• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ACLU Leader Says Voter ID Law Akin to Jim Crow-Era Law

AdamT said:
And perhaps if people are too insenstive to the difficulties that the elderl and minorities face, THEY should stay away from the voting booth? Fortunately for you, you have a fundamental constitutional right to vote, just as they do.
Click to expand...
Seems to me the solution is to make it easier for elderly and minorities to procure a photo ID, then...

I have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms...but I sure as **** can't buy a gun without a photo ID, can it?
 
Dittohead not! said:
It wouldn't, of course. It would only suppress the voting of people who don't have ID and who don't make the effort, however small of an effort it takes, to get one. Most of those people don't bother to go to the polls anyway.
Click to expand...
I think that's a dangerous attitude to have - especially about something as essential as voting. We've been through the whole poll tax thing in this country already and agreed it should be illegal - and was made illegal by the 24th Amendment. If states want to issue free voter ID cards of whatever nature then I have no problem with requiring voters to present them at the polls. I also think that, in special cases, States should allow some exceptions in the documentation required for obtaining the cards. (Some old people would have a real problem providing even a birth certificate.) If these cards cost almost nothing as many on here claim then the States shouldn't have a problem issuing them without charge.


Wiggen said:
Actually, more often than not it is an elderly spouse voting their deceased loved one's absentee ballot because they 'know' how they would have voted. This 'massive organized voter fraud' BS that goes around every election cycle is a gigantic canard, generally started by those who's candidates or political party lost the election.
Click to expand...
Actually, requiring a photo ID won't stop this from happening. What are we going to do, send them out Special D and insist the postman obtain photo ID from them for delivery???
 
Last edited:
KevinKohler said:
Seems to me the solution is to make it easier for elderly and minorities to procure a photo ID, then...

I have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms...but I sure as **** can't buy a gun without a photo ID, can it?
Click to expand...

The difference is that there is a demonstrable problem with criminals buying guns, but no demonstrable problem with people impersonating voters.

If the states can implement these laws without suppressing voter participation then more power to them.
 
Grant said:
So what?

If people are too stupid or incompetent do get the ID necessary to vote perhaps its best that they stay away from a voting booth.
Click to expand...

Why is it nessessary? If it wasn't necessary before.... are you intelligent enough to explain why they need to place an extra burden on the poor and disenfranchised?
 
MoSurveyor said:
I think that's a dangerous attitude to have - especially about something as essential as voting. We've been through the whole poll tax thing in this country already and agreed it should be illegal - and was made illegal by the 24th Amendment. If states want to issue free voter ID cards of whatever nature then I have no problem with requiring voters to present them at the polls. I also think that, in special cases, States should allow some exceptions in the documentation required for obtaining the cards. (Some old people would have a real problem providing even a birth certificate.) If these cards cost almost nothing as many on here claim then the States shouldn't have a problem issuing them without charge.
Click to expand...

I think we're pretty close to the same page, as I've consistently said that ID cards should be provided free to those few who don't have them already. To do otherwise would be a violation of the 24th. amendment, as has already been pointed out.

As for birth certificates, that can be overcome. My dad was born at home in 1918, yet he had a driver's license with photo ID, no problem.

MoSurveyor said:
Actually, requiring a photo ID won't stop this from happening. What are we going to do, send them out Special D and insist the postman obtain photo ID from them for delivery???
Click to expand...

I don't have an answer for that one. I'll let Wiggen figure it out.
 
Grant said:
So what?

If people are too stupid or incompetent do get the ID necessary to vote perhaps its best that they stay away from a voting booth.
Click to expand...
We need a nice political tests full of obvious **** radicals can't handle and them cut about 20% of american citizens out of the voter picture.

413px-Shrugpony_derpy_hooves_by_moongazeponies-d3cvjx6.png
 
Grant said:
If identity is so easy to fake that it is no longer worthwhile to bother with, why have ID for driver's licenses, libraries, passports, prescriptions and a myriad of other areas?

Perhaps the idea is not to drop ID's altogether but to get them to be more effective, and with greater penalties for faking them.
Click to expand...

That's all fine and true, but if you want to do something about that 1% or less of votes that are the result of voter fraud, then do something about that. This regulation doesn't fix that.

As I've said, I find it hard to believe that Conservatives are advocating that we need 50 different regulations (one for each state) that don't fix such a small problem. If the government tried to do this to a corporation, you'd be all up in arms about "killing jobs," but when it comes to regulating individuals, you guys are all over that.
 
rocket88 said:
That's all fine and true, but if you want to do something about that 1% or less of votes that are the result of voter fraud, then do something about that. This regulation doesn't fix that.
Click to expand...

Oh hell, it's nowhere NEAR 1% of the vote that is a problem. We're talking about suppressing about 2% of the vote to address a problem with something like 0.001% of the vote.
 
KevinKohler said:
Seems to me the solution is to make it easier for elderly and minorities to procure a photo ID, then...
Click to expand...

Thats been our point. Its not a dumb idea to require picture IDs to vote, but to ensure no one is disenfranchised due to the requirement the states who require said law should pay for the IDs and ensure it as easy to get an idea as possible. Mind you, this will not stop voter fraud
 
Whether or not voter fraud is a big problem, the perception that elections are not above board is a big problem for democracy.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Whether or not voter fraud is a big problem, the perception that elections are not above board is a big problem for democracy.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is a widespread perception at all. It's a perception that Republicans are trying to spread in order to pass these laws that would suppress Democratic turnout.
 
AdamT said:
I don't think that is a widespread perception at all. It's a perception that Republicans are trying to spread in order to pass these laws that would suppress Democratic turnout.
Click to expand...
Just keep in mind the Shrub was only elected by a 5-4 vote.
 
AdamT said:
I don't think that is a widespread perception at all. It's a perception that Republicans are trying to spread in order to pass these laws that would suppress Democratic turnout.
Click to expand...
Look at the silver lining, it'll give you something additional to whine about when you lose in November.
 
Meathead said:
Look at the silver lining, it'll give you something additional to whine about when you lose in November.
Click to expand...

I can already hear you crying about voter fraud when Obama is reelected. :lol:
 
AdamT said:
I can already hear you crying about voter fraud when Obama is reelected. :lol:
Click to expand...
Sure, cause I'm the one with about 30 posts on this thread whining about the injustice of identifying yourself when voting.:roll:
 
AdamT said:
I don't think that is a widespread perception at all. It's a perception that Republicans are trying to spread in order to pass these laws that would suppress Democratic turnout.
Click to expand...

It isn't Republicans pushing the idea that electronic voting is rigged.
 
1Perry said:
It isn't Republicans pushing the idea that electronic voting is rigged.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what that has to do with the subject at hand other than both pertain to voting.

There were justified concerns about electronic voting when it was first introduced because testing "in the wild" hadn't been done in the States. Once that was accomplished I don't think there were many objections. Government (elected officials anyway) is often too ignorant to be allowed to make decisions when it comes to technology. I think SOPA taught us that - or should have. I wouldn't want a politician writing the engineering specs for my car, either.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I'm not sure what that has to do with the subject at hand other than both pertain to voting.
Click to expand...

Timeline:

It was noted that maintaining the perception that voting is secure is important.

It was then said that the perception was only being clouded by unfounded claims by the Republicans.

I note that it wasn't the only reason.

There were justified concerns about electronic voting when it was first introduced because testing "in the wild" hadn't been done in the States. Once that was accomplished I don't think there were many objections. Government (elected officials anyway) is often too ignorant to be allowed to make decisions when it comes to technology. I think SOPA taught us that - or should have. I wouldn't want a politician writing the engineering specs for my car, either.
Click to expand...

Sure, we just can't trust them newfangled voting machines.
 
1Perry said:
Sure, we just can't trust them newfangled voting machines.
Click to expand...
I'm far, far away from being anti-tech. At one time I had ten active computers in my house - more than most people have owned - and I've got three running right now. That BS is wasted here.

But no one should trust a machine unless it's been well tested - unless they just don't care if it works right or not. And it's not like we had to use machines or not vote. What the hell was the big rush?

Ed:
And anyone who had issues with the on-site scanners just didn't know the history of those machines very well. On-site scanners didn't work any different than the older, centralized scanners did. The tech was well-tested.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Again, this is perfectly obvious. It places an additional burden on voters that wasn't there before. Statistically this has been shown to reduce turnout by around 2%. In the aggregate that turns out to be millions of people.
Click to expand...

That "burden" is on everybody, not just your fellow Democrats? Again, what's the problem?
 
MoSurveyor said:
I'm far, far away from being anti-tech. At one time I had ten active computers in my house - more than most people have owned - and I've got three running right now. That BS is wasted here.

But no one should trust a machine unless it's been well tested - unless they just don't care if it works right or not. And it's not like we had to use machines or not vote. What the hell was the big rush?

Ed:
And anyone who had issues with the on-site scanners just didn't know the history of those machines very well. On-site scanners didn't work any different than the older, centralized scanners did. The tech was well-tested.
Click to expand...

Thanks. . . . . .
 
rocket88 said:
That's all fine and true, but if you want to do something about that 1% or less of votes that are the result of voter fraud, then do something about that. This regulation doesn't fix that.

As I've said, I find it hard to believe that Conservatives are advocating that we need 50 different regulations (one for each state) that don't fix such a small problem. If the government tried to do this to a corporation, you'd be all up in arms about "killing jobs," but when it comes to regulating individuals, you guys are all over that.
Click to expand...

This shouldn't be a Conservative position, a Liberal position, a Republican position or a Democrat position. It should be an American position that only those who are honestly and legally entitled to vote should be allowed to do so.

It's a matter of pride in the system to keep it legal and honest as well as respect for those who fought so hard to secure a fair vote for all people. To make the claim that it isn't a big problem or is too difficult to initiate is just silly. Certainly Americans have overcome greater obstacles than coming up with a system of who is legally allowed to vote. Or has that become too much of a challenge now as well?
 
Grant said:
This shouldn't be a Conservative position, a Liberal position, a Republican position or a Democrat position. It should be an American position that only those who are honestly and legally entitled to vote should be allowed to do so.

It's a matter of pride in the system to keep it legal and honest as well as respect for those who fought so hard to secure a fair vote for all people. To make the claim that it isn't a big problem or is too difficult to initiate is just silly. Certainly Americans have overcome greater obstacles than coming up with a system of who is legally allowed to vote. Or has that become too much of a challenge now as well?
Click to expand...
There are plenty of ways we can do that - it's just a matter of how well do you want it done and how much do you want to spend doing it. We could require fingerprints, retinal scans, and passwords but it would be expensive as hell to implement. Pretty damn hard to cheat, though.


Ed:
Still doesn't solve the absentee issue. Maybe require a visit to City Hall or wherever - just allow 2-3 months in advance?
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
If identity is so easy to fake that it is no longer worthwhile to bother with, why have ID for driver's licenses, libraries, passports, prescriptions and a myriad of other areas?

Perhaps the idea is not to drop ID's altogether but to get them to be more effective, and with greater penalties for faking them.
Click to expand...

Voting is a right, the rest of the things you mention that you need ID for are privileges which can have stipulations.
 
taxigirl said:
ACLU Leader Says Voter ID Law Akin to Jim Crow-Era Law - chicagotribune.com

We have gone through so many years in the United States without Voter ID laws, and we now suddenly need them? Voter fraud is not something that is not common in the United States and this seems like an attempt to disenfranchise certain sets of voters. :usflag2:
Click to expand...

Personally, I see nothing wrong with providing personal ID at a polling station

BUT

considering the political affiliations of those groups currently promoting Voter ID laws, I can also suspect that there could be more to their agenda than simply trying to prevent voter fraud!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom