Pages

Jump to bottom

17 comments

1 Obdicut  Tue, Oct 2, 2012 3:06:46pm

So, to continue from the other thread: One reason is they don't have much use for them.

2 nines09  Tue, Oct 2, 2012 3:54:04pm

re: #1 The Toast Of God Fload Jeas

"Here. Wear this hat." Why? I don't need a hat. "Everyone should have a hat. Never know when you might need it." But I don't really need a hat and I don't want a hat. "Why? Everyone else has a hat." I don't. "Yes you do!" No I do not. Ad infinitude./

3 Political Atheist  Tue, Oct 2, 2012 9:14:59pm

re: #1 The Toast Of God Fload Jeas
re: #2 nines09

How do you square that with the very real disadvantages of not having ID for common transactions?

4 lostlakehiker  Tue, Oct 2, 2012 10:20:30pm

The answer to this is that DL's shouldn't be the last word in ID's. The government that wants to have a voter ID law owes it to its people and to justice to see to it that for citizens, getting an ID is simple and free.

This makes for a certain expense, because the ID's themselves cannot be simple. They have to be complex enough that forgery is nearly impossible. It's also a bit expensive because the ID's cannot be issued on flimsy evidence. Some sort of proof will be needed. If the proof is not right handy, this means a search through old documents or some other sort of investigation. That, too, costs money. States that want a voter ID law have to be willing to spend that money to do it right.

Is it worth it? As we have seen, with the numerous school test cheating scandals, and the recent cheating by a firm hired to register Republicans, where there's a way, there's cheating. Where there's a wide open way---? If you don't even look, you won't see anything, but that alone doesn't prove there's nothing to see.

5 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 3, 2012 8:02:27am

re: #4 lostlakehiker

DL & state ID (the same card physically) are what we have. I'm not sorry when a clerk asks to see my ID when I pay with a check or card. I understand the advantages of having ID. I'll not list them again in this thread, that somehow already earned a minor down ding fest. Somehow some folks deny the actual utility of picture ID.

ID could be better but that need not stop anyone from being expected to have it in the expected circumstances. Next thing ya know, we will have objections to passport requirements for travel out of country.

6 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 3, 2012 8:12:26am

I have gotten the strong impression that the emotions about Voter ID are running so strong that there has been a pivot to attack picture ID requirements across a wide range of previously accepted circumstances.

An actual denial of the utility of picture ID despite credit card fraud, the need to identify bank account holders and how anonymity protects criminal behavior. ID is how law abiding people are protected in part from crime.

7 wrenchwench  Wed, Oct 3, 2012 8:20:24am

re: #6 Daniel Ballard

I have gotten the strong impression that the emotions about Voter ID are running so strong that there has been a pivot to attack picture ID requirements across a wide range of previously accepted circumstances.

An actual denial of the utility of picture ID despite credit card fraud, the need to identify bank account holders and how anonymity protects criminal behavior. ID is how law abiding people are protected in part from crime.

I have the impression that requiring ID to vote is such an emotional issue that there has been a pivot to make the argument that "ID is a good thing in and of itself. Only good can come from requiring it to vote."

Which is not true. Maybe keeping the issue of requiring ID to vote should be kept totally separate from all other ID issues.

Worth a try.

8 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 3, 2012 9:17:17am

re: #7 wrenchwench

The assumptions only good or only bad can come of it are just oversimplifications. I see my sentence that this issue unearthed a problem well worth addressing for the sake of the poor and minorities is either unheard or unwelcome all through the previous Page as well as here.

That will always seem odd to me. My #3 in this page remains unanswered at this time. The utility of ID is really firmly established.


There is a logical flaw in the fact fraud was (almost) never found. That is no guarantee it won't in the future, and I have the room to endorse HAVA and oppose vote suppression. A point lost on many of those who disagreed with me on this one. Note few if any openly oppose HAVA.

9 wrenchwench  Wed, Oct 3, 2012 9:27:34am

re: #8 Daniel Ballard

The assumptions only good or only bad can come of it are just oversimplifications. I see my sentence that this issue unearthed a problem well worth addressing for the sake of the poor and minorities is either unheard or unwelcome all through the previous Page as well as here.

That will always seem odd to me. My #3 in this page remains unanswered at this time. The utility of ID is really firmly established.

There is a logical flaw in the fact fraud was (almost) never found. That is no guarantee it won't in the future, and I have the room to endorse HAVA and oppose vote suppression. A point lost on many of those who disagreed with me on this one. Note few if any openly oppose HAVA.

Nobody cared how hard it was for poor people to live without ID until they were accused of disenfranchising voters by requiring ID. First it was, "But everyone has ID!" Then it was "Everyone should have ID!" Then it was "We'll make it free and easy to get ID!" Never have I heard an admission that it's wrong and unnecessary to require ID to vote.

When you take up the issue of helping people acquire ID for whatever they might need it for in their daily lives, and don't have "Voter ID Laws" as the first part of the title of the Page or an ultimate reason for the need for ID, then I'll respond to your concern about "the very real disadvantages of not having ID for common transactions".

Try to separate the two issues in your mind, and then on your next Page about it.

10 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 3, 2012 12:39:58pm

re: #9 wrenchwench

Nobody cared how hard it was for poor people to live without ID until they were accused of disenfranchising voters by requiring ID.

Seems a shame the electoral side gets so much more attention than the day to day side of the ID issue. And yes since picture ID is actually required in so many places it should be freely available to the poor. Maybe those that lose their DL should have the cost of state ID added to their penalty so theyu still have ID for all those ordinary transactions.

11 wrenchwench  Wed, Oct 3, 2012 2:36:01pm

re: #10 Daniel Ballard

Seems a shame the electoral side gets so much more attention than the day to day side of the ID issue. And yes since picture ID is actually required in so many places it should be freely available to the poor. Maybe those that lose their DL should have the cost of state ID added to their penalty so theyu still have ID for all those ordinary transactions.

Disenfranchising voters is serious. We have an election coming up, and we have a bunch of people working hard to disenfranchise as many Democrats as they can. I'm not surprised at all that it's getting a lot of attention right now.

The difficulties faced by the poor are also serious. And their difficulties will be multiplied if the right wing is successful in disenfranchising enough of them to get Romney elected.

And the poor are not the only ones being disenfranchised.

12 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 3, 2012 2:42:43pm

re: #11 wrenchwench

I never said disenfranchising was good, okay, or acceptable. On numerous occasions I have posted against suppression. I made the mistake of suggesting an additional means to thwart that effort. Additional means that in no way interfere with legal challenges to a state ID law wrongly motivated.

Really, discussing additional means to thwart disenfranchising voters should not be met so negatively. But it has been. The message would seem to be only one way of fighting this is acceptable. I reject that premise. I endorse fighting this in each way possible. Obviously many disagree with that. Perhaps a few might reconsider. That thought makes the downside of holding this opinion worthwhile, worth posting in old threads and at risk of repetition.

13 wrenchwench  Wed, Oct 3, 2012 3:14:43pm

re: #12 Daniel Ballard

I never said disenfranchising was good, okay, or acceptable. On numerous occasions I have posted against suppression. I made the mistake of suggesting an additional means to thwart that effort. Additional means that in no way interfere with legal challenges to a state ID law wrongly motivated.

Really, discussing additional means to thwart disenfranchising voters should not be met so negatively. But it has been. The message would seem to be only one way of fighting this is acceptable. I reject that premise. I endorse fighting this in each way possible. Obviously many disagree with that. Perhaps a few might reconsider. That thought makes the downside of holding this opinion worthwhile, worth posting in old threads and at risk of repetition.

OK, I'll reconsider a little bit, as long as you're sincere that this is not accommodation to voter suppression efforts, but only a way to re-enfranchise its victims. I think the main focus should be defeat at the polls and in the courts for this blatantly anti-democratic tactic. (Small 'd' there.)

14 garhighway  Wed, Oct 3, 2012 3:39:17pm

re: #3 Daniel Ballard

re: #2 nines09

How do you square that with the very real disadvantages of not having ID for common transactions?

Do you recognize the implicit assumption that underlies the question? It assumes that "minorities" don't know what they need to do manage their lives. That their lack of ID is a problem that they refuse to solve.

Most who don't have a drivers license don't need one or don't qualify for one. Many have other characteristics that reduce their need for ID: they don't bank, they don't own real estate, they don't have a car.

That's not to say that for some, getting an ID would be easy. It isn't, especially for those who are elderly and infirm. (They are precisely the same people who, until voter ID, didn't need one.)

But you are blurring two issues that ought not be blurred. One is about denying Americans a fundamental right. The other is about an inconvenience.

15 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 3, 2012 6:25:32pm

re: #14 garhighway

My only implicit assumption intended is a kind of reality denial by those that claim ID is not helpful to avoid excessive costs and inconvenience.

For those that don't drive I suggest state ID.

All those elderly folk had ID. What happened to it? Any older friend or relative of mine would get my help getting ID to make life easier for those common transactions that need it. Like changing banks.

Does a venn diagram blur the issues? Cause I see an overlay of issues here. Maybe the overlay part is blurred. But no less significant.

16 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 3, 2012 6:27:38pm

re: #13 wrenchwench

Thank you. I always thought you as a fair person here. I don't support suppression. I support an accurate election with an error margin smaller than a close result. I support HAVA in principle and as the law of the land. Which as we see is subject to abuse by those that cheat the system. Like the GOP.

17 garhighway  Wed, Oct 3, 2012 10:55:48pm

re: #15 Daniel Ballard

My only implicit assumption intended is a kind of reality denial by those that claim ID is not helpful to avoid excessive costs and inconvenience.

For those that don't drive I suggest state ID.

All those elderly folk had ID. What happened to it? Any older friend or relative of mine would get my help getting ID to make life easier for those common transactions that need it. Like changing banks.

Does a venn diagram blur the issues? Cause I see an overlay of issues here. Maybe the overlay part is blurred. But no less significant.

I see. You exist on an island of clarity that is surrounded by the ocean of everyone else (who are in a state of denial). That's nice.

The elderly often fail to renew their drivers license when their failing health makes it unnecessary. They don't get a state ID because they don't generally need it. Of course, if voter ID succeeds, they WILL need it. The problem, for them, didn't exist until voter ID came along.

Certainly, making getting ID easier would be nice. But the legislatures that pass voter ID won't be doing that: their agenda doesn't include helping those who need ID. For those legislatures, the people without ID are the enemy. So talking about addressing that "problem" misses the point.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh