danivon wrote:

freeman3 wrote:The point is Brad that a significant number of people are able to live their lives without a government-issued photo ID. And while it may very well be that they would go to great lengths to get a photo ID for something they really need (e.g. Government benefits) they won't do it to vote. Voting should not be unnecessarily encumbered. But you probably get to the same result if you required that everyone getting Medicare or any kind of government benefit to get a government-issued photo ID.

I really don't get how DF and bbauska are so blinkered on this simple point. Until relatively recently, photo ID was not really required that much. If you don't drive, don't drink, and don't need restricted drugs, what do you need it for?

Here's a list of many more things: http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/commo ... -12320312/

Again, I'm willing to see that suitable ID's are free for those who cannot afford them.

I cited it because it had a detailed discussion regarding the percentage of Americans having acceptable photo ID. They decided her statement was half true because they felt voter apathy was more important for voter turnout than voter ID laws and the claim was that voter ID would affect voting. I don't know that I agree with their logic--while voter apathy is more important that does not mean voter ID would not also have an affect on voting--but in any case I just cited it since it referenced several studies on % of Americans having government--issued photo ID.

freeman3 wrote:I cited it because it had a detailed discussion regarding the percentage of Americans having acceptable photo ID. They decided her statement was half true because they felt voter apathy was more important for voter turnout than voter ID laws and the claim was that voter ID would affect voting. I don't know that I agree with their logic--while voter apathy is more important that does not mean voter ID would not also have an affect on voting--but in any case I just cited it since it referenced several studies on % of Americans having government--issued photo ID.

They also cited other authoritative sources who thought the study was not necessarily reliable.

However, even if the 11% figure is correct, should we address that sliver or act as though ID is an impenetrable barrier?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

freeman3 wrote:The point is Brad that a significant number of people are able to live their lives without a government-issued photo ID. And while it may very well be that they would go to great lengths to get a photo ID for something they really need (e.g. Government benefits) they won't do it to vote. Voting should not be unnecessarily encumbered. But you probably get to the same result if you required that everyone getting Medicare or any kind of government benefit to get a government-issued photo ID.

I really don't get how DF and bbauska are so blinkered on this simple point. Until relatively recently, photo ID was not really required that much. If you don't drive, don't drink, and don't need restricted drugs, what do you need it for?

Here's a list of many more things: http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/commo ... -12320312/

Again, I'm willing to see that suitable ID's are free for those who cannot afford them.

Like in Texas, where the lady could not get one because she had no birth certificate?

Again, that there are things that can require ID is not the same as:

a) them always requiring ID
b) the ID being the same as that demanded for voting

That list is frankly BS. I bought a cell phone in Seattle, and did not need photo ID. Just a credit card. I was never once carded for photo ID when I went into several Las Vegas casinos, or to gamble in them. I think I was carded once in a bar the last time I was in the USA. And we know that you can buy a gun privately (eg: at a gun show) without legally having to show ID.

Yes, for all of those things some places may require ID, or some people may need it. But the list is hooey.

My two real examples were people who managed to get to their 90s and survive, but did not have the "right" ID to vote.

bbauska

Is going to the DMV too much to ask?

I've heard it is a miserable experience for many....

bbauska

When it comes to the alcohol, the issue is not a comparison of rights, but the difference of response. You do not hear people (please note I said people, not blacks, asians, elderly or any other group) complaining about not having ID to buy alcohol, get on a plane, buy a gun, write a check et. al.

Well, you can get someone to buy you a bottle. And the very poor, who seem to be the target for the law, may not have the wherewithal to fly or shoot...
Go back to the original article and the people that they write about. Very poor, usually very old.... Don't drive and live without much community to help them.
I would imagine standing three hours in a line at a polling booth would also dissuade many...

What missing in all this is a compelling reason to change the law ...There was no voter fraud. None. Surely the perception that the laws are an attempt to disfranchise people is damage enough to rescind them based on the reaction by those affected?
of course it took federal civil rights laws to rescind Jim Crow state laws like these before. As soon as Scotus said the federal regulations against discrimination were no longer necessary, the Voter ID laws started to pass...

In Estonia they have a digital ID card for everyone and you can vote online....or in person...

http://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=1499

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Is going to the DMV too much to ask?

I've heard it is a miserable experience for many....

bbauska

When it comes to the alcohol, the issue is not a comparison of rights, but the difference of response. You do not hear people (please note I said people, not blacks, asians, elderly or any other group) complaining about not having ID to buy alcohol, get on a plane, buy a gun, write a check et. al.

Well, you can get someone to buy you a bottle. And the very poor, who seem to be the target for the law, may not have the wherewithal to fly or shoot...
Go back to the original article and the people that they write about. Very poor, usually very old.... Don't drive and live without much community to help them.
I would imagine standing three hours in a line at a polling booth would also dissuade many...

What missing in all this is a compelling reason to change the law ...There was no voter fraud. None. Surely the perception that the laws are an attempt to disfranchise people is damage enough to rescind them based on the reaction by those affected?
of course it took federal civil rights laws to rescind Jim Crow state laws like these before. As soon as Scotus said the federal regulations against discrimination were no longer necessary, the Voter ID laws started to pass...

In Estonia they have a digital ID card for everyone and you can vote online....or in person...

http://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=1499

Yay for Estonia...

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

freeman3 wrote:The point is Brad that a significant number of people are able to live their lives without a government-issued photo ID. And while it may very well be that they would go to great lengths to get a photo ID for something they really need (e.g. Government benefits) they won't do it to vote. Voting should not be unnecessarily encumbered. But you probably get to the same result if you required that everyone getting Medicare or any kind of government benefit to get a government-issued photo ID.

I really don't get how DF and bbauska are so blinkered on this simple point. Until relatively recently, photo ID was not really required that much. If you don't drive, don't drink, and don't need restricted drugs, what do you need it for?

Here's a list of many more things: http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/commo ... -12320312/

Again, I'm willing to see that suitable ID's are free for those who cannot afford them.

Like in Texas, where the lady could not get one because she had no birth certificate?

Again, that there are things that can require ID is not the same as:

a) them always requiring ID

Try, please try to buy some Pseudoephedrine anywhere in the US without ID. Try renting a car anywhere in the US without ID. Try getting SSI benefits without ID.

None are possible. And, that's just a sampling.

b) the ID being the same as that demanded for voting

There is no reason not to demand ID. Zero. It suppresses nothing. Even the numbers freeman3 presented--11% without ID are far below the 35% who do not vote. I suspect, and feel free to prove me wrong, that there is a lot of overlap (and btw, I also suspect the 11% is an overstatement--as hinted at in freeman3's article).

That list is frankly BS. I bought a cell phone in Seattle, and did not need photo ID. Just a credit card. I was never once carded for photo ID when I went into several Las Vegas casinos, or to gamble in them. I think I was carded once in a bar the last time I was in the USA. And we know that you can buy a gun privately (eg: at a gun show) without legally having to show ID.

Hey, ymmv, but how many non-dealers pay to exhibit guns at a gun show?

"Existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold," he wrote. "If you walk along the aisles at any gun show, you will find that the overwhelming majority of guns offered for sale are from federally licensed dealers. Guns sold by private individuals (such as gun collectors getting rid of a gun or two over the weekend) are the distinct minority."

So, I'm afraid I'll have to call bs on your bs.

Yes, for all of those things some places may require ID, or some people may need it. But the list is hooey.

No, it's not.

My two real examples were people who managed to get to their 90s and survive, but did not have the "right" ID to vote.

And, of course, in all their years they never thought to solve the problem? They'd rather just post up on the sofa and kvetch?

fate

There is no reason not to demand ID

.
But failing the ability to produce ID, isn't having someone with ID who is along to vouch for the voter, and a sworn affidavit sufficient?
It is established that a small percentage of people do not have ID and do have a hard time getting ID for various reasons, usually due to extreme poverty and/or age or very unusual circumstance... However small this number is its larger than the instances of voter fraud reported by many magnitudes.
There is no evidence that voter fraud has ever been a problem.

Fate

Zero. It suppresses nothing.

Except the people who don't have ID can't vote. And the rules for getting that ID are, despite your protestations, difficult for the very people Republicans really don't want to vote...

Fate

Try renting a car anywhere in the US without ID

You would definitely need a drivers license wouldn't you?

Fate

Try getting SSI benefits without ID.

It might be easier than the Wisconsin voting ID for some.

https://www.ssa.gov/ssnumber/ss5doc.htm

Frankly looking at the voting lines, with one, two and three hour waiting it strikes me as an incredibly odd crime, this voter fraud... If you wanted to vote twice under pseudonyms in Arizona you would have stood in line 6 hours... And would never get the chance to vote a third time as the polls were open that long.
I think someone that patient and determined deserves the extra vote.

bbauska

Yay for Estonia.

Yes.

I proposefully chose the politifact article to try and give a balanced picture of the number of Americans without photo ID. As for fixing the problem, the problem is that the solution is partisan. Things would be different if Republicans went to Democrats and said we're concerned about voting fraud (even though there is little proof of it that may be because few get caught) but we realize that that you're concerned about Democratic constituencies being disproportionately affected by this--what we can do that satisfies both of these concerns? Then I think a compromise solution could be found.

rickyp wrote:fate

There is no reason not to demand ID

.
But failing the ability to produce ID, isn't having someone with ID who is along to vouch for the voter, and a sworn affidavit sufficient?
It is established that a small percentage of people do not have ID and do have a hard time getting ID for various reasons, usually due to extreme poverty and/or age or very unusual circumstance... However small this number is its larger than the instances of voter fraud reported by many magnitudes.
There is no evidence that voter fraud has ever been a problem.

Fate

Zero. It suppresses nothing.

Except the people who don't have ID can't vote. And the rules for getting that ID are, despite your protestations, difficult for the very people Republicans really don't want to vote...

As has been said half a dozen times, let's solve that problem--let's get the ID's and shut you liberals up and take your sorry "issue" off the table.

Btw, Canada . . . Requires ID to vote, so there's that.

it's simple math; the US is becoming less white and for various reasons the Republican Party is having trouble appealing to minorities. So the Republican Party has four options: (1) change the party platform to appeal to minorities , (2) try to get a higher percentage of the white male vote, (3) try to reduce the gender gap, or (4) try to reduce turnout among minorities. I don't think there is any evidence that they are trying options 1 and 3 and they are probably pretty close to maxed out on 2.

So they are left with only option number 4. Which they are doing. Of course they try to come up with plausible reasons, but do you really expect liberals not to call them on it? It's kind of bare-knuckles, realpolitik but Republicans want to win elections. I get it. But you can't expect liberals to sit on their hands while they do these things and accept whatever ridiculous explanations Republicans come up with to justify voter suppression.

freeman3 wrote:it's simple math; the US is becoming less white and for various reasons the Republican Party is having trouble appealing to minorities. So the Republican Party has four options: (1) change the party platform to appeal to minorities , (2) try to get a higher percentage of the white male vote, (3) try to reduce the gender gap, or (4) try to reduce turnout among minorities. I don't think there is any evidence that they are trying options 1 and 3 and they are probably pretty close to maxed out on 2.

So they are left with only option number 4. Which they are doing. Of course they try to come up with plausible reasons, but do you really expect liberals not to call them on it? It's kind of bare-knuckles, realpolitik but Republicans want to win elections. I get it. But you can't expect liberals to sit on their hands while they do these things and accept whatever ridiculous explanations Republicans come up with to justify voter suppression.

No evidence for your hypothesis? Of course not!

You state your conclusion and then declare it to be correct. Well, that's almost like proof!

So, what if we just make sure everyone gets ID?

I already asked that, and the big 3 left here on Redscape did not answer up on that.

Well if you get everyone ID that would solve the problem. Why not do that first and then pass voter ID laws? I wonder why Republicans did not do it that way...You could pass a voter ID law contingent on certification that a certain percentage of registered voters had the ID necessary to vote (maybe 99% overall and 95% for black and Hispanic voters).

freeman3 wrote:Well if you get everyone ID that would solve the problem. Why not do that first and then pass voter ID laws? I wonder why Republicans did not do it that way...You could pass a voter ID law contingent on certification that a certain percentage of registered voters had the ID necessary to vote (maybe 99% overall and 95% for black and Hispanic voters).

I wonder why Democrats don't want to ensure those they "fight for" have every opportunity possessing ID provides?

There are jobs you can't get without an ID card.