One side says it's necessary to prevent voter fraud. The other side argues that it's a form of disenfranchisement along the lines of the poll taxes. Which way do you lean on this issue and why?
sort by best latest
Again, if your poor then apply for Gov't asst. The revenue covers the cost of the ID 1000 fold. You cant cash the gov't aid checks without ID to open a bank acct. Fraud is Fraud. This is a very reasonable request. I got ID when I was poor/
LandmarkWealth, many of the indigent won't use a bank. If they get welfare checks, they take to one of the check cashing places that frequently won't ask for ID.
Actually most do require ID. More so than most places. And even if they didnt the check is more than enough to cover the cost of ID that is renewed for 7-10 years Perhaps we should be more concerned with the attempts inOhio to prevent military votes
We should be concerned with attempts to prevent any votes. Obama wasn't trying to restrict military voting in Ohio. He was trying to reinstate those early voting days that the GOP took away from everyone else.
They filed the suit to block a new state law allowing men and women in uniform to vote up until the Monday right before an election, while the cutoff on early voting for the rest of the public is three days earlier. How is that reinstatinganything
No, the law in question took away those 3 days from everyone BUT military personnel. That law has been overturned. Those 3 days are now open to everyone. http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/08/fe...
because the miliary was historically given special treatment as a result of their unpredictable nature of their deployment
There was no reason to take those days away from anyone (unless you are a Republican and know that those particular votes tend Democratic). That was the point.
No the point was there was a time frame set up for everyone on accordance with the law. Only the military was given special treatment and extra time because of there circumstance. Not Republicans.
The point was to expand voting opportunities. That's all. Unless you are opposed to that I don't see the issue here.
We don't have unlimited times to vote. There is one election day. Concessions can be made under certain circumstances but not just expanding days to everyone all the time. Why not just hold the 2016 election to while were at it.
35 states hold early voting, some of them with periods longer than 30 days. That is the norm, not a concession. The Ohio effort was restoring days taken away by the GOP in an earlier voter suppression effort.
You assume all this disenfranchisement is somehow republican based. The rules are the same no matter who you vote for. It effects everyone equally, so that means each side is equally supressed "supposedly" Or can democrats not follow rules as well.
I don't assume anything. Statistically, these efforts all impact Democratic leaning voters more than Republicans. They are less likely to have proper IDs, face greater difficulties in getting them, and are more likely to cast early votes.
The ID issue is simply nonense, Aside from that, Somehow Democrats are also less likely to vote because the deadline to vote is changed and anounced to everyone ??? It used to be Seniors were the ones hurt until the polls showed they voted Mccain.
If you make it harder to vote, fewer people vote. That's wrong regardless of who they vote for.
lw lives in an alternate reality. don't waste your time arguing with him.
my parting comment: folks with downs syndrome have social workers help them get their ID's. lw's comment about that borders on abuse.
Yes i live in an alternate reality even though I come from poverty that few americans have ever seen. By the way my nephew has Down Syndrome and he works and has ID and no social worker took him. He is quite self sufficient with less excuses.
The cost of ID for those that don't have it is peanuts. And if they don't get it they can't open the bank out to cash the SS checks. minnesota had over 100 voter fraud convictions in 2008 election alone.
do you know if the minnesota cases were in person or absentee?
many people can't get to the photo center. in my county it's over a half hour drive. $10 for birth certificate and $10 for ID may seem like peanuts to you, but is not for some.
If someone is that indigent than they qualify for Gov't asst. So the Gov't asst will more than cover the cost. Yet they cant get the Gov't asst without the ID because they cant cash the check. Problem solved. The form of fraud is not relevant.
Very true. The I.D. efforts are concentrated in battleground states for a GOP political advantage. It's obvious.
Voter ID has been a topic of discussion all the way back to the 1980's. This did not just spring up. And Mccain got more of the supposed disinfranchised elderly senior vote in 2008 than Obama.
you do not need photo ID to access public benefits.
You need the ID to cash the check from a public benefit. State and Federal Social Asst do not pay cash. And you can't cash the check without ID to open the bank acct. That means no unemployment, Social Security and various other benefits
they don't send a check. it's direct deposit and the government issues a sort of debit card. you're far removed from the reality of poverty. i'm a social worker. i see these things often. also, i used to bank where they knew me and required no ID.
Social Security does issue debit cards. Most states do not for unemployment benefits. And I have worked in finance for 15 years. Read the patriot act. It is a Federal offense to open an account at any Financial Institution without proper ID.
Lacking a current necessary ID does not mean someone does not have a bank account. I've had 8 different addresses in 3 states since I opened my bank account over a decade ago. And at the time I think I opened it with a student ID.
Many people have old accts. Thats not relevant. Current law reasonably requests proper ID to open an acct. There was no evidence of an attempt on the president at the convention, yet ID was requird to enter. Is that discrimnatory to the poor ???
Not relevant? Your whole argument is basically that life is unmanageable without a proper ID. You are just plain wrong. Many people do it all the time. Try having some empathy with their lives rather than assuming you know everything.
No the argument is that "going foward" you cannot accomplish these things without proper id. so there in no reason that voting should not keep up with current changes to legislation.
that ignores all the folks getting by without what for them is an expensive ID right now. that ignores this election. 25 million people denied the right to vote.
Your still wrong. You don't seem to have any idea how the world of the poor works. It doesn't go by your rules. + The issue isn't just ID/no ID. The issue is timing. This stuff is coming just before an election because they know it will shrink votes.
This is not a timing issue. It came up all throug the 80's and 90's and even at one time in the 60's whenJFK got all theChicago dead to vote. Please dont tell me about poor.i grew up in the poorest area's ofNYC withnothing. If ID wasfree youd opposs
If it wasn't a timing issue it would be done well in advance of the election to ensure no one's vote was impacted. An organized and massive 11th hour effort is clearly and intentionally DESIGNED for a singular purpose: win by cheating.
Junkseller, there have numerous proposals for years in many states. Some of these just recently past. Considering it takes all of 1 day to get ID and the law was passed several months in advance, while most already have ID that's hardly 11th hour
180 bills in 41 states since 2011, much of that in the past 6 months in key states. You are not being fair to the real challenges these restrictions present to people. http://brennan.3cdn.net/f5f28dd844a143d303_i36m6ly...
Again, you can trace this as a controversy to at least the 60's. No shock here. I have obtained ID in both NY and Florida when I lived there. It's really not that difficult. If people with Down Syndrome can do it, the average voter can pull it off
Do you really expect anyone to accept that how hard you THINK something is or isn't matches the reality of how hard that thing actually is? Did you read the report? Places open one day a month, people without cars more than 10 miles away, etc.
You bring up some excellent points.
Opening a bank account is not equivalent to voting. Moreover, I don't recall ever being requested to show a photo I.D. when opening a bank account. Most of them fall all over themselves to get you to open an account. (Not denying that some banks req)
It has been Federal AML for more than a decade. You can not open account without proper ID or the bank is in violation of Federal anti money laundering laws. Meaning no account ability to deposit.