PSA: Most blacks don't have a photo id.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,414
468
126
Its a good thing we dont have personal responsibility in this country.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,251
1
61
Originally posted by: ntdz
How do people not have a drivers license? Those stats are astonishing.

Per the link, some lose their license through revocation. Some just don't have one. But that doesn't change the fact that a driver's license isn't the only form of photo ID a person can have.

The OP is presenting a false argument by trying to imply that the only valid form of ID is a drivers license.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: Wheezer
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: Strk
That's pretty bad, but I still support showing an ID to vote.

You can certainly support that but given the RIGHT to vote is codified . . . the state cannot promulgate rules that will clearly disenfranchise otherwise eligible voters.

LOL...no one is being disenfranchised....anyone who wants to vote can, you just need to get a state ID...anyone cand do that....the fact is that to vote now, you can't just walk in...you may have to actually do some work, like...oh...I don't know.....perhaps actually prove who you are?

The elections are spaced apart enough and there is enough information plastered all over the tv about the requirements to vote....people have plenty of time to get prepared.

If you are too lazy and incompentent to get a state ID within a year or two, chances are you won't get your lazy ass out to vote anyway....besides at that rate you don't desreve the right.

If there's no rationale for a state ID card (since it certainly isn't voter fraud) then there's no reason to require it to vote. Further, if the requirement of a state ID card disenfranchises ANY eligible voter it is by definition illegal/unconstitutional.

Changing the laws/requirements in order to get 0.05% MORE people to vote can be justified. Changing the laws/requirements in order to get 0.05% LESS fraudlent votes is not. Particularly, if the latter will lead to the disenfranchisement of otherwise eligible voters.

IMHO, it's lazy and incompetent to vote straight ticket . . . but I don't think we should legislate against it.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: steppinthrax
I believe if you don't have a method of identification you can get arrested just on that basis. I feel it is a citizens responsability to always carry ID everywhere you go. People need to know who you are in case you are in trouble etc..... It is socially irresponsabile.

So it is illegal to go anywhere without ID in some parts of the USA? You might as well be living in a police state like communist Korea.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,382
7,446
136
To not require an ID to vote, people are just asking for more fraud. When you whine about 2000 and 2004, then oppose measures to protect against fraud then all creditability is lost.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: ntdz
How do people not have a drivers license? Those stats are astonishing.

Per the link, some lose their license through revocation. Some just don't have one. But that doesn't change the fact that a driver's license isn't the only form of photo ID a person can have.

The OP is presenting a false argument by trying to imply that the only valid form of ID is a drivers license.

seems to me that you as a conservative/ Republican quite simply support illegal - unconstitutional - measures that would prevent likely Democrat supporters from voting.


 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
To not require an ID to vote, people are just asking for more fraud. When you whine about 2000 and 2004, then oppose measures to protect against fraud then all creditability is lost.

um, isn't the point that it is illegal to require presentation of photo ID?

are you seriously suggesting that election officials enforce an illegal policy?

(an illegal policy that is far more likely to disenfranchise Democrats than Republicans).

 
Jun 27, 2005
19,251
1
61
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: ntdz
How do people not have a drivers license? Those stats are astonishing.

Per the link, some lose their license through revocation. Some just don't have one. But that doesn't change the fact that a driver's license isn't the only form of photo ID a person can have.

The OP is presenting a false argument by trying to imply that the only valid form of ID is a drivers license.

seems to me that you as a conservative/ Republican quite simply support illegal - unconstitutional - measures that would prevent likely Democrat supporters from voting.

If by "Likely Democratic Voters" you mean illegal aliens and those who try to vote multiple times then YES... Who wouldn't support such a thing?

A photo ID is not made of gold. It's very affordable. What's more, in every state bill that I'm aware of where mandatory ID presentation would be required, there are provisions for free IDs to those who can't afford the $10 for a state ID. In the Georgia bill the department of elections would even go to your house so that those who couldn't afford the bus fare or were too incapacitated to travel to wherever the state ID office wouldn't be left out.

I'm not in favor of anything that specifically prohibits those who can legally vote from doing so but at the same time I think we have a responsibility as citizens to protect our democratic process from fraud. Asking for ID is hardly an inconvenience much less a roadblock to those who choose to vote and is a simple and effective way to prevent the simplest kinds of voter fraud.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: Strk
That's pretty bad, but I still support showing an ID to vote.

You can certainly support that but given the RIGHT to vote is codified . . . the state cannot promulgate rules that will clearly disenfranchise otherwise eligible voters.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I'm sure you're the type of person who thinks ALL our of protected rights should apply to "We the people" arent you........
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Sorry but the only ones being disenfranchised against are those who disenfranchise themselves by not having a valid ID card, be it state ID or DL. If you don't have one of the above, then you aren't an active member in society and don't deserve to vote.

Get with the program, get a job, or get out.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
I just started a poll to coincide with the data in this thread... I am very interested to see the results and debate this issue thorughly, as I personally feel that a National ID would go along way to help solve many issues we face today...
 

Aisengard

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2005
1,558
0
76
Since there has not been a national movement to require photo ID to vote, then it should not happen. That is clearly disenfranchising voters who don't know any better. Heck, if you support people who don't know any better to be disenfranchised, you could force everyone who was voting Republican to not vote :p

There needs to be a grace period for this kind of thing. Instead of arguing about it, we should have simply not required photo ID (which more easily frauded than other forms of ID) on a national level and done what the guy said above, if you don't have your photo ID then the government will provide you with one free of charge. Then publicly state that these will be required for the next round of federal elections. Now we have to wait til 2008.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
As I've pointed out in many threads, this whole thing about voter fraud and picture ID is a solution in search of a problem...

If there's really a problem, then those advocating the picture ID solution should be able to cite reputable sources showing that a real problem exists... that fraud does occur on a widespread basis.

So, have at it... As it is, the whole thing reminds me of Iraqi WMD's- there weren't any- or of sasquatch stories...
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
In Texas, we live under Sec. 38.02., which basically gives the officer discretion to arrest anyone he or she pleases that can't produce a satisfactory ID.

Thankfully, it's not widely abused.

I support the officer's right to detain invididuals whom they have reasonable evidence or information that they may be involved in a crime.

I do NOT support charging people if they simply do not have identification on them. Smells like 3rd reich.

But, most police are decent people, and don't abuse this power.

YMMV