outunderthestars
Banned
Republicans in the near future wil only win large when they disenfranchise voters. The demographics are shifting and they see this strategy as key in holding onto power.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
How voting works in the US and why US voter ID laws, as they are, are bad
- Thread starter SigmasonicX
- Start date
- Status
Republicans in the near future wil only win large when they disenfranchise voters. The demographics are shifting and they see this strategy as key in holding onto power.
Pristine_Condition
Member
The hustlers promoting this no ID agenda are just agents of the politics of low expectations. You don't have an ID, you can't get a good job, can't participate in the mainstream banking and credit system, can't use air travel, ect. Ect. ect.
You stay on the plantation where they can control you, exploit your labor, and skim off the top of your meager earnings with scams like check cashing places to keep you in the hole.
Then they can claim they are looking out for you, and you need them, so you'll continue to vote for them.
Pretty good scam.
You stay on the plantation where they can control you, exploit your labor, and skim off the top of your meager earnings with scams like check cashing places to keep you in the hole.
Then they can claim they are looking out for you, and you need them, so you'll continue to vote for them.
Pretty good scam.
So you're saying if people without ID wouldn't be able to vote they'll grab themselves by their bootstrap and better their life?
I see it now, it's their ability to vote that keep them down!
Yes, that makes perfect sense, Republicans just care too much about minorities and poor people!!
and for real, leave the plantation narrative out of such fucking bullshit, it's unbecoming.
milquetoast
Banned
our first Hispanic president will probably be a republican.
outunderthestars
Banned
EatinOlives
Member
Really? That would require a huge shift in Latino voting patterns.
There's a few Hispanic Republican politicians that may eventually have a chance at getting elected (if the country goes down the shitter hard enough for people like Ted Cruz to have a chance), but they generally don't represent Hispanics at all. They're like the black pundits on Fox News who got where they are by shitting on their own race. If a Hispanic Republican gets elected chances are good he/she will do it WITHOUT the Hispanic vote.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
How is this a fact any more than the people who claim it HAS affected elections? You're ostensibly dealing with fraud. Something that should, at least in theory, be hard to detect. It's hard to "prove" it hasn't happened or mattered, just like its hard to prove that it HAS happened.
It seems like the people making the claim of rampant voter fraud should be bringing up the evidence, especially when their solution disenfranchises millions of people who luckily just happen to usually vote for the opposing party.
There were studies, extensive ones, some were even linked in this thread.
Now if you want to make an appeal to ignorance and say "well, you can never know for sure if you don't have fraud", the same would also apply to a post voter ID world.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
There are very few Hispanic/Latino Republicans other than older Cuban-Americans.
Didn't really answer my question, as I am very aware that there are many people out there that are in a poor financial situation. Doesn't have anything to do with what I was asking.
Thanks for the unnecessarily hostile dodge though.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
How do you know this? A presidential election was decided by fewer than 200 votes - it's not hard to believe that minor fraud could decide an election, especially of a local official.
In the uk it is similar - no photo ID required to vote, you need to have registered to be eligible.
The difference is you get delivered a polling card to your registered address which you have to bring with you to the polling booth when you vote. This is effectively your 'ID' - the person at the polling station crosses your name off. But crucially I think it is a one time use thing. They take the card from you and that's that.
The US system sounds too honor based and therefore potential for abuse exists. The registration is fine, but simply going and saying your name doesn't have any checks or balances in place. What is to stop you saying you are someone else?
Would it be a reasonable change to send voting cards to all registered voters and require them to bring them on voting day? You still have no 'ID' requirement, you aren't impacting people that don't drive etc.
The difference is you get delivered a polling card to your registered address which you have to bring with you to the polling booth when you vote. This is effectively your 'ID' - the person at the polling station crosses your name off. But crucially I think it is a one time use thing. They take the card from you and that's that.
The US system sounds too honor based and therefore potential for abuse exists. The registration is fine, but simply going and saying your name doesn't have any checks or balances in place. What is to stop you saying you are someone else?
Would it be a reasonable change to send voting cards to all registered voters and require them to bring them on voting day? You still have no 'ID' requirement, you aren't impacting people that don't drive etc.
Prohibiting people from voting all because they don't specifically have a Driver's License is basically an indirect poll tax. It disenfranchises poor folks, poor minorities and immigrants, plain and simple. Even though I think voting is pointless, it's still some evil ass shit if you ask me.
I imagine this would come up if someone went to vote and his name was already crossed off, as explained in the OP.
This never happens. There are virtually zero documented cases of in-person voter fraud.
By "virtually zero" we mean numbers like 10http://votingrights.news21.com/article/election-fraud/ or 31http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...le-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/ documented cases, ever, in all states.
Voter ID is 100% a Republican party tactic to prevent poor and minority voters from voting. Period. The end.
Comprehensive Database of U.S. Voter Fraud Uncovers No Evidence That Photo ID Is Needed
A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast
I always think of older Republicans like Ronald Reagan. He wanted everyone to the have the ability to vote and made laws that have now been stripped by republicans. He was also pro-gun yet still supported gun control laws on assault rifles. Republicans look up to him like some god like president it always seems yet if he was a modern day politicians the current republicans would hate him. It's sad how fucked up that political party has become.
I lived in 5 states and could vote on the strength of 1 state's ID. I don't think there should be a need for me to get my birth certificate from thousands of miles away just so I can get a state ID that I have no use for. I don't see how this is the politics of low expectations.
This isn't true, you don't have to bring the polling card to vote and a phrase to this effect is printed on the front. I have voted many times without the card as I've been out without it for some other reason and passed near the polling place. All that's needed is your name/address.
I really don't get what exactly is people's problem with ID, seemingly in this case in the US and also to a lower extent in the UK. It's pretty much a standard norm where I'm from and other mainland europe countries.
The whole "it's to prevent poor people to vote" idea seems a tad on the conspiracy theory side. I'd say it's likely to avoid tons of stupid bureaucracy if a fraud problem does appear, or when you get registered and they have to contact you to double-check.
The whole "it's to prevent poor people to vote" idea seems a tad on the conspiracy theory side. I'd say it's likely to avoid tons of stupid bureaucracy if a fraud problem does appear, or when you get registered and they have to contact you to double-check.
Because you can live and work in any state without that state's ID. Texas requires a Texas ID to vote, but you do not need a Texas ID for anything, especially if you have one of many other IDs (such as IDs from the other 49 states or other US jurisdictions. I never brought my birth certificate to any of the 4 states I moved to, nor did I get a state ID in those states.
Metallix87
Member
The Tea Party has tainted the Republican Party to the point of making it a joke.
Wafflecakes
Member
I really don't mind the idea of voting requiring an ID. In and of itself there is nothing wrong with it in my mind.
However, when the intention is to change election results, I oppose it.
However, when the intention is to change election results, I oppose it.
SigmasonicX
Member
During the 2008 presidential election, a Pennsylvania Republican leader openly bragged about how new voter ID laws there will allow Mitt Romney to win the state.
Besides, wouldn't implementing voter ID laws where there weren't any before just add more bureaucracy?
The awful nature of The Tea Party has forced me to vote Democrat rather than a third party like The Green Party. I have to lessen any chances that would give the Tea Party any more powers.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
The problem is there is no desire by one political party to update the current system. I won't say which party. But if you want to guess, here's a hint. It's the party that would lose the most by requiring identification.
It's a basic electoral calculus. The more people vote in election, there is a greater chance of a Democratic win. Republicans got 1.5 million fewer votes in the last congressional election (but got way more seats than the Democrats). This is largely due to gerrymandering. Now, you can't gerrymander Presidential elections, so you make things as difficult as possible for groups that are far more likely to vote Democratic.
Then why would republican state governments decided to shorten early voting days, early voting hours, close down voting places,shorten working hours at many voting places, and finally openly declare that Voter ID laws would give Mitt Romney the electoral votes from their State?
All of these are well documented facts of the 2012 presidential election. People living in major cities in states like Florida and Ohio, key battleground states held by republican state governments, ended up waiting in excess of 6-10 hours just to vote.
Well obviously that requires some implementation that isn't quite working now with the current way the US handles stuff at the federal level.
Isn't the plan to centralize and homogenize driver's licenses though?
I'm not sure how someone claiming stuff is "compelling evidence" now.
IDs are also used for many things and not just voting, and once it's done, it's done. It's not quite the same as having to double check on the fly if people really are who they claim to be because they don't have sufficient proof.
As for the money argument, isn't a US passport card like 50 bucks? It's not like it's hundreds of dollars one would have to pay to be able to vote...
I don't see how this has anything to do with the concept of an ID required to vote, apart from some guilt by association. Plus I'm not entirely sure how closing shop early is going to bias anything in favour of some particular demographics?
A Reagan appointed Appeal's Circuit Judge ruled in favor of state level voter ID laws and then reversed his position years later after he did some research and realized it was horse shit. You could read his notes if you care.
You need to brush up on US History and US Voting law if you actually want to try to downplay the affects of these laws and who tries to implement them.
BTW, forcing people to pay for IDs in order to vote has already been shown to be unconstitutional. AKA Jim Crow.
Seriously though, how do you live in 21st century America without an ID.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/24-things-that-require-a-photo-id/article/2534254
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/24-things-that-require-a-photo-id/article/2534254
A Constitutional right with a sordid history of people in power using various ways, including IDs, in order to keep a (many) minorties from voting VS everything on that list.
SigmasonicX
Member
The part missed by the post you were quoted, that I included in the first post of this thread, is that these DMV shutdowns and minimizing of hours specifically happen in areas with high minority populations.
You don't seem to be from the US, and people outside of the country tend to have a low opinion of its government, so tell me: how is it so hard to imagine that in our government, with two major political parties, that one party would intentionally manipulate the election process to benefit them?
DMV location and hours are a joke in the US. I live in Boston and i had to take a morning off work to get my license transferred from Arizona to Massachusetts. The line at the DMV was roughly 100 people when i got there a few minutes before opening. I was lucky that i was able to cut to the front since i had an appointment, i think appointments were only available to those who were transferring licenses.
There are only a handful of locations in the greater-boston area, and since i didn't have a car at the time, i could only make it to the down-town location.
There are only a handful of locations in the greater-boston area, and since i didn't have a car at the time, i could only make it to the down-town location.
25% of African Americans
18% of people age 65 and older
16% of Hispanics
Do NOT have a valid photo ID required to vote.
Many of those same people do not own or have access to a vehicle, AND they don't live near a DMV office. They live very far away, especially when you consider they don't have a vehicle!
I'll support Voter ID's when:
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2...al-burdens-on-low-income-and-minority-voters/
Cost of free IDs: Even when a photo ID itself is ostensibly free of charge, nine of these ten states require some kind of supporting documentation in order to acquire a photo ID. A birth certificate can $15 to $30, a passport $135, a naturalization certificate or certificate of citizenship $345, and a marriage license from $5 to $40. Many of these documents can be difficult to obtain. By comparison, the poll tax outlawed by the Civil Rights Act cost $10.64 in current dollars.
18% of people age 65 and older
16% of Hispanics
Do NOT have a valid photo ID required to vote.
Many of those same people do not own or have access to a vehicle, AND they don't live near a DMV office. They live very far away, especially when you consider they don't have a vehicle!
I'll support Voter ID's when:
- More DMV offices are funded and opened.
- The hours of operation at DMV offices are expanded.
- The "Free" IDs are truly free. So that would include providing the supporting documents for free too. So free birth certificates too.
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2...al-burdens-on-low-income-and-minority-voters/
Cost of free IDs: Even when a photo ID itself is ostensibly free of charge, nine of these ten states require some kind of supporting documentation in order to acquire a photo ID. A birth certificate can $15 to $30, a passport $135, a naturalization certificate or certificate of citizenship $345, and a marriage license from $5 to $40. Many of these documents can be difficult to obtain. By comparison, the poll tax outlawed by the Civil Rights Act cost $10.64 in current dollars.
I disagree with making ID a requirement as much as the next guy, but do you have percentages of registered voters from those demographics that don't have an ID instead of a percentage of everyone? Since an ID is the main thing a person has when proving their identity during the registration process, I'm genuinely curious about the percentages of Registered Voters that don't have ID, and not just a blanket percentage of overall people which includes those who never vote.
It took me on my first attempt to prove Washington Examiner wrong.
#4. Food Stamps.
Picture ID is not required. https://a858-ihss.nyc.gov/ihss1/en_US/IHSS_requiredDocumentsHomeAction.do
#5 Welfare. Auto false because Food Stamps fall under welfare but let's look at something else not listed like Child welfare.
http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/Forms/English/LIC311D.pdf
Nope.
#6 Social Security/Medicaid.
This is obviously so false with Social Security if you had to make a guess. http://www.ssa.gov/ssnumber/ss5doc.htm
You need to be a foreigner immigrating into this country to need a photo ID.
#7. Apply for unemployment or a job
I already proved this was false in the last 2 threads discussing this.
I'm not going to even bother with the rest.
"voter fraud is rare" is the wrong statement. "In person voter fraud does not exist" is the correct statement.
Now, laws don't simply come into being. There are a TON of resources tapped to put them in place. Do we, as taxpayers, want to spend all that money combating something that doesn't exist? Do we want our elected officials to take up days and days of their already tight schedules to debate these laws? Do we want our federal court system to push other issues off the docket to hear cases surrounding this?
And that's all before the laws are put into place.
Once they exist, is it worth it to have the effect of making voting more difficult for absolutely zero gain?
It's not a case of simply doing it as a preventative measure, it's understanding that these laws have a direct and serious negative impact on our system.
Now, as it's been mentioned, if, along with enacting a voter ID law, the state would issue, for free, and at no time-cost to the citizens, an ID to everyone, we wouldn't have an issue. But EVERY state that has enacted (or even attempted to enact) a voter ID law has done it in conjuction with making IDs more difficult to get (mostly in closing DMV locations, under the banner of 'cost cutting').
CyclopsRock
Member
What is "in person" voter fraud?
Voter fraud committed by individual voters walking into a polling station on election day.
It is in contrast to voting fraud committed via mailed-in ballots and, more importantly, voting fraud committed by election officials. The US sees some fraud committed via mailed-in ballots, but by far and away the largest source of risk of fraud comes from officials.
CyclopsRock
Member
Ah, gotcha. I'm curious as to why the chap above me went out of his/her way to change it from being "rare" to non-existent.
Well the thing is, when ID is just a perfectly common thing, you can't really argue for it as being something that you're forced to pay for in order to vote.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and the main opposition I often see against the concept of everyone having some form of photo ID is an irrational fear of a totalitarian government.
I dunno, maybe it's because international travel has always been a lot more prominent in Europe than in the US, so people just need one anyway and don't see anything wrong with it. Maybe the Schengen generation will find it super weird.
Well if that's the case then yes, that's fucked up. Still has nothing to do with requiring ID for voting though.
As for the second part of your post, if that's legitimately happening and nothing is one about it, then I guess there's a reason why people outside the country have a low opinion of the US government, yes.
he changed "voter fraud" to "in person voter fraud"
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Stop committing voter fraud Dems. Please.
Phoenix
Member
Semantic correction. You can continue to vote at your previous polling place even after you move, but you can't vote at another place until you re-register. I had moved from one part of Atlanta to another part, and as long as I was willing to carry my ass to the other side of the city - I could continue to vote at my previous polling location.
Phoenix
Member
Suppose you had to go stand in line downtown for the right to post on GAF as opposed to just reading GAF anonymously. Do you think that would have an impact on the number of people who post on GAF? Do you think it would make sense since having an ID doesn't impact your posts? What benefit would be provided from having you stand in line downtown so that you could post on GAF?
- Status