Actual title: Senate Democrats block bill to limit lawmakers' stock trades, citing voter ID provision
Which makes a lot more sense than the submission title (in fairness, the original is too long) but it could have been made to fit without losing that key word at the end.
I'm not in the US , but we and everyone else has strong voter I'd. Even banana republics.
I see no reason to be against it unless you're attempting fraud.
"Voter ID" in this country is nearly always code for voter disenfranchisement.
Our system works on the principle of preventing the "wrong" people from voting. And "wrong" here means poor and Black people who often have difficulty producing the required documentation and paying the fees for same.
you should probably look into how voter ID laws and other voting restrictions were wielded in the Jim Crow south, and the modern day, to understand why they are controversial in the US
How might you use voter ID laws to prevent people from voting? Well the most common form of ID in the US is the driver's license, so you may divert resources from the department of motor vehicles in areas with minorities. For example, Alabama started enforcing photo ID in 2014 and then shut down 31 licensing offices in 2015, disproportionately affecting black counties.
Additionally, voter fraud is rare in the US, it is a federal crime and the risk-reward on committing voter fraud makes it rare for anyone to actually commit it. Between 2000 - 2014 there were only 31 credible cases according to the Brennan Center (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/reso...).
Does it make sense to disenfranchise thousands to millions in order to stop 2 people from committing voter fraud per year? Obviously not
Because other countries also make a single, uniform, national ID a right that citizens receive for free or subject to nothing more than a small processing fee (which can be waived according to financial need). The United States, in contrast, has a national standard for ID (RealID and/or the requirements for a passport, depending on how you count), but has not chosen to provide the means to such standardized identification to everyone, as policy.
I would support such a policy, but as implied by the other responses here, some Americans would, out of bad faith, oppose a universal, standard citizen's ID if it meant that ID requirements could serve to divide the worthy from the unworthy.
10 comments
[ 0.30 ms ] story [ 8.6 ms ] threadWhich makes a lot more sense than the submission title (in fairness, the original is too long) but it could have been made to fit without losing that key word at the end.
Our system works on the principle of preventing the "wrong" people from voting. And "wrong" here means poor and Black people who often have difficulty producing the required documentation and paying the fees for same.
How are all these hapless poor people buying their cigs, lotto tickets, and booze without a form of ID anyway?
Fucking dipshit.
How might you use voter ID laws to prevent people from voting? Well the most common form of ID in the US is the driver's license, so you may divert resources from the department of motor vehicles in areas with minorities. For example, Alabama started enforcing photo ID in 2014 and then shut down 31 licensing offices in 2015, disproportionately affecting black counties.
Additionally, voter fraud is rare in the US, it is a federal crime and the risk-reward on committing voter fraud makes it rare for anyone to actually commit it. Between 2000 - 2014 there were only 31 credible cases according to the Brennan Center (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/reso...).
Does it make sense to disenfranchise thousands to millions in order to stop 2 people from committing voter fraud per year? Obviously not
I would support such a policy, but as implied by the other responses here, some Americans would, out of bad faith, oppose a universal, standard citizen's ID if it meant that ID requirements could serve to divide the worthy from the unworthy.