Obviously this question has been sparked by the whole voter ID debate. If there's no concern at all that voter fraud could even happen and it's completely unreasonable to expect someone to obtain a photo ID, couldn't the very same arguments be made against requiring people having to register to vote in the first place? Can I assume that if you oppose voter ID, you also oppose voter registration requirements?
Need a sec to get the poll up. Options will be simple; yes, no and I don't know.
Interesting perspective on this issue. Thank you for asking the question.
It's pretty simple.
First, you discover your living area zone and where in the community you vote. When you show up, you stand in a line for your last name (A-K, L-Z or so), and they will tell you to pull our your driver's license or state ID (more on this in a minute). When you get up to the tables you hand in the ID and they will see if you show up on the records of previous voters. If you do not, they will take down the information on the ID: name, address, etc etc. and write it on the "new voter" spreadsheet. They hand you your ballot and tell you the instructions, especially during the primary season, and away you go. Now, I have voted in person at my home town before (usually during the summer elections), but during national elections I vote via absentee ballot (another relatively simple process through the net for me, but I do need to do it weeks in advance). However, because of that I suppose I was not on the record for having voted before, so they labeled me a new voter (meanwhile the entire family, including my much younger sister were already listed) and went through the quick process of writing down my information. No biggie, very common procedure. It took less than a couple of minutes from the time of the table to my ballot being in my hand.
Now, on the ID bit. Yes, they ask you for your ID in the lines. However, that seems more of a courtesy to you and the staff or simply more commonplace. You can also submit a utility bill that is dated 30 days prior to election or a change of address verification letter, and numerous other photo IDs.
It might be my reflexive black helicopter paranoia, but that concerns me more than anything else. I'm not sure I want them keeping track of what people have done in the past, even if it's only simply whether they voted or not.
I have heard stories of government workers being confronted by their bosses for not voting Democrat... in Illinois, and certainly unverified... when nobody should have known. Part of me says it's BS, part of me knows that sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
who says that the elderly and the handicapped cannot get ID's?
No one. It is however more likely they will not have IDs, and it is harder for them to get out and attain one.
It is harder for some, primarily older and/or rural, people to get ID's, I understand that. But, if we as a society are honest about simply not allowing fraud, then we can put in a reasonable process to allow for this.
I'm fine with showing my driver's license to prove I am who I say I am.
However, these new laws coming in on an election year is OBVIOUSLY an attempt to swing the vote. Voting is a right no matter how much one person thinks it should be a privilege. It isn't a privilege that should be taken away from anyone. It is a right for all citizens in this nation.
Since 2000, there have only been 10 recorded cases of voter fraud in the country. T-E-N!
We should not enact any laws like this until January 2013. That would be the best option as it would take away the obvious control that bureaucrats are trying to take.
what? there have been hundreds demonstrated in just the election that won it for Al Franken alone.
Too many people make the mistake, intentionally I believe, of limiting the potential of voter fraud to only those that have been prosecuted and punished. If not outright dishonest, it's at the very least simply naive. It's a dishonest attempt to paint the other side as being wrong by saying, "But you can only prove 'X'.", when in fact any reasonable thinking person that no crime ever gets even close to being 100% prosecuted. And voter fraud would be way down the list of priorities when compared to thinks like robbery, rape, murder, etc.
Phrases like "vote early, vote often" aren't clever SNL skit slogans, ya know. Their are multitudes of dishonest people in the world, and the notion that they will all somehow be pure and honest regarding elections is supreme denial.
I still haven't heard a logical argument against an ID requirement. Only the typical feelings/idealogue argument that the left always produces. With over 12 million illegal immigrants in our country, we should all want to ensure non-felon Americans are the only people voting. I find the "discriminating against the poor" argument hilarious. 1) The "poor" are more than likely on welfare, which requires an ID. 2) What does being poor have to do with getting a free ID? 3) If they can't get transportation to get an ID, what makes people think they'll get transportation to go vote? Its all ridiculous. I sincerely believe the left is scared of what would happen if illegal immigrants were prevented from voting. It's a well known fact that the Hispanic vote is going President Obama's way. He solidified that when he issued his executive order. The Hispanic vote will continue to go to Dems simply because they want to provide amnesty, their ilk provides the "sanctuary" cities, and they spew forth the rhetoric that the GOP hates immigrants. I will concede that the GOP doesn't help itself when they go around screaming about self-deportation with no proposal to fix immigration.
I will concede that I believe that the core intent... currently... of most Republicans and Conservatives who are really pushing for ID requirements is indeed voter suppression. And I do oppose the more "creative" attempts that some places are doing, i.e.; criminalizing voter sign-up drives, disparate voting hours between districts, unreasonable limitations of what qualifies as an ID, and so on. But, just because some of the current motivation is dishonest, doesn't mean that insuring that voters are citizens in and of itself is a bad idea. Voting should be viewed as one of the most sacrosanct activities in our republic and should be fiercely guarded.
I liked the idea that someone else touched on regarding timing. I would be fine with saying any voter ID requirement would not go in effect until 5 years after it is passed. Five years is plenty of time for anybody to get an ID, regardless how old they are, what their birth situation was, and how far they live from a DMV or other similar place. It would also be beyond the next election, so that motivation would be removed.