Is National Voter ID Law really that Bad???

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

Wait, am I misreading this, you don't want people to be able to get lottery tickets or cigarettes if they are on welfare? 

 

 

 

i dont want people using other people’s money on completely unnecessary things. That includes welfare people on to tobacco and lottery, yes. It also includes people who can’t keep current on child support and casinos. Or people who can’t pay their taxes and liquor. 

 

Or any combination of using other people’s money to do completely unnecessary ****. 

 

If if you can’t handle the basics as an adult then you obviously need your hand held. So, let’s hold their hand. Sorry, no strip clubs or casinos or liquor or tobacco or lottery. 

 

The fact that that there are people who would actually need to be told that is absurd to me. 

 

And you don’t have to do anything to them about it. You require everyone else to get some card/ID that proves they’re eligible.  No embarrassment involved. No one would know anything about it unless you told them. 

[Renegade7]

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

 

i dont want people using other people’s money on completely unnecessary things. That includes welfare people on to tobacco and lottery, yes. It also includes people who can’t keep current on child support and casinos. Or people who can’t pay their taxes and liquor. 

 

Or any combination of using other people and money to do completely unnecessary ****. 

 

If if you can’t handle the basics as an adult then you obviously need your hand held. So, let’s hold their hand. Sorry, no strip clubs or casinos or liquor or tobacco or lottery. 

 

The fact that that there are people who would actually need to be told that is absurd to me. 

 

And you don’t have to do anything to them about it. You require everyone else to get some card/ID that proves their eligible.  O embarrassment involved. No one would know anything about it unless you told them. 

 

You didn't answer my question on how to verify if they are using their own money they worked for or money they received from welfare.  You already can't use SNAP to get tobacco, liquor, or lottery tickets, so I don't get why you're saying they shouldn't be able to use their own money to do that either.  You seriously want to ban people from going to strip clubs because they are behind on their taxes?  As if a tax lien on their check and employeer finding out about it isn't bad enough?

 

We are already going above and beyond punishing people behind on child support and not making it realistic for many to keep up with it.  There are things we have to fix before we can have that type of conversation.

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

You didn't answer my question on how to verify if they are using their own money they worked for or money they received from welfare.  You already can't use SNAP to get tobacco, liquor, or lottery tickets, so I don't get why you're saying they shouldn't be able to use their own money to do that either.  You seriously want to ban people from going to strip clubs because they are behind on their taxes?  As if a tax lien on their check and employeer finding out about it isn't bad enough?

 

Its not about using their own money vs using the money of others. 

 

If you require money from other people to get by, then you don’t have the money to spend on those things. It seems pretty simple to me. 

 

There is no proving where the money came from. You have to have the card. You have to renew it every year (or whatever) and you can’t get it if you fall into those categories. 

 

This idea that you can be on welfare and then have your own money as if they are two different things is laughable.

 

Not really concerned about what is and isn’t bad enough for their ego. I’m already making everyone else do something to avoid embarrassment. If they got a problem with the rest of it then pay the taxes or child support or get off welfare etc. 

[Renegade7]

10 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Its not about using their own money vs using the money of others. 

 

If you require money from other people to get by, then you don’t have the money to spend on those things. It seems pretty simple to me. 

 

There is no proving where the money came from. You have to have the card. You have to renew it every year (or whatever) and you can’t get it if you fall into those categories. 

 

This idea that you can be on welfare and then have your own money as if they are two different things is laughable.

 

Not really concerned about what is and isn’t bad enough for their ego. I’m already making everyone else do something to avoid embarrassment. If they got a problem with the rest of it then pay the taxes or child support or get off welfare etc. 

 

I still don't understand your point of pushing for this, it comes across as punishing the lower class in a country where wages are not where they should be.  Like you don't have a vice to get from one day to the next, getting out of poverty is not easy, and if people work for their own money they should able to to use that given the government money should only be able to go to what its meant for.  They are getting the government assistance because even though they were working it wasn't enough to take care of their family (which is typically who gets these benifits).  You want to look a single mother in the face and tell her she can't buy cigarettes because she's getting CHIP for her kids?

[Barry.Randolphe]

24 minutes ago, tshile said:

i dont want people using other people’s money on completely unnecessary things. That includes welfare people on to tobacco and lottery, yes. It also includes people who can’t keep current on child support and casinos. Or people who can’t pay their taxes and liquor. 

 

And you don’t have to do anything to them about it. You require everyone else to get some card/ID that proves they’re eligible.  No embarrassment involved. No one would know anything about it unless you told them. 

 

All that will do is push everything underground - it'll be prohibition era stuff all over again.

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Barry.Randolphe said:

 

All that will do is push everything underground - it'll be prohibition era stuff all over again.

 

That’s probably true. I’m not sure what level of ‘gaming the system’ I’d be ok with. Haven’t put thought into that part outside that it would happen. 

3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

it comes across as punishing the lower class in a country where wages are not where they should be.

I included people who don’t pay taxes and don’t pay child support. There are probably other items that could fall into the categories

 

And at it being punishment that they can’t waste money on liquor and tobacco and lottery tickets and gambling when they need money from others just to get by. 

 

[Renegade7]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

And at it being punishment that they can’t waste money on liquor and tobacco and lottery tickets and gambling when they need money from others just to get by. 

 

 

You're acting like its common for a significant chunk of the money they work for goes to things they don't need.  Welfare doesn't cover clothes, Section-9 reduces the cost of rent, but you still pay rent. Wish I could find the numbers for how many people Florida caught while trying to do Drug Tests for Welfare recipeints.  Last I checked, it was barely a fraction before it was stopped, and unfairly grabs people who smoke stuff like weed because crack and meth leave the body's system too quickly. 

 

Who's decide what someone doesn't need if they are getting government assistance?  Are we just talking welfare or government assistance period?  Are we talking about programs designed to help people in poverty or anyone getting stuff like SSDI or Medicaid?

[tshile]

7 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

You're acting like its common for a significant chunk of the money they work for goes to things they don't need. 

No I’m not. 

[Renegade7]

19 minutes ago, tshile said:

No I’m not. 

Then why are you so adamant about this if its not?

[The 12th Commandment]

5 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

There is no way that I want the government to be able to identify me my by scanning my retina.

I envision my own computer retaining the id and a way to have the government accept that.

[Renegade7]

21 minutes ago, KAOSkins said:

I envision my own computer retaining the id and a way to have the government accept that.

 

That's not how digital authentication works. Your retina, like a password is saved as a unique value that's actually the result of a common algorith, its hashed.  Your fingerprint ain't digital, so a digital representation has to be created and hashed in a way that it can't just be read off like a list of clear-texr passwords.

 

In other words, your retina scan gets saved as a numeric value and the government has to have a copy to match to to make sure its legit.  What you would be doing is doing a retina scan on your computer, it getting put through that algorithm I'm talking about and compared to the copy the government has.  If they match, authentication is confirmed.  

 

The way your talking about is asking the government to trust every computer in the country as opposed to a single database protected from tampering.  Thats unrealistic. Only way id let people vote from home is if they have this voter id and the smart chip reader (we should be sending people to houses where voters have disabilities and transportation issues). Someone has to verify the face matches the ID, jus having the card is single form authentication, we need MFA where we can.

[PokerPacker]

Yeah, let's not give people even greater powers to track us than they already have.

[JSSkinz]

The FTC says everyone is entitled to 1 free credit report per year, why not make everyone entitled to 1 free ID every 4 years (or whatever the right number is).

 

You can't rely on all people to be responsible (sorry, I know that sounds bad) so we have to give them the id for free and then somehow hold them accountable if they lose it(like you can't vote or whatever is deemed fair).  This way we are eliminating excuses for future elections and if done in certain ways we can use it to increase the number of registered voters.

 

The integrity of our elections is more important than the cost of an ID for every voter and being able to vote without picture ID is crazy.

 

 

[Destino]

IDs should be free.  In extreme cases people should need to pay for them, but otherwise they should be free.  People that don’t understand poverty imagine all sorts of “small fees” are trivial.  Small fees are big when your stomach is empty.  Something as critical as ID should be free.  

 

Personally I think the entire ID system needs to be redesigned.  Everyone should be in the system and identifiable with or without documents.  Kids should be identifiable by authorities, for example.  

 

Tracking is a concern, but that’s a question of what information is kept and who has access to it.  We’re tracked more effectively now by private companies than we would be with a National ID, because the government decided to allow it and no one really knew it happened until long after the fact.  

[Renegade7]

24 minutes ago, Destino said:

IDs should be free.  In extreme cases people should need to pay for them, but otherwise they should be free.  People that don’t understand poverty imagine all sorts of “small fees” are trivial.  Small fees are big when your stomach is empty.  Something as critical as ID should be free.  

 

Personally I think the entire ID system needs to be redesigned.  Everyone should be in the system and identifiable with or without documents.  Kids should be identifiable by authorities, for example.  

 

Tracking is a concern, but that’s a question of what information is kept and who has access to it.  We’re tracked more effective now by private companies than we would be with a National ID, because the government decided to allow it and no one really knew it happened until long after the fact.  

 

Free and I support child photo ID, I was on the fence about that one because I can't see holding a child responsible for not losing their ID.

 

But your point on what the private sector has been doing in regards to tracking us cannot be overstated.  There should laws against holding on to certain data on us for any period of time, and only certain data for a certain period of time.  It should also be against the law for companies to sell info on us to other companies.  That's one thing that makes me at least semi-comfortable with government having on certain info on me.  For the most part, I can trust the government to act as a third party to help verify my identity, I don't expect them to sell that info to Amazon or let Cambridge Analyticas of the world get a hold of it.

 

Even then, voter records should be purged once an election is over, imo.  I would only support keeping that longer if we get to the point of fining people that don't vote via tax penalties.

[tshile]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

Then why are you so adamant about this if its not?

 

I think you’re taking typical republican talking points and applying it to what I’m saying. I mentioned other categories as well. 

 

I dont blame you and you’re not wrong for trying to defend them. To me it’s a simple question of whether you owe money or are taking money and what you’re doing with money. I doubt the single mother working two jobs is spending their money on what I’m talking about. And I think what’s im proposing is less embarrassing than saying here’s an debt card and you can only buy x y and z with it. I’ve derailed the thread more than I intended. So I’ll leave it at that. 

1 hour ago, PokerPacker said:

Yeah, let's not give people even greater powers to track us than they already have.

 

There was a time I’d agree with you. These days.... between the isp’s for home internet and the teleco companies and what we know... that ship sailed. 

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

 

I think you’re taking typical republican talking points and applying it to what I’m saying. I mentioned other categories as well. 

 

I dont blame you and you’re not wrong for trying to defend them. To me it’s a simple question of whether you owe money or are taking money and what you’re doing with money. I doubt the single mother working two jobs is spending their money on what I’m talking about. And I think what’s im proposing is less embarrassing than saying here’s an debt card and you can only buy x y and z with it. I’ve derailed the thread more than I intended. So I’ll leave it at that. 

 

I'm not assuming anything, I don't understand the scope or benefit of doing this.  I do want to understand, we can either do it via PM or we can start a separate thread.  I don't think this is too off topic because I want this id to be used for more then just voting as well, jus not what you are talking about.

 

Edit:  I'll also add you may need to meet some more single mothers working two jobs before saying you don't expect them to have vices to keep from exploding from that level of responsibility.

[tshile]

1 hour ago, JSSkinz said:

, why not make everyone entitled to 1 free ID every 4 years (or whatever the right number is).

That’s always been my middle ground solution. 

 

If if you want to require an ID for voting, and certain segments of our population have a disproportionately hard time getting an ID then figure out how to get them an ID for free. Once a year, once every four, whatever it is that makes sense and is fair. 

[Destino]

Just now, tshile said:

 

I think you’re taking typical republican talking points and applying it to what I’m saying. I mentioned other categories as well. 

 

I dont blame you and you’re not wrong for trying to defend them. To me it’s a simple question of whether you owe money or are taking money and what you’re doing with money. I doubt the single mother working two jobs is spending their money on what I’m talking about. 

 

I think it’s a matter of human dignity.  The poor don’t need punitive, and frankly petty, restrictions which serve only to humiliate them.  It’s bad enough that we already have people criticizing the shopping choices of people on assistance in grocery stores, codifying in law only lends legitimacy to that behavior.  

 

There’s nothing easy about poverty.  Adding to their misery isn’t going to make them suddenly not be poor.  It would just be one more ****ty aspect of living while broke to add to the list.  

[Renegade7]

Being broke is expensive, too, in case anyone forgot.

[Bozo the kKklown]

The conversation about punishing the poor for being poor is absolutely critical to the voter ID conversation.

[TheGreatBuzz]

10 hours ago, KAOSkins said:

Let's get on with mainstreaming retinal IDs on the computer and make internet voting a thing. 

I'm staying out of the rest of this conversation, at least until it gets back on topic.  But I did want to ask you a question in regards to internet voting.  Do you see a risk in the integrity of the secret ballot?  As an extreme example, wife wants to go into the booth and vote Hillary even though her husband wants her to vote Trump.  Once inside the booth, she can do as she pleases and tell her husband what he wants to hear.  But with internet voting, he can hold a gun to her head and make her vote the way he wants.  

 

How do you prevent that?

[Larry]

50 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'm staying out of the rest of this conversation, at least until it gets back on topic.  But I did want to ask you a question in regards to internet voting.  Do you see a risk in the integrity of the secret ballot?  As an extreme example, wife wants to go into the booth and vote Hillary even though her husband wants her to vote Trump.  Once inside the booth, she can do as she pleases and tell her husband what he wants to hear.  But with internet voting, he can hold a gun to her head and make her vote the way he wants.  

 

How do you prevent that?

 

One of my problems with Internet voting is a variation on that. 

 

In order to vote on the internet, I must go to a web page, identify myself, and vote. 

 

Now, just try to convince me that the government doesn't have a record of how I voted. 

[Renegade7]

30 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

One of my problems with Internet voting is a variation on that. 

 

In order to vote on the internet, I must go to a web page, identify myself, and vote. 

 

Now, just try to convince me that the government doesn't have a record of how I voted. 

 

It's possible considering authentication doesn't have to be linked to the actual vote if were talking about a web application.  I don't think we should do it though, for several of the reasons already mentioned.

 

I don't know if anyone has done the election official thing, but I've done it several times, including 2008 presidential.  There was a period where Virginia was using giant computers for people to make their selection.  You were given a card after authenticating at the front with whatever id you had, and put it in the machine to make your selection.  Now with the printout at the end of the day, its jus the vote count.  I can't confirm the card didn't carry the voter identity to the vote when it was cast.

 

Now in Hampton Roads, they use laptops with list of registered voters, but give you a paper ballot, not card thats linked to your identity over to a computer to cast your vote.  I haven't done election official when we done this, but the paper ballots look unlinked to the actual voter, the paper ballots are anonymous and authentication is just to give you an anonymous ballot.  I prefer paper ballots because I believe its better at separating the voter from their vote and harder to hack because we have ballots we can just count by hand if we have to or suspect a hack.

 

Edit: if we go the vote of fining people that dont vote, you can jus check if they vote, ad the ballots should be destroyed once the final count is certified.

[The 12th Commandment]

32 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'm staying out of the rest of this conversation, at least until it gets back on topic.  But I did want to ask you a question in regards to internet voting.  Do you see a risk in the integrity of the secret ballot?  As an extreme example, wife wants to go into the booth and vote Hillary even though her husband wants her to vote Trump.  Once inside the booth, she can do as she pleases and tell her husband what he wants to hear.  But with internet voting, he can hold a gun to her head and make her vote the way he wants.  

 

How do you prevent that?

 

 

4 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

That's not how digital authentication works. Your retina, like a password is saved as a unique value that's actually the result of a common algorith, its hashed.  Your fingerprint ain't digital, so a digital representation has to be created and hashed in a way that it can't just be read off like a list of clear-texr passwords.

 

In other words, your retina scan gets saved as a numeric value and the government has to have a copy to match to to make sure its legit.  What you would be doing is doing a retina scan on your computer, it getting put through that algorithm I'm talking about and compared to the copy the government has.  If they match, authentication is confirmed.  

 

The way your talking about is asking the government to trust every computer in the country as opposed to a single database protected from tampering.  Thats unrealistic. Only way id let people vote from home is if they have this voter id and the smart chip reader (we should be sending people to houses where voters have disabilities and transportation issues). Someone has to verify the face matches the ID, jus having the card is single form authentication, we need MFA where we can.

 

Didn't say we had it ready to go.  Just that I'd like it and we should get busy on tackling the pertinent and important issues you guys bring up.  I think there are encryption methods that, even now, might work around the who has what data issue.

 

The mention of disability was very relevant.  I am disabled and going to vote on election day is a major pita.  I do it on the big elections but on most I vote early and have on occasion voted for someone who I learned closer to the election date might not have been the best choice.  So a method of voting from home, that wasn't just the blank ballot (which bad hubby no doubt filled in for his wife) I filled out and sent back - like the election I mentioned in my other post, would be something that would be of great benefit to me (and many others).