Trump's chances of winning Wisconsin just got lower

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

TIL it's acceptable to disenfranchise people for having personality flaws.

[Tender Branson]

I don't have much of a problem having a picture-ID law for voting, it's what we have here as well.

Since you are already automatically registered to vote in the town you are living in, get an election information card sent to you by post 2 weeks ahead of election day, picture ID is not really that necessary on election day. But I guess it's still good if election workers have a chance to verify the identity of a voter who newly settled in the city or who only recently got Austrian citizenship.

I have never been asked to show one though (I guess this is only for "new Austrians" who got their citizenship only recently and who are not known to election commission members yet, or Austrians who have moved recently to another city). It's totally uncommon in smaller cities, where everyone knows everyone, but I guess they'll ask for one in bigger cities such as Vienna.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why are drivers licenses photo ID? For the same reason why photo ID should be used for voting. As for getting into the office to get it done, we're looking at about a 4 hour inconvenience, which the vast majority of adults will do anyways.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have helped a minority lady obtain her photo ID after it was stolen from her. Again, this did not take long and I felt it was my civic duty to do what I could.

I used to be the equivalent for Uber in the community and would charge people 10 dollars a ride to get these sorts of things done.

What you're talking about and attributing to racism, I called a business opportunity, and I made a fair amount of money supplying that community with the convenience of riding in an automobile for the price they were willing to pay, with a trusted driver and a car in good condition.

So, again - if you had 10 bucks on you, you could get it done in an afternoon, even if you had no access to public transit or to a car. And this was in the days before Uber.

I'm sorry, I've lived in the South. That dog ain't gonna hunt.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you can get to the grocery store to feed yourself, you can get ID.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You still haven't mounted an actual argument against 185 million actual voters and 215 million driver's licenses.

If people are unwilling to use their driver's license to actually go out and vote, then the issue is not that people are being denied access to ID, but rather - that people don't value voting as much as they value having photo ID.

[Seriously?]

This issue is so stupid.  As others have said, the government should levy a tax to provide everyone with a free voter ID card and require everyone to show it at the polls in order to vote (while still accepting driver's licenses and passports).  It's amazing this isn't a universally supported idea that literally combat disenfranchisement and fraud at the same time.  Guess some people aren't worried about those two things in reality.

But, but, but.... Cemeteries in Crook County disenfranchised!!!

But, but but... idiotic historic arguments. 

But, but, but... Someone can't recognize an obvious joke.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then what is your issue with having photo ID required to vote?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, let's see. You're arguing that it's difficult to obtain the photo ID that you now possess?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I love how you assume that because I believe that voter ID should be required before voting that I would support literacy tests. No, I don't.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Such as?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Looks like the maximum distance is about 50 miles. Pretty good coverage, IMO.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have helped a minority lady obtain her photo ID after it was stolen from her. Again, this did not take long and I felt it was my civic duty to do what I could.

I used to be the equivalent for Uber in the community and would charge people 10 dollars a ride to get these sorts of things done.

What you're talking about and attributing to racism, I called a business opportunity, and I made a fair amount of money supplying that community with the convenience of riding in an automobile for the price they were willing to pay, with a trusted driver and a car in good condition.

So, again - if you had 10 bucks on you, you could get it done in an afternoon, even if you had no access to public transit or to a car. And this was in the days before Uber.

I'm sorry, I've lived in the South. That dog ain't gonna hunt.

I'm sorry, but Texas isn't the South. Furthermore, attributing your voluntary action on one occasion as a rebuttal of the problem at hand isn't one...and bragging about how you made and there's money to be made off of poor people who are going to have to spend even more money to get a required ID the first place - not to mention the time (whether paid or unpaid) - proves the point of why these laws exist in the first place.

[Sorenroy]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Such as?

I'm glad that you literally only pick out the one thing you can argue about from everyone's replies. No, really, I am. Why concede a point when you can dismiss your opponents arguments, or better yet, just ignore them? For some reason you seem to think that because in your situation no one had an issue, no one will ever have an issue. Like I already said, giving up a day at work is not an option for a some people; waiting four hours while you get your ID processed is not an option for some people; paying ten bucks to get someone to drive you to a DMV to wait for a while is not an option for some people, or, alternately, some people may be to lazy to undergo that process. When we already lag behind most developed countries in voter turnout, it is important to make sure that everyone willing gets out and votes.

Even if voter ID requirements only stopped 1,000 people from voting (in fact it is much, much more), voter ID requirements would have done much more harm then good in terms of keeping bad votes out and good votes in. If the people like you who are obsessed with voter fraud really wanted to fix the "issue", it would be far more helpful to put more money into new voting infrastructure or into fixing the security flaws in e-voting.

Also, if I was someone really trying to sneak in enough ballots to change an election, there are other ways to do it then voting in person. Many states allow for remote voting by the disabled or otherwise handycapped. If I was smart and trying to manipulate the election, I wouldn't step foot in a precinct once.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Looks like the maximum distance is about 50 miles. Pretty good coverage, IMO.

So, let's post a map that actually illustrates concisely where there are no driver's license services, instead of a misleading one that shows all services and makes it look like less of a problem. Disproportionately, it is the Black Belt counties that have had their license offices shut down. The official argument is that these areas are poorer and have less tax revenue. No sh**t. So let's require a government ID in order to vote and ensure the people who have the hardest time obtaining them have to go further than everybody else in order to get it, instead of chalking it up to the cost of doing business within the arcane parameters that they've established. It is strategic, and not seeing that is clearly indicative of hackery.

You say "you've lived in the South", but at the same time, seem to think that the overwhelming majority of predominately black, poorer and rural people can just hop into a vehicle and drive 50 miles like it's nothing. If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were approaching this from a completely different mindset! If they could, they'd likely already have a license. Not having a license is indicative of not having reliable transportation and/or the funds/documentation necessary to get one. I'm wondering if your previous argument holds up: would you drive someone 50 miles + gas for $10?

Let's just assume that have access to reliable transportation. Maybe they decide to drive illegally to the DMV, or maybe someone takes them. We'll say $5 - $10 for fuel, and a 4-year license is $36.50. We're getting awfully close to $50 already. Hopefully, you don't need a birth certificate, which is another $15 in Alabama. There's a less than insignificant segment of those without driver's licenses who are in the situation because they don't have birth certificates. In another 10 years or so, they won't be a problem for the most part, but they still are today.

10% of whites don't have a photo ID.
25% of blacks don't have a photo ID.
10% of whites are in poverty.
25% of blacks are in poverty.

Most people have a photo ID. The ones that do not have them, don't have them for very specific reasons and because of limitations that most people would consider mere inconveniences to be shrugged off. This isn't rocket science. Anecdotal experiences and bootstrap arguments don't solve the problem, as they hardly ever do: poverty is the determining factor.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then what is your issue with having photo ID required to vote?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, let's see. You're arguing that it's difficult to obtain the photo ID that you now possess?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I love how you assume that because I believe that voter ID should be required before voting that I would support literacy tests. No, I don't.

Are you simple?

[JerryArkansas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then what is your issue with having photo ID required to vote?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, let's see. You're arguing that it's difficult to obtain the photo ID that you now possess?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I love how you assume that because I believe that voter ID should be required before voting that I would support literacy tests. No, I don't.

Are you simple?

No honey, he's just a southern Republican.  Many of them display this amazing grasp of issues, at-least in my experience.

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You still haven't mounted an actual argument against 185 million actual voters and 215 million driver's licenses.

If people are unwilling to use their driver's license to actually go out and vote, then the issue is not that people are being denied access to ID, but rather - that people don't value voting as much as they value having photo ID.

You still have mounted an actual argument showing how that you're not obtuse and lazy.

[136or142]

This issue is so stupid.  As others have said, the government should levy a tax to provide everyone with a free voter ID card and require everyone to show it at the polls in order to vote (while still accepting driver's licenses and passports).  It's amazing this isn't a universally supported idea that literally combat disenfranchisement and fraud at the same time.  Guess some people aren't worried about those two things in reality.

But, but, but.... Cemeteries in Crook County disenfranchised!!!

But, but but... idiotic historic arguments. 

But, but, but... Someone can't recognize an obvious joke.

Sorry.  My bad.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Voter ID is not particularly challenging to obtain. All it takes is a little bit of time that pretty much every adult will have to do anyways.

Sheesh, I've had mine since I was 16. Was a bit of work then, but since, not very much.

You were born in an era in which practically everyone is born in a hospital, or at the very least with some medical professional in attendance and who got a government-issued birth certificate right away.  Believe it or not that wasn't always the case, especially for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.  It isn't teenagers who are impacted by these laws but the elderly poor for the most part.  Granted, the Democrats exaggerate the scope of the problem, but not nearly as much as Republicans exaggerate the scope of voter fraud.

[Seriously?]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Voter ID is not particularly challenging to obtain. All it takes is a little bit of time that pretty much every adult will have to do anyways.

Sheesh, I've had mine since I was 16. Was a bit of work then, but since, not very much.

You were born in an era in which practically everyone is born in a hospital, or at the very least with some medical professional in attendance and who got a government-issued birth certificate right away.  Believe it or not that wasn't always the case, especially for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.  It isn't teenagers who are impacted by these laws but the elderly poor for the most part.  Granted, the Democrats exaggerate the scope of the problem, but not nearly as much as Republicans exaggerate the scope of voter fraud.

No, this issue is 1000% overstated.

The only folks that would realistically be disenfranchised in this day and age are those that:
1) never worked for someone other than themselves in their lives (IDs have been required for I-9 purposes for a while now);
2) never took any form of government assistance (IDs are generally given out and required to get money from social services); and
3) never had a driver's license.

The number of elderly that have been born not in hospitals is getting smaller and smaller each day as those from the "greatest generation" are unfortunately leaving this Earth. Most folks that were born post-WWII were born in hospitals.

The number of people that never did 1,2 and 3 in this society where most women are in the workforce and really have been post-WWII is miniscule.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I made money because I supplied a service that Uber has since decided they needed to do too.

I didn't realize you think that Uber is confined to Texas only.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's been the case since the 30s. Arguing that those over 86 have an issue strikes to me as political opportunism. Time to get real about voter ID.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The map I posted is the one used by your folks to show the problem. You want to argue that their map is misleading?

Again - coverage is pretty good, and yes I've had to deal with the DMV in Texas which is part of the south.

With Uber, ridesharing, etc - it is not difficult at all. Like I said, such trip I would charge about 10 bucks for.

You think that even poor people can't afford 10 bucks?

[Sorenroy]

So let's do this one more time for both IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi and Seriously?:

First of all, before we start this, only 130 million people voted in 2012, not 185 million. In fact, the website you are on right now has a tab in the upper left called "Election Results" that will tell you that exact thing.

Secondly, I do not think anyone on this forum is saying that voter ID laws will stop tens of millions of voters from casting their ballots. What we are saying is that it might stop some people from voting. And guess what? That's enough. In fact, even if five people out of our 130 million didn't vote because of our voter ID laws, voter ID laws would have a net negative impact. And do you know why? Because out of over one billion ballots cast, only 31 include "credible incidents" (ie: not even all proven) of voter fraud.

And if that's not enough, here's a second article that shows just how dumb these photo ID requirements are. According to Politifact, getting hit by lightning is more likely then finding voter fraud in Texas by a factor of 13 to 1.


But let's not stop there, because even if there was a large issue with voter fraud, photo voter IDs likely wouldn't stop it. Going back to the first article, it says this when talking about Wisconsin's voter ID requirements:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In fact the article goes on to say that "requirements to show ID at the polls are designed for pretty much one thing: people showing up at the polls pretending to be somebody else in order to each cast one incremental fake ballot".

Now if the goal was actually to catch fraud, or end situations that can lead to lost or missing ballots, there's a lot of things missing. For example, the article lists the following (I paraphrase): absentee ballots, vote buying, coercion, fake registration forms, wrong addresses, and ballot box stuffing. None of these are covered by making people who vote in person have a photo ID.


And guess what? Someone is paying money to get you an ID card. Either you pay it to whomever you get it from, or taxpayers pay for you to get it. When every single cent counts because we can't raise taxes, you would think that such an ineffective system would be crossed out immediately... that is unless the goal of voter IDs was never to make sure the scant cases of fraud were caught and rather, as Wiz the Wis points out, that the whole thing was done for political purposes.


And, finally, I'll leave you with this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Virginiá]

There are better ways to prevent voter fraud that don't involve disenfranchising people without IDs. Has it every occurred to some of you why Republicans create strict photo id laws and then make no real effort to get everyone an ID? Republicans aren't doing this because they actually care about real, existing fraud. They know there is no proof of this. These laws are meant to boost their electoral prospects, just like Democrats try to expand voting rights to boost theirs.

1. Why not take a picture of people without an ID at the polls and save it to cross-check with other people who vote. Use technology to prevent double voters. I believe NH at least saves pictures of people w/o ID for future investigations, if needed.

2. Maintain a national database (as Adam said) that records who everyone who votes in real time, then cross-check with other people who vote so that no one can vote twice.

3. Work on getting everyone IDs, including giving every single student a photo ID upon leaving both HS and college, and allowing free and easy replacements by mail and/or whenever state/federal agencies. The point is to ensure everyone has an ID that is free of charge and does not require extraordinary and costly efforts to track down documents people not have.

-

You know what a big problem here is? Republicans have only introduced restrictions, year after year, and have made very little, if any efforts to expand voting rights/services. If you introduce a measure that might reduce turnout, balance it with something that will increase it. If you're in Virginia and pass an ID law (like Republicans did), then balance it with automatic voter registration. At least WV did this. Further, don't just pass restrictions that aren't needed or won't solve the issue. If there is very little voter fraud, why are Republicans passing restrictions as if it was the biggest issue of the 21st century?

There is a reason Republicans only pass restrictions - Because they are trying to game the system to reduce turnout from Democratic-leaning constituencies. Can we at least admit that? Numerous officials have been caught on record saying as much. (Just a few: Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 4)

There are much better ideas out there than photo ID, so why is it Republicans focus so much on this and not one bit on other ideas? Gee, I wonder if it has anything to do with minorities and young people disproportionately lacking IDs...

Oh, and voter ID does reduce turnout:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/04/new-evidence-that-voter-id-laws-skew-democracy-in-favor-of-white-republicans/

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Sweet, the DNC outreach program of smokes for votes remains alive and well in Wisconsin!

Same-day registration with no ID. What could possibly go wrong?

Sorry your party's attempt at voter disenfranchisement didn't work out.

Yeah, because using an ID to vote is such an onerous requirement in 2016 where you have to use an ID to buy cigarettes (which Dems can, in turn, give away to induce people to vote), buy alcohol, sign any legal documents, go to the movies, get into a bar, fly, get a discount, open a bank account, etc., etc., etc.

1.Republicans can't do these things as well?

2.Good, if it's not a big deal then lets have the government issue vote card IDs to all people with the full cost paid for by the taxpayer.  After all, none of those things you listed are things that poor people can really afford.

I mean, if this isn't really about disenfranchising people and if some people say they can't afford some of the costs associated with getting an ID, then there really is no reason to oppose this.

Voting, after all, is a Constitutionally protected right.

No, voting is not a constitutionally protected right.

It's not?  Is there something in Republican DNA that you need to lie?

The US Constitution stated in Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870: "Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

I realize the present Republican Majority Supreme Court may rule otherwise, and I have written here previously that the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court rules it says, but the words in the 15th Amendment are quite clear, and it's not my fault that the only Amendment Republicans believe should exist is the Second Amendment.

After Hillary Clinton is elected President, and with the fortunate timing of the wonderful death of the vile POS Antonin Scalia (RIH Tony, I can only hope you're going to suffer as much as possible for all eternity) I have no doubt there will be many upcoming rulings on the right to vote that will overturn the rulings of the previous Republican Majority Supreme Court.

Well then, d***it, why did Illinois have to have a constitutional amendment creating a right to vote in 2014?

My apologies for being so low-information about this.