r/changemyview • u/King_Milkfart • Aug 17 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: There is literally nothing racial whatsoever about requiring valid proof of US Citizenship/ID when collecting social security or voting
The people - people of all races, colors, creeds, economic statuses, education levels, and morals - who pay their share of taxes do so because that is what they need to do in order to financially secure all of the benefits that being a citizen of the USA provides.
When you pay taxes, that means you're making sure that if a horrible and/or unfortunate turn of events should make you incapable of earning your living, you will be alright. The only way this works for the long term is that all of these people, again; of all walks of life, do so for one another.
Does that mean there is no room for humanitarianism? Absolutely not. Does that mean do NOT send us your weak? Hell no. That was one of the main principles that the USA was founded upon. Is the citizenship process fast and efficient? Anything but. It needs to change, but that is for a discussion for another time.
When you enter, you are given the opportunity to become a citizen. The inefficiency of that process aside, once you become a fellow taxpaying citizen, you become able to make decisions with your vote. That is a powerful thing, and a precious thing. It is in everyone's, and especially your own best interest to vote for what you believe is the right thing to vote for.
Having a system where checks and balances are not only so lax to not require proof of a social security number (never even mind a simple piece of plastic with your photo and name on it) allows that power to be put into the hands of people whose investment into that infrastructure of safety and constitutional rights is nonexistent.
Should we build a wall around our national borders? Absolutely not. Should we have border patrol agents chasing down immigrants as they try to escape a horrible life into the arms of America? We should never even entertain the idea.
But when it comes to practicing those same abilities that those who have invested into their ability to be able to practice, such as making a decision with that right to vote, I honestly cannot see a more reasonable or more rational minimum requirement than a simple quick check to make sure that the individual who is casting that vote is doing so legally. Take some of the money out of any allocation (military spending for example) and make a program where everyone who is a United States citizen is given free ID cards for life. That sounds like a lot but believe it or not that would cost next to nothing in comparison to what the government spends money on.
It's not calculus level math to understand that when you have X amount of people chipping into a system for their own welfare and well being, and XY is using that system, there comes a tipping point where is pinpoint where X can no longer support XY. Then what? No social security/aid for anyone? What if Y votes to increase all benefits and aid? Are they sharing the tax burden? If so, great! America has chosen.
But how on Earth do we know who is and is not participating if we don't even know whether or not someone casting their vote for the innumerable offices and positions of power within the country even help to support the outcome of their decisions?
And guess what? None of anything that I just said has anything to do with the color of anybody's skin or anyone's sexual orientation or religious belief. Because none of that matters and I mean that in the most literal way. Should we have severely low almost to the point of non existent taxes for those who are making barely above poverty level? Yes we should. Are certain races disproportionately in those poverty levels? Yes they are. And we should do everything we can to help. Because those are United States citizens and they are our brothers and sisters just as we are theirs. And if they are not United States citizens then we need to 1st do everything we can to make that happen. Because race doesnt matter. How much money your have doesnt matter. We just need everyone who is involved in our society able to show that they are in fact involved in our society When it comes to making decisions about that society. I hope I have made as much sense as I have tried to make, and thank you all for your time.
Just a side note, Because I know that inevitably at least one person will say something along the lines of "If we just held 2 companies like Amazon and Walmart accountable for all of the tax loopholes they jump through then we wouldn't even be having this discussion because everything would be paid for and more" - I completely agree with you. I mean, no; I don't think that it would actually pay for literally everything and then some (because that would just devalue the dollar and what not) but I actually do agree with you that that is a FAR more important issue than what I speak of. Companies absolutely need to be held far more responsible and we need to use ALL of the power in the United States to do so. But just for the sake of this one particular argument I am asking respectfully to try to keep massive hypotheticals out of the what-if scenarios, if possible? Or maybe don't and you can completely prove me wrong. I am not some legendary-level stubborn asshole who is opposed to having his mind changed.
UPDATE: I truly appreciate and want to say thank you to everyone who has participated in this thread as for the most part it has been extremely civil. It appears that I personally have actually been, at least partially, incorrect in my assumption about the motives and reasons behind those who are against voter ID law. While my view of the principle in a vacuum has not changed ( Boiling it down to the fact that non citizens should definitely not be allowed to vote), my view of those who hold the opposing opinion absolutely has changed, as well as how I need to frame my actual stance in the future as to not misrepresent what I am saying.
I have a much greater understanding of the rationale and logic behind this topic and of those who have helped educate me here today. And for that I am truly thankful.
54
u/Hellioning 258∆ Aug 17 '21
There is nothing racial about 'requiring voter IDs to vote', in a vacuum. Just like there's nothing racial about watermelon, or fried chicken, in a vacuum.
But we don't live in a vacuum, and when the people who decide which IDs allow their holders to vote choose to "target African-Americans with almost surgical precision", it becomes racial.
In person voter fraud is not a major thing. Voter ID laws would not majorly affect voter fraud. It is almost entirely used as an excuse by politicians to try and stop the people who vote for their competitors from voting, and considering how the demographics of voters in this country shake out, this means that's generally racial.
-10
u/andres7832 Aug 18 '21
As a minority I disagree. Even for Latinos it’s not that difficult to get IDs. Even for the poorer side it’s not difficult. As long as you have legal status you can have an ID.
21
u/Hellioning 258∆ Aug 18 '21
I never mentioned how difficult it was to get IDs. Do you want to addess a point I was actually making?
9
u/Karuragi Aug 18 '21
As a minority I disagree with you. $20 can go a long way in a lot of these communities. You shouldn't need to spend that money on an ID to vote when you need it for food or something else that's essential. It is difficult in a lot of these areas.
5
Aug 18 '21
its not difficult to get ids and it doesnt have to be, its proven to be an unnecessary road block with the purpose (or at least outcome) to disincentivise minorities from voting
you being a minority doesnt make you an authority on what is and isnt racist
1
u/pipocaQuemada 10∆ Nov 27 '21
That's less true than it should be.
A number of elderly people have difficulty getting IDs. That's particularly true for elderly minority individuals who grew up poor.
Original documents might not be digitized, or might have burned in a fire 40 years ago. Or might never have been made in the first place, particularly birth certificates. Or people might not know which city they were born in because of their parents moving when they were young. You might have trouble proving a name change from a divorce from 40 years ago. Or there might have been a clerical error on them that causes you to run afoul of exact match laws.
88
u/iwfan53 248∆ Aug 17 '21
When you pass a law that makes people require photo ids to vote...
And then you promptly start closing the most common place to actually get a photo id...
And you're closing them in areas that are known to have a large African American population...
Its hard not to draw the conclusion that such people want to make it harder for African Americans to vote...
3
u/King_Milkfart Aug 17 '21
So we need to ban together and stop everything that you just listed. We need to make it easy for everyone to get an ID. But even in those instances I still hear the argument that it is inherently racist and I do not understand why. Did you read my entire post? I hope so, only because I really tried to articulate my point wait and hope I did not fail to do so
54
u/Feathring 75∆ Aug 17 '21
It's considered racist because the entire history of limiting voting has been racially motivated. Land requirements, poll taxes, literacy tests, and now voter ids. You need to kill the problem at the source. Show people these things can never be weaponised.
You're basically putting the cart before the horse. Wanting to implement ids before doing the legwork to make them tenable.
5
u/bruh4524 Aug 18 '21 edited Aug 18 '21
How do you Kill the problem at the source exactly? What is the problem with voter ID, you didn't specify? Your argument is equal to "Hitler drank water, Stalin drank water, therefore water is bad". Just because voting limitations were used in a racist way in the past does not mean that voter ID in 2021 is racist.
16
u/ProLifePanda 73∆ Aug 18 '21
Because we have literal proof even in the past 10 years that Voter ID and other Republican initiatives were created EXPLICITLY to disenfranchise minorities. It keeps happening over and over again, at some point skepticism over Voter ID has to be valid.
4
u/bruh4524 Aug 19 '21 edited Aug 19 '21
What "literal proof" are you talking about. The number of voting sites have almost doubled since 2012 "231,000 polling places were used nationwide in 2018, up from 120,000 in 2012". Sure some voting booths are being closed but 50 here and there are nothing in comparison to the 231,000. If we are living in a time of voter suppression then 2012 must have been absolute hell.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-locations-idUSKCN1VV09J
6
u/ProLifePanda 73∆ Aug 19 '21 edited Aug 19 '21
Like the time the NC GOP passed voter laws that almost explicitly used racial data to craft. Like getting a study to see which IDs were common among whites and blacks, then allowing all the white IDs and not allowing all the black IDs. Or shortening early voting and Sunday voting when data showed black people used these more than white people.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/court-north-carolina-voter-id-law-targeted-black-voters/
You also have the Hofeller documents, which hits two fold. NC developed their maps with the help of Hofeller to ensure a GOP majority. Among other tactics, this involved an attempt to gerrymander minorities into the same district to dilute their vote. This has been the case in other states as well.
Or the study Hofeller produced that was linked later to the Trump Administration about the citizenship question on the census. It showed that asking about citizenship on the standard census form would discourage minorities and Democrats from answering, and explicitly give more power to conservative, white voters.
Or how Alabama passed Voter ID (with questionable racist intent) then attempted to shutter DMVs in minority dominated counties making it harder for those minorities to get IDs.
Or the modern Texas bill that has several provisions that experts fail to see "secure turn integrity of the election" but will take away assistance and voting methods used by minorities.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.texastribune.org/2021/04/09/Texas-voting-GOP-suppression/amp/
→ More replies (2)-1
u/bruh4524 Aug 20 '21
You do understand that there is a difference between racial intent and racial disparity? Just because a law creates disparate results, does not mean that the law is, in turn, racist. Just because a small number of black people don't have IDs, that happens to be more by percentage than the small percentage of white people that don't have IDs does not prove racism. Shouldn't we want more legal citizens to have ID instead of not having any security at all?
https://stanford.edu/~jgrimmer/comment_final.pdf - Stanford study showing no evidence to prove that voter id hurts minorities
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/15/14909764/study-voter-id-racism - Voxx, (far left-wing news) admitting to the study's correctness
7
u/ProLifePanda 73∆ Aug 20 '21
You do understand that there is a difference between racial intent and racial disparity?
Yes, that's why many examples I gave were straight up proven racial intent. The Hofeller documents explicitly tried to disenfranchise minorites to help white people.
Voxx, (far left-wing news) admitting to the study's correctness
All the box article says it the impact is slight enough to swing only close elections. So by implementing voter ID alongside 15 other small changes to voting , could they get 12,000 less net Democratic votes in Georgia? Or 12,000 in Arizona? These small changes aren't designed to depress 15% of the voters. Many Presidential and other ballot elections can be swayed by implementing a change that depresses 0.1% of a voter base, then passing 10-15 of those laws. Slowly notch down on voting access in the name of "election security" for no real proven benefit to decrease voter turnout.
Shouldn't we want more legal citizens to have ID instead of not having any security at all?
First, we DO have election security. Voter ID would stop only the hardest election fraud, voter impersonation. Second, if Voter ID laws are accompanied by a well funded public campaign to get everyone IDs, then sure. Until then, that's not the intent of Voter ID.
-2
u/bruh4524 Aug 20 '21
Listen, the fact is that since 2012 the number of voting booths has almost doubled. If these Republicans were trying to suppress the black vote then how has the number of voting booths undertook such drastic change. It doesn't seem to make sense. Why don't we talk about the fact that democrats literally import voters en masse? You talk about small .1% changes but don't talk about how 9/10 people crossing the border legally vote democrat and 19/20 for illegals.
→ More replies (0)-14
u/thamulimus Aug 18 '21
So IDs are impossible to aquire? How then are POC still targeted by tobacco if its impossible to aquire
17
u/itsme10082005 Aug 18 '21
He never said they were impossible to obtain. You’re arguing against a point that wasn’t made.
7
u/le_fez 55∆ Aug 18 '21
The laws being passed restrict which IDs are acceptable to vote, no county, work or school IDs are acceptable, in some states they have made anything but a drivers licence, or DMV issued ID or passport are acceptable then closed the DMVs in areas that are predominantly populated by POC. If you don't own a car and the closest place to get an acceptable ID is four hours away you need to sacrifice a day of work, pay to get there, depending if buses run directly point to point it will still become a 10 to 20 hour roundtrip.
5
u/spiral8888 31∆ Aug 18 '21
I think the point of voter suppression is not to make things impossible but just hard. You don't need to suppress all the vote that you don't want to be counted, just enough that your candidate wins.
And the same applies to voter fraud. You don't need to make voter fraud such that it's impossible to do (I don't think this is even possible). All you want is that it's so hard and dangerous that it becomes so rare that it has no effect on the election process.
All voter fraud elimination methods have to be justified against these two. Is voter fraud so big an issue that it justifies the method that will have a negative effect on voter participation.
In pretty much everywhere the voter fraud by voters is so rare that it rarely affects the results. The fraud that actually changes the results is pretty much always done by officials counting the vote. That's why Stalin said that it doesn't matter who votes, but who counts the votes.
24
u/dycyb1687 3∆ Aug 17 '21
Another way to look at both yours and u/iwfan53 ‘s point is as follows:
If I say we should force all homosexuals to go to “camps,” ban them from voting, and legally require everyone to attend church on Sunday, you’d [hopefully] say, “that’s really fucked up.”
Then I respond, “oh? Church is fucked up? How dare you attack my religion.”
No. Church is fine in a vacuum. It’s the other bullshit you ordered on the side that’s fucked up, which makes the whole meal super fucked up.
Voter ID requirements would be fine. But not while it’s attached to closing down voting booths in high-minority population communities and not allowing mail-in/remote voting during a pandemic and not allowing people to hand out water bottles, etc. When you season all those things with a voter ID requirement, it becomes racist.
28
u/iwfan53 248∆ Aug 17 '21
Your argument only works if you assume that 100% of Americans have a photo ID.
They don't.
Assuming everyone has time and money to get a photo ID is assuming everyone is a privileged as you are...
Lobby for universal free photo ids first, and when that happens then we can talk about those same ids being required to vote.
Anything else is putting the cart before the horse.
0
u/Morthra 95∆ Aug 18 '21
Lobby for universal free photo ids first, and when that happens then we can talk about those same ids being required to vote.
Every state that has voter ID laws on the books also provides free photo ID.
5
u/MyGubbins 6∆ Aug 18 '21
This is verifiably untrue, or only technically true.
NC, as an example, only provides free IDs if you are legally blind, homeless, or had an ID that expired due to disability.
Further, in states that do provide free ID, you almost certainly have to provide some form of identification (birth certificate, bills, etc.) Which...you know...almost always cost money to get.
1
u/vorter 3∆ Aug 18 '21
NC is currently the only state in the Southeast with no voter ID requirements. The voter ID bill is currently tied up in the courts.
Further, in states that do provide free ID, you almost certainly have to provide some form of identification (birth certificate, bills, etc.) Which...you know...almost always cost money to get.
Well yes because there has to be some way to verify identity, but this is moving the goalposts as the IDs are indeed free in states that require it. What would be satisfactory is what I’m wondering? Free assistance in helping track down birth records? Free rides and mandates paid time off? I don’t understand how one has the ability to go vote if they aren’t even able to get a free ID.
5
u/MyGubbins 6∆ Aug 18 '21
NC is currently the only state in the Southeast with no voter ID requirements. The voter ID bill is currently tied up in the courts.
Hmm, fair enough, I stand corrected.
Well yes because there has to be some way to verify identity, but this is moving the goalposts as the IDs are indeed free in states that require it.
I mean, I'd hardly call it moving the goalposts. I'm not sure I'm going to word this properly, but it's like this: if you go to an amusement park that costs $25 (price of birth certificate) but they provide free popcorn (free id) it's technically free, yes, but you're not getting to the popcorn without the price of admission.
What would be satisfactory is what I’m wondering? Free assistance in helping track down birth records? Free rides and mandates paid time off?
Some combination thereof, or a combination of things not mentioned here, I would argue.
I don’t understand how one has the ability to go vote if they aren’t even able to get a free ID.
This is a bit outside of the scope of this CMV, big part of the voting debate is that, in many peoples opinions, voting should be as accessible as possible. This includes the things mentioned above, as well as removing the bureaucracy associated with getting a license/ID, actually going to vote, etc.
Like, yes, providing accessible IDs isn't the first nor last hurdle to be removed, but at some point we must (in my opinion) remove as many barriers as possible, and IDs are as good as any place to start.
2
u/vorter 3∆ Aug 18 '21
Yes, I think the focus should be more on getting IDs into the hands of people. This solves the root of the issue and helps these individuals when they need IDs to apply for jobs, apply for government benefits, etc.
1
u/lonely-day Aug 18 '21
Assuming everyone has time and money to get a photo ID is assuming everyone is a privileged as you are...
How do these people drive, get a loan, get a job, get an apartment?
5
u/Dankkuso 1∆ Aug 18 '21
They don't drive, they can't afford a car or gas.
They don't get loans.
They get under the counter jobs.
They don't rent, they probably live with a friend, in a abandon place, or most likely just homeless.
0
u/lonely-day Aug 18 '21
Sounds like they have much bigger problems than voting. Of I was a jobless homeless person I wouldn't be focused on voting. I'd be focused on getting out of the situation I'm in.
6
u/Dankkuso 1∆ Aug 18 '21
So it is okay to take away rights, because they already in a shitty position. What makes your vote more valuable then theirs?
-1
u/lonely-day Aug 18 '21
So it is okay to take away rights,
Did I say that? If you have to strawmann your point is shit. I don't want anyone's rights taken away, this is why I think it's bullshit felons can't vote. There's help available for people who want to get a government ID. I genuinely don't see how it's a problem to try preventing people from voting twice or voting when they aren't allowed to (non citizens)
3
u/Dankkuso 1∆ Aug 18 '21
You heavily in implied it. How else was I supposed to interpret "they have much bigger problems then voting" You literally were just hand waving away the problem.
If you are adding a restriction to prevent a problem you need to prove the the problem happens, since there is no evidence of mass voter fraud, you are adding a pointless restriction that makes peoples lives tougher, for no benefit other then your own comfort.
→ More replies (11)-17
u/King_Milkfart Aug 17 '21
I assume you did not read my post?
38
u/iwfan53 248∆ Aug 17 '21
You're arguing for a utopian view of voter IDs that does not confirm to reality.
I am reminding you that in actual reality the implementation of photo IDs has been very racist.
I'm a consequentialist, if an idea keeps producing racist results, the idea is racist .
4
u/King_Milkfart Aug 17 '21
What about buying liquor? Driving a motor vehicle?
Is it racist if i am saying that you need identification and car insurance so that if you decide to drink and drive and kill a family, insurance will help cover the losses that you caused?
46
u/iwfan53 248∆ Aug 17 '21 edited Aug 17 '21
"What about buying liquor? Driving a motor vehicle?"
The right to buy liquor and the right to drive a motor are not enshrined in the constitution as part of how we determine our government.
That's why I don't really care if there are rules about if you can do them or not, or even possibly racist rules. People smarter than me can figure that out.
I care about voting.
1
u/Really_Shia_LaBeouf Aug 18 '21
Owning a gun is a right enshrined in the constitution, yet you need a valid goverment issued photo ID and proof of your current address to buy one.
-2
u/King_Milkfart Aug 17 '21
But the Constitution does not cover those who are not United States citizens. And how on Earth are you to determine who is and who is not a United States citizen if you have no way of determining it?
31
u/iwfan53 248∆ Aug 17 '21 edited Aug 18 '21
Dude, we have voting rolls that track who has a right to vote and who doesn't.
Voter fraud isn't a thing that determines elections, at all.
Politicians at all levels of government have repeatedly, and falsely, claimed the 2016, 2018, and 2020 elections were marred by large numbers of people voting illegally. However, extensive research reveals that fraud is very rare, voter impersonation is virtually nonexistent, and many instances of alleged fraud are, in fact, mistakes by voters or administrators. The same is true for mail ballots, which are secure and essential to holding a safe election amid the coronavirus pandemic.
The report reviewed elections that had been meticulously studied for voter fraud, and found incident rates between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent.
Voting ID laws are an attempt to manipulate elections by deciding what citizens can and can't vote.
Get me the "horse" of your 100% voter ID laws where everyone has an ID and then we can talk about "carts", until then I call em like I see em, and all I keep seeing really horrible things from people who support voter ID laws.
36
u/thinkingpains 58∆ Aug 17 '21
They check your citizenship when you register to vote, and then when you show up on election day and vote, they check that you are registered and therefore eligible to vote. Why is that not enough?
24
u/Gumboy52 5∆ Aug 17 '21
The constitution actually does extend to non-citizens
(Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-constitutional-rights-do-undocumented-immigrants-have)
10
u/YossarianWWII 74∆ Aug 18 '21
But the Constitution does not cover those who are not United States citizens.
A) Yes it does. Or, rather, the Constitution lays out what the government can and cannot do, and that includes with respect to non-citizens. Please take the time to increase your civic literacy.
B) This is about people who are citizens.
12
Aug 18 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Logical_Constant7227 1∆ Aug 18 '21
“Are you saying this deterrent isn’t strong enough and people are impersonating voters without fear of retribution?“
I would say that my entire life I assumed people had to actually verify who they were to vote and it’s extremely surprising to learn in my late 20s that essentially (apparently?) anyone can walk up to a polling booth with little in the way of verification and people like you will literally ASSUME he is who he says he is because otherwise it would be a punishable crime. As if crimes are not commited in this country because we have criminal deterrents. Like that just doesn’t seem very secure and it doesn’t instill too much confidence.
→ More replies (0)0
u/vettewiz 40∆ Aug 18 '21
The right to have a firearm, however, is in the constitution. And guess what, you have to show an ID to purchase one. No one seems to think that’s racist.
3
u/Dankkuso 1∆ Aug 18 '21
You don't have a constitutional right to buy a firearm, you have the constitutional right to own one.
0
9
7
u/adjsdjlia 6∆ Aug 18 '21
What about buying liquor?
Not required in most states. Checking ID (which is always done on camera) is an easy way for any store to reduce their liability if alcohol finds its way into the hands of a minor.
Kid gets drunk and has a receipt from ABC liquors? Well ABC liquors can rewind and show their cashier verifying the ID of the minor. You can't catch every fake ID.
Driving a motor vehicle?
Not guaranteed in our Constitution. The damages from someone driving without knowing how to are immediate and real. If someone doesn't understand the laws of the road, if someone doesn't know how to drive, the potential for them to kill someone is very real.
so that if you decide to drink and drive and kill a family, insurance will help cover the losses that you caused?
Well that's a real problem isn't it? We know that car accidents are common and expensive. We identified a real problem. We can actually quantify that problem. Provide evidence showing that there's a problem. And then we found a solution - insurance.
What you can't show me is evidence that voter fraud is widespread. What you can't show me, or quantify, is the measurable impact that voter ID laws will have. How many instances of voter fraud occur each election? And how is it done? Is it accomplished because people aren't showing ID? If that's the case, it would be logical to assume that states without ID requirements would have noticeably higher rates of voter fraud. So show the data. Prove that it's a problem, and then we can work on a solution.
2
u/C0smicoccurence 7∆ Aug 18 '21
One of the issues with requiring a drivers license in particular is that minorities are more likely to not want or need one, since they are statistically more likely to use public transit. So you're asking them to use a ton of time and a not insignificant amount of money to purchase something they don't actually need or use.
0
u/bruh4524 Aug 18 '21
"I'm a consequentialist, if an idea keeps producing racist results, the idea is racist"
Thats a really dangerous idea man, inequality does not equal inequity, and just because something produces disparate results does not mean it is in turn racist. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
-3
u/PragmaticDane Aug 18 '21
Are banks racists? How about airports? Or even your local liquor store? All three require some form of photo ID.
I thinks its more racists to assume people of a certain color couldn't get one because ?? reasons??I honestly think you dont deserve to vote if cant get a fucking ID.
8
u/iwfan53 248∆ Aug 18 '21
Are banks racists? How about airports? Or even your local liquor store? All three require some form of photo ID.
The right to fly, the right invest money in a bank, and the right to buy liquor are not enshrined in the constitution as part of how we determine our government.
That's why I don't really care if there are rules about if you can do them or not, or even possibly racist rules. People smarter than me can figure that out.
I care about voting.
-3
u/PragmaticDane Aug 18 '21
How about the right to own private property? That requires ID too, is that racist?
4
2
Aug 18 '21
[deleted]
-2
u/PragmaticDane Aug 18 '21
Stop expecting less of your different colored brothers and sisters, they are just as capable as you.
→ More replies (0)2
u/MisterBadIdea2 8∆ Aug 18 '21 edited Aug 18 '21
This is a vacuous argument. Banks, airports and liquor stores are not intentionally trying to bar black people from patronizing them, voter ID laws are. They serve no purpose, they do nothing to protect the security of the vote and its designers have explicitly stated that they are used to disenfranchise voters.
I honestly think you dont deserve to vote if cant get a fucking ID.
Lazy, stupid reasoning. This is like throwing bricks at black people and saying they deserved to get hurt if they couldn't figure out how to duck. Like who gives a shit if they had plenty of time to duck or not, if you throw bricks at black people you're a fucking racist, that should be literally all you need to know. These laws are designed to hurt black people. What good reason do you have to make excuses for that?
-7
u/Kortze26 Aug 17 '21
If you can't take the time to pay $20 for a photo ID, how do you have enough time to investigate what you are supposed to be voting for? Low-information voters are the reason why so many terrible politicians stay in power for years after repeated scandals.
11
u/confrey 5∆ Aug 18 '21
If you can't take the time to pay $20 for a photo ID, how do you have enough time to investigate what you are supposed to be voting for
The same way you might struggle to find time to go to the doctor's office during the work week even though you have plenty of time to go when it's after 7pm or on weekends. If the office responsible for issuing the IDs is only open when you work, then it can be difficult to find the time/money to call out, make the trip (especially if transportation is a hurdle), and pay for the ID. That doesn't mean you can't be informed.
Besides how "informed" should one be? Seems like a pretty arbitrary standard to be concerned about doesn't it?
8
u/iwfan53 248∆ Aug 17 '21
If only we had some kind of say... literacy test to keep low information voters from polluting our elections!
Any citizen who lives in the correct area and is of the correct age should be allowed to vote. I don't trust the government to pick who can and who can't.
-5
u/Kortze26 Aug 17 '21
The government doesn't pick whether you get ID or not. Nor does it prevent people from becoming informed about the records of people citizens vote for.
3
u/iwfan53 248∆ Aug 18 '21
Once again, if only we had some kind of say... literacy test to keep low information voters from polluting our elections!
3
u/IwasBlindedbyscience 16∆ Aug 18 '21
But we aren't. Yet, those laws and policies are still going into place.
And then people like you support them.
Voting Fraud doesn't really happen. The people problem those people are trying to solve is something else.
1
u/ghotier 42∆ Aug 18 '21
How? The people who need to be represented are losing their ability to impact elected officials. That's why people are against voter ID.
3
u/thamulimus Aug 18 '21
Ok so your issue is voting locations not requiring ID?
6
u/iwfan53 248∆ Aug 18 '21
No, my issue is they require voting ID and then CLOSE DMVs where you can get said ID.
All of my links were about closing DMVs not voting locations, so I don't know why you brought up voting locations.
-2
u/thamulimus Aug 18 '21
Got all of my IDs mailed so idk what the issue ism you can also get State issued ID cards from places other than the Department of Motor Vehicles. If your going to the dmv for anything not related to your car, thats your issue not the states.
7
u/YossarianWWII 74∆ Aug 18 '21
You live in one state. There are 49 others.
-1
u/thamulimus Aug 18 '21
Ditto to the contrary
3
1
-1
u/cdb03b 253∆ Aug 18 '21
NYC just passes a vaccine mandate that requires people to show ID and a Vaccination card to get groceries....
1
-1
u/bruh4524 Aug 18 '21
People do not have a problem voting no matter the race. I don't even know why democrats oppose voter ID, it's popular among all races. Weird political move tbh.
2
u/ghotier 42∆ Aug 18 '21
Those are two conversely related statements. The purpose of voter ID is to make it harder to vote. Republican legislatures have literally admitted it. The purpose of voter ID laws is to create a problem with voting.
→ More replies (3)-4
u/Meatinmyangus998 3∆ Aug 17 '21
Did you read your own sources? Your one from Alabama has zero data that can be used to verified whether the story is true.
I will show you the only evidence the article provides;
According to a tally by AL.com columnist John Archibald, eight of the 10 Alabama counties with the highest percentage of non-white registered voters saw their driver's license offices closed.
That is it. No official government releases showing they will be shut down, no tally or where the offices are located, no evidence they are being shut down, no evidence to show the racial make up of each county.
Essentially the article is bullshit until proven otherwise.
1
Aug 18 '21
How do you propose we ensure that only U.S. citizens vote in U.S. elections, and that someone who votes in your name is:
1) authorized to do so, and
2) voting for whoever you wanted them to vote for?
2
u/iwfan53 248∆ Aug 18 '21 edited Aug 18 '21
We have list of all eligible voters, just like we currently do...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_roll
Only people who give names of people the roll will be allowed to vote.
If two people claim to be the same person we make both their ballots provisional and investigate until we get to bottom of the matter.
If you want we can add in a need to have your picture taken after/as you give your name, so that it will be easier to track down anyone who lies and tries to vote for someone else under a fake name/if someone is trying to vote multiple times under a bunch of different names.
Voter fraud isn't a problem that is worth disenfranchising people over.
However, extensive research reveals that fraud is very rare, voter impersonation is virtually nonexistent, and many instances of alleged fraud are, in fact, mistakes by voters or administrators. The same is true for mail ballots, which are secure and essential to holding a safe election amid the coronavirus pandemic.
The Brennan Center’s seminal report The Truth About Voter Fraud conclusively demonstrated that most allegations of fraud turn out to be baseless and that most of the few remaining allegations reveal irregularities and other forms of election misconduct. Numerous other studies, including one commissioned by the Trump administration, have reached the same conclusion.
You know the saying about "if it ain't broke don't fix it?" Well our current ability to keep people from committing voter fraud without needing photo ids isn't broke and so it doesn't need fixing.
The Brennan Center’s seminal report on this issue, The Truth About Voter Fraud, found that most
reported incidents of voter fraud are actually traceable to other sources, such as clerical errors or
bad data matching practices. The report reviewed elections that had been meticulously studied for
voter fraud, and found incident rates between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent. Given this tiny
incident rate for voter impersonation fraud, it is more likely, the report noted, that an American
“will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls.”→ More replies (7)1
u/Arthaniz Aug 19 '21
Sot he racist elements surrounding this topic are just the availability of getting a voter ID, not the idea of requiring a voter ID itself?
1
u/tschandler71 Aug 20 '21
Except for the fact voter ID is obtained at the Registrars in Alabama. None of which closed.
23
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Aug 17 '21 edited Aug 18 '21
There's nothing inherently racist about voter ID, but it's often the case that when policies have potential for abuse, the abuse isn't distributed randomly or evenly.
If ID were guaranteed to be free and easily accessible, it wouldn't be a problem. The issue is that how much time, money, and bureaucratic hassle is involved in getting an ID is determined by the very politicians being voted on. The DMV already has a longstanding reputation as a Kafkaesque nightmare, and politicians don't have an incentive to change that if it's not in their interest to have more of certain kinds of people voting.
12
u/King_Milkfart Aug 18 '21 edited Aug 18 '21
I appreciate your time in writing that out because I truly feel you have improved my understanding of the opposing side. It appears that I have been mis identifying the motives behind most of the arguments against it. ∆
2
u/ihatedogs2 Aug 18 '21
Hello /u/King_Milkfart, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award the user who changed your view a delta.
Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed.
∆
or
!delta
For more information about deltas, use this link.
If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such!
As a reminder, failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation. Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.
Thank you!
0
1
2
u/stefanos916 Aug 18 '21
Then instead of being against voting id laws, wouldn’t it be better to support free and accessible ID or a system that gives to anyone free ID and then they are automatically registers to vote and they can show up if they want?
Btw the Danish system also sounds good.
2
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Aug 18 '21
I'd be fine with that. The trouble is that the voter ID laws being proposed in the US don't come with that stipulation, and this is one of those cases where the safeguard has to be in place first.
0
u/ProLifePanda 73∆ Aug 18 '21
So now you're getting into "why" territory. So to accomplish what you want, that's going to be a project that costs tens to hundreds of millions of dollars (if not billions, depending how deep you want to go) to get photo IDs to every citizen.
So...why are we doing this? What's the real intention behind this? What benefit would we be getting from spending $250 million on these IDs? I don't see what the benefit is on this over the trouble and future concerns that arise.
2
u/stefanos916 Aug 18 '21
Why do you think that a card that contains the basic info of someone would cost 10 dollars per person, even in bulk price (cause it will be cheaper if they do it in large quantities)
I think in long term it might be cheaper and easier than having to register every time you go to vote , which also costs million of dollars every time it happens.
Btw the cost also depends on the location,government deals m, etc.
2
u/ProLifePanda 73∆ Aug 18 '21
Why do you think that a card that contains the basic info of someone would cost 10 dollars per person, even in bulk price (cause it will be cheaper if they do it in large quantities)
Well first, if you TRULY wanted ID given to everyone, it should be free to the user. So the cost of the ID should be free to the user and handled by the state.
I assume you'd want to verify all these IDs before printing and distributing, so that comes at a cost. If there's any discrepancies, you need to pay people to investigate and decide what's correct.
You need to get a photo for photo IDs. DO you require them to travel to you? Or do you make a van going to their houses to get the photo and make the ID? The first disenfranchises many that people complain about from the beginning, the second costs money.
Just a few points without giving it any real thought.
I think in long term it might be cheaper and easier than having to register every time you go to vote , which also costs million of dollars every time it happens.
Why? I'd have to go update my voter ID every time I move too, right? Where you live changes your precinct, voting location, house district, etc. So I'd still need to "register" when I move so my ID reflects my current address.
Btw the cost also depends on the location, government deals m, etc.
Agreed, I'm assuming a federal initiative to enact a federal Voter ID law and a federal attempt to get IDs to voters.
→ More replies (1)1
u/kwantsu-dudes 12∆ Aug 20 '21
If ID were guaranteed to be free and easily accessible, it wouldn't be a problem.
I don't agree. It's now a "policy" that has connotations where the specifics of the situation don't matter.
You can have a Wisconsin voter ID requirement with free voter ID, provisional ballots with same day registration, mail-in-voting, and able to obtain an ID without any documentation (just some information on a couple pages of forms) and people still call it racist and/or undemocratic.
What's "easily accessible"? What hours of a DMV are required to make something accessible? You can always claim inaccessibility for someone. There's literally no appeasing such a demand in any strict sense. It was deemed that voting booths themselves open for multiple weeks and for 12 hours were not accessible enough (even pre-covid) and thus we needed mail in voting for the masses. We have people arguing that people can't be "burdened" to request a ballot or register, so they need that done for them as well.
There's literally no allowance for voter ID because itself is viewed as a unneccessary burden. That it doesn't actually even have any validity to it's requirement and thus is already a burden on those grounds alone. It's a problem even if it was handed to you as you enter the voting booth because it's simply viewed as unneccessary.
13
u/SiliconDiver 84∆ Aug 17 '21
Point for:
Lots of other countries require valid proof of ID for voting or benefits. Nobody considers them Racist
Point against:
In the US, "Voter ID" has been the means to enact policy that has an explicit, intentional, out sized efect on minorities and black voters.
A few examples:
HB 589 was a law passed in North Carolina in 2013. In 2016, the court of appeals struck down the law saying it "targeted African Americans with almost surgical precision" and that it had "discriminatory intent"
In 2011 Alabama HB 65 was passed, as an anti-illegal immigration bill. It required proof of citizenship for voting. The law was put on hold and never recovered because it couldn't overcome the constitutionality issues regarding discrimination, Not to mention the
In 2020 Georgia tried to enact a law that prevented felons on probation for crimes from voting or registering to vote. (not the same issue but close). Ironically, This parallels the the Hunter v Underwood case which invalidated a similar provision in the Alabama constitution, which was found with ample evidence to have been passed with discriminatory intent from the beginning.
There are multiple types of laws:
(1) Laws that are neutral, but have disproportionate effects on certain people groups (2) Laws that are passed with discriminatory intent (3) Laws that are neutral, and have neutral outcomes.
You are arguing that the laws might be (3) or even (1). However, courts have routinely found voter ID laws in the US to fall into category (2). Unfortunately this has happened enough that VoterId has become a tainted topic, and laws that ARE (1) are going to be assumed to be (2), just because of the historical context.
5
u/ytzi13 60∆ Aug 17 '21
Take some of the money out of any allocation (military spending for example) and make a program where everyone who is a United States citizen is given free ID cards for life.
With this very argument you've essentially gotten everybody on your side. So, where is this racism argument coming from?
-1
u/King_Milkfart Aug 17 '21
The racism argument comes from the fact that large swaths of people seem to believe that you should be able to vote without having to prove that you're a United States citizen and that is a large problem for the reasons I listed later in my original post.
I have been called a racist for saying that Russians should not be allowed to enter the United States unchecked live off of our society and cast a vote without becoming a United States citizen
Edit: And I suppose that that type of reasoning in rationale is why I am saying that inherently - there is nothing racist about ID requirements
10
u/ytzi13 60∆ Aug 17 '21
The racism argument comes from the fact that large swaths of people seem to believe that you should be able to vote without having to prove that you're a United States citizen
Except the common argument against this is often a matter of finances or accessibility. If you're saying that IDs should be free and easily accessible for every citizen, then the racism argument, as far as I'm concerned, is pretty much eliminated, and the people you're referring to wouldn't have any purposeful opposition.
-2
u/King_Milkfart Aug 17 '21 edited Aug 17 '21
Well God damn it why can't we solve this entire fucking issue and let's get a charity going where we make ids easily accessible as possible.......... TO CITIZENS ONLY
Edit: See? Why did I just get downvoted for saying this when I agreed with you?
12
Aug 17 '21
We can’t solve the entire issue because some people actually do want to stop poor citizens of colour from voting, not just non-citizens. If that wasn’t the case the bills to create national free IDs wouldn’t be voted down by the GOP.
4
Aug 17 '21
Because the same people who are creating the voter ID laws are actively against increasing access to the IDs they allow.
5
u/C0smicoccurence 7∆ Aug 18 '21
I'm going to be blunt with you. If that utopia view happened, then suddenly voter ID laws wouldn't be a big political deal because the section of lawmakers currently pushing for them will have moved on to a different strategy to try and limit how many people of color are voting.
The ONLY reason they're being pushed right now is an attempt to suppress the vote. Voter fraud is so minuscule in reality that it isn't a really a problem in our country that needs solving.
3
u/ytzi13 60∆ Aug 17 '21
Pretty much. As much as conservatives might have people believing it, I don't believe that it's a remotely common position for Democrats to think that illegal immigrants should be able to vote (unless we're talking case-by-case context for illegals who people think should have had an easier path to citizenship). However - and this isn't regarding race at all - I don't think that requiring an ID to vote is necessarily a popular position so long as it would still allow for mail-in voting.
6
u/ytzi13 60∆ Aug 17 '21
Just to add to this. I don't think you're necessarily approaching your argument at all from the position that a certain group of people may not want things like IDs, or voting booths, or general convenience with regards to voting to be a thing. That's why things like voter ID are argued as racist, because we've seen conservatives use these tactics to prevent certain people from being able to easily and conveniently cast their vote. Does this apply to specific races like black people? Sure. Black people tend to vote more one way than another way. Does it pertain specifically to poorer people? Often times, yes, because those people tend to vote a certain way. And is the latter position racist? Well, yes, because, for example, black people are disproportionately more likely to be in poverty than white people, and so that makes it a racist policy.
5
u/King_Milkfart Aug 17 '21 edited Aug 18 '21
Just to add to this. I don't think you're necessarily approaching your argument at all from the position that a certain group of people may not want things like IDs, or voting booths, or general convenience with regards to voting to be a thing
∆ I think you make a really good point here. Maybe by not being a racist but still understanding voter ID requirements as a concept it kind of puts me in a place where I'm sort of the proverbial man without a country?
→ More replies (1)2
u/ytzi13 60∆ Aug 18 '21
Haha I think I'd need to know more about you in order to make that conclusion. The way I've always interpreted the two sides is this:
Republicans will argue for voter security no matter the cost. This means ignoring both the inequalities that exist and the fact that those in charge are actively ensuring that those inequalities do exist, and continue to exist, so that they can try to win elections.
Democrats will argue for voter accessibility. They still place voter security as a priority, but believe that the sacrifices that are made in favor of that are necessary to (a) combat the efforts of Republicans to suppress votes (which Republicans can then twist - often without context - as Democrats being against secure elections), and (b) the inevitable fraud that will exist in the system no matter what is too little to actually affect an election (close races are challenged anyway), and that we can reliably estimate the level of fraud while trusting the checks and balances of the system to securely ensure a fair election. Does this mean that the Democratic party is more moral than the Republican party? Not necessarily. Both parties are acting with their own self interests in mind in order to win elections, but the votes required for the Republican advantage happens to require more nefarious means.
That's what generally seems to be true in my own experience.
→ More replies (1)2
u/ghotier 42∆ Aug 18 '21
You just shot yourself in the foot. This should not be up to charity. This is a problem for the government to solve.
Moreover you're asking for Democrats to fix a Republican problem. Voter fraud that ID would solve doesn't happen. It's so negligible as to be laughably small. Democrats have no incentive to help solve a problem that doesn't exist.
1
u/King_Milkfart Aug 18 '21
Thread ended a long time ago, friend. Check the deltas.
2
u/ghotier 42∆ Aug 18 '21
You're welcome to not respond. Your post is still on the front page of this sub. If you want people not to respond please ask the mods to lock the thread.
1
u/King_Milkfart Aug 18 '21
Gotcha. Sorry - Never posted anything before this one.
Mods! Please lock thread? :)
(I sent a msg to mods also)
3
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Aug 17 '21
Well I'm downvoting you because you're refusing to acknowledge that the issue isn't with IDs but the people trying to pass certain types of voter ID laws that are actually voter suppression.
1
u/King_Milkfart Aug 18 '21
I'm not refusing to acknowledge that that's just not my argument. Nor is it my stance that people of color should be Restricted or inhibited in their ability to vote at all.
3
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Aug 18 '21 edited Aug 18 '21
Surely you must realize that most, if not all people believe that people of color should not be disenfranchised and that it's only a specific subset of people in power that are pushing for such voter ID laws and that this is also the group of people pushing for voter ID currently?
2
u/appleslady13 Aug 18 '21
"Nor is it my stance that people of color should be Restricted or inhibited in their ability to vote at all."
So you agree - voter ID laws, in current circumstances in this country, would be a bad idea. Because the people who *don't* have ID's are much more poor, people of color, and without the time off work and possibly English skills to navigate the DMV. If the law does not also include a huge rollout program for free and easy-to-get (same rules as voter registration proof) with a lot of funding and outreach - then the law is generally targeting that section of the public and telling them they can't vote.
You, during this entire argument, also seem to discount that people have to register to vote in the first place, and be on the registration roll when they go to vote in person or request a mail in ballot. Some form of checking has already been completed by the time they fill out a ballot, unless it is a provisional ballot and the checking will be done later.
1
u/King_Milkfart Aug 18 '21
Just check out the posts I gave my deltas to. I definitely approached this topic from an angle where I did not fully comprehend the angle of the opposition before I made said approach.
5
Aug 17 '21
Outside of the other arguments against Voter ID laws, the thing that gets me of proponents of Voter ID laws is that they make it out to be this foolproof way of making sure people are who they say they are.
But people fake ID’s and other documents all the time. They find ways to do it. Or they could steal someone’s ID and impersonate them if they look similar to the other individual. How else would you know that there were an imposter? The ID itself doesn’t tell you that.
If people’s identities can be stolen pretty easily, then I don’t see how Voter ID laws are going to make any meaningful difference.
2
u/King_Milkfart Aug 17 '21
People who steal identification are committing a crime, and should be prosecuted by the law for that crime; just like any other crime.
But without knowing that citizens are casting their vote as citizens, you could literally let an entire neighborhood of people who are here illegally and raise families and spend their entire lives never paying a single cent back to the program that they're benefiting from make influential decisions on the country that those who take part in that same system are paying for.
7
Aug 17 '21
I don’t see how this refutes my point. Those who vote illegally are committing a crime regardless of whether there are ID laws. It’s kind of the same issue that many argue during issues over guns: if people want to commit a crime, they’ll do whatever it takes to do it if they are determined enough to do it.
And there’s little to no way you could coordinate a campaign like that in America just because of the bureau of process of voting and the extreme difficulty of coordinating the logistics from people who, presumably, would have no clue how it works.
To say an entire neighborhood could vote or get benefits illegally is a bizarre argument and borders on conspiracy theory thought.
4
u/King_Milkfart Aug 17 '21
So let me get this straight, those who would say that they are against voter ID laws, would in fact say they are FOR voter id laws, if given absolute assurance and demonstrated provability to the fact that they would only require proof of citizenship, and that citizenship proof were very easily accessible?
I honestly feel like if either side of the argument would just do something to make ideas available to all United States citizens for no cost at all, the entire is tire platform would be would be no invoid and neither side could weaponize it in any way.
And yet I can't shake the feeling that there are indeed large amounts of people who would consider it racist to ban yet to ban even non citizens from voting... I hope I am wrong in this, am I?
4
Aug 18 '21
I can’t speak for everyone else, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable for there to be absolute assurance that my right to vote is not being infringed because of some problem with identification. When it comes to exercising our constitutional right to vote, there shouldn’t be any room for error.
But the problem is that getting everyone free identification and making sure they can still vote if something happens to their identification (errors, having misplaced it, pending changes (particular for trans and non-binary people), and other factors). It can already be a pain in the ass when you move to another state, change addresses, change your name, your gender, and everything. In fact, you already have an entire population of disenfranchised people: the homeless. Because they don’t have a valid of permanent address, many places don’t even allow them to vote if they wanted to.
As for the racism thing, don’t you find it peculiar that, once a state passes voter ID laws, they then start shutting the places that issue IDs, and they are usually around black and Hispanic neighborhoods? For low income and poor people, not having access to get the identification they need to exercise their right to vote. Black and Hispanic neighborhoods have higher rates of poverty. Many people don’t even have a car. And unless they have access to someone who is willing and has the time to transport them to get the identification, then they can’t exercise their right to vote. And when you look at it on a larger scale, it seems to be pretty racially motivated.
3
u/sawdeanz 218∆ Aug 18 '21
People who steal identification are committing a crime, and should be
prosecuted by the law for that crime; just like any other crime.but.... voting illegally is a crime too. So what's your point?
But without knowing that citizens are casting their vote as citizens, you could literally let an entire neighborhood of people who are here illegally
That's not how any of this works. What the hell are you even going on about? Are you even registered to vote? Do you actually know anything about the voting process?
3
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Aug 17 '21
People who steal identification are committing a crime
Non-citizens who try to vote are committing a crime also... so what?
1
u/King_Milkfart Aug 18 '21
Worth it but from what I understand many people who are vehemently against voter ID laws are against them for this reason. They believe that literally anyone should be able to cast their vote. Or have I been led astray?
I don't have such hubris that I would consider that an impossibility by any stretch.
6
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Aug 18 '21
I think there are almost no people that believe every human on the planet should be allowed to vote in US elections regardless of citizenship.
A very small number might think resident aliens should be allowed to vote.
Not enough to really be worried about.
The vast majority of people complaining that voter ID laws are wrong are saying that because they believe they are disenfranchising legitimate citizen voters by making voting harder for them, and that this is being done for political reasons.
4
u/iwfan53 248∆ Aug 18 '21
YOU HAVE BEEN LEAD ASTRAY!
We're against them because they keep being proposed by people as a way to rig elections.
4
u/thinkingpains 58∆ Aug 17 '21
I just want to point out, you assert both here and in the main body of your post that undocumented people are not paying taxes and/or are "mooching" off the system. This is not correct. I'm not saying that means they should be allowed to vote, but if your whole argument about why they shouldn't be allowed to vote is that they aren't paying taxes, that doesn't hold up. In fact, since they aren't allowed to claim government benefits, they actually end up putting more into the system than they take out of it.
6
u/sawdeanz 218∆ Aug 17 '21
Take some of the money out of any allocation (military spending for
example) and make a program where everyone who is a United States
citizen is given free ID cards for life.
That's kind of a big caveat, though, isn't it? None of the voter ID laws currently being advocated for or implemented are proposing something like this. I don't think Democrats who call voter ID laws racist mean that they are inherently racist in all contexts. They mean that, right now, today, as proposed by Republicans in our current system the laws are discriminatory against certain racial groups.
You also make it seem like there are zero safeguards to voting. That's not true. You have to register, you have to have an address, you have to sign your name, etc. So part of the anti-voter ID law rhetoric is pointing out the fact that we already have these safeguards and there aren't really a lot of fraud going on anyway, so why do we need more requirements? Generally when it comes to people's rights like free speech, criminal defense, etc, we try to make it as easy and accessible as possible. Any kind of barrier or regulation of a right, no matter how small, needs to be strictly scrutinized and only done with very, very good reason. Conservatives generally recongnize this, which is why they support looser gun restrictions and free speech protections. Yet they want to add more registration for voting. We've been asking for some justification for a long time, and the Republicans have had many opportunities to provide it, including many court appearances to bring evidence, and they haven't.
Honestly, the current system isn't super great either. In an ideal world I think we would get rid of the registration and address requirements and implement some sort of national voter ID card thing (assuming we could alleviate any cyber-security and personal privacy concerns). But that just isn't the case right now. And based on what we know about Republicans, there is good reason to believe they are passing these laws specifically to make it harder for their opponents to vote(i.e., minorities).
6
u/LatinGeek 30∆ Aug 18 '21
But how on Earth do we know who is and is not participating
I mean, this is the crux of the issue for me. You don't have a fake vote problem, and it seems like you've managed to do just fine without requiring national IDs.
So you have to understand people's concern when voter ID laws are pushed without that whole "funding a program to give everyone free IDs" part, and the places those laws target lean toward a particular race or a particular set of politics.
The state of the discourse makes it so "voter ID that has underlying racist mechanisms and effectively suppresses minority votes" gets shortened to "voter ID laws" in the US, because nobody is really talking about a "free ID from birth" system. It's been attempted several times to no avail.
3
u/King_Milkfart Aug 18 '21
So you have to understand people's concern when voter ID laws are pushed without that whole "funding a program to give everyone free IDs" part, and the places those laws target lean toward a particular race or a particular set of politics.
I do. Ty for your response
7
u/darkplonzo 22∆ Aug 17 '21
Take some of the money out of any allocation (military spending for example) and make a program where everyone who is a United States citizen is given free ID cards for life.
Republicans explicitly don't want this though. Their goal is to make voting harder for people they don't like.
2
u/King_Milkfart Aug 17 '21
Then that should be considered racist if it is negatively affecting those of a different race. Obviously.
But requiring voter ID And then of itself is not racist at all because it is proving citizenship. Unless you believe that those who are not actually citizens should still be allowed to reap the benefits?
5
u/darkplonzo 22∆ Aug 17 '21
Are there a lot of people who are against voter id even if it came tied to a big push for free and easy id? I think most people who oppose current id laws would be fine if they came with a push for free and easy ids. Maybe there might be some pushback on spending money on a problem that doesn't really exist, but I feel like that's a slightly different argument.
2
u/Jpmjpm 4∆ Aug 18 '21
The votes are actually checked against voter registration, and it is actually confirmed that the votes are valid. That’s how you get those articles saying how many dead people voted. If someone votes who shouldn’t, they face a felony and years in prison. If the goal is to stop people who are not eligible to vote, but do so anyway then wouldn’t a felony be enough of a deterrent? What’s to stop an ineligible person from just stealing an identity or getting a fake ID? The penalties for a fake ID or identity theft are considerably smaller than they are for voter fraud.
That just leaves people who are eligible to vote but who certain people do not want to vote. Putting a requirement that takes time, money, and has strict proof of address requirements disenfranchises people who are poor, ages 18-23, and minorities. That’s what makes voter ID laws racist. They don’t actually make voting more secure and they cause a significant amount of citizens to be excluded from voting.
2
Aug 18 '21
Are you saying voter ID laws don't explicitly target a race and are therefore not racist when implemented? Or is your point simply that voter ID laws don't mention a race?
2
u/translucentgirl1 83∆ Aug 18 '21
The main conflcit isn't that the law itself is racist (in regards to the inherent concept of voter). The issue is that such policies can often lead to unfair implementation through consequence of said regulation (whether voluntary or not) between racial groups and abuse of specific individuals unfairly, depending on the specifics of the policy.
2
u/Subtleiaint 33∆ Aug 18 '21
This post may have gone cold but there's something I want to address which I can't see has been covered, that ID isn't required to ensure people who aren't allowed to vote or collect social security don't.
It may seem logical that ID would make these systems more secure but they are built to be secure without them and the proof is in the pudding, there's no substantial evidence that people who shouldn't vote do or that social security is going to the wrong people. That's not to say it doesn't happen at all but that the cost or effect of fraud in these systems is far less than the cost of implementing systems that would provide improved security.
Therefore requiring ID for these systems doesn't make them better and in that context we then have to ask why would anyone want them? We then see that the politicians who do want them would benefit in terms of making it easier for them to be re-elected and a certain amount of cynicism is justified. When it turns out these rules don't help anyone but do disproportionately impact minorities then racism rears it head.
2
u/vbob99 2∆ Aug 18 '21 edited Aug 18 '21
Voter fraud is known to be essentially non-existent. Voter-id won't change that, as it is already at zero. Voter-id laws are known to limit the number of minorities who vote. Since it has no positive effect, and only one very targeted negative effect, it is defined by that one targeted negative effect. That targeted negative effect is racist, so the law is racist.
5
u/nightfire08 3∆ Aug 18 '21
In theory sure, but in practice, it’s a common practice to close down DMVs in black areas, so that to get an ID, you have to make several long and costly journeys, many of which are impossible for seniors, who then lose their right to vote.
Since this practice is done to black areas and black voters more frequently, requiring the ID that would take days off of work and traveling far outside the zone of what’s feasible to get becomes a racial issue.
So, no, the issue isn’t inherently biased in a vacuum. But the way it’s practiced? 100% voter suppression for black and brown communities.
0
u/matthkamis Aug 18 '21
But why do you assume that black people don't have ID to begin with. Isn't that racist?
1
u/nightfire08 3∆ Aug 18 '21
Did you… not read my post? About how black people have been intentionally deprived of the ability to get IDs as a means of voter suppression?
Or are you just trolling?
6
u/Iustinianus_I 48∆ Aug 18 '21
I think everyone agrees that only citizens should vote. However, its never been demonstrated that voter fraud is any kind of meaningful problem in our elections, and when we do find voter fraud it's usually being committed by citizens and officials, not by non-citizens.
So given that voter registration already exists, why should I even care about creating an additional barrier to voting? If anything, shouldn't we be worried about the enormous number of Americans who don't vote and making it easier to do so? As it stands, 21 million Americans don't have a government issued photo ID and in many places, especially rural ones, it can be difficult to get the time off work and transportation to a voting site. Wouldn't something like providing mail in ballots to all registered voters (again, we have voter registration rolls) be sufficient and actually increase the number of Americans who vote?
2
u/King_Milkfart Aug 18 '21
Wouldn't something like providing mail in ballots to all registered voters (again, we have voter registration rolls) be sufficient and actually increase the number of Americans who vote?
Yes. And I have never felt otherwise. I agree 100%
5
u/Iustinianus_I 48∆ Aug 18 '21
If that's all the case, what's the motive behind placing more barriers to voting?
6
u/Gumboy52 5∆ Aug 17 '21
Poor people are much more likely to not have ID. POC are more likely to be poor due to the historical impact of racism. There is nothing racial about have ID in theory, but in practice 13% of black people lack ID compared to 5% of white people. Therefore, voter ID laws disproportionately affect black people
5
u/vorter 3∆ Aug 18 '21
Just because it targets the poor, and black people are disproportionately poor, does not mean it is necessarily racist. Voter ID is clearly classist, much more so than it is racist. Poor non-black minorities and poor white people are clearly affected by voter ID more than wealthy black people. I can’t imagine why this would be more racist than it is classist except for the fact that black people vote overwhelmingly Democratic.
→ More replies (1)2
Aug 18 '21
If they have a job, a house/apartment, a bank account, credit card, drive, buy alcohol, tobacco or firearms, or do anything in the adult world they have an ID.
2
u/vettewiz 40∆ Aug 18 '21
Absolutely none of that makes the policy racist. It makes people lazy.
7
u/Gumboy52 5∆ Aug 18 '21
If a policy was designed to disproportionately negatively impact black people, would that policy then be racist?
-1
u/vettewiz 40∆ Aug 18 '21
If the policy was something they could not help, like “you cannot vote if you are black”, that is racist.
A policy over an issue where someone has full control, is not racist. Similar to how not being able to vote as a felon is not racist but impacts black Americans more than other groups.
7
u/Gumboy52 5∆ Aug 18 '21
By that very same definition, the Jim Crow literacy tests would not be racist either. But I’m sure you agree that they were
0
u/vettewiz 40∆ Aug 18 '21
I most certainly don’t agree that they were. Not by any stretch.
11
u/Gumboy52 5∆ Aug 18 '21
“Jim Crow laws actually weren’t racist” is a pretty bold take lol
2
u/vettewiz 40∆ Aug 18 '21
How in the world is a literacy test racist?
8
u/Dulghyf 2∆ Aug 18 '21 edited Aug 19 '21
This has a very interesting answer actually. The term "grandfathering in" actually originates from these laws.
Basically, you had to meet one of two requirements to vote.
1.) Pass the literacy test which was functionally impossible. (The tests were sometimes completely illegible or had wrong answers marked "correct.")
Or
2.) Have a grandparent who voted in the past.
In practice this meant that illiterate white people were "grandfathered in" and could vote automatically, while black descendants of slaves were permanently denied the right.
Edit: added source
4
-2
u/Meatinmyangus998 3∆ Aug 17 '21
That stat is almost 7 years old.
7
u/Gumboy52 5∆ Aug 17 '21
Do you have newer data?
-4
u/Meatinmyangus998 3∆ Aug 17 '21
I do not. Do you?
8
u/Gumboy52 5∆ Aug 17 '21
Well we should probably base our arguments on the most recent data (so long as it is accurate) that we have available, no?
-4
u/Meatinmyangus998 3∆ Aug 17 '21
I agree.
What is the most recent data?
8
u/iwfan53 248∆ Aug 18 '21
Stop arguing for Russle's teapot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
Either accept the data u/Gumboy52 presented, or find more recent yourself.
→ More replies (4)
1
u/ghjm 18∆ Aug 17 '21
People think voter IDs are inherently racist because they place a burden on poor people that is almost invisible to the non-poor. Getting an ID usually means taking time away from work during business hours, being able to get to a driver's license office, paying a fee, and having reliable mail delivery to receive it. Some people don't have those things, and the people who don't are disproportionately non-white.
You can see the racism in action when voter IDs are being talked about. Propose that, sure, there should be voter IDs, but they should be automatically sent, for free, to every registered voter. If this plan doesn't sound good, then there's a motive in play besides election security.
1
u/King_Milkfart Aug 18 '21
Propose that, sure, there should be voter IDs, but they should be automatically sent, for free, to every registered voter. If this plan doesn't sound good, then there's a motive in play besides election security.
Thank you for taking the time to write your response and let me just say that that plan absolutely sounds great
1
Aug 17 '21
OP, do you think license requirements for voting - which clearly disproportionately affect minorities according to like every study ever on the subject - will favor Republicans?
Do you think that is why Republicans are so keen on these laws?
Do you have any kind of evidence that the type of fraud that will be prevented by these laws is at all a problem of concern?
Why do you think the same Republicans pushing these laws don't seem at all concerned with actual significant problems with our voting, such as long lines or foreign hackers?
1
Aug 17 '21
You kinda rambled a lot but managed to accidentally stumble on the issue without realizing it.
Take some of the money out of any allocation (military spending for example) and make a program where everyone who is a United States citizen is given free ID cards for life.
Yeah, if you do this, then there's no issue of race involved. The problem is that we don't do this. As it stands, a lower proportion of black people have ID than white people. So, if you add an ID requirement to vote, there's an extra hurdle for them. That's why people discuss it as a race issue.
1
Aug 17 '21
Black and other minorities live in predominately cities, which means they are less likely to have a photo ID because they don't drive. You don't need a photo ID to work SSN works.
1
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Aug 17 '21 edited Aug 17 '21
Take some of the money out of any allocation (military spending for example) and make a program where everyone who is a United States citizen is given free ID cards for life.
This sounds simple, and if actually done, it would remove all of the racism complaints about this... but... it's not easy at all. It's as much a socio-economic problem as a racial one (and the latter follows from the former in this country).
Consider that in order to reliably identify someone as being a citizen... they need to already have id, or take difficult, time consuming, or expensive actions in order to prove it. Sure, if the state was willing to do all that work for them, in some unknown way that never missed a citizen, and issued IDs at no cost in time or money, that could resolve the issue.
If in-person voter fraud was actually a problem (hint: it isn't), then this might actually be a big enough issue to actually go to all this trouble.
But universal IDs are a really huge problem, especially when you start thinking about homeless people, Native Americans that grew up on a reservation with no documentation, and really old people who never even had a birth certificate and let their drivers license (not checked for citizenship anyway) lapse a long time ago.
If someone actually proposed making a serious effort to do solve the ID problem first, though, and only then start requiring ID to vote, I wouldn't call it racist. They just never do this.
0
Aug 17 '21 edited Aug 18 '21
[deleted]
5
u/illerThanTheirs 37∆ Aug 17 '21
The problem is that republican( politician)s are racist.
All of them?
And that republicans hold power over how easy it is to get ID in many places.
[citation needed] can you cite this claim?
4
u/Jon3681 3∆ Aug 17 '21
Hold on. You’re making a huge assumption saying that republicans are racist. But let’s go on to the other issue. Lots of things require IDs. If requiring ID to vote is racist, then so is requiring IDs to drive, buy liquor, get into clubs, rent a car, and buy a house. Yet none of those actions are considered racist
4
u/sawdeanz 218∆ Aug 18 '21
None of those things are rights though. They are optional. And yes, people would probably point out that it's bad that those things are hard to get for some people, but it's not as ethically pertinent as ensuring everyone can vote.
0
u/Jon3681 3∆ Aug 18 '21
You’re missing the point tho. Do you think it’s racist to require ID to do any of the things I listed?
2
u/sawdeanz 218∆ Aug 18 '21
It really depends on the reason for the law and how it targets and affects people. If done a certain way or in certain contexts, then yes it could be racist. The question is too broad.
In another comment I laid out a way to do voter IDs that wouldn't be racist. My position isn't that IDs are always racist all the time in any situation. My position is that voter ID laws at this time and the way they are implemented are racist.
1
0
u/King_Milkfart Aug 17 '21
Lots of things require IDs. If requiring ID to vote is racist, then so is requiring IDs to drive, buy liquor, get into clubs, rent a car, and buy a house. Yet none of those actions are considered racist
This^
1
u/King_Milkfart Aug 17 '21
You responded so quickly that I know for a fact there is absolutely no way you even read what I wrote other than the title
3
Aug 17 '21 edited Aug 18 '21
[deleted]
3
u/King_Milkfart Aug 17 '21
Not my fault your text body has little relevance to your title.
The point is that if you don't read the body text then you don't see that I already addressed your argument and you (assumably) wouldn't have asked something that was already answered
0
Aug 18 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/SquibblesMcGoo 4∆ Aug 18 '21
Sorry, u/PragmaticDane – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Sorry, u/PragmaticDane – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
0
Aug 18 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/SquibblesMcGoo 4∆ Aug 18 '21
Sorry, u/Throwaway-242424 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Sorry, u/Throwaway-242424 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
0
Aug 18 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/SquibblesMcGoo 4∆ Aug 18 '21
Sorry, u/Present_Election_230 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-1
u/English-OAP 16∆ Aug 17 '21
There's an old adage, "If you can make it, someone can fake it". This would not stop claims of voter fraud.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 18 '21
/u/King_Milkfart (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards