Isn't it common sense that you'd have to show identification to show you are who you say you are when you're voting?

jerseyhoya wrote:Isn't it common sense that you'd have to show identification to show you are who you say you are when you're voting?

It's not any ID, it's a specific ID, may cost money, may have odd requirements that are more challenging for certain people. May not be easy to get to places to do it.

In an ideal world, we'd have a safe secure way to come up with a national ID for FREE. People would have fingerprint and or retinal scan for backup evidence. Our SS#s would not be the keys to our identity -- and voting and registration would not be locally governed. We'd have either dedicated voting places -- full-time -- or something like every post-office would be equipped with a machine that you could run your finger print in and it would bring up a screen with your voting options based on where you are registered to live.

Yes, it's specific. A Blockbuster card doesn't work. The vast, vast majority of people have a driver's license or some other form of government issued picture ID. There are provisions in the law for certain exceptions, like folks that live in nursing homes. There are also provisions in case people don't have an ID at the time of voting for them to fix it within 10 days.

There are plenty of measures that can be taken to make voting better in this country, and there's certainly something to be said for early voting and that stuff, but I'm not sure how this isn't a step in the right direction.

jerseyhoya wrote:Yes, it's specific. A Blockbuster card doesn't work. The vast, vast majority of people have a driver's license or some other form of government issued picture ID. There are provisions in the law for certain exceptions, like folks that live in nursing homes. There are also provisions in case people don't have an ID at the time of voting for them to fix it within 10 days.

There are plenty of measures that can be taken to make voting better in this country, and there's certainly something to be said for early voting and that stuff, but I'm not sure how this isn't a step in the right direction.

It clearly disenfranchises a lot of people from various groups (elderly, poor, minority), and all of whom just happen to have strong tendencies to vote Democrat.

You missed a fourth group: dead people in Hudson County, NJ.

“When I die, I want to be buried in Hudson County so I can stay active in politics.” - Former NJ Gov. Brendan Byrne

CrashburnAlley wrote:It clearly disenfranchises a lot of people from various groups (elderly, poor, minority), and all of whom just happen to have strong tendencies to vote Democrat.

Dingdingding.

The people who brought you Alberto Gonzales are somewhat less than entirely credible when it comes to "protecting the integrity of the process" vs. "doing whatever it takes to help 'our side' win."

And yet, it's still protecting the integrity of the process.

jerseyhoya wrote:And yet, it's still protecting the integrity of the process.

If, by "integrity of the process," you mean, "the Republicans from fair contests," then yes, yes it is.

jerseyhoya wrote:And yet, it's still protecting the integrity of the process.

Just like noted champions of fair play Katherine Harris (Florida, 2000) and Ken Blackstone (Ohio, 2004)?

With those two, the Republicans forfeited the benefit of the doubt--not to mention any credibility--for the imaginable future.

jerseyhoya wrote:Yes, it's specific. A Blockbuster card doesn't work. The vast, vast majority of people have a driver's license or some other form of government issued picture ID. There are provisions in the law for certain exceptions, like folks that live in nursing homes. There are also provisions in case people don't have an ID at the time of voting for them to fix it within 10 days.

There are plenty of measures that can be taken to make voting better in this country, and there's certainly something to be said for early voting and that stuff, but I'm not sure how this isn't a step in the right direction.

Question is, how many steps do you have in mind - since you're implying that some additional amount of proof should be required?

Dude, the only tests to be president are an age & citizenship requirement - and I bet those things have not really been checked all that thoroughly over the past couple hundred years

It's fucking America. You don't need to carry ID in this country to exercise your rights.

Next thing, you'll be expecting people to have an ID when they want to purchase a firearm.

jeff2sf wrote:Really, despite the fact that Independents have won him a ton of primaries/caucuses?

Despite the fact that a fair bit of Non-dems do not like the Clintons?

Obama does well in states with Caucuses--states with the most committed party activists--it was one of the things Hillary used to criticize his victories.

In general, of course, independents don't vote in primaries at all. I'd guess that a big chunk of independents voting for Obama are new voters, who haven't had a political affiliation at all until now.

TenuredVulture wrote:It's $#@! America. You don't need to carry ID in this country to exercise your rights.

Next thing, you'll be expecting people to have an ID when they want to purchase a firearm.

Hey, I enjoy hyperbole as much as the next guy, but I don't think anyone said anything like this. The concern is that requiring an extra ID to vote will make it less likely that the poor and elderly will vote, which will unfairly favor one party. That's a real and legitimate concern, since these are people who have the right to vote, so placing extra hurdles seems contradictory to the idea of making voting as easy as possible to ensure as much turnout as possible.

As with anything, you have to look at the costs and benefits. If voter fraud was a widespread problem capable of influencing an election, then I would feel differntly about requiring ID. But the fact is that there's very little voter fraud, even when the GOP tries to drum it up. Is it really worth the hit to voter turnout to potentially block (an organized voter fraud capable of inluencing an election would likely find a way around the voter ID problem) a few scattered voter frauds (if there's any at all)? I don't think it is. Maybe there's a system that could be used in the future that would satisfy both parties, but it won't be here for November.

Some dude on the TV today commented on why Obama is having trouble connecting with older and blue collar voters. They don't have a transcript posted on the internets yet, so I have to paraphrase from memory. Basically said that Obama's speeches and presentation style are like that of a lecturing college professor, and that resonates well with the younger college educated voters while it doesn't connect with older voters (those further removed from the college experience) and blue collar voters without a college degree. Maybe there is some merit to this.

jerseyhoya wrote:Isn't it common sense that you'd have to show identification to show you are who you say you are when you're voting?

Isn't it common sense that you'd legally require someone to present ID? Man, that's a stunner.

Wizlah wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Isn't it common sense that you'd have to show identification to show you are who you say you are when you're voting?

Isn't it common sense that you'd legally require someone to present ID? Man, that's a stunner.

I dunno if you're being sarcastic or if you're agreeing with me or what.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Wizlah wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Isn't it common sense that you'd have to show identification to show you are who you say you are when you're voting?

Isn't it common sense that you'd legally require someone to present ID? Man, that's a stunner.

I dunno if you're being sarcastic or if you're agreeing with me or what.

No, I'm agreeing. Ireland's not the most ID mad world (unlike, say, the UK) but they always insist on presenting some form of recognised ID. I can see why drawing up a more inclusive list of ID is important, but there's no way I'd want a voting process where a voter isn't asked for some proof of identity.

Wizlah wrote: I can see why drawing up a more inclusive list of ID is important, but there's no way I'd want a voting process where a voter isn't asked for some proof of identity.

"some" being an important qualifier with respect to the subject instance upthread

Monkeyboy wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:It's $#@! America. You don't need to carry ID in this country to exercise your rights.

Next thing, you'll be expecting people to have an ID when they want to purchase a firearm.

Hey, I enjoy hyperbole as much as the next guy, but I don't think anyone said anything like this. The concern is that requiring an extra ID to vote will make it less likely that the poor and elderly will vote, which will unfairly favor one party. That's a real and legitimate concern, since these are people who have the right to vote, so placing extra hurdles seems contradictory to the idea of making voting as easy as possible to ensure as much turnout as possible.

Right. No one seems to recognize what's at stake here isn't the partisan question, but our fundamental rights as Americans. Democrats are idiots, and allowed this debate to be cast in partisan terms. That's why they're losing these debates. Once you start going on about the poor, you've lost.

IDs make voter intimidation easier. It's yet another creeping encroachment on our liberty.

TenuredVulture wrote:It's $#@! America. You don't need to carry ID in this country to exercise your rights.

Next thing, you'll be expecting people to have an ID when they want to purchase a firearm.

This is a terrible argument. I think people ought to show state issued photo ID when buying a gun. Presumably by the way you phrased that, you do too. Because our gun laws are flawed means we should keep a loophole open for vote fraud?