Social The Queen of England to demand photo ID for all elections to combat FRAUD

[Death By Samson]

The ID wouldn't be valid for state elections though. That would require the states, who control local elections, to vote at the state legislature level to adopt the national ID.

States don't recognize federal IDs? I'll need a source on that.

 

[Strychnine]

No one has 30 dollars!

 

[jeremyemilio]

I would normally agree with your analysis but not in this case.

The issue isn't the raw number of black vs. white voters that would be affected. It's the distribution of them. In many blue states, the black voters are concentrated in urban areas where their collective vote matters on the total state outcome. The voting dynamic often comes down to the urban population vs. surrounding counties. If the lower income black voters have low turnout, this makes many of those state less reliably blue. You can pull up the electoral maps and you'll see in states like PA, GA, AZ these pockets of blue, the cities, surrounded by counties of red.

This is contrasted with lower income red states in the South and Midwest. In those states, the lower income whites are voting in line with the general distribution of the state. Losing lower income white voters doesn't change the outcome of those states, even if it would disenfranchise some of those voters.

This debate is entirely about who it hurts politically. The GOP might say it's not about black vs. white and they could make a coherent argument for that. But it absolutely is about minimizing the ability for urban populations to impact swing state outcomes.

I don't think it's a terrible point you make, but I do think that states like PA and GA have their share of low income white voters as well.

I also think that even accepting the situation as you've described it, my point holds that what drives most Republicans to be in support of stricter voting laws is simply that most Republicans (if not the higher up Republican strategists) have Conservative brains that like things to be tidy. Having the conversation with them on that basis is likely to be more fruitful than proclaiming that Republicans think voters should show ID because Republicans want a bunch of eligible voters to miss out on voting.

And like I say, this works both ways. The conversation would also be much more fruitful if Republicans did not insist on painting the more Liberal concern with everyone having their vote and voice as a cover for fraudulent scheming.

 

[panamaican]

States don't recognize federal IDs? I'll need a source on that.

That's not remotely close to what I said. Let me start with a basic piece of information.

1) Who is eligible to vote (beyond the basic constitutional req) and the criteria by which they are allowed to vote is determined by the states, not the federal government. Got it?
2) The critieria by which people are allowed to vote includes what types of identification is required. Got it?
3) If a state does not formally recognize a document or card for the specific purpose of voting identification, it is not going to be allowed for the purpose of Voter ID. Got it?
4) Right now there is no federal ID. This means that no state has formally recognized a federal ID for the specific purpose of voting identification. Still with me?
5) If the federal government created and issued a federal ID card, it would not be a state ID because the Fed and the states are different. Cool?
6) The individual states would have to vote, state by state, to adopt the federal ID for the specific purpose of voting identification.

I numbered the elements so that if you have any confusion about them, we can focus on that specific step.

So, the states could recognize the existence of a federal ID as "an ID card issued by the federal government" but that ID card would have zero validity in identifying a person under state election law. State election law or regulations would have to be changed, through the state, to add the federal card to the list of approved documents for their local elections.

 

[StoneColdSteveAustin]

look at this sad old man talking to like 15 people about all the "fraud"

this is it!!!

he lives there alone ... melania and barron live in a townhouse

ahahahahah. A deranged uncle muttering around the house in slippers

 

[maximus__]

I would normally agree with your analysis but not in this case.

The issue isn't the raw number of black vs. white voters that would be affected. It's the distribution of them. In many blue states, the black voters are concentrated in urban areas where their collective vote matters on the total state outcome. The voting dynamic often comes down to the urban population vs. surrounding counties. If the lower income black voters have low turnout, this makes many of those state less reliably blue. You can pull up the electoral maps and you'll see in states like PA, GA, AZ these pockets of blue, the cities, surrounded by counties of red.

This is contrasted with lower income red states in the South and Midwest. In those states, the lower income whites are voting in line with the general distribution of the state. Losing lower income white voters doesn't change the outcome of those states, even if it would disenfranchise some of those voters.

This debate is entirely about who it hurts politically. The GOP might say it's not about black vs. white and they could make a coherent argument for that. But it absolutely is about minimizing the ability for urban populations to impact swing state outcomes.

This very argument is what makes the whole lack of Voter ID interesting to me though. My assumption would be that ID would be more needed in built up urban areas as opposed to in the surrounding counties. The ease of access to obtain that ID would be much higher due to proximity and options to obtain that.

I can actually understand the argument that asking someone to drive 6 hours out of their day just to get ID or vote is an issue and could disenfranchise voters. I can't make that same argument for someone taking public transport for 30 mins to an hour. It makes no sense to me why you couldn't organise to get ID if you live in the areas that are traditionally viewed as blue as per your quoted post. It would actually disenfranchise the traditional rural red areas.

I don't see cost as being prohibitive to ID either. I also am not opposed to the government issuing IDs as a way to create support for Voter ID being a part of elections moving forward. I live in a country where that is the case and we have compulsory elections with minor issues.

 

[Death By Samson]

That's not remotely close to what I said. Let me start with a basic piece of information.

1) Who is eligible to vote (beyond the basic constitutional req) and the criteria by which they are allowed to vote is determined by the states, not the federal government. Got it?
2) The critieria by which people are allowed to vote includes what types of identification is required. Got it?
3) If a state does not formally recognize a document or card for the specific purpose of voting identification, it is not going to be allowed for the purpose of Voter ID. Got it?
4) Right now there is no federal ID. This means that no state has formally recognized a federal ID for the specific purpose of voting identification. Still with me?
5) If the federal government created and issued a federal ID card, it would not be a state ID because the Fed and the states are different. Cool?
6) The individual states would have to vote, state by state, to adopt the federal ID for the specific purpose of voting identification.

I numbered the elements so that if you have any confusion about them, we can focus on that specific step.

So, the states could recognize the existence of a federal ID as "an ID card issued by the federal government" but that ID card would have zero validity in identifying a person under state election law. State election law or regulations would have to be changed, through the state, to add the federal card to the list of approved documents for their local elections.

The Federal govt can't pass legislation to pay for citizen's state ID's?

 

[panamaican]

I don't think it's a terrible point you make, but I do think that states like PA and GA have their share of low income white voters as well.

I also think that even accepting the situation as you've described it, my point holds that what drives most Republicans to be in support of stricter voting laws is simply that most Republicans (if not the higher up Republican strategists) have Conservative brains that like things to be tidy. Having the conversation with them on that basis is likely to be more fruitful than proclaiming that Republicans think voters should show ID because Republicans want a bunch of eligible voters to miss out on voting.

And like I say, this works both ways. The conversation would also be much more fruitful if Republicans did not insist on painting the more Liberal concern with everyone having their vote and voice as a cover for fraudulent scheming.

I understand what you're saying but the GOP has stated that their goal is to reduce the amount of potential Democrat voters on more than one occasion.

“I don’t want everybody to vote,” the influential conservative activist Paul Weyrich told a gathering of evangelical leaders in 1980. “As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-gop-war-on-voting-242182/

“Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania: Done,” Turzai said while recounting his state party’s accomplishments.

“We probably had a better election,” the chairman, Robert Gleason, said. “Think about this: We cut [Barack] Obama by 5 percent, which was big. A lot of people lost sight of that. He beat [John] McCain by 10 percent; he only beat Romney by 5 percent. And I think that probably photo ID helped a bit in that.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/30/trump-voting-republicans/

On Wednesday, Mitch McConnell once again articulated his commitment to limiting voter turnout, but this time he didn't try to hide behind "security concerns." He took to the Senate floor to voice his opposition to a proposal that Election Day be made a federal holiday. It's a move that would go a long way to improving voter turnout and drastically cutting down wait times. Or, as McConnell sees it, it's a "power grab" by Democrats.

https://www.gq.com/story/mcconnell-voter-turnout-bad

“This will be extremely devastating to Republicans and conservatives,” Georgia State House Speaker David Ralston said this week, citing proposals that will “certainly drive up turnout.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/202...t-admitting-they-want-fewer-americans-to-vote

The GOP has never been shy about the intended outcome of Voter ID and their other voting "reforms".

 

[panamaican]

The Federal govt can't pass legislation to pay for citizen's state ID's?

No. They can't. This, again, comes back to the separation between the fed and the states. The Fed can pass legislation to pay for state IDs but the states don't have to accept it and the fed can't force them to do so.

 

[AWilder]

Uh, does the queen of England even have any political power?

 

[panamaican]

This very argument is what makes the whole lack of Voter ID interesting to me though. My assumption would be that ID would be more needed in built up urban areas as opposed to in the surrounding counties. The ease of access to obtain that ID would be much higher due to proximity and options to obtain that.

I can actually understand the argument that asking someone to drive 6 hours out of their day just to get ID or vote is an issue and could disenfranchise voters. I can't make that same argument for someone taking public transport for 30 mins to an hour. It makes no sense to me why you couldn't organise to get ID if you live in the areas that are traditionally viewed as blue as per your quoted post. It would actually disenfranchise the traditional rural red areas.

I don't see cost as being prohibitive to ID either. I also am not opposed to the government issuing IDs as a way to create support for Voter ID being a part of elections moving forward. I live in a country where that is the case and we have compulsory elections with minor issues.

See my post a little above this. The GOP isn't looking for massive voter reductions, they're looking to cut turnout by a 5-10%, which is more than enough to swing an election.

As for the mechanics of the ID, I've never made the cost argument but I do make the barriers argument. To get said ID, an individual would have to take off work and go to a government office where they would have to wait until they're attended to. Seems fairly innocuous except for those poor people who are in jobs where there is no paid time off and they don't have the luxury, from a bills perspective, to miss an entire day of work to get this card.

And as anyone who has been to the DMV or the Social Security office will attest, it is without doubt an all day issue. So there is a portion of the population for whom the mechanics of losing an entire day's worth of work is a significant barrier.

 

[Death By Samson]

No. They can't. This, again, comes back to the separation between the fed and the states. The Fed can pass legislation to pay for state IDs but the states don't have to accept it and the fed can't force them to do so.

So then actually the answer is yes, the federal govt can pass such legislation.

It is up to the states to accept it but the House and Senate can in fact pass it, just like the extra $300 weekly unemployment benefits for covid.

 

[panamaican]

So then actually the answer is yes, the federal govt can pass such legislation.

It is up to the states to accept it but the House and Senate can in fact pass it, just like the extra $300 weekly unemployment benefits for covid.

Again, no, but I should have been more precise. They can pass legislation that makes money available. But you asked if they can pass legislation to pay for it. It's a small but meaningful distinction. They can pass laws that allocate the money but they can't pass laws that allow them to unilaterally pay for it, which is what I thought you were alluding to.

And that's separate from your original question about a federal ID.

 

[maximus__]

I understand what you're saying but the GOP has stated that their goal is to reduce the amount of potential Democrat voters on more than one occasion.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-gop-war-on-voting-242182/



https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/30/trump-voting-republicans/


https://www.gq.com/story/mcconnell-voter-turnout-bad


https://www.vanityfair.com/news/202...t-admitting-they-want-fewer-americans-to-vote

The GOP has never been shy about the intended outcome of Voter ID and their other voting "reforms".

I think the point you are missing is that they have concerns about illegal immigrants being able to vote and that people who should not be having a say in US elections are getting to have their say. So what the democrats call voter suppression is actually the opposite and

See my post a little above this. The GOP isn't looking for massive voter reductions, they're looking to cut turnout by a 5-10%, which is more than enough to swing an election.

As for the mechanics of the ID, I've never made the cost argument but I do make the barriers argument. To get said ID, an individual would have to take off work and go to a government office where they would have to wait until they're attended to. Seems fairly innocuous except for those poor people who are in jobs where there is no paid time off and they don't have the luxury, from a bills perspective, to miss an entire day of work to get this card.

And as anyone who has been to the DMV or the Social Security office will attest, it is without doubt an all day issue. So there is a portion of the population for whom the mechanics of losing an entire day's worth of work is a significant barrier.

See my post a little above this. The GOP isn't looking for massive voter reductions, they're looking to cut turnout by a 5-10%, which is more than enough to swing an election.

As for the mechanics of the ID, I've never made the cost argument but I do make the barriers argument. To get said ID, an individual would have to take off work and go to a government office where they would have to wait until they're attended to. Seems fairly innocuous except for those poor people who are in jobs where there is no paid time off and they don't have the luxury, from a bills perspective, to miss an entire day of work to get this card.

And as anyone who has been to the DMV or the Social Security office will attest, it is without doubt an all day issue. So there is a portion of the population for whom the mechanics of losing an entire day's worth of work is a significant barrier.

I don't think those issues are only a problem for an individual side though and could argue the inverse that the extra percentage of possible unqualified people voting has been swaying elections. I am not saying this is the case but it is just as valid an argument as the one you are making and a reason for both sides to want voter ID.

I don't think the barriers argument is reasonable as per my reasons before. The access to obtaining voter ID is greater in the built up predominantly blue areas and the possibility of losing a few hours IMO or in yours a day of work isn't enough of a reason to argue against it. Those are issues everyone faces and doesn't stop one group over another.

I don't think requiring an ID to vote will stop the young, single mother working two jobs from getting ID as I believe most who find voting important already will have one to obtain welfare payments or to rent their house etc. This isn't the case everywhere, but I think most states will require some form of photo ID for most basic things in life and an expectation to have that ID to make decisions on the countries future is reasonable. I know many places will accept alternate forms of ID but those alternate IDs can be used to obtain that photo ID if for whatever reason the person hasn't got one.

Now I am definitely interested in some form of assistance for people to obtain that photo ID being legislated in all these voting bills being put through. Why not make it part of voting in each state that people who attend to vote, get given a free state photo ID that is recognised throughout the US ? That means every 2-4 years people could obtain free photo ID and be encouraged to vote. That fixes both major parties issues.

 

[Death By Samson]

Again, no, but I should have been more precise. They can pass legislation that makes money available. But you asked if they can pass legislation to pay for it. It's a small but meaningful distinction. They can pass laws that allocate the money but they can't pass laws that allow them to unilaterally pay for it, which is what I thought you were alluding to.

And that's separate from your original question about a federal ID.

I feel like we're playing semantics. And my original point was not about a federal ID. That was a tangent. My original point was that the federal govt can pay for the IDs. And they can. They can pass the legislation to allocate the money to the states to pay for it. Whether the states accept the money is another matter. The House and Senate can pass the legislation to pay for it.

And do you seriously think that any state would turn down money to get all of it's citizens free ID? That wouldn't happen.

 

[panamaican]

I think the point you are missing is that they have concerns about illegal immigrants being able to vote and that people who should not be having a say in US elections are getting to have their say. So what the democrats call voter suppression is actually the opposite and



I don't think those issues are only a problem for an individual side though and could argue the inverse that the extra percentage of possible unqualified people voting has been swaying elections. I am not saying this is the case but it is just as valid an argument as the one you are making and a reason for both sides to want voter ID.

I don't think the barriers argument is reasonable as per my reasons before. The access to obtaining voter ID is greater in the built up predominantly blue areas and the possibility of losing a few hours IMO or in yours a day of work isn't enough of a reason to argue against it. Those are issues everyone faces and doesn't stop one group over another.

I don't think requiring an ID to vote will stop the young, single mother working two jobs from getting ID as I believe most who find voting important already will have one to obtain welfare payments or to rent their house etc. This isn't the case everywhere, but I think most states will require some form of photo ID for most basic things in life and an expectation to have that ID to make decisions on the countries future is reasonable. I know many places will accept alternate forms of ID but those alternate IDs can be used to obtain that photo ID if for whatever reason the person hasn't got one.

Now I am definitely interested in some form of assistance for people to obtain that photo ID being legislated in all these voting bills being put through. Why not make it part of voting in each state that people who attend to vote, get given a free state photo ID that is recognised throughout the US ? That means every 2-4 years people could obtain free photo ID and be encouraged to vote. That fixes both major parties issues.

It has very little to do with illegal immigrants voting. They know the numbers as well as anyone else and that particular story has no statistical support behind it. It's the story that the supporters latch onto because it's easier to swallow than the truth - which is that the point of these reforms is to reduce the number of legal, eligible voters so that they have more advantage in elections.

You say that a day of work isn't enough but for people who's jobs will not give them the time off to do it? What are they supposed to do, just skip work?

The rest of your post kind of illustrates that error here. Most of those programs don't require a separate photo ID, they require a broad set of documentation, including articles of mail. They recognize the difficulty in getting a singular ID issued from only one place and so allow for numerous methods of identification. Which is exactly what is already required when people register to vote. Which, of course, always brings me to the secondary point - if various forms of identification are necessary to get registered and necessary to get the photo ID, why aren't they sufficient to vote.

 

[panamaican]

I feel like we're playing semantics. And my original point was not about a federal ID. That was a tangent. My original point was that the federal govt can pay for the IDs. And they can. They can pass the legislation to allocate the money to the states to pay for it. Whether the states accept the money is another matter. The House and Senate can pass the legislation to pay for it.

And do you seriously think that any state would turn down money to get all of it's citizens free ID? That wouldn't happen.

Yes, I do think they would turn it down.

Don't forget that many states turned down free money for their local medicare programs because they didn't want to grant more people access to the programs.

 

[G-19]

That totally doesn't address anything about the unconstitutional poll tax that is voter id.

I'll ask again: if Republicans care about it why don't they introduce a bill to provide free federal IDs to every American?

Instead of creating a free “federal ID” they should just create a program that is subsidized by the federal government to allow each state citizen to obtain a state ID in their home state. We burn so much money with some of the bullshit this country spends tax money on. This should’ve been a thing years ago.

 

[maximus__]

It has very little to do with illegal immigrants voting. They know the numbers as well as anyone else and that particular story has no statistical support behind it. It's the story that the supporters latch onto because it's easier to swallow than the truth - which is that the point of these reforms is to reduce the number of legal, eligible voters so that they have more advantage in elections.

You say that a day of work isn't enough but for people who's jobs will not give them the time off to do it? What are they supposed to do, just skip work?

The rest of your post kind of illustrates that error here. Most of those programs don't require a separate photo ID, they require a broad set of documentation, including articles of mail. They recognize the difficulty in getting a singular ID issued from only one place and so allow for numerous methods of identification. Which is exactly what is already required when people register to vote. Which, of course, always brings me to the secondary point - if various forms of identification are necessary to get registered and necessary to get the photo ID, why aren't they sufficient to vote.

I said I don't think the illegal immigrant thing is the case but it is one of the arguments I hear regularly. Your argument is that the goal is it would reduce legal, eligible voters which is technically correct, but I don't see that as a bad thing to be honest. I would be completely disenfranchised with voting if I had no real way to confirm votes were legitimate or not. I actually live in a country where it is compulsory to vote and ID is required in all elections. I vote by mail, but I have to request that and provide multiple forms of ID including photo ID. I grew up in a low socioeconomic area, on welfare and in a broken home and I have still had photo ID my entire life. I am also part of a minority group here that was subject to genocide. I take voting pretty seriously as I have taken an interest in public issues.

I can't think of any job that would not be able to give someone a day off to do personal errands that is legal. My argument would be yes they should take a day off, but I would be commenting without understanding exactly what jobs you are referring to.

I agree with your end point. I would be happy for multiple forms of ID if this was done in person on an individual day/ election days or as I said above, at request for a mail in ballot after providing those various forms of ID. My understanding is it's basically turn up, give a name and vote in most states in the US or the mass mail in votes posted out in the last election. If you are providing various forms of ID in person I definitely think that is sufficient. That also applies if you go somewhere to request that mail in vote but then we have the same issue as just having the photo id in that you need to go somewhere to get it. Why not just require a single photo id that proves you are a resident in the state that can be used for everything? Either way you require ID so why not make it one and done for life and voting.

 

[rearnakedchoke]

The right was trying to make trump a king. I can see how they love what the queen has to say.