Voter Identification

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

I'm in favor of a national ID card that would end all this foolishness,

Why is obtaining a state ID card such a huge burden, while obtaining a national ID card is no problem for you?

I believe that a National ID card would be easier to obtain if the Federal gov't was the one responsible for issuing them as opposed to letting the states determine where or how.

Again, why is a national ID card any less of a burden on your so-called victims than a state ID card?
Do you believe that a national ID card would be easier to obtain because one massive, bloated, amorphous entity would be able to more efficiently micromanage the records of a couple hundred million voters , rather than breaking it down into manageable chunks by allowing each state to deal with its own few million voters?

No

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Why is obtaining a state ID card such a huge burden, while obtaining a national ID card is no problem for you?

I believe that a National ID card would be easier to obtain if the Federal gov't was the one responsible for issuing them as opposed to letting the states determine where or how.

[bAgain, why is a national ID card any less of a burden on your so-called victims than a state ID card?

I already answered that.

Quote :

Do you believe that a national ID card would be easier to obtain because one massive, bloated, amorphous entity would be able to more efficiently micromanage the records of a couple hundred million voters , rather than breaking it down into manageable chunks by allowing each state to deal with its own few million voters?[/b]

Yes,I do.
Ever hear of the Social Security Administration? They do a pretty good job of keeping records. If you let Feds run it you eliminate individual Governors,like Republican Jim Edgar,and redneck states from imposing their own barriers to registration.

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

I believe that a National ID card would be easier to obtain if the Federal gov't was the one responsible for issuing them as opposed to letting the states determine where or how.

[bAgain, why is a national ID card any less of a burden on your so-called victims than a state ID card?

I already answered that.

No, you didn't even come close to answering that.

Artie60438 wrote:

Quote :

Do you believe that a national ID card would be easier to obtain because one massive, bloated, amorphous entity would be able to more efficiently micromanage the records of a couple hundred million voters , rather than breaking it down into manageable chunks by allowing each state to deal with its own few million voters?[/b]

Yes,I do.
Ever hear of the Social Security Administration? They do a pretty good job of keeping records.

Records?
Yeah.
Money?
Not so much.


http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/258075/cbo-social-security-now-officially-broke

CBO: Social Security Now Officially Broke

January 26, 2011 12:57 P.M.
By Kevin D. Williamson

Today’s CBO report has some bad news about the deficit. But CBO has some really, really bad news about Social Security: It’s officially broke.
The CBO’s revenue/expenditure estimates now place the program in permanent deficit. There had been some hope that payroll taxes would recover sufficiently post-recession to put the program back into the black (the theoretical black) for at least a few more years, putting off the day of reckoning for an election cycle or more. No more: The new CBO estimates put Social Security in the red for as far as the eye can see.

chuckmo48 wrote:

Don't worry about anymore...according to the Indiana Supreme Court cops can now bust into your homes to check for voters ID'S or if they are bored and want something to do...or if you didn't vote for the person they like or for any reason!!

Yeah. Well that's not what the decision actually means. Someone pointed out the article to me that was printed in the local paper that you probably read.

It's always a good idea to check out the actual decision instead of relying on a newspaper article, especially when the newspaper account seems as unbelievable as this one.

My first clue that the decision was misinterpreted was the unconcerned statement from Ivan Bodensteiner, who is arguably one of the the leading civil rights and liberties expert in the state, if not the nation.

I've read the decision, and there is nothing in it that even remotely gives law enforcement the right to "enter a home for any reason or no reason at all." What's especially galling is the fact that the reporter actually attributes that statement to one of the justices, but those words don't appear anywhere in the decision.

IMHO, the Times should issue a retraction.

Here's the decision, if you're interested...

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

IMHO, as for what is needed to vote, simply being registered to vote should be good enough. You still need to sign your name.

Do you feel that strongly about another of our constitutional guarantees - that of the right to bear arms?
Should a simple signature be sufficient ID to walk into a store and purchase any or all of the firearms for sale?

C'mon Jack... Really? If you actually want to discuss the Second Amendment, then I think it would be more appropriate to start a new thread.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

[bAgain, why is a national ID card any less of a burden on your so-called victims than a state ID card?

I already answered that.

No, you didn't even come close to answering that.[/b

Artie60438 wrote:

Quote :

Do you believe that a national ID card would be easier to obtain because one massive, bloated, amorphous entity would be able to more efficiently micromanage the records of a couple hundred million voters , rather than breaking it down into manageable chunks by allowing each state to deal with its own few million voters?

Yes,I do.
Ever hear of the Social Security Administration? They do a pretty good job of keeping records.

Quote :

[b]Records?
Yeah.
Money?
Not so much.
[/b

[/quote] Yeah,well keeping records is the whole point of a national id.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Do you feel that strongly about another of our constitutional guarantees - that of the right to bear arms?
Should a simple signature be sufficient ID to walk into a store and purchase any or all of the firearms for sale?

C'mon Jack... Really? If you actually want to discuss the Second Amendment, then I think it would be more appropriate to start a new thread.

We were discussing the validity of identification as it applies to a constitutional right. The question is entirely relevant to this thread.

Yeah. Well I respectfully disagree. I thought that we were discussing the propriety of enacting laws that specifically target groups of voters who tend to vote Democratic. Again, you have yet to show that there is a "compelling reason" (other than political) for these new laws.

As our discussion stands now, I've seen nothing from you that indicated that the "compelling reason" for the changes is the "validity of identification."

I asked you directly about the justification for these new laws...

Scorpion wrote:

What is the justification for requiring a photo ID?

Why do you think it should be required?

The answers to these questions are significant because from what I've read, 11 percent of the eligible population, around 21 million people, don't have a photo ID.

In light of the fact that these people won't be allowed to vote because they don't have a photo ID, there really needs to be a better reason than "I'm not insisting that anyone do any more than what I am willing to do." What you are "willing to do" is pull your photo ID from your wallet. That's really not an option for those who don't have one in their wallet, is it?

Unless I missed it, you still haven't really answered and I'd really like to get a reply before expanding the discussion further.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Yeah,well keeping records is the whole point of a national id.

Really?
I was under the impression that your whole point about everyone having a national ID was to take the burden off of people who want to vote.
You know, you never really did explain the mechanism with which this easing of the burden is to take place.

Did you miss that part about the SS Adminstration? A huge majority of Americans are already documented and in that system.

Quote :

Will individuals from the federal government be going door to door, passing out national IDs? If not, then I can’t really fathom how a national ID would be so much less of a burden on voters than a state-issued ID would be.
Could you explain?[/b

There would be a lot more locations with the Feds handling it,like Post offices for example. Last but not least,it would create a level playing field for all applicants.

Now explain to us why you think Jim Edgar R-Illinois fought so hard to prevent people from registering to vote at the same time they were applying for license or renewal of one?

Good editorial that exposes the current Republican attack on voter registration.....
The Republican Threat to Voting

Artie60438 wrote:

Good editorial that exposes the current Republican attack on voter registration.....
The Republican Threat to Voting

This is the editorial that spawned this thread, Artie.

Scorpion wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Good editorial that exposes the current Republican attack on voter registration.....
The Republican Threat to Voting

This is the editorial that spawned this thread, Artie.

Ooops

What's the problem? You legally can't vote unless you prove residency and apply for a voter's registration card, which requires a legal driver's license and other evidence.

When you go to vote, your name is in the election judges book.

What's the big problem, except illegals? Which would be a great way to catch and deport them.

Why is there such hog-wash out there?

happy jack wrote:

My reasoning is not all that complicated. I think it should be required in order to verify that the voter is voting one time and is voting within the proper district.
If you don’t believe that voting should require any form of identification, fine. But if you believe that voting should require some form of identification, then I can’t see why you would not expect the ID to be proper and verifiable, not just a mere signature.

Isn't that whole purpose in having a voter registration card? The name, address, and signature have to match what's on the voter rolls. The voter registration card is "proper and verifiable," isn't it?

happy jack wrote:

Again, I ask, would you settle for nothing but a signature in order to conduct another constitutionally protected transaction, that of the right to bear arms through the purchase of multiple firearms?

What did I actually say in my post? Let's look again, shall we? This time I'll underline for clarity.

Scorpion wrote:

IMHO, as for what is needed to vote, simply being registered to vote should be good enough. You still need to sign your name. I don't see any reason that the voting process can't proceed "smoothly, legally, and fairly" under those conditions.

I just assumed that you understood that the voter is registered to vote. (since that's what I said.)

So your question about using only a signature to buy guns is irrelevant to this discussion.

happy jack wrote:

Allow me to add another (and probably the most important) justification for proper ID – to ensure that the person is indeed who he or she claims to be, and that the vote is cast toward the candidate of his or her choice, and not the choice of someone else.

Again, if the person is registered to vote, then what's the problem?

Scorpion wrote:

IMHO, as for what is needed to vote, simply being registered to vote should be good enough. You still need to sign your name. I don't see any reason that the voting process can't proceed "smoothly, legally, and fairly" under those conditions.

I just assumed that you understood that the voter is registered to vote. (since that's what I said.)

So your question about using only a signature to buy guns is irrelevant to this discussion.

In that case, as to buying guns, simply being an American citizen of legal age should be good enough, shouldn’t it? I just assumed that you understood that the person purchasing the weapons is an American citizen of legal age, and that he or she should be registered as such through a native birth certificate or naturalization papers. The mere fact that he or she has documentation ‘somewhere’ should be good enough, and a simple signature should be more than sufficient, no?
So my question was, and is, relevant. But I can understand why you wouldn't want to answer it.

happy jack wrote:

Allow me to add another (and probably the most important) justification for proper ID – to ensure that the person is indeed who he or she claims to be, and that the vote is cast toward the candidate of his or her choice, and not the choice of someone else.

Scorpion wrote:

Again, if the person is registered to vote, then what's the problem?

It’s a problem if they are voting in lieu of someone else whose own vote then becomes negated, don’t you think? If I walk into the polling place and am told that I have already voted due to the fact that someone came in prior to my arrival, presented no identification, slapped down a signature, and voted in my stead, then that’s a problem for me.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Again, if the person is registered to vote, then what's the problem?

It’s a problem if they are voting in lieu of someone else whose own vote then becomes negated, don’t you think? If I walk into the polling place and am told that I have already voted due to the fact that someone came in prior to my arrival, presented no identification, slapped down a signature, and voted in my stead, then that’s a problem for me.

How the hell is that going to happen? Apparently, you haven't been paying attention, so let me try once again to make things clearer. When you register to vote, you get a voter registration card. That card has your name, address, and signature on it. All of this information must match what's in the book at the polls. That's the whole reason to have the card. It shows that you are entitled to vote and you are who you say you are.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

It’s a problem if they are voting in lieu of someone else whose own vote then becomes negated, don’t you think? If I walk into the polling place and am told that I have already voted due to the fact that someone came in prior to my arrival, presented no identification, slapped down a signature, and voted in my stead, then that’s a problem for me.

How the hell is that going to happen? Apparently, you haven't been paying attention, so let me try once again to make things clearer. When you register to vote, you get a voter registration card. That card has your name, address, and signature on it. All of this information must match what's in the book at the polls. That's the whole reason to have the card. It shows that you are entitled to vote and you are who you say you are.

To the best of my recollection, for at least the past 20+ years, I have not been in possession of a voter registration card, nor have I been asked for one at the polls. I can't even remember when or even if I ever had one or was ever asked to present it. I have always been asked for a driver's license (which, by the way, I presented without whining).

The fact that you have misplaced your voter registration card is irrelevant, as is the fact that you haven't been asked for it. Here you are, demanding that other voters produce a photo ID, yet you can't even produce a card that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you're registered to vote?

"Oh, the Hypocrisy!"