ocean515
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 36,760
- Reaction score
- 15,468
- Location
- Southern California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
There's absolutely nothing wrong with people proving their eligibility to vote before they cast their ballot. What's wrong in instituting new rules targeting specific groups, making it uniquely inconvenient and/or expensive for members of their groups to vote because they are likely to vote in a manner the rule makers don''t like all under the cleaver guise of "fighting voter fraud" when sworn testimony from the group indicated they planned in advance how to keep that group away from the polls.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with people proving their eligibility to vote before they cast their ballot. What's wrong in instituting new rules targeting specific groups, making it uniquely inconvenient and/or expensive for members of their groups to vote because they are likely to vote in a manner the rule makers don''t like all under the cleaver guise of "fighting voter fraud" when sworn testimony from the group indicated they planned in advance how to keep that group away from the polls.
That is a minimal cost for something that you only have to do once in your entire life, unless you happen to lose it, then it's your responsibility to replace it.
It is honestly not that hard to get I.D.. If it is really that much of an issue just institute a national I.D..
Thus far all discussions surrounding a national ID have been cost-prohibitive, and a bureaucratic mess.
The Europeans do it, I'm sure America can do it and again it is not that hard to get I.D..
An ID ought to be a part of everyday life. It should be required for anything official. It's not a poll tax, it's a basic necessity of life and an expectation that every adult must have, without exception. Those without one ought to be breaking the law and should be ticketed, just like you are if you're caught driving without a license.
I have no problem with voter ID laws as long as the default position is allowing people to vote. Then, if it was fraudlent, arrest them and max out their sentence. The real issue isnt that the Republicans care a hoot about it, they too know there is really very little fraudlent voting, the thing is most of the people who have ID issues vote democrat. So it really is a RW attempt to stop Demo voters.
Again, from all recent proposals over the past decade have been really weak in terms of bureaucratic support, state or national support, and cost a great deal of money. Then there were the civil liberties issues that piped up, among different political camps (each issuing their own objections).
This isn't about papers, it's about a requirement that you identify yourself should you do something wrong. If you want to live on your mountain, go ahead, so long as you have your identification. How would anyone know you were not a citizen if you were not required to prove it? Your right to vote is predicated on your citizenship.Prove you're a citizen.
Democrats don't have driver's licenses?
Well since a lot of Democratic voters come from cities they may not need one as public transport exists. Though I don't know why since North American public transport sucks.
The Europeans do it, I'm sure America can do it and again.it is not that hard to get I.D.
Really how hard is it to practically just change the text on templates for drivers licenses to say national I.D.? Did no one ever think of just using the shut up and deal with it policy.
:lamo
The amazing thing is how spun up people get over ID for voting when ID will be critical for those now eligible for free or supplimented Obamacare.
Do you actually think anyone without some form of accurate, verifiable identification will be able to get Rx and other medical care without absolutely proving who they are?
Since accurate ID will be critical to avoid killing a patient, do you think a "cross my heart, I'm John Doe" is going to suffice?
Talk about ginning up the crowd with a bogus narrative.
Shameful.
Okay, how about we make orthodox Judaism a requirement? Oh wait, the constitution doesn't allow that. Just like it doesn't allow having to pay money in order to vote. You want everyone to have ID, you make sure it's easily accessible. Besides, plenty of these ID laws aren't just about people who are too poor to need or use ID. Or the plenty of seniors who let their IDs expire and have no need to get new ones. It's also about students. Lots of college students, who don't drive, and are supported by their families, scholarships, or loans (which again go through their families), are being preventing from voting in the states where they reside, where they go to school.
.Gee, who do poor people, the elderly, and students tend to vote for..
I have no issue with the laws themselves, but think they should only exist if there is a free government photo ID available in that state. However, if no such avenue exists then I believe it's unreasonable as it essentially demands payment for the ability to vote.
I also question the notions regarding the low number of voter fraud, as they generally look at provable instances of voter fraud while ignoring that based on the current requirements I'm unsure how plausible the notion of "proving" various types of fraud on a wide scale basis is.
Really how hard is it to practically just change the text on templates for drivers licenses to say national I.D.? Did no one ever think of just using the shut up and deal with it policy.
If someone is having a medical problem I always thought they get treated regardless and no one is left to die because they didn't have the new federal ID endorsement on their driver's license. Maybe I misunderstood your post.
If you can't prove, you can't know. If there is no measurable number of provable instances, you really can't claim it happens.
It's something you have to address, because God knows we hear it all the time from concerned members of the GOP. I don't buy into it at all (in fact, it reminds me immensely of the whining Democrats did after 2000), but that qualification is still significant.
I think the design motivations are partisan, but the public rhetoric relies on ghost stories.
Even if a person doesn't drive, they have some form of identification.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?