Why is this funny?

 

Andrew

Why is this funny? 

Driving requires a driver’s license. Voting doesn’t.

If the officer had said, “Show me your bowling ball.” And the driver replied, “I don’t have one. I’m on my way to go snorkeling.” Would that have made sense?  Bowling and snorkeling are unrelated activities.

I’m assuming the “clever commentary” is “you ought to have your id on you whenever you drive... why wouldn’t you have it whenever you vote?” But we don’t arbitrarily require equipment across other pairs of activities. (I’m sorry sir, but I can’t let you bowl. You see, you don’t have a snorkel.)

Maybe I need to consider it from the voting angle.

Is the driver pretending to be someone he’s not? Is that the joke? Or maybe he’s actually dead and shouldn’t even be driving at all?

Dean (cousin)

We are literally the only first world country that doesn't require an ID and yes that is a joke. The most coveted right that we as Americans have, that women and minorities fought for but it's not important enough to require an ID. Absolutely disgraceful and a complete joke.

Andrew 

So we're in agreement about the importance and significance of voting.

It is a right that wasn't initially granted to women and minorities, but due to its critical impact on the lives of all Americans, people fought to grant them this right which they were due. (That was the right thing to do and, in retrospect, it was disgraceful to have denied them this right in the first place.)

All Americans with the right to vote ought to be able to exercise this right.

Not voting is disrespectful to those who have fought to preserve this right.

Preventing rightful voters from voting would be unamerican.

Making voting more difficult, especially in ways that disproportionately affect minorities and poorer communities... why that's down-right criminal.

Voter ID laws deprive many Americans of the right to vote. There are 21 million Americans who don't have government-issued photo id. Getting such an id costs time and money. Perhaps to you and me, the expense and inconvenience doesn't feel like much of a burden, but we're fortunate enough to not be living paycheck to paycheck and can afford to take time off to go wait in line at the DMV.

Kevin (cousin)

If having an ID is too hard for people to do, which (having been very poor for a periods in my own life and working multiple jobs to survive) I must say I find hard to believe, then how shall people guarantee citizenship? Or do you perhaps accept that a percentage of non citizens should be entitled to vote? What percentage?

Andrew 

I'll defer to James' post below in regard to whether or not your finding it difficult gives credence to the disbelief that anybody else might experience a barrier.

Is your argument that, without requiring ID, there is a significant amount of non-citizens voting? Within any state of your choosing, how much of an impact do you imagine this group is having? What percentage?

I suspect it isn't a material amount and I'm confident it pales in comparison to the 21 million American citizens, who should be allowed to vote, who don't have ids. Percentage wise, that's approximately 11%.

Kevin (cousin)

I understand your point, though I am not sure I buy it. Nonetheless, you didn't answer the question. How many non citizens should be entitled to vote?

Andrew 

Which point don't you buy?

1) That the experience of a straight, able-bodied white cismale under age 55 who was "working multiple jobs to survive" may not completely represent the reality of the entirety of our population.

2) That the statistic of 11% of Americans currently not having government issued photo ID (citation below), who should not be impeded from exercising their right to vote, will surpass an implied quantity of non-citizens who are alleged to be voting.

But, to your question: How many non-citizens should be entitled to vote?

"Entitled to" - You and I both know that answer is zero.

"Run the risk of being allowed to vote due to not adding more obstacles (that disproportionately impact minorities) to the system which would render 11% of the current voting-eligible citizenry incapable of voting" - I won't give you a number, but Benjamin Franklin has a maxim regarding liberties with a number in it which seems apt: "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."

If you show me, with actual data, that there is a significant quantity of non-citizens voting, then we could address this "problem". Until then, I suggest we deal with the reality that we have actual American citizens, who have the right to vote, who will be directly adversely impacted by this additional requirement.

https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

Kevin (cousin)

I have to be able to trust our system. Don't you feel this need as well? Or are you ok with the current situation because the current default benefits your personal election choices more often than not? I hope you can answer truthfully.

I'm not sure what my race has to do with anything. Maybe you can explain why I can't "get it" since I'm not a part of a special group defined by race. The point is, I'm no better than anyone else, and at points in my life I was no more priveleged than that 11% you speak of. I had no car, no TV, no cell phones, I lived in terrible conditions, and not quite enough money to pay rent and get quite enough food. Yet I had identification. I had to ride a bike across town to make sure I had it, and one time I may have taken a bus. Where there is a will, there is a way.

If the issue is that it's too difficult to prove citizenship, then it would make sense to focus on that rather than creating new, complicating problems to accommodate existing problems. If your argument were to make it easy to prove citizenship, I would surely support your cause.

Andrew

What part of the current system are you not trusting?

Do you think there's a coordinated effort amongst non-citizens to flood elections with invalid ballots?

Do you think that having more convenient options (increased polling locations, broader access to mail-in voting, etc.) for valid voters to vote is harmful?

Do you think that by closing voting locations and then criminalizing providing water to people in line that you'll weed out would-be fraudulent voters?

What current defaults are benefiting anybody's election choices more often than not?

I referenced sexuality, lack of physical disabilities, race, gender identity matching gender assigned at birth, gender, and age in my description of you. The point of that description was to call out that, even though *you* may "find it hard to believe", that doesn't make it false. You and I both enjoy privilege, much of which we're not regularly aware. (Such is the nature of privilege.)

Fact: Minority voters disproportionately lack ID. Nationally, approximately 25% of African-American citizens of voting age lack government-issued photo ID, compared to only 8% of whites.

That would be one reason I brought up race.

Fact: The travel required is often a major burden on people with disabilities, the elderly, or those in rural areas without access to a car or public transportation. In Texas, some people in rural areas must travel approximately 170 miles to reach the nearest ID office.

It's great that you were able to bike or bus to secure your id, but if you were a single parent of 2 working those 3 jobs just to make ends meet, and suddenly needed to travel 170 miles to get an id to allow you to vote, wouldn't it be fair to consider that a hardship. Sure, where there's a will and all, but I think it's harsh to just assume someone without an id is lazy or just doesn't care.

"If the issue is that it's too difficult to prove citizenship..."

Is that the issue? That wasn't my issue.

"... then it would make sense to focus on that rather than creating new, complicating problems …"

Am I creating complicated problems? I'm not the one proposing that a single parent devote their entire day attempting to secure identification just because some people are claiming there's a non-citizen voting cartel or some such.

"to accommodate existing problems..."

Existing problems like low voter turnout and disinterest? Or are you talking about problems like gerrymandering?

"If your argument were to make it easy to prove citizenship,"

Again, I don't recall having brought this up.

"I would surely support your cause."

Well, yeah, because it's actually your own cause. But, sure, I can get behind that. If you've got an easy way to prove citizenship, that doesn't disproportionally cause hardship for people, especially minorities or other groups that already fight an uphill battle in our society, then three cheers for you.

Dean (cousin)

What's amazing to me is that Mexico and Canada require IDs but we are supposed to believe that here in the US it's just to much to ask. I wonder how two countries with such contrasting economic means still make it work?

That article is obviously politically bias, I mean let's be honest it's the ACLU. Why are there 21 million people without IDs? They are NOT that hard to get and I can't remember the last time I saw anyone under the age of 40 that doesn't have a phone they could use to get one. This argument is old and tired, it has been for years. There was a time where I might have agreed with it but it just isn't true anymore. All this issue is anymore is political race baiting.

I agree that there is issues for some people making it to the polls but again if a country like Mexico that suffers a from a lot of poverty can do it why can't we? I mean Afghanistan had elections where you are required to have a government issued ID, they dipped their fingers in ink after they voted so they couldn't vote twice AND they did it under the threat of the Taliban murdering them, possibly there whole family. Why did that election look like it had more integrity than ours? In my lifetime I've never seen such a sh** show and less restrictions will undoubtedly make it worse. I personally just want some integrity back.

Kevin (cousin)

Andrew, this discussion is completely without direction. I suspect it never had a chance.

Guess I'm not woke enough to follow your rage-tinged logic. I do see that, with any conversation where we may not agree, you're right, I'm wrong, and that's that regardless of the chatter.

Best luck to you with your cause. I thought Paul's post was kinda funny.