Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Victorgra]

• ???????? ?????????? ???? by Victorgra
  [Yesterday at 11:29:30 PM]
• ? ??????? 2 by Juliyge
  [Yesterday at 10:16:52 PM]
• ??????????? ????? ???????... by Juliget
  [Yesterday at 08:28:55 AM]
• 2012 Concert Thread by Carmelasew
  [April 25, 2024, 11:19:23 PM]
• ????????? ??????????? seo... by Victorumj
  [April 25, 2024, 09:59:00 PM]
• ???????? ?????????? tk by Victorcqt
  [April 25, 2024, 06:35:49 PM]

Members

• Total Members: 4939
• Latest: BrianCus

Stats

• Total Posts: 129551
• Total Topics: 7148
• Online Today: 171
• Online Ever: 1013
• (January 12, 2023, 01:18:11 AM)

[12AX7]

I keep hearing protests against requiring a photo ID to register or to vote. They call it 'intimidation' and 'disenfranchising' of lower income and minority voters.
 Somehow its not intimidating or disenfranchising to have to have a driver's license (which has a ...PHOTO ID!!!!! OMFG!!), but to walk in and show an ID to vote is just an abomination.
 Sounds like a bullshit argument to me.

[Demosthenes]

I've never understood why people get up in arms over having to show ID to vote... and this is coming from someone much more paranoid than the average person.

[Novice]

The tricky part for me is remembering to grab the real one.

[sociald1077]

You don't even need a Drivers license, even a plain ID card you can get from the DMV would work. I don't think its a wrong thing to ask for photo ID to vote.

[pbsaurus]

If the founding fathers didn't need an ID card, why should I?

[12AX7]

The Founding Fathers also had slaves, mistresses, and a lot of bastard children they never took care of.

[Novice]

In the words of Dave Chappelle, "Run nigga! George Washington!"

[Myriter]

Having to show photo ID stops wanted criminals being able to vote.

This way the Republicans will never get in again.

 

If the founding fathers didn't need an ID card, why should I?

Are you comparing yourself to the founding fathers? If so how many hits would it take for you to down Benjamin Franklin?

[Chris]

Presenting a valid ID issued by the state in which you are a resident of helps to ensure that everyone voting is a legal US citizen. There are many cases that we can't tell the diference between someone from Canada and someone from the United States since our skin color is the same and we (usually) speak the same language without an accent. By asking for ID we minimize the risk of allowing someone who is not a citizen to vote in our polls.

[Wunderkind]

I have no problem presenting photo ID to vote. I have to present photo ID to drink, and my drink is far less important than my vote. Hell, you have to present photo ID to get keys to a hotel room in most places that aren't Motel6. I have to present photo ID to do a lot of things now, so it's usually on hand anyways. Doesn't make a huge difference to me, shouldn't make a huge difference in any citizens life. So I guess that's, no, I'm not against it.

[Joe Sixpack]

Restricting voting to those with a photo ID is one step away from restricting who can get those IDs.  Today it is trivial for pretty much anyone.  You can't assume that tomorrow will be the same.  This is coming from someone apparently slightly more paranoid than Demo.  I'll have no problem with it when
a) You receive a "voter ID" card upon gaining your right to vote (meaning when you register, gain your citizenship, etc...)
b) It's free

[Chris]

b) It's free

You do a raise a good point. I think the government should issue you several IDs in your life time free of charge; any additional IDs that you may need as a result of you misplacing it should be up to the individual who lost it.

In a sense, by charging for an ID, this restricts those who are too poor to obtain an ID for 10 dollars, or whatever your state may charge for an ID. The sad thing is, we have people who are too poor in the United States who are simply too poor at the moment to spare 10 dollars on an ID.

Let's keep sending more money to Africa, though. 

[BizB]

Do you believe that those who receive federal assistance should be allowed to vote in national elections?
Do you believe that those who receive state assistance should be allowed to vote in state elections?

Isn't there a conflict of interest, there?  Those who run for office already know that he who offers the most free-bees to the masses will likely receive the most votes.  If you're already on the dole, you're way more likely to vote for the guy who is promising to continue or even increase those benefits.

The guy who proposes to cut those programs are always vilified by the opposition and the media. For example, the 1994 school lunch program where the Republicans merely suggested that no further increases in funding be provided (not an actual cut) and the Democrats capitalized on the notion that the evil Rs wanted to starve our kids.

[Joe Sixpack]

I would listen to the argument about national elections, it has merit.

State, however... I assume my state assistance is being at least partially provided via sales tax, which I pay.  There's no good argument for punishing me for utilizing a system that I helped pay for.  I shouldn't say there isn't an argument, I just can't think of one.  I'm sure you could find a way where pretty much everyone's money would find their way to the federal government, even those who have never made enough to pay income tax.  So from that perspective, this would apply to national elections as well.

[12AX7]

I'll have no problem with it when
a) You receive a "voter ID" card upon gaining your right to vote (meaning when you register, gain your citizenship, etc...)
b) It's free

You can get it at the DMV and it IS free. And you don't have to have it with you when you vote; plus there are provisions for extenuating circumstances. What more could you possibly want?
 Of course; it's the Democrats who need to keep minorities and lower income folks oppressed. As long as they can keep those groups convinced that somehow they are not as good, not as "valid", and being kept down; then they have a built-in voter base. Its sad how many people really dont even TRY to think for themselves.


From Here:
The Indiana law, adopted by the Republican-controlled legislature in 2005 without a single Democratic vote, is regarded as the strictest in the country. It requires a voter to present a photograph as part of an unexpired document issued either by Indiana or the federal government, a requirement that in most cases can be satisfied only by a current driver’s license or a passport. The state’s motor vehicle agency provides a free photo ID card for people who do not drive, but obtaining it requires a “primary document” like an original birth certificate or a passport.
Would-be voters without proper identification may cast a provisional ballot that will be counted only if they appear within 10 days at a county clerk’s office and present acceptable photo identification or, alternatively, swear either that they are indigent or that they have a religious objection to being photographed.

[Joe Sixpack]

I realize you can go to the DMV and get a State ID that is not a Driver's License.  It is not free, at least not in Texas.  Beyond that, going to the DMV is a deterrent in itself, even if you trust The Man.

I'll ignore your second paragraph, it makes so little sense that it gives me a headache

[12AX7]

I'll ignore your second paragraph, it makes so little sense that it gives me a headache

Then don't tease me; actually ignore it.

[TheJudge]

Do you believe that those who receive federal assistance should be allowed to vote in national elections?
Do you believe that those who receive state assistance should be allowed to vote in state elections?

Isn't there a conflict of interest, there?

If you look at it from this perspective, then there can be a conflict for anyone who benefits from any government program. So for example, when large public corporations get tax benefits and other incentives to operate in certain areas, or under certain conditions, then should shareholders be prevented to vote? Isn't that also a conflict of interest?

As a canadian, if I need medical treatment for a long term illness, should I be prevented from voting? Clearly, I will support the guy who wants to invest in the medical system, not the one that wants to cut it. This is no different that what your're describing above.

Isn't this the whole idea of voting anyway? To pick someone who represents best your own personal interest? Voting isn't about social responsibilities, or about fiscal management really, it's about choosing a representative that will defend things that are important to you as an individual. Assuming that the elected representatives actually act in a manner which represents the interest of those who elected them, then the combined result give us a picture of the social and fiscal responsibilities we want as a society, but not as individuals. The problem with the system is that ones candidates are elected, they have carte blanche for the term and they don't stick to the requirements of the elector.

And this whole ID to vote protest is one of the stupidest things I've read in a while, quite frankly. Voting is a right, but you are responsible to demonstrate that you are entitled to that right. And this is done by proving your citizenship with a fucking picutre ID.

[BizB]

If you look at it from this perspective, then there can be a conflict for anyone who benefits from any government program. So for example, when large public corporations get tax benefits and other incentives to operate in certain areas, or under certain conditions, then should shareholders be prevented to vote? Isn't that also a conflict of interest?

See, my idea, in the purist sense, would have worked back before the days of corporate welfare.  Because it is a conflict of interest, and most people work for a company that gets some sort of federal benefit, this rule couldn't be applied in this way, today.  Though, if we apply it only to direct beneficiaries, it could still apply.

As a canadian, if I need medical treatment for a long term illness, should I be prevented from voting? Clearly, I will support the guy who wants to invest in the medical system, not the one that wants to cut it. This is no different that what your're describing above.

EXACTLY!  If you're receiving direct benefit, you should not be allowed to vote.  This would keep America from becoming the next socialist nation.

Isn't this the whole idea of voting anyway? To pick someone who represents best your own personal interest? Voting isn't about social responsibilities, or about fiscal management really, it's about choosing a representative that will defend things that are important to you as an individual. Assuming that the elected representatives actually act in a manner which represents the interest of those who elected them, then the combined result give us a picture of the social and fiscal responsibilities we want as a society, but not as individuals. The problem with the system is that ones candidates are elected, they have carte blanche for the term and they don't stick to the requirements of the elector.

Herein lies the majority of our problem, today.  Not only do people see voting as unrelated to social responsibilities or fiscal management, they don't see it as a responsibility at all!  Voting should be about putting people in place who will actually uphold the oath that they swear.  In the US, that means supporting and defending the constitution, not thwarting and subordinating it. 

People running for office have come to realize that giving is the best way to get.  That is, giving to the people who vote is the most likely way to get re-elected.  This is why we have the pr0k barr3l spending that we have.

And this whole ID to vote protest is one of the stupidest things I've read in a while, quite frankly. Voting is a right, but you are responsible to demonstrate that you are entitled to that right. And this is done by proving your citizenship with a fucking picutre ID.

Agreed.

[Joe Sixpack]

If voter fraud is a crime, it is on the government to prove that I don't have the right to vote.  Not on me to prove that I do.

[sociald1077]

If voter fraud is a crime, it is on the government to prove that I don't have the right to vote.  Not on me to prove that I do.

So the government is only supposed to take action against people that committed the crime after the voting has taken place? That throws off the whole vote if a frauder (not a word) is found.

Its far easier for them to require you to get your "permission slip" to vote before the vote takes place.

[TheJudge]

Herein lies the majority of our problem, today.  Not only do people see voting as unrelated to social responsibilities or fiscal management, they don't see it as a responsibility at all!

Then you should vote for someone who's willing to do something to change that, as this is one of your personal requirements. I would go even further to say that it's not just a matter of not "seeing it as a responsibility" it's also the "inability" to see it as responsibility. Some individuals choose not to see the big picture. Others just can't.

If voter fraud is a crime, it is on the government to prove that I don't have the right to vote.  Not on me to prove that I do.

That's where you're wrong. You see, I got arrested the other day and I didn't have my driving liscense with me. It's not that I don't have one, I just didn't have it with me to show it. So guess what? I got a fine.

What you are describing above is valid in principle, but completely unpracticle in real life. You're saying that anyone can walkk up to a voting both, give a name that's on the list, and then vote.  So Any Canadian can grab a phone book which also list addresses, go to the voting place for that adress, give the name and repeat the process at different locations. Then, "if" someone clues in that there was voting fraud, they should track me and my cannuck friedns down, which will be practically impossible, and settle the matter in court two years later (sucking your tax dollars in the process). Or... people can just show their ID when they vote.

[Joe Sixpack]

One way causes a mess and also causes people who should rightfully get to vote to be disenfranchised.
The other way causes a mess, but everyone who has the right to vote gets to.

[12AX7]

Disenfranchised. Heh.

[BizB]

You were fined for not having ID with you?

Oh no... I was fined for not having my driving permit with me (which is also my ID). My point was that I do have the permit, thus I have the legal right to drive on the road. But I was also responsible to prove that I had such a thing.