I think you were picking up the wrong point here. I was saying this not as a disqualifying factor to vote, but that extremely impoverished people are probably taking some form of govt assistance - which you cannot get without and ID.
I’m not saying impoverished people shouldn’t be allowed to vote. I’m saying that people with no ID of any kind should not be allowed to vote.
We are, actually. But your argument is banking upon the idea that voting costs money… it doesn’t. Having a bank account, a library card, public transit pass, unemployment benefits, healthcare, hell even RENTING A PROPERTY - requires an official ID. If you are uneligible to receive ANY of these services, I don’t think that’s a poverty issue… do you?
I think every grocery store, convenience store, Walmart, Costco, and hospital should have a set-up with ballots and a drop box out for a month prior to elections. Just sign at the bottom swearing that you’re a registered voter and will only vote once.
I didn’t miss anything here. You’re talking about practicality. You’re saying that it seems like it would be really hard to live in this country without unemployment benefits, for an unemployed person. I would agree. The homeless community has a hell of a time surviving. But, they are doing so, and they are entitled to vote. Are some of them receiving government assistance? Sure. Are some carrying an ID? Sure. Are all of them? No. And if the reason ANY of them do not have an ID is related to their financial situation, it should not prevent them from voting.
I think what you’re missing is that I’m taking a very strict constitutional perspective on this, and I am favoring that above anything you’re talking about regarding practical living situations in the US. The two things don’t have a direct correlation. No person is required to have a bank account, a library card, a public transit pass, unemployment benefits, healthcare, or rent property. If one chooses to have none of those things in their life, so be it.
I think your point really ignores the TRULY impoverished people in this country. The absolutely dirt poor people, often living in homes with a dozen other people, sharing bed, or perhaps even on the street. We have so many people in this country living in those conditions. Oftentimes, they’re living in slums where most of the residents did not provide ID’s. They don’t have bank accounts. They don’t all have government benefits.
But they’re people, and more importantly, American citizens. I know you think I’m making a largely philosophical argument, but it is grounded in real life for a huge number of people who too often go overlooked.
Okay so practical solution time: Free Govt ID’s (which has been pointed to by both sides, but is still demonized by the party that loves handouts, unironically).
NOW, can we require that every voter must provide ID scan/chip/QR/other serialization method alongside their vote with in-person verification? I still think this seems the most practical solution.
Sure, good question. That’s why I support the idea of a federally funded ID. I DO think everyone with a social security number should have an ID. This is something that, as Andrew just mentioned, we agree on. It would help a lot.
then this would be an issue where I depart from my ‘side’, lol. I’m not loyal to all of either party’s ideas.
It wouldn’t surprise me if this is where we end up in a few years. I think that’s reasonable with the tech available today.
It doesn’t matter, because they’re here. If every citizen has a right to vote because mere citizenship is seen as having something at stake then, surely, someone passing through also has an interest…he’s here, after all.
‘mere citizenship’, based on the constitution, is the only requirement to vote here. Not ‘having something at stake’. So that’s a hell of a weird take.
they would have an interest, but no citizenship, and thus be ineligible. I truly don’t understand what you’re getting at, or who you’re even directing this at. Who in this thread is saying non-citizens should have the right to vote?
If you’re arguing against a straw-man far-left liberal person who is not present, then so be it. I don’t see the point in that, but you do you.
The entire notion of “voting for Santa Claus” irks me to no end.
I suppose the tipping point is >50%, when elections will be for the party that provides the best redistribution of wealth programs.
I see some of the liberal policies as Santa Claus (wealth redistribution) as that, but not all.
Some I think should be seen as an investment in people, but many see them as handouts. There is some data on this. Some programs out there do give people money they don’t necessarily deserve, but end up having long term return for society. Things like the EITC (earned income tax credit), is just giving low income individuals a tax credit at the end of the year. But it has been shown to incentivize low income people to work more (and thus increases GDP).
I don’t agree with all the programs out there, but I do think we are better off with some of them. Hopefully we can get more stuff that has data supporting that it increases the productivity of those who receive the benefit.
a few links I found interesting and pertinent to the discussion. The sheer number of citizens without proper documentation is particularly both interesting and distressing. And that’s a failure of our federal government, in my opinion. The third link is primarily about why the legislature, on both sides, has largely opposed free national identification cards, or a universal mandate for identification when voting, even though most of the rest of the first world understands how useful such a card can be. In short: Democrats have largely killed the idea for a long time, but that seems to be changing for some.
I’m also reading that a lot of Americans reject the idea because they’re a bunch of paranoid fucks who think the government would be using it to track them. So, there’s that.
For local elections I kind of lean in the direction that only those who pay property taxes should be allowed to vote. I don’t like the idea that non tax payers get as much say as I, a property owner, when it comes to how that tax money is spent. Especially when a good portion of it subsidizes non tax payers’ existences.
Arizona Attorney General refuses to certify election results until election day anomalies are investigated. Finally, some traction.
Not an unbiased source, but the arguments I’ve been making are covered here - only with much better wording and direction… couldn’t do it better myself.