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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except you haven't shown that there is any restriction of people's right to vote by requiring an ID.

Again, I'm not making an argument about burden. I'm not even getting to what burdensome means. I'm saying, let's start at the beginning: Voter ID laws impose an unnecessary condition on voting. If the condition is unnecessary it does not matter whether it is onerous or not.

Unnecessary is up for debate.

Maybe not quite important is a better way of putting it. We probably have better things to do with our time to require IDs at polls. But its not going to harm things so if someone thinks it is worth it I'm not going to argue with them.

Liberal democrats say the same thing about gun control: "only criminals oppose gun control -- for law abiding people gun control doesn't harm anything." I disagree. Any unnecessary condition placed on a constitutional right is a harm.

As for unnecessary being up for debate, we have debated it: would you say far, far less than 1% of in-person voter fraud justifies placing a condition on a constitutional right?

I think it's interesting because in order to have an non-partisan argument, you really have to look at it constitutionally, right? As such, all the gun ownership laws make it harder to get a firearm, while there are no laws which make it harder to get an ID. A few things:

1. I'm honestly okay with the hoops I have to jump through to get my guns. It takes a bit more time to process, but now that it's a process of a few hours as opposed to the old 3-day, I don't see it as a problem. We don't want guns in the hands of a lot of people if we can help it. Obviously, the law doesn't prevent it, as people will find a way if they really want to, but it does perhaps help to limit it.

2. I think it would become a huge issue if you were required to pay for a gun ownership license, regardless of the dollar amount. Despite the fact that its ridiculous to think that somoene couldn't afford a $15 gun registration fee when purchasing a $500 firearm, I think the argument could be made that it 'unduly burdens,' very similarly to the claim with IDs that requiring one "unduly burdens" the poor and minority populations.

3. I think a lot of this could be allievated for the poor if we implemented a required photo ID card to anyone on a social service like food stamps or welfare. SNAP fraud is an actual, real issue in the US (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Store-owner-guilty-in-200-000-food-stamp-fraud-4864189.php) and could help better curb that. Granted, I think our Welfare/SNAP programs need a huge overhaul to begin with, but providing IDs for free to these recipients could potentially help to solve one very real problem and one perceived problem.

Right off the bat, you're headed in the wrong direction. There is no constitutional right to a state-issued ID and Voter ID laws do not make it harder to get them. There is, however, a constitutional right to vote and Voter ID laws place make it harder to vote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
I think a lot of this could be allievated for the poor if we implemented a required photo ID card to anyone on a social service like food stamps or welfare.

Besides sounding like what the far right bemoans as Big Government Tyranny, how do you account for the right simultaneously trying to deny poor people access to those same services? You're just creating a gap and at the same time creating more government infrastructure. This doesn't sound like authentic conservatism to me.

 Manchu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except you haven't shown that there is any restriction of people's right to vote by requiring an ID.

Again, I'm not making an argument about burden. I'm not even getting to what burdensome means. I'm saying, let's start at the beginning: Voter ID laws impose an unnecessary condition on voting. If the condition is unnecessary it does not matter whether it is onerous or not.

Manchu... you keep pushing the "unnecessary condition" as if it's fact.

The trouble here that it's hard to prove or disprove that it's unnecessary.

The truth of the matter, various states has already implemented various forms of Voter ID and has survived numerous challenges.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I think a lot of this could be allievated for the poor if we implemented a required photo ID card to anyone on a social service like food stamps or welfare.

Besides sounding like what the far right bemoans as Big Government Tyranny, how do you account for the right simultaneously trying to deny poor people access to those same services? You're just creating a gap and at the same time creating more government infrastructure. This doesn't sound like authentic conservatism to me.

Get your head out of whats "conservatism" or "liberalism" or general donkey-cave attitudes.

Trying to pin some of us to a concept and in a round about way to call us out as hypocrites is crazy-pants dude.

For the record, who's denying what?

 whembly wrote:
Manchu... you keep pushing the "unnecessary condition" as if it's fact.

The trouble here that it's hard to prove or disprove that it's unnecessary.

No it isn't. We've already accomplished that in this thread. There are only an infintesimally small amount of instances of in-person voter fraud and those are being dealt with under existing laws. Voter ID laws as a measure to prevent in-person voter fraud are absolutely, inarguably unnecessary.

 whembly wrote:
Get your head out of whats "conservatism" or "liberalism" or general donkey-cave attitudes.

Trying to pin some of us to a concept and in a round about way to call us out as hypocrites is crazy-pants dude.

All I'm trying to figure out is if you guys have reasonable, coherent systems of thought or if you'll just buy anything that the GOP is selling. So far -- it's definitely the latter.

 Manchu wrote:
Right off the bat, you're headed in the wrong direction. There is no constitutional right to a state-issued ID and Voter ID laws do not make it harder to get them. There is, however, a constitutional right to vote and Voter ID laws place make it harder to vote.

You either misunderstood or I didn't write it clearly enough. I meant that requiring an ID which costs money is unconstitutional because it infringes upon the right to vote. Just like if they required a for purchase gun registration (well, they sort of do. You have to show your ID when you buy a gun) when you purchased a firearm it would be unconstitutional.

Besides sounding like what the far right bemoans as Big Government Tyranny, how do you account for the right simultaneously trying to deny poor people access to those same services? You're just creating a gap and at the same time creating more government infrastructure. This doesn't sound like authentic conservatism to me.

Poor phrasing on my part again. The photo ID should come with the social services, and thusly you should have to use to continue your social sevices.

I think Social Services like welfare and SNAP should be better regulated and monitored. I way to do this would be attaching those social services to an "account" or a Photo ID, which would be like your "social services membership card." It would come with it when you apply, like the toy you get with a happy meal.

Honestly, I don't know what "authentic conservatism" is.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except you haven't shown that there is any restriction of people's right to vote by requiring an ID.

And I do see your argument and where its coming from. I just think its flawed for the above reason.

There might be nothing wrong with voter ID, but when you insist that there is a problem(in-person voter fraud) and refuse to actually show evidence to support that there is a problem or continue to show evidence that points toward problems which would not be solved by your proposed solution to the problem, it starts to make your whole argument that there is a problem look ridiculous.

Especially in the context of NC's voter ID laws, where far far more was done than simply "requiring an ID" and where McCrory stated he would sign the bill without having read the damn thing.

 cincydooley wrote:
Honestly, I don't know what "authentic conservatism" is.

We can at least know it by what it is not -- and it is not an increase in the size and scope of government to meet purely political goals.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Manchu... you keep pushing the "unnecessary condition" as if it's fact.

The trouble here that it's hard to prove or disprove that it's unnecessary.

No it isn't. We've already accomplished that in this thread. There are only an infintesimally small amount of instances of in-person voter fraud and those are being dealt with under existing laws. Voter ID laws as a measure to prevent in-person voter fraud are absolutely, inarguably unnecessary.

Unproven. Wanna know why?

Because, by and large, EACH in-person ballot can never by TIED to a voter. Once you drop it into that box on your way out... that's it. Someone can't then go back and determine how you voted. To me, that's a GOOD system. So, the question really becomes, can the PROCESS be fine-tuned.

 whembly wrote:
Get your head out of whats "conservatism" or "liberalism" or general donkey-cave attitudes.

Trying to pin some of us to a concept and in a round about way to call us out as hypocrites is crazy-pants dude.

All I'm trying to figure out is if you guys have reasonable, coherent systems of thought or if you'll just buy anything that the GOP is selling. So far -- it's definitely the latter.

I can say the same about you.

 Manchu wrote:

Trying to pin some of us to a concept and in a round about way to call us out as hypocrites is crazy-pants dude.

All I'm trying to figure out is if you guys have reasonable, coherent systems of thought or if you'll just buy anything that the GOP is selling. So far -- it's definitely the latter.

 whembly wrote:
I can say the same about you.

You really can't. Because I line up according to a stable line of thought. I say no to further gun control and I say no to putting unnecessary conditions on the ballot. I say no across the board to any unnecessary government limitations of constitutional rights.

 Manchu wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Honestly, I don't know what "authentic conservatism" is.

We can at least know it by what it is not -- and it is not an increase in the size and scope of government to meet purely political goals.

I'm simply not convinced requiring a photo ID does any of that, especially if the requirement is dictated at a state level.

Besides, who here has been advocating for bigger Federal gov't on this thread?

 cincydooley wrote:
I juist dont believe requiring an ID adversly affects voter turn out, or would have in 2012.

And I'm saying, there is an objection before we get that far into the analysis.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I can say the same about you.

You really can't. Because I line up according to a stable line of thought. I say no to further gun control and I say no to putting unnecessary conditions on the ballot. I say no across the board to any unnecessary government limitations of constitutional rights.

Where we seem to disagree is that the requirements you don't want for voting are already in place for firearms and support it under the guise of "unnecessary." Couldn't one make the argument that requiring a photo ID for puchasing a firearm creates an "unnecessary government limiation of constitutional rights?"

 cincydooley wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Honestly, I don't know what "authentic conservatism" is.

We can at least know it by what it is not -- and it is not an increase in the size and scope of government to meet purely political goals.

I'm simply not convinced requiring a photo ID does any of that, especially if the requirement is dictated at a state level.

State government is still government. In my book, the states don't get to free reign to trounce constitutional rights just because they aren't the federal government.

 cincydooley wrote:
Besides, who here has been advocating for bigger Federal gov't on this thread?

You.

 Manchu wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I juist dont believe requiring an ID adversly affects voter turn out, or would have in 2012.

And I'm saying, there is an objection before we get that far into the analysis.

I guess my follow up to this would be to ask you why its okay to impose that exact same restriction on an equally protected (argubly more protected, as it high higher bill of rights priority) constitutional right?

 cincydooley wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I can say the same about you.

You really can't. Because I line up according to a stable line of thought. I say no to further gun control and I say no to putting unnecessary conditions on the ballot. I say no across the board to any unnecessary government limitations of constitutional rights.

Where we seem to disagree is that the requirements you don't want for voting are already in place for firearms and support it under the guise of "unnecessary." Couldn't one make the argument that requiring a photo ID for puchasing a firearm creates an "unnecessary government limiation of constitutional rights?"

Yes absolutely one could make that argument.

 Manchu wrote:
You.

How and where?

Requiring more oversight to a federal program that's already in existance doesn't add goverment size or scope.

 cincydooley wrote:
Requiring more oversight to a federal program that's already in existance doesn't add goverment size or scope.

You don't think more oversight entails more infrastructure? You want benefits without costs.

 Manchu wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Requiring more oversight to a federal program that's already in existance doesn't add goverment size or scope.

You don't think more oversight entails more infrastructure? You want benefits without costs.

Some, but how much? Were you to track what is purchased on your SNAP card, where it's purchased, etc, and introduce something like that...sure. That would probably take a considerable amout of additional infrastructer systems wise. But to provide a photo ID with Welfare/SNAP? Honestly, no. I don't think it would take that much more infrastructure at all.

I think that we can agree that the required infrastructure would be reasonable as to the prospective benefit.

This is not the case with Voter ID laws, which aim to create and distribute free IDs of all kinds to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I can say the same about you.

You really can't. Because I line up according to a stable line of thought. I say no to further gun control and I say no to putting unnecessary conditions on the ballot. I say no across the board to any unnecessary government limitations of constitutional rights.

Uh... yes, I can.

Using your words.

Society feels necessary to incorporate gun-control laws.

Just as society feels necessary to incorporate identification laws with respect to voting.

It's really as simple as that.

That's not even close to anything that I've said.

 Manchu wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I juist dont believe requiring an ID adversly affects voter turn out, or would have in 2012.

And I'm saying, there is an objection before we get that far into the analysis.

I guess my follow up to this would be to ask you why its okay to impose that exact same restriction on an equally protected (argubly more protected, as it high higher bill of rights priority) constitutional right?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gentleman, I'll continue with ya'll later. I'm headed to das gym.

 Manchu wrote:
That's not even close to anything that I've said.

Well... true, sorry for implying.

Let me try a different tactic then...

Do you feel that society introduced gun control laws because they felt it was necessary?

 whembly wrote:
Do you feel that society introduced gun control laws because they felt it was necessary?

Not really. I think liberal democrats introduce gun control laws to create a hot button issue and rally the loony end of their base.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Do you feel that society introduced gun control laws because they felt it was necessary?

Not really. I think liberal democrats introduce gun control laws to create a hot button issue and rally the loony end of their base.

Gotta give you props... you're consistent here.

So, couldn't the same thing be argued with respect to Voter ID laws? I mean, there's plenty of laws on the books that will do this... that's the nature of the beast. (looks towards obamacare).

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Do you feel that society introduced gun control laws because they felt it was necessary?

Not really. I think liberal democrats introduce gun control laws to create a hot button issue and rally the loony end of their base.

Gotta give you props... you're consistent here.

So, couldn't the same thing be argued with respect to Voter ID laws?

Yes, I believe far-right republicans are using Voter ID laws as a hot button issue to rile up the loony end of their base, too. And as you know, I also believe they want to make it harder to vote for people who are more likely to vote for democrats. That last part isn't a conspiracy theory. It's something the Republicans have repeatedly admitted:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/28/republicans-admit-voter-id-laws-are-aimed-at-democratic-voters.html