4 ms·

>I always find it ironic that the Republican party--the party of limited government--wants people to have to go to the bastion of efficiency known as the DMV (!

>I always find it ironic that the Republican party--the party of limited government--wants people to have to go to the bastion of efficiency known as the DMV (!!!) in order to vote. Even worse is that there is wide bi-partisan support to require people to go through the DMV for the ability to drive on public roads, something that impacts a person's day to day life far more than voting. This is especially true of the poor who cannot afford to uber and those located in areas without public transport.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ghaff 7y ago
I'm pretty libertarian. And, admittedly, the "licensing" requirements associated with driver's licenses in the US are fairly minimal. But are you suggesting that literally anyone ought to be able to hop in a car and drive it around public streets?
- mffnbs 7y ago
  I had my license suspended once and at the time I lived in a city with mild public transit. To go get it renewed was a 6 hour ordeal that I can't imagine having to do if I were living paycheck to paycheck. Spend an entire day not making money so you can spend another days earnings so that you can go vote, all because of a political agenda, not any real issue.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    Well, the parent comment was specifically about a license for driving. I actually agree that requiring an ID that may require significant effort to obtain for voting is not reasonable.
    - mffnbs 7y ago
      Right, I was making the assumption in this case that a driver's license would be sufficient for voter identification and that if someone didn't have a driver's license, then obtaining one or an equivalent is a burden that many poor people cannot afford.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  My point is that any argument about the DMV being a bad place to get a voter id applies even stronger to the (arguably) more important action of getting a driver's license. If one accepts the argument with regards to a voter id, then why would they reject it with regard to a license?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ghaff 7y ago

I'm pretty libertarian. And, admittedly, the "licensing" requirements associated with driver's licenses in the US are fairly minimal. But are you suggesting that literally anyone ought to be able to hop in a car and drive it around public streets?

mffnbs 7y ago
I had my license suspended once and at the time I lived in a city with mild public transit. To go get it renewed was a 6 hour ordeal that I can't imagine having to do if I were living paycheck to paycheck. Spend an entire day not making money so you can spend another days earnings so that you can go vote, all because of a political agenda, not any real issue.
- ghaff 7y ago
  Well, the parent comment was specifically about a license for driving. I actually agree that requiring an ID that may require significant effort to obtain for voting is not reasonable.
  - mffnbs 7y ago
    Right, I was making the assumption in this case that a driver's license would be sufficient for voter identification and that if someone didn't have a driver's license, then obtaining one or an equivalent is a burden that many poor people cannot afford.
SkyBelow 7y ago
My point is that any argument about the DMV being a bad place to get a voter id applies even stronger to the (arguably) more important action of getting a driver's license. If one accepts the argument with regards to a voter id, then why would they reject it with regard to a license?