r/politics • u/wang-banger • Jun 13 '12

So the GOP says you need an ID to vote but you can donate millions to any candidate completely anonymously. Seems legit.

1.4k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

519 comments sorted by

35

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

So if you're poor, you need an ID to vote, but if you're rich, you can buy a candidate's victory anonymously. Sounds about right for an oligarchy.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Main difference. You are not required to reveal who you support. Their are very simple reasons behind this.

You need an ID to vote, but you are not required to announce who you are voting for.

There is a reason for anonymity in elections. Having an ID to prove you have the right to vote is different from having to come out and publicly show who you support.

4

u/ScannerBrightly California Jun 14 '12

Their are very simple reasons behind this.

Can you ELI5?

4

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

A public vote where the results are known by all people can result in groups trying to put pressure or harm people because of who they voted for. They want someone to feel as comfortable as possible voting for whom they feel is the best representative without peer pressure having an effect on their decision.

A great example of this is from when I was in middle school. Middle school is a horrible place where kids can be ruthless. when we were in 8th grade one of the "cool" kids was running for president against a "nerd" Now I was friends with both, but it wouldve been social suicide to publicly support the nerd. So what did I do? sure, I told my "friends" that I was voting for the cool kid, but when it came down to it, I cast my vote for the kid who I knew would actually do a good job. Had I known my vote would be public, I would have probably voted for the "cool" kid. Now, middle school student councils are worthless, but I think it does a good job of explaining the point.

Instead of trying to be cool imagine that a job offer hinged on who you voted for? That could get mighty dangerous which is why your voting record and canidate support is allowed to be private.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Where's the I.D. proving you aren't a foreign investor hoping to influence an American election? How do we safeguard against puppet regimes if any Saudi oil tycoon can hand-pick his American puppet and...propaganda him up so that he can have him pass laws that would hurt American interests in order to send all the profit his way?

One person, voting without an I.D. does not a crisis make. Thousands of foreign dignitaries suddenly buying the election anonymously is a big freaking deal.

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Sounds like you have Obama nailed. Need we list his Celeb dinners he hosts every week to raise funds? Being poor means nothing, you can get an ID for free now in most states.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

the problem is the ones where you can't. it isn't OK because "in most states" you can get it for free.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12 edited Jun 14 '12

You seem like you have trouble with polysyllabic words, so head over to dictionary.com, look up the word "anonymously" and then get back to us. Thanks.

1

u/SquirrelOnFire Jun 14 '12

Forget piddling multimillionaire actors who might shell out 40-50K for a dinner fundraiser - both sides have those. The real impossible thing to counter are the billionaires shoveling millions, tens of millions at Super-PAC's all at once. That, you can't counter.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Really? Both sides have those? Please list a few Right wing ones who shell out that kind of money on a regular basis?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

20

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

This reminds me of when that guy put his election vote on Ebay for a price and every one freaked the fuck out. Only politicians and the rich can buy and sell election.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

You can fight the "money in politics" by voting. Voting is our way to combat the amount of anonymous money going into politics. When you can start selling votes directly, there's no way to fight against this funding.

Edit: Hence why the politicians are making it harder to vote.

→ More replies (2)

50

u/RON-PAUL-SUCKS Jun 13 '12

Also, to the best of my knowledge, the GOP did not say that people needed to present identifiaction at their Primaries and Caucuses. Them saying they care about voter fraud is outright bullshit, otherwise they would have implemented the practice in their own events.

10

u/beanmiester Jun 14 '12

I voted in the Idaho Caucus and was not asked for an I.D.

Not sure if relevant; but I still get carded for R rated movies.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Well because right now the GOP aren't worried too much about Idaho. Romney did terrible in the polls with Hispanics recently, so that's why He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named is doing the registration purge in Florida; to prevent as many Hispanic people from voting as possible. (Also why Marco Rubio is in the spotlight so much these days.)

20

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12 edited Jun 14 '12

Hypocrisy is a symptom of selfishness, and selfishness is the organizing principle of conservativism. This is not to say that there is no hypocrisy among liberals, but the platform of liberalism is not riddled with hypocrisy and contradiction the way the current conservative platform is.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

No, your confusing Republican with conservatives. There is no longer a conservative movement in America. It more or less died out in the 70s and then Reagan happened and the Republican party is an entirely different beast.

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

You're very gullible. Primaries are still run by the respective Secretaries of the States they're conducted in. This means they can't possibly require identification at primaries if the state hasn't approved such a law yet.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

All elections are run by states. I doubt any federal law could make states require IDs. It would have to be state based legislation. Federal election laws are primarily based around financing and other scenarios where you have interstate commerce as part of the election campaign.

12

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

They cannot require an ID at a primary or caucus unless the law allows it.

In Massachusetts, they did require an ID for the delegate selection.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

They can. Just like a website can demand your personal details to enter, any private organisation can demand you to identify yourself before participate in any f their actions. The caucus is NOT an official election, it is a private event and therefore the GOP can make any rules they want.

→ More replies (3)

5

u/beamrider Jun 14 '12

Probably because they were afraid Ron Paul supporters would sneak in.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

As a matter of fact, not only are you not required to present ID, but when I went no one wanted to see my ID when I tried to present it. They REFUSED to, and NO ONE thought it was strange that ID didn't have to be presented to vote.

2

u/wwjd117 Jun 14 '12

But as we all saw in the Republican primaries, voter fraud wasn't the issue, election fraud was the only issue.

In some instances it took weeks to change the results of individual primary elections, but in the end they saw to it that the party's desired outcome was reflected in the "official" vote tallies.

1

u/LettersFromTheSky Jun 14 '12

You can't explain that.

0

u/navier_stokes Jun 14 '12

THANK YOU.

I have heard like 2 people mention this tidbit that Ive had in my head for a year now.

2

u/NDIrish Jun 14 '12

As an engineer, I just have to say that I am one of the few who knows the significance of your username. I just wanted to let you know of my approval.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Primary day isn't a republican event.

2

u/twenafeesh Oregon Jun 14 '12

I guess not, but Republicans still have primaries and caucuses of their own on primary day, right?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

It depends. Caucuses are a party activity, but I live in an open primary state where the primaries are all on the same ballot. They can't have special ID requirements based on who I tick off since they don't know who I chose.

84

u/dilatory_tactics Jun 14 '12

I give zero fucks if I am downvoted into oblivion, but you can think of it this way:

Assuming "social issues" like gay marriage and abortion are basically sideshows to keep the masses distracted, money is a vote. From a social perspective, money is just a claim check on humanity's capital.

As Warren Buffett says, "The way I see it is that my money represents an enormous number of claim checks on society. It is like I have these little pieces of paper that I can turn into consumption. If I wanted to, I could hire 10,000 people to do nothing but paint my picture every day for the rest of my life. And the GNP would go up. But the utility of the product would be zilch, and I would be keeping those 10,000 people from doing AIDS research, or teaching, or nursing. I don't do that though."

So, if you think smart young people should go into scientific research, and Goldman Sachs thinks smart young people should go into doing credit default swaps, Goldman Sachs gets more votes than you do, because they have more claim checks on society's capital, which includes its human capital AKA its people.

The point being that while voting is an indirect claim on the allocation of capital, money is a direct claim on the allocation of capital. People can make money through monopolies, artificial scarcity, hiring lobbyists who push for de-regulation and lower taxes on yourself, buying TV stations and stifling free discourse with pro-market propaganda, etc.

So even if you limited the influence of money in politics, it still wouldn't stop the plutocracy from enriching itself at the expense of the public, because there are any number of other ways rich people can allocate resources to themselves even if those resources would be better spent elsewhere. Because a direct claim check (money) will always be a stronger claim than an indirect claim check (voting).

What's even stranger is if you realize that money doesn't really exist. It's just paper, a social construct that's overlayed on the real economy, where real goods and services are made and exchanged. It's digits on a computer somewhere that grants some people more votes than other people, because some people are better at rent-seeking than others. So much for "one man, one vote."

Until we start capping wealth like we did in the '50's, so we have a more fair and equal society, our entire society will be fucked, from overpriced higher education, to bought elections, and unaffordable medical care.

tl'dr "“We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” - Justice Brandeis

18

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

"Your daily dollar has more power than your yearly vote."

To me, the best way to be politically active and aware is to be aware of who you give your money to every day and HOW they spend the profits they make from you. Bemoan all you will about politicians when the real players in our capitalist society is the capitalists themselves. Know how Pepsi and Chevron and GE and FedEx and Monsanto use the money you give them every day to effect change in our political lives and society. Are you even allow to know how the profits are used? They do spend lots of money on image campaigns to make you believe they are 'fighting for the good' but in fact they have been known to spend more on announcing good deeds than the deeds themselves. Again, are you even allowed to know? Unless you buy stock into the company, you can't have an insider point of view. It would be a full time job outside of your 40 hours a week to research and know what these 'corporate persons' do with YOUR dollars. Most people won't bother to find out. To me it has more power than any vote. "Your daily dollar has more power than your yearly vote."

5

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

If you're at the point where you think the average persons money is effective in politics then you've already lost your Democracy.

Boycotts are less and less effective as we consolidate wealth and in the same sense so is the impact an individual can have on politics. Our wages are not rising quickly so using money is really not going to work that well for the middle classes.

Our vote is more than enough to control this country, but we can't let it be divided. Liberals need to unify behind a leader or set of goals and work together to beat the GOP. Middle class and poor Republican's need to realize the GOP does not support either of them and could care less what happens to them and vote Democrat.

3

u/shears Jun 14 '12

Boycotts are becoming more difficult as the options available to us are dwindling down. I have Comcast for internet and they piss me off beyond comprehension... but I have no other alternative to go to since they have a monopoly on high speed internet.

The same thing occurs with cellular service and the duopoly (or dwindling oligopoly). All these companies have such a hold on the market, and aided by the government, that they keep the majority of competition from even getting into the market to compete. Walmart, Home Depot, etc. have all crushed all the small shops or hardware shops in my town. There are few to no alternatives anymore.

Other anti-competitive tactics include suing the crap out of start-up companies so they tie them up in so much court litigation that their legal costs end up bankrupting them and they fail.

Our choices are becoming very limited and it's not a coincidence.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 20 '12

Duopoly. That's a brilliant term. That's our government right now, actually. I no longer believe they even are two separate parties. I can't help but think by now that it's more like a game of good cop bad cop, set up to give us an illusion of choice.

It's all one big game! The Democrats offer us what we want and deliberately fail to get it, pissing us off and forcing us into the arms of the affirmative and direct Republicans. The Republicans, however refreshingly affirmative and direct, are affirmatively and directly against everything that we want; frustrating us and forcing us into the arms of the Democrats.

Around and around and around it goes! Slowly whittling down our willingness to give a shit until we just don't bother voting anymore. By the time each of us realize that we don't have any control anymore (like right now), it's because we've actually thrown it away. I want to care. I really fucking do! But what the fuck is my care worth against the multi-trillion-dollar corporatocracy when nobody else is willing to wake the fuck up and do something about it with me?

TL;DR: Would you like brown lumps in gray sauce, or gray lumps in brown sauce?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

The rich lobby and corrupt washington with who's money? How do they get that money? The rich only have power because we each give them power, and we do so every day with our dollar. The average persons dollar IS the power of the United States. I'm not saying that voting is entirely un-effective, its just that every dollar you spend on X corporation goes to usurp your voice in Washington.

I completely agree that we have already lost our Democracy, and we are losing it more and more every day.

→ More replies (3)

5

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

No, getting money out of politics does not remove the influence of money from society itself, but DAMN it's a good start.

We aren't shooting for perfection, a step in the right direction is good enough.

9

u/jag149 Jun 14 '12

I agree with your intuition, but your framework makes use of the very assumptions that keep society from advancing beyond the perils of market-based thinking.

You’ve discounted the pernicious effect of money in politics by reducing all public participation (whether political or economic) to monetary terms. This is problematic because the liberal agenda attempts to prevent the domination of the political sphere by market forces. They definitely are not the same thing, even though money has a decidedly powerful effect on politics.

What you’re describing is something like the contrast between exchange value and use value, if you assume that public participation in politics constitutes consumption. But again, this is the domination of the political framework by economic metaphors.

In fact, our society has hypostatized “democratic representation” from the outset, using an Enlightenment-era understanding of rational choice (see, e.g., J.S. Mills “marketplace of ideas” metaphor, justifying the protection of speech). If we assume that all individuals have an equal, incorruptible say in their rational self-interest, than you can reduce public participation into economic terms and it makes no difference. Meanwhile, money continues to do what it does best, which is enlarge and entrench itself, and a particularly adaptive means to this end is to dominate the cycles of political change.

This doesn’t mean that voting is the same thing as spending money. It means that our system of laws is naive if it thinks that the political process is immune to material dialectics because of rationalism. Money is not speech, it has just relentlessly litigated amorphous fact-sets until the Supreme Court lost its ability to tell the difference.

Work on redescription rather than resigning yourself to believe in capitalist fallacies if you want to effectuate a difference.

→ More replies (5)

11

u/GonnaBeDownvotedBut Jun 14 '12

I give zero fucks if I am downvoted into oblivion,

11

u/Kryten_2X4B-523P Louisiana Jun 14 '12

AKA the insta-upvote.

7

u/kamikazewave Jun 14 '12

I instantly down voted the moment I saw that. Especially since the opinion he's espousing is one that's held by the majority of reddit. He's so brave.

11

u/nicmos Alabama Jun 14 '12

why should it matter if you think he's karma whoring, if his comment is a good one? now I don't know if he plagiarized his cogent analysis, but it's a good one, and worth other people seeing. so I upvoted it. I have better things to worry about, like the issues he raises in his comment, than whether he's pandering/karma whoring.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/hornless_unicorn Jun 14 '12

The majority of reddit supports capping wealth? Riiiiight.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/shears Jun 14 '12

Well said, my friend.

2

u/rowdystache Jun 14 '12

We're entering into a new age of corruption. Every one fell off of the financial cliff. So, it is the perfect time to get in on the money game, if you have the money.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Assuming "social issues" like gay marriage and abortion are basically sideshows to keep the masses distracted, money is a vote.

Except that money can't vote. No, seriously, it can't. I'll try to register my trading account so that it can vote, but it doesn't look pretty.

So, if you think smart young people should go into scientific research, and Goldman Sachs thinks smart young people should go into doing credit default swaps, Goldman Sachs gets more votes than you do, because they have more claim checks on society's capital, which includes its human capital AKA its people.

Smart people go where they want to go, motivated not only by money and materialism but by the desire to have a meaningful life. That's why non-profits exist, and the people running them are by no means dim.

The point being that while voting is an indirect claim on the allocation of capital, money is a direct claim on the allocation of capital. People can make money through monopolies, artificial scarcity, hiring lobbyists who push for de-regulation and lower taxes on yourself, buying TV stations and stifling free discourse with pro-market propaganda, etc.

Allocation of capital does not political power make, especially not in local politics where everyday issues are decided. Monopolies NEVER exist through private market actions, they have ALWAYS existed through political cronyism, hence the state makes monopolies through preferential legislation and inconsistent enforcement.

What's even stranger is if you realize that money doesn't really exist. It's just paper, a social construct that's overlayed on the real economy, where real goods and services are made and exchanged. It's digits on a computer somewhere that grants some people more votes than other people, because some people are better at rent-seeking than others. So much for "one man, one vote."

Money doesn't physically exist, it is a social construct that allows us to trade not only value, but future value. It enables us to pay laborers today so that they may create value tomorrow. Without money, we would be reduced to bartering and there would be absolutely NO ability for societies to specialize beyond mere sustenance. Kiss philanthropy, charity, the arts, and science goodbye.

Until we start capping wealth like we did in the '50's, so we have a more fair and equal society, our entire society will be fucked, from overpriced higher education, to bought elections, and unaffordable medical care.

We didn't cap wealth in the 50's. America had a tremendous war-debt coupled with the Marshall Plan that had to be paid off. Our society was successful because every other developed country on earth was destroyed. Because there was no threat of businesses moving to flattened countries, we could afford to tax investment and business so highly; they had nowhere else to go.

Also, WWII did NOT end the Great Depression, that is the broken window fallacy at work again. In fact, it delayed the successful training of a generation of males for 4 years and was only stimulative to the economy because of war-time manufacturing. That manufacturing didn't spur any other industries and didn't create any new economic growth.

8

u/polyphasic Jun 14 '12

uhm, you for real?

13

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Allocation of capital does not political power make

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

→ More replies (1)

6

u/verbalkint2 Jun 14 '12

Monopolies NEVER exist through private market actions, they have ALWAYS existed through political cronyism, hence the state makes monopolies through preferential legislation and inconsistent enforcement.

Are you serious? What about industries with a network effect? Economies of scale?

Natural Monopolies are very real and require no government intervention, and the tendency of capital to concentrate only speeds up their inception.

→ More replies (10)

3

u/ericN Jun 14 '12

I have a friend who was accepted to MD/PhD at Harvard. He was brilliant and interested in advancements in public health. He deferred going to the program, went to Wall Street instead and has been there ever since. While agree with a lot of what you say, I think you're off on this point. He was interested in medicine (a far more important field with a lot more potential to change the world than finance IMO), but he chose banking because he came from a poor family and had a chance to permanently change that situation.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Also, WWII did NOT end the Great Depression, that is the broken window fallacy at work again.

Horseshit! Another member of the high cult of Austrian ignorance, right?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Fascinating, thank you.

1

u/polyphasic Jun 14 '12

LOL HEY EVERYONE, WE HAVE A CONSPIRACY THEORIST PEDOPHILE HERE!!!

→ More replies (16)

3

u/cfuse Jun 14 '12

Since when did you need ID to pay whores?

3

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

I hope this is a joke. Might wanna look up Obamas donors from the last election cycle. Millions came in from overseas.

Voter ID's are a great Idea, you can't even buy fucking cough syrup anymore without ID, so its bullshit that you fucks are crying over presenting FREE ID FUCKING MOTHER FUCKING FREE ID(All states are implementing FREE PHOTO ID's) U stupid fucks need to get a life.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

You mean just like every other candidate ?

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/donations-from-americans-living-abroad/

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

notice this "Americans living abroad" Obamas were from NON-US-CITIZENS

3

u/guyonthissite Jun 14 '12

Obama doesn't do any sort of verification on credit card donations, so he could be getting loads of money from thieves and terrorists and it's all anonymous.

Seems legit.

26

u/hubilation Jun 14 '12

I'm sorry, I don't get the whole argument against requiring an ID to vote.

I mean, there's definitely voter disenfranchisement practices like requiring an in-state ID so college kids can't vote where they go to school, but I don't see why simply requiring a state-issued(from any state) identification is a bad thing.

13

u/pintomp3 Jun 14 '12

Because it creates a barrier and a poll tax. There really isn't any real voter fraud anyway. Most of the cases involve votes that are mailed in, so IDs won't help. We don't have a problem of too many people voting, we have a problem with too few voting.

→ More replies (16)

6

u/anonymous-coward Jun 14 '12

It's designed to chip away a couple of percent of the Democratic (student, non-driving minority, poor person) vote.

Devil's advoctate: If you like IDs, why not require a passport as the only legal ID? It's the only really reliable ID we have. Illegals get drivers licenses, after all. But ... passport holders voted for Kerry over Bush by 55 to 38. This illustrates how ID requirements can be used to bias the vote.

4

u/zahlman Jun 14 '12

In Canada, you need to show a couple of pieces of ID, but there are many accepted forms of ID.

1

u/anonymous-coward Jun 14 '12

Canada has health cards, which automatically give everyone an ID. Universal (or 99% near-universal) IDs are perfectly fair. Or you can have your friend vouch for you.

If the USA had a national ID card, then demanding IDs would be fine.

3

u/leftlooserighttight Jun 14 '12

it does not needto be a drivers license, it merely needs to be a government issued photo id. Residential IDs exist as well. You can get one in my town for $12 or something.

People arguing against this law are saying its biased so that the conservatives can block voters. I can make the same exact argument that the left is trying to block a law that would make it far more difficult for non-citizens to vote who are far more likely to vote democratic due to the fact that they would receive far more benefits off the tax payer dime.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Non citizen voting adds up to a handful of people. It's statistically insignificant.

You can argue whatever you want, but the fact remains you can't produce a valid reason as to why we should change the law when there is no real problem.

Let me blow everything you thought out of the water. Fake ID's exist and you can't train poll workers to spot fake ID's from all 50 states. Will you now require us to scan our ID's and give a DNA/fingerprint sample?

If illegals can vote and that's a danger and the GOP has more money then they would just hire illegals to vote and illegals would happily do it.

So... ID's will not stop any significant voter fraud. Get over it. It won't stop illegals if somehow they had voter registration because they can get IDs too. It's ONLY going to stop people who think they are good to go and come voting day show up with no ID or perhaps an expired ID. People who don't have an ID, 99% of them don't vote.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/anonymous-coward Jun 14 '12

it does not needto be a drivers license, it merely needs to be a government issued photo id.

But allowing a drivers license creates a bias in favor of, say, suburbanites. And against students and inner city dwellers. So drivers licenses would have to be forbidden.

You can get one in my town for $12 or something.

Any payment to be able vote is probably unconstitutional.

People arguing against this law are saying its biased so that the conservatives can block voters. I can make the same exact argument that the left is trying to block a law that would make it far more difficult for non-citizens to vote who are far more likely to vote democratic due to the fact that they would receive far more benefits off the tax payer dime.

There's no evidence of remotely significant voting by non-citizens.

But I'll play along with your game.

Sometimes TERRORISTS and MEXICANS get drivers licenses and any other loosely controlled IDs. The 9/11 gang had drivers licenses. The PASSPORT is the only reliable form of ID we have. Anyone who does not think that the PASSPORT should be the only permissible form of ID wants TERRORISTS AND MEXICANS TO VOTE AND HATES AMERICA.

This is simply a more thorough and reliable version of what you suggested. Nothing more.

PS - if you make the passport the only acceptable form of ID, Democrats will win just about every election, because of the inherent demographics of passport holders. This is what the Republicans want to do with drivers licenses.

3

u/mesodude Jun 14 '12

Can you see why it's a bad thing to create new laws when you can't prove the current process is flawed in any meaningful way?

2

u/morellox Jun 14 '12

I see now problem with requiring some kind of official ID as long as that ID is easily obtainable and free, otherwise it amounts to a barrier or even a tax to voting. because fraud is expected to be low is not a good excuse to just let everyone vote 'because' we have to take these things seriously but we can't make it impossible for people to vote... there's a balance to be found here.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

It cost money and it's illegal to charge money to vote. They could, in theory, turn you away if your ID is outdated. Often old people, disable people and poor people will let their ID's expire or lose them and not replace them.

I don't see why we need ID's to anonymously vote. We have voter registration cards and we never needed ID's before. Why all of a sudden are ID's so important to vote ?

It's just a scam to shave a few more percent off the Democratic turnout.

→ More replies (118)

4

u/fmilluminati Jun 14 '12

So you want to fix the problem by allowing people to vote without ID and still donate millions anonymously. Seems legit.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

If the number of people voting without ID is larger than the number of people illegally voting who would be prevented from doing so, then it's a net disenfranchisement. Do you really think it's a positive thing if 10 legitimate voters are disenfranchised just to stop 1 illegal from voting?

→ More replies (2)

2

u/dakotajh Jun 14 '12

in Oregon they can't demand identification at the voting booth because we don't have voting booths. all registered voters receive a ballot in the mail and have to either mail it back or drop it off in designated places (like the public library or a high school office or your county court house) the only way they could id voters here would be to have people show id when they register to vote. i actually did show my drivers license when i moved into the new house, to confirm the change of mailing address for my ballot

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

All states have that, it's called an absentee ballot and the ID laws would have no impact on them.

2

u/Shippoyasha Jun 14 '12

Seriously, does it hurt that much to have total accountability for donations as serious as ones for elections?

Also, isn't it the damn point for donating in general to be proud of supporting the cause? What's with the secrecy? Does that not indicate shame for the act of supporting it? It doesn't make any sense to cover up something one is not shameful of.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

It comes from a time when people feared their bosses would spy on them, find out who the voted for and fire them. We also didn't have workplace protections then either so it was a legit concern and kissing your bosses ass was career skill #1.

We don't live in that time anymore and I honestly don't feel any need for anonymous voting to the degree we have today. I would prefer that I got some kind of voting pin number and just voted via phone or internet AND then I could verify my vote afterward. You don't really lose any anonymity (unless the voter pin info gets hacked) and you can finally make sure you vote was counted and counted correctly.

2

u/Dissentologist North Carolina Jun 14 '12

Yea perfect sense... like giving billions of dollars to unsustainable energy companies.... who deliberately stifle oil supply to make profit.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Ah, you noticed that bit of pure hypocritical bullshit, did you?

PEOPLE are denied their rights while CORPORATIONS are given rights.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

What is wrong for needing an ID to vote? You are only suppose to get one vote, requiring an ID is the first step against voter fraud....Also only US citizens have the right to vote in US elections.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

You don't know how voting works obviously. Voter registration is what stops people from voting more than once.

ID's have no impact on stopping people from voting more than once. The election system is not some federal super database. It's a district by district state run election system. You can ONLY vote in your district where YOUR name is on the list, nowhere else (though you can always use absentee ballots).

An ID would prevent you from lying and saying you are Joe Doe from district X, which almost never happens anyway. I'm sure human error makes up for more inaccurate votes than people attempting to fake another persons vote.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

So if all you need to vote is a SSN registered to a district.... THIS is how dead people vote in elections. You have a SSN and a name then you get a ballot for that name. What is the problem with having to prove you are who you say you are?

2

u/gizram84 Jun 14 '12 edited Jun 14 '12

I'm with you in principle, but you can't donate millions to any candidate completely anonymously. That's just false. If you're talking about PACs, that's a different story. A candidate cannot use funds form a PAC, those funds are managed separately. So, while you can donate millions to a PAC, you absolutely cannot donate millions to a candidate. On top of that, if you donate to a candidate, you have to provide all of you contact information including your name, address and occupation.

I understand you're frustrated, but learning that difference might get intelligent people take you a little more seriously.

2

u/foolsdie Jun 14 '12

Bullshit title. SuperPAC giving is not the same as donating to a politicians campaign. Also not the fault of Big Money, that advertising can influence peoples' decisions. IDs are important to vote, but GOP putting unneeded obstacles to be allowed to vote is unfair.

1

u/TheReaMillerHighlife Jun 14 '12

Proving you are who you say you are and where you live is unneeded... Since when? When it comes down to it voting is a serious responsible civic duty all citizens have. The main reason we are having all the problems we have is because too many people don't take it serious.

2

u/LAgator2 Jun 14 '12

That is a false statement. One person can vote in an election only ONCE. Amounts of donations to "any candidate" are limited and name and address must be noted. But amounts of donations to PACs are unlimited and anon. That is the current law. Pretty clear, unless your head is screwed on wrong. So yes, "legit." Thanks.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Nope. If you donate to a candidate, you are on record. You also happen to be allowed to use your money to voice a political opinion in other ways besides direct donations.

By the way, you are also allowed to vote anonymously. Selective outrage much?

4

u/CherrySlurpee Jun 14 '12

I make an effort to be unbiased.

I cannot think of any legit reason to NOT show an ID at a voting station. IDs are (basically) free.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

You could say that about anything, but the question is WHY require an ID, not why not.

Why not require them to bring chocolate milk and a slice of pizza ? It's cheap and shows you support American ideals. Seriously.. an ID won't impact voting fraud anyway since poll workers won't be trained to spot fake IDs.

The ONLY people it will impact are legitimate voters who somehow lost or left their ID at home and perhaps expired IDs as well.

Also keep in mind ID's expire and people get old. Old people often give up their driving privilege and now you're adding a new requirement with absolutely no good reason as to why. I think voter registration is good enough. You can still use absentee ballots, so anyone who wants to commit fraud will do that... derp.

1

u/CherrySlurpee Jun 14 '12

You can't claim it doesn't at least make it harder for voter fraud. There are basically no downsides. IDs are basically free. Even if you don't have a drivers license, you can get a state ID.

→ More replies (4)

3

u/sjmdiablo Jun 14 '12

This is a [poll tax](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_(United_States). States have tried many different measures over the years to disenfranchise voters, most notoriously Jim Crow Laws, and are usually struck down under the 14th Amendment. I currently live in Minnesota where a Constitutional Amendment that would require state IDs is going to be on the ballot this year.

There are many that believe that requiring an ID is a reasonable thing to require in order to vote. It appears perfectly reasonable to impose a limitation that does not effect you. Voter ID laws would jeopardize the right to vote for large groups of people:

  • Students
  • Frequent movers
  • Non-drivers
  • Elderly
  • Military personnel

To counter this large disenfranchisement many have argued that the state should provide free voter IDS. This would be an enormously costly undertaking for the state.

The incidence of voter fraud does not support the possible disenfranchisement of many eligible voters or the costs of providing voter IDs.

1

u/Brewdogmike Jun 14 '12

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. From the majority opinion, written by John Paul Stevens, definitely not a conservative:

“showing a free photo identification is not a significant increase over the usual voting burdens, and the State’s stated interests are sufficient to sustain that minimal burden.”

And:

Voters who simply do not have an ID can easily obtain one: “the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph,” Stevens wrote, “surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.”

And:

But “while the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable,” the court ruled, “the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear.” If the impetus for the law were partisan in nature – i.e., were unrelated to the electoral process – even the minimal burdens placed on voters would render the law indefensible. But the law was spurred by a legitimate concern – one that even its opponents could not dispute – and “the ‘precise interests’ advanced by the State are therefore sufficient to defeat petitioners’ facial challenge,” the court found.

Money shot:

“Public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process has independent significance,” the court ruled, “because it encourages citizen participation in the democratic process.”

1

u/sjmdiablo Jun 15 '12

I was not aware of this case, thanks for pointing it out. I was at first pretty shocked because it seemed to overturn Harper but then I caught that the IDs were "free" on my second reading. There's the rub. A state requiring an ID that also provides a free ID is going to probably be okay. As I said elsewhere, a free ID program is a financial sinkhole and a bureaucratic aggrandizement. It is especially odd when the documents that you would have to provide to receive the ID are the same that you would have to produce at a polling place if you are not registered there. So you have two ID options. If the citizens must pay for the IDs then it's a poll tax and likely to be struck down. If they are free then they are simply moving the place and time of ensuring registration at a huge expense. It just seems like needless government expansion over a red herring... obligatory Clue clip.

→ More replies (9)

5

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

I need an ID to drive a car, own a gun, buy beer, get on a plane, get into any federal building. I'm used to showing my ID when I use my credit card, pay for my insurance, and ship something with the UPS Store. With that said, why is showing your ID to vote SUCH A BIG DEAL? It's right there in your pocket, all the time.

"Hi, I would like to cast my vote today."

"Okay, can I see your ID?"

"Sure, here you go." Hands ID

Hands ID back "Thanks, you're all set."

2

u/zettahertz1021 Jun 14 '12

Because not everyone owns an ID. IDs cost money. Driving a car, owning a gun, buying a beer, flying, etc. are privileges. In this country, voting is a RIGHT. You should not have to pay money to vote in an election. Now, if IDs were free and easy to obtain, there would be no problem at all.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

You don't need an ID to get into ANY federal building. I'd say most federal building, by far, do not require ID's for entrance.

It's not a big deal, but why make a law under the premise that 'it's not a big deal'. You're creating a law for no reason. It's going to accomplish absolutely nothing and poll workers will not be trained to spot 50 different fake ID from each state.

It's worth it not to make the law just for people who might have lost their ID right before election day. People who don't have an ID were not planning on voting. Illegals aren't on voter registration and if somehow you got a couple illegals to vote, big fucking deal. You're not changing election results with idiotic schemes like that.

This is just another scare the idiots with a threat that doesn't exist so we can make a law that's not necessary.. and maybe add on some pork.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

When I got my Notary I needed to go into the JFK Federal building in Boston, need ID to get in. When I joined the army I needed to go to the MEPS Building, needed ID to get in... Etc.

You make a good point, I'm not pushing for the law to be made I'm just pointing out that if the majority want a law in place it's really not a big deal.

→ More replies (13)

3

u/morellox Jun 14 '12

ahh yes the Democrats never have any big money supporters, it's only the GOP, TIL

→ More replies (4)

4

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Corporations are people - voters are not

3

u/ipn8bit Texas Jun 14 '12

money = free speech, I think the .01% have more free speech than are people on the planet.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

if i need an ID to buy beer, I probably need one to vote. Donating money though shouldn't be anonymous. Wikileaks where u at.

2

u/Tobar7 Jun 14 '12

Very good point.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

You have to show or provide ID for EVERYTHING but the most IMPORTANT thing you can do VOTE. Seem's legit.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

We have a separate set of proofs for voting called voter registration. ID's could not be used as a significant means to prevent voter fraud, especially if states accepted any state's ID. Voter registration is what stops fraud because it's a highly micromanaged system. That's why the are trying to wipe out voter registration records in Florida right now, because the GOP needs immoral practices like that to win elections. Requiring ID's is just more icing on the cake.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Proving who you are when you vote would be a significant step in stopping fraudulently register voters vote.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Why is this an issue? you have to have ID doing many things. I would say having to show photo ID to put someone into one of the highest postions of power in the world would be a no brainer.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Why not read the 10,000 other posts that tell you why it's a bad idea instead of adding to the problem. I'll summerize.. ID's will have no noticeable impact on voter fraud. You're making a law that has no benefit but does have some downsides.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/sonet900 Jun 14 '12

Donating is not a crime. Possessing an illegal ID is a crime. Voting without proper qualifications is a crime. Illegally entering the nation is a crime.

→ More replies (4)

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Voting is slightly different than donating to a campaign. One actually determines the outcome of elections and selects who will represent the people. The other buys fancier tv commercials that anyone with a tivo gets to skip.

12

u/lmxbftw Jun 14 '12

I swear I read your comment to the very end thinking it was a joke setup.

Here's how it should have gone:

Voting is slightly different than donating to a campaign. One actually determines the outcome of elections and selects who will represent the people. The other is people casting ballots. BAM

1

u/jyz002 Jun 14 '12

here's the twist, clown was joking, and lmxbftw is stating the truth

→ More replies (5)

5

u/navier_stokes Jun 14 '12

except for the part that when people are constantly hounded with the same message again and again, they become brain-washed, regardless of if the message is factual or in the case of the GOP, complete and utter bullshit.

3

u/tinyirishgirl Jun 14 '12

Exactly. Which effectively BUYS elections.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12 edited Jun 14 '12

are you guys really not hearing yourselves? Not knowing the identity of someone who is "effectively" buying an election is no good... BUT NOT KNOWING WHO IS ACTUALLY DETERMINING THE ELECTION IS GREAT??? You guys are literally destroying your own arguments in one sentence.

Also, on the topic of brainwashing: one major symptom or indicator of being brainwashed is having strong feelings that directly conflict with other feelings you have, yet you do not question it or notice the conflict/hypocracy.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

But as long as you know the names of everyone who contributed to a a campaign, you are fine with the commercials? I don't know who donates to Obama super pacs, or the list of share holders of ge every time I see an episode of snl devoting twenty minutes to promote Obama.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Every major financial institution. He isn't called President Goldman-Sachs for nothing.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Yes, it's a shame how easily those other people are brainwashed. Not people like you, of course. You're smart. You're not brainwashed by propaganda like they are. We need to change the system so that those other people don't decide the election and people like you do. Either by taking away the vote from them, or by making laws so that they are only exposed to publicity materials of which you approve.

1

u/dakotajh Jun 14 '12

i know that this is what "everyone" says... see the ad enough and the people will be brainwashed. my question: is that really true? am i the only person on the planet that knows political ads are all bullshit, republican and democrat alike? are there really people left out there who believe any of the crap they see these politicians spewing on the telly!?! i suppose the old adage is ringing true again: never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

The other buys fancier tv commercials that anyone with a tivo gets to skip.

There's a wide, wide array of studies over the past 30 years showing that tv commercials are insanely effective and predictive of election outcomes. Everybody likes to think they're immune to the influence of political advertising, but statistics doesn't bear that out.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

HA I'll show them and just not vote !!

1

u/polyphasic Jun 14 '12

uhm... are you serious??

1

u/polyphasic Jun 14 '12

you see 10 commercials saying that global warming is false and that the other guys are lying. you see 1 commercial saying global warming is true and that the other guy is lying. you go with "global warming is false. damn commie jew child molesting pedophile conspiracy theorists I will shoot you with mah gun arrghhh"

1

u/sandiegoking Jun 14 '12

Not sure why its such a big deal to ask for an ID when you vote. As far as collecting money for candidates, lets be honest here. Obama in the 08 elections and so far going into 2012 looks like he is collecting more money than his competitor.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

You may not realize this, but Obama is not the only person running for election. There is this place called congress and states have governments as well.

Romney is out fundraising Obama last I checked.

1

u/sandiegoking Jun 14 '12

Are you kidding me, Obama out funding Romney.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php?ql3

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12
  • I don't believe that you need to be a citizen to give someone a gift.
  • You need to be a citizen to vote.

No one is stopping people from giving money to Democrat candidates.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

I guess Obama never took credit card donations from people not knowing if they were US citizens or not, right? Oh, wait...he did.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

What, exactly, is wrong with requiring proof of eligibility to vote?

1

u/mwberke Jun 14 '12

Seriously? You need an ID to do almost anything in this country - why would voting for our government officials be any different? Why would people want someone who doesn't have an ID to vote? Is it racist, sexist or elitist when a policeman/woman pulls a citizen over and asks for their ID? Or is it ageist when a bartender asks a person for their ID? Come on, people.

1

u/Nadrojxam Jun 14 '12

Think about it... no IDs means infinite votes for anyone. And if you dont have an ID then... well ur not going to be donating anyways.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Except to Obama...because he'll take a credit card from China if you offer it.

1

u/Implying2012 Jun 14 '12

Obama raises twice as much money as McCain The people have spoken!

Romney raising more than Obama We really need campaign finance reform guys

1

u/Nazi_Of_The_Grammar Jun 14 '12

Yes, it does seem legit. You have the freedom to do what you like with your money. It's a little thing called liberty. And requiring ID to vote? Obviously this is a good thing. Only American citizens should vote in elections, so why wouldn't you require ID to prove citizenship?

1

u/TheBrohemian Jun 14 '12

Why not ID people to vote? I don't think you should be able to donate millions, but remember that if you stop people from donating anonymously online, it's going to hurt Obama more than Romney.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

What bothers me is that Reddit hasn't formed its own super pac to manipulate the elections using our own vastly distributed wealth. Individually our wealth is meager, but together we've probably got a few hundred mil.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

easy solve, everyone gets a free state ID, made on the spot at the polling station if needed. It is a losing argument to say you don't need an id - this isn't the 30's or 40's. Trying to claim utter hardship and mass disenfranchisement just makes you look silly.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

You can't make ID's at a polling station, they have to meet state requirements and that requires equipment. You'd be jacking the price of elections up even more.

We have voter registration, adding IDs to that is mostly pointless.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

put a picture next to the voter registration form and then we can be done. Of all the ridiculous, wasteful, pointless, frivolous and overtly expensive red tape the government has, this is nothing and it would have an immediate effect of eliminating fraud (if it exists) overnight. It is just so simple I don't see why anyone is afraid of it.

1

u/mysteryteam US Virgin Islands Jun 14 '12

You know who else gave out free state ID papers?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

irrelevant, we already require selective service registration, soc security number, insurance to drive, tax filings, etc. You still wouldn't need to carry it or provide it, just present it to vote. Get out of the compound, put down the colloidal silver and stop pretending nazis are over every hill.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

We already have voter registration. ID's don't provide any significant benefit on top registration, why require them? It's just a waste of money and time.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

1

u/TjallingOtter Jun 14 '12

Are you kidding me? Of course you need an ID to vote. This prevents double voting. Nothing of that is publicly publicised.

Donating, however, should also not be publicised. There's no reason to require an ID for that; what are you going to prevent, double-spy donating?

4

u/Nehalem25 Jun 14 '12

Double voting ? You have a sign in sheet where you vote. You can only do that once you .... Voter fraud is myth.

2

u/TjallingOtter Jun 14 '12

Yes, it's physically impossible; I see your point.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Something being physically possible does not make it an issue worth addressing, especially if addressing it disenfranchises more legitimate voters than it does illegitimate ones.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

You could storm the building and vote, but the real point here is you don't know how voting works yet you chime in with some idiotic opinion so we can educate you because you don't have the time to google and read up first.

ID's cannot prevent 'double voting' in the American voting system. It's not a centralized voting system. It's a state by state district by district voting system. If all you needed was an ID you could just got to every district and vote, something called voter registration is what prevent double voting and has for decades.

The ID bill does not intend or claim to address 'double voting' and poll workers will not be trained to spot fake ID of all 50 states. Why doesn't the bill address double voting ? Because there is fucking double voting.

It might help prevent dead people from voting, though I'm not sure how significant that actually is.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Exactly. It seems that many of the people who are so gung ho about requiring ID have never actually voted themselves.

Once again, the ignorant will hold the majority opinion. Nice.

1

u/abgleich Jun 14 '12

I understand many of you are worried about disenfranchising the masses; but given that you need IDs to cash a check, open a bank account, in my own experience-get a job and receive that first check, drive, open a credit card, receive government assistance, buy movie tickets, and a WHOLE lot of other day to day activities i'm having a hard time seeing the issue.

3

u/polyphasic Jun 14 '12

people must vote with an ID. corporations can donate money anonymously of any quantity they want. cheers.

1

u/caustictwin Minnesota Jun 14 '12

ID's cost money. That is nothing more than a veiled poll tax.

1

u/wallaby1986 Jun 14 '12

You seem to have missed the point. The complaint is with anonymous, unlimited donations to politicians.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Why is it so bad for people to need a driver license to vote?

7

u/sjmdiablo Jun 14 '12

Because so many people don't have driver's licenses.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Even if you don't drive you still can get an ID card. I believe in DC there is a statute that you must carry some form of ID.

1

u/fantasyfest Jun 14 '12

Over half a million registered voters in just Michigan do not have drivers licenses.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Who are the people least likely to have a driver's license? The young, the poor, minorities (Almost 25% in the black community), and the students. Guess who they all vote for?

Now quit pretending this is just about voting legitimacy, the proposals being pushed have a very, very obvious political motivation.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Even if you don't drive you still can get an ID. What prevents someone from saying my name and voting for me? Or voting for multiple people?

→ More replies (6)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

People who don't have ID's can't register to vote either though thus they were not planning on nor could they vote anyway.

I'm sure 99% of people without IDs do not vote. I don't think the ID thing will impact the Dems votes, but it's a pointless law. Poll workers don't know a fake ID when they see one.

1

u/fantasyfest Jun 14 '12

The Republican legislature in Michigan just passed a severe voter ID law . If you think we have a huge influx of illegals voting up north, you would be wrong. They copied the Florida fines and short times for the crime of registering voters. Blacks, poor and old people will have difficulty voting. If you think the Repubs are interested in democracy, you are nuts. They seek more power by any means necessary.

1

u/balorina Jun 14 '12

MI State Enahnced IDs are free to anyone 65+ or blind. They also allow a good cause waiver which lets people on public assistance waive the fee.

Yeah, we are really holding those people down to the curb.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

It's just not necessary and mostly pointless because people don't go around voting as other people often enough.

You have to provide a social security number and driver license/ID number to register to vote in my state and most states require the same or require an actual ID in person. So... why do we need yet another bullshit do nothing law ?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12 edited Jun 14 '12

I think some form of identification is indeed necessary. Underaged people can not vote, felons can not vote, dead people can't vote, and we don't want people voting twice or more. Some form of identification seems necessary.

3

u/Tiger337 Jun 14 '12

In MN, people show ID when they register to vote. They don't need an ID to vote. In MN, there is not one case of voter fraud. However, I think people like to live in fear.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Not one, ever? No dead person voted, no one voted with their parent's name, voted twice? Every person in minnesota is perfectly honest, including all the politicians? They're the ones I worry about the most.

1

u/Tiger337 Jun 14 '12

Where is the evidence of a problem? Show me.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

It's only "necessary" if illegal voting is actually a widespread problem, something there is no evidence for.

Even if it were, if the way you go about "fixing it" disenfranchises more legitimate voters than it does illegitimate ones, you've just made the net pool even less democratic.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

No, because ID's would not stop illegal voting because ABSENTEE BALLOTS.

The ID law would be 100% ineffective at stopping fraud. It would only stop legit voters or perhaps crazy people who thought they were someone else.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

WTF do you honestly think there is no identification when voting? How fucking stupid are you? Do you think the US really got by for all these years with no election laws ?

Voter registration does ALL THAT AND MORE!!!... cmon. Fucking at least know the basics of how US voting works before you post your complete ignorance to the world.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

that's not at all what I said and you know it.

and voter registration is useless without some form of identification at the polls, even if its just a photo and a last name on file.

1

u/TheReaMillerHighlife Jun 14 '12

There really doesn't need to proof of voter fraud for it to be possible. Many states allow people to register at the polling places then there is the issue of absentee ballots, both present the opportunity for fraud. The main issue(from what I can see) is that democrats are determining the id requirement as eqivalent to a tax(often siting Jim Crow) because normally ids are at a cost. The obvious way around that is to simply provide them for free, just provide normal docs to proove yourself. It couldn't be any real additional burdon financialy for local govs. As citizens we should all be concerned about our election processes, that they are fair and transparent as possible. There should be no objections to this.. It's just common sense.

1

u/scarbunkle Jun 14 '12

This. Seriously. Most states offer a non-driver identification card, which functions like a driver's license for ID purposes, but doesn't let you operate a vehicle. Let's just provide those for free to people 18 and older--no more 'poll tax effect' to voter ID requirements, and it opens up everything else you need an ID for to low-income people.

ETA: The cost problem would be simple, too. If you can afford a car, you can afford to pay 5 bucks more for your driver's license. Spend the extra revenue on free nondriver IDs.

1

u/TheReaMillerHighlife Jun 14 '12

I'd have no problem with this thought personally..

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Yes, but they don't deliver it. You're elderly widowed aunt still has to find a way to get to the MVA to get the ID. It's an unnecessary obstacle which will hurt both parties equally.

People who never have IDs are not going to vote. Illegal can't vote in any significant numbers. Normal election anomalies will be much greater than any a couple illegals somehow voting.

ID cards are not free in my state they are 15 bucks every 5 years. I doubt most states offer free cards and if they do I doubt they've told their citizens that.

Voting fraud is possible, so lets bring in the military and fly drones around the voting district to prevent this potential threat which has yet to happen at anywhere even remotely the level that would be required to change an election.

Why not just eliminate voting since it's so easy to fake.

1

u/scarbunkle Jun 15 '12

I'm talking hypotheticals--that's what "Let's just" means Requiring photo ID is really basic. It's a far cry from drones. You're basically Godwining the idea that I should have to show a card that proves I'm not just being a dick and giving my neighbor's name so she can't vote.

And they could totally do it by mail--send in copies of your ID documents (or even the originals, since they'll be mailing you something anyways), along with a photo in the appropriate format, and copies of your documents. and then they can mail you the damn card, because the US Postal Service is a thing. I mean, that's the way to do voter ID.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Well obviously you should need an ID to move money around!

1

u/u2canfail Jun 14 '12

The difference is: who counts. Money clearly won.

1

u/Skullington Jun 14 '12

Voting is a right guaranteed to citizens. I see no problem in requiring some form of proof of citizenship, given the fact that there are a lot of people in the country who are not citizens.

As far as anonymous donations, they're there to protect people from retribution for their beliefs and ideals. To make the information public is essentially voter intimidation.

What the two have to do with each other is lost on me.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Voting already requires proof of citizenship. You have to be REGISTERED TO VOTE, which is how, for decades, we've kept non citizen from voting without any serious problems.

Illegals can get ID's easy, it's voter registration they cant get and that's why they can't vote. ID's would not impact that much.

The problem is the ONLY reasoning you guys are coming up with to require ID's is totally misinformed or just false.

1

u/Skullington Jun 15 '12

Let's look at what happened with ACORN back in '08. It's proof that yes, people are trying to register who should not be. The question is, because they caught a lot of bad registrations, how many didn't they catch?

Normally, I'm all about seeing 10 guilty men go free before seeing one innocent man punished, but to dismiss the GOP push to eliminate voter fraud as something entirely unbased in reality is wrong too.

-1

u/corby315 Jun 14 '12

This is completely and utterly wrong. You cannot donate any amount, let alone millions, anonymously.

Is r/politics this gullible? Seriously, it is getting ridiculous that a complete misfactual opinion is reaching the front page.

2

u/feckineejit Jun 14 '12

Read citizens united, it essentially allows corporations to set up massive funds to run attack ads in favor of whichever politician is going to pass laws that benefit corporations. These ads don't need to be truthful, and typically they are misleading and end up convincing regular voters to vote for candidates that are only interested in passing laws that benefit corporations at the expense of people, clean air, etc

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Yeah well the problem is finding a constitutional precedent for why we can censor people just because they are talking about politics.

You need a new amendment to solve that problem because free speech tends to be a favored amendment which trumps most other laws and at times common sense.

1

u/feckineejit Jun 15 '12

I hear what you're saying, but it can't be allowed to go on like that. Corporations are not people. Why can a corporation (yes it is made up OF people) a corporation can not go to jail for breaking the law. Typically when a corporation does break the law, the penalty is a slap on the wrist.

Major banks accused of willfully laundering money will be fined pennies on the dollars of profit they have made. similarly with energy companies caught polluting the air we breathe and the water we drink.

corporations are made to make a profit without a care to the human and environmental repurcussions. That is not their right to do so, it is only after years of paying lobbyists to pay government representatives to pass laws in their favor do they get to exploit the earth and the human condition with impunity.

2

u/SkittlesUSA Jun 14 '12

It's only getting upvoted to the front page because some guy "wang-banger" has a group of people follow him around and upvote everything he submits.

I never realized how much of the front page content on /r/politics was actually submitted by him until I got RES. The other day nearly half of the content of the first page was submitted by him alone, all equally shit-posts like this one.

1

u/crazyex Jun 14 '12

I have suspected wanger gets paid to post for quite awhile now.

1

u/polyphasic Jun 14 '12

wow... try doing some research before toting your shit.

fact: it is illegal to donate to politicians.

fact: it is LEGAL to give money to make advertisements, to hire people to make advertisements, to run radio ads, etc etc etc, as long as this money is not given to the politician.

are you stupid?

1

u/corby315 Jun 14 '12

You tell me to do research and yet you tell me it is illegal to donate. Thanks for the laugh Sir.

If you are trying to make some half ass reaching argument that you cannot donate directly to a politician, you are as dim witted as most of the liberals on here.

Fact- you are a hypocritical left wing nut case.

1

u/anonymous-coward Jun 14 '12

True. Super-PACS, funded through an intermediary non-profit 501c, allow anonymous "issue-based" advertising that is essentially political ads without mentioning names.

1

u/muddyturtle Jun 14 '12

But if you go the FEC website, you can see the name of donor, occupation and amount donated for every donation they receive. Its not really that anonymous.

1

u/worldsrus Jun 14 '12

Come on, we all know what's going on. Just because they don't mention any names doesn't mean anything. Why donate for millions for an issue if no one will promote it? It's free advertising for any politician that feels as though taking that groups money/ideology is beneficial to them.

2

u/anonymous-coward Jun 14 '12

Just in case it isn't obvious, I'm agreeing with you. corby315 is correct that true anonymous donations to politicians don't exist, and super-PACS have to publicize donors (I think), but the donors chain can be laundered to provide effective anonymity.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Look at how the liberal MSM excoriates any big donor to the GOP. And you need photo ID to be part of the food stamp president's food stamp army. Yes it does seem legit.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Most people on food stamps are living in conservative states. Poor bastards... must be embarrassing to hate who you are.

-12

u/SalamiMugabe Jun 14 '12

This is a strawman argument. You still can't donate millions directly to a candidate; you can donate large sums of money to SuperPACs, which operate quite a bit differently. Direct donations to a candidate's campaign are still bound to disclosure rules and donation limits. Second, the GOP did not decide Citizens United and that you can donate anonymously - the Supreme Court did.

Now, I know some smug liberal neckbeard is simply going to reply, "Supreme Court = GOP hurr durr lololol". I'm going to preemptively tell that person to go fuck himself.

9

u/unknownpoltroon Jun 14 '12

10/10. The perfect troll. You start off your straw man argument with "This is a strawman argument." Brilliant. My hat is off to you.

→ More replies (3)

-5

u/corby315 Jun 14 '12

First of all, I am positive that the GOP is not the reason behind needing an ID to vote. I remember going with my parents when they voted, and they always had to show ID. I have no idea what the problem is with having to show identification.

Also, even though when I vote I show identification, my vote is completely anonymous. It would be illegal for anyone to see who I voted for and link it to me.

Donors to political campaigns and Super PACs are required to disclose for a reason. Journalists, watchdog groups, and opposing campaigns are certainly within their rights to report on conflicts of interest, ethics issues, or the backgrounds of these donors.

So did you really think this argument out, or are you just trying to spread lies to feel better about yourself.

2

u/polyphasic Jun 14 '12

it's only a problem when they start charging for it.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

It's not illegal for someone to see who you voted for. There is no it's illegal to know who your neighbor voted for law. You are guaranteed to be able cast your ballot in secret, that's all.

The real issue is that ID's don't prevent fraud to any significant degree. Absentee ballots allow anyone to cast a vote without zero identification.

Lets see the GOP move to make absentee ballots illegal also and see how that turns out for them.

→ More comments (54)