At the polling stations, we identify ourselves by name and address to the Returning Officer or the Deputy Returning Officer or any other official poll-watcher (there's a name for the lower-ranking officers but I forget what it is) and he or she checks off our name from a list of eligible voters.
You would have to identify yourself to the satisfaction of the DRO or Returning Officer in order to vote.
Well, uh, 'scuse me if I'm a wee bit skeptical here. You're disenfranchising large numbers of voters in the name of fighting "voter fraud," but you aren't the least bit interested in any alternative measures for fighting "voter fraud," measures that might possibly be equally effective without disenfranchising anyone? Sorry pal, it just doesn't compute. It's pretty apparent now what your real interest is in promoting this particular piece of shit legislation. Nice try, boys.
The ALU is against fingerprinting and retinal scans for voters too.
The whole Democatic party is against it because it wouod make i erymuch harder for the to get elected without the cheating that they are accustomed to relying on.
I do not buy the idea that there would be disenfranchisemn of voters in minority groups or amoung the poor , even of the very poor and the remote minorty possessio of photo IDis alrady very common and must be near 95%. The idea that it is for the purpose of disenfranchiseing the poor doesn't wash because it would be innefective at doing so.
But if it were effective t preventing cheting , the Democrati party would suffer greatly.
===================================================================
This is just more Limbaugh crap. There is cheating on both sides to some minor degree, but to blame it all on one party is just dumb.
Voting for Democrats is occasionally dumb. Voting for Republicans who start wars they will not finish and lie about everything and then have all the info classified is even dumber.
I don't think that anywhere near 80% of Americansd want a national ID card.
The title of this thread is about National ID cards. Hence, I assumed that Palne was referring to National ID cards.
Frankly, I am happy with FL requiring a photo ID.
Frankly, I am happy with FL requiring a photo ID.
You don't think that it's a way to disenfranchise Florida minority voters? A form of poll tax?
Anonominity sounds nice, unless you suffer from it.
============================================
I will pause why you elaborate the many reasons you might suffer from anonymity.
If everyone knew all your medical problems, every purchase you and your family made, every traffic ticket you have received, every parking ticket you have received, how might that benefit you? Please elaborate.
Voter fraud is something that's been around since there has been voting. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence at all that photo ID will put a stop to voter fraud, I'd like to know how suddenly "voter fraud" has mushroomed into the kind of problem that demands such a drastic solution? When did "voter fraud" reach such epic proportions that we must all suddenly surrender our privacy and carry around national ID cards as if we were citizens of apartheid South Africa or Saddam's Iraq?
There is absolutely no evidence that I have seen to indicate that voter fraud is any greater phenomenon today than it was thirty, sixty or one hundred years ago. Yet suddenly the concern - - or professed concern - - over "voter fraud" has legislators - - "conservative" legislators, strangely enough - - salivating over the prospects of photo ID cards for everyone, to put an end to this ghastly menace of "voter fraud" that suddenly demands drastic solution.
But - - but - - the ACLU says, with considerable justification, that the photo ID proposals will disenfranchise a whole bunch of blacks, elderly, homeless and poor. Can't we try a different way of eliminating "voter fraud?" Retinal scans, perhaps? "Nope. Not interested. Gotta be photo ID. It's photo ID or nothing."
Well, uh, 'scuse me if I'm a wee bit skeptical here. You're disenfranchising large numbers of voters in the name of fighting "voter fraud," but you aren't the least bit interested in any alternative measures for fighting "voter fraud," measures that might possibly be equally effective without disenfranchising anyone? Sorry pal, it just doesn't compute. It's pretty apparent now what your real interest is in promoting this particular piece of shit legislation. Nice try, boys.
<<For my part, I'm willing to show my drivers license when voting. I don't know if ID's are the perfect answer, but it's a start towards protecting the electoral system that, as you put it, has been imperfect for a long time.>>
What you're really saying is, "I won't be disenfranchised because I already HAVE my photo ID, so WTF do I care if somebody poor, black, homeless or elderly gets disenfranchised - - as the ACLU brief proves they will - - because as long as I can vote, the others don't matter."
<<I disagree with the ACLU on both it disenfranchising anyone. Blacks can't get an ID card or drivers license? Elderly can't get ID's? As for the homeless and poor... >>
Blacks are much more likely to be poor and unemployed, therefore much less likely to own a motor vehicle or need a driver's licence, therefore much more inconvenienced by the need to get the photo ID. Working poor may not find the time to go for the photo ID, be sent home again because they came with incomplete documentation, come back, wait, be sent back again, etc. One of the state ACLU points made in their brief was that the state BMV sent back 60% of its driver licence applicants on their first attendance because they did not come with proper documentation. Actually if you read the brief that I linked to, you will see that this goes beyond your "agreeing" or "disagreeing" with the ACLU. Their brief is filled with cold hard facts that prove that blacks, elderly, the homeless and the poor WILL be disenfranchised if photo ID is required. So unless you have some facts to back you up, your "disagreement" with the ACLU brief is not convincing. Their opinion is based on facts, yours on what?
<<But while things like retinal scans sound good to me, I would see them just as "disenfranchising" as ID's. There would HAVE to be a cost in that that would have to come from somewhere.>>
Yes, the cost would come from the state. These devices are already in use in lots of places, my daughter's gym (Equinox) in Manhattan being one example. If the government can spend half a trillion dollars and thousands of U.S. lives so that Iraqis and Afghans can vote, then it can provide its American voters with simple retinal scanning equipment to protect the American right to vote.
Just like that, huh?
he humorous part is that the UK National ID cards have nothing to do with voting. Even the Tories (the Conservative Party) would not be as openly racist as the Republicans have been on this issue and with immigration, unless you dig up Enoch Powell's body or Sir Joseph Keith.
Quotehe humorous part is that the UK National ID cards have nothing to do with voting. Even the Tories (the Conservative Party) would not be as openly racist as the Republicans have been on this issue and with immigration, unless you dig up Enoch Powell's body or Sir Joseph Keith.
What is racist is the assumption that blacks are too stupid, too lazy, too shiftless to go get an id like poor whites do.
A photo id does not have to be a drivers license, so that argument is a straw man.
I voted with my VA card last election. Any government issued photo id card will do.
Spare us your sanctimony. It was democrats who instituted jim crow, it was democrats who kept blacks out of unions up to the 70's.
And it is democtrats who are saying blacks can't get a photo id like white folks can.
would people who support that flag support immigrants rights to wave their former countries flag?
unlike the confederacy those counties still exist.
| Ohio ?3503.16(B)(1)(a) and 3505.18(A)(1) All voters must provide to election officials at the polling place on the day of an election proof of the voter's identity. Also applies to voters requesting and voting an absentee ballot. Current and valid photo identification, defined as a document that shows the individual?s name and current address, includes a photograph, includes an expiration date that has not passed, and was issued by the U.S. government or the state of Ohio Current utility bill Current bank statement Current government check, paycheck or other government document A voter who has but declines to provide identification may cast a provisional ballot upon providing a social security number or the last four digits of a social security number. A voter who has neither identification nor a social security number may execute an affidavit to that effect and vote a provisional ballot. A voter who declines to sign the affidavit may still vote a provisional ballot. |
<<In Georgia, they would have come to the home and given her an ID on the spot, for free.>>
Just like that, huh?
Let me tell you how it would probably work in the real world. Somebody comes from the state to some slum dwelling and sees an elderly black person who looks to them like 20,000,000 other elderly black people and starts asking who are you and how long have you lived here and who are these other people and where did you go to school and where are your kids and the elderly black person gets a little confused about some of the answers and on a good day they just might get the ID after an hour or two of insults, challenges, disbelief and hostility and on a bad day they might not. They tell all their friends about the experience. Some of the friends just don't want the hassle, particularly as they can expect that both they and their card will undergo a double round of hassles by Republican "poll-watchers" at the polling station. Some of them just won't go for the double hassle. And that's cool, because the Republicans aren't aiming to ELIMINATE the votes of the poor and black, just to dampen them down considerably, as much as they can.
All in the name of fighing "voter fraud" which NOBODY knows the prevalence of. With no evidence that photo ID can't be faked anyway, so that the real effect on "voter fraud" will probably turn out to be non-existent. Basically, you have a phenomenon that has not been demonstrated in any credible survey to have any significant effect on any more than a small number of elections, and the issue has been hijacked to justify phony "anti-fraud" measures that actually and demonstrably disenfranchise the poor, the elderly, the black and the homeless.
All in the name of fighing "voter fraud" which NOBODY knows the prevalence of.15%
that actually and demonstrably disenfranchise the poor, the elderly, the black and the homeless.
Let me tell you how it would probably work in the real world. Somebody comes from the state to some slum dwelling and sees an elderly black person who looks to them like 20,000,000 other elderly black people ...
WASHINGTON ? On the eve of a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Indiana Voter ID law has become a story with a twist: One of the individuals used by opponents to the law as an example of how the law hurts older Hoosiers is registered to vote in two states.
Faye Buis-Ewing, 72, who has been telling the media she is a 50-year resident of Indiana, at one point in the past few years also claimed two states as her primary residence and received a homestead exemption on her property taxes in both states.
.......
http://www.kpcnews.com/articles/2008/01/09/news/today/evening_star/doc478441f2313a5420740819.txt