ID required to vote

[TheAnvil 0]

What the hell is wrong with that concept?

Clicky

I have no problem with requiring an ID to vote. One wonders how anyone can claim to be against fraudulent voting and simultaneously decry requiring an ID to vote.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Ron 7]

Quote

I have no problem with requiring an ID to vote

I have no problem with that.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[rehmwa 2]

Proof of citizenship is a great idea.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[chuckbrown 0]

It tends to reduce the flexibility of political parties to influence the outcome of any vote.

"Bring out your dead!"

Or illegal aliens or felons.
What about people who are opposed to government mandated ID cards on privacy grounds? Should they forfeit their right to vote? They're exercising a constitutional right, but are being denied another for doing so. That seems problematic. Sounds a little like "your papers, please."

Just figured I'd go against the grain.

[lummy 4]

don't we have to show ID to prove identity when we vote in California now? I can't remember.

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

What about people who are opposed to government mandated ID cards on privacy grounds? Should they forfeit their right to vote?

(first, people opposed to citizenship ID cards are opposed because they recognize that illegal aliens tend to vote for their pet programs and to them the ends justify dishonest means - or they are innocent and just deluded by illogical political rhetoric by the same people to some subjective 'moral' stance on a non-moral issue) But, for those in the 2nd group.

Exactly that - you don't vote. If you can't prove citizenship, then you don't get to vote. It's very simple. They aren't "forfeiting" the right to vote when that right to vote has a citizenship condition that must be simply shown. The citizen 'chooses' to waive the right to vote by not showing ID.

Are you having your "privacy rights" forfeited when you show ID to buy a drink? No, it's part of the process. Ditto for driving, etc.

However, if someone can show a foolproof and cost effective way to identify a non-citizen at the polls, then I'll listen to them - I'd much rather ID the non-citizens compared to having a proof of citizenship requirement on the rest of the populace. In the meantime, they are just arguing for the sake of being asshats.

Maybe a giant file with the faces of everybody on earth (except the US citizens, we wouldn't want to intrude on their privacy) that scans all the faces and then sets off an alarm and laser dots the non-citizen if they are in the database. Of course, if you are not in the database, you are a citizen and can vote. This will of course require the cooperation of everybody except US citizens and will only work in one country.

Nuts

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

(first, people opposed to citizenship ID cards are opposed because they recognize that illegal aliens tend to vote for their pet programs and to them the ends justify dishonest means - or they are innocent and just deluded by illogical political rhetoric by the same people to some subjective 'moral' stance on a non-moral issue)

Da, Comrade!

I thought California did ask for ID at the polls, but it's been a long time since I switched over to absentee.

[chuckbrown 0]

The last I saw, state legislatures say you can't drink unless you show proof of ID. As for driving, here in PA you just have to have the license, you don't have to carry it. But you do have to show proof of the right to drive if questioned by law enforcement.

The last I saw there are no laws that I'm aware of that say you have to show ID to vote. I don't have to in PA.

If you're in favor of the enactment of such laws, let's hear the reasons for them (something a little more educated than "you're an asshat" might be persuasive). ID for drinking and ID for driving are related to health and safety concerns associated with such activities. What are you looking to prevent by requiring voters to prove their identity? Fraud? Does the potential for voter fraud outweigh someone's constitutional right to privacy?

Personally, I think the government is too intrusive to begin with (and not because I'm involved illegal schemes or have an illogical political motivation). I'm for limited government (remember Newt Gingrich and the contract with America), but if they pass a law that says I have to show ID, I'll abide by it. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it or that it's the right thing to do.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Does the potential for voter fraud outweigh someone's constitutional right to privacy?

Its a right to privacy, not a right to anonymity... showing an ID to vote does not equal linking your vote with your name, so I do not see a privacy issue here at all... proving eligibility to vote is a way to help ensure the integrity of the system...

And with all the accusations of fraud in the last two presidential elections, yes, IMO it does.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[rehmwa 2]

I put down reasons you got distracted by the flip parts, but summing it up - it's exactly to prevent fraud - that's about it, nothing else. And we know there is fraud, so it's to address a real problem not some made up nonsense which eats up many of our tax dollars.

I don't see any violation of privacy here. Just proof of citizenship to vote. A violation would be if your actual vote was recorded and made available to the public or agencies or marketing groups, etc. The only argument you could even stand on would be that a record of whether or not you even voted at all could now be on record, but not how you voted. And that only to prevent people from voting multiple times seems warranted as it is also a real problem. It could be wiped following close of polls to settle that potential problem.

If you want small government, I'm on your side, but I'd pick meaningful battles. This one falls under the "don't complain about one solution until you have a better idea" catagory.

There are only 2 candidates, you vote for candidate A, an illegal votes for B (or your neighbot voted for B twice) - he just stole your vote. Tell me, is your very borderline interpretation of the right to privacy more important to you than a direct rape of your right to vote? Especially if actions to ensure your privacy can be made with a simple request for ID?

"if they pass a law that says I have to show ID, I'll abide by it. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it or that it's the right thing to do" I'm going to buy you a beer for that statement if we ever meet. I feel the same way about many issues, but the petulant spoiled children that only follows laws they agree with aren't worth the time of day to listen to them. By this, I'd gladly hear your opinions whether we agree or not.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mnealtx 0]

Didn't Cali have a big flap a couple years ago over Motor-Voter and giving licenses to illegals?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lummy 4]

Quote

couple years ago over Motor-Voter and giving licenses to illegals?

That short lived issue was repealed by the governator when he took office.

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

However, if someone can show a foolproof and cost effective way to identify a non-citizen at the polls, then I'll listen to them - I'd much rather ID the non-citizens compared to having a proof of citizenship requirement on the rest of the populace. In the meantime, they are just arguing for the sake of being asshats.

And there's the problem. It's not foolproof. Unfortunately many believe that it will be and that's going to cause a whole more problems than it will ever fix.

Well, that's one of the problems, anyway.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Balls 0]

Quote

Does the potential for voter fraud outweigh someone's constitutional right to privacy?

I don't mean to hijack, but where does the constitution protect privacy?

----------------------------------------
....so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

[jdhill 0]

Quote

where does the constitution protect privacy?

According to the US Supreme Court, the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[SpeedRacer 1]

what real tangible harm are you doing to yourself & your privacy by showing an ID when you vote?? The vote itself is anonymous, but there must be some way to verify that everyone voted is eligible & only voted once.

look I understand the whole libertarian thing, but, just like anything else, even that can be taken to ridiculous extremes.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[markd_nscr986 0]

Colorado you show an ID to get a ballot or they show you the "exit"

And, even then, they had voter fraud

Some people voted absentee then they "conveniently" forgot and turned up at the polling places to vote again

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

what real tangible harm are you doing to yourself & your privacy by showing an ID when you vote?? The vote itself is anonymous, but there must be some way to verify that everyone voted is eligible & only voted once.

look I understand the whole libertarian thing, but, just like anything else, even that can be taken to ridiculous extremes.

No I think you're getting things mixed up. We currently ca,n vote without presenting ID. Are you saying our current laws are extreme? The issue is whether we want to change our current system of voting by requiring proof of identity to get into the polls to vote.

As it currently stands, when people are undertaking their civic duty to vote there's a certain element of trust that the voter is who he says he is. What an ID requirement is saying is we don't believe the voter when he says who he is.

We don't have illegal aliens lined up to vote for politicians who are beholden to the illegal alien vote. So, preventing non-citizens from voting is solving a problem that isn't really there. The worst there is are political parties playing the system so their guy wins. An ID system will probably solve that as effectively as carding underage drinkers has solved the underage drinking problem.

I just don't see a problem large enough to justify government intervention.

[jdhill 0]

Hey, I'm for showing ID... I don't see any privacy issue with it... CB did, then someone else asked where privacy was protected by the Const... that's all I was pointing out.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[kelpdiver 2]

Two issues floating in the mix.

Showing ID at the polls
Having a citizenship card

[KevinMcGuire 0]

[
And there's the problem. It's not foolproof.