Voting requires ID in almost every other western democracy, including Canada. The rest of the world see it as very reasonable to identify yourself at a polling station. It's odd that this is so contentious in the US.
Unsurprisingly, this makes voter ID a political issue: those who benefit from poll taxes support them, and those whose voters are suppressed by poll taxes oppose them.
Because people don't want yet another mandatory way to be tracked by the government. It is especially opposed by those here illegally, their supporters, and others historically disenfranchised by more and more centralized requirements. Not everyone has driver's licenses or ssn cards. There are non-zero problems so what should be obvious is why some oppose even if you don't.
I constantly hear that (the majority of) people don't care about NSA spying, Facebook and Google spying, ad tracking, etc, etc, etc.
But somehow when it comes to being issued a number and a piece of plastic it would never work because people would oppose it based on privacy? I find that very hard to believe.
I'm not even making an argument about "I'm not doing anything wrong, so why should I fear the machine?" I have assault rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition purchased with my credit card. There's a non zero risk that the disarmament Inquisition might use my credit card to seize my property or worse. But the risk is... Quite vanishingly small. And I think it's not unreasonable to suggest the risk is vanishingly smaller for ID cards.
Additionally, I'm completely uninterested in warping our legal code around illegal immigrants. They are irrelevant to the conversation. We make laws for the benefit of citizens. Not the other 95% of the globe that aren't American citizens.
I'm additionally not sure how giving, let's say black trans women, a free national ID card and requiring her to show it for purchasing cigs, alcohol, driving and voting is a problem. It's non-onerous.
The U.S. is a union of States each with different cultures, attitudes, histories, and needs. It was recognized early on that A STRONG Federal government given responsibility to do ANYTHING at a nationwide scale would quickly rustle jimmies as people would begin to feel more and moredisenfranchised by having institutions forced upon them by people who didn't live there.
Common sense thus dictated the country be run from the bottom up. Delegating only certain unquestionable authority to the Federal Government so as to provide a framework for settling disputes between States, and leaving States to handle their own affairs.
It seems to have become more in vogue for issues to end up bubbling straight to the National Congress without passing through a State first.
Nowadays with mainstream media gushing to its various audiences the National Congress seems to have taken center stage, but there is also increased unrest by those uninterested in having their State's ability to run itself as it will usurped by the Federal.
Pragmatically I'm not suggesting an expansion of federal power, since it already de facto has national identification power for both criminal purposes and entitlements in addition to statues regulating elections. This being said, I would support an amendment to make a tiny expansion to the census provision to support a federal indentification system because I believe the benefits far out weigh the costs.
The REAL ID act which was an attempt to create a federal ID managed by the states was passed in 2005 by is still not implemented because many states simply refuse to comply with the law some have even passed laws that prevent the state from complying with the law. The federal government lacks a way to force a majority of the sates to comply with it's will (see marijuana laws). And states don't want a federal id.
In any case, I'd like to hear arguments against it besides monetary cost, but so far all I've been exposed to is fringe right wingers whining about the gubment and lefties feeling like reminding us that Jim Crow et al was a thing and they totally promise that's not a red herring.
Unless the costs and efforts in the US are unduly high - hundreds of dollars and taking off half a week from work or travel half the country - the claim voter ID laws are an actual poll tax designed to keep people away seems suspicious. Sure there is some hassle and a tiny bit of money required, but I don't see anybody claim that drivers licenses are a scheme to keep poor people off the streets in the same regard.
You're also making an ignorant generalization about my background. I was brought up by a single, disabled mother. We lived below the poverty line for the majority of my childhood. You'd do well to discard your arrogant approach.
On the surface it seems like a reasonable requirement, but it disenfranchises people for little to no return. In-person voter fraud is difficult to do in any meaningful amounts. Estimates show the amount is negligible compared to the kind of disenfranchisement voting restrictions cause.
Additionally there have been a lot of bullshit practices put up to block people from voting: literary test + grandfather clause, poll tax, corporate thugs watching you vote, white supremacists keeping black people out of polling stations, limiting the quantities of polling stations, resisting early voting, using horribly insecure (Windows XP SP1) voting machines, voter records getting purged. Voting is a right, and it's supposed to be the foundation of our democratic republic.
ID costs money, has to be renewed, and is harder to get than it used to be. (Thanks, DHS.) What if you're older, and the building that kept your birth certificate burned down? Or just lost it? This is not uncommon. Do you just not get to vote?
There is no cost to requiring ID... It is you conflating the cost of acquiring an id with the cost of requiring one. As Australia shows, it can be done with a zero cost (birth certificates and Medicare cards are free)
Australia acheives a 90+% voter turn out. (Compulsory voting through fines) even our poorest are able to vote, that remaining 8% who don't vote are overseas, or missing.
US is lucky if it gets to 60%
The US system has serious problems that completely undermine a democracy... But hey, let's forget the forest and focus on this one tree right here.
I found this video pretty funny while searching around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrBxZGWCdgs
Regulations for dispensing controlled substances vary from state to state. As of 2013, only 24 states required pharmacists to verify identity.[1] Many of those regulations apply only in certain circumstances, don't specifically require government-issued photo ID, have fallback procedures, or allow the pharmacist to dispense the medication without ID if withholding it would harm the patient. Florida recently passed a law that says it's good enough if the pharmacist recognizes the patient.[2]
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/docs/menu-pdil.pdf
[2] https://www.healthlawrx.com/2018/07/florida-imposes-new-id-r...
But as to your idea about life without an ID... I routinely refuse to show my ID to bank tellers, doctor offices, trains, planes, etc. I avoid most activities the require ID. There is one obvious exception--I drive every day.
I carry my ID with me at all times. But I refuse to show to somebody who is not writing me a traffic ticket. That refusal has not impeded my ability to conduct a normal life.
FWIW, I am not opposed to voter ID. I am opposed to universal ID. My voter ID should not be required to open a bank account, or rent an apartment. It should be for one purpose. I recently tried to open a bank account. They asked for my SSN. I gave it to them so they could report taxable income to the IRS. They asked for my drivers license. I refused. They asked for my employment history. I refused. If they asked for my shoe size, I would refuse.
Over-collection of personal data is a big problem right now. Most people facilitate it. I try to resist it.
So far, it hasn't prevented me from voting.
It seems odd that Fox News keep returning to college campuses over and over and over to get quotes that are intended to represent the views of Liberals writ large.
I mean, they're in New York City, wouldn't it be simpler to go outside their office and interview some adults with jobs?
Trying to wrack my brain to figure out why they would keep talking to 18 year olds over and over again, hmm...
The idea that a legal, eligible-to-vote US citizen is running around living life in 2018 without any form of ID is preposterous.
I did not provide a driver license to my employer. I have worked legitimately for them every day for many years.
I did not provide a driver license to my ISP.
I can't fathom why my bank would need to know if I am allowed to drive. They do, however, have a legitimate reason for wanting my SSN.
This current year I have traveled across 4 states several times. Nobody asked me for my license. I've spent many thousands of dollars with retailers. I've stayed at multiple hotels. I've been to the airport a few times. And I've lived in the home that I own all year long. In none of these situations have I been asked for a driver license.
I have been asked for my driver license in what seemed odd circumstances. I gave them a puzzled look and declined the requests. Once or twice they persisted and I asked them why they needed to know if I was permitted to drive. They sputter something about their computer screen. I ask them if we can proceed if I don't have a license, and they eventually figure out how to do that. We complete our business; I get in my car and drive home.
Honestly, I wish people like you would put up a little more resistance. But I recognize your right to do whatever you want with your license.
You'll apparently "lose your dignity" in October [1].
I can't fathom why my bank would need to know if I am allowed to drive.
An ID and a driver's license are not necessarily the same thing.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/tsa-changes-deadline-for-real...
It also means that I avoid sporting events that require pat-downs. Or neighborhood parties that require criminal background checks. Or schools with metal detectors at the entrance.
In general, if an event is so sketchy and risky that it requires those measures, I take it as a signal to avoid that event. When I see somebody dressed in full combat gear I know I am not where I want to be.
It must be wonderful to be able to fly private, but that isn't an option for most of the people that are the subject of this conversation.
That's possibly true, but also completely irrelevant to what we are discussing, because in most states the voter ID laws only accept a few specific kinds of ID. There are many legal, eligible-to-vote US citizens running around living life in 2018 without any of these specific kinds of ID.
Living in the US and having the right to vote are not the same thing. Illegal aliens, temporary and permanent residents, and other people of varying status live in the US but cannot legally vote, at least in federal elections.
The problem is on the ID-provisioning side.
That someone might have to pay $15-30 every 5 years to renew a state ID, and have it be claimed that it is a "poll tax" to vote, is ridiculous.
Still, there are many functioning people here who do not own a single vehicle.
That doesn't make them poor or stupid or government-dependent.
Your ignorance and prejudice are undermining your ability to mount a convincing argument. I happen to think that a voter ID is not an unacceptable idea. But I run across so many people who seem to mount the kinds of uninformed arguments that you have here. These arguments scare me. They make me worry about the capacity of our society to enact a reasonable voter ID program. It seems like it should be so simple. Then I read the thinking of people like you and worry that it will be botched.
Perhaps you think we control for that as part of voter registration. We do not. I registered by walking into a post office, filling out a form, and handing the clerk some pocket change for a stamp.
My dad.
Incidentally, he owns two cars.
If he drives them, he will rightfully be arrested. If he wants to bail out of jail after his arrest, the bondsman will require ID. No ID, and he sits there in jail until his case is heard several months down the line.
With respect to your other claims, you seem to be of the belief that a Driver's License and an ID are necessarily the same thing. They are not. You can easily acquire an ID card that is not a driver's license.
To your statement, I will respond by letting you know that he does not drive. I agree that he should be arrested if he is found driving without a license.
I will also point out that you have made some of the same poor assumptions as the first comment. If he wants to bail out of jail after his arrest, he will open his wallet and pay cash for his bail. If he doesn't actually have the cash in his wallet, he may send his driver to retrieve more cash.
People without a Driver's License are not necessarily poor. Or uneducated. Or dim-witted.
In this thread you’ve said that you only fly private and that your father has a personal driver. Congratulations to you/him on your success in life, but something tells me that both of you have ID if this is the case.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/Vot...
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/0730/Voter-ID-mo...
By all means make voter ID required, just make sure the burden for obtaining it is identical across all demographics.
It sounds like a good idea in theory, but in practice - specifically in the United States - requiring ID for registered voters at the polling station is used by the Republican Party for the sole purpose of disenfranchising Democratic voters.
The general thing people have wanted to avoid is an extra burden that burdens poor voters. Either an ID that costs money (poll taxes are banned in many countries, so this is always a little dubious), or that simply requires going to a distant or understaffed facility to get the ID.
The only reason it's a political issue at all is because the Republican party has been rather openly seeking these negative effects to their electoral benefit: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-ackno...
Not in the UK. [1]
> Do I need to take ID to the polling station?
> You do not need to show ID to vote in England, Scotland and Wales. You just need to tell polling staff your name and address. They will then cross your name off the list and give you a ballot paper.
There were trials of a voter id system recently, but it is widely regarded as "a solution in search of a problem" and a way of suppressing the vote of the economically disadvantaged, the natural opponents of the ruling right wing Tory party[2]
1: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/07/how-do-i-vo...
2: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/29/england-vot...
No one would object to voter ID requirements if it wasn't weaponized to disenfranchise voters.
The fix is automatic, universal voter registration. Just like every other mature democracy.