3 ms·

You mean, if I believe my own eyes and ears rather than someone insulting me on the internet? You're funny. If someone can't be bothered to obtain an ID to vot

You mean, if I believe my own eyes and ears rather than someone insulting me on the internet? You're funny. If someone can't be bothered to obtain an ID to vote, possibly they shouldn't be voting at all. Civic responsibility is not an inconvenience, it's what keeps civilization running. Taking a few moments out of your daily routine to be informed and choose your government is the least one should expect.

evgen 10y ago
If someone can't be bothered to obtain an ID to vote, possibly they shouldn't be voting at all. And when those people without IDs happen to be poor and minority voters, so much the better, right? Getting a government ID is not 'taking a few moments out of your daily routine', or we would not be having this conversation. How about you ask an American how fast and easy it is for them to just waltz in the the DMV and walk out a few minutes later with their shiny new ID card. State IDs are done by the same agency, and a lot of those poor people have one or two jobs they are working where taking an entire day to get an ID could cost them serious money or their job itself.
- squozzer 10y ago
  I think in the US you have to have an ID to get a job. Last time I looked at an I-9, it required 1) proof of citizenship or right to work (GC); 2) proof of identity.
  - evgen 10y ago
    If you take a look at the actual documents which are required for an I-9, they are a lot more flexible than what are required by most of the voter ID laws the courts are throwing out left and right. The proof of citizenship can be a birth certificate or a social security card, while the proof of identity can be a school ID, a local government ID card or a military ID. If you started your job before 1986 you never needed to provide the information, nor would you if you were a retiree or on disability.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- CWuestefeld 10y ago
  You're repeatedly making the argument that requirements to obtain ID are too onerous. Perhaps what's broken is the process for getting that ID. Let's look for ways to streamline that process so that it's less of a burden.
CWuestefeld 10y ago
The popular idea is that "it's your responsibility to vote", and that we should get as many people as possible to do so. Thank god Mike Rowe, somewhat of an opinion leader, is showing how dumb that is. For democracy to work, we need educated, we'll-informed voters. If you're voting on a whim, without having invested the time necessary to understand the issues thoroughly, then you're part of the problem. If voter ID restrictions serve to weed out people who aren't willing to make an investment in being a good voter, then I'm all in favor of it. EDIT: s/week/weed/
- evgen 10y ago
  Given the fact that numerous voter ID laws have been invalidated over the past year due to blatant attempts to disenfranchise poor and minority voters (c.f. North Carolina, Texas, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Ohio, etc) I wonder if your objection is really about being a 'good' voter.
  - jshevek 10y ago
    Your speculations about the other party's motives are completely inappropriate to a reasoned discussion.
    - evgen 10y ago
      No, in fact I think they cut to the heart of the objection here. It was suggested that someone who cannot obtain a voter ID that meets the requirements in many states is somehow now a 'good voter'. It has been shown repeatedly over the past few months that the objective, and consequence, of most of these voter ID laws has been to drive down voting by poor and minority voters. The logical conclusion seems to be that poor and minority voters, who have difficulty obtaining these voter IDs, must not be 'good voter(s)' and perhaps should be 'weed(ed) out' of the voting pool. The question of motive is right there staring us in the face.
      - CWuestefeld 10y ago
        No, in fact I think they cut to the heart of the objection here Not at all. I told you what my reasoning was, and you decided that I was lying. That doesn't seem to be arguing in good faith. It may be true that there's a differential in the impact of the rules. But (a) that doesn't mean that rules were secretly crafted for that reason, or (b) that I wouldn't feel the same way about rules having a differential that affected the more affluent to a greater degree. Assuming evil intent on the part of your opponent is a sure-fire way to ensure that you can never reach any common ground.

evgen 10y ago

If someone can't be bothered to obtain an ID to vote, possibly they shouldn't be voting at all. And when those people without IDs happen to be poor and minority voters, so much the better, right? Getting a government ID is not 'taking a few moments out of your daily routine', or we would not be having this conversation. How about you ask an American how fast and easy it is for them to just waltz in the the DMV and walk out a few minutes later with their shiny new ID card. State IDs are done by the same agency, and a lot of those poor people have one or two jobs they are working where taking an entire day to get an ID could cost them serious money or their job itself.

squozzer 10y ago
I think in the US you have to have an ID to get a job. Last time I looked at an I-9, it required 1) proof of citizenship or right to work (GC); 2) proof of identity.
- evgen 10y ago
  If you take a look at the actual documents which are required for an I-9, they are a lot more flexible than what are required by most of the voter ID laws the courts are throwing out left and right. The proof of citizenship can be a birth certificate or a social security card, while the proof of identity can be a school ID, a local government ID card or a military ID. If you started your job before 1986 you never needed to provide the information, nor would you if you were a retiree or on disability.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
CWuestefeld 10y ago
You're repeatedly making the argument that requirements to obtain ID are too onerous. Perhaps what's broken is the process for getting that ID. Let's look for ways to streamline that process so that it's less of a burden.

CWuestefeld 10y ago

The popular idea is that "it's your responsibility to vote", and that we should get as many people as possible to do so. Thank god Mike Rowe, somewhat of an opinion leader, is showing how dumb that is. For democracy to work, we need educated, we'll-informed voters. If you're voting on a whim, without having invested the time necessary to understand the issues thoroughly, then you're part of the problem. If voter ID restrictions serve to weed out people who aren't willing to make an investment in being a good voter, then I'm all in favor of it. EDIT: s/week/weed/

evgen 10y ago
Given the fact that numerous voter ID laws have been invalidated over the past year due to blatant attempts to disenfranchise poor and minority voters (c.f. North Carolina, Texas, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Ohio, etc) I wonder if your objection is really about being a 'good' voter.
- jshevek 10y ago
  Your speculations about the other party's motives are completely inappropriate to a reasoned discussion.
  - evgen 10y ago
    No, in fact I think they cut to the heart of the objection here. It was suggested that someone who cannot obtain a voter ID that meets the requirements in many states is somehow now a 'good voter'. It has been shown repeatedly over the past few months that the objective, and consequence, of most of these voter ID laws has been to drive down voting by poor and minority voters. The logical conclusion seems to be that poor and minority voters, who have difficulty obtaining these voter IDs, must not be 'good voter(s)' and perhaps should be 'weed(ed) out' of the voting pool. The question of motive is right there staring us in the face.
    - CWuestefeld 10y ago
      No, in fact I think they cut to the heart of the objection here Not at all. I told you what my reasoning was, and you decided that I was lying. That doesn't seem to be arguing in good faith. It may be true that there's a differential in the impact of the rules. But (a) that doesn't mean that rules were secretly crafted for that reason, or (b) that I wouldn't feel the same way about rules having a differential that affected the more affluent to a greater degree. Assuming evil intent on the part of your opponent is a sure-fire way to ensure that you can never reach any common ground.