Archduke Russell John wrote:

SLOTerp wrote:Anyway, I was amazed Ron Paul pulled 40% of the vote - I wouldn't expect him to do that well in a head-to-head with Romney.

There is a lot of talk out now that Gingirinch is only acting as a spoiler and that if he pulled out, Santorum would be getting more wins. However, can an argument be made that Virigina shows that enough of Gingrinch's support would go for Romney over Santorum?

Well how else is Ron Paul supposed to amass the delegates he needs to take over at the convention?

I'm not really familiar with the arguments about voter ID being racist. I can guess how it came about though because with the way the entire electoral process is controlled by partisan hacks in America it 's almost inevitable that any change to the rules will be seen as a way of manipulating the rules to advantage your own side. This is a major flaw of your system, the lack of political neutrality among public officials.

That said, so far as the issue itself goes I'm not especially bothered one way or the other. We aren't required to present ID before voting here and it's never been seen as a problem (suspicions of voter fraud typically concern postal voting) and I'd probably find it irritating if they were to introduce the system because i don't tend to carry ID. But on the other hand I can see the argument for having to prove your identity before casting your vote. It shouldn't really be a big deal because in theory every registered voter ought to have some form of valid ID they could present if required to.

It's been a huge issue over here for decades. The Democratic party has resisted voter ID laws, claiming that their opposition is based on the south's history of disenfranchising blacks. They have prevented these sorts of (common sense, IMO) reforms to our voter laws. In reality, I think that Democrats are concerned that they would lose more voters if there were ID laws because their supporters tend to be poorer and more urban, and less likely to drive and keep an ID handy. As you know, just a few votes can swing elections.

Guapo wrote:It also seems that you are allowed write-ins in Virginia.

They are allowed except in primary elections.

At all elections except primary elections it shall be lawful for any voter to vote for any person other than the listed candidates for the office by writing or hand printing the person's name on the official ballot

SLOTerp wrote:Now you say it happens - ok, I can accept that, but to what extent does it happen? To what extent are voters disenfranchised because of voter ID laws? Which is worse? I don't know the answers to those questions but they are certainly relevant to any discussion of the issue.

A recent study showed that something like 8 million voter registrations were invalid in some way nation wide. What made the invalid ranged from people dead for years still registered, to people who had moved and were registered in multiple states, as well as, registrations with missing information, i.e. valid address or date of birth.

Sassenach wrote:I'm not really familiar with the arguments about voter ID being racist.

The argument used against it is that it will disenfranchise low income people like blacks and seniors because they many not be able to affored the expense of maintaining a valid form of government id. Now I can't say about other states but in Pennsylvania a driver's license cost $42 and a non-driver's ID is about $20 (at least the last time I checked). I don't know if that is considered expensive or not. I personally don't think so.

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:The fact that it costs approximately $42 is indeed rather obnoxious, but that's just another tax we pay. I find it incredulous that anyone that has the interest in voting and the capacity to get themselves to the polls would not have at least a $20 ID card.

Well historically Americans have not wanted to be a "Were are your papers?" type society. Apparently becoming a government sycophant is in style.

A big problem now is that you can be US citizen but not meet the residency requirements for any state. If the states wants something from you they define you as a resident, if you want something from them you have to prove you meet their arbitrary requirements.

I'm not that old by RS standards, I didn't have a SS# till I was a teenager and needed to get one to start working.

As a US citizen you are not required to prove you are a US citizen to reenter the US. Border agents ask questions to determine whether there's probable cause to doubt your claim. That's why it's the Canadians checking your status when you leave.

Neal Anderth wrote:Well historically Americans have not wanted to be a "Were are your papers?" type society. Apparently becoming a government sycophant is in style.

Neither have we Brits. Over here it's seen as an affront to our freedoms for the State to enforce ID laws. Of course, there is creep toward authoritarianism.

I do wonder about Randy's claims about the Democrats paying people to vote. Is that something that has been proven and is confined just to that party, or just a partisan slur?

As a US citizen you are not required to prove you are a US citizen to reenter the US. Border agents ask questions to determine whether there's probable cause to doubt your claim. That's why it's the Canadians checking your status when you leave.

Yet in Arizona a Japanese car company executive, legally in the US, can be held by agents of the state because they don't like his papers.

you need an ID to watch porn?

Neal Anderth wrote:I'm not that old by RS standards, I didn't have a SS# till I was a teenager and needed to get one to start working.

I was the same way. However, that is no longer the case. Part of the paperwork one must fill out upon the birth of a child is SS application. The card with the newborn's SS# is recieved in the mail within a couple of weeks.

Neal Anderth wrote:As a US citizen you are not required to prove you are a US citizen to reenter the US. Border agents ask questions to determine whether there's probable cause to doubt your claim. That's why it's the Canadians checking your status when you leave.

I don't believe this is true any more if it ever was. I went on a cruise for my honeymoon in 2004. I was required to show a valid driver's license or valid birth certificate before I was allowed off the ship when we returned to port. Additionally, IIntelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 requires a valid U.S. passport to reenter the US from any foriegn country as of 2007. Spefically, from wikipedia, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative requires

As of January 23, 2007, all persons (including U.S. citizens) traveling by air to the United States from all foreign countries (including Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, the Caribbean, and Bermuda) have been required to present a valid passport, NEXUS card, or U.S. Coast Guard/Merchant Mariner Document.
On March 27, 2008, the departments of Homeland Security and State announced in a final rule that "full implementation" of the land and sea provisions of WHTI would begin June 1, 2009; on that date, the following types of documents will become the only acceptable documents for border crossings:
U.S. citizens and nationals: valid U.S. passport, passport card, state enhanced driver's license (available in Michigan, New York, Vermont and Washington) approved by the Secretary of Homeland Security, or trusted traveler program card (NEXUS, FAST, or SENTRI); a valid Merchant Mariner Document when traveling in conjunction with official maritime business; or a valid U.S. military identification card when traveling on official orders.

Ray Jay wrote:you need an ID to watch porn?

Well, you must prove that you are over 18 in order to get porn so I would say yes.

ruffhaus

Everyone has one

You think? You have any evidence?
This study says that the number of Americans without documentation is about 13,000,000
http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/d ... _39242.pdf

Philosophically i don't have a problem with people identifying themselves at the polling station. But, if people can't afford the identification, (and $42 is a lot for the very poor Arch, And what about people someone who is handicapped and can't drive...? Blind? Prone to seizures?)
I think the problem is that paying for the right to vote, is wrong. Which means there should be some form of free method of getting an identification card.
Of course, when you suggest that the extreme libertarians and conspiracy theorists will start to think its the beginning of the big round up....

ruff

Sassenach, it's right up there with the argument that the SAT (standardized tests covering math and English vocabulary) are culturally biased

Well, there is a lot of evidence that this is the case....

ruff

The real reason Democrats object to ID requirements at the polls is because it makes it more difficult to bus in a load of people who they are paying to vote, and that many of these people are not who they say they are.

Could you point to examples of this that have been documented? I suspect you're in the realm of exagerated conspiracy here.
And, whats wrong with bussing in people who want to vote? When i worked as a poll captain we often drove seniors and disabled people to the polls to vote. If we knew how they were going to vote....
As for the "a lot of these people aren't who they say they are " claim. How do you know?
And isn't it incumbent on those making this claim that they prove they aren't American citizens older than 18?

Again ruff, I tend to agree that voters should have identification. But, they should be able to get proper identification freely ...Do you really want another expensive government program in place to insure this? Is the risk of voter fraud that great that you'd invest half a billion to provide a comprehensive program to get every poor person a voter card really worth it? I think that for the required ongoing cost, and it would have to be another continuing program, I think you need to really make the case that voter fraud is larger than it is.... You havn't backed your claims up with anything .
Methinks its another over wrought conspiracy theory used to scare lower class white folk.

archduke

Well, you must prove that you are over 18 in order to get porn so I would say yes.

All you need to do is look 18, McLovin.

now voter suppression.... thats probably a pretty important issue, and probably a lot more of it going on.
By voter suppression, you get robo calling the day of an election with messages suppossedly from election officals sending people to the wrong places to vote - or warning about "violence at polling booths" etc. There's a great deal of evidence of voter intimidation and confusion, especially in states with significant minority populations...

In Canada right now, there's an ongoing scandal where the ruling Conservatives have been accussed of massive voter fraud in the last election. Primarily using the above scenario in around 40 ridings... But so far no charges. And only one resignation from a local riding operative...

You don't even need to do that, ARJ. Apparently there's this thing called the 'internet' where some helpful souls have put pron up that can be viewed for free and without ID. Of course, I've not investigated this too thoroughly...

What is the purpose of voter ID? Is it to ensure that people who are voting are who they say they are?

I would think that the act of voting is important enough to have means to check against corruption.
I would think that the act of voting is important enough to get the ID needed. A $20 investment in the rest of your life's responsibility of voting? Lets say you live until 88. That is 70 years of voting. A cost of 29 cents per year. I would think that would be quite easily handled. Compare the cost issue to the importance of voting.

Which is more important?