Can someone explain to me why requiring a photo ID is somehow a far-right conspiracy to disenfranchise voters? Yesterday I was coming back from summer vacation and needed my driver's license several times to check in my bags, get through security, even buy a freaking beer (I'm in my 30s but the waitress was being overzealous). If you need an ID to drive, fly, buy a gun, buy a beer, etc, why is it unreasonable to expect that you have an ID to vote?
The only people I could see being against this common sense measure are those who want to flood the polls with ineligible voters.
Can someone explain to me why requiring a photo ID is somehow a far-right conspiracy to disenfranchise voters? Yesterday I was coming back from summer vacation and needed my driver's license several times to check in my bags, get through security, even buy a freaking beer (I'm in my 30s but the waitress was being overzealous). If you need an ID to drive, fly, buy a gun, buy a beer, etc, why is it unreasonable to expect that you have an ID to vote?
The only people I could see being against this common sense measure are those who want to flood the polls with ineligible voters.
all of those are privileges except the gun one, and there's plenty of people who think you shouldn't need an ID to exercise that right, either.
Voter ID laws disenfranchise the poor (it costs money) and minorities in a hugely disparate fashion compared to the wealthy. Funkenpants may be dubious, but given voting track records of those demographics, it's a logical conclusion that it's a push specifically to disenfranchise democratic voters.
Throw in the fact that "flooding the polls with ineligible voters" has never happened in recent history, and bam: right wing conspiracy.
The only people I could see being against this common sense measure are those who want to flood the polls with ineligible voters.
How about you prove that there's a flood of ineligible votes or voter fraud *before* you push for voter ID laws? Otherwise, you're basically pushing a Big Government solution to a non-existent problem.
We've discussed this topic before and there simply isn't anything that could be remotely considered voter fraud at the level that would demand a voter ID scheme. The only reason it's backed by conservatives is that it's a very effective way to disenfranchise people who historically have voted against Republicans: people who are too poor to afford a car, fly, go on a summer vacation, etc.
Because A) None of the other things you listed are guaranteed by the Constitution; and B) Eligibility to vote is based on citizenship, not a picture ID-- are you a legal adult citizen? You're technically eligible to vote.
But the main issue is that in many cases, especially in low-income, urban areas, getting a voter ID can be extremely difficult, if not impossible (full-time jobs, public transit, disability, etc may prevent folks from ever getting to the DMV to get their ID). The argument is that a voter ID law creates a barrier that will generally lower voter turnout in areas that demand the social programs that most conservatives are against, thus disenfranchising those otherwise-eligible voters.
Edit: T-T-T-TANNHAUSER'd!
How many millions of votes were cast between 2002 and 2005? Millions upon millions because that time frame included a Presidential election.
At some point, something is so statistically insignificant you end up using a nuclear bomb to kill a flea.
Voter ID laws disenfranchise the poor (it costs money) and minorities in a hugely disparate fashion compared to the wealthy. Funkenpants may be dubious, but given voting track records of those demographics, it's a logical conclusion that it's a push specifically to disenfranchise democratic voters.
Dubious of what? If you're going to say what I think, it would help to quote me so I know what I said.
Seth wrote:Voter ID laws disenfranchise the poor (it costs money) and minorities in a hugely disparate fashion compared to the wealthy. Funkenpants may be dubious, but given voting track records of those demographics, it's a logical conclusion that it's a push specifically to disenfranchise democratic voters.
Dubious of what? If you're going to say what I think, it would help to quote me so I know what I said.
Starts here:
www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/108446?p...
you asked for sources, then poo poo'd them. Based on that, can I assume you will also find fault with this source?
Right: first realize that they're solving a problem that does not exist. That alone should tell you what the purpose of voter ID laws is. There is no problem, so they're clearly trying to solve something else. There's only one valid explanation I can see.
Remember, getting an ID is fairly involved for someone who's really poor. You're not poor; relatively speaking, you've got lots of money. Even getting a copy of your birth certificate is typically $20 or more, and when fully employed people can be living like sh*t, and even still scraping along on like $25/week actually in their pockets, that's kind of a big deal. Something that's a slight bump in the ground to you can be a major hurdle to people on the bottom.
And Republicans would love to keep people like that out of the polls. That's the reason for voter ID laws.
Do you really want to stop voter fraud in this country? If so, focus on the people counting the ballots, not the people casting them.
Do you really want to stop voter fraud in this country? If so, focus on the people counting the ballots, not the people casting them.
This. Vote fraud comes from the top, not the people.
Can someone explain to me why requiring a photo ID is somehow a far-right conspiracy to disenfranchise voters? Yesterday I was coming back from summer vacation
Well there you go. If your frame of reference is "I was coming back from summer vacation..." you're not putting yourself in the shoes of a lot of possibly disenfranchised voters.
you asked for sources, then poo poo'd them. Based on that, can I assume you will also find fault with this source?
I asked for numbers that backed up the allegation that married women are disenfranchised, but you never provided any numbers to back up the claim. Instead, what you gave me was the sort of policy brief that comes out of interest groups on both sides. Neither one provided methodology or supporting statistics for their claims. They didn't point to any races where disenfranchisement of married women was a factor in the outcome. Why you'd want to raise that again is beyond me.
I think jdzappa's asking an honest question here. Rather than moving the conversation into personal frames of reference,
And I'm giving an honest answer. I don't think the conversation should be moved from personal frames of reference. Our idea of what is "common sense" has to do with what looks 'normal' to us. If we think everyone is living the same kind of life we are, sure it can look like only people who want to flood the polls with ineligible voters are the ones who would have a problem with needing the ID 'we' need to function in our idea of an 'average' everyday life. The issue is that *our* everyday life is not *their* everyday life. A lot of people don't fly. A lot of people live somewhere that buying a gun--let alone a beer--doesn't involve the need for ID. There are a lot of places in this country where there are no overzealous waitresses. There are no waitresses, period.
I honestly believe that many of our differences in political opinions are differences in imagination. The ability to imagine life circumstances different from ours. I think that's clearly what is at work here: some people imagine the lives of others as too similar to their own.
Seth wrote:you asked for sources, then poo poo'd them. Based on that, can I assume you will also find fault with this source?
I asked for numbers that backed up the allegation that married women are disenfranchised, but you never provided any numbers to back up the claim. Instead, what you gave me was the sort of policy brief that comes out of interest groups on both sides. Neither one provided methodology or supporting statistics for their claims. They didn't point to any races where disenfranchisement of married women was a factor in the outcome. Why you'd want to raise that again is beyond me.
You were - and are, apparently - still dubious. So I suppose my answer is "yes," you will find fault with my source. if you can't see the similarity between voter disenfranchisement and voter disenfranchisement, I don't know where else a discussion can go.
You don't have to have an id to fly or go through security, they just want you to think you do.
Fair enough. In my experience, that shift (especially in political discussions) is never productive and derails the potential for meaningful discussion of the issues at hand.
YMMV.
Spoiler:Of course, YMMANV. :)
Heh, my experience is that discussions--especially political ones--are never productive without it. Otherwise it's just two sides arguing for why their hypothetical is valid instead of having that meaningful discussion. If your frame of reference is one where you do lots of things where an ID is required, it doesn't look like anyone is putting barriers to participation in the democratic process. How much of a barrier is it to pull out your wallet? I don't blame people for thinking that there's something fishy about the ruckus over Voter ID if they think it means just treating the voting booth like Hooters. jdzappa is 100% right: it does look like common sense from his personal frame of reference.
In fact, I'd say Yonder's post that you quoted as a great example is about exactly that: "They don't just throw it up on a website somewhere, that's not a big barrier for me, but I guarantee you that my grandparents may miss that election" is all about how one's frame of reference changes how big the barrier appears.
It's a derail for this thread, and I know how much you love semantic hair-splitting, so I'll simply point out that: Yonder's post was factually grounded even without the three sentences sharing his personal experience, and that sharing your personal experience or frame of reference is rather different than speculating about someone else's. ;)
If you think 'frame of reference of a person who goes on summer vacation' is speculation and not factually grounded when it's based on the person saying "I was coming back from summer vacation..." I'm not the one engaged in semantic hair-splitting here ; D
Let's see who lets go first: The one holding the hair or the one holding the razor.
Not going to comment, because I just don't have the energy after 15 months. Just going to point out my unintentional "photo bomb" in John Lehman's victory announcement photo:
Wearing the Arsenal jersey.
I'm completely ok with issuing IDs for free or at cost to the disadvantaged. But if you don't believe voter fraud has never happened in this country, I'd like to point you to Chicago in the 20s or Tamminy Hall. Just because there hasn't been massive voter fraud in the past few years doesn't mean it couldn't happen again.
And my stance on voter IDs doesn't mean I also don't recognize the dirty tricks the Republicans used in Florida to get Bush elected. Honestly, this discussion could use its own thread.
I'm completely ok with issuing IDs for free or at cost to the disadvantaged. But if you don't believe voter fraud has never happened in this country, I'd like to point you to Chicago in the 20s or Tamminy Hall. Just because there hasn't been massive voter fraud in the past few years doesn't mean it couldn't happen again.
So, stuff from the 60's at the _earliest_ (When minorities had a hell of a time voting at all, I will add, with great emphasis.) justifies a regressive policy that can be used, with very little imagination, to suppress massive blocks of voters? There is not a polite way to say "f*ck that noise.", so I'm not even gonna try.
For perspective, this is not just before I was born, this is before my mother was born. We're between two and three generations out from that. I need something verifiable more recent than that.
Pages