86 and can't get an ID to vote

[theiacowtipper]

If we really want to make voting easier, we'll start exploring online voting and the ability to vote wherever you are and still have that vote count in your home precinct. We can't do any of that without identification. I see identification as an explicit requirement to voting because I want to make voting easier and more accessible to the masses. I want to remove barriers by making it more convenient to vote for people who work, people who are traveling, etc.....but to make that happen, reliable identification of voters and electronic availability of eligible voter rolls are essential.

But we don't have online voting. If we really want a realistic system for now, we expand voting. Allow for early voting in post offices. Open auditor's offices a month before elections. Ensure that all precincts, even the poorest with the least tax base, have reliable voting machines that aren't going to malfunction. Ensure that there are adequate machines in all precincts, even the poor black neighborhoods.

Instead of these common sense reforms, we get Republicans trying to limit access to the polls.

 

[KitingHigh]

Because the right to vote is guaranteed to eligible citizens, not restricted to citizens with the ID that some partisan group or law requires.

Eligibility is determined by age and citizenship. Not gender, race, place of birth, or ability to produce a photo ID from an approved list. I've checked. The ID requirement isn't in the constitution.

I know, I know, it's a difficult concept.

Yes, states have the right to exclude felons and such. I disapprove and hope someday we will have a sufficiently enlightened Supreme Court to fix that. But those are people who have done something WRONG. So at least there is some justification for denying them their rights (even if you agree with me that it isn't enough justification).

Not having a particular photo ID is not a crime, the last time I checked. So where's the justification for denying an eligible citizen the right to vote?

No it isn't. There is no Constitutional right to vote. You cannot be denied a vote due to your race or gender, but that's it. It's actually a Constitutional violation for the Feds to even get involved in the state laws beyond those two items. A state could actually not hold an election at all except for the senate and that would be Constitutional.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I could rattle off reason after reason, no police state needed.

So you say. But I asked you to do exactly that and you didn't.

Here is your original claim, in case you are having trouble remembering:

If you have any intellectual capacity at all, I'd think you'd realize someone should always have a valid form of identification.​

There are, of course, plenty of reasons why it might be convenient to have an ID. But none that would make it somehow always wrong to be without an ID.

 

[theiacowtipper]

I could rattle off reason after reason, no police state needed.

Grandma can't even open a savings account for little Johnny, her loved grandchild, as many grandparents (mine included) do. Why? She can't prove her identity.

Why would you NOT want to have a valid form of ID? You're creating more trouble than it's worth. Her lack of foresight and laziness created this situation. You don't have to carry it on you 24/7 if you're worried about the police state. But to not have it is only creating a PITA situation for yourself if you ever need identification, if solely for your own benefit (like, in the example above, bank related activity).

Not to mention there IS legal identification for the person in this instance, the author of the article only decided to briefly sidestep to mention it before getting back on the highway to ripping on the Republican party, as was the intent of the article.

What if I simply don't want to get an ID? What if I am so paranoid about the government being in my life that I refuse to sign off on a government form? However, I choose to vote. Does the Constitution give permission to deny that right to me?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

If we really want to make voting easier, we'll start exploring online voting and the ability to vote wherever you are and still have that vote count in your home precinct. We can't do any of that without identification. I see identification as an explicit requirement to voting because I want to make voting easier and more accessible to the masses. I want to remove barriers by making it more convenient to vote for people who work, people who are traveling, etc.....but to make that happen, reliable identification of voters and electronic availability of eligible voter rolls are essential.

As I keep pointing out, we do billions (trillions?) of dollars worth of transactions on line. Secure voting should be a piece of cake.

 

[hawkifann]

But we don't have online voting. If we really want a realistic system for now, we expand voting. Allow for early voting in post offices. Open auditor's offices a month before elections. Ensure that all precincts, even the poorest with the least tax base, have reliable voting machines that aren't going to malfunction. Ensure that there are adequate machines in all precincts, even the poor black neighborhoods.

Instead of these common sense reforms, we get Republicans trying to limit access to the polls.

I agree with pretty much everything in your first paragraph. Obviously, we don't have online voting....but we can't turn it on and then try to figure out ID, we have to get that done first. I get the history of having all of the control at the local precinct, but the world has moved on and that's no longer an effective and efficient way to run things. There should be consistency in voting machines. There should be some level of consistency in the voter experience. If I'm not available to get to the polls on election day, I should have plenty of opportunity to vote early and/or somewhere else. Ballots and registration rolls should be available electronically, so that if I suddenly have to go away on business or to a family member's out-of-state funeral right before election day, I can just walk into any precinct, validate my identity and get my local ballot.

No system of any kind will ever be 100% fraud-free. We've had voter fraud for 239.5 years in this country.....but if we can secure financial transactions well enough to run a multi-trillion dollar economy, we can figure out how to extend the vote. However, such a system will require some effort by people to validate their identity. I do agree, though, that we need to expand those offerings as well.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

Good thing to require voter id. That way big government can keep track of you.

 

[KitingHigh]

So you say. But I asked you to do exactly that and you didn't.

Here is your original claim, in case you are having trouble remembering:

If you have any intellectual capacity at all, I'd think you'd realize someone should always have a valid form of identification.​

There are, of course, plenty of reasons why it might be convenient to have an ID. But none that would make it somehow always wrong to be without an ID.

That's is true. It's also true that requiring ID to vote is not unreasonable. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

 

[theiacowtipper]

No it isn't. There is no Constitutional right to vote. You cannot be denied a vote due to your race or gender, but that's it. It's actually a Constitutional violation for the Feds to even get involved in the state laws beyond those two items. A state could actually not hold an election at all except for the senate and that would be Constitutional.

You are correct, if you are ok with losing all representation at the federal level. 14th amendment

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

 

[PerkyForHerky]

So you say. But I asked you to do exactly that and you didn't.

Here is your original claim, in case you are having trouble remembering:

If you have any intellectual capacity at all, I'd think you'd realize someone should always have a valid form of identification.​

There are, of course, plenty of reasons why it might be convenient to have an ID. But none that would make it somehow always wrong to be without an ID.

And I stated one reason you should have an ID. If you can't figure out from the very basic example how many reasons, simply from mere banking purposes let alone vast other reasons, that you'd want an ID.. I don't think me wasting my time typing out numerous examples will help.

If you don't want an ID, then fine, don't have an ID. But you should have one. You're just going to make life harder on yourself but there are those that prefer to make everything difficult.

If you read my other posts, you'd also see I said you don't need to carry it 24/7. But you should have one.

 

[PerkyForHerky]

What if I simply don't want to get an ID? What if I am so paranoid about the government being in my life that I refuse to sign off on a government form? However, I choose to vote. Does the Constitution give permission to deny that right to me?

Then don't get an ID, in your first couple of sentences.

I also don't recall the Constitution giving permission to deny firearm sales due to not having a photo ID. What if someone chooses to own a gun, does the Constitution give permission to deny that right to them? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...o-id-in-gun-rights-religious-freedom-lawsuit/

Feel free to let your thoughts on the above link flow.

 

[KitingHigh]

What if I simply don't want to get an ID? What if I am so paranoid about the government being in my life that I refuse to sign off on a government form? However, I choose to vote. Does the Constitution give permission to deny that right to me?

Yes, it absolutely does.

 

[KitingHigh]

Then don't get an ID, in your first couple of sentences.

I also don't recall the Constitution giving permission to deny firearm sales due to not having a photo ID. What if someone chooses to own a gun, does the Constitution give permission to deny that right to them? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...o-id-in-gun-rights-religious-freedom-lawsuit/

Feel free to let your thoughts on the above link flow.

Nice find. I'd like to see how the anti voter ID people feel about that. You can't have it both ways. If voting shouldn't require an ID, the. The Constitutional right to bear arms certainly shouldn't.

 

[The Tradition]

Because the right to vote is guaranteed to eligible citizens, not restricted to citizens with the ID that some partisan group or law requires.

Eligibility is determined by age and citizenship. Not gender, race, place of birth, or ability to produce a photo ID from an approved list. I've checked. The ID requirement isn't in the constitution.

I know, I know, it's a difficult concept.

Yes, states have the right to exclude felons and such. I disapprove and hope someday we will have a sufficiently enlightened Supreme Court to fix that. But those are people who have done something WRONG. So at least there is some justification for denying them their rights (even if you agree with me that it isn't enough justification).

Not having a particular photo ID is not a crime, the last time I checked. So where's the justification for denying an eligible citizen the right to vote?

There's more to it than that. You have to be a resident of the district in which you're voting.

And what if you're a nurse in a nursing home? You know that one of your residents is registered to vote, and you also know she's not going down to the precinct to cast her vote. So, why not go down there and say you're her (you know her address because, you know, she lives at the nursing home), and cast your vote for her?

You're just helping an old disabled lady vote. What's the problem, right?

 

[theiacowtipper]

Nice find. I'd like to see how the anti voter ID people feel about that. You can't have it both ways. If voting shouldn't require an ID, the. The Constitutional right to bear arms certainly shouldn't.

The question would be if there is an overriding societal concern for a restriction on constitutional rights. I don't agree that the 2nd amendment allows for unrestricted gun possession, but say that it does. Society still has the right to apply restrictions on constitutional protections if there is an overriding societal interest. As an example, restrictions on the ability of individuals deemed insane have been upheld.

Since criminals have been known to purchase guns, and it is certainly a widespread issue, there is a legitimate need for society to properly identify those purchasing guns, and determining if they have a background in crime that makes them ineligible.

Contrast that with voting. There has been no study that shows a systematic abuse of voting that ID would fix. It just doesn't happen, except in very few, isolated cases, that doesn't effect outcomes. In this case, there is no overriding societal need to address a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[theiacowtipper]

There's more to it than that. You have to be a resident of the district in which you're voting.

And what if you're a nurse in a nursing home? You know that one of your residents is registered to vote, and you also know she's not going down to the precinct to cast her vote. So, why not go down there and say you're her (you know her address because, you know, she lives at the nursing home), and cast your vote for her?

You're just helping an old disabled lady vote. What's the problem, right?

Because the nurse doesn't want to commit a felony. Let's say there is strong voter ID law. If you go to the polls, you not only have to submit ID, but you also have to bring six witnesses that will attest to your identification and also have to submit a sample for DNA analysis. Retinal scans are required as well.

What's to stop this nurse from requesting, getting, and completing an absentee ballot?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

And I stated one reason you should have an ID. If you can't figure out from the very basic example how many reasons, simply from mere banking purposes let alone vast other reasons, that you'd want an ID.. I don't think me wasting my time typing out numerous examples will help.

If you don't want an ID, then fine, don't have an ID. But you should have one. You're just going to make life harder on yourself but there are those that prefer to make everything difficult.

If you read my other posts, you'd also see I said you don't need to carry it 24/7. But you should have one.

Oh brother. You were blaming people for not having an ID, saying it was their fault, and implying they deserve to be denied their constitutional right to vote.

Then you insulted the intelligence of anyone who couldn't see that people SHOULD have an ID.

And now, when called on it, the best you can come up with is that it would be NICE to have an ID.

Here's your report card:

Shucking and jiving - A
Intellectual honesty - F

 

[KitingHigh]

The question would be if there is an overriding societal concern for a restriction on constitutional rights. I don't agree that the 2nd amendment allows for unrestricted gun possession, but say that it does. Society still has the right to apply restrictions on constitutional protections if there is an overriding societal interest. As an example, restrictions on the ability of individuals deemed insane have been upheld.

Since criminals have been known to purchase guns, and it is certainly a widespread issue, there is a legitimate need for society to properly identify those purchasing guns, and determining if they have a background in crime that makes them ineligible.

Contrast that with voting. There has been no study that shows a systematic abuse of voting that ID would fix. It just doesn't happen, except in very few, isolated cases, that doesn't effect outcomes. In this case, there is no overriding societal need to address a problem that doesn't exist.

Nice try, but the Constitution doesn't make that distinction.

Also, as mentioned earlier without ID checks there isn't really a way to know how much fraud is occurring. It is a fact that many people, particularly democrats do engage in voter fraud by voting in more than one state. It's not something the ID law addresses, but it is an example of fraud.

Simply put, if someone's word isn't good enough to buy a gun as is their constitutional right, then it isn't necessarily enough to vote either.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Nice try, but the Constitution doesn't make that distinction.

Also, as mentioned earlier without ID checks there isn't really a way to know how much fraud is occurring. It is a fact that many people, particularly democrats do engage in voter fraud by voting in more than one state. It's not something the ID law addresses, but it is an example of fraud.

Simply put, if someone's word isn't good enough to buy a gun as is their constitutional right, then it isn't necessarily enough to vote either.

I simply pointed out that our constitution is not one with absolutes. Nearly every freedom outlined in its text is limited. The right to bear arms has never been interpreted as an absolute. But you can't restrict a right without a valid reason. You can't show a societal concern that is addressed by voter ID. It doesn't exist. Republican leaders have put millions of dollars into efforts to find these cases and they simply don't exist in any numbers.

I will interpret your last sentence to mean I understand I have lost the argument and will now hold my breath until I turn blue.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

How could anyone possibly validate that statement? If you go to the polls to commit voter fraud, you're never asked to prove who you are, and then you're gone, leaving nothing but an anonymous ballot in your wake, how would anyone know that your fraudulent vote occurred?

LOL...until the real person comes in to vote and discovers they already voted...but that doesn't happen. So what you're positing is that these fraudsters are getting the voter rolls, somehow determining who ISN'T going to vote, and then casting ballots in those peoples names.

You do realize that if they're going to those lengths, they can just request an absentee ballot for the person they're planning to impersonate....right?

 

[theiacowtipper]

LOL...until the real person comes in to vote and discovers they already voted...but that doesn't happen. So what you're positing is that these fraudsters are getting the voter rolls, somehow determining who ISN'T going to vote, and then casting ballots in those peoples names.

You do realize that if they're going to those lengths, they can just request an absentee ballot for the person they're planning to impersonate....right?

You don't see significant Republican attempts to restrict access to absentee ballots. Perhaps the reason is that more of their base votes in this method. Granted not as many as Democrats, but a significant number. There is significant fraud associated with absentee, but you simply don't see this addressed.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Also, as mentioned earlier without ID checks there isn't really a way to know how much fraud is occurring. It is a fact that many people, particularly democrats do engage in voter fraud by voting in more than one state. It's not something the ID law addresses, but it is an example of fraud

Yes, there is...see my post above. Now find me all the reported instances of people coming in to vote only to discover they have already voted. And PLEASE stop referencing BS stories that have nothing to do with voter ID. Got a citation for your claim that Dems commit more multi-state voter fraud?

 

[naturalmwa]

Make it worth my while to support this. If you want voter ID, give me something I want. How about publicly financed campaigns or online voting or national voting rights standards? I'm flexible, convince me to care.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

You don't see significant Republican attempts to restrict access to absentee ballots. Perhaps the reason is that more of their base votes in this method. Granted not as many as Democrats, but a significant number. There is significant fraud associated with absentee, but you simply don't see this addressed.

Hell, in Florida in 2000 the GOP was arguing to ALLOW the counting of absentee ballots that were clearly invalid...they wanted the "intent" of the voter considered.

 

[theiacowtipper]

It is simply amazing that politicians can attempt to disenfranchise millions of voters in this country and half the population just does not care. What happens when your subgroup faces these restrictions?

 

[hawklandish]

Hell, in Florida in 2000 the GOP was arguing to ALLOW the counting of absentee ballots that were clearly invalid...they wanted the "intent" of the voter considered.

Uh, no they were not.

 

[hawklandish]

It is simply amazing that politicians can attempt to disenfranchise millions of voters in this country and half the population just does not care. What happens when your subgroup faces these restrictions?

My subgroup has ID. It is not hard, does not require money or much effort, so it really isn't an issue. The undeniable fact remains that anyone who is unable to obtain and produce sufficient identification to vote should not be allowed to vote.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Uh, no they were not.

Uh, yes they were.

 

[The Tradition]

LOL...until the real person comes in to vote and discovers they already voted...but that doesn't happen. So what you're positing is that these fraudsters are getting the voter rolls, somehow determining who ISN'T going to vote, and then casting ballots in those peoples names.

You do realize that if they're going to those lengths, they can just request an absentee ballot for the person they're planning to impersonate....right?

Yeah, that's how all the dead people manage to cast votes on election day.

The absentee ballot will be difficult, because that's going to be mailed to the voters address on record.

 

[hawklandish]

Uh, yes they were.

I am guessing that you were drunk during that election cycle.

 

[theiacowtipper]

My subgroup has ID. It is not hard, does not require money or much effort, so it really isn't an issue. The undeniable fact remains that anyone who is unable to obtain and produce sufficient identification to vote should not be allowed to vote.

Why? What gives you (and I assume your party) the right to say that? Do you just randomly get to make the rules that tell a subgroup they cannot vote? That is pretty conceited. The idea that the ID is given "free" is simply a fallacy. In no state is the necessary proof of citizenship guaranteed to be free. You might very well have to pay for the copy of the birth certificate, in my county that costs $20. You might have to take off work to get the ID, again at a cost.

I don't care if you are disenfranchising democrats, republicans, or communists, opportunities to vote should be expanded, not restricted. Show me there is a problem and we'll talk. Until then, it is just a political exercise in restricting a voting block. See the comments of the Republican Majority Leader in Pennsylvania.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I am guessing that you were drunk during that election cycle.

County election officials who tabulated overseas ballots on Friday and Saturday rejected hundreds of military ballots for a variety of reasons. Republican criticism, though, focused particularly on what election officials said was the most common problem, failure to have a postmark. That seemed particularly galling to critics, since military mail can be sent without a postmark.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/21/u...-military-votes-florida-attorney-general.html

I'm guessing you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Actually, it's not a guess.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Yeah, that's how all the dead people manage to cast votes on election day.

The absentee ballot will be difficult, because that's going to be mailed to the voters address on record.

That doesn't stop the "helpful" family member. Or that doesn't stop someone from changing the address. Do you know how you change your voter address in Iowa? You fill out a form and mail it to the auditor's office.

 

[The Tradition]

County election officials who tabulated overseas ballots on Friday and Saturday rejected hundreds of military ballots for a variety of reasons. Republican criticism, though, focused particularly on what election officials said was the most common problem, failure to have a postmark. That seemed particularly galling to critics, since military mail can be sent without a postmark.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/21/u...-military-votes-florida-attorney-general.html

I'm guessing you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Actually, it's not a guess.

THAT'S your great example? Throwing out ballot from military members because the military postal authorities don't use postmarks?

Talk about disenfranchisement....

 

[hawklandish]

County election officials who tabulated overseas ballots on Friday and Saturday rejected hundreds of military ballots for a variety of reasons. Republican criticism, though, focused particularly on what election officials said was the most common problem, failure to have a postmark. That seemed particularly galling to critics, since military mail can be sent without a postmark.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/21/u...-military-votes-florida-attorney-general.html

I'm guessing you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Actually, it's not a guess.

Says the guy quoting the liberal NYTs. LOL I guess that is your gold standard on what is a valid ballot? Of course, you have no problem with the democrat precincts in which voter turnout exceeded 100%, and those in which 100% of the vote went to Obama? Finally, not even this quote supports your contention about voter intent, does it?

 

[The Tradition]

That doesn't stop the "helpful" family member. Or that doesn't stop someone from changing the address. Do you know how you change your voter address in Iowa? You fill out a form and mail it to the auditor's office.

You should be required to prove it was you who requested the address change and provide proof of residency at the new address.

I can't help it Iowa authorities are stupid.

 

[KitingHigh]

County election officials who tabulated overseas ballots on Friday and Saturday rejected hundreds of military ballots for a variety of reasons. Republican criticism, though, focused particularly on what election officials said was the most common problem, failure to have a postmark. That seemed particularly galling to critics, since military mail can be sent without a postmark.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/21/u...-military-votes-florida-attorney-general.html

I'm guessing you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Actually, it's not a guess.

Holy crap.

Ya'll really are living in your own private Idaho.

 

[KitingHigh]

I simply pointed out that our constitution is not one with absolutes. Nearly every freedom outlined in its text is limited. The right to bear arms has never been interpreted as an absolute. But you can't restrict a right without a valid reason. You can't show a societal concern that is addressed by voter ID. It doesn't exist. Republican leaders have put millions of dollars into efforts to find these cases and they simply don't exist in any numbers.

I will interpret your last sentence to mean I understand I have lost the argument and will now hold my breath until I turn blue.

You can interpret a burger as lobster thermidor, but that doesn't make it so.

 

[hawklandish]

Why? What gives you (and I assume your party) the right to say that? Do you just randomly get to make the rules that tell a subgroup they cannot vote? That is pretty conceited. The idea that the ID is given "free" is simply a fallacy. In no state is the necessary proof of citizenship guaranteed to be free. You might very well have to pay for the copy of the birth certificate, in my county that costs $20. You might have to take off work to get the ID, again at a cost.

I don't care if you are disenfranchising democrats, republicans, or communists, opportunities to vote should be expanded, not restricted. Show me there is a problem and we'll talk. Until then, it is just a political exercise in restricting a voting block. See the comments of the Republican Majority Leader in Pennsylvania.

Uh, let's see, ...I am gonna guess that the 1st Amendment gives me the right to say that. Do you disagree?

Second, I have not proposed or suggested that I or anyone else "randomly" make rules that tell a subgroup they cannot vote. Nothing I posted suggested that. There are requirements for the exercise of virtually every right or privilege. It is simply a reasonable balance between protecting the ability to vote and the need to maintain the integrity of the election process. It is simply silly to suggest that there is anything more than a statistically insignificant portion of the population that cannot easily and without burden meet the requirement of a proper ID to vote. And no, "free" ID is not a fallacy, but a reality.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Says the guy quoting the liberal NYTs. LOL I guess that is your gold standard on what is a valid ballot? Of course, you have no problem with the democrat precincts in which voter turnout exceeded 100%, and those in which 100% of the vote went to Obama? Finally, not even this quote supports your contention about voter intent, does it?

Explained in this article. Statistically, it is to be expected that districts that were overwhelmingly black could vote 100% Obama. Counties that had voter turnout >100% did not exist, or if they did (Ohio) voted for Romney.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/2012fraud.asp