Quote:
Originally Posted by JollyRoger
The core argument for those opposed to it, is that a lot of people who vote and don't drive, and you'd be surprised how many people that is, don't have the 20$ to get one of these new "photo id's", or the means to get to a government office to get one. It is therefore an unConstitutional burden placed on a voter that infringes on his right to vote, that is targeted at the poor and the minority voters. We did not have photo ID's in this country for centuries, why the person admitting the voter cannot simply do what has always been done, which is to look at the signature of the voter and compare it to his registration, is beyond me, we do not have any sort of national voter fraud crisis. It costs virtually nothing to fill out a card, and it can be mailed. If they want to add a fingerprint to it or something, fine with me. But this "photo ID" crap is Orwellian Police State BS, designed to dis-enfranchise the poor.
|
That makes sense. I always thought everyone had to have some kind of identification no matter what. Whether it's a driver's license or a simple state ID. So, how does one prove their identity when they register to vote?
I think it would be kind of cool one time, when everyone shows up to vote, they press a finger onto a biometric reader and they have that information added to an electronic registration. Then, every time after that, they just press the reader to begin the voting process.