Can someone please explain to me WTF these Dems are b|tching about?

[davebg 0]

Can someone please explain to me how requiring ID in order to vote is intimidating and a burden on voters?

 

Hell, even Jimmy "Peanut" Carter is for it.

 

I'm sorry, but unless someone can convince me otherwise, I see this as nothing more than the Dems pandering to those who have no business voting in the first place.

The House yesterday passed legislation that would require voters to show a valid photo identification in federal elections over the overwhelming objections of Democrats who compared the bill to segregation-era measures aimed at disenfranchising Southern blacks.

 

The Federal Election Integrity Act was approved on a nearly party-line 228-196 vote. Republicans backed the bill 224-3, with three nonvoters; Democrats opposed it 192-4, with five nonvoters. They were joined in opposition by the House's one independent member.

 

The so-called "Voter ID" bill, aimed at stamping out voter fraud, would require voters in federal elections to provide picture identification by 2008 and provide proof of U.S. citizenship by 2010. It was among the recommendations made last year by the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, headed by former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, a Republican.

 

"Effective voter registration and voter identification are bedrocks of a modern election system," they wrote in their final report.

 

But Democrats, siding with groups that work on behalf of minorities and illegal aliens, called the bill a "modern-day poll tax" and said it would place an insurmountable burden on voters and infringe upon their voting rights.

 

"Show me the examples of the problem you're trying to solve," demanded Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat who accused Republicans of trying to appeal to the "fear and -- yes, perhaps -- the prejudices of people."

 

A Republican cited a study by Johns Hopkins University that found 1,500 dead people who had voted in recent elections. Mr. Hoyer belittled the study, saying no criminal convictions for voter fraud had been won in any of those cases.

 

Mr. Bilbray pointed out that such convictions might be obtained if proper identification were required.

 

"Voter fraud is not something you can come back to after the fraud is committed," he said. "The person who voted for those dead people is long gone by the time it comes up on the record."

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...23316-5086r.htm

[Isotopes 1]

I have no idea. I lean democrat on several issues but I do not understand why having ID would be an unreasonable request when voting. I was extremely surprised the first time I voted that I didn't need one. It really seems like a no brainer and should have been required a long time ago.

[Giants Fan 85]

A local democrat in Arizona actually got attacked for having an ad that informed voters on what kind of ID you needed to vote.

 

You know what really cracks me up, is John Kyl calling Jim Peterson's ads "attack ads". The ads talk about how Kyle votes with Bush 95% of the time.

 

If that's an attack ad ... that doesn't say a lot for Kyl's recent support of Bush. Kyl has countered with attack ads that take Petersons words and twist them, like "I voted for it, before I voted against it." It's Kyl and HIS CRONIES that are behind the misleading attack ads!

 

Unless Kyl renounces Bush .... the Peterson ads simply point out the connection. That's an attack ad?

 

Funny.

[edjr 5,573]

I have an idea.

 

Don't tell voters, but once they step into the little booth, lock it and ask for ID. If they don't have ID, the floor opens up and they fall into a large cage. After the night is over, take the cage and drop it just outside of the united states.

[davebg 0]

If this passes through the Sneate and becomes a law I wonder what will happen. Do you think that all of a sudden some of those pro-(illegal) immigrant Dems will change their tune when they realize that these people who they are fighting for can't illegally vote for them anymore?

[D_House 0]

politicians cry when they think they are losing votes. never mind doing the right thing.

 

illegals should not be voting, and is not any more difficult for a US citizen who is a minority to produce an ID than for anyone else to.

[Giants Fan 85]

Yeah um ... the point is, YOU CAN'T VOTE if you are a Canadian. You need American ID.

[DaWeffa 0]

only 2 things that I can think of....

 

1) there must be some sort of fine print in the bill that the dems dont like (which is usually the case but never hear about

 

2 ) dems are worried, legitamatly so, that this would cause even lower turn out in elections.....people already dont vote, just thhink if they all have to get cards etc in order to do that....and this would mainly effect the poor minorities because they usually have to be bused to the polls, now they would all have to be bused to get their cards or whatever...

[davebg 0]

2 ) dems are worried, legitamatly so, that this would cause even lower turn out in elections.....people already dont vote, just thhink if they all have to get cards etc in order to do that....and this would mainly effect the poor minorities because they usually have to be bused to the polls, now they would all have to be bused to get their cards or whatever...

What cards? A driver's license?

 

The bill calls for picture ID by 2008...and proof of citizenship by 2010. Now, that secord part about proof of citizenship is a little fuzzy. I'm not sure if they mean people would have to produce a passport or if they would just mandate that the states begin to identify citizens vs. non-citizens when issuing a driver's license, but I would think that it would be relatively easy to work that out.

[hoytdwow 202]

One of the problems is that the bill requires people to show ID that proves they are a U.S. citizen in order to vote....

Look in your wallet...you don't have this. Neither do I, neither does anyone else.

It means they have to come up with some kind of national ID card, at gigantic expense, or everybody has to get a passport at gigantic uselessness and inconvenience.

 

HTH!

[paradoxical 1]

One of the problems is that the bill requires people to show ID that proves they are a U.S. citizen in order to vote....

Look in your wallet...you don't have this. Neither do I, neither does anyone else.

It means they have to come up with some kind of national ID card, at gigantic expense, or everybody has to get a passport at gigantic uselessness and inconvenience.

 

HTH!

actually national ID cards are already on the way.

[PackerAttacker 0]

One of the problems is that the bill requires people to show ID that proves they are a U.S. citizen in order to vote....

Look in your wallet...you don't have this. Neither do I, neither does anyone else.

It means they have to come up with some kind of national ID card, at gigantic expense, or everybody has to get a passport at gigantic uselessness and inconvenience.

 

HTH!

 

Incorrect. A drivers licence is legit ID. Im 100% positive of this (Its been debated in Wisconsin a ton because Jim Doyle is so against it). The dems claim this discriminates because some poor people dont have a drivers license. The law provides free transporation to the DMV to obtain a identity card that could be used for voting. Ive never understood why verifying votes are real is a bad thing....

 

It makes me sick when I go to vote and people use an envelope with their name and address on it as their ID. It makes me absolutely sick. I could print off some evelopes and go vote for all my neighbors if I wanted.

[davebg 0]

One of the problems is that the bill requires people to show ID that proves they are a U.S. citizen in order to vote....

Look in your wallet...you don't have this. Neither do I, neither does anyone else.

It means they have to come up with some kind of national ID card, at gigantic expense, or everybody has to get a passport at gigantic uselessness and inconvenience.

 

HTH!

As I pointed out, the citizenship requirement wouldn't go into effect until 2010.

 

Also, considering all the new drivers licenses that are being introduced have the ability to be scanned there is no reason that the information could not be stored on the ID. Of course, that is assuming that it would be too hard to just put a citizen/non-citizen box on the ID (I mean, if we can keep track of someone's eye color on a drivers license, then why is it so hard to keep track of whether or not they're a citizen?)

 

As for your comment about a passport...most of us will have to get them sooner rather than later anyway, as they will be required for any international travel (no more just having a driver's license when coming back from Canada, Mexico or the Caribbean.)

 

But for the sake of argument, let's say that this did require a national ID card. Yes, it would be expensive and inconvenient. However, considering the importance of voting and how it is at the center of our government and our way of life wouldn't it be worth the expense and inconvenience to make sure that we got it right...to help guarantee the integrity of the process? Many people oppose electronic voting machines b/c they believe that it puts the voting process at risk of fraud. Why is this any different? Why does it seem as if many of the same people who oppose electronic voting machines are also the ones who are opposing showing ID to vote?

[hoytdwow 202]

Incorrect. A drivers licence is legit ID. Im 100% positive of this (Its been debated in Wisconsin a ton because Jim Doyle is so against it). The dems claim this discriminates because some poor people dont have a drivers license. The law provides free transporation to the DMV to obtain a identity card that could be used for voting. Ive never understood why verifying votes are real is a bad thing....

 

It makes me sick when I go to vote and people use an envelope with their name and address on it as their ID. It makes me absolutely sick. I could print off some evelopes and go vote for all my neighbors if I wanted.

 

No.

"The so-called "Voter ID" bill, aimed at stamping out voter fraud, would require voters in federal elections to provide picture identification by 2008 and provide proof of U.S. citizenship by 2010."

 

Link

 

Does your license show that you are a US citizen?

[davebg 0]

No.

"The so-called "Voter ID" bill, aimed at stamping out voter fraud, would require voters in federal elections to provide picture identification by 2008 and provide proof of U.S. citizenship by 2010."

 

Link

 

Does your license show that you are a US citizen?

I believe that I addressed this in my last post.

[hoytdwow 202]

As I pointed out, the citizenship requirement wouldn't go into effect until 2010.

And your point is?

[DanXIII 8]

As long as it does not disenfranchise voters I have no problem with it. In most states these laws do not meet constitutional muster, though. Not yet, anyway.

 

In order for the photo ID requirement to be legitimate states will need to figure out a way to make it as easy and painless to get a state-issued photo ID as it is to get a voter ID card. Once this is satisfied I think that everyone will be placated on this issue.

 

By the by, I find it hilarious that *some* Repubs are crying foul on the Dems on this issue when these same people have consistently fought against paper verification of votes placed electronically...

 

EDIT: And I'm also not sure what, if anything, is in the bill that addresses absentee ballots. It seems that the photo ID requirement would severely limit the ability to cast an absentee ballot (if not eliminate it entirely).

[hoytdwow 202]

As I pointed out, the citizenship requirement wouldn't go into effect until 2010.

 

Also, considering all the new drivers licenses that are being introduced have the ability to be scanned there is no reason that the information could not be stored on the ID. Of course, that is assuming that it would be too hard to just put a citizen/non-citizen box on the ID (I mean, if we can keep track of someone's eye color on a drivers license, then why is it so hard to keep track of whether or not they're a citizen?)

 

As for your comment about a passport...most of us will have to get them sooner rather than later anyway, as they will be required for any international travel (no more just having a driver's license when coming back from Canada, Mexico or the Caribbean.)

 

But for the sake of argument, let's say that this did require a national ID card. Yes, it would be expensive and inconvenient. However, considering the importance of voting and how it is at the center of our government and our way of life wouldn't it be worth the expense and inconvenience to make sure that we got it right...to help guarantee the integrity of the process? Many people oppose electronic voting machines b/c they believe that it puts the voting process at risk of fraud. Why is this any different? Why does it seem as if many of the same people who oppose electronic voting machines are also the ones who are opposing showing ID to vote?

 

I don't oppose showing ID to vote. I oppose paying millions of dollars to create national ID cards because Republicans are obsessed with Mexicans.

[davebg 0]

I don't oppose showing ID to vote. I oppose paying millions of dollars to create national ID cards because Republicans are obsessed with Mexicans.

OK...well I think I provided a decent way for us to not have to implement national ID cards (by using the existing state drivers licences.)

 

And it's not just about Mexicans. It's about felons who don't have the right to vote. It's about people voting multiple times under the names of dead people.

 

Please stop cherry picking the facts and arguments of this topic if you want your opinions to be taken seriously.

[hoytdwow 202]

Uh...care to address the three paragraphs I wrote to explain...or are you just going to cherry pick the first sentence that I wrote? :oldrolleyes:

dave, I'm not going to get involved in one of your quasi-intellectual circular arguments. You said the citizenship requirement doesn't take effect until 2010 in response to me saying the bill requires people to prove their citizenship. What difference does it make when it goes into effect? It still requires the proof. It will still require people to carry some new form of identification.

[DaWeffa 0]

As I pointed out, the citizenship requirement wouldn't go into effect until 2010.

 

Also, considering all the new drivers licenses that are being introduced have the ability to be scanned there is no reason that the information could not be stored on the ID. Of course, that is assuming that it would be too hard to just put a citizen/non-citizen box on the ID (I mean, if we can keep track of someone's eye color on a drivers license, then why is it so hard to keep track of whether or not they're a citizen?)

 

As for your comment about a passport...most of us will have to get them sooner rather than later anyway, as they will be required for any international travel (no more just having a driver's license when coming back from Canada, Mexico or the Caribbean.)

 

But for the sake of argument, let's say that this did require a national ID card. Yes, it would be expensive and inconvenient. However, considering the importance of voting and how it is at the center of our government and our way of life wouldn't it be worth the expense and inconvenience to make sure that we got it right...to help guarantee the integrity of the process? Many people oppose electronic voting machines b/c they believe that it puts the voting process at risk of fraud. Why is this any different? Why does it seem as if many of the same people who oppose electronic voting machines are also the ones who are opposing showing ID to vote?

 

1) I would say that less than 50% of us citizens would ever need to get a passport as they would not travel out of the country much less out of a 100 mile raduis of their homes.

 

2 ) if voting is so important why can we barely get a 50% turn out in any election? I am not debating the fact that voting isnt important, just pointing out that 50% of registered voters dont even vote ever, and if passed this bill would lower that number significantly (sp?) and would further increase the power of the upper class....

[davebg 0]

dave, I'm not going to get involved in one of your quasi-intellectual circular arguments. You said the citizenship requirement doesn't take effect until 2010 in response to me saying the bill requires people to prove their citizenship. What difference does it make when it goes into effect? It still requires the proof. It will still require people to carry some new form of identification.

My point in stating this fact about the bill was intended to show that there was time to come up w/a reasonable solution to the proof of citizenship issue.

 

Then I proceeded to discuss some possible solutions and explain my thoughts about them.

 

I fail to see how that is a "quasi-intellectual circular argument"...particularly in light of your explanation that the only reason that the Reps are pushing for this is b/c they are obsessed w/Mexicans.

 

Pot...meet kettle there, bub.

[hoytdwow 202]

OK...well I think I provided a decent way for us to not have to implement national ID cards (by using the existing state drivers licences.)

 

And it's not just about Mexicans. It's about felons who don't have the right to vote. It's about people voting multiple times under the names of dead people.

 

Please stop cherry picking the facts and arguments of this topic if you want your opinions to be taken seriously.

Existing state drivers licenses do not prove US citizenship. At least mine doesn't.

 

Do you really think the Republicans are after felons and others with this bill?? From the article: "The bill, which faces an uncertain future in the Senate, is part of a Republican effort to complete before the November elections a package of proposals aimed at curbing illegal immigration and its effects on ordinary Americans."

Link

 

And please spare us your lectures regarding who is making valid logical arguments.

[davebg 0]

2 ) if voting is so important why can we barely get a 50% turn out in any election? I am not debating the fact that voting isnt important, just pointing out that 50% of registered voters dont even vote ever, and if passed this bill would lower that number significantly (sp?) and would further increase the power of the upper class....

So, we shouldn't do all that we can to root out fraud when it comes to federal elections b/c of the apathy of certain segments of our society?

 

I'm sorry, but there is no way I can get behind that kind of logic.

 

Existing state drivers licenses do not prove US citizenship. At least mine doesn't.

Reading is fundamental.

Also, considering all the new drivers licenses that are being introduced have the ability to be scanned there is no reason that the information could not be stored on the ID. Of course, that is assuming that it would be too hard to just put a citizen/non-citizen box on the ID (I mean, if we can keep track of someone's eye color on a drivers license, then why is it so hard to keep track of whether or not they're a citizen?)

 

Do you really think the Republicans are after felons and others with this bill?? From the article: "The bill, which faces an uncertain future in the Senate, is part of a Republican effort to complete before the November elections a package of proposals aimed at curbing illegal immigration and its effects on ordinary Americans."

Link

 

And please spare us your lectures regarding who is making valid logical arguments.

Do I think that they are after felons and others w/this bill? I dunno. That line was stated in the article, but gave no evidence to support that assertion. I did, however, find evidence in the article supporting my assertion that this would help prevent people from voting in the name of dead people (see the part about the Johns Hopkins University study.)

[DaWeffa 0]

So, we shouldn't do all that we can to root out fraud when it comes to federal elections b/c of the apathy of certain segments of our society?

 

I'm sorry, but there is no way I can get behind that kind of logic.

 

when you alienate 50% or more of your population it isnt a segment, it is a mojority...simple math...there is no fault in trying to root out fraud, but if they really wanted to do that they would outlaw electronic voting machines that can be hacked by nearly anyone, this isnt about voter fraud, it is about keeping the elite...elite....it isnt about helping anyone other than those already in power...if they wanted to curtail fraud in the govt they would severly reform campaign finance, that is where the real fraud takes place...dont hide behind the support of a party talk about what is right and what is really wrong with the system, once that discussion takes place things will get better until then it is all about money and power...

[Cdub100 3,384]

I don't oppose showing ID to vote. I oppose paying millions of dollars to create national ID cards because Republicans are obsessed with Mexicans.

...and the gays

[davebg 0]

when you alienate 50% or more of your population it isnt a segment

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how requiring a picture ID "alienates" people.

 

ETA: As you pointed out, nearly half of those who can vote don't vote now...when there is no picture ID requirement. So, really, requiring a picture ID can't alienate 50% or more of the population. It's a mathematical impossibility. Half the country doesn't vote already. If requiring a picture ID would alienate 50% or more of the population, then there would be nobody left to vote.

 

ETA part 2: Frankly, I'm not too concerned about "alientating" a bunch of people who don't vote anyway.

[DaWeffa 0]

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how requiring a picture ID "alienates" people.

 

interesting, no argument for the real issues...

[hoytdwow 202]

Reading is fundamental.

 

davebg: OK...well I think I provided a decent way for us to not have to implement national ID cards (by using the existing state drivers licences.)

 

hoytdwow: Existing state drivers licenses do not prove US citizenship

 

davebg (quoting himself, earlier): Also, considering all the new drivers licenses that are being introduced have the ability to be scanned there is no reason that the information could not be stored on the ID

 

 

You're a fucking moron

[DaWeffa 0]

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how requiring a picture ID "alienates" people.

 

ETA: As you pointed out, nearly half of those who can vote don't vote now...when there is no picture ID requirement. So, really, requiring a picture ID can't alienate 50% or more of the population. It's a mathematical impossibility. Half the country doesn't vote already. If requiring a picture ID would alienate 50% or more of the population, then there would be nobody left to vote.

 

ETA part 2: Frankly, I'm not too concerned about "alientating" a bunch of people who don't vote anyway.

 

well it is actually possible if you use your brain to think abou tit...

 

let me illustrate:

 

as it stands now

 

50% dont vote

50% do votes

 

after ID (I will estimate)

 

70% dont vote

30% vote

 

see 70% is 50% or more

 

and you proved my point by saying there would be no one left to vote....that is correct...only the upper class would be left...that is who is in power now and look what they have done...nothing good

[Darth Vader 1]

There's no focking argument here people. At least not in Arizona. You hafta be registered, AND you hafta show ID. Last I heard, pretty sure it's always been this way, NON-U.S. Citizens can't vote in U.S. elections! You can show a YMCA card and a utility bill in your name and vote ... if you are a registered voter. Requidorded. And a local woman who is running for something or other ... put those instructions in her ad. What you need to bring with you, to vote.

 

It's almost a public service announement. I don't see what the big issue is, unless you spin it and make her look like some leftist freak!

 

Legitimate, well documented elections! We can't have that!

 

[DanXIII 8]

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how requiring a picture ID "alienates" people.

 

I thought I did in my post, but let me expand on that:

 

Despite what you may have heard, voting in this country is a surprisingly easy thing to do. Love 'em or hate 'em, one of the great advantages of political parties is that they are universally motivated to get people to the polls. People will come to your house and register you to vote (someone comes to mine every single election cycle, in fact). Volunteers from both major parties, not to mention the community at large, regularly lease vans and buses to ensure that those who cannot otherwise get to the polling places have a mode of transportation they can use, usually free of charge, to get there.

 

On the other hand, the state does not send DMV workers out to the homes of the elderly, poor and/or infirm to take their pictures and issue them drivers licenses. This is a reason that many such people do not possess picture ID's.

 

Is it starting to make sense now?

[davebg 0]

davebg: OK...well I think I provided a decent way for us to not have to implement national ID cards (by using the existing state drivers licences.)

 

hoytdwow: Existing state drivers licenses do not prove US citizenship

 

davebg (quoting himself, earlier): Also, considering all the new drivers licenses that are being introduced have the ability to be scanned there is no reason that the information could not be stored on the ID

You're a fucking moron

OK...let me break it down to the lowest common denominator so you can understand.

 

Each state currently issues drivers licenses w/picture ID.

 

Since 9/11 (and some before that) the states have undertaken efforts to update their drviers licenses. All of these new drivers licesnes that I have seen have some kind of strip on the back that can store information and be scanned.

 

There is no reason that we couldn't update these drivers licenses and encode them w/information declaring them a citizen who had the right to vote.

 

Of course, we could always just add a little field/check box on the actual license itself to indicate whether or not one has the right to vote, but really the strip/scan idea is best, as the government agency in charge of this can update somone's information via their compooters. That way, if someone dies or loses their right to vote due to a felony conviction, they can't just present the licesne and vote...the card would be scanned and the people running the polling stations would be alerted to the fact that this person doesn't have the right to vote.

 

Now, really, what is so hard to understand about that? How is that an inconvenience? I mean, that was your argument, right? That a national ID card system would be expensive and inconvenient (you said you had no problem requiring picture ID to vote.) The technology is already in place to do this.

[D_House 0]

There's no focking argument here people. At least not in Arizona. You hafta be registered, AND you hafta show ID. Last I heard, pretty sure it's always been this way, NON-U.S. Citizens can't vote in U.S. elections! You can show a YMCA card and a utility bill in your name and vote ... if you are a registered voter. Requidorded. And a local woman who is running for something or other ... put those instructions in her ad. What you need to bring with you, to vote.

 

It's almost a public service announement. I don't see what the big issue is, unless you spin it and make her look like some leftist freak!

 

Legitimate, well documented elections! We can't have that!

 

The force is strong in this one. If politicians are concerned that requiring proof of identity and citizenship will be a burden on their constituents, then here's an idea: help your focking constituents out. Educate them, like in Vader's example here.

[davebg 0]

well it is actually possible if you use your brain to think abou tit...

 

let me illustrate:

 

as it stands now

 

50% dont vote

50% do votes

 

after ID (I will estimate)

 

70% dont vote

30% vote

 

see 70% is 50% or more

 

and you proved my point by saying there would be no one left to vote....that is correct...only the upper class would be left...that is who is in power now and look what they have done...nothing good

As I stated, I could give a rat's ass about the 50% who don't already vote. The apathy of these people is not a legitimate reason to not prevent fraud in federal elections.

 

Furthermore, I think your numbers are completely made up. There is NO WAY I believe that almost half of the people who currently vote would be discouraged from voting b/c they would be required to show picture ID (and you have shown no evidence to support those numbers.)

 

In fact, I believe that what's even more likely is that the vast majority of those people who would be alienated by having to show picture ID (presumably b/c they don't have one) would come from the group of people who already are not voting.

[davebg 0]

Volunteers from both major parties, not to mention the community at large, regularly lease vans and buses to ensure that those who cannot otherwise get to the polling places have a mode of transportation they can use, usually free of charge, to get there.

And these same groups couldn't do the same to get these people to the DMV to get a picture ID?

 

You are already conceding the fact that for many of these people getting to the polling station is something that they need outside help with. How would this be any different?

[DanXIII 8]

And these same groups couldn't do the same to get these people to the DMV to get a picture ID?

 

You are already conceding the fact that for many of these people getting to the polling station is something that they need outside help with. How would this be any different?

 

Sure, I guess they *could*. The question is, would this then put an undue burden on the people who are donating their time and money in such "get out the vote" efforts. How much more money do you think such an effort would cost? Should the government (i.e., the taxpayers) foot the bill, or should the burden fall to private citizens? And, if substantial costs are incurred, how does this differ from a de facto poll tax which has already been ruled unconstitutional?

 

These are all tough questions that must be answered. I know you think that it's a simple, cut-and-dried matter, but that's because you are only seeing things from your own point of view.

 

I will reiterate: If the government can find a way to make the process of obtaining a state issued photo ID as easy as it is to register to vote then I will have no problem with such a law. I would also add a rider to the bill to require backup paper ballots for electronic voting machines, again which most Reps strangely oppose.

 

There's no focking argument here people. At least not in Arizona. You hafta be registered, AND you hafta show ID. Last I heard, pretty sure it's always been this way, NON-U.S. Citizens can't vote in U.S. elections! You can show a YMCA card and a utility bill in your name and vote ... if you are a registered voter. Requidorded. And a local woman who is running for something or other ... put those instructions in her ad. What you need to bring with you, to vote.

 

It's almost a public service announement. I don't see what the big issue is, unless you spin it and make her look like some leftist freak!

 

Legitimate, well documented elections! We can't have that!

 

 

What you're talking about is different from the law we're discussing here. This one would require someone to go out and get a PHOTO ID. That's not quite the same thing as being able to show up with a voter ID card and a cable bill.

[davebg 0]

If the government can find a way to make the process of obtaining a state issued photo ID as easy as it is to register to vote then I will have no problem with such a law.

As you well know, that is impossible. All I have to do to register to vote is fill out a piece of paper and drop it in the mail. Obviously obtaining a picture ID requires a face-to-face meeting between the person taking the picture and the person whose picture is being taken.

 

ETA: Actually, I'd like to take that back. It is not impossible. The technology exists and is readily available to take a laptop, a digital camera and a laminator/ID card machine to a remote location. The issue then becomes who would administer such a program. I don't think it would be feasible for anyone other than a government agency (like the DMV) to be given the tools to begin to issue drivers licenses on their own.

I would also add a rider to the bill to require backup paper ballots for electronic voting machines, again which most Reps strangely oppose.

As someone who does software quality assurance testing and sees first hand how easily mistakes and security breaches can happen in software and electronic devices, I am all for some sort of paper trail.

 

However, I feel that I must point out the flip side to your argument. Namely, that I find it equally strange that most Dems, who support more secure electronic voting machines happen to be the ones who oppose ensuring that those who are voting actually have the right to vote.

 

Yet again the people of this country are being help hostage by partisan politics and it makes me sick.

[Hoos 0]

To address the original question- the only argument I have seen against this initiative is that the ID card would cost citizens somewhere from $20 to $40. To the critics this represents the resurrection of a poll tax and they claim it is blatantly unconstitutional. It's probably a small amount of money to most o this bored but any amount can be construed as an attempt to limit access to the polls.

 

With that in mind, the argument has moved into the next phase because the states will likely have to provide them for free in order to avoid any legal problems. That's not a voter-restricition argument but simply a cost-based one.

 

The third argument you'll hear against it is privacy advocates concerned with the existence of a national ID. This would be the "show me you papers" argument.

 

The first one is the only one I've heard that can offer a reasonable concern related directly to voting.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

What about the elderly? Many older folks no longer have driver's licenses. How are you going to prove their citizenship. I would imagine that the AARP would have a little problem with this.

 

Unless they come up with a way to make the identification free, there is going to be some pushback here. There is a fundamental right to vote, but driving is a priviledge.