Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate

[music lover]

It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.

Oh here we go. Just admit that Republicans want voter ID to win elections.

Why not just admit that the Democrats want people with no ID to vote because those people tend to vote Democrat?

[forummm]

It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.

Oh here we go. Just admit that Republicans want voter ID to win elections.

Why not just admit that the Democrats want people with no ID to vote because those people tend to vote Democrat?

That's certainly some part of the motivation for some people. But also the whole thing about civil rights and constitutional protections of what makes the nation a democracy. That one's kind of a big deal too.

[Proud Foot]

Thanks to all who were discussing the Voter ID laws.  I am glad this forum is knowledgeable and can discuss such topics intelligently while also challenging my views.

[randymarsh]

It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.

Oh here we go. Just admit that Republicans want voter ID to win elections.

Why not just admit that the Democrats want people with no ID to vote because those people tend to vote Democrat?

Of course they do. But their position that more voters is a good thing is also the right answer ethically and in line with our system of government. Are they doing the right thing for the wrong reason? Maybe. Doesn't make it any less right.

Democrats aren't trying to restrict voting rights of anyone (to my knowledge). Republicans are and they're using lies & distortions about voter fraud to make it happen. The person preferred by the most people is supposed to win. Side lining voters because they don't like your ideas is wrong.

If the majority supported Republican ideas, they wouldn't have this issue. The GOP refuses to create better ideas, so instead they have to use dirty tricks to win elections.

[Northwestie]

The way it was intended to work was that voter registration was easy.  Fill out a form and send it in.  At most you needed a utility bill to prove you lived where you did.  Many citizens don't have a car and have no need for a license - and they are poor and don't or can't miss work to go get an ID.

Texas has no driver's license offices in almost a third of the state's counties. Meanwhile, close to 15 percent of Hispanic Texans living in counties without driver's license offices don't have ID. A little less than a quarter of driver's license offices have extended hours, which would make it tough for many working voters to find a place and time to acquire the IDs. Despite this, the Texas legislature struck an amendment that would have reimbursed low-income voters for travel expenses when going to apply for a voter ID, and killed another that would have required offices to remain open until 7:00 p.m. or later on just one weekday, and four or more hours at least two weekends.

There has been no proof of voter fraud outside a couple meaningless anecdotes.  For all the GOP's yelling of FREDUM they certainly are trying hard to limit democracy and voting.

[forummm]

There actually is an epidemic of voter fraud in the country.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFOwlMCdto

Gets especially good around the 10:30 mark (but watch the whole thing because it's all good).

[nereo]

It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.

Oh here we go. Just admit that Republicans want voter ID to win elections.

Why not just admit that the Democrats want people with no ID to vote because those people tend to vote Democrat?

I want everyone to have easier access to voting, especially those with no ID.  This includes poor urban black people who vote democrat on average, as well as poor rural white voters who tend to vote republican.
I believe democracy works best when the highest percentage of individuals can participate.  As another poster noted above, removing barriers doesn't always increase voter turnout.

[Northwestie]

There actually is an epidemic of voter fraud in the country.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFOwlMCdto

Gets especially good around the 10:30 mark (but watch the whole thing because it's all good).

Very good!

[Glenstache]

There actually is an epidemic of voter fraud in the country.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFOwlMCdto

Gets especially good around the 10:30 mark (but watch the whole thing because it's all good).

Very good!

The clip of the TX legislators voting multiple times  was great (not great).

[music lover]

It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.

Oh here we go. Just admit that Republicans want voter ID to win elections.

Why not just admit that the Democrats want people with no ID to vote because those people tend to vote Democrat?

I want everyone to have easier access to voting, especially those with no ID.  This includes poor urban black people who vote democrat on average, as well as poor rural white voters who tend to vote republican.
I believe democracy works best when the highest percentage of individuals can participate.  As another poster noted above, removing barriers doesn't always increase voter turnout.

No. Democracy works best when informed people make informed choices. Increased participation has no use, and in fact, can be damaging if people have no idea who or why they are voting. This is simple common sense that shouldn't have to be explained.

Democracy works, but people still have to get off their butts and make an effort. No one who truly cares and wants to vote will find the ID requirements onerous. Those who think that certain segments of society are "disadvantaged" have every right to help them meet the very basic and easy requirements.

[GhostSaver]

While your proposal that democracy works best when informed, etc. people vote, that isn't the governing principle of our particular type of democracy. In our system of government, it is supposed to be 1 person, 1 vote. That's why we don't require literacy, numeracy, or civics tests before you can register, either to vote or to run for office.

[nereo]

It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.

Oh here we go. Just admit that Republicans want voter ID to win elections.

Why not just admit that the Democrats want people with no ID to vote because those people tend to vote Democrat?

I want everyone to have easier access to voting, especially those with no ID.  This includes poor urban black people who vote democrat on average, as well as poor rural white voters who tend to vote republican.
I believe democracy works best when the highest percentage of individuals can participate.  As another poster noted above, removing barriers doesn't always increase voter turnout.

No. Democracy works best when informed people make informed choices. Increased participation has no use, and in fact, can be damaging if people have no idea who or why they are voting. This is simple common sense that shouldn't have to be explained.

Democracy works, but people still have to get off their butts and make an effort. No one who truly cares and wants to vote will find the ID requirements onerous. Those who think that certain segments of society are "disadvantaged" have every right to help them meet the very basic and easy requirements.

So - just to be clear, your position is that we ought to intentionally create obstacles to voting in an effort to restrict people from just 'casually' voting?

[Kris]

It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.

Oh here we go. Just admit that Republicans want voter ID to win elections.

Why not just admit that the Democrats want people with no ID to vote because those people tend to vote Democrat?

That's certainly some part of the motivation for some people. But also the whole thing about civil rights and constitutional protections of what makes the nation a democracy. That one's kind of a big deal too.

I would like to believe that I would understand the fundamental civil right of voting, no matter what my political party.

Also, if your party's strategy for winning elections is based on having fewer people vote instead of more, then I think your policies are pretty questionable.  If you want to win, then either do things that most of the public actually wants, and make your best case for it.  Don't gerrymander and pass laws to restrict voting as much as possible.

[randymarsh]

It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.

Oh here we go. Just admit that Republicans want voter ID to win elections.

Why not just admit that the Democrats want people with no ID to vote because those people tend to vote Democrat?

I want everyone to have easier access to voting, especially those with no ID.  This includes poor urban black people who vote democrat on average, as well as poor rural white voters who tend to vote republican.
I believe democracy works best when the highest percentage of individuals can participate.  As another poster noted above, removing barriers doesn't always increase voter turnout.

No. Democracy works best when informed people make informed choices. Increased participation has no use, and in fact, can be damaging if people have no idea who or why they are voting. This is simple common sense that shouldn't have to be explained.

Democracy works, but people still have to get off their butts and make an effort. No one who truly cares and wants to vote will find the ID requirements onerous. Those who think that certain segments of society are "disadvantaged" have every right to help them meet the very basic and easy requirements.

Spoken like a typical privileged conservative who can't imagine someone with a different life experience than your own.

The only effort you should have to make to vote is filling out a ballot. The games Republicans are playing are clear voter suppression and there's no denying it. The evidence is overwhelming. If you believe we should have a "informed voter test", that's fine. Go ahead and fight for that. But don't come up with methods to disenfranchise huge portions of the population because YOU think they're not worthy of voting.

Liberals get so much crap for being elitist, but here you are thinking you're the arbitrator of who deserves to vote. The arrogance is amazing.

[music lover]

Also, if your party's strategy for winning elections is based on having fewer people vote instead of more, then I think your policies are pretty questionable.  If you want to win, then either do things that most of the public actually wants, and make your best case for it.  Don't gerrymander and pass laws to restrict voting as much as possible.

And, of course, when a party's strategy is to have as many uniformed voters as possible, one could also say their policies are questionable.

[nereo]

Also, if your party's strategy for winning elections is based on having fewer people vote instead of more, then I think your policies are pretty questionable.  If you want to win, then either do things that most of the public actually wants, and make your best case for it.  Don't gerrymander and pass laws to restrict voting as much as possible.

And, of course, when a party's strategy is to have as many uniformed voters as possible, one could also say their policies are questionable.

what's a uniformed voter?

[matchewed]

Also, if your party's strategy for winning elections is based on having fewer people vote instead of more, then I think your policies are pretty questionable.  If you want to win, then either do things that most of the public actually wants, and make your best case for it.  Don't gerrymander and pass laws to restrict voting as much as possible.

And, of course, when a party's strategy is to have as many uniformed voters as possible, one could also say their policies are questionable.

The strategy is to remain truthful to the idea that anyone can vote as long as they meet the requirements outlined in the constitution. I'd argue people in favor of discriminatory policies are also uninformed but I don't begrudge them the right to vote.

[Northwestie]

Touche.  One person - one vote.  The voter fraud thing is a red herring.  WTF is it with the GOP?  They come up with these ideas to block people from voting and then tie themselves in knots trying to provide an explanation.  Until of course they say what they really mean.  Sheesh.

[Glenstache]

Also, if your party's strategy for winning elections is based on having fewer people vote instead of more, then I think your policies are pretty questionable.  If you want to win, then either do things that most of the public actually wants, and make your best case for it.  Don't gerrymander and pass laws to restrict voting as much as possible.

And, of course, when a party's strategy is to have as many uniformed voters as possible, one could also say their policies are questionable.

I think the solution to this is education, not denying the right to vote. Considering the number of Republican candidates this time around who wanted to abolish the department of education, it would seem that the party that wants to restrict voting also proactively wants an uninformed populace.

[Northwestie]

.................and talk about uninformed.  Trump - really?   I mean, really?

[randymarsh]

Also, if your party's strategy for winning elections is based on having fewer people vote instead of more, then I think your policies are pretty questionable.  If you want to win, then either do things that most of the public actually wants, and make your best case for it.  Don't gerrymander and pass laws to restrict voting as much as possible.

And, of course, when a party's strategy is to have as many uniformed voters as possible, one could also say their policies are questionable.

How does poor and/or minority = uninformed? Republican voters believe(d) in death panels. You don't seem to have a problem with them voting, as long as they have a photo ID.

[MDM]

I think the solution to this is education, not denying the right to vote. Considering the number of Republican candidates this time around who wanted to abolish the department of education, it would seem that the party that wants to restrict voting also proactively wants an uninformed populace.

Agreed that education is good.  Not so much with the idea that putting money into the "department of education" is better than spending it in the classrooms....

[Paul der Krake]

At the risk of being mistaken for a Republican sympathizer, and even though the voter ID laws are a clear election tactic, come the !@#$ on. Sorry, showing a form of ID isn't an outrageous requirement. It's standard practice in most first world countries. Sure the motivation for seeking enforcement now are bad, but it's overall a good development.

Maybe, just maybe, if you cannot be bothered to keep track of the voting requirements in your jurisdiction when they have been widely discussed and anticipated for years by now, maybe you not going to the polls is a good thing.

Why are people wasting time fighting this? Just encourage your voters to register for an ID. North Carolina, which is currently fighting this in court, even provides free voter IDs at the DMV. Or they can apply for a passport card for $30 at US post offices. If all else fails, organize vanpools to drag your comatose constituents around.

[Northwestie]

This is silly.  The system works fine the way it was, there are no indications of fraud, the only reason for doing this is to set up roadblocks.

What if you don't have the $30 - too bad, so sad, eh?  Seems like a poll tax.

Organize vanpools.  Brilliant.  WTF should you have to do so when there is no reason to.  Who pays for the gas?  What if you don't have a vehicle and none of your friends do.  What if the office is only open when you work?

This whole thing is a solution in search of a problem.  Let's be honest - the only reason the GOP is trying this is because they see the rising demographics of minorities and know the angry white guys are dying out.

[Kris]

At the risk of being mistaken for a Republican sympathizer, and even though the voter ID laws are a clear election tactic, come the !@#$ on. Sorry, showing a form of ID isn't an outrageous requirement. It's standard practice in most first world countries. Sure the motivation for seeking enforcement now are bad, but it's overall a good development.

Maybe, just maybe, if you cannot be bothered to keep track of the voting requirements in your jurisdiction when they have been widely discussed and anticipated for years by now, maybe you not going to the polls is a good thing.

Why are people wasting time fighting this? Just encourage your voters to register for an ID. North Carolina, which is currently fighting this in court, even provides free voter IDs at the DMV. Or they can apply for a passport card for $30 at US post offices. If all else fails, organize vanpools to drag your comatose constituents around.

Yes, it is standard practice in most developed countries... But most developed countries have a national ID card, which is required and issued to everyone. We do not. For a few different reasons.  And trying to get Republicans on board with creating one (not to mention Libertarians) would be a nightmare.

So you can't compare the US simplistically to those countries and give that as a reason.  In the US, it takes effort to get an acceptable ID to vote. And in some places, and for some people, the effort is prohibiting them from voting.

Which, of course, is the point.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/why-doesnt-everybody-have-a-voter-id/

And for the argument Right-wingers use against it:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/09/alex-nowrasteh-national-id-e-verify-illegal-immigration.html

[Paul der Krake]

Yes, it is standard practice in most developed countries... But most developed countries have a national ID card, which is required and issued to everyone. We do not. For a few different reasons.  And trying to get Republicans on board with creating one (not to mention Libertarians) would be a nightmare.

So you can't compare the US simplistically to those countries and give that as a reason.  In the US, it takes effort to get an acceptable ID to vote. And in some places, and for some people, the effort is prohibiting them from voting.

Ok, I'll use my experience as a French voter. In order to vote in French elections, I need a national ID card. Yes it's free, but it's not issued to me at birth and automagically sent to me. I have to go wait in a public building that may or may not be close to where I live, and wait a long time until a civil servant, who only works 9-5 M-F, takes my fingerprints, reviews my paperwork proving citizenship, and then I get it by mail.

Does this process sound familiar? Right, it's the same as obtaining a driver license or a no-fee voter ID at the DMV.

The process doesn't stop there. Same day registration? You must be joking. You can't vote until you register, and to vote in the May 2017 election, you must register by the end of 2016. That's right, over 4 months before actually casting your ballot. You must provide proof of residency. If you live with your parents, they must sign a document saying you live with them. Yet nobody complains of voter suppression and France boasts a ~80% election participation rate, almost twice that of the US public.

edit: the US presidential election is actually 55%, so not half of France's, but still a huge gap.

[forummm]

Also, if your party's strategy for winning elections is based on having fewer people vote instead of more, then I think your policies are pretty questionable.  If you want to win, then either do things that most of the public actually wants, and make your best case for it.  Don't gerrymander and pass laws to restrict voting as much as possible.

And, of course, when a party's strategy is to have as many uniformed voters as possible, one could also say their policies are questionable.

"I love the poorly educated" - Donald J Trump after winning Nevada.

[forummm]

No. Democracy works best when informed people make informed choices. Increased participation has no use, and in fact, can be damaging if people have no idea who or why they are voting. This is simple common sense that shouldn't have to be explained.

Then we should probably just have the wealthy landowners be the only ones allowed to vote. And probably just the white ones since rich white people are the most well informed people. And just the men because women get all emotional and just aren't as smart and responsible as men.

[nereo]

Ok, I'll use my experience as a French voter. In order to vote in French elections, I need a national ID card. Yes it's free, but it's not issued to me at birth and automagically sent to me. I have to go wait in a public building that may or may not be close to where I live, and wait a long time until a civil servant, who only works 9-5 M-F, takes my fingerprints, reviews my paperwork proving citizenship, and then I get it by mail.

Does this process sound familiar? Right, it's the same as obtaining a driver license or a no-fee voter ID at the DMV.

The process doesn't stop there. Same day registration? You must be joking. You can't vote until you register, and to vote in the May 2017 election, you must register by the end of 2016. That's right, over 4 months before actually casting your ballot. You must provide proof of residency. If you live with your parents, they must sign a document saying you live with them. Yet nobody complains of voter suppression and France boasts a ~80% election participation rate, almost twice that of the US public.

edit: the US presidential election is actually 55%, so not half of France's, but still a huge gap.

Paul:  Just your description of the process involved in France is enough to raise my blood pressure some.  Why must it be so complicated?

[winkeyman]

No. Democracy works best when informed people make informed choices. Increased participation has no use, and in fact, can be damaging if people have no idea who or why they are voting. This is simple common sense that shouldn't have to be explained.

Then we should probably just have the wealthy landowners be the only ones allowed to vote. And probably just the white ones since rich white people are the most well informed people. And just the men because women get all emotional and just aren't as smart and responsible as men.

Straw men aside, we should require SOME effort to vote. What Paul der Krake described in France sounds decent. Without, you end up with situations like we see in inner city America where campaign workers round up potential voters, get them registered, bus them to the polling place and give them a free lunch along with the "suggestion" that they vote for a particular candidate.

[KaizenSoze]

Straw men aside, we should require SOME effort to vote. What Paul der Krake described in France sounds decent. Without, you end up with situations like we see in inner city America where campaign workers round up potential voters, get them registered, bus them to the polling place and give them a free lunch along with the "suggestion" that they vote for a particular candidate.

I'm going to need some evidence this happens regularly or on a large scale. I'm not saying this has never happens but like a lot of claims of voter fraud is turns out of be a very very rare occurrence.

[alsoknownasDean]

Do they not have postal votes there?

I believe that anyone who wants to vote (and is eligible) should have the opportunity to do so. Voting is an important and powerful democratic right.

No. Democracy works best when informed people make informed choices. Increased participation has no use, and in fact, can be damaging if people have no idea who or why they are voting. This is simple common sense that shouldn't have to be explained.

Democracy works, but people still have to get off their butts and make an effort. No one who truly cares and wants to vote will find the ID requirements onerous. Those who think that certain segments of society are "disadvantaged" have every right to help them meet the very basic and easy requirements.

Do you suggest that perhaps such ID should be easier to get than a drivers licence? Something linked to the SSN, maybe?

No ID is required for (compulsory) voting here, but you get your name marked off (previously from a book, now computer based) when attending to vote.

[nereo]

No. Democracy works best when informed people make informed choices. Increased participation has no use, and in fact, can be damaging if people have no idea who or why they are voting. This is simple common sense that shouldn't have to be explained.

Then we should probably just have the wealthy landowners be the only ones allowed to vote. And probably just the white ones since rich white people are the most well informed people. And just the men because women get all emotional and just aren't as smart and responsible as men.

Straw men aside, we should require SOME effort to vote. What Paul der Krake described in France sounds decent. Without, you end up with situations like we see in inner city America where campaign workers round up potential voters, get them registered, bus them to the polling place and give them a free lunch along with the "suggestion" that they vote for a particular candidate.

I'm trying to make sense of this suggestion, but I still cannot udnerstand why we should intentionally make it harder for people to vote.
music lover's position seems to be that by doing so we will increase the proportion of voters who are 'informed'.  However, I strongly disagree that potential voter's should be 'means-tested' in terms of their knowledge, political affiliation or intelligence.

I don't think the situation that Paul der Krake sounds ideal at all.  What is the functional purpose of providing a four month gap between the close of registration and actually voting?  Certainly right now if you asked a lot of people if they intent to vote, many of them would scowl and say "i'm sitting out of this election - I don't like either presumptive candidate' - but people can change their minds. 

I propose something far more radical:  Everyone not currently incarcerated should be automatically eligible to vote, no registration needed. Voting can take place not just on one specific day but for a one-week period, and all voters can choose to mail in an absentee ballot instead of needing to go to a specific place on a specific day. 

[GuitarStv]

At the risk of being mistaken for a Republican sympathizer, and even though the voter ID laws are a clear election tactic, come the !@#$ on. Sorry, showing a form of ID isn't an outrageous requirement. It's standard practice in most first world countries. Sure the motivation for seeking enforcement now are bad, but it's overall a good development.

Maybe, just maybe, if you cannot be bothered to keep track of the voting requirements in your jurisdiction when they have been widely discussed and anticipated for years by now, maybe you not going to the polls is a good thing.

Why are people wasting time fighting this? Just encourage your voters to register for an ID. North Carolina, which is currently fighting this in court, even provides free voter IDs at the DMV. Or they can apply for a passport card for $30 at US post offices. If all else fails, organize vanpools to drag your comatose constituents around.

Yes, it is standard practice in most developed countries... But most developed countries have a national ID card, which is required and issued to everyone. We do not. For a few different reasons.  And trying to get Republicans on board with creating one (not to mention Libertarians) would be a nightmare.

So you can't compare the US simplistically to those countries and give that as a reason.  In the US, it takes effort to get an acceptable ID to vote. And in some places, and for some people, the effort is prohibiting them from voting.

Which, of course, is the point.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/why-doesnt-everybody-have-a-voter-id/

And for the argument Right-wingers use against it:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/09/alex-nowrasteh-national-id-e-verify-illegal-immigration.html

In Canada the government mails you a voter registration card to whatever residence you last put on your tax filing and you vote with it.  If the card doesn't get through to you for some reason (maybe you moved), you need to provide any two pieces of identification that have your name and address on them (a bill, bank statement, student ID, birth certificate, driver's license, health card, etc.).  This seems way the hell more fair than what goes on in the US, and works to prevent fraud.

[Kris]

Yes, it is standard practice in most developed countries... But most developed countries have a national ID card, which is required and issued to everyone. We do not. For a few different reasons.  And trying to get Republicans on board with creating one (not to mention Libertarians) would be a nightmare.

So you can't compare the US simplistically to those countries and give that as a reason.  In the US, it takes effort to get an acceptable ID to vote. And in some places, and for some people, the effort is prohibiting them from voting.

Ok, I'll use my experience as a French voter. In order to vote in French elections, I need a national ID card. Yes it's free, but it's not issued to me at birth and automagically sent to me. I have to go wait in a public building that may or may not be close to where I live, and wait a long time until a civil servant, who only works 9-5 M-F, takes my fingerprints, reviews my paperwork proving citizenship, and then I get it by mail.

Does this process sound familiar? Right, it's the same as obtaining a driver license or a no-fee voter ID at the DMV.

The process doesn't stop there. Same day registration? You must be joking. You can't vote until you register, and to vote in the May 2017 election, you must register by the end of 2016. That's right, over 4 months before actually casting your ballot. You must provide proof of residency. If you live with your parents, they must sign a document saying you live with them. Yet nobody complains of voter suppression and France boasts a ~80% election participation rate, almost twice that of the US public.

edit: the US presidential election is actually 55%, so not half of France's, but still a huge gap.

France's crazy bureaucracy aside (and yes, I have lived there and had to do the same thing), all citizens there are required to carry some sort of government-issued identity document. Which means that they all have the documentation to vote. If you are okay with doing the same thing in the US -- making that mandatory -- then fine, I'm cool with that. An added benefit would be that, since everyone would need one, more offices that process them would have to be opened, meaning that people would have better access to getting them.

[golden1]

I am not opposed to people having voter id in theory, but they need to either make getting a voter id a lot easier.  They also need to make voting easier by making it a paid holiday or giving people a week long period to vote as suggested above.  THAT is the real poll tax.  It isn't reasonable for a low income hourly worker to be forced to lose out on a day's pay to vote, and that is what makes our voter turnout so low.   

[Paul der Krake]

France's crazy bureaucracy aside (and yes, I have lived there and had to do the same thing), all citizens there are required to carry some sort of government-issued identity document. Which means that they all have the documentation to vote. If you are okay with doing the same thing in the US -- making that mandatory -- then fine, I'm cool with that. An added benefit would be that, since everyone would need one, more offices that process them would have to be opened, meaning that people would have better access to getting them.

That is not true. You must be able to prove your identity, and there ways to do that without a passport or national ID card. But it will make your life more difficult than it needs to be.

I am not sure why the French require a steep registration deadline. I assume it has something to do with keeping rolls up to date and doing some verifications behind the scenes. But seriously, it's not a big burden. When people move, they unpack their furniture, then turn on the power, then figure out how to register to vote, well before they even know who will be on the ballot at the next election. There are mechanisms in place to vote if you move right before an election too. Part of being an adult citizen requires you to think ahead by more than a couple hours. Getting an ID isn't mandatory there either, but nobody will take you seriously about how much harder your life is because you couldn't be bothered to get one once every 10 years. In fact NOT having an ID is a much higher burden o
n your daily life than requesting one.

Here in the US, photo ID isn't required to vote by mail either (at least in TX & NC). So really this only applies to people for whom getting to the DMV or the post office is a burden yet can take time off work on a Tuesday?

Again, I acknowledge that the latest development stateside is a complete dirty partisan trick. But it speaks volumes about the engagement of the "disenfranchised" if these laws, which have plenty of accomodations, really do have an effect on turnout. Shrug it off by educating your voters, and move on.

[Kris]

France's crazy bureaucracy aside (and yes, I have lived there and had to do the same thing), all citizens there are required to carry some sort of government-issued identity document. Which means that they all have the documentation to vote. If you are okay with doing the same thing in the US -- making that mandatory -- then fine, I'm cool with that. An added benefit would be that, since everyone would need one, more offices that process them would have to be opened, meaning that people would have better access to getting them.

That is not true. You must be able to prove your identity, and there ways to do that without a passport or national ID card. But it will make your life more difficult than it needs to be.

I am not sure why the French require a steep registration deadline. I assume it has something to do with keeping rolls up to date and doing some verifications behind the scenes. But seriously, it's not a big burden. When people move, they unpack their furniture, then turn on the power, then figure out how to register to vote, well before they even know who will be on the ballot at the next election. There are mechanisms in place to vote if you move right before an election too. Part of being an adult citizen requires you to think ahead by more than a couple hours. Getting an ID isn't mandatory there either, but nobody will take you seriously about how much harder your life is because you couldn't be bothered to get one once every 10 years. In fact NOT having an ID is a much higher burden o
n your daily life than requesting one.

Here in the US, photo ID isn't required to vote by mail either (at least in TX & NC). So really this only applies to people for whom getting to the DMV or the post office is a burden yet can take time off work on a Tuesday?

Again, I acknowledge that the latest development stateside is a complete dirty partisan trick. But it speaks volumes about the engagement of the "disenfranchised" if these laws, which have plenty of accomodations, really do have an effect on turnout. Shrug it off by educating your voters, and move on.

You did not read my post correctly. I did not say French people are required to have a passport or national identity card.

As for the rest, I simply disagree. And so do Republicans, apparently. If these laws did not work to disenfranchise people they don't like, then they wouldn't be passing them.

[Paul der Krake]

France's crazy bureaucracy aside (and yes, I have lived there and had to do the same thing), all citizens there are required to carry some sort of government-issued identity document. Which means that they all have the documentation to vote. If you are okay with doing the same thing in the US -- making that mandatory -- then fine, I'm cool with that. An added benefit would be that, since everyone would need one, more offices that process them would have to be opened, meaning that people would have better access to getting them.

That is not true. You must be able to prove your identity, and there ways to do that without a passport or national ID card. But it will make your life more difficult than it needs to be.

I am not sure why the French require a steep registration deadline. I assume it has something to do with keeping rolls up to date and doing some verifications behind the scenes. But seriously, it's not a big burden. When people move, they unpack their furniture, then turn on the power, then figure out how to register to vote, well before they even know who will be on the ballot at the next election. There are mechanisms in place to vote if you move right before an election too. Part of being an adult citizen requires you to think ahead by more than a couple hours. Getting an ID isn't mandatory there either, but nobody will take you seriously about how much harder your life is because you couldn't be bothered to get one once every 10 years. In fact NOT having an ID is a much higher burden o
n your daily life than requesting one.

Here in the US, photo ID isn't required to vote by mail either (at least in TX & NC). So really this only applies to people for whom getting to the DMV or the post office is a burden yet can take time off work on a Tuesday?

Again, I acknowledge that the latest development stateside is a complete dirty partisan trick. But it speaks volumes about the engagement of the "disenfranchised" if these laws, which have plenty of accomodations, really do have an effect on turnout. Shrug it off by educating your voters, and move on.

You did not read my post correctly. I did not say French people are required to have a passport or national identity card.

Not carrying a government document is not a crime in France. It just makes your life more difficult than it needs to be as they will have to rely on witness testimony and whatever else you choose to use in this ridiculous defiance of authority.

I am done arguing this point. :)

[NoStacheOhio]

Why are people wasting time fighting this? Just encourage your voters to register for an ID. North Carolina, which is currently fighting this in court, even provides free voter IDs at the DMV. Or they can apply for a passport card for $30 at US post offices. If all else fails, organize vanpools to drag your comatose constituents around.

Passports aren't valid voter ID (no address)

[nereo]

Here in the US, photo ID isn't required to vote by mail either (at least in TX & NC). So really this only applies to people for whom getting to the DMV or the post office is a burden yet can take time off work on a Tuesday?

Probably beating a dead horse here, but just to be clear, in many (perhaps most) states, you can only vote by mail if you are not going to be in the state on voting day.  Some states (Like Virginia) give exceptions for people who's jobs they consider essential (like doctors, police).  Otherwise, legally speaking you have to go to a designated polling station during set hours on one day, regardless of whether you are working that day or not.

I agree that this may only be a small step towards increasing voter participation.  But when I've read survey results for why people don't vote, the two biggest answers have been "I don't think my vote matters/will be counted" and "it's too much of a hassle to get to the polls on voting day"
Yes, that shows a certain amount of apathy and disenfranchisement on voters part, and it might very well explain why so many people believe they are not represented by the establishment.
A common refrain I hear about 'absentee ballots" (those sent in by mail) is that they are only considered when the vote total is very, very close.  This might just be urban myth (and one perpetuated by "election night coverage" - where they only report vote totals from in-person voters, and declare the winner based on those results), but if people think an absentee ballot counts less than voting at an actual voting machine, it's a problem.

If your work day with commute is 8am to 6:30pm and your polling place is open from 7am-7pm, that's a problem.  When there's an hour long line to vote and you have small children or inflexible appointments, that's a problem. When you are a student and you are told you can't vote in the location where you spend 9+ months of the year because somehow that isn't your 'place of residence,' that's a problem.

[Kris]

France's crazy bureaucracy aside (and yes, I have lived there and had to do the same thing), all citizens there are required to carry some sort of government-issued identity document. Which means that they all have the documentation to vote. If you are okay with doing the same thing in the US -- making that mandatory -- then fine, I'm cool with that. An added benefit would be that, since everyone would need one, more offices that process them would have to be opened, meaning that people would have better access to getting them.

That is not true. You must be able to prove your identity, and there ways to do that without a passport or national ID card. But it will make your life more difficult than it needs to be.

I am not sure why the French require a steep registration deadline. I assume it has something to do with keeping rolls up to date and doing some verifications behind the scenes. But seriously, it's not a big burden. When people move, they unpack their furniture, then turn on the power, then figure out how to register to vote, well before they even know who will be on the ballot at the next election. There are mechanisms in place to vote if you move right before an election too. Part of being an adult citizen requires you to think ahead by more than a couple hours. Getting an ID isn't mandatory there either, but nobody will take you seriously about how much harder your life is because you couldn't be bothered to get one once every 10 years. In fact NOT having an ID is a much higher burden o
n your daily life than requesting one.

Here in the US, photo ID isn't required to vote by mail either (at least in TX & NC). So really this only applies to people for whom getting to the DMV or the post office is a burden yet can take time off work on a Tuesday?

Again, I acknowledge that the latest development stateside is a complete dirty partisan trick. But it speaks volumes about the engagement of the "disenfranchised" if these laws, which have plenty of accomodations, really do have an effect on turnout. Shrug it off by educating your voters, and move on.

You did not read my post correctly. I did not say French people are required to have a passport or national identity card.

Not carrying a government document is not a crime in France. It just makes your life more difficult than it needs to be as they will have to rely on witness testimony and whatever else you choose to use in this ridiculous defiance of authority.

I am done arguing this point. :)

Should have said "have," not carry. Sorry, unintentional mistake when I did know better.

[Northwestie]

They also eat Foie gras and require speedos as appropriate attire at public pools (if you don't have one there is usually a vending machine).  Maybe we should adopt these anomalies as well. 

[jrhampt]

They also eat Foie gras and require speedos as appropriate attire at public pools (if you don't have one there is usually a vending machine).  Maybe we should adopt these anomalies as well.

mmm....foie gras.  I'm in!!

[music lover]

France's crazy bureaucracy aside (and yes, I have lived there and had to do the same thing), all citizens there are required to carry some sort of government-issued identity document. Which means that they all have the documentation to vote. If you are okay with doing the same thing in the US -- making that mandatory -- then fine, I'm cool with that. An added benefit would be that, since everyone would need one, more offices that process them would have to be opened, meaning that people would have better access to getting them.

That is not true. You must be able to prove your identity, and there ways to do that without a passport or national ID card. But it will make your life more difficult than it needs to be.

I am not sure why the French require a steep registration deadline. I assume it has something to do with keeping rolls up to date and doing some verifications behind the scenes. But seriously, it's not a big burden. When people move, they unpack their furniture, then turn on the power, then figure out how to register to vote, well before they even know who will be on the ballot at the next election. There are mechanisms in place to vote if you move right before an election too. Part of being an adult citizen requires you to think ahead by more than a couple hours. Getting an ID isn't mandatory there either, but nobody will take you seriously about how much harder your life is because you couldn't be bothered to get one once every 10 years. In fact NOT having an ID is a much higher burden o
n your daily life than requesting one.

Here in the US, photo ID isn't required to vote by mail either (at least in TX & NC). So really this only applies to people for whom getting to the DMV or the post office is a burden yet can take time off work on a Tuesday?

Again, I acknowledge that the latest development stateside is a complete dirty partisan trick. But it speaks volumes about the engagement of the "disenfranchised" if these laws, which have plenty of accomodations, really do have an effect on turnout. Shrug it off by educating your voters, and move on.

You did not read my post correctly. I did not say French people are required to have a passport or national identity card.

As for the rest, I simply disagree. And so do Republicans, apparently. If these laws did not work to disenfranchise people they don't like, then they wouldn't be passing them.

Of course, the flip side is that because ID laws seem to be overly difficult only for Democrats, then that's why they are against them. Everyone knows that if ID laws made it more difficult for those who vote right, then the silence from the left would be deafening.

[Kris]

Funny how the history of voter suppression seems to skew so much to the right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States

[sol]

Everyone knows that if ID laws made it more difficult for those who vote right, then the silence from the left would be deafening.

I strongly disagree.  The unifying principle behind "the left" is that all people are created equal, and should be granted equal opportunities to participate in all aspects of our society.  That includes voting, and marriage, and education, and healthcare, and religion. 

"The left" believes that the whole point of our democracy is that everyone should have a chance, and not be excluded because of their ethnicity or sexuality or spiritual beliefs or gender.  They want more people to participate in American society, and that includes expanding access to voting because representative democracy is the foundation of that participation.

So don't try to tar your political opposition with the same sins your party has endorsed by saying they would hypothetically do the same thing.  They wouldn't, because their whole movement is based on expanding, not restricting, those personal freedoms.

[Northwestie]

Everyone knows that if ID laws made it more difficult for those who vote right, then the silence from the left would be deafening.

I strongly disagree.  The unifying principle behind "the left" is that all people are created equal, and should be granted equal opportunities to participate in all aspects of our society.  That includes voting, and marriage, and education, and healthcare, and religion. 

"The left" believes that the whole point of our democracy is that everyone should have a chance, and not be excluded because of their ethnicity or sexuality or spiritual beliefs or gender.  They want more people to participate in American society, and that includes expanding access to voting because representative democracy is the foundation of that participation.

So don't try to tar your political opposition with the same sins your party has endorsed by saying they would hypothetically do the same thing.  They wouldn't, because their whole movement is based on expanding, not restricting, those personal freedoms.

That's a concise summary!  And truthful.

[MDM]

The unifying principle behind "the left" is that all people are created equal, and should be granted equal opportunities to participate in all aspects of our society.

I think that is a great unifying principle, and suspect it is a belief held by the vast majority on both "the left" and "the right".  Unfortunately, they can't agree on the definition of "equal opportunities"....

[Northwestie]

I'd like to see any example the GOP leading the fight for expansive rights of women, minorities, the handicapped, gays, immigrants, or students.


..............or the ability to cast a ballot for eligible folks.