Opinions? Do we really want people to vote that are.....

[autigeremt 7,133]

How about we try this? When a person comes to the polls, provide them with an ID once they have proven their registration as a voter. Or, when someone registers, have the state or social security office provide them with a voter ID card? We blow money all over kingdom come anyway. Why not pay a few more people to be in charge of voting ID registration? If you move from one state to another, the card follows you along the way. It could be a federal ID card to vote.

If we printed 300,000,000 ID cards at 2.50 a pop it still wouldn't cost more than a billion dollars. I know it's a simple answer but to me it's a simple process if they (political parties) wanted it to be.

[homersapien 12,172]

How about we try this? When a person comes to the polls, provide them with an ID once they have proven their registration as a voter. Or, when someone registers, have the state or social security office provide them with a voter ID card? We blow money all over kingdom come anyway. Why not pay a few more people to be in charge of voting ID registration? If you move from one state to another, the card follows you along the way. It could be a federal ID card to vote.

If we printed 300,000,000 ID cards at 2.50 a pop it still wouldn't cost more than a billion dollars. I know it's a simple answer but to me it's a simple process if they (political parties) wanted it to be.

Actually, if we really needed to have an ID system, that's as fair of a way to achieve it as any.

[autigeremt 7,133]

How about we try this? When a person comes to the polls, provide them with an ID once they have proven their registration as a voter. Or, when someone registers, have the state or social security office provide them with a voter ID card? We blow money all over kingdom come anyway. Why not pay a few more people to be in charge of voting ID registration? If you move from one state to another, the card follows you along the way. It could be a federal ID card to vote.

If we printed 300,000,000 ID cards at 2.50 a pop it still wouldn't cost more than a billion dollars. I know it's a simple answer but to me it's a simple process if they (political parties) wanted it to be.

Actually, if we really needed to have an ID system, that's as fair of a way to achieve it as any.

I think we need it, but I don't know if it will happen or that it should. Fraud is there, but is it enough to sway an election? I guess in some places it could be but I'd need more data.

[Auctoritas 2,894]

]

Again, cost is only one of the barriers, and in my opinion, probably the most easily solved. I will try to answer your questions as best that I can.

1. So getting to a voting place on voting day is much easier than getting an ID on a day that works for your work schedule. On voting day, there are almost always caravans getting people to polling places, churches and a variety of other organizations that work on GOTV. So conceivably, this is one of the easiest days to get transportation-- to a place where lots of others are already headed. Getting a ride to the DMV on a date/time that works for my work schedule... probably much more difficult, especially given the hardship of someone then having to wait around for you to be done and get you back to either home or work. As far as having neighborhoods set up to issue IDs. That would likely be costly, but certainly a solution to explore, but probably unlikely given that ID issuance is up to the state... so we are talking more state employees, a building that's open in the neighborhood to be leased by the state, etc. It gets complicated.

Again, I think the other thing you are missing, is that you assume that once these people get to a place to get an ID they will get one. What happens if you don't have your birth certificate? Well, now you have to not only track that down, which takes enormous amounts of time (again, for people who are living on the brink this is hugely problematic), but it also requires money to get a certified copy-- sometimes as much as $100. What if you don't have your social security card? What if you don't have any bills in your name at the place where you live (i.e. living with a relative or a friend) and are living without a lease? How do you go about proving you actually live there? Again, getting an ID sounds simple for those of us who have readily had access to this information all of our lives and it is just a matter of taking the time and paying (for us) a relatively low fee. For these people, it can be weeks of process-- tracking down a birth certificate, paying for that, picking it up, getting proof of address, etc. Just to be able to walk in that door and get an ID.

2. Registration. Currently, some polling places offer same day registration. Also, there are organizations that do GOTV activities which involve door-to-door registrations. Requiring an ID then becomes much more difficult to have rolling registrations. For example, are we now going to require training on which IDs are acceptable, and how to spot counterfit IDs?

3. Voting is a right, and while I would love to think everyone who goes to the polls have researched the issues and are making what I think is an intelligent vote, but that is just simply not reality. It also starts making the right to vote subjective-- which is hugely dangerous territory, a slippery slope I just flat out do not want to go down. (Much like the innocent until proven guilty...in this case, I gladly take the bad with the overarching good). Who determines who is smart enough to vote? Is there some sort of test? At the end of the day, this is a basic right given to us by the Constitution. There should not be any major hurdles to allowing someone to exercise that right, whether or not I agree with how they vote, or why they vote for a particular candidate or another or whether or not I think they have made "an intelligent" vote.

Thank you for your input.

I understand there are those who have very little and live in poverty. How do these people gets jobs? Everywhere you apply at nowadays requires ID, background check, etc.... It seems that anything these less advantaged folks do would be a major obstacle to get any services or government assistance.

How do these folks sign up for ObamaCare then with no ID? Why aren't Democrats rasing issues with ObamaCare and how folks can't get it without an ID?

I would think that those most affected by a photo ID would be elderly poor folks. Would an age requirement be any help? Anyone 65 and older wouldn't need a FREE ID to vote?

Many do not work, and if they do many of them work odd jobs that pay in cash.

Also, the assertion that a photo ID is required for Obamacare or welfare programs is not necessarily true. You have to have some proof of your identity...which means (in some places) bills, birth certificates, social security cards, library cards...etc. Not necessarily a photo ID, with the reasoning being that the people who need the assistance are less likely to have a photo ID.

http://www.myreporter.com/?p=19824

[Auctoritas 2,894]

I will reiterate my stance: I am all for making sure someone can prove they are who they are. I don't have a big problem with requiring a picture ID. My issue is that the stated issue of Voter Fraud is a smoke screen to hide a more nefarious movement. I'd be equally as pissed in examples of voter suppression engineered by Democrats.

Gerrymandering and voter suppression makes me physically nauseous, no matter what country it is or who is doing it.

So, instead of fixing the issues of voter fraud that you don't disagree with are true, and occurring more on the democratic side, let's just twist it to talk of the "smoke screen to hide a more nefarious movement." and disregard the other nefarious movement of voter fraud. I see........you'd rather see voter fraud (in favor of your party), b/c you are ok with that, rather than voter suppression (that you think is in favor of the other party). I get your stance now.

I do disagree they are true. I think they are way overblown. I said, and have said, that an ID requirement MAY be ok, as long as we remove the barriers for those people who need them. It's not money, it's time, and as Channonc pointed out, documentation and knowledge.

But that was a pretty good attempt at twisting my words.

[AUFAN78 4,130]

I have no problem with requiring people to prove they are who they are. However, Voter ID law changes are not about free and fair elections, they're about disenfranchisement and trying to stay in power. Weegs, you mentioned sacrifices - count your blessings that you are in a position to make those sacrifices and not have to reap the consequences that someone less well off than you would have to.

The fact that the OP writes "too lazy or too stupid to get a FREEEEEE picture ID?" illustrates the issue more than I possibly ever could. Should they be allowed to vote? yes. They're American citizens. If you would like to deny a US citizen the right to vote, I sure wish you'd make a good case as to why the 15th Amendment shouldn't apply anymore.

Well off? You think I am well off?

If you think that you are able to make that sacrifice, then you are more well off than they are. If, to you, having an ID is a given, then you obviously do not have either an experience of, or an open mind to, another possibility.

I've worked with (or on) plenty of people in my life who legitimately do not have the resources or ability to take off a day of work to go to the DMV, or have transportation to get there and back. These people were, generally, elderly, African American, and quite poor. Many did not have a vehicle, which (if you really thought through it) they couldn't drive anyway. Because they don't have an ID.

If that's the case, then these people can't vote anyway, correct? Who takes them to vote?

I can't speak for that with examples, but I will say that in many counties (at least in GA, it's the only state I have experience with) the polling places are A) a lot closer to homes and generally have a shorter wait time. Part of borrowing transportation for the DMV is that you could be waiting several hours. Also, polls close later than the DMV does.

Also, many churches and civic groups have "get out the vote" shuttles. It's not uncommon for a senior facility to contract a bus to take everyone to the polls at one time.

Maybe it's time to "get out the ID" shuttles?

[Auctoritas 2,894]

How about we try this? When a person comes to the polls, provide them with an ID once they have proven their registration as a voter. Or, when someone registers, have the state or social security office provide them with a voter ID card? We blow money all over kingdom come anyway. Why not pay a few more people to be in charge of voting ID registration? If you move from one state to another, the card follows you along the way. It could be a federal ID card to vote.

If we printed 300,000,000 ID cards at 2.50 a pop it still wouldn't cost more than a billion dollars. I know it's a simple answer but to me it's a simple process if they (political parties) wanted it to be.

One thing that comes to mind is that it would have to be handled state-by-state, and (pardon my liberal-tinged glasses) the states that would need a lot of the work are also the most conservative - so, you'd be fighting both a fight over budget AND a fight over self-interest.

Still, I think it is a fine idea.

[Auctoritas 2,894]

I have no problem with requiring people to prove they are who they are. However, Voter ID law changes are not about free and fair elections, they're about disenfranchisement and trying to stay in power. Weegs, you mentioned sacrifices - count your blessings that you are in a position to make those sacrifices and not have to reap the consequences that someone less well off than you would have to.

The fact that the OP writes "too lazy or too stupid to get a FREEEEEE picture ID?" illustrates the issue more than I possibly ever could. Should they be allowed to vote? yes. They're American citizens. If you would like to deny a US citizen the right to vote, I sure wish you'd make a good case as to why the 15th Amendment shouldn't apply anymore.

Well off? You think I am well off?

If you think that you are able to make that sacrifice, then you are more well off than they are. If, to you, having an ID is a given, then you obviously do not have either an experience of, or an open mind to, another possibility.

I've worked with (or on) plenty of people in my life who legitimately do not have the resources or ability to take off a day of work to go to the DMV, or have transportation to get there and back. These people were, generally, elderly, African American, and quite poor. Many did not have a vehicle, which (if you really thought through it) they couldn't drive anyway. Because they don't have an ID.

If that's the case, then these people can't vote anyway, correct? Who takes them to vote?

I can't speak for that with examples, but I will say that in many counties (at least in GA, it's the only state I have experience with) the polling places are A) a lot closer to homes and generally have a shorter wait time. Part of borrowing transportation for the DMV is that you could be waiting several hours. Also, polls close later than the DMV does.

Also, many churches and civic groups have "get out the vote" shuttles. It's not uncommon for a senior facility to contract a bus to take everyone to the polls at one time.

Maybe it's time to "get out the ID" shuttles?

I think ET or PT or Weegs asked the same question. I think my response was to ask if we think the DMV, which is already overburdened with customers every day, would react well to a busload of seniors showing up at one time. Heck, there are places in GA where the offices are tiny places with a max capacity of 35-50 people, and they're already filled up.

Now - the reverse of that MAY be a solution. I don't know why they don't have a mobile bus (like a blood drive) that does outreach events in areas with low ID saturation - instead of bringing the people to the office, bring the office to the people.

[DKW 86 7,866]

There are lots of things wrong here.

1. The Federal Government has zero control on how individual states set up their voter registries, so long as it abides by the constitution. It is a plenary power granted to the states. So, the entire first paragraph is irrelevant.

It is reserved by the states, it is not "granted." I am objecting to the use of the "Granting" of power. We the people grant power, to the Federal Govt.

Wow, that statement is sssooo wrong i do not know where to start. In the Constitution the Federal Govt is "GRANTED" specific powers, not the other way around. It is the inherent right of the state to set voter laws. The Feds only get involved if there is a Civil Rights issue. Again, the Constitution grants only certain powers to the Federal Govt, not the other way around.

That's what I said, DKW. A plenary power is one that is not enumerated in the constitution, and therefore is reserved to the states by way of the 10th amendment - without the 10th Amendment, the plenary powers would be up in the air, and therefore the constitution grants those powers to the states by omission.

Where did you get that I was granting the federal government anything?

Because of the verb "granting." Powers flow from the people to the states and then are granted/enumerated to the Fed Govt.

[Auctoritas 2,894]

There are lots of things wrong here.

1. The Federal Government has zero control on how individual states set up their voter registries, so long as it abides by the constitution. It is a plenary power granted to the states. So, the entire first paragraph is irrelevant.

It is reserved by the states, it is not "granted." I am objecting to the use of the "Granting" of power. We the people grant power, to the Federal Govt.

Wow, that statement is sssooo wrong i do not know where to start. In the Constitution the Federal Govt is "GRANTED" specific powers, not the other way around. It is the inherent right of the state to set voter laws. The Feds only get involved if there is a Civil Rights issue. Again, the Constitution grants only certain powers to the Federal Govt, not the other way around.

That's what I said, DKW. A plenary power is one that is not enumerated in the constitution, and therefore is reserved to the states by way of the 10th amendment - without the 10th Amendment, the plenary powers would be up in the air, and therefore the constitution grants those powers to the states by omission.

Where did you get that I was granting the federal government anything?

Because of the verb "granting." Powers flow from the people to the states and then are granted/enumerated to the Fed Govt.

You're right, I should have used "reserved". That's my mistake.

[DKW 86 7,866]

There are lots of things wrong here.

1. The Federal Government has zero control on how individual states set up their voter registries, so long as it abides by the constitution. It is a plenary power granted to the states. So, the entire first paragraph is irrelevant.

It is reserved by the states, it is not "granted." I am objecting to the use of the "Granting" of power. We the people grant power, to the Federal Govt.

Wow, that statement is sssooo wrong i do not know where to start. In the Constitution the Federal Govt is "GRANTED" specific powers, not the other way around. It is the inherent right of the state to set voter laws. The Feds only get involved if there is a Civil Rights issue. Again, the Constitution grants only certain powers to the Federal Govt, not the other way around.

That's what I said, DKW. A plenary power is one that is not enumerated in the constitution, and therefore is reserved to the states by way of the 10th amendment - without the 10th Amendment, the plenary powers would be up in the air, and therefore the constitution grants those powers to the states by omission.

Where did you get that I was granting the federal government anything?

Because of the verb "granting." Powers flow from the people to the states and then are granted/enumerated to the Fed Govt.

You're right, I should have used "reserved". That's my mistake.

I wasnt arguing. I was just pointing out that the Federal Govt does not grant us anything. We grant them.

[homersapien 12,172]

How about we try this? When a person comes to the polls, provide them with an ID once they have proven their registration as a voter. Or, when someone registers, have the state or social security office provide them with a voter ID card? We blow money all over kingdom come anyway. Why not pay a few more people to be in charge of voting ID registration? If you move from one state to another, the card follows you along the way. It could be a federal ID card to vote.

If we printed 300,000,000 ID cards at 2.50 a pop it still wouldn't cost more than a billion dollars. I know it's a simple answer but to me it's a simple process if they (political parties) wanted it to be.

Actually, if we really needed to have an ID system, that's as fair of a way to achieve it as any.

I think we need it, but I don't know if it will happen or that it should. Fraud is there, but is it enough to sway an election? I guess in some places it could be but I'd need more data.

From what I've read - and I haven't dug into it either - it's just not much of a general problem. Now, that's not to say a given precinct somewhere doesn't have voter fraud issues, but IMO that should be dealt with as a local problem, not a state-wide or federal one. It just doesn't extend to that level, at least as a general rule. (Some of the elections we have had recently have been freakishly close.)

If we need to worry about things that really threaten our democratic electoral process, I'd focus on the effect of money and the political influence it buys.

[channonc 466]

]

Again, cost is only one of the barriers, and in my opinion, probably the most easily solved. I will try to answer your questions as best that I can.

1. So getting to a voting place on voting day is much easier than getting an ID on a day that works for your work schedule. On voting day, there are almost always caravans getting people to polling places, churches and a variety of other organizations that work on GOTV. So conceivably, this is one of the easiest days to get transportation-- to a place where lots of others are already headed. Getting a ride to the DMV on a date/time that works for my work schedule... probably much more difficult, especially given the hardship of someone then having to wait around for you to be done and get you back to either home or work. As far as having neighborhoods set up to issue IDs. That would likely be costly, but certainly a solution to explore, but probably unlikely given that ID issuance is up to the state... so we are talking more state employees, a building that's open in the neighborhood to be leased by the state, etc. It gets complicated.

Again, I think the other thing you are missing, is that you assume that once these people get to a place to get an ID they will get one. What happens if you don't have your birth certificate? Well, now you have to not only track that down, which takes enormous amounts of time (again, for people who are living on the brink this is hugely problematic), but it also requires money to get a certified copy-- sometimes as much as $100. What if you don't have your social security card? What if you don't have any bills in your name at the place where you live (i.e. living with a relative or a friend) and are living without a lease? How do you go about proving you actually live there? Again, getting an ID sounds simple for those of us who have readily had access to this information all of our lives and it is just a matter of taking the time and paying (for us) a relatively low fee. For these people, it can be weeks of process-- tracking down a birth certificate, paying for that, picking it up, getting proof of address, etc. Just to be able to walk in that door and get an ID.

2. Registration. Currently, some polling places offer same day registration. Also, there are organizations that do GOTV activities which involve door-to-door registrations. Requiring an ID then becomes much more difficult to have rolling registrations. For example, are we now going to require training on which IDs are acceptable, and how to spot counterfit IDs?

3. Voting is a right, and while I would love to think everyone who goes to the polls have researched the issues and are making what I think is an intelligent vote, but that is just simply not reality. It also starts making the right to vote subjective-- which is hugely dangerous territory, a slippery slope I just flat out do not want to go down. (Much like the innocent until proven guilty...in this case, I gladly take the bad with the overarching good). Who determines who is smart enough to vote? Is there some sort of test? At the end of the day, this is a basic right given to us by the Constitution. There should not be any major hurdles to allowing someone to exercise that right, whether or not I agree with how they vote, or why they vote for a particular candidate or another or whether or not I think they have made "an intelligent" vote.

Thank you for your input.

I understand there are those who have very little and live in poverty. How do these people gets jobs? Everywhere you apply at nowadays requires ID, background check, etc.... It seems that anything these less advantaged folks do would be a major obstacle to get any services or government assistance.

How do these folks sign up for ObamaCare then with no ID? Why aren't Democrats rasing issues with ObamaCare and how folks can't get it without an ID?

I would think that those most affected by a photo ID would be elderly poor folks. Would an age requirement be any help? Anyone 65 and older wouldn't need a FREE ID to vote?

Many do not work, and if they do many of them work odd jobs that pay in cash.

Also, the assertion that a photo ID is required for Obamacare or welfare programs is not necessarily true. You have to have some proof of your identity...which means (in some places) bills, birth certificates, social security cards, library cards...etc. Not necessarily a photo ID, with the reasoning being that the people who need the assistance are less likely to have a photo ID.

http://www.myreporter.com/?p=19824

Hopefully, this answered your question Auburnfan. I would add that any exemption for those over 65 only takes into consideration a fraction of those without ID. Again, consider a 20 year old who has bounced around several foster homes, is finally out on their own working a job, getting paid under the table, sleeping on someone's sofa. Does he have his birth certificate? Would he even know how to get it? Does he even know the names of his birth parents? The list of questions goes on.

Again, I just want to highlight that this is so much more complicated then it seems for those of us who have been lucky enough to live a fairly normal existence.

[channonc 466]

How about we try this? When a person comes to the polls, provide them with an ID once they have proven their registration as a voter. Or, when someone registers, have the state or social security office provide them with a voter ID card? We blow money all over kingdom come anyway. Why not pay a few more people to be in charge of voting ID registration? If you move from one state to another, the card follows you along the way. It could be a federal ID card to vote.

If we printed 300,000,000 ID cards at 2.50 a pop it still wouldn't cost more than a billion dollars. I know it's a simple answer but to me it's a simple process if they (political parties) wanted it to be.

This idea could work if the states would allow it. I think it would difficult though to get certain states to agree to do this, but again, it's worth exploring and seeing how you could do it efficiently.

[channonc 466]

I have no problem with requiring people to prove they are who they are. However, Voter ID law changes are not about free and fair elections, they're about disenfranchisement and trying to stay in power. Weegs, you mentioned sacrifices - count your blessings that you are in a position to make those sacrifices and not have to reap the consequences that someone less well off than you would have to.

The fact that the OP writes "too lazy or too stupid to get a FREEEEEE picture ID?" illustrates the issue more than I possibly ever could. Should they be allowed to vote? yes. They're American citizens. If you would like to deny a US citizen the right to vote, I sure wish you'd make a good case as to why the 15th Amendment shouldn't apply anymore.

Well off? You think I am well off?

If you think that you are able to make that sacrifice, then you are more well off than they are. If, to you, having an ID is a given, then you obviously do not have either an experience of, or an open mind to, another possibility.

I've worked with (or on) plenty of people in my life who legitimately do not have the resources or ability to take off a day of work to go to the DMV, or have transportation to get there and back. These people were, generally, elderly, African American, and quite poor. Many did not have a vehicle, which (if you really thought through it) they couldn't drive anyway. Because they don't have an ID.

If that's the case, then these people can't vote anyway, correct? Who takes them to vote?

I can't speak for that with examples, but I will say that in many counties (at least in GA, it's the only state I have experience with) the polling places are A) a lot closer to homes and generally have a shorter wait time. Part of borrowing transportation for the DMV is that you could be waiting several hours. Also, polls close later than the DMV does.

Also, many churches and civic groups have "get out the vote" shuttles. It's not uncommon for a senior facility to contract a bus to take everyone to the polls at one time.

Maybe it's time to "get out the ID" shuttles?

I think ET or PT or Weegs asked the same question. I think my response was to ask if we think the DMV, which is already overburdened with customers every day, would react well to a busload of seniors showing up at one time. Heck, there are places in GA where the offices are tiny places with a max capacity of 35-50 people, and they're already filled up.

Now - the reverse of that MAY be a solution. I don't know why they don't have a mobile bus (like a blood drive) that does outreach events in areas with low ID saturation - instead of bringing the people to the office, bring the office to the people.

I agree, but again, it still only solves one problem and that's access (and potentially fee for ID, assuming the ID is free). It still doesn't solve the lack of documentation issue and/or the steps one would have to take to get that documentation. Access to the DMV and/or paying ID fee is only one of the many hurdles in place.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

channoc.......thanks for your response. I may not always agree with you on everything but I do always respect your opinion. Wish could say the same for everyone here. But I understand it's a message board where emotions flow freely. If you ever get involved in an effort to get people an ID let me know. I will gladly volunteer some time in Huntsville, even if they vote Dem (LOL).

[channonc 466]

channoc.......thanks for your response. I may not always agree with you on everything but I do always respect your opinion. Wish could say the same for everyone here. But I understand it's a message board where emotions flow freely. If you ever get involved in an effort to get people an ID let me know. I will gladly volunteer some time in Huntsville, even if they vote Dem (LOL).

Thanks PT, and I too, appreciate and respect your opinion even if we don't always agree. At the end of the day, we both picked the side of the good guys, we aren't Bammers after all! Ha! WDE!

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

channoc........A lot of people here seem to forget that. Thanks. I'm headed to Auburn tomorrow. Need to do that every now and then to clear my head.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

]

Again, cost is only one of the barriers, and in my opinion, probably the most easily solved. I will try to answer your questions as best that I can.

1. So getting to a voting place on voting day is much easier than getting an ID on a day that works for your work schedule. On voting day, there are almost always caravans getting people to polling places, churches and a variety of other organizations that work on GOTV. So conceivably, this is one of the easiest days to get transportation-- to a place where lots of others are already headed. Getting a ride to the DMV on a date/time that works for my work schedule... probably much more difficult, especially given the hardship of someone then having to wait around for you to be done and get you back to either home or work. As far as having neighborhoods set up to issue IDs. That would likely be costly, but certainly a solution to explore, but probably unlikely given that ID issuance is up to the state... so we are talking more state employees, a building that's open in the neighborhood to be leased by the state, etc. It gets complicated.

Again, I think the other thing you are missing, is that you assume that once these people get to a place to get an ID they will get one. What happens if you don't have your birth certificate? Well, now you have to not only track that down, which takes enormous amounts of time (again, for people who are living on the brink this is hugely problematic), but it also requires money to get a certified copy-- sometimes as much as $100. What if you don't have your social security card? What if you don't have any bills in your name at the place where you live (i.e. living with a relative or a friend) and are living without a lease? How do you go about proving you actually live there? Again, getting an ID sounds simple for those of us who have readily had access to this information all of our lives and it is just a matter of taking the time and paying (for us) a relatively low fee. For these people, it can be weeks of process-- tracking down a birth certificate, paying for that, picking it up, getting proof of address, etc. Just to be able to walk in that door and get an ID.

2. Registration. Currently, some polling places offer same day registration. Also, there are organizations that do GOTV activities which involve door-to-door registrations. Requiring an ID then becomes much more difficult to have rolling registrations. For example, are we now going to require training on which IDs are acceptable, and how to spot counterfit IDs?

3. Voting is a right, and while I would love to think everyone who goes to the polls have researched the issues and are making what I think is an intelligent vote, but that is just simply not reality. It also starts making the right to vote subjective-- which is hugely dangerous territory, a slippery slope I just flat out do not want to go down. (Much like the innocent until proven guilty...in this case, I gladly take the bad with the overarching good). Who determines who is smart enough to vote? Is there some sort of test? At the end of the day, this is a basic right given to us by the Constitution. There should not be any major hurdles to allowing someone to exercise that right, whether or not I agree with how they vote, or why they vote for a particular candidate or another or whether or not I think they have made "an intelligent" vote.

Thank you for your input.

I understand there are those who have very little and live in poverty. How do these people gets jobs? Everywhere you apply at nowadays requires ID, background check, etc.... It seems that anything these less advantaged folks do would be a major obstacle to get any services or government assistance.

How do these folks sign up for ObamaCare then with no ID? Why aren't Democrats rasing issues with ObamaCare and how folks can't get it without an ID?

I would think that those most affected by a photo ID would be elderly poor folks. Would an age requirement be any help? Anyone 65 and older wouldn't need a FREE ID to vote?

Many do not work, and if they do many of them work odd jobs that pay in cash.

Also, the assertion that a photo ID is required for Obamacare or welfare programs is not necessarily true. You have to have some proof of your identity...which means (in some places) bills, birth certificates, social security cards, library cards...etc. Not necessarily a photo ID, with the reasoning being that the people who need the assistance are less likely to have a photo ID.

http://www.myreporter.com/?p=19824

Hopefully, this answered your question Auburnfan. I would add that any exemption for those over 65 only takes into consideration a fraction of those without ID. Again, consider a 20 year old who has bounced around several foster homes, is finally out on their own working a job, getting paid under the table, sleeping on someone's sofa. Does he have his birth certificate? Would he even know how to get it? Does he even know the names of his birth parents? The list of questions goes on.

Again, I just want to highlight that this is so much more complicated then it seems for those of us who have been lucky enough to live a fairly normal existence.

Channonc, I agree with you that most of us have been fortunate to have a fairly normal existence. Those who live on the margins of life have issues that most cannot even begin to relate to.

We all agree that 1) we don't want potential voters to be disenfranchised; 2) we don't want ineligible voters voting. Right ? Right !

I knew a man who used to sell his vote and have even had a local person tell me that he bought votes on behalf of others. This was when id of no type was req'd in Alabama. These incidents and others underscore for me the absolute need today for voters to present id at the polls.

The Coleman/Frankin senate race was an election with a narrow margin, only 312 votes separated the winner. After the election the discovery was made that 1,099 felons had voted. Would these felons vote for Republicans or Democrats ? Most likely Dems. These individuals were not identified properly at the time of the election and might have been the change for Coleman. Voter id might have prevented this fraud. I don't know the particulars so I say "might". http://washingtonexa...article/2504163

Voter id must be req'd, even for those who live on the margins of life. If they are truly civic minded then exerting the effort to be properly identified is in their best interest as well as the election, otherwise the possibility of fraud exists, and we all do not want fraudulent votes, right ? Right !

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

Hopefully, this answered your question Auburnfan. I would add that any exemption for those over 65 only takes into consideration a fraction of those without ID. Again, consider a 20 year old who has bounced around several foster homes, is finally out on their own working a job, getting paid under the table, sleeping on someone's sofa. Does he have his birth certificate? Would he even know how to get it? Does he even know the names of his birth parents? The list of questions goes on.

Again, I just want to highlight that this is so much more complicated then it seems for those of us who have been lucky enough to live a fairly normal existence.

Yes but my reasoning behind the 65 and older suggestion was more of a counter to how a lot of the opponents of having some sort of voter ID view this issue. Those against a voter ID say it disenfranchises older voters, particularly minorties, who never had a birth certificate and don't drive.

President Obama even went to Al Sharpton's conference last week and said Republicans are trying to restrict the right to vote and it's the greatest threat to the right to vote since before the Voting Rights Act back in the 1960's. The face of the opponents are depicted as older minorities. The 20 year olds who were in foster care are not the main focus of those opposed to having an ID to vote.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-stands-sharpton-accuses-republicans-threatening-voter-rights-article-1.1754048

I liked autigeremt's idea about issuing a federal ID when someone registers to vote.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

Look! There's some Republicans who disagree with you!

http://www.huffingto..._n_3829767.html

http://www.huffingto..._n_1904322.html

http://www.mediaite....-will-backfire/

I'm also not sure where you got the idea that those three Democrats disagreed with me. I've said over and over that IDs are a good idea - and they make no arguments about voter ID laws or voter fraud. In fact, they seem to agree with me that disadvantaged people tend to lack IDs and will need help getting them.

I'm not sure about how we'd go about getting a photo on a Social Security card...good idea in theory, but most of us get a card when we are infants and keep it a long time. Do we then have to go through the hassle of getting a new photo and new every 7 years? Honest question and I think it would be a good discussion to have.

The first HPost link is of a Democrat, not a Republican, who calls Republicans "haters" and does not support mainstream conservative/Republican ideals. He's the perfect Democrat.

The second link is about a local politician. He's not involved in national or even state politics. I'm sure, as he states, that he hasn't seen voter fraud. It doesn't occur everywhere.

The third link quotes "Republican" Colin Powell.......who supported Obama in both elections. He's against many Republican mainstream ideas.

[Auctoritas 2,894]

Look! There's some Republicans who disagree with you!

http://www.huffingto..._n_3829767.html

http://www.huffingto..._n_1904322.html

http://www.mediaite....-will-backfire/

I'm also not sure where you got the idea that those three Democrats disagreed with me. I've said over and over that IDs are a good idea - and they make no arguments about voter ID laws or voter fraud. In fact, they seem to agree with me that disadvantaged people tend to lack IDs and will need help getting them.

I'm not sure about how we'd go about getting a photo on a Social Security card...good idea in theory, but most of us get a card when we are infants and keep it a long time. Do we then have to go through the hassle of getting a new photo and new every 7 years? Honest question and I think it would be a good discussion to have.

The first HPost link is of a Democrat, not a Republican, who calls Republicans "haters" and does not support mainstream conservative/Republican ideals. He's the perfect Democrat.

{Redacted} I'm sorry, I did not realize that he'd made the switch to the Democratic Party.

At any rate, the links were meant to be tongue-in-cheek, and were meant to illustrate that this issue is not black and white and we can cherry-pick all kinds of things to prove a point, and that this sort of bickering is really counterproductive to solving a problem.

However, you didn't address the real meat of that post, which was that 1) your interpretation of Andrew Young's remarks was way off the mark, 2) Carter, Clinton, and Young were not talking of voter fraud, and 3) they seem to agree that the lack of IDs would cause a problem.

Edited to add: "When asked by Roll Call about his remarks, Thigpen said he supports requiring voter identification at the polls, but only if steps are taken to make sure the requirement does not discriminate against any individuals." I think that's a pretty sensible position. Do you?

[Elephant Tipper 430]

Look! There's some Republicans who disagree with you!

http://www.huffingto..._n_3829767.html

http://www.huffingto..._n_1904322.html

http://www.mediaite....-will-backfire/

I'm also not sure where you got the idea that those three Democrats disagreed with me. I've said over and over that IDs are a good idea - and they make no arguments about voter ID laws or voter fraud. In fact, they seem to agree with me that disadvantaged people tend to lack IDs and will need help getting them.

I'm not sure about how we'd go about getting a photo on a Social Security card...good idea in theory, but most of us get a card when we are infants and keep it a long time. Do we then have to go through the hassle of getting a new photo and new every 7 years? Honest question and I think it would be a good discussion to have.

The first HPost link is of a Democrat, not a Republican, who calls Republicans "haters" and does not support mainstream conservative/Republican ideals. He's the perfect Democrat.

First paragraph of the article: "Republican congressional candidate Jason Thigpen is speaking out against North Carolina's new voter identification law, characterizing the measure passed by the state's GOP-controlled legislature as a "turd."" Just because you don't like his platform doesn't mean he's not a Republican. That's a special pleading argument. Same with Colin Powell.

At any rate, the links were meant to be tongue-in-cheek, and were meant to illustrate that this issue is not black and white and we can cherry-pick all kinds of things to prove a point, and that this sort of bickering is really counterproductive to solving a problem.

However, you didn't address the real meat of that post, which was that 1) your interpretation of Andrew Young's remarks was way off the mark, 2) Carter, Clinton, and Young were not talking of voter fraud, and 3) they seem to agree that the lack of IDs would cause a problem.

Edited to add: "When asked by Roll Call about his remarks, Thigpen said he supports requiring voter identification at the polls, but only if steps are taken to make sure the requirement does not discriminate against any individuals." I think that's a pretty sensible position. Do you?

Sorry, now that I read some of what I wrote sounds a bit snippy. Not meant as such.

Thigpen is now a Dem. He was a Republican when that statement was made. He switched just after the election, I think.

Yes, Powell is a Republican, but he supported Democrat Obama.....not even his own candidate. Powell over the years has shown himself to be more of a Democrat in practice...and word.

On the Young comment I need to go back. Sorry. Just a very rushed day. What you refer to doesn't ring a bell. That's on me.

Thigpen's comment you quote I agree with. Whenever this same comment is made, by Dems or Repubs, is almost just glossing over the reality. Fraud does exist and disenfranchisement does exist. Can we eliminate it all ? No, I doubt such but the integrity of voting is the ultimate goal. The ones subject to the adverse effects are either the majority of the electorate, ie, as in the Frankin/Coleman vote, or the individual who might not get to vote. I don't want either but it's hard to divest myself from the reality of what I've witnessed.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

The answer to the question is......NO. I do not WANT stupid and or those to lazy to follow rules to VOTE. Now the legal question.....well......

:laugh:

[Elephant Tipper 430]

However, you didn't address the real meat of that post, which was that 1) your interpretation of Andrew Young's remarks was way off the mark, 2) Carter, Clinton, and Young were not talking of voter fraud, and 3) they seem to agree that the lack of IDs would cause a problem.

Edited to add: "When asked by Roll Call about his remarks, Thigpen said he supports requiring voter identification at the polls, but only if steps are taken to make sure the requirement does not discriminate against any individuals." I think that's a pretty sensible position. Do you?

I remember this now. Young doesn't address the fraud issue but I infer such. Is there another way to look at it ?

Here's the problem though. Suppose you offer the free SS photo id. Your concern has been accessibility and even with the SS photo id those as channonc mentioned might still be without the ability to obtain. I don't want to disenfranchise but I do want to nip at this issue as the situation presents itself. Just the availability of photos today on a driver's license is a BIG change. My first d license was just my name typed on paper with my address and restrictions. A decade later we had photo licenses. We'll just have to keep nipping at it and hopefully all will want both full participation without fraud. Only time and technology will probably resolve the issue, but then again what other issues might result ? Care to be microchipped, especially with Heartbleed around ? lol