Voter ID

[nehalem256]

No right infringement found. The courts, whose job it is to look for such things, says you are wrong.

Actually lets go further. Considering that the Constitution in multiple places feels the need to make rules about when the right to vote cannot be infringed. Then clearly there are other cases where it CAN be infringed.

 

[fskimospy]

So infringing on a right, by requiring photo ID, of a right that specifically says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is not a violation of the constitution?

Not in all cases, of course not. All rights guaranteed under the Constitution are subject to restriction. I mean you couldn't possibly have thought otherwise, right?

And the Constitution no where explicitly say that people have the right to vote. It merely outlines cases where you cannot infringe on it (Age, Sex, Race). No where does it mention anything about ID.

Right. I'm not sure what your point is.

And your 5th Amendment thing kinda falls apart, because it applies when testifying in court about a crime the commited. I kinda hope we verify people's identity before we charge them with a crime.

If that's your response you missed the point of that paragraph entirely.

Again however, you keep desperately trying to avoid my argument. I am not arguing about the constitutionality of voter ID laws. I am arguing against their utter stupidity and nakedly partisan attempt to suppress votes. Argue against THAT.

 

[cybrsage]

Actually lets go further. Considering that the Constitution in multiple places feels the need to make rules about when the right to vote cannot be infringed. Then clearly there are other cases where it CAN be infringed.

Maybe, maybe not, but in the case of photo IDs no infrigement is found.

 

[thraashman]

One problem at a time. Only libtards think that if you cannot fix EVERY problem at once, you should not fix any of them at all.

Like ending oil subsidies, right??

Voting man, the topic is voting. Please at least try to follow along.

If you can't see how what HomerJS said speaks directly to your hypocrisy, then you're even dumber than I thought ... and I've always thought of you as pretty dumb.

 

[cybrsage]

I am arguing against their utter stupidity and nakedly partisan attempt to suppress votes. Argue against THAT.

What you need to do is actually show voter suppression is happening, since that is your claim. It is not up to others to disprove your claim.

 

[nehalem256]

Not in all cases, of course not. All rights guaranteed under the Constitution are subject to restriction. I mean you couldn't possibly have thought otherwise, right?

So then the Right to Vote can be restricted. And voter ID laws would seem perfectly constitutional.

Again however, you keep desperately trying to avoid my argument. I am not arguing about the constitutionality of voter ID laws. I am arguing against their utter stupidity and nakedly partisan attempt to suppress votes. Argue against THAT.

I think anyone who deserves to vote will have ID.

I have been repeatedly saying that the only people without ID will be:

Senile old people
People working illegally under the table
Actual criminals
People mooching off relatives (haha, this ones seems doubtful)
The dead

 

[cybrsage]

If you can't see how what HomerJS said speaks directly to your hypocrisy, then you're even dumber than I thought ... and I've always thought of you as pretty dumb.

No hypocrisy found. Personal attack found, though. You can apologize and I will forget it.

 

[fskimospy]

So then the Right to Vote can be restricted. And voter ID laws would seem perfectly constitutional.

Even though I don't care about the constitutional argument right now, I find them far more likely to be a violation of equal protection as they are targeted at specific groups.

I think anyone who deserves to vote will have ID.

I have been repeatedly saying that the only people without ID will be:

Senile old people
People working illegally under the table
Actual criminals
People mooching off relatives (haha, this ones seems doubtful)
The dead

Nobody cares who you think 'deserves' to vote. Voting rights are not apportioned based upon who is 'deserving', and I would have thought in your constitutional reading you've just done that you would have seen that failure to pay taxes is explicitly disallowed as a reason to restrict voting.

Funny thing that you don't even appear to realize is that when the dead "vote", they generally do so through absentee ballots, something that voter ID laws do absolutely nothing to prevent. You'll note that none of these legislatures are doing anything to stop that.

Gee, I wonder why.

 

[Craig234]

Hard to see how a citizen would not have valid identification.

Hard to see how someone is so ignorant about the fact that millions of Americans don't have such identification. Heavily weighted towards Democrats.

 

[nehalem256]

Even though I don't care about the constitutional argument right now, I find them far more likely to be a violation of equal protection as they are targeted at specific groups.



Nobody cares who you think 'deserves' to vote. Voting rights are not apportioned based upon who is 'deserving', and I would have thought in your constitutional reading you've just done that you would have seen that failure to pay taxes is explicitly disallowed as a reason to restrict voting.

Funny thing that you don't even appear to realize is that when the dead "vote", they generally do so through absentee ballots, something that voter ID laws do absolutely nothing to prevent. You'll note that none of these legislatures are doing anything to stop that.

Gee, I wonder why.

Its not a violation of equal protection. There is no reason that minorities are unable to get IDs while white people are; absolutely none.

People would be prevented from voting because of lack of ID. Not failure to pay taxes. And I believe you are talking about a Poll tax. I think there is a bit of a difference between being forced to pay a poll tax, and working under the table to avoid income/FICA taxes.

And my point is there is actual cost to Voter ID, because they only people that will be negatively affected are people who really shouldnt be voting anyway.

 

[schneiderguy]

I'm a poor starving college student and somehow I managed to acquire multiple forms of photo ID 😕

I fully support having to show ID when voting.

 

[fskimospy]

Its not a violation of equal protection. There is no reason that minorities are unable to get IDs while white people are; absolutely none.

People would be prevented from voting because of lack of ID. Not failure to pay taxes. And I believe you are talking about a Poll tax. I think there is a bit of a difference between being forced to pay a poll tax, and working under the table to avoid income/FICA taxes.

And my point is there is actual cost to Voter ID, because they only people that will be negatively affected are people who really shouldnt be voting anyway.

I was referring to your class of 'undeserving' voters that you had decided to disenfranchise. If you bothered to read the amendment you would see it says a poll tax or any other tax. Furthermore, equal protection covers a lot more than that, far too much for me to explain to you now. I encourage you to read up on that. I'm glad to hear that you think that the elderly without ID (who are all inexplicably senile) and people living with their parents shouldn't vote. I think that shows pretty clearly how poorly you've thought this out, much more so than anything I could write. You're okay with disenfranchising people who live in ways you don't like. I think that's hilarious and sad.

I'm glad you now agree that these laws do in fact restrict voting rights however, as that's a start. So now that we've determined that we are imposing costs on society, we now need to look at what we get for it. Apparently the answer is some nebulous feeling of happiness for people too ignorant to realize that in person voter fraud doesn't exist.

What's strange is that early on you said something to the effect of how this only affects people who are too stupid to get an ID. Your 'benefit' however only affects people who are too stupid to learn about how voter fraud actually happens in the US. There's some amazingly horrible symmetry there.

 

[Bowfinger]

Its not a violation of equal protection. There is no reason that minorities are unable to get IDs while white people are; absolutely none.

Yet the data disagree with you. Minorities are statistically less likely to hold a valid photo ID. It is a fact, whether you understand it or not.

People would be prevented from voting because of lack of ID. Not failure to pay taxes. And I believe you are talking about a Poll tax. I think there is a bit of a difference between being forced to pay a poll tax, and working under the table to avoid income/FICA taxes.

Yet another straw man argument. This has absolutely zero to do with people working under the table.

And my point is there is actual cost to Voter ID, because they only people that will be negatively affected are people who really shouldnt be voting anyway.

Unfortunately for you, the U.S. Constitution does not recognize your right to decide who should or should not vote. Your arrogance about this is rather repugnant, though it is perfectly in sync with your party leaders' cynical drive to suppress Democratic votes.

 

[nehalem256]

Yet the data disagree with you. Minorities are statistically less likely to hold a valid photo ID. It is a fact, whether you understand it or not.

And?

You have still failed to explain how either:

1.) Minorities dont need jobs

2.) Minorities can get jobs without ID.

 

[Bowfinger]

What you need to do is actually show voter suppression is happening, since that is your claim. It is not up to others to disprove your claim.

The Supreme Court, in the Indiana case IIRC, already recognized that such laws do, in fact, disenfranchise a segment of the population. They simply decided that this was not an adequate basis for overriding the state's right to manage its own elections, given the special measures put in place by Indiana to mitigate this disenfranchisement. Of course you already know this, so I question why you are pretending otherwise.

 

[Bowfinger]

And?

You have still failed to explain how either:

1.) Minorities dont need jobs

2.) Minorities can get jobs without ID.

You're like the kid who keeps demanding others do his homework. I already pointed you to the answer ... several times. It's is neither my fault nor my responsibility to compensate for your laziness.

 

[nehalem256]

I was referring to your class of 'undeserving' voters that you had decided to disenfranchise. If you bothered to read the amendment you would see it says a poll tax or any other tax. Furthermore, equal protection covers a lot more than that, far too much for me to explain to you now. I encourage you to read up on that. I'm glad to hear that you think that the elderly without ID (who are all inexplicably senile) and people living with their parents shouldn't vote. I think that shows pretty clearly how poorly you've thought this out, much more so than anything I could write. You're okay with disenfranchising people who live in ways you don't like. I think that's hilarious and sad.

I'm glad you now agree that these laws do in fact restrict voting rights however, as that's a start. So now that we've determined that we are imposing costs on society, we now need to look at what we get for it. Apparently the answer is some nebulous feeling of happiness for people too ignorant to realize that in person voter fraud doesn't exist.

What's strange is that early on you said something to the effect of how this only affects people who are too stupid to get an ID. Your 'benefit' however only affects people who are too stupid to learn about how voter fraud actually happens in the US. There's some amazingly horrible symmetry there.

No, I think non-senile elderly will have ID.
I see no reason that people living with their parents dont need ID, unless they are planning to mooch off them for the rest of their lives... there parents might have a problem with that.

ID is needed to participate in society. Those without it are undoubtedly screwing it over (crimes, illegal jobs), or too stupid/senile/dead to vote.

But I guess it should come as no surprise that those are constituencies of the Democratic Party.

 

[nehalem256]

You're like the kid who keeps demanding others do his homework. I already pointed you to the answer ... several times. It's is neither my fault nor my responsibility to compensate for your laziness.

No you said there is a thread somewhere.

I would think you would enjoy showing how stupid I was...

 

[fskimospy]

No, I think non-senile elderly will have ID.

What are you basing this on?

I see no reason that people living with their parents dont need ID, unless they are planning to mooch off them for the rest of their lives... there parents might have a problem with that.

ID is needed to participate in society. Those without it are undoubtedly screwing it over (crimes, illegal jobs), or too stupid/senile/dead to vote.

But I guess it should come as no surprise that those are constituencies of the Democratic Party.

You aren't even trying anymore. I guess you just think if you repeat the same points enough until everyone gives up that it means you won the argument.

It is not up to you to determine what constituencies are deserving of the right to vote, your totally arbitrary inventions as to why people don't have ID notwithstanding. (I really enjoy the certainty with which you state things that are obviously entirely made up bullshit)

I also noticed that you continue to avoid the reality that when the dead vote it is through absentee ballots, something these laws would do nothing to prevent. If you continue to try and use something that voter ID laws wouldn't prevent in order to justify voter ID laws, you better be careful as you might be found to be too stupid to vote.

 

[nehalem256]

I also noticed that you continue to avoid the reality that when the dead vote it is through absentee ballots, something these laws would do nothing to prevent. If you continue to try and use something that voter ID laws wouldn't prevent in order to justify voter ID laws, you better be careful as you might be found to be too stupid to vote.

I would be in favor of greatly restricting the usage of absentee ballots as well, so that people would then largely be required to show ID at the polls. But we were not discussing absentee ballots.

 

[Bowfinger]

The benefit is the integrity of the voting system. How much is that worth to you?

No, it is not, as I have repeatedly pointed out and you have consistently dodged. Photo voter ID laws do not materially improve the integrity of the voting system. Time to find an honest argument.

Since we have to show photo ID to buy liquor, we know the exact cost of such a system of verification. It is small.

Absolute nonsense. First, it is not true that "we have to show a photo ID to buy liquor". (I never get carded when I buy alcohol, for example.) Second, people do not vote at liquor stores. Third, not all Americans patronize liquor stores. Your analogy was specious noise.

So, back to you saying we should not do it because it is less important to verify the indentity of those who vote than it is to verify the age of those who buy liquor.

You're lying again. I said no such thing. You have a consistent history of lying about others' remarks and positions.

 

[fskimospy]

I would be in favor of greatly restricting the usage of absentee ballots as well, so that people would then largely be required to show ID at the polls. But we were not discussing absentee ballots.

You were discussing absentee ballots, you just didn't realize it. You attempted to support voter ID laws by saying they inhibit types of vote fraud that are actually carried out through absentee balloting.

 

[Bowfinger]

No you said there is a thread somewhere.

I would think you would enjoy showing how stupid I was...

You're doing a fine job of that without my help.

Have you considered trying the search function? Too hard for you? How about looking at the other threads on the first page? I even bumped one for you. No, you don't want that because then you'd have to stop playing ignorant by posing phony arguments that have already been rebutted ... over and over.

 

[nehalem256]

You're doing a fine job of that without my help.

Have you considered trying the search function? Too hard for you? How about looking at the other threads on the first page? I even bumped one for you. No, you don't want that because then you'd have to stop playing ignorant by posing phony arguments that have already been rebutted ... over and over.

You mean like here: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2238136&page=5

While it says that minorities are less likely to have driver's licenses it fails to explain why:

1.) Minorities dont need jobs
or
2.) Minorities can get jobs without ID.

 

[fskimospy]

You mean like here: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2238136&page=5

While it says that minorities are less likely to have driver's licenses it fails to explain why:

1.) Minorities dont need jobs
or
2.) Minorities can get jobs without ID.

Still waiting for you to explain why having a job is a requirement for voting.