• 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!

Are you for or against vote ID to vote?

Are you for or against vote ID to vote?

  • Total voters
    79
ThePlayDrive said:
Reasoning:
Minorities are less likely to have or need a photo ID. Minorities are more likely to be liberal. Therefore, the main people who will be affected by voter ID requirements are liberals.
Click to expand...

Bolded is a red herring. I do grant your first argument to a point. Either it's a problem for minorities (liberal, conservative, libertarian, whatever) or it's a problem for liberals (regardless of race).

Evidence:
Voter ID laws: Why do minorities lack ID to show at the polls? - Slate Magazine

Minorities are less likely to have driver’s licenses because they are more likely to be poor and to live in urban areas. If you can’t afford a car, or if you don’t need one because you take the bus or subway, you are less likely to have a driver’s license.
Click to expand...

IF you don't need a car because you get to the voting place then what is the problem with using some other form of photo ID? Again if they can get it for free and can get to the polling place via mass transit then they can get to the ID place via mass transit to get the free ID. If they don't have a car to get to the ID place, then how are they supposed to get to the polling place?

minorities may be more likely to have lost their driver’s licenses:
Click to expand...

That's a responsibility thing and can strike anyone. No minority targeting there.

...the Brennan Center additionally reports that many voting centers are far away from minority voters and are rarely open.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with whether or not a photo ID is needed. This is an even worse red herring!

Academic studies suggest that voter ID laws do probably reduce turnout, both among Democrats and Republicans, but not by more than about 2 percent.
Click to expand...

2 percent,if I recall correctly, is within the statistical margin of error So basically you're own evidence has just stated that any disenfranchisement is equally targeting both sides.

Looks like the second link is just another article on the same study and the PDF is the study itself. I shall have to study the study(no puns intended) itself when I get more of a chance.

Now I will say that I do agree that the requirement for exactly what type of photo ID is used should be widened a bit (like my wife's state worker's ID should be allowed) AND there should be a method that allowed people without reasonable access to obtain such ID's, like maybe a mobile gov't services unit. Hey I'm even all for having social services issuing official government photo ID's when people come in to register for food stamps or welfare. But as jamesrage pointed out, if your system is set such that you can't even measure fraud, then how can you catch it? And for that matter, if you don't have an ID how do you prevent a non-citizen from voting to counter a citizen's vote.
 
jamesrage said:
I think its common sense too.Ballots are anonymous. How do you prove the person who showed up is really who they say they are?After all majority of registered voters do not vote in every single election,so it would be easy for a group to compile a list of voters who don't show up for various elections and have people pose as those voters at those elections those voters do not regularly show up to. Voter registration fraud might be a little more easier to catch. Since ballots are anonymous how do you separate the legitimate voters ballots from the posers ballots,How do you separate the micky mouses and dead people's ballots from actual voters ballots? You can't because ballots are anonymous. Since ballots are anonymous this also means that any voter fraud is almost impossible to prove when it does happen. The polling places do not send thank you for voting post cards and the polling places do not call up every single voter on their voting rolls to see if they actually voted. So requiring a voter to show a state issued ID or state issued driver's license makes perfect sense. Driver's licenses and IDs are cheap,so the idea that the poor or minorities will disenfranchised is idiotic.
Click to expand...

And risk being charged with fraud if they get caught? Lets say you manage to find a group of 1000 people who are willing to risk jail time and fines to pose as someone else (highly unlikely).. on a national stage, 1000 people are not going to sway an election one way or the other.

This is all a mute point because there have been numerous studies by independent firms that conclude that voter fraud is virtually non-existent..

However, there have also been studies that show that by imposing a voter-ID law, there will be millions of people who will be turned away at the polls. Virtually all of whom are eligible voters. So where is the real injustice here? I say it is in imposing voter-id laws on people. The right is very good at bringing up topics that are meant to scare people, turning those topics into something that sounds legitimate and then making people pass legislation based on those fears.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/1098...-finds-just-10-cases-of-in-person-voter-fraud

http://votingrights.news21.com/article/election-fraud/

http://www.minnpost.com/politics-po...d-election-fraud-found-virtually-non-existent

And then one for those who will be hurt by voter-Id legislation:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78661.html

So are we really willing to disenfranchise millions of voters based on 10 prosecuted cases of voter fraud over the last 12 years?
 
Last edited:
OnWisconsin said:
And risk being charged with fraud if they get caught?
Click to expand...
What is the risk of being caught? Polling places in states without voter laws do not ask for ID, so you don't have to prove who you are.

Lets say you manage to find a group of 1000 people who are willing to risk jail time and fines to pose as someone else (highly unlikely).. on a national stage, 1000 people are not going to sway an election one way or the other.
Click to expand...

The local stage is just as important or even more important than the national stage. I do not know about your state but in my state we vote for district, city and state level representation, we vote for judges, we vote for sheriffs, school board officials, bond issues, voter initiatives and ballot questions that effect state laws, presidential party primaries, bond issues, tax increases and anything else on a ballot.All of which can effect the national level.

A thousand voters can make the difference between a senator or congressmen getting elected.Which can mean the difference between a bill making it to the president's desk.

This is all a mute point because there have been numerous studies by independent firms that conclude that voter fraud is virtually non-existent..
Click to expand...

And I am sure that coincidentally those people doing those studies do not support voter ID laws,so their study doesn't mean dick.
 
jamesrage said:
What is the risk of being caught? Polling places in states without voter laws do not ask for ID, so you don't have to prove who you are.



The local stage is just as important or even more important than the national stage. I do not know about your state but in my state we vote for district, city and state level representation, we vote for judges, we vote for sheriffs, school board officials, bond issues, voter initiatives and ballot questions that effect state laws, presidential party primaries, bond issues, tax increases and anything else on a ballot.All of which can effect the national level.

A thousand voters can make the difference between a senator or congressmen getting elected.Which can mean the difference between a bill making it to the president's desk.



And I am sure that coincidentally those people doing those studies do not support voter ID laws,so their study doesn't mean dick.
Click to expand...

Did you read any of those studies? The majority of charges in voter fraud are of those who were felons and were not aware of the eligibility. Very few who have been found guilty are actually people posing as other people.

Its very easy for you to sit here and try to discredit those studies, find me one that shows significant voter fraud numbers and I'll accept your argument. Otherwise you're simply posting opinion/speculation.

1000 people was simply put up as a number. The whole point of that statement is that you are not going to find 1000 people to pose as someone else because there is not 1000 people who are willing to risk being caught. The reward is not even remotely worth the risk.

Minimum penalty for voter fraud is $500 fine and one year in prison along with disenfranchisement. Name one poor liberal who is willing to risk that for the sake of adding one extra vote to the ballot.
 
Last edited:
Putting any restriction on the ability to vote is something that should never be done lightly. We currently do not have a widespread problem with fraud that could be stopped by voter ID's. That said, its not exactly beneficial to leave an obvious potential flaw in the integrity of our voting system either. I would say a voter ID requirement is reasonable on the condition that the ID actually be secure and that it has no barriers to obtaining one. The current ID system in the U.S. does not meet the standard required. Currently getting an Id means paying for the privilege of dueling the bureaucracy until they issue you an ID with zero modern security features that can trivially be faked. There needs to be a better ID system before requiring ID to vote can be justified.
 
rathi said:
Putting any restriction on the ability to vote is something that should never be done lightly. We currently do not have a widespread problem with fraud that could be stopped by voter ID's. That said, its not exactly beneficial to leave an obvious potential flaw in the integrity of our voting system either. I would say a voter ID requirement is reasonable on the condition that the ID actually be secure and that it has no barriers to obtaining one. The current ID system in the U.S. does not meet the standard required. Currently getting an Id means paying for the privilege of dueling the bureaucracy until they issue you an ID with zero modern security features that can trivially be faked. There needs to be a better ID system before requiring ID to vote can be justified.
Click to expand...

In PA they are giving free voter IDs to people who say they can't afford an ID. So, there are no restrictions here, unless someone is just too lazy to get an ID. But laziness isn't what I would consider a restriction, since if you're too lazy to get a free ID, you're presumably also too lazy to go out and vote.
 
I am for it if all that is required is a photo ID, even though voter fraud is of tiny tiny percentages. However, the BS in PA is just that, BS in PA.
 
The Man said:
Ok, so PA decided that they're going to do it. What's your problem?
Click to expand...

There is no point and it is aggravating to hear the same news story over pointless political crap. It really doesn't matter. The percentage of voter fraud is so miniscule that it is near immeasurable.
 
TheLastIndependent said:
There is no point and it is aggravating to hear the same news story over pointless political crap. It really doesn't matter. The percentage of voter fraud is so miniscule that it is near immeasurable.
Click to expand...

Well, PA felt that it is necessary. No eligible voter who who wants to vote is being left out. What's the problem?

If your problem is that you're sick of hearing about it in the news, blame the media.
 
The Man said:
Well, PA felt that it is necessary. No eligible voter who who wants to vote is being left out. What's the problem?

If your problem is that you're sick of hearing about it in the news, blame the media.
Click to expand...

It's their job to over exploit a non-issue. And in a brief search I found a case in which a man may not be able to vote even though it is entirely situational.

Bottom line, it has become a talking point that is aggravatingly redundant and is entirely pointless
 
TheLastIndependent said:
It's their job to over exploit a non-issue. And in a brief search I found a case in which a man may not be able to vote even though it is entirely situational.

Bottom line, it has become a talking point that is aggravatingly redundant and is entirely pointless
Click to expand...

Where's the link to that 'case' that you found in a brief search?
 
TheLastIndependent said:
One vote does a lot....


Daily Kos: I was denied free voter ID today: Pennsylvania

As I said, it is entirely situational. It really is not an argument against the law.
Click to expand...

So they told him to come back on August 27 for a free voter ID. They didn't deny him a free voter ID, they told him exactly when they're available.

The part about him taking off work aHS the DMV not being able to renew his driver's license because he has another valid driver's license in another state is his own dumb fault. Most people would read up on the laws and rules before burning vacation time to go to the DMV for that.
 
For, though I didn't always feel that way.

For, the showing of ID only. Legitimate ID, consistent throughout a given state.

I strongly oppose any efforts to restrict "get out the vote" campaigns, and so on, as have often been used for insidious purposes.
 
TheLastIndependent said:
One vote does a lot....
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter, it's the principle of the thing. It's like saying one murder doesn't matter in a population of 300+ million, but if a law stops that one murder, it's worth having the law.
 
Cephus said:
It doesn't matter, it's the principle of the thing. It's like saying one murder doesn't matter in a population of 300+ million, but if a law stops that one murder, it's worth having the law.
Click to expand...

What law is going to stop a criminal?
 
Navy Pride said:
To me its just common sense, how about you?
Click to expand...

I agree with having to show ID to vote, and I would support it in my state.

We have to show ID for just about everything else, why should something as important as voting be excluded.

If one wants to vote, one should be able to prove they are who they say they are.
 
Paschendale said:
It is an infringement of liberty that serves no practical purpose, and disenfranchises a lot of poor people, students, and the elderly.
Click to expand...
It believe is intended to serve the practical purpose of assuring that all who are voting are legitimate, registered voter and are who they claim to be.

We all know it's a politically calculated move to prevent Democratic voters from casting their ballots. Can we please stop pretending it's anything else?
Click to expand...

I would support the idea in my state, not because it would prevent Democratic voters from casting their ballots, but to ensure accuracy and consistency in voting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom