Quantcast

Should I.D. be required to vote?

FanOreilly 2012/04/17 16:24:02
Yes, I.D. should be required to vote
No, I.D. should not be required to vote
You!
Add Photos & Videos
In almost every country in the world, you need I.D. to vote not to mention engage in any function in the political process.

Should I D  be required to vote

Liberals in the USA claim that requiring identification to vote is:

-a nefarious right-wing plan to suppress votes among non-whites and the poor
-a non-problem since 'almost nobody' engages in voter fraud
-not required despite requiring ID to do almost anything else relating to government


Project Veritas has once again proven the liberals wrong.


Should I.D. be required to vote?

Read More: http://www.theprojectveritas.org/

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • FanOreilly 2012/04/17 16:32:50 (edited)
    Yes, I.D. should be required to vote
    FanOreilly
    +36
    Here are just a few things you need ID to do:



    -Attend a lavish Obama party

    -Visit Eric Holder at the DOJ to arm Mexican drug cartels with illegal guns

    -Get welfare benefits for you and all your illegitimate offspring

    -Get a Solyndra government subsidy

    -Get a job in the Secret Service to bang hookers in Colombia

    -Get a job in the GSA to take taxpayer funded luxury vacations in Vegas

    -Get a union job inciting riots in the #Occupy movement

    -Get an Obamacare waiver

    -Make illegal donations to the Obama campaign

    -Go through TSA genitalia gropings

    -Get a job as Secretary of Defense and fly private jets to your mansion in California

    -File a false tax return to qualify for Obama's cabinet

    Here are a few more.

    voter ID

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • BwaHa Pepper 2012/04/20 04:20:53 (edited)
    BwaHa
    I"m in Washington state. I haven't been to a voting "booth" in decades. All of my votes have been cast via a mail in ballot... before they were called "mail in" we called them "absentee" ballots. I do recall having to show an ID when I applied registered for the draft and registered to vote on the same day. Ever since all I've had to do was update the local voter's registration folks re: my change of address.
  • Pepper BwaHa 2012/04/20 04:30:04
    Pepper
    My biggest problem with this whole thing is that the same people who say having to show ID to vote don't have a problem if asked to show it to buy or do other things. Suddenly when asked to prove who they are on such an important concept, it's wrong to have to prove who they are.
  • Starchild Pepper 2012/04/20 12:27:15
    Starchild
    Yes, laws requiring people to present ID when buying beer and cigarettes should be tossed out. If or when a dependent minor uses drugs should be a matter between that person and his/her parents, not government. Power corrupts, and too many individuals in government are power-addicts whose drug delivery methods of choice -- spending, regulation, and control -- are destroying freedom and dragging down the economy.

    Personally I'm against mail-in ballots precisely because I think they are too susceptible to fraud and election tampering as a result of the completed ballots being in the hands of the authorities for a longer period of time. But people voting by mail won't be showing ID anyway, so I don't understand the clamor to make people show ID when voting in person.
  • Pepper Starchild 2012/04/20 13:29:45
    Pepper
    So a 15 year old that "looks" 21 should be able to buy beer without an ID being checked? Does that mean you also believe 15 year old should be tried as adults if they are going to be treated as adults?
  • Starchild Pepper 2012/04/21 02:04:21
    Starchild
    I'm going further than that. I'm saying that a 15 year old who looks 15 should be able to buy beer without an ID. Whether she drinks beer or not is an issue between her and her parents; government has no business getting involved. Simply buying beer doesn't necessarily mean she intends to drink it herself anyway.

    Part of the reason young people abuse drugs is because legal prohibition makes them appealing -- what's forbidden is enticing. But use is not the same as abuse. Kids having small amounts of beer, wine, etc., is common in many cultures and is not going to harm them. Better that parents teach responsible drinking at an age when kids are starting to get interested in such things, than what happens now, which is that most people drink before they're legally able to do so, and as a result they do it without guidance and abuse it.

    People who are dependent minors should not be tried as adults if charged with crimes, but if a 15 year old has taken the steps to become legally independent, which I think all dependent minors should have the option of doing, then that person should be tried as an adult.
  • Pepper Starchild 2012/04/21 11:34:00
    Pepper
    So you want to give a 15 year old all the freedoms now given to adults but you don't want them to be held responsible as a an adult if they commit what is considered an adult crime. That means you want them to have all the benefits without any of the responsibility. No wonder California is so screwed up.
  • Starchild Pepper 2012/04/22 10:25:00
    Starchild
    No, that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm proposing that if a 15 year old decides to become legally independent, then he or she becomes legally responsible and held to the same standards as an adult.

    But if a teen does not decide to become legally independent, then his parents are empowered to tell him what to do, short of child abuse, and are to some extent legally responsible for his actions.

    If he doesn't obey them, they can cut him loose and then he's legally independent whether he wants to be or not.

    They can take him back, of course, as many times as they want if both parties are in agreement.
  • Pepper Starchild 2012/04/22 12:13:10
    Pepper
    That is what you are saying. It's not a revolving door. Either they can be held accountable like adults if they want to do adult things or they can be treated like kids limited to what kids can do.
  • Starchild Pepper 2012/04/22 16:28:09 (edited)
    Starchild
    You don't get what I'm saying. I'm not proposing to let anyone get out of being held accountable for any crime by changing status. If someone commits a crime while legally independent, they get tried as an adult. Same thing you just said. The only difference in what I'm saying is that yes, if a 15 year old decides in a rebellious mood that she wants to legally be an adult out on her own, and then a couple months later changes her mind and wants to move back in with her parents under their wing, and they want her back, the family should be able to make that choice without government getting in the way. I think you'd have to be pretty heartless to say no to that.

    national youth rights association

    no ageism

    national youth rights association
  • Pepper Starchild 2012/04/22 20:06:53
    Pepper
    If a 15 year old wants to be able to make adults decisions they should be held accountable as an adults whether legally independent or not. If a 15 year old is allowed to puchase alcohol, drinks and gets in a car and drives, and kills someone in the process, tell me how less dead the person they killed was because the person was 15 and not legally independent. It's the action not the age.
  • Starchild Pepper 2012/04/23 07:32:26
    Starchild
    A 15 year old who gets drunk and drives on public roads in the United States *now* is breaking at least two laws, one against drinking at that age and the other against drunk driving.

    If decisions about drug use were left to the family instead of government, as they should be, that same 15 year old doing the exact same thing would only be breaking one law.

    Yet you seem to be saying that in the latter case he or she should be charged as an adult and face a harsher penalty even though *fewer* laws were broken and the person's behavior was the same in both cases.

    That makes no sense to me.

    Neither drinking alcohol nor driving a motor vehicle is inherently an "adult decision". Decisions are decisions, and any labels applied to them are arbitrary. Each person is different, and there is no specific age at which any one person, let alone all people, suddenly becomes able to make wise choices.

    The facts are that most people in this society have at least tried alcohol by age 15, regardless of what the laws say, and in many U.S. states can legally drive (with a learner's permit) at age 14 (see http://www.2pass.co.uk/ages2.htm ). My grandmother drove a car when she was 9. More than a dozen countries have no drinking age laws whatsoever, while many others allow drinking at age 16, 17, or 18 (...
    A 15 year old who gets drunk and drives on public roads in the United States *now* is breaking at least two laws, one against drinking at that age and the other against drunk driving.

    If decisions about drug use were left to the family instead of government, as they should be, that same 15 year old doing the exact same thing would only be breaking one law.

    Yet you seem to be saying that in the latter case he or she should be charged as an adult and face a harsher penalty even though *fewer* laws were broken and the person's behavior was the same in both cases.

    That makes no sense to me.

    Neither drinking alcohol nor driving a motor vehicle is inherently an "adult decision". Decisions are decisions, and any labels applied to them are arbitrary. Each person is different, and there is no specific age at which any one person, let alone all people, suddenly becomes able to make wise choices.

    The facts are that most people in this society have at least tried alcohol by age 15, regardless of what the laws say, and in many U.S. states can legally drive (with a learner's permit) at age 14 (see http://www.2pass.co.uk/ages2.htm ). My grandmother drove a car when she was 9. More than a dozen countries have no drinking age laws whatsoever, while many others allow drinking at age 16, 17, or 18 (see http://www2.potsdam.edu/hanso... ).
    (more)
  • Pepper Starchild 2012/04/23 12:26:11
    Pepper
    The number of crime committed makes no difference. I'm saying that a 15 year old that commits an adult crime should be charged as an adult. That makes perfect sense.

    Sounds to me as if you simply want people to do as they please without any laws and that makes no sense.

    Your information is wrong about ages. In my State of SC, while the person gets a learner's permit at 15, they don't get a regular license until at least 16. You should really make sure your sources are accurate before using them.
  • Starchild Pepper 2012/04/23 12:47:35
    Starchild
    "A 15 year old that commits an adult crime should be charged as an adult. That makes perfect sense."

    You think it does? So tell me what makes a crime an "adult crime", in your opinion?

    As for the law in South Carolina, quite possibly the law has been changed there since the web page was updated, or it was simply reported to them incorrectly. If they were off by a year in the case of that state's driving laws, that does not mean most of the data on the page is wrong.

    If you think it's reasonable to expect me to call every state's Department of Motor Vehicles to confirm what their law says before mentioning a website listing those laws, I really don't know what to tell you, except it sounds like you have a lot of time on your hands.
  • Pepper Starchild 2012/04/23 12:54:32 (edited)
    Pepper
    I use the word adult crime to make the point that if a 15 year old commits the same offense as an adult they should be held to the same standard as the adult. Take murder for example. Someone killed by a 15 year old is just as dead as someone killed by a 50 year old. Difference is I would try the 15 year old under the same guidlines as the 50 year old and give the 15 year old the same punishment. You, on the other hand, wouldn't.

    The law has changed significantly. It was the way the source presented when I got my license in 1980 but that was 32 years ago. Off a year or 10 years it was still off.

    My suggestion is that if you are going to use a source you should make sure it's accurate before presenting it as evidence. Failure to do so makes your argument a failure. You can best believe if I was going to use a source but wasn't sure if all the information was correct I would either check it out or not use it. Credibility is lost when YOU use a source then blame the source for being wrong.
  • Starchild Pepper 2012/04/23 14:36:35
    Starchild
    So let me get this straight -- you reject the whole concept of different penalties for juveniles, and argue that if a child commits a murder, they should receive the exact *same* penalty as an adult who commits a murder?

    Yet on the other hand, you want juveniles to be treated *differently* under the law when it comes to what they are legally allowed to do, such as banning them from drinking alcohol even in cases where their parents are okay with it?

    The only consistency I see there is that in each case you take the position that is most authoritarian and least supportive of young people's rights.

    Citing a source that turns out to have a minor error versus making a claim without citing any sources -- I wouldn't venture to say one is automatically going to be more convincing than the other. I did you a favor by assuming you were correct and telling the truth about South Carolina's driving laws. If I wanted to be a stickler about argument form and credibility, as you are doing, I simply would've refused to accept your claim without a source, just as you are apparently refusing to accept -- or perhaps are just distracting attention from? -- the larger point that, whatever the case may be in South Carolina, many states do allow people to drive at age 15. Learner's permit or no, the person is still behind the wheel and piloting a motor vehicle.
  • Pepper Starchild 2012/04/23 15:01:41
    Pepper
    That's exactly what I'm arguing unless you can show me that a person murdered by a 15 year old is any less dead than a person murdered by someone my age.

    My suggestion that juveniles be treated differently under the law is based on the fact that they are treated differently than adults when it comes to punishments for the same crimes. If they are tried, convicted, and sentenced in the same manner as an adult when they commit the same crime, let them be treated the same when it comes to what they do. You are the one that seems to be saying they should have the freedoms like adults but not be held to the same disciplinary standard as adults when they break the law.

    I'm willing to give them rights to the same level that they would be held responsible for using those rights. It is you that is inconsistent with providing freedoms but not being willing to hold them accountable.

    Below is a link to the driving requirements in SC. Scroll down tot he part that starts Conditional License for 15 year olds and read from there. What I provided is an accurate source so no favors are needed. I also didn't expect you to believe me. You chose to do that yourself but a source has been provided. You can bet it's accurate since it comes from the actual place that issues the license.

    Nothing...
    That's exactly what I'm arguing unless you can show me that a person murdered by a 15 year old is any less dead than a person murdered by someone my age.

    My suggestion that juveniles be treated differently under the law is based on the fact that they are treated differently than adults when it comes to punishments for the same crimes. If they are tried, convicted, and sentenced in the same manner as an adult when they commit the same crime, let them be treated the same when it comes to what they do. You are the one that seems to be saying they should have the freedoms like adults but not be held to the same disciplinary standard as adults when they break the law.

    I'm willing to give them rights to the same level that they would be held responsible for using those rights. It is you that is inconsistent with providing freedoms but not being willing to hold them accountable.

    Below is a link to the driving requirements in SC. Scroll down tot he part that starts Conditional License for 15 year olds and read from there. What I provided is an accurate source so no favors are needed. I also didn't expect you to believe me. You chose to do that yourself but a source has been provided. You can bet it's accurate since it comes from the actual place that issues the license.

    Nothing distracting from me. I simply pointed out that your source was flawed in a case I knew something about and that if it was wrong on my State there was a distinct possibility that it could be wrong for others. I don't really care about the others as I don't live there and their laws don't apply me related to getting a license.
    (more)
  • Starchild Pepper 2012/04/24 15:28:12
    Starchild
    You write that "It is you that is inconsistent with providing freedoms but not being willing to hold them accountable".

    Yes, that would be inconsistent, however that is not an accurate description of my position. Young people who are legally dependent are dependents of their parents or guardians, not government (unless they are in a state-run orphanage or something). I'm *not* saying don't hold them accountable for misdeeds. I'm saying put the power to hold legal dependents accountable where it belongs -- in the hands of those upon whom they are dependent.

    The current system often has people under 18 being "charged as adults" or "tried as adults" or "sentenced as adults" in connection with some alleged crime, yet never do we hear of people being legally "allowed to drink as an adult", "allowed to vote as an adult", etc. I hope we can agree that is a double standard, and that it ought to be corrected by some means.

    The means I propose is that anyone who is legally independent be treated as an adult, and *if* while being legally accorded the rights of an adult a person breaks a just law, *then* he or she should face the legal consequences an adult would face. In other words, legal consequences are based on rights, not the other way around.

    Someone who is legally *dependent*, on the ...
    You write that "It is you that is inconsistent with providing freedoms but not being willing to hold them accountable".

    Yes, that would be inconsistent, however that is not an accurate description of my position. Young people who are legally dependent are dependents of their parents or guardians, not government (unless they are in a state-run orphanage or something). I'm *not* saying don't hold them accountable for misdeeds. I'm saying put the power to hold legal dependents accountable where it belongs -- in the hands of those upon whom they are dependent.

    The current system often has people under 18 being "charged as adults" or "tried as adults" or "sentenced as adults" in connection with some alleged crime, yet never do we hear of people being legally "allowed to drink as an adult", "allowed to vote as an adult", etc. I hope we can agree that is a double standard, and that it ought to be corrected by some means.

    The means I propose is that anyone who is legally independent be treated as an adult, and *if* while being legally accorded the rights of an adult a person breaks a just law, *then* he or she should face the legal consequences an adult would face. In other words, legal consequences are based on rights, not the other way around.

    Someone who is legally *dependent*, on the other hand, should be legally bound to obey his or her parents unless he/she takes steps to become legally independent, because if he or she violates someone else's rights, the parents should bear the legal responsibility.
    (more)
  • Pepper Starchild 2012/04/24 15:40:18
    Pepper
    If you put the accountability in the hands of a bunch of people who may do things differently, where is the consistency. One set of parents may do things one way and another something quite the opposite. Where is the consistency?

    I addressed what you call a double standard. The double standard I see is those who want to be treated like adults and those who want to allow those underage to do things like adults are the first one to scream about the underage one being held accountable like adults when they do something wrong. To use your example, I hear things to the effect of "let them drink at 15 if their parents allow them to do so" yet when they drink, drive, and kill an innocent person, I hear from the advocates of letting them drink at 15 things to the effect of "you can't try them as an adult, they're just kids who made a mistake". Which one is it?

    Problem with your second suggestion is, other than the inconsistency issue I provided, is that some parents are as bad as their kids when it comes to being irresponsible and holding them accountable. Perhaps that's why the kids are that way. If it affects only their kids, it's one thing what they do but if their kids do something that affects someone else, it's not up to the parents, it's up to the law.
  • Starchild Pepper 2012/04/25 19:43:07
    Starchild
    It seems like we have reached an impasse here and are starting to just go back and forth on the same issues. You seem to want to put power in the hands of government to make decisions instead of parents, so that the law can treat young people more harshly, and I simply disagree.

    Yes, some parents are as bad as their kids when it comes to being irresponsible -- and some governments are even worse. I'd rather take my chances with a few bad parents in the barrel than risk a police state because people trusted politicians with too much power. You may think "How is this one law going to turn the U.S. into a police state?" and you're right, in a sense -- whatever one single law you might have in mind *probably* won't do it -- but every additional bit of power they accumulate brings it that much closer.

    If the statistics of people killed by teens drinking and driving came anywhere close to the statistics of people killed by "their own" governments committing democide, I might be more inclined to agree with you. But they don't.

  • Sterling Starchild 2012/04/19 16:34:40
    Sterling
    +1
    Voters deserve privacy as well. Broadcasting votes seems to me like a step down the road to serfdom.
  • Starchild Sterling 2012/04/20 12:33:25
    Starchild
    +1
    I agree voters deserve privacy. I'm not suggesting getting rid of the secret ballot, just counting all the votes at each polling place as soon as the polls close and publicly announcing the results on the spot, with the whole process broadcast live on the Internet. This would not reveal how any particular individual voted.
  • LeroyRo... Starchild 2012/04/19 17:58:19
    LeroyRogers
    +1
    Paper ballots don't stop people that go to multiple polling places. Showing an ID would.

    voter fraud


  • Starchild LeroyRo... 2012/04/20 12:38:17
    Starchild
    Dipping voters' fingers in ink after they have voted would largely stop that kind of multiple voting. But I don't think that's the major threat we're up against anyway. I'm much more concerned about the possibility of institutional fraud, electronic voting machines being hacked, or the vote being manipulated by insiders during currently non-transparent processes of ballots being transported and tallied.

    diebold
  • Izariel 2012/04/19 15:30:55
    Yes, I.D. should be required to vote
    Izariel
    +7
    Anyone that disagrees with voter ID laws is openly advocating voter fraud- bottom line.
  • Lanikai Izariel 2012/04/19 17:08:24
    Lanikai
    +3
    absolutely
  • PopeyeD... Izariel 2012/04/19 18:57:44
    PopeyeDoyle
    +2
    Horse-hockey. Voter ID laws are nothing but government intrusion and a slap in the face to individual liberty.
  • Izariel PopeyeD... 2012/04/19 19:19:53
    Izariel
    +2
    Individual liberty to vote twice? Other than that I do not get your argument. How much does it infringe on your liberties to reach into your wallet and say, "Here's my ID"?
  • Jean 2012/04/19 15:29:35
    Yes, I.D. should be required to vote
    Jean
    +5
    The same people who bitch about having to show ID at the polls are the people who recently stood in line offering their social security numbers, state IDs and other sensitive information to a stranger purporting to be giving out "Obama money." Don't tell me that requiring proof of ID at the polls is a hardship for the poor and minorities!
  • DM Twin 2012/04/19 14:14:51
    Yes, I.D. should be required to vote
    DM Twin
    +2
    NO ID...... NO VOTE......PERIOD
  • Sew 2012/04/19 13:33:46
    Yes, I.D. should be required to vote
    Sew
    +2
    Yea I need one for everything else.
  • MJ 2012/04/19 13:15:59
    Yes, I.D. should be required to vote
    MJ
    +2
    For Sure!
  • CAPISCE 2012/04/19 12:42:48
    Yes, I.D. should be required to vote
    CAPISCE
  • Steve King 2012/04/19 11:03:45
    Yes, I.D. should be required to vote
    Steve King
    +2
    Absolutely. Otherwise we can just Google people's names in any zip code we want to vote in. Then we can vote as often as we want in the same election by just moving from district to district, which is what the Progressives want. They will have voting bus tours, if ID laws are tossed out.

    Interesting how the states effected by this most are the ones with the most Electoral votes. Coincidence?
  • MW121 2012/04/19 10:59:55
    Yes, I.D. should be required to vote
    MW121
    +2
    Absolutely... We need ID for everything else so why is this even an issue.. It's ridiculous
  • Watermusicranger 2012/04/19 08:58:27
    Yes, I.D. should be required to vote
    Watermusicranger
    +2
    Of Course
    required ID
  • KCurtis 2012/04/19 08:41:28
    Yes, I.D. should be required to vote
    KCurtis
    +2
    purple finger dye
    Even these countries have better voting requirements than USA
  • Timmy 2012/04/19 08:34:05
    Yes, I.D. should be required to vote
    Timmy
    +3
    You need it to drive, cash a check , buy a gun and drink in a bar- hell yes.
  • Rahul Matur 2012/04/19 07:01:45
    Yes, I.D. should be required to vote
    Rahul Matur
    +2
    i like 2 make more frng
  • Nica24 2012/04/19 06:18:26
    Yes, I.D. should be required to vote
    Nica24
    +2
    ALWAYS
  • Anthony Souls 2012/04/19 06:14:27
    No, I.D. should not be required to vote
    Anthony Souls
    Placing requirements on rights negates it from being a right. Voting is a right, therefore it shouldn't be regulated to those with I.D.'s: if Americans were required I.D.'s to vote to show their American, than those I.D.'s need to be available at no cost to preserve that right. Requiring money for an I.D. which is required to vote negates the right.

    TC TFYR

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/24 13:09:50

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals