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.

 sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except I don't buy that they actually would cause that. You say people will get disenfranchised. Yet in order for that to be true they must also be unemployed and a ton of other things, and my guess is that someone who that applies to probably isn't going to be voting anyway as they have much bigger problems.

Wow. And here's an argument that its okay to disenfranchise people because they probably wouldn't vote anyway. Something that ridiculous would be funny, but it's an attitude that I suspect is very common and that makes it very scary.

If there was a fraud issue then that'd be worth addressing, but there isn't and so the only thing that matters is getting as many people as possible in the ballot box every election. But look at this thread. It's fething terrible.

That's the argument, that it will keep people from voting. Yet I have yet to see anything that shows that to be the case. I doubt very much that this mythical person who cannot afford an ID, does not have an ID, and never will have an ID, but who mysteriously is also a registered voter, actually exists.

I'm not saying its ok, I just don't buy the line that it actually will have an effect on people who have been voting but no longer would be able to. After all the argument is that it will prevent Democratic voters from voting, but they would have to have been voting in the first place for that to be true.

We do have a voting problem in this country, but adding an ID requirement wouldn't do anything to make it worse or better. It would just be a wash.

 Grey Templar wrote:
That's the argument, that it will keep people from voting. Yet I have yet to see anything that shows that to be the case. I doubt very much that this mythical person who cannot afford an ID, does not have an ID, and never will have an ID, but who mysteriously is also a registered voter, actually exists.

The GAO measured the impact of voter ID laws passed in Kansas and Tennessee, and found voter attendance was down about 2% when compared to other states without voter ID laws. And you better believe the impact was disproportionate among minorities. So there you go, now you've seen something to establish that people really are dissuaded from the ballot over ID laws'.

11% of people don't have sufficient ID, and where these laws have been passed the voting numbers have dropped about 2%. And this was all to 'solve' a problem of voter fraud that occurs in the low double digits across a country that casts 100 million votes.

Voter fraud is not a problem in the US. Voter turnout is. To fix the problem you don't have, you're making the problem you do have worse. It's an incredible nonsense, and it only makes sense once you realise that people pushing these reforms do not give one gak about improving democracy, just about improving their odds in the next election.

I think the number of people that would vote, but don't have ID, is likely pretty small, albiet is measurable. The number of instances of voter impersonation rounds down to zero.

No matter how relatively small the consequences of a law are, when they are substantially greater than the harm they prevent, that's a bad law.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

State driver's licenses, State I.D. cards, and Military I.D.s are sufficient for anything requiring a photo I.D. to confirm identity, And pretty much universally accepted for such across the 50 States.

I've been denied service, repeatedly, for presenting my State ID as a means of establishing my age to purchase age limited products or enter age limited establishments; even in the State which issued the ID. Additionally, when working as a bouncer at a bar in Minnesota, I was instructed to deny entry to any person that did not have a valid driver's license and was explicitly told not to accept State IDs. State IDs are not well respected forms of identification.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Is it worth bringing up that there has historically been profound republican opposition to any sort of national ID standards?

I can't speak for everyone in the party, but I see it as pointless.


State driver's licenses, State I.D. cards, and Military I.D.s are sufficient for anything requiring a photo I.D. to confirm identity, And pretty much universally accepted for such across the 50 States.

Well, except for the 30 some odd states that have driver's licenses not up to "compliance" with TSA, and thus making people from around 30 states unable to fly using a DL as their preferred ID (this also means that student ID, employer ID, etc. is more often than not, ineligible as well)
edit: I am talking about their much maligned "REAL ID" program... under it, starting last month, 6 states' ID cards were outright unusable, while most of the others up to gate personnel, still others were OK for domestic travel, but not international, and finally like 6 or 7 or so were completely "OK" and valid for domestic and international flights (remember we don't actually have to show passport until we arrive in the foreign country of destination, and when we get back)


I do find it ironic that there's one situation that nearly EVERY right leaning person wishes would come true, and it could be fixed with a simple law, or addendum, or even a national ID card program: nearly every Republican, Libertarian, etc. wants their conceal carry permits to be nationally reciprocated the same way their marriage licenses are.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
You need legal id for doing many things from driving a car, renting a house, buying a gun or such.

What makes voting special. ?

Something about the constitution or some such rubbish i guess

literally every thread ever on this topic hits exactly the same beats, at this point maybe Lego can just write a script to automate it and save us a lot of hassle

Yet my list gave examples of Constitutionally protected rights that do require photo ID...

Your list is also incorrect on a ton of those things. I am currently on Unemployment and getting Food Stamps, I never had to show my ID. I rent the place I live at, never had to show an ID. Bought a car, never had to show an ID. Bought a cell phone, never had to show an ID. Bought an M Rated Video Game, never had to show an ID.

Your list, it lacks what we call, truth.

Really? A quick Google search reveals;

Unemployment;
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/uia_1538_81121_7.pdf
"Driver license number or state ID number"

Unemployment;
http://www.wikihow.com/Apply-for-Unemployment-in-Illinois
"Social Security Number (SSN) and name, as it appears on your SSN card.
The SSNs of any dependents you are claiming.
Employer's name, mailing address, phone numbers, employment dates, and separation reason for all the employers you worked for in the past 18 months.
If you are not a U.S. citizen, your Alien Registration Information.
If you have worked since the Sunday of the week of your application, the amount of gross wages (amount earned before any deductions) earned in that week—including lodging, meals, or earned compensation of any form.
If you are a recently separated veteran, bring in the Member 4 Copy of DD form 214/215.
In addition to the above, if you are filing in person you must bring 2 forms of identification—at least one of which includes your Social Security Number."

Fun Fact: I live in Illinois and I am on unemployment right now. I never had to show them ID because I did it all over the phone. So that is super wrong.

 Ouze wrote:
That feeling when you have to pull info from 15 different states to try and make fetch happen.

Also, LOL at using a site for SNAP (food stamps) which explicitly says you don't need photo ID, to "prove you need photo ID to get food stamps".

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
SNAP (Food stamps)
http://www.myreporter.com/2013/09/is-a-photo-id-required-when-applying-for-welfare-including-food-stamps/
“The SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker is required to verify your identity. 7 CFR 273.2(f). There are many ways, however, that you may verify your identity. A photo ID is only one way. You should not be denied SNAP/Food Stamps simply because you do not have a photo ID. To prove who you are, you can use such things as a work or school ID, an ID for health benefits, an ID from another social services program such as TANF, wage stubs, a birth certificate, or a voter registration card. The SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker can also verify your identity by calling a “collateral contact” who can confirm you who are. Shelter workers and employers are examples of possible collateral contacts. If you have no paper documentation of who you are, you should ask the SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker to call a collateral contact..

Well done.

That is just all kinds of amazing. It says in the first line of the link you do not need photo ID.

 Ouze wrote:
That feeling when you have to pull info from 15 different states to try and make fetch happen.

That feeling when you pull in data from a number of States to show that it is a widespread phenomenon. But please continue to try and claim otherwise.

 Ouze wrote:
Also, LOL at using a site for SNAP (food stamps) which explicitly says you don't need photo ID, to "prove you need photo ID to get food stamps".

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
SNAP (Food stamps)
http://www.myreporter.com/2013/09/is-a-photo-id-required-when-applying-for-welfare-including-food-stamps/
“The SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker is required to verify your identity. 7 CFR 273.2(f). There are many ways, however, that you may verify your identity. A photo ID is only one way. You should not be denied SNAP/Food Stamps simply because you do not have a photo ID. To prove who you are, you can use such things as a work or school ID, an ID for health benefits, an ID from another social services program such as TANF, wage stubs, a birth certificate, or a voter registration card. The SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker can also verify your identity by calling a “collateral contact” who can confirm you who are. Shelter workers and employers are examples of possible collateral contacts. If you have no paper documentation of who you are, you should ask the SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker to call a collateral contact..

Well done.

And you ignored the point where other posters then shifted the standard to "legal id", or just "ID'. Congratulations on keeping up.

Well done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Fun Fact: I live in Illinois and I am on unemployment right now. I never had to show them ID because I did it all over the phone. So that is super wrong.

Illinois may still require ID.

https://benefits.ides.illinois.gov/File4UI/Benefits/profile/createRegistrationStart.do
"In order to complete the registration process you must have a valid Driver's License or a State ID Card. If you do not have either of these two identifications, Please contact the Illinois Department of Employment Security's Claimant Services Center at (800) 244-5631 FREE for further assistance."




You are super wrong. Your claims lack what we call, truth. Please stop continuing to confuse anecdotes with evidence.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
That is just all kinds of amazing. It says in the first line of the link you do not need photo ID.

Yet just prior to this you shifted that standard...

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Your list is also incorrect on a ton of those things. I am currently on Unemployment and getting Food Stamps, I never had to show my ID. I rent the place I live at, never had to show an ID. Bought a car, never had to show an ID. Bought a cell phone, never had to show an ID. Bought an M Rated Video Game, never had to show an ID.

Curious that you changed the standard, and now complain that I provided evidence which meets this new standard

**throws flag**

I believe, that you believe, that you're right.

I don't even understand what is happening right now.

If the Voter ID doesn't require a legal ID, can I use my British Rowing race card? It's got my picture on it.

My work ID is the most obscure ID I have that meets the legal requirement, so I always use it out of principle to make them look it up.

Why do people keep saying such great titles for the tag line lately?

Dakka OT: I don't even understand what is happening right now

There have been a bunch of good ones over the last week or so, most definitely.

 Ouze wrote:
I believe, that you believe, that you're right.

I believe that you believe that you are right, and in spite of a lack of evidence that's all the argument that you need




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I don't even understand what is happening right now.

You're still wrong, so it's ok

There isn't a lack of evidence.

edit: why bother

 d-usa wrote:
edit: why bother

The thread does seem to have reached it's natural conclusion