Voter fraud and voter disenfranchisement

Even so, Blixty, a valid state ID costs no more than the student ID given to you in High School or College(contrary to what you may believe, you or your parents did pay for that ID before you started school)...

Your not having a valid ID is not automatically the state's fault...

Unless the state intentionaly closes DM Vs or limits their hours of operation unfairly (hi wisconsin!)

You could say "Hi California" too... or even "Hi (insert state here)."

But that's less of a Republican thing, than a "states don't have money to pay DMV workers and would prefer to just shut the doors" thing...

edited 28th Sep '11 3:11:23 PM by Swish

I remember getting a driver's permit in like, sophomore year of high school. It's not that hard, and the test is ridonkulously easy.

I mean, voting aside, you should probably go ahead and do that in the near future anyway, even if you're not planning on driving for a while.

edited 28th Sep '11 3:26:44 PM by Pykrete

I think the most telling thing about this is that in every case I'm aware of, a student ID is not a valid form of ID, but a Hunting license is. Now, I know what they say about assumptions, but students tend to vote Democratic and gun-owners tend to vote Republican.

I don't want to jump to conclusions, but the facts seem to be speaking loud and clear on this.

What is it my history teacher says... the "Monopoly" rule (actually referring to the board game, although the double meaning is amusing): "when given the opportunity to rewrite the rules, always do so in a way so that you're guaranteed to win."

Hunting licenses are given to a person, who lives in the state, by the state.

A student ID is given to a student, who goes to the school, by the school.

There is no evidence that the student is a resident of the state(college, only). Because, as I said before, if you're paying out-of-state tuition, you aren't a resident of the state.

edited 28th Sep '11 3:37:53 PM by Swish

The trick with these disenfranchisement efforts is that, barring an actual case where people did everything right and are still disallowed from voting (terrible), they can be circumvented by being sufficiently informed. Find out where you can register in your state (your state's board of elections site should have all the information you need) and what you need, well in advance of an election (like a month at minimum). Then vote against the guy who instituted the voter change. >: )

edited 28th Sep '11 3:39:48 PM by Ratix

I'd love to accept your logic, but the fact is, you can't register to vote if you're not a resident of that state in the first place, so anyone who's registered and on the list is clearly a resident of that state and the district in which he/she is registered, so there's no argument there.

And of course, if said person goes to a public school or university, that's just another arm of the state government, so your logic fails to hold there too.

... And if you were required to prove who you were when you registered, I'd accept that argument... But for the most part, you aren't.

Actually, not so much. Refusing to accept private institution's student ID while taking state institution's student ID would be claimed a form of discrimination(seriously, ask yourself what would happen if it occurred in Georgia, where most non-state colleges are black colleges).

It should also be pointed out that student IDs aren't considered valid IDs for the purpose of voting, primarily because there is no address(to confirm that one lives where they registered) like all "valid" IDs do...

Are not inherently racist, illegal, unethical or evil in any way shape or form. They cost less than 25 bucks to run down to any state revenue facility and get one printed. If needed to be mailed it will be mailed to you FREE.

The only people that specifically targets and "oppresses" are the lazy. (And illegal immigrants from anywhere and everywhere.)

Don't you have better ideas to try and slap the racist label on? Like affirmative action or the Black Panthers?

I don't have 25 bucks, I'm an unemployed student (and not for lack of trying, but good luck trying to find anywhere around here that'd hire a 17 year old) and my meager $20-a-week allowance all goes towards lunch, and I also stop getting it once school lets out.

I'm not going to pretend it's impossible for me to get a legal ID, it's plenty possible, but it's inconvenient, and deliberately so. Which is what annoys me here.

How is any of this at all relevant to new voting laws targeting students?

The concept isn't racist, but the reason is (it's also ageist and politically biased). For one reason or another, young people, blacks and latinos are statistically less likely to have such ID and more likely to vote for the Democrats.

As for the illegal immigrants, I'm pretty sure they can't vote anyways since I don't think they can register to vote in the first place because they aren't citizens of the United States.

edited 28th Sep '11 4:50:49 PM by Balmung

And what do you know! I'm a 25 year old college graduate who has to do custodial/groundskeeping work for a school district for 7.36 an hour because there's nobody hiring college graduates in my degree field.

Because those are actually racist. I was a student who had to do voter ID in three separate elections and I had a legal ID simply in the form of a driver's license. If you have that, voter ID laws are a non-issue at worst.

My point stands, they really only target the lazy. If you find it too inconvenient to get a legal ID, you'll find it too inconvenient to regularly vote.

There are also people who don't drive or their family can't afford another car, and so, simply don't have a driver's license. After all, why bother keeping such a license renewed if you don't drive? (mind you, my ID is a state ID because I don't drive, but I'm not sure most people are even aware of those existing.)

Also, you'd be surprised, given that there are a fair number of areas that don't really have regular access to, say, the DMV.

edited 28th Sep '11 4:56:02 PM by Balmung

At least you have a job.

Sir, voting is not a privilege or even a right, it is a duty, and one that a group of people within the GOP are actively trying to prevent others from doing. It does not matter at all that anyone who wouldn't vote because of this is "too lazy" by your standards, indeed, I'd rather have a lazy genius vote than ten thousand hardworking idiots.

Also, again, living in a Pennsylvania backwater, no way to get to a DMV, how am I supposed to get an ID again?

edited 28th Sep '11 4:56:54 PM by BlixtySlycat

... I'm sorry, but no. If voting were a duty you would be required to vote, and those who didn't would be fined/jailed.

Voting is a privilege, in that people can have their right to vote taken away if they do stupid shit(like commit a felony)...

Since you're in high school, and under the age of 18, have you tried asking your parents to pay for you to get a state ID so you can vote next year?

edited 28th Sep '11 5:02:07 PM by Swish

Do I really need to specify that I meant that I think it's an ethical duty rather than a legal one?

I am in the camp of people who think that it's quite wrong for that to be the case.

edited 28th Sep '11 5:02:51 PM by BlixtySlycat

And on that note, the GOP is also disenfranchising ex-felons who had previously had their voting rights restored.

They also want to shorted the early voting period.

I disagree with your premise. Specifically, I believe that it should be a punishable offense to not vote, and that it should be mandated that all employers provide accommodations to enable all people to vote.

edited 28th Sep '11 5:04:55 PM by DarkConfidant

I agree with this much.

The only reason I support peoples' right to not vote is because it can be a form of protest, and people are allowed to protest if they so choose.

I believe Tom's point is that 'lazy' people without jobs don't really 'deserve' to vote anyway, so fuck 'em.

He's free to correct me if I'm misinterpreting, of course. ;)

Yes, I'm clearly lazy because every business in town won't trust a teenager.

Who are you trying to work for?

That point of view sounds dangerously close to supporting poll taxes, provided that that is the correct interpretation.

edited 28th Sep '11 5:08:41 PM by Balmung