[Dork.]

Let's steal Spilffdaddy's wallet before the election. Without his ID, the blue-haired ladies working the polls will assume he's an illegal alien and deport him!

There are people in this country who do not have the proof required for this, even though they were born here and are full-fledged citizens, as OAW has stated. These people would be disenfranchised by this bill. And as ink states, if a determined illegal alien wants to forge his way onto the voter rolls illegally, he can do so, with or without this bill. So, the bill is pretty much useless for its intended purpose, and will punish citizens who do not have the paperwork to verify their identity at the polls.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by ink

When you get 100% of the policy control by getting 48.9% of the popular vote, you have to do things like this.

When you get 100% of the policy control by getting 53% of the electoral vote, you... oh wait.

DOWN WITH STATE RIGHTS!

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

Yes, you can get a replacement birth certificate. My state charges $10 for a replacement and requires a signature.

What other proof do you need to present to get this certificate? Or can I send your state $10 to get a copy of your birth certificate if I wanted to?

[itai195]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

Yes, you can get a replacement birth certificate. My state charges $10 for a replacement and requires a signature.

Do you live in Washington DC? That's not a state

BTW, my family immigrated here and my parents went through naturalization. I would be totally screwed if I had to produce a birth certificate for anything, which could conceivably happen if anything ever happened to my passport, drivers license, or social security card.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by itai195

Do you live in Washington DC? That's not a state

BTW, my family immigrated here and my parents went through naturalization. I would be totally screwed if I had to produce a birth certificate for anything, which could conceivably happen if anything ever happened to my passport, drivers license, or social security card.

If you want to get into semantics, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Virginia are also not states, they are commonwealths.

Were you born in the US?

[itai195]

Nope I wasn't born in the US but I am a citizen.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Dork.

What other proof do you need to present to get this certificate? Or can I send your state $10 to get a copy of your birth certificate if I wanted to?

You must show up and sign a form to get a birth certificate. They will ask when and where you were born. If you provide that, sign a form, they will hand a copy over to you.

My father was able to pick up a copy of my birth certificate.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by itai195

Do you live in Washington DC? That's not a state

Heh. not only that, but since we are the "United States of America", and Washington DC is not a state, how could it be part of the "United States of America"? We should build a fence to keep those foreigners out!

(Thank you, Stephen Colbert! )

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

You must show up and sign a form to get a birth certificate. They will ask when and where you were born. If you provide that, sign a form, they will hand a copy over to you.

My father was able to pick up a copy of my birth certificate.

Well then, that birth certificate doesn't seem like very good proof to me! I could very easily fraudulently obtain a copy of your birth certificate as long as I know some basic information about you, use it to register somewhere else, and vote my illegal alien ass off!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Well then, that birth certificate doesn't seem like very good proof to me! I could very easily fraudulently obtain a copy of your birth certificate as long as I know some basic information about you, use it to register somewhere else, and vote my illegal alien ass off!

If you're gonna go through that much trouble to vote, more power to you. I'd feel more comfortable with an illegal that would put in that kind of effort, than I would most citizens. At least it shows they have passion and drive.

(and if they have that much of either, they'd already be in the process of getting their citizenship.)

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

You must show up and sign a form to get a birth certificate. They will ask when and where you were born. If you provide that, sign a form, they will hand a copy over to you.

My father was able to pick up a copy of my birth certificate.

Doesn't that assumes a birth certificate existed in the first place? If there never was an original birth certificate, it's awfully hard for them to give you a copy of it.

[ink]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

1) show your voter registration card and photo ID
2) You walk over the the voting computer and select the people you want.
3) The computer prints out 2 cards (one you keep, one you give to the polling station)
4) For the "night of" results, we use the voting machine numbers, and for the final results, we hand count the votes per box to make sure the machine was accurate.

5)* I should be able to go home and check my vote to ensure that it was correct. Either online or via phone.

You really don't want to do that. If you get a receipt, then you can sell your vote (or be otherwise intimidated to vote a certain way). I agree that the electronic machines should always have a hand-countable, unambiguous (no chads!) paper record. Ideally, the voting machine prints the paper record, and if you agree with the final result then you put it into a box to cast your ballot. No network should be needed.

[ink]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

When you get 100% of the policy control by getting 53% of the electoral vote, you... oh wait.

DOWN WITH STATE RIGHTS!

State's rights? Gay marriage?

What?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Doesn't that assumes a birth certificate existed in the first place? If there never was an original birth certificate, it's awfully hard for them to give you a copy of it.

Indeed. The fundamental point that mitchell_pgh overlooked in his reply to my post.

OAW

PS: The bottom line here is that if you have no driver's license and you have no birth certificate ... and by the latter I mean one does not exist for you at all, not you don't have one in your possession ... then you are ass out with this legislation. It sort of reminds me of a line from a Mos Def track ....

"Why do I need ID to get ID? If I had ID I wouldn't need ID!"

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by ink

(Regarding printed voter receipts denoting that person's votes) You really don't want to do that. If you get a receipt, then you can sell your vote (or be otherwise intimidated to vote a certain way).

I have never thought about proof-of-vote receipts that way. Your position is totally valid.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Doesn't that assumes a birth certificate existed in the first place? If there never was an original birth certificate, it's awfully hard for them to give you a copy of it.

Unless you're over 85 years old - *and* never attended a public school - you have a birth certificate.

All public schools require a birth certificate - all live births require a birth certificate. It's been that way for many many decades.

If you simply do not have a birth certificate, then a family court judge would likely be able to provide you with a birth certificate if you can provide genealogy specifics and swear to it under oath.

If you were not born in the US, then you will have one of the following documents if you're here legally:

U.S. Passport, valid or expired
Certificate of Citizenship
Certificate of Naturalization
Certificate of Birth Abroad

I'm quite sure the 14 or so people that slipped through the cracks and do not have any documentation as to their existence here on Earth can be accomodated in some manner.

[Dr Reducto]

Yeah, I find it really hard to believe that people can live without any form of ID whatsoever.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Unless you're over 85 years old - *and* never attended a public school - you have a birth certificate.

All public schools require a birth certificate - all live births require a birth certificate. It's been that way for many many decades.

If you simply do not have a birth certificate, then a family court judge would likely be able to provide you with a birth certificate if you can provide genealogy specifics and swear to it under oath.

This bears repeating since some seem intent on glossing over the issue ...

The fact of the matter is that in the South during this era the birth of a black child was considered to be on the level of the birth of a pet by the white community which controlled the state and local governments. Consequently, black babies quite often could not get a birth certificate. And didn't. Many elderly black people, especially those born before 1960 in the South, do NOT have a birth certificate to this day as a direct result of Jim Crow.

Let's not forget that many of these same individuals in the South were sharecroppers and did not attend public school regularly, if at all. And let's not also forget that the "rules" were rather laxly followed when it came to African-Americans during Jim Crow. You have black people all over this country who have grandparents still living today who fall into this category. That is a fact. But go ahead and believe what you want to believe.

Genealogy specifics? Oh please! Have you forgotten that this is the government we are dealing with? How many people have horror stories about getting their friggin' license tags renewed? But you talk about getting a birth certificate when one didn't exist as if it were a walk in the park. How long would it take just to get a court date so you could swear anything before a judge? Do you think it will be before or after the election takes place? Especially when this Republican sponsored legislation goes into effect a month or two prior to the election?

That article I posted earlier listed the experience the author underwent trying to get a photo ID for his elderly mother-in-law. And she was an old white woman from the suburbs! And she at least had a birth certificate so a copy was available. And it still was an ordeal to get everything in order. Now imagine if that was an old black lady from the South with no birth certificate at all. Who had been married and didn't have the same name she was born with. And then tack on the fact that one has to navigate a government bureaucracy to get a birth certificate so you can get a photo ID. Before the election takes place. And then see if you can honestly tell me with a straight face that this legislation is no big deal.

OAW

[finboy]

Originally Posted by OAW

Which effectively amounts to a poll tax.

Holy crap. Asking people to drive to a voting place during working hours amounts to a poll tax too, but I've never heard anyone seriously argue about having voting on Saturday or a national holiday.

What about folks who don't drive? What about folks who don't stay informed and have NO IDEA what each candidate stands for? Maybe someone should volunteer to drive them and help them pick someone to vote for, too.

That's one sides' point in this.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Dr Reducto

Yeah, I find it really hard to believe that people can live without any form of ID whatsoever.

Well I find it hard to believe that someone wouldn't have a bank account. But the fact of the matter is that millions of people don't. They get by using check cashing businesses and money orders. And getting totally screwed over with exorbitant fees in the process. But nevertheless, the situation exists.

Besides, no one ever said that people don't have "any form of ID whatsoever". That isn't even the issue. The issue is having photo ID. And the bottom line is that many people do not. For a variety of reasons. But the main one revolves around driving. How many people have a photo ID that is not a drivers license? Hardly any relatively speaking. So imagine if you don't drive. Either because you are too poor to afford a car or because you are too old to drive anymore?

Like I said earlier, people tend to view things through the lens of their own experiences or those they happen to know. But there are large numbers of people who have drastically different life experiences. And the last time I checked they are US citizens too and their voting rights s/b respected.

OAW

[finboy]

Originally Posted by OAW

Like I said earlier, people tend to view things through the lens of their own experiences or those they happen to know. But there are large numbers of people who have drastically different life experiences.

In other words, most of us who support this should shut our pie-holes because we lack the necessary compassion, intellect or "life-experience" to conceptualize folks who have no need for ID. We're a bunch of rich folks who've got it made, and we can't relate. It's a "poor" thing, we wouldn't understand.

Or, it's implied that if you support this, you don't care about the voting rights of the poor and aged. Beyond some point, I don't, and I'll admit it. We need some form of ID to vote. But I DON'T CARE about the votes of folks who can't figure out how to get their ID so they can vote.

I've lived in two states where you were expected to show a voter registration card at the poll. That requires an address and a P.O. Box in the locale -- is that a poll tax?

Hey, given all of the sh*t I'm expected to do to just exist responsibly in society everyday, I have little pity for folks that can't get some form of identification.

I can't wait until the "poll tax" whining hits CNN.

[hyteckit]

I'm a US citizen. Attended US public schools since 1st grade. No birth certificate. So bite me.

You don't need a driver license or state ID to work legally. Just a social security number and proof of residence.

You don't need a car to go to work. Hundreds of thousands of Americans get to work without a car. Modes of transportation - train, bus, bike, walk, or even boat. Especially with the price of gas, more people are not driving to work. Lots of poor people don't own cars, but they do work. You can saves thousands a year by not owning a car. No car payments, no car maintainence cost, no car insurance, no car registration fees, no gas cost to worry about.

[subego]

Originally Posted by finboy

I've lived in two states where you were expected to show a voter registration card at the poll. That requires an address and a P.O. Box in the locale -- is that a poll tax?

Nope. Makes a hell of a lot more sense too.

[ink]

Originally Posted by subego

Nope. Makes a hell of a lot more sense too.

I wouldn't be against presenting an ID as long as you could provisionally vote without one. Then, if the margin between the first and second place is less than the number of provisional/abstentee ballots, we would move onto those. This would allow more time time to inspect those ballots for fraudlent votes from the grave and such. You could also still vote if you lost your wallet on the day of the election.

We don't have to require an ID to have the benefits without the disenfranchisement drawbacks.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by finboy

In other words, most of us who support this should shut our pie-holes because we lack the necessary compassion, intellect or "life-experience" to conceptualize folks who have no need for ID. We're a bunch of rich folks who've got it made, and we can't relate. It's a "poor" thing, we wouldn't understand.

I said nothing of the sort. You can articulate your position just as I do mine. That is the purpose of a public forum such as this, n'est pas? Having said that, a casual review of this thread will show many individuals who seemed to think that not having photo ID strained credulity. The point of my statement was to show just how that wasn't the case, and to back it up with those little things we call facts ... as opposed to simply talking.

Originally Posted by finboy

Or, it's implied that if you support this, you don't care about the voting rights of the poor and aged. Beyond some point, I don't, and I'll admit it. We need some form of ID to vote. But I DON'T CARE about the votes of folks who can't figure out how to get their ID so they can vote.

Again, "some form of ID" is one thing. "Photo ID" is another. Cogitate on that for a minute so you can hopefully realize that the latter is what the issue is about and not the former.

Originally Posted by finboy

I've lived in two states where you were expected to show a voter registration card at the poll. That requires an address and a P.O. Box in the locale -- is that a poll tax?

As do I. Missouri is such a state. But again, a voter registration card is not a photo ID! At least it isn't in Missouri. Where I vote we have to show the card and the poll worker compares the info on that card to the list of registered voters in the precinct. You then have to sign the list (to prevent voting more than once) and that signature is compared to the signature on the voter registration card. Now as the article I posted indicated, that process resulted in a 2000 election with .... now pay attention here .... a .0006 fraudulent vote rate. Again, $0.60 out of a $1,000. This after Sen. Kit Bond's R-MO drunk ass acted a fool on national television making all sorts of baseless accusations.

So the question is how much of a decrease in the voter fraud rate will be achieved by the implementation of a photo ID requirement beyond the .0006 rate that occurred in the 2000 election? And how much is it going to cost to achieve that marginal decrease? Is the cost worth it in terms of real dollars and the "hassle factor" involved?

And for the record, the "poll tax" isn't the requirement to have some form of ID. That is required now. It isn't even the requirement to have a photo ID, because those can be obtained for "free" per the pending legislation. The "poll tax" comes into play because you will need to spend money to get the documents needed to issue a photo ID if you don't already have them in your possession. (See the article again for examples). Money that may seem like chump change to you and I but can be a big deal to the poor or the elderly living on a fixed income. Then there is the hassle factor of having to stand in one government line after the next, running around town, calling back and forth, being put on hold, etc. just to get the required birth certificate ... if one exists. And then there is the added expense and hassle factor to try to get a birth certificate if one does not exist. And like I said earlier, this is the government we are dealing with after all ... so who honestly believes people can get all that done prior to the election when the law goes into effect just a month or so before?

The bottom line here is that for me personally, a photo ID requirement is not a big deal because I drive so I have a driver's license. It may not even be a big deal for the majority of eligible voters. But the reality is that there are a lot of people for whom this is a big deal. And in Missouri at least, I don't see how this legislation will result in a significant decrease in a .0006 fraud rate ... so the extra expense and hassle this will impose on eligible poor, minority, and/or elderly voters is unwarranted, unjustified, and just plain ill-advised IMO.

OAW

[spacefreak]

What's up, OAW? I'm having a good time reading your recent postings. I disagree with a lot of your opinions, but I appreciate your posts. Anyways...

Can you please post some statistics denoting the approximate number of people who will have a problem getting a photo ID over the next 2-4 years. Maybe there are no statistics yet available. But if you have seen them, please drop a link in here. "Plenty", "many", "a lot" just isn't specific enough to give your argument the consideration and scrutinization it deserves. Much of what you're saying makes sense, and I'm sure some of your gripes can be handled. But I want to see some numbers if possible.

In this day and age, every citizen needs to have a photo ID. This legislation gives people a few years to get their things in order. If a person can't obtain a photo ID in 2 years, or 4 years, voting is likely the least of that person's worries.

Maybe we develop some sort of service that could work through welfare and medicare/social security departments that would assist the poor and/or elderly that you speak of. And perhaps schools can get in on this as well, ensuring that every student they graduate has a photo ID. It's essential for people to get a photo ID. The importance cannot be stressed enough.

TANGENT: We need a comprehensive federal ID program IMHO. All these different state requirements, papers, forms, etc... it's so damn mixed up. 50 different states amounts to 50 different sets of requirements for ID-issuing purposes. We already have Social Security federalized, as is the State Dept's passport issuing service. Create a national ID, and have them issues through each state's DMV. Ultimately we're going to get there. I just think it would be better to start fresh with a system design now rather then try to integrate 50 different ID systems w/ current federal systems.

[Dr Reducto]

In this day and age, every citizen needs to have a photo ID. This legislation gives people a few years to get their things in order. If a person can't obtain a photo ID in 2 years, or 4 years, voting is likely the least of that person's worries.

Very true. We have become a "checkpoint society" for the most part, and ID is vital.

What if we suddenly required ID to cash checks at ALL institutions, not just banks (very likely)? What if we pass a law requiring ID to pick up prescriptions?

People need an ID to function in today's world. You can't legally hold a job without proving your citizenship or work status (and to do so, one must produce photo ID)

[OAW]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

What's up, OAW? I'm having a good time reading your recent postings. I disagree with a lot of your opinions, but I appreciate your posts. Anyways...

Can you please post some statistics denoting the approximate number of people who will have a problem getting a photo ID over the next 2-4 years. Maybe there are no statistics yet available. But if you have seen them, please drop a link in here. "Plenty", "many", "a lot" just isn't specific enough to give your argument the consideration and scrutinization it deserves. Much of what you're saying makes sense, and I'm sure some of your gripes can be handled. But I want to see some numbers if possible.

Well here a few I dug up on a humbug ....

Missouri

The Show Me state has an unsavory and very recent history of suppressing black votes. As governor 20 years ago, John Ashcroft tolerated different standards for voter registration in white Republican St. Louis County and the black and Democratic city of St. Louis. Last week, progressive groups mounted a legal challenge to the Republican Legislature's latest attempt to thwart black voters, a rigid voter I.D. law that takes effect Aug. 28.

Missouri secretary of state Robin Carnahan, a Democrat, has expressed public disapproval of the law but will enforce it. She reports that 200,000 voters lack the necessary photo I.D. and could be disenfranchised. Recent elections have been close, and the black urban voters most likely to be purged are crucial to Democratic hopes. John Hickey, the executive director of the Missouri Progressive Vote Coalition, says that Republicans are promoting "mass disenfranchisement" because African-American voters turned out in large numbers in 2004 and are expected to turn out again this fall because Republican Gov. Matt Blunt cut 100,000 people from Medicaid. "Let's say an 83-year-old woman in a wheelchair is kicked off Medicaid," he says. "Guess what, you don't have a driver's license and can't vote: Tough luck, Grandma."

Hickey says the law is also known as the Jim Talent Protection Act, because the Republican U.S. senator is in a close election battle and last time won by only 20,000 votes. As Hickey explains, "If you knock off 200,000 people who wouldn't vote for you anyway, you can win."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...es/index3.html

Arizona

More than 500,000 registered voters and eligible but unregistered voters lack state-issued photo I.D.s.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/08/15/states/

Indiana

Between 8 percent and 23 percent of all registered voters in the state may lack the proper photo I.D., so the added costs -- comparable to a poll tax -- and obstacles of the I.D. law are going to make low-income and minority voters far less likely to vote, according to research by political science professor Margie Hershey of Indiana University.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...es/index1.html

Georgia

More than 675,000 Georgia voters lack the photo identifications most commonly used in the state to vote, according to an analysis released Monday by Secretary of State Cathy Cox.

A database match between the state's files of registered voters and records of the state Department of Drivers Services shows 676,246 had no record of a drivers license or non-driver photo ID.

Macon Telegraph | 06/19/2006 | More than 675,000 Georgia voters lack photo ID

Finally, I thought I'd reference an excerpt from a speech that Sen. Barack Obama D-IL ... a pretty moderate guy by most any standard ... made on the issue:

Let's be clear. This is a national voter ID law. This is a national voter ID law that breaks the careful compromise struck by a 50-50 Senate four years ago. It would be the most restrictive voter ID ever enacted, one that could quite literally result in millions of disenfranchised voters and utter chaos at the state level.

Now, I recognize there's a certain simplistic appeal to this amendment. Why shouldn't we require people to have a voter ID card when they vote? Don't we want to make sure voters are who they claim to be? And shouldn't we make sure non-citizens are casting ballots to change the outcome of elections?

There are two problems with the argument: number one, there's been no showing that there's any significant problem with voter fraud in the 50 states. There certainly is no showing that non-citizens are rushing to try to vote: this is a solution in search of a problem.

The second problem is that historically disenfranchised groups - minorities, the poor, the elderly and the disabled - are most affected by photo ID laws. Let me give you a few statistics, overall 12% of voting age American do not have a driver's license, most of whom are minority, new U.S. citizens, the indigent, the elderly or the disabled. AARP reports that 3.6 million disabled Americans have no driver's license. A recent study in Wisconsin this year found that white adults were twice as likely to have driver's licenses as African Americans over 18. In Louisiana, African Americans are four to five times less likely to have photo IDs than white residents.

Now, why won't poor people be able to get photo IDs or Real IDs? It's simple. Because they cost money. You need a birth certificate, passport or proof naturalization and that can cost up to $85. Then you need to go to the state office to apply for a card. That requires time off work, possibly a long trip on public transportation assuming there's an office near you. Imagine if you only vote once ever two or four years, it's not very likely you'll take time off work, take a bus to pay $85 just so you can vote. That is not something that most folks are going to be able to do.

The fact of the matter, Mr. President, is that this is an idea that has been batted around not with respect to immigration but with respect to generally attempting to restrict the approach for people voting throughout the country. This is not the time to do it.

The Carter-Baker commission in 2002-2004 said fraudulent votes make up .000003% of the votes cast. That's a lot of zeros. Let me say it a different way. Out of almost 200 million votes that were cast during these elections, 52 were fraudulent. To put that into some context, you are statistically more likely to get killed by lightning than to find a fraudulent vote in a federal election.

Senator Obama's Floor Speech in Opposition to the Amendment Requiring a Photo ID to Vote | U.S. Senator Barack Obama

Originally Posted by spacefreak

In this day and age, every citizen needs to have a photo ID. This legislation gives people a few years to get their things in order. If a person can't obtain a photo ID in 2 years, or 4 years, voting is likely the least of that person's worries.

It is important. But again, a lot of people don't have them. While national legislation wouldn't go into effect (assuming it passes) for a few years, state legislation goes into effect much sooner. In Missouri, the law went into effect in August 28 ... 2 whole months before the November election. And it was done that way intentionally on the part of the Republican legislature and governor IMO.

If you have time, read the entire article I posted above. A few things here or there in isolation is one thing. But IMO, this here is a clear pattern on the part of Republicans to suppress the vote among certain demographics that are not likely to vote for them.

There is rarely hard proof of the Republicans' real agenda. One of the few public declarations of their intent came in 2004, when then state Rep. John Pappageorge of Michigan, who's now running for a state Senate seat, was quoted by the Detroit Free Press: "If we do not suppress the Detroit [read: black ] vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election cycle."

OAW

[Spliffdaddy]

Why is it that people who don't have ID, and people who can't understand the ballot, and people who are dirt poor - are assumed to vote for Democrats?

Last time I checked, each citizen's vote was private.

[davesimondotcom]

I've never understood how anyone can live without things like: a photo ID (can't write a check without one in most places), and speaking of checks, how can people live without bank accounts?

All this whining about how people will be disenfranchised is fairly silly, IMHO. Simply go and get a picture ID. It's not like you aren't getting fair warning! The election is two months from now!

[Sky Captain]

An ID makes you no longer anonymous.
Watch Cops™. See just how many suspects don't have an ID.
It's for a reason. Fraud.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Why is it that people who don't have ID, and people who can't understand the ballot, and people who are dirt poor - are assumed to vote for Democrats?

I think it's a perfectly logical presumption.

But seriously, if a person is so incompetent that he or she cannot procure a legal photo I.D., that person should not be voting.

[Spliffdaddy]

This is America. There will forever be people that won't - or can't - comply.

There was a time when I didn't have a photo ID. The freakin cops took my drivers license from me. Since when do pigs get to decide your guilt? The judge decided that my license should not be revoked. I mouthed the word "assh*le" to the cop as he handed me my license back. Reckon he pulled me over a half dozen times after that. Had to get a different car in order to throw him off my trail.

Man, I was the epitome of non-compliance for most of my life. Even today I manage to hide from the man. I never fill out change of address forms. I keep several bank accounts in 3 different states. Haven't applied for any credit in about a decade. My drivers license has never had my correct address printed on it. When I file tax returns I use a PO Box instead of my street address. Stealing my identity simply won't do a thief any good whatsoever. My passport expired...and I'm afraid to renew it.

Non-compliance is a lifestyle choice. It's part of being a patriotic American.

[Big Mac]

If, in your case, you don't want a record of your existence, you probably don't want to be voting either, for the same reasons. I'm pretty sure a photo I.D. requirement would remove many more fraudulent votes than legitimate ones, so I think it's worth it.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I've never understood how anyone can live without things like: a photo ID (can't write a check without one in most places), and speaking of checks, how can people live without bank accounts?

All this whining about how people will be disenfranchised is fairly silly, IMHO. Simply go and get a picture ID. It's not like you aren't getting fair warning! The election is two months from now!

How often do you write checks? I almost never do. And if you have cash you can always go to a post office and get a money order or to a bank and get a cashier's check.

And why do you need a bank account? Yes, it's more secure than keeping your cash in a safe under the floorboards, but most of the time a safe under the floorboards will be more than adequate.

And there are plenty of people who live paycheck to paycheck to the point that every week they cash their check at the grocery store, pocket the cash, and that's all the money they have until they get their next check the next week.

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

And there are plenty of people who live paycheck to paycheck to the point that every week they cash their check at the grocery store, pocket the cash, and that's all the money they have until they get their next check the next week.

Don't the grocery stores require ID to cash that check?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

How often do you write checks? I almost never do. And if you have cash you can always go to a post office and get a money order or to a bank and get a cashier's check.

And why do you need a bank account? Yes, it's more secure than keeping your cash in a safe under the floorboards, but most of the time a safe under the floorboards will be more than adequate.

And there are plenty of people who live paycheck to paycheck to the point that every week they cash their check at the grocery store, pocket the cash, and that's all the money they have until they get their next check the next week.

I still don't see how this makes it less logical for those people to take the cost of a six pack and a pack of cigarettes, or a pizza instead, and put it towards getting an ID so they can vote.

My wife and I aren't exactly rolling in cash (we live paycheck to paycheck, and being a freelancer, sometimes those are far apart!), but we both have IDs and bank accounts.

Let's put it more simply: To vote, you should have to prove you are who you say you are. Period.

Not only that, I think they should have some sort of a punch that they take out of your ID when you show it, therefore preventing people from voting twice. Well, unless they have two IDs. Rich bastards spoiling themselves with extra IDs!!

[itai195]

The fact that you or I can't imagine living without a bank account or photo ID doesn't change the fact that many people do live without these things. In fact, the banking industry has a term for those families without accounts: the unbanked.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by itai195

The fact that you or I can't imagine living without a bank account or photo ID doesn't change the fact that many people do live without these things. In fact, the banking industry has a term for those families without accounts: the unbanked.

And nobody has yet to bring up a legitimate explanation for why we should just take someone's word for it when they say they are who they say they are, and allow them to vote.

For dog's sake! My DOG and CATS all have licenses with their name on them - due to a legal mandate!!

This is not a "poll tax" - it's simple logic.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

And nobody has yet to bring up a legitimate explanation for why we should just take someone's word for it when they say they are who they say they are, and allow them to vote.

For dog's sake! My DOG and CATS all have licenses with their name on them - due to a legal mandate!!

This is not a "poll tax" - it's simple logic.

I don't think anyone has said that. The issue is "having ID" vs. "having photo ID". See above for numerous points made about that. But here is another thing to consider ....

ABC15.com: Phoenix and Arizona News, Live Weather, Web Cams and More

In many instances it costs about the same and is probably a lot less hassle to get a fake ID than it is to get a legitimate one. Apparently in Phoenix one could get a fake photo ID for $100 and a 30 minute wait. Now per the info I posted above getting a photo ID can cost upwards of $89 assuming you have a birth certificate. More if you don't have one. And we all know that a 30 minute wait is practically unheard of when dealing with legitimate government bureaucracy. So again, given the relatively infinitesimal voter fraud rate (a point that remains unchallenged thus far) ... and given how relatively easy it would be to get a fake photo ID if one desired ... the end result of this legislation is unnecessary expense and hassle for legitimate voters. It does nothing to stop someone who is intent on voting fraudulently ... and it only adds hardship and inconvenience to significant numbers of those who are eligible. The net effect will be that many more eligible voters will end up not voting than ineligible voters who will be prevented from voting. Which, of course, is the purpose of legislation.

OAW

ABC15.com: Phoenix and Arizona News, Live Weather, Web Cams and More

[porieux]

...

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

Don't the grocery stores require ID to cash that check?

Yeah, that was a bad example because grocery stores do (at least the big name ones, I'm sure someone could find one that doesn't). But there are places that will cash checks without an ID. I'm pretty sure they take a percentage of the check, but these places do exist.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

And nobody has yet to bring up a legitimate explanation for why we should just take someone's word for it when they say they are who they say they are, and allow them to vote.

Because to do otherwise would be to violate the presumption of innocence that our legal system is based on?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Because to do otherwise would be to violate the presumption of innocence that our legal system is based on?

Trying to vote and being charged with a crime are vastly different things. You are now, officially, reaching.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I've never understood how anyone can live without things like: a photo ID (can't write a check without one in most places), and speaking of checks, how can people live without bank accounts?

That's none of your *^# business. Nobody should ever be required to have gov't IDs.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Trying to vote and being charged with a crime are vastly different things. You are now, officially, reaching.

You were assuming that they weren't who they say they were, which is a crime—fraud. Presumption of guilt is presumption of guilt.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

You were assuming that they weren't who they say they were, which is a crime—fraud. Presumption of guilt is presumption of guilt.

Maybe I can lend some perspective to some of you.

November 7, 2000. My 26th birthday. Election Day. I get up, go to the polling place with my wife, and she's the only one on their list. Somehow, through a "mistake," my name was left off the list.

My wife and I had both registered to vote with our new address at the same time, at the same place. It just so happened to be the Republican County HQ.

During that day, I spent hours trying to find out what happened and why I was not allowed to vote. I found out that I was not the only person who registered to vote at that particular place who had their registration "accidentally lost."

There were, in fact, about 100 people.

Now, it's fairly safe to assume that someone who registers to vote at the GOP HQ would vote Republican, and it's also fairly safe to assume that this was no "accident." Considering the vast majority of voters left off the list were from this very location, what are the chances of some zealous Democrat working for the county just "accidentally" losing a few voter registration cards.

Considering that, in Montana, elections are often won by less than 100 votes, this very easily could have changed the entire makeup of the state's elected bodies.

I was told that if I had one simple thing - the little card that tells me where I vote that came in the mail (which is another reason to suspect someone just deleted me from the computer, I'd definitely been in long enough to receive this card) - I'd have been allowed to vote.

Instead, I thought it was just a reminder card, and I knew where I was supposed to vote, so I threw the card away.

I now carry the card with me in my wallet. Right next to my picture ID. Somewhat near my Costco card. And my debit cards. And my coffee shop and sandwich shop frequent-buyer cards. And some business cards.

So, I was TRULY disenfranchised during the closest election in history, but nobody was screaming and protesting about my rights. Jesse Jackson wasn't claiming racism because some white guy from Montana couldn't vote.

The truth is, all these claims of disenfranchisement and racism are red herrings to distract from the reality: When voters have to show ID, the chance of fraud is lowered. And that frightens some of you a bit too much.

Are you afraid that without illegal votes that your favorite party won't win? Or worse, that the party that you really hate will?

The goal for every election should be to have the most accurate count of the ELIGIBLE, LEGAL voter's votes. And I still cannot see where asking for photo ID is such a problem.

If not, why aren't you proposing programs to get photo IDs for voters that don't have them? I mean, rather than just saying this is a bad idea because some people don't have IDs.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

*snip*

So that's horrible and all, but how would requiring people to present photo ID to vote have prevented that?

[itai195]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Are you afraid that without illegal votes that your favorite party won't win? Or worse, that the party that you really hate will?

Apparently we're getting a lot of illegal votes (though no Republican on this board has shown any proof) and we're not winning anyway.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by itai195

Apparently we're getting a lot of illegal votes (though no Republican on this board has shown any proof) and we're not winning anyway.

What's wrong with the goal of preventing voter fraud?

Besides, who needs proof? Your "side" is the one who just says "Diebold, who has ties to the Bush administration" and expect everyone to just draw the connections and know that it means there is cheating.