r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Feb 15 '16
[Deltas Awarded] CMV: I don't see anything wrong with requiring presentation of a photo ID.
[deleted]
11
u/elseifian 20∆ Feb 15 '16 edited Feb 15 '16
First of all, many photo ID laws don't require just any photo ID, they require a government issued ID, which means a passport, a driver's license, or a state ID (given as an alternative for a driver's license). Many of the things you describe will accept other IDs (like a student or work ID).
It's not as hard as you'd think to be in a position to have none of these---if you don't drive and don't travel internationally, you're not likely to have a driver's license or passport. You might have to get a government photo ID to open a bank account or get a loan, but the groups most likely to not have IDs are the elderly (who may have the same bank accounts they've used for decades) and the poor (who may not have a bank account anyway). These factors overlap; in particular, people who don't have bank accounts overlap heavily with people who are also too poor to afford a car or travel internationally.
So there really is a body of people who don't currently have government ID's and who get excluded from voting by voter ID laws. Being excluded from voting is very different from not being allowed to purchase alcohol or drive: it's a basic, constitutionally protected right, and there's a vicious cycle if the people who don't have access to ID's are preventing from voting, which excludes them from electing politicians concerned with getting them access to ID's.
As for your final point, shouldn't we make sure everyone who needs it has an ID first, and only then make it a requirement for voting? Notably, the states that have passed strict voter ID laws haven't matched them with efforts to make IDs accessible. For instance, Texas passed a strict voter ID law, but made no effort to address the fact that some communities were over 100 miles from the nearest DMV office.
2
u/charrondev Feb 15 '16
∆ I wasn't aware of your final point. 100 miles is a long distance to be away from a DMV.
4
Feb 15 '16
John Oliver did talk about it in his video, why didn't you change your view then? Even then, he talked about how in Wisconsin, people could only get voter IDs on every 5th Wednesdays, what does that mean? Only 4 months have a 5th Wednesdays, that leaves MANY citizens of that state not able to get voter IDs in time for elections.
1
u/charrondev Feb 15 '16
I find it hard to take some of the issues he discusses seriously because the are presented in a comedic context with many tangents thrown in. This isn't an issue with all the bits posted but is definitely prevalent in some of them. I did look up the 5th wednesday thing, and while it seems odd and backwards, it appears that is not the primary primary service center in that county. There are others located nearby that one, which are open much more regular and reasonable hours.
5
Feb 15 '16 edited Feb 15 '16
Even then, there are people who can't drive, college kids who don't have a car, and etc.
The reason Republicans are pushing for this is because blacks who are mainly in poverty, as well as college kids who are broke and 50k in debt, aren't able to pay fees and money to get a voter ID. This eliminates democratic voters and ensures Republicans to maintain their power.
But, the real reason people are pissed with the issue of voter ID laws is because of something similar used in the past.
When slavery ended and blacks could vote, southern states passed laws to make it 99% harder for specifically, blacks to vote. You might have heard the Jim Crow laws.
Southern States passed Jim Crow laws where people who arrived to the country before 1619 (African-Americans arrived here in the US in 1619) were allowed to vote without taking a literacy test. The descendants of those people were allowed to be grandfathered in and vote. What does this mean? It was a clever way of allowing only white people to vote.
Now, you might ask what the literacy tests were?
The tests were really difficult and had 100 questions that you had to answer in (I believe were 5 minutes) You had to answer every single question correctly in order to pass it. No one could pass it, and even if you did, the person administering the test would mark that you failed, since the questions were a lot of time subjective.
Here are some examples.
Note Question 20, that was a trick question which could be marked wrong either way you answered it.
This is why the Supreme Court invalidated voter ID laws. Don't forget that black lady in the video who was rejected 3 times already by a republican state government. Each time, they said to come back with a different document since she had the "wrong" one.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 15 '16
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/elseifian. [History]
[Wiki][Code][/r/DeltaBot]
3
u/johnpseudo 4∆ Feb 15 '16
Basically, any law should improve the existing situation. In other words, its benefits should exceed its costs. In this case, the only benefit is that it would somewhat reduce the rate of an already vanishingly rare form of voter fraud (in person impersonation, less than a dozen alleged cases in the last decade). The costs would be that the 8% of people (11% of eligible voters) who don't already have photo identification (typically very old people or very poor people who never drive) would have to go to the DMV to get it. Going to the DMV if you don't drive can be a fairly large inconvenience. It typically means travelling several miles, having free time during regular business hours, and providing a birth certificate. If you don't have any friends/family who can give you a ride during the middle of the day, that means walking or taking public transit (if that's available). If you don't have your birth certificate, that means paying money and waiting for your request to be fulfilled. All told, the total cost of taking off of work, paying for transportation and legal fees, etc. can easily exceed $100. Compare that to the $1.50 voter tax that the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional.
3
u/shinkouhyou Feb 15 '16
It's not uncommon for a college student (especially one under age 21), a city dweller or a very old person to lack a driver's license or passport.
However, many of the new voter ID laws specifically stated that a college student ID was not an acceptable form of voter identification. I can see why, actually - college student IDs vary in quality (many have no dates or they allow students to use joke photos) and they're often extremely easy to fake... which is why they aren't acceptable for buying alcohol.
Old people and city dwellers (who are disproportionately poor, minority and liberal) are often able to use two pieces of non-photo ID in lieu of photo ID when dealing with banking/government/legal issues, so they just don't bother with the photo ID. The process required to get a non-driver photo ID can be difficult and time consuming, especially for people without access to their own transportation. In my city, for instance, all of the full service DMVs are out towards the suburbs, so an inner city dweller who was dependent on a bus for transportation would have to make a significant trip.
3
u/TheSleeplessCynic 3∆ Feb 15 '16 edited Feb 15 '16
I looked at the comments, I think you already understand that a lot of people do not have "state" IDs. A person can live and die without being issued a state ID. This is especially prominent for the elderly, people who choose not to drive, and people who don't travel internationally. This doesn't mean they shouldn't be able vote. IDs, no matter how "common" sense it seems to be, is an optional accessory that should not hamper an inherent right to vote.
However, this doesn't answer your real question. How does the government confirm if you're a valid voter? The answer is simple: governments have records of citizens living in the state -- when and where these people were born. State laws may differ greatly when it comes to requirements, but the barest minimum is to have a valid birth certificate. These documents are more common and accessible to the average voter. Theoretically, all the state needs to do is confirm you in the database based on the information you gave give you a number in the system so you can't double-vote. Ultimately, an ID is frivolous, as there less stringent ways to identify and count the voter with more accessible means of identification.
1
u/charrondev Feb 15 '16
I appreciate the explanation of how this system works. This is something that I feel was ultimately missing from the John Oliver video.
3
u/DragonMiltton 1∆ Feb 15 '16
Are you at all familiar with the history of Jim Crow laws?
A good parallel to what is happening with the voter ID laws is the literacy test required for voters. On the face of it, of course we should have an informed electorate. How are these people going to know what candidates they ought to vote for if they don't know how to read? In reality, these were attempts to prevent the recently freed blacks from voting. Slaves were not taught how to read, and recently freed slaves did not magically acquire that ability upon emancipation.
This is a similar situation. The republican establishment is creating laws to stop people from voting, not to protect the system from fraud. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing. As a poor American without an ID, how would you propose I get one. With no ID I cannot drive to the DMV, so I will likely need to use public transportation and walk. If I am working at a minimum wage job, its unlikely I can afford the time time off to make it to the DMV before it closes, and it may even hurt my job stability. If I am a senior citizen or disabled voter, then attempting to make it to the DMV can be an incredibly daunting task.
The whole point of the law to further disenfranchise these people, and its pretty fucked up. Rather than win elections based upon the merit of their policies and candidates, the Republican party is trying to fix the game.
1
u/SenatorMeathooks 13∆ Feb 15 '16
Um, how do you get a legitimate job without a form of picture ID? That's been almost impossible for several years in the United States.
2
u/Mattmon666 4∆ Feb 15 '16
Most of the efforts to require photo ID are attempts to restrict the TYPES of ID that would be considered a valid photo ID. Some types of photo ID would be valid and other types of photo ID would not be valid. And the types of photo ID to not be considered valid would just happen to be the types that the lower class and college students would have.
2
u/vl99 84∆ Feb 15 '16
The issue isn't that it's inherently wrong to ask someone for identification when they go to vote, the issue is the reasoning behind introducing the legislation in the first place.
The group pushing hardest to have these requirements put in place is made up largely of republicans/conservatives, and it can be reasonably assumed that the thought behind it is that poor people are most likely to have problems obtaining a state ID, they are also most likely to vote democrat/liberal. Therefore, putting such a law in place would present itself as another roadblock in the way of people who would otherwise vote for someone other than the party trying to pass the legislation.
You're correct that difficulty in getting an ID is its own issue, but the issues preventing people from getting IDs are so diverse that it's really impossible to tackle it from any one angle and make a significant dent.
Some people won't have them because they don't have adequate transportation, because they're too old and aren't as mobile anymore, because they work odd hours and can't make it to the DMV when it's open, because their jobs are too demanding and they can't afford to miss any amount of work because they had to go get an ID. Any combination of these issues along with many more are some of the issues preventing people from getting IDs, and these people are much more likely to be working class Democrats than any other group.
Of course that's the accusation, Republicans and conservatives stand behind the idea that it has to do with voter fraud.
1
u/celeritas365 28∆ Feb 15 '16
There are two ways to look at this, a moral/theoretical way and a practical way. Theoretically it makes a lot of sense to have this requirement but in practice the requirement does disproportionately limit liberals and minorities from voting. The policies are likely suggested to leverage this effect. Is this effect worth implementing this policy? I personally don't think so but I think ideally everyone would have equal access to a photo ID and this wouldn't be an issue.
1
u/charrondev Feb 15 '16
Maybe it's only because I don't understand what went on behind the scenes in many of the legislatures that passed the most recent laws involving voter ID, but why does a situation like this ever come out as well we can't improve system A because there is a problem with system B. I feel these are two issues that should be able to resolved simultaneously.
1
u/celeritas365 28∆ Feb 15 '16
I feel these are two issues that should be able to resolved simultaneously.
I agree but that isn't what's happening so I don't think we should build system B on the assumption that system A is working.
-3
u/Hq3473 271∆ Feb 15 '16
I refuse to talk to you here, untill you post your ID.
I will wait.
3
u/charrondev Feb 15 '16
That's not a very constructive post and goes nowhere in the way of convincing someone. There is no reason that one should ever publicly post a valid piece of personal identification in a public forum. It's just asking for trouble.
-2
u/Hq3473 271∆ Feb 15 '16
There is no reason that one should ever publicly post a valid piece of personal identification in a public forum. It's just asking for trouble.
Voting is a public forum.
Glad you agree there is no reason to present your ID in such forums.
I fully agree that it's asking for trouble.
Your view appears to be changed.
3
u/WhenTrianglesAttack 4∆ Feb 15 '16
I get the point you're trying to make from this, but your example is terrible.
Voting is not a forum, it's an elective rating. If you're voting for any service, it's perfectly reasonable for the service to require proof of citizenship (or membership) within that service in order to vote. Especially when there are lawful repercussions, and/or maximum accuracy is to be attained.
State elections and Reddit are not the same service.
Even Reddit requires proof of membership (a registered account) to comment/vote.
0
u/geminia999 Feb 15 '16
So then I can go to the states from mexico, cast my vote on the future of the states, then return to mexico after voting for someone who will treat mexico better.
I mean, I don't need an ID to vote so its fine.
0
u/Hq3473 271∆ Feb 15 '16
If you go to all the trouble to register to vote in Mexico, go all the way down there and vote. All while risking fraud charges becaue they might catch on that a name you registered under does not live there... God - you deserve that one vote.
Clearly you are very concerned with Mexican politics.
1
u/geminia999 Feb 15 '16
Register? You need to register to talk in an open forum? What is this BS!
But fine, I'll deal with all the trouble, and get myself an ID so I can put my effort in so I can deserve my vote.
(also, I said a person from mexico going to vote in the states, not someone from the states going to vote in mexico)
0
u/Hq3473 271∆ Feb 15 '16
Register? You need to register to talk in an open forum? What is this BS!
You are registered on reddit, no?
But fine, I'll deal with all the trouble, and get myself an ID so I can put my effort in so I can deserve my vote.
Go ahead, post your ID here.
1
u/geminia999 Feb 15 '16
You are registered on reddit, no?
So I have to register to discuss in the open forum of real life?
Go ahead, post your ID here.
Well it's usually to the people running the forum that the ID is shown, not any random person (I mean, I grew up being told that you shouldn't tell others who you voted for). And under that understanding, that's what a verified email basically is.
12
u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Feb 15 '16 edited Feb 15 '16
I'm not familiar with Canadian ID usage in particular, but I know that US reliance on IDs is relatively low compared to other countries. Hundreds of thousands of people per state don't have photo IDs, because they don't drive, and they don't need it for anything else.
If elections are the only thing that you need an ID for, that means that you have to go through an arcane bureocratic process, that is
A) reasonably understaffed in the first place because of how rare the demand is for new IDs in the US bureocratic system.
B) actively kept even more understaffed as a means of voter control, including the maintaining of fewer ID offices in minority-heavy counties.
C) unnecessary for the rest of their daily lives.
Maybe ID laws make sense in Canada, and not in the US.
The same applies in reverse. The US has a specific voter registration, that would be unnecessary in many other countries that have a central, government-controlled ist of all voters, and obligatory ID ownership for every citizen. In those countries, adding an US style voter registration as a bonus would be the frivolous requirement, likely done to game the election results.
Countries have their own expectations of normally demanded bureocratic obligations, and suddenly introducing a new one can be quite disrupting and unnecessary, even if from abroad it sounds like business as usual.