I dont agree that requiring I.D. is voter suppression.?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zipur, Sep 27, 2012.

  1. zipur macrumors 6502a

    zipur

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Location:
    The great state of Texas
    #1
    I just don't get it, people get violent over this issue. I am a black man, I believe that you should provide I.D. to vote. Heck you have to provide I.D. for everything else. In fact a false vote is vote suppression to me. The thing that bugs me about these types of issues is that it causes so much division. The USA should be US not them and us thats the America I spent time in the sand box for.
    So can someone explain to me why I am in the minority in this view. I don't want to argue, so if you want to flame me or just cause arguments, please start your own thread.
     
  2. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #2
    I am in favor of voter ID. I am in favor, however, of a law that is carefully crafted and doesn't take effect for, for example, six years. Let's get past the politics of the next few years, and pass a law today that takes hard effect in five or six years. By then, it will be asinine for someone to say they couldn't get an approved, free ID.

    T-minus two posts until the first emotional rhetorical question.
     
  3. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68040

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #3
    I agree 100%. Don't rush it, give people time to sign up and do it right.
     
  4. thewitt macrumors 68020

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #4
    What would be the value of delaying a voter ID system for six years? Seriously.

    Voting in the US is a joke today.

    Vote early, vote often...
     
  5. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #5
    They could have tried to implement this 3 years ago. The bad timing close to election is so freaking obvious. It's mostly the lower class, seniors and minorities who don't have the proper state I.D. And guess where most of those votes are going.

    Also, voter fraud is basically nonexistent, so why all of the sudden the urgent need to require proper state I.D? This is not about providing I.D which everyone has already been doing. It's about providing proper state I.D which many don't have cause they never needed.

    I'm all for this AFTER the election. Not right before the election which many will not have enough time or money to get everything together.

    BTW ... I'm also a black man.
     
  6. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #6
    Much simpler: the entire country should take a cue from Oregon and vote at home. No one goes to the polls on Tuesday in Oregon, the just mail in their ballots (or drop them in a collection box) when they see fit (before the deadline). Saves the state wads as well as giving the voter time to review the candidates and questions they might be less familiar with. Yeah, I imagine there is room for fraud, but there will always be room for fraud.
     
  7. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #7
    problme is they are trying to pass them in a major election year and they rushed them threw the state legistative. It screams voter supression. If anything the laws should not take effect until after a major national election. Hell if you make any changes it should be made with in 6 months of a national election. Not in the 6 months before the election like it is now.
    The GOP laws they rushed threw their states do nothing but supress Dem votes. They do nothing to stop what voter fraud their is. They do not fix the system. It screams voter supression. If it was done over a few years no one could scream about it.
     
  8. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #8
    Cliff's notes version: Voter ID laws that Republicans keep trying to pass generally would only work against a type of voter ID fraud that statistically happens less often than people getting struck by lightening (not exaggerating). Research into the laws clear show that the number of voters that could be disenfranchised is significantly higher than the amount of fraud that could be prevented.

    The laws also always crop up within months of elections which gives people (such as the elderly and disabled) a relatively narrow window in which to get assistance tracking down the necessary documentation they need as well as get to a DMV to get a state issued ID.

    The timing, narrow scope of fraud prevention, lack of assistance to make sure people get an ID in time and the fact that these laws impact demographics that traditionally vote Democrat all point to voter suppression instead of fraud prevention.
     
  9. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #9
    I am not against voter ID

    I am against plans that don't allow people ample opportunity to obtain one.

    Solution: implement a grace period where voters without ID can sign affidavits at the poll attesting to their identity and right to vote. This is already in the works in some localities.

    Step 2: A nation-wide campaign informing eligible voters of the new rules.

    If we follow these two steps, I see no reason why we couldn't make the 2014 mid-terms the last election where people could vote without ID.
     
  10. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #10
    You're so clueless. Voter fraud is less than 1/10th of one percent. So, it's in effect non-existent.


    I agree that we should have a national standard. There's simply no reason not to. There are a lot of elderly people out there like my parents who were born at home. They didn't have to register for Social Security, or the draft or any number of other state or federal programs that are useful in helping people get an official ID. It's not until after WWII that people had to provide ID for anything. Even then it wasn't until the late 60s where ID became almost mandatory.

    I see no point in excluding so many of the elderly from voting for no other reason than a Republican push to disenfranchise millions of voters.

    A basic ID is something that should be provided for free especially if it's something demanded by the state. I'm not fond of the National ID plan but it would solve a lot of problems.
     
  11. vega07, Sep 27, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 27, 2012

    vega07 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    #11


    How do I embed videos? MR needs a dedicated button.
     
  12. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #12
    And for those working long hours just to by the time and money they would have to spend in order to get a proper ID simply isn't practical.
     
  13. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #13
    MOD NOTE: Edit your post to see how it should look.

    B
     
  14. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #14
    I don't see the necessity, firstly. Lots of people don't have an ID or maybe they have an expired one.

    Last summer I had to stand outside in the heat for two hours before I could enter the DMV to renew my driver's license. Our little DMV isn't streamlined so there's one barrier. I doubt many people are willing to do that. Secondly, there's the time it takes and the small administrative cost to do so. There's the second barrier. I have my voter registration and that's all I should need. The polling place is close to my home so I simply walk there with my voter card in-hand.

    If states wanted to expand which IDs are permissible then that's ok. Concealed handgun permits are a reasonable ID to present at a poll. They require extensive background checks to obtain (plus finger printing) so it would be silly to not accept something like that. Hell, I think a school ID could be fine but I don't see those being included in some of these ID laws.
     
  15. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #15
    as other as said, it is not the ID requirement per se, it is the timing and motivations behind it that is more than suspect.

    in this round of election, it is a certainty they will be doing much more damage than good, that is, the legit votes eliminates will be much more (probably by orders of magnitude) than he fraudulent votes avoided.
     
  16. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #16
    You vote every year, how hard is it to get an ID once and then register to vote once. It's not like you have to register every year.
     
  17. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #17
    Here is an article that shows why it is such a problem for the old or infirm:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/09/why-pennsylvanias-vote-suppressors-can-never-win/262809/
     
  18. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #18
    First of all many people still aren't even aware of these new laws. They could end up going to the polls only to be told that they can't vote. And as I said, people who are struggling don't neccessarly have the time or money to get an ID. Especially if they lack prerequisite documents such as a bith certificate.
     
  19. SwiftLives macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #19
    I have no problem with implementing a voter ID standard across the country.

    As long as a valid voter ID is made available to every citizen at no charge. And as long as all documents required to obtain a valid voter ID are made available to every citizen at no charge. And all documents required to obtain a Voter ID are made available any place one can get a voter ID. And transportation is provided to get a voter ID at regular, predictable intervals.

    Somehow, I don't think any state is going to be willing to fork over the cash to do this.

    Frankly, any obstacle that prevents an eligible citizen from being able to register to vote is Unamerican.
     
  20. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #20
    An excerpt from the long-ish Atlantic article

    JACQUELINE KANE'S BURDEN

    On Friday, Jacqueline Kane's daughter, Robin, decided enough was enough. She had been working with other family members to ensure that her mother was not disenfranchised by the Republican law. She had been working diligently, in fact, trying to apply old mismatched paperwork to the new bureaucratic requirements, when she heard Rep. Metcalfe call her mother lazy. Here is part of what her email to the legislator said:

     
  21. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #21
    I'd like to turn it around a bit and ask you why you think we need these laws? We've been doing elections this way for 236 years. And all of a sudden it needs to be changed? Why? On what basis?

    Studies have been done and found insignificant issues. Further there is this guy here admitting that these new laws are a way of trying to win the election for Romney (keep in mind this was a Republican lawmaker admitting it):

     
  22. JBazz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    #22
    There is no way I can express how completely tired I am of having to pull out my drivers license for way too many transactions that have nothing to do with driving. Twice in the last year I was asked to hand over my drivers license to prove identity and it was never returned to me. Getting a replacement at the DMV is insanely time consuming.

    Last time I had to replace it, I stood in line for one hour prior to opening. One hour, I was 6th in line. Then a man comes outs and asks who needs to take the actual driving test, they go in ahead of me. Then he asks who has residency issues, a whole bunch of people go in ahead of me. By the time I was allowed inside, I was so far behind all the line jumpers it took me 5 hours to replace my DL. 5 hours. All because a waiter in the movie theater needed to see my DL to serve me a martini. I am 47 years old.

    So I say, hell no to voter ID. You have to jump through too many hoops to get a voters registration card, there is no need to look at someone's DL or passport. That's not what they are issued for.
     
  23. Coleman2010 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Location:
    NYC
    #23
    Do any of you live in a city? I do. People who live in cities do not have a drivers license. They take the bus or train to get from place to place. Or think of someone who is unemployed. If they are not employed or going to a bank or check cashing service to cash a check, why would they have a photo ID?

    Or someone who does not have a personal bank account. Why would they need a photo ID?

    Or someone who doesn't travel far from where they live or get on a airplane. Why would they need a photo ID?

    The people who think requiring a photo ID to vote is OK think so because you do the things listed above. You assume everyone else does to. Many people do not. Some people barely leave their neighborhoods and spend day to day in the area where they live.

    Because they don't do the same things you do you think it's OK to take away their right to vote?
     
  24. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #24
    Absolutely, a well-crafted law would allow for a wide-spectrum of IDs and the time would give agencies the time and resources to develop plans to ensure that registered voters have the necessary documentation.

    Although, for what such a system is going to cost, it's a waste of money to solve a tiny problem.

    I find this hilarious. First, you're using a phrase originally coined in 1856 by William Porcher Miles, a Southern secessionist and "fire-eater." The Tammany Hall-era quote was about the wide voting fraud that existed throughout the United States, where votes were bought with free liquor and companies used their employees as their own voting bloc.

    Today's voting system is nearly unimpeachable in comparison and considering that multiple studies have found very low voting rates—despite the hew and cry from the right, tells us that today's voting system is pretty good.

    Moreover, the kind of fraud we're talking about—sending hundreds of people to vote using fake IDs—is logistically difficult and carries incredible risk for any campaign that attempted it.

    You'd literally have to get hundreds, if not thousands, of people to use a fake-ID, march into a polling station and vote. And, if one of them talks about the scam, everyone goes to jail for voter fraud and the candidate or issues gets sacked.

    If you really want to consider risk to reward, electronic voter fraud is a much better business and these ID laws do not deal with a much more significant and likely problem.

    Of course, it's much better to worry about "motor voters" and the indigent and poor voting repeatedly than an actual flaw in the electronic voting system.
     
  25. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #25
    If they can't get their birth certificate that means they haven't worked ever. I don't get this can't get an ID excuse, you need it to do just about anything in this country.
     

Share This Page