Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Andrea Mitchell said something that

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Andrea Mitchell said something that

    reminded me of a question I have been meaning to ask.

    She said it is a good thing that as many people as possible should be able to vote.

    Seems she is shilling for those who say requiring ID to vote is bad.

    I can't think of why it would be bad, but maybe some of you can.

    Help me out here. Besides being too disinterested in voting, what is so hard about getting an ID?

  • #2
    We have to present an ID for virtually everything of consequence, so I'm not sure why voting presents a fundamental difference, or could be interpreted as less consequential.
    Everything in life is an approximation.

    http://twitter.com/CougarStats

    Comment


    • #3
      When you grow up with money and access to transportation, the idea of getting an ID seems easy. When you grow up poor without private transportation, the only ID you really ever need is a birth certificate and a social security card.

      Most states only issue IDs at the DMV, which is rarely located in urban areas. Obtaining ID in some places can be really difficult, and therefore it puts the poor at a disadvantage come voting time because it's more complicated for them to obtain an ID.

      That said, I think that you should have to show ID to vote, and I believe that states should make it easier to obtain ID/voter registration cards for those who lack access to private or affordable transportation. A mail-in system could work just fine.
      "Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by byu71 View Post
        reminded me of a question I have been meaning to ask.

        She said it is a good thing that as many people as possible should be able to vote.

        Seems she is shilling for those who say requiring ID to vote is bad.

        I can't think of why it would be bad, but maybe some of you can.

        Help me out here. Besides being too disinterested in voting, what is so hard about getting an ID?
        I'm against requiring an ID to vote. A national ID card scares me, I don't know why but it feels a lot like a police state. Plus fake ID cards are easily and cheaply produced. There are other, more secure, ways to make sure people only vote once, which is the main issue.
        "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Moliere View Post
          I'm against requiring an ID to vote. A national ID card scares me, I don't know why but it feels a lot like a police state. Plus fake ID cards are easily and cheaply produced. There are other, more secure, ways to make sure people only vote once, which is the main issue.
          I would also be against a national ID card. I don't know why, but the less the government has on me, the better.

          Each state could have a voter card or some other form of ID required.

          As far as transportation to get such a card, political parties will provide rides to people to vote. Why couldn't they provide a ride to get a card.

          There might be some rare exceptions, but if someone can't figure out how to get a card, I am not so sure I want them voting anyway.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Moliere View Post
            I'm against requiring an ID to vote. A national ID card scares me, I don't know why but it feels a lot like a police state. Plus fake ID cards are easily and cheaply produced. There are other, more secure, ways to make sure people only vote once, which is the main issue.
            I don't see why a national ID card is necessary in order to accomplish this. I don't think it's unreasonable to require some basic verification of someone's identity and their eligibility to vote.

            There are certainly plenty of volunteers out there that can assist the poor, disabled or otherwise disadvantaged to get the necessary legal documentation in order to participate.
            Everything in life is an approximation.

            http://twitter.com/CougarStats

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by wuapinmon View Post
              When you grow up with money and access to transportation, the idea of getting an ID seems easy. When you grow up poor without private transportation, the only ID you really ever need is a birth certificate and a social security card.

              Most states only issue IDs at the DMV, which is rarely located in urban areas. Obtaining ID in some places can be really difficult, and therefore it puts the poor at a disadvantage come voting time because it's more complicated for them to obtain an ID.

              That said, I think that you should have to show ID to vote, and I believe that states should make it easier to obtain ID/voter registration cards for those who lack access to private or affordable transportation. A mail-in system could work just fine.
              I don't like the idea of a mail-in sytem. They could put ID stations at voter registration booths so that people with the right documents could get them there. The problem is that they are inflexible with locations and they don't encourage photo ID, they just assume everyone drives.

              Moliere, requiring ID to vote doesn't mean it would be a national ID system. It would be left to the states to determine what ID would be accepted.

              I support it, so long as they make getting ID easier and are more flexible with locations that could provide it, perhaps w/ a mobile station that would make ID drives, like they make SS # drives.
              Dio perdona tante cose per un’opera di misericordia
              God forgives many things for an act of mercy
              Alessandro Manzoni

              Knock it off. This board has enough problems without a dose of middle-age lechery.

              pelagius

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Moliere View Post
                I'm against requiring an ID to vote. A national ID card scares me, I don't know why but it feels a lot like a police state. Plus fake ID cards are easily and cheaply produced. There are other, more secure, ways to make sure people only vote once, which is the main issue.
                Exactly! It's time to start implanting chips into people so that we can track them much better and quicker!
                Last edited by WashingtonCoug; 04-04-2012, 07:57 AM.
                "To the man who only has a hammer, everything he encounters begins to look like a nail."
                —Abraham Maslow

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by byu71 View Post
                  I would also be against a national ID card. I don't know why, but the less the government has on me, the better.

                  Each state could have a voter card or some other form of ID required.

                  As far as transportation to get such a card, political parties will provide rides to people to vote. Why couldn't they provide a ride to get a card.

                  There might be some rare exceptions, but if someone can't figure out how to get a card, I am not so sure I want them voting anyway.
                  You'll end up with a national ID card, that much is certain. Back when the SS act was passed citizens were assured that their SS # wouldn't be used as a personal identifier. Look how well that worked out for everyone.

                  Maybe it would just be easier, but like I said there are easier, cheaper, and more secure ways to ensure people only vote once. Election Ink would be better, not perfect, but better.
                  "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Moliere View Post
                    You'll end up with a national ID card, that much is certain. Back when the SS act was passed citizens were assured that their SS # wouldn't be used as a personal identifier. Look how well that worked out for everyone.

                    Maybe it would just be easier, but like I said there are easier, cheaper, and more secure ways to ensure people only vote once. Election Ink would be better, not perfect, but better.
                    This is the first I have heard the national ID objection and seems would be a libertarian type objection.

                    Where I am hearing the objection most is from the dems. What is their reasoning?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by pellegrino View Post
                      I don't like the idea of a mail-in sytem. They could put ID stations at voter registration booths so that people with the right documents could get them there. The problem is that they are inflexible with locations and they don't encourage photo ID, they just assume everyone drives.

                      Moliere, requiring ID to vote doesn't mean it would be a national ID system. It would be left to the states to determine what ID would be accepted.

                      I support it, so long as they make getting ID easier and are more flexible with locations that could provide it, perhaps w/ a mobile station that would make ID drives, like they make SS # drives.
                      Okay, maybe not, but each state would require an ID, which means everyone elgible to vote would need an ID. Sounds like a bureaucratic mess to accomplish something that could be done easier and more efficiently with Election Ink

                      Let me ask this, would you be okay with fingerprinting everyone that registers to vote and then refingerprinting them when they vote and matching the fingerprints to verify identity? This would mean the government would have your fingerprints on file.
                      "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Moliere View Post
                        Okay, maybe not, but each state would require an ID, which means everyone elgible to vote would need an ID. Sounds like a bureaucratic mess to accomplish something that could be done easier and more efficiently with Election Ink

                        Let me ask this, would you be okay with fingerprinting everyone that registers to vote and then refingerprinting them when they vote and matching the fingerprints to verify identity? This would mean the government would have your fingerprints on file.
                        Election ink only verifies you've already voted, not that you were eligible to vote to begin with.
                        Everything in life is an approximation.

                        http://twitter.com/CougarStats

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by byu71 View Post
                          This is the first I have heard the national ID objection and seems would be a libertarian type objection.

                          Where I am hearing the objection most is from the dems. What is their reasoning?
                          Dems think it is a plot to keep the poor from voting (those who don't have ID cards or would struggle to get them). Repubs are happy with big government to the extent is serves their purpose.

                          Yes, I'm Libertarian on this issue.
                          "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Indy Coug View Post
                            Election ink only verifies you've already voted, not that you were eligible to vote to begin with.
                            Right, so someone shows up to the poll and gives their name. The name is found in the voter registration log thing. The person signs their name and dips their finger in ink. That person cannot vote again.

                            The risks are that people either vote in place of someone they are not or that they circumvent the system by wearing some invisible shield on their finger.

                            The first risk is small becuase if you can vote only once, why not just vote under your name. We wouldn't have people coming back again and again to vote for dead people or fake people.

                            The second risk can be somewhat controlled by randomly selecting the finger to dip in ink (thus the person would have to protect all 10 fingers to circumvent the system).

                            It's not perfect but it is cheaper and less intrusive and not discriminatory.
                            "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I can envision the day when a radio station offers free tickets to a game. You have to come and get the tickets. The station is going to get sued because they are descrimating against those who would rather have the station bring the ticket to them.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X