• 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!

Photo ID to vote?

Photo ID to vote?


  • Total voters
    92
So you're saying you made it up unintentionally... maybe making this up just comes to you second nature eh?

No, I made an argument and then gave an example without thinking it through thoroughly.
 
Comon dude you know better than that! Of course there will be tax payer funded financial aid for those who cannot pay. This is the country of the never ending welfare programs!

Of course you can document there will financial aid available to assist those 5 million in acquiring photo IDs, right?
 
Of course you can document there will financial aid available to assist those 5 million in acquiring photo IDs, right?

Funny thing is, if we did this and set up a system for those who can't afford it to help them, republicans, whom would support it now, would wish to revoke it in the future because they appose wellfare.
 
Of course you can document there will financial aid available to assist those 5 million in acquiring photo IDs, right?

There would have to be, or the Supreme Court will declare it to be a poll tax, which is illegal.
 
Five million out of 300 is only <2% of the population. Even that sounds pretty high, but I don't see where that would be a problem.

When you factor in the number of people who actually vote, that number is likely to drop below 1% of the population. That shouldn't be a huge problem.

There are about 190,000,000 voters. 5 million voters disenfranchised would be 2.63% of voters. That could swing tight races.
 
Seriously, who doesn't have a birth certificate?

"This report is the first full accounting and analysis of this year's voting cutbacks. It details both the bills that have been proposed and the legislation that has been passed since the beginning of 2011."

Executive Summary

"Over the past century, our nation expanded the franchise and knocked down myriad barriers to full electoral participation. In 2011, however, that momentum abruptly shifted.

State governments across the country enacted an array of new laws making it harder to register or to vote. Some states require voters to show government-issued photo identification, often of a type that as many as one in ten voters do not have. Other states have cut back on early voting, a hugely popular innovation used by millions of Americans. Two states reversed earlier reforms and once again disenfranchised millions who have past criminal convictions but who are now taxpaying members of the community. Still others made it much more difficult for citizens to register to vote, a prerequisite for voting.

These new restrictions fall most heavily on young, minority, and low-income voters, as well as on voters with disabilities. This wave of changes may sharply tilt the political terrain for the 2012 election. Based on the Brennan Center’s analysis of the 19 laws and two executive actions that passed in 14 states, it is clear that:

These new laws could make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012.
The states that have already cut back on voting rights will provide 171 electoral votes in 2012 – 63 percent of the 270 needed to win the presidency.

Of the 12 likely battleground states, as assessed by an August Los Angeles Times analysis of Gallup polling, five have already cut back on voting rights (and may pass additional restrictive legislation), and two more are currently considering new restrictions.

States have changed their laws so rapidly that no single analysis has assessed the overall impact of such moves. Although it is too early to quantify how the changes will impact voter turnout, they will be a hindrance to many voters at a time when the United States continues to turn out less than two thirds of its eligible citizens in presidential elections and less than half in midterm elections.

This study is the first comprehensive roundup of all state legislative action thus far in 2011 on voting rights, focusing on new laws as well as state legislation that has not yet passed or that failed. This snapshot may soon be incomplete: the second halves of some state legislative sessions have begun."

Voting Law Changes in 2012 | Brennan Center for Justice
 
There would have to be, or the Supreme Court will declare it to be a poll tax, which is illegal.

I have not seen the language for the aid that would be provided, and this aid was not included in the analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice. Do you have link to share?
 
There are about 190,000,000 voters. 5 million voters disenfranchised would be 2.63% of voters. That could swing tight races.

That assumes 100% of the 2.63% vote ... which would be a bad assumption. The last election (2010) showed a Voter Eligible Person turnout rate to be 40%, and that's high historically. The 5 million is now a universe of 2 million. Of which a % would vote for each of the running candidates.
 
That assumes 100% of the 2.63% vote ... which would be a bad assumption. The last election (2010) showed a Voter Eligible Person turnout rate to be 40%, and that's high historically. The 5 million is now a universe of 2 million. Of which a % would vote for each of the running candidates.

You missed the summary of the study on the subject above, here is an excerpt:

"These new restrictions fall most heavily on young, minority, and low-income voters, as well as on voters with disabilities. This wave of changes may sharply tilt the political terrain for the 2012 election. Based on the Brennan Center’s analysis of the 19 laws and two executive actions that passed in 14 states, it is clear that:

These new laws could make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012.
The states that have already cut back on voting rights will provide 171 electoral votes in 2012 – 63 percent of the 270 needed to win the presidency.

Of the 12 likely battleground states, as assessed by an August Los Angeles Times analysis of Gallup polling, five have already cut back on voting rights (and may pass additional restrictive legislation), and two more are currently considering new restrictions.

States have changed their laws so rapidly that no single analysis has assessed the overall impact of such moves. Although it is too early to quantify how the changes will impact voter turnout, they will be a hindrance to many voters at a time when the United States continues to turn out less than two thirds of its eligible citizens in presidential elections and less than half in midterm elections.

This study is the first comprehensive roundup of all state legislative action thus far in 2011 on voting rights, focusing on new laws as well as state legislation that has not yet passed or that failed. This snapshot may soon be incomplete: the second halves of some state legislative sessions have begun."
 
Last edited:
You missed the summary of the study on the subject above, here is an excerpt:

"These new restrictions fall most heavily on young, minority, and low-income voters, as well as on voters with disabilities. This wave of changes may sharply tilt the political terrain for the 2012 election. Based on the Brennan Center’s analysis of the 19 laws and two executive actions that passed in 14 states, it is clear that:

These new laws could make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012.
The states that have already cut back on voting rights will provide 171 electoral votes in 2012 – 63 percent of the 270 needed to win the presidency.

Of the 12 likely battleground states, as assessed by an August Los Angeles Times analysis of Gallup polling, five have already cut back on voting rights (and may pass additional restrictive legislation), and two more are currently considering new restrictions.

States have changed their laws so rapidly that no single analysis has assessed the overall impact of such moves. Although it is too early to quantify how the changes will impact voter turnout, they will be a hindrance to many voters at a time when the United States continues to turn out less than two thirds of its eligible citizens in presidential elections and less than half in midterm elections.

This study is the first comprehensive roundup of all state legislative action thus far in 2011 on voting rights, focusing on new laws as well as state legislation that has not yet passed or that failed. This snapshot may soon be incomplete: the second halves of some state legislative sessions have begun."

The summary supports most of what I already said.
 
The summary supports most of what I already said.

Glad you agree with the summary that concludes the new voter requirements could disenfranchise 5 million voters.
 
Glad you agree with the summary that concludes the new voter requirements could disenfranchise 5 million voters.

Since I didn't read the summary, I'm glad the summary agrees with me, and it's not 5 million disenfranchised voters, as I've already pointed out, and your summary pointed out.
 
Since I didn't read the summary, I'm glad the summary agrees with me, and it's not 5 million disenfranchised voters, as I've already pointed out, and your summary pointed out.


"This wave of changes may sharply tilt the political terrain for the 2012 election. " Like you, I too concur with this.
 
One of my RL friends did not have a license. He was eligible to vote legally, but he was in a weird scenario where he couldn't get an ID or a license.

Unless he's done something wrong and he just doesn't want to get caught or he would just have to wait for information to come in, I don't see why he couldn't get at least an ID.

My siblings and I are just all starting to get licenses. We have all been able to get ID cards, permits, and/or licenses in many different states. Some take a little more info than others, but everyone can eventually get what they need with a little research and trying.
 
I voted no, as the negative effect in disenfranchising voters is greater than any good from addressing a non-existent voter fraud problem.

What????? If we look quite a bit younger than our years we get carded when purchasing booze and cigarettes. What's the big deal?
 
This may surprise you but many of the elderly, the poor, students, and minorities do not have a photo ID.

What purpose does increasing hardship on some to vote serve?

It's really not a hardship to get an ID whether it's a drivers lic. or a gov't one. A simple thing to do and something that only has to be done every few years, so I don't think it would be that difficult for someone to find a way to get out and get one. Students always find a way to get out and stir it up, so to speak, and I'm sure they'd be able to handle hitching a ride from a friend to make the move into getting an ID.
 
"As a libertarian, I tend to look at cost before I look at benefits. In 2008, the Supreme Court looked at state imposed voter ID in Indiana in the case Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. In the majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that voter ID was constitutional as long as the state offered the identification cards free of charge. Otherwise, voter identification cards qualify as a poll tax. If the Mississippi voter ID initiative passes in November, the physical printing and distribution of a new form of identification as well as the implementation of the new policy will end up costing the state one and a half million dollars a year. Are the benefits worth the cost?

Studies have shown that states that require photo identification in elections have little to no significant difference in voter turnout or fraud. “In [a] 2008 survey, three out of 2,564 respondents said that they tried to vote but were not allowed because of voter ID, a fraction of a percent.”[1] The only claim by either side that has any relevance is that some groups may not receive equal treatment by poll workers when asked for identification. “In the 2008 Super Tuesday primary states, 53% of whites were asked to show photo ID, compared with 58% of Hispanics and a staggering 73% of African Americans.”[2] The above data should be a warning for Mississippians to rethink their support of voter identification when they go to the polls this Tuesday. More unnecessary spending and possible discrimination at the polls makes voter identification contain more negative policy implications than positive. This is why I am voting NO on Initiative 27."

Young Americans for Liberty – Ole Miss Chapter

only 12 people were prosecuted for trying to buy a gun with a record once the brady bill went through. The fact is, if its ok to make gun buyers go through background checks, (which often includes delays) and showing ID, then whining its not ok to make voters at least show an ID is specious
 
only 12 people were prosecuted for trying to buy a gun with a record once the brady bill went through. The fact is, if its ok to make gun buyers go through background checks, (which often includes delays) and showing ID, then whining its not ok to make voters at least show an ID is specious

If you feel that gun laws are unnecessary in many cases, would it not be intellectually consistent for you to also be against these ID requirements?

It would seem that to support one (voting ID when no problem is present) is terribly hypocritical when one also condemns the other (gun background check laws & ID).

You recently went on record in another thread as saying you were against former felons getting back their right to vote because you felt they would vote Democratic and that was against your own personal political interests. While I respect your honesty while deploring the partisanship and lack of principle in your position, I cannot help but wonder if those same personal motivations are part of this support of yours for photo ID?
 
If you feel that gun laws are unnecessary in many cases, would it not be intellectually consistent for you to also be against these ID requirements?

It would seem that to support one (voting ID when no problem is present) is terribly hypocritical when one also condemns the other (gun background check laws & ID).

You recently went on record in another thread as saying you were against former felons getting back their right to vote because you felt they would vote Democratic and that was against your own personal political interests. While I respect your honesty while deploring the partisanship and lack of principle in your position, I cannot help but wonder if those same personal motivations are part of this support of yours for photo ID?

I am merely noting that I find it strange that those who are most opposed to people having to merely show an ID to vote are usually from the same camp that wants to impose more and more restrictions on those of us who want to exercise our Constitutional rights to own guns. that is the real hypocrisy. I have no problem with the several states requiring individuals who want to buy a weapon supplying ID to prove they are old enough to do so (which is a requirement-if imposed by the various states-I do not find to infringe on either state or national constitutional provisions) I do not think the federal government has the proper authority to say make a law banning 19 or 20 year olds from buying a handgun.
 
I am merely noting that I find it strange that those who are most opposed to people having to merely show an ID to vote are usually from the same camp that wants to impose more and more restrictions on those of us who want to exercise our Constitutional rights to own guns. that is the real hypocrisy. I have no problem with the several states requiring individuals who want to buy a weapon supplying ID to prove they are old enough to do so (which is a requirement-if imposed by the various states-I do not find to infringe on either state or national constitutional provisions) I do not think the federal government has the proper authority to say make a law banning 19 or 20 year olds from buying a handgun.

In the end, these are two very very different issues. Gun ownership is not voting in an election and voting in an election is not gun ownership. It would be good if we could keep them apart in their respective threads.
 
In the end, these are two very very different issues. Gun ownership is not voting in an election and voting in an election is not gun ownership. It would be good if we could keep them apart in their respective threads.

gun ownership is a specifically recognized constitutional right. Voting has been recognized as such. If you want an ID and other restrictions to exercise one, its rather hypocritical to complain about less arduous requirements of identification imposed to exercise the other one
 
gun ownership is a specifically recognized constitutional right. Voting has been recognized as such. If you want an ID and other restrictions to exercise one, its rather hypocritical to complain about less arduous requirements of identification imposed to exercise the other one

Actually, I think it is better to take each and every right under the Constitution and decide what is best for it based on that right itself and not on how you fairly limit or exercise control in regard to other rights. As such, I do not think the arguments made in favor or against voting rights or gun rights are automatically transferrable and applicable to the other.
 
Actually, I think it is better to take each and every right under the Constitution and decide what is best for it based on that right itself and not on how you fairly limit or exercise control in regard to other rights. As such, I do not think the arguments made in favor or against voting rights or gun rights are automatically transferrable and applicable to the other.

Of course not, the point I made is uncomfortable for those who whine about making people merely show an ID to vote but want would be gun owners to get background checks, suffer waiting periods etc
 
Back
Top Bottom