One of many points here is that there is NO proof of voter fraud as a result of lack of photo ID. The only voter fraud (and I use that term lightly) I've ever heard of happened because the poll workers weren't checking the names off the list and people voted more than once. No ID in the world is going to prevent that from happening.

And puhlease. If you think only Democrats bus people to polling stations, you have not participated in a presidential campaign. Getting the disenfranchised to the polling places is a time-honored practice. The difference is Democrats pick up black people (the "poor people" mentioned above) and Republicans pick up old white people. It is against the law to sell transport or money for votes, and if that happens it's ELECTION fraud, not voter fraud and has nothing to do with the initial point about photo IDs. And let's also remember you can't vote just anywhere you want. If you live in a poor neighborhood you're voting in a poor neighborhood. And why don't poor people get to have their voices heard? Because they're not smart enough to not be poor?

That's what I figured :p ... completely understand.

The connection between "due process" and rights for the people (and onus on the authorities/state to follow prescribed processes to protect those rights), though, doesn't play all that well with what is essentially a poll tax - and, quite honestly, requiring ID is a form of poll tax.

Granted, it's a VERY low tax, money-wise - indeed, most of the 'tax' is on effort - and there are some perceived positives to guaranteeing each person is who they say they are. But it's still a poll tax. Whether the positives outweigh the rights issues is up to each person - for me, there are pretty easy solutions that don't involve this type of ID.

The problem I have with "there are no voter fraud problems" is that what should be said is "there have not been many documented voter fraud problems" or "the way we define voter fraud means there is none". I would argue that requiring id would prevent it, whether or not we have documented voter fraud. One of the problems with not having any identification required to vote is that it is difficult to detect fraud. How do you know who is or who is not voting legally if you have no requirements for proving that the voter is legally entitled to vote? Dead people voting - that doesn't happen any more? Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck voting - no longer a problem? Good to know.

If this was that much of an issue, why wasn't it brought up in 2009 or earlier? That would've at least given the "poor people" representatives an opportunity to set up some of these wonderful "Get an ID!" drives for their constituents.

Damn knight_shadow keeps reading my mind.

Generally speaking, the Democrats and Republicans only push voting requirements, including busing disenfranchised people, when it is an election that is considered especially important. That is part of what happened when Obama was running for office and Democrats were pushing people, many of whom had rarely or never voted, to vote. So, now the Republicans want the White House back and want to make sure those random "people in the 'hood" do not make their way to the poll stations like they did to help (they weren't the main voters for Obama but it helped) get Obama elected.

If voter requirements and voter fraud are a concern, keep it a concern. Do not make it a concern when it is convenient for a political front.

And I am all for every American having a free ID. A passport would be a perfect option, and to make that process less costly, the American passport could last for a longer period of time before expiring. In lieu of that, give everyone a driver's license equivalent and have it last for 20 years or so.

Next problem with requiring picture ID - if the voter roll doesn't also have a picture, what good does the picture ID do? So if I want to commit voter fraud, all I have to do is have 10 driver's licenses made up with people's names who I know won't vote. Easy peasy. A college ID is no less reliable than a state issued ID for just this reason. They're easy to fake and no more reliable than a voter registration card.

And by the way, I won't be voting in the next election. My current "home state" is Missouri and being one of those states that makes it hard to vote, I have to make an official ballot request, in writing, have it mailed to me (I don't have a mail box of any sort), fill it in, have it stamped by a notary (an expensive process) and mail it back. All of this has to happen within the window of time allotted, I think 8 weeks, and that is IF I can get the person at the election board office to respond to me, which she stopped doing some time ago because our vote was just too much work. If you live outside the US and are not active military, you are more or less unwelcome to vote. Which if my numbers are correct would help the Republicans, not the Democrats. Most of my American friends here are Texas Republicans. We don't talk politics much.

I am considering changing my home state, and may do that based on where I have contacts and is a swing state. Or they could let me vote in Missouri where my presidential and Congressional votes aren't going to mean squat.

It's been brought up dozens of times since (at least) 1909 - however, you're right that these concerns are generally only raised when politically expedient. That shouldn't be a surprise, but it also doesn't invalidate concerns over the practice.

You did indeed. :o In my post-Christmas haze, I missed it.

It doesn't work that way legally. Broadly speaking, if a state is going to impose a requirement that can have discriminatory effects, then to be able to defend itself against an Equal Protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, the state will have to show it has a compelling reason for imposing the requirement and that it tailored the requirement to meet that compelling reason but went no further. The possibility of voter fraud likely won't be good enough. The state will likely have to show that voter fraud is an actual, documented problem and that the photo ID requirement goes no further than necessary to address that problem.

The question I have is this: If the requirement of a photo ID doesn't keep people under 21 from getting fake IDs and buying cigarettes or alcohol, why do we think it will keep people who are determined to commit voter fraud from actually committing voter fraud? If you get past the first hurdle -- is this a real problem or not? -- you still have the second hurdle. Will this remedy, or at least lessen, the problem (without creating other problems)?

Um, didn't think there was anything to address. The quotes was for emphasis. We were talking about college students and the topic got changed to poor people. I was addressing the change in conversation, mmkay? Chill out.

Umm..no one was getting worked up, so there is no need to "chill out" ;)

Anyway, I think it was you who initiated the "poor people" conversation:

Quote:

Originally Posted by amanda6035 (Post 2114273) Ditto! Plus, if folks want to talk about dirty campaign tactics... what about bussing "poor people" to the polling stations in exchange for a vote for a particular candidate? "Aw, how sweet, they gave me free transportation so I could vote, but I have to vote for their candidate." Yeah, because THAT's fair. :rolleyes:

I asked you to address agzg's post because I was curious to see if you thought there was a difference between bussing poor voters and bussing old voters.

ETA: Actually, it doesn't look like you initiated it, but you did discuss it. My apologies. I am still curious about your opinion
re: the question above.

No, I dont think there is a difference between old or poor voters. I just didnt think to use both terms. I think it's silly to bus ANYBODY in for the purpose of bribing votes. If transportation could be provided in a completely unbiased way, without one party providing the service over another, that would be different.

If my 78 year old next door neighbor asked me to take her to the polls to cast her ballot for Rick Perry*, I'd still do it - but I might conveniently "forget" to make sure she had her photo ID.

In all seriousness, there's a huge "get out the vote" effort in my neighborhood, which happens to be predominantly African-American - and most of my neighbors are senior citizens. So yeah, the local churches always come around asking if we need a ride to the polls on election day - but it has never come with the condition that we had to vote for someone specific once we got there.

*Neither Miss Jean nor I really like Perry, but you never know...

@ the bold - This is what I've seen, too. It seems like amanda6035 may be referring to The ObamaBus or something going around picking up voters, but I've never seen something like that.

Quotation marks indicate quotations, not emphasis. Emphasis is indicated by italics (or underlining when an italic font isn't available).

In the context in which you used them, the quotation marks function as scare quotes (much like air quotes) and suggest that while these people are referred to as "poor people," we all know know we're not really talking about poor people.

I think the difference is pretty clear - it's who they vote for.