• 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!

Is requiring voter photo ID a type of disenfranchisement?

Is requiring voter photo ID a type of disenfranchisement?


  • Total voters
    83
  • Poll closed .
There's absolutely nothing wrong with people proving their eligibility to vote before they cast their ballot. What's wrong in instituting new rules targeting specific groups, making it uniquely inconvenient and/or expensive for members of their groups to vote because they are likely to vote in a manner the rule makers don''t like all under the cleaver guise of "fighting voter fraud" when sworn testimony from the group indicated they planned in advance how to keep that group away from the polls.

:lamo

The amazing thing is how spun up people get over ID for voting when ID will be critical for those now eligible for free or supplimented Obamacare.

Do you actually think anyone without some form of accurate, verifiable identification will be able to get Rx and other medical care without absolutely proving who they are?

Since accurate ID will be critical to avoid killing a patient, do you think a "cross my heart, I'm John Doe" is going to suffice?

Talk about ginning up the crowd with a bogus narrative.

Shameful.
 
There's absolutely nothing wrong with people proving their eligibility to vote before they cast their ballot. What's wrong in instituting new rules targeting specific groups, making it uniquely inconvenient and/or expensive for members of their groups to vote because they are likely to vote in a manner the rule makers don''t like all under the cleaver guise of "fighting voter fraud" when sworn testimony from the group indicated they planned in advance how to keep that group away from the polls.

It is honestly not that hard to get I.D.. If it is really that much of an issue just institute a national I.D..
 
That is a minimal cost for something that you only have to do once in your entire life, unless you happen to lose it, then it's your responsibility to replace it.


You can mostly have me on that up until somewhere in the high $20 range, if we are talking in terms of something as important as voting. When I get nervous it is in that $20+ range, because you don't really want to make it largely prohibitive to the folks that could legitimately vote.

Again, my perspective comes more or less outside, because we don't have voter registration, we don't see the need for it, we have a pretty liberal voting policy, which until recently has caused absolutely no commotion. Our ID is a whopping $6-less than what it can cost at Burger King for a meal.

I suppose where many folks see "common sense" or even an electoral crisis, I hear crickets.
 
It is honestly not that hard to get I.D.. If it is really that much of an issue just institute a national I.D..

Thus far all discussions surrounding a national ID have been cost-prohibitive, and a bureaucratic mess.
 
I am opposed to this photo ID idea because it's the GOP's idea.

They are not pushing this to make elections fair, the idea is to disenfranchise Democratic Party voters.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
Thus far all discussions surrounding a national ID have been cost-prohibitive, and a bureaucratic mess.

The Europeans do it, I'm sure America can do it and again it is not that hard to get I.D..
 
The Europeans do it, I'm sure America can do it and again it is not that hard to get I.D..

Again, from all recent proposals over the past decade have been really weak in terms of bureaucratic support, state or national support, and cost a great deal of money. Then there were the civil liberties issues that piped up, among different political camps (each issuing their own objections).
 
An ID ought to be a part of everyday life. It should be required for anything official. It's not a poll tax, it's a basic necessity of life and an expectation that every adult must have, without exception. Those without one ought to be breaking the law and should be ticketed, just like you are if you're caught driving without a license.

This is not the USSR, comrade.
 
I have no problem with voter ID laws as long as the default position is allowing people to vote. Then, if it was fraudlent, arrest them and max out their sentence. The real issue isnt that the Republicans care a hoot about it, they too know there is really very little fraudlent voting, the thing is most of the people who have ID issues vote democrat. So it really is a RW attempt to stop Demo voters.

Democrats don't have driver's licenses?
 
Again, from all recent proposals over the past decade have been really weak in terms of bureaucratic support, state or national support, and cost a great deal of money. Then there were the civil liberties issues that piped up, among different political camps (each issuing their own objections).

Really how hard is it to practically just change the text on templates for drivers licenses to say national I.D.? Did no one ever think of just using the shut up and deal with it policy.
 
This isn't about papers, it's about a requirement that you identify yourself should you do something wrong. If you want to live on your mountain, go ahead, so long as you have your identification. How would anyone know you were not a citizen if you were not required to prove it? Your right to vote is predicated on your citizenship.
Prove you're a citizen.




When you hear someone say "Let's see your papers." what is the first thing that comes into your mind?
 
Democrats don't have driver's licenses?

Well since a lot of Democratic voters come from cities they may not need one as public transport exists. Though I don't know why since North American public transport sucks.
 
Well since a lot of Democratic voters come from cities they may not need one as public transport exists. Though I don't know why since North American public transport sucks.

Even if a person doesn't drive, they have some form of identification.
 
Really how hard is it to practically just change the text on templates for drivers licenses to say national I.D.? Did no one ever think of just using the shut up and deal with it policy.

We are a federalist system, for one. You have to grant powers to an existing portion of the federal government to do it, essentially overturning current mode and thought of operations. The problem is, the SSA, who has the closest thing we have to a national ID, will not get the jurisdiction. The Department of Homeland Security won't accept the responsibility, since current interpretations from all previous Secretaries is that it goes against its legal powers. Once you set up the bureaucracy (and lord, that's a whole lot of steps missing), you have to shoot it all the way down to the local level (and with the REAL ID system, they are still having difficulty getting states on board).

On top of that, you need to fund the reorganization. That will cost billions. You need additional security features. That bumps up the cost per ID massively (prior estimates under previous proposals shot the cost at or above passport levels).

Then you deal with the political bombs regarding profiling, harassment, and government intrusion.

I know I am overlooking many other details, but that's some of the problems as of yet.
 
:lamo

The amazing thing is how spun up people get over ID for voting when ID will be critical for those now eligible for free or supplimented Obamacare.

Do you actually think anyone without some form of accurate, verifiable identification will be able to get Rx and other medical care without absolutely proving who they are?

Since accurate ID will be critical to avoid killing a patient, do you think a "cross my heart, I'm John Doe" is going to suffice?

Talk about ginning up the crowd with a bogus narrative.

Shameful.

If someone is having a medical problem I always thought they get treated regardless and no one is left to die because they didn't have the new federal ID endorsement on their driver's license. Maybe I misunderstood your post.
 
Okay, how about we make orthodox Judaism a requirement? Oh wait, the constitution doesn't allow that. Just like it doesn't allow having to pay money in order to vote. You want everyone to have ID, you make sure it's easily accessible. Besides, plenty of these ID laws aren't just about people who are too poor to need or use ID. Or the plenty of seniors who let their IDs expire and have no need to get new ones. It's also about students. Lots of college students, who don't drive, and are supported by their families, scholarships, or loans (which again go through their families), are being preventing from voting in the states where they reside, where they go to school.

Gee, who do poor people, the elderly, and students tend to vote for..
.




The people who would have the biggest problem with this photo ID idea are exactly the people that the GOP would like to keep from voting.




"Republicans have been accused of abandoning the poor.It's the other way around. They never vote for us." ~ Dan Quayle
 
I have no issue with the laws themselves, but think they should only exist if there is a free government photo ID available in that state. However, if no such avenue exists then I believe it's unreasonable as it essentially demands payment for the ability to vote.

I also question the notions regarding the low number of voter fraud, as they generally look at provable instances of voter fraud while ignoring that based on the current requirements I'm unsure how plausible the notion of "proving" various types of fraud on a wide scale basis is.

If you can't prove, you can't know. If there is no measurable number of provable instances, you really can't claim it happens.

otherwise, a reasonable post as always.
 
Really how hard is it to practically just change the text on templates for drivers licenses to say national I.D.? Did no one ever think of just using the shut up and deal with it policy.

I don't own a car. I have a driver's license - renting is a necessity sometimes for me, and a passport. But many Americans do not drive at all and do not travel much.
 
If someone is having a medical problem I always thought they get treated regardless and no one is left to die because they didn't have the new federal ID endorsement on their driver's license. Maybe I misunderstood your post.

Well, the billing behind Obamacare is to provide healthcare to all. Since it seems people are opposed to voter ID because of the multitudes who will be disenfranchied due to the effort required to obtain the documents, what about ID required to get Obamacare coverage?

It's going to be critical for people to get the right kind of care, and that means medical staff must be very precise about the kind of care they provide, and the kind of medications that would be used. The only way to do that is to make sure the ID of the person receiving care is known without any doubt.

How are these people going to provide proper, and critically important ID, if it's impossible for them to do so for something so simple as voting?
 
If you can't prove, you can't know. If there is no measurable number of provable instances, you really can't claim it happens.

That's kind of my point Boo...

I imagine it's reasonable to suggest Fraud is happening to some degree, . The human condition suggests there will always be someone attempting to beat any system that exists. And even now there has at least been occasional legitimate cases. But in a more over arching notion, you're right that there's a big question of how much and what's it's impact.

In that regard, I can't honestly answer. It could be that the amount of Fraud is ridiculously miniscule and entirely insignificant. Or it could be a sizable portion that could have an impact. Or it could be somewhere in between.

Your comment about proof, and measurable numbers, speaks to my issue though. Essentially, as the laws and methods largely stand now, I don't think there are a lot of very efficient and sure fire ways to absolutely "prove" whether fraud is happening or not. Essentially, the way the system is currently set up, "proving" fraud is extremely difficult. As such, the lack of evidence of substantial fraud at the moment doesn't necessarily convince me or prove to me that fraud simply does not exist or does not exist in any meaningful way. It simply means that it doesn't exist in such a way that can be unquestionably proven under the current system.

To give you an analogy in regards to what I'm saying (though not a direct analogy to this specific situation)....

Say the only way I can "prove" something was stolen is to physically see a person gain possession and remove the item. Then say that I'm sat in front of a brick wall, with a bunch of large diamonds placed behind it. I see two people come up to the wall, disappear behind it, then reappear on the other side with a bag that has an approximately large diamond sized object in it.

Under the current criteria I'm operating under in terms of "proving" something, I can not "prove" that they stole the diamond. If I told someone we should take down that wall so I could see where the Diamonds are sitting to prevent theft, a person could accurately say "Why? There's no proven diamond thefts that are occuring". Technically, they're right...there's no proven diamond thefts occuring because the current structure of the rules make it so that it can't be proven. However, the fact it can't be proven under the given circumstances doesn't necessarily prove that it isn't happening.

-----------

What I'm basically saying Boo is that you're right...we can't prove that voter fraud is happening at a significant level. I'm simply suggesting that those who claim there's "proof" that it's happening at an insiginificant level are not believable or credible in my opinion, because I don't believe the current system makes definitive "proof" of such far too difficult to obtain for it to be a meaningful statement to base a decision on either way.
 
It's something you have to address, because God knows we hear it all the time from concerned members of the GOP. I don't buy into it at all (in fact, it reminds me immensely of the whining Democrats did after 2000), but that qualification is still significant.

I think the design motivations are partisan, but the public rhetoric relies on ghost stories.

Democrats cheating would translate into a number of voter fraud convictions and despite challenging people in these threads many many times we never see any significant evidence of that.
 
Question to Anybody: How many states currently offer "free" state photo ID cards to indigent and disabled individuals?
 
Back
Top Bottom