ok?I've had to show ID when there was doubt before in the UK.
Hell We have poll card that sometimes get asked for if there's some kind of doubt.
ok?I've had to show ID when there was doubt before in the UK.
Hell We have poll card that sometimes get asked for if there's some kind of doubt.
Yes, you did. I am sure there is absolutely no context clues necessary from the thread itself.I said this in direct response to a post claiming police have a right-wing bias.
Since your initial argument included absolutely zero "specifics of this individual iteration of it and the attachments to the bill itself", I'm just going to ignore your goalpost moving and continue on.yeh most of that doesn't address what I've just said infact it seems to echo it in an age when increasingly more things require a form of ID.
Now if you'd said the specifics of this individual iteration of it and the attachments to the bill itself or it not allowing a wide enough range of ID are the problem you'd have an argument but ID itself?
So are you just opposing it cause you've been told to?
It's almost like there's a difference between constitutional rights and private services... I'll let you figure out which category voting falls under.Because again wouldn't that mean attempting to push to remove ID requirements for the services of a number of other businesses too?
Maybe if I quote the exact portion of the page you'll read it this time?Just to ask is this all about that Voter ID law where the opponents seem to be saying Black people are too dumb / incompetent to be able to get government ID of some kind (and yes people were saying black people wouldn't know hot to get ID or where their local DMV was) so it shouldn't be brought it while it's been shown just how many things need an ID that could be used including many of the companies opposing the bill who require ID to use their services some even down to just buying tickets to see shows or things?
https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet said:Voter ID Laws Are Discriminatory
- Minority voters disproportionately lack ID. Nationally, up to 25% of African-American citizens of voting age lack government-issued photo ID, compared to only 8% of whites.6
- States exclude forms of ID in a discriminatory manner. Texas allows concealed weapons permits for voting, but does not accept student ID cards. Until its voter ID law was struck down, North Carolina prohibited public assistance IDs and state employee ID cards, which are disproportionately held by Black voters. And until recently, Wisconsin permitted active duty military ID cards, but prohibited Veterans Affairs ID cards for voting.
- Voter ID laws are enforced in a discriminatory manner. A Caltech/MIT study found that minority voters are more frequently questioned about ID than are white voters.7
- Voter ID laws reduce turnout among minority voters. Several studies, including a 2014 GAO study, have found that photo ID laws have a particularly depressive effect on turnout among racial minorities and other vulnerable groups, worsening the participation gap between voters of color and whites.8
And again, maybe if I quote the exact portion of the page you'll actually read it.Cause honestly if it is that bill seriously? Just really seriously?
If people really are pushing this claim doesn't that make a lot of the companies requiring ID racist too?
Where's the bills to deal with that I'm pretty sure excluding service on racial grounds is an offence and all they're doing is adding 1 more step by require ID.
https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet said:Voter ID Requirements are a Solution in Search of a Problem
- In-person fraud is vanishingly rare. A recent study found that, since 2000, there were only 31 credible allegations of voter impersonation – the only type of fraud that photo IDs could prevent – during a period of time in which over 1 billion ballots were cast.9
- Identified instances of “fraud” are honest mistakes. So-called cases of in-person impersonation voter “fraud” are almost always the product of an elections worker or a voter making an honest mistake, and that even these mistakes are extremely infrequent.10
- Voter ID laws are a waste of taxpayer dollars. States incur sizeable costs when implementing voter ID laws, including the cost of educating the public, training poll workers, and providing IDs to voters.
- Texas spent nearly $2 million on voter education and outreach efforts following passage of its Voter ID law.11
- Indiana spent over $10 million to produce free ID cards between 2007 and 2010.12
So as you insist on playing at this sophistry.So, as ever, you seem almost allergic to educating yourself even when directly provided with sources. Normally I'd just disengage again at this point because why bother if you're not even trying. I'm in a weird mood though, so let's do this...
Since your initial argument included absolutely zero "specifics of this individual iteration of it and the attachments to the bill itself", I'm just going to ignore your goalpost moving and continue on.
It's almost like there's a difference between constitutional rights and private services... I'll let you figure out which category voting falls under.
Maybe if I quote the exact portion of the page you'll read it this time?
And again, maybe if I quote the exact portion of the page you'll actually read it.
Pretty much. You have to bear in mind that if states can barely run their voter rolls properly, they're hardly going to be able to manage a voter ID system effectively either. Never mind that organised fraudsters will find ways to break or get round this system anyway. Law enforcement has spent over four decades vigorously trying to clamp down on the drugs trade, and all we've learnt is that criminals are sufficiently ingenious to develop tactics to get round whatever obstacles are placed in their way. That's if there were organised fraud of this nature to be prevented by these measures, but as discussed above, there isn't any in the first place.I think the weirdest thing about voter ID advocates is that they claim that everyone would be able to get an ID, but if everyone gets one doesn't that mean that it's unnecessary and just a waste of time and resources?
The people who fund Republicans (and Democrats) would rather poor people not vote regardless.Every additional bureaucratic burden placed will mean some people will be caught out and unable to vote, and this will disproportionately hit poor people, and poor people disproportionately vote Democrat.
No. The purpose of voter ID isn't to exclude people without IDs. It's to identify and verify who voters are. A voter ID isn't meant to be a license to exclude people, it's meant to be an identifier like a birth certificate or social security number. Hell, the controversial mail-in ID provision of this bill includes social security numbers as an option, which every single legal voter already has, whether or not they wanted one.I think the weirdest thing about voter ID advocates is that they claim that everyone would be able to get an ID, but if everyone gets one doesn't that mean that it's unnecessary and just a waste of time and resources?
For Republicans, yes it is. If it was really about making sure everyone can be positively IDed, they would pay to issue everyone an ID as soon as they're old enough to vote. Some countries do that. The US doesn't.No. The purpose of voter ID isn't to exclude people without IDs.
The US doesn't run US elections. The states run US elections. People can freely move from state to state, but can only vote in one, making it significantly more complicated. Also why voter rolls are tricky and need to be purged. Regardless, it makes sense that the federal government who doesn't manage the elections wouldn't naturally just issue such a thing. I think we could have a national voter id though. I'm for it. If anything, it helps solve the issue of people moving states, since requiring a federal id would theoretically impede someone from trying to vote in multiple states. I don't think there's anything preventing Congress from enacting such a thing... well, except for the politics. You've got the libertarian-minded people on one side who hate the idea because they thoughtlessly oppose any registry of anything ever, and on the other-side you've got race-baiters who insist that any form of voter identification is a Jim Crow law. Neither is keen to vote for such a thing.For Republicans, yes it is. If it was really about making sure everyone can be positively IDed, they would pay to issue everyone an ID as soon as they're old enough to vote. Some countries do that. The US doesn't.
Sounds like a really roundabout way of saying absolutely nothing, even if your point was remotely close to valid, which it isn't, it's still looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, so again, why waste time and resources in such an inane thing?No. The purpose of voter ID isn't to exclude people without IDs. It's to identify and verify who voters are. A voter ID isn't meant to be a license to exclude people, it's meant to be an identifier like a birth certificate or social security number. Hell, the controversial mail-in ID provision of this bill includes social security numbers as an option, which every single legal voter already has, whether or not they wanted one.
I don't suppose you live in a country with voter identification, do you? Were they solving a problem that didn't exist by implementing that? Was is ass-backwards to do so?Sounds like a really roundabout way of saying absolutely nothing, even if your point was remotely close to valid, which it isn't, it's still looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, so again, why waste time and resources in such an inane thing?
I live in a state that doesn't require photo ID *and* no excuse mail in voting, and despite being able to count all of the cases of deliberate voter fraud in the last 20 years on a single hand with space left over, Republicans want to make it harder to vote "to secure the elections"I don't suppose you live in a country with voter identification, do you? Were they solving a problem that didn't exist by implementing that? Was is ass-backwards to do so?
I don’t ever remember having to provide ID when I vote. It’s always just been my name, and my address. It gets crossed out on the electoral roll at the polling station and that was it.I live in a state that doesn't require photo ID *and* no excuse mail in voting, and despite being able to count all of the cases of deliberate voter fraud in the last 20 years on a single hand with space left over, Republicans want to make it harder to vote "to secure the elections"
What you need ID for:I think the weirdest thing about voter ID advocates is that they claim that everyone would be able to get an ID, but if everyone gets one doesn't that mean that it's unnecessary and just a waste of time and resources?
Ultimately it's disingenuous, the system as is right now is already discriminatory and even leaving aside the fact that representative democracy isn't even real democracy in the first place the way it's already set up makes it hard to vote for illiterate people which in the USA is roughly around 21% of the entire adult population, keeping in mind that since they can't read they're less likely to participate in surveys and therefore it's probably more.
Perhaps this means that the education system isn't effective and the fact that illiteracy is treated as interchangeable with stupidity makes it harder for them to openly admit their illiteracy and do something about it.
In any case as someone that used to work with a lot of illiterate customers this makes me extremely sad as in my experience they tend to demean themselves and call themselves stupid when they admit it, which is depressing to see, ultimately rather than caring about bullshit made up solutions to non-existent problems we should perhaps invest in actually worthwhile projects like combating illiteracy, ultimately it's a systematic problem but the least that can be done is stop making illiterate people feel ashamed of themselves so that they can more confidently seek help and so that they can start participating in politics too, after all anyone that claims to love democracy should want every single citizen to have the capacity to vote.
If that ID costs anything- even a penny- then it constitutes a poll tax, which is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.Would it really be a waste of time to push for people to have some form of ID to access said services?
There's a problem with the idea that because we don't catch many people committing a crime, that means it isn't being committed. There's also a problem with the idea that a crime isn't worth preventing until after people are doing it. Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever stolen the nuclear launch codes, but we still very much want those secured anyway. I'd say an election deserves a certain amount of preemptive consideration, and our elections certainly already have layers of protection, so it's not as though a different method is somehow contradictory.I live in a state that doesn't require photo ID *and* no excuse mail in voting, and despite being able to count all of the cases of deliberate voter fraud in the last 20 years on a single hand with space left over, Republicans want to make it harder to vote "to secure the elections"
You're right: our elections certainly already have layers of protection.There's a problem with the idea that because we don't catch many people committing a crime, that means it isn't being committed. There's also a problem with the idea that a crime isn't worth preventing until after people are doing it. Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever stolen the nuclear launch codes, but we still very much want those secured anyway. I'd say an election deserves a certain amount of preemptive consideration, and our elections certainly already have layers of protection, so it's not as though a different method is somehow contradictory.
Well other states have apparently found a way to do it without it being considered a violation of the constitution.If that ID costs anything- even a penny- then it constitutes a poll tax, which is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.
Ok so you're for not bothering reforming any other system until there is a big enough issue?You're right: our elections certainly already have layers of protection.
Prove there's a problem with those before "fixing" something that isn't broken