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.

In light of the NC court case, for those against voter ID requirements. If you could use a recognizable state ID, or two forms of ID include an alternative recognizable pic ID, would there be an issue? Aka if you didn't have a state ID but had a school pic ID, passport or even SAMs Club, you'd be good.

What I would really like is credible evidence that in-person voter fraud is actually undermining our elections in the first place.

I don't see any use in talking about solutions until there is a problem. I think it's often expressed as "change for the sake of change."

Then again, we all know these laws are neither changes for the sake or change nor efforts to protect the validity of our elections so there you go ...

Seconded. It's a solution looking for a problem that, last I saw reported, does not exist. Voter fraud is (from all I've read) incredibly rare, and in-person voter fraud (the kind ID requirements might combat) is effectively non-existent.

Implementing any barriers to voting to combat a non-issue is transparently not about dealing with the issue it claims to be against.

 Forar wrote:
Implementing any barriers to voting to combat a non-issue is transparently not about dealing with the issue it claims to be against.

It's pretty good about keeping too many of the wrong kind of people from voting, though. Which is not at all why we need these laws, of course.

 Manchu wrote:
What I would really like is credible evidence that in-person voter fraud is actually undermining our elections in the first place.

I don't see any use in talking about solutions until there is a problem. I think it's often expressed as "change for the sake of change."

Then again, we all know these laws are neither changes for the sake or change nor efforts to protect the validity of our elections so there you go ...

Answer the actual question please.

My intent is the mere confirmation of ID to protect enfranchisement of citizens. If your motive is only to insure that all truly eligible voters can vote as well then
Would you have an issue with that?
*There's no cost
*There's no time issue or scarcity of time to get one.
*Its literally as a simple verification of ID. I only listed the above pic IDs because I could think of others but I am sure there are more.

To sweeten the pot, we can add in the personal affadavit I routineley have to sign because of different addresses. Like the Canadians, if you show up with a power or water bill in your name and sign that you are eligible to vote, you may make a provisional ballot. If there's no dispute within 24 hours of close of all polling then your vote counts. Note this is same affadavit anyone signs if there is a glitch in the voting roll and it insures you still vote (and its assumed you're eligible in a burden of proof issue).

 Ouze wrote:

 Forar wrote:
Implementing any barriers to voting to combat a non-issue is transparently not about dealing with the issue it claims to be against.

It's pretty good about keeping too many of the wrong kind of people from voting, though. Which is not at all why we need these laws, of course.

Dey terk er votes!

I mean are people saying Canadian rules are too restricting here?

And the question only goes to voter IDs-no other restrictions in discussion.

 Ouze wrote:

 Forar wrote:
Implementing any barriers to voting to combat a non-issue is transparently not about dealing with the issue it claims to be against.

It's pretty good about keeping too many of the wrong kind of people from voting, though. Which is not at all why we need these laws, of course.

Right on the nose, Mr A-10. Exactly what I was referring to.

 Manchu wrote:
What I would really like is credible evidence that in-person voter fraud is actually undermining our elections in the first place.

I don't see any use in talking about solutions until there is a problem. I think it's often expressed as "change for the sake of change."

Then again, we all know these laws are neither changes for the sake or change nor efforts to protect the validity of our elections so there you go ...

Voter fraud isn't in the domain of "likely democrats".



It happens.

And what exactly are you referring to Canadian. Have you voted recently? Can you not use your hydro bill to vote? or are you calling Canadian laws racist?

 Frazzled wrote:
I mean are people saying Canadian rules are too restricting here?

And the question only goes to voter IDs-no other restrictions in discussion.

have you seen Mexico's voting laws... it's Draconian compared to the States.

 Frazzled wrote:
Answer the actual question please.

To answer the question, I have to assume that it's worth asking. It's not.

 Ouze wrote:

 Forar wrote:
Implementing any barriers to voting to combat a non-issue is transparently not about dealing with the issue it claims to be against.

It's pretty good about keeping too many of the wrong kind of people from voting, though. Which is not at all why we need these laws, of course.

So are you saying that minorities can't get IDs with the same ease as other people?

That's actually casually racist

Awareness that race is an issue in this country is not racism.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
What I would really like is credible evidence that in-person voter fraud is actually undermining our elections in the first place.

I don't see any use in talking about solutions until there is a problem. I think it's often expressed as "change for the sake of change."

Then again, we all know these laws are neither changes for the sake or change nor efforts to protect the validity of our elections so there you go ...

Answer the actual question please.

...
...

Ask an honest question.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Forar wrote:
Implementing any barriers to voting to combat a non-issue is transparently not about dealing with the issue it claims to be against.

It's pretty good about keeping too many of the wrong kind of people from voting, though. Which is not at all why we need these laws, of course.

So are you saying that minorities can't get IDs with the same ease as other people?

That's actually casually racist

Or it would be, if I used the word "minorities" or anything else at all alluding to skin color even once in my post, which I didn't... but why let what I actually said get in the way of what you want to pretend I said, right?

 Manchu wrote:
Awareness that race is an issue in this country is not racism.

Are minorities being denied IDs?

If the answer is no, then there is no problem. Given that an ID of some form is going to be required at some point. Unless you live in the boonies and are self employed you will need an ID at some point.

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Forar wrote:
Implementing any barriers to voting to combat a non-issue is transparently not about dealing with the issue it claims to be against.

It's pretty good about keeping too many of the wrong kind of people from voting, though. Which is not at all why we need these laws, of course.

So are you saying that minorities can't get IDs with the same ease as other people?

That's actually casually racist

Or it would be, if I used the word "minorities" or anything else at all alluding to skin color even once in my post, which I didn't... but why let what I actually said get in the way of what you want to pretend I said, right?

You do know that you do need to "prove who you are" to qualify for IA's welfare services...eh? Minority... in general aren't all poor.

 Frazzled wrote:
And what exactly are you referring to Canadian.

Well, American,

Have you voted recently?

Yes.

Can you not use your hydro bill to vote?

It's on the list of things I can use.

or are you calling Canadian laws racist?

No, I'm calling transparent US laws racist. Please, do try to keep up little doggy. I know it's not easy, stubby legs and all...

We both know that the states looking to implement voter photo ID requirements aren't going to take a Sam's Club card as proof.

It's a distraction at best and a thinly veiled effort to put another barrier to voting in place at worst.

Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing.

The system apparently works as it is.

Fraz, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Just answer the question please.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Forar wrote:
Implementing any barriers to voting to combat a non-issue is transparently not about dealing with the issue it claims to be against.

It's pretty good about keeping too many of the wrong kind of people from voting, though. Which is not at all why we need these laws, of course.

So are you saying that minorities can't get IDs with the same ease as other people?

That's actually casually racist

Or it would be, if I used the word "minorities" or anything else at all alluding to skin color even once in my post, which I didn't... but why let what I actually said get in the way of what you want to pretend I said, right?

You do know that you do need to "prove who you are" to qualify for IA's welfare services...eh? Minority... in general aren't all poor.

Really? I have to say it twice?

I didn't

use the word

minority


at all

 Forar wrote:


No, I'm calling transparent US laws racist.

Transparently racist?

How? Be very specific.

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Forar wrote:
Implementing any barriers to voting to combat a non-issue is transparently not about dealing with the issue it claims to be against.

It's pretty good about keeping too many of the wrong kind of people from voting, though. Which is not at all why we need these laws, of course.

So are you saying that minorities can't get IDs with the same ease as other people?

That's actually casually racist

Or it would be, if I used the word "minorities" or anything else at all alluding to skin color even once in my post, which I didn't... but why let what I actually said get in the way of what you want to pretend I said, right?

Really just yanking your chain there, but the point does stand.

Dems claim that voter ID requirements would hinder minorities from voting. Which should really be insulting to anybody who is a minority. It also implies that there is racisim in the availability of IDs, which is simply not true.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Answer the actual question please.

To answer the question, I have to assume that it's worth asking. It's not.

So you're really just trolling the thread? Do I need to call a mod an report a grumpy old troll?

Answer the question. Does a voter verification with any pic ID, or non pic id from certain sources (the Canadian method) work?

Alternatively a nationally issued biometric ID. WOuld that work?

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Forar wrote:
Implementing any barriers to voting to combat a non-issue is transparently not about dealing with the issue it claims to be against.

It's pretty good about keeping too many of the wrong kind of people from voting, though. Which is not at all why we need these laws, of course.

So are you saying that minorities can't get IDs with the same ease as other people?

That's actually casually racist

Or it would be, if I used the word "minorities" or anything else at all alluding to skin color even once in my post, which I didn't... but why let what I actually said get in the way of what you want to pretend I said, right?

You do know that you do need to "prove who you are" to qualify for IA's welfare services...eh? Minority... in general aren't all poor.

Really? I have to say it twice?

I didn't

use the word

minority


at all

My bad... then who are the "wrong kind of people" then? o.O Folks who don't like Selma Hayek?

Those who don't like her don't deserve to vote!

 Grey Templar wrote:
Are minorities being denied IDs? If the answer is no, then there is no problem.

Let's use that same logic for a hypothetical. Let's say there's a law that you have to show an income tax return stating your household makes over $200,000 a year in order to vote. That passes your test -- after all, no one is explicitly denying minorities the kind of jobs that net such income. Why, that's illegal! But even so, what would the actual effect of such a law have regarding minorities? As a matter of fact, minorities would be disproportionately kept from the polls.

Sadly, Voter ID laws could have the same effect even though we are not talking about such an extravagant figure as $200,000 annual household income. This is because socio-economic inequity is very deep in this country and racial minorities are much more likely to be among the poorest. Given that Voter ID laws risk carrying this racial socio-economic inequity over into racial political inequity, I think it is very important to establish that the benefit for which we take such a risk actually exists.

If we lived in a society with an open lack of confidence in elections as a result of rampant in-person voter fraud, it might be appropriate to weigh this substantial risk against the benefit of reviving legitimate elections.

But that is not the society we live in. So why undertake the risk in the first place?

 Frazzled wrote:
So you're really just trolling the thread?

By that logic, you're really just trolling the forum. Careful now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
What I would really like is credible evidence that in-person voter fraud is actually undermining our elections in the first place.

I don't see any use in talking about solutions until there is a problem. I think it's often expressed as "change for the sake of change."

Then again, we all know these laws are neither changes for the sake or change nor efforts to protect the validity of our elections so there you go ...

Answer the actual question please.

...
...

Ask an honest question.

Are you saying I'm dishonest? I'm taking those against the voter id issue at their word and their stated intent and impugning no malign motive. You can't take me at mine?
I saw the Voter ID on a news title and, since bored of the Congress fiasco, raised a question.

Interestingly I've been called a lot of things, but no one has called me a liar to my face in decades.


So again, would anyone against the voter ID like NC, be against this method? It incorporates their arguments, and further expands it with the Canadian system.

Manchu... Georgia passed voter ID laws years ago...

They turned out okay.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/despite-voter-id-law-minority-turnout-up-in-georgi/nR2bx/

I'd consider backing a voter ID law if....

You could find me five creditable studies* that show that NATION WIDE voter fraud is serious** (or even a thing) enough to merit nationwide voter ID. As well as five instances where voter fraud swayed an election***.


*Studies cannot be paid for by either major political party or politically associated group. Also it has to be clear who DID fund the study so bias can be checked.

**Serious as in "All the fraud swayed an election."

***Examples must be from congressional races, presidential races, or gubernatorial races. (Ie I don’t care if some mayor somewhere won because a bunch of zombies voted for him.)

 Forar wrote:
No, I'm calling transparent US laws racist. Please, do try to keep up little doggy. I know it's not easy, stubby legs and all...

Confucius say - he who throws mud is losing ground.
Please elaborate in what way a law that provides free ID, and applies to all creeds, colours and religions is racist?

So do you see racism in asking for ID for welfare? State support? Applying for a job? Applying for credit? Buying a beer? Driving a car? Owning a firearm?