General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#21 |
|
So it's worth a huge national campaign to stop something that is not proven to be happening from happening, no matter the cost? Of course they are being disenfranchised, these laws stop people who can currently vote from voting. You can argue that they can go out and fulfil the new conditions, but that still acts as an impediment on voting. As it keeps being pointed out, many of these laws make it very difficult for some people to receive the proper ID, including people who are infirm, people who cannot easily travel to the required locations, people who lack acceptable birth certificates (which is a suprisingly large number of people) and many more. So you keep saying but I simply don't believe this is as huge a number as you claim, certainly not millions. If it is then a case study should be easily available... It comes back every time to why this is being done though. There is no evidence that there is a problem and there is a mass of evidence showing that the 'solution' is going to screw over a huge number of people. What possible justification can there be for this other than voter suppresion? Again, it is a reasonable requirement that should be easy enough to do for anyone that for some reason (!!) still lacks proper ID. Election fairness requires that not only are all allowed to vote but that the voting will be done fairly. Getting ID once is certainly easier than trotting out to the polls every 4 years. |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
|
This is the sort of **** that happens when elections are not tightly controlled: It's only a handful of votes. Perhaps we shouldn't worry about it? ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
|
No, I appreciate studies and all but I am really curious to hear a real story of a real voter (has voted in past and wanted to in future) that will not be able to vote next timeout. I want to hear the circumstances that lead to such a situation because I really am finding it hard to believe this is an onerous requirement. Hell, going to the polls is a pain in the ass that must certainly "disenfranchise" millions of people. Why can't we all just stay home and mail/email our ballots? Citizens overseas can mail their ballots. Onerous requirements are relative. Evidence is on the side that voter IDs are onerous for minority groups. Why should they be singled out? Let's put all the polling stations in ghettos and have them only open after sundown. |
![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#31 |
|
No, I appreciate studies and all but I am really curious to hear a real story of a real voter (has voted in past and wanted to in future) that will not be able to vote next time out. I want to hear the circumstances that lead to such a situation because I really am finding it hard to believe this is an onerous requirement. PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A plaintiff in a lawsuit seeking to overturn Pennsylvania's tough new voter identification law has received the state-issued photo ID card necessary to vote, despite saying she'd been rejected for years because she lacked appropriate documentation to receive the card. |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
|
This woman will now be able to vote, but does this count as onerous enough? Too onerous obviously but I do note: PennDOT's licensing bureau director Janet Dolan said Friday that clerks are able to make exceptions to the document requirements and work with applicants. For instance, she said, PennDOT clerks are able to confirm somebody's Social Security number with the Social Security Administration if they're able to somehow show that the number belongs to them. But Dolan could not explain why Applewhite had been rejected before, saying she did not know what kind of documentation the woman had brought with her previously. I'd argue of course that this would be an extremely rare case (that did ultimately work out). As rare perhaps has voter fraud? ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
|
Voter IDs are not a simple fix to voter fraud either. There are a myriad of other costs and considerations when this requirement is added:
http://www.brennancenter.org/content...he_courts_say/ A fiscal note prepared in conjunction with aproposed photo ID law in Missouri estimated a cost of $6 million for the first year in which the law was to be in effect, followed by recurring costs of approximately $4 million per year. When Indianaestimated the costs of its photo ID law, it found that, to provide more than 168,000 IDs to voters,the “[t]otal production costs, including man-power, transaction time and manufacturing” was in excess of $1.3 million, with an additional revenue loss of nearly $2.2 million. That estimateapparently did not include a variety of necessary costs, including the costs of training and votereducation and outreach. A fiscal note assessing an ID bill in Minnesota estimated at least $250,000for the manufacturing costs of providing free ID at only 90 locations across the state, the costs of onetraining conference for county auditors, and some administrative costs. The estimate includedneither the costs of outreach and education, nor any of the significant costs that would be borne by local governments. The note estimated an additional cost of $536,000 per election if each precincthired just one additional election judge. While a few million dollars a year may not sound like a lot, that sum is a significant fraction of states’total election administration budgets. Missouri, for example, spent about $10.5 million in its 2009fiscal year; a photo ID requirement would have increased the state’s election administrationspending by more than 50%, according to the state’s own estimate. Indiana’s Elections Divisionspent about $3.4 million in its 2009–2010 fiscal year, which is roughly equal to the state’s estimatedcosts for photo ID from 2008 to 2010. States are unlikely to receive sufficient federal assistance tomeet these costs. In Wisconsin, a nonpartisan association of local election officials expressedconcerns about a photo ID bill, in significant part because of the fiscal impact of photo IDrequirements on local municipalities and state agencies. And in Iowa, an association of localelection officials made up of Republicans and Democrats cited the cost of photo ID laws in publicly registering its opposition to an Iowa photo ID bill. |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#36 |
|
You're personal feelings about photo IDs still don't change the fact that requiring photo IDs to vote disenfranchises specific groups of people. It's appropriate for governments to regulate how elections are conducted and to ensure that people who are voting are who they say they are. Asking people to identify themselves before receiving a ballot is a reasonable request. If some people refuse to get IDs and are disenfranchised, I don't care. If photo IDs can be easily faked, and if people who want to abuse the system and and will do it, then why should we ever use them for anything? Why do I need an ID to buy a gun, fly on a plane, ride Amtrak, buy cold medicine, buy alcohol, or rent a car? Maybe because they're not easily faked, and maybe because the people who abuse the system are usually caught and punished quite quickly. |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests) | |
|