toldailytopic: Do you favor voter ID laws? Why or why not?

[genuineoriginal]

2) A woman who is married to someone who has their property in his name, is not qualified to vote.

Why would you think that a married couple that owns property should get more votes than a widow that owns property?

I don't think you should get extra votes by owning more than one property, nor do I think that you should get extra votes by having more than one adult owning a property.

 

[fool]

What possibly makes you think this? An "owner" of a property who lives 500 miles away is less invested in his community than a renter who's lived there a lifetime. And even if their financial investment isn't on equal footing--at least when it comes to their home--their political and emotional interest in a community is completely intangible. For you to presume that we disenfranchise those who by circumstance or choice don't own a home is appalling. Since when was the litmus test for a worthy ballot paying a bank for the privilege of a roof over your head?

And what of those who've been evicted and lost their property? Now that they rent are they any less "invested" in their community?

Now let's slow down here I'm kinda liking this idea.
It would create a caste system with me on top since I'm an owner.

 

[Granite]

Now let's slow down here I'm kinda liking this idea.
It would create a caste system with me on top since I'm an owner.

Hey, me too. Wonder what genuine's status is.

If he's a homeowner he's just a run of the mill pie in the sky would-be armchair aristocrat, if not, he's a stark-raving hypocrite.

 

[genuineoriginal]

What possibly makes you think this? An "owner" of a property who lives 500 miles away is less invested in his community than a renter who's lived there a lifetime.

You are right. I have seen the errors of my proposal, and am willing to change.

Only resident-property owner citizens should be allowed to vote, and only in the community where they live.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Why would you think that a married couple that owns property should get more votes than a widow that owns property?

I don't think you should get extra votes by owning more than one property, nor do I think that you should get extra votes by having more than one adult owning a property.

Then if the woman thinks differently than her husband about the issues, too bad right?

 

[Granite]

You are right. I have seen the errors of my proposal, and am willing to change.

No where near enough, your lordship.:yawn:

Only resident-property owner citizens should be allowed to vote, and only in the community where they live.

Would a condo count?

Define "community." Are we talking a block, a burg, or Brooklyn*?

I'd appreciate you answering Angel's questions (post #31) as well as this one of mine: What of those who've been evicted and lost their property? Now that they rent are they any less "invested" in their community?













* Try telling a Brooklynite living in a ninth-floor studio how "uninvested" they are in their community. Just call 911 ahead of schedule with your blood type.

 

[Town Heretic]

toldailytopic: Do you favor voter ID laws? Why or why not?

I like the idea, but want to be careful in implementation. When I read things like this:

Republicans are even bragging about it. Pennsylvania’s state House Republican leader, Mike Turzai, boasted, “Voter ID … is going to allow Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania – done.”

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2012/08/23/2222549/fair-nonpoliticized-voter-id-policy.html#storylink=cpy

It makes me worry about the potential for abuse. Because the photo IDs can be a bar to the poor voting. As per the article here, in Texas you would have to go to a government agency and pay twenty two dollars, be fingerprinted and produce a birth certificate to vote.

I'm for reducing voter fraud, not using the law to commit it. So we need to make the process fair for those who aren't in a position to pay for it. In my community we know one another. I'd bet a number of poor and elderly blacks couldn't produce either birth certificate nor have ever possessed driver's licenses. Is the point of the law to deny them the vote when we can attest to their identity? If the law allows for that it is an instrument of tyranny and not fairness and protection.

So that's a huge, "in principle, but how we do it makes all the difference" vote from me.

 

[fool]

You are right. I have seen the errors of my proposal, and am willing to change.

Only resident-property owner citizens should be allowed to vote, and only in the community where they live.

Shouldn't people who own more of the property get more votes?

 

[fool]

Then if the woman thinks differently than her husband about the issues, too bad right?

Women thinking?
You had me going there for a minute.
Funny :thumb:

 

[sky.]

You are right. I have seen the errors of my proposal, and am willing to change.

Only resident-property owner citizens should be allowed to vote, and only in the community where they live.

This in part is why voter ID photo ID is the norm for what is required. As it is now photo ID is tied to your address and your drivers license.

That is why you register to vote at the Secretary of State. Is there room for change?

 

[Angel4Truth]

I like the idea, but want to be careful in implementation. When I read things like this:


It makes me worry about the potential for abuse. Because the photo IDs can be a bar to the poor voting. As per the article here, in Texas you would have to go to a government agency and pay twenty two dollars, be fingerprinted and produce a birth certificate to vote.

I'm for reducing voter fraud, not using the law to commit it. So we need to make the process fair for those who aren't in a position to pay for it. In my community we know one another. I'd bet a number of poor and elderly blacks couldn't produce either birth certificate nor have ever possessed driver's licenses. Is the point of the law to deny them the vote when we can attest to their identity? If the law allows for that it is an instrument of tyranny and not fairness and protection.

So that's a huge, "in principle, but how we do it makes all the difference" vote from me.

The poor no longer need id's, proof of residency etc.. for government services?

 

[fool]

What of those who've been evicted and lost their property? Now that they rent are they any less "invested" in their community?

They're obviously not worthy of an opinion since they couldn't hang on to their land.

 

[fool]

The poor no longer need id's, proof of residency etc.. for government services?

That's has me puzzled as well.
Where I live you have to register to vote and I thought you had to prove who you were to register.

 

[Town Heretic]

The poor no longer need id's, proof of residency etc.. for government services?

Not photo IDs, no. Here's a bit from the National food stamp office, by way of example:

There are various ways that you can provide verification to the food
stamp office.

„Documentary verification – papers such as a birth certification or
utility bills

„ Collateral contacts – someone who is not in your household who
can verify information. Landlords, employers, shelter workers, and
neighbors are examples of possible collateral contacts

„Home visits – the caseworker can come visit your home to verify
certain things. Home visits must be scheduled in advance and
should be used only when you don’t have documentary verification.

• Some common verification questions
„ Do I need a social security number to get food stamps? Yes.
You must either have a social security number or have proof from
the social security office that you have applied for one. You DO
NOT need your social security card to get food stamps, however.

„ Do I need a photo ID to get food stamps? No! You do need to
prove your identity to the food stamp office. There are a number of
ways to do this including using a collateral contact such a shelter
worker to verify who you are. You should not be denied food
stamps solely because you lack a photo ID.​

 

[fool]

Not photo IDs, no. Here's a bit from the National food stamp office, by way of example:

There are various ways that you can provide verification to the food
stamp office.

„Documentary verification – papers such as a birth certification or
utility bills

„ Collateral contacts – someone who is not in your household who
can verify information. Landlords, employers, shelter workers, and
neighbors are examples of possible collateral contacts

„Home visits – the caseworker can come visit your home to verify
certain things. Home visits must be scheduled in advance and
should be used only when you don’t have documentary verification.

• Some common verification questions
„ Do I need a social security number to get food stamps? Yes.
You must either have a social security number or have proof from
the social security office that you have applied for one. You DO
NOT need your social security card to get food stamps, however.

„ Do I need a photo ID to get food stamps? No! You do need to
prove your identity to the food stamp office. There are a number of
ways to do this including using a collateral contact such a shelter
worker to verify who you are. You should not be denied food
stamps solely because you lack a photo ID.​

So, you need a soc sec number which in order to get you must prove who you are.

 

[Buzz]

„ Do I need a photo ID to get food stamps? No! You do need to
prove your identity to the food stamp office. There are a number of
ways to do this including using a collateral contact such a shelter
worker to verify who you are. You should not be denied food
stamps solely because you lack a photo ID. [/indent]

Can we at least do breathalyzer tests and make people pee in a cup first before they vote? :think:

Maybe we could just make the bathroom stalls the voting booths and connect some kind of test to the toilet.

"Sorry mam, your vote did not count. We discovered you had Chick-Fila for lunch which could influence you to vote for Mitt Romney"

 

[sky.]

This in part is why voter ID photo ID is the norm for what is required. As it is now photo ID is tied to your address and your drivers license.

That is why you register to vote at the Secretary of State. Is there room for change?

I don't believe that there is need for change. Every person who expects to be able to vote should go through the Secretary of State. I have lived in different states. The first thing I HAD to do in order to drive or vote was to get straight with the Secretary of State.

Isn't this what is taught in application for citizenship into the US as a foreigner?

Application for Naturalization when is the last time you heard that requirement be fulfilled before voting? This isn't "rocket science" it's the law.

 

[Lighthouse]

Are you serious?

As far as I know his wife agrees with him.

I like the idea, but want to be careful in implementation. When I read things like this:


It makes me worry about the potential for abuse. Because the photo IDs can be a bar to the poor voting. As per the article here, in Texas you would have to go to a government agency and pay twenty two dollars, be fingerprinted and produce a birth certificate to vote.

I'm for reducing voter fraud, not using the law to commit it. So we need to make the process fair for those who aren't in a position to pay for it. In my community we know one another. I'd bet a number of poor and elderly blacks couldn't produce either birth certificate nor have ever possessed driver's licenses. Is the point of the law to deny them the vote when we can attest to their identity? If the law allows for that it is an instrument of tyranny and not fairness and protection.

So that's a huge, "in principle, but how we do it makes all the difference" vote from me.

Why don't they give photo IDs [not licenses] out for free if they're going to require them to vote?

 

[sky.]

I like the idea, but want to be careful in implementation. When I read things like this:


It makes me worry about the potential for abuse. Because the photo IDs can be a bar to the poor voting. As per the article here, in Texas you would have to go to a government agency and pay twenty two dollars, be fingerprinted and produce a birth certificate to vote.

I'm for reducing voter fraud, not using the law to commit it. So we need to make the process fair for those who aren't in a position to pay for it. In my community we know one another. I'd bet a number of poor and elderly blacks couldn't produce either birth certificate nor have ever possessed driver's licenses. Is the point of the law to deny them the vote when we can attest to their identity? If the law allows for that it is an instrument of tyranny and not fairness and protection.

So that's a huge, "in principle, but how we do it makes all the difference" vote from me.

Fair doesn't mean perfect. Nor should we jump on the bandwagon of a fake road to "zero tolerance" in the name of fairness.

 

[Town Heretic]

...Why don't they give photo IDs [not licenses] out for free if they're going to require them to vote?

I think that's a solid idea and that we should. Seems reasonable enough. Like I said, the idea is a good one, we just need to safeguard the process from abuse by either party. I used the handy Republican example, but I don't put it past either of them.

Fair doesn't mean perfect. Nor should we jump on the bandwagon of a fake road to "zero tolerance" in the name of fairness.

You likely can't eliminate either fraud or abuse of a system, but we should make every effort to minimize both. LH's idea seems like a good place to start.