Voter ID Issue

[icanthearyou 4,463]

You are just defending him because you agree with the DA arguments...

Puhleeeze... :rolleyes:/>

I could say the same thing about you, Homer. You are only defending icanthearyou because you agree with him . See how that works? Pretty nifty, huh?

I didn't initially call the hard-of-hearing one out. Even when he asked to whom I was referring I said, "EVERYONE." It wasn't until he got all snarky with me that I pointed out that not only can he not hear, he can't see either. BG being an Alabama fan had nothing to do with the argument he and ICHY were having. ICHY was just name calling out of frustration. I felt no need to jump in and defend anyone, just didn't want the discussion to further spiral into a name calling pissing match.

And the whole, "if it's insulting let him tell us so" is a joke and pathetic. That is in contention for the lamest thing I have heard on here. And I've been around since it was War Eagle Nation.

Have a good day, Homer.

You assume many things in regards to my emotions and intentions. Unfortunately, your assumptions are incorrect. For the record, I do agree with Homer that changing the law to require a photo ID is unnecessary. However, probably for different reasons. I think this debate is purely political and has little or nothing to do with real problem solving. I see this as a solution looking for a problem. Even worse, I see this as another example of how political motives completely overshadow any efforts to effectively and efficiently govern. I don't believe either side is truly genuine in their arguments.

To specifically address BG's example, the obvious solution would be to simply remove dead people from the voting registration roles. In general, if there is an organized group bent on undermining the democratic process, I sincerely doubt a volunteer checking photo IDs will present a significant obstacle for them. I would argue that the organized groups bent on undermining the democratic process are the Republicans and the Democrats. They cannot help themselves, there is simply too much money and power at stake. Probably a great thing for the people who are directly or indirectly part of this political struggle but the rest of us have to live with the collateral damage. Money and power aren't the driving force, they are the only force in politics today. The ideological differences are irrelevant. We simply have two groups vying for the same money and power. To quote Richard Nixon, "there are only two political motives, what can you do for me and, what can you do to me".

As for the bammer, you are very kind to come to his defense. Although, I doubt BG needs your help. I doubt his skin is that thin. I doubt he considers being called a bammer any more of an insult than I would being called a barner. I am sure he understands that by the very nature of where he is, that he is in fact, a no good, dirty, cheating, win at any cost, BAMMER and he is okay with that. Most of them are from my experience and I have many friends and relatives who are examples. I will love and respect all of them as fellow human beings should they ever decide to leave the evil cult, change their ways, join humanity or at least, become decent members of society.

I will assume that you are the only one who will take any of that seriously. The part about BG and bammers. I doubt anyone takes my political comments seriously since I despise both parties and the hypocrisy, greed, and corruption for which they stand.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

Interesting that Republican officials don't seem to worry about absentee voter fraud. No Photo ID required. 86% of absentee voters in NC are white:

http://m.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/08/north-carolinas-governor-signed-extensive-new-voter-id-law/68242/

[icanthearyou 4,463]

In the end, they may stop 1 fraudulent vote but at the cost of eliminating hundreds of legitimate votes

How? What reasonable purpose would you have for refusing to show your ID at a polling station?

I have never owned or driven a car and therefore I do not have a license. Will you please accept my social security card as ID? How about my AARP card? Now bammer, answer my question please. Do you have any evidence to support a case that voter fraud is or has been a problem. And, don't give me that bull that it doesn't matter, if there is any fraud it is too much. You can never totally prevent people from doing what you don't want them to do. Never in the course of human history has that been achieved on the kind of scale you are talking about. Okay, now that you cannot. Big thanks to you and Weegs for the giant waste of time. The country must be doing really well since you have time to solve problems that don't even exist. Or, maybe you guys are just ahead of the curve and can see into the future as a massive wave of voter fraud sweeps across the country. Maybe you would rest easier if we chip everyone. Hey, I've got a great idea. Why don't we talk about some real problems. Maybe we could get some interesting ideas on how to grow the economy. How about opinions on regulating the financial markets. No, that's all meaningless. Voter ID is much more important. Why don't we talk about two forms of ID. I used to go to a pool hall and you had to have two forms of ID to get a table. Of course that was only if Lou didn't know you. Maybe we could send everyone to the neighborhood pool hall to vote with two forms of ID. Would this help you. What will it take. Sorry for asking but I don't have that much experience trying to fix things that aren't broken. Please tell me if you hear any ideas that you like. I just don't know how to measure success in this sort of endeavor. How about picture IDs with 3D holographs that project the person in full scale. That way, people who just look like you wouldn't be able to take you ID and vote in your place. No wait, I've got it. This is brilliant, the perfect compromise. If you don't have a picture ID, your vote only counts as two-thirds of a vote. How about that? There, your monumental problem is taken care of. Seriously though, are you on dope? There is a fire in the kitchen and you want to put another deadbolt on the front door? Do you really believe this belongs anywhere on the list of priorities for this country, it's citizens, or it's government?

OK, I went back and read it even without the paragraph breaks (you didn't bother to add <_</> ).

I agree! :hellyeah:/>

Well stated, even if poorly written. ;)/>

Since there were multiple complaints about the spacing, I have taken action in subsequent posts. As far as your lone complaint regarding my ability to craft precise language on a level that would suite you and Professor Chomsky, it was taken under advisement and given it's due consideration. Regretfully, I must inform you that after carefully considering, time constraints as well as the needs, requirements, demands, and most of all limitations of every member of the board, your request has been deemed somewhat ridiculous, though well-intentioned and has been denied.

[homersapien 11,373]

"ridiculous, though well-intentioned" ?

Et tu Brute?

[AUGradinTX 0]

Of all the things that you should be required to provide an ID for, this has to be near, if not at the top of the list. I have to provide an ID to buy a beer to consume in my own home, why shouldn't I have to provide identification for something as important as electing the people who make decisions on my behalf; decisions that affect other citizens?

Anyone who opposes this, IMO, has to have an ulterior motive. There's simply no reason for a citizen of this country to think otherwise.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

Anyone who opposes this, IMO, has to have an ulterior motive. There's simply no reason for a citizen of this country to think otherwise.

All of us that disagree with you must be up to somethin'!

[icanthearyou 4,463]

"ridiculous, though well-intentioned" ?

Et tu Brute?

You can cuss me in French all you wanna to but you took them words outa contex.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Another question nobody answered:

If we're worried about disenfranchising old voters with ID laws, why does it disproportionately affect old democrats? Why do old republicans have IDs and old democrats don't?

And every time someone cites fradulent voting not having an impact on elections, they always reference presidential elections. But what about state and local elections? You telling me a handful of 'dead people' voting couldn't have an impact? Be honest...

[TexasTiger 12,876]

Another question nobody answered:

If we're worried about disenfranchising old voters with ID laws, why does it disproportionately affect old democrats? Why do old republicans have IDs and old democrats don't?

And every time someone cites fradulent voting not having an impact on elections, they always reference presidential elections. But what about state and local elections? You telling me a handful of 'dead people' voting couldn't have an impact? Be honest...

Old Republicans vote absentee . Without a photo ID.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Old Republicans vote absentee . Without a photo ID.

What's different about old people who are republican vs old people who are democrat?

[homersapien 11,373]

Of all the things that you should be required to provide an ID for, this has to be near, if not at the top of the list. I have to provide an ID to buy a beer to consume in my own home, why shouldn't I have to provide identification for something as important as electing the people who make decisions on my behalf; decisions that affect other citizens?

Anyone who opposes this, IMO, has to have an ulterior motive. There's simply no reason for a citizen of this country to think otherwise.

I don't know if you are jumping in without reading the thread from the beginning, but there have been reasonable arguments against this. Do I need to summarize them for you?

(It's OK, I understand you are from Texas.)

[homersapien 11,373]

Another question nobody answered:

If we're worried about disenfranchising old voters with ID laws, why does it disproportionately affect old democrats? Why do old republicans have IDs and old democrats don't?

Because there or more poor old Democrats than poor old Republicans? :-\

[homersapien 11,373]

"ridiculous, though well-intentioned" ?

Et tu Brute?

You can cuss me in French all you wanna to but you took them words outa contex.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

Old Republicans vote absentee . Without a photo ID.

What's different about old people who are republican vs old people who are democrat?

More importantly, what's different about voting absentee? Why are in person voters more suspect?

[TexasTiger 12,876]

Of all the things that you should be required to provide an ID for, this has to be near, if not at the top of the list. I have to provide an ID to buy a beer to consume in my own home, why shouldn't I have to provide identification for something as important as electing the people who make decisions on my behalf; decisions that affect other citizens?

Anyone who opposes this, IMO, has to have an ulterior motive. There's simply no reason for a citizen of this country to think otherwise.

I don't know if you are jumping in without reading the thread from the beginning, but there have been reasonable arguments against this. Do I need to summarize them for you?

(It's OK, I understand you are from Texas.) ;)/>

I don't think he's native.

[homersapien 11,373]

Of all the things that you should be required to provide an ID for, this has to be near, if not at the top of the list. I have to provide an ID to buy a beer to consume in my own home, why shouldn't I have to provide identification for something as important as electing the people who make decisions on my behalf; decisions that affect other citizens?

Anyone who opposes this, IMO, has to have an ulterior motive. There's simply no reason for a citizen of this country to think otherwise.

I don't know if you are jumping in without reading the thread from the beginning, but there have been reasonable arguments against this. Do I need to summarize them for you?

(It's OK, I understand you are from Texas.) ;)/>

I don't think he's native.

Well good for him. But it sounds like he's "gone native". (It happens )

[TitanTiger 20,482]

I don't know if you are jumping in without reading the thread from the beginning, but there have been reasonable arguments against this. Do I need to summarize them for you?

I don't think I've seen one. I've seen several that argue against specific other changes in the voting laws and procedures that were glommed onto a photo ID requirement such as shortening early voting, closing DMV locations in certain areas, ending same-day registration, cost issues for the poor, lead times that were too short before the requirement went into effect and so on. And I agree with virtually all of those arguments. Such things should be fought against vigorously. But that doesn't necessitate being against a photo ID requirement.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Old Republicans vote absentee . Without a photo ID.

What's different about old people who are republican vs old people who are democrat?

More importantly, what's different about voting absentee? Why are in person voters more suspect?

This is a valid point. How do we ensure these people are who they say they are? I think this needs to be figured out as well.

[eibua12 81]

Old Republicans vote absentee . Without a photo ID.

What's different about old people who are republican vs old people who are democrat?

More importantly, what's different about voting absentee? Why are in person voters more suspect?

My understanding with voter ID requirements that you must get your absentee ballot certified (AKA show ID to someone usually the municipal clerk). If that isn't the case in your state/county then I would ask why not and file a suit.

[TheBlueVue 177]

There are very few postions more condescending and downright racist than the one the left has taken which insists that people of color and others dont have the wherewithal to procure a FREE GOVERNMENT ID. Good grief..its free and whatever assistance that is needed in the effort to procure that ID will be provided to all who need it! This is ridiculous and just another racially divisive tactic used by the left to portray the right as racists who not only don't care about people's right to vote but also would prefer to suppress that right. Hogwash!

[homersapien 11,373]

There are very few postions more condescending and downright racist than the one the left has taken which insists that people of color and others dont have the wherewithal to procure a FREE GOVERNMENT ID. Good grief..its free and whatever assistance that is needed in the effort to procure that ID will be provided to all who need it! This is ridiculous and just another racially divisive tactic used by the left to portray the right as racists who not only don't care about people's right to vote but also would prefer to suppress that right. Hogwash!

I haven't heard that from anyone. In fact, I proposed such a system earlier and it was not taken seriously.

And the "racist" aspect is absurd. It's about poor people who don't have a photo ID.

But again, there is not a problem to be solved here. It's about suppressing what everyone assumes will be mostly Democratic voters. The state of Pennsylvania even admitted in court they could not show any need.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/28/republicans-admit-voter-id-laws-are-aimed-at-democratic-voters.html

[homersapien 11,373]

I don't know if you are jumping in without reading the thread from the beginning, but there have been reasonable arguments against this. Do I need to summarize them for you?

I don't think I've seen one. I've seen several that argue against specific other changes in the voting laws and procedures that were glommed onto a photo ID requirement such as shortening early voting, closing DMV locations in certain areas, ending same-day registration, cost issues for the poor, lead times that were too short before the requirement went into effect and so on. And I agree with virtually all of those arguments. Such things should be fought against vigorously. But that doesn't necessitate being against a photo ID requirement.

1) There is no problem to be solved.

2) The "fix" for this non-problem will disenfranchise voters of a particular category that Republicans assume are likely to vote Democratic, which is why they want to do it, and it's no secret.. Republicans have a history of voter suppression.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

1) There is no problem to be solved.

This was addressed when I pointed out the scenario of finding a vulnerability in a computer network or software or in physical security for a building. Even if no one else knows about it or you can prove that anyone has ever tried to exploit it, you don't say "this isn't a problem" and ignore it. You fix it.

Having such an obvious gaping fraud vector open like this is craziness. We should do everything within reason to make sure everyone who votes is who they say they are and are legally able to vote. Photo ID is a good way to do that.

2) The "fix" for this non-problem will disenfranchise voters of a particular category that Republicans assume are likely to vote Democratic, which is why they want to do it, and it's no secret.. Republicans have a history of voter suppression.

Again, you're conflating two separate things. Photo ID in and of itself doesn't disenfranchise anyone. Other "add-ons" to such proposals are disenfranchising such as shortening DMV hours, not having DMVs open during hours that all people can get to them, closing DMV locations, shortening early voting windows, not giving voters enough lead time to get proper ID, not addressing possible costs for obtaining an ID, etc. If we adequately address these issues, there is no disenfranchisement.

[AUGradinTX 0]

Of all the things that you should be required to provide an ID for, this has to be near, if not at the top of the list. I have to provide an ID to buy a beer to consume in my own home, why shouldn't I have to provide identification for something as important as electing the people who make decisions on my behalf; decisions that affect other citizens?

Anyone who opposes this, IMO, has to have an ulterior motive. There's simply no reason for a citizen of this country to think otherwise.

I don't know if you are jumping in without reading the thread from the beginning, but there have been reasonable arguments against this. Do I need to summarize them for you?

(It's OK, I understand you are from Texas.)

I did jump in without reading. I probably should not have. I have, however, heard many of the reasons before. They've yet to change my mind, though.

If you'd like to summarize for me that would be great; it would save me a whole lot of time...

And I'm from Georgia, not Texas. I work for a software company based out of Auburn. I'm in TX working on a contract for the state.

[AUGradinTX 0]

1) There is no problem to be solved.

This was addressed when I pointed out the scenario of finding a vulnerability in a computer network or software or in physical security for a building. Even if no one else knows about it or you can prove that anyone has ever tried to exploit it, you don't say "this isn't a problem" and ignore it. You fix it.

Having such an obvious gaping fraud vector open like this is craziness. We should do everything within reason to make sure everyone who votes is who they say they are and are legally able to vote. Photo ID is a good way to do that.

2) The "fix" for this non-problem will disenfranchise voters of a particular category that Republicans assume are likely to vote Democratic, which is why they want to do it, and it's no secret.. Republicans have a history of voter suppression.

Again, you're conflating two separate things. Photo ID in and of itself doesn't disenfranchise anyone. Other "add-ons" to such proposals are disenfranchising such as shortening DMV hours, not having DMVs open during hours that all people can get to them, closing DMV locations, shortening early voting windows, not giving voters enough lead time to get proper ID, not addressing possible costs for obtaining an ID, etc. If we adequately address these issues, there is no disenfranchisement.

Good points.

I'd like homer to specify the categories of voters that would be disenfranchised. Sorry if this has already been mentioned.

I've seen two that were mentioned here already; the elderly and the poor. I think we are still waiting for someone to answer Bama's question regarding the elderly. As far as the poor, you are already required to show proof of identity to sign up for government programs designed to assist the poor, such as food stamps, welfare, Public housing. States such as Georgia offer free voter ID cards to those who do not have ID. What's the problem?

74% of Americans support showing proof of identification in order to vote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-concerns-about-voter-fraud-spur-broad-support-for-voter-id-laws/2012/08/11/40db3aba-e2fb-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_story.html

71% of Latinos support it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/12/voter-id-laws-71-percent-_n_1962047.html