voter ID laws are being used for voter suppression

[Drenalin]

The provided link did that. Can you be any more illiterate?

Your link didnt explain anything. Read post #280

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

This view is extremely bizarre to me. A law was implemented that was not unreasonable and then was hijacked beyond the wildest expectations. This is exactly that slippery slope that anti-gun-control people rail at. Imagine if a law passed that all gun owners had to register their weapons and a year later every person on the list was being raided by police and having their firearms confiscated.

You wouldn't think, "How do we satisfy the requirements of the original registration?" You would think, "Jesus titty-fucking Christ, has the world gone crazy?! We need to shut this down now and then figure out how to make people safer without having the process hijacked to strip people of their rights!"



What alternative source of information do you propose? Bullshit and anecdotes is the usual alternative.



Why does your proposed solution (emboldened) have literally nothing to do with solving the problem of Voter ID laws? This has been the frustrating part of talking about this with you: it seems like you are literally ignoring the actual problem and focusing on the one narrow, relatively-benign component of the laws.

What is your solution to eliminating all the problems I outlined in the OP of this thread?

So now I'm hearing you're totally against an id requirement because you fail to imagine how it could be implemented and enforced equitably over the long-term.

I don't propose any. I'm not the one making the contention that fraud is statistically non-existent currently. All I said was the accuracy of any estimates I find dubious and that the high prevalence of concern is enough for me to support showing id at the polls.

That wasn't a proposed solution. That was a question to you regarding which of the two general directions that are possibilities here that you support. To say that has nothing to do with voter id law problems seems obviously false. It's frustrating that you keep needing this explained. We either require id or we don't. That's step one. If we don't then what's to discuss? If we do then the question becomes what id's should be deemed acceptable and how best to make them readily available (which implies preventing them from being unavailable). If you've posted anything that resembles problem-solving I must have missed it.

The simple solution to avoiding those problems altogether is to not require id's. Going in the other direction, the simple route would be to make a national id that states have to recognize. I've posted about that proposed solution in your thread multiple times already. If you're gonna ignore parts of my posts that deal directly with how to avoid local governments shifting the requirement burden then the problem isn't really with me staying on topic. I also advocated firing, charging, suing politicians over disenfranchising manipulations. Did you comment on any of those things?

It seems like unless I simply advocate removing all id requirements that you're going to keep accusing me of avoiding the problem. Can't really think of any other reason you're trying to stymie the discussion.

 

[JosephDredd]

EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION: when I say "voter ID law" I mean the entirety of what was passed meaning not just the voter requirement, but all the shitfuck laws that were passed with it to suppress voting. This may be a significant source of our mutual consternation. I will try to go through my post again and clarify moments where this could be unclear.

So now I'm hearing you're totally against an id requirement because you fail to imagine how it could be implemented and enforced equitably over the long-term.

I never said anything remotely close to that. I'm beginning to realize the way you're approaching this topic is by hearing the things you want to hear.

I don't propose any. I'm not the one making the contention that fraud is statistically non-existent currently. All I said was the accuracy of any estimates I find dubious and that the high prevalence of concern is enough for me to support showing id at the polls.

They're not estimates, they're studies, and they overwhelmingly show that there is no voter fraud problem.

"High prevalence of concern" is literally worthless. 1000 years ago you would be voting for the laws that would prevent you from falling over the side of the Earth.

That wasn't a proposed solution. That was a question to you regarding which of the two general directions that are possibilities here that you support. To say that has nothing to do with voter id law problems seems obviously false.

It is obviously true because there is no reason for these obstructive, disenfranchising aspects of the voter ID law to exist. Not one. There is no reason that a voter requirement ID law can't be implemented that would not disenfranchise citizens of their legal right to vote. They can be looked at completely separately from the voter ID requirement law because the only reason they are connected is because some real shitstains of political humanity took a reasonable idea and turned it into something unrecognizably different and destructive.

It's frustrating that you keep needing this explained. We either require id or we don't. That's step one. If we don't then what's to discuss?

The thing to discuss is that we have voter ID laws drafted specifically to strip American citizens of their constitutional right to vote.

If we do then the question becomes what id's should be deemed acceptable and how best to make them readily available (which implies preventing them from being unavailable). If you've posted anything that resembles problem-solving I must have missed it.

Why would it be incumbent upon me to post a solution. I started this thread because most people dont' realize the problem with voter ID laws.

The simple solution to avoiding those problems altogether is to not require id's. Going in the other direction, the simple route would be to make a national id that states have to recognize.

This would still not solve many of the problems faced: voting locations shut down so that wait times to vote are prohibitive (6-8 hours); Republican attorneys invoking right-to-challenge laws on people who have the required ID, but who then have to go and find a friend or family member to come down and sign an affidavit confirming their identity; voter registration purges. There are more outlined in the OP.

Your solution is literally oblivious to the problems that I've outlined in the OP and have typed directly to you.

I've posted about that proposed solution in your thread multiple times already. If you're gonna ignore parts of my posts that deal directly with how to avoid local governments shifting the requirement burden then the problem isn't really with me staying on topic.

The problem isn't just local governments shifting the requirement burden. This is something I must have typed to you half a dozen times now.

I also advocated firing, charging, suing politicians over disenfranchising manipulations. Did you comment on any of those things?

It seems like unless I simply advocate removing all id requirements that you're going to keep accusing me of avoiding the problem. Can't really think of any other reason you're trying to stymie the discussion.

I am not advocating for the removal of all ID requirements. I have never once said anything remotely like that and you have no reason whatsoever to think that I am suggesting that.

Removing the voter ID requirements wouldn't even solve the bulk of the problems.

I'm "stymieing" discussion because I'm trying to get you to understand the entire problem, which you are not and which is driving me bonkers.

 

[Higus]

Lol yes you're very confused.

A birth certificate is sufficient to get an ID. What is supposed to keep people honest is the fact that it's illegal to provide false information to obtain an ID. That's printed in big bold letters at my local DMV. The only reason anyone would provide false information to obtain an ID is if they're up to something illegal.

Here's where you're confused. If someone only needs to show a utility bill to vote, there is nothing preventing a person from voting many times with other people's utility bills.

For example if a convicted felon wants to go vote, but he can't because he doesn't have the right, he can just take his buddies utility bill to go vote. This is why people want a photo ID to vote.

Just be honest & admit voter ID laws are hindering voting fraud.

Why not take it a step further? Why doesn't the GOP work to restrict absentee ballots? Those are much easier to fake than in-person votes, right?

 

[milkmandanl]

Not an expert and not well read on this....

If side a wants voter I’d’s and side b doesn’t because it will affect them....then why doesn’t side b put together a few hundred mobile id units and go to the public that cant get to the place to get the Id.

 

[panamaican]

Lol yes you're very confused.

A birth certificate is sufficient to get an ID. What is supposed to keep people honest is the fact that it's illegal to provide false information to obtain an ID. That's printed in big bold letters at my local DMV. The only reason anyone would provide false information to obtain an ID is if they're up to something illegal.

Here's where you're confused. If someone only needs to show a utility bill to vote, there is nothing preventing a person from voting many times with other people's utility bills.

For example if a convicted felon wants to go vote, but he can't because he doesn't have the right, he can just take his buddies utility bill to go vote. This is why people want a photo ID to vote.

Just be honest & admit voter ID laws are hindering voting fraud.

You didn't answer my question. A birth certificate is sufficient to get an ID for voting but you're not saying why it's insufficient for voting.

You trot out some "it's illegal to provide false information to obtain an ID," statement but it's also illegal to to provide false information to vote. So, what prevents you from illegally getting an ID with my stolen birth certificate?

The convicted felon could also take his buddies utility bill and go get a fake photo ID.

Again and again, you fail to explain how using the document to get an ID is different from using the same document to vote. That is the core principle and rather than address it, you side step.

 

[FIMN]

Not an expert and not well read on this....

If side a wants voter I’d’s and side b doesn’t because it will affect them....then why doesn’t side b put together a few hundred mobile id units and go to the public that cant get to the place to get the Id.

Large expense to address a non existent problem, when the easiest solution is simply for governments at every level to protect the rights of all citizens to vote without unnecessary restrictions.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The thing to discuss is that we have voter ID laws drafted specifically to strip American citizens of their constitutional right to vote.

That's exactly the topic I've been addressing. I've touched on the validity of purpose, possible ways to improve execution, and punishing those who enact such laws. No matter which angle I'm taking in any given post all you wanna do is complain about my content.

Let's look at your examples from the OP.

First quote box is saying some politicians abuse the system and I've acknowledged that by suggesting they be punished. It's also lamenting the difficulty for some of obtaining an id at the DMV. I've addressed that by basically scoffing and proposing an easily obtainable national id.

Second quote contains the ridiculous notion that a concealed carry license isn't superior to a school-issued id. I already posted about that and you chose not to respond to it. It also mentions there are 7 possible forms of id. Not sure what to say there other than that seems rather accommodating.

Third quote complains that id's need to have an expiration date. Is this really a significant portion of the issue in your mind? Seems easily ignorable since that's pretty much how id's work for everything.

Fourth quote is about lawyers challenging voter credentials. This is addressed by my national id suggestion.

Fifth quote is a bunch of shit and it's reaching the point where you can't reasonably expect people to read every word of your OP. But going from the top, it sounds like voters were confused about the changes made. That would be what I called shifting the requirements. Again something addressed by having an acceptable national id going forward. Or simply getting a state id that most people already have because so many facets of life require id.

Sixth quote laments how it's more difficult for some than others. Well, no shit. I address this by trying to establish first and foremost the reasonableness of requiring id and pondering what could be easily issued nationally.

Seventh quote is places asking for id when not required as a form of intimidation. Not sure what to say here other than it's pretty fucking easy to find out what your state requires prior to heading to the polls. This would be addressed under the punishment aspect, although I didn't specifically expand that beyond legislators. Suffice it to say, poll workers making up requirements and preventing lawful votes should also be punished.

Eighth quote is more asking for id when not required and the shuttering of DMV's. Once again this is addressed by an easily obtainable national id.

Ninth quote is challenging credentials again. Then intimidating voters by threatening to arrest anyone with warrants. Then the shuttering of polling sites. Id or not, polling sites can still be made more or less readily available. Not sure what to tell you on the warrants other than there should already be laws in place regarding what identification needs provided to police upon demand. The bigger problem here seems to be people with warrants out ducking the po-po. I'd suggest those fools look into absentee ballots.

Tenth quote is more lamentations over implementation. This is addressed by me trying to establish whether or not to implement the laws in the first place.

So almost all of your prodigious OP I've touched on in one way or another. You're incessant complaints of me being off-topic seem objectively wrong.

 

[Drenalin]

You didn't answer my question. A birth certificate is sufficient to get an ID for voting but you're not saying why it's insufficient for voting.

You trot out some "it's illegal to provide false information to obtain an ID," statement but it's also illegal to to provide false information to vote. So, what prevents you from illegally getting an ID with my stolen birth certificate?

The convicted felon could also take his buddies utility bill and go get a fake photo ID.

Again and again, you fail to explain how using the document to get an ID is different from using the same document to vote. That is the core principle and rather than address it, you side step.

Yes I did. A utility bill isn't sufficient for voting because of what I just said a few times. Only requiring a utility bill allows people to easily commit voting fraud by voting many times for other people. That's why a photo ID should be required.

And you're the one side stepping. You keep saying "but if you can use a utility bill to get an ID". You still haven't answered my question.

What prevents someone from voting multiple times with other peoples utility bills? Now let's see how you side step that question again.

 

[Drenalin]

Not an expert and not well read on this....

If side a wants voter I’d’s and side b doesn’t because it will affect them....then why doesn’t side b put together a few hundred mobile id units and go to the public that cant get to the place to get the Id.

I think the reason is because one side wants to be able to commit voting fraud. I've mentioned a couple times that if these people are truly unable to make it to the dmv, they should be issued state ID's at voting locations.

 

[BassAckwards]

if your an adult and dont have a valid form of ID, then you should lose all of your adult privileges.

 

[JosephDredd]

That's exactly the topic I've been addressing. I've touched on the validity of purpose, possible ways to improve execution, and punishing those who enact such laws. No matter which angle I'm taking in any given post all you wanna do is complain about my content.

At least I now know you read the OP. When you said that I'm suggesting we remove voter ID laws it definitely sounded like you did not read anything at all.

Let's look at your examples from the OP.

First quote box is saying some politicians abuse the system and I've acknowledged that by suggesting they be punished. It's also lamenting the difficulty for some of obtaining an id at the DMV. I've addressed that by basically scoffing and proposing an easily obtainable national id.

The national ID would not solve the problem of politicians abusing the system. You would still have problems with Republican lawyers challenging legal voters and effectively preventing them from voting, you would still have problems with districts creating prohibitive voting conditions, and you might face an entirely new set of similarly disenfranchising laws and strategems implemented alongside the national ID.

The first quote box also discusses how the ID requirement laws are preventing minorities from voting, linking to a specific study. A national ID could prevent this, providing the ID required to get it wasn't also exclusionary.

A lot of right-wingers on this board have scoffed at the idea that there are people in America who might not have the same forms of ID as them. Instead of accepting that they exist and still deserve to be considered when determining the right to vote, the response seems to be that they deserve their hardships because they do not live their lives like you.

Second quote contains the ridiculous notion that a concealed carry license isn't superior to a school-issued id. I already posted about that and you chose not to respond to it. It also mentions there are 7 possible forms of id. Not sure what to say there other than that seems rather accommodating.

You've misunderstood the second quote box. It wasn't saying anything about the inferiority of superiority of a concealed carry license. Here is a website where you can see a good number of states accept student IDs in order to vote: http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx

The second quote box was pointing out that Texas voter ID laws removed the forms of identification that democrats were likey to have and replaced it with forms of IDs more commonly found amongst Republicans.

This is not accommodating if all 7 possible forms of ID are chose to be exclusionary. That is the opposite of accommodating.

Third quote complains that id's need to have an expiration date. Is this really a significant portion of the issue in your mind? Seems easily ignorable since that's pretty much how id's work for everything.

No, the third quote box points out how specifically exclusionary the laws were when they were drafted.

Fourth quote is about lawyers challenging voter credentials. This is addressed by my national id suggestion.

Again, national ID laws would not prevent this prohibitive abuse because the people being challenged, who then had to go and find a friend to sign an affidavit for them, all had the legally required ID. Having a national ID being challenged would change nothing.

Fifth quote is a bunch of shit and it's reaching the point where you can't reasonably expect people to read every word of your OP.

Why? And why not?

But going from the top, it sounds like voters were confused about the changes made. That would be what I called shifting the requirements. Again something addressed by having an acceptable national id going forward. Or simply getting a state id that most people already have because so many facets of life require id.

Sixth quote laments how it's more difficult for some than others. Well, no shit. I address this by trying to establish first and foremost the reasonableness of requiring id and pondering what could be easily issued nationally.

There's a difference between "more difficult" and "prohibitive".

And how did you establish the reasonableness of requiring ID if your only proof that there was a voter problem was that you doubt studies and people feel concerned? That is literally the opposite of establishing anything. Please tell me you're not one of those alt-right assholes who say liberals only argue with their feelings.

Seventh quote is places asking for id when not required as a form of intimidation. Not sure what to say here other than it's pretty fucking easy to find out what your state requires prior to heading to the polls.

It's also pretty easy to expect the poll workers would be honest with you. It's easy for people to know what ID is required, only to get down to the voting booths and find out the requirements are something else. A lot of people would believe them because, in the wake of recently changed laws, they wouldn't be entirely sure. This is not the fault of the voters.

This would be addressed under the punishment aspect, although I didn't specifically expand that beyond legislators. Suffice it to say, poll workers making up requirements and preventing lawful votes should also be punished.

Eighth quote is more asking for id when not required and the shuttering of DMV's. Once again this is addressed by an easily obtainable national id.

When intimidating voters by threatening to arrest anyone with warrants. Then the shuttering of polling sites. Id or not, polling sites can still be made more or less readily available. Not sure what to tell you on the warrants other than there should already be laws in place regarding what identification needs provided to police upon demand. The bigger problem here seems to be people with warrants out ducking the po-po. I'd suggest those fools look into absentee ballots.

Tenth quote is more lamentations over implementation.

That's an awfully benign way to describe the starkly malevolent actions used to strip people of their voting rights.

This is addressed by me trying to establish whether or not to implement the laws in the first place.

How are you trying to establish that? By assuming that I think they should be removed and by citing your gut?

So almost all of your prodigious OP I've touched on in one way or another. You're incessant complaints of me being off-topic seem objectively wrong.

Well, then let's move forward and see how you respond to my points in this post.

Do the words of the Judge who implemented the law and the words of the GOP lawmakers expressly using it to disenfranchise people influence your incredibly calculating assessment of the necessity of the law?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Fyi, I don't engage in this type of posting where every little thing needs addressed in a broken up format. I find it tedious and unproductive. So I'll hit on a couple things and if you want to continue that's cool.

The national ID would not solve the problem of politicians abusing the system. You would still have problems with Republican lawyers challenging legal voters and effectively preventing them from voting,

If states are required to accept it then it would address a number of problems. People would know the id they have is sufficient. It wouldn't be contestable by state and local jurisdictions due to it being issued federally. In essence it guarantees the voter would be satisfying the voting requirement of an id no matter which state they live in or move to. To not accept the id would be a punishable crime. It could be issued at post offices instead of DMV's. Local politicians would have no ability to shutter them or manipulate the business hours. To augment, the feds could strike a deal with Wal-Mart and make 'em available there too. Statistically speaking, I'd bet good money that If you can't get to a post office or a Wal-Mart then you can't get to the polls either. At some point a voter needs to take a little responsibility themselves. We have no problem has a society demanding it where other rights are concerned.

But go ahead dude. Tell me what you think better addresses the various areas of abuse. Heck, if only we elected scrupulous politicians from the get-go.

That's an awfully benign way to describe the starkly malevolent actions used to strip people of their voting rights.

Here's an example of wasted effort on your part. I'm not gonna engage in some wallowing pity-party so it's not important that I use more emotive language. If you wanna argue over basic characterizations because they don't meet your standard of outrage then it's hard to believe you're putting forth an earnest effort to exchange ideas. It'd be far more productive to focus your energy on answering questions of substance. So again, how about you lay out your solutions since you don't like mine and don't seem to want to commit to supporting the eradication of id requirements.

 

[JosephDredd]

Fyi, I don't engage in this type of posting where every little thing needs addressed in a broken up format. I find it tedious and unproductive. So I'll hit on a couple things and if you want to continue that's cool.



If states are required to accept it then it would address a number of problems. People would know the id they have is sufficient. It wouldn't be contestable by state and local jurisdictions due to it being issued federally. In essence it guarantees the voter would be satisfying the voting requirement of an id no matter which state they live in or move to. To not accept the id would be a punishable crime. It could be issued at post offices instead of DMV's. Local politicians would have no ability to shutter them or manipulate the business hours. To augment, the feds could strike a deal with Wal-Mart and make 'em available there too. Statistically speaking, I'd bet good money that If you can't get to a post office or a Wal-Mart then you can't get to the polls either. At some point a voter needs to take a little responsibility themselves. We have no problem has a society demanding it where other rights are concerned.

But go ahead dude. Tell me what you think better addresses the various areas of abuse. Heck, if only we elected scrupulous politicians from the get-go.


Here's an example of wasted effort on your part. I'm not gonna engage in some wallowing pity-party so it's not important that I use more emotive language. If you wanna argue over basic characterizations because they don't meet your standard of outrage then it's hard to believe you're putting forth an earnest effort to exchange ideas. It'd be far more productive to focus your energy on answering questions of substance. So again, how about you lay out your solutions since you don't like mine and don't seem to want to commit to supporting the eradication of id requirements.

I never started this thread to provide solutions or to ask for solutions. I started this thread because most people don't understand the problem with voter ID laws. That's why I nitpicked you every step of the way: I don't want solutions from you since I doubt you would or could do anything to make an actual difference. I just wanted you to read and understand the problem. I'm finally satisfied that you have and are mostly in agreement about everything.

Also re: emboldened - after attacking me multiple times for wanting to repeal the laws, are you now attacking me because I never wanted to repeal the laws? I'm not sure how to take that, but it seems hilarious to me.

 

[milkmandanl]

Large expense to address a non existent problem, when the easiest solution is simply for governments at every level to protect the rights of all citizens to vote without unnecessary restrictions.

Are there any laws stating that you don’t need valid identification to vote? Said another way we need valid identification for quite a few things...I’m not sure nor well versed in law to understand why we wouldn’t want a valid ID to vote. Hence my suggestion to provide ID at the expense of the “party” and the donors to said party.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I never started this thread to provide solutions or to ask for solutions. I started this thread because most people don't understand the problem with voter ID laws. That's why I nitpicked you every step of the way: I don't want solutions from you since I doubt you would or could do anything to make an actual difference. I just wanted you to read and understand the problem. I'm finally satisfied that you have and are mostly in agreement about everything.

Also re: emboldened - after attacking me multiple times for wanting to repeal the laws, are you now attacking me because I never wanted to repeal the laws? I'm not sure how to take that, but it seems hilarious to me.

lol at "attacking" you. If that's what you call trying to pin you down for a simple opinion on something then so be it.

I called it scumbag politicians doing shady shit in my initial post. I'm sorry that didn't sufficiently resonate with you. Have a good one.

 

[The Russian]

My country must be more racist than america since we need to show proof of who we are or residense (address). Joking I'M not a confederate nazi.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

You didn't answer my question. A birth certificate is sufficient to get an ID for voting but you're not saying why it's insufficient for voting.

You trot out some "it's illegal to provide false information to obtain an ID," statement but it's also illegal to to provide false information to vote. So, what prevents you from illegally getting an ID with my stolen birth certificate?

The convicted felon could also take his buddies utility bill and go get a fake photo ID.

Again and again, you fail to explain how using the document to get an ID is different from using the same document to vote. That is the core principle and rather than address it, you side step.

The people that review the documents are very different... you're talking about state government employees who have been paid and trained to review documents versus a volunteer who took a 4 hour class the week before.

And what are we talking about Nationwide. People who have a birth certificate but not a photo ID? 5 thousand people. Would seem rare.

 

[Philo-Publius]

Spoiler

Information... how does it work? Motherfucking magic up in this bitch.

Spoiler

shitty "news" sources = information magic

 

[JosephDredd]

Spoiler

shitty "news" sources = information magic

Where did you get flushed to for 24 hours? And why did you come back just to reaffirm that you're too far gone to use your brain?