Comments on: How Stupid!

By: Heraldblog

Heraldblog — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 03:20:59 +0000

So how do you get around the 24th amendment issue? Oh, I forgot, George Bush is President. Never mind.

By: Megamouth

Megamouth — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:26:42 +0000

You get an ID in high school. You have a birth certificate if you were born in this country (and others too!) All states offer state ID’s as far as I know… Wouldn’t you need to prove you are of legal age to vote since the only thing required is that you are a US citizen over the age of 18? Requiring ID’s hardly seems to be an issue in my book. You don’t even need to have your picture taken to get a copy of your birth certificate… just $12, baby. See… even people without a SSN can have an identity!

By: I live on the right side

I live on the right side — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:44:21 +0000

I, too had an ID when I was 14. I don’t remember the cost, but it’s wasn’t expensive. Today, you can get an id in the State of Wisconsin for $9.00.
I also will step on the hornet’s nest when I say that id should be required at the polls. I think that having a FAIR election should trump the whole “everyone should have the right to vote without having their picture taken”. (sorry nervous criminals)
And in regarding to have Dems run the country, not for me, I already pay enough taxes right here at home.

By: John

John — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:33:22 +0000

I understand the logic of requiring an ID to vote and I understand the history of
why you don’t need one. I’m sympathetic to both sides.

The problem, though, is that requiring a photo ID won’t change the fact that someone
named Tara Pfeifer could show up and vote even if it wasn’t you. Just ask any 18, 19, or 20
year old with a fake ID.

The system is not perfect, and both parties have a history of exploiting it. Unfortunately, I
don’t think it’s possible to have a system that’s unexploitable. You can do your best to limit
the problems (I had to verify a signature yesterday and prove that I lived at my address–
energy bill) but even those can’t prevent someone from cheating.

My bigger worry is the introduction of these electronic voting machines especially the ones
without a paper trail. You should be able to verify that you voted for the person you wanted to
vote for (even if it isn’t you voting!), and you shouldn’t have to worry that your vote will
count for someone else. Plus, the software is pretty easy to hack. It’s a mess.

Actually, the whole voting thing is a mess, but the beautiful thing about it is that it has worked
for better or for worse, for more than 200 years.

By: Heraldblog

Heraldblog — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 17:32:00 +0000

I can’t speak for every Democrat, but my agenda is simple. Respect the constitution by requiring warrants to spy on American citizens. Respect international law by abstaining from torture. Respect stare decisis, particularly as it pertains to the separation of church and state.

There’s lots more, but I have to tend to my hornet’s nest right now. It’s time for their noon feeding.

By: Heraldblog

Heraldblog — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 17:24:40 +0000

It would exclude from voting people who don’t have an ID.

The original plaintiff in the Georgia court case was a blind, elderly woman named Rosalind Lake. She didn’t drive. The state of Georgia offered to deliver the ID to her home. Fine. Then the state would have to do the same for every other Georgian in her position. Now multiply that by 50 states and you see where the problem is. Somebody has to administer the voter ID program. Who do you trust? Obviously not the voters. Are partisan bureaucrats any more trustworthy?

Incidentally, the judge who struck down the Georgia law used strict constructionist language in his decision. He said “Any attempt by the legislature to require more than what is required by the express language of our Constitution cannot withstand judicial scrutiny.” That’s the kind of talk that makes Republicans grow all mooshy inside.

So what’s your problem?

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 17:15:18 +0000

Yes, great idea Herald…lets let the Democrats run the country. After all, they have no agenda and ran simply on the platform of, “well, anything’s gotta be better than Bush, right?”.

And I think I just stepped in a hornets nest by posting this…

By: Tara

Tara — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 17:13:51 +0000

I do have a passport. And a license. And, when I was 13, I received an ID. You don’t have to have a license to get a state ID. There’s plenty of people who don’t drive that still need an ID–need it to buy cigarettes, to gamble, to buy liquor… it’s a staple of today’s society. I guess I just don’t see how requiring an ID is excluding people.

By: Heraldblog

Heraldblog — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 17:05:35 +0000

Here’s your culprit:

24th Amendment to the US Constitution:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Not everyone has an ID. If you have never learned to drive, for instance, why would you have a driver’s license? And what other IDs are there? Only five percent of Americans have a passport (do you have one, Tara?).

The reluctance to make IDs, or anything else mandatory at the polls can be traced back to southern Jim Crows, many of which were still enforced right up to 1964, when the 24th amendment was passed. Mississippi, for instance, required literacy tests to vote. Not surprisingly, the questions got tougher the darker your skin was, and the tests themselves were then graded by illiterate white county clerks. Requiring very poor people to pay for a driver’s license can easily be turned into a way to keeping very poor people from voting.

All ancient history, you say? The state of Georgia tried to make IDs mandatory last year, and a federal court struck the law down two months ago. The cost for a state voter ID was only $10, and could be waived in hardship cases, but then set up so few offices where IDs could be obtained, that it excluded thousands of poor people from obtaining one. See how that works?

Requiring an ID, or anything other than a pulse, in order to vote is a slippery slope. Under our system of government anyone 18 or older is allowed to vote. Some states even allow felons to vote. But once you start excluding groups, which is what ID laws do, the temptation is too great for politicians of either party to widen the net, and exclude others.

One answer to the overly-hyped problem of voter fraud is a free, national ID. But that idea has opponents on both sides of the isle. Paranoid right-wingers think it makes it too easy for the guvmint to keep track of you. Bleeding hearts say oppressed minorities, especially those with warrants for their arrest, are suspicious of having their pictures taken.

The only solution is if all the Republicans just stopped voting altogether, and let Democrats run the country. Then we wouldn’t need elections.

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 15:03:23 +0000

I thought it was weird, too. I read in the paper that two ladies went in and told the poll workers that they were each other…of course no questions were asked, so the ladies had to tell them that they weren’t really who they said they were. Especially in an election like this one was, where lots of people had very strong opinions, the temptation must have been there to vote more than once by using somebody elses ballot. I think it’s a stupid idea.