4 ms·

Even if security and fraud weren't issues, based on the voter suppression efforts of the last couple of years,I doubt the lawmakers would want everyone voting i

Even if security and fraud weren't issues, based on the voter suppression efforts of the last couple of years,I doubt the lawmakers would want everyone voting in such an easy manner.

briandear 10y ago
What voter suppression? Voter ID? If you can't even check out a library book without ID, I am not sure how voter ID could be controversial. You can't have a bank account without ID, you can't even cash a check without ID. You can't get Medicaid or food stamps without ID. You can't even enter the White House without ID. Yet allowing people to vote without any means of verifying who they say they are? That's ludicrous. Every single state with voter ID laws has provisions for those that can't afford it. So why oppose voter ID?
- emehrkay 10y ago
  I didn't say anything about voter id requirements. However, they do play a role in the suppression, and we'll start with that. Requiring an id to vote might make some sense, but what doesn't make sense is making the id difficult or impossible to get (see Texas and North Carolina for examples). So much effort is being poured into voter id laws, but none is being put into getting citizens the "correct" id to vote with. Why is that? (I may be wrong here and maybe you have more info, if you do please provide links that show where the people proposing voter ids have also made it easy to get an id) What other purpose aside from government sanctioned suppression would getting rid of the provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 requiring states to get federal approval before changing their voting laws serve? From what I understand, the justices that voted to get rid of the provisions did so because there was lack of data suggesting that there were issues at the ballot for people of color. But where is the information and data that supports the massive amounts of voter fraud that was heavily talked up before the vote?
  - zo1 10y ago
    Why do they have to do both? One is simply to secure your voting process against any possible tampering. It is perfectly reasonable to refuse government services and a myriad of other things if one does not have proper documentation. I don't see any reason not to apply the same validation to voter-verification. If you don't do that properly, then you get identity theft and a myriad of other things such as disjoint and variable-quality national databases. If it was me making these decisions: I'd verify each person against a national fingerprint and facial database before even letting them fill in the ballot form and only accepting their vote if the verification was positive.

Even if security and fraud weren't issues, based on the voter suppression efforts of the last couple of years,I doubt the lawmakers would want everyone voting in such an easy manner.

briandear 10y ago

What voter suppression? Voter ID? If you can't even check out a library book without ID, I am not sure how voter ID could be controversial. You can't have a bank account without ID, you can't even cash a check without ID. You can't get Medicaid or food stamps without ID. You can't even enter the White House without ID. Yet allowing people to vote without any means of verifying who they say they are? That's ludicrous. Every single state with voter ID laws has provisions for those that can't afford it. So why oppose voter ID?

emehrkay 10y ago
I didn't say anything about voter id requirements. However, they do play a role in the suppression, and we'll start with that. Requiring an id to vote might make some sense, but what doesn't make sense is making the id difficult or impossible to get (see Texas and North Carolina for examples). So much effort is being poured into voter id laws, but none is being put into getting citizens the "correct" id to vote with. Why is that? (I may be wrong here and maybe you have more info, if you do please provide links that show where the people proposing voter ids have also made it easy to get an id) What other purpose aside from government sanctioned suppression would getting rid of the provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 requiring states to get federal approval before changing their voting laws serve? From what I understand, the justices that voted to get rid of the provisions did so because there was lack of data suggesting that there were issues at the ballot for people of color. But where is the information and data that supports the massive amounts of voter fraud that was heavily talked up before the vote?
- zo1 10y ago
  Why do they have to do both? One is simply to secure your voting process against any possible tampering. It is perfectly reasonable to refuse government services and a myriad of other things if one does not have proper documentation. I don't see any reason not to apply the same validation to voter-verification. If you don't do that properly, then you get identity theft and a myriad of other things such as disjoint and variable-quality national databases. If it was me making these decisions: I'd verify each person against a national fingerprint and facial database before even letting them fill in the ballot form and only accepting their vote if the verification was positive.