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:
I have neither the time nor desire to teach Dakkanauts the basic facts about US society when it comes to the racial dimensions of socio-economic inequalities and the exploitative politics of immigration law. Some of our users seem to either sincerely believe we live in a totally egalitarian society or perhaps they just don't care about the reality of the matter. Either way, I wish you all the best of luck -- peace.

Cool story bro...

We're trying to have a discussion and you want to back out?

In MO, if you claim any state welfare benefit, you must provide some sort of ID. (they can be driver's license, state school IDs, whatever the state deemed acceptable).

How can it be a "burden" if you have to prove your residency (US citizen) in order to vote, when you have to use the same sort of IDs to claim benefits?

To me, bringing up "socio-economic inequalities" is a cop-out, because where you are in these social groups should have no bearing.

Manchu wrote:I have neither the time nor desire to teach Dakkanauts the basic facts about US society when it comes to the racial dimensions of socio-economic inequalities and the exploitative politics of immigration law. Some of our users seem to either sincerely believe we live in a totally egalitarian society or perhaps they just don't care about the reality of the matter. Either way, I wish you all the best of luck -- peace.

Well, it's your own fault. You got warned right in the thread how it was going to go.

After all the thousands of posts on this topic over the last say 2 years,

djones520 wrote:I still have not heard one reasonable argument how this is considered an unreasonable expectation for anyone.

he's going to go right on not hearing them.

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I have neither the time nor desire to teach Dakkanauts the basic facts about US society when it comes to the racial dimensions of socio-economic inequalities and the exploitative politics of immigration law. Some of our users seem to either sincerely believe we live in a totally egalitarian society or perhaps they just don't care about the reality of the matter. Either way, I wish you all the best of luck -- peace.

Cool story bro...

We're trying to have a discussion and you want to back out?

In MO, if you claim any state welfare benefit, you must provide some sort of ID. (they can be driver's license, state school IDs, whatever the state deemed acceptable).

How can it be a "burden" if you have to prove your residency (US citizen) in order to vote, when you have to use the same sort of IDs to claim benefits?

To me, bringing up "socio-economic inequalities" is a cop-out, because where you are in these social groups should have no bearing.

Go back to where he claimed not everyone gets those benefits. I've got to imagine that the number of people who are so poor that they can't afford to spend $5 on state I.D. card, and not claim welfare benefits are so small that the argument is facecious at best.

 Manchu wrote:
Some of our users seem to either sincerely believe we live in a totally egalitarian society or perhaps they just don't care about the reality of the matter. Either way, I wish you all the best of luck -- peace.

Illegal immigration is bad (Because it's illegal, you see), we share a border with Mexico, a nation that just happens to be full of latino people. Most of the illegal immigrants are Latino (Because of you border with Mexico, you see), and by trying to prevent illegal immigrants from voting we are by extension just being racist towards Latinos?

This reminds me of a Lewis Black bit on Cheney and Iraq.

Here are some statistics on people who do not have ID. If you look at the demographics, it's pretty clear why these laws are being championed pretty exclusively by Republicans, it's apparent to anyone willing to think critically this is a totally overt attempt to disenfranchise young and minority voters who are inclined to vote democrat (such as when some state allowed CCW as ID, but not photo college ID), and so on.

Let the goalpost moving, biased-source calling, and poll-tax-justifying begin, as it inevitably will.

 Ouze wrote:

Manchu wrote:Either way, I wish you all the best of luck -- peace.

Well, it's your own fault.

Yep, which is why I'm not going to follow through on the same mistake again. It'll have to be enough for me that the Supreme Court saw reason ...

As Dogma says, sometimes the best revenge is knowing your right. That's not exactly what he said, but close enough.

 Ouze wrote:
Here are some statistics on people who do not have ID. If you look at the demographics, it's pretty clear why these laws are being championed pretty exclusively by Republicans, it's apparent to anyone willing to think critically this is a totally overt attempt to disenfranchise young and minority voters who are inclined to vote democrat (such as when some state allowed CCW as ID, but not photo college ID), and so on.

Let the goalpost moving, biased-source calling, and poll-tax-justifying being, as it inevitably will.

Yes yes yes... they don't have them now, that's never been the argument. The question is, if they were made easily obtainable (as South Carolina tried to do), then where does the argument lead. The argument made is that it's to hard for people to get them if they want to vote.

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Here are some statistics on people who do not have ID. If you look at the demographics, it's pretty clear why these laws are being championed pretty exclusively by Republicans, it's apparent to anyone willing to think critically this is a totally overt attempt to disenfranchise young and minority voters who are inclined to vote democrat (such as when some state allowed CCW as ID, but not photo college ID), and so on.

Let the goalpost moving, biased-source calling, and poll-tax-justifying being, as it inevitably will.

Yes yes yes... they don't have them now, that's never been the argument. The question is, if they were made easily obtainable (as South Carolina tried to do), then where does the argument lead. The argument made is that it's to hard for people to get them if they want to vote.

I know...

This isn't hard.

gak, if you're male and 18 years of age, BLAMO! You must register for Selective Service. You kinda have to prove who you are when you do this.

This. Is. Not. Hard.

Again, the debate should be how to implement and be implemented that's fair / equiable.

Yawn. Yes, everyone knows we should have the proper "Papers" on us at all times!

This thread would be much more exciting if we talked about guns!

 Ouze wrote:
Here are some statistics on people who do not have ID. If you look at the demographics, it's pretty clear why these laws are being championed pretty exclusively by Republicans, it's apparent to anyone willing to think critically this is a totally overt attempt to disenfranchise young and minority voters who are inclined to vote democrat (such as when some state allowed CCW as ID, but not photo college ID), and so on.

Let the goalpost moving, biased-source calling, and poll-tax-justifying begin, as it inevitably will.

Ok, so following that link in 2006 (which takes a sample of 987 and attempts to extrapolate it to 30 million);
- 7% do not have "ready access" to the documents. Good thing that notice of elections are given in advance, that they are held regularly and that there is plenty of media coverage of up coming elections (especially the serious ones) so they have plenty of time to request the documents and get their ID.
- 12% of those earning under $25K pa do not have a US passport, naturalisation document, or birth certificate. But no mention as to the % without a driver's license or other proof of ID
- The point about women changing their last names is horrendously overstated. If they want to get an ID in their own name they go to the SS Office with their birth certificate and marriage license (which they can get a copy of if they don't have) and get their name changed, then get an ID with the correct last name. The same goes for their point about incorrect information.

If it was mandatory that voting required an ID, that was provided free, and that there was education about then the overwhelming majority of what that study complained about would be countered. Especially when it came to an ID requirement affecting minorities and the elderly.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
To those who don't like the cncept of voter id, under what conditions would it be acceptable to have voter id?

In at least one of two scenarios:

(1) where immigration status is meaningfully normalized and where citizens of any race or national origin are not disproportionately marginalized

and/or

(2) where incidents of voter fraud of that type which voter ID laws address demonstrably undermine free elections.

Since neither of those scenarios accurately represents reality, voter ID requirement laws are not necessary. Since reality is the reverse of both of those scenarios, voter ID requirement laws are not only unnecessary but also harmful.

Define immigration status is meaningfully normalized? How about if we put 750mm mines on the border. Would that normalize it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

Since neither of those scenarios accurately represents reality, voter ID requirement laws are not necessary. Since reality is the reverse of both of those scenarios, voter ID requirement laws are not only unnecessary but also harmful.

How did you come to this conclusion?

Here are some facts where one organization discover frauds.

The point being, you simply need IDs in all walks of life... unless you want to go totally off-grid, having IDs is simply a necessity.

Why is it such a bad thing to require proof of residency to vote?

Whats interesting is that, if the pols are in government buildings, it would be fine to ask for ID to get in, but you can't ask for ID to actually vote.

Basically, Scalia did some tap dancing and said that AZ could not override the Federal law that says you can prove your citizenship to vote in an election by swearing that you are a citizen.

 Ouze wrote:
Here are some statistics on people who do not have ID. If you look at the demographics, it's pretty clear why these laws are being championed pretty exclusively by Republicans, it's apparent to anyone willing to think critically this is a totally overt attempt to disenfranchise young and minority voters who are inclined to vote democrat (such as when some state allowed CCW as ID, but not photo college ID), and so on.

Let the goalpost moving, biased-source calling, and poll-tax-justifying begin, as it inevitably will.

And again, if everyone gets a free ID then we're cool right? If the argument is that old people are too old then:
1) everyone gets a free biometric ID, when they turn 18.
2) because of past discrimination making record difficult, ID is not required for those born before 1970.
3) wiener dogs can now vote, but have to show ID.

everyone's happy. Problem?

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Here are some statistics on people who do not have ID. If you look at the demographics, it's pretty clear why these laws are being championed pretty exclusively by Republicans, it's apparent to anyone willing to think critically this is a totally overt attempt to disenfranchise young and minority voters who are inclined to vote democrat (such as when some state allowed CCW as ID, but not photo college ID), and so on.

Let the goalpost moving, biased-source calling, and poll-tax-justifying being, as it inevitably will.

Yes yes yes... they don't have them now, that's never been the argument.

Pennsylvania's gak in chief, Gov Corbett, tried to get the law passed now though, in fact last year, to squeeze it in before the election and deny the votes from Pittsburgh and Philly, without ensuring citizens had paperwork, when those pushing hardest are republicans and those least likely to own the relevant paperwork are likely democrat voters, it's easy to concur there is an attempt to prevent American citizens from voting taking place.

It was a partisan move, it is, as has been established by federal law, illegal.

 Easy E wrote:
Yawn. Yes, everyone knows we should have the proper "Papers" on us at all times!

This thread would be much more exciting if we talked about guns!

You don't have your driver's license on you at all times? Not saying I agree with all of this stuff, but I don't go anywhere without a form of ID on me.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Here are some statistics on people who do not have ID. If you look at the demographics, it's pretty clear why these laws are being championed pretty exclusively by Republicans, it's apparent to anyone willing to think critically this is a totally overt attempt to disenfranchise young and minority voters who are inclined to vote democrat (such as when some state allowed CCW as ID, but not photo college ID), and so on.

Let the goalpost moving, biased-source calling, and poll-tax-justifying being, as it inevitably will.

Yes yes yes... they don't have them now, that's never been the argument.

Pennsylvania's gak in chief, Gov Corbett, tried to get the law passed now though, in fact last year, to squeeze it in before the election and deny the votes from Pittsburgh and Philly, without ensuring citizens had paperwork, when those pushing hardest are republicans and those least likely to own the relevant paperwork are likely democrat voters, it's easy to concur there is an attempt to prevent American citizens from voting taking place.

It was a partisan move, it is, as has been established by federal law, illegal.

Yes, that was a gakky, transparently partisan move.

Like I said, it should be done in a common sense way and implemented in a fair manner, such as, giving the voters a year's notice before mandating it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Yawn. Yes, everyone knows we should have the proper "Papers" on us at all times!

This thread would be much more exciting if we talked about guns!

You don't have your driver's license on you at all times? Not saying I agree with all of this stuff, but I don't go anywhere without a form of ID on me.

In MO (and I'm sure in most other states), you are compelled to carry your Driver's License (as well as forms of insurance) when driving.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Pennsylvania's gak in chief, Gov Corbett, tried to get the law passed now though, in fact last year, to squeeze it in before the election and deny the votes from Pittsburgh and Philly, without ensuring citizens had paperwork, when those pushing hardest are republicans and those least likely to own the relevant paperwork are likely democrat voters, it's easy to concur there is an attempt to prevent American citizens from voting taking place.

It was a partisan move, it is, as has been established by federal law, illegal.

That sort of stunt should not be pulled before an election. You should give citizens a reasonable time to get their documents in order, and for the relevant body to issue the IDs

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Pennsylvania's gak in chief, Gov Corbett, tried to get the law passed now though, in fact last year, to squeeze it in before the election and deny the votes from Pittsburgh and Philly, without ensuring citizens had paperwork, when those pushing hardest are republicans and those least likely to own the relevant paperwork are likely democrat voters, it's easy to concur there is an attempt to prevent American citizens from voting taking place.

It was a partisan move, it is, as has been established by federal law, illegal.

That sort of stunt should not be pulled before an election. You should give citizens a reasonable time to get their documents in order, and for the relevant body to issue the IDs

Agreed. Start it for the 2016 election. more than enough time for wiener dogs to get their paper work together for the next Presidential election.

 Manchu wrote:
It'll have to be enough for me that the Supreme Court saw reason ...

The SCOTUS saw "law" not reason. Primacy was the issue they based their decision on, not voter rights. The decision also suggested that Arizona could make a challenge to the existing Federal law if they requested the Fed to update the voter registration card to include proof of citizenship (for AZ only) and are denied. It would seem that other states can do this as well.

 whembly wrote:

You don't have your driver's license on you at all times? Not saying I agree with all of this stuff, but I don't go anywhere without a form of ID on me.

In MO (and I'm sure in most other states), you are compelled to carry your Driver's License (as well as forms of insurance) when driving.

 Easy E wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You don't have your driver's license on you at all times? Not saying I agree with all of this stuff, but I don't go anywhere without a form of ID on me.

In MO (and I'm sure in most other states), you are compelled to carry your Driver's License (as well as forms of insurance) when driving.

Unless of course, you are not driving. Then you don't need any form of ID to be out in public. My wife frequently leaves the house sans ID.

 Easy E wrote:

 whembly wrote:

In MO (and I'm sure in most other states), you are compelled to carry your Driver's License (as well as forms of insurance) when driving.

Unless of course, you are not driving. Then you don't need any form of ID to be out in public. My wife frequently leaves the house sans ID.

Even when I'm not driving I carry it... it's in my wallet, where I won't lose it.

 Frazzled wrote:
Agreed. Start it for the 2016 election. more than enough time for wiener dogs to get their paper work together for the next Presidential election.

They'll still probably be eligible to vote before me

 Easy E wrote:
Unless of course, you are not driving. Then you don't need any form of ID to be out in public. My wife frequently leaves the house sans ID.

So you have no objection to carrying ID for specific purposes or events, just the general carrying of ID?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Even when I'm not driving I carry it... it's in my wallet, where I won't lose it.

I don't leave the house without my permit, work authorisation and passport

Unless I am supervising the removal of kids from my lawn I always have two pieces of ID. Every time I've gone to vote I've had two plus my registration card.

I can once again post my personal yearlong struggle of proving my citizenship and the difficulties we had in satisfying agencies and trips to court we had make for me to get any proof of citizenship on a pre-9/11 world.

But it would just get in the way of "HerpDerp it's easy to get proof people just wanna allow voter fraud" talk

 d-usa wrote:
I can once again post my personal yearlong struggle of proving my citizenship and the difficulties we had in satisfying agencies and trips to court we had make for me to get any proof of citizenship on a pre-9/11 world.

But it would just get in the way of "HerpDerp it's easy to get proof people just wanna allow voter fraud" talk

Hey don't blame us because Oklahoma is flat.

Again, if you're against it, how about this? Please cite better conditions than this that would be required.

And again, if everyone gets a free ID then we're cool right? If the argument is that old people are too old then:
1) everyone gets a free biometric ID, when they turn 18.
2) because of past discrimination making record difficult, ID is not required for those born before 1970.
3) wiener dogs can now vote, but have to show ID.

 d-usa wrote:
I can once again post my personal yearlong struggle of proving my citizenship and the difficulties we had in satisfying agencies and trips to court we had make for me to get any proof of citizenship on a pre-9/11 world.

But it would just get in the way of "HerpDerp it's easy to get proof people just wanna allow voter fraud" talk

And rational arguments would just get in the way of anecdotal evidence, right?

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I can once again post my personal yearlong struggle of proving my citizenship and the difficulties we had in satisfying agencies and trips to court we had make for me to get any proof of citizenship on a pre-9/11 world.

But it would just get in the way of "HerpDerp it's easy to get proof people just wanna allow voter fraud" talk

Hey don't blame us because Oklahoma is flat.

Again, if you're against it, how about this? Please cite better conditions than this that would be required.

And again, if everyone gets a free ID then we're cool right? If the argument is that old people are too old then:
1) everyone gets a free biometric ID, when they turn 18.
2) because of past discrimination making record difficult, ID is not required for those born before 1970.
3) wiener dogs can now vote, but have to show ID.

What a strange thing to hear so many claimed libertarians in this thread now calling for the government to compile more records on people and insinuate it's self into people's lives yet further.

Why is this necessary when it wasn't necessary 20 years ago?

Its not creating more records.

It was necessary 20 years ago.