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.

Not going to lie, I don't see how requiring an id is too hard of a hurdle to overcome. I worked in a factory where our hours were 7-5:30 every day, so no way in hell could I get to the bmv during the week. But I always renewed on time... I'm with cincydooley as well in saying, in this day and age with all the things requiring a license/id to use or purchase, how do you still not have one as an adult? Even my students in college who never intend to drive have a state id from their home state. I guess we just think differently here in ohio.

Also in regards to saying that no Sunday voting is specifically hurting one group of people, what about all the other people who go to church and have church groups to do that sort of thing, surely its not just one group, especially in the south...

 Boblogik wrote:
Not going to lie, I don't see how requiring an id is too hard of a hurdle to overcome. I worked in a factory where our hours were 7-5:30 every day, so no way in hell could I get to the bmv during the week. But I always renewed on time... I'm with cincydooley as well in saying, in this day and age with all the things requiring a license/id to use or purchase, how do you still not have one as an adult? Even my students in college who never intend to drive have a state id from their home state. I guess we just think differently here in ohio.

Also in regards to saying that no Sunday voting is specifically hurting one group of people, what about all the other people who go to church and have church groups to do that sort of thing, surely its not just one group, especially in the south...

It seems to go like this;
- having to provide ID for State/Federal benefits, etc., is perfectly reasonable to ensure that those eligible receive them, and does not disenfranchise minorities
- having to provide your free ID for the purposes of voting is a deliberate disenfranchisement of minorities

- having to pay not insignificant sums of money to be able to enjoy your Constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms is perfectly reasonable and acceptable
- having to get a free ID to vote is a poll tax, and an unwarranted interference with your Constitutionally guaranteed right

How do you...Bingo!

- In most states you need an ID in order to get any sort of job. Has something to do with taxes and such.

Here's how I see it.

First, examine who is putting forth these laws. It's all coming from Republican controlled state governments.

So we ask ourselves why.

They say it's to reduce voter fraud, but, there simply is no evidence of mass elections fraud.

So we ask ourselves why really!
?
The answer is tiny percentages. In today's political divided political climate, anything that gives even a tiny percentage of a percentage of an advantage to a certain party is sought.

Explain? Ok, here goes.

Only a very small percentage of people are going to be seriously inconvenienced by having to get a ID or an updated ID. Who are these people, they are those who are old and poor, or those who lack transportation (poor?) and those for whom lifes difficulties have made getting ID and/or the necessary documents for getting and ID a low priority (the poor).

The tiny sliver of the population most likely to be unable to get an ID for whatever reason are poor. How do the poor tend to vote? They vote Democrat.

Thus, who benefits from voter ID laws?
Republicans!

It's not about fraud, it's about a party trying to slice just enough folks out of the voting pool to tip the scales in their favor.

 Eilif wrote:
Here's how I see it.

First, examine who is putting forth these laws. It's all coming from Republican controlled state governments.

So we ask ourselves why.

They say it's to reduce voter fraud, but, there simply is no evidence of mass elections fraud.

So we ask ourselves why really!
?
The answer is tiny percentages. In today's political divided political climate, anything that gives even a tiny percentage of a percentage of an advantage to a certain party is sought.

Explain? Ok, here goes.

Only a very small percentage of people are going to be seriously inconvenienced by having to get a ID or an updated ID. Who are these people, they are those who are old and poor, or those who lack transportation (poor?) and those for whom lifes difficulties have made getting ID and/or the necessary documents for getting and ID a low priority (the poor).

The tiny sliver of the population most likely to be unable to get an ID for whatever reason are poor. How do the poor tend to vote? They vote Democrat.

Thus, who benefits from voter ID laws?
Republicans!

It's not about fraud, it's about a party trying to slice just enough folks out of the voting pool to tip the scales in their favor.

or alternatively, you're sayign the Democratic Party benefits when there are no controls or oversight to insure that only citizens can vote, and only vote once...

 Breotan wrote:
- In most states you need an ID in order to get any sort of job. Has something to do with taxes and such.

Not just taxes. Homeland Security are making employers verify that their employees are eligible to work in the United States (Form I-9)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
How do you...Bingo!

I just summarized the arguments against voter ID that have been presented so far

 Frazzled wrote:

or alternatively, you're sayign the Democratic Party benefits when there are no controls or oversight to insure that only citizens can vote, and only vote once...

Except that we still have voter rolls so each person can only vote once. I'm not saying that fraud is impossible, but it's been investigated, and it just doesn't happen much. Purging of the voter rolls means that the only way to have fraud is for folks to vote for other folks and if alot of people started showing up to their polling station and seeing that someone had voted for them we'd hear about it. They don't. and we don't.

The Democracy benefits when there are as few barriers as possible between the individual and his vote. It just so happens that demographics mean that Democrats benefit too.

It's a generalization, but given what we know about voting trends, Republicans have a vested interest in having fewer lower income and minority voters come to the polls.

Voter ID laws = Republicans trying to win elections.

 Eilif wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

or alternatively, you're sayign the Democratic Party benefits when there are no controls or oversight to insure that only citizens can vote, and only vote once...

Except that we still have voter rolls so each person can only vote once. I'm not saying that fraud is impossible, but it's been investigated, and it just doesn't happen much. Purging of the voter rolls means that the only way to have fraud is for folks to vote for other folks and if alot of people started showing up to their polling station and seeing that someone had voted for them we'd hear about it. They don't. and we don't.

You do know that it's often difficult to purge voter rolls and such...right?

There are numerous documented cases where an outside organization is the driving force to clean up the voter rolls.

The Democracy benefits when there are as few barriers as possible between the individual and his vote. It just so happens that demographics mean that Democrats benefit too.

So flashing an ID is big barrier? o.O When 99.9% of the population needs valid ID to even fething function in society?

It's a generalization, but given what we know about voting trends, Republicans have a vested interest in having fewer lower income and minority voters come to the polls.

wut? Didn't you know profiling is bad?

Voter ID laws = Republicans trying to win elections.

Uh... you do know California / Illinois require IDs to vote, eh?

 Eilif wrote:
Except that we still have voter rolls so each person can only vote once. I'm not saying that fraud is impossible, but it's been investigated, and it just doesn't happen much. Purging of the voter rolls means that the only way to have fraud is for folks to vote for other folks and if alot of people started showing up to their polling station and seeing that someone had voted for them we'd hear about it. They don't. and we don't.

The Democracy benefits when there are as few barriers as possible between the individual and his vote. It just so happens that demographics mean that Democrats benefit too.

It's a generalization, but given what we know about voting trends, Republicans have a vested interest in having fewer lower income and minority voters come to the polls.

Voter ID laws = Republicans trying to win elections.

Except that after the Texas law went into effect voter turnout, and minority participation, increased.
But I suppose that voter ID laws in California (where they charge for the ID), Canada, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Sweden, Spain, France, Belgium, Italy, Brazil, Germany, Netherlands, and Malta mean that the Republican must be polling wicked numbers in each of those countries

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
Except that we still have voter rolls so each person can only vote once. I'm not saying that fraud is impossible, but it's been investigated, and it just doesn't happen much. Purging of the voter rolls means that the only way to have fraud is for folks to vote for other folks and if alot of people started showing up to their polling station and seeing that someone had voted for them we'd hear about it. They don't. and we don't.

The Democracy benefits when there are as few barriers as possible between the individual and his vote. It just so happens that demographics mean that Democrats benefit too.

It's a generalization, but given what we know about voting trends, Republicans have a vested interest in having fewer lower income and minority voters come to the polls.

Voter ID laws = Republicans trying to win elections.

Except that after the Texas law went into effect voter turnout, and minority participation, increased.
But I suppose that voter ID laws in California (where they charge for the ID), Canada, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Sweden, Spain, France, Belgium, Italy, Brazil, Germany, Netherlands, and Malta mean that the Republican must be polling wicked numbers in each of those countries

I didn't see anything in your article demonstrating any gain by voting among the poor or a mention of any breakdown in the changes in each political party. Not surprising since it's a blog post by

Bryan Preston is editor at large of the conservative blog PJ Media. He was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the "Laura Ingraham Show" and was communications director of the Republican Party of Texas

.
You posted an editorial by someone who has clearly chosen only the facts that fit his side. Not a serious investigative or statistical analysis by an independent group.

The fact that voting interest in certain constitutional amendments or outrage against the law could both be reasons for why voting went up, or it could easily be a fluke. Remember, this is a state where the voting turnout was only 5.3 percent 2 years ago. 8 this year percent still represents a tiny sliver of the population. You're still seeing less than 10% of individuals at the polls. Not exactly a banner example of great voter turnout.

 Eilif wrote:
I didn't see anything in your article demonstrating any gain by voting among the poor or a mention of any breakdown in the changes in each political party. Not surprising since it's a blog post by

Bryan Preston is editor at large of the conservative blog PJ Media. He was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the "Laura Ingraham Show" and was communications director of the Republican Party of Texas

.
You posted an editorial by someone who has clearly chosen only the facts that fit his side. Not a serious investigative or statistical analysis by an independent group.

I await a full and thorough debunking of his methodology then, rather than a shoddy attempt to shoot the messenger rather than deal with the message
Still waiting to hear on how the Republicans benefitted from the voter ID law in the Blue State of California (that charges for the ID too), or those other countries listed

 Eilif wrote:
The fact that voting interest in certain constitutional amendments or outrage against the law could both be reasons for why voting went up, or it could easily be a fluke. Remember, this is a state where the voting turnout was only 5.3 percent 2 years ago. 8 this year percent still represents a tiny sliver of the population. You're still seeing less than 10% of individuals at the polls. Not exactly a banner example of great voter turnout.

I agree that this should be monitored to see if it is an emerging trend, but the fact of the matter is that after all the naysayers argued that voter suppression would occur, and that minorities would be unduly affected, that was not the case.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
Except that we still have voter rolls so each person can only vote once. I'm not saying that fraud is impossible, but it's been investigated, and it just doesn't happen much. Purging of the voter rolls means that the only way to have fraud is for folks to vote for other folks and if alot of people started showing up to their polling station and seeing that someone had voted for them we'd hear about it. They don't. and we don't.

The Democracy benefits when there are as few barriers as possible between the individual and his vote. It just so happens that demographics mean that Democrats benefit too.

It's a generalization, but given what we know about voting trends, Republicans have a vested interest in having fewer lower income and minority voters come to the polls.

Voter ID laws = Republicans trying to win elections.

Except that after the Texas law went into effect voter turnout, and minority participation, increased.
But I suppose that voter ID laws in California (where they charge for the ID), Canada, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Sweden, Spain, France, Belgium, Italy, Brazil, Germany, Netherlands, and Malta mean that the Republican must be polling wicked numbers in each of those countries

Well Belgium is known as a hotbed of racism. I think Ghandi said it best: "Holy crap! Belgium makes South Africa look like freaking paradise. Lucy get me outta here!"

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
I didn't see anything in your article demonstrating any gain by voting among the poor or a mention of any breakdown in the changes in each political party. Not surprising since it's a blog post by

Bryan Preston is editor at large of the conservative blog PJ Media. He was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the "Laura Ingraham Show" and was communications director of the Republican Party of Texas

.
You posted an editorial by someone who has clearly chosen only the facts that fit his side. Not a serious investigative or statistical analysis by an independent group.

I await a full and thorough debunking of his methodology then, rather than a shoddy attempt to shoot the messenger rather than deal with the message
Still waiting to hear on how the Republicans benefitted from the voter ID law in the Blue State of California (that charges for the ID too), or those other countries listed

No one ever really answers that question for me Dread...

 Eilif wrote:
The fact that voting interest in certain constitutional amendments or outrage against the law could both be reasons for why voting went up, or it could easily be a fluke. Remember, this is a state where the voting turnout was only 5.3 percent 2 years ago. 8 this year percent still represents a tiny sliver of the population. You're still seeing less than 10% of individuals at the polls. Not exactly a banner example of great voter turnout.

I agree that this should be monitored to see if it is an emerging trend, but the fact of the matter is that after all the naysayers argued that voter suppression would occur, and that minorities would be unduly affected, that was not the case.

What gets me is that those who argues against Voter IDs falls into a trap thinking that minorities are incapable of getting new IDs or follow simple instructions.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
I didn't see anything in your article demonstrating any gain by voting among the poor or a mention of any breakdown in the changes in each political party. Not surprising since it's a blog post by

Bryan Preston is editor at large of the conservative blog PJ Media. He was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the "Laura Ingraham Show" and was communications director of the Republican Party of Texas

.
You posted an editorial by someone who has clearly chosen only the facts that fit his side. Not a serious investigative or statistical analysis by an independent group.

I await a full and thorough debunking of his methodology then, rather than a shoddy attempt to shoot the messenger rather than deal with the message
Still waiting to hear on how the Republicans benefitted from the voter ID law in the Blue State of California (that charges for the ID too), or those other countries listed.

It's not my responsibility to debunk an editorial. As someone beginning a discussion of "Consequences of Texas Voter ID Law" you should have sought an Article with both sides of the issue and complete facts rather than an Editorial which is simply one side's view.

Though perhaps it was my fault for replying to an editorial-based discussion if I wasn't willing to put in the research time to take on the editorial itself.

Whembly,

Don't put words in my mouth. I never "fell into the trap" of assuming minority inferiority, and it's insulting to have you say so. I've lived, churched and worked almost exclusively among minorities my entire professional life, long enough to know that it's not a question of innate ability. I merely stated the obvious. That in the USA a higher percentage of minorities fall into the camp of those whose lives are hard enough to make acquiring an ID (or the documentation to acquire one) much more difficult.

When you see the daily lives of the working poor up-close, it doesn't take long to understand how adding ANY additional process/task/requirements to one's responsibilities can simply be too much to take on. When you're struggling to get by, any barrier to voting can be just enough to push voting into something you just don't have time or effort to do.
This makes me sad, as I think of voting as a sacred right and duty, but that's the reality that many folks live with.

As there still isn't any evidence of widespread voter fraud, I'm against ANY law that makes exercising the vote more difficult.

California Democrats do it, but its wrong because Texas does it. ok.

 Peregrine wrote:
Why should anyone have to spend extra time to solve a "problem" which doesn't exist?

Because more government is always bad and ... oh wait, being a Republican is so confusing!

 Eilif wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I await a full and thorough debunking of his methodology then, rather than a shoddy attempt to shoot the messenger rather than deal with the message
Still waiting to hear on how the Republicans benefitted from the voter ID law in the Blue State of California (that charges for the ID too), or those other countries listed.

It's not my responsibility to debunk an editorial. As someone beginning a discussion of "Consequences of Texas Voter ID Law" you should have sought an Article with both sides of the issue and complete facts rather than an Editorial which is simply one side's view.

Though perhaps it was my fault for replying to an editorial-based discussion if I wasn't willing to put in the research time to take on the editorial itself.

Google "Texas ID voter law". The article I posted is the top result. Unless of course you'd rather I posted links to MotherJones, ThinkProgress, Daily Caller, etc. - many of which raised arguments that the piece I linked to addressed. I quoted the article in full, and made disclosure on who the author was. It was your decision to proceed after that point. I found an article with facts that no one, yourself included, has thus far been able to refute. That is in itself very telling.

I'll let the facts of the matter (increased voter turn out, and no disenfranchisement of minorities) speak for themselves until such times as a legitimate counter point is put forward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
California Democrats do it, but its wrong because Texas does it. ok.

And California also charges for it, yet there are no cries of Democrats enacting a poll tax

I'll cry it -- I think it's despicable there and everywhere else.

I think you Should have to be able to pass the US citizenship test to vote.

 cincydooley wrote:
I think you Should have to be able to pass the US citizenship test to vote.

YES =, oh god yes. I remember this girl was talking about letting illegals vote, because "They have a stake" My response "They will have stakes when they pay taxes"

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
YES =, oh god yes. I remember this girl was talking about letting illegals vote, because "They have a stake" My response "They will have stakes when they pay taxes"

No, they should have a vote when they are citizens. Not before.

And to pay taxes properly, you have to be a citizen. But yes I agree

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And to pay taxes properly, you have to be a citizen. But yes I agree

I pay my taxes properly and I'm not a citizen. I file every year with my wife. Millions of tourists also pay their sales tax properly everytime they make a purchase. Neither I nor the tourists should get a vote, that is the right of a citizen.

 Eilif wrote:

Whembly,

Don't put words in my mouth. I never "fell into the trap" of assuming minority inferiority, and it's insulting to have you say so.

Sorry that you feel that way, but that's how I see it.

I've lived, churched and worked almost exclusively among minorities my entire professional life, long enough to know that it's not a question of innate ability.

Good for you.

I live in St. Louis... I went to school in the fething City of St. Louis whereas over HALF of the student population and most of the teachers are black. My oldest friends are black. So, I know a fething thing or two as well.

I merely stated the obvious.

That's your opinion.

That in the USA a higher percentage of minorities fall into the camp of those whose lives are hard enough to make acquiring an ID (or the documentation to acquire one) much more difficult.

That's horse gak.

Also... why are you discounting the poor non-minority?

Why is it okay for California and Illinois to ask for IDs at the polls?

When you see the daily lives of the working poor up-close, it doesn't take long to understand how adding ANY additional process/task/requirements to one's responsibilities can simply be too much to take on. When you're struggling to get by, any barrier to voting can be just enough to push voting into something you just don't have time or effort to do.

O.o Purely and absolutely poppycock.

This makes me sad, as I think of voting as a sacred right and duty, but that's the reality that many folks live with.

O.o It's also a responsibility. IF they're truly poor. They should ALREADY fething have IDs. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been able to receive government assistance.

As there still isn't any evidence of widespread voter fraud,

*sigh* whatever dude... there are ample evidences. But, let's face it, flashing your ID at the polls isn't onerous. Be honest here.

I'm against ANY law that makes exercising the vote more difficult.

Fair enough... that is, your opinion afterall. Will you sign the repeal of such laws in states like California or Illinois?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:
I'll cry it -- I think it's despicable there and everywhere else.

Yeah... you've been real consistent with that.

Even arguing from "less government" standpoint.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And to pay taxes properly, you have to be a citizen. But yes I agree

Actually, you don't. The US employes a LOT of people brought here on work visas. They pay full Federal and State income taxes as well as any other taxes their "home" country levies. Non-citizens can even live here permanently and work in the US legally after being issued "green cards".

Ok, I stand corrected.....still was a good comeback *Sulks off in defeat*

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, I stand corrected.....still was a good comeback *Sulks off in defeat*

It's okay... this isn't easy stuff to fully grasp.

Dread? Do you pay more in taxes due to the green card? Or maybe that was your employer? o.O

Pretty sure that my taxes are the same as a citizen. My employer doesn't have to make any contribution either, my wife had to sign an affidavit of support before the visa was issued so she is financially responsible for me.

At any interview I always let the interviewer know that there was no additional fees for hiring me

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Pretty sure that my taxes are the same as a citizen. My employer doesn't have to make any contribution either, my wife had to sign an affidavit of support before the visa was issued so she is financially responsible for me.

At any interview I always let the interviewer know that there was no additional fees for hiring me

Yeah... see? Not everyone knows the "ins and outs" of that whole process...

Oh... you need to find a way to tease your wife: "Hey! Don't forget that you're financially responsible for me..."