Fun Stuff > CHATTER
2012 Election
ackblom12:
Basically it follows a long traditional history of voter suppression that largely targets students, minorities and the poor.
Also the fact that actual in person voting fraud is ridiculously rare, with slightly over 200 cases since 2000.
Papersatan:
Voter ID laws generally require you to have a photo ID with your current address on it. The idea is that it proves you belong in this district/state and that you are who you say you are so that you can only vote once.
The problem is, as Redball said, people double voting or voting in more than one district or voting as someone else are problems which are not really problems. It is very very rare. Most states have some way to deal with it. A much bigger problem we have is people who are registered to vote not doing so. Voter ID laws make this problem worse, and they do it unequally across the population.
Middle class and wealthier people are likely to have a valid driver's licence and to not have recently moved. Under voter ID laws they would simply have to go vote. If you don't drive you would have to go and get a special ID, and if you drive or not and you have moved in the past year, you would need to go get a new one. The people likely to not drive and/or move frequently? Poor people, young people, recent immigrants. These are the same people who are already less likely to vote.
Is it cold in here?:
Also, unless that ID is free, the requirement is a poll tax.
The intent becomes clear when a state worker is fired for urging his coworkers not to conceal the availability of free IDs.
-------
Gerrymandering:
Senators are elected statewide, so gerrymandering can't affect them. State legislators are elected from local districts subject to manipulation. Republicans want to go back to having Senators elected by legislatures and not by the public. I've never seen anyone point out the cause and effect relationship.
Gnomes2169:
--- Quote from: Nikolai on 07 Nov 2012, 10:20 ---Can somebody please enlighten me as to why voter ID is a bad thing? I was under the impression that it was just to help prevent things like double voting and other types of fraud...
--- End quote ---
In the state of Minnesota, it would discourage certain individuals from voting (Because they cannot/ are not willing to pay for a new ID) while not giving any true benefit. Nationally, it is also worthless as voter fraud has never truly decided the outcome of a presidential election, or a congressional one (if I'm remembering my senior year gov class correctly). In the Minnesota example our state has some of the loosest rules on voting (you can register the day of and as long as you have a tax certificate, drivers license, student ID, title deed or two people that can vouch that you live in the county/ state of Minnesota) and we have the lowest rate of voter fraud in the nation (last election, at least).
The ID law here would be like cauterizing your entire arm for a paper cut on your pinky to make sure it doesn't get infected or hunting mosquitoes with a bazooka.
Nikolai:
Thanks for clearing that up. Makes a lot more sense now. And poll taxes are unconstitutional! I learned that studying for my naturalization test.
--- Quote from: Gnomes2169 on 07 Nov 2012, 11:24 --- ...or hunting mosquitoes with a bazooka.
--- End quote ---
...I see nothing wrong with that. Does that make me a Republican? :psyduck:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version