Systematic Issues

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Honestly I feel like I would rather up the standard for who can vote and have some sort of aptitude test. And I'd like that test to be at least hard enough that I wouldn't be able to pass it.

There is a lot of pointless voting going on as well. Off the top of your head...can you name any judges where you live? I can't, and I'd say that is the same for most people.

They give you pages and pages of names of judges to vote "yes" or "no" on. I would think some 98% of people have never heard of the judges and have no idea what kind of rulings they have made.

Originally posted by Surtur
I don't see it is as wrong to require an ID to vote. An ID is required to do lots of things in this country.

I support making it easier for people to obtain proper identification.

Voter ID laws reduce voter turnout by thousands. There's only been 31 cases of voter fraud in 16 years.

It's doing a lot more harm than good and hence is an ineffective and bad policy.

Again, states that don't use this policy still have ways of checking voters. It's just these methods significantly increase turnout and there's no evidence it's resulting in any degree of significantly greater voter fraud.

That is assuming that reducing voter turnout is inherently negative. If you can't even manage to get an ID then maybe you don't have your shit together enough for America to value your political insight tbh.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Again, states that don't use this policy still have ways of checking voters. It's just these methods significantly increase turnout and there's no evidence it's resulting in any degree of significantly greater voter fraud.

Originally posted by Surtur
There is a lot of pointless voting going on as well. Off the top of your head...can you name any judges where you live? I can't, and I'd say that is the same for most people.

They give you pages and pages of names of judges to vote "yes" or "no" on. I would think some 98% of people have never heard of the judges and have no idea what kind of rulings they have made.

Like does the cashier at Walmart really have great insight on what our foreign policy should be? I know that sounds elitist as ****... but as I indicated earlier I count myself among the crowd of people who's input is probably not worthwhile/necessary in many many cases. The judge thing you mentioned is a perfect example of an area where I would be virtually clueless. Yet if I take the time to stand in line and vote for president, I'm probably going to fill the whole ballot out regardless.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
That is assuming that reducing voter turnout is inherently negative. If you can't even manage to get an ID then maybe you don't have your shit together enough for America to value your political insight tbh.

But hey, let's play this game; "If you're passionate enough to vote despite the act potentially endangering your livelihood, your political insight should be valued!".

The government doesn't have any business basing policy over whose political insight they consider valuable. A democratic government is obligated to enact policy that results in the largest voter turnout.

You're also acting as if voter ID is easy to get for everyone, it isn't.

For one thing, applying for voter ID, costs money.

So already there's a huge red flag with a policy here that potentially prevents people from voting on the basis of how much money they make.

And this has some seriously negative repercussions. If those so impoverished aren't represented in out democracy, then there's little hope of their needs being addressed.

Not to mention voter ID laws also burden the disabled, young people, ect.

There's no grounds to argue this is good policy.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
LMAO, yes, less people participating in the activity that our form of government is fundamentally based on is always a bad thing.

But hey, let's play this game; "If you're passionate enough to vote despite the act potentially endangering your livelihood, your political insight should be valued!".

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Wait... what other ways do they use to check voters... alternative forms of identification? I thought we were discussing whether proof of identity should be required at all.

Because I'm assuming these "other ways" involve some form of documentation proving your identity. Which then, also, would exclude the people who don't have said documents for whatever reason. And by your logic, this is an inherently bad thing as well. So why should ANY proof of identity be required to vote?

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Hm... while we're taking the logic to the extreme in order to make it seem absurd, perhaps you wouldn't mind answering this question?

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Because I'm assuming these "other ways" involve some form of documentation proving your identity. Which then, also, would exclude the people who don't have said documents for whatever reason. And by your logic, this is an inherently bad thing as well. So why should ANY proof of identity be required to vote?

It's pretty simple math, thousands of people vs an amount not even closing in on a hundred.

Also, so it's clear I'm not just making sh!t up, I'll source my numbers.
https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

Oh and here's fox news on the matter:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/24/voter-id-laws-target-rarely-occurring-voter-fraud.html

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
That's how fundamental principles work. You don't drop them when it's convenient, they have to be applied universally and can't be dropped because of some "end justifies the means bullsh!t".
They're less strict and easier, though yes, I don't see the point of voter identification when there's only been about 31 cases of credible allegations regarding voter fraud out of more than a billion votes casted, and the requirement takes thousands out of our democratic process, many on utterly unacceptable grounds, like it not being financially feasible to get a birth certificate.

It's pretty simple math, thousands of people vs an amount not even closing in on a hundred.

Also, so it's clear I'm not just making sh!t up, I'll source my numbers.
https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

I should also add this:

They're less strict and easier, though yes, I don't see the point of voter identification

Originally posted by Afro Cheese

does not answer the question I asked. Do you not know, or what?

And yes, I don't think there's a point to reducing voter turnout to address a virtually non-existent problem. The only way you can consider this a good policy is if you think the government should make policy with the intent of getting the people they want voting to vote which more or less defeats the purpose of democracy, that people hold politicians accountable, not that politicians get to decide who holds them accountable.

No, there is also the fact that if you aren't verifying who is voting then anyone could vote. Including people who are not citizens or legally eligible to vote. You can keep touting that it's a non-existent problem, but like you said yourself principals are principals. It seems to me that having a basic standard of identity verification to vote is a reasonable principal to have, considering there are some people who we quite literally do not want to allow to vote.

So I checked your source. Here's what it says:

Voters' Responsibilities
The three main types of non-documentary ID requirements that voters may be asked to satisfy are:
Affidavit: Some states, such as Iowa and Minnesota, ask voters to sign an affidavit asserting their eligibility to vote and/or awareness that falsely claiming eligibility is a criminal offense. Iowa includes the full text of its affidavit in statute. Other states provide partial texts or general guidelines.
Signature: In other states, voters must provide elections officials with a signature before casting a ballot. In most cases, this involves signing a poll book or voter registration list at the polls but there are some exceptions. For example, Oregon voters must sign the return envelope included with their mail-in ballots.
Biographical information: Voters may also be asked to provide personal information, either verbally or in writing, at the polls. In most cases, voters are asked to give their names and/or addresses. Maryland, New Mexico and (in certain circumstances) Minnesota, however, ask voters to provide full or partial birth dates.

And honestly... you need an ID to get a job, rent an apartment, open a bank account, etc. How is it all these people without IDs are getting by in the first place? This is what I meant when I said they don't really seem to have their shit together.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
And honestly... you need an ID to get a job, rent an apartment, open a bank account, etc. How is it all these people without IDs are getting by in the first place? This is what I meant when I said they don't really seem to have their shit together.

And again, this is an "ends justify the means" approach to sh!t. You're undermining the very principle you're seeking to improve with a lack of voter fraud.

No, there is also the fact that if you aren't verifying who is voting then anyone could vote. Including people who are not citizens or legally eligible to vote. You can keep touting that it's a non-existent problem, but like you said yourself principals are principals.

And frankly, even if you're going to frame this as the choice between two equally valuable principles, there's one principle which is being affected way more than another. Not to mention that voter id is an active action that's restricting a principle, where as a lack of voter ID is simply maintaining the democratic process our nation inherently has, so it's not really restricting anything as much as it's preserving the fundamental basis of democracy.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
It seems to me that having a basic standard of identity verification to vote is a reasonable principal to have, considering there are some people who we quite literally do not want to allow to vote.

As a European, having a form of identification in order to vote is perfectly normal and logical.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
As a European, having a form of identification in order to vote is perfectly normal and logical.

How is that logical?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
-> Lowers voter turnout by thousands
-> Addresses a non existent issue

How is that logical?

31 cases of fraud(most based on technical errors rather than the intent to deceive) out of a billion votes isn't a serious issue.

There is no logical basis for voter ID laws.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
31 cases of fraud(most based on technical errors rather than the intent to deceive) out of a billion votes isn't a serious issue.

There is no logical basis for voter ID laws.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Dude, that is so ****ing retarded. Of course you should have proof of identification to vote.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I pretty much agree. It's insane that you would need ID to buy cigarettes or booze but not to vote. How exactly do they prevent minors/illegal immigrants/unregistered/felons from voting if there is no proof of identity required?