6 ms·

that seems logical; I fail to understand the argument that some form of voter identification like this is 'racist'

by the_narrator 7y ago

mffnbs 7y ago
Not directly racist, but it costs money and time to obtain a passport.
- tooop 7y ago
  Passport for a regular person in my country costs 30$, for children, people under 20 or over 65 and disabled persons it is 15$, and it is valid for 10 years. You literally have 10 years to put down 0.25$ per month. P.S. You must have a valid passport when you reach a certain age.
  - mffnbs 7y ago
    The US does not have a law requiring you to have an id. Requiring people to have one is making the assumption that every person in the US can afford the time and money to obtain one, as well as the physical ability to do so. If you cannot make this assumption, then you are actively disenfranchising people.
    - tooop 7y ago
      Sounds a bit backwards when one of the most powerful countries in the world cannot afford to issue its poor citizens passports...
      - mffnbs 7y ago
        We can afford to do that, easily. Can we achieve it politically? No. Is it worth doing? No. You can achieve the same result by not requiring an id to vote.
  - 3JPLW 7y ago
    In the US passports — our only national photo ID — are $145.
    - ghaff 7y ago
      Passport cards are $65. But the cost is somewhat a red herring. There's nothing to keep the US from issuing a free voter identification card but issues of appropriate identification and the effort involved exist outside of out-of-pocket cost. [ADDED: And, of course, concerns about slippery slopes to national IDs which Europeans in particular may consider silly but nonetheless we're all allowed our hangups.]
    - gamin 7y ago
      And god forbid if you need a passport in two months or less--then you're looking at spending $200 to expedite the process (and add to that USPS 1-2 day document delivery).
- codedokode 7y ago
  This is an internal passport (not for travelling abroad) and everyone has it because without it you cannot buy a train ticket, open a bank account, enter the college etc. Also there is a fine if you don't get it when you are 16 (or 18, I don't remember the exact age). Also, young people cannot buy alcohol and cigarettes without it (to prove that they are adult) so some of them are motivated to get it as soon as possible. Here is a Wikipedia link in case if someone didn't hear about "internal passports": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_passport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_passport
  - codedokode 7y ago
    Also I wanted to add that internal passport is valid for a long time and you have to change it only twice in a lifetime: you get it first time at 14, then get a new one at 20 and at 45 years and that last one is valid forever (of course if you don't happen to die). So although there is a fee to pay, it is not really expensive.
  - tsbertalan 7y ago
    Why should you need any form of identification to buy a train ticket? Say, for domestic-only travel.
- ihaveajob 7y ago
  In the US there is no such a thing as a universal ID. The closest thing is the state drivers license, and statistically poor communities tend to drive less for various reasons, so for them it is an extra hassle to go get a driver license OR EQUIVALENT ID just for the purpose of voting. The policy is not racist on his face, but a minimal context awareness is enough to understand the ultimate purpose.
  - ascagnel_ 7y ago
    In addition, trying to source IDs tends to surface some historical issues that we usually don't think about. One big one is that everyone has a birth certificate -- yet, if you weren't born in a hospital, you may not have such a certificate.
- wang_li 7y ago
  >it costs money and time to obtain a passport. As long as the process and cost is not punitive and targeted it's fine if something costs time and money. We have multiple constitutional rights that are burdened in that fashion. The right to petition the government, to have courts decide arguments, to own a gun, all cost time and money. (Not to mention that I have to have a photo ID and pass a criminal background check every time I buy a gun.)
  - mffnbs 7y ago
    As long as you acknowledge that you're implementing this explicitly to suppress American votes, sure, go ahead and try. I'm tired of the misdirection with election safety when anyone in the game knows what it's actually about.
    - wang_li 7y ago
      Nice. Sweet use of the "All Republicans are Nazis and racists and complicit!" argument. One could just as easily assert that everyone against tightening up election security is in it simply to commit election fraud. But that would be uncharitable, and unfounded.
      - mffnbs 7y ago
        On the contrary, you've just put words in my mouth because you've done some logical leaps in your head that just took you away from reality. In reality, if you want to make an assertion and have other people convinced of your argument, then your obligation is to provide all the facts. Given that, you cannot simply take the inverse hypothetical situation where election fraud is just assumed and use that to form your argument. We still have yet to establish that fraud is happening. So why would we want to suppress votes to prevent something that doesn't happen?
        wang_li 7y ago
        I'm not going to debate you after you accuse me of wanting to disenfranchise voters. Honestly, you should be banned from the site. It is however factual that fraud happens. People go to jail every election cycle.
cmiles74 7y ago
The opposing party (in the US) will make the offices where identification is offered difficult to get to. Times when the DMV or RMV is open will shrink, some states will require an extreme amount of paperwork in order to get identification. We might see some states close some DMV or RMV offices. Keep in mind that DMV and RMV office _assume_ that people have vehicles. In the case of voters this is not the case. It's like gerrymandering but in this case what's being manipulated is the ability of voters to get these cards. In many cases it is racist.
- ryanmarsh 7y ago
  This seems like something that could be mitigated by legislating where voter registration offices are located (based on census data perhaps) and their hours of operation and documentation requirements, including an appeals process.
  - cmiles74 7y ago
    I agree. I think the fact that these aren't discussion points is important. Steps could be taken to ensure that everyone entitled to a card gets one but I suspect there is a significant cost associated with that. So far cost hasn't really been a big part of the discussion. As an aside, in the US, there's a history of not needing papers to get around or prove who you are. My grandfather fought in World War II and this was an important issue for him. There likely are people in the US opposed to a national ID card for similar reasons, fear that police will start demanding you carry your card at all times. I have no idea if they might be numerous or not.
    - 18pfsmt 7y ago
      The welfare state was much smaller in the 40s. Things have changed, and people need to be "means tested" in order to implement these government programs.
- wang_li 7y ago
  >The opposing party (in the US) will make the offices where identification is offered difficult to get to. Times when the DMV or RMV is open will shrink, some states will require an extreme amount of paperwork in order to get identification. We might see some states close some DMV or RMV offices. Getting a photo ID is a infrequent event. That makes gaming the ID acquisition process a means of disenfranchising voters ineffective.
6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
If there was already a universal ID everyone has, it wouldn't be racist to require it in connection with voting, but there isn't a universal ID everyone already has. It's easy to forget that about one in seven or eight adult americans don't have a driver's license.

that seems logical; I fail to understand the argument that some form of voter identification like this is 'racist'

mffnbs 7y ago

Not directly racist, but it costs money and time to obtain a passport.

tooop 7y ago
Passport for a regular person in my country costs 30$, for children, people under 20 or over 65 and disabled persons it is 15$, and it is valid for 10 years. You literally have 10 years to put down 0.25$ per month. P.S. You must have a valid passport when you reach a certain age.
- mffnbs 7y ago
  The US does not have a law requiring you to have an id. Requiring people to have one is making the assumption that every person in the US can afford the time and money to obtain one, as well as the physical ability to do so. If you cannot make this assumption, then you are actively disenfranchising people.
  - tooop 7y ago
    Sounds a bit backwards when one of the most powerful countries in the world cannot afford to issue its poor citizens passports...
    - mffnbs 7y ago
      We can afford to do that, easily. Can we achieve it politically? No. Is it worth doing? No. You can achieve the same result by not requiring an id to vote.
- 3JPLW 7y ago
  In the US passports — our only national photo ID — are $145.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    Passport cards are $65. But the cost is somewhat a red herring. There's nothing to keep the US from issuing a free voter identification card but issues of appropriate identification and the effort involved exist outside of out-of-pocket cost. [ADDED: And, of course, concerns about slippery slopes to national IDs which Europeans in particular may consider silly but nonetheless we're all allowed our hangups.]
  - gamin 7y ago
    And god forbid if you need a passport in two months or less--then you're looking at spending $200 to expedite the process (and add to that USPS 1-2 day document delivery).
codedokode 7y ago
This is an internal passport (not for travelling abroad) and everyone has it because without it you cannot buy a train ticket, open a bank account, enter the college etc. Also there is a fine if you don't get it when you are 16 (or 18, I don't remember the exact age). Also, young people cannot buy alcohol and cigarettes without it (to prove that they are adult) so some of them are motivated to get it as soon as possible. Here is a Wikipedia link in case if someone didn't hear about "internal passports": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_passport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_passport
- codedokode 7y ago
  Also I wanted to add that internal passport is valid for a long time and you have to change it only twice in a lifetime: you get it first time at 14, then get a new one at 20 and at 45 years and that last one is valid forever (of course if you don't happen to die). So although there is a fee to pay, it is not really expensive.
- tsbertalan 7y ago
  Why should you need any form of identification to buy a train ticket? Say, for domestic-only travel.
ihaveajob 7y ago
In the US there is no such a thing as a universal ID. The closest thing is the state drivers license, and statistically poor communities tend to drive less for various reasons, so for them it is an extra hassle to go get a driver license OR EQUIVALENT ID just for the purpose of voting. The policy is not racist on his face, but a minimal context awareness is enough to understand the ultimate purpose.
- ascagnel_ 7y ago
  In addition, trying to source IDs tends to surface some historical issues that we usually don't think about. One big one is that everyone has a birth certificate -- yet, if you weren't born in a hospital, you may not have such a certificate.
wang_li 7y ago
>it costs money and time to obtain a passport. As long as the process and cost is not punitive and targeted it's fine if something costs time and money. We have multiple constitutional rights that are burdened in that fashion. The right to petition the government, to have courts decide arguments, to own a gun, all cost time and money. (Not to mention that I have to have a photo ID and pass a criminal background check every time I buy a gun.)
- mffnbs 7y ago
  As long as you acknowledge that you're implementing this explicitly to suppress American votes, sure, go ahead and try. I'm tired of the misdirection with election safety when anyone in the game knows what it's actually about.
  - wang_li 7y ago
    Nice. Sweet use of the "All Republicans are Nazis and racists and complicit!" argument. One could just as easily assert that everyone against tightening up election security is in it simply to commit election fraud. But that would be uncharitable, and unfounded.
    - mffnbs 7y ago
      On the contrary, you've just put words in my mouth because you've done some logical leaps in your head that just took you away from reality. In reality, if you want to make an assertion and have other people convinced of your argument, then your obligation is to provide all the facts. Given that, you cannot simply take the inverse hypothetical situation where election fraud is just assumed and use that to form your argument. We still have yet to establish that fraud is happening. So why would we want to suppress votes to prevent something that doesn't happen?
      - wang_li 7y ago
        I'm not going to debate you after you accuse me of wanting to disenfranchise voters. Honestly, you should be banned from the site. It is however factual that fraud happens. People go to jail every election cycle.

cmiles74 7y ago

The opposing party (in the US) will make the offices where identification is offered difficult to get to. Times when the DMV or RMV is open will shrink, some states will require an extreme amount of paperwork in order to get identification. We might see some states close some DMV or RMV offices. Keep in mind that DMV and RMV office _assume_ that people have vehicles. In the case of voters this is not the case. It's like gerrymandering but in this case what's being manipulated is the ability of voters to get these cards. In many cases it is racist.

ryanmarsh 7y ago
This seems like something that could be mitigated by legislating where voter registration offices are located (based on census data perhaps) and their hours of operation and documentation requirements, including an appeals process.
- cmiles74 7y ago
  I agree. I think the fact that these aren't discussion points is important. Steps could be taken to ensure that everyone entitled to a card gets one but I suspect there is a significant cost associated with that. So far cost hasn't really been a big part of the discussion. As an aside, in the US, there's a history of not needing papers to get around or prove who you are. My grandfather fought in World War II and this was an important issue for him. There likely are people in the US opposed to a national ID card for similar reasons, fear that police will start demanding you carry your card at all times. I have no idea if they might be numerous or not.
  - 18pfsmt 7y ago
    The welfare state was much smaller in the 40s. Things have changed, and people need to be "means tested" in order to implement these government programs.
wang_li 7y ago
>The opposing party (in the US) will make the offices where identification is offered difficult to get to. Times when the DMV or RMV is open will shrink, some states will require an extreme amount of paperwork in order to get identification. We might see some states close some DMV or RMV offices. Getting a photo ID is a infrequent event. That makes gaming the ID acquisition process a means of disenfranchising voters ineffective.

6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago

If there was already a universal ID everyone has, it wouldn't be racist to require it in connection with voting, but there isn't a universal ID everyone already has. It's easy to forget that about one in seven or eight adult americans don't have a driver's license.