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.
Alfndrate wrote: you should have to be registered to vote (following those requirements), and have a way to prove that you're Manchu
You're assuming the conclusion of your own argument. You're saying I should have to present ID because I should have to present ID. It's not very convincing, Alf.
What conclusion am I assuming? I'm saying you should have to present a form of identification when you enter a polling place. The people working at the polling place have a record of registered voters at their polling place. When you go to that polling place you say you are Manchu, and they say, "okay we need to see a form of identification" You provide that form of identification that says your records and statement of persons match their records. Once you've satisfied that requirement you're given your ballot and you're free to vote. Ways to provide identification can be as simple as a utility bill. Anything that helps corroborate your statement of being x person that lives at y place.
Ohio has very similar voter ID requirements to Virginia, which are extremely fair and accommodating to all voters. You can provide a photo ID issued by the state or federal government, or you can provide any number of other documents that are easier to get your hands on.
The NC law, and the law introduced in Ohio are fighting a problem that doesn't exist, but to have no requirements seems stupid. If there are no requirements as to who can vote, simply do away with voter registration and start going with the Iraq method of sticking your finger in ink so that no one can vote twice.
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
Frazzled wrote: We have over 25,000 firearms laws and regulations. Come talk to me when you get 10% of that for voting.
You are taking pains to dodge this question, Frazz.
I have gone through this piece by piece. If you would agree that the government should not act when it is unnecessary to do so, and if you agree that restricting access to constitutional rights in the face of 1 in 100 or less instances of abuse of said rights is unnecessary, then you must also as a matter of logic agree that Voter ID laws are unnecessary and therefore the government should not make them.
I have shown very simply that there is a basic conservative objection to Voter ID laws quite apart from any talk about the burden of IDs or inequitable impact. Indeed, I have shown that this basic conservative objection must precede any such discussion. You need not come to those other topics because Voter ID laws are unacceptable from a conservative point of view at the outset.
Now you can dodge and dissemble or you can actually address this simple, clear, and rigorous point. It's my belief, based on your posts thus far, that you can't address it and that your position is entirely and merely partisan.
Alfndrate wrote: you should have to be registered to vote (following those requirements), and have a way to prove that you're Manchu
You're assuming the conclusion of your own argument. You're saying I should have to present ID because I should have to present ID. It's not very convincing, Alf.
What conclusion am I assuming? I'm saying you should have to present a form of identification when you enter a polling place.
You just answered your own question.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/03 14:41:02
I've read through most of this, and I dont necessarily disagree with those of you stating that voter ID laws are 'searching for a problem." I'd much rather hear THAT argument than the argument that it's still disenfranchising people. Because that argument, after a 2012 election where low income and minority voting was the highest it's ever been, just doesn't hold water anymore.
I say make it up to the states, and allow each individual state to allow ID.
Kanluwen wrote: Then you have engaged in identity theft and voter fraud.
I realize that, shouldn't there be a check and balance for people to prove they are who they say they are?
I'm not saying that you need very specific forms of ID, but when you get to a polling place, you should have to be registered to vote (following those requirements), and have a way to prove that you're Manchu who lives on X street by providing some form of identification like a utility bill and an out of state driver's license, or a utility bill and your government welfare check. Just something that proves you are who you say you are.
And why are those things better than a college ID with a photo? Or a voter registration card or selective service card?
Because in my state, college IDs don't come with things like an address if they did, so it wouldn't work in my state. We also don't have voter registration cards longer than the time it takes to fill them out in Ohio. Once you register, you're in the system. You can change your address at the polling place or beforehand, but the voter registration card isn't in your hands when you go to vote and if it is, in Ohio, you can only use it to provisionally vote and then you're registered for next year which means you have to then provide a form of identification next year. Also you're a year older than me Kan, and you have a selective service card? I registered online and didn't get jack or gak.
Also, I agree that the NC bill is stupid beyond belief, please tell me where I said it was reasonable? A college ID with a photo simply confirms that the name you see on the address has a picture that matches my face Throw an address on that and it's a little harder to deceive the polling person, which is why I'm okay with a utility bill being used as a form of proof of residence.
So you shouldn't have to provide a form of identification to vote?
That's right. And it's so simple to figure out why.
- Voting is perhaps our most important right as citizens.
- There is no credible evidence that in-person voter fraud threatens the validity of our elections.
- There is therefore no reason to further restrict by even one iota citizens' access to their voting rights.
I agree that voting is an important, if not the most important right, I also agree that there isn't credible evidence that in person voter fraud exists, which is why I'm against the Voter ID law that is currently going through the Ohio House of Representatives (note the point earlier in the thread where I stated that 135 cases of fraud occurred out of 5.6 million ballots cast in 2012).
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
Sounds like you're being reasonable -- which is grounds for being banned from the OT!
Quick, advocate transvaginal ultrasounds to shame women who want abortions and then tell me Obamacare is just the government sticking its ... nose in our private business.
whembly wrote: 1) Is it too much to ask for to show an ID at the polls, whether or not that it'll have any impact to voter fraud?
It doesn't matter. This is like the scammer asking you for $1000 to bribe the officials to let them have their $1 million back and promising to pay you half as a reward. It doesn't matter that the numbers are in your favor by a huge margin, you know that the scammer is lying to you and you reject the "offer". Voter ID is the same kind of thing. You can talk all you want about how the deal is superficially a reasonable one, but it doesn't matter because the people proposing these laws are lying s who just want to ensure they keep getting elected by any means necessary.
2) In NC's case: Reducing absentee ballots from 2 weeks to 1 weeks... everyone is bound by that if they qualify... right?
Everyone might be bound by the same law, but that doesn't mean that it isn't targeted at democrat-leaning groups.
3) In NC's case: Removed Sunday voting... why is this a problem again?
Because it is being removed for exactly one reason: black churches often organize "drive to the polls after church" days, and they lean democrat. There is no plausible argument for ending sunday voting besides "it will help us win the election".
4) In NC's case: The program to register newly 18 year olds... so, they'll have to learn how to take initiative to pre-register / vote themselves.
And again, there's no reason why this should be ended besides the fact that younger voters lean democrat.
I really don't see it as "ermah gawd" those icky republicans are suppressing the democratic votes.
Seriously, go learn about NC politics. If you don't understand how these new laws are a blatant attempt to protect Art Pope's investment in the state legislature then you really need to learn more about recent events here.
So why is there preferential treatment to those groups that lean-democrats then?
There isn't.
(even get exemptions from the laws? wut? are you referring to expired licenses on Elderly voters?)
Yes, that's one of the things I'm referring to. It makes an absolute joke out of the idea that voter ID is about preventing fraud when you leave such a massive security hole in the plan. If the people advocating the ID law were really serious about security they'd close the hole. The only reason they don't is that that "stopping fraud" is nothing more than a flimsy pretense to keep the courts from shutting the whole thing down, and older people that would be hindered by the new law tend to lean republican.
I have no dog in this fight and I wouldn't be surprised if this NC VoterID get thrown out.
Let me rephrase the question: Why are you okay with special preferential treatment to certain groups, be it those who leans democrat or republican, and not everyone else?
Are you implying that those who usually vote on Sundays are incapable to vote on election day like everyone else?
Manchu wrote: Sounds like you're being reasonable -- which is grounds for being banned from the OT!
Quick, advocate transvaginal ultrasounds to shame women who want abortions and then tell me Obamacare is just the government sticking its ... nose in our private business.
My way of looking at it is this, we all should get the chance to vote, but we should only be able to vote once. Having set polling places where registered voters can go gives a structured way to contain the masses in an orderly fashion. To avoid things like identity theft and voter fraud, some form of identification that either 1) you are who you state you are and you live in that district/belong at that polling place or 2) states that you've already voted (i.e. indelible ink) should be used. I'm completely okay with removing all forms identification required at a polling place if we were to switch to something like indelible ink.
Hell I'd be okay if you did indelible ink and then stamped your thumb as a way to seal/sign your ballot when finished. I think that'd be a nice way to do this, everyone gets a vote, and no one has to really be identified.
Edit: Since I have to be unreasonable, I think Obamacare is sticking it's nose in our private business, but I do think that state regulated healthcare should be the thing instead (did I mess up that unreasonable thing again?)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/03 15:13:08
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
Kanluwen wrote: Then you have engaged in identity theft and voter fraud.
I realize that, shouldn't there be a check and balance for people to prove they are who they say they are?
Sure there should be. However it is important to realize that as has been mentioned there is not really a huge reason for someone to commit in-person voter fraud and to get to the point of committing in-person voter fraud you have to commit a few other crimes(stealing personal information or forging documentation for a nonexistent person) where you should have been caught along the way.
Jihadin brought up the point about the voter registration rolls being where any real changes should be made--and I agree with him on that. Voter ID does nothing to stop someone who was able to get on the registry without
I'm not saying that you need very specific forms of ID, but when you get to a polling place, you should have to be registered to vote (following those requirements), and have a way to prove that you're Manchu who lives on X street by providing some form of identification like a utility bill and an out of state driver's license, or a utility bill and your government welfare check. Just something that proves you are who you say you are.
And why are those things better than a college ID with a photo? Or a voter registration card or selective service card?
Because in my state, college IDs don't come with things like an address if they did, so it wouldn't work in my state. We also don't have voter registration cards longer than the time it takes to fill them out in Ohio. Once you register, you're in the system. You can change your address at the polling place or beforehand, but the voter registration card isn't in your hands when you go to vote and if it is, in Ohio, you can only use it to provisionally vote and then you're registered for next year which means you have to then provide a form of identification next year. Also you're a year older than me Kan, and you have a selective service card? I registered online and didn't get jack or gak.
I registered as soon as I turned 18, same day I registered to vote. Got both in paper.
Here in NC, we get something after registering to vote which has a listing of our voting place and what districts we are voting for.
Also, I agree that the NC bill is stupid beyond belief, please tell me where I said it was reasonable?
I didn't ever say you did. I felt like taking the opportunity after replying to you to include a link to the relevant document which Pat McCrory announced he would sign before ever having read it. A lot of people are still under the impression that the NC bill did nothing except require you to present a photo ID which is not the case, and any exposure to that dribble which might get someone to recognize that it was an underhanded attempt to combat a problem that does not exist but which does get a significant amount of people on your side(voter fraud) while also dealing with problems which do exist(certain demographics not voting Republican) is a good thing.
A college ID with a photo simply confirms that the name you see on the address has a picture that matches my face Throw an address on that and it's a little harder to deceive the polling person, which is why I'm okay with a utility bill being used as a form of proof of residence.
So why not allow for combinations? If I can present a college ID with no address on it but can produce a voter registration card, why not allow for that?
Kanluwen wrote: So why not allow for combinations? If I can present a college ID with no address on it but can produce a voter registration card, why not allow for that?
Then that's fine, I'd personally prefer if it wasn't something so easy to forge (and they are easy to forge*, but I won't give up my secrets), but that's up to your state and not Alf (yet... >_> )
* - sometimes your buddies that didn't go to college just want to enjoy college night at the local gentlemen's club
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/10/03 15:23:23
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
cincydooley wrote: Even if the voter fraud rates are infantessimaly low, is it bad to attemp to make it non-existant?
Ask yourself the same question regarding gun violence vis-a-vis gun control.
Except Gun Control does not reduce violence in any appreciable amount.
Voter ID will reduce voter fraud.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
If you consider Voter Fraud and look at what % will be reduced, then compare it to Gun Violence and what % will be reduced it will have an appreciable effect.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
The disingenuous attempt to use the Second Amendment 'debate' to justify opposition to voter ID laws manages to both be pathetic and hilarious, though. If criminal background checks and waiting periods and absolute restrictions aren't infringing on one constitutionally-affirmed right, surely the far lower burden of "becoming a functional adult and acquiring identification" cannot be infringing on another.
Credit to the nakedly partisan mental gymnastics required to make that point, though.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
That could be many things, but an Ad Hominem isn't one of that.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
cincydooley wrote: Again, gun violence is largely committed by criminals that acquire guns illegally.
That's why we're talking about gun violence committed by people who legally obtained their firearms.
cincydooley wrote: Unlike, voting, however, there are tons of barriers to getting a gun.
This is because, unlike with the issue of firearms, the lack of an ID will never result in one much less dozens murdered or maimed. But the point of this line of reasoning is not to say there should be more gun control. To the contrary, the point is that just like there should not be more (and maybe that there is too much) gun control there also should not be Voter ID laws.
If there is not a good reason to put obstacle between people and their constitutional rights then those obstacles are by default unacceptable. If a 1 in 100 chance of abusing one's right to privately own firearms is not enough to justify further gun control laws (and even some currently on the books) then a 1 in 100 chance of abusing one's right to vote is surely not enough to impose any restriction, no matter how light, on voting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: That could be many things, but an Ad Hominem isn't one of that.
Incorrect.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2013/10/03 17:22:50
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
I completely fail to see how its a personal attack. He attacked your line of reasoning, nothing more.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
No, he phrased a personal attack as a critique of the argument. It is meant to trick others who are also trying to avoid the actual argument and it works very well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/03 17:18:52
Manchu wrote: No, he phrased a personal attack as a critique of the argument. It is meant to trick others who are also trying to avoid the actual argument and it works very well.
It actually was a critique of a laughably hypocritical argument rather than the person who made it, but to paraphrase a guy from earlier in the thread...
To answer the argument, I have to assume it's worth being answered. It's not. If that sauce was good for the gander earlier, I'll assume it's still good for the goose.
Also, if it was a personal attack, you probably ought to hit the Triangle of Friendship.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/03 17:45:02
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Manchu wrote: No, he phrased a personal attack as a critique of the argument. It is meant to trick others who are also trying to avoid the actual argument and it works very well.
Nice stealth edit there. But I know what you typed originally and I just love the juicy irony.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: Nice stealth edit there. But I know what you typed originally and I just love the juicy irony.
It wasn't meant to be a stealth edit. I was trying to make it clearer before you had to ask "what do you mean people like me?" What I mean is, people who aren't going to deal with the actual argument -- namely that there is no justification to restrict access to voting via Voter ID laws and therefore, from a conservative perspective, Voter ID laws should not be passed.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Really, all it came across as was "You're too stupid to see the attack, so there!".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/03 17:54:43
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: Really, all it came across as was "You're too stupid to see the attack, so there!".
No, what I meant is that rather than deal with the argument you would prefer to say "he's just some stupid liberal" and go from there ... which is what you've been doing. That is why I explicitly made a conservative argument against Voter ID laws. I'm not talking about inequitable racial or economic impact. I'm talking about there being in this case no justification to further restrict the people's constitutional right to vote.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Except you haven't shown that there is any restriction of people's right to vote by requiring an ID.
And I do see your argument and where its coming from. I just think its flawed for the above reason.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/03 17:59:46
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
s who just want to ensure they keep getting elected by any means necessary.
