|
|
|
|
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 4/29/2008 9:58:40 AM | we are an agrarian state with loads of Mexicans. but I get your point.
I do want an informed voter too but how we determine that is the slippery slope. Hell, I'd like informed people on anything besides the latest scores from some game somewhere. | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 4/29/2008 10:10:13 AM | it's not just the illegals, I don't want underage people voting either. they scare the crap out of me. most people that are only informed about the score of a game are usually too drunk to vote. oh if I could only tell you how many foreigners voting where I lived in VA. I don't have a problem with it if they are legal, but I really doubt that more than 50% were legal. here is the racial makeup of the last town I lived in. check it out, I was sort of a minority.
Races in Woodbridge:
* White Non-Hispanic (49.2%)
* Black (23.4%)
* Hispanic (19.1%)
* Other race (9.6%)
* Two or more races (5.0%)
* Other Asian (1.4%)
* American Indian (1.4%)
* Filipino (1.0%)
* Korean (0.8%)
* Asian Indian (0.7%)
* Vietnamese (0.5%) | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 4/29/2008 10:55:34 AM | how about providing a social security card? I don't want illegals voting in the elections and that is what the concern is.
Only problem with that is the picture ID. And of course bogus versions are repoduced by the millions for illegal aliens, almost as a matter of default, once you jump the border and get connected. There needs to be more than just a paper card. But almost anything as a step toward real identity would be a huge plus. Even if it isn't the end-all just yet. Not having a valid, verifiable ID, is just ridiculous. It's almost impossible to function anywhere near normally without one today.
My biggest priority with this also is not allowing Illegal Aliens to vote, and they do, en masse. Voter fraud is uncovered all the time, and right now there's not much way to actually even detect it. With some 25,000,000 of them in residence in the US, they dominate the demographics. They could win many elections all by themselves. Of course that's part of a much bigger problem we have on our doorstep..
However, unfortunately, politicians do pander already, to this massive influence.
-Suth'nBoy
| |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 4/29/2008 11:03:28 AM | I definitely agree with having to show a photo ID to vote. I'm neither a republican or a democrat, I'm somewhere inbetween, but as people said, illegals should not be allowed to vote and reasonable measures taken to prevent them from voting is a good thing(otherwise, if illegals get to vote, they will vote for politicians who are weak on illegal immigration, making the illegal immigration problem even worse than it already is).
Here are some articles on the subject
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010814
http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon154.htm | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 4/29/2008 2:43:08 PM | My state issues state ID's and requires everyone to have one on them all the time -- not just for voting or driving. If you don't have a drivers license you have to get one. They look a lot like the Texas Driver's License. They are free for those who cannot afford them. Persons who are house-bound can have someone from the state come to their homes to get the ID's -- also at no charge.
We have had some trouble in Texas with persons who not only don't want to show their ID's when they vote -- they also don't want to vote in their own precincts. Since everyone is required to vote therein -- and they are always close to the voters homes, I don't know why this is so hard for some.
Everyone used to have to go and register to vote, but now voter registration is automatic in Drivers License and Food Stamp offices.
All a voter has to to in Texas is show up at the right poll, carrying an ID that they are supposed to have on them anyway. The polls are open from 7:00 amto 7:00 pm. they even have early voting -- some of which is on week ends. Voters don't even need to have their voter registration cards with them. That does not seem to be very hard or unreasonable.
The reason people are supposed to follow voting regulations is so that votes can be counted accurately. But some feel that they are "disenfranchised" if they are asked to follow the rules. | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 4/29/2008 2:49:37 PM | | A great thing. Seriously it cost only 2-3 dollars on avg to get a state ID at a DMV and some states are even offering State ID's for free like Indiana. If someone can't get 2 or 3 dollars or doesn't want to take the time to go get one for free, then I guess voting isn't that important to them. | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 4/29/2008 2:57:17 PM | | I guess staying out of jail isn't that important to them either, siince the ID' s are required in many states. But -- you are right --- some people just don't do the paperwork! | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 4/29/2008 3:03:20 PM | Photo i.d. does seem to be a 'good' idea it forces the voter to prove who they are,where they live,if they drive,possibly previous address,But the bad news is it also shows all those things.Sure it's good for inclusion but it would also work for exclusion.
What about older people who may not have a copy of their birth certificate,yet still want to vote. No birth record ,no vote?
conspiracy ALERT if this is a program implemented what's stopping the powerful from wanting to streamline it make it easier ,retinal scans ,chips ,dna samples.
Look at the way some people vote from paper ballots,to computer touch screens seemed to make voting faster and easier,yet it made it easier for some to cheat the system. "It only matters who counts the votes" Stalin? | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 4/29/2008 3:04:12 PM | lethrneck
Where in the constitution does it say that people have the right to vote other than to state that it shall not be denied or abridged upon the basis or race or sex? It doesn't. No where in the constitution does it say anyone has the right to vote.
Amendmant 10 gives the states the ability to grant the vote to citizens.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Also, Amendment 24 talks about poll taxes or the inability to pay other taxes.
Amendment XXIV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 4/30/2008 9:51:28 AM | Now now, let's see you punch a chad at 90!
The platform underneath the voting card was wornd, so it had give, instead of allowing the hold to punch through.
That said, there has to be a better system! | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 4/30/2008 9:56:40 AM | Ezzee:
The 10th amendment is saying power not delegated to an individual state by the constitution or power not prohibited by the constitution are left to the individual states. The 24th clearly establishes that u.s. citizens have the RIGHT to vote and that it won't be denied. Congress already is enforceing the right to vote with the many voting laws already in place.
So, nowhere in the constitution does it say we have the right to vote but it establishes that right. The 10th amendment simply let's the individual states make their own laws that are not already established by the constitution.
In either case, photo ID's should be mandatory to vote, no group or person has made a valid argument as why they should not be. | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 4/30/2008 10:28:42 PM | Ezzee: In addition to what lethrnek says above....the NINTH amendment states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
But here I depart from lethrnek. I can understand the impulse, in today's political climate, to require a photo ID for voters. BUT, it seems to me that the goal should be to make it easier to vote, not harder....and like it or not, SOME people WILL be disenfranchized by requiring photo-ID to vote.
I know that this issue is being constructed in a populist anti-illegal immigrant way, but personally, I don't think that it's illegal immigrants who are truly being targetted here. It's never been the case than anyone can just walk into a voting station and vote: you have to be on the electoral register, and it's not like there's been a PROBLEM with this up to this point--illegal immigrants voting. What HAS been a problem is various polling stations in certain parts of the country finding ways to prevent certain demographics from exercising their right to vote....and I just believe, in my heart of hearts, that these same people are the ones being targeted here.
Despite what some posters have suggested, it IS NOT the case that citizens in this country HAVE to possess photo IDs. The numbers of people who have never bought a photo-ID might be small, but the issue is the PRINCIPLE--which is whether or not it's a good idea to set a precedent for forcing a person to provide EVIDENCE that they are entitled to exercise a fundamental right, in this country, attached to citizenship.
There are reasons that this is not a popular idea in many democratic countries--and it's simply that being required to show "papers" to prove identity is the stuff, historically, of totalitarian regimes. If a policeman randomly approaches me walking down the street, I don't HAVE to show him ID. I don't HAVE to carry ID at all. I have the right to NOT produce "papers" on demand. I have the RIGHT to be anonymous--and yet I remain a CITIZEN, with all the rights attached to that, whether I'm anonymous or not. And IMO, that's as it should be. But beyond that, What is the REAL reason behind this? Do we really believe that such an enormous block of illegal immigrants could somehow taint our electoral process (despite safeguards already in place) that we want to set the precendent for citizenship--and the rights attached to that--being dependent on an individual's possession of proof of identity? And is this worth the possibility of disenfranchizing those who DON'T have such proof--EVEN if it's simply because of laziness....or poverty.....or being an elderly person who never before NEEDED a photo-ID?
In THIS country, voting is a right of citizenship. And in THIS country, one is not required to own photo-ID as a condition of citizenship. And IMO, if it's NOT a requirement of citizenship to own a photo-ID--and it IS NOT a requirement--then it's wrong to deny a person their basic RIGHTS as a citizen simply because they DON'T own something that they aren't required, as a citizen, to own.
IF, on the other hand, you want to go down the road of requiring citizens to own identification as a condition of citizenship...then that's different. But...be careful what you wish for.
| |
|
| |
| |
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 5/1/2008 4:30:22 AM | But yet, no where in the constitution does it say that the general public has the right to vote.
For the President, the elector that are chosen by the state are the ones who vote for the President and the Vice President.
For the Senators and Representatives, it states that "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators." (Article I, Section IV)
Doesn't say the legislature has to give the general public the right to vote. It says each stat gets to decide how they elect their Senators nad Representatives. Which means that they theoretically could say that some group of representatives of the state are the ones who are able to vote.
And while I can see how the interpretation of the ninth amendment may be construed in order to say that people have the right to vote, I argue that if one looks and reads the constitution in the full, even with the Bill of Rights, there is never any mention of the "right to vote." The first time the "right to vote" ever appeared in the constitution didn't happen until 1870. And there was a reason for that. It is because, again, the founders of the constitution, thought that the general population was too ignorant and did not have the mental capacity to make such decisions as to elect their representatives. They wanted these decision in the hands of those who were better educated and had the ability to make informed decisions. In a way, they wanted to create an aristocracy who would not only rule the country, but to also be the ones who elected those rulers.
Honestly, I wish we would've stuck with that idea and kept people from voting and left the aristocracy to be able to vote. The majority of people don't vote on the issues. The majority of people vote on the celebritism of the President, or their officials. But hey, you know what, we made the bed, so we might as well lie in it. | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 5/1/2008 8:13:03 AM | a bit nomadic: You say requiring a photo ID to vote would disenfranchized, how? For the few people too poor to afford one the states will provide it for free. An ID doen't make you a citizen, birth does but yet for the safety, and regulation of society most if not all states require some kind of picture ID, is that an unconstitutional requirement?
Showing a photo ID at the polls will only help reduce the voting fraud and disenfrachizement the dems cry and whine about every election. If you think a photo ID willdisenfranchized people you should say how it will.
Elcetors vote for president, but we the people elect them, and how do we do it, by voting. Again the consitution does not say we have the right to vote but it does establish that right. | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 5/1/2008 8:18:53 AM | | nomadic: The politicians we elect in every election have decided to make photo ID's a requirement, not a require of citizenship but a requirement to help prove that you are who you say you are, and that requirement is leagal and constitutional. The right to be anonymous is not granted by any law, so no you don't have that right, it's more a privilage then a right. | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 5/1/2008 9:57:02 AM | You a US citizen??? Then you have fraud-proof, State-issued ID.
To vote, you must be a US citizen; show your fraud-proof, State-issued ID.
When I voted, I showed my ID and signed my name in the book with my polling-location's local voters. The people checked my name on my ID, checked the name I signed on the book, and made sure that my signature, the name on my ID, and the name in the book that I signed by were the same.
This showed I voted and eliminated any chance of me voting twice; and eliminated the chance of someone using my vote under false pretenses. I tell you what, I sure as hell wouldn't like someone going into my polling station and saying they were me... showing no ID whatsoever... and using MY vote!!!
Showing ID... a good thing for many reasons.
--Brandon | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 5/1/2008 10:04:11 AM |
Honestly, I wish we would've stuck with that idea and kept people from voting and left the aristocracy to be able to vote. The majority of people don't vote on the issues. The majority of people vote on the celebritism of the President, or their officials. But hey, you know what, we made the bed, so we might as well lie in it.
...you make corporate fascisms argument, for they are the aristocracy......i would rather the hoi poloi make decisions than those who see us as nothing more than "workers".
....I don't know about you lthernck but I was born free and do not accept the yoke of government your points bring up. There are those who want to believe that they control us and use interpretations of the constitution to try to convince us that they are right, and if we don't agree they will kill or incarcerate a person.
I have a photo ID because I choose to pick my battles.
some of these arguments can be used as templates for the National ID cards that this administration wants us all to have. The next step if RFID. Next step, implants right in neural pathways to know what your thinking and to administer "corrections" for inappropriate thoughts...
(Montana, by the way told the feds to stuff it and made it illegal for state workers to comply with the feds...other states are following suit) | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 5/1/2008 10:16:13 AM |
Elcetors vote for president, but we the people elect them, and how do we do it, by voting. Again the consitution does not say we have the right to vote but it does establish that right.
Actually, the voters do not elect the electors. If you read Article II, Section I, you will find that the state appoint electors, in whichever manner the legislature sees fit. Therefore, if the legislature saw fit to appoint electors on some random basis such as pulling names out of a hat, they could do so. The people do not elect the Electoral College.
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector. | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 5/1/2008 11:26:57 AM |
really, you don't have that problem in MONTANA? that's surprising because when I think of 93% white 4% native american MISSOULA MONTANA, I think ethnic hair care superstore.
...how do you work that out .....................?
And yes...I agree with ID cards even though I don't live there.We are having this debate over here as well and the card would cost us in the region of £98 ...........but this is rip off Britain so its about right .However-I fail to see what it would prevent that a passport and DL wouldn't. | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 5/1/2008 12:15:46 PM | | I can see how this could be a good idea. In the UK, you need photo IDs for so many things already. There are very few people who don't have any form of photo ID, and those that don't, have it very difficult to do most things anyway, so voting is the least of their problems. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
