OT: Voter ID

[Scoop123]

Looking for an honest dialogue with left leaning members. Polls show 83-86% of voters support voter ID and proof of citizenship to vote. Over 70% of Democrats support this. And yet, the Democratic Senate refuses to allow this to move forward. All Democrats in the house voted against this bill. They continue to use their worn out excuses for not requiring an ID to vote while society requires ID much less important items.

(ironically, the Democrat party requires photo ID to enter their convention)

1. Do the left leaning people on this board accept the Democrat talking point that ID is just too much to ask?
2. Do you honestly believe there is no voter fraud and it’s just a coincidence that Democrats don’t want voter ID and still fight to the bitter end for mail in ballots?

Over 180 countries require voter ID. I don’t understand… In all honesty… How someone can support a party that appears to be so corrupt and will not vote for a common sense bill that 70% of their base supports. I am guessing some of you may shrug your shoulders and say ”I disagree with them on this issue… But no big deal.” I see this as a monstrous issue for any republic to survive.

Help me understand…..

 

[Steely Dannebrog]

 

[BleedRed89]

Im in favor of requiring voter ID, simply so the topic can be behind us. That said - to play devils advocate - there is still one major flaw with this concept.

No. It isnt the "creating a barrier to vote" (though we could do away with this by not charging for IDs) the bigger issue is what voting fraud has been found has been done almost entirely via mail in voting. In person voting has a statistical near zero chance of voter fraud already.

So the actual blind spot to cover is mail in ballots. Where this requirement wouldn't shore anything up.

 

[HuskerInCarolina]

Im in favor of requiring voter ID, simply so the topic can be behind us. That said - to play devils advocate - there is still one major flaw with this concept.

No. It isnt the "creating a barrier to vote" (though we could do away with this by not charging for IDs) the bigger issue is what voting fraud has been found has been done almost entirely via mail in voting. In person voting has a statistical near zero chance of voter fraud already.

So the actual blind spot to cover is mail in ballots. Where this requirement wouldn't shore anything up.

Agreed. Mail in voting should not be allowed.

 

[HBK4life_rivals100467]

Tells you all you need to know about the Democrats.

 

[BleedRed89]

Agreed. Mail in voting should not be allowed.

Agreed to an extent. If you have a proven medical disability that prevents you from going to the polls - it is your constitutional right to vote. Those individuals should be allowed to vote by mail or even better - a digital means of voting.

But yes. For your average Joe who only does mail in for conveinance, that should be done away with.

 

[Steely Dannebrog]

Agreed. Mail in voting should not be allowed.

Add, by extension, ballot harvesting by third parties.

 

[HuskerInCarolina]

Agreed to an extent. If you have a proven medical disability that prevents you from going to the polls - it is your constitutional right to vote. Those individuals should be allowed to vote by mail or even better - a digital means of voting.

But yes. For your average Joe who only does mail in for conveinance, that should be done away with.

It’s 2026. We have technological means to get it done. If we can wheel polling booths out to the disabled in their vehicles at polling locations, we can have a mobile voting booth that drives to the residence or to the nursing home, etc. There are many possible ways to circumvent the need for mail in ballots.

 

[Wasker73]

Agreed. Mail in voting should not be allowed.

Live in Washington and we have mail-in voting. I like it. You are required to register to vote so ballots are only mailed to registered voters. State employees working in the Department of Licensing can register people to vote when they get a driver's license. Here is where fraud has occurred as some of these state employees have registered people they know do not meet the requirements to be eligible to vote. The state hands out driver's licenses like candy. That is why TSA requires any Washington resident who fly to have an Enhanced Driver's License (EDL). To get an EDL proof of citizenship is required. This requirement has only been enforced by TSA the last year or so. I've had an EDL for years. An EDL also allows me to go to Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean by foot, car or boat without a passport. Only Washington, Minnesota, Michigan and NY issue them.

 

[BleedRed89]

Live in Washington and we have mail-in voting. I like it. You are required to register to vote so ballots are only mailed to registered voters. State employees working in the Department of Licensing can register people to vote when they get a driver's license. Here is where fraud has occurred as some of these state employees have registered people they know do not meet the requirements to be eligible to vote. The state hands out driver's licenses like candy. That is why TSA requires any Washington resident who fly to have an Enhanced Driver's License (EDL). To get an EDL proof of citizenship is required. This requirement has only been enforced by TSA the last year or so. I've had an EDL for years. An EDL also allows me to go to Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean by foot, car or boat without a passport. Only Washington, Minnesota, Michigan and NY issue them.

Claiming to be eligible to vote when being issued a state ID does not simply allow one to use said ID to vote. That claim is cross references against the social security database. They can check "yes I can vote" all they'd like. But if an illegal immigrant attempts to vote using said drivers license - they would be turned away.

 

[bug]

Agreed to an extent. If you have a proven medical disability that prevents you from going to the polls - it is your constitutional right to vote. Those individuals should be allowed to vote by mail or even better - a digital means of voting.

But yes. For your average Joe who only does mail in for conveinance, that should be done away with.

The largest demographic of mail in voters is people over the age of 65. I fit in that group but my wife and I can literally walk 2 blocks to a church and vote. We're lucky but I can't speak for every old timer and I wouldn't want to make it harder for them to vote. The next largest demographic is the 45-64 age group which I believe leans heavier to older side of that demo.
36 states already require ID's to be shown when voting. Everyone who is registered to vote has shown an ID at some point have they not? Of the 14 states not requiring ID you must show an ID if you're a first time voter and some also require an ID if you have not voted in 4 years.
I'm not opposed to voter ID if they can make it free (or use the accepted forms of ID like drivers license or passport etc; )

 

[SuperBigFan69]

Voting should be as easy as possible. Everyone knows that.
You should also have to have ID though, everyone knows that too.

 

[Walleye 1]

Voting should be as easy as possible. Everyone knows that.
You should also have to have ID though, everyone knows that too.

Not everyone obviously

 

[SuperBigFan69]

Not everyone obviously

Well, normal people.

With that said, I also think that everyone DOES agree but they just have a hard time admitting that they agree because of their fake stance.

 

[TOMHP]

Most every married woman has a last name different than what is on their birth certificate. I'm a partially disabled man who has voted in every election for more than 60 years. The last 10 or 15 years I have voted by mail. I signed an affidavit on the ballot that I am the actual voter. I recently moved to another state and I hope that I will be able to vote without a problem. My wife is Hispanic and she has 5 names in her official name, first, middle, reference to father, reference to mother, and last, mine. She also has voted here many times. Hopefully, we will able to continue to vote without problems.

 

[cornhead1.]

Claiming to be eligible to vote when being issued a state ID does not simply allow one to use said ID to vote. That claim is cross references against the social security database. They can check "yes I can vote" all they'd like. But if an illegal immigrant attempts to vote using said drivers license - they would be turned away.

Forget turning them away, put them in jail or deport. That would be a deterence, to trying to vote, if not eligble

 

[BleedRed89]

Forget turing them away, put them in jail or deport. That would be a deterence, to trying to vote, if not eligble

I'd be fine with making an arrest and deporting on those grounds. Sure. Just make it the law. I'd support it.

 

[JDD1959]

This should be very simple but as everybody know's in Politics it never is. The arguements against have never made any sense; "it will affect people of color, elderly, young voters more becasue they are less likely to possess the specific ID". Really? come on? Nobody buys that, besides if you happen to be one of those who don't have your Birth Certificate or Drivers license then contact the DMV or Health/Human services and fill out the paperwork, it's not that hard, wait times can be 2 to 12 weeks as per my contacts.

The problem is when every state does it's own thing, take Minnesota - they use a "voucher" system where a single Registered voter can "vouch" for up to eight people (who lack proper identification) seeking same day registration. Does anyone think that's not rip for exploitation/abuse. As bad as that is I saw that the FBI found a few irregularities in Fulton County, GA from the 2020 election; a number of ballots were double/triple scanned, some test ballots were included in the recount, absentee ballots (some) had never been folded-creased, etc. They had questions about 39,141 ballots. The Precincts were 81% registered Democrates. Biden won the State by 11,779 votes. Should give you pause, my confidence in election security is not what it once was for sure.

 

[HuskerInCarolina]

Most every married woman has a last name different than what is on their birth certificate. I'm a partially disabled man who has voted in every election for more than 60 years. The last 10 or 15 years I have voted by mail. I signed an affidavit on the ballot that I am the actual voter. I recently moved to another state and I hope that I will be able to vote without a problem. My wife is Hispanic and she has 5 names in her official name, first, middle, reference to father, reference to mother, and last, mine. She also has voted here many times. Hopefully, we will able to continue to vote without problems.

It’s an amazing concept of a marriage certificate which shows the paper trail for a name change. You have to bring it at the DMV, social security, pretty much any legal paperwork.

 

[BleedRed89]

This should be very simple but as everybody know's in Politics it never is. The arguements against have never made any sense; "it will affect people of color, elderly, young voters more becasue they are less likely to possess the specific ID". Really? come on? Nobody buys that, besides if you happen to be one of those who don't have your Birth Certificate or Drivers license then contact the DMV or Health/Human services and fill out the paperwork, it's not that hard, wait times can be 2 to 12 weeks as per my contacts.

The problem is when every state does it's own thing, take Minnesota - they use a "voucher" system where a single Registered voter can "vouch" for up to eight people (who lack proper identification) seeking same day registration. Does anyone think that's not rip for exploitation/abuse. As bad as that is I saw that the FBI found a few irregularities in Fulton County, GA from the 2020 election; a number of ballots were double/triple scanned, some test ballots were included in the recount, absentee ballots (some) had never been folded-creased, etc. They had questions about 39,141 ballots. The Precincts were 81% registered Democrates. Biden won the State by 11,779 votes. Should give you pause, my confidence in election security is not what it once was for sure.

Do you feel the federal government should get to control how states handle their elections on a day to day basis?

 

[HuskerInCarolina]

Do you feel the federal government should get to control how states handle their elections on a day to day basis?

Elections for federal positions, absolutely.

 

[Mack In Motion]

Mail in voting is the issue.

When handled in an irresponsible manner.

I'm not certain that there is a way, either intentionally or unintentionally, to introduce the possibility of MORE fuckery in an election (local, state, or fed) than to send out thousands or hundreds of thousands of ballots to people who

A) Did not request them and
B) Are not anticipating their arrival

Of course there is a need for mail in votinh.

From people who have determined they need a mail in ballot and have requested it. I've voted mail-in myself.

 

[Scoop123]

I appreciate the civil discussion. It feels like most of us are in the 83% group.

I believe a few on here vote and/or lean left. What are your thoughts on all Democrats voting against this requirement of presenting ID and proof of citizenship? My feeling is these basic requirements at the federal level meant to maintain a healthy republic does not infringe on a state’s ability to run their own elections.

I am having a hard time understanding why the Democratic leadership will not follow their constituents desires. Convince me it is not because of fraud. I am not claiming I can prove fraud, I am just having a conversation and trying to reasonably understand why Schumer, Schiff and the gang are so adamant against voter ID, while supporting photo ID for their own convention.

 

[BleedRed89]

Elections for federal positions, absolutely.

That is contrary to the founding fathers vision, and the Constitution as it was laid out.

 

[HuskerInCarolina]

That is contrary to the founding fathers vision, and the Constitution as it was laid out.

And so is every single gun law, yet here we are.

 

[BleedRed89]

I appreciate the civil discussion. It feels like most of us are in the 83% group.

I believe a few on here vote and/or lean left. What are your thoughts on all Democrats voting against this requirement of presenting ID and proof of citizenship? My feeling is these basic requirements at the federal level meant to maintain a healthy republic does not infringe on a state’s ability to run their own elections.

I am having a hard time understanding why the Democratic leadership will not follow their constituents desires. Convince me it is not because of fraud. I am not claiming I can prove fraud, I am just having a conversation and trying to reasonably understand why Schumer, Schiff and the gang are so adamant against voter ID, while supporting photo ID for their own convention.

Because there is at least a sliver of truth to the idea that some people wont be able to afford the means to vote under those circumstances.

That said, I do believe its a sliver. An incredibly small % of the population. However Democrats like to moral grand stand at every opportunity afforded to them. So long as the vocal minority increases their clout on social media, theyll continue to do so.

Because thats all American politics is now. Who can win the game of social media. Who has the most followers. Who leaves the most impressions. Its nothing but theater to these people.

 

[HuskerInCarolina]

That is contrary to the founding father’s vision, and the Constitution as it was laid out.

Sorry, I digressed. The civil war already demonstrated the federal government can supersede states’ rights. If it maintains federal election integrity, I am all for the federal government doing their thing to ensure it. And if that’s the elimination of mail-in ballots, I have no qualms with it.

 

[BleedRed89]

And so is every single gun law, yet here we are.

And those have often been challenged in court and ruled unconstitutional. Hence why constitutional carry swept the nation in the past few years.

 

[HuskerInCarolina]

And those have often been challenged in court and ruled unconstitutional. Hence why constitutional carry swept the nation in the past few years.

The constitution doesn’t state a felon can’t have a gun, nor does it provide a restriction to magazine capacity, rate of fire limits, waiting periods to get a gun, etc. but we still have those laws. Those are by definition infringements.

 

[redwine65]

many black people have been disgusted by braindead liberals saying they are not smart enough to get id..
it's good trump is cleaning up this mess too.

 

[19Football19]

Tells you all you need to know about the Democrats.

They even have to show their ID on the house floor when they vote lol. Libtards

 

[Scoop123]

Because there is at least a sliver of truth to the idea that some people wont be able to afford the means to vote under those circumstances.

That said, I do believe its a sliver. An incredibly small % of the population. However Democrats like to moral grand stand at every opportunity afforded to them. So long as the vocal minority increases their clout on social media, theyll continue to do so.

Because thats all American politics is now. Who can win the game of social media. Who has the most followers. Who leaves the most impressions. It’s nothing but theater to these people.

I hear you. But if the cost is so important, why do these Democrat leaders still require photo ID at their convention? Are they not screwing the poor by doing so? Is it not hypocritical to say the least? Why do they support requiring photo ID to fly on a plane or buy alcohol? So many CEOs have repeated the Democrats excuse, but those CEOs require photo ID to get into their company’s annual conferences.

The cost excuse simply doesn’t hold water when you look at how these democrat leaders require ID in so many other places

 

[BleedRed89]

The constitution doesn’t state a felon can’t have a gun, nor does it provide a restriction to magazine capacity, rate of fire limits, waiting periods to get a gun, etc. but we still have those laws. Those are by definition infringements.

I dont disagree with you. I have always found felons removal of constitutionally mandated rights to be questionable. But they've been upheld in the courts. And I am not passionate enough about giving felons the rights to firearms enough to care to lead that charge.

 

[BleedRed89]

I hear you. But if the cost is so important, why do these Democrat leaders still require photo ID at their convention? Are they not screwing the poor by doing so? Is it not hypocritical to say the least? Why do they support requiring photo ID to fly on a plane or buy alcohol? So many CEOs have repeated the Democrats excuse, but those CEOs require photo ID to get into their company’s annual conferences.

The cost excuse simply doesn’t hold water when you look at how these democrat leaders require ID in so many other places

You will never see me defend the overall hypocrisy of the Democratic party. No argument there either.

 

[HuskerInCarolina]

I dont disagree with you. I have always found felons removal of constitutionally mandated rights to be questionable. But they've been upheld in the courts. And I am not passionate enough about giving felons the rights to firearms enough to care to lead that charge.

I’m in the same boat. Where the slippery slope comes in is if a state government (like Virginia is doing now) passes a bunch of laws that makes hundreds of thousands of people into felons instantly, the government could take extreme actions to disarm those people. Hopefully those laws get struck down, but it’s disgusting they’re being brought in by their new governor who ran on being a moderate.

I do think there should be a tiering to felonies. Someone who got a felony for writing bad checks or doing bad taxes shouldn’t have their firearms banned from them in the same way a murderer, sex offender, domestic violence perpetrator, those kinds of people do. But that’s also not a battle I care enough about to give more than this paragraph lol

 

[o_Balfor]

That is contrary to the founding fathers vision, and the Constitution as it was laid out.

So is 80% of spending.

 

[o_Balfor]

It’s an amazing concept of a marriage certificate which shows the paper trail for a name change. You have to bring it at the DMV, social security, pretty much any legal paperwork.

How about a national ID?

 

[HuskerInCarolina]

How about a national ID?

Like a military ID? My wife needed birth certificate and marriage certificate.

When my mother remarried, she needed her birth certificate, first marriage certificate, divorce certificate, and new marriage certificate in order to get her military ID updated.

 

[BleedRed89]

So is 80% of spending.

Agreed. I too would like to see government spending greatly stripped back.

We could start by cutting the massive subsidies given to corporations. They already received their crowning achievement via massively reduced corporate tax rates in the 80s. They dont need to be subsidized.

 

[sureray]

View attachment 1186219

Liberals are cancer