• 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!

Do you support Voter ID Laws?

Do you support Voter Id Laws?

  • Total voters
    106
Abbazorkzog said:
There are a few more cons than that. For example, it can be used to manipulate turnout and demographics in various combinations with gerrymandering and lobbyists.
Click to expand...

Good point. I had not thought of that. They do it in Austin all the time. Austin is probably the most liberal place in Texas, but for some reason they never get screaming liberal reps.

I like screaming liberals. Every society needs them. 90% of the time they are wrong, but that 10% when they are RIGHT is why I like them.
 
I fully support and give an enthusiastic thumbs up to requiring ALL people to show a valid, state registered, photo ID when voting.
 
Don't really care either way but I do believe voter fraud, based on actual stats is a non-issue. Blown way out of proportion.
 
Bucky said:
PROS:

- Prevents voter fraud
- Common sense law: You need ID to to buy beer drive, and fly, why not voting?
- Adopted in most European countries

CONS:

-Racist/prevents minorities from voting.
Click to expand...

If racist use voter ID laws to prevent minorities from voting.Then what about liberal anti-2nd amendment laws that do more than just require an ID to be shown?
 
yes, it's ridiculous that this is even an issue. you need ID to drive, to work, to drink, to buy a gun, to get on a plane, you should need one to vote. if you're not a citizen, you should not be voting. if you don't have ID, you're probably worthless anyway, seriously anyone in this thread with a job and no ID?
 
QuadpolarNutjob said:
yes, it's ridiculous that this is even an issue. you need ID to drive, to work, to drink, to buy a gun, to get on a plane, you should need one to vote. if you're not a citizen, you should not be voting. if you don't have ID, you're probably worthless anyway, seriously anyone in this thread with a job and no ID?
Click to expand...

Voter IDs are fine.
Do continue to ignore the discussion of the fine print in those laws that go well beyond IDs .
 
RetiredNSmilin said:
How is it RACIST ? Most blacks & Hispanics I know ALSO have driver's licenses.
Click to expand...
It’s generally not directly but the impression that it is can be understood.

The requirement to have some form of formally recognised photo ID does more significantly impact certain sections of society, generally the poor who won’t necessarily drive and could have greater difficulty doing whatever is necessary to get the forms of ID created to fill the gap (paying a fee, travelling to a particular regional office etc.). It’s not that it’s impossible for pretty much anyone to get the ID but the effort required may well lead to some people not bothering as so later not being able to vote even if they wanted to.

The implication is that some proponents of voter ID support it (and design the details proposals) with the specific intention of creating this situation because they believe (rightly or not) that more of the people affected would have voted against their preference.

As it happens, there are racial disparities in the groups affected too, because of wider racial disparities in US society. In general there won’t be a racial motive even when there is the ulterior motive of dissuading certain groups from voting but the result could well disproportionately impact some racial groups and the groups impacted/targeted may well be identified with racial labels even though that won’t be strictly accurate.
 
Bucky said:
PROS:

- Prevents voter fraud
- Common sense law: You need ID to to buy beer drive, and fly, why not voting?
- Adopted in most European countries

CONS:

-Racist/prevents minorities from voting.
Click to expand...

Did not vote in the poll, as others have pointed out "voter ID laws" tends to be about more than requiring an ID to vote.

Speak of, I quit buying into the notion that requiring an ID to vote unfairly target minority voters a long way back. When you consider all the things you need an ID for including dealing with the government for a host of reasons, it no longer makes sense to suggest that IDs to vote unfairly target a demographic. It is either that requiring IDs unfairly targets a demographic for all subjects, or none of them.

So it really comes down to other things. Such as trying to link absentee ballots to a reason for needing one (several States,) or reducing what is an acceptable form of ID (Texas, various challenges are on this last I checked,) or trying to alter what it means to be lawfully registered and then needing an ID (Arkansas, which ended up struck down.)

Our issue goes well beyond, and we should be concerned about the difference between setting a standard for requiring an ID to vote and all the other additional constrictions that very well might disproportionately impact various demographics.
 
Mathematician said:
The con you have listed is one of the biggest BS arguments present in political debates. :roll:
Click to expand...

That is exactly why racism (discriminatory burden?) is never mentioned in relation to "resonable" gun control laws which not only require that valid, sate issued, photo ID but often add classes, tests and fees. ;)
 
HonestJoe said:
It’s generally not directly but the impression that it is can be understood.

The requirement to have some form of formally recognised photo ID does more significantly impact certain sections of society, generally the poor who won’t necessarily drive and could have greater difficulty doing whatever is necessary to get the forms of ID created to fill the gap (paying a fee, travelling to a particular regional office etc.). It’s not that it’s impossible for pretty much anyone to get the ID but the effort required may well lead to some people not bothering as so later not being able to vote even if they wanted to.

The implication is that some proponents of voter ID support it (and design the details proposals) with the specific intention of creating this situation because they believe (rightly or not) that more of the people affected would have voted against their preference.

As it happens, there are racial disparities in the groups affected too, because of wider racial disparities in US society. In general there won’t be a racial motive even when there is the ulterior motive of dissuading certain groups from voting but the result could well disproportionately impact some racial groups and the groups impacted/targeted may well be identified with racial labels even though that won’t be strictly accurate.
Click to expand...

When I WAS poor, and barely making it, I still had a driver's license, a crappy $300 car, and a roach infested, bean bag chair, wire spool table apartment.
It is not hard to do if you lay off the drugs, alcohol, gambling, and hookers.

Today it is still very possible to get a crappy, but running $500 car, a one bedroom $600 apartment that you share with the roaches, AND A DRIVER'S LICENSE.

Petting the "poor" minorities on the head and saying, it is OK, you are NOT WHITE, is completely much more racist in my book.

It IS DONE, has been done, and is continually being done. EVERYONE normally starts somewhere crappy in their life. There is nothing racist about that.

Saying they are completely incapable of it, IS RACIST.

Again, it gets back to that term, BIGOTRY OF __________ that I have forgotten. I read it just yesterday.
 
Bucky said:
PROS:

- Prevents voter fraud
- Common sense law: You need ID to to buy beer drive, and fly, why not voting?
- Adopted in most European countries

CONS:

-Racist/prevents minorities from voting.
Click to expand...

No it is not racist as it has no basis for determining that any race is inferior or superior to another. Additionally, many other countries have voter ID laws where minorities are not prevented from voting. This simply is not an inherent con in Voter ID laws. Can that be built in? Sure, and it can be applied to any group to make it hard for that group to get an ID or severely limit the ID used. While arguments can be made that this or that faction would try this, it still is not an inherent aspect of the laws and as such, the argument would need to be that such and such specific law is wrong, not that voter ID laws are wrong.
 
Moot said:
I think voting is constitutional protected right...so I support automatic voter registration for every US citizen over the age of 18.
Click to expand...

that is the key right there. Especially in this day when there are many who are not citizens of this country obtaining benefits and other privileges of citizenship, it is not unreasonable to ask that one verify that one is a US citizen. As noted many other countries do this, and oddly enough, ones that many who want us to adopt other policies point to and say, "well they do it".
 
Fiddytree said:
If the laws were not overly complicated and the IDs were cheap as hell, then I would support them more often. Not because I think they would do anything (voter fraud is practically non-existent), but they would largely be irrelevant. However, in many states it's not so simple. In my state, which has never had even the slightest hint of rumors surrounding illegal voting (we are a Republican supermajority in almost all aspects, by the way), because of economics we have a highly mobile population (property values skyrocketed, forcing families that have been grounded for generations to leave these towns in the last 2 years or less), and we now have a voter ID law. The state promoted it was "easy as pie" (or some other piece of Americana explaining its simplicity) to vote.

The result in the immediately following election? Many multi-generation native-state voters were told to travel hundreds of miles to vote on election day (I'm not exaggerating on the mileage), students were turned away en mass (we have a lot of native state voters, some who recently came from the neighboring state), the Department of Transportation had a server malfunction that mis-identified a large number of voters as living somewhere else, the Secretary of State was warned of these and other issues and publicly said he would not be intervening in the weeks preceding the election, and for the first time in memory the State's political parties had to help direct voters of all ages to the correct destination or give their sincerest apology for not knowing what to do.

The state government's reaction to that confusion? Make it even harder for students to vote and ignore the infrastructure problem that existed.

It was the dumbest thing I have seen in a long time. My state has never had voting problems until state Republicans wanted to follow the national trend. We're a Republican supermajority state that is lily white, less than a few percent are hispanics or Latinos, and the Democratic Party is in such shambles it has a hard time recruiting candidates to lose most of these races, much less win them.

What was the need? What were they trying to prove?
Click to expand...
There is a difference between what a specific law does and types of laws. Many states had similar infrastructure problems when they turned over to electronic voting instead of paper. It's one thing to claim that a specific law was done wrong, and that law indeed needs to be attacked. But it doesn't show an inherent problem with that type of law in and of it self.
 
NIMBY said:
Especially those cons who throw all lefties into the same bag and lie about them .
Click to expand...

Oh like liberals don't do that to conservatives. Your first two sentences are spot on. The last two show a bias of ignorance.
 
RetiredUSN said:
I was asking Moot. We had a earlier back and forth over the issue.

Why do I have to carry a concealed carry card, if it is might protected right to begin with?
Click to expand...

A concealed carry permit is not inherently against the 2nd, as it does not prevent you from carrying, but from carrying concealed. I don't want to derail the topic too much, but I had to point out that you are trying to compare two different, but related things.
 
Redress said:
You might want to look at what is included in most of those laws. Hint: they tend to do much more than require an ID.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that reduction of early voting is "voter suppression" ??

Are you aware that polls are usually staffed by volunteers? If getting people to volunteer for such a longer period of time is getting difficult to do, wouldn't it be prudent to reduce that early voting time?

I mean, early voting wasn't "a thing" since the beginning.
 
HonestJoe said:
It’s generally not directly but the impression that it is can be understood.

The requirement to have some form of formally recognised photo ID does more significantly impact certain sections of society, generally the poor who won’t necessarily drive and could have greater difficulty doing whatever is necessary to get the forms of ID created to fill the gap (paying a fee, travelling to a particular regional office etc.). It’s not that it’s impossible for pretty much anyone to get the ID but the effort required may well lead to some people not bothering as so later not being able to vote even if they wanted to.

The implication is that some proponents of voter ID support it (and design the details proposals) with the specific intention of creating this situation because they believe (rightly or not) that more of the people affected would have voted against their preference.

As it happens, there are racial disparities in the groups affected too, because of wider racial disparities in US society. In general there won’t be a racial motive even when there is the ulterior motive of dissuading certain groups from voting but the result could well disproportionately impact some racial groups and the groups impacted/targeted may well be identified with racial labels even though that won’t be strictly accurate.
Click to expand...

Even the poor have IDs. The notion that poor people don't have IDs is just ****ing ignorant.

You need an ID to do almost anything in society today.

I mean, ****.... I've never met a poor person without an alcohol and/or cigarette problem (usually one of the reasons why they are poor), gotta have an ID to get those.

In my time in law enforcement..... I Never even came across a HOMELESS person who didn't have an ID.

This idea that it hurts minorities is just an attempt to throw up the racism card to gain support behind one political group's opposition to the laws.
 
NIMBY said:
Voter IDs are fine.
21st century Jim Crow voter suppression aspects in the fine print aren't.
Cons will continue to play this con.
Especially those cons who throw all lefties into the same bag and lie about them .
Click to expand...

Examples?
 
Redress said:
You might want to look at what is included in most of those laws. Hint: they tend to do much more than require an ID.
Click to expand...

So what are these onerous requirements?
 
Yes, I absolutely support the requirement of every voter to have to show ID. No exception.
 
Bucky said:
PROS:

- Prevents voter fraud
- Common sense law: You need ID to to buy beer drive, and fly, why not voting?
- Adopted in most European countries

CONS:

-Racist/prevents minorities from voting.
Click to expand...

those arent the only pro/cons by any means when looking at SOME of the proposed voting laws they are trying to pass.
the polls sucks since it only has two answers and doesn't allow me to give an accurate one which would be other.

Voter id laws get a bad rap which is 100% deserved because many times they are not just about ID. They are about making a right harder to do and they often include many many other things.

If the voter ID law is just about requiring an ID then I fully support it if normal already existing ID is acceptable and a state ID is easily obtainable at your local polling place, post office or schools etc and its free.

Now if the voter ID law demands a specific ID, that cost money, theres additional name rules about it, it ends early voting, absentee voting, out of state voting, voting on sundays, closing polling places, gerrymandering etc then of course not. And thats what many of these laws try to do.

I myself have always had to present ID and my dame had to show up as registered. So i dont get any issue. Are there places where they just let people vote anywhere they want and they dont have to show id or be registered?
 
RetiredNSmilin said:
Today it is still very possible to get a crappy, but running $500 car, a one bedroom $600 apartment that you share with the roaches, AND A DRIVER'S LICENSE.
Click to expand...
I never said it wasn’t possible, only that some people don’t have driving licences or other ID acceptable in voter ID laws and that’s going to disproportionately include poorer people.

RetiredNSmilin said:
Saying they are completely incapable of it, IS RACIST.
Click to expand...
Lucky I didn’t say that then isn’t it.

I’m saying that voter ID isn’t racist, I'm just explaining how it can be wrongly seen as being racist.
 
I voted yes to the poll. Voter ID laws screen out undocumenteds, minors and possible 'different party saboteurs' during primaries. On election day in my state, voter ID laws also demand balloters vote in the precinct they live in an attempt to ensure balloters vote for the appropriate races/measures to their precincts and also an attempt to prevent duplicate voting.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
I think voting is constitutional protected right...so I support automatic voter registration for every US citizen over the age of 18.
Click to expand...

Good idea. Stack it on top of the automatic concealed carry permit, hand it to everybody.

But voter ID has nothing to do with voter ID. The ID simply proves who you are. I like that idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom