|
Why didn't I have to show my ID when voting? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
LOL, but that doesn't mean that you should just be able to say a name out loud and have them believe you, does it? :eyespop: :conf:
If a person is responsible enough to vote, they should be responsible enough to make arrangements to procure some kind of identification, like a passport (not necessarily a driver's license), isn't that so?
To say I am outraged and amazed about this, in (supposedly) the top and most advanced country on earth, is to say nothing at all. |
Seriously, it's a constitutional issue.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080128/epps
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/opinion/03carter.html |
|
|
| LatinLover |
I bet the person that said that to you was as ex ACORN employee/volunteer. Obama is going to win the elections because of fraud, therefore, we should denounce his victory tonight, and not recognize him as the next president.
In America, you can win an election by fraud and by hanging around with domestic bin ladens. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by LatinLover
I bet the person that said that to you was as ex ACORN employee/volunteer. Obama is going to win the elections because of fraud, therefore, we should denounce his victory tonight, and not recognize him as the next president.
In America, you can win an election by fraud and by hanging around with domestic bin ladens. |
Well it worked for Bush!
Altho to be fair to Bush he was hanging around Saudi bin Ladens so it probably isn't as bad, oh wait, where was bin Laden from again? |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by LatinLover
Obama is going to win the elections because of fraud, therefore, we should denounce his victory tonight, and not recognize him as the next president.
In America, you can win an election by fraud and by hanging around with domestic bin ladens. |
Aren't you gone yet? |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by LatinLover
I bet the person that said that to you was as ex ACORN employee/volunteer. Obama is going to win the elections because of fraud, therefore, we should denounce his victory tonight, and not recognize him as the next president.
In America, you can win an election by fraud and by hanging around with domestic bin ladens. |
This post is the equivalent of a toddler sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting "nanny nanny boo boo I can't hear you." |
|
|
| Shakka |
| I had to show my drivers license. But seriously--I agree. Shouldn't a person be required to show some form of government issued/recognized identification in order to be eligible to cast a vote in a government (let alone federal) election? I'm sorry, but if you can't muster up the time to at least procure identification, you shouldn't be exercising any voting privileges. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I had to show my drivers license. But seriously--I agree. Shouldn't a person be required to show some form of government issued/recognized identification in order to be eligible to cast a vote in a government (let alone federal) election? I'm sorry, but if you can't muster up the time to at least procure identification, you shouldn't be exercising any voting privileges. |
I live in DC, so maybe I'm more attune to this. But there are a lot of veterans in this country that don't have homes, much less a valid driver's license. Are you saying that they should abrogate their right to vote, even though they've served their country, simply because they don't have the right piece of plastic? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I live in DC, so maybe I'm more attune to this. But there are a lot of veterans in this country that don't have homes, much less a valid driver's license. Are you saying that they should abrogate their right to vote, even though they've served their country, simply because they don't have the right piece of plastic? |
Not at all. You can still get an ID card that is not a driver's license. And if that is too hard to procure, perhaps presenting a social security card would suffice? I mean if you can't prove you are a U.S. citizen how are we to ensure that we minimize voter fraud? It just opens up too many ways to potentially game the system if you don't have some sort of method to reliably identify legally registered voters. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
i think there is a very weak argument against requiring IDs at the polls. I think the government has a compelling justification for requiring IDs. Regardless of whether voter fraud could be proved as prevalent today, the government has a right to take the least restrictive measure to meet its goal (in this case, to reduce voter fraud). Requiring an ID is not restrictive at all considering every person is required by law to have a government issued ID.
if someone doesn't have a home how can they register to vote? at the very least a person needs to prove their address. "under the 35th street bridge" isn't a valid address and certainly wouldn't qualify for voter registration. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
if someone doesn't have a home how can they register to vote? at the very least a person needs to prove their address. "under the 35th street bridge" isn't a valid address and certainly wouldn't qualify for voter registration. |
In DC they're allowed to provide an intersection and draw a picture for a voting official. Seriously - that made even me :wtf:.
As for the legal argument, I think it depends largely on how you apply the Anderson Balancing Test - whether there is an undue burden put on the free right to vote by requiring some form of identification that generally costs money to procure. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
In DC they're allowed to provide an intersection and draw a picture for a voting official. Seriously - that made even me :wtf:. |
no !!!
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
As for the legal argument, I think it depends largely on how you apply the Anderson Balancing Test - whether there is an undue burden put on the free right to vote by requiring some form of identification that generally costs money to procure. |
i'm not familiar with that test, however, since citizens are required by law to procure identification (for other reasons), it can't be a burden on voting since you don't need to procure the license solely for voting. said differently, procuring the license is not equivalent to a poll tax. I think of requiring an ID to vote more along the lines of requiring voters to wear clothing to the polls. i'm pretty sure that would withstand a constitutional challenge even though the clothes must be procured by the voter. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
no !!!
i'm not familiar with that test, however, since citizens are required by law to procure identification (for other reasons), it can't be a burden on voting since you don't need to procure the license solely for voting. said differently, procuring the license is not equivalent to a poll tax. I think of requiring an ID to vote more along the lines of requiring voters to wear clothing to the polls. i'm pretty sure that would withstand a constitutional challenge even though the clothes must be procured by the voter. |
Well, we're both considering the voting population in general. The Anderson Balancing Test is used to determine whether an undue burden is put on even one voter's right to vote. Since the right to participate freely in democratic elections is considered a fundamental right of all citizens, the magnitude of the infringement is more or less irrelevant - if it infringes in any way on the ability of even a small population to participate, it can be deemed unconstitutional.
I'm more or less neutral on the issue - the number of people affected is admittedly very small.
However, the dissenting opinion (Breyer) in the recent Supreme Court case was intriguing:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdf |
|
|
|
|
