6 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. Is it ironic? Republicans aren't calling for the abolishment of the DMV for driver's licenses. Requiring ID to vote is inline with requiring ID to drive. I find it interesting the Democrats seem to idolize European governance, except for the part where requiring ID to vote is the norm. edit: fixed typo - requiring id to vote is inline with requiring id to drive

Kevin_S 7y ago
Dems problem with requiring ID is that it just so happens that those proposals are always alongside attempts to make it more difficult for poor people to get IDs in the first place. Dems would have no issue requiring ID if republicans would agree to give every US citizen an ID for free. Voter ID laws are simply an attempt to keep poor people and minorities from voting and honestly it's sickening.
- WillPostForFood 7y ago
  They are also an attempt to keep ineligible people from voting. There are positives to the argument that you can only ignore if you want to vilify the person making it.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    >They are also an attempt to keep ineligible people from voting. Which is not a problem. There were less than 100 cases of voter fraud in the last twenty years: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/13/the-disconnect-between-voter-id-laws-and-voter-fraud/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/13/th... Preventing ineligible voting is red herring for suppressing legitimate voters, by creating extra hoops to jump through for certain classes of citizens.
  - rectang 7y ago
    I vilify the argument that voter fraud of the kind which would be addressed by voter ID exists at any meaningful scale in the US. It is putrid. Used as an justification for mass disenfranchisement, it is repugnant.
- bakuninsbart 7y ago
  Well, this exactly should be the Democrats proposal - but for some resaon it isn't. It would be an easy way to pull wind out of the sails of republicans.
  - crooked-v 7y ago
    Proposals to give everyone an ID for free have also run into massive Republican opposition.
mffnbs 7y ago
I find it interesting that you've deflected their entire argument and made up a straw man to burn.
- WillPostForFood 7y ago
  I answered the argument directly. Requiring ID to vote is not "ironic' because: Republicans aren't calling for the abolishment of the DMV for driver's licenses. Requiring ID to vote is inline with requiring ID to drive.
  - mffnbs 7y ago
    Voting does not have the same privilege level as driving. Also thought your argument equating voting to voting was snarky dismissal, not a typo.
rectang 7y ago
Make IDs free and mandatory for all citizens — like in those European countries — and there's no problem. Until then, IDs are a poll tax — and to put it mildly, that's a problem.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  The democrats are never going to call it a poll tax though because once you start calling statutory requirements to jump through non-free hoops to exercise rights "poll taxes" you've just paved the way to overturning a whole lot of gun control stuff.
  - Falling3 7y ago
    Poll taxes are expressly forbidden by the 24th Amendment. I'm sure people will try and make arguments based on the 2nd Amendment, but they're really not comparable.
    - wang_li 7y ago
      A photo ID is not a poll tax though. Just like requiring people to go to a polling place is not a poll tax. Just like people having to take time off of work is not a poll tax.
      - Falling3 7y ago
        Requiring people to pay for the opportunity to vote is effectively a poll tax. I don't understand anyone trying to argue against this in good faith.
        wang_li 7y ago
        Would you say that someone having to own a car and buy gas so they can drive to the polling location is a poll tax?
        7y ago
rhinoceraptor 7y ago
> except for the part where requiring ID to vote The reason should be obvious, people without ID are likely poor, and likely to vote for Democrats. Voter fraud is just misdirection on the part of Republicans.
specialist 7y ago
No one any where is against identifying voters. Voter ID is required to register. At which time it is verified and eligibility is adjudicated. Identity is confirmed when a ballot is issued. For postal balloting, which is not opposed by Republicans, your address is proxy for identity. One exception is North Dakota; no ID is required, because presumably poll workers know their neighbors. The issue is what forms of ID are required to be issued a ballot. Pro democracy persons who support enfranchising their fellow citizens are content to accept many forms of official ID to confirm identity. Anti democratic persons who openly advocate wide spread disenfranchisement demand restoring unconstitutional poll taxes.
- ghaff 7y ago
  >Identity is confirmed when a ballot is issued. That is not necessarily true in the US. If I vote in person on election day in my town (I usually vote by mail or earlier at town hall) I give my address but do not have to present an ID.
  - specialist 7y ago
    I wrote: "One exception is North Dakota" You replied: "That is not necessarily true in the US." Yes, yes, yes. There are always exceptions in the USA. No one person can know them all. Because every jurisdiction is a snowflake. And everything keeps changing. Causing us all to talk past each other. No small part of the challenge talking about this stuff rationally. For your jurisdiction, the powers that be determined that your signature was sufficient verification, which can be compared against the signature on file (your registration), just like with postal ballots. Satisfied?
    - ghaff 7y ago
      I live in what is almost certainly a perfectly typical town in the Northeast US. And it's fully compliant with Massachusetts law. Which is just one state as you say. But, if you follow the news, requiring ID is a very contentious topic that's often associated with disenfranchising voters so I assume it's not the norm.
bobwaycott 7y ago
> Requiring ID to vote is inline with requiring ID to drive. One of those things is an inherent right of citizenship. The other is a privilege that requires proving one has allegedly mastered the skills and knowledge required to safely practice it.

Kevin_S 7y ago

Dems problem with requiring ID is that it just so happens that those proposals are always alongside attempts to make it more difficult for poor people to get IDs in the first place. Dems would have no issue requiring ID if republicans would agree to give every US citizen an ID for free. Voter ID laws are simply an attempt to keep poor people and minorities from voting and honestly it's sickening.

WillPostForFood 7y ago
They are also an attempt to keep ineligible people from voting. There are positives to the argument that you can only ignore if you want to vilify the person making it.
- bduerst 7y ago
  >They are also an attempt to keep ineligible people from voting. Which is not a problem. There were less than 100 cases of voter fraud in the last twenty years: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/13/the-disconnect-between-voter-id-laws-and-voter-fraud/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/13/th... Preventing ineligible voting is red herring for suppressing legitimate voters, by creating extra hoops to jump through for certain classes of citizens.
- rectang 7y ago
  I vilify the argument that voter fraud of the kind which would be addressed by voter ID exists at any meaningful scale in the US. It is putrid. Used as an justification for mass disenfranchisement, it is repugnant.
bakuninsbart 7y ago
Well, this exactly should be the Democrats proposal - but for some resaon it isn't. It would be an easy way to pull wind out of the sails of republicans.
- crooked-v 7y ago
  Proposals to give everyone an ID for free have also run into massive Republican opposition.

mffnbs 7y ago

I find it interesting that you've deflected their entire argument and made up a straw man to burn.

WillPostForFood 7y ago
I answered the argument directly. Requiring ID to vote is not "ironic' because: Republicans aren't calling for the abolishment of the DMV for driver's licenses. Requiring ID to vote is inline with requiring ID to drive.
- mffnbs 7y ago
  Voting does not have the same privilege level as driving. Also thought your argument equating voting to voting was snarky dismissal, not a typo.

rectang 7y ago

Make IDs free and mandatory for all citizens — like in those European countries — and there's no problem. Until then, IDs are a poll tax — and to put it mildly, that's a problem.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
The democrats are never going to call it a poll tax though because once you start calling statutory requirements to jump through non-free hoops to exercise rights "poll taxes" you've just paved the way to overturning a whole lot of gun control stuff.
- Falling3 7y ago
  Poll taxes are expressly forbidden by the 24th Amendment. I'm sure people will try and make arguments based on the 2nd Amendment, but they're really not comparable.
  - wang_li 7y ago
    A photo ID is not a poll tax though. Just like requiring people to go to a polling place is not a poll tax. Just like people having to take time off of work is not a poll tax.
    - Falling3 7y ago
      Requiring people to pay for the opportunity to vote is effectively a poll tax. I don't understand anyone trying to argue against this in good faith.
      - wang_li 7y ago
        Would you say that someone having to own a car and buy gas so they can drive to the polling location is a poll tax?
        7y ago

rhinoceraptor 7y ago

> except for the part where requiring ID to vote The reason should be obvious, people without ID are likely poor, and likely to vote for Democrats. Voter fraud is just misdirection on the part of Republicans.

specialist 7y ago

No one any where is against identifying voters. Voter ID is required to register. At which time it is verified and eligibility is adjudicated. Identity is confirmed when a ballot is issued. For postal balloting, which is not opposed by Republicans, your address is proxy for identity. One exception is North Dakota; no ID is required, because presumably poll workers know their neighbors. The issue is what forms of ID are required to be issued a ballot. Pro democracy persons who support enfranchising their fellow citizens are content to accept many forms of official ID to confirm identity. Anti democratic persons who openly advocate wide spread disenfranchisement demand restoring unconstitutional poll taxes.

ghaff 7y ago
>Identity is confirmed when a ballot is issued. That is not necessarily true in the US. If I vote in person on election day in my town (I usually vote by mail or earlier at town hall) I give my address but do not have to present an ID.
- specialist 7y ago
  I wrote: "One exception is North Dakota" You replied: "That is not necessarily true in the US." Yes, yes, yes. There are always exceptions in the USA. No one person can know them all. Because every jurisdiction is a snowflake. And everything keeps changing. Causing us all to talk past each other. No small part of the challenge talking about this stuff rationally. For your jurisdiction, the powers that be determined that your signature was sufficient verification, which can be compared against the signature on file (your registration), just like with postal ballots. Satisfied?
  - ghaff 7y ago
    I live in what is almost certainly a perfectly typical town in the Northeast US. And it's fully compliant with Massachusetts law. Which is just one state as you say. But, if you follow the news, requiring ID is a very contentious topic that's often associated with disenfranchising voters so I assume it's not the norm.

bobwaycott 7y ago

> Requiring ID to vote is inline with requiring ID to drive. One of those things is an inherent right of citizenship. The other is a privilege that requires proving one has allegedly mastered the skills and knowledge required to safely practice it.