I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang
My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang
At this point in time you should note that identification is generally required at some point in the voting process, often during registration, although the identification requirements may not be strict (e.g., something as simple as a utility bill to prove location of residence). During the actual voting process, the voter will probably be checked against a list to ensure that they are registered, although no further ID may be required at that time other than a signature (I provide this info since you entered the debate without prior common knowledge).
As far as onerous goes, isn't that subjective? I don't think it is onerous for a gov't camera to be installed inside your home to monitor your activities; apparently you do. Should my definition of onerous be imposed upon you?
Last edited by Karl; 04-12-12 at 07:18 PM.
I have to disagree. There was nothign stopping him from proceeding. NOTHING. A little while back a reporter went through airport security with a fake bomb, He showed that there was a hole in the system. The bomb didnt need to be real to show where the failing was. Just like this guy just had to go the the point where there was nothing stopping him from voting in anothers name to prove it can be done. HE DID NOT ACTUALLY HAVE TO VOTE!The guy didn't vote. The barn door is imaginary; you have been tricked by charlatan O'Keefe & Co.
If there really was a barn door, there would be plenty of real animals passing thru, and therefore no need for a fringe right wing videographer disguised as a jackass.
I do not see how you cannot see that.
Again tell me why requiring ID is bad. I do not want to hear the crap about no proof of widespread election fraud that is a red herring and nothing to do with squat!
I want to hear that it will cost the state large amoutns of $$$ or prevent lots of people from voting. So far I have only heard that a small handfull of people had problems due to difficulties obtaining ID. That is something that could/should be adressed but does not change the basic premise of asking why is it bad. Tweak the getting ID bit. It is not a problem here in Canada is your system so utterly alien from ours that it will cause problems there? If so how?
If you can provide a good explanation I will accept it I am not a doctinarian. I have not heard anything come close yet.
In the U.S., the Republican Party is pushing a coordinated state-by-state legislative process to require a state-issued photo ID in order to vote (typically, a driver's license, or a similar photo ID card for those who do not drive). According to at least one academic study, millions do not currently have a suitable ID, and will have to apply for one, providing probably two forms of evidence that they are indeed a U.S. citizen (probably including a certified birth certificate).
At this point you should keep in mind that many in the Republican Party (or whom consider themselves ideological conservatives) do not consider the U.S. president to have a valid birth certificate, so if he applied for the required photo ID to vote he would be denied.
Again, academic studies indicate that the majority of those who currently do not have the required photo ID are the poor and the minorities and the aged, most of whom tend to vote for the Democratic Party.
Now you should understand why the Republican Party proposed these new voter ID laws to solve a 'fraud' problem that they cannot even prove exists . . . . .
1. people without jobs are lazy
2. people without jobs are on welfare
3. people without jobs on welfare vote for Democrats
4. let's make it harder for lazy people (without jobs or on welfare) to vote.
The right wants to make it more difficult to vote, plain and simple. That has been their game plan for decades; caging lists, etc... they claim to want to stop illegal votes, when their actions are always framed to stop Democratic votes.
A voter PHOTO ID card was not mentioned in this topic untill after my first post. If you go back and read my first post I asked for someone to explain why asking for ID would be bad. I mentioned I was not American and was asking for clarification. I think it would be reasonable, considering it was never mentioned before my post for someone to explain that asking for ID was specifially speaking of a VOTER PHOTO ID card. It wasn't.
I did not join this thread to argue on dogmatic grounds I didn't understand this debate and sincerly asked for someone to explain it to me. We are neighbours and I consider myself somewhat informed on the USA, I did not understand this at all and wanted to knwo more.
Take away This voter photo ID, look at what Canada requires. Do you think our system is onerous and disenfranchises people? Why would a system such as ours (the ID bit not our political system, that is a whole different can of worms) be bad in the USA?
I agree any system that would disnfranchise a lot of people would be bad, I just dont see why it should.
How can you tell the Earth is actually orbiting the Sun, and not the other way around? Therefore, how do you know that the scientists aren't lying to us, like they are about global warming?