those making racial accusations underlying felon-disenfranchisement laws).

I'm blathering and ready for sleep: the short of what I'm saying is that any measure that unfairly restricts the ability of any American who has the right to vote is inherently unconstitutional, IMO; even one, unfortunately, that seems intuitively like a necessity.[/quote]

:applause:
 
[quote name='evanft']Myke wins. He pretty much articulated every reason why the whole idea of requiring a photo ID is stupid.[/QUOTE]

Not really. He equates inconvenience with infringement of rights which I think is a little silly. He also makes an assumption that somehow issuing a voter ID would be some cumbersome process. Why couldn't be issued like a social security card or through a process linked with registering for selective service?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, "issuing" is not the proper word for it; as the argument goes, you have two kinds of people who don't get IDs: those who cannot afford IDs (or those who cannot afford the myriad of legal documents they need to reacquire, such as a notarized birth certificate), and those who refuse to participate in any sort of "ID" program, for fear of government supervision.

IDs aren't feely given; they require (1) time to get to a government office on a typical business day, (2) the social skill necessary to get through the bureaucracy sufficient to get said paperwork, and (3) the superfluous income to pay for said items. Those are the primary reasons they are considered unconstitutional, because of the burden placed on the voter.
[/quote]

Who said anyone would have to pay for anything? States issue voter ID cards to registered voters without picture ID for free already (at least Georgia does). Just send out a voter ID card to all registered voters. Not that hard.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Who said anyone would have to pay for anything? States issue voter ID cards to registered voters without picture ID for free already (at least Georgia does). Just send out a voter ID card to all registered voters. Not that hard.[/QUOTE]

Unless you don't have a birth certificate on file; most IDs are free, but not 100%.

If you support waiving those fees too, that's acceptable. It's just not the way things are currently done, however.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Unless you don't have a birth certificate on file; most IDs are free, but not 100%.

If you support waiving those fees too, that's acceptable. It's just not the way things are currently done, however.[/QUOTE]


Part of the idea in Georgia to appease the lawsuit was to make ID's completely free. No go on BCs yet (I'd like one free, personally).

Here's an arguement for you: If you don't have a BC, no ID, no bills, don't pay taxes (because you don't have a job), don't own a car and there is no record of you, who are you? What purpose do you serve in society? What is beneficial for you to vote?

If you sit on your front porch all day long and have no idea who the last three Presidents were, a) are you really going to take the time to vote, and b) if you're voting for someone because their name sounds good, should your vote count as much as mine?

Everyone has a right, ney, a duty to vote. But when you constantly vote for people you can't stand, perhaps you need to take an inventory of why you're voting for who you are.
 
Surely this is an issue where a reasonable compromise can be put into place. My suggestions:

1. Require photo ID
2. No monetary charge for getting a photo ID to vote (i.e. - you don't have another ID like a DL and just want one to vote with)
3. If you come to vote and don't have a photo ID, you can cast a provisional ballot that can be counted if/when verified.

Admittedly the third one of those is a little vague, but shouldn't we be able to work out a system that addresses fraud concerns yet prevents disenfranchisement? I'd say surely we can.

Weren't some of these things addressed in the election reform laws passed after the 2000 election?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top