>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
The real question I have is why the Department of Motor Vehicles is issuing Voter IDs?

I found it weird that they kept referring to it as a "Voter" ID in this video -- it's just a state ID.


Well yes that and loads of other questions too. When I look at the potentially restrictive and exclusive nature of statism, I tend to have a myriad of them.

>> ^blankfist:

The real question I have is why the Department of Motor Vehicles is issuing Voter IDs?


I found it weird that they kept referring to it as a "Voter" ID in this video -- it's just a state ID.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Remember, it's only election fraud when conservatives win!

Anyone making a lifestyle out of welfare (over two years on it) should be barred from voting until they're off the dole; any illegals caught voting should be executed as enemy spies and saboteurs.

The voting age needs to be raised to 25 except for members of the military. One hasn't been paycheck-raped by taxes enough at 18 to know what's going on, plus at that age one naturally knows nothing and cannot make informed decisions.


I don't think raising the voting age will turn everyone conservative. I'm not 100% conservative or liberal but what these super leftist liberals do in this video just really irritates me. A violation of your privacy to have someone look at your bank activity to issue you a voter id? Puh-lease.

I don't agree with you on your views on several other subjects and with all the extra sentiments in you put in the comments (Obamacare etc.) but I agree with you on this.

¿Qué hay de malo en eso?>> ^Chaucer:

At least this is better than in Texas. The only thing you have to do is answer "Si" to be able to get a voter card.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

@NetRunner - why do I even argue with you?

I think we're actually discussing two different topics right now, though. At first it was the "This is being done to prevent the lower-class from voting" thing and now you've moved it to how much of a pain in the ass it is. Your points make it very clear that this is a pain in the ass, but I still don't think there's any foul play afoot by the ones passing this legislation.


I'm certainly willing to admit that I can't really prove intent.

But...I do think I can prove that this disproportionately affects the young, the poor, minorities, and the extremely elderly. I also think I can prove that those demographic groups tend to vote Democratic.

I think I can also establish that the problem it purports to solve is nearly nonexistent, while the "solution" will result in a substantive number of legal voters being disenfranchised. I even think I can show that the types of voter fraud that have actually been attempted wouldn't be stopped by this new restriction (at least for the Ohio version).

Do you find any of those claims implausible?

You'd think a tea-party poster child like @quantumushroom would recall the phrase "No taxation without representation".>> ^quantumushroom:

Remember, it's only election fraud when conservatives win!

Anyone making a lifestyle out of welfare (over two years on it) should be barred from voting until they're off the dole; any illegals caught voting should be executed as enemy spies and saboteurs.

The voting age needs to be raised to 25 except for members of the military. One hasn't been paycheck-raped by taxes enough at 18 to know what's going on, plus at that age one naturally knows nothing and cannot make informed decisions.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

Voting is a RIGHT, not a privilege. ^That is incredibly ignorant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage


If only I could upvote this (MycroftHomlz) a million times.

>> ^Payback:

>> ^MycroftHomlz:
I think they should have tests US history to allow people to vote. Also, only land owners. And you have to be white. If you are black you get 3/5ths vote. That I think would be perfect.

You COMPLETELY have missed out the problem of half-breeds in your scenario. You haven't thought this out far enough. How can you POSSIBLY effectively protect the God-given rights of white people without addressing that?


It's easy, if you like their ugly mug, "who was George Washington?" If not, "how many marbles are in this jar?"

>> ^MarineGunrock:

It's only sane to think that one should have to prove eligibility to vote in a certain district.

Sure, but why does the proof have to be a driver's license or state ID?

Right now in Ohio you can use any photo ID (including things like student ID, or employee ID badges), or alternatively you can use a utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, or any government document that includes your name and address.

They want to change the law here as well, so that it has to be a driver's license, state ID, passport, or military ID.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
It's not really a roadblock, though. ... Drivers licenses and ID cards come at a price, but where ever this is gives the ID FOR FREE if you need it to vote.


Again, it most certainly is a roadblock. First, you need to know about the change in the law, apparently at least 2 weeks in advance. Second, you need to get the documentation required for a state ID, which may require a trip to the courthouse and more fees. Third you need to find the time to go stand in line during business hours on weekdays, which isn't even easy for someone like me with a flexible work schedule, a car, and no kids. Fourth, you need to fill out all the forms, answer all the questions, and know that the only way to make it free is to check a special box on the application form, because they won't tell that to you.

Oh, and the next bit of news I've heard this evening is that now Wisconsin (which is where this is from, BTW), is now closing down the DMV's in 10 districts, reportedly mostly the ones in heavily Democratic districts. To compensate for the reduction in service, they're lengthening the hours of DMV's in some other, more Republican, districts to make sure Republicans don't have any problems voting deal with the overflow...

For the most part though, my question is what problem is this supposed to solve? In Ohio there have been next to zero cases of even attempted voter fraud, and none successful.

Surely you concede that doing this will result in some people, who are eligible to vote, trying to vote legally, will be prevented from voting. Why is that necessary?

Even if I assume this is being done out of real concern about fraud, this is like arresting everyone in a neighborhood because someone thinks maybe someone in there could have committed a crime, even though they don't have evidence to prove that a crime was even committed in the first place...

>> ^MarineGunrock:

This was a pain to watch. It was slow and she just seemed like she was trying to create a conspiracy. It costs money because you're paying them for a service. It's not a "tax" to vote.


You do understand that there's a historical allusion being made when she refers to this as a poll tax, don't you?

It's about trying to usurp the political power of a group of people you want to keep powerless by putting up roadblocks to their ability to vote.

Thanks for the promote!

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
*promote

Give me a break.

You said "None of those are particularly easy to get, and they also cost money".

If you don't have 40 bucks to get an ID, which every one needs, then you have bigger problems and voting is not one of them.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^bobknight33:
I did watch you need a driver license, passport or or mil ID. Any one can get these if they dont already have one.
If this is such a not problem then what the fuss about showing an ID? How does it prevent one from voting?
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^bobknight33:
Why shouldn't you provide ID when you vote?
Who dose not have an ID today?

Did you not watch the video? These laws aren't saying "you need some ID", they're explicitly excluding types of ID that Democratic voting blocs are likely to have, while allowing ID types Republican voting blocs are likely to have.
Basically the idea here is to pretend to be cracking down on a problem...that doesn't actually exist, and "accidentally" have the ne
restrictions result in preventing lots of people (hopefully Democrats!) from voting.
It's voter suppression.


None of those are particularly easy to get, and they also cost money. Military ID kinda obviously only comes with being in the military.
I guess mostly the question is "why should you have to show ID?" we already make people register, and you get crossed off in the the roles when you come in to vote.
There's essentially no one who's ever successfully voted twice in the last decade, so why tighten restrictions on voting, except to make it harder for people who don't already have a form of ID to exercise their right to vote?
This is sort've like saying you shouldn't get a right to a fair trial unless you register and go through the requisite hoops to get a driver's license.

>> ^bobknight33:

I did watch you need a driver license, passport or or mil ID. Any one can get these if they dont already have one.
If this is such a not problem then what the fuss about showing an ID? How does it prevent one from voting?
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^bobknight33:
Why shouldn't you provide ID when you vote?
Who dose not have an ID today?

Did you not watch the video? These laws aren't saying "you need some ID", they're explicitly excluding types of ID that Democratic voting blocs are likely to have, while allowing ID types Republican voting blocs are likely to have.
Basically the idea here is to pretend to be cracking down on a problem...that doesn't actually exist, and "accidentally" have the new restrictions result in preventing lots of people (hopefully Democrats!) from voting.
It's voter suppression.



None of those are particularly easy to get, and they also cost money. Military ID kinda obviously only comes with being in the military.

I guess mostly the question is "why should you have to show ID?" we already make people register, and you get crossed off in the the roles when you come in to vote.

There's essentially no one who's ever successfully voted twice in the last decade, so why tighten restrictions on voting, except to make it harder for people who don't already have a form of ID to exercise their right to vote?

This is sort've like saying you shouldn't get a right to a fair trial unless you register and go through the requisite hoops to get a driver's license.

I did watch you need a driver license, passport or or mil ID. Any one can get these if they dont already have one.

If this is such a not problem then what the fuss about showing an ID? How does it prevent one from voting?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^bobknight33:
Why shouldn't you provide ID when you vote?
Who dose not have an ID today?

Did you not watch the video? These laws aren't saying "you need some ID", they're explicitly excluding types of ID that Democratic voting blocs are likely to have, while allowing ID types Republican voting blocs are likely to have.
Basically the idea here is to pretend to be cracking down on a problem...that doesn't actually exist, and "accidentally" have the new restrictions result in preventing lots of people (hopefully Democrats!) from voting.
It's voter suppression.