Keeping College Students from Voting

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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.

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

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

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.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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

Since I qualified it with "Seems to me" I made it clear it was my subjective opinion, as opposed to presenting it as objective fact.


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.

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Since I qualified it with "Seems to me" I made it clear it was my subjective opinion, as opposed to presenting it as objective fact.

It is difficult for something to only be your subjective opinion and still be "common sense." Saying "seems to me...common sense" implies that challenges to that not only challenge your subjective opinion but perhaps challenge (or lack) the "common sense" approach that you claim to have.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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.

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.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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

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/

It was not the first time Gibbs had traveled with the purse, but it was the first time it got her in trouble. “I carried this from Jacksonville to Norfolk, and I’ve carried it from Norfolk to Jacksonville,” Vanessa said. “Never once has anyone said anything about it until now.”

Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/12/04/...#ixzz1hxrqAxkf

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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

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.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

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.

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?

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by DGTess

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?

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

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?

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

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 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.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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

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. 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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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

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

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.

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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?

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.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

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.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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.