I know.

Considering IDs are good for a decade, I don't think a 2 hour bus ride is asking too much. But given that a vast majority of the people you're talking about here are urban types, I HIGHLY doubt you're going to find a city location that is more than 20-30 minutes away from a DMV service center. The rest of us had to do it. Hell, I'm guessing a lot of cities (I know Milwaukee does) have a free taxi service for the old and impoverished which might even pick them up at their door and take them directly there.

I *GUARANTEE* you that the local political parties would offer such a service if it was needed.

We already drive thousands of people to the polls on election day.



If this person exists, they would have already been trotted out by the political groups who oppose such legislation. If they truly are out there, I would MORE than happy to bend over backward to help them out.

States keep copies of birth certificates on file, so anyone who doesn't have theirs can get one.

If you don't have the $8 that it will cost for said copy, I'm sure the fee is waived.

Do you not read threads, or do you just forget things really easily. Meet from Dorothy Cooper, 96-year-old Chattanooga, TN resident - from earlier in this thread:

So I assume you'll be on your way to Chattanooga to help this woman now?

Also I'll spare you the response of "well she'll still be able to absentee vote so I don't see the problem". Not the point. Point is about getting ID. How many people aren't going to be able to absentee vote, or know about it? And how long until the republicans get that changed as well.

Classic case of government bureaucracy getting in the way of common sense.

This woman should be issued her ID immediately. Problems that arise like this need to be dealt with swiftly and efficiently. We cannot institute voter ID and then have things like this happen.

Also, Inso, it has been pointed out to me multiple times ITT that choosing against getting government issued ID is something that some non-trivial percentage of the population does (surprisingly enough). So not only do we have to worry about those people for which it is too onerous to get an ID, we have to worry about those people that don't want to get one too.

To the R's who put this system in place, it's working as intended.

Do we have any ITT?

I'd love to hear the reasoning behind this.


Don't blame the system in this case, blame the ****** who isn't using a little common sense when handing out photo ID's to 98 year old widows.

How do you know the ****** clerk isn't just following protocol?

It's like you're willfully ignoring that this is the exact effect Republicans wanted in putting this system in place.

Let's put all voting booths on the 14th floor of buildings with no elevators. Hey, no one's preventing anyone from voting. They can vote if they are really determined.

That's probably exactly what happened.

And it needs to stop.

Nobody would think this was reasonable.

I'm sure the ADA covers that somewhere.

Then don't institute voter ID until these things are fixed.

Responsible legislatures do it all at once.

It's not supposed to reasonable. It's an intentionally unreasonable example to show the folly of the argument that people should just be more determined to get an ID.

Getting an ID when you don't have transportation is a pain in the ass. Lots of urban people lose their IDs and never get them back because they never need them. They don't get carded because they know somebody or they look plenty old enough. They probably don't have a bank account or just use an ATM. They can get jobs with other forms of ID. They don't fly. They don't have gun licenses that also count as ID for voting.

So, in essence, you are making them jump through hoops to get an ID that's only really useful to them if they vote. It's no wonder if some of these people say "screw it."

BTW, signature matching is just as likely to deter fraud and not nearly as onerous. What's wrong with that solution?

Is that like "Military Intelligence?" Or "Microsoft Works?" Or "Jumbo Shrimp?" Or "Unbiased opinion?"

Dinopoker and I had a conversation regarding this issue starting on page 2; he specifically discusses this exact issue in post 156 I believe.

So i take it you are in favour of freezing the voter ID laws until things like "the ability to get ID" is sorted out?

Cos the people against voter ID laws arent necessarily against the principle of needing ID to vote, its just the fact that the systems arent there to cope with it leaving millions disenfranchised. Plus it doesnt help when they close the DMV in poor black areas to further stress the system.

Sure, but set a timetable ahead of time for concerns to be listed so opponents can't just drag their feet filibuster style.

Interesting, to me it sounds like there are several itt who are against the principle of needing ID to vote.

Whoa whoa whoa... I don't want to derail this conversation too much, but you're not implying that only the ORIGINAL birth certificate is valid, are you? Because if so, the birther threads are about to explode.

We have a system of identification that is needed to vote. You send in your registration card with your signature. Your signature gets matched when you come to vote. If you want to update this system, you've got to show that your proposed new system doesn't disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people.

How exactly would one go about proving that to the left's satisfaction? According to you guys, filling out forms and standing in line for a few hours disenfranchises millions of people -- is there any other solution you can think of that is less work for our citizens (i.e. idiotproof) and demonstrably doesn't disenfranchise?

The burden of proof isn't on the people saying the current system is fine.

I knew you would say that, but that's not what I asked.

Pretend someone that is now sort of on your side is asking you a question, out of genuine curiosity, and would appreciate an answer from someone more knowledgeable/interested about politics. You mean to tell me you don't have any idea how someone would prove a new system doesn't disenfranchise citizens?

How am I supposed to imagine how someone would prove that a system doesn't disenfranchise people when it doesn't exist yet? The manner proof will vary for each system.