4 ms·

Huh, I had just assumed it was a voter suppression measure

by rolenthedeep 4y ago

esyir 4y ago
Or a form of identification, like most other countries have.
- rolenthedeep 4y ago
  Sure, right up until it's implemented and immediately becomes the only form of acceptable ID for voter registration. Or, they require the new ID, AND your old state ID AND your birth certificate AND solid proof of address. Then it becomes voter suppression, and it happens entirely too frequently here. Does the US need a national ID system? Yes, definitely. But it needs to be implemented carefully to not fuck over the citizens, and our government doesn't understand how to not be a festering sack of dicks so it's not likely to happen soon.
adamrezich 4y ago
what is wrong with "suppressing" votes of non-citizens?
- cnelsenmilt 4y ago
  That's not what the comment you're replying to said.
- nerdbert 4y ago
  It's about suppressing votes of marginalized citizens who have limited access to government bureaucratic procedures due to time, location, language, or other constraints, many of which have been constructed deliberately or with knowing negligence.
  - chrisco255 4y ago
    This is a neat narrative, but there are tens of thousands of DMV locations all over the country. Appointments can be booked ahead of time to minimize time impact. It only needs to be done once every few years. Documentation is available in English and Spanish. That being said, to participate in civics in the U.S. you need to know some English. It's part of the citizenship test, and the laws are written in English.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      The reality is that ID card holding rates correlate with race, income, and age[1][2][3] in a way that those advocating for ID requirements benefit from. When the consequences of such a system result in race, age, and income disparities, the purpose of such a system is, functionally, to disenfranchise on race, age, and income. The fact is that there are millions[4] more, black, brown, hispanic, young, and poor people without than there are white, old, and rich people. Claiming that people can get IDs is a far step from realizing the logistical implications of such a claim. And why would someone? The point is that they won't, that in elections where tens or hundreds of thousands of votes decide the outcome, millions of people won't be able to vote and their inability will be individualized and trivialized into, "If it was important for them to vote, then they would have gotten IDs," while disavowing the discussion we're having right now - the one where the consequences of such system-building is being laid out. It sounds like what you want to say is that you think it's more fair that people with IDs should play a greater role in elections than those who don't because they have more skin in the game, they've done more things right, and they contribute more to society, but you know that isn't exactly ok to say. 1. https://www.projectvote.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/AMERICANS-WITH-PHOTO-ID-Research-Memo-February-2015.pdf https://www.projectvote.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/AMERI... 2. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1532673X18810012 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1532673X18810012 3. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/d/download_file_39242.pdf https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/d/d... 4. in raw numbers as well as disproportionatly
      - adamrezich 4y ago
        why is it that, in discussions like these, nobody ever wants to try to solve any able-to-get-ID disparities that may or may not exist, instead choosing to always assume it's an inherent, intractable issue?
        chrisco255 4y ago
        Because it's a red herring, feel good but not very logical argument meant to shut down discussion. Doesn't matter that you need an id to work, to fly, to buy cigarettes, etc. No one is arguing that the TSA is racist for requiring id to fly.
- rolenthedeep 4y ago
  It's not about non-citizens, as they generally don't have the right to vote in federal elections simply because they are not citizens. It's about disenfranchising poor and non-white people. In the Jim Crow era they used reading tests or guessing the number of buttons in a jar, now they're implementing strict ID requirements that are expensive or time consuming to meet. I'm no expert on this topic, but the general gist is that poor people generally have a harder time getting free time off work when the county clerk is open, transport is often difficult because there are only so many locations, and the documents themselves can be expensive. If you don't have all the supporting documentation they require, you can't get the ID card even if you have other legal identification. The goal is to make it much more difficult to vote so that people trapped in poverty can't afford the time or cost to get the papers required to vote. Making it harder to vote causes overall voter numbers to drop. Less-polarized people will tend to be apathetic and think voting isn't worth the extra effort, while polarized fox News nuts will do anything they can to vote out the other guy. Which is all to say our electoral system is broken, first past the post voting is objectively bad, and we desperately need broad voting reform to eliminate the two party system. I doubt it'll happen in my lifetime though.

Huh, I had just assumed it was a voter suppression measure

esyir 4y ago

Or a form of identification, like most other countries have.

rolenthedeep 4y ago
Sure, right up until it's implemented and immediately becomes the only form of acceptable ID for voter registration. Or, they require the new ID, AND your old state ID AND your birth certificate AND solid proof of address. Then it becomes voter suppression, and it happens entirely too frequently here. Does the US need a national ID system? Yes, definitely. But it needs to be implemented carefully to not fuck over the citizens, and our government doesn't understand how to not be a festering sack of dicks so it's not likely to happen soon.

adamrezich 4y ago

what is wrong with "suppressing" votes of non-citizens?

cnelsenmilt 4y ago
That's not what the comment you're replying to said.
nerdbert 4y ago
It's about suppressing votes of marginalized citizens who have limited access to government bureaucratic procedures due to time, location, language, or other constraints, many of which have been constructed deliberately or with knowing negligence.
- chrisco255 4y ago
  This is a neat narrative, but there are tens of thousands of DMV locations all over the country. Appointments can be booked ahead of time to minimize time impact. It only needs to be done once every few years. Documentation is available in English and Spanish. That being said, to participate in civics in the U.S. you need to know some English. It's part of the citizenship test, and the laws are written in English.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    The reality is that ID card holding rates correlate with race, income, and age[1][2][3] in a way that those advocating for ID requirements benefit from. When the consequences of such a system result in race, age, and income disparities, the purpose of such a system is, functionally, to disenfranchise on race, age, and income. The fact is that there are millions[4] more, black, brown, hispanic, young, and poor people without than there are white, old, and rich people. Claiming that people can get IDs is a far step from realizing the logistical implications of such a claim. And why would someone? The point is that they won't, that in elections where tens or hundreds of thousands of votes decide the outcome, millions of people won't be able to vote and their inability will be individualized and trivialized into, "If it was important for them to vote, then they would have gotten IDs," while disavowing the discussion we're having right now - the one where the consequences of such system-building is being laid out. It sounds like what you want to say is that you think it's more fair that people with IDs should play a greater role in elections than those who don't because they have more skin in the game, they've done more things right, and they contribute more to society, but you know that isn't exactly ok to say. 1. https://www.projectvote.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/AMERICANS-WITH-PHOTO-ID-Research-Memo-February-2015.pdf https://www.projectvote.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/AMERI... 2. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1532673X18810012 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1532673X18810012 3. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/d/download_file_39242.pdf https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/d/d... 4. in raw numbers as well as disproportionatly
    - adamrezich 4y ago
      why is it that, in discussions like these, nobody ever wants to try to solve any able-to-get-ID disparities that may or may not exist, instead choosing to always assume it's an inherent, intractable issue?
      - chrisco255 4y ago
        Because it's a red herring, feel good but not very logical argument meant to shut down discussion. Doesn't matter that you need an id to work, to fly, to buy cigarettes, etc. No one is arguing that the TSA is racist for requiring id to fly.
rolenthedeep 4y ago
It's not about non-citizens, as they generally don't have the right to vote in federal elections simply because they are not citizens. It's about disenfranchising poor and non-white people. In the Jim Crow era they used reading tests or guessing the number of buttons in a jar, now they're implementing strict ID requirements that are expensive or time consuming to meet. I'm no expert on this topic, but the general gist is that poor people generally have a harder time getting free time off work when the county clerk is open, transport is often difficult because there are only so many locations, and the documents themselves can be expensive. If you don't have all the supporting documentation they require, you can't get the ID card even if you have other legal identification. The goal is to make it much more difficult to vote so that people trapped in poverty can't afford the time or cost to get the papers required to vote. Making it harder to vote causes overall voter numbers to drop. Less-polarized people will tend to be apathetic and think voting isn't worth the extra effort, while polarized fox News nuts will do anything they can to vote out the other guy. Which is all to say our electoral system is broken, first past the post voting is objectively bad, and we desperately need broad voting reform to eliminate the two party system. I doubt it'll happen in my lifetime though.