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.
earlofburger wrote: We need to voter ID to ensure are polls are never hijacked by Russia ever again!
Voter ID wouldn't have stopped the Russian meddling, since all they did was hack the DNC servers and buy some ads on social media. None of which involved actually tampering with ballots or false voters.
It wouldn't have stopped the meddling but they did more than hack DNC servers and buy ads. They hacked polling records, etc.
JNAProductions wrote: Yeah, Voter ID laws tend to disenfranchise people. Specifically, minorities, the poor, and the elderly.
Which is dumb, because you have to wonder why?
Do none of these people have jobs? Did they never get a drivers license?
The argument that its a disenfranchisement is a bad one. If this is the case, these individuals would be suffering far more in other areas than not being able to vote. You can't fill out an I-9 form without 2 forms of ID. And the I-9 form is required for anybody employed in the US.
I've got a friend-a white friend, mind you-around 20 years old who only has a permit. They work a job, and are generally a pretty productive member of society, but have virtually no ID, because their family is not very cooperative.
Should they not be able to vote because their family is a dingus?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
JNAProductions wrote: Yeah, Voter ID laws tend to disenfranchise people. Specifically, minorities, the poor, and the elderly.
Care to elaborate on that?
The elderly tend to not have as many IDs, or a different type of IDs than younger folk. They also might lack transportation, if they're too old to drive (which also includes a potential lack of a driver's license) which further inhibits their ability to get new ID.
The poor have similar issues-less related to age than not being able to afford cars or IDs.
Minorities, while falling into both the above camps sometimes, simply tend to live in areas given less care. No DMVs, no place to get a passport, etc. etc.
There's a lot of data and articles on this. Try googling "Voter ID Laws Disenfranchisement" and you'll find some.
In addition, when you say Voter ID Laws should be made, what kinds of IDs would you consider usable?
Except elderly people are one of the most reliable voter blocs. They may not have a driver's license or be able to drive anymore, but they manage to find transportation to the polling places anyway. Its not unreasonable that they'll bother to have an ID of some kind.
As for minorities. If they are legally employment anywhere, they by default have ID because they had to fill out an I-9. If they're not legally employed, they're probably not voting anyway.
JNAProductions wrote: Yeah, Voter ID laws tend to disenfranchise people. Specifically, minorities, the poor, and the elderly.
Which is dumb, because you have to wonder why?
Do none of these people have jobs? Did they never get a drivers license?
The argument that its a disenfranchisement is a bad one. If this is the case, these individuals would be suffering far more in other areas than not being able to vote. You can't fill out an I-9 form without 2 forms of ID. And the I-9 form is required for anybody employed in the US.
I've got a friend-a white friend, mind you-around 20 years old who only has a permit. They work a job, and are generally a pretty productive member of society, but have virtually no ID, because their family is not very cooperative.
Should they not be able to vote because their family is a dingus?
If he has a job, he has ID. He had to fill out an I-9 form.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/17 19:28:30
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.
Did anyone who's for Voter ID Laws actually do research? I admit, I'm no political scientist, but you can pretty easily find the studies that show disenfranchisement occurring due to ID Laws.
Edit: First off, why assume my friend is a guy? They could easily be otherwise.
Second off, I have no reason to doubt they're lying to me. I'm not gonna interrogate them just to satisfy an internet stranger, but they could've had any form from list A on an I-9 (which only requires one) or their ID could've expired since they got their job, and they've not had the chance to get a new one.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/17 19:31:36
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Verification is handled at registration. Matching the signature to the registration signature is good enough since the voter fraud that voter ID supposedly counters doesn't exist on a statistical level.
And guess what, not working for someone else (thus needing an I-9) does not mean that you lose your right to vote.
JNAProductions wrote: Yeah, Voter ID laws tend to disenfranchise people. Specifically, minorities, the poor, and the elderly.
Care to elaborate on that?
Just because I should probably give a bit of a more helpful answer, even if I feel it's a futile effort on this board:
As it has been explained, many of the demographics that have a hard time getting the required IDs are often demographics that are tend to vote a certain way (ie: Democratic), while almost all laws implementing voter ID requirements are passed by Republican legislatures.
One of the most obvious examples of voter ID laws and voting access was a few years ago in South Carolina I think. We had a big discussion on here and when you actually looked at the election results it made it pretty easy to see how each specific change affected the demographics: Early Registration (registering before you turned 18, if you will be 18 on the date of the election) was restricted, and that demographic voted Democrat. Sunday voting was eliminated, and that demographic was mainly black senior citizens being driven to polls after church voting Democrat. Early voting was cut down to fewer days (most early voters voted Democrat). For Voter IDs, Student IDs were not accepted (mostly voted Democrat), Concealed Carry IDs were accepted (mostly voted Republican), expired IDs were not allowed, unless you were over 60something (old people voted Republican). Etc.
One of the big red herrings you will often see is that Voter ID laws often target minorities, which ultimately brings the defense of "stop calling the GOP racist". I personally think that race really isn't the issue here, and that the GOP would be happy to get rid of any laws that disenfranchise minorities if they would vote Republican instead of Democrat.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Do you really believe that if Hilary were president, the US would have tents full of children who had been ripped from their parents?
No. But let me put it this way.
Trump is a racist buffoon, corrupt, and up to his neck in Russian subterfuge.
Clinton is a war mongering, Wall Street poster girl, who talks the talk about women's rights, and then takes money from the Saudis, one of the most misogynistic countries on Earth.
And a rational man or woman is supposed to choose between that?
Abstaining is the logical thing to do in that situation.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Yeah sorry, but those are all weak excuses, no matter how poor or old you may be you have 4 years in between each election to get the necessary documents. Also must minorities live in urban areas where there is no lack of public transportation or DMV's.
And that's called "privilege" kids.
It's also why I knew there was no point typing my other post out. But I'm a sucker for having hope.
JNAProductions wrote: Yeah, Voter ID laws tend to disenfranchise people. Specifically, minorities, the poor, and the elderly.
Care to elaborate on that?
Just because I should probably give a bit of a more helpful answer, even if I feel it's a futile effort on this board:
As it has been explained, many of the demographics that have a hard time getting the required IDs are often demographics that are tend to vote a certain way (ie: Democratic), while almost all laws implementing voter ID requirements are passed by Republican legislatures.
One of the most obvious examples of voter ID laws and voting access was a few years ago in South Carolina I think. We had a big discussion on here and when you actually looked at the election results it made it pretty easy to see how each specific change affected the demographics: Early Registration (registering before you turned 18, if you will be 18 on the date of the election) was restricted, and that demographic voted Democrat. Sunday voting was eliminated, and that demographic was mainly black senior citizens being driven to polls after church voting Democrat. Early voting was cut down to fewer days (most early voters voted Democrat). For Voter IDs, Student IDs were not accepted (mostly voted Democrat), Concealed Carry IDs were accepted (mostly voted Republican), expired IDs were not allowed, unless you were over 60something (old people voted Republican). Etc.
One of the big red herrings you will often see is that Voter ID laws often target minorities, which ultimately brings the defense of "stop calling the GOP racist". I personally think that race really isn't the issue here, and that the GOP would be happy to get rid of any laws that disenfranchise minorities if they would vote Republican instead of Democrat.
So argue that more types of ID's should be accepted instead of just saying Voter ID is bad.
You don't actually have an issue with requiring ID. You have an issue with the implementation.
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.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Do you really believe that if Hilary were president, the US would have tents full of children who had been ripped from their parents?
Happened under Obama...so, why wouldn't it be different?
There's also the issue that it's going to disenfranchise SOMEONE, and if that applies to, say, a dozen people, it's officially stopped more legal voters than it's stopped voter fraud.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
JNAProductions wrote: Did anyone who's for Voter ID Laws actually do research? I admit, I'm no political scientist, but you can pretty easily find the studies that show disenfranchisement occurring due to ID Laws.
Edit: First off, why assume my friend is a guy? They could easily be otherwise.
Second off, I have no reason to doubt they're lying to me. I'm not gonna interrogate them just to satisfy an internet stranger, but they could've had any form from list A on an I-9 (which only requires one) or their ID could've expired since they got their job, and they've not had the chance to get a new one.
Still, the point is they had ID of some form. So needing to get ID can't be used as an excuse for not being able to vote.
My version of Voter ID laws would be anything proving you are a citizen would be acceptable as a form of ID for voter registration and confirmation.
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.
JNAProductions wrote: Did anyone who's for Voter ID Laws actually do research? I admit, I'm no political scientist, but you can pretty easily find the studies that show disenfranchisement occurring due to ID Laws.
Edit: First off, why assume my friend is a guy? They could easily be otherwise.
Second off, I have no reason to doubt they're lying to me. I'm not gonna interrogate them just to satisfy an internet stranger, but they could've had any form from list A on an I-9 (which only requires one) or their ID could've expired since they got their job, and they've not had the chance to get a new one.
Still, the point is they had ID of some form. So needing to get ID can't be used as an excuse for not being able to vote.
My version of Voter ID laws would be anything proving you are a citizen would be acceptable as a form of ID for voter registration and confirmation.
Okay. Now look at Voter ID Laws that people have tried to pass. They are significantly stricter and have some just plain "odd" choices, from a common sense standpoint.
skyth wrote: Why require voter ID in any case. What real problem does it solve?
That too.
I mean, there's like, what? A whole half-dozen examples of voter fraud on the record in the past decade or more?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/17 19:41:59
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
skyth wrote: Verification is handled at registration. Matching the signature to the registration signature is good enough since the voter fraud that voter ID supposedly counters doesn't exist on a statistical level.
Not all states checks your signature on the rolls (which is a good system mind you).
Most states just allows you to bring your registration card. No ID, no nothing.
And guess what, not working for someone else (thus needing an I-9) does not mean that you lose your right to vote.
No one said that. Just that if you worked for anyone in your life, you'd have to fill out that form (which need some form of identification).
He's implying that the burden of having ID isn't signification in any meaningful way here in the states.
skyth wrote: Verification is handled at registration. Matching the signature to the registration signature is good enough since the voter fraud that voter ID supposedly counters doesn't exist on a statistical level.
Not all states checks your signature on the rolls (which is a good system mind you).
Most states just allows you to bring your registration card. No ID, no nothing.
And guess what, not working for someone else (thus needing an I-9) does not mean that you lose your right to vote.
No one said that. Just that if you worked for anyone in your life, you'd have to fill out that form (which need some form of identification).
He's implying that the burden of having ID isn't signification in any meaningful way here in the states.
Which is wrong. There's a lot of data that indicates that Voter ID Laws reduce turnout significantly, especially among groups that tend to vote Democratic.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
skyth wrote: Why require voter ID in any case. What real problem does it solve
The law says that only US Citizens can vote.
If a law says only X may do something, it follows that you should have some way of identifying who is X and who isn't.
By the way, you do actually have to prove identification in CA to register to vote. A photo ID and proof of residence(a utility bill or car registration usually) is needed the first time. So since its required when you initially sign up, why not also need verification when you actually go to the polls? Otherwise anybody could just say "Im so-and-so, gimme my ballot".
Its not necessarily about solving a problem. Its about basic security and just being logical.
Unless we're going to argue that CA is suppressing its voters by requiring ID...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/17 19:47:25
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.
skyth wrote: Why require voter ID in any case. What real problem does it solve
The law says that only US Citizens can vote.
If a law says only X may do something, it follows that you should have some way of identifying who is X and who isn't.
By the way, you do actually have to prove identification in CA to register to vote. A photo ID and proof of residence(a utility bill or car registration usually) is needed the first time. So since its required when you initially sign up, why not also need verification when you actually go to the polls? Otherwise anybody could just say "Im so-and-so, gimme my ballot".
Its not necessarily about solving a problem. Its about basic security and just being logical.
So... It doesn't actually solve any problems, it just feels right?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Yeah sorry, but those are all weak excuses, no matter how poor or old you may be you have 4 years in between each election to get the necessary documents. Also must minorities live in urban areas where there is no lack of public transportation or DMV's.
And that's called "privilege" kids.
It's also why I knew there was no point typing my other post out. But I'm a sucker for having hope.
Privileged?! Do you even know my back round?
Guardians of the Temple 2000 points
GorStomp's Brutal Boyz: 2000 points
skyth wrote: Verification is handled at registration. Matching the signature to the registration signature is good enough since the voter fraud that voter ID supposedly counters doesn't exist on a statistical level.
Not all states checks your signature on the rolls (which is a good system mind you).
Most states just allows you to bring your registration card. No ID, no nothing.
And guess what, not working for someone else (thus needing an I-9) does not mean that you lose your right to vote.
No one said that. Just that if you worked for anyone in your life, you'd have to fill out that form (which need some form of identification).
He's implying that the burden of having ID isn't signification in any meaningful way here in the states.
Which is wrong. There's a lot of data that indicates that Voter ID Laws reduce turnout significantly, especially among groups that tend to vote Democratic.
And there's a lot of data that shows it doesn't. (I've posted some... check my history).
I think what d-usa was referring to was North Carolina voter ID laws... there's even a ballot initiative to add it to the state's consitution.
skyth wrote: Why require voter ID in any case. What real problem does it solve
The law says that only US Citizens can vote.
If a law says only X may do something, it follows that you should have some way of identifying who is X and who isn't.
By the way, you do actually have to prove identification in CA to register to vote. A photo ID and proof of residence(a utility bill or car registration usually) is needed the first time. So since its required when you initially sign up, why not also need verification when you actually go to the polls? Otherwise anybody could just say "Im so-and-so, gimme my ballot".
Its not necessarily about solving a problem. Its about basic security and just being logical.
So... It doesn't actually solve any problems, it just feels right?
If I knew the name and address of an individual who is registered to vote, but I know isn't going to vote this year, I could easily show up to their polling place and say I'm them and vote with their ballot.
The fact that basically nobody does it doesn't change the fact they could. Its actually shocking that it doesn't happen more often since it would be so easy to do.
I consider it a problem even if its not being abused right now. the fact that it can be abused, and there is a relatively simple solution, is why I think it wouldn't be a big deal. Make the accepted forms of ID incredibly broad if you want. You could even accept expired IDs. Just something showing that you are who you claim to be.
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.
Last year, Missouri voters amended the state constitution to require valid photo IDs at the polls... we'll see how that goes. There are provisions to allow voting with just a utility bill or paycheck with a sworn affidavit of identity. If you come to the polls without any qualifying ID document, you can still cast a provisional ballot under the amendment. Provisional ballots will be counted if the voter returns to the polling place with the form of identification, or if election officials can verify identity by comparing the voter’s signature to the one on file with the election authority...which is the same frick'n process used to verify signatures for initiative petitions.
