Political Cartoons

I really think this is an issue where Republicans' stopped clocks happen to be right, and Democrats are only taking the opposite position to be petty. The lack of an ID requirement for voting has always seemed completely insane to me. The only rationalization I've ever heard for the Dems' position is that certain people might not be able to obtain an ID. If that's the case, then that's the problem — not the ID requirement for voting!

From:

foolsguinea.livejournal.com

My state is gerrymandered enough to protect GOP majorities in both chambers of the legislature even when Democrats pull more votes.

Between the high imprisonment rates in the black community, creating higher requirements to get a voting ID card, and the claims on the right that they want to restrict voting to "property owners" (whatever that means), I can't blame the Dems for being oversensitive.

From:

Gerrymandering, bullshit felonies, and restricting voting to property owners are all legitimate reasons to get upset. But the ID thing is a trap — bait to make Dems look like morons and thereby discredit their opposition to the others.

From:

foolsguinea.livejournal.com

Oh, and the hard right not only openly called for disenfranchising anyone who doesn't own land in the last decade, they now want to disenfranchise the 47% of Americans who don't make enough to pay income tax. So, yeah.

I'll put up with the Dems stuffing ballot boxes with fake ID's handed out to winos, over losing my own vote, if given those two alternatives.

From:

mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com

If that's the case, then that's the problem — not the ID requirement for voting!

Shockingly enough, some (R) areas that are heavily pushing for ID checks are also closing locations to get IDs!

From:

So target that.

From:

mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com

Who said they're not?

In the end, similar to how our justice system is [theoretically] slanted toward innocence, in order to help foster that no one innocent is declared guilty, I prefer our electoral system being [theoretically] slanted toward voter accessibility, in order to help foster that no one's vote is uncounted.

At the same time, I recognize that this may result in someone who shouldn't vote in an area being able to vote in an area, just like I recognize that our justice system's rules and regulations may cause someone guilty to be declared innocent.

I would rather see someone's vote count who deserves the right to vote unhindered than I am interested in seeing someone who shouldn't vote be turned away.

I am surprised that a libertarian such as yourself would, for once, rather err on the side of caution/safety/security even though it could result in someone's liberties being restricted.

From:

That's actually not a bad analogy. But the thing is, it should be so easy to ensure that every eligible voter has an ID. The obstacles to that are not structural; they're the result of pure malice on the part of Republicans.

From:

How, exactly? There's nothing illegal in doing so. Since it's not illegal, there's no way to forbid it.

From:

What a bizarre response. Not everything involves the law.

From:

That which is not explicitly forbidden is absolutely permitted.
Since there is nothing to forbid them from closing the ID stations, there's nothing to complain about them doing so. If you don't like it, get it forbidden.

From:

What a bleak world that would be.

But in reality, something doesn't have to be illegal for a leader or a movement to draw attention to it and put political pressure on those who can change it. The change doesn't have to be enshrined in law. We're probably better off if it isn't — too many laws on the books as it is.

From:

Bleak? Would be? Dudebro, you're living in it. It's what freedom and liberty are all about!

But in reality, something doesn't have to be illegal for a leader or a movement to draw attention to it and put political pressure on those who can change it.

Put as much pressure as you want on me. If it's legal, why would I bother stopping? (Hint: Corporate business says we don't stop.)

From:

Thankfully, no, I'm not living in that world. My world is populated with humans, not robots.

You might "bother stopping" if, for example, you start losing customers because of increasing public awareness of your corporation's activities or motives. That's the kind of pressure I'm talking about. It's actually a much bigger factor in the success or failure of most corporations than the legal framework in which they operate.

From:

You might "bother stopping" if, for example, you start losing customers because of increasing public awareness of your corporation's activities or motives.

And yet, public awareness does not cease corporations from, say, violating environmental laws because it's cheaper to pay the fine than stop the practice. I think you place too much value on public awareness. Public awareness does nothing to stop Wal-Mart from being profitable.

From:

Yes, sometimes new legislation is required to achieve the desired outcome. But it's never the first step.

From:

hikarugenji.livejournal.com

I don't think it's necessarily petty. Given the track record of voting rights in the US, I think that it's perfectly justified to raise questions or challenges to anything that may work to reduce the ability of minorities or the poor to vote.

No one should be taking a hardline stance of "no photo ID for voting ever!" but it's worth raising questions about the necessity of such a policy and its potential side effects.

From:

The problem comes for the people who cannot prove their identity. That problem conveniently falls hardest on old people and minorities who often do not have birth certificates (no birth certificate, no way to get the ID, no way to vote). Trust me, the GOP knows exactly what it is doing. They can play innocent all they want, they see this as an easy way to eliminate a group that skews Democratic while riling up their base with unsubstantiated claims of fraud. Voter fraud is a complete non-issue, there are far greater problems with voting than fraud that Republicans make no effort to correct.

From:

If birth certificates were not commonly issued eighty or ninety years ago, or their filing systems were bad and the information was lost, then you might have a point about the very old. But minorities? What, are they having a bunch of kids and not telling the government?

Second, your logic is flawed. If so few people are voting without ID that you can be certain voter fraud is a complete non-issue, then not allowing those people to vote would also be a complete non-issue.

From:

If birth certificates were not commonly issued eighty or ninety years ago, or their filing systems were bad and the information was lost, then you might have a point about the very old.

In many cases that's exactly what happened. People born outside hospitals were not issued birth certificates, or records were lost or destroyed or whatever. Everything wasn't digitized and backed up eight ways to Sunday like it is now.

But minorities? What, are they having a bunch of kids and not telling the government?

Minorities were more likely to be born outside a hospital since they were poor and were barred from many hospitals. They were also, as I said, poor and therefore less likely to be able to press the issue. While you may plead ignorance of the issue, trust me when I say the GOPers know exactly what they're doing.

If so few people are voting without ID that you can be certain voter fraud is a complete non-issue, then not allowing those people to vote would also be a complete non-issue.

What you just said makes no sense. Nobody's voting "without ID" because up until recently ID was not a requirement. I've never had to show ID to vote and I've been voting for more than a decade (and I vote in every election).

Voter fraud is a boogey man made up to excuse these laws and obscure their real purpose (disenfranchising voters and making it harder for Dems to win). Nobody's been able to show that voter fraud is a problem in this country and, trust me, they've tried.

From:

The important thing is not the individual's right to vote. The important thing is that the outcome of the election reflects the will of the majority. If a tiny fraction of the population can't vote, but the outcome is still the same as it would have been if they had voted, then it is not an issue.

From:

The important thing is not the individual's right to vote.

Bull. The individual's right to vote is the important thing. In an election that could theoretically hinge on a few thousand votes, disenfranchising a few thousand people (who are demographically likely to favor one party over the other) can have a major impact. Regardless, the whole point of our "democracy" is that every individual has the right to vote.

If a tiny fraction of the population can't vote, but the outcome is still the same as it would have been if they had voted, then it is not an issue.

And if it does change the outcome? Somehow I think your response would be quite different if it was

madscience losing his voting rights instead of some African-American grandmother you've never met.

From:

kip-w.livejournal.com

It would also affect some libertarians I know who are opposed to having state-issued ID.

From: