Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Yahoo/AP: Tough ID laws could block thousands of 2012 votes


Larry

Recommended Posts

Link.

When Edward and Mary Weidenbener went to vote in Indiana's primary in May, they didn't realize that state law required them to bring government photo IDs such as a driver's license or passport.

The husband and wife, both approaching 90 years old, had to use a temporary ballot that would be verified later, even though they knew the people working the polling site that day. Unaware that Indiana law obligated them to follow up with the county election board, the Weidenbeners ultimately had their votes rejected — news to them until informed recently by an Associated Press reporter.

Edward Weidenbener, a World War II veteran who had voted for Mitt Romney in the Republican presidential contest, said he was surprised by the rules and the consequences.

The article is a lot longer, and appears to cover both sides of the debate, but without a whole lot of new facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, we have the right to vote, but only if we jump through twenty million hoops. I hope this bites the Republicans in the ass as much as it does the Democrats. The Republicans may regret the dumbing down of the electorate. We can only hope.

Rubry!!

Gabby Johnson is right!

Let's make sure we don't disenfranchise illegals' right to vote Democrat!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recite for me how you prove it w/o id required?

I also want to protest the govt requiring personal information thru pre-registration....I'm being discriminated against

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is this a debate?

No ID=YOU DON'T GET TO VOTE.

It should really be that simple.

Oh what's that? You forgot your ID at home? Then go back and get it.

If you're not capable of understanding this simple concept, you probably shouldn't be voting anyway.

---------- Post added July-8th-2012 at 04:14 PM ----------

Yeah, we have the right to vote, but only if we jump through twenty million hoops. I hope this bites the Republicans in the ass as much as it does the Democrats. The Republicans may regret the dumbing down of the electorate. We can only hope.

Twenty million hoops? Let's not be melodramatic.

It's not that hard to get an ID.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is this a debate?

No ID=YOU DON'T GET TO VOTE.

It should really be that simple.

Oh what's that? You forgot your ID at home? Then go back and get it.

If you're not capable of understanding this simple concept, you probably shouldn't be voting anyway.

Ah, the old "I'm in favor of not letting people vote, in they disagree with me".

It's not that hard to get an ID.

Took me a year and a half to get one for Mom.

And she was born in the US, has lived at the same address for 15 years, has a fax machine and Internet access, to facilitate communications with bureaucracy, and has a person who has valid ID, acting on her behalf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem I have with this, and correct me if this is wrong, is that it says you can only use a photo ID or passport. My question of course is, why limit?

I read somewhere that students can use student IDs with expiration dates

How does ANYONE of voting age in the US NOT have an ID of some sort?

How do you cash a check? How do you drive? How do you open a bank account? How do you verify your identity for any of a number of reasons?

Why is this a debate?

No ID=YOU DON'T GET TO VOTE.

It should really be that simple.

Oh what's that? You forgot your ID at home? Then go back and get it.

If you're not capable of understanding this simple concept, you probably shouldn't be voting anyway.

---------- Post added July-8th-2012 at 04:14 PM ----------

Twenty million hoops? Let's not be melodramatic.

It's not that hard to get an ID.

Totally agree with both of you. The DMV gives ID cards to people of any age.

EDIT: seriously, how does a person function over the age of 18 without having an id card????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem I have with this, and correct me if this is wrong, is that it says you can only use a photo ID or passport. My question of course is, why limit?

Therein lies the problem. The real reasons that this is controversial are all political, on both sides. The real valid reasoning for requiring ID is to prove a person has a real right to vote. I mean most rational folks would agree that a countries actual citzens should be able to elect its officals. To put it another way you or I shouldn't really be able to hop a plane to england or india for that matter and expect to participate in the election of their leader at least without proving we had the right. THe real political football is who folks beleive are voting and who folks beleive those folks are voting for. For many it is only important statistically where those votes are going , on both sides. I personally believe that it's more than reasonable to expect an electorate to identify itself when possible. I mean without some kind of accounting how can voter fraud ever even be caught? I wonder if some ever actually want it to be...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same as always:

ID to get cigs, or beer, or go into a gov't building or get assistance or fly or drive.

but to vote its going through a million hoops.

And its 2$ a year or less to acquire

how hard is it to say you show id or you get a side ballot checked later if its within the margin of error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like many in this thread...I don't see why someone wouldn't have a license. You can get a Walkers License with very little verification. Just a few bills, birth certificate, social security or whatever. As "hard" as it is to get a license, isn't it harder to prove who you are if you don't have one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why weren't Republicans pushing this ten years ago, twenty years ago, etc..? This isn't at all about voter fraud, this is about attempting to help their own party regain the White House. Just ask the House Majority Leader in PA Mike Turzai: "Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The item that seems to get dropped regularly on articles about this subject is that the MAJORITY of Americans support voter ID laws. You don't have to look any father than Charlie Rangel's recent race to see that voting shenanigans are still occurring. So what if you have to wait a week or 6 months to get your photo ID. Plan ahead.

---------- Post added July-8th-2012 at 05:45 PM ----------

Why weren't Republicans pushing this ten years ago, twenty years ago, etc..? This isn't at all about voter fraud, this is about attempting to help their own party regain the White House. Just ask the House Majority Leader in PA Mike Turzai: "Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”

You can just as easily level this claim vs the Dems. Demanding photo ID is now mandated in Mexico. Why can't or shouldn't it be here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therein lies the problem. The real reasons that this is controversial are all political, on both sides. The real valid reasoning for requiring ID is to prove a person has a real right to vote. I mean most rational folks would agree that a countries actual citzens should be able to elect its officals. To put it another way you or I shouldn't really be able to hop a plane to england or india for that matter and expect to participate in the election of their leader at least without proving we had the right. THe real political football is who folks beleive are voting and who folks beleive those folks are voting for. For many it is only important statistically where those votes are going , on both sides. I personally believe that it's more than reasonable to expect an electorate to identify itself when possible. I mean without some kind of accounting how can voter fraud ever even be caught? I wonder if some ever actually want it to be...?

But why would a birth certificate not count? Or proof of say, my parents citizenship? Both of those would mean that I have a legal right to vote. And I still need to be listed as a citizen when I show up to the court house to register myself. It's not as if I'm registering myself as a citizen at that point. My problem is more focused on limiting ways to prove citzenship and the right to vote. If it's limiting peoples (who have the right to vote) ability to register, then that's a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can just as easily level this claim vs the Dems. Demanding photo ID is now mandated in Mexico. Why can't or shouldn't it be here?

Democrats were pushing Voter ID laws to win the White House? When?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It took me 1 day to get an ID for my 17 year old daughter. It was tough.

I have had the need to get a certified birth certificate to prove my identity. That took a few weeks.

But that's not the real question is it? Should anyone who find themselves at the polling place have the right to elect our leaders or do we have "any" need to prove that we are part of the electorate? Again I beleive the most vociferous agruements on this subject will divorce themselves from the true answer and divide along party lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's not the real question is it? Should anyone who find themselves at the polling place have the right to elect our leaders or do we have "any" need to prove that we are part of the electorate? Again I beleive the most vociferous agruements on this subject will divorce themselves from the true answer and divide along party lines.

I have always felt we have a need to prove that we are part of the electorate. How that is done should be consistent.

I think if you asked anyone in either party, they would say, we only want people voting who are part of the electorate and we don't want anything fishy in the vote. As always though, logic won't be part of the decision making process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why would a birth certificate not count? Or proof of say, my parents citizenship? Both of those would mean that I have a legal right to vote. And I still need to be listed as a citizen when I show up to the court house to register myself. It's not as if I'm registering myself as a citizen at that point. My problem is more focused on limiting ways to prove citzenship and the right to vote. If it's limiting peoples (who have the right to vote) ability to register, then that's a problem.

I'm actually inclined to agree with you. My only caveat is that even though a photo id used in different precincts may still be missed a a duplicate at least there is still a chance of catching voter fruad by one or more individuals. But yeah maybe photo Id shuld be phased in rather that mandated now. I still don't see it as unreasonable in the long run.

---------- Post added July-8th-2012 at 10:03 PM ----------

I think if you asked anyone in either party, they would say, we only want people voting who are part of the electorate and we don't want anything fishy in the vote. As always though, logic won't be part of the decision making process.

And thats the cruxt of it to me. The way I look at it many will get soft on the subject based on who those that side by they beleive will be voting for and many others will be against because of who they beleive thay won't and the real reasons for annd against these requirements will ultimately be left by the wayside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democrats were pushing Voter ID laws to win the White House? When?

No I simply meant the Dems will use it to serve their purpose. Florida announces they've purged a couple thousand people from the voting rolls for legit reasons and then AG. Holder tells them they can't do this. I was glad to see the state chose to ignore his directive in this instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...