[luke warm]

the PA law was held to be constitutional, it was just put on hold for this election because of timing

[kenberg]

I recently had some lab work done in connection with some medical issues. I presented my medicare card, my private insurance card,, and a photo it. As far as I know, no one has challenged the constitutionality of the lab requiring a photo id. In fact, it seems to be a common practice, around here at least, for any medical treatment.

Of course it depends, as it always does, on whose ox is being gored. Attempts at common sense restrictions on gun sales are met with howls of protest, but from a different group of folks.

No doubt Republicans favor photo ids for voting because they believe this will work favorably for their candidate. It is naive to believe otherwise. But can we at least acknowledge that part of the protest, from Democrats, against photo ids is based on the same assessment of its effects? Requiring that a person who wishes to help choose the president and help set the course of a nation take the time to get an id that shows s/he is who s/he says s/he is does not seem draconian.

The world changes. In the Wild West, no one carried photo ids. Or credit cards or a drivers license. Now we do. I know someone who has had some pretty tough shocks and is receiving government assistance. She cannot just walk in and say "Hi, I'm Suzy, give me my assistance". Being able to satisfactorily identify oneself is pretty much a part of modern life.

A final point. I do not usually gripe about media bias, I am more concerned with media laziness. But the cited headline based on the Pennsylvania ruling seems highly misleading. As I understand the ruling, the judge pretty much sees things as I do, but addresses the common sense point that implementing such a law requires adequate lead time. This has political consequences for the 2012 election, but the ruling supports voter identification. Am I wrong about this?

[cherdano]

kenberg, on 2012-October-03, 05:04, said:

No doubt Republicans favor photo ids for voting because they believe this will work favorably for their candidate. It is naive to believe otherwise. But can we at least acknowledge that part of the protest, from Democrats, against photo ids is based on the same assessment of its effects? Requiring that a person who wishes to help choose the president and help set the course of a nation take the time to get an id that shows s/he is who s/he says s/he is does not seem draconian.

But there is no equivalence here. The Republicans want to win by preventing people from voting. Democrats want to win by allowing everyone eligible to vote.

There are lot of sleezy campaign tactics, and every competent political campaign will apply many of them in a close election. But trying to win by disenfranchising a large group of voters (even if just by making it a little harder for them to vote, depressing their turnout by 5-10%) is the cardinal sin of democracy.

Btw, the fees for a state-issued voter ID is quite comparable to the poll tax of the old days. If you have no other reason for a need of photo ID (i.e., you are too poor to drive, etc.), then having to acquire a photo ID is the equivalent of a poll tax. In fact, I would say it's worse - it's a poll tax specifically targeted at low-income voters.

[kenberg]

I don't know the details of the Pennsylvania law or the court ruling, but it should be a simple matter to set things so that the fee is waived for those with minimal incomes. Anyone below the poverty line, for example. Or below twice the poverty line. Perhaps someone knows whether anything like this is part of the Pennsylvania law?

At any rate, I find voter id laws quite reasonable in principle. The judge seems to agree that there is nothing unconstitutional about it as long as reasonable difficulties are addressed. The timing issue is one such difficulty, and fees are certainly another. I am old enough to recall when the poll tax was common in the South. It was rightly struck down and certainly it should not be allowed to resurface in a new guise. So I would heartily support a waiver of fees for the poor, and perhaps a waiver of fees for anyone, although I imagine most of the non-poor, and really quite a few of the poor, already have satisfactory id.

Anyone know what the Penn law did about fees?

[Scarabin]

In my innocence I thought voter ID laws were aimed at preventing multiple voting and voting by those ineligible to vote?

[billw55]

Scarabin, on 2012-October-03, 06:14, said:

In my innocence I thought voter ID laws were aimed at preventing multiple voting and voting by those ineligible to vote?

Well, that's the cover story. But I don't think it is the real reason.

[billw55]

cherdano, on 2012-October-02, 06:15, said:

Anyway, the point is that I can create an extremely good track record as a pollster by just making stuff up while we are far away from the election,

hahah, I totally agree. And furthermore, the ease with which it could be done almost guarantees that some are actually doing it.

Polls are bunk.

[hrothgar]

When it comes to voting laws, a national ID card has always been the "elephant in the room".

If you are genuinely worried about voter ID, the obvious answer is to have the federal government issue IDs to all citizens in a fair and non-discriminatory manner. (This is the way that most countries operate)

Here in the US, we have a bad habit of leaving this up to individual states, which is a really bad idea when so many states have a long, documented track record of deliberately disenfranchising classes of citizens.

It really comes as non surprise that so many of the states pushing these Voter ID requirements are also ones where the federal government had to intervene based on the 1965 Voting Rights Act. (FWIW, I'm disgusted that these same tactics are bleeding up North)

[kenberg]

Scarabin, on 2012-October-03, 06:14, said:

In my innocence I thought voter ID laws were aimed at preventing multiple voting and voting by those ineligible to vote?

Such idealism is touching.


I seriously doubt that there are insurmountable difficulties, constitutional, financial or otherwise, in requiring proper identification. And the conclusion I draw from the ruling yesterday is that the court agrees.

[ArtK78]

Scarabin, on 2012-October-03, 06:14, said:

In my innocence I thought voter ID laws were aimed at preventing multiple voting and voting by those ineligible to vote?

Numerous studies have shown that voter fraud is a problem waiting for an occurrance. For example, it is my understanding that, in Pennsylvania, incidence of voter fraud is almost unknown.

The world today is not the world of Richard Daley's Chicago, where many registered voters were deceased.

So, the issue is why impose restrictions? Is it to prevent voter fraud, which has almost no reported cases? Or is there some other reason?

[PassedOut]

Scarabin, on 2012-October-03, 06:14, said:

In my innocence I thought voter ID laws were aimed at preventing multiple voting and voting by those ineligible to vote?

In June, Pennsylvania house majority leader Mike Turzai listed off a number of legislative accomplishments. "Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania: Done," Turzai said.

[y66]

Following up on Art's point ...

Quote

Voter ID Wars By MO ROCCA

If you’ve only got 30 seconds to make your case in the debate over photo ID laws — which require voters to show up at the polls with a government-issued photo ID — it’s much easier to argue in favor of the laws.

“You need a photo ID to get on an airplane or rent a movie from Blockbuster. Get over it!”

While investigating voting in America for the documentary film “Electoral Dysfunction,” I heard versions of this line over and over from the laws’ backers. The message is clear: “If you’re too lazy to get a government-issued photo ID, then you probably don’t deserve to vote. And please, let’s not forget 9/11.” (The airplane reference is a handy conversation-stopper.)

But voting rights are worth at least 60 seconds of our attention. So here’s why these laws hurt more than they help:

The only crime these laws address is voter impersonation — someone showing up at the polls and claiming to be someone else in order to cast a fraudulent vote. (I know, sounds almost delightfully madcap.)

There are so many problems with the way we run elections in this country. Voter impersonation is not one of them. Indiana, one of the first states to pass a strict photo ID law, has never convicted anyone for it. Ditto Pennsylvania, which passed an even stricter law.

It’s an extremely rare crime — 10 cases nationwide over a 12-year period during which hundreds of millions of votes were cast — and for good reason. The penalty is severe — up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine — and the perpetrator nets only one vote. If you’re going to steal an election, there are far better options. (Hire a 16-year-old to hack into the computer touch-screen voting system — the one without a paper trail — in use in about a third of American states.)

These laws are a solution in search of a problem. Why not a law criminalizing child abduction by space aliens? Well, can you prove it isn’t happening?

[helene_t]

I don't see how ID prevents multiple votes. Surely it is checked whether the same ballot ticket is used twice? That would have to be checked regardless of ID requirements.

ID requirements would prevent someone from buying or steeling someone else's ticket (and subsequently use it).

[andrei]

cherdano, on 2012-October-03, 05:33, said:

But there is no equivalence here. The Republicans want to win by preventing people from voting. Democrats want to win by allowing everyone eligible to vote.

I am really confused now. Reading these forums taught me that Republican supporters are mainly no photo-ID "stupid, red-necks" and all photo-ID "smart, educated" fellows are voting Democrats.

[dwar0123]

andrei, on 2012-October-03, 09:46, said:

I am really confused now. Reading these forums taught me that Republican supporters are mainly no photo-ID "stupid, red-necks" and all photo-ID "smart, educated" fellows are voting Democrats.

Republican's are defenders of business. Democrat's are defenders of opportunity.

Hence the Democrat's base tends to be the poor and disenfranchised and the Republican's base tends to be stupid, red-necks(and religious) easily fooled into thinking the Republican party has their back. Even though the Republicans hardly ever do anything for them.

Hope that helps with the confusion Would hate to disabuse you of your cynical views of this forum.

[billw55]

dwar0123, on 2012-October-03, 10:45, said:

Republican's are defenders of business. Democrat's are defenders of opportunity.

Hence the Democrat's base tends to be the poor and disenfranchised and the Republican's base tends to be stupid, red-necks(and religious) easily fooled into thinking the Republican party has their back. Even though the Republicans hardly ever do anything for them.

Hope that helps with the confusion Would hate to disabuse you of your cynical views of this forum.

Some people that you call "rednecks" might be also be called "small town" or "rural" by those less hostile toward them. Whatever you choose to call them, they tend to like their guns. In this respect the republicans do have their backs, and indeed do things for them.

[mike777]

"...the Republican's base tends to be stupid, red-necks(and religious) easily fooled into thinking the Republican party has their back. Even though the Republicans hardly ever do anything for them...."

[cherdano]

andrei, on 2012-October-03, 09:46, said:

I am really confused now. Reading these forums taught me that Republican supporters are mainly no photo-ID "stupid, red-necks" and all photo-ID "smart, educated" fellows are voting Democrats.

There are also large low-income non-redneck communities in the US. Hint: They might not be white.
The poll tax comparison is not out of the blue.

(According to studies that I haven't read, photo-ID-required-for-voting laws depress Democratic turn out by 2 percent, and Republican turnout by one percent.)

[dwar0123]

billw55, on 2012-October-03, 12:31, said:

Some people that you call "rednecks" might be also be called "small town" or "rural" by those less hostile toward them. Whatever you choose to call them, they tend to like their guns. In this respect the republicans do have their backs, and indeed do things for them.

To be clear, I don't call them "rednecks", I used the term Andrei used while playing into the stereotype that Andrei created for the democratic side.

Oh but what the heck, what legislation have they enacted for them? They have managed to the convince the rural folks that their right to side arms and hunting rifles is so sacrosanct that they won't let the city folk ban assault weapons.

[billw55]

dwar0123, on 2012-October-03, 13:16, said:

To be clear, I don't call them "rednecks", I used the term Andrea used while playing into the stereotype that Andrei created for the democratic side.

Oh but what the heck, what legislation have they enacted for them? They have managed to the convince the rural folks that their right to side arms and hunting rifles is so sacrosanct that they won't let the city folk ban assault weapons.

I live in a predominantly rural/small town region. I am quite confident that you are confusing cause and effect. The politicians are pro gun because the people are, not the other way around.