This is going around the conservo-sphere, anyone want to take a crack at it?

[maxparrish]

What's the problem? Unless you stole a book from somebody you're not going to have one that isn't yours.

It's dumb because A) it's trivially easy to steal one if you're so inclined, B) it's dumb because "it goes a bit faster" is never a good reason for not double-checking, and C) it's dumb because there's no real reason why it should be a problem to ask for photo ID. If photo ID's are so expensive that the poor can't afford them, then you've got bigger problems than whether or not foreigners are voting in your elections.

A refreshing breath of common sense. Whenever Americans hear the word "race" (coded in the words "the poor") we tend treat even dumb arguments as respectable.

 

[bigfield]

delete

 

[maxparrish]

What's the problem? Unless you stole a book from somebody you're not going to have one that isn't yours.

It's dumb because A) it's trivially easy to steal one if you're so inclined, B) it's dumb because "it goes a bit faster" is never a good reason for not double-checking, and C) it's dumb because there's no real reason why it should be a problem to ask for photo ID. If photo ID's are so expensive that the poor can't afford them, then you've got bigger problems than whether or not foreigners are voting in your elections.

A refreshing breath of common sense. Whenever Americans hear the words "race" (also coded in the word 'poor') we tend treat even dumb arguments as respectable.

 

[skepticalbip]

Any such hassle can't be more than minor at best. If you're not even willing to go through a minimum of effort to obtain a photo ID, then why should you be allowed to influence national policy?

Yes, I think the Democrats should quit wining and embrace voter ID. Mostly so the Republicans would shut up. If the Dems made helping people get ID as part of GOTV it would be money well spent. It would also benefit those without ID in a thousand other ways.

The reason for resistance to voter ID isn't the cost or inconvenience (for the poor) although that is the red herring that is thrown up. In my state, IDs are free and the government will send a van to anyone's home to take the photo and gather the required information, at no cost, if it is requested. And yet there is still opposition to IDs being required.

 

[dystopian]

It's dumb because A) it's trivially easy to steal one if you're so inclined, B) it's dumb because "it goes a bit faster" is never a good reason for not double-checking, and C) it's dumb because there's no real reason why it should be a problem to ask for photo ID. If photo ID's are so expensive that the poor can't afford them, then you've got bigger problems than whether or not foreigners are voting in your elections.

A refreshing breath of common sense. Whenever Americans hear the word "race" (coded in the words "the poor") we tend treat even dumb arguments as respectable.

Please don't assume I agree with you on matters of race or poverty, I'm pretty sure we don't.

 

[dystopian]

The reason for resistance to voter ID isn't the cost or inconvenience (for the poor) although that is the red herring that is thrown up. In my state, IDs are free and the government will send a van to anyone's home to take the photo and gather the required information, at no cost, if it is requested. And yet there is still opposition to IDs being required.

I remember some debates with Americans on ID in the past, right around the time when over here a mandatory ID card was introduced. There were people here who had the same arguments as the americans did; mostly relating to privacy and the like. The thing though is, that the mandatory ID hasn't infringed on privacy much, if at all. Having it with you has been nothing but an advantage, and the idealogical arguments against have all evaporated. Cost should definitely be brought down in the opinion of most people (though of course, the government isn't likely to just give up on forcing people to renew it for a solid fee every once in a while), but that aside; it's been a net positive.

 

[skepticalbip]

The reason for resistance to voter ID isn't the cost or inconvenience (for the poor) although that is the red herring that is thrown up. In my state, IDs are free and the government will send a van to anyone's home to take the photo and gather the required information, at no cost, if it is requested. And yet there is still opposition to IDs being required.

I remember some debates with Americans on ID in the past, right around the time when over here a mandatory ID card was introduced. There were people here who had the same arguments as the americans did; mostly relating to privacy and the like. The thing though is, that the mandatory ID hasn't infringed on privacy much, if at all. Having it with you has been nothing but an advantage, and the idealogical arguments against have all evaporated. Cost should definitely be brought down in the opinion of most people (though of course, the government isn't likely to just give up on forcing people to renew it for a solid fee every once in a while), but that aside; it's been a net positive.

I absolutely agree (although in my state it is difficult to reduce the cost lower than free). It is a means to reduce voter fraud as intended but also is useful in other areas of daily life like cashing a check, opening accounts, or any activity where identification is needed. I can only imagine that the political opposition must be because one party believes that it will eliminate some of their base as voters which is an absurd fear if the voters are legally eligible to vote.

 

[KeepTalking]

The reason for resistance to voter ID isn't the cost or inconvenience (for the poor) although that is the red herring that is thrown up. In my state, IDs are free and the government will send a van to anyone's home to take the photo and gather the required information, at no cost, if it is requested. And yet there is still opposition to IDs being required.

I remember some debates with Americans on ID in the past, right around the time when over here a mandatory ID card was introduced. There were people here who had the same arguments as the americans did; mostly relating to privacy and the like. The thing though is, that the mandatory ID hasn't infringed on privacy much, if at all. Having it with you has been nothing but an advantage, and the idealogical arguments against have all evaporated. Cost should definitely be brought down in the opinion of most people (though of course, the government isn't likely to just give up on forcing people to renew it for a solid fee every once in a while), but that aside; it's been a net positive.

I would imagine that your country implemented the mandatory ID as a whole with the intent to make sure that all citizens were able to easily obtain that ID. That is not the case in the good ole USA, where it is the states that are attempting to implement the mandatory ID, and in many of those states the intent is quite the opposite. Those with republicans in charge want to disenfranchise voters who they don't expect to vote republican, and take pains to make sure those folks have a more difficult time obtaining the ID, or using whatever ID they have. You have a gun registration card, no problem, you can vote! Student ID, sorry kid, you're probably too informed to vote, get the fuck out! Or, it's easy to get ID, you just need to go down to the DMV to do it. Oh, you live in the inner city, well the one DMV that is anywhere close to you is only open 3 days a week, from 10am to 4pm, but not during lunch, and not on weekends, so if you have to punch a clock, you're outta luck. We closed all of the other DMV locations in your city, but there are plenty of them still open in rural areas. Those rural locations are open all week, probably even Saturday, with reasonable hours, and serve 1/10th of the population of your inner city DMV. Why, because that's where the R's live.

- - - Updated - - -

I remember some debates with Americans on ID in the past, right around the time when over here a mandatory ID card was introduced. There were people here who had the same arguments as the americans did; mostly relating to privacy and the like. The thing though is, that the mandatory ID hasn't infringed on privacy much, if at all. Having it with you has been nothing but an advantage, and the idealogical arguments against have all evaporated. Cost should definitely be brought down in the opinion of most people (though of course, the government isn't likely to just give up on forcing people to renew it for a solid fee every once in a while), but that aside; it's been a net positive.

I absolutely agree (although in my state it is difficult to reduce the cost lower than free). It is a means to reduce voter fraud as intended but also is useful in other areas of daily life like cashing a check, opening accounts, or any activity where identification is needed. I can only imagine that the political opposition must be because one party believes that it will eliminate some of their base as voters which is an absurd fear if the voters are legally eligible to vote.

It is not absurd when you look at some of the States that have implemented voter ID, and how they used every trick they could think of to disenfranchise poor inner city voters.

 

[skepticalbip]

I remember some debates with Americans on ID in the past, right around the time when over here a mandatory ID card was introduced. There were people here who had the same arguments as the americans did; mostly relating to privacy and the like. The thing though is, that the mandatory ID hasn't infringed on privacy much, if at all. Having it with you has been nothing but an advantage, and the idealogical arguments against have all evaporated. Cost should definitely be brought down in the opinion of most people (though of course, the government isn't likely to just give up on forcing people to renew it for a solid fee every once in a while), but that aside; it's been a net positive.

I would imagine that your country implemented the mandatory ID as a whole with the intent to make sure that all citizens were able to easily obtain that ID. That is not the case in the good ole USA, where it is the states that are attempting to implement the mandatory ID, and in many of those states the intent is quite the opposite. Those with republicans in charge want to disenfranchise voters who they don't expect to vote republican, and take pains to make sure those folks have a more difficult time obtaining the ID, or using whatever ID they have. You have a gun registration card, no problem, you can vote! Student ID, sorry kid, you're probably too informed to vote, get the fuck out! Or, it's easy to get ID, you just need to go down to the DMV to do it. Oh, you live in the inner city, well the one DMV that is anywhere close to you is only open 3 days a week, from 10am to 4pm, but not during lunch, and not on weekends, so if you have to punch a clock, you're outta luck. We closed all of the other DMV locations in your city, but there are plenty of them still open in rural areas. Those rural locations are open all week, probably even Saturday, with reasonable hours, and serve 1/10th of the population of your inner city DMV. Why, because that's where the R's live.

- - - Updated - - -

I remember some debates with Americans on ID in the past, right around the time when over here a mandatory ID card was introduced. There were people here who had the same arguments as the americans did; mostly relating to privacy and the like. The thing though is, that the mandatory ID hasn't infringed on privacy much, if at all. Having it with you has been nothing but an advantage, and the idealogical arguments against have all evaporated. Cost should definitely be brought down in the opinion of most people (though of course, the government isn't likely to just give up on forcing people to renew it for a solid fee every once in a while), but that aside; it's been a net positive.

I absolutely agree (although in my state it is difficult to reduce the cost lower than free). It is a means to reduce voter fraud as intended but also is useful in other areas of daily life like cashing a check, opening accounts, or any activity where identification is needed. I can only imagine that the political opposition must be because one party believes that it will eliminate some of their base as voters which is an absurd fear if the voters are legally eligible to vote.

It is not absurd when you look at some of the States that have implemented voter ID, and how they used every trick they could think of to disenfranchise poor inner city voters.

You are offering a straw man argument with assertions pulled out your arse.

My state is a Repub. stronghold that requires ID and, as I pointed out, the IDs are free and a van will come to anyone's home (for free) to take the photo if requested.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I just don't quite understand the ID required to vote thing as being a significant barrier. If you're working poor, you have ID. ID is required to work. You need a verifiable social security number and photo ID in order to fulfill the I-9 requirements. Also, you most certainly need adequate ID for public assistance. The poor usually don't have actual bank accounts and so must cash their checks at an establishment of some sort that will require ID.

I'm sure there are people so poor and in such bad circumstances that obtaining ID would be difficult. Those people honestly probably have bigger concerns than going out to vote, and I doubt that they're overly concerned about it.

 

[KeepTalking]

I would imagine that your country implemented the mandatory ID as a whole with the intent to make sure that all citizens were able to easily obtain that ID. That is not the case in the good ole USA, where it is the states that are attempting to implement the mandatory ID, and in many of those states the intent is quite the opposite. Those with republicans in charge want to disenfranchise voters who they don't expect to vote republican, and take pains to make sure those folks have a more difficult time obtaining the ID, or using whatever ID they have. You have a gun registration card, no problem, you can vote! Student ID, sorry kid, you're probably too informed to vote, get the fuck out! Or, it's easy to get ID, you just need to go down to the DMV to do it. Oh, you live in the inner city, well the one DMV that is anywhere close to you is only open 3 days a week, from 10am to 4pm, but not during lunch, and not on weekends, so if you have to punch a clock, you're outta luck. We closed all of the other DMV locations in your city, but there are plenty of them still open in rural areas. Those rural locations are open all week, probably even Saturday, with reasonable hours, and serve 1/10th of the population of your inner city DMV. Why, because that's where the R's live.

- - - Updated - - -

I remember some debates with Americans on ID in the past, right around the time when over here a mandatory ID card was introduced. There were people here who had the same arguments as the americans did; mostly relating to privacy and the like. The thing though is, that the mandatory ID hasn't infringed on privacy much, if at all. Having it with you has been nothing but an advantage, and the idealogical arguments against have all evaporated. Cost should definitely be brought down in the opinion of most people (though of course, the government isn't likely to just give up on forcing people to renew it for a solid fee every once in a while), but that aside; it's been a net positive.

I absolutely agree (although in my state it is difficult to reduce the cost lower than free). It is a means to reduce voter fraud as intended but also is useful in other areas of daily life like cashing a check, opening accounts, or any activity where identification is needed. I can only imagine that the political opposition must be because one party believes that it will eliminate some of their base as voters which is an absurd fear if the voters are legally eligible to vote.

It is not absurd when you look at some of the States that have implemented voter ID, and how they used every trick they could think of to disenfranchise poor inner city voters.

You are offering a straw man argument with assertions pulled out your arse.

Bullshit, and more bullshit. Not my fault you are not informed of the recent shenanigans, but allow me to enlighten:

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/07/25/wisconsin-walker-shuts-down-dmv-offices-in-democratic-areas-after-passing-voter-id-law/

Here’s a slick little two-step from Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. He knows that he has caused himself and his party tremendous damage by pursuing a radical right-wing agenda. He is desperate to cling to power so these policies don’t get rolled back. So one of his ideas was to pass a voter ID law to help suppress the vote in future years (this mostly won’t affect the recall elections next month). Responding to the virtually non-existent scourge of voter fraud, the bill disenfranchises low-income voters and the elderly who don’t have a picture ID like a driver’s license. Of course, Republicans could say, these voters need to merely go to any DMV and obtain a picture ID there. Simple, elegant and secure, right? Except Walker is closing down a bunch of DMV’s

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/pennsylvania-voter-id-law-dead-and-buried

A state judge ruled in January that the law, passed in 2012, violated the state constitution by imposing an unreasonable burden on the right to vote. The court found no evidence the law was necessary either to prevent fraud or to keep public confidence in the fairness of the election process.

The above law in Pennsylvania, deemed unconstitutional by the courts, was passed by a Republican legislature, and signed by a Republican Governor with no Democratic involvement whatsoever.

My state is a Repub. stronghold that requires ID and, as I pointed out, the IDs are free and a van will come to anyone's home (for free) to take the photo if requested.

In which state do you live?

 

[Sabine Grant]

The problem isn't the cost of the ID per se. Rather, it's the cost/problems of obtaining the ID. Remember the thread some months ago about who had ID? SimpleDon doesn't--and explained why it would be quite a hassle for him to obtain it. He's an educated and apparently middle class person.

Any such hassle can't be more than minor at best. If you're not even willing to go through a minimum of effort to obtain a photo ID, then why should you be allowed to influence national policy?

In the specific case cited by Loren, it has nothing to do with with "not being willing to...etc...". Don has publicly shared his status as an ALS person with severe physical disabilities. It may not disturb you that Don has to undergo a red tape based process to exercise his right to vote, but it does disturb people like me who have a thorough understanding of how disabled persons will be discouraged by such red tape based system and process (understanding resulting from my profession).

It is not " a minimum of efforts" for disabled persons. And I find your conclusion (while Loren specifically cited Don's case) questioning whether such person should be allowed to influence national policy, to be inappropriate. Especially as Don often contributes very educated and evenhanded thoughts in this PD Forum.

He has my full support to be dispensed from being subjected to a red tape based process to exercise his right to vote. And when it comes to his intellectual contribution to this Forum, I certainly wish every voter in the US had as much quality in their thoughts as he has.

 

[Daisy]

Ok please enlighten me. They are talking about "non-citizens" voting which as far as I know is illegal. How do you know the "analysis" is almost entirely conjecture. The paper is behind a pay wall. I stopped at the abstract:

Not any more. It's downloadable for free, too.

 

[KeepTalking]

I just don't quite understand the ID required to vote thing as being a significant barrier. If you're working poor, you have ID. ID is required to work. You need a verifiable social security number and photo ID in order to fulfill the I-9 requirements. Also, you most certainly need adequate ID for public assistance. The poor usually don't have actual bank accounts and so must cash their checks at an establishment of some sort that will require ID.

A Social Security number is required to work, most jobs do not require a photo ID to my knowledge. But what about the elderly, who have voted all their lives, and do not have an ID, do not work, and never drove a vehicle?

I'm sure there are people so poor and in such bad circumstances that obtaining ID would be difficult. Those people honestly probably have bigger concerns than going out to vote, and I doubt that they're overly concerned about it.

Who the hell are you to tell them they have bigger concerns than voting? And who the fuck cares if they do? They are still citizens, and they still have the right to vote. Just because having photo ID is not a problem for you, does not mean it is not a problem for anyone else.

 

[KeepTalking]

In case skepticalbip thought it was the gun license, but not student ID thing that I was making up, here's Texas' wonderful new law:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/us/supreme-court-upholds-texas-voter-id-law.html

The law, enacted in 2011, requires voters seeking to cast their ballots at the polls to present photo identification like a Texas driver’s or gun license, a military ID or a passport.

...

Justice Ginsburg also said the law “replaced the previously existing voter identification requirements with the strictest regime in the country.”

She noted that Texas would not accept several forms of ID that Wisconsin did, including “a photo ID from an in-state four-year college and one from a federally recognized Indian tribe.”

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem isn't the cost of the ID per se. Rather, it's the cost/problems of obtaining the ID. Remember the thread some months ago about who had ID? SimpleDon doesn't--and explained why it would be quite a hassle for him to obtain it. He's an educated and apparently middle class person.

Any such hassle can't be more than minor at best. If you're not even willing to go through a minimum of effort to obtain a photo ID, then why should you be allowed to influence national policy?

Did you not read his posts about it? IIRC he can't sign his name at this point--a big problem for getting a birth certificate.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I think the Democrats should quit wining and embrace voter ID. Mostly so the Republicans would shut up. If the Dems made helping people get ID as part of GOTV it would be money well spent. It would also benefit those without ID in a thousand other ways.

The reason for resistance to voter ID isn't the cost or inconvenience (for the poor) although that is the red herring that is thrown up. In my state, IDs are free and the government will send a van to anyone's home to take the photo and gather the required information, at no cost, if it is requested. And yet there is still opposition to IDs being required.

The ID is free, the supporting documentation is not. Make it truly free and I'll drop all objections.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I just don't quite understand the ID required to vote thing as being a significant barrier. If you're working poor, you have ID. ID is required to work. You need a verifiable social security number and photo ID in order to fulfill the I-9 requirements. Also, you most certainly need adequate ID for public assistance. The poor usually don't have actual bank accounts and so must cash their checks at an establishment of some sort that will require ID.

I'm sure there are people so poor and in such bad circumstances that obtaining ID would be difficult. Those people honestly probably have bigger concerns than going out to vote, and I doubt that they're overly concerned about it.

What about retirees? Or the disabled? Once you're established in life there's very little need of ID. People's ID may lapse without much consequence.

And it's quite possible to make money without ID. Look at the form that independent contractors fill out--no documentation requirement. You write your social security number, you don't prove it. The bank is happy to accept my bank-issued card for most transactions. I've only had to show additional ID when I wanted a big cashier's check. Whatever ID that account was opened with is long gone by now.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A Social Security number is required to work, most jobs do not require a photo ID to my knowledge. But what about the elderly, who have voted all their lives, and do not have an ID, do not work, and never drove a vehicle?

You need photo ID to become an employee--you're required to provide both evidence that you are you and that you are allowed to work. This usually takes the form of driver's license + social security card. I just about made HRs head explode when I provided my passport instead (I knew where it was, I know my SS card is somewhere around here but it would have taken some searching.) A passport is listed as meeting all requirements (it's not possible to have a US passport and not be eligible to work) but it doesn't prove the SS#.

Note, however, that no documentation at all is needed as an independent contractor.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In case skepticalbip thought it was the gun license, but not student ID thing that I was making up, here's Texas' wonderful new law:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/us/supreme-court-upholds-texas-voter-id-law.html

The law, enacted in 2011, requires voters seeking to cast their ballots at the polls to present photo identification like a Texas driver’s or gun license, a military ID or a passport.

...

Justice Ginsburg also said the law “replaced the previously existing voter identification requirements with the strictest regime in the country.”

She noted that Texas would not accept several forms of ID that Wisconsin did, including “a photo ID from an in-state four-year college and one from a federally recognized Indian tribe.”

In other words, a state-issued document with your name, address & photo.

The gun license bit is simply a consequence of this, not a deliberate objective of the law. I actually have a problem with accepting any school ID--for real brick & mortar schools, fine, but the fly-by-nights are another matter.

 

[KeepTalking]

In case skepticalbip thought it was the gun license, but not student ID thing that I was making up, here's Texas' wonderful new law:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/us/supreme-court-upholds-texas-voter-id-law.html

In other words, a state-issued document with your name, address & photo.

The gun license bit is simply a consequence of this, not a deliberate objective of the law. I actually have a problem with accepting any school ID--for real brick & mortar schools, fine, but the fly-by-nights are another matter.

An "an in-state four-year college" is not a fly-by-night.