4 ms·
It's snide because it's identifying a huge, irrational hypocrisy in what's supposedly important to those people. > I'm in favor of a Federal ID But there isn'
by antonvs 5y ago
It's snide because it's identifying a huge, irrational hypocrisy in what's supposedly important to those people.
> I'm in favor of a Federal ID
But there isn't one now. This means that your original point about the case with IDs in America being similar to Europe is not actually relevant here.
In any case, what problem do you think requiring ID at time of voting is solving?
- BitwiseFool 5y agoWhat I was getting at is, you need an ID card to do many things in America, mostly related to private business and civil services. You need one to open a bank account, doctors offices scan your ID card, you need one to pick up certain prescriptions, etc.. The idea that getting an ID to vote is some onerous burden doesn't hold up when you realize people pretty much need an ID during the other 729 days between election days in a two year cycle. I think a Federal ID would be better for record-keeping, but even without one, people really should have to provide a robust identity verification document to vote. If someone just needs to show up and say "I am so-and-so" and doesn't need to provide anything but a signature, that doesn't seem secure at all. Election fraud Chicago style: Illinois’ decades-old notoriety for election corruption is legendary https://www.salon.com/2016/02/14/election_fraud_chicago_style_illinois_decades_old_notoriety_for_election_corruption_is_legendary/ https://www.salon.com/2016/02/14/election_fraud_chicago_styl...