What we have to fear from ID cards

[Michael Tee]

<<Is it really true that 80% of us are Republicans and the majority of the Democratic strength is from the graveyard?>>

Not only is it all true, but even worse, many of the Democratic leadership are actually reanimated zombies.  Here's another little-known fact of American political life you'll appreciate:  50% of the non-graveyard Democratic votes come from al Qaeda infiltrators, and most of the rest was mailed in from mental institutions across America.  America is not only a Christian nation, it is a Republican nation.

[Amianthus]

I don't think that anywhere near 80% of Americansd want a national ID card.

You're probably quite right about that. Of course, when you change what he said so that you can disagree with it, it's called a strawman argument. He said that 80% of the public want IDs required for voting. That could be any form of photo ID.

The Democratic party fights any form of ID requirement anywhere that it's brought up. So, either 80% of the public are Republicans, or the Democrats don't care what a large number of voters in their own party think regarding IDs for voting.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The title of this thread is about National ID cards. Hence, I assumed that Palne was referring to National ID cards.

I don't think that 80% of the public demands or even wants, photo IDs for voting. I suppose this would depend on how the question was phrased, as lots and lots of people are extremely uncritical thinkers. You know, the ones that thought that invading Iraq was Saddam's 9-11 attacks.

So if you were to ask: "Some say we should require photo ID's for voting to avoid Saddam's henchmen, who caused 9-11 from voting. Do you agree?", Then we might get 80% to agree. Especially if Rush urged people to do this.

As I said, here in FL, a photo ID is required for voting. This is therefore a non-issue here. Plane should be lobbying the GA legislature.

The Constitution does not give the Feds the authority to issue national ID's, or at least this is a highly questionable proposition.

Frankly, I am happy with FL requiring a photo ID. That way Plane cannot say that 80% of Floridians are really Republicans, but as they allow only deceased Democrats to vote, this is why we elect only one Republican senator instead of two.

[Amianthus]

The title of this thread is about National ID cards. Hence, I assumed that Palne was referring to National ID cards.

Even though he said "even of the very poor and the remote minorty possessio of photo IDis alrady very common and must be near 95%"? What national ID exists now that is "very common"?

Obviously the discussion changed a bit, as these threads have a wont to do.

[Amianthus]

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?

[sirs]

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?

Quick.....need to alert the NAACP       

[Plane]

    A voter ID card would be a sate ID card , but could become a nationwide requirement for anyone who wanted to vote ,just as it is now a requirement for anyone who wants to drive a car.

    Anonominity sounds nice, unless you suffer from it.

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[Plane]

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.

That would be liveing Paris Hiltons life.

Not good with that.

But a national system to prevent other people from assumeing my identity might be nice.
A system that prevented voteing twenty times in every election might be nice too.

Can't an ID be applied as needed and not involve prying more than necessacery?

If not should I get rid of my Drivers liscense?

[Michael Tee]

In this thread, even more than most of the others, I find a ton of unsubstantiated bullshit from the usual right-wing sources about Democratic cheating, the astronomical levels thereof, etc.

It also seems to be undeniable, from the ACLU brief that I produced, that large numbers of the elderly, the poor, the homeless and the black would be disenfranchised by the introduction of photo ID for voters.

Since disenfranchisement of ANY voters would seem to be a very serious thing for a democracy to have to suffer, I would think that any plan that would disenfranchise any legitimate voter should not only be approached with great caution, but would need to be based on a well-defined need.  In particular, one would need to know before instituting such a plan, just how big a problem voter fraud really is, and how many people might actually be disenfranchised by any plan aimed to combat it.

What's notable here is the absolute absence of any attempt to study the situation before acting, to ascertain what are the actual levels of voter fraud, what percentage of those could be eliminated by photo ID and how many voters would be disenfranchised by requiring production of photo ID.

There are no such studies.  In place of solid scientific studies, we have wild, unjustified and completely unsubstantiated claims by plane and others of widespread, massive voter fraud, always Democratic BTW.  This is, not to put too fine a point on it, pure horseshit.  And yet it's solely on the basis of horseshit like this that the Republicans are anxious to introduce the requirement of photo ID for voters.  In the absence of any scientific evidence of widespread need, one can only assume that such rush for photo ID cannot possibly be justified by any real and demonstrated need for protection from voter fraud, but solely for its inevitable consequence, the disenfranchisement of the blacks, the poor, the homeless and the elderly.

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.
==========================================
That would be liveing Paris Hiltons life.

Not good with that.

Perhaps that would be YOU living Paris Hilton's life.
I hardly think she is unhappy with her celebrity. It's about all there is to her: she is famous for being famous.
=================================================
But a national system to prevent other people from assumeing my identity might be nice.
A system that prevented voteing twenty times in every election might be nice too.
======================================================
How many people have assumed your identity?   My guess is zero.
========================================================
Can't an ID be applied as needed and not involve prying more than necessacery?

I think you should ponder this question a bit more. The issue is not whether it COULD, it's whether it WOULD.
COULD you join the NRA and not get an application for a "pre-approved NRA Visacard"?
Why, of course.  What are the odds that this will happen? almost nil.
-------------------------------------------------
If not should I get rid of my Drivers liscense?

I think you should take it out and burn it, immediately, and in public, in protest of all those teams of twenty-fold Democratic voters. It would coincide with the logic that would match the keen sense of rational thought you habitually possess.

If not for all those fraudulent Democrats, who emerge from the grave, like zombies every November, the GOP could enjoy near-Soviet majorities at every election. As it is, they hardly ever elect anyone, because the deceased are so unanimously in opposition to them and their unflinching pursuit of a balanced budget.

[kimba1]

uhm
I kinda skimmed here
but it looks like republicans are assumed they all have a clean life.
but due to the massive amount of porn in our life i very much doubt it
it`s very doubtful all of it was solely backed by democrats
the number won`t support it
remember votes are secret.
a public clean life means a man more prone to temptation.
ex. jimmy swaggart,james baker,prince charles
and not even the really good temptation
quite sub par temptation at that.
if your gonna risk your career,at least make it worth it.
the word temptation doesn`t even sound rightin this context
serious lack of judgement is closer

[Seamus]

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?

Your first sentence.  "Voter fraud is something that's been around since there has been voting."  I find voter fraud a VERY bad thing.  What would YOU suggest the way to stop this should be?

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.

I, personally, think there is a push for a more VALID election system because the races are getting closer and closer.  Also, people are tired of hearing about people breaking rules and getting away with it. (Voter fraud, illegal immigration, murderers being found innocent.)  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.

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.

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...  I do believe that state ID's should be free.  Homeless, well...  I don't know what to say about that, other than I can't imagine many homeless taking the time to go to a polling place and voting.  (But that doesn't mean they don't have the right, so... ?)

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.

With that being said, I'm not 100% sure on what disenfranchising means in this regard.  I am understanding that it means "leaving out".

[Michael Tee]

<<Your first sentence.  "Voter fraud is something that's been around since there has been voting."  I find voter fraud a VERY bad thing. >>

Don't we all!!  But you know, murder has been around since Cain slew Abel.  I find murder to be a VERY bad thing, worse even than voter fraud.  You can be executed for murder but never for voter fraud.

<<What would YOU suggest the way to stop this should be?>>

Well, the first thing I would do is look at all the so-called "voter frauds" that have taken place to date.  Count them all.  Then look at how these so-called "frauds" were discovered.  Whatever method was used to discover the most voter frauds to date is probably the best way to stop them to date. 

How were the frauds committed?  For each type of voter fraud, would photo ID have stopped the fraud any more effectively than the way in which the fraud was ultimately detected?  Why wouldn't crooked politicians resort to fake photo ID if that was what it took to fix the election?  How difficult would it be?  I say we should know what photo ID can do and what it can't do.  If it turns out to be easily circumvented and not very effective after all, why bother with it, particularly if it disenfranchises legitimate voters.  People fought and died for the right of everyone to vote, why rush to something like photo ID, which the ACLU brief proves will take the vote away from large groups of citizens?

<<I, personally, think there is a push for a more VALID election system because the races are getting closer and closer. >>

I think that's a valid point, and one that I overlooked.

<<Also, people are tired of hearing about people breaking rules and getting away with it. (Voter fraud, illegal immigration, murderers being found innocent.) >>

Well nothing new there.  No system is perfect, and we are always trying to clean up the problems and make the system work better.  That goes for airport security, public safety, DVD players or whatever.

<<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?

<<I do believe that state ID's should be free.  Homeless, well...  I don't know what to say about that, other than I can't imagine many homeless taking the time to go to a polling place and voting.  (But that doesn't mean they don't have the right, so... ?)>>

The proposal DID include free photo ID at state expense for indigents.  To avoid abuse by endless quibbling over who was indigent and who was not, this would have to be amended to free for all.

<<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.

<<With that being said, I'm not 100% sure on what disenfranchising means in this regard.  I am understanding that it means "leaving out".>>

"Disenfranchising" in this case means taking away the right to vote or technically LEAVING them with the right to vote but rendering it meaningless by regulations which prohibit voting without photo ID to folks who have a lot of trouble getting photo ID.

[Seamus]

<<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?

Do you mean the post you wrote that started this thread?  I couldn't find any briefs or proofs or anything that people are having a hard time getting ID's.  I've looked through this thread and can't find it.   And my opinion is based on the fact that I've gone to a DMV and used their services.  The ONLY problem I've ever seen is long lines.   Everything else is cake as far as I'm concerned.  I've gone for drivers licenses, ID's, handicapped status, class B licenses, and an insurance suspension.  None of these were difficult to maneuver.   I would be interested in reading the ACLU's statement that has facts.  In fact, I'll just go over to the ACLU.ORG site and see what it says...

<<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.

Okay, so if I ignore the side rant and just read that we can afford it, then I totally agree with you.  It would help limit voter fraud, and I believe you are saying that it would NOT be disenfranchising to some.  I'm not sure HOW it would be different than the ID because I would imagine the whole scan thing would be installed AT the DMV...  I mean, how are you going to get all those retinas into the computers to begin with.  And you'd still need the same paperwork to prove you are who you are when you go to scan your eye...  I think the retinal scan would simply be harder to fake. 

EDIT: You didn't write the original post, and I found an ACLU .pdf that may be what you're referring to. It's at http://www.votingrights.org/resources/downloads/Voter%20ID%20Letter%2009-13-06.pdf