Voter ID - Reasonable or Disenfranchising?

[Stoked]

So when I want to withdraw money from my bank account and they ask for ID?
You mean when I go to the bank and apply for a loan, and they ask for ID?

How is proving you are who you say you are "red tape"?

You saying I could steal a bunch of SSN's find out where those people live, and go vote for them under their number without proving I am that person... and that is preserving people's right to vote without red tape?

What is the method Banks use for a credit application that does not involve ID, and is it a bank you already have an account with and they know you, or is it a random bank you just waltz into?

I'm calling you out for wading up to your hips in a septic tank on this one.

Just because you don't like your picture taken does not mean you need to hold on to this irrational hate for photo ID.

Do not waste your time Spazz. You are wrong and they are right and they do not care why you think what you do. You are to be ridiculed and humiliated if they think your position is stupid.

The days of actually trying to understand why people think what they do and have civil debate about it is long dead.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Do not waste your time Spazz. You are wrong and they are right and they do not care why you think what you do. You are to be ridiculed and humiliated if they think your position is stupid.

The days of actually trying to understand why people think what they do and have civil debate about it is long dead.

Stoked you are correct, civil debate is not easy. I have certainly played my role in ratcheting up the rhetoric in this case. I apologize.

I understand what you are arguing, but I am not convinced that (1) voter fraud is the systematic problem some people claim it is or that (2) voter ID laws requiring photo proof will not have the effect of disenfranchising non-trivial numbers of people, predominantly the aged and minorities. I am 100% convinced, however, that the laws being passes and debated today are motivated not by a genuine concern to protect the integrity of the system but are instead motivated by a partisan strategy to gain political advantage by making it difficult for traditional Democratic constituencies to vote.

It took me, for example 5 minutes of online search to find this article by the NYU School of Law which documents that claims of voter fraud are grossly exaggerated. (https://www.truthaboutfraud.org/pdf/TruthAboutVoterFraud.pdf) I don't present this as 'proof' that it isn't a problem, but rather as proof that the issue is far from clear cut. Moreover, if the laws didn't in some way make it harder for Democratic voters to vote, then I'm highly certain that the Right would not be promoting these laws as aggressively as it is. I'm reasonably certain, moreover, that with very little additional effort I could find evidence and arguments demonstrating how such laws in practice do disenfranchise certain types of voters. Again, not that these are necessarily prove anything but to demonstrate that it is far from as certain as you and others make it out to be.

It's politics, and politics is all about getting advantage, when politics coincides with the 'public interest,' that is a happy coincidence but is not as common as we would like. I'm simply not willing to take the word of political partisans one way or the other on this issue, including here where I have little reason to believe that certain posters have real interest in objectivity but who are instead only interested in promoting a particular ideological perspective.

So in sum, I am not opposed to such laws, per se, I just am highly skeptical that they are necessary. Much like the Stand Your Grand Laws, I believe that they are an ideologically driven 'solutions' to non-existent or minor problems. The point in neither case is the public welfare but rather to impose a particular ideology on others.

I realize you disagree with my conclusions, but I can live with that, much like I think you can live with the fact that I am not persuaded by your arguments. Fair enough?

 

[SaltyDawg]

So when I want to withdraw money from my bank account and they ask for ID?
You mean when I go to the bank and apply for a loan, and they ask for ID?

How is proving you are who you say you are "red tape"?

You saying I could steal a bunch of SSN's find out where those people live, and go vote for them under their number without proving I am that person... and that is preserving people's right to vote without red tape?

What is the method Banks use for a credit application that does not involve ID, and is it a bank you already have an account with and they know you, or is it a random bank you just waltz into?

I'm calling you out for wading up to your hips in a septic tank on this one.

Just because you don't like your picture taken does not mean you need to hold on to this irrational hate for photo ID.

Where to begin with this one? Let me see...

1: I withdraw money from my bank all the time with no ID. Yes, in certain scenarios they will ask for ID. But I haven't been asked for ID at my bank in years. I go in there with my ATM card and that is good enough. For that matter, I have never been asked for ID at an ATM.

2: You can call any bank right now, or go to their website, and do a loan application either over the phone or online. You won't be asked to show ID. All those credit card commercials you see on TV are the same. If you call the number, they aren't going to ask you for ID.

3: Proving you are who you say you are isn't red tape. Requiring someone to get a birth certificate, social security card, plus whatever else you need to get an ID, and then go down and get an ID, that is red tape. There are much easier ways to prove you are who you say you are. Just call Wells Fargo/Chase/etrade/Bank of America/Citibank/whatever bank you want and tell them you want to apply for a credit card or a home loan. I guarantee you they will give you a decision without ever seeing your ID, and probably right then over the phone.

4: Yes, you could steal a bunch of people's social security numbers, addresses, etc, and go vote for them under this plan. You know what? You could also steal their social security numbers, addresses, etc, go get a credit card in their name, and spend up a bunch of their money right now. This is called identity theft. You know what else you can do when you steal someone's identity? You can go get an ID under their name, and this happens all the time. All of that aside, which would be harder to do- steal a bunch of social security numbers with matching addresses and whatever other information a credit check would produce. or paying the local thug to print you up a fake ID with someone else's name and your picture? Apparently you don't realize how common fake IDs are. I see on the news all the time some loser meth addict that doesn't know jack about anything, getting busted for drugs, and they find a fake ID production station setup in his house capable of making fake IDs that you would never know where fake. Usually these guys are just cashing checks in banks but they could easily be voting.

5: You can call me out all you want. I challenge you to call any random bank and see if they'll let you apply for a loan over the phone. Or go to any random bank's website and see if they'll let you fill out a loan application online. I guarantee they will.

6: I have no irrational hate for photo ID. I have a driver's license like probably everyone else in this thread. I just understand that some 90 year old lady who hasn't driven in 35 years might not have a driver's license. And for her to get out of the house at all might be a challenge, let alone go get a social security card, then birth certificate, then state ID. And if someone does have an irrational hate for photo ID, that is their right. The constitution doesn't have fine print that says ID required at the bottom.

7: I am not against verifying people. I am just saying there is a much easier way than requiring an ID, and it won't potentially disenfranchise many eligible voters.

 

[colton]

1: I withdraw money from my bank all the time with no ID. Yes, in certain scenarios they will ask for ID. But I haven't been asked for ID at my bank in years. I go in there with my ATM card and that is good enough. For that matter, I have never been asked for ID at an ATM.

Ah, but did you have to show ID in order to get your ATM card? I bet you did.

2: You can call any bank right now, or go to their website, and do a loan application either over the phone or online. You won't be asked to show ID. All those credit card commercials you see on TV are the same. If you call the number, they aren't going to ask you for ID.

That's to "preapprove" you for a loan, not to actually give you a loan. If you think a bank is going to loan money to someone without requiring ID, you're nuts.

7: I am not against verifying people. I am just saying there is a much easier way than requiring an ID, and it won't potentially disenfranchise many eligible voters.

That's good. I agree that there are likely other ways of verifying voters. But I disagree that requiring an ID will disenfranchise many eligible voters.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Ah, but did you have to show ID in order to get your ATM card? I bet you did.

Not my Paypal ATM card. Paypal has never seen my ID to this day.

That's to "preapprove" you for a loan, not to actually give you a loan. If you think a bank is going to loan money to someone without requiring ID, you're nuts.

So what? Getting pre approved still runs your credit. They legally can't do that without being pretty dang sure you are who you say you are. And you can absolutely get a credit card without showing your ID. You can get a credit card by filling out an online application with a bank that doesn't even have a branch in your area, by calling an 800 number, or by filling out the application they send out in the mail all the time.

That's good. I agree that there are likely other ways of verifying voters. But I disagree that requiring an ID will disenfranchise many eligible voters.

Not everyone has an ID. I know plenty of people who don't have an ID. Most of them are old as dirt, but they still have a right to vote (and do vote).

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Where to begin with this one? Let me see...

1: I withdraw money from my bank all the time with no ID. Yes, in certain scenarios they will ask for ID. But I haven't been asked for ID at my bank in years. I go in there with my ATM card and that is good enough. For that matter, I have never been asked for ID at an ATM.

Ah, but did you have to show ID in order to get your ATM card? I bet you did.

The fact that you have the card and it is attached to your bank account, and you know the code to use the card is used as proof of identity. So are you saying instead of a photo id, every voter proved their identity one time in order to get a voting atm card, they could now vote in the future with that voting atm card without photo ID? Isn't that the same as Photo ID except there is no picture? Really, you are using this as an argument?

2: You can call any bank right now, or go to their website, and do a loan application either over the phone or online. You won't be asked to show ID. All those credit card commercials you see on TV are the same. If you call the number, they aren't going to ask you for ID.

Can you vote by phone? Just because a bank does something doesn't mean its the best thing to do. You saw what happened when home loans were not handled properly. Should we handle voting the way Banks, Mortgage companies and other lenders handled home loans?

3: Proving you are who you say you are isn't red tape. Requiring someone to get a birth certificate, social security card, plus whatever else you need to get an ID, and then go down and get an ID, that is red tape. There are much easier ways to prove you are who you say you are. Just call Wells Fargo/Chase/etrade/Bank of America/Citibank/whatever bank you want and tell them you want to apply for a credit card or a home loan. I guarantee you they will give you a decision without ever seeing your ID, and probably right then over the phone.

Based on the assumption you are who you say you are. You will have to prove to them your identity in some way to gain access to that money, and if they do not it is probably an employee that screwed up.

5: You can call me out all you want. I challenge you to call any random bank and see if they'll let you apply for a loan over the phone. Or go to any random bank's website and see if they'll let you fill out a loan application online. I guarantee they will.

Please stop trying to compare voting with banking and finance.

6: I have no irrational hate for photo ID. I have a driver's license like probably everyone else in this thread. I just understand that some 90 year old lady who hasn't driven in 35 years might not have a driver's license. And for her to get out of the house at all might be a challenge, let alone go get a social security card, then birth certificate, then state ID. And if someone does have an irrational hate for photo ID, that is their right. The constitution doesn't have fine print that says ID required at the bottom.

7: I am not against verifying people. I am just saying there is a much easier way than requiring an ID, and it won't potentially disenfranchise many eligible voters.

Yes true citizens do have the right to vote. Now prove you are a citizen. Why make things more difficult than it has to be for the few people that don't have some form of picture ID? Those few people can go get one, and don't try to tell me those people can't afford Photo ID. 15 bucks barely buys a loaf of bread, mayo, and a gallon of milk. I'm sure there are people in those circumstances, but something can be done to help out.

If thee is an easier way, go ahead and spell out this easier way. Pretend I'm you and I'm the only person on the planet that doesn't get this easier way.
Thanks

 

[Scorpjazz]

How about we just be honest and admit it is an attempt to continue and get illegal votes and go from there?

It is such a blatantly obvious situation that even the need to argue this and the fact it isnt already a mandatory law is crazy.

 

[SaltyDawg]

The fact that you have the card and it is attached to your bank account, and you know the code to use the card is used as proof of identity. So are you saying instead of a photo id, every voter proved their identity one time in order to get a voting atm card, they could now vote in the future with that voting atm card without photo ID? Isn't that the same as Photo ID except there is no picture? Really, you are using this as an argument?

I'm not saying exactly that, but it's not too far off either. I'm saying you get a voter registration card (every voter receives one right now anyway). So in order to get that voter registration card, you have to prove who you are. This can be done the same way a bank verifies your identity before they run a credit check.

Can you vote by phone? Just because a bank does something doesn't mean its the best thing to do. You saw what happened when home loans were not handled properly. Should we handle voting the way Banks, Mortgage companies and other lenders handled home loans?

You can't vote by phone, but you CAN vote by mail. And the trouble with home loans had absolutely nothing to do with false identities. The banks have absolutely no history of problems verifying identities without ID.

Based on the assumption you are who you say you are. You will have to prove to them your identity in some way to gain access to that money, and if they do not it is probably an employee that screwed up.

This is not true. You prove your identity without ID every time they run your credit. They legally can't run your credit without verifying your identity first.

Please stop trying to compare voting with banking and finance.

Why? If the private sector is doing it better, why isn't it a good thing for the government to learn from it? Should I talk about how shareholders vote with corporations? No ID required for that.

Yes true citizens do have the right to vote. Now prove you are a citizen. Why make things more difficult than it has to be for the few people that don't have some form of picture ID? Those few people can go get one, and don't try to tell me those people can't afford Photo ID. 15 bucks barely buys a loaf of bread, mayo, and a gallon of milk. I'm sure there are people in those circumstances, but something can be done to help out.

Cost of an ID is not an issue for most people. It's the fact that you are attaching fine print to constitutional rights. Lots of people don't have an ID for reasons not related to cost.

If thee is an easier way, go ahead and spell out this easier way. Pretend I'm you and I'm the only person on the planet that doesn't get this easier way.
Thanks

See, the problem with a lot of the people on the right is they have absolutely no idea what is going on. Yet, they think their old fashioned way is the best. In case you haven't noticed, the modern world is moving away from things like IDs, credit cards, paper money, etc, and moving towards electronic information services. For example, cash went to debit cards, which are now going to NFC. Banks used to require ID, now they have other ways to verify. Requiring an ID would be a step BACKWARDS. It would basically lock us into a technology that is almost certainly going to be fazed out over time. And as I pointed out, this fazing out has already started in the private sector.

Like I said, I have no problem verifying people are who they say they are. I just have a problem if that verification system will disenfranchise lots of eligible voters. Especially if there is a much better verification system that seems to be working just fine whenever anyone applies for a credit card or loan.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

You can't vote by phone, but you CAN vote by mail. And the trouble with home loans had absolutely nothing to do with false identities. The banks have absolutely no history of problems verifying identities without ID.

So they are proven to have a poor history of decision making, and you don't worry at all about how they verify identities?
Again, getting the loan is easy, getting the loan money is another thing without showing ID.

This is not true. You prove your identity without ID every time they run your credit. They legally can't run your credit without verifying your identity first.

You don't prove your identity every time they run your credit. You prove your identity when the picture ID they ask to see matches with the name and information of the person whose credit they plan to run. They "can" run your credit, they have the power to do so whether it is legal or not, even if they shouldn't. They might get into trouble if they are caught doing it incorrectly.

See, the problem with a lot of the people on the right is they have absolutely no idea what is going on. Yet, they think their old fashioned way is the best. In case you haven't noticed, the modern world is moving away from things like IDs, credit cards, paper money, etc, and moving towards electronic information services. For example, cash went to debit cards, which are now going to NFC. Banks used to require ID, now they have other ways to verify. Requiring an ID would be a step BACKWARDS. It would basically lock us into a technology that is almost certainly going to be fazed out over time. And as I pointed out, this fazing out has already started in the private sector.

Like I said, I have no problem verifying people are who they say they are. I just have a problem if that verification system will disenfranchise lots of eligible voters. Especially if there is a much better verification system that seems to be working just fine whenever anyone applies for a credit card or loan.

So these old people without ID's are so up on technology that they don't want to take a step backwards? They would rather just jump straight to the retina scan?

My question, again was, what is this better way?

 

[Stoked]

In my office I have one simple touch screen monitor set up for people to check in to be seen. There is a simple sign saying "Check In Here. Touch This Button" Then an arrow pointing to the button. Nothing else is around it. It is dirrectly in your path when you enter the facility.

At best 60% pf people can figure it out, eElderly people are closer to 30%. I personally do not think voter ID laws disenfranchise people. However if that is a major concern for someone this would only exaggerate that concern.

 

[SaltyDawg]

So they are proven to have a poor history of decision making, and you don't worry at all about how they verify identities?
Again, getting the loan is easy, getting the loan money is another thing without showing ID.

They do not have a proven history of poor decision making. Most of them have been in business for decades, even hundreds of years, and made many billions in profit.
And you do not always have to show ID when you "get the money." The next time you see one of those capital one (or any other) credit card commercials, call the number and see if they ask you for an ID.

You don't prove your identity every time they run your credit. You prove your identity when the picture ID they ask to see matches with the name and information of the person whose credit they plan to run. They "can" run your credit, they have the power to do so whether it is legal or not, even if they shouldn't. They might get into trouble if they are caught doing it incorrectly.

Again, this is flat out false. You can say it as many times as you want, but it does not make it true. They are required to verify your identity when they run your credit. They do this by asking questions that only you would know the answer to.

So these old people without ID's are so up on technology that they don't want to take a step backwards? They would rather just jump straight to the retina scan?

Maybe not a retina scan, but at least they can do a simple questionnaire like a credit card application or loan application.

My question, again was, what is this better way?

Call capital one and ask them.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Making money does not equate to good decision making for anyone but yourself.
Lots of people make money by making bad decisions that hurt others.

Knowing answers to those lame questions does not prove identity. It proves you know the answers to those lame questions that are asked. Just to prove that point, I broke into one of my companies bank accounts online that my boss set up. I had the login name, and password, and I figured out those questions pretty easily. My boss was gone, and I needed to get something done, so it wasn't something I would get into trouble for, but it is very possible to beat those stupid questions if you know anything about the person that set up the account.

Your arguments have holes all in them. If you have a legitimate argument without saying the same things over and over, go ahead and reply. Otherwise lets end this the same way we end all of our discussions. You clinging to the sinking ship, while claiming you are the "King of the World".

You have your opinion that makes no sense, and I have my opinion... that in the words of Trout, is greater than science.