6 ms·

Republicans do offer free IDs in every state where they mandate IDs for voting. It may not always be the easiest to get since you have to go to the DMV though.

Republicans do offer free IDs in every state where they mandate IDs for voting. It may not always be the easiest to get since you have to go to the DMV though. Do you think Democrats would be willing to have voter ID laws if the post office offered free IDs?

corrral 4y ago
> Do you think Democrats would be willing to have voter ID laws if the post office offered free IDs? Possibly. The Democrats' motivations aren't enabling voter fraud—they're driven by concern that these laws will disadvantage them at the polls for non-fraud-related reasons, and probably to some degree by not wanting to give the Republicans a "win" over something they see as political grandstanding without an actual, realized-in-the-world problem that it's addressing. If you can address enough of one or both of those, they'd probably at least not fight it very hard, if not support it. [EDIT] I love that I have no idea which sort of person I've upset enough to get two downvotes on this. I truly have no clue. Seemed like a very neutral observation, to me, but I guess not.
mulmen 4y ago
> Do you think Democrats would be willing to have voter ID laws if the post office offered free IDs? No because proximity to a Post Office isn't a reasonable criteria for suppressing a persons right to vote. Especially because: > It may not always be the easiest to get
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  >No because proximity to a Post Office isn't a reasonable criteria for suppressing a persons right to vote. How does Europe do it? Do you believe the way they do it suppresses a person's right to vote? If we did it the same way as Europe would you be fine with ID laws in the US? If requiring an ID is suppressing voting rights then requiring and ID and a background check (that you may even have to pay for) to purchase a gun is a violation of rights. Do you support removing the background check cost and ID requirement? If not then I don't really care if you think requiring an ID is suppressing voting since you support suppressing other rights with ID requirements. >Especially because There are two hardships currently 1. You have to prove you are who you say you are. 2. You have to wait in the DMV For #1 this is a requirement in Europe as far as I know. I haven't seen anybody saying that suppresses votes. You may be the first? For #2 that is easy to solve by allowing ID services at additional places like the post office. I would be open to more than just the post office and DMVs, I just used the post office because they already have passport services so it is easy to add other IDs.
  - mulmen 4y ago
    > How does Europe do it? Do you believe the way they do it suppresses a person's right to vote? Not sure, I assume lots of ways? Europe is a whole continent full of countries that have a long history of disagreement. I wouldn't be surprised to learn some of them do suppress votes. > If we did it the same way as Europe would you be fine with ID laws in the US? "Europe" is not itself a compelling reason for me to do anything so, no. 2A WARNING. My words relate to my interpretation of the Second Amendment and do not indicate support. > If requiring an ID is suppressing voting rights then requiring and ID and a background check (that you may even have to pay for) to purchase a gun is a violation of rights. I think the Second Amendment says I can call Boeing and buy an F/A-18 Super Hornet, with missiles. So yes, I think asking for a background check or a name or literally anything other than "paper or plastic?" is a violation of my Second Amendment rights. > Do you support removing the background check cost and ID requirement? I think it is unconstitutional to impose a background check on the purchase of any weapon of war. > If not then I don't really care if you think requiring an ID is suppressing voting since you support suppressing other rights with ID requirements. Please don't put words in my mouth. Let's keep this civil. > There are two hardships currently You forgot "you have to actually get to the place to get the ID". This may not be the DMV but it may be deliberately chosen to reduce your personal likelihood to try. You may be harassed on the way. The reasons for this may be racial, religious, or political. There is a long, established history of this behavior in the United States specifically. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States#Modern_examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_Unite... for inspiration. You are still overlooking the part where the voter ID doesn't actually do anything useful. Making it easier to get doesn't change the fact that it provides no meaningful benefit while also infringing constitutional rights.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      >Not sure, I assume lots of ways? Europe is a whole continent full of countries that have a long history of disagreement. I wouldn't be surprised to learn some of them do suppress votes. >"Europe" is not itself a compelling reason for me to do anything so, no. I didn't mean to imply you would support something just because Europe does it. Many people who oppose voter ID laws are fine with Europe's laws. I don't actually know how European countries do it, but since nobody really thinks it violates rights I would be fine doing it however they do it. If some of them may violate rights then presumably some don't? If that is the case then it seems like it is possible to implement voter ID laws without suppressing rights? What would it take for you to support voter ID laws that don't suppress rights? >I think the Second Amendment it says I can call Boeing and buy a F/A 18 Super Hornet, with missiles. So yes, I think asking for a background check or a name or literally anything other than "paper or plastic?" is a violation of my Second Amendment rights >I think it is unconstitutional to impose a background check on the purchase of any weapon of war. Are you being sarcastic or do you genuinely believe this? It seems pretty sarcastic to me. >This does not mean I agree with the Second Amendment as written but lets stay on track here. >Please don't put words in my mouth. Let's keep this civil Seeing how you sound like you are opposed to the second amendment you are likely not a libertarian / anarchist and as such are probably being sarcastic in your support for no ID requirements on weapons. I will continue with that assumption. If somebody is not some arbitrary distance to a DMV or post office it would be a violation of their rights. If that is a violation then so is ID requirements for guns. >You forgot "you have to actually get to the place to get the ID". This may not be the DMV but it may be deliberately chosen to reduce your personal likelihood to try. The reasons for this may be racial or political. There is a long, established history of this behavior in the US. I did forget that one. I am in favor of widespread locations for getting an ID to eliminate this issue. Do you also believe that not allowing mail in voting is a violation for the same reason? If you do believe that then do you think it was a violation of rights to not implement mail in voting until the late 70s for California and later for other states? >You are still overlooking the part where the voter ID doesn't actually do anything useful. Making it easier to get doesn't change the fact that it provides no meaningful benefit while also infringing constitutional rights Regardless if it does anything tangible it increases confidence in our elections. Also, voter turnout increases when voter ID laws are implemented. (It may or may not be related though.) It also will lower the amount of accusations of stolen elections. We also don't know how much voter fraud (that would be stopped by IDs) there really is so it is hard to say it wouldn't have an impact. It may have no impact but also could. Just because you don't catch crimes doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There are very few investigations into voter fraud. I would also say that anytime a person illegally votes it cancels out a legitimate vote. This is in essence voter suppression. This is just as bad as stooping a legitimate person from voting.
- skissane 4y ago
  > No because proximity to a Post Office isn't a reasonable criteria for suppressing a persons right to vote. In rural areas, one often has to travel a long distance to reach a post office or DMV. In urban or suburban areas, while the distance may vary, on average it is significantly less. So, if requiring someone to go to a government office to receive ID to vote suppresses the vote of people who live far away from that office, you'd expect that to produce more voter suppression in rural areas than in urban or suburban areas. But, since rural areas tend to skew Republican and urban areas tend to skew Democratic (with suburban areas being more mixed/swinging), this would seem to suppress Republican voters much more than Democratic ones. Does it follow therefore that Republicans would be primarily suppressing the vote of their own voters? If that's true, why should Democrats be upset about such a self-inflicted wound on their political opponents?
  - mulmen 4y ago
    Requiring Voter ID enables suppression. Specifically by making it harder for some people to vote. Consider the example of the polling station bus being targeted. Those people could have complied but because of their race were prevented.
    - skissane 4y ago
      > Consider the example of the polling station bus being targeted. Those people could have complied but because of their race were prevented. I take it you are talking about the incident you mentioned in another comment, in Louisville, Georgia, in 2018, in which African-American senior citizens got on a bus to take them to an early voting center, and then told to get off the bus and it didn't take them there? (Did they end up voting in that election? Did the organisers find another way to get them to the polls?) I don't fully understood what happened in that case, but from what I've read of it, it sounds like the bus was owned by the county, and someone objected to using a county-owned bus for a trip organised by a political advocacy group which was de facto running a GOTV operation for a single political party, and that led to the bus trip being cancelled at the very last minute. That rule – (implicitly or explicitly) partisan political groups can't use county-owned resources at election time – in itself doesn't seem inherently unreasonable. Possibly it was being enforced in a biased way, but a single incident by itself can't demonstrate bias in the application of a rule. (And even if you had evidence that Jefferson County was indeed applying that rule in a biased manner, how do you determine whether that bias is racial or political?) So, I really don't think this particular incident is a clearcut example of "voter suppression".

corrral 4y ago

> Do you think Democrats would be willing to have voter ID laws if the post office offered free IDs? Possibly. The Democrats' motivations aren't enabling voter fraud—they're driven by concern that these laws will disadvantage them at the polls for non-fraud-related reasons, and probably to some degree by not wanting to give the Republicans a "win" over something they see as political grandstanding without an actual, realized-in-the-world problem that it's addressing. If you can address enough of one or both of those, they'd probably at least not fight it very hard, if not support it. [EDIT] I love that I have no idea which sort of person I've upset enough to get two downvotes on this. I truly have no clue. Seemed like a very neutral observation, to me, but I guess not.

mulmen 4y ago

> Do you think Democrats would be willing to have voter ID laws if the post office offered free IDs? No because proximity to a Post Office isn't a reasonable criteria for suppressing a persons right to vote. Especially because: > It may not always be the easiest to get

_-david-_ 4y ago
>No because proximity to a Post Office isn't a reasonable criteria for suppressing a persons right to vote. How does Europe do it? Do you believe the way they do it suppresses a person's right to vote? If we did it the same way as Europe would you be fine with ID laws in the US? If requiring an ID is suppressing voting rights then requiring and ID and a background check (that you may even have to pay for) to purchase a gun is a violation of rights. Do you support removing the background check cost and ID requirement? If not then I don't really care if you think requiring an ID is suppressing voting since you support suppressing other rights with ID requirements. >Especially because There are two hardships currently 1. You have to prove you are who you say you are. 2. You have to wait in the DMV For #1 this is a requirement in Europe as far as I know. I haven't seen anybody saying that suppresses votes. You may be the first? For #2 that is easy to solve by allowing ID services at additional places like the post office. I would be open to more than just the post office and DMVs, I just used the post office because they already have passport services so it is easy to add other IDs.
- mulmen 4y ago
  > How does Europe do it? Do you believe the way they do it suppresses a person's right to vote? Not sure, I assume lots of ways? Europe is a whole continent full of countries that have a long history of disagreement. I wouldn't be surprised to learn some of them do suppress votes. > If we did it the same way as Europe would you be fine with ID laws in the US? "Europe" is not itself a compelling reason for me to do anything so, no. 2A WARNING. My words relate to my interpretation of the Second Amendment and do not indicate support. > If requiring an ID is suppressing voting rights then requiring and ID and a background check (that you may even have to pay for) to purchase a gun is a violation of rights. I think the Second Amendment says I can call Boeing and buy an F/A-18 Super Hornet, with missiles. So yes, I think asking for a background check or a name or literally anything other than "paper or plastic?" is a violation of my Second Amendment rights. > Do you support removing the background check cost and ID requirement? I think it is unconstitutional to impose a background check on the purchase of any weapon of war. > If not then I don't really care if you think requiring an ID is suppressing voting since you support suppressing other rights with ID requirements. Please don't put words in my mouth. Let's keep this civil. > There are two hardships currently You forgot "you have to actually get to the place to get the ID". This may not be the DMV but it may be deliberately chosen to reduce your personal likelihood to try. You may be harassed on the way. The reasons for this may be racial, religious, or political. There is a long, established history of this behavior in the United States specifically. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States#Modern_examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_Unite... for inspiration. You are still overlooking the part where the voter ID doesn't actually do anything useful. Making it easier to get doesn't change the fact that it provides no meaningful benefit while also infringing constitutional rights.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    >Not sure, I assume lots of ways? Europe is a whole continent full of countries that have a long history of disagreement. I wouldn't be surprised to learn some of them do suppress votes. >"Europe" is not itself a compelling reason for me to do anything so, no. I didn't mean to imply you would support something just because Europe does it. Many people who oppose voter ID laws are fine with Europe's laws. I don't actually know how European countries do it, but since nobody really thinks it violates rights I would be fine doing it however they do it. If some of them may violate rights then presumably some don't? If that is the case then it seems like it is possible to implement voter ID laws without suppressing rights? What would it take for you to support voter ID laws that don't suppress rights? >I think the Second Amendment it says I can call Boeing and buy a F/A 18 Super Hornet, with missiles. So yes, I think asking for a background check or a name or literally anything other than "paper or plastic?" is a violation of my Second Amendment rights >I think it is unconstitutional to impose a background check on the purchase of any weapon of war. Are you being sarcastic or do you genuinely believe this? It seems pretty sarcastic to me. >This does not mean I agree with the Second Amendment as written but lets stay on track here. >Please don't put words in my mouth. Let's keep this civil Seeing how you sound like you are opposed to the second amendment you are likely not a libertarian / anarchist and as such are probably being sarcastic in your support for no ID requirements on weapons. I will continue with that assumption. If somebody is not some arbitrary distance to a DMV or post office it would be a violation of their rights. If that is a violation then so is ID requirements for guns. >You forgot "you have to actually get to the place to get the ID". This may not be the DMV but it may be deliberately chosen to reduce your personal likelihood to try. The reasons for this may be racial or political. There is a long, established history of this behavior in the US. I did forget that one. I am in favor of widespread locations for getting an ID to eliminate this issue. Do you also believe that not allowing mail in voting is a violation for the same reason? If you do believe that then do you think it was a violation of rights to not implement mail in voting until the late 70s for California and later for other states? >You are still overlooking the part where the voter ID doesn't actually do anything useful. Making it easier to get doesn't change the fact that it provides no meaningful benefit while also infringing constitutional rights Regardless if it does anything tangible it increases confidence in our elections. Also, voter turnout increases when voter ID laws are implemented. (It may or may not be related though.) It also will lower the amount of accusations of stolen elections. We also don't know how much voter fraud (that would be stopped by IDs) there really is so it is hard to say it wouldn't have an impact. It may have no impact but also could. Just because you don't catch crimes doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There are very few investigations into voter fraud. I would also say that anytime a person illegally votes it cancels out a legitimate vote. This is in essence voter suppression. This is just as bad as stooping a legitimate person from voting.
skissane 4y ago
> No because proximity to a Post Office isn't a reasonable criteria for suppressing a persons right to vote. In rural areas, one often has to travel a long distance to reach a post office or DMV. In urban or suburban areas, while the distance may vary, on average it is significantly less. So, if requiring someone to go to a government office to receive ID to vote suppresses the vote of people who live far away from that office, you'd expect that to produce more voter suppression in rural areas than in urban or suburban areas. But, since rural areas tend to skew Republican and urban areas tend to skew Democratic (with suburban areas being more mixed/swinging), this would seem to suppress Republican voters much more than Democratic ones. Does it follow therefore that Republicans would be primarily suppressing the vote of their own voters? If that's true, why should Democrats be upset about such a self-inflicted wound on their political opponents?
- mulmen 4y ago
  Requiring Voter ID enables suppression. Specifically by making it harder for some people to vote. Consider the example of the polling station bus being targeted. Those people could have complied but because of their race were prevented.
  - skissane 4y ago
    > Consider the example of the polling station bus being targeted. Those people could have complied but because of their race were prevented. I take it you are talking about the incident you mentioned in another comment, in Louisville, Georgia, in 2018, in which African-American senior citizens got on a bus to take them to an early voting center, and then told to get off the bus and it didn't take them there? (Did they end up voting in that election? Did the organisers find another way to get them to the polls?) I don't fully understood what happened in that case, but from what I've read of it, it sounds like the bus was owned by the county, and someone objected to using a county-owned bus for a trip organised by a political advocacy group which was de facto running a GOTV operation for a single political party, and that led to the bus trip being cancelled at the very last minute. That rule – (implicitly or explicitly) partisan political groups can't use county-owned resources at election time – in itself doesn't seem inherently unreasonable. Possibly it was being enforced in a biased way, but a single incident by itself can't demonstrate bias in the application of a rule. (And even if you had evidence that Jefferson County was indeed applying that rule in a biased manner, how do you determine whether that bias is racial or political?) So, I really don't think this particular incident is a clearcut example of "voter suppression".