Dem's New Slogan....

[Cow Poke]

Umm...no. But you do raise a good point. Seat Belt laws were written (in most states) to grandfather older cars not equipped with them.

EGGAZAKLY my point!

That would be a simple alternative approach to the VoterID problem.

No, not a simple alternative - but part of the solution. The Voter ID laws could have exceptions, but there's no reason NOT to have Voter ID laws just because a very small percentage of people might not have the required ID, and a very small subset of THAT group might be a little inconvenienced in getting them.

You're working way too hard to opposed a law you claim you're for.

[lilpixieofterror]

Fine - and acknowledged. But the original discussion was about the "right" to buy an airline ticket and fly or drive a car. Where are these guaranteed constitutionally?

9th and 10th amendment, intentions of the framers if the constitution, established common law of the era, etc.

Which is pretty much exactly what I said: create the law to be implemented int he future, giving people an adequate window for securing the IDs and the means to do so (if they cannot afford, for example). The window I suggested was 10/1/20.

Many states have given years already.

Which is basically what I said. Anything proposed as a possibility cannot be definitively shown. All we can show is the reduction in voter participation.

It can be definitively shown that Wisconsin voter turn out had precisely zero effect on who became president because Trump won by 36 electoral votes and Wisconsin only had 10.

Since I never advocated for total, 100% compliance, I have no response.

[Roy]

Here's a list of 24 things you can't do without a photo ID. A lot of things on the list are surprisingly mundane:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/2...ped_fragment_=

In the last year, I have done #1, #9, #14, #17, #19, #20, #22 and #24. Less recently I've done #3, #5, #7 and #8. I could do #2, #18, #21 and #23 if I wanted to. I've also voted several times.

All without having to show a photo ID card.

In fact the only things I can remember needing a photo ID for in the last 10 years are (i) international air travel, and (ii) entering non-public-access government sites.

Either that list is insanely misleading, or you're living in a police state.

[lilpixieofterror]

Provisional ballots do not solve the problem for the reasons cited earlier. They permit the voter to vote, but the vote is not counted until the voter is determined to be eligible. That has to be done within a fairly short period of time after the election day.

The idea of grandfathering existing registrants is better.

[lilpixieofterror]

In the last year, I have done #1, #9, #14, #17, #19, #20, #22 and #24. Less recently I've done #3, #5, #7 and #8. I could do #2, #18, #21 and #23 if I wanted to. I've also voted several times.

All without having to show a photo ID card.

In fact the only things I can remember needing a photo ID for in the last 10 years are (i) international air travel, and (ii) entering non-public-access government sites.

Either that list is insanely misleading, or you're living in a police state.

Either/or fallacy.

[Sparko]

Here's a list of 24 things you can't do without a photo ID. A lot of things on the list are surprisingly mundane:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/2...ped_fragment_=

The whole complaint about not having photo ID to vote is manufactured outrage.

[carpedm9587]

When you don't like something, you tend to overcomplicatify it. You don't really know what the rules are for provisional ballots all across the country.

The rules show some variation, Seer, but they are all subject to the 2002 Act, so they cannot vary outside the bounds of that act.

[carpedm9587]

EGGAZAKLY my point!



No, not a simple alternative - but part of the solution. The Voter ID laws could have exceptions, but there's no reason NOT to have Voter ID laws just because a very small percentage of people might not have the required ID, and a very small subset of THAT group might be a little inconvenienced in getting them.

You're working way too hard to opposed a law you claim you're for.

I'm not opposing the law whatsoever. I'm opposing the timing and implementation strategy. That appears to be a point being missed as people continue to react to me as if I am making the typical argument "VoterID laws bad." I never said they were bad. I actually said I support them. I said they were badly implemented and suggested a different approach. And I like the grandfathered notion. I think that should be included. If it were, timing and existing IDs would cease to be an issue. No one who can currently vote would be disenfranchised by a VoterID law. Over time, as people inevitably die, we would end up with 100% VoterID participation, and we would eliminate any new participants that lack proper ID.

[Sparko]

Many of them are. I do not know if it is most or all. As far as I know, there is no study specifically about this.

You seem to be arguing for something you admit you really don't know much about.

Assuming your use of "polls" refers to polling places, I can only tell you how it works here.

Yes.

While there is a formal mechanism for registering to vote (and registration has been automated with DMV license acquisition),

So basically they have to have a photoID (license) to register to vote?

the local polling administrator has some latitude for exerting judgment. Two two ladies my colleagues have been working with to gain IDs have been voting all of their lives. They are known to the community, and their identity or history is not questioned.

so word of mouth is good enough?

Currently, very little stops anyone from voting more than once at more than one polling place, but there is little documented incidence of this.

This is where I don't get your viewpoint on this. You seem to be claiming that voting is such a sacred right that we can't allow one voter to slip through the cracks by requiring photoID. Yet, if voting is such a sacred right, shouldn't you want to protect it so that there is no possibility that people could be cheating? You seem to be very concerned about Russia interferring with our elections, but don't want to put in place safeguards like a simple photo ID to stop fraud.

You seem to have very little documentation that getting a photoID is a problem for many people or would stop people from voting, other than some informal news articles. That doesn't seem to stop you from wanting to let everyone vote without IDs just in case.

I would rather make sure our voting system is not compromised by cheaters or fraud.

Most voters are tracked, but there is very little interworking between voter registries, which are maintained at the state level. So a person moving from one state to another may well appear on the registries of both states. We know the voter registries are cluttered with the names of dead people, people who have moved, etc. What we do not have is evidence that this is resulting in widespread voter fraud.

How would you even know if they are not tracking the voters using credentials to make sure there is no fraud???

[carpedm9587]

9th and 10th amendment, intentions of the framers if the constitution, established common law of the era, etc.

You are stretching very badly to hold onto a point. The 9th and 10th don't even come close to a "constitutionally protected right to buy an airline ticket" or "drive a car." People are denied the right to do both all the time without any form of "due process."

Many states have given years already.

Some have. I am speaking to the issue as a national whole.

It can be definitively shown that Wisconsin voter turn out had precisely zero effect on who became president because Trump won by 36 electoral votes and Wisconsin only had 10.

I cited the state as an example, Pix, and noted that Trump was a "possible" example. It would depend on what happened in the rest of the states related to VoterID and the resulting voter suppression. I do not have that data or the time to dig it up.

No - 5 years should be plenty, given that I proposed 3. What I don't know is what went with the law. Were there provisions for dealing with people who lacked the financial means? Was the law broadly publicized so people knew? Were processes put in place to encourage acquisition of the IDs, given their impact. If the answer to all of this is "yes," then Wisconsin did it in a way I would call "right" and the suppressed vote is a result of voter apathy - nothing more need be done. If the answer is no - then I would say the implementation was flawed.

[Roy]

Either/or fallacy.

So that list is not insanely misleading? You do need to present a photo ID every time you buy alcohol or fill a prescription? Wow.

Edited to add: I have bought alcohol in the US without presenting any ID at all. That list is exaggerated.

[carpedm9587]

We have little/no evidence of votes from dead people, nor do we have much evidence of fraudulent registration. This appears to be a made-up "problem," unless you have access to evidence I have not seen. The national archive that was specifically started to document proven cases of voter fraud contains fewer than 2,000 entries (last time I looked it was below 1200) over a 20 year period. That's fewer than 200 incidents nationwide per election cycle. It's miniscule.

Ergo, grandfathering would be perfectly justified. Any new registrants need voterIDs. Existing registrants are grandfathered. No one harmed, no one disenfranchised. Over the course the coming years, the % of registrants that have valid IDs will continue to increase until it reaches the 100% mark. Problem solved.

[lilpixieofterror]

You are stretching very badly to hold onto a point. The 9th and 10th don't even come close to a "constitutionally protected right to buy an airline ticket" or "drive a car." People are denied the right to do both all the time without any form of "due process."

And why should an unelected government official have the power to restrict your freedom without any evidence you did any sort of crime?

Some have. I am speaking to the issue as a national whole.

I cited the state as an example, Pix, and noted that Trump was a "possible" example. It would depend on what happened in the rest of the states related to VoterID and the resulting voter suppression. I do not have that data or the time to dig it up.

I said winning and you made the claim voter ID laws are about getting republicans to win elections. If that claim is true, you should have examples unless of course, democrats are fighting this so hard is because they are actually engaged in voter fraud to get democrats elected?

No - 5 years should be plenty, given that I proposed 3. What I don't know is what went with the law. Were there provisions for dealing with people who lacked the financial means? Was the law broadly publicized so people knew? Were processes put in place to encourage acquisition of the IDs, given their impact. If the answer to all of this is "yes," then Wisconsin did it in a way I would call "right" and the suppressed vote is a result of voter apathy - nothing more need be done. If the answer is no - then I would say the implementation was flawed.

Many have done just that. Again, plenty of notice is given, so stop changing the goalpost.

[lilpixieofterror]

So that list is not insanely misleading? You do need to present a photo ID every time you buy alcohol or fill a prescription? Wow.

Edited to add: I have bought alcohol in the US without presenting any ID at all. That list is exaggerated.

Do you look over 40?

[carpedm9587]

You seem to be arguing for something you admit you really don't know much about.

We actually have a significant body of studies on the impact of implementing VoterIDs (as they have been implemented) on voter turnout. It is a very specific set of questions you are asking that I have no data for. On the flip side, those arguing FOR VoterID on the basis of "Voter Fraud" cannot show ANY evidence that fraud exists to any significant degree. If the rate of demonstrable Voter Fraud in the U.S. were a manufacturing "error rate," it would be the envy of any manufacturing outlet. A failure rate of less than 0.001% would be the envy of any industry.

Yes.

So basically they have to have a photoID (license) to register to vote?

No. If they register to drive, they are automatically registered to vote. But a non-driver can register by simply showing residency. They can do that by bringing a copy of their utility bill to the local town clerk, who has fairly wide discretion in registration matters. Vermont does not have a formal VoterID requirement, and I suspect we won't have one in my lifetime. The state is so blue smurfs vacation here.

so word of mouth is good enough?

I have no idea what you're asking.

This is where I don't get your viewpoint on this. You seem to be claiming that voting is such a sacred right that we can't allow one voter to slip through the cracks by requiring photoID.

No. I have never said anything of the kind.

Yet, if voting is such a sacred right, shouldn't you want to protect it so that there is no possibility that people could be cheating?

I do not believe we should disproportionately disenfranchise valid/legitimate voters to solve a problem that cannot be shown to exist. So, reasonable precautions, so long as legitimate voters are not denied access to the ballot box at a level that significantly exceeds the demonstrable "cheating" rate.

You seem to be very concerned about Russia interferring with our elections, but don't want to put in place safeguards like a simple photo ID to stop fraud.

I never said i didn't want to implement them. I said I do not want to implement them in a way that disenfranchises legitimate voters.

You seem to have very little documentation that getting a photoID is a problem for many people or would stop people from voting, other than some informal news articles. That doesn't seem to stop you from wanting to let everyone vote without IDs just in case.

I did not say everyone should be able to vote without IDs, so I have no response.

I would rather make sure our voting system is not compromised by cheaters or fraud.

I believe we should work towards that as well.

How would you even know if they are not tracking the voters using credentials to make sure there is no fraud???

That is an argument from fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Implement voterID with safeguards to protect the existing voter base, and I have no problem with it. Implement a voterID program in a way that disenfranchises existing voters, and I will object. It's not a complex position. Our voter systems has been as it is for decades/centuries. There is no evidence of a major problem, and no need to "urgently" solve the problem. A reasonable, phased in approach will do.

Unless, of course, the actual goal is to reduce voter turnout by Democratic voters. Then the urgency makes a LOT of sense....