Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 49

Thread: Voter ID Laws

  1. #16
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Dec 06
    Posts
    1,074
    I think the problem in the US is that you give too much freedom to the states to do whatever the eff they want about a crucial basic right such as voting which is guaranteed by the US constitution. Is there any other major democracy where these laws aren't consistent across the country? The result is needless controversy that becomes difficult to resolve.

    You can see this factor being a major pain in the butt in every hot-button issue including abortion, gay-rights, etc. Even the civil rights issues (segregation) only got resolved when the federal government put its foot down and showed everyone who's boss.
    Last edited by Firestorm; 11 Jul 18, at 20:56.

  2. #17
    Senior Contributor GVChamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Aug 06
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,517
    I don't agree. The partial birth abortion ban was a federal law and a very contentious issue that was resolved by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision. Gay marriage isn't as contentious as it seems: the political right has rolled over on it because it doesn't see it as a big deal. Abortion is a different story.

    Ideally we let states decide certain things precisely so we don't have to fight over control of the federal government to decide these things. As to Civil Rights, that was only resolved because the federal government was massively powerful in the aftermath of WWII and the Cold War. The US had tried to impose a similar desegregation policy in the aftermath of the Civil War, and Southern insurgents continuted to harry Northern troops for a good decade until the federal government decided to call it quits. That would have happened again in an alternate universe where the US doesn't fight the World Wars and the Cold War doesn't happen, because the federal government would not have been strong enough to simply impose its will.
    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

  3. #18
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    Depends on the state.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_..._United_States


    Maybe in some states. Not all. Several states have strict photo ID laws. Photo IDs cost money, and in my opinion, there shouldn't be any fees or taxes associated with voting. It's voter suppression as far as I'm concerned.
    99.9% of the voting age population has ID. You cannot function in modern America without government issued ID. You can't board a plane, rent a home, get utilities turned on, check out a library book, get seen by a doctor, buy booze etc. Requiring ID is not a poll tax. Only citizens many vote and the only way to insure that is to match registered voter rolls against the person claiming to be a registered voter. Given how close many elections are even a small number of illegally cast ballots could sway an election.

  4. #19
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,324
    Why should voting be made compulsory? It's against freedom of expression.

    Enrol all eligible citizens into a voting list. Use SSN to verify. That's it. And let voting remain a citizens choice.
    Last edited by Oracle; 12 Jul 18, at 04:47. Reason: Added one line.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  5. #20
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,844
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    99.9% of the voting age population has ID. You cannot function in modern America without government issued ID. You can't board a plane, rent a home, get utilities turned on, check out a library book, get seen by a doctor, buy booze etc. Requiring ID is not a poll tax. Only citizens many vote and the only way to insure that is to match registered voter rolls against the person claiming to be a registered voter. Given how close many elections are even a small number of illegally cast ballots could sway an election.
    The Tax Reform Act of 1986 required parents to list a social security number for any dependent children over the age of five (2 years old in 1988, 1 year old in 1990, and then at any age). In effect, that’s when we went to universal SSN coverage. The Amish and some other groups do not have SSNs.

    In Tennessee, photo ID laws came into effect in 2012. Student IDs and library cards weren’t accepted, but handgun permits were. Some 230,000 licensed drivers in the state don’t have photos on their IDs because those over 60 weren’t required to be photographed. One estimate is that up to 10% of eligible voters don’t have a photo ID: 380,000 citizens.

    In May 2014, a court ruled against voter ID laws after reviewing research that showed that 17% of Wisconsin white adult males didn’t have a photo drivers license. And, 55% of African-American adult males. And, 59% of Hispanic adult women. After another study showed that 177,000 elderly residents didn’t have a photo ID, the governor vetoed the voter ID law.

    So, that 99.9% figure will need some evidence to confirm it has some kind of link to reality.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  6. #21
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Firestorm View Post
    I think the problem in the US is that you give too much freedom to the states to do whatever the eff they want about a crucial basic right such as voting which is guaranteed by the US constitution. Is there any other major democracy where these laws aren't consistent across the country? The result is needless controversy that becomes difficult to resolve.

    You can see this factor being a major pain in the butt in every hot-button issue including abortion, gay-rights, etc. Even the civil rights issues (segregation) only got resolved when the federal government put its foot down and showed everyone who's boss.
    So you are highlighting the entire 9th Amendment versus 10th amendment arguments about American life.
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

  7. #22
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Dec 06
    Posts
    1,074
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    So you are highlighting the entire 9th Amendment versus 10th amendment arguments about American life.
    TBH I have no idea what those amendments say. I was just pointing out how it looks from the outside for someone coming from a very different but still democratic system.

    American states have more freedom and independence to make their own rules than in any other democracy I think. On the face of it, it seems like a terrific, pure, democratic and liberal idea. But it does have drawbacks in practice.
    Last edited by Firestorm; 12 Jul 18, at 23:52.

  8. #23
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Dec 06
    Posts
    1,074
    Quote Originally Posted by GVChamp View Post
    I don't agree. The partial birth abortion ban was a federal law and a very contentious issue that was resolved by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision. Gay marriage isn't as contentious as it seems: the political right has rolled over on it because it doesn't see it as a big deal. Abortion is a different story.
    So states can't go against the Supreme court decision. But they are still allowed to go against the federal government. In California, if you are carrying pot, you are still a law abiding citizen as per the state but a criminal as per the federal government. But state police aren't going to arrest you so the Federal government's authority is eroded.

    Without Roe vs Wade I guess half the states can theoretically completely ban abortion and criminalize it. So a Texas woman who undergoes a completely legal abortion in California could be arrested as a murderer if she returns to Texas. It is this inconsistency, even in criminal law that looks weird to someone like me and seems to be a big part of the problem.


    Ideally we let states decide certain things precisely so we don't have to fight over control of the federal government to decide these things. As to Civil Rights, that was only resolved because the federal government was massively powerful in the aftermath of WWII and the Cold War. The US had tried to impose a similar desegregation policy in the aftermath of the Civil War, and Southern insurgents continuted to harry Northern troops for a good decade until the federal government decided to call it quits. That would have happened again in an alternate universe where the US doesn't fight the World Wars and the Cold War doesn't happen, because the federal government would not have been strong enough to simply impose its will.
    Kinda proving my point. Too many "states rights" are bad. For both conservatives and liberals. Whoever is not in power at the center tries to misuse them.
    Last edited by Firestorm; 13 Jul 18, at 00:13.

  9. #24
    Regular
    Join Date
    17 Feb 15
    Posts
    42
    Official government ID's can be purchased for a nominal fee, here it's $10.00, and there is public transportation available at low or no cost to get there. They are made to be cheap and easily accessible to everyone -- citizen or not -- for the very reason that you cannot function in American society without one.

  10. #25
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Burnet View Post
    Official government ID's can be purchased for a nominal fee, here it's $10.00, and there is public transportation available at low or no cost to get there. They are made to be cheap and easily accessible to everyone -- citizen or not -- for the very reason that you cannot function in American society without one.
    Tell that to the homeless, or to the retired US congressman from Texas (the name eludes me for the moment) who gave up his drivers license because of age, and then couldn't vote.

    Found it:
    Texas' Restrictive Voter ID Law Stops A Former U.S. House Speaker From Getting A Voter ID Card

    Huffington Post, March 11, 2013

    Former U.S. Speaker of the House Jim Wright (D-Texas) tried to get a voter identification card at a Texas Department of Public Safety office on Saturday.
    But the only photo identification cards Wright has -- an expired Texas driver's license and a Texas Christian University faculty identification card -- do not satisfy the requirements of the state's restrictive vote identification law, passed in 2011. Wright is 90 years old.
    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...5?guccounter=1

    Other Texans who found it difficult to vote include Governor Greg Abbott, Judge Sandra Watts, and State Senator Van De Putte.
    Last edited by DOR; 13 Jul 18, at 15:39.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  11. #26
    Regular
    Join Date
    17 Feb 15
    Posts
    42
    He should have had his ballot mailed to him like most elderly choose to do. Just place the completed ballot in your mailbox. ID only needed if you want to push the button at the poll and get an I Voted! sticker.

    I support voter ID requirements merely to ensure election integrity and encourage greater turnout because voters have confidence that their vote counts. Do whatever is needed to help those with difficulty in voting. I really don't think it would change the outcomes significantly and actually think it would hurt Republicans more than Democrats.

  12. #27
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Burnet View Post
    He should have had his ballot mailed to him like most elderly choose to do. Just place the completed ballot in your mailbox. ID only needed if you want to push the button at the poll and get an I Voted! sticker.

    I support voter ID requirements merely to ensure election integrity and encourage greater turnout because voters have confidence that their vote counts. Do whatever is needed to help those with difficulty in voting. I really don't think it would change the outcomes significantly and actually think it would hurt Republicans more than Democrats.
    Try reading it this time. You don’t get a ballot unless you’re registered to vote.
    Nothing to do with absentee or mail-in ballots.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  13. #28
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    19 Feb 08
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Why should voting be made compulsory? It's against freedom of expression.

    Enrol all eligible citizens into a voting list. Use SSN to verify. That's it. And let voting remain a citizens choice.
    Funny story.

    I'm running for Township Board this year. About the most grassroots political position in the Midwest. I told my neighbor about it and asked for his vote before the primary one day. He said "I don't vote" and then explained why. He was a longtime cop where we're at, a larger than medium-sized city, and every election he was always told who he must vote for and give money to and if he didn't, life was going to suck for him. So when he retired in the late '70s, he says he never voted again after that point.

    I agree with your 2nd line. A large part of the problem is the voting list is not kept accurate. Death? May or may not be updated. Moving? Only gets updated if you take the time to tell the election board about it. You'd think there would be some way to coordinate all of the government databases together (voting, tax filings, education, post office, etc.) but no one has undertaken this. If you want to talk about the ills and plagues of government bureaucracy, inaccurate voting lists ranks near the top. I don't understand why there can't be one database that keeps track of people and where they're at, just on a county-by-county level. It'd be like a localized permanent ongoing census. It'd have accurate voter registration, would cut down on identity fraud, and government can keep better track of who is where and what they all need.
    Last edited by rj1; 26 Jul 18, at 17:36.

  14. #29
    Senior Contributor antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 08
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,106
    Quote Originally Posted by rj1 View Post
    Funny story.

    I'm running for Township Board this year. About the most grassroots political position in the Midwest. I told my neighbor about it and asked for his vote before the primary one day. He said "I don't vote" and then explained why. He was a longtime cop where we're at, a larger than medium-sized city, and every election he was always told who he must vote for and give money to and if he didn't, life was going to suck for him. So when he retired in the late '70s, he says he never voted again after that point.

    I agree with your 2nd line. A large part of the problem is the voting list is not kept accurate. Death? May or may not be updated. Moving? Only gets updated if you take the time to tell the election board about it. You'd think there would be some way to coordinate all of the government databases together (voting, tax filings, education, post office, etc.) but no one has undertaken this. If you want to talk about the ills and plagues of government bureaucracy, inaccurate voting lists ranks near the top. I don't understand why there can't be one database that keeps track of people and where they're at, just on a county-by-county level. It'd be like a localized permanent ongoing census. It'd have accurate voter registration, would cut down on identity fraud, and government can keep better track of who is where and what they all need.
    India does an adequate job of tracking down and maintaining lists for 800mn voters, while using a sub-motivated bureaucratic workforce and dated technology.

    The US should be diong fine, if we really want to.
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

  15. #30
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    19 Feb 08
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by antimony View Post
    India does an adequate job of tracking down and maintaining lists for 800mn voters, while using a sub-motivated bureaucratic workforce and dated technology.

    The US should be diong fine, if we really want to.
    Adequate is not good enough. It should be accurate.

    http://www.ncsl.org/research/electio...-accuracy.aspx
    Last edited by rj1; 26 Jul 18, at 19:41.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. A bit off-topic: Voter Registration?
    By Dago in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 26 Oct 08,, 21:42
  2. ACORN busted for voter registration fraud!
    By Dreadnought in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 23 Oct 08,, 22:56
  3. Voter fraud/ purge
    By Roosveltrepub in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11 Oct 08,, 18:57
  4. The Vanishing Republican Voter
    By astralis in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: 25 Sep 08,, 22:45

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •