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