28 ms·

That's irrelevant. They did have slaves, doesn't mean slavery was a good system. IDs should be required but they should also be very easy to obtain. The govern

That's irrelevant. They did have slaves, doesn't mean slavery was a good system. IDs should be required but they should also be very easy to obtain. The government should go out of its way to make it as easy a possible. Being undocumented is not useful to any citizen, it creates an underclass. People should have IDs and we should care about voter fraud, whether its 1 vote or 1 million. That the parties won't do this shows that both sides have something to gain by keeping things the way they are, they just want to win, regardless of the sanctity of the vote or the well-being of the people.

jstanley 9y ago
Being undocumented only creates an underclass if you require people to be documented! There's nothing inherently wrong with existing as a living being without declaring your existence (or, realistically, asking permission for your existence) to the government. Nobody is complaining about animals roaming the world freely without documents. In fact birds routinely cross borders without being stopped or even noticed. Why do people need to be monitored?
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  If you have documentation requirements of any kind (dejure or defacto), without documentation you are at a disadvantage. There's a lot of processes that require single if not multiple forms of ID, today. You don't have to mandate it for anything but voting. But if you do want one, they should be easy for anyone to obtain. If the poor can't prove who they are, they can't do a lot. They'll always be poor.
- lamarpye 9y ago
  So they can be taxed?
greggarious 9y ago
>IDs should be required Do you have a source to support this claim? As I previously pointed out, voter fraud is incredibly rare[1] practically non-existent. Creating laws and administering laws both take time and resources. Can you support your claim identification is needed with any sort of rational, data based arguments or are you operating on emotion? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/03/heres-how-rare-in-person-voter-fraud-is/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/03/he...
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  Considering the vote is the centerpiece of democracy, to ignore fraud of any kind or to not safeguard your democracy is on its face illogical or at least questionable. Of course it would take time and resources, but to make it easy for people to obtain IDs would be one of the cheaper things we can do as a nation. You need an ID to get a lot of jobs, get funding for school, etc. If it's not easy for people to get IDs, we are limiting them anyway, so by argument we should be making them easy to obtain. That's my datapoint. It's a very natural way to empower people.
- mythrwy 9y ago
  Is there a reason an ID shouldn't be required to vote? The source of the source you link to kind of backs up OP's point. It's not an unbiased source. So why do they think ID's should not be required? I mean just thinking about, verifying who a person is before they vote seems like 101 common sense to me.
  - mikeyouse 9y ago
    As stated several times, instituting ID requirements disenfranchises people at an extremely high rate compared to the number of 'fraudulent' votes that are stopped. There's a reason that Voter IDs are the centerpiece of several anti-democratic voter suppression efforts: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/05/how-alabama-will-save-11-million-but-undermine-the-voter-id-cause/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/05/ho... This stuff isn't accidental.
    - mythrwy 9y ago
      One political side (the bent of the source you site) would like to be able to load a bunch of folks who can't be arsed to get IDs (a part of adult modern life) into buses, fill them full of rhetoric and drive them to the polls in an emotional fervor without impediments. The other side would like to keep this same group (who can't be arsed to get IDs) from voting by whatever means necessary. Drug laws and felony disenfranchisement are likely part of this same scheme. I'm not pleased with political shenanigans in general. And objectively I think if IDs are required they should be very easy to get and cost free even. That's the real problem. But saying we don't need to verify who a person is before they vote is just f'n fishy as hell. Shenanigans. All cries about "disenfranchisement" aside. Washington Post (and friends) put this stuff out because they are clearly in first group.

jstanley 9y ago

Being undocumented only creates an underclass if you require people to be documented! There's nothing inherently wrong with existing as a living being without declaring your existence (or, realistically, asking permission for your existence) to the government. Nobody is complaining about animals roaming the world freely without documents. In fact birds routinely cross borders without being stopped or even noticed. Why do people need to be monitored?

aaron-lebo 9y ago
If you have documentation requirements of any kind (dejure or defacto), without documentation you are at a disadvantage. There's a lot of processes that require single if not multiple forms of ID, today. You don't have to mandate it for anything but voting. But if you do want one, they should be easy for anyone to obtain. If the poor can't prove who they are, they can't do a lot. They'll always be poor.
lamarpye 9y ago
So they can be taxed?

greggarious 9y ago

>IDs should be required Do you have a source to support this claim? As I previously pointed out, voter fraud is incredibly rare[1] practically non-existent. Creating laws and administering laws both take time and resources. Can you support your claim identification is needed with any sort of rational, data based arguments or are you operating on emotion? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/03/heres-how-rare-in-person-voter-fraud-is/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/03/he...

aaron-lebo 9y ago
Considering the vote is the centerpiece of democracy, to ignore fraud of any kind or to not safeguard your democracy is on its face illogical or at least questionable. Of course it would take time and resources, but to make it easy for people to obtain IDs would be one of the cheaper things we can do as a nation. You need an ID to get a lot of jobs, get funding for school, etc. If it's not easy for people to get IDs, we are limiting them anyway, so by argument we should be making them easy to obtain. That's my datapoint. It's a very natural way to empower people.
mythrwy 9y ago
Is there a reason an ID shouldn't be required to vote? The source of the source you link to kind of backs up OP's point. It's not an unbiased source. So why do they think ID's should not be required? I mean just thinking about, verifying who a person is before they vote seems like 101 common sense to me.
- mikeyouse 9y ago
  As stated several times, instituting ID requirements disenfranchises people at an extremely high rate compared to the number of 'fraudulent' votes that are stopped. There's a reason that Voter IDs are the centerpiece of several anti-democratic voter suppression efforts: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/05/how-alabama-will-save-11-million-but-undermine-the-voter-id-cause/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/05/ho... This stuff isn't accidental.
  - mythrwy 9y ago
    One political side (the bent of the source you site) would like to be able to load a bunch of folks who can't be arsed to get IDs (a part of adult modern life) into buses, fill them full of rhetoric and drive them to the polls in an emotional fervor without impediments. The other side would like to keep this same group (who can't be arsed to get IDs) from voting by whatever means necessary. Drug laws and felony disenfranchisement are likely part of this same scheme. I'm not pleased with political shenanigans in general. And objectively I think if IDs are required they should be very easy to get and cost free even. That's the real problem. But saying we don't need to verify who a person is before they vote is just f'n fishy as hell. Shenanigans. All cries about "disenfranchisement" aside. Washington Post (and friends) put this stuff out because they are clearly in first group.