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.

I'm glad that this came back up, if for no other reason than to make me realize that some of the people that I disagreed with in the last thread about this are much more reasonable about this than I originally thought.

Frazzled wrote:
***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?

Incorrect. Depending on the state, birth certificates cost $28 - $72. State IDs are not free either although some states make them free to seniors. This is not a driver's license, just a regular State ID card.

You can be charged to buy a gun because guns are not provided by the government free of charge (excluding military and police weapons), but provided by a private manufacturer. In my state of Maryland, there was no charge for me to get my gun permit, however.

I find it interesting that the party of the left is the party that perennially brings up the idea for a National I.D., but then doesn't see the need for voters to have I.D. in order to vote.

Arguing against requiring I.D. to vote because it may or may not dissuade someone from committing voter fraud is like advising banks to not lock their vaults because it may or may not dissuade someone from robbing them.

This brings to mind the lefty dichotomy of opposing capital punishment for heinous criminals, but then supporting the abortion of innocent human babies.

Liberals always seem to be angry and dissatisfied about something. No doubt their internal conflicts are driving them mad.

Regards,

Phanatik wrote:Liberals always seem to be angry and dissatisfied about something. No doubt their internal conflicts are driving them mad.

I forgot how calm and collected conservatives always are. Good point.

Phanatik wrote:I find it interesting that the party of the left is the party that perennially brings up the idea for a National I.D.

Wait, what?

The closest thing to a serious national ID proposal was Real ID, which was introduced by a Republican and signed into law by Bush II.

Phanatik wrote:I find it interesting that the party of the left is the party that perennially brings up the idea for a National I.D., but then doesn't see the need for voters to have I.D. in order to vote.

National ID for what purpose? Let's hear what "the party of the left" actually advocates rather than just conflating national ID proposals and voter ID requirements.

Arguing against requiring I.D. to vote because it may or may not dissuade someone from committing voter fraud is like advising banks to not lock their vaults because it may or may not dissuade someone from robbing them.

If bank robbery was totally unheard of, outside of anecdotal prejudice against undocumented immigrants, that might be a worthwhile comparison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:The closest thing to a serious national ID proposal was Real ID, which was introduced by a Republican and signed into law by Bush II.

And here's the ACLU, that staunchly conservative organization, arguing against the concept:

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/5-problems-national-id-cards

Phanatik wrote:I find it interesting that the party of the left is the party that perennially brings up the idea for a National I.D., but then doesn't see the need for voters to have I.D. in order to vote.

Arguing against requiring I.D. to vote because it may or may not dissuade someone from committing voter fraud is like advising banks to not lock their vaults because it may or may not dissuade someone from robbing them.

Here's the difference:
Bank robbery is a common enough crime, even if it's just attempts. There's also a larger temptation for people to y'know...steal valuable physical objects than there is for people to participate in things like voter fraud.

When looking at instances of voter fraud, what you will most likely find is it is being executed by individuals being paid by wealthy supporters of particular candidates or the candidates themselves to ensure that they're in a place to be able to "make a return" on the investment their supporters laid into them.

This brings to mind the lefty dichotomy of opposing capital punishment for heinous criminals, but then supporting the abortion of innocent human babies.

As opposed to labeling abortion of early term fetuses--no matter the circumstances, such as screenings for potentially life threatening diseases in the fetus or products of rape-- as "murder" but capital punishment "justice"?

Let's just forget for a few minutes that a relatively large amount of death row inmates have been exonerated by DNA evidence, which establishes the potential for that "justice" to have been carried out on innocent human beings.

Liberals always seem to be angry and dissatisfied about something. No doubt their internal conflicts are driving them mad.

Or more likely it's the constant stream of hypocrisy that spouts out of the Conservatives' side of the fence. A political party which blunders about wrapping itself in the ideals of their religion to justify their political ideals.

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."

And that's this thread in a nutshell. Someone supported this law, someone else suggested a downside. Proof was requested, and it was replied that those wanting to pass the law should provide the proof of no harm. They provided nothing. Finally we proved it, and of course they argue with the proof and provide nothing of their own to support them, and eventually there will be a bunch of confused derp and then pictures of Dachshunds, and it will get repeated again. And again.

And you know what? I kind of blame myself for partaking in it, over and over again. It is stupid, but eventually it's gotta be Charlie Brown's fault instead of Lucy's. Intellectual honest and reasonable discussion are the footballs that these Lucy's will perpetually yank away at the last second. It's probably time to find a better game.

Manchu wrote:

Phanatik wrote:I find it interesting that the party of the left is the party that perennially brings up the idea for a National I.D., but then doesn't see the need for voters to have I.D. in order to vote.

National ID for what purpose? Let's hear what "the party of the left" actually advocates rather than just conflating national ID proposals and voter ID requirements.

Arguing against requiring I.D. to vote because it may or may not dissuade someone from committing voter fraud is like advising banks to not lock their vaults because it may or may not dissuade someone from robbing them.

If bank robbery was totally unheard of, outside of anecdotal prejudice against undocumented immigrants, that might be a worthwhile comparison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:The closest thing to a serious national ID proposal was Real ID, which was introduced by a Republican and signed into law by Bush II.

And here's the ACLU, that staunchly conservative organization, arguing against the concept:

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/5-problems-national-id-cards

Well, if everyone is forced to get a National I.D., wouldn't it put an undue burden on the same people you are concerned about in the voting issue, regardless of the intent of any National I.D.?

The comparison is to show the worthiness of putting stumbling blocks in front of those that would prey upon society. Just like a double fence with barbed wire, machine gun nests and patrolling German Shepherds across our southern border MAY NOT discourage all illegal aliens that would enter our country from doing so, but it would slow them down a bit.

Regards,

P.s. Note that asking people to display I.D. to vote, like the vast majority of people have to do during their daily lives for various reasons isn't like asking someone to wear an armband that reads "Jew." It's not extraordinary, it's not cruel or unusual, and it costs what a baby is charged to be born.

@Ouze: You can't assume everyone is using the internet to dialog much less to learn. I'm not out to convince much less convert anybody. I find that defending my position, even against silly non-arguments, can substantially clarify my position. More than once, I've posted an argument and had it demolished -- and I changed my mind. Anyone else refusing to do the same is no skin off my ass.

Phanatik wrote:
Well, if everyone is forced to get a National I.D., wouldn't it put an undue burden on the same people you are concerned about in the voting issue, regardless of the intent of any National I.D.?

Depends on who pays for it.

As it stands everyone is already forced to be identified by an SSN. The whole national ID thing really just follows from that.

Phanatik wrote:
The comparison is to show the worthiness of putting stumbling blocks in front of those that would prey upon society.

So, white, upper-middle class, males with higher education?

Phanatik wrote:
P.s. Note that asking people to display I.D. to vote, like the vast majority of people have to do during their daily lives for various reasons isn't like asking someone to wear an armband that reads "Jew." It's not extraordinary, it's not cruel or unusual, and it costs what a baby is charged to be born.

Its costs ~4,000 USD to get a DL?

Phanatik wrote:[national I.D. straw man]

Doesn't seem to be at issue at all.

The comparison is to show the worthiness of putting stumbling blocks in front of those that would prey upon society.

The issue is that the election fraudsters as social predators are not the only ones who could stumble -- and evidently they don't really exist, at least not in a manner that would be addressed by this law. So I find that the prey in this case are actually poor, black people. And the predators are ... ?

[Star of David armband straw man]

Also not at issue.

Ouze wrote:

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."

And that's this thread in a nutshell. Someone supported this law, someone else suggested a downside. Proof was requested, and it was replied that those wanting to pass the law should provide the proof of no harm. They provided nothing. Finally we proved it, and of course they argue with the proof and provide nothing of their own to support them, and eventually there will be a bunch of confused derp and then pictures of Dachshunds, and it will get repeated again. And again.

And you know what? I kind of blame myself for partaking in it, over and over again. It is stupid, but eventually it's gotta be Charlie Brown's fault instead of Lucy's. Intellectual honest and reasonable discussion are the footballs that these Lucy's will perpetually yank away at the last second. It's probably time to find a better game.

When arguing against someone in an entrenched position that is clearly not willing to listen to reasonable arguments, simply stop trying to persuade him. Instead, focus on refuting his points and keeping a strong argument on your side that he hasn't refuted. This won't convince him, but it will convince people who read the argument but don't partake in it because they don't yet feel strongly about one side or the other.

I'm also wondering who the prey is. If voter fraud is rampant, then who are the people committing the fraud, and why.

Poor people? Poor minority people? Democrats?

Seems like a lot of "The only way the other side wins is by cheating!" to me.

dogma wrote:I'm also wondering who the prey is. If voter fraud is rampant, then who are the people committing the fraud, and why.

Poor people? Poor minority people? Democrats?

Seems like a lot of "The only way the other side wins is by cheating!" to me.

Of course they have to cheat.
They're poor.
If they knew how to play the game, they'd already be winning instead of being poor.

After all, the rules are totally fair and the odds aren't stacked against them.

Chongara, that's the beauty of this predetermination mentality -- we can figure out who's morally worthless by observing their financial worthlessness.

dogma wrote:
Its costs ~4,000 USD to get a DL?

Stop being melodramatic. It only cost me about $700.00 to get mine.

Manchu wrote:

Phanatik wrote:[national I.D. straw man]

Doesn't seem to be at issue at all.

The comparison is to show the worthiness of putting stumbling blocks in front of those that would prey upon society.

The issue is that the election fraudsters as social predators are not the only ones who could stumble -- and evidently they don't really exist, at least not in a manner that would be addressed by this law. So I find that the prey in this case are actually poor, black people. And the predators are ... ?

[Star of David armband straw man]

Also not at issue.

Wow, you fell back on the strawman lameness. Fail.

Straw isn't an issue.

Have a nice day though!

Grakmar wrote:When arguing against someone in an entrenched position that is clearly not willing to listen to reasonable arguments, simply stop trying to persuade him. Instead, focus on refuting his points and keeping a strong argument on your side that he hasn't refuted. This won't convince him, but it will convince people who read the argument but don't partake in it because they don't yet feel strongly about one side or the other.

That's actually a really good point, as well as what Manchu said.

Phanatik wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Phanatik wrote:I find it interesting that the party of the left is the party that perennially brings up the idea for a National I.D., but then doesn't see the need for voters to have I.D. in order to vote.

National ID for what purpose? Let's hear what "the party of the left" actually advocates rather than just conflating national ID proposals and voter ID requirements.

Arguing against requiring I.D. to vote because it may or may not dissuade someone from committing voter fraud is like advising banks to not lock their vaults because it may or may not dissuade someone from robbing them.

If bank robbery was totally unheard of, outside of anecdotal prejudice against undocumented immigrants, that might be a worthwhile comparison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:The closest thing to a serious national ID proposal was Real ID, which was introduced by a Republican and signed into law by Bush II.

And here's the ACLU, that staunchly conservative organization, arguing against the concept:

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/5-problems-national-id-cards

Well, if everyone is forced to get a National I.D., wouldn't it put an undue burden on the same people you are concerned about in the voting issue, regardless of the intent of any National I.D.?

The comparison is to show the worthiness of putting stumbling blocks in front of those that would prey upon society. Just like a double fence with barbed wire, machine gun nests and patrolling German Shepherds across our southern border MAY NOT discourage all illegal aliens that would enter our country from doing so, but it would slow them down a bit.

Regards,

P.s. Note that asking people to display I.D. to vote, like the vast majority of people have to do during their daily lives for various reasons isn't like asking someone to wear an armband that reads "Jew." It's not extraordinary, it's not cruel or unusual, and it costs what a baby is charged to be born.

Lots of things aren't necessary and aren't cruel.

That isn't a positive reason for doing them.

Phanatik wrote:
Wow, you fell back on the strawman lameness. Fail.

Straw isn't an issue.

Have a nice day though!

A couple points:

Is it possible voter fraud largely goes under-reported/un-investigated because the beneficiary is usually the one in a position to do something about it?

Does it really matter who ends up "disenfranchised" by the law if it's sensible?

Do we really turn into Soviet Russia if we demand that you provide identification confirming you to be who you say you are before casting a ballot that could have a lot of consequence attached to it?

- Successful political candidates are hardly the only people in a position to do anything about voter fraud.

- The ostensible object of the law is to prevent disenfranchisement; the application of the law implies disenfranchisement.

- You're the only one talking about Soviet Russia.

So, let me get this straight. There is no evidence that Voter Fraud is a problem, but we need legislation to try and stop it because it could theoretically be happening, and possibly causing a big problem in the future?

So, according to the same mind set, there is no evidence that Global Warming is real. Therefore, we need legislation to try and and stop it because it could theoretically be happening, and possibly causing a big problem in the future?

Well, I'm convinced.... but I'm not sure what I'm convinced about yet.


Edit: The originl story is kinda funny though.

Easy E wrote:there is no evidence that Global Warming is real

I'm struggling with why you're bringing up Global Warming here. So ... you're saying we should have a law preventing non-existent voter fraud because you don't believe in human-influenced climate change?

Manchu wrote:- Successful political candidates are hardly the only people in a position to do anything about voter fraud.

Who investigates it?

- The ostensible object of the law is to prevent disenfranchisement; the application of the law implies disenfranchisement.

I believe the object of the law is to prevent voter fraud. My problem with the, "Hey, voter fraud isn't a significant problem now!" argument against such laws is that it's ridiculously short-sighted. To suggest that something will not happen because it hasn't happened yet...well, look: we spend a lot of money on our nuclear arsenal in case of nuclear war.

- You're the only one talking about Soviet Russia.

In this thread, indeed. In others on the same topic, however, I've seen several of contributors wax on about how they do not wish to live in a totalitarian country where the authorities can demand to see your papers when they wish.

Seaward wrote:Who investigates it?

The press is interested in these sorts of things. As are lobbyists. Also, it appears that successful political candidates are interested, as well, given that they are in fact the ones trying to pass this law. They're especially interested when they have to defend the law before the Supreme Court. But, as I mentioned, even being as interested in finding evidence of voter fraud as is possible doesn't mean that one will actually be able to find it.

I believe the object of the law is to prevent voter fraud.

Yes, for the purpose of avoiding disenfranchisement of valid ballots, as Frazzled has pointed out.

My problem with the, "Hey, voter fraud isn't a significant problem now!" argument against such laws is that it's ridiculously short-sighted.

Not really. The assumption is that voter fraud will inevitably become a problem in the future. I don't think that assumption is very tenable.

To suggest that something will not happen because it hasn't happened yet...well, look: we spend a lot of money on our nuclear arsenal in case of nuclear war.

You are saying that voter ID requirements are a deterrent against voter fraud. But that argument relies on the likelihood of the target behavior -- so see my point above.

In others on the same topic, however, I've seen several of contributors wax on about how they do not wish to live in a totalitarian country where the authorities can demand to see your papers when they wish.

Well, perhaps at least you and I can agree that the problem with voter ID requirements is not that they enable totalitarian regimes.

Phanatik wrote:This brings to mind the lefty dichotomy of opposing capital punishment for heinous criminals, but then supporting the abortion of innocent human babies.

Sort of like how conservatives seem to be pro-life until birth?

Liberals always seem to be angry and dissatisfied about something. No doubt their internal conflicts are driving them mad.

Yup, those Tea Partiers and other conservatives only picked legitimate issues to get angry over. Very calm, cool and collected. Made rational arguments at all those town hall meetings.




Two sides of the same coin.

Seaward wrote:

Manchu wrote:- Successful political candidates are hardly the only people in a position to do anything about voter fraud.

Who investigates it?

- The ostensible object of the law is to prevent disenfranchisement; the application of the law implies disenfranchisement.

I believe the object of the law is to prevent voter fraud. My problem with the, "Hey, voter fraud isn't a significant problem now!" argument against such laws is that it's ridiculously short-sighted. To suggest that something will not happen because it hasn't happened yet...well, look: we spend a lot of money on our nuclear arsenal in case of nuclear war.

- You're the only one talking about Soviet Russia.

In this thread, indeed. In others on the same topic, however, I've seen several of contributors wax on about how they do not wish to live in a totalitarian country where the authorities can demand to see your papers when they wish.

Please, don't bring up anything that Manchu hasn't already discussed. < /straw man!> The Real World does not apply, as Manchu lives in Pleasantville, where there is no such thing as voter fraud (as the mayor has always been the mayor, the city council has always been the same, etc., as they don't have elections.)

Any attempt to expect people to be engaged in a modern society by having i.d. is RACIST! Now, you might think that's just a lefty knee-jerk reaction to shut down debate by playing the race card (they must have it on speed dial) but you'd be wrong, wrong, wrong!

It's racist because they say so. Just like you can google the thousands of images of the millions of welfare children that died in the streets because of Welfare Reform that was forced on Clinton by those darn racist Republicans in the 90's. The democrats said it would happen, so it must be so. But, I didn't bring that up, as Manchu hasn't mentioned it yet, so it doesn't apply.

Regards,

the topic -- voter ID requirements

what we need to discuss:

Soviet Russia
global warming
abortion
the death penalty
social welfare
Nazi persecution of the Jews
voter ID requirements ✓

All part of my insidious plot to distract you from the real issues!

Have a fabulous day!