The solution to voting

[Caballus]

America could very well be the only civilized country on earth that does not require proof of citizenship, proof of residency or valid ID to vote.

We have to be careful with comparisons like this. The root issue is whether or not a government ID should be required of every citizen. Most nations, to include all European nations, require all citizens/residents have a government ID and keep it in their possession at all times--nearly all have passports as well. Maybe it's time to change, but to date we have been opposed to that. Those same nations require that every household register all persons in the household with the city hall. If you move, you re-register--in most places the SOFA exempts us (Americans assigned here) from having to participate. A lot of countries also require all eligible citizens to vote. Otherwise, there are legal consequences. So, do we select from a menu when we compare what others are doing or do take the package deal? We can expand from comparing ID requirements to differences in how other countries are handling COVID--at least one country is requiring all visiting foreigners to wear an electronic tracking bracelet.

Why not take the time to explain why requiring ID or proof of residency is "voter suppression"? Do you believe requiring ID to board a commercial is "travel suppression"? Or maybe requiring ID to withdraw money at a bank is "banking suppression"?

Bad comparison. Neither flying nor banking is a Constitutional right.

Sponsored

 

[lacanteen]

Why not take the time to explain why requiring ID or proof of residency is "voter suppression"? Do you believe requiring ID to board a commercial is "travel suppression"? Or maybe requiring ID to withdraw money at a bank is "banking suppression"?

I had to show my ID to purchase my Mustang, even though I had a cashier's check for the total in my hand. That was to verify the name that was going on the title. Interestingly, since there was no lien holder, they didn't need proof of insurance.

 

[watisthis]

If I was wrong about voter fraud, Democrats would fully support allowing people to investigate voter fraud, they do not. I am opposed to places having more than 100% of voting aged residents on voting rolls. If these districts did not intend fraud, they would remove them, but they do not unless forced to by a court order. Almost universally, the party on record opposing honest voting and accurate voter rolls is the democrat party. Unlike the average white democrat, I believe black Americans are smart enough to obtain ID, find a post office or mailbox or polling place and vote. I believe people incapable of mailing a postage paid letter probably shouldn't be voting anyway.

America could very well be the only civilized country on earth that does not require proof of citizenship, proof of residency or valid ID to vote. Sending a ballot to "everyone" on the voter rolls is a prescription for fraud. Given that every Christmas the post office manages to deliver hundreds of millions of pieces of mail, I bet they can manage this election.

Dude, shut up. I already debunked your conspiracy bullshit here and in the other thread. You screaming voter fraud at the top of your lungs isn't going to change the fact that it happens extremely rarely. Why don't you talk about real issues, ones that actually happen, like gerrymandering issues, election fraud like in North Carolina, and the fact that absentee ballots are sometimes rejected or left uncounted.

You're just another conspiracy theorist idiot that needs to stay off the internet. Leave this thread to people that actually want to talk about fixing issues rather than throwing stones from your glass house.

 

[lonegunman]

Dude, shut up. I already debunked your conspiracy bullshit here and in the other thread. You screaming voter fraud at the top of your lungs isn't going to change the fact that it happens extremely rarely. Why don't you talk about real issues, ones that actually happen, like gerrymandering issues, election fraud like in North Carolina, and the fact that absentee ballots are sometimes rejected or left uncounted.

You're just another conspiracy theorist idiot that needs to stay off the internet. Leave this thread to people that actually want to talk about fixing issues rather than throwing stones from your glass house.

I'm wondering how you imagined you "debunked" anything? Quoting an MSNBC article is not debunking anything, only an idiot would think that is does. You need to pull your head out of Joe Biden's butt, seriously.

According to the average left wing retard, anyone who dares to question mindless leftist group think is "extremely right wing". I bet you think Snopes is the end all, be all of truth on the internet.

 

[watisthis]

I'm wondering how you imagined you "debunked" anything? Quoting an MSNBC article is not debunking anything, only an idiot would think that is does. You need to pull your head out of Joe Biden's butt, seriously.

According to the average left wing retard, anyone who dares to question mindless leftist group think is "extremely right wing". I bet you think Snopes is the end all, be all of truth on the internet.

How many studies do you need to convince you that voter fraud is extremely, extremely rare?

https://apnews.com/f5f6a73b2af546ee...ommission-did-not-find-widespread-voter-fraud
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites.../Briefing_Memo_Debunking_Voter_Fraud_Myth.pdf

We already have a bad enough time counting votes as is: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/09/us/politics/wisconsin-election-absentee-coronavirus.html

Whereas, things like gerrymandering which have been happening for decades are used to suppress voters from thousands to millions of people.

Voter fraud is extremely hard to do, it is insane to think that someone is putting themselves in legal jeopardy just on the chance that the extra vote or two he casts in one direction or the other is going to yield him significant benefit.

Hell, barely half the country can't be bothered to go vote in the first place as seen by the last election where the 'did not vote' won the election. They certainly aren't going to expend even more effort to vote fraudulently.

For voter fraud to be effective, it essentially has to be a criminal conspiracy, and conspiracies are difficult to organize and keep secret in societies with an independent judiciary and a free press.

On top of that, for people with resources, there are perfectly legal ways to influence the outcome of an election. I.E. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC#Super_PACs

This is why you're an insane conspiracy theorist because simple things like buying influence and lobbing for polling places to close or gerrymander are far more legal and easy to do. Yet, you still look past all of the easy and simple things to do and go straight for the criminal conspiracy.

 

[Jimmy Dean]

How many studies do you need to convince you that voter fraud is extremely, extremely rare?

https://apnews.com/f5f6a73b2af546ee...ommission-did-not-find-widespread-voter-fraud
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites.../Briefing_Memo_Debunking_Voter_Fraud_Myth.pdf

We already have a bad enough time counting votes as is: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/09/us/politics/wisconsin-election-absentee-coronavirus.html

Whereas, things like gerrymandering which have been happening for decades are used to suppress voters from thousands to millions of people.

Voter fraud is extremely hard to do, it is insane to think that someone is putting themselves in legal jeopardy just on the chance that the extra vote or two he casts in one direction or the other is going to yield him significant benefit.

Hell, barely half the country can't be bothered to go vote in the first place as seen by the last election where the 'did not vote' won the election. They certainly aren't going to expend even more effort to vote fraudulently.

For voter fraud to be effective, it essentially has to be a criminal conspiracy, and conspiracies are difficult to organize and keep secret in societies with an independent judiciary and a free press.

On top of that, for people with resources, there are perfectly legal ways to influence the outcome of an election. I.E. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC#Super_PACs

This is why you're an insane conspiracy theorist because simple things like buying influence and lobbing for polling places to close or gerrymander are far more legal and easy to do. Yet, you still look past all of the easy and simple things to do and go straight for the criminal conspiracy.

I have two questions:
What is the issue with requiring ID to vote?
What is the issue with purging inactive voter rolls?

My area requires ID to vote, and nearly every other country does. Don't feed me some bullshit about not being able to afford an ID, or not being able to get an ID.
Voter rolls are purged of inactive voters in that district because there is no active purge as people die or move out of the district. So it is assumed that one of three things has happened if you haven't voted in a decade+: you moved out of the area and are registered somewheres else; you died; or you don't give a rat's ass about voting anyways. So where's the problem?

As an aside, if you are so worried about voting in person, which can fairly easily be done with maintaining social distancing as no one else should be in the booth with you anyways, why can you protest against in person voting in large crowded crowds?

 

[watisthis]

What is the issue with requiring ID to vote?

Voter ID laws by design make it more difficult to vote, the idea being that if its too easy to register to vote, people might do so fraudulently. In fact, as I've said over and over there's little evidence of that type of fraud occurring. See: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ere_is_in_the_united_states_almost_none_.html

First, voter ID laws typically require a potential voter to obtain a specific form of ID at cost to them. In effect, requiring that one purchase the ability to vote, a poll tax, and a barrier to the very poor.

Second, voter ID laws typically require a potential voter to obtain an ID from a specific location or set of locations, in some cases that may be dozens of miles away (Texas being a prime example, where some have to travel very far.) This is problematic if the person cannot drive and no transportation is available to them (i.e. the elderly and the rural poor), and also difficult for people that have jobs that do not give them time off to do so.

Lastly, voter ID laws require documentation that may be difficult to obtain and is typically not available free of charge. Passports and birth certs require money to obtain, and an out of town birth cert can be complicated to obtain depending on where you were born amongst other factors like not all US citizens having birth certs on file and etc.

Not everyone gets a driver's license since car ownership is beyond their financial means, or because physical limitation prohibits their qualifications as a driver, or they do not need one like most New Yorkers.

https://www.npr.org/2012/02/01/146204308/why-millions-of-americans-have-no-government-id

A good portion of US citizens do not have a government issue photo ID, most of them are voting-age African Americans. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voter-id and http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...atic-leaders-say-quarter-african-americans-d/

Moreover, an even larger portion of people over 65 do not have a government-issued photo ID. https://www.aarp.org/politics-socie...012/voter-id-laws-impact-older-americans.html

What is the issue with purging inactive voter rolls?

Nothing, if you read the first page one of my replies has a quote from me from another thread where I bring up purging inactive voters.

Don't feed me some bullshit about not being able to afford an ID, or not being able to get an ID.

Like I said, voter IDs disproportionately prevent minorities, the poor, and the elderly from voting. As a result, voter ID laws directly benefit a certain party. The harm done to minorities, the poor, and the elderly is greater than the harm prevented through voter ID laws as voter IDs deter and prevent impersonation fraud, not absentee fraud. While both types of fraud are rare, impersonation fraud is extremely rare.

nearly every other country does

I have no idea about other countries. However, I'm pretty sure in Canada you can just have someone vouch for you.

As an aside, if you are so worried about voting in person, which can fairly easily be done with maintaining social distancing as no one else should be in the booth with you anyways, why can you protest against in person voting in large crowded crowds?

That would make things even worse as if waiting in hours-long lines at 6 am to vote at a single polling station while also needing to make it to work because its the only one open in a 50-mile radius isn't voter suppression enough let's add even longer wait times.

 

[Jimmy Dean]

Voter ID laws by design make it more difficult to vote, the idea being that if its too easy to register to vote, people might do so fraudulently. In fact, as I've said over and over there's little evidence of that type of fraud occurring. See: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ere_is_in_the_united_states_almost_none_.html

First, voter ID laws typically require a potential voter to obtain a specific form of ID at cost to them. In effect, requiring that one purchase the ability to vote, a poll tax, and a barrier to the very poor.

Second, voter ID laws typically require a potential voter to obtain an ID from a specific location or set of locations, in some cases that may be dozens of miles away (Texas being a prime example, where some have to travel very far.) This is problematic if the person cannot drive and no transportation is available to them (i.e. the elderly and the rural poor), and also difficult for people that have jobs that do not give them time off to do so.

Lastly, voter ID laws require documentation that may be difficult to obtain and is typically not available free of charge. Passports and birth certs require money to obtain, and an out of town birth cert can be complicated to obtain depending on where you were born amongst other factors like not all US citizens having birth certs on file and etc.

Not everyone gets a driver's license since car ownership is beyond their financial means, or because physical limitation prohibits their qualifications as a driver, or they do not need one like most New Yorkers.

https://www.npr.org/2012/02/01/146204308/why-millions-of-americans-have-no-government-id

A good portion of US citizens do not have a government issue photo ID, most of them are voting-age African Americans. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voter-id and http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...atic-leaders-say-quarter-african-americans-d/

Moreover, an even larger portion of people over 65 do not have a government-issued photo ID. https://www.aarp.org/politics-socie...012/voter-id-laws-impact-older-americans.html



Nothing, if you read the first page one of my replies has a quote from me from another thread where I bring up purging inactive voters.



Like I said, voter IDs disproportionately prevent minorities, the poor, and the elderly from voting. As a result, voter ID laws directly benefit a certain party. The harm done to minorities, the poor, and the elderly is greater than the harm prevented through voter ID laws as voter IDs deter and prevent impersonation fraud, not absentee fraud. While both types of fraud are rare, impersonation fraud is extremely rare.



I have no idea about other countries. However, I'm pretty sure in Canada you can just have someone vouch for you.



That would make things even worse as if waiting in hours-long lines at 6 am to vote at a single polling station while also needing to make it to work because its the only one open in a 50-mile radius isn't voter suppression enough let's add even longer wait times.

ok, I hear all of these stories about it being too hard to get all of this documentation. I've been in that boat, while broke, and the state waived the fee on both the birth certificate and the I.D. I Was able to get the birth certificate done over the phone, but did have to go in to get the ID. Also, if you can't get off your ass to get a birth certificate, or to keep one, or any of the other extremely easy things to do, then you probably don't need to be voting in the first place. honestly, come on. if you cannot be assed enough to do most basic shit, you should not be weighing on on politics.

I also keep hearing all of these stories about no voting locations within 50 miles or some crap, and yet, I have never actually seen any evidence of this outside of places like rural montana, which that is expected, and most of those folk either absentee vote, or make a big day of voting, big city trip, etc.

Same thing with 'how far away places are to get an ID'. Yeah, I've lived somewhere like that before, back when I Was the only house for 2 miles in any direction. Pretty sure noone out there was the type of person you are claiming the right is trying to disenfranchise or prevent from voting. The people you are describing as being unable to vote because of this, LIVE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAMN CITY WHERE THE REST OF US HAVE TO GET TO TO GET OUR ID'S! This is an absolutely horrid argument. No one in Portland, Or Detroit, or Chicago, or Houston or New York, or where the hell ever major city is more than a walk or $1.50 bus ride to a location they can get an ID.

Again, if you can't be assed enough to care enough to get an ID, you should not be voting anyways.

And yet, the rural poor still have IDs. How do I know? I was one. And the rural poor aren't the ones without cars and drivers licenses...maybe expired or suspended licenses, but licenses none the less.

Oh wait, maybe the don't have money, and don't have time to do all of that work.

wait, what? they don't have money because they don't have a job? So...how do they not have time?
oh, they're working all the time but broke so can't get an ID, or something? so they can't find 10-15 dollars in the last 4 years after making a few hundred a week to go get an ID? It's just, every time I hear these excuses, they end up falling completely apart because none of it makes sense. It only makes sense when you realize that people either can't get off their asses to get shit done, or they have a vested interest in preventing safeguards from being enacted.

About the only part of your argument I agree somewhat with is on the elderly, except again, if they're at the point to where they can't keep up with documents and names and dates enough to keep their ID, or provide the proper information to get a new one, then their mental facilities are no longer strong enough for them to be voting either. But again, I guess that is what some people want though right? Brainless voters, or people on the rolls who won't vote so that votes can be assigned elsewhere? Dunno. Not buying these lame, bullshit excuses about ID's being required to vote being a poll tax (which was the equivalent of about $35-$40 today).

Now, I do support a program to provide completely free ID's on request, but note that when asked, most places will waive small fees, or direct people to orginazations that will cover the costs to get people essential paperwork and IDs.

 

[Interceptor]

I do not understand how anyone in the USA can manage without an ID. That s the first request of government agencies, banks, law enforcement, etc...

Is it possible for me to live without an ID ??? Seems that would increase the odds of fraud for SNAP etc.. is it not a legal requirement to have a Social Security card? Medicaid/Medicare card to a lot of individuals.

The argument for not requiring an ID makes no sense to me. Makes me wonder why??

Sorry I'm too mean to feel sorry for someone that is so financialy strapped they can't get an ID. America is not the property stricken land that it is made out to be. Too many helping hands for me too believe someone can not afford an ID.

 

[watisthis]

I could go on and on about the 24th amendment and such but it's quite simple in my eyes.

https://imgur.com/83u2YOG

This illustrates the general idea and why voter ID laws are cumbersome and dumb. To see why they're discriminatory, just note that in reality, the people on the left side are disproportionately minorities compared to Texas' population as a whole/

Who goes through life without an ID? Consider the photo ID you personally have on you. What is it? Drivers ID? Passport? Work ID? Student ID? Anything else? Is it expired? Did you change the address? Etc, etc. Now consider that there are plenty of people who don't drive, don't travel internationally, arent in school, and don't work at a place that issues photo ID. Those are the people we're talking about, along with the people who don't have the time to get out and do these things because not everyone lives the same life you do. Might be only 3 or 4 percent of the adult population, sure. But in this circumstance that is still a huge number of people Texas and plenty of other states saying cannot vote anymore. And they're denying all those thousands of people a vote to 'solve' a much, much smaller 'problem' of voter fraud.

Add the fact that states have biased requirements for what constitutes a proper ID, how many forms of residence, bills, ID, etc you need to get an ID, etc.

The simple fact is it disenfranchises people from doing one of the most American things possible and for what? https://votingrights.news21.com/article/election-fraud/ 10 cases of voter impersonation between 2000-2012, now compare that to the 11% https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/debunking-misinformation-photo-id or close to 22 million Americans who would be inconvenienced by having to get photo ID, and it's easy to see it's not the best idea.

If you're poor and working a low-income job, it makes absolutely no sense to go to the trouble and that is exactly what we're talking about here. Add up the cost of the ID, the time of getting one, the cost of traveling to the DMV prob multiple times, the cost of mailing things, the cost of missing work, and so much more. It is a poll tax and it is unconstitutional.

Now, in Canada, everyone has a healthcare photo ID because it's a basic service.

 

[Jimmy Dean]

I could go on and on about the 24th amendment and such but it's quite simple in my eyes.

https://imgur.com/83u2YOG

This illustrates the general idea and why voter ID laws are cumbersome and dumb. To see why they're discriminatory, just note that in reality, the people on the left side are disproportionately minorities compared to Texas' population as a whole/

Who goes through life without an ID? Consider the photo ID you personally have on you. What is it? Drivers ID? Passport? Work ID? Student ID? Anything else? Is it expired? Did you change the address? Etc, etc. Now consider that there are plenty of people who don't drive, don't travel internationally, arent in school, and don't work at a place that issues photo ID. Those are the people we're talking about, along with the people who don't have the time to get out and do these things because not everyone lives the same life you do. Might be only 3 or 4 percent of the adult population, sure. But in this circumstance that is still a huge number of people Texas and plenty of other states saying cannot vote anymore. And they're denying all those thousands of people a vote to 'solve' a much, much smaller 'problem' of voter fraud.

Add the fact that states have biased requirements for what constitutes a proper ID, how many forms of residence, bills, ID, etc you need to get an ID, etc.

The simple fact is it disenfranchises people from doing one of the most American things possible and for what? https://votingrights.news21.com/article/election-fraud/ 10 cases of voter impersonation between 2000-2012, now compare that to the 11% https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/debunking-misinformation-photo-id or close to 22 million Americans who would be inconvenienced by having to get photo ID, and it's easy to see it's not the best idea.

If you're poor and working a low-income job, it makes absolutely no sense to go to the trouble and that is exactly what we're talking about here. Add up the cost of the ID, the time of getting one, the cost of traveling to the DMV prob multiple times, the cost of mailing things, the cost of missing work, and so much more. It is a poll tax and it is unconstitutional.

Now, in Canada, everyone has a healthcare photo ID because it's a basic service.

So, having to have ID in the US is disenfranchising, but having to have ID in Canada is just okey fucking dokey?
if you are poor and working a low income job......so...the not-so-legal cash under the table one where IDs are required to get employment? Remind me again WHY that person should be voting? Or why they are working a job that is not above board in the first place? Because my holiday job when I was 16 at the toy store required an ID to be hired. Everywhere I have worked since has required an ID to be hired. Also, has to be a not above board job, otherwise you'd be being paid via check or direct deposit. which requires a bank....who like people to have IDs to do...well.....anything.
OMG! SOMEONE MAY BE INCONVENIENCED BY HAVING TO GET AN ID. And? I am inconvenienced by people on the road, doesn't mean I can make them get off the road. inconveniences are a part of life and living, along with learning how to deal with them.
Biased requirements? Like, two agreeing documents that you are who you say you are, or at least two documents that you can steal from someone to say that you are them? It's not that hard. A birth certificate or SS card, and a utility bill, or paystub, or basically anything that has your name and address on the same piece of paper. what are the requirements to get a birth certificate?

since you bring up Texas:
22 bucks, online, no need to go anywhere (been this way for YEARS btw...)

• Full name of the individual on the Birth Certificate
• City or county where the birth took place
• Full name of the father on the Birth Certificate, if listed
• Full maiden name of the mother on the Birth Certificate, if listed
• Your current Driver License or state-issued Identification Card*
• Your Social Security number*

*This information is only required if you are ordering a protected record (if the date of birth occurred within the last 75 years).
And the DL# isn't needed if you don't friggen have one (but if they run the BC and it comes up with a liscense number associated with it....ruh-roh...something fishy going on here.

Hell, I've been spending some time reading areguments against it. turns out, nearly every state now provides FREE non-driving IDs. So, what is the excuse now? The wait at the DMV takes too long.

You have got to be friggen kidding me people.

 

[watisthis]

So, having to have ID in the US is disenfranchising, but having to have ID in Canada is just okey fucking dokey?

These are government provided IDs to everyone, free of charge, and without requiring them to go through multiple tasks.

Most countries have a national ID that is given to everyone, the USA does not.

if you are poor and working a low income job......so...the not-so-legal cash under the table one where IDs are required to get employment?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-we-did-the-research/?utm_term=.99710024e82c
and
https://thinkprogress.org/2016-a-case-study-in-voter-suppression-258b5f90ddcd/

Plenty of linked references in there.

Lastly, let me make this absolutely fucking clear...

You guys are completely ignoring the history of voting rights in the US. There was a 100 year period where there was a Constitutional Amendment ensuring people of color had the right to vote, yet state and local laws put hurdles in place which effectively made it illegal, or virtually impossible, for people of color to vote.

Every single one of these laws was passed with justifications other than 'to prevent nonwhites from voting', but that was the real reason behind all of them. They instituted 'grandfather clauses', which said a person could only vote if their grandfather had been eligible to vote. The reason given was to prevent voter fraud from immigrants, but it also makes it illegal for black people to vote, as their grandfathers had been slaves, and ineligible to vote. They passed poll taxes, giving the justification that running elections are expensive, and the poll tax is meant to fund them. However, they were set at a level which made it incredibly difficult for poor non whites to vote, then gave poll tax waivers to people deemed 'in financial trouble', a qualification ill-defined enough as to allow the poll workers to give a waiver to whomever they wanted.

They began literacy tests, ostensibly to ensure that only someone informed on the issues would vote. The tests were phrased in such a way as to essentially make them trick questions. Depending on how the question was interpreted, multiple answers could be considered correct. The poll workers then 'graded' the test on the spot, and if you got even a single question wrong, you were ineligible to vote. They used the trick questions to prevent people of color from voting, regardless of how they did on the tests.

These practices, along with illegal acts like intimidation and threats of violence, effectively make it impossible for people of color to vote while the people making the laws continuously argued that the rules were about ensuring the integrity of the vote. The problem was so pervasive in certain parts of the country (Jim Crow south) that, in the 1960s, the US passed the voting rights act to eliminate these rules. On top of trying to make voting access equal to all people, regardless of skin color, it also said that any state with a history of racial discrimination in their voting practices had to have any future change to their voting laws approved by the federal gov't before putting those changes into law. Under this system, racial diversity among elected representatives skyrocketed. Voter turnout among people of color also shot up. The problems were by no means fixed, but the law did a lot of help to set us on the right course.


Now, let's fast forward to the early 2010s, after the voting rights act had been in place for nearly 50 years with little to no effort to institute voter ID laws anywhere in the country, the supreme court found unconstitutional the portion of the voting rights act which specified certain states with a history of racial discrimination had to get federal pre-clearance on changes to their voting laws. Now, stats with a history of racial discrimination no longer needed clearance to change their voting laws. The first voter ID laws were introduced in state legislatures within weeks of the ruling.

Couple this with the fact that the justification given for the voter ID laws is nonexistent. The reason given is always that it will strengthen the voting system, and make it more difficult for voter fraud. Voter fraud in the form of people pretending to be someone other than who they really are, and voting under that assumed identity, is virtually nonexistent in the US as I have gone over this ad nauseam.

This fact, combined with the history behind voting laws in the US, and the timing of the introduction of voter ID laws (immediately after the SCOTUS shot down the relevant portion of the voting rights act) paints A VERY FUCKING CLEAR PICTURE.

All these issues combine to make the conservative argument in favor of voter ID laws seem disingenuous, at best, and a thinly veiled attempt to limit access to the ballot box, at worst. This is why progressive and liberals are strongly opposed to voter ID laws.

Yes, IDs are required in many aspects of American life. A national ID system would help address many inequalities, not just in voting, for many low-income, elderly, people of color, etc. I would be willing to compromise on the issues by requiring ID to vote, but only if the gov't provided the IDs to everyone, free of charge, and without requiring them to go somewhere to get the ID. If the IDs were provided in such a way as to be completely cost-free and hassle-free to acquire, I'll take the compromise.

Every time I've ever tried to suggest this compromise to someone strongly pushing for voter ID law, however, the response I get is that it's too expensive to do that and that it's, 'not that big of a burden to get an ID, so they should just suck it up and get one.' And that just is not fucking true for everyone. https://thehill.com/policy/transpor...ense-offices-in-alabama-violates-civil-rights There are plenty of examples of this type of shit.


I'm done talking about how there are issues with this system as it is absolutely clear. Rather, talk about how you believe you can make things better for every American no matter their income, schedule, or what have you. If you are American you should 100% have the opportunity to cast your vote and it should be counted none of this absentee ballots lost bullshit, etc.

 

[Jimmy Dean]

These are government provided IDs to everyone, free of charge, and without requiring them to go through multiple tasks.

Most countries have a national ID that is given to everyone, the USA does not.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-we-did-the-research/?utm_term=.99710024e82c
and
https://thinkprogress.org/2016-a-case-study-in-voter-suppression-258b5f90ddcd/

Plenty of linked references in there.

Lastly, let me make this absolutely fucking clear...

You guys are completely ignoring the history of voting rights in the US. There was a 100 year period where there was a Constitutional Amendment ensuring people of color had the right to vote, yet state and local laws put hurdles in place which effectively made it illegal, or virtually impossible, for people of color to vote.

Every single one of these laws was passed with justifications other than 'to prevent nonwhites from voting', but that was the real reason behind all of them. They instituted 'grandfather clauses', which said a person could only vote if their grandfather had been eligible to vote. The reason given was to prevent voter fraud from immigrants, but it also makes it illegal for black people to vote, as their grandfathers had been slaves, and ineligible to vote. They passed poll taxes, giving the justification that running elections are expensive, and the poll tax is meant to fund them. However, they were set at a level which made it incredibly difficult for poor non whites to vote, then gave poll tax waivers to people deemed 'in financial trouble', a qualification ill-defined enough as to allow the poll workers to give a waiver to whomever they wanted.

They began literacy tests, ostensibly to ensure that only someone informed on the issues would vote. The tests were phrased in such a way as to essentially make them trick questions. Depending on how the question was interpreted, multiple answers could be considered correct. The poll workers then 'graded' the test on the spot, and if you got even a single question wrong, you were ineligible to vote. They used the trick questions to prevent people of color from voting, regardless of how they did on the tests.

These practices, along with illegal acts like intimidation and threats of violence, effectively make it impossible for people of color to vote while the people making the laws continuously argued that the rules were about ensuring the integrity of the vote. The problem was so pervasive in certain parts of the country (Jim Crow south) that, in the 1960s, the US passed the voting rights act to eliminate these rules. On top of trying to make voting access equal to all people, regardless of skin color, it also said that any state with a history of racial discrimination in their voting practices had to have any future change to their voting laws approved by the federal gov't before putting those changes into law. Under this system, racial diversity among elected representatives skyrocketed. Voter turnout among people of color also shot up. The problems were by no means fixed, but the law did a lot of help to set us on the right course.


Now, let's fast forward to the early 2010s, after the voting rights act had been in place for nearly 50 years with little to no effort to institute voter ID laws anywhere in the country, the supreme court found unconstitutional the portion of the voting rights act which specified certain states with a history of racial discrimination had to get federal pre-clearance on changes to their voting laws. Now, stats with a history of racial discrimination no longer needed clearance to change their voting laws. The first voter ID laws were introduced in state legislatures within weeks of the ruling.

Couple this with the fact that the justification given for the voter ID laws is nonexistent. The reason given is always that it will strengthen the voting system, and make it more difficult for voter fraud. Voter fraud in the form of people pretending to be someone other than who they really are, and voting under that assumed identity, is virtually nonexistent in the US as I have gone over this ad nauseam.

This fact, combined with the history behind voting laws in the US, and the timing of the introduction of voter ID laws (immediately after the SCOTUS shot down the relevant portion of the voting rights act) paints A VERY FUCKING CLEAR PICTURE.

All these issues combine to make the conservative argument in favor of voter ID laws seem disingenuous, at best, and a thinly veiled attempt to limit access to the ballot box, at worst. This is why progressive and liberals are strongly opposed to voter ID laws.

Yes, IDs are required in many aspects of American life. A national ID system would help address many inequalities, not just in voting, for many low-income, elderly, people of color, etc. I would be willing to compromise on the issues by requiring ID to vote, but only if the gov't provided the IDs to everyone, free of charge, and without requiring them to go somewhere to get the ID. If the IDs were provided in such a way as to be completely cost-free and hassle-free to acquire, I'll take the compromise.

Every time I've ever tried to suggest this compromise to someone strongly pushing for voter ID law, however, the response I get is that it's too expensive to do that and that it's, 'not that big of a burden to get an ID, so they should just suck it up and get one.' And that just is not fucking true for everyone. https://thehill.com/policy/transpor...ense-offices-in-alabama-violates-civil-rights There are plenty of examples of this type of shit.


I'm done talking about how there are issues with this system as it is absolutely clear. Rather, talk about how you believe you can make things better for every American no matter their income, schedule, or what have you. If you are American you should 100% have the opportunity to cast your vote and it should be counted none of this absentee ballots lost bullshit, etc.

Ah, you're a pearl-clutcher. And you cannot move past history. Gotcha.
You think that because people did bad and shitty things in the past, that what people want to do not is for bad and shitty reasons. I don't want voter ID laws to disenfranchise anyone who has a right to vote. Hence why I believe in providing free IDs and streamlining the system some. But I still believe in having proof of being who you say you are.

 

[watisthis]

Ah, you're a pearl-clutcher. And you cannot move past history. Gotcha.
You think that because people did bad and shitty things in the past, that what people want to do not is for bad and shitty reasons.

Go read up on Shelby v Holder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder

Also, I guess you forget the NC supreme court saying voter ID laws targeted minorities with almost surgical like precision. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/north-carolina-voter-id/
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-d...argeted-african-americans-surgical-precision/

The most damaging part about this particular case is the legislature REQUESTED and USED data on what kind of voting were most commonly used by African Americans. As such, they excluded IDs that African Americans were more likely to have, and eliminated voting methods they were more likely to use. But they kept mail-in ballots, which are arguably the voting form most susceptible to fraud as said by our current President and the current GOP. It's abundantly clear at every turn the voting laws were designed to restrict votes from minorities not to reduce voter fraud.

Do you need some more? Because apparently if you don't know about it it just does not happen.

But I still believe in having proof of being who you say you are.

I agree, I'm not saying we shouldn't prove people voting are Americans, but there needs to be a hassle-free, cost-free way to do this. But like I said, no one is committing voter impersonation or voter fraud at levels people seem to believe is happening.

 

[Caballus]

Our vehement insistence on the right to bear arms is founded on a historical distrust of government, which was instilled in our nation at birth. We also have a painful history of that same government that we are conditioned to distrust suppressing our citizens' right to vote. Our distrust may or may not be logical, but its origins are understandable.

Rejecting a requirement to possess a government ID is a manifestation of that same mistrust of the government and seen as an infringement upon our freedom. To possess a government ID you have to register personal details with the government. Consider that the requiring SSNs is a relatively recent development for that same reason. It was not that long ago that you only needed an SSN if you had a job; it's about taxes.

As for what other countries do, it's curious that we use those who require IDs as an example. Most of the same countries severely restrict gun ownership, require all adults to vote, have an income tax rate of about 48%, VAT of at least 19%, national education requirements, nationally mandated COVID mask policies, dog tax, tv tax, nationally managed health care... But they are right about their voter ID requirement?

Sponsored