What did Democrats do wrong?

[Emily's Cat]

Alex: You know, we've had a pretty big increase in the number of illegal people in the country in the past decade or so. It's probably not a huge risk, but maybe we should start requiring some kind of ID for people to vote, that way we can make sure there's no shenanigans.

Pat: OMG you racist PoS bigot you're so evil don't you know some minorities don't have IDs and totally don't know where the DMV is and it's super duper hard to get an ID it's an evil idea you're so evil!

 

[Trausti]

Yet another category of people who can have trouble getting an ID are the homeless. Let's say you are living on the street and either lose or have your ID stolen. Proving who you are adequately to get a replacement, plus having enough cash on hand to do so, is a very high bar for someone living in a tent or broken down car. We see this frequently at the library. No one should be disenfranchised because they can't afford to spend more on an ID than food.

When you permit, either purposely of neglectfully, non-citizens or otherwise ineligible people to vote, you disenfranchise actual citizens. You dilute their vote. That's an actual threat to democracy. If someone is homeless, there are plenty of programs to help that person get an I.D. And that homeless person likely needs an I.D. anyway to get services or other help. Really, if you actually cared about this homeless person, you'd want to make it as easy a possible for him/her to get an I.D. so they could get help out of homelessness. But we know that is not what this is about.

 

[Random]

The voter ID restrictions to prevent "voter fraud" are kind of like the various TRAAP laws that the pro-life movement pushes to promote the "Health of the Mother". Tough to argue against restrictions that are not really about what the proponents claim.

Nine percent of eligible voters do not have adequate voter ID under these laws. That's millions of potential voters that they want to make jump through hoops in order to vote. How many cases of voter fraud? The Heritage Project found about 1600 in the last forty years, and most of those were voter registration fraud, which doesn't actually result in additional votes being cast unless someone actually shows up at the polling place.

It is perfectly reasonable to question the motives of the guy saying, "Better a thousand legitimate voters be prevented from voting than one fraudulent vote be cast!"

 

[Segnosaur]

Alex: You know, we've had a pretty big increase in the number of illegal people in the country in the past decade or so. It's probably not a huge risk, but maybe we should start requiring some kind of ID for people to vote, that way we can make sure there's no shenanigans.

Pat: OMG you racist PoS bigot you're so evil don't you know some minorities don't have IDs and totally don't know where the DMV is and it's super duper hard to get an ID it's an evil idea you're so evil!

I have no idea who these Alex and Pat people are, but Alex certainly does sound like a "racist PoS".

The assumption that those "illegal people" are coming into the US and engaging in illegal actions (like voting) is your typical racist dog-whistle.

As for Pat: While he might have been right in calling Alex a racist, he doesn't seem too bright either, since he is mischaracterizing the problems that people have in getting photo IDs (claiming they "don't know where the DMV is") and ignoring the real issues involved (lack of supporting documentation, available time to spend hours upon hours in a DMV to get your "free" voter card, etc.)

All in all, another idiotic post by someone who tends to make one mistake after another.

Still waiting for why you think people "need" photo ID when there are literally MILLIIONS of people who live full, enjoyable lives without it. Are you ever going to answer that question, or will you keep making up straw men and making bogus claims?

 

[Trausti]

The voter ID restrictions to prevent "voter fraud" are kind of like the various TRAAP laws that the pro-life movement pushes to promote the "Health of the Mother". Tough to argue against restrictions that are not really about what the proponents claim.

Nine percent of eligible voters do not have adequate voter ID under these laws. That's millions of potential voters that they want to make jump through hoops in order to vote. How many cases of voter fraud? The Heritage Project found about 1600 in the last forty years, and most of those were voter registration fraud, which doesn't actually result in additional votes being cast unless someone actually shows up at the polling place.

It is perfectly reasonable to question the motives of the guy saying, "Better a thousand legitimate voters be prevented from voting than one fraudulent vote be cast!"

If you really thought that this many people lacked legal I.D. - something necessary for getting a job, going to the doctor, attending school, flying on a plan, renting, buying a home, driving, etc. - you'd want to find out why these people lack I.D. and figure out ways to help. But it's not about that, is it?

 

[Trausti]

I have no idea who these Alex and Pat people are, but Alex certainly does sound like a "racist PoS".

The assumption that those "illegal people" are coming into the US and engaging in illegal actions (like voting) is your typical racist dog-whistle.

Hey, look, a way to shutdown discussion by calling someone a name.

Still waiting for why you think people "need" photo ID when there are literally MILLIIONS of people who live full, enjoyable lives without it. Are you ever going to answer that question, or will you keep making up straw men and making bogus claims?

Dude, you have I.D. Why did you get that?

 

[Segnosaur]

No one should be disenfranchised because they can't afford to spend more on an ID than food.

When you permit, either purposely of neglectfully, non-citizens or otherwise ineligible people to vote, you disenfranchise actual citizens.

Except of course the type of photo ID laws that the republican Klan keep pushing have nothing to do with preventing non-citizens or other ineligible people to vote.

Eligibility can be established at the time of registration, not when they show up at the polling place.

If someone is homeless, there are plenty of programs to help that person get an I.D.

You mean the type of programs that republicans like to cut whenever they want to fund more tax breaks to millionaires? Yeah, you're going to have to show your work on that.

And that homeless person likely needs an I.D. anyway to get services or other help.

Assuming of course that "help" ins actually available. Remember, the goal of the republican party is to dismantle public services and have everyone "pull themselves up" by their own bootstraps.

 

[Trausti]

Except of course the type of photo ID laws that the republican Klan keep pushing have nothing to do with preventing non-citizens or other ineligible people to vote.

Eligibility can be established at the time of registration, not when they show up at the polling place.

Hey, my name is Segnousar, and I'm here to vote. No need to check my I.D. That was done at the time of registration. No need to verify that I'm actually Segnosaur.

You mean the type of programs that republicans like to cut whenever they want to fund more tax breaks to millionaires? Yeah, you're going to have to show your work on that.

That is not a rebuttal.

Assuming of course that "help" ins actually available. Remember, the goal of the republican party is to dismantle public services and have everyone "pull themselves up" by their own bootstraps.

If you have to change the subject to try to make a point, just concede already.

 

[Segnosaur]

Nine percent of eligible voters do not have adequate voter ID under these laws.

If you really thought that this many people lacked legal I.D.

Its not just him THINKING millions of people lack photo ID for voting purposes, its what has been shown over and over again in references here.

Idiots keep denying that a problem exists. Evidence says otherwise.

something necessary for getting a job

Nope, not necessary for getting many jobs. (not to mention many people aren't employed... stay-at-home spouses, retirees, etc.)

going to the doctor

A lot of poor people cannot afford to go to the doctor in the first place.

attending school

You do not need "government issued ID" to attend school. You might get photo ID issued by the school itself, but not all states will allow that to be used for voting purposes.

flying on a plan

Various polls have shown that roughly 10-20% of Americans have never flown on a plane. You fail again.

renting

You do not need to show photo id in a lot of rental cases. And many people don't even pay rent... people living at home, spouses, etc.

driving

Poor people may not be able to afford a car in the first place. Or retirees may have vision issues that keep them from driving.

etc. - you'd want to find out why these people lack I.D. and figure out ways to help. But it's not about that, is it?

Why does it matter why they lack ID? They don't currently need it for their day-to-day lives, so why do you want to potentially waste millions of taxpayer dollars in order to force these people to get an ID who's only purpose will be for voting, in order to stop a problem which isn't actually happening?

Sounds like a pretty brain-damaged republican plan... on one hand, claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility, while at the same time wasting taxpayer dollars to "fix" a non-existent problem.

 

[Random]

If you really thought that this many people lacked legal I.D. - something necessary for getting a job, going to the doctor, attending school, flying on a plan, renting, buying a home, driving, etc. - you'd want to find out why these people lack I.D. and figure out ways to help. But it's not about that, is it?

Actually, if there was any kind of universal ID requirement in the US provided it was free to acquire and support was available for people who had difficulty acquiring it for whatever reason, I probably would support it. But nothing like that is in the pipeline right now. The closest we get is REAL ID, and that's just extra requirements for existing documentation.

If Republicans cared, they would be reaching for solutions for those millions of Americans who do not have IDs, not trying to deny their existence.

 

[Trausti]

Its not just him THINKING millions of people lack photo ID for voting purposes, its what has been shown over and over again in references here.

And why don't you care about finding out why and helping them? Is it that, like so many lefty causes, you just gotta have the victim group to exploit to push an agenda?

Nope, not necessary for getting many jobs. (not to mention many people aren't employed... stay-at-home spouses, retirees, etc.)

In the US, it is necessary to get a job. It is also necessary to have a bank account. How you imagine that people live perfectly fine without an I.D. is a mystery. The only group that this might apply to is those who want to live off the grid; that very small percentage of people who choose to be homeless. But let's let them be.

A lot of poor people cannot afford to go to the doctor in the first place.

You are the king of misdirection.

You do not need "government issued ID" to attend school. You might get photo ID issued by the school itself, but not all states will allow that to be used for voting purposes.

If you're an adult (kids can't vote) you need I.D. for college or trade school.

Various polls have shown that roughly 10-20% of Americans have never flown on a plane. You fail again.

And you think they should never fly? You'd deny them that experience?

You do not need to show photo id in a lot of rental cases. And many people don't even pay rent... people living at home, spouses, etc.

No landlord is going to let you rent without I.D.

Poor people may not be able to afford a car in the first place. Or retirees may have vision issues that keep them from driving.

Poor people need I.D. to apply for benefits. Would you rather them go hungry?

Why does it matter why they lack ID? They don't currently need it for their day-to-day lives, so why do you want to potentially waste millions of taxpayer dollars in order to force these people to get an ID who's only purpose will be for voting, in order to stop a problem which isn't actually happening?

It seems you really want to condemn people to poverty and lack of services rather the figure out how to get them I.D. (Most "poor" people have I.D., btw.)

Sounds like a pretty brain-damaged republican plan... on one hand, claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility, while at the same time wasting taxpayer dollars to "fix" a non-existent problem.

More misdirection.

 

[Segnosaur]

I have no idea who these Alex and Pat people are, but Alex certainly does sound like a "racist PoS".

The assumption that those "illegal people" are coming into the US and engaging in illegal actions (like voting) is your typical racist dog-whistle.

Hey, look, a way to shutdown discussion by calling someone a name.

If someone is going to be racist, I will point out that they are racist.

Dude, you have I.D. Why did you get that?

Until I was in my 30s I had no form of government-issued photo ID that would be needed in certain backwards states in the US. I was still able to vote in Canada because we are actually a democracy up here.

I finally got various forms of photo ID because I needed them for other purposes.

The problem is that for many people, those photo IDs you are forcing them to get will ONLY be used for voting. They don't need them for work, for school, for travel, or for any other reason.

Except of course the type of photo ID laws that the republican Klan keep pushing have nothing to do with preventing non-citizens or other ineligible people to vote.

Eligibility can be established at the time of registration, not when they show up at the polling place.

Hey, my name is Segnousar, and I'm here to vote. No need to check my I.D. That was done at the time of registration. No need to verify that I'm actually Segnosaur.

Polling places track both who is eligible to vote at that location, and who has already voted. If you show up claiming to be me and I have already voted? You will face serious legal problems.

Again, studies suggest that the number of cases of voter fraud that strict voter ID would address impacts less than 0.0001% of all votes cast.

You mean the type of programs that republicans like to cut whenever they want to fund more tax breaks to millionaires? Yeah, you're going to have to show your work on that.

That is not a rebuttal.

Actually it is a rebuttal.

Any idiot who claims that they "just need to make it easier to get the needed ID" is ignoring the fact that republicans typically push for cuts to government services. (And another poster pointed to one red state where multiple DMV offices, mostly in areas with high minority populations, were closed)

Assuming of course that "help" ins actually available. Remember, the goal of the republican party is to dismantle public services and have everyone "pull themselves up" by their own bootstraps.

If you have to change the subject to try to make a point, just concede already.
Actually my point was actually on target.

Republicans love to cut services. (How much did Trump and Musk cut through DOGE?) If your argument is "just make it easier" you will have to explain how you will do so when the republican party is more likely to limit government services than expand them.

 

[Planigale]

When you permit, either purposely of neglectfully, non-citizens or otherwise ineligible people to vote, you disenfranchise actual citizens. You dilute their vote. That's an actual threat to democracy. If someone is homeless, there are plenty of programs to help that person get an I.D. And that homeless person likely needs an I.D. anyway to get services or other help. Really, if you actually cared about this homeless person, you'd want to make it as easy a possible for him/her to get an I.D. so they could get help out of homelessness. But we know that is not what this is about.

I seem to recall from history lessons a call of 'No taxation without representation'? Nothing about citizenship. I am a (non-white) British citizen, you do not have to be a British citizen to be a voter or an MP, the PM who was perhaps most responsible for the British empire was a second generation Jewish immigrant. If you believe in a capitalist society then the key issue is who pays, not where did your mother happen to birth you.

 

[Trausti]

I seem to recall from history lessons a call of 'No taxation without representation'? Nothing about citizenship. I am a (non-white) British citizen, you do not have to be a British citizen to be a voter or an MP, the PM who was perhaps most responsible for the British empire was a second generation Jewish immigrant. If you believe in a capitalist society then the key issue is who pays, not where did your mother happen to birth you.

Um, okay.

 

[Trausti]

If someone is going to be racist, I will point out that they are racist.

Much easier to call names than respond to argument. Got it.

Until I was in my 30s I had no form of government-issued photo ID that would be needed in certain backwards states in the US. I was still able to vote in Canada because we are actually a democracy up here.

Canada does require I.D. to vote. The exception, apparently, is that if you lack it someone else (who is verified) can vouch for you. So, I guess, you Canadians are a bunch of racists.

I finally got various forms of photo ID because I needed them for other purposes.

Was it hard to get? (I'm not from the 51st State, so don't really know.)

The problem is that for many people, those photo IDs you are forcing them to get will ONLY be used for voting. They don't need them for work, for school, for travel, or for any other reason.

Again, I don't know where you're getting this idea that I.D. is not necessary for work (unless it's under the table). New hires always have to present I.D. along with their I-9.

 

[Segnosaur]

Its not just him THINKING millions of people lack photo ID for voting purposes, its what has been shown over and over again in references here.

And why don't you care about finding out why and helping them?

Because I am not an idiot. It doesn't matter why they do not have photo ID. They just haven't needed it, and the barriers to getting one are greater than the 0 benefit they would get in having it in their day-to-day lives.

Why do you see the need to waste millions of taxpayer dollars on an issue that affects less than 0.0001% of the vote?

In the US, it is necessary to get a job.

Again, not really why there are so many idiots that keep needing this explained to them.

Not everybody works. Students, retirees, stay-at-home spouses. And even if a person had an ID when they started to work, some may have seen their license expire.

What is it about that that you do not understand? I thought it was a pretty simple concept.

It is also necessary to have a bank account.

Again, students may have stuff paid for by parents, retirees may have had their accounts ":grandfathered in" from a time when there was no such requirement, or had ID that expired.

How you imagine that people live perfectly fine without an I.D. is a mystery.

Once again, MIILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF AMERCANS DO. Not really sure why you don't understand that.

The only group that this might apply to is those who want to live off the grid; that very small percentage of people who choose to be homeless. But let's let them be.

Nope, no "living off the grid". Again, MILLIONS OF AMERCIANS show that you are wrong./

A lot of poor people cannot afford to go to the doctor in the first place.

You are the king of misdirection.

You are the one that brought up how you needed photo ID to see a doctor.

If you cannot afford health insurance, then why do you need the photo ID to see a doctor you cannot afford to go to in the first place?

You do not need "government issued ID" to attend school. You might get photo ID issued by the school itself, but not all states will allow that to be used for voting purposes.

If you're an adult (kids can't vote) you need I.D. for college or trade school.

Once again, to go to college, you will likely get issued a college ID. (This may be used to vote in some jurisdictions, but not all.) You do not need a drivers license, passport, or similar government ID to go to college.

Various polls have shown that roughly 10-20% of Americans have never flown on a plane. You fail again.

And you think they should never fly? You'd deny them that experience?

Umm, where did I say they should "never fly"? Incredible straw man there.

If they are not flying now for whatever reason (cannot afford to, fear of heights, etc.) then needing an ID to fly is irrelevant because they won't be flying NOW. If, in the future, a person's circumstances change and they want to fly, they can get a passport for the specific purpose of travel.

No landlord is going to let you rent without I.D.

Sublet/room mate situations. Students living with parents. People living in places where they had valid ID in the past that is now expired.

Poor people need I.D. to apply for benefits. Would you rather them go hungry?

Not everyone uses government benefits. Some are the "working poor". Others may rely on family members.

It seems you really want to condemn people to poverty and lack of services rather the figure out how to get them I.D. (Most "poor" people have I.D., btw.)

Many poor people have IDs. Millions do not. A fact that you would have to be a complete moron to not comprehend, even when you have been provided references showing just that.

Sounds like a pretty brain-damaged republican plan... on one hand, claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility, while at the same time wasting taxpayer dollars to "fix" a non-existent problem.

More misdirection.

Errr, not really.

Once again...
- voter fraud of the type that strict photo ID laws would address is extremely rare
- Even if voter ID cards were free to voters, the government would still need to spend millions to print and distribute to citizens
So yeah, you want them to waste taxpayer money to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[Segnosaur]

Until I was in my 30s I had no form of government-issued photo ID that would be needed in certain backwards states in the US. I was still able to vote in Canada because we are actually a democracy up here.

Canada does require I.D. to vote. The exception, apparently, is that if you lack it someone else (who is verified) can vouch for you.

once again, you have shown that you do not understand what is going on.

Canada is extremely broad in what it considers acceptable ID... in addition to passports and drivers licenses, you can use library cards, student IDs, utility bills, bank statements, the voter card (which is sent automatically to ALL registered voters). Note that most of that stuff has no photo involved. The time you need someone to vouch for you is in the very rare case when you have none of that.

The issue with the US is not the states that require minimal (not-photo) ID like utility bills, etc., but states where the voting requirements are so strict that ONLY government-issued photo-id is acceptable.

Of course, people like you like to muddy the waters by ignoring the actual issue and obfuscating "ID" vs. "Photo ID".

I finally got various forms of photo ID because I needed them for other purposes.

Was it hard to get? (I'm not from the 51st State, so don't really know.)

The last time I had to get my photo license updated, I had to book several hours off work, drive about 10km, and sit in the office for roughly 2-3 hours.

It was not a fun experience. It was annoying. A burden. At the end I got my driver's license renewed. If this were ONLY for some sort of voter ID card, I would have found the experience even more annoying.

Fortunately I work on salary so I didn't lose any wages by being off, and because I drive it only took a few minutes to get to the office. But for someone without a vehicle it would probably have been an extra half hour commute on the bus.

If I were working a minimum wage job during the day, the experience probably would have cost me half a day's wages (lost time from work, transportation, etc.) Having to lose half a day's wages in order to exercise your democratic right to vote seems like it would be a problem.

 

[Segnosaur]

Again, I don't know where you're getting this idea that I.D. is not necessary for work (unless it's under the table). New hires always have to present I.D. along with their I-9.

From the government's own website: https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/f...rifying-employment-authorization-and-identity
An employee must present a document or combination of documents from List A (which shows both identity and employment authorization) or one document from List B (which shows identity) and one document from List C (which shows employment authorization)
LIST B: Documents That Establish Identity
- School ID card with a photograph
For persons under age 18 who are unable to present a document listed above:
- School record or report card
LIST C: Documents That Establish Employment Authorization
- A Social Security card
- Certification of report of birth

So yes, some people CAN find work (using a combination of school ID and social security/birth certificate), even if they do not have "valid" government photo ID that is acceptable for voting in all states.

 

[d4m10n]

Alex certainly does sound like a "racist PoS"

I suppose "what the Democrats did wrong" was fail to scold people like Alex enough?

Anyhow, it's not obvious how restricting voting to citizens is even about race, unless you're in an ethno-state.

In a modern, multiracial, & multiethnic society (like the U.S.) we don't make voting about race anymore; any rule against Canadians voting doesn't take their race or ethnicity into account, not even the ones who sound French.

 

[Segnosaur]

I suppose "what the Democrats did wrong" was fail to scold people like Alex enough?

We are not politicians. We are not actively campaigning or setting policy or writing speeches. Whatever we do is not reflective of The Democrats, Republicans, or the Leopards eating people's faces party. So it doesn't matter if we say things that would not be good politically.

That said, keep in mind that politicians HAVE called out Trump over his racist dog whistles before. Us pointing to some made-up character spouting similar racist rhetoric should not be seen as too far out of line.

Anyhow, it's not obvious how restricting voting to citizens is even about race, unless you're in an ethno-state.

Ummm... nobody is suggesting voting should be opened up to non-citizens.

In a modern, multiracial, & multiethnic society (like the U.S.) we don't make voting about race anymore...

The republicans will not outwardly say "its about race", but that still seems to be the underlying rule in many cases.

Consider for example the restrictions on felons voting. Seems like kind of a non-racial rule... after all, any race can break the law. But, black and hispanic people make up a significantly larger portion of the prison population relative to their portion of the population. So stopping felons from voting affects black people more than white. And black people have traditionally been more supportive of the Democrats than republicans.

Or consider voting list purges. They tend to impact minorities more, for a few reasons. (More inaccurate matches with felons with the same name, more issues with name spelling, etc.) Again, this affects people who would normally vote democrat.

Or laws that require government-issued voter ID. The median income of black people is roughly 20,000 less than that of the average american. That means there are more of them in low wage jobs. Thus, they are less likely on average to own cars and have a driver's license. And if you tell them "you need to go to the DMV for a day in order to get your 'free' government ID to vote", they will consider it more of a hardship because their jobs may not be amiable to taking time off.

Of course not all restrictions involve race. A rule that prevents people from using student IDs as a form of voter ID is pretty non-racial, but since students are more likely to vote Democrat it benefits the GOP.