3 ms·

You're assuming that the democratic process is best served by having the largest number of people voting as possible. I, and Mike Rowe for another, don't believ

You're assuming that the democratic process is best served by having the largest number of people voting as possible. I, and Mike Rowe for another, don't believe that. Democracy is not best served by voters who don't fully understand the issues. Someone who's not willing to invest the effort in getting proper ID (or one of the other ways of voting, like an absentee ballot) is likely also not investing much in becoming educated on the issues. IMHO, setting a low threshold to weed out folks who are voting on a whim, without having invested in the process, will help the project of democracy.

vkou 10y ago
> Someone who's not willing to invest the effort in getting proper ID (or one of the other ways of voting, like an absentee ballot) is likely also not investing much in becoming educated on the issues. Great idea. Why not bar people without a college education from voting? Better yet, why not bar people who don't own land from voting? If you aren't willing to jump through a few hoops, why should you have a say in how the country is run? The hoops that people need to jump through to become eligible are, by design, made more difficult for certain demographics. This is deliberate disenfranchisement. The whole point of democracy is that everyone gets to have a say in it - not just the people you like.
- CWuestefeld 10y ago
  Why not make a strawman argument? I'm not advocating that we set up intentional barriers, like the poll taxes of old. What I said was that if a side effect of a legitimate effort has a side effect, it's not a bad thing. I was taking that from the idea that uninformed voters aren't helping the process; Mike Rowe explains that better than I can [1]. This is deliberate disenfranchisement. No. There may be other folks who do want to gag people and would use this as a pretense. You shouldn't simply assume that I am one of those people. You're putting words in my mouth, and trying to say that I'm lying about what my motives are. If that's how you're going to approach debate, then I don't think it's worth wasting bits on you. [1] http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/08/19/mike-rowe-delivers-some-undeniable-reality-about-celebrities-who-urge-the-masses-to-get-out-and-vote/ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/08/19/mike-rowe-deliver...
unclenoriega 10y ago
I'm sympathetic to Rowe's argument that people who don't care or don't know what they're talking about shouldn't vote, but that's different than saying they should be prevented from voting. If I'm remembering correctly, Rowe said that we shouldn't encourage people to vote who aren't otherwise motivated. I don't see anything wrong with that, but the issue then becomes what barriers you're setting up. If the barriers we set up are costs, either for an ID card or lost wages, I think it's pretty easy to argue that we're excluding poor people, not uninformed people. If, on the other hand, the barrier is you have to mail in a ballot, then that's probably acceptable. I think the best thing we can do is try to find ways to inform more people about public policy issues, not ways to casually disenfranchise apathetic or uninformed citizens.
- CWuestefeld 10y ago
  You're right that I'm taking it a step farther than Rowe did. The thing is, those who oppose this really are putting forward a strawman, at least relative to what SCOTUS has told us is in-bounds. They've found that a law requiring ID for in-person voting was OK, because it also provided for A) A means to obtain IDs for free; or B) People without ID could still vote by (as I recall) going to city hall and showing other identifying documents With these conditions, I think it clearly changes from a question of excluding people because of money, to one more like I said, where it's just testing whether people are willing to get off their butts and invest a little bit of effort.

vkou 10y ago

> Someone who's not willing to invest the effort in getting proper ID (or one of the other ways of voting, like an absentee ballot) is likely also not investing much in becoming educated on the issues. Great idea. Why not bar people without a college education from voting? Better yet, why not bar people who don't own land from voting? If you aren't willing to jump through a few hoops, why should you have a say in how the country is run? The hoops that people need to jump through to become eligible are, by design, made more difficult for certain demographics. This is deliberate disenfranchisement. The whole point of democracy is that everyone gets to have a say in it - not just the people you like.

CWuestefeld 10y ago
Why not make a strawman argument? I'm not advocating that we set up intentional barriers, like the poll taxes of old. What I said was that if a side effect of a legitimate effort has a side effect, it's not a bad thing. I was taking that from the idea that uninformed voters aren't helping the process; Mike Rowe explains that better than I can [1]. This is deliberate disenfranchisement. No. There may be other folks who do want to gag people and would use this as a pretense. You shouldn't simply assume that I am one of those people. You're putting words in my mouth, and trying to say that I'm lying about what my motives are. If that's how you're going to approach debate, then I don't think it's worth wasting bits on you. [1] http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/08/19/mike-rowe-delivers-some-undeniable-reality-about-celebrities-who-urge-the-masses-to-get-out-and-vote/ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/08/19/mike-rowe-deliver...

unclenoriega 10y ago

I'm sympathetic to Rowe's argument that people who don't care or don't know what they're talking about shouldn't vote, but that's different than saying they should be prevented from voting. If I'm remembering correctly, Rowe said that we shouldn't encourage people to vote who aren't otherwise motivated. I don't see anything wrong with that, but the issue then becomes what barriers you're setting up. If the barriers we set up are costs, either for an ID card or lost wages, I think it's pretty easy to argue that we're excluding poor people, not uninformed people. If, on the other hand, the barrier is you have to mail in a ballot, then that's probably acceptable. I think the best thing we can do is try to find ways to inform more people about public policy issues, not ways to casually disenfranchise apathetic or uninformed citizens.

CWuestefeld 10y ago
You're right that I'm taking it a step farther than Rowe did. The thing is, those who oppose this really are putting forward a strawman, at least relative to what SCOTUS has told us is in-bounds. They've found that a law requiring ID for in-person voting was OK, because it also provided for A) A means to obtain IDs for free; or B) People without ID could still vote by (as I recall) going to city hall and showing other identifying documents With these conditions, I think it clearly changes from a question of excluding people because of money, to one more like I said, where it's just testing whether people are willing to get off their butts and invest a little bit of effort.