Is having to prove you are who you say you are before voting is such a terrible thing?


Agreed...  why is this an issue?

Agreed...  why is this an issue?



The issue is who will have the authority to deny people access to the vote when the deem that the ID "doesn't look like them".  And what good will an ID do with an absentee ballot?  An absentee ballot it can be sent in by anyone, the ballot can be bought, sold, or coerced.  So why all of the sudden voter ID for people who actually show up?

Agreed...  why is this an issue?

File under tactics of tyranny:

Make the attrition of democratic power sound like reasonable measures to protect and secure the population from wrong-doers.  In the process, cast suspicion upon all who object to such "reasonable" measures.

"What's wrong with having to prove who you are?" is  the wrong question. 

Do you trust Michael Chertoff?

File under tactics of tyranny:

Make the attrition of democratic power sound like reasonable measures to protect and secure the population from wrong-doers.  In the process, cast suspicion upon all who object to such "reasonable" measures.

"What's wrong with having to prove who you are?" is  the wrong question. 

Do you trust Michael Chertoff?


Currently, in many areas, it is possible to vote in our elections even if you are illegally in our country.  Also, votes have been cast under names of dead people.  I'd like to end these things, and a national ID card is about the only method I can see working here.  Having to prove your identity at a polling location is, indeed, "reasonable" in this day and age.

Currently, in many areas, it is possible to vote in our elections even if you are illegally in our country.  Also, votes have been cast under names of dead people.  I'd like to end these things, and a national ID card is about the only method I can see working here.  Having to prove your identity at a polling location is, indeed, "reasonable" in this day and age.
you might want to look into your sources on that. i believe that does happen, but nearly so often as certain pundits with a political axe to grind might have us believe.

Currently, in many areas, it is possible to vote in our elections even if you are illegally in our country.  Also, votes have been cast under names of dead people.  I'd like to end these things, and a national ID card is about the only method I can see working here.  Having to prove your identity at a polling location is, indeed, "reasonable" in this day and age.


I surely would too.  It is a quesion of motivation.  The motivation of the Republican party in regards to voting are, charitibly speaking, crummy.
What we shall have is gradual disenfanchisement of Democrats and other undesirables under the guise of cleaning up corruption.  More tactics of tyranny.

I surely would too.  It is a quesion of motivation.  The motivation of the Republican party in regards to voting are, charitibly speaking, crummy.
What we shall have is gradual disenfanchisement of Democrats and other undesirables under the guise of cleaning up corruption.  More tactics of tyranny.


Well yeah... I mean, I'm not saying that I think the powers that be are doing this for virtuous reasons, but...  correct me if I'm wrong here, but don't Canada and most of Europe already have strict identity proof rules when it comes to voting?  If they can do it effectively, why can't we?

Well yeah... I mean, I'm not saying that I think the powers that be are doing this for virtuous reasons, but...  correct me if I'm wrong here, but don't Canada and most of Europe already have strict identity proof rules when it comes to voting?  If they can do it effectively, why can't we?



You don't let the fox fix the lock on the henhouse door!!!

Jeeezusaitchchrist!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/rolleyes.gif

it just seems foolish to give this government more power over the people when we've seen what a travesty it's made of the power it's gotten already. which i guess goes back to, do you trust michael chertoff? it just seems to me we need to hold off on any sweeping reforms of any kind till we get this current lot out of office because they dont seem to have gotten anything right up to now and i dont see any reason to think they'd handle this issue any differently.

It has nothing to do with voting integrity.  If it did, the Republicans would be nowhere near it.

The majority of people in New York City take mass transit.  This law requires everyone in NYC to have a picture ID in order to vote, even if they didn't have a need for a license previously.  Same holds true for any area that has hgih density of people and car ownership is smaller.  I wonder how those areas tend to vote?

Is that enough reason?  Or do you want names of individuals impacted by this?  It's another poll tax, only now we're mandating a $40 (or more) ID on people who didn't need one before. 

Can you provide evidence of widespread voting fraud by people who would have been prevented if they were required to show ID?  Didn't think so.

How about putting an end to vote caging?  No support from the GOP on that subject. Easier to pretend there's widespread cases of people voting multiple times, when in fact the GOP brags about how they prevent people from voting at all.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5487


I actually agree with you here, but I'll make a point. I have 5 separate photo I.D's and I would imagine most people have at least 1, even if they use mass transit and don't have a drivers license.

I actually agree with you here, but I'll make a point. I have 5 separate photo I.D's and I would imagine most people have at least 1, even if they use mass transit and don't have a drivers license.

I have only had three government-issued photo IDs in my entire life.  I've never been in the armed forces or worked for the government.  I got my license at 20.  Before that I had a DMV-issued non-driver ID.  Then I got my driver's license.  Then a passport went I went abroad many years ago, which has since expired. 

The voter photo ID is not a bad idea per se, but as I said before, I don't trust the motives of the politicians backing the idea. 

I don't know about all other states, but Massachusetts driver's license are extremely hard to fake because of the hologram images and bar codes incorporated into them.  It's not impossible, just prohibitively expensive.  How would they make this voter photo ID harder to fake?
???

I hope the day doesn't come when I will have to show photo ID at the polls. 

Well yeah... I mean, I'm not saying that I think the powers that be are doing this for virtuous reasons, but...  correct me if I'm wrong here, but don't Canada and most of Europe already have strict identity proof rules when it comes to voting?  If they can do it effectively, why can't we?



Well this isn't Canada or most of Europe.  Some have compulsory voting with fines attached, how far do we want to compare.

    * Argentina
    * Australia (compulsory enrollment and voting for both state* and national elections)
    * Belgium
    * Brazil (non-compulsory for 16 & 17 year olds and those over 70)
    * Chile
    * Cyprus
    * Ecuador
    * Fiji
    * Greece
    * Liechtenstein
    * Nauru
    * Peru
    * Singapore
    * Switzerland
    * Uruguay
    * Turkey

Well this isn't Canada or most of Europe.  Some have compulsory voting with fines attached, how far do we want to compare.

    * Argentina
    * Australia (compulsory enrollment and voting for both state* and national elections)
    * Belgium
    * Brazil (non-compulsory for 16 & 17 year olds and those over 70)
    * Chile
    * Cyprus
    * Ecuador
    * Fiji
    * Greece
    * Liechtenstein
    * Nauru
    * Peru
    * Singapore
    * Switzerland
    * Uruguay
    * Turkey



The thought of compulsive voting in America is a sobering concept.

For the most part, the ignorant morons stay away from the polls, I'd like to keep it that way. Well, what I'd actually like to do is encourage voter turnout in large metropolitan areas where chances are the citizens would be more informed and reduce voter turnout in backwards-azz rural areas.. but that's just me.

You don't let the fox fix the lock on the henhouse door!!!

Jeeezusaitchchrist!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/rolleyes.gif


You still didn't answer my question.  Is our government really that much more incompetent than those of Canada, the U.K., and several Western European nations?  If you really believe that to be true, then you really ought to move to a place like Canada.  I know I would if I thought that.

I think, with the right leadership and policies, tighter identity standards aren't such a bad thing -- especially when it comes to voting.

You still didn't answer my question.  Is our government really that much more incompetent than those of Canada, the U.K., and several Western European nations?  If you really believe that to be true, then you really ought to move to a place like Canada.  I know I would if I thought that.

I think, with the right leadership and policies, tighter identity standards aren't such a bad thing -- especially when it comes to voting.


But the fact remains that by doing this, it opens the whole system up to abuse.

Somebody like you.. or I for instance would almost certainly have no issue here but there are millions that would.

But the fact remains that by doing this, it opens the whole system up to abuse.

Somebody like you.. or I for instance would almost certainly have no issue here but there are millions that would.


Elaborate.  Give some examples that would be relevant here.  I'm just curious.

it just seems foolish to give this government more power over the people when we've seen what a travesty it's made of the power it's gotten already. which i guess goes back to, do you trust michael chertoff? it just seems to me we need to hold off on any sweeping reforms of any kind till we get this current lot out of office because they dont seem to have gotten anything right up to now and i dont see any reason to think they'd handle this issue any differently.

Agreed, but...  Bush isn't in office that much longer, and unless the Democrats royally screw up this campaign (like nominating Hillary), they will likely win the White House.

Also, let's also consider the fact that apparently a large portion of the public trusts the government with their healthcare (by supporting socialized healthcare), so how is trusting them with an ID any more threatening?

Elaborate.  Give some examples that would be relevant here.  I'm just curious.


Ever go to any rural county?

"All you black folks look the same, I need to some other I.D.... son."

Ever go to any rural county?

"All you black folks look the same, I need to some other I.D.... son."



I live in NC.  I'm surrounded by rural areas...  lol

Seriously, I know what you're saying, but that happens in some urban areas too, like in Florida during the 2000 election.

I think we can agree that this is a problem that will occasionally occur regardless of whether or not we have a national ID.  I think the good outweighs the bad here, because it will help us more readily identify the millions of illegal immigrants here.

Ever go to any rural county?

"All you black folks look the same, I need to some other I.D.... son."



Worries me.  You will read about it in the paper if they try to stop me, but thousands will have shotguns shoved in there mouths and will be told to just go home.

I live in NC.  I'm surrounded by rural areas...  lol

Seriously, I know what you're saying, but that happens in some urban areas too, like in Florida during the 2000 election.

I think we can agree that this is a problem that will occasionally occur regardless of whether or not we have a national ID.  I think the good outweighs the bad here, because it will help us more readily identify the millions of illegal immigrants here.


One thing I think you're overlooking. Most illegals immigrants have no desire to vote... seriously. I've never ever heard about this being an issue, even if it was, I'd rather have Juan voting than Jim Bob.


Worries me.  You will read about it in the paper if they try to stop me, but thousands will have shotguns shoved in there mouths and will be told to just go home.


Exactly, why create more opportunities for this to happen.

You still didn't answer my question.  Is our government really that much more incompetent than those of Canada, the U.K., and several Western European nations?
Yes.

  If you really believe that to be true, then you really ought to move to a place like Canada.  I know I would if I thought that.
For one thing, you can't just pick up and move to a country of which you are not a citizen.  What's more, I'm an American.  My ancestors arrived at Plymouth Rock in 1620.*  I am angry at my government, but that doesn't mean I want to leave my country.  My brother and his old lady are talking about baling out and have extended the invitation to me; however, things will have to get much worse than they are now.

I think, with the right leadership and policies, tighter identity standards aren't such a bad thing -- especially when it comes to voting.

I am not sold.  I want a government that will watch over the people, not watch the people.

* Contrary to stereotype, most people with ancestors on the Mayflower don't lounge around at the Harvard Club and talk through their noses.  Most are average Joes like me.

If you really believe that to be true, then you really ought to move to a place like Canada.  I know I would if I thought that.



This was a mantra of the right in the 60s.  American-Love it or Leave it.  Crap then and crap now.  The implication is that if you disagree with the power structure than you cannot possible love the country.  It isn't the country and its precepts we disagree with, it is specific practices by those in power.  This is America, and because it is, and because I am an American I can, and because I love it here, will stay and be the thorn in the side of people I believe are downgrading the democracy my ancestors died to give me.

Agreed, but...  Bush isn't in office that much longer, and unless the Democrats royally screw up this campaign (like nominating Hillary), they will likely win the White House.

Also, let's also consider the fact that apparently a large portion of the public trusts the government with their healthcare (by supporting socialized healthcare), so how is trusting them with an ID any more threatening?
i dont think anyone is suggesting a "socialized" system. what they're proposing is a public system that exists as an alternative to a private system for those who cant afford it. i dont think anyone is saying the private companies should be eliminated, and even if someone were, the companies themselves wouldnt stand for it. so the comparison here really doesn't work.

i dont mean this in any kind of mean way but if you find yourself using fox-news-style catchphrases like "socialized healthcare" you should maybe take a minute and examine your own preconceptions before you post something. because usually use of phrases like that means someone hasn't thought the issue out adequately, IMO, and then people have to go back and correct sorta obvious stuff, like the difference between a "public" system and a "socialized" one. this isn't stuff we really need to go through again, the prespammersiteness of phrases like "socialized mhealthcare" in this context, you know?

I'm going to add my two cents to the "love it or leave it" argument. As a few people have already said, that argument is total bullcrap. I think you REALLY love your country when you want to make it better and this country can be so much better. I think that the so-called "radicals" who want to see universal health care, who want to see EVERYONE in this country have an equal shake, are more patriotic that those b*stards in Washington who are destroying this nation by eroding that one thing that holds us together-the Constitution.


Ok, end of rant.



Cat

One thing I think you're overlooking. Most illegals immigrants have no desire to vote... seriously. I've never ever heard about this being an issue, even if it was, I'd rather have Juan voting than Jim Bob.

You'd rather have someone illegally here vote than a legal citizen do it?... 

Yes.

 For one thing, you can't just pick up and move to a country of which you are not a citizen.  What's more, I'm an American.  My ancestors arrived at Plymouth Rock in 1620.*  I am angry at my government, but that doesn't mean I want to leave my country.  My brother and his old lady are talking about baling out and have extended the invitation to me; however, things will have to get much worse than they are now. I am not sold.  I want a government that will watch over the people, not watch the people.

* Contrary to stereotype, most people with ancestors on the Mayflower don't lounge around at the Harvard Club and talk through their noses.  Most are average Joes like me.


I know what you're saying, but seriously.  If the government really is as bad as you say it is, then wouldn't being a Ron Paul supporter make the most sense?  If the government really is that incompetent, then miniimizing government should be your utmost goal.

I know what you're saying, but seriously.  If the government really is as bad as you say it is, then wouldn't being a Ron Paul supporter make the most sense?  If the government really is that incompetent, then miniimizing government should be your utmost goal.


This is sort of backwards logic. I too am in favor of smaller government (for the most part) but that doesn't mean to say that larger government can't be improved.

This is sort of backwards logic. I too am in favor of smaller government (for the most part) but that doesn't mean to say that larger government can't be improved.


Eh...  I guess the best way to simplify my position is that I would prefer the government create a more secure form of identification than the ones we currently have, and biometrics would be a good avenue to explore.

Here is an example: http://www.tomshardware.com/site/flash_videos/fujitsu_palm_id_device.html

i dont think anyone is suggesting a "socialized" system. what they're proposing is a public system that exists as an alternative to a private system for those who cant afford it. i dont think anyone is saying the private companies should be eliminated, and even if someone were, the companies themselves wouldnt stand for it. so the comparison here really doesn't work.

i dont mean this in any kind of mean way but if you find yourself using fox-news-style catchphrases like "socialized healthcare" you should maybe take a minute and examine your own preconceptions before you post something. because usually use of phrases like that means someone hasn't thought the issue out adequately, IMO, and then people have to go back and correct sorta obvious stuff, like the difference between a "public" system and a "socialized" one. this isn't stuff we really need to go through again, the prespammersiteness of phrases like "socialized mhealthcare" in this context, you know?


But you're still dodging the fact that plenty of programs are supported by the Left that require quite a bit more faith in the government than something like a more secure form of ID.  I see it as degrees of trust rather than in terms of intentions, because I think we can at least agree that the morality of most politicians is lacking.

That being said, it's much easier for me to trust the government implementing this than to trust them with everyone's healthcare.  Granted, I too would like an alternative to our current system.  I'm just not sure exactly how much control I want to give the government on this.  If anything, we should just make HMO's more liable for coverage and make it harder for them to deny people that coverage.  We also need to regulate pharmaceutical companies more.

Eh...  I guess the best way to simplify my position is that I would prefer the government create a more secure form of identification than the ones we currently have, and biometrics would be a good avenue to explore.

Here is an example: http://www.tomshardware.com/site/flash_videos/fujitsu_palm_id_device.html


Fair enough, but dude, I just got my new UK passport, it cost me nearly $300 because it's biometric. Compare that to the $69 I just paid to renew my US passport.

I know what you're saying, but seriously.  If the government really is as bad as you say it is, then wouldn't being a Ron Paul supporter make the most sense?  If the government really is that incompetent, then miniimizing government should be your utmost goal.

Turns out Ron Paul is a racist, but that's a topic for another thread. 

You are demonstrating how profoundly right-wing propaganda has affected you.  The lie the right-wing perpetuates is the portrayal of "government" as a superhuman malevolent force.  Politics is power, government is who's in charge.  That's all.  The right-wing knows this, that is why they seek to reduce the power of popular representative government as much as possible while stepping up the influence of corporations, banks, and trading houses.  Government does not get minimized, power merely shifts and public resources get grabbed by fewer and richer hands. 

Government is far more invasive and watchful to citizens today than it was before the right-wingers began their 30-year date rape of this country with the election of Ronald Reagan.  Remember, Bill Clinton was just a conservative with liberal talking points. 
::)

Turns out Ron Paul is a racist, but that's a topic for another thread. 


No, it turns out whoever wrote in Ron Paul's newsletter back in 1993-1994 (probably either Lew Rockwell or Gary North) was a racist.  And that Paul really should have paid more attention to what was going out with his name at the top.

Plus this issue died a long time ago.  The democrats and their nominee, Lefty Morris, beat Paul over the head with that newsletter during Paul's 1996 congressional race.  It was basically their only campaign issue.  And obviously it failed.

It's sad that people who swear they don't fear Paul and say he has no chance have to revive that stale smear.

No, it turns out whoever wrote in Ron Paul's newsletter back in 1993-1994 (probably either Lew Rockwell or Gary North) was a racist.  And that Paul really should have paid more attention to what was going out with his name at the top.

Plus this issue died a long time ago.  The democrats and their nominee, Lefty Morris, beat Paul over the head with that newsletter during Paul's 1996 congressional race.  It was basically their only campaign issue.  And obviously it failed.

It's sad that people who swear they don't fear Paul and say he has no chance have to revive that stale smear.

I don't believe that for a minute.  An editor knows what's in his newsletter, unless he's a damn fool, which Paul is not.  These were not subtle digs at African-Americans, this was out and out nasty.  He let Lew Rockwell contribute to his newsletteter?  I shudder to think of his cabinet appointments!
:D
Anyway, the question is moot.  Ron Paul is finished, but his name is kept alive on call-in shows just like Lyndon LaRouche and Howard Stern before him!

I don't believe that for a minute.  An editor knows what's in his newsletter, unless he's a damn fool, which Paul is not.  He let Lew Rockwell contribute to his newsletteter?  I shudder to think of his cabinet appointments!
:D
Anyway, the question is moot.  Ron Paul is finished....


The point is Ron Paul did not write it.  And frankly, that's good enough for me.  Actions speak louder than words and Paul is promising to free the most people, including black people, since Lincoln.  How so?  His recent promise to pardon all non-violent drug users from prison.

Ron Paul's presidential campaign is done (it was done when he didn't place in the top three in Iowa), but that won't stop me from voting for him and supporting him as the best candidate.  And it won't stop Paul from hitting the issues (ending the Iraq war, securing the borders, having a sound monetary policy, etc.) in the remaining debates.  Ron Paul is not finished as a congressman though.  He'll still be up there in Washington fighting the left and the fraud neoconservatives for probably years after this.

You are demonstrating how profoundly right-wing propaganda has affected you.  The lie the right-wing perpetuates is the portrayal of "government" as a superhuman malevolent force.  Politics is power, government is who's in charge.  That's all.  The right-wing knows this, that is why they seek to reduce the power of popular representative government as much as possible while stepping up the influence of corporations, banks, and trading houses.  Government does not get minimized, power merely shifts and public resources get grabbed by fewer and richer hands. 

It sounds like you and I actually agree then.  I don't trust the government very much, but I do believe it has certain roles that it has to play to protect things like rights.  However, I brought up Ron Paul to show you what logically follows given the extreme distrust you have for the government when it comes to IDs and such.

Here's how I see it.  I believe that a universal healthcare system would require more competency and trust in the government than a national ID would.  An ID may affect people's lives, but a healthcare system literally has people's lives in the balance -- with the government running things.

So the question here is not one of being left wing or right wing but of how much trust you put in the government.  At the same time, I realize that the government is about the only balancing force in our society against corporations.  So, I think we can agree that the government has to be there to enforce things like antitrust laws and protect consumer rights.  What is more debatable is whether or not it should run our healthcare system.  In addition, this ID is, of course, up for debate.

Let me help explain where I'm coming from on this.  In the private sector, there are several developing trends in identification.  In the constant battle against identity theft, certain retailers across the First World have integrated facial biometrics to not only keep track of spending habits (to know when to send an associate with help in making a purchase) but also to curb theft.

If we implemented more biometrics in the criminal justice system, it would vastly decrease the odds of people being falsely accused (or framed).

So, overall, my question is: is it really that bad for the government to have better ways to identify us if the private sector has already begun to do this themselves?  While we can agree that government should only be trusted to a certain degree, it sounds like we also agree that corporations are not to be trusted much.  So, with the way things currently are, we trust the private sector more in America than we do the government.  In the EU, things are exactly the opposite.

Either way, in the modern world, we are forced to at least trust one or the other.  Privacy, for better or worse, is a rapidly depleting right throughout the First World.

Government is far more invasive and watchful to citizens today than it was before the right-wingers began their 30-year date rape of this country with the election of Ronald Reagan.  Remember, Bill Clinton was just a conservative with liberal talking points. 
::)


Perhaps, but as I think we will agree again, the private sector has done much more to injure the rights of the individual than the government has.  Besides, as bad as Reagan might have been, at least we're long past the days when the government looked the other way when strikes ended in mass murder.

As creepy and depressing as it sounds, I'd rather be watched by the government than murdered.  Imagine how the WGA strike would have ended if it had occurred in the early 1900s.  As corporate as the world might be right now, it's still much better than the days of the Gilded Age and the first half of the 20th Century.