Keeping College Students from Voting

[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.

[KSig RC]

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?

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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.