4 ms·

Democrats believe that people without an ID will vote for then since these people are most likely living off government programs hence Democrats ought to be (th

Democrats believe that people without an ID will vote for then since these people are most likely living off government programs hence Democrats ought to be (though not guaranteed) their choice. It is not malicious inasmuch they are pushing for it solely because they think they will benefit from this process. If it were the other way around they would oppose it.

evan_ 6y ago
Republicans know that requiring ID to vote will prevent poor people who are legally eligible to vote from voting If it costs $15 to get an ID and you need an ID to vote, then it costs $15 to vote. Poll taxes are illegal.
- ThA0x2 6y ago
  The IDs that are required to vote in Republican states are either free of charge, or they allow alternative ID documents. Texas being a fine example: https://www.votetexas.gov/mobile/id-faqs.htm https://www.votetexas.gov/mobile/id-faqs.htm
  - runako 6y ago
    Poor people are the least likely to have the time and means to get any of these free IDs. To add to that, states like Alabama strategically place offices to make it even more difficult for e.g. people who do not have access to a car to get said ID. The Social Security Card is a free document. They mail it to you without you having to present yourself anywhere. There would be far less objection to voter ID if this type of system was being proposed by proponents of voter ID.
    - ThA0x2 6y ago
      >Poor people are the least likely to have the time and means to get any of these free IDs. I'd say it's the opposite. Employed middle class working 9-to-5 with 2 kids have less time and means. There's a Hitchen's quote somewhere here... Voter ID laws have not been show to reduce turn out. >To add to that, states like Alabama strategically place offices to make it even more difficult for e.g. people who do not have access to a car to get said ID. That's not a problem with voter ID laws though. This is a red herring. >The Social Security Card is a free document. They mail it to you without you having to present yourself anywhere. This is patently false. I just personally went through this. You absolutely have to show up to a SSA office and bring documentation.
      - runako 6y ago
        > Employed middle class working 9-to-5 with 2 kids have less time and means. "Employed middle class" typically reads as "mobile" and "9-5" frequently reads as "white-collar". Those folks feel time constrained, but they are also very likely to have e.g. PTO/flexible work schedules and access to transportation. It's worse for (say) unemployed people with no transportation. This is to say nothing of the disabled, bedridden, etc. There are significant numbers of people for whom this is an unnecessary burden. And again -- this burden is significantly higher than the requirement placed on residents who wish to carry shotguns into restaurants. > Voter ID laws have not been show to reduce turn out. Voter ID laws have not been shown to reduce voter fraud. At best, they add cost and bureaucracy without any proven benefit. > That's not a problem with voter ID laws though. This is a red herring. A common argument against voter ID laws is that they are of a lineage with historic disenfranchisement mechanisms in the US. Strategically making it difficult to get a newly-required voter ID is a direct descendant of the voter suppression schemes our parents fought against. It's absolutely relevant to bring in recent history. > This is patently false. I just personally went through this. You absolutely have to show up to a SSA office and bring documentation. Did you lose your card, or need a replacement in a hurry? For decades, newborns have been able to be issued cards without anyone showing up at an SSA office. (Yes, I have personally done this for an infant. I can confirm that you fill out a form and they mail you a card, just like you'd expect.) SSA also has a site where residents of many states can request a replacement card online if they have state ID: https://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/replacement-card.html https://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/replacement-card.html. [Edit: The SSA forms indicate that even replacements for adult citizens can be done via mail. It would be fair for you to mention that you had an atypical situation that required you to go in to get a card, but that this is not required.] If voter ID proponents start advocating for Social Security cards or other 100% free-by-mail IDs as voter documents, a lot of the opposition would go away. But then, so would the perceived partisan benefit, so that's not in the cards.
        ThA0x2 6y ago
        >"Employed middle class" typically reads as "mobile" and "9-5" frequently reads as "white-collar". Those folks feel time constrained, but they are also very likely to have e.g. PTO/flexible work schedules and access to transportation. Not really, no: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class "In 2005, sociologists William Thompson and Joseph Hickey estimate an income range of roughly $35,000 to $75,000 for the lower middle class and $100,000 or more for the upper middle class." That encompasses the likes of 9-to-5ers, licensed electricians, oil field workers, etc. >It's worse for (say) unemployed people with no transportation. This is to say nothing of the disabled, bedridden, etc. There are significant numbers of people for whom this is an unnecessary burden. It's probably even easier. With unemployment benefits, additional stimulus, and lots of time on their hands, it's a perfect time to get their voter ID. Disabled and bedridden were equally disadvantaged under prior systems; this is a red herring. >And again -- this burden is significantly higher than the requirement placed on residents who wish to carry shotguns into restaurants. Categorically wrong. You need a photo ID to purchase a firearm, and some states require a license to carry long guns. Other states outright ban open carry of long guns. >Voter ID laws have not been shown to reduce voter fraud. At best, they add cost and bureaucracy without any proven benefit. Voter ID laws have been shown to reduce and/or prevent certain types of voter fraud, though indeed voter fraud is rare. At best, they prevent voter fraud, speed up the actual voting process at poll sites, reduce certain types of errors, etc. >A common argument against voter ID laws is that they are of a lineage with historic disenfranchisement mechanisms in the US. It's a common argument, but it's more of a conspiracy theory without any hard numbers to back it up. >Strategically making it difficult to get a newly-required voter ID is a direct descendant of the voter suppression schemes our parents fought against. It's absolutely relevant to bring in recent history. It's not difficult, nor do voter ID laws suppress voter turn out. Unproven conspiracy theories have nothing to do with recent history. >Did you lose your card, or need a replacement in a hurry? I needed to change my name, which most married females do. Nonetheless, if you lose your voter ID card and you don't have to make a change, you can similarly get a replacement without showing up to an office. This makes your entire point moot. >For decades, newborns have been able to be issued cards without anyone showing up at an SSA office. (Yes, I have personally done this for an infant. I can confirm that you fill out a form and they mail you a card, just like you'd expect.) SSA also has a site where residents of many states can request a replacement card online if they have state ID: https://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/replacement-card.html https://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/replacement-card.html. That website specifically outlines that you need a "driver's license or a state-issued identification card from one of the many participating states.", so, again, that absolutely negates your point. >[Edit: The SSA forms indicate that even replacements for adult citizens can be done via mail. It would be fair for you to mention that you had an atypical situation that required you to go in to get a card, but that this is not required.] Changing your name is not an atypical situation. About 80% of married females end up changing their name. Also, the SSA form literally outlines that you need a state issued ID... like a driver's license that you can use for voting! >If voter ID proponents start advocating for Social Security cards or other 100% free-by-mail IDs as voter documents, a lot of the opposition would go away. As I posted above, voter ID proponents are almost universally for 100% free IDs as voter documents, Texas being a fine example: https://www.votetexas.gov/mobile/id-faqs.htm https://www.votetexas.gov/mobile/id-faqs.htm The opposition is still there though. >But then, so would the perceived partisan benefit, so that's not in the cards. There is no effect on voter turn out, nor is there a partisan benefit. One of the supposedly most "at risk" groups to be suppressed by voter ID laws are the elderly. They overwhelmingly vote Republican.
- blisseyGo 6y ago
  The sheer amounts of non-factual talking points being spouted on this voter ID issue is outstanding. It's like people treat us minorities and poor people as some dumb and incapable population who can't even get a single ID for voting. I come from a country with over 900 million eligible voters where 600 million votes were cast and counted all with strict VOTER ID. People keep buying into this nonsensical argument about voter id suppressing poor people, minorities etc but all they do is patronize and virtue signal. Why don't you admit the real reason - that Democrats won't be able to cheat if there were voter ID? Just like now they are trying to even remove signature verification from the mail in votes. It's all for cheating to gain as much power while calling the other side names. It's so obvious but people keep lying.
spbaar 6y ago
Why do you think this? I've only ever seen Democrats push more people to vote and republicans less so. | if it were the other way around they would oppose it. ?
baddox 6y ago
I think that decreasing disenfranchisement is good even if one political party might benefit from it. The other way of phrasing this looks a lot worse: that another political party benefits from policies which disenfranchise voters.
logicslave 6y ago
Honestly, I cant understand why people wont just admit this to themselves/the public.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  The republican party holds the opposite view, that disenfranchising voters is essential to winning, and they are completely open about it.
rtkwe 6y ago
Or alternatively everyone should be able to vote, otherwise the government is an illegitimate joke, and we have the receipts from Republican groups intentionally trying to block targeted groups using voter ID and changing other voting conditions (polling places, early election days, etc). Insomuch as it will increase the number of Democratic voters those voters are entirely up for grabs if Republicans want to court them. If the US wants to remain an actual representative democracy/republic [0] we have to treat attempts at keeping voters out of the polls as the threat they are. These voter ID law pushes never come with a commensurate program to find, ID, and register groups without IDs and I think that gives the game away even before the emails came out explicitly saying these were targeted attacks at legitimate voters. [0] Just heading off the pedantic "ThEy'Re NoT a DeMoCrAcY" crowd

evan_ 6y ago

Republicans know that requiring ID to vote will prevent poor people who are legally eligible to vote from voting If it costs $15 to get an ID and you need an ID to vote, then it costs $15 to vote. Poll taxes are illegal.

ThA0x2 6y ago
The IDs that are required to vote in Republican states are either free of charge, or they allow alternative ID documents. Texas being a fine example: https://www.votetexas.gov/mobile/id-faqs.htm https://www.votetexas.gov/mobile/id-faqs.htm
- runako 6y ago
  Poor people are the least likely to have the time and means to get any of these free IDs. To add to that, states like Alabama strategically place offices to make it even more difficult for e.g. people who do not have access to a car to get said ID. The Social Security Card is a free document. They mail it to you without you having to present yourself anywhere. There would be far less objection to voter ID if this type of system was being proposed by proponents of voter ID.
  - ThA0x2 6y ago
    >Poor people are the least likely to have the time and means to get any of these free IDs. I'd say it's the opposite. Employed middle class working 9-to-5 with 2 kids have less time and means. There's a Hitchen's quote somewhere here... Voter ID laws have not been show to reduce turn out. >To add to that, states like Alabama strategically place offices to make it even more difficult for e.g. people who do not have access to a car to get said ID. That's not a problem with voter ID laws though. This is a red herring. >The Social Security Card is a free document. They mail it to you without you having to present yourself anywhere. This is patently false. I just personally went through this. You absolutely have to show up to a SSA office and bring documentation.
    - runako 6y ago
      > Employed middle class working 9-to-5 with 2 kids have less time and means. "Employed middle class" typically reads as "mobile" and "9-5" frequently reads as "white-collar". Those folks feel time constrained, but they are also very likely to have e.g. PTO/flexible work schedules and access to transportation. It's worse for (say) unemployed people with no transportation. This is to say nothing of the disabled, bedridden, etc. There are significant numbers of people for whom this is an unnecessary burden. And again -- this burden is significantly higher than the requirement placed on residents who wish to carry shotguns into restaurants. > Voter ID laws have not been show to reduce turn out. Voter ID laws have not been shown to reduce voter fraud. At best, they add cost and bureaucracy without any proven benefit. > That's not a problem with voter ID laws though. This is a red herring. A common argument against voter ID laws is that they are of a lineage with historic disenfranchisement mechanisms in the US. Strategically making it difficult to get a newly-required voter ID is a direct descendant of the voter suppression schemes our parents fought against. It's absolutely relevant to bring in recent history. > This is patently false. I just personally went through this. You absolutely have to show up to a SSA office and bring documentation. Did you lose your card, or need a replacement in a hurry? For decades, newborns have been able to be issued cards without anyone showing up at an SSA office. (Yes, I have personally done this for an infant. I can confirm that you fill out a form and they mail you a card, just like you'd expect.) SSA also has a site where residents of many states can request a replacement card online if they have state ID: https://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/replacement-card.html https://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/replacement-card.html. [Edit: The SSA forms indicate that even replacements for adult citizens can be done via mail. It would be fair for you to mention that you had an atypical situation that required you to go in to get a card, but that this is not required.] If voter ID proponents start advocating for Social Security cards or other 100% free-by-mail IDs as voter documents, a lot of the opposition would go away. But then, so would the perceived partisan benefit, so that's not in the cards.
      - ThA0x2 6y ago
        >"Employed middle class" typically reads as "mobile" and "9-5" frequently reads as "white-collar". Those folks feel time constrained, but they are also very likely to have e.g. PTO/flexible work schedules and access to transportation. Not really, no: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class "In 2005, sociologists William Thompson and Joseph Hickey estimate an income range of roughly $35,000 to $75,000 for the lower middle class and $100,000 or more for the upper middle class." That encompasses the likes of 9-to-5ers, licensed electricians, oil field workers, etc. >It's worse for (say) unemployed people with no transportation. This is to say nothing of the disabled, bedridden, etc. There are significant numbers of people for whom this is an unnecessary burden. It's probably even easier. With unemployment benefits, additional stimulus, and lots of time on their hands, it's a perfect time to get their voter ID. Disabled and bedridden were equally disadvantaged under prior systems; this is a red herring. >And again -- this burden is significantly higher than the requirement placed on residents who wish to carry shotguns into restaurants. Categorically wrong. You need a photo ID to purchase a firearm, and some states require a license to carry long guns. Other states outright ban open carry of long guns. >Voter ID laws have not been shown to reduce voter fraud. At best, they add cost and bureaucracy without any proven benefit. Voter ID laws have been shown to reduce and/or prevent certain types of voter fraud, though indeed voter fraud is rare. At best, they prevent voter fraud, speed up the actual voting process at poll sites, reduce certain types of errors, etc. >A common argument against voter ID laws is that they are of a lineage with historic disenfranchisement mechanisms in the US. It's a common argument, but it's more of a conspiracy theory without any hard numbers to back it up. >Strategically making it difficult to get a newly-required voter ID is a direct descendant of the voter suppression schemes our parents fought against. It's absolutely relevant to bring in recent history. It's not difficult, nor do voter ID laws suppress voter turn out. Unproven conspiracy theories have nothing to do with recent history. >Did you lose your card, or need a replacement in a hurry? I needed to change my name, which most married females do. Nonetheless, if you lose your voter ID card and you don't have to make a change, you can similarly get a replacement without showing up to an office. This makes your entire point moot. >For decades, newborns have been able to be issued cards without anyone showing up at an SSA office. (Yes, I have personally done this for an infant. I can confirm that you fill out a form and they mail you a card, just like you'd expect.) SSA also has a site where residents of many states can request a replacement card online if they have state ID: https://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/replacement-card.html https://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/replacement-card.html. That website specifically outlines that you need a "driver's license or a state-issued identification card from one of the many participating states.", so, again, that absolutely negates your point. >[Edit: The SSA forms indicate that even replacements for adult citizens can be done via mail. It would be fair for you to mention that you had an atypical situation that required you to go in to get a card, but that this is not required.] Changing your name is not an atypical situation. About 80% of married females end up changing their name. Also, the SSA form literally outlines that you need a state issued ID... like a driver's license that you can use for voting! >If voter ID proponents start advocating for Social Security cards or other 100% free-by-mail IDs as voter documents, a lot of the opposition would go away. As I posted above, voter ID proponents are almost universally for 100% free IDs as voter documents, Texas being a fine example: https://www.votetexas.gov/mobile/id-faqs.htm https://www.votetexas.gov/mobile/id-faqs.htm The opposition is still there though. >But then, so would the perceived partisan benefit, so that's not in the cards. There is no effect on voter turn out, nor is there a partisan benefit. One of the supposedly most "at risk" groups to be suppressed by voter ID laws are the elderly. They overwhelmingly vote Republican.
blisseyGo 6y ago
The sheer amounts of non-factual talking points being spouted on this voter ID issue is outstanding. It's like people treat us minorities and poor people as some dumb and incapable population who can't even get a single ID for voting. I come from a country with over 900 million eligible voters where 600 million votes were cast and counted all with strict VOTER ID. People keep buying into this nonsensical argument about voter id suppressing poor people, minorities etc but all they do is patronize and virtue signal. Why don't you admit the real reason - that Democrats won't be able to cheat if there were voter ID? Just like now they are trying to even remove signature verification from the mail in votes. It's all for cheating to gain as much power while calling the other side names. It's so obvious but people keep lying.

spbaar 6y ago

Why do you think this? I've only ever seen Democrats push more people to vote and republicans less so. | if it were the other way around they would oppose it. ?

baddox 6y ago

I think that decreasing disenfranchisement is good even if one political party might benefit from it. The other way of phrasing this looks a lot worse: that another political party benefits from policies which disenfranchise voters.

logicslave 6y ago

Honestly, I cant understand why people wont just admit this to themselves/the public.

rootusrootus 6y ago
The republican party holds the opposite view, that disenfranchising voters is essential to winning, and they are completely open about it.

rtkwe 6y ago

Or alternatively everyone should be able to vote, otherwise the government is an illegitimate joke, and we have the receipts from Republican groups intentionally trying to block targeted groups using voter ID and changing other voting conditions (polling places, early election days, etc). Insomuch as it will increase the number of Democratic voters those voters are entirely up for grabs if Republicans want to court them. If the US wants to remain an actual representative democracy/republic [0] we have to treat attempts at keeping voters out of the polls as the threat they are. These voter ID law pushes never come with a commensurate program to find, ID, and register groups without IDs and I think that gives the game away even before the emails came out explicitly saying these were targeted attacks at legitimate voters. [0] Just heading off the pedantic "ThEy'Re NoT a DeMoCrAcY" crowd