Things We Need an ID For...

[Aramike]

In Wisconsin:

• Buying alcohol/tobacco
• Renting a movie
• Buying "R" rated movie/"M" rated game at many retailers
• Buying cold medicine
• Applying for credit
• Entering a tavern/club/adult establishment

And yet, we don't need an ID to vote. Several attempts were made to add this restriction by Democrat Governor Jim Doyle vetoed them each time uner the auspices that it would disenfranchise voters (including one bill which would have issued FREE identification cards to those least likely to have one).

Excuse me, but really? It doesn't bother local democrats that a senior citizen would have to show ID to buy Nyquil but somehow it's an inconvenience to have to show one to VOTE?

Right now, when one goes to vote, all one must do is state their name and address (assuming they are registered). How does this not leave a door wide open to fraud?

Thoughts?

[mookiemookie]

I believe that ID should be required to vote. The only argument I can see to the contrary is that none of the things you listed are constitutionally guaranteed rights, but I still think pragmatically, ID should be required.

[FIREWALL]

Rent a car.

Buy an airline ticket.

[Platapus]

In Virginia, we have to present ID

[yubba]

Just tell them you are an illegal immigrant. ID I don't have too show, no stinkin ID.

[Castout]

Some people lamented that the result of an election is decided not by the voters but by those who count the ballot.

[ETR3(SS)]

Aren't you glad he's not up for reelection this year then?

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Aramike

In Wisconsin:

• Buying alcohol/tobacco
• Renting a movie
• Buying "R" rated movie/"M" rated game at many retailers
• Buying cold medicine
• Applying for credit
• Entering a tavern/club/adult establishment

And yet, we don't need an ID to vote. Several attempts were made to add this restriction by Democrat Governor Jim Doyle vetoed them each time uner the auspices that it would disenfranchise voters (including one bill which would have issued FREE identification cards to those least likely to have one).

Excuse me, but really? It doesn't bother local democrats that a senior citizen would have to show ID to buy Nyquil but somehow it's an inconvenience to have to show one to VOTE?

Right now, when one goes to vote, all one must do is state their name and address (assuming they are registered). How does this not leave a door wide open to fraud?

Thoughts?

I agree with you in that an ID should be a requirement to vote. One citizen, one vote. Prove you are who you are, and that you are here legally.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I believe that ID should be required to vote. The only argument I can see to the contrary is that none of the things you listed are constitutionally guaranteed rights, but I still think pragmatically, ID should be required.

You're exactly right about that - hence my frustration with the Wisconsin democrat (note I say WI) establishment. You said it best: pragmatically. Each citizen's right to vote is endangered when it is possible for a fraudulant vote to be cast on their (or anyone's) behalf.

What I don't understand are the true motivations of the Democrats here - I'd like to think that they would be as against voter fraud as anyone else, but they don't seem to care. Why do they insist upon this faulty disenfranchisment argument when it's clearly absurd AND even then, Republicans have introduced legislation that addresses EVERY SINGLE ONE of their concerns?

Ultimately, it bothers me that the only logical conclusion is that WI democrats feel as though they benefit from voter fraud and therefore wish to keep the avenues of voter fraud open. Any thoughts?

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I agree with you in that an ID should be a requirement to vote. One citizen, one vote. Prove you are who you are, and that you are here legally.

Exactly.

Now does anyone have a logical reason as to why this would be wrong?

[tater]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Exactly.

Now does anyone have a logical reason as to why this would be wrong?

You can only be against this if for some reason you want to encourage voter fraud.

Anyone who wants voter fraud must know they benefit from it.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by tater

You can only be against this if for some reason you want to encourage voter fraud.

Anyone who wants voter fraud must know they benefit from it.

I'll come out and say it: I think it is obvious that Team D has relied upon the illegal vote for some time, and will continue to do so in the future.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I'll come out and say it: I think it is obvious that Team D has relied upon the illegal vote for some time, and will continue to do so in the future.

I was hoping to slowly and logically built towards that, but you got it.

Believe in what you will, but the US is a nation built first and foremost on duly elected citizen representation. NONE of the Constitution means a damn without this basic building block. It troubles me greatly that there's a clear effort by one party to attempt to circumvent this process. And we're not simply talking about an example or two - we're talking about wholesale, public encouragement of voter fraud.

One can claim that aren't actually stating that their constituents should go out and commit said fraud, but what they are doing is much like a teacher posting the test answers on an overhead projector and telling the class not to use them.

[Sailor Steve]

ID: Yes.

[ETR3(SS)]

You know this has me wondering now if there is a way for me to see who I voted for in the past, just to see if I'm a victim of voter fraud or not.