Do you favor ID Laws?
Yes, Photo ID
39% (16)
39% (16)
Yes, Exceptions
14.6% (6)
14.6% (6)
Yes, Non-photo ID
12.2% (5)
12.2% (5)
No
34.1% (14)
34.1% (14)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Voter ID Laws

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

image

A hot topic that is gaining momentum in the US is Voter ID laws. Under them, a voter must show ID of some form (and depending on the state, a current photo ID).

Supporters of these laws say they will prevent fraud and make sure the election process is upheld.

Opponents say it discriminates against minorities and the elderly.

Personally, I am in favor of ID laws, because the majority of people are going to have an ID of some sort, and it wouldnt be that hard or expensive to get a current photo on it. What I DONT support is what Kansas (my state), Georgia, Tennesse, and Alabama have done...you must show proof of citizenship before you are allowed to vote. While it is well intended, THAT is a step too far.

How do we know you are who you say you are?

Quite frankly (and this opinion has no legal basis, I realize) if you can't be bothered to go through the trouble of even a State-issue ID, you shouldn't get to be making decisions on how the state is run or who runs it.

Are the requisite IDs free and can be obtained in less than 1 day? If not, then those laws have no business being on the books. The aim should always be to make voting less-restrictive, not more.

And before someone screams "voter fraud," the combined statistics of voter fraud in the US in the last decade couldn't even tip one close US House race. And most of those cases aren't even malicious/intentional.

EDIT: Here's a WP article on "Five Myths About Voter Fraud". There's some good data about state ID requirements (including the actual cost of such ID when you factor in the necessary documentation to get one) and how the laws would likely effect certain groups.

The Gentleman:
Are the requisite IDs free and can be obtained in less than 1 day? If not, then those laws have no business being on the books. The aim should always be to make voting less-restrictive, not more.

And before someone screams "voter fraud," the combined statistics of voter fraud in the US in the last decade couldn't even tip one close US House race. And most of those cases aren't even malicious/intentional.

I have to agree with you. Unless these ID's are free and easily obtainable this is nothing more than a blatant attempt at restricting voting rights.

The Gentleman:
Are the requisite IDs free and can be obtained in less than 1 day? If not, then those laws have no business being on the books. The aim should always be to make voting less-restrictive, not more.

This.

Anything that restricts voting rights, in any way, is wrong.

The Gentleman:
Are the requisite IDs free and can be obtained in less than 1 day?

From What I understand, any form of ID is valid, but most people will probly use a driver's license. Hence the problem, opponents say. Not everyone has a drivers license, especially minorities and the elderly. To that I have to say "surely they have SOME form of ID?"

Have any jurisdictions in America ever experienced such widespread voter fraud that would make it necessary to require the presentation of ID at polling stations? I don't live in America but whenever I vote they ask me for my name and address and if it matches up with the roll in the electoral district the polling station is within I get my ballot papers and go vote. I have big doubts about being able to bluff your way into voting with false information, especially in America where it's unlikely you'd even know whether anyone else was even enrolled to vote.

On the face of it having some form of ID to vote doesn't sound like a horrible idea, but it makes me very uncomfortable, especially in states that require state photo ID or proof of citizenship, because of the potential for disenfranchisement. It's going to be the most poor, most vulnerable people in society who lack "appropriate" ID, and I don't think they deserve to be banned from voting because of that.

America has genuine potential for serious electoral fraud, but it's going to come from rigged voting machines, destroyed or missing ballots, electoral roll tampering, the spread of untruths and misinformation targeted primarily at racial minorities with the intent to intimidate them into not voting, etc., not from people without ID bluffing their way into voting under different identities.

I don't understand why anyone is allowed to vote without photo id. It just promotes vote fraud.

On the issue of "not everyone has a drivers license", well that's ok, everyone has a government issued photo id for their free health care. Oops...not so much down there ;)

Seriously though, its a simple matter. Where I live for a small fee you can get a government issued photo ID. It's a common thing for those barely of "legal age" to drink who don't drive.

Hafrael:

The Gentleman:
Are the requisite IDs free and can be obtained in less than 1 day? If not, then those laws have no business being on the books. The aim should always be to make voting less-restrictive, not more.

This.

Anything that restricts voting rights, in any way, is wrong.

And how are you going to feel when you go to vote and find you already have because I, without ID, voted for you?

ten.to.ten:
Have any jurisdictions in America ever experienced such widespread voter fraud that would make it necessary to require the presentation of ID at polling stations?

No, though Republicans often allege widespread voter fraud (with minimal follow-up that the allegations are actually true) after every election cycle, especially ones when Democrats make gains.

Two questions...

1. Could you vote without any form of ID before 2011? I've visited the US a few years back; I could just walk into a random voting-office-thingy and vote for Ron Paul?! (I'm Dutch)
2. The green color indicates a form of regulation where you can identify on Election Day -or a few days later? As far as I know, I throw my paper into a box and it'll be counted on the end of the day. The counting-process is entirely anonymous. They can't know what I've voted for. But how does it work if I have to be identified a few days later? My vote goes into a special box and they'll wait a few days before they decide if they'll accept my vote?!

Oh this topic again, its been a while.

I still don't see how its unreasonable to expect someone who is voting to at least produce some form of ID. Sure in irregular cases you can make exceptions but I don't buy the argument that requiring at least SOME method of identification somehow restricts your voting rights.

Kendarik:
I don't understand why anyone is allowed to vote without photo id. It just promotes vote fraud.

On the issue of "not everyone has a drivers license", well that's ok, everyone has a government issued photo id for their free health care. Oops...not so much down there ;)

Seriously though, its a simple matter. Where I live for a small fee you can get a government issued photo ID. It's a common thing for those barely of "legal age" to drink who don't drive.

The "small fee" might not be small to some, in my state an "Adult Proof of Age Card" costs $42.80. This can be a significant amount of money for someone on a low wage, or unemployed, or disabled or elderly. Unless the state is going to offer subsidised state ID for poor people then you're basically demanding paying money for a license to vote.

As for your point about a healthcare card having photo ID, I'm pretty sure that American health insurance cards are like credit cards and don't have photos on them, nor would a Medicare card or a Social Security card have photos.

Well, if they have some sort of central registry where all US citizens are registered, then it should be a simple matter to send out a voter ID to all of them in due time before the election (and allow any homeless people to collect theirs in the municipality they're registered to).

If such register does not exist, then requiring some other form officially issued ID seems quite reasonable, though it hardly needs to include a photo, and only if a mandatory ID that's issued free of charge exist.

One can't simply have all kinds of minors, tourists, or illegals stroll in and vote in elections they're not entitled to vote in. The problem might not be a particularly practical one - just as charging a small fee for issuing an ID wouldn't be - but on principle voting is a sacrosanct process, for which great care should always be taken in all steps, to ensure that it's freely and easily available for those who're entitled to participate, but also properly undertaken so that their vote get the weight it's entitled to.

Voter fraud is vanishingly rare. People not having a state-issued ID is actually not that uncommon. It might be uncommon in suburban areas where driving's pretty much a requirement, but that doesn't mean it's the same everywhere, and voter ID laws just shut people out--and yes usually minorities--of the democratic process.

If there really was a problem, I might feel differently. There isn't, so I'm against these laws.

ten.to.ten:

Kendarik:
I don't understand why anyone is allowed to vote without photo id. It just promotes vote fraud.

On the issue of "not everyone has a drivers license", well that's ok, everyone has a government issued photo id for their free health care. Oops...not so much down there ;)

Seriously though, its a simple matter. Where I live for a small fee you can get a government issued photo ID. It's a common thing for those barely of "legal age" to drink who don't drive.

The "small fee" might not be small to some, in my state an "Adult Proof of Age Card" costs $42.80. This can be a significant amount of money for someone on a low wage, or unemployed, or disabled or elderly. Unless the state is going to offer subsidised state ID for poor people then you're basically demanding paying money for a license to vote.

It costs $35 for 5 years here. I would however see no problem with waiving that fee for anyone who presented their welfare statement, that picks up the bottom end.

As for your point about a healthcare card having photo ID, I'm pretty sure that American health insurance cards are like credit cards and don't have photos on them, nor would a Medicare card or a Social Security card have photos.

We started putting pictures on a LONG time ago, fraud prevention 101.

Credit cards pretty much all have pins now, unless your health cards do too, you're asking for it ;)

BOOM headshot65:

The Gentleman:
Are the requisite IDs free and can be obtained in less than 1 day?

From What I understand, any form of ID is valid, but most people will probly use a driver's license. Hence the problem, opponents say. Not everyone has a drivers license, especially minorities and the elderly. To that I have to say "surely they have SOME form of ID?"

Often not one that is valid (default laws will always assume that the ID must be valid). Many elderly do not drive or perform tasks that would require a valid government issued ID (or they're not carded for the things that they would need them for like liquor or senior discounts) and the vast majority of licences and IDs have expiration dates within 10 years. If you're 75-80 and have a family member, nurse, or bus to help you get around town, you don't need a drivers licence and most likely have no need for any other one.

You're not getting far in life without some forms of ID, so why not check on it while voting anyway. All the safer the actual voting process.

The Gentleman:
Are the requisite IDs free and can be obtained in less than 1 day? If not, then those laws have no business being on the books. The aim should always be to make voting less-restrictive, not more.

That's a bit exagerated. If someone waited untill the day before the election to request an ID, clearly they didn't care about the election to begin with. Besides, having one is pretty much a requirement for any official business. There's nobody who can say they don't need an ID or can't get one.

It's not like people are entitled to never taking care of business and then expecting the government to accomodate them.

Blablahb:
You're not getting far in life without some forms of ID, so why not check on it while voting anyway. All the safer the actual voting process.

The Gentleman:
Are the requisite IDs free and can be obtained in less than 1 day? If not, then those laws have no business being on the books. The aim should always be to make voting less-restrictive, not more.

That's a bit exagerated. If someone waited untill the day before the election to request an ID, clearly they didn't care about the election to begin with. Besides, having one is pretty much a requirement for any official business. There's nobody who can say they don't need an ID or can't get one.

It's not like people are entitled to never taking care of business and then expecting the government to accomodate them.

I am for Photo ID with exceptions.

There are native tribes where photos are still forbidden, but they are also issued a tribal ID that is accepted for most purposes already. There should be exceptions, but those exceptions should be listed, otherwise a photo ID should be required.

As for people who say voter fraud doesn't exist, how could 900 deceased people vote? With no ID requirement, it would be too easy to pay people to vote multiple times for a candidate if you have enough money to do so. Identity theft is rampant as it is. Elections should be one vote per person, otherwise why have elections at all and just allow whoever has the most money to take the job?

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2012/jan/16/voters-wanted-alive-not-dead/

Lil devils x:

I am for Photo ID with exceptions.

There are native tribes where photos are still forbidden, but they are also issued a tribal ID that is accepted for most purposes already. There should be exceptions, but those exceptions should be listed, otherwise a photo ID should be required.

If they want to have exceptions, or additional forms of optional ID, then they should be an option and available for all. Exceptions should certainly not be made for people's superstitious beliefs, unless I can say "I'm sorry, I believe Photos steal my soul" and get out of having a photo on my drivers licence.

That said.. either the government should issue ID cards (something I've never had a problem with) free of charge, or they should not require photo ID, simple as that. When it comes to voting, it has to be something everyone will have, or nothing.

Craorach:

Lil devils x:

I am for Photo ID with exceptions.

There are native tribes where photos are still forbidden, but they are also issued a tribal ID that is accepted for most purposes already. There should be exceptions, but those exceptions should be listed, otherwise a photo ID should be required.

If they want to have exceptions, or additional forms of optional ID, then they should be an option and available for all. Exceptions should certainly not be made for people's superstitious beliefs, unless I can say "I'm sorry, I believe Photos steal my soul" and get out of having a photo on my drivers licence.

That said.. either the government should issue ID cards (something I've never had a problem with) free of charge, or they should not require photo ID, simple as that. When it comes to voting, it has to be something everyone will have, or nothing.

They are required to make exceptions for Native Americans, as the Indian nations reside with the protection of the US, but have sovereignty over their own people. This really is not negotiable, unless you want to carry out the extermination of the tribes. The tribes have shown repeatedly they would rather perish than give up their vows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_United_States

Tribal sovereignty in the United States refers to the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States of America. The federal government recognizes tribal nations as "domestic dependent nations" and has established a number of laws attempting to clarify the relationship between the federal, state, and tribal governments. The Constitution and later federal laws grant local sovereignty to tribal nations, yet do not grant full sovereignty equivalent to foreign nations, hence the term "domestic dependent nations".

PS. Many do not believe it will steal their soul, they have sworn a vow to the great spirit not to use anything that harms the earth. Cameras, and the things they use to make them harm the earth. You see, in Hopi tradition, at the beginning of this world, they were shown that technology destroyed their previous world and they took an oath to obstain from technology because it was destined to be used for evil again to destroy this world as well. It is not a matter of photos stealing their soul, but instead they would break their promise to the great spirit to only take care of the earth and keep the ways they were taught to heal the earth instead.

Lil devils x:
I am for Photo ID with exceptions.

There are native tribes where photos are still forbidden, but they are also issued a tribal ID that is accepted for most purposes already. There should be exceptions, but those exceptions should be listed, otherwise a photo ID should be required.

As for people who say voter fraud doesn't exist, how could 900 deceased people vote? With no ID requirement, it would be too easy to pay people to vote multiple times for a candidate if you have enough money to do so. Identity theft is rampant as it is. Elections should be one vote per person, otherwise why have elections at all and just allow whoever has the most money to take the job?

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2012/jan/16/voters-wanted-alive-not-dead/

My first question would be why were the deceased not removed from the voting roll? Shouldn't that be a basic responsibility of whichever organisation is in charge of running elections?

i marked the states that require photo id and are republican states.... coincidence ?

image

I'm all in favor of requiring a photo-ID for one simple reason: If you can't find some way of obtaining a photo-ID before election day, I don't want you to have anything to do with electing the single most powerful person in the country. If that's being discriminant towards some ethnic or age-related group I want a legitimate and solid reason, and if not, tough shit.

Lil devils x:
I am for Photo ID with exceptions.

There are native tribes where photos are still forbidden

Their superstitions are their problems, and not anybody else's. Making exceptions is wrong and would undermine that whole system. It's either for everbody or for nobody.

The only relevant reason someone could have for not being able to have a photo, is being invisible. You see how that would be a problem with a photo ID. But to my knowledge, nobody in the US is the invisible man.

BOOM headshot65:
What I DONT support is what Kansas (my state), Georgia, Tennesse, and Alabama have done...you must show proof of citizenship before you are allowed to vote. While it is well intended, THAT is a step too far.

Why?

What possible problem does that cause? Proof of citizenship is easily obtainable by any and all legal citizens (with the possible exception of a few extreme cases, but they'd have a tough time getting any ID, photo or not). Those who are not legal citizens are quite simply not legally allowed to vote.

Blablahb:

Lil devils x:
I am for Photo ID with exceptions.

There are native tribes where photos are still forbidden

Their superstitions are their problems, and not anybody else's. Making exceptions is wrong and would undermine that whole system. It's either for everbody or for nobody.

The only relevant reason someone could have for not being able to have a photo, is being invisible. You see how that would be a problem with a photo ID. But to my knowledge, nobody in the US is the invisible man.

You choose to force your opinion onto others, they choose to forcefully resist to protect theirs. All you propose is creating a conflict where none is necessary. It is more difficult to obtain a tribal ID than a Photo ID, so there should not be an issue considering they have done quite well with this for a long time. The tribes were here first, if anyone should make changes it would be those who came later. You do not walk into a place and expect everyone to change for you. It should not be expected to change everyone that was here first to accomodate your beliefs that photos are okay. "photos being okay" is just as much a superstitious belief as "photos are not okay". the only difference is you want to force your beliefs onto others, and they simply want to be able to have theirs.

If you're pro-active in making sure that everyone has access to completely free photo ID at all times, then sure.

If you fail to provide adequate free ID, it becomes a poll tax. Poll taxes are unconstitutional and have been for decades.

It's not just enough to make it available, you need to make sure people know about it and can get them easily with minimal fuss. That includes the homeless or destitute or those who move about a lot (students, for instance). One person, one vote, regardless of circumstances.

Not that voter fraud has ever been a real widespread issue in America of course, but if you're going to implement useless voter ID laws you should probably make sure they're constitutional first. Not in the way you mean, anyway.

Lil devils x:
You choose to force your opinion onto others, they choose to forcefully resist to protect theirs.

So electoral fraud is actually a good thing, and being opposed to that is strictly my opinion? Alright, suit yourself I guess.

Lil devils x:
All you propose is creating a conflict where none is necessary.

Sticking to the non-discrimination principle isn't creating conflicts. Demanding special treatment above everybody else is creating conflicts.

Lil devils x:
It is more difficult to obtain a tribal ID than a Photo ID

So obtain a photo ID instead. Next question.

Lil devils x:
The tribes were here first, if anyone should make changes it would be those who came later.
You do not walk into a place and expect everyone to change for you.

So basically what you're saying is, if a few hundred people have the delusional idea that they own the entire country because their ethnic group is oh so superior above all others, tens of millions of people and an entire country needs to change to suit their whims?

I don't think it works like that.

Besides, I'm the only one around whom the world revolves. No place for others to claim the same.

Blablahb:

Lil devils x:
You choose to force your opinion onto others, they choose to forcefully resist to protect theirs.

So electoral fraud is actually a good thing, and being opposed to that is strictly my opinion? Alright, suit yourself I guess.

Lil devils x:
All you propose is creating a conflict where none is necessary.

Sticking to the non-discrimination principle isn't creating conflicts. Demanding special treatment above everybody else is creating conflicts.

Lil devils x:
It is more difficult to obtain a tribal ID than a Photo ID

So obtain a photo ID instead. Next question.

Lil devils x:
The tribes were here first, if anyone should make changes it would be those who came later.
You do not walk into a place and expect everyone to change for you.

So basically what you're saying is, if a few hundred people have the delusional idea that they own the entire country because their ethnic group is oh so superior above all others, tens of millions of people and an entire country needs to change to suit their whims?

I don't think it works like that.

Besides, I'm the only one around whom the world revolves. No place for others to claim the same.

No, of course electoral fraud is not okay. That is why I stated I am for Photo ID with exceptions. I wish to solve the problem without excluding people I disagree with. That is the only way to do so. Why would photo ID be more effective than fingerprint scanners or some other form of identification? Photo IDs are actually faked easier than a tribal ID. I had a fake ID from the age of 16- 21 to purchase alcohol with. Yes, now they are a bit harder to obtain than they were then, but it still happens quite frequently. Identity theft is quite advanced, even have them being issued real drivers licenses under their false Identity and opening bank accounts. You are just hell bent on trying to single these people out to force changes onto that are completely unecessary.

All you propose is excluding them from polls, or forcing them to break their vows to the great spirit. Do you seriously think that they would break their vows to vote when they would not break their vows to live? They would allow themselves to be exterminated to protect those vows, that is not changing anytime soon. Besides, you cannot pass laws for the tribes to begin with, the tribes have to agree to accept it or it is invalid according to the federal laws protecting their sovereignty as it is. You propose making a big deal out of something that could be solved very easily by including it in the original proposal.

BOOM headshot65:
What I DONT support is what Kansas (my state), Georgia, Tennesse, and Alabama have done...you must show proof of citizenship before you are allowed to vote. While it is well intended, THAT is a step too far.

How is proving that you are a citizen bad? I can think of no reason for why people who don't have a citizenship should be allowed to vote.

I don't think it is a coincidence that a majority of the states that require photo ID are in the Bible Belt and are typically Republican states. It is not exactly a secret that they try to restrict the ability of the poor and minorities to vote as they overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

The instances of voter fraud are stupidly low to begin with. There are better ways of dealing with it. This is purely a political attempt to restrict voting.

Hardcore_gamer:

BOOM headshot65:
What I DONT support is what Kansas (my state), Georgia, Tennesse, and Alabama have done...you must show proof of citizenship before you are allowed to vote. While it is well intended, THAT is a step too far.

How is proving that you are a citizen bad? I can think of no reason for why people who don't have a citizenship should be allowed to vote.

I say, vote where you pay taxes and are a permanent resident. Which means that you don't get to vote in your native country if you moved somewhere else forever.

Residency (legal, of course) is more important than citizenship if you ask me. Because, well, if you live half the world away and aren't going to be affected by how your "home" country is run, why would you vote there?

On the flip side, if you're permanently residing in a country, pay taxes, and work in its economy, you should have a say in how it's run.

BOOM headshot65:

The Gentleman:
Are the requisite IDs free and can be obtained in less than 1 day?

From What I understand, any form of ID is valid, but most people will probly use a driver's license. Hence the problem, opponents say. Not everyone has a drivers license, especially minorities and the elderly. To that I have to say "surely they have SOME form of ID?"

Well, if you don't need to use some form of ID in day to day life, why would you have it? For fun? Just because? :/

BreakfastMan:

BOOM headshot65:

The Gentleman:
Are the requisite IDs free and can be obtained in less than 1 day?

From What I understand, any form of ID is valid, but most people will probly use a driver's license. Hence the problem, opponents say. Not everyone has a drivers license, especially minorities and the elderly. To that I have to say "surely they have SOME form of ID?"

Well, if you don't need to use some form of ID in day to day life, why would you have it? For fun? Just because? :/

Why are you posting on the internet without your papers!!??

Let me see your papers!! I said PAPERS...you scum!!

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked