Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And people will have time to get their ducks in a row to be able to vote.

Fine, you want to talk about NC?

They why isn't there an uproar about needing to provide an ID to purchase Sudaphed? According to NC's laws:

(c) A pseudoephedrine product may be sold at retail without a prescription only to a person at least 18 years of age. The retailer shall require every retail purchaser of a pseudoephedrine product to furnish a valid, unexpired, government-issued photo identification and to provide, in print or orally, a current valid personal residential address.

So, if you wanted to buy Sudaphed... 'cuz, when my allergies kicks in, I'm fething miserable, I'd need to get my gak together and have a valid government issue ID.

Just admit it Kan, you're afraid that these new rules may disenfranchise some voters. When all it is that it's simply new regulations to identify yourself prior to voting. You'd have a case... I'd be right there with you... had they done this right BEFORE a major election (like they did in PA). But, the NC voters have over TWO YEARS to get what they need in order to vote.

 whembly wrote:
And people will have time to get their ducks in a row to be able to vote.

Except for y'know, the people who might have a license/ID expire at an inconvenient time, students who might not be able to get out of school to register to vote before an election, etc.

Because as I mentioned several times--the high schools did a very good job at ensuring that students were registered to vote and were registered properly. That avenue is now gone, as is preregistering to vote when you are 16 or 17 and have received your license.

So please. Keep on pretending that "you will have time to get your ducks in a row to be able to vote" while ignoring that many of the avenues which were used to register voters are being repealed.

Fine, you want to talk about NC?

They why isn't there an uproar about needing to provide an ID to purchase Sudaphed? According to NC's laws:

(c) A pseudoephedrine product may be sold at retail without a prescription only to a person at least 18 years of age. The retailer shall require every retail purchaser of a pseudoephedrine product to furnish a valid, unexpired, government-issued photo identification and to provide, in print or orally, a current valid personal residential address.

So, if you wanted to buy Sudaphed... 'cuz, when my allergies kicks in, I'm fething miserable, I'd need to get my gak together and have a valid government issue ID.

There is a requirement to provide ID to purchase Sudaphed because there of people cooking meth.

It's that simple. Even a cursory search into the reason why such a law came to pass would have revealed that.

Just admit it Kan, you're afraid that these new rules may disenfranchise some voters. When all it is that it's simply new regulations to identify yourself prior to voting. You'd have a case... I'd be right there with you... had they done this right BEFORE a major election (like they did in PA). But, the NC voters have over TWO YEARS to get what they need in order to vote.

They TRIED to pass it before the 2012 elections, but the Republicans did not control a majority.

So you're ok with having to have ID for aspirin, but not doing something that can impact 300mm people. Awesome.

Your note on expired licenses, I thought they could be used, as was argued as being some evil Republican conspiracy.

 Frazzled wrote:
So you're ok with having to have ID for aspirin, but not doing something that can impact 300mm people. Awesome.

Sudafed is not aspirin. It is cough syrup. The only kind of Sudafed as well which requires photo ID is that with pseudoepherine(which is an ingredient for cooking meth).

Your note on expired licenses, I thought they could be used, as was argued as being some evil Republican conspiracy.

Only if you are older than 70 years of age.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:
And people will have time to get their ducks in a row to be able to vote.

Except for y'know, the people who might have a license/ID expire at an inconvenient time, students who might not be able to get out of school to register to vote before an election, etc.

Because as I mentioned several times--the high schools did a very good job at ensuring that students were registered to vote and were registered properly. That avenue is now gone, as is preregistering to vote when you are 16 or 17 and have received your license.

So please. Keep on pretending that "you will have time to get your ducks in a row to be able to vote" while ignoring that many of the avenues which were used to register voters are being repealed.

Then consider the evidence in GEORGIA when their Voter ID was passed six years ago. TL;DR: Hispanic and minority had an increased rate of voting participation since the enactment of Voter ID laws.

I think NC will be just fine...

Fine, you want to talk about NC?

They why isn't there an uproar about needing to provide an ID to purchase Sudaphed? According to NC's laws:

(c) A pseudoephedrine product may be sold at retail without a prescription only to a person at least 18 years of age. The retailer shall require every retail purchaser of a pseudoephedrine product to furnish a valid, unexpired, government-issued photo identification and to provide, in print or orally, a current valid personal residential address.

So, if you wanted to buy Sudaphed... 'cuz, when my allergies kicks in, I'm fething miserable, I'd need to get my gak together and have a valid government issue ID.

There is a requirement to provide ID to purchase Sudaphed because there of people cooking meth.

It's that simple. Even a cursory search into the reason why such a law came to pass would have revealed that.

I know that... I working in healthcare.
I'm just pointing out that requiring IDs to purchase sudafed isn't a burden...

Just admit it Kan, you're afraid that these new rules may disenfranchise some voters. When all it is that it's simply new regulations to identify yourself prior to voting. You'd have a case... I'd be right there with you... had they done this right BEFORE a major election (like they did in PA). But, the NC voters have over TWO YEARS to get what they need in order to vote.

They TRIED to pass it before the 2012 elections, but the Republicans did not control a majority.

If course they tried... that was one of their platform when they ran for election. I have to find the article, but if I remember correctly, it still wouldn't have been effect during the '12 Presidential Election. (PA was the one that caused all that stink).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
So you're ok with having to have ID for aspirin, but not doing something that can impact 300mm people. Awesome.

Sudafed is not aspirin. It is cough syrup. The only kind of Sudafed as well which requires photo ID is that with pseudoepherine(which is an ingredient for cooking meth).

I'm nit picking here... Sudafed is the brand name of pseudoephedrine. But, the gist of it is right.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
So you're ok with having to have ID for aspirin, but not doing something that can impact 300mm people. Awesome.

Sudafed is not aspirin. It is cough syrup. The only kind of Sudafed as well which requires photo ID is that with pseudoepherine(which is an ingredient for cooking meth).

Your note on expired licenses, I thought they could be used, as was argued as being some evil Republican conspiracy.

Only if you are older than 70 years of age.

You're right, glorified cough medicine. You're ok with ID for glorified cough medicine but not to vote. excellent.

Here's an alternative:
1) Just make it the law that all residents of NC have to have an NC issued picture ID once they turn 18; or
2) A recognized picture ID from the state, federales, or public institution of higher learning. If public institution, you have to have a social security card or two other forms of ID?

I'd be ok with either. Who has an issue?
EDIT: Seriously who has an issue with #2? It would require no burden to travel to get an ID, or pay for an ID, vitiating the poll tax argument. Its effectively the same requirement as cashing a check. I think even Manchu would be onside with that. I'm a genius!

This just in: Frazzled supports the signing of a log book and maintaining a government inventory of every bullet you purchase! If its good enough for Sufaphed then it's good enough for guns and bullets!

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:
And people will have time to get their ducks in a row to be able to vote.

Except for y'know, the people who might have a license/ID expire at an inconvenient time, students who might not be able to get out of school to register to vote before an election, etc.

Because as I mentioned several times--the high schools did a very good job at ensuring that students were registered to vote and were registered properly. That avenue is now gone, as is preregistering to vote when you are 16 or 17 and have received your license.

So please. Keep on pretending that "you will have time to get your ducks in a row to be able to vote" while ignoring that many of the avenues which were used to register voters are being repealed.

Imagine giving people two years to get a photo ID that typically takes less than a week to arrive. How unreasonable.....

 d-usa wrote:
This just in: Frazzled supports the signing of a log book and maintaining a government inventory of every bullet you purchase! If its good enough for Sufaphed then it's good enough for guns and bullets!

There are over 50,000 gun laws currently. I would love if the same standards for voting were applied to gun laws.

And if the same standards were applied to gun laws that are applied to Sufaphed?

 d-usa wrote:
And if the same standards were applied to gun laws that are applied to Sufaphed?

Sudafed is not a right. However, I'd take that over San Francisco's current regulation.

2) A recognized picture ID from the state, federales, or public institution of higher learning. If public institution, you have to have a social security card or two other forms of ID?

Again, anyone have a problem with this? It addresses the concern of those about fraudulent voters, yet poses no hindrance to voters in voting.

 d-usa wrote:
And if the same standards were applied to gun laws that are applied to Sufaphed?

Now I'm curious what the laws on reselling cough medicine is.

 whembly wrote:
Just countering the arguments that there were no evidence of voting problems.

But you aren't countering it at all. You're just using the traditional tinfoil hat approach of taking minor events completely out of context. Just look at your own article:

But those 94 workers are an equal mix of Democrats and Republicans because polling locations are set up with a balance from each party.
...
Burke added there is no suggestion that any of the problems were done deliberately to disenfranchise voters.

So we see that:

1) This has nothing to do with voter ID. The employees were fired for poor job performance, there is no suggestion here that tougher ID requirements would have done anything to prevent it. For example, the 29 who were fired for not voting (something that is incredibly unfair, but that's a different issue) weren't going to vote just because they're required to show their driver's license when they do it. Arguing for tougher ID requirements based on them makes about as much sense as arguing for tougher ID requirements because your favorite football team lost their game on election week last year.

2) This is a non-partisan issue. Even if we assume that the article is wrong and the problems actually did involve deliberately attempting to rig the election the problem employees come from both parties, so presumably the net effect would be negligible.

3) This has nothing to do with voter ID. Again, even assuming a deliberate attempt to rig the election what exactly is requiring an ID going to do if the people running the poll are the ones who are cheating? If they're allowing people to vote when they shouldn't be able to then all the poll worker has to do is ignore the ID requirement and let them vote. If they're changing votes then it doesn't matter what ID you have or don't have, who you vote for, etc, your precinct is going to the "correct" candidate.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And if the same standards were applied to gun laws that are applied to Sufaphed?

Now I'm curious what the laws on reselling cough medicine is.

As in black market?

Illegal as feth... Sudaphed is now classified as a Controlled Substance. (ie, crack, pot, morphine, etc...)

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
This just in: Frazzled supports the signing of a log book and maintaining a government inventory of every bullet you purchase! If its good enough for Sufaphed then it's good enough for guns and bullets!

There are over 50,000 gun laws currently. I would love if the same standards for voting were applied to gun laws.

Never going to happen - as it stands
Attitude to guns: lets be more like other developed countries, photo ID to purchase even ammunition
Voting: lets not be like other developed countries, no ID whatsoever

 whembly wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And if the same standards were applied to gun laws that are applied to Sufaphed?

Now I'm curious what the laws on reselling cough medicine is.

As in black market?

Illegal as feth... Sudaphed is now classified as a Controlled Substance. (ie, crack, pot, morphine, etc...)

Makes sense Thanks!

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Just countering the arguments that there were no evidence of voting problems.

But you aren't countering it at all. You're just using the traditional tinfoil hat approach of taking minor events completely out of context. Just look at your own article:

But those 94 workers are an equal mix of Democrats and Republicans because polling locations are set up with a balance from each party.
...
Burke added there is no suggestion that any of the problems were done deliberately to disenfranchise voters.

So we see that:

1) This has nothing to do with voter ID. The employees were fired for poor job performance, there is no suggestion here that tougher ID requirements would have done anything to prevent it. For example, the 29 who were fired for not voting (something that is incredibly unfair, but that's a different issue) weren't going to vote just because they're required to show their driver's license when they do it. Arguing for tougher ID requirements based on them makes about as much sense as arguing for tougher ID requirements because your favorite football team lost their game on election week last year.

2) This is a non-partisan issue. Even if we assume that the article is wrong and the problems actually did involve deliberately attempting to rig the election the problem employees come from both parties, so presumably the net effect would be negligible.

3) This has nothing to do with voter ID. Again, even assuming a deliberate attempt to rig the election what exactly is requiring an ID going to do if the people running the poll are the ones who are cheating? If they're allowing people to vote when they shouldn't be able to then all the poll worker has to do is ignore the ID requirement and let them vote. If they're changing votes then it doesn't matter what ID you have or don't have, who you vote for, etc, your precinct is going to the "correct" candidate.

Two things...

Sure, those two separate things, but I was countering the claim that there were no evidence of voting problems.

Secondly... consider the evidence in GEORGIA when their Voter ID was passed six years ago... NC will be fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And if the same standards were applied to gun laws that are applied to Sufaphed?

Now I'm curious what the laws on reselling cough medicine is.

As in black market?

Illegal as feth... Sudaphed is now classified as a Controlled Substance. (ie, crack, pot, morphine, etc...)

Makes sense Thanks!

Yep... that's why meth cookers use the "smurfing" technique.

Still illegal as feth.

We realize that there are two very different subjects in this bill, and in this discussion:

1) voter ID itself.

2) decreasing the actual opportunities to cast a vote and to register voters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As to the cited "voter irregularitie", how would voter IDs have stopped them?

 d-usa wrote:
We realize that there are two very different subjects in this bill, and in this discussion:

1) voter ID itself.

True...

2) decreasing the actual opportunities to cast a vote and to register voters.

I do understand consternation on this as it's a change.

So... this wasn't the Change you were Hoping for?

Like I said previously... I'll repeat what was replied back to me:
Election has consequences.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
As to the cited "voter irregularitie", how would voter IDs have stopped them?

O.o
It's not an "end-all, be-all" solution.

I don't know about the voter irregularities noted (as noted I'm lazy and didn't actually read them). We've had instances here (Texas) of illegal aliens voting. It would help with that.

 Frazzled wrote:
I don't know about the voter irregularities noted (as noted I'm lazy and didn't actually read them). We've had instances here (Texas) of illegal aliens voting. It would help with that.

What is your current procedure for voting?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We realize that there are two very different subjects in this bill, and in this discussion:

1) voter ID itself.

True...

2) decreasing the actual opportunities to cast a vote and to register voters.

I do understand consternation on this as it's a change.

So... this wasn't the Change you were Hoping for?

Like I said previously... I'll repeat what was replied back to me:
Election has consequences.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
As to the cited "voter irregularitie", how would voter IDs have stopped them?

O.o
It's not an "end-all, be-all" solution.

I'm not asking for an "end all" solituon.

I am askig how voter ID would have stopped any of the problems in that article you posted in support of voter IDs from happening?

No Pic ID is required, but they will take it. I don't think I needed my voter card either. They check your name on a county wide registry. If there is an issue you use a provisional ballot (I did last time as most of my stuff goes to the Austin house with adifferent address). They check it off at that point and I think (think only mind you) they check it off the system. if not they should and that takes care of another issue - multiple voting.

I would just add an ID requirement.

Are the illegals that voted (citation) on the lists or are they giving fictional names?

IIRC but they were on the list. Mind you my recollection is from early voting so I don't know how it works with normal voting.

You want to wake up a grandmother? Show her your CHL, as its valid Texas ID.

So if they are on the list, then having an in-person voter ID requirement would do absolutely nothing. Since their picture on their ID would match their face, and the name would match the name on the list.

 d-usa wrote:
So if they are on the list, then having an in-person voter ID requirement would do absolutely nothing. Since their picture on their ID would match their face, and the name would match the name on the list.

State issued voter ID would only be given to those who can prove their lawful status within the US. No lawful status, no vote.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So if they are on the list, then having an in-person voter ID requirement would do absolutely nothing. Since their picture on their ID would match their face, and the name would match the name on the list.

State issued voter ID would only be given to those who can prove their lawful status within the US. No lawful status, no vote.

But what if the people looking to commit voter fraud... OWNED THE ISSUING AGENCY!

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So if they are on the list, then having an in-person voter ID requirement would do absolutely nothing. Since their picture on their ID would match their face, and the name would match the name on the list.

State issued voter ID would only be given to those who can prove their lawful status within the US. No lawful status, no vote.

A drivers license is not a proof of citizenship.

I can be an illegal alien with a drivers license.
I can be a legal resident with a drivers license but without the rignt to vote.

Voter ID laws do nothing to change that.

If my name is in the register, and I have any of the state issued IDs that sre freely and legally available to people who are not allowed to vote, then I can cast my ballot because my face matches the picture and the picture matches the name on the register.

So again, voter ID laws would have done nothing to stop anybody from voting that is on the register even if the person is not allowed to vote to begin with.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So if they are on the list, then having an in-person voter ID requirement would do absolutely nothing. Since their picture on their ID would match their face, and the name would match the name on the list.

State issued voter ID would only be given to those who can prove their lawful status within the US. No lawful status, no vote.

But what if the people looking to commit voter fraud... OWNED THE ISSUING AGENCY!

What???


I really hope you aren't being serious

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So if they are on the list, then having an in-person voter ID requirement would do absolutely nothing. Since their picture on their ID would match their face, and the name would match the name on the list.

State issued voter ID would only be given to those who can prove their lawful status within the US. No lawful status, no vote.

But what if the people looking to commit voter fraud... OWNED THE ISSUING AGENCY!

I really hope you aren't being serious

Never!