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

[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.

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.

Yeah, I went and looked up Thigpen and saw that he switched, and I am going back to alter my post. I didn't realize that either and was just going with the article.

I certainly am interested (and was interested) to hear of your experience with the vote-selling. That's good data, and it's those kinds of personal stories that make a difference (just as Channonc's post about the marginalized voters).

It's another one of those really interesting things that pops up from time to time in politics- we're both working towards exactly the same goal, which is the integrity of the election process. You happen to believe (based on your life experiences) that the value judgement swings towards "get it right and bear the cost", so to speak. I, because of my life experiences (both professionally and personally), swing towards "limit the costs, then work from there." If the argument is truly about ensuring a fair election, I don't think you'll find anyone against that except for partisan strategists.

If we can start from Thigpen's position and work honestly and deliberately, I don't think that the goal is impossible to reach. I think that the reason it is so unpalatable to people like me is that these laws keep showing up in heavily republican states, or in states undergoing a rightward movement in their state legislatures, and they get rammed through. They may be good ideas, but it seems like we move too quickly with them, and it can cause some serious civic damage.

The entire focus on any government regulation, in my mind (and in countless ethicists' minds) is that above all, "maximize benefits while minimizing harms, and make sure they are spread equitably." Doing that takes time and good faith. I hope that we as a country one day can start giving the other side the benefit of the doubt.

Now THATS a pipe dream.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

The entire focus on any government regulation, in my mind (and in countless ethicists' minds) is that above all, "maximize benefits while minimizing harms, and make sure they are spread equitably." Doing that takes time and good faith. I hope that we as a country one day can start giving the other side the benefit of the doubt.

Now THATS a pipe dream.

But a serious start. Good thoughts Auctoritas. Much appreciated.

[Auctoritas 2,894]

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

I look at Young's remarks as almost an aside, really. The issue here, as we've been discussing, is that there is a tension between implementation of Voter ID laws and the fact that there are segments of the population who become disenfranchised because they do not have one (or lack the resources to get one). I think what Young was saying was outside that argument's scope. I think that it was more like coming at the underlying problem from a different angle. He was saying that the real issue here isn't voting rights or voter ID or fair elections, it's the fact that there are people out there without IDs at all, and they lack the resources (money, time, paperwork) to get them, so lets fix that. The fact that it would let them vote is a secondary benefit.

If we remove voting from the equation, and acknowledge (as Channonc so eloquently put) that there are extremely marginalized individuals out there, isn't it in our best interests as voters and civic-minded folks to help them get an ID - in effect, kill 2 birds with one stone?

I think your ending thoughts are spot on. I think this takes time, and I think it takes patience from each side while we address BOTH issues. This doesn't have to be, doesn't even NEED to be an us vs them, Republican vs Democrat thing. It's literally the perfect thing to compromise over - one side gets the fair elections it wants, and the other side addresses an area of need and makes sure everyone who WANTS to vote in that fair election can do so.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

I look at Young's remarks as almost an aside, really. The issue here, as we've been discussing, is that there is a tension between implementation of Voter ID laws and the fact that there are segments of the population who become disenfranchised because they do not have one (or lack the resources to get one). I think what Young was saying was outside that argument's scope. I think that it was more like coming at the underlying problem from a different angle. He was saying that the real issue here isn't voting rights or voter ID or fair elections, it's the fact that there are people out there without IDs at all, and they lack the resources (money, time, paperwork) to get them, so lets fix that. The fact that it would let them vote is a secondary benefit.

If we remove voting from the equation, and acknowledge (as Channonc so eloquently put) that there are extremely marginalized individuals out there, isn't it in our best interests as voters and civic-minded folks to help them get an ID - in effect, kill 2 birds with one stone?

I think your ending thoughts are spot on. I think this takes time, and I think it takes patience from each side while we address BOTH issues. This doesn't have to be, doesn't even NEED to be an us vs them, Republican vs Democrat thing. It's literally the perfect thing to compromise over - one side gets the fair elections it wants, and the other side addresses an area of need and makes sure everyone who WANTS to vote in that fair election can do so.

Well said. Let's do it and help others achieve such.