That’s fine with me. If it’s a process that verifies citizenship, have it auto register them to receive such cards.
Works for me.
1 Like
Nope, but if they did I’m sure you’d see less pushback from Dems
You’ll absolutely never see it out of the GOP, as their clear goal is obviously to manipulate voting blocks.
Happy for them to prove me wrong though.
PWI, finding common ground and solutions since…I am too lazy to check.
That’s what I asked above, and you get the vague same answer. Minorities. Poor people. Okay, but like you said, how will they manage getting public assistance without clearing whatever hurdles you need to for that? Wouldn’t that paperwork function the same as a utility bill when it comes to proof of residence?
I suppose there must be a subset of poor people who do not receive public assistance and work for their poverty wages entirely under the table without having any sort of transportation. Or something. Somewhere.
It seems to me like a solution could even be within reach for that person.
1 Like
Put an ID issue station in Wal-mart then. Shit, have local police issue and hand deliver them for all I care.
About a minute ago…
You’ve got me sold tbh. If the govt is willing to issue them (with an obvious delay period before the requirement kicks in to educate voters) youve got a yes vote and no complaints from me.
But like I said above, it invalidates the real push with GOP leadership, so it will never come to fruition.
2 Likes
Where did I say I that? Either way, that is not an answer…
Also, in the article I provided, there is evidence…
That may be, but so far as this particular issue is concerned, we have a vast amount of information regarding benefits (essentially none) and costs (potentially enormous, from a citizenship perspective).
With respect to (the absence of) strict voter-ID laws, there has been no demonstration of “inefficiency.” (Just the opposite, in fact.)
You can’t simply look at it from one side of the cost/benefit ratio. That is, you have to ask whether requiring an ID to vote in order to help reduce the potential for fraud is a bad idea given the costs incurred by the requirement. And as I have argued, the cost/benefit ratio is an absolute slam-dunk against it.
Check yo privilege, brah. We’re talking about people who are too poor to have a pot to pee in. The transaction costs for them are very high. I have such people as pts–their plight is real. There are times when I recommend they see a specialist two hours away (by car) for a potentially blinding condition. From their dispirited reaction, I might as well have told them they need to see someone in Paris.
As a privileged person myself, I am constantly being reminded of the stark difference between the way I and mine live, and the way they and theirs live.
Provided the program was implemented in good faith and made relatively frictionless, it would vitiate the ‘disenfranchisement’ objection. All that would remain would be the objection to paying so much money for so little benefit (ie, it would likely work out to cost multiple millions per illegal vote prevented).
Not true. First off, nobody really knows how much of a problem voter fraud is because we don’t measure it in any meaningful way. It’s not an easy thing to measure. I don’t often hear about people getting busted for jaywalking in my town, but take a walk around the block and you’ll see those darn kids jaywalking left and right. Sodomy laws are another great example. How many people are getting busted for having sodomy parties in their houses? Is this evidence that sodomy parties don’t happen? With sodomy cakes and sodomy banners, and whatever else those sodomites have at their parties?
Second, the largest benefit is strengthening an election system that has people on all sides losing faith. It wasn’t all that long ago that I was an incensed leftist getting myself worked up over the funny business in the 2000 and 2004 elections. I don’t think strengthening the system is a bad thing no matter what your politics are.
Make it something people believe in across the board.
1 Like
Not really because if they’re that poor than every single dollar they have comes from me and you anyway. So the “transaction costs” for them is zero.
It’s 1% of the population. We spend money frivolously and all kinds of nonsense I think we can manage to get 3M people a piece of plastic with their face on it so we can better secure our voting processing (pretty important)
I don’t even know how to respond to this. I was going to go with snark, but if this is honestly how you feel you and I are simply not going to find common ground here.
If they don’t have an ID they’re missing the peice needed to get govt assistance, so of the people disenfranchised roughly 0% of their expenses comes from you and ED
Who are these people that have close to nothing, receive no government assistance, and don’t have an ID?
*Surprised Dems aren’t all over that tbh. Seems like an easy 3M votes.
Not sure, but I have an unconfirmed stat of roughly 3 million people
Agreed. But it’s not really about the costs associated, and never will be.
Supporting voter ID laws as the GOP is currently pushing them (to me) is exclusively about giving pols extra levers to manipulate voters.
But hey, if it’s that few people (with the context that fiscal conservatism is dead anyways) they should have no problem offering to make sure everyone gets an id.
If it’s not about controlling voters, that is
1 Like
3M people don’t have IDs in the US. That doesn’t mean they’re poor or that they’re on or not on government assistance. You’ve said yourself your own family games government assistance like it’s a game.
I pulled the number from an NPR article I read earlier.
That may be the case. I don’t really know or care tbh. I lost interest in caring about what the GOP does a few years ago…
What I’ve said has been strictly from my point of view on why I think requiring some form of identification makes sense for elections.
Logically, if you’re (general you) against requiring ID to vote you should also be against requiring an ID for all sorts of things like government assistance or buying a firearm for example.
Haha then I hope you don’t mind the rest of us rebel against almost everything they touch on principle.
Kinda have to counteract people giving pols extra power with zero regard for the long game
Not imo. At least not if the worry is about pols abusing the newfound power to control voters
Rebel away. My problem is the other side is also as appealing as week old vomit…
But those poor people san privilege can’t even get government assistance. That’s just not fair, pfury.
2 Likes
The UK independent electoral commission recently recommended ID for voting purposes.
Northern Ireland has had it for decades and voter turnout is practically identical to the UK average. I show my passport to vote.
2 Likes
So, we should spend millions of dollars on something we don’t even know is happening??!! You are not helping your argument with this line of reasoning.
Who’s “losing faith,” and why? Let me guess–is it low-info voters who have been fed a load of nonsense about the problem of voter fraud?
The funny business to which you refer had nothing to do with in-person voter fraud.
Given the naked attempt at disenfranchisement that extant voter-ID laws represent, this is an astonishing statement to make.
OK, let me rephrase–they will be forced to choose between food, and voting.
If you are truly concerned about securing the voting process, you are barking up the wrong tree. In-person voter fraud is so rare, it has no effect on the outcome of elections. Further, no one in their right mind would attempt to influence an election via in-person fraud–it’s hopelessly inefficient, and vulnerable to discovery. OTOH, the Russians seem to have found a way to tamper that may be highly effective. That’s where election-security outlays need to go.
You are missing the point. The issue is not extant voter-ID laws; it’s whether those laws need to be changed–especially when doing so will disproportionately disenfranchise the voters of one of two major parties. Consider: How would you respond if NI’s in-power political party proposed ‘strengthening’ your voter-ID laws–say, by requiring you produce 3 specific forms of ID, two of which you don’t possess? Mind you, they are making this proposal absent any evidence of a significant problem with in-person voter fraud. Would you say their proposal was a good idea?