Mystic Cat, you were not the only one to bring up the issue of identification being forged, which is why I did not quote you or name you. I apologize if you feel that you were lumped into the group of strident opponents to voter id; I trust your post has now clarified for all that you are not necessarily against voter id but have reservations.

Going back on topic, do you think voter identification would be a problem for college students?

Do those of you who have problems with voter identification also have a problem with federal firearm regulations ( I'm thinking of Title 1 requirements under the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968) ? I raised the issue earlier as being perhaps the issue most directly comparable to voter identification efforts. Of interest might be this opening section :

SEC. 101.The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.

No problem.

Possibly. To me, for a photo ID law to make any sense, the ID needs to be government issued. I think it is likely that as a group, college students are probably more likely to have such IDs, but I don't want to assume that's the case.

Just like I don't want assume that photo IDs will solve a real problem. ;) Like I've said, for me step one is to establish the nature and extent of the problem, if there really is one. There's just no point in talking about possible solutions if we,ve skipped that first step. And when I see people sidestepping that first step, I can't help but think it's because combatting voter fraud isn't really what people are trying toa accomplish. Voter fraud is just the easy excuse.

Cheers!

Hand to God, I don't wish to deny any legal voter the right to register his/her vote.

I also don't know how extensive any voter fraud is; it just seems to me that proving your identify before voting is a common sense approach to insuring the integrity of the vote.

eta - The issues with electronic voting apparatus, brought up earlier, really scare me.

For various reasons, I've flown on multiple occasions without any form of photo ID - I'm sure a good number of people who travel for work have had the same happen as well. The procedures are actually fairly painless.

... except the technology that makes the IDs more complex is really the same technology that allows people to make fraudulent IDs.

Also, dead people voting will happen via fake ID anyway ... that's straight-up a different issue than a de facto poll tax.

Oh, like those oh-so-powerful Iowa voters, who have correctly predicted the president by the winner in their primaries two times in history? (New Hampshire has a similarly shitty record)

It's not so much that Iowa picks the president - it's that Iowa gets to decide who everyone else gets to pick for candidate. Just watch - after Iowa several candidates will be out of the running. Mind you, it's probably going to be candidates I want to see gone, but still - should Iowa have that much power in picking the eventual Republican nominee?

"Common sense" is as subjective as when AOII Angel used "ridiculous." ;)

:) This reality adds something to the "well, we need a photo ID for everything else" part of the debate.

How painless the procedures are will vary by who, what, when, where, and why...but, photo ID is still not required. LOL.

And hand to God, I believe you. But partisan people in positions of power who advocate photo ID laws . . .

A very understandable sentiment that those who have other agendas will capitalize on. After all, who can argue with insuring the integrity of the vote?

The thing is, is the integrity of the vote in real danger without photo IDs? Requiring them may very well may be a feel-good solution that doesn't do much of anything to address a problem that may not really be a major problem, and in the process keeps some people entitled to vote from voting.

To quote directly from the TSA website:

"Adult passengers (18 and over) are required to show a U.S. federal or state-issued photo ID in order to be allowed to go through the checkpoint and onto their flight.
We understand passengers occasionally arrive at the airport without an ID, due to lost items or inadvertently leaving them at home. Not having an ID, does not necessarily mean a passenger won’t be allowed to fly. If passengers are willing to provide additional information, we have other means of substantiating someone’s identity, like using publicly available databases.
Passengers who are cleared through this process may be subject to additional screening. Passengers whose identity cannot be verified by TSA may not be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint or onto an airplane."




So - they require an ID but if a passenger can provide additional information (unspecified) they may - or may not - be allowed to fly. I wonder how many of the aforementioned groups who do not have ID would be able to provide information that would allow TSA to pass them through the checkpoint. Not knowing what constitutes acceptable additional information I guess we'll never know.

Not only claiming to insure the integrity of the vote but using "common sense" as a framework. It is difficult to debate "common sense" and tautology. It leads to redundancy and questions that become rhetorical because they will never get answered.

/this isn't about SWTXBelle since she is not the first supporter of this to claim this approach makes sense just because it makes sense.

Today is St. Thomas Becket's day - I'm reminded of the T.S. Eliot play "Murder in the Cathedral" and Thomas' line: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason."

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth or assume, so I'm asking those who oppose voter identification - what would be reasonable requirements to insure that only qualified voters vote? I've mentioned affidavits and increased registration requirements - do you have any other alternatives? Or is the system in your state already addressing the need to identify qualified voters? If so, how?

As I've mentioned, my state has no voter ID requirements except for first-time voters who registered by mail or at the polling place. We have over 6 million voters. The registration lists are regularly updated. Parties and candidates regularly have observers at the polls ready to make challenges if they think it appropriate.

Instances of voter fraud over the past decade can be counted by handfuls. Some have led to prosecution and some, for various reasons, have not.

As far as I can tell, our system works just fine to assure the integrity of the vote -- or at least as well as systems where IDs are required. The burden is on those who want to add requirements to offer evidence, not just speculation, of why additional requirements are needed.

For those in favor of IDs for purposes of ensuring things like "dead people/non-existent people don't vote" ... how does your state choose jurors?

A large number of states pull potential jurors from voter registration lists - has there been an epidemic of fictitious people being called for jury duty?

Our state uses driver's licenses. They used to use voter registration lists, but changed it because, apparently, there were people not registering to vote simply to avoid jury duty.

I didn't mean to imply that only voter registries were used - most states use a combination of many lists.

I don't think that changes the validity of the question, though.

I stand by my "ridiculous" statement. It's not an opinion. It is an observable fact as I previously gave an example. Having 50 states agree to change their individual state requirments to mirror a federal requirement when law makers in many of those 50 states hate the federal government is laughable. Wish in one hand...

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/200...a-nixes-flyin/

Losing or forgetting your Passport or Photo ID is a completely different situation than never having a photo ID or passport. If you were to give me your name, date of birth, and social security number I could pull up your actual drivers license and passport (if you had one) in about 3 minutes, if you've never had a license or state issued ID, or a criminal record...you'd be like a ghost to the systems I use.

Very true. Just because it's easy peasey to get on a plane in Boston without photo ID doesn't mean it'll "fly" in other airports. TSA is different in every airport, not to mention their policies change with the wind.

Remember this girl?
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/12/04/...oidered-purse/
Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/12/04/...#ixzz1hxrqAxkf

This is the first time I've heard of this.

I'm not a fan of many TSA procedures, but who the hell thinks it's OK to bring a gun (fake or otherwise) into an airport? If you're traveling, use a different purse.

Sheesh.

I did not say my opinion was common sense; I used "common sense" to modify "approach" - meaning that if the problem is insuring the identity of a voter ( what I meant by "insuring the integrity of the vote") than using picture id would be an approach which was, to quote Merriam-Webster's definition of 'common sense', "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or fact". It was not begging the question, rhetorically speaking.

I apologize if I was unclear.

Um, excuse me. She didn't carry a gun into an airport. She carried an embroidered depiction of a gun.

Are you saying I shouldn't bring my copy of America's First Freedom magazine because it depicts a gun on the cover?

OBVIOUSLY - because paper cuts are AWFUL! ;)

It's not embroidered. It's clearly plastic or metal of some sort applied to the purse. That being said, refusing to let her carry it on is pretty dumb. There is a rule that replica or toy guns cannot be brought through security, so she should probably leave the purse at home if she wants to get through security without any prolonged scrutiny since she'll fall into that judgement call zone. Unfortunately there is not a caveat to the rule that says replica guns affixed to purses are exempt. A TSA agent following the letter but not the spirit of the law would be correct in not letting her through with the bag. I'll tell you that for most people having to make split second decisions hundreds to thousands of times a day would overload most people. Sometimes those decisions are wrong or marginal. Sometimes they can be defended either way. I doubt most people could handle the job. Considering many people trained to do my job can't handle making the number of decisions we have to make everyday. It's not always about being on a power trip. It's about being decisive and getting the line going. OMG...she had to check the bag. Not the end of the world or her freedoms.

ETA: I'd give you a dollar for every instance in which you can find a person who was not allowed to bring their copy of America's First Freedom Magazine through security. :p

One of my textbooks last term was titled "The Hacker's Handbook." Since I was traveling for work, I had to haul my textbooks on planes numerous times. I never took that one on the plane or even in my carry on. It went into checked luggage. I didn't want to make anybody suspicious of me in any way. Reverse paranoia? Maybe, but I just read a different text book during my flights.

/hijack (pun intended...lol)

I have an example of this as well. I carry Imitrex shots in my purse every time I fly...actually everywhere I go. It's like my form of an epi pen! I have been through security at dozens of airports without a problem before and after an incident at BWI where I was patted down because of these shots. My bag was checked for explosives. I was told that the other TSA agents weren't doing their jobs correctly if this didn't happen every time. :rolleyes: Whatever. The agent told me to make things go quicker the next time, I should take the shots out of my bag so that the bag wouldn't be searched, but I would just be patted down. I'll can tell you that I have not followed that advice, and I've never been patted down again. If it happens again, whoop dee do. If they want to make sure I'm not smuggling something incendiary in my shots, that's their prerogative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by knight_shadow (Post 2114591) I'm not a fan of many TSA procedures, but who the hell thinks it's OK to bring a gun (fake or otherwise) into an airport? If you're traveling, use a different purse.

Yea.

As I said, I'm not a huge fan of a lot of the TSA procedures. I think many of them go overboard. That said, we have known since September 12, 2001 that bringing anything that resembles a gun into an airport will cause an uproar.

If I can't take shampoo or a cigarette lighter onto a plane, what the hell makes her think this would be OK?

She probably put it in quotes because the idgits doing this are shortsighted enough to assume ALL blacks, or latinos, or seniors, or whatever group they're targeting, are poor.

So after reading 8 pages of this...what I take away is that this dipshit writing the article for the NYTimes made an issue that really has nothing to do with students, all about students.

Dumb.

I agree and think the fashion police should have been called as well but I just wanted to post that to illustrate the inconsistencies many people experience when going through security checkpoints/screenings.

And yet, my former roommate (who is admittedly quite left-leaning and loathes all things Republican) keeps posting EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE he finds about this, while giving us all dire warning that the Republicans are out to get us. :rolleyes:

What election was she denied her right to vote? It's my understanding that the TN voter ID law went into effect only YESTERDAY.

http://joybehar.blogs.cnn.com/articl...south-carolina

http://easley.patch.com/articles/s-c...eceased-voters

Being a Carolinian, I saw this on the local news last night. There were also a significant number of votes (I don't remember the number they gave) from people who had moved out of state who "voted".

For those who said that it needs to be proven that a problem exists before legislating against it, does this qualify as a problem? Especially taking into account that Iowa was won by a MUCH smaller margin than this represents?

I don't understand why people say that there isn't any proof that this is going on. Even though there hasn't been a nationwide "audit" of voters (at least that I know of) a quick Google search will bring up page after page of investigations and actual convictions in pretty much every state so....what gives?

I'd like to know what the number of voters who don't have a photo ID is. I just find it hard to believe that someone is going to take the time to register to vote, show up to a polling location on November 8th to cast a vote, yet have never been able to get to a DMV to get a state issued ID. Yes I know I'm being very cynical here but our nations voting turnout have always left a lot to be desired and the disenfranchised, the poor and young adults traditionally don't vote with or without ID laws in place.

The Iowa "election" was a caucus and not an election. No one won anything other than the right to say they "won" the Iowa caucus. The number of voters is very small compared to the number of registered voters in the state and the results of the caucus don't even translate to real live delegates. It's like comparing apples and bowling balls.

Also, stating that out of state people voted, you don't know how many, but it was "significant" is pretty much a meaningless statement. Statistics allow us to quantify want is actually "significant" so that when you hear a number that may or may not sound impressive, someone can actually scientifically tell whether or not it is. Random numbers mean shit.

I'd imagine that you don't have much experience with caucuses - this is a good thing, because caucuses suck balls, but the very nature of it basically invalidates the comparison.

Also, the issue isn't that voter fraud doesn't exist, but rather that it would have to be pretty widespread to justify literally disenfranchising people.

I've never been in a state that caucused, so no, I don't know the specifics. However, the point remains the same, regardless of how you want to nitpik the details - according to the local news, enough dead and out of state "voters" to make a statistically significant difference "voted" in a recent South Carolina election. The Republican race is very tight. Small amounts of dead voters could change the outcome. Does that constitute a big enough problem to "disenfranchise people"? Where do we draw the line? Do we have to have an election where it is proven after the fact that the fraudulent votes in fact would have changed the election to actually say we have a problem?