Voter ID Fun

weso1 said:
We all know the number of people that have actually been caught committing in person fraud is incredibly low. Maybe like 10 people or so in the last ten years. My argument though is that it's incredibly difficult to actually catch someone doing it. So we don't really have good data on how much it is really happening. I think you missed my point about steroids in baseball. It was about how it's very difficult to know when someone is using when you don't actually have a quality test for it. You know very well that there are many ideological weirdos out there that will risk prison time. Again, if the system is cheated even one time then that's a big blow to our process. And elections are much closer on the local level where the majority of cheating occurs. I agree that it's likely not really a problem on the national level.

I understand that some of these voter ID laws aren't good, and my argument would center around voter ID law that makes sure everyone can get an ID. Even allowing a person a pass to vote without an ID one time and then issue them an ID at the time of voting.

I will say that this is incredibly low on my priority list. Somewhere down there near the death penalty.
Click to expand...

Or how about getting more people to care about the election? That's a novel idea!

Read my post above. If of the 5.6 Million votes in Ohio, only 625 were looked at for irregularities, don't you think this "epidemic" may not be a real problem.

Are you willing to waste hundreds of millions of dollars in tax money to solve something that isn't actually a problem? Seriously think about that. Like Julio said, anyone who's pro-voter ID law and proposes everyone should get one and it should be free, should hand in their small government card.
 
I've already argued about why there aren't more irregularities in regards to in person voting. How do you catch someone if your method of catching them stinks? Don't know that I've said anything about an epidemic. However, you don't think it's possible those 625 irregularities could have an effect on local elections? You're just looking at it on a macro scale. Some local elections are very close.

If there is a way to help prevent potential fraud while still maintaining a reasonable opportunity for every citizen to vote, then why not do it? You guys are only looking at voter disenfranchisement from one end of the spectrum here.

I'm not sure I buy your premise on cost. I'm guessing the cost really wouldn't be that much. Most folks already have driver's licences. It would probably just be like spitting in the ocean in the end. This is one of the duties of government, imo.
 
I totally disagree with voter ID requirements.

What I would like to see happen, though, is for the ballots to remove the "D" and "R" next to candidate's names.
 
Removing party affiliations would turn some elections on their ear. Especially in the rural areas. It may actually force people to educate themselves first! OMG!
 
Julio3000 said:
Poll access should be convenient, secure, and simple. A driver's license or state-issued photo ID is not necessary for the second and is potentially problematic for the other two, at least for the 10M+ people of voting age who don't have one. Other forms of ID should be adequate, particularly since in-person voter fraud is a non-issue.

If you'd rather see states spend hundreds of millions of dollars chasing a problem that doesn't exist, perhaps you should turn in your "I hate the inefficiency and intrusiveness of big government" card.

If a photo ID requirement seems like common sense to you, consider that broad and easy access to the vote, the cornerstone of democracy, seems like common sense to me.
Click to expand...

I don't see the issue with requiring some form of ID like a photo id, drivers license, etc. How does this make it that much tougher to vote? Really stressing about requiring someone to get an ID?
 
gilesfan said:
I don't see the issue with requiring some form of ID like a photo id, drivers license, etc. How does this make it that much tougher to vote? Really stressing about requiring someone to get an ID?
Click to expand...

Whether or not you or I think it should be an issue, it is one.
 
gilesfan said:
Well, if you don't care enough to get a photo ID, then you have no business voting.
Click to expand...

So someone who's unable to make their way to the DMV because of physical or financial means shouldn't be allowed to vote?

I'm fine wit hVoter ID laws, will make for more fun when states lose house members and electoral votes and change their tune. I wonder if those states even considered that.
 
weso1 said:
We all know the number of people that have actually been caught committing in person fraud is incredibly low. Maybe like 10 people or so in the last ten years. My argument though is that it's incredibly difficult to actually catch someone doing it. So we don't really have good data on how much it is really happening. I think you missed my point about steroids in baseball. It was about how it's very difficult to know when someone is using when you don't actually have a quality test for it. You know very well that there are many ideological weirdos out there that will risk prison time. Again, if the system is cheated even one time then that's a big blow to our process. And elections are much closer on the local level where the majority of cheating occurs. I agree that it's likely not really a problem on the national level.

I understand that some of these voter ID laws aren't good, and my argument would center around voter ID law that makes sure everyone can get an ID. Even allowing a person a pass to vote without an ID one time and then issue them an ID at the time of voting.

I will say that this is incredibly low on my priority list. Somewhere down there near the death penalty.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, I think, I'm just not sure it's an adequate analogy, simply because those legal controls already exist and we already know that the problem is minimal. Fraud is more likely to exist at the administrative level or in absentee voting.

I do think that ease of voting/access to polls is a pretty big deal. For a country that values and promotes the superiority of our democratic system, we tend to make it harder to vote than it ought to be.
 
Julio3000 said:
I see what you're saying, I think, I'm just not sure it's an adequate analogy, simply because those legal controls already exist and we already know that the problem is minimal. Fraud is more likely to exist at the administrative level or in absentee voting.

I do think that ease of voting/access to polls is a pretty big deal. For a country that values and promotes the superiority of our democratic system, we tend to make it harder to vote than it ought to be.
Click to expand...

How is it hard to vote?
 
Tapate50 said:
How is it hard to vote?
Click to expand...

It may not be where you live. It isn't particularly difficult in my precinct, although wait times can be long in high-turnout elections. There are a lot of places where this isn't the case, though.
Lots of people don't have the luxury of taking hours away from work or family responsibilities in order to wait in line for hours. A lot of states have made early voting a possibility, which is a positive step.
 
Julio3000 said:
It may not be where you live. It isn't particularly difficult in my precinct, although wait times can be long in high-turnout elections. There are a lot of places where this isn't the case, though.

Lots of people don't have the luxury of taking hours away from work or family responsibilities in order to wait in line for hours. A lot of states have made early voting a possibility, which is a positive step.
Click to expand...

They have and it's fairly simple to vote absentee. It isn't like the date sneaks up on anyone. It's pretty easy. It takes me 10 minutes. Much of voting is anticipation...
 
BedellBrave said:
If we had a benevolent monarchy we wouldn't have to deal with this crap.
Click to expand...

The problem with enlightened, benevolent monarchy is heredity: there's just no way to assure one's son (or daughter) isn't a crazy, syphilitic despot. As Machiavelli argues, the best prince in the one who organizes his state into the best possible republic, then abdicates his rule to the people.
 
weso1 said:
(we know you guys just want every single doofus in the world to vote because the doofuses lean liberal)
Click to expand...

So the only voters who blindly and stupidly tow a party-line – the only "doofuses" in this country – are left-leaning?
 
Tapate50 said:
They have and it's fairly simple to vote absentee. It isn't like the date sneaks up on anyone. It's pretty easy. It takes me 10 minutes. Much of voting is anticipation...
Click to expand...

I usually volunteer on election day, so I vote absentee. Until recently, early voting was not an option where I live. It's a big improvement. It's not the only one that could be made. If we're going to spend money on elections, I'd prefer to see it spent on measures that enable people to vote, not establishing barriers that may disproportionately effect the already marginalized.
 
jpx7 said:
So the only voters who blindly and stupidly tow a party-line – the only "doofuses" in this country – are left-leaning?
Click to expand...

Actually I meant to type the majority of doofuses lean left. And by doofuses I mean those who aren't really paying attention and typically won't vote unless Julio3000 carries them to the polling place.

I'm completely against the idea of trying to talk people into voting. I feel like if you need to be talked into it then you should probably just stay home.
 
Keep in mind that I mean the term "doofus" in the most loving way possible. I consider myself a doofus. My wife calls me doofus.
 
zitothebrave said:
So someone who's unable to make their way to the DMV because of physical or financial means shouldn't be allowed to vote?
Click to expand...

Yes and I'd question rather that person should even be allowed to breathe. Not exactly asking a whole lot there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top