Elections California bans voter ID

[BluntForceTrama]

Fucking Dems

so
does this also mean A person can vote more than once?

lets cut california off w a chainsaw and let it float away or sink

 

[ermac88]

Notwithstanding the obvious issue of fraud, if someone cannot manage to get an ID then I do not believe that they should be voting.

Eh constitution says otherwise

 

[SurferH2O]

You pompous, self righteous, racist, Left Cult idiots.



Everyone should have an ID and it's made really easy to obtain.

 

[StewDogg11]

Again with the insults. Where I live there is zero public transport, not even UBER and the taxi service is so remedial even if you book well in advance.

Once again these imaginary people you know don’t leave their houses for 8 years stretches? Because that’s how long an ID is generally good for. Go on weirdo, still sending internet gifts to that guy who got banned for stalking people?

 

[Goutfather]

Sudden surge in "enemy" talk around here in the last few days. Fucking jabronis

like these guys?

the enemies within^^^

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

Lmao you make America sound like a third world country. Need some proof that public transportation is damn near non existent in most of the country. Also need some proof that the majority of the country has less than $500 in their bank account…which requires an ID by the way. Dipshit.

2% of americans rely on public transit compared to 10%-20% in western europe. 45% of americans don't even have access to public transit at all, let alone feasible public transit.

The High Cost of Transportation in the United States

What does the average American pay to get around every day in 2024? What portion of their income is devoted to transportation? Is that cost typical across developed countries? Unfortunately, the portion of household expenditure spent on transportation in the United States is often a larger...

itdp.org

Public Transportation Facts - American Public Transportation Association

Every segment of American society—-individuals, families, communities, and businesses—benefits from public transportation. It is a lifeline for millions of Americans connecting them to people, places and possibilities. It also builds thriving communities, creates jobs, eases traffic congestion...

www.apta.com

also a source on the $500 in savings factoid. btw, i didn't say the majority. i said half the country. it's just less than half, apparently.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/24/how-much-money-americans-have-in-savings.html#:~:text=Nearly%20half%20of%20Americans%20have,adults%20conducted%20in%20November%202023.

 

[Deleted member 267581]

I'm fine with it. I'm just saying that you're starting to believe in the liberal fantasy that there is a whole subset of people who do not have the means of getting an ID but are still active voters. The idea that there are a bunch of people in America that can't get to a DMV is ridiculous. People that are going through life without an ID are pretty much either illegal immigrants, children or people living in tents and halfway houses.

lol not true. There’s plenty of super poor people out there.

Make ID free every where

 

[fingercuffs]

Once again these imaginary people you know don’t leave their houses for 8 years stretches? Because that’s how long an ID is generally good for. Go on weirdo, still sending internet gifts to that guy who got banned for stalking people?

In your world we all have public transport...is that not what you said? Or are you taking that back as well now? The way you're spouting you haven't even left your town, let alone state or travelled abroad.
Internet gifts? What on earth have you imagined in your vapid dullard little head here? Lol.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

I actually don't think anyone really believes the "too poor to get an ID" argument. it's just a rhetoric crutch and nothing more. Even the poorest of the poor in India for example have ID and they require it for voting. The fact that america, richest country, just couldn't figure out giving free IDs to people means it's just politicking. you had 8 years of Obama - why didn't the democrats pass a law to give free IDs to everyone? Why doesn't California pass one like that?

Because it's NOT about the IDs.

 

[Loiosh]

You need an ID to get a job, buy cigarettes or alcohol, get in a club, go to a dr's appt, pick up meds from pharmacy, etc etc

Everybody I know poor or not has an ID.

No, you don't.

I was a manager making six figures and lost my wallet. I worked in the city and commuted to work, didn't have or need a car at the time, so only replaced my credit cards. Didn't bother replacing any of my ID until I had to travel to Europe to train people in a new office, I didn't have valid ID for years.

The only thing I might have needed ID for would have been picking up meds if I'd needed, and that kind of thing would push anyone to get ID. That's the point here, the GOP is just trying to surgically add an inconvenience to voting.

When they gutted the VRA the GOP immediately jumped on creating voter ID laws that would end up thrown out in court for being suppressive and unconstitutional, but the laws would be in effect long enough to sway elections so the damage was done. There is no question that's why they make these laws, it's been proven in court time and time again. It has absolutely nothing to do with election integrity, nobody has ever proven that voter ID laws make elections more secure or that there is any demonstrable fraud that would be prevented by ID.

I ran a Risk Management department for a decade. Before I could implement a security measure I had to present it to the executive team, illustrate the fraud I was targeting, prove the measure would be effective, and define the disruption to business it would cause. The team would approve the measure if it met certain standards.

The VRA was America's executive team. They screened new laws to make sure they weren't suppressive before they could be implemented; when it was gutted the GOP rushed to take advantage. The disruption is the point, they're simply choosing who to disrupt.

In peak irony these laws are in themselves election fraud.

 

[Seano]

A lot of poorer people don't have valid ID.

Silliness. There's no reason for any adult to not have some form of ID.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

At that point, the judge of elections, that is on-site, would be notified and the issue would be rectified. How exactly, I do not know.
Also, at least in my state, it is required to show a valid id for first time voters.

Yea, that isn't reassuring at all.

It seems like the American left are more libertarian on voting processes and take a faith based approach to ensuring its integrity.

 

[FIMN]

Yea, that isn't reassuring at all.

It seems like the American left are more libertarian on voting processes and take a faith based approach to ensuring its integrity.

There has been a significant amount of analysis on the amount of fraudulent voting that happens in US elections and it's almost as miniscule as the amount of legal victories by Trump and Co accusing others of fraud in courts of law.

It's down for those claiming it's a massive problem to show why disenfranchising lots of potential voters (on very targeted grounds) is legally justifiable as a solution.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

There has been a significant amount of analysis on the amount of fraudulent voting that happens in US elections and it's almost as miniscule as the amount of legal victories by Trump and Co accusing others of fraud in courts of law.

It's down for those claiming it's a massive problem to show why disenfranchising lots of potential voters (on very targeted grounds) is legally justifiable as a solution.

It seems like the odd man out would be the one who doesn't see it as a problem.

Literally the entire world has taken voter identification to be a standard. You'd have to explain to me how every other country, including ones with much less of a democratic deficit than the states, seek to disenfranchise its own electorate.

You don't need an existing issue to proactively secure processes such as voting. While being reactive is sometimes the only option to inform our decisions, using it as the basis for good policy seems really stupid. When you go to the doctor in Canada, you need to present government issued identification. Would you be okay if people didn't need to provide identification with that process? I mean it would only help those people who can't procure identification to get much needed health services, right? If you don't feel it's a wide spread issue with voting, surely you don't see it being an issue with medical fraud right?

 

[FIMN]

It seems like the odd man out would be the one who doesn't see it as a problem.

Literally the entire world has taken voter identification to be a standard. You'd have to explain to me how every other country, including ones with much less of a democratic deficit than the states, seek to disenfranchise its own electorate.

You don't need an existing issue to proactively secure processes such as voting. While being reactive is sometimes the only option to inform our decisions, using it as the basis for good policy seems really stupid. When you go to the doctor in Canada, you need to present government issued identification. Would you be okay if people didn't need to provide identification with that process? I mean it would only help those people who can't procure identification to get much needed health services, right? If you don't feel it's a wide spread issue with voting, surely you don't see it being an issue with medical fraud right?

Unfortunately there was a lot of systemic disemfranchisement on racial grounds in US history, so laws were put in place to ensure these sorts of laws couldn't creep back in and be used to suppress minority votes. That's where these voter ID laws tend to fall down - they are blatant violations of existing civil rights.

You need to show an ID to register to vote, as far as I understand it. There is no rule against that. But changing the rules just before an election on a targeted basis is plainly illegal.

If it's a problem you probably need to demonstrate that it is and why the solution of making it more difficult to vote is a reasonable solution, but weirdly that never seems to be doable for partisan legislators.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Fucking hell it's the same song and dance in all these voter ID threads.

Judges have consistently ruled that demanding voter ID via legislation is illegal because the implementation of the rule is broadly to prevent people voting, not because it's effective at solving the supposed problem of people illegally voting in elections.

The rules are often blatantly targeting groups of people that tend to vote dem and exclude/include forms of ID to have the largest effect on the numbers of people voting.

It's a fairly transparent attempt at disenfranchisement. You'll note that it's never coupled with an attempt to provide the registers voters with an ID free of charge, thus meaning it will be an expense people have to incur to stop them from doing something perfectly legal.

I get that but it’s weird how IDs are not basically universal in a country as rich as the US. Like, everybody in fucking India has an ID. Even natives living in the Amazon have IDs here. It’s free and like 1USD if you lose it and need another one.

However we don’t even need it to vote anymore as you can use your fingerprint nowadays. There is an automatic system, you put your fingerprint on a little machine and it shows it’s you.

 

[Natural Order]

The "smartest" and "wealthiest" nation in the history of man can't get a 3"x2" piece of plastic into the hands of all citizens over 18.



#thirdworldproblems

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Unfortunately there was a lot of systemic disemfranchisement on racial grounds in US history, so laws were put in place to ensure these sorts of laws couldn't creep back in and be used to suppress minority votes. That's where these voter ID laws tend to fall down - they are blatant violations of existing civil rights.

You need to show an ID to register to vote, as far as I understand it. There is no rule against that. But changing the rules just before an election on a targeted basis is plainly illegal.

If it's a problem you probably need to demonstrate that it is and why the solution of making it more difficult to vote is a reasonable solution, but weirdly that never seems to be doable for partisan legislators.

So you need an ID to register to vote, yet providing that same ID on the day to actually vote is an extra barrier?

Unpack that one for me if you can.

As I said, reactivity isn't a wise compass to guide good policy. The rest of the world would agree.

 

[BFoe]

I get that but it’s weird how IDs are not basically universal in a country as rich as the US. Like, everybody in fucking India has an ID. Even natives living in the Amazon have IDs here. It’s free and like 1USD if you lose it and need another one.

However we don’t even need it to vote anymore as you can use your fingerprint nowadays. There is an automatic system, you put your fingerprint on a little machine and it shows it’s you.

India has a centralized government system to do this, whereas the US doesn’t.

If you’re wondering why the US doesn’t, it’s because the Right—the group that screams about voter ID—is not actually interested in providing IDs to everyone, and they aren’t really pursuing this because they think there’s election fraud. They want to use biased voter ID laws to make it harder for their opposition to vote, simple as that.

Over on the Left, we aren’t particularly concerned with mandatory voter ID because there’s no data indicating there’s any sort of significant election fraud in this country. If that data existed, it would be a different story.

It’s not 1 USD here to replace a license, in my state it’s about $30 and requires various documents. And that can get really dumb—for example, my gf had trouble getting a passport awhile back because for whatever reason, her birth certificate lists her parents’ first name, middle initial, and last name, rather than listing their full names out, and that wasn’t acceptable. She had to get the birth certificate updated in order to get the passport.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

India has a centralized government system to do this, whereas the US doesn’t.

If you’re wondering why the US doesn’t, it’s because the Right—the group that screams about voter ID—is not actually interested in providing IDs to everyone, and they aren’t really pursuing this because they think there’s election fraud. They want to use biased voter ID laws to make it harder for their opposition to vote, simple as that.

Over on the Left, we aren’t particularly concerned with mandatory voter ID because there’s no data indicating there’s any sort of significant election fraud in this country. If that data existed, it would be a different story.

It’s not 1 USD here to replace a license, in my state it’s about $30 and requires various documents. And that can get really dumb—for example, my gf had trouble getting a passport awhile back because for whatever reason, her birth certificate lists her parents’ first name, middle initial, and last name, rather than listing their full names out, and that wasn’t acceptable. She had to get the birth certificate updated in order to get the passport.

I get it but I think it’s not just about voter fraud. It’s about avoiding mistakes and making IDs easier to get would benefit all.
I’d be pretty mad if somebody with the same name as me voted by mistake on my ballot, for example.
It would also basically silence the right about that topic