Hacker News Reader

Comment by evgen | Hacker News Reader

If you believe the project veritas videos you should look harder at the source and his history of creating misleading videos. The problem is that in the US it is quite possible to get along just fine without a government-issued ID; mandating such ID can be considered a barrier to voting since it is actually inconvenient to get such an ID in the first place. Your assumption that there is massive electoral fraud in the US is simply incorrect and in fact there is far more voter fraud across Europe than there is in the US. Most voting in the US occurs in-person, and in such cases voter fraud is incredibly rare (as in less than 100 known cases over billions of ballots cast.)

View on HN

You mean, if I believe my own eyes and ears rather than someone insulting me on the internet? You're funny.

If someone can't be bothered to obtain an ID to vote, possibly they shouldn't be voting at all. Civic responsibility is not an inconvenience, it's what keeps civilization running. Taking a few moments out of your daily routine to be informed and choose your government is the least one should expect.

The popular idea is that "it's your responsibility to vote", and that we should get as many people as possible to do so.

Thank god Mike Rowe, somewhat of an opinion leader, is showing how dumb that is. For democracy to work, we need educated, we'll-informed voters. If you're voting on a whim, without having invested the time necessary to understand the issues thoroughly, then you're part of the problem.

If voter ID restrictions serve to weed out people who aren't willing to make an investment in being a good voter, then I'm all in favor of it.

EDIT: s/week/weed/

Given the fact that numerous voter ID laws have been invalidated over the past year due to blatant attempts to disenfranchise poor and minority voters (c.f. North Carolina, Texas, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Ohio, etc) I wonder if your objection is really about being a 'good' voter.

Your speculations about the other party's motives are completely inappropriate to a reasoned discussion.

No, in fact I think they cut to the heart of the objection here. It was suggested that someone who cannot obtain a voter ID that meets the requirements in many states is somehow now a 'good voter'. It has been shown repeatedly over the past few months that the objective, and consequence, of most of these voter ID laws has been to drive down voting by poor and minority voters. The logical conclusion seems to be that poor and minority voters, who have difficulty obtaining these voter IDs, must not be 'good voter(s)' and perhaps should be 'weed(ed) out' of the voting pool. The question of motive is right there staring us in the face.

No, in fact I think they cut to the heart of the objection here

Not at all. I told you what my reasoning was, and you decided that I was lying. That doesn't seem to be arguing in good faith.

It may be true that there's a differential in the impact of the rules. But (a) that doesn't mean that rules were secretly crafted for that reason, or (b) that I wouldn't feel the same way about rules having a differential that affected the more affluent to a greater degree.

Assuming evil intent on the part of your opponent is a sure-fire way to ensure that you can never reach any common ground.

When several voter ID laws have been shown to be explicitly about disenfranchisement based upon race and poverty (c.f. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-s...) I don't really need to accept your claim of good faith on this issue. You claimed that acquisition of a voter ID is some necessary demonstration of being well-informed or willing to make an investment when in fact the rules WERE crafted specifically to disenfranchise minority voters. Until you address this issue directly there is no common ground to be found and I will happily continue to beat you in court and at the ballot box.

Thank you CWuestefeld, for elevating this conversation by being so patient and reasonable.

If someone can't be bothered to obtain an ID to vote, possibly they shouldn't be voting at all.

And when those people without IDs happen to be poor and minority voters, so much the better, right? Getting a government ID is not 'taking a few moments out of your daily routine', or we would not be having this conversation. How about you ask an American how fast and easy it is for them to just waltz in the the DMV and walk out a few minutes later with their shiny new ID card. State IDs are done by the same agency, and a lot of those poor people have one or two jobs they are working where taking an entire day to get an ID could cost them serious money or their job itself.

I think in the US you have to have an ID to get a job. Last time I looked at an I-9, it required 1) proof of citizenship or right to work (GC); 2) proof of identity.

If you take a look at the actual documents which are required for an I-9, they are a lot more flexible than what are required by most of the voter ID laws the courts are throwing out left and right. The proof of citizenship can be a birth certificate or a social security card, while the proof of identity can be a school ID, a local government ID card or a military ID. If you started your job before 1986 you never needed to provide the information, nor would you if you were a retiree or on disability.

You're repeatedly making the argument that requirements to obtain ID are too onerous. Perhaps what's broken is the process for getting that ID. Let's look for ways to streamline that process so that it's less of a burden.

How is it inconvenient to get an ID?

>If you believe the project veritas videos you are a gullible moron

I don't think this has a place on HackerNews?

You are probably correct. Edited to remove my intense distaste for believing things you see on a web site without doing a bit of basic research.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com