Doc Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 Who cares if it happens frequently or not? The point is that certain people are not eligible to vote. If it happens even once, it's not a good thing. Hence you should have to show ID to prove that you are eligible to vote. And since voter ID is free, money can't be used as an excuse. There is really nothing more to say on this topic.
Rob's House Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 Feel free, when you have the time. But given that the purpose of a "poll tax" was to demonstrate an economic interest in the country (on the principle that, if you don't have "skin in the game", you shouldn't have a say), and given that one of the purposes of voter ID would be to ensure proper citizenship and residency, it's a very good and easy argument to make that any fee charged for voter ID is, in effect, a poll tax. Whether you agree with the statement or not. OK. In short, the only way it could be considered a poll tax would be if a specific voter registration card was required. But any legit photo ID (DL, passport, DMV ID), which you're generally expected to have anyway is a different story. Requiring ID in & of itself isn't a tax at all. To claim any requirement that at some point incurs cost is somehow a tax is absurd. To draw that out you could claim the requirement of pants to go to the polls is a poll tax; I mean ****, there are people who can't afford a pair of pants, you don't want to know about them, dude. ****, I can have a pantless vagrant here by 4:00. You could argue (and perhaps you do) that people should be able to vote by phone b/c some people can't get to the polls. Furthermore, for an ID requirement to be struck down you would have to show the intent of the legislature was to discriminate against people based on suspect classifications.
Fezmid Posted July 15, 2012 Posted July 15, 2012 For all I know there have been dozens of attempts. Thanks to my locks, we'll never know. If my doors were open all the time you'd be on point. Ahh, so you have something in place to prevent burglary? Kinda like how many people in this thread want something in place to prevent voter fraud?
IDBillzFan Posted July 15, 2012 Posted July 15, 2012 Ahh, so you have something in place to prevent burglary? Kinda like how many people in this thread want something in place to prevent voter fraud? No. That's different because...because...SHUT UP!!
The Big Cat Posted July 15, 2012 Posted July 15, 2012 Ahh, so you have something in place to prevent burglary? Kinda like how many people in this thread want something in place to prevent voter fraud? Myself included. But not because it's a problem.
Philly McButterpants Posted July 15, 2012 Posted July 15, 2012 So why is there a problem with promoting voter ID laws? What do you fear? Every state doing this is not only providing free IDs, but many are actually providing the transportation. There is simply no sane, logistical argument to NOT want voter ID laws. Not one. If there was, there would have been no need for everyone to show an ID when Holder spoke to the NAACP about being against voter ID laws. At some point we have to believe if you are smart enough to crawl out of bed, turn on a computer, get on the internet and post a comment, you MUST be smart enough to understand how embarrassingly stupid it is to suggest this voter ID laws disenfranchise minorities. It's mind-numbingly stupid, and yet you seem up for the task. Post of the year.
Philly McButterpants Posted July 15, 2012 Posted July 15, 2012 Are you serious??????????????????????????????????? Poor people, minorities, and the elderly make up most the voting block that would be affected by these laws because they are most likely not to have state photo IDs. Because they can't vote now if they don't have the ID. I may be late to the party, but since YOU insist that MILLIONS of people will be disenfranchised as a result of voter ID, please provide ANY proof that these people do not currently have any form of government issued ID. How do these poor people get healthcare? Buy beer? Get any form of government assistance? Your arguments are asinine. I am truly dumbfounded that people think this way, and are prepared to defend a position such as this over and over and over.
Philly McButterpants Posted July 15, 2012 Posted July 15, 2012 I already did. Go back, click the link, read. From the Atlantic piece. There's more. As Brentin Mock wrote earlier this week at Colorlines, the practical reality of life in Texas makes it difficult, if not impossible, for people who want to comply with the new ID law to do so. Mock wrote: Texas has no driver's license offices in almost a third of the state's counties. Meanwhile, close to 15 percent of Hispanic Texans living in counties without driver's license offices don't have ID. A little less than a quarter of driver's license offices have extended hours, which would make it tough for many working voters to find a place and time to acquire the IDs. Despite this, the Texas legislature struck an amendment that would have reimbursed low-income voters for travel expenses when going to apply for a voter ID, and killed another that would have required offices to remain open until 7:00 p.m. or later on just one weekday, and four or more hours at least two weekends. It's not mine, no. But that's how the issue is being sold--and yes, that's pretty damn close to what they're calling it. And, okay, fair enough. Do you live in this country? Do you have a job? In order to have a VALID job in the US, you need to provide a SSN and govt issued ID within 72 hours of accepting a position or the employer must separate. This is an invalid argument. Anyone who already has a job already has sufficient ID to vote. I call bullcrap.
Rob's House Posted July 15, 2012 Posted July 15, 2012 Do you live in this country? Do you have a job? In order to have a VALID job in the US, you need to provide a SSN and govt issued ID within 72 hours of accepting a position or the employer must separate. This is an invalid argument. Anyone who already has a job already has sufficient ID to vote. I call bullcrap. All these arguments are bull ****. This argument that they're so concerned, as a matter of principle, that someone might get "disenfranchised" is bogus. Their only real concern is that those on the margins, (illegals, felons, people too worthless to have an ID) will be more inclined to vote D. And while they'd rather get legitimate votes, they're not above taking the fraudulent ones too. On the flip side, if they voted R I'd still support the ID requirement, but if I'm being completely honest I think I'd be less concerned about the proprietary of things. That being said, requiringt ID is almost certain to prevent more fraudulent votes than legitimate ones, and if the ultimate goal is legitimized elections, it is a positive move.
The Big Cat Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 Do you live in this country? Do you have a job? In order to have a VALID job in the US, you need to provide a SSN and govt issued ID within 72 hours of accepting a position or the employer must separate. This is an invalid argument. Anyone who already has a job already has sufficient ID to vote. I call bullcrap. All these arguments are bull ****. This argument that they're so concerned, as a matter of principle, that someone might get "disenfranchised" is bogus. Their only real concern is that those on the margins, (illegals, felons, people too worthless to have an ID) will be more inclined to vote D. And while they'd rather get legitimate votes, they're not above taking the fraudulent ones too. On the flip side, if they voted R I'd still support the ID requirement, but if I'm being completely honest I think I'd be less concerned about the proprietary of things. That being said, requiringt ID is almost certain to prevent more fraudulent votes than legitimate ones, and if the ultimate goal is legitimized elections, it is a positive move. People should have to present ID to vote. We agree on this. BUt it's not a law right now. And there's no evidence to suggest that the current system has led to a fundamental failure to hold voter fraud in check. I find it strange that so many posters here who (rightly) rail against big government are suddenly at arms for the government to solve a problem that doesn't really exist, to preempt a problem with regulation seems to fundamentally fly in the face of the political beliefs that voter-reform advocates so frequently espouse.
3rdnlng Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) People should have to present ID to vote. We agree on this. BUt it's not a law right now. And there's no evidence to suggest that the current system has led to a fundamental failure to hold voter fraud in check. I find it strange that so many posters here who (rightly) rail against big government are suddenly at arms for the government to solve a problem that doesn't really exist, to preempt a problem with regulation seems to fundamentally fly in the face of the political beliefs that voter-reform advocates so frequently espouse. It's just the states cleaning up the voter roles. I'm sure you don't have a problem with that. Not really worth debating, is it? Edited July 16, 2012 by 3rdnlng
The Big Cat Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 It's just the states cleaning up the voter roles. I'm sure you don't have a problem with that. Not really worth debating, is it? What we're debating is the necessity of the law. I'm fully on aboard with the rationale behind it, but I'm not okay with creating solutions to problems that don't exist. I was also under the impression that the ilk demanding voter reform felt the same way about government intervention with non-problem solutions. I'm wondering why that attitude has suddenly changed...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 It should be left to the individual states to determine how they wish to conduct their election rules. The federal government has no business imposing one uniform system. Citizens are then empowered to vote with their feet as well as at the polls.
Doc Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 People should have to present ID to vote. We agree on this. BUt it's not a law right now. And there's no evidence to suggest that the current system has led to a fundamental failure to hold voter fraud in check. I find it strange that so many posters here who (rightly) rail against big government are suddenly at arms for the government to solve a problem that doesn't really exist, to preempt a problem with regulation seems to fundamentally fly in the face of the political beliefs that voter-reform advocates so frequently espouse. Who is asking government to solve the problem, per se? Just show an ID when you go to vote and the person there asks you your name. There's nothing more to it than that.
Rob's House Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 What we're debating is the necessity of the law. I'm fully on aboard with the rationale behind it, but I'm not okay with creating solutions to problems that don't exist. I was also under the impression that the ilk demanding voter reform felt the same way about government intervention with non-problem solutions. I'm wondering why that attitude has suddenly changed... A few things here: 1. Where are you getting the idea that voter fraud is non-existent? 2. ID requirements don't necessarily have to be federally mandated; individual states could require them, if the feds don't block them. 3. You didn't really just try to draw an equivalence between voting procedures and private enterprise, did you?
DC Tom Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 I was also under the impression that the ilk demanding voter reform felt the same way about government intervention with non-problem solutions. I'm wondering why that attitude has suddenly changed... That's easy: nothing's changed. You impression is completely connerifically bug-!@#$ inaccurate.
The Big Cat Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) A few things here: 1. Where are you getting the idea that voter fraud is non-existent? 2. ID requirements don't necessarily have to be federally mandated; individual states could require them, if the feds don't block them. 3. You didn't really just try to draw an equivalence between voting procedures and private enterprise, did you? That's easy: nothing's changed. You impression is completely connerifically bug-!@#$ inaccurate. I just think it's awful darn funny that after the 2000 election, GOP sympathizers stayed pretty mum on the issue of voter reform, then it SUDDENLY became a problem when...you know...HE was elected. Edited July 16, 2012 by The Big Cat
Rob's House Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 I just think it's awful darn funny that after the 2000 election, GOP sympathizers stayed pretty mum on the issue of voter reform, then it SUDDENLY became a problem when...you know...HE was elected. I don't remember this
IDBillzFan Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 I don't remember this This is why I don't bother with him. You ask simple questions, he gives answer that not only doesn't answer your questions, but has nothing to do with anything else. Learn from me. Spend time elsewhere.
Recommended Posts