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.

Manchu wrote:Don't worry, Kan. There is no evidence of voter fraud therefore it must be happening. We should let these geniuses get back to solving the important problems.

How about the important questions instead? Such as:

1. What could be the possible motivation for a national political party to NOT want a voter to display valid identification?

Elections are kind of important. If valid identification shouldn't be required to do so , then:

Why should we have to display i.d. to get a driver's license?
Why should we have to display i.d. when a cop pulls you over?
Why should we have to display i.d. to get on an airplane?
Why should we have to display i.d. to get healthcare?
Why should we have to display i.d. to get a loan?
Why should we have to display i.d. to get in/out of the country?
ad infinitum

Gee Peabody, lets just turn the Wayback Machine to before the invention of writing or cities, and we can all just come and go as we please.
Cue John Lennon stupid philosophy of utopia, because you know, it so works...:


Best,

Kanluwen wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Voter Identification isn't exactly "draconian" though, as much as I love hyperbole.

The proposed measures were ridiculously restrictive.

From what I can recall (I don't know if the measure has been rewritten), out of state identification and college issued identification were some examples of identification which was not considered "valid" for purposes of voting.

Draconian is having to get a state issued ID? Seriously?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm for voter IDs if we need them, but I think the argument against that is that voting is free and IDs are not.

I'm not sure how one can function in today's society without an ID, but that's a whole other ball of wax.

In the states with this, the id IS free.

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Voter Identification isn't exactly "draconian" though, as much as I love hyperbole.

The proposed measures were ridiculously restrictive.

From what I can recall (I don't know if the measure has been rewritten), out of state identification and college issued identification were some examples of identification which was not considered "valid" for purposes of voting.

Draconian is having to get a state issued ID? Seriously?

Hyperbolic statement was hyperbolic.

But yes, it is ridiculous to expect a college student going to a school out of state--who takes the time to register to vote in the state where he will be attending school--to have to get a whole new set of identification just to vote.

Then they should use absentee ballots and vote in their home state. problem solved.

And if their home state requires an in-state residency?

Kanluwen wrote:And if their home state requires an in-state residency?

1. You're still in state for purposes of that.
2. If you're not, register in the state with the college.

Its the same issue they have no, else they are voting illegally.

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:And if their home state requires an in-state residency?

1. You're still in state for purposes of that.
2. If you're not, register in the state with the college.

Its the same issue they have no, else they are voting illegally.

So you're going to say that being registered to vote in the state with the college, and being told that your college identification and out of state driver's license are not valid is acceptable?

Because that's what the voter registration laws which were suggested would say.

Kanluwen wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:And if their home state requires an in-state residency?

1. You're still in state for purposes of that.
2. If you're not, register in the state with the college.

Its the same issue they have no, else they are voting illegally.

So you're going to say that being registered to vote in the state with the college, and being told that your college identification and out of state driver's license are not valid is acceptable?

Because that's what the voter registration laws which were suggested would say.

Alternatively you're saying that lots of college kids are illegally voting now. You have to be a citizen of that state to vote in the first place. There's nothing keeping them from getting local licenses.

LordofHats wrote:Propose that it is nonexistant. Wouldn't it be better to have the safe guards just in case? Its not like getting ID is difficult. Most states already have pseudo-ID laws with voter cards. It's not a huge burden.

Its actually much easier to get a fake ID than to get a real one (took me 4 weeks to get my DL, and 20 minutes to get my fake), at least in Illinois and Minnesota. Which effectively makes the law pointless.

The guy in the video could just as easily have shown up with a photo ID of himself with the name "Eric Holder" on it.

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:And if their home state requires an in-state residency?

1. You're still in state for purposes of that.
2. If you're not, register in the state with the college.

Its the same issue they have no, else they are voting illegally.

So you're going to say that being registered to vote in the state with the college, and being told that your college identification and out of state driver's license are not valid is acceptable?

Because that's what the voter registration laws which were suggested would say.

Alternatively you're saying that lots of college kids are illegally voting now. You have to be a citizen of that state to vote in the first place. There's nothing keeping them from getting local licenses.

Outside of time and applying for them, retaking tests, etc.

Frazzled wrote:
Alternatively you're saying that lots of college kids are illegally voting now. You have to be a citizen of that state to vote in the first place. There's nothing keeping them from getting local licenses.

Usually you just have to be a resident for a certain period of time, though there are definitely towns that don't allow college students to vote in local elections.

Kanluwen wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:And if their home state requires an in-state residency?

1. You're still in state for purposes of that.
2. If you're not, register in the state with the college.

Its the same issue they have no, else they are voting illegally.

So you're going to say that being registered to vote in the state with the college, and being told that your college identification and out of state driver's license are not valid is acceptable?

Because that's what the voter registration laws which were suggested would say.

Alternatively you're saying that lots of college kids are illegally voting now. You have to be a citizen of that state to vote in the first place. There's nothing keeping them from getting local licenses.

Outside of time and applying for them, retaking tests, etc.

I weep tears of blood at the thought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Alternatively you're saying that lots of college kids are illegally voting now. You have to be a citizen of that state to vote in the first place. There's nothing keeping them from getting local licenses.

Usually you just have to be a resident for a certain period of time, though there are definitely towns that don't allow college students to vote in local elections.

And if its an issue it can be rectified without difficulty.

Yes, by not having such ridiculous restrictions in place to begin with.

If I got Holder's ballot I would write in Brian Terry for every office on the ballot. But I could probably never get away with it, it's just not my luck.

Phanatik wrote:
How about the important questions instead? Such as:

1. What could be the possible motivation for a national political party to NOT want a voter to display valid identification?

Why is that an important question? Do you think that the Democrats regularly commit voter fraud en masse?

Actually, my guess is that you probably do.

Phanatik wrote:
Elections are kind of important. If valid identification shouldn't be required to do so , then:

Elections are also unique in that they important for political reasons that extend beyond simply being issues for the parties to bicker over. They are a fundamental component of our government, and our system cannot function without them. As such, they aren't really comparable to anything else outside of rhetorical gamesmanship, which I'm sure is not at all something you enjoy participating in.

Phanatik wrote:
Why should we have to display i.d. to get a driver's license?

You don't have to show photo ID when you apply for a DL. If you did, it would be somewhat difficult to get one.

Phanatik wrote:
Why should we have to display i.d. when a cop pulls you over?

You don't.

Phanatik wrote:
Why should we have to display i.d. to get on an airplane?

Not a government function.

Phanatik wrote:
Why should we have to display i.d. to get healthcare?

You don't.

Phanatik wrote:
Why should we have to display i.d. to get a loan?

Not a government function.

Phanatik wrote:
Why should we have to display i.d. to get in/out of the country?

And, as with all the above, leaving or entering the country isn't a right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
And if its an issue it can be rectified without difficulty.

By who? The people that likely were the driving force behind taking the right to vote away from the people that no longer have any say in the matter?

CptJake wrote:Actually no burden of proof is needed. If a state gets a law passed it gets a law passed. If the electorate of that state perceives a need and their elected officials pass a bill according to their constitution (or other document) then they are good.

To claim the passed law hurts others once passed to get it repealed or declared unconstitutional DOES require proof. If your logic for acceptability is 'doesn't affect the election' than you would have to prove it did to get the passed law sticken.

No, you would just repeal the law, since you don't need to offer realistic supporting evidence when deliberating in the hallowed chambers of government.

Frazzled wrote:
- voter ID requirements disproportionately affect the poor and so also black people
***That’s an argument, not a fact.

I am still trying to make sense of this statement. Anyone want to try and elaborate, or was it just some random stab at an argument?

VermGho5t wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
- voter ID requirements disproportionately affect the poor and so also black people
***That’s an argument, not a fact.

I am still trying to make sense of this statement. Anyone want to try and elaborate, or was it just some random stab at an argument?

it someone's opinion. As it effects everyone, by its very nature, its not a fact.

Approximately 11%of the US population does not have a government issued ID. Up to 25% of blacks polled did not have a government issued ID. The observation that voter ID laws will disproportionately affect the poor as well as the black population is a fact, not an opinion.

Ouze wrote:Approximately 11%of the US population does not have a government issued ID. Up to 25% of blacks polled did not have a government issued ID. The observation that voter ID laws will disproportionately affect the poor as well as the black population is a fact, not an opinion.

LOL
Two democrat politicians referencing an 2006 unscientific survey by a NY organization promoting racial justice, whose data covers a miniscule percentage of the nation's population is what you consider evidence?

Puhleese.

Frazzled wrote:

VermGho5t wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
- voter ID requirements disproportionately affect the poor and so also black people
***That’s an argument, not a fact.

I am still trying to make sense of this statement. Anyone want to try and elaborate, or was it just some random stab at an argument?

it someone's opinion. As it effects everyone, by its very nature, its not a fact.

Gravity is not a fact?

Manchu wrote:This is a little silly. Holder's argument is that people aren't committing voter fraud not that voter fraud is impossible. The video in question assumes the opposite premise of Holder's position in order to undermine it. It's a bit like me presenting a video of a guy smashing a gumball machine to convince the legislature to increase gumball machine security. After all, anyone could walk up to a gumball machine and smash it.

This is exactly my thoughts...

Creating a fake controversy to push voter ID laws

Phanatik wrote:

Ouze wrote:Approximately 11%of the US population does not have a government issued ID. Up to 25% of blacks polled did not have a government issued ID. The observation that voter ID laws will disproportionately affect the poor as well as the black population is a fact, not an opinion.

LOL
Two democrat politicians referencing an 2006 unscientific survey by a NY organization promoting racial justice, whose data covers a miniscule percentage of the nation's population is what you consider evidence?

Puhleese.

What the dog barked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

VermGho5t wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
- voter ID requirements disproportionately affect the poor and so also black people
***That’s an argument, not a fact.

I am still trying to make sense of this statement. Anyone want to try and elaborate, or was it just some random stab at an argument?

it someone's opinion. As it effects everyone, by its very nature, its not a fact.

Gravity is not a fact?

Gravity affecting some people more than others, is not a fact. it would be awesomely fun though.

Having said that, I read an excellent book, where as one of the effects of bad things, holes of negative gravity appeared at random. Imagine buildings, houses, and people, just randomly losing gravity and floating up up and away. It had the image of a sky scraper slowly rising in the air, surrounded by helicopters as it gained altitude.

I love these kind of discussions.

"Hey, something might actually be harming minorities"
"Nuh-uh"
"Yes, here is why"
"You don't have any data"
"Here is the data"
"That data is phony"
"Here is more"
"Phony"
"Here is.."
"LALALALALALALALALA our system is totally fair. There is zero chance that we might be doing something that harms the poor and/or non-white. It's silly to think it's a problem."

Chongara wrote:I love these kind of discussions.

"Hey, something might actually be harming minorities"
"Nuh-uh"
"Yes, here is why"
"You don't have any data"
"Here is the data"
"That data is phony"
"Here is more"
"Phony"
"Here is.."
"LALALALALALALALALA our system is totally fair. There is zero chance that we might be doing something that harms the poor and/or non-white. It's silly to think it's a problem."

I love these kinds of discussions where there are posters who contribute nothing but troll and try to inflame the topic. We need an exorcism. I need an old Dakkaite and a young Dakkaite.
Out unclean Spirit! The Power of Dakka compels YOU!

VermGho5t wrote:I am still trying to make sense of this statement. Anyone want to try and elaborate, or was it just some random stab at an argument?

The part in orange is what I said. The part in blue is Frazzled's response.

- voter ID requirements disproportionately affect the poor and so also black people
***That’s an argument, not a fact.

First, my statement: Voter IDs cost something. Whether it is the ID itself or the costs of the underlying documents (such as obtaining a birth certificate) or the various logistical expenses (taking time off of work, obtaining transportation, etc), there is no such thing as a free voter ID. The costs no doubt seem utterly insignificant to many Americans, especially those who can afford access to the internet and browse a webpage devoted to painting expensive toy soldiers. But to other Americans, these are significant and additional obstacles to political participation. These other Americans are the poor and a disproportionate amount of impoverished Americans are also black.

Now my response to Frazzled's gloss: You step into the road and see a tractor trailer barreling down on you from less than a mile away. I see the truck as well and shout to you, "get out of the street or that truck will hit you." You retort, "that's just an argument, not a fact." Confused, I yell back "no it's not, there's a truck right there." And you say, "the truck driving on the road is a fact, yes, but you can't be sure the tr--" and then you are hit by the truck. Cause is a fact; effect is also a fact. Now imagine if there was no time at all between stepping into the road and getting hit by the truck. That is the situation of voter IDs -- the poor have trouble affording voter ID as soon as it exists as an idea.

Stepping back, we can ask some practical questions: are people who are not determined enough, or however else you'd like to denigrate them, to obtain voter ID actually going to vote? I don't know. My own cultural assumptions and prejudices make me think that voter ID requirements will not result in disenfranchisement in fact. But I also think that the law will not address voter fraud in fact. So as a matter of practicalities the law is meaningless -- except once you consider that it will make it that much harder for Democrats to get their base to the polls.

First, my statement: Voter IDs cost something. Whether it is the ID itself or the costs of the underlying documents (such as obtaining a birth certificate) or the various logistical expenses (taking time off of work, obtaining transportation, etc), there is no such thing as a free voter ID. The costs no doubt seem utterly insignificant to many Americans, especially those who can afford access to the internet and browse a webpage devoted to painting expensive toy soldiers. But to other Americans, these are significant and additional obstacles to political participation. These other Americans are the poor and a disproportionate amount of impoverished Americans are also black.
***ID’s are free. I am sure the “underlying documents” are also free if needed. That’s an excuse.
More importantly, the right to vote is a right, but its like everythinhg else, there are costs. If I can be charged to buy a gun (2nd Amendment) , and pay a fee to get a parade permit (1st), and can take some effort to vote, which impacts others. If you can’t make the effort to register once, how are you able to vote?

Now my response to Frazzled's gloss: You step into the road and see a tractor trailer barreling down on you from less than a mile away. I see the truck as well and shout to you, "get out of the street or that truck will hit you." You retort, "that's just an argument, not a fact." Confused, I yell back "no it's not, there's a truck right there." And you say, "the truck driving on the road is a fact, yes, but you can't be sure the tr--" and then you are hit by the truck. Cause is a fact; effect is also a fact. Now imagine if there was no time at all between stepping into the road and getting hit by the truck. That is the situation of voter IDs -- the poor have trouble affording voter ID as soon as it exists as a requirement.
***NO they don’t. They are free.

Stepping back, we can ask some practical questions: a people who are not determined enough, or however else you'd like to denigrate them, to obtain voter ID actually going to vote? I don't know. My own cultural assumptions and prejudices make me think that voter ID requirements will not result in disenfranchisement in fact. But I also think that the law will not address voter fraud in fact. So as a matter of practicalities the law is meaningless -- except once you consider that it will make it that much harder for Democrats to get their base to the polls.
***I’m not worried about losers to lazy to vote. I’m worried about voter fraud disenfranchising MY voting rights. Further, there’s nothing keeping illegal aliens from voting under false registrations, they are others voting for the dead etc. etc. Voter ID should just be one of a myriad of procedures protecting my enfranchisement.

Frazzled wrote:I am sure the “underlying documents” are also free if needed.

Would you care to back that up with some facts?

More importantly, the right to vote is a right, but its like everythinhg else, there are costs.

I am not saying that voting is free; I'm saying that this will make it more expensive. And I'm further saying that there is no justification for adding the expense.

I’m worried about voter fraud disenfranchising MY voting rights.

Then you are worried about something that you have no evidence of existing. This is called delusional behavior. The further argument that the evidence actually does exist but is being suppressed by a society-wide conspiracy is called paranoia. You might as well be worried that the unicorn nazis are out to take your ballot.

Manchu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I am sure the “underlying documents” are also free if needed.

Would you care to back that up with some facts?

More importantly, the right to vote is a right, but its like everythinhg else, there are costs.

I am not saying that voting is free; I'm saying that this will make it more expensive. And I'm further saying that there is no justification for adding the expense.

I’m worried about voter fraud disenfranchising MY voting rights.

Then you are worried about something that you have no evidence of existing. This is called delusional behavior. The further argument that the evidence actually does exist but is being suppressed by a society-wide conspiracy is called paranoia. You might as well be worried that the unicorn nazis are out to take your ballot.

Are you saying I'm delusional because I'm worried about voter fraud. Really?

Wow, I'm done with this thread then.

I know you're done. We've danced this dance recently and you weren't able to provide any evidence that voter ID requirements actually address an actual problem then, either. I don't blame you for that. After all, Indiana couldn't produce any evidence to the Supreme Court and I'm sure they tried a lot harder than you have to find it.