4 ms·

Unfortunately this has a lot of opposition behind it from republican voters who believe in kooky mark of the beast theories, and concerns about federal governme

by throwaway2048 8y ago

Unfortunately this has a lot of opposition behind it from republican voters who believe in kooky mark of the beast theories, and concerns about federal government surveillance. You can be completely certain they would fan those flames hard if a proposal like this ever saw the light of day.

krapp 8y ago
The kooky mark of the beast people heavily oppose everything from RFID to social security cards... the real mainstream opposition would be from gun owners and the NRA.
tracker1 8y ago
Umn, it seems to me that most of the opposition to requiring ID for voting (just a state issued ID) are liberals talking about disenfranchising the poor. Most of the poor already have ID, and beyond a few of the horror stories some seem to have getting ID, it's still not a bad idea. In the end, you have to register to vote, and in most states you do so with the same agencies that make Identifications. Requiring an ID card to get a voter ID, or having it as part of your driver's license or state id isn't a horrible idea. There's no reason for it to be a "federally issued id".
- int_19h 8y ago
  The reason for it to be a federally issued ID is because it has to be 1) free to obtain, for this scheme to not amount to a de facto poll tax, and 2) easy to obtain, to avoid selective suppression of constituencies by e.g. removing offices that issue them in certain areas. States have been proven by experience to be willing to do both. AFAIK, all states that have implemented some form of voter ID to date collect fees for issuance of any eligible IDs. And there are numerous cases of states closing or moving DMVs and similar agencies, or mucking around with vote schedule, to deliberately suppress some voters (a recent example which is particularly glaring because the state explicitly admitted its motivation: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/north-carolina-voter-id/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/north-carolina-voter-id/). Thus, the only way to ensure that voter ID would not be discriminatory in practice, is to have feds run the whole thing, in a way that guarantees non-discrimination - which means it has to be free, and it has to be easy to get. If you truly believe that voter ID is necessary for election security, then this is the compromise deal that you'll have to accept for us liberals to be onboard with that (keep in mind that most of us don't believe that there's any real issue to be solved by having voter ID, so any such support would be mainly symbolic in nature - and you'll have show good faith in courting it).
  - distances 8y ago
    > a recent example which is particularly glaring because the state explicitly admitted its motivation Wow, this is mind-blowing to me. A fair election is the basis of western democracy, a sacred institution. In my mind this pretty much equates to treason. I don't know how these people can sleep at night.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

krapp 8y ago

The kooky mark of the beast people heavily oppose everything from RFID to social security cards... the real mainstream opposition would be from gun owners and the NRA.

tracker1 8y ago

Umn, it seems to me that most of the opposition to requiring ID for voting (just a state issued ID) are liberals talking about disenfranchising the poor. Most of the poor already have ID, and beyond a few of the horror stories some seem to have getting ID, it's still not a bad idea. In the end, you have to register to vote, and in most states you do so with the same agencies that make Identifications. Requiring an ID card to get a voter ID, or having it as part of your driver's license or state id isn't a horrible idea. There's no reason for it to be a "federally issued id".

int_19h 8y ago
The reason for it to be a federally issued ID is because it has to be 1) free to obtain, for this scheme to not amount to a de facto poll tax, and 2) easy to obtain, to avoid selective suppression of constituencies by e.g. removing offices that issue them in certain areas. States have been proven by experience to be willing to do both. AFAIK, all states that have implemented some form of voter ID to date collect fees for issuance of any eligible IDs. And there are numerous cases of states closing or moving DMVs and similar agencies, or mucking around with vote schedule, to deliberately suppress some voters (a recent example which is particularly glaring because the state explicitly admitted its motivation: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/north-carolina-voter-id/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/north-carolina-voter-id/). Thus, the only way to ensure that voter ID would not be discriminatory in practice, is to have feds run the whole thing, in a way that guarantees non-discrimination - which means it has to be free, and it has to be easy to get. If you truly believe that voter ID is necessary for election security, then this is the compromise deal that you'll have to accept for us liberals to be onboard with that (keep in mind that most of us don't believe that there's any real issue to be solved by having voter ID, so any such support would be mainly symbolic in nature - and you'll have show good faith in courting it).
- distances 8y ago
  > a recent example which is particularly glaring because the state explicitly admitted its motivation Wow, this is mind-blowing to me. A fair election is the basis of western democracy, a sacred institution. In my mind this pretty much equates to treason. I don't know how these people can sleep at night.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]