Socialism In Greece Threatens World Financial Stability

I honestly can say that you have refused to answer a very simple question. Why is that?
Your contention is that requiring ID before voting keeps people from the poll, am I correct? If so, how does it accomplish this?
Obtaining suitable ID here is very easy, free in most cases and not a time consuming undertaking.

I'll await your response (or at the very least point me to the post where you answered this very basic, straightforward question).

 

"Your contention is that requiring ID before voting keeps people from the poll, am I correct? If so, how does it accomplish this?"

By preventing people who do not have the required ID (in your country there are a large number of such people) from voting. I'm struggling to see how I can make this any simpler for you.

 

If we agree that voter turnout is abysmally low (and we do), then why not make it easier for people to get photo ID? You don't need to drive to have photo ID, but you can get a non-driver's identification card from your local motor vehicle department. If people can't make it to the MVD, then provide a weekly bus for people to get there and register for the last couple of months before an election. Then, put polling places on bus routes (if the town/city has them) to ensure that non-drivers can vote. Provide public transportation from nursing homes and schools, too, so that people will turn out. Using the argument that requiring identification is a deterrent to voting is simply bizarre--how can we know that our citizens elected a person that fulfills their needs if we cannot know who voted for that candidate?

Once there is a heartbeat it is all but impossible to deny that there is life. However, it is the status of that life, rather than the nature of that life that remains largely at issue. It is before the heart begins to beat where much of the disagreement lies. I personally believe that life begins at conception, but that is me--I can intellectualize the need for abortion in the case of rape, incest, and when the mother's life is at risk; however, I still stand firm against the idea of abortion being used as a form of birth control. If a woman cares so little for the life inside her that she can have an abortion, then how can she justify not using the birth control that would prevent that life in the first place?

 

Your implication is that obtaining an ID is difficult? That's the "barrier"? Obtaining an ID is simple.

 

"Your implication is that obtaining an ID is difficult?"

No. If you stuck to my actual words rather than your version of what I've said, we'd have resolved this point about two hours ago.

Many people do not have an ID, regardless of how "simple" it is to obtain one. That fact alone is sufficient to demonstrate that making possession of ID an absolute requirement to vote is a significant barrier.

 

If citizens don't care enough to obtain an ID regardless of how simple it is to obtain, then why do we want those individuals to vote? I can't see how they would make the effort to establish an informed opinion about anything if they can't make the simple effort to obtain a photo ID.

 

Because the US is supposed to be a democracy, not a those-who-"care"-the-most-ocracy.

 

At what gestational ages are abortions performed:
52% of all abortions occur before the 9th week of pregnancy,
25% happen between the 9th & 10th week,
12% happen between the 11th and 12th week,
6% happen between the 13th & 15th week,
4% happen between the 16th & 20th week, and
1% of all abortions (16,450/yr.) happen after the 20th week of pregnancy.

 

I still have no idea why presenting an ID should present a hurdle to anyone. You are required to do so to travel. You are required to do so to enter a bar. You are required to do so to enter a movie when rated for restricted entry. You are still missing why I should not have to show an ID to vote.

BTW, the system you describe is very similar to what allowed the dead to vote in Chicago and is why I feel ID should be required. Should be and actually are not always playing the same game.

 

Or maybe not a those-who-cheat-the-most-ocracy?

 

No, the United States is supposed to be a republic. A republic is supposed to operate through the will of the people, but not through the will of a mob. At one time, only educated landowners were allowed to vote. While that is an unreasonable restriction in this day and age, I do not want to be "represented" by people who walk into a voting booth and pull random levers or black out random circles on a ballot. Not too long ago, I was sitting in a classroom in which 50% of the students did not know the name of the person who represented their district in Washington. The professor remarked: "You do not deserve the excellent representation that you have here." He was right. How can we expect a good and representative government if we fail to inform ourselves about the candidates or issues and fail to provide ourselves with the tools we need to vote?

 

"I still have no idea why presenting an ID should present a hurdle to anyone."

Because many people do not have an ID to present.

"You are required to do so to travel."

Exactly. So people who have more affluent lifestyles are plainly more likely to have ID. Hence the discriminatory effect of requiring ID to vote, plus the distorting effect on election results.

"Should be and actually are not always playing the same game."

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what that sentence means.

 

Well, I accept that's a very articulate argument against democracy, but I'm afraid democracy is something I passionately believe in. I hope there are still a great many in your country (indeed it's my country as well because I have dual nationality) who feel the same way as me.

 

If voting is important enough to the voter they should take the simple step of obtaining an ID. It's as easy as that. One need not be wealthy to have ID they only have to have the desire.

 

Really? And I thought it was an articulate argument on preventing election fraud. So, to you a "democracy" is one in which no one needs to prove who they are to enforce their will on the remainder of the people? I always thought that was anarchy. In my opinion, people who do not want to prove who they are have something to hide. If they have something to hide, then I do not trust them and they do not speak for me.

 

What a very revealing response. Only the right sort of people (those who think it's "important" enough to get their ID well in advance) need be able to vote. Yes, that's pretty much where I thought you were coming from - hence my concern.

Hollysmom :

"Really?"

Yes, really. It's a bit late for you to quibble on that point given that you started your previous comment with the claim that the US is supposed to be something other than a democracy.

"So, to you a "democracy" is one in which no one needs to prove who they are to enforce their will on the remainder of the people?"

No, my definition is considerably simpler than that - it's a country in which every citizen is able to vote without hindrance.

 

No one is hindering anyone except for the people hindering themselves. There is such a thing as personal responsibility. If there were great numbers of restrictions to getting identification or if society put all kinds of blocks in the way of people having access to applications for identification, I could see your point. But identification is simple to get--so why would someone not want to have it or to get it? If you cannot make the effort to get it, then I am not sure why you would make become informed and then make the effort to go out and vote.

Without the use of identification as a control, fraud can be and has been rampant. Tell me how it benefits anyone to allow any and all to vote without making their identity known? What kind of protection does that offer society?

 

"There is such a thing as personal responsibility"

That's a legitimate value to argue for in an election campaign, not a basis for denying someone a vote in that election.

"But identification is simple to get--so why would someone not want to have it or to get it?"

If that argument held up in a real-world context, there wouldn't be large numbers of citizens without ID. There are.

"If you cannot make the effort to get it, then I am not sure why you would make become informed and then make the effort to go out and vote."

In a democracy, being informed is not a precondition of the right to vote. Perhaps you also feel citizens should be required to sit an exam before being allowed to vote, just to prove they're sufficiently informed?

"Tell me how it benefits anyone to allow any and all to vote without making their identity known?"

Red herring. As I've already said at least twice, I do think a voter should be required to make his or her identity known. I just think that the identity checks should be proportionate, ie. they should not prevent legitimate voters from voting.

 

Incidentally, I really should have picked you up on this comment earlier -

"I do not trust them and they do not speak for me."

I don't want them to speak for you either. I just don't want them to be prevented from speaking for themselves.

 

And my argument is that people without identification should not be legitimate voters. There is nothing disproportionate about asking for someone have identification when it is readily available to everyone.

I belong to a dog club, to which I drive two hours to train my dog once a week. If I go to club meetings, I drive another two hours on each third Thursday of the month. In order to vote in our annual elections, I must have attended a minimum of three meetings over the year and I must have paid my dues. I must sign the roll when I attend those meetings and I must vote publicly--therefore identifying myself--when I vote for in those elections. It is difficult for me to attend meetings, due to the distance and due to my graduate courses that I am taking as I work toward my degree. However, I do not expect the club to give me special considerations or to allow me to vote using paper ballot without standing before my club and identifying myself. Why should I expect more from my dog club than I do from my country's elections?

No one is preventing anyone from speaking for themselves. They are preventing themselves from being heard by not bothering to get identification when it is readily available.