4 ms·

Most democrats are fine with an ID if it's given free of charge and the transportation and loss of wages for the day are covered.

akhilcacharya 8y ago
Speaking for myself, I'm not. There's no evidence that they're necessary, and in many states where they are mandated including my home state they were biased against individuals that usually don't vote for Republicans - in the case of NC the law was designed to "target African-Americans with almost surgical precision" [0] according to the courts. [0]: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/15/528457693/supreme-court-declines-republican-bid-to-revive-north-carolina-voter-id-law https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/15/528457693...
- aaomidi 8y ago
  Which is my point of remove the bias of getting an ID and then it's fine. In its current state it's not fine and shouldn't be pushed.
  - kevingadd 8y ago
    It's absolutely important to separate the concept of 'requiring ID to vote' and the concept of 'encouraging everyone to have ID', as you point out. ID is useful for many different things. Voter ID laws have an obvious historical impact and can be assumed bad at this point, but we shouldn't allow that to turn us negative on IDs in general. They're too essential in modern society.
- codegrappler 8y ago
  How would you design an unbiased ID system?
  - runako 8y ago
    Some ideas for a baseline: 0) Many states that require ID to vote are moving in the direction of permit less carry for firearms. (I think GA, where I live, has the condition that a permit is required but officials are not allowed to request it.) An unbiased system would recognize that if permitless is sufficient for carrying firearms, it should be sufficient for voting. 0') Recognize that filing other official documents does not require ID. Notably, tax filings do not require any kind of ID, yet the information contained in them is considered extremely sensitive (e.g. knowing the AGI from a form is considered sufficient authentication in some government interactions). Recognize that many citizens of voting age simply do not need an ID. If you don't buy alcohol, fly on a plane, or drive, your need for ID becomes vanishingly low. If you just do basic stuff like go to the grocery store, physician, and park, you may find that you never need an ID. So again, do not require ID for this fundamental exercise of participation in government. 1) Accept all federal and state-issued IDs. States have a habit of cherry-picking, for example by accepting firearms licenses and not student IDs. That means accepting student IDs from public universities, among other things. 2) Make the provision of ID the responsibility of the government. That is: IDs should be free to acquire and free to replace. Acquisition of IDs should not be biased against the homebound by e.g. requiring a citizen to present herself in a government office at any time to obtain one. Social Security cards function according to these rules, so our government has known how to do this for generations. 3) Grandfather existing citizens. The last slave in the US died barely 40 years ago; there are likely millions of people born in situations where birth certificates may not have been issued. Pre-computer records were destroyed from time to time. The onus is on the government to track citizens, not the other way around (ref: US Constitution). So there needs to be a way to (transparently, without effort on the citizen's part) get ID to people like my uncle, who has lived in the same place for ~70 years no matter whether he can produce his birth certificate. The basic problem is once you do all that, you defeat the goals of the modern voter ID project. So there's no reason to aim for an unbiased ID system here. Either aim for the real goals (which require bias) or don't implement voter ID.
    - jakeogh 8y ago
      If someone is in the US, I want them to have effective tools to defend life. If they are not eligible to vote, then obviously we do not them voting. It's one of the few situations where identity really matters.

akhilcacharya 8y ago

Speaking for myself, I'm not. There's no evidence that they're necessary, and in many states where they are mandated including my home state they were biased against individuals that usually don't vote for Republicans - in the case of NC the law was designed to "target African-Americans with almost surgical precision" [0] according to the courts. [0]: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/15/528457693/supreme-court-declines-republican-bid-to-revive-north-carolina-voter-id-law https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/15/528457693...

aaomidi 8y ago
Which is my point of remove the bias of getting an ID and then it's fine. In its current state it's not fine and shouldn't be pushed.
- kevingadd 8y ago
  It's absolutely important to separate the concept of 'requiring ID to vote' and the concept of 'encouraging everyone to have ID', as you point out. ID is useful for many different things. Voter ID laws have an obvious historical impact and can be assumed bad at this point, but we shouldn't allow that to turn us negative on IDs in general. They're too essential in modern society.
codegrappler 8y ago
How would you design an unbiased ID system?
- runako 8y ago
  Some ideas for a baseline: 0) Many states that require ID to vote are moving in the direction of permit less carry for firearms. (I think GA, where I live, has the condition that a permit is required but officials are not allowed to request it.) An unbiased system would recognize that if permitless is sufficient for carrying firearms, it should be sufficient for voting. 0') Recognize that filing other official documents does not require ID. Notably, tax filings do not require any kind of ID, yet the information contained in them is considered extremely sensitive (e.g. knowing the AGI from a form is considered sufficient authentication in some government interactions). Recognize that many citizens of voting age simply do not need an ID. If you don't buy alcohol, fly on a plane, or drive, your need for ID becomes vanishingly low. If you just do basic stuff like go to the grocery store, physician, and park, you may find that you never need an ID. So again, do not require ID for this fundamental exercise of participation in government. 1) Accept all federal and state-issued IDs. States have a habit of cherry-picking, for example by accepting firearms licenses and not student IDs. That means accepting student IDs from public universities, among other things. 2) Make the provision of ID the responsibility of the government. That is: IDs should be free to acquire and free to replace. Acquisition of IDs should not be biased against the homebound by e.g. requiring a citizen to present herself in a government office at any time to obtain one. Social Security cards function according to these rules, so our government has known how to do this for generations. 3) Grandfather existing citizens. The last slave in the US died barely 40 years ago; there are likely millions of people born in situations where birth certificates may not have been issued. Pre-computer records were destroyed from time to time. The onus is on the government to track citizens, not the other way around (ref: US Constitution). So there needs to be a way to (transparently, without effort on the citizen's part) get ID to people like my uncle, who has lived in the same place for ~70 years no matter whether he can produce his birth certificate. The basic problem is once you do all that, you defeat the goals of the modern voter ID project. So there's no reason to aim for an unbiased ID system here. Either aim for the real goals (which require bias) or don't implement voter ID.
  - jakeogh 8y ago
    If someone is in the US, I want them to have effective tools to defend life. If they are not eligible to vote, then obviously we do not them voting. It's one of the few situations where identity really matters.