(10-15-2014 09:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:53 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  I don't understand the problem with Voter ID. If an individual cannot afford at Voter ID, then there should be an exception to allow them to get one for free or at a cut rate cost (just like school lunches).

It's not that difficult people. It's common sense to require voter identification.

Most of the argument has been it targets minorities and the elderly. Some on a fixed income that cannot afford a standard issue ID, which is beneficial to have to get many services and if something was to happen, it helps ID the patient. Then there's the issue of transportation to get said ID.

In today's world, it's beneficial for everyone to have some type of photo ID.

Would it be crazy to suggest that tax revenue could be allocated to help underserved people receive a Voter ID?

Good point on patient identification. If you put critical medical info on an ID, perhaps it could save someone's life in the event of an emergency.

(10-15-2014 09:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:53 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  I don't understand the problem with Voter ID. If an individual cannot afford at Voter ID, then there should be an exception to allow them to get one for free or at a cut rate cost (just like school lunches).

It's not that difficult people. It's common sense to require voter identification.

I wouldn't have a problem with a voter I.D. either if the federal government would simply require all states to issue one to all of the citizens.

Then there wouldn't be any problems.

But that would make too much sense.

States would rather force the person to have to go out and get one and then make it as difficult as legally possible.

The cost of a standard ID is less than $10. Who can't afford $10? Let me re-phrase that, of those who vote, who can't afford $10? When I registered to vote in MS was when I got my DL on my 18th Birthday. Used to be you had to renew your license every year until you turned 18, then you could get a 4 year license.

(10-15-2014 10:00 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:53 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  I don't understand the problem with Voter ID. If an individual cannot afford at Voter ID, then there should be an exception to allow them to get one for free or at a cut rate cost (just like school lunches).

It's not that difficult people. It's common sense to require voter identification.

Most of the argument has been it targets minorities and the elderly. Some on a fixed income that cannot afford a standard issue ID, which is beneficial to have to get many services and if something was to happen, it helps ID the patient. Then there's the issue of transportation to get said ID.

In today's world, it's beneficial for everyone to have some type of photo ID.

Would it be crazy to suggest that tax revenue could be allocated to help underserved people receive a Voter ID?

Good point on patient identification. If you put critical medical info on an ID, perhaps it could save someone's life in the event of an emergency.

I think that's a great idea. Unfortunately, many have opposed their medical history being public record.

(10-15-2014 10:05 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 10:00 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:53 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  I don't understand the problem with Voter ID. If an individual cannot afford at Voter ID, then there should be an exception to allow them to get one for free or at a cut rate cost (just like school lunches).

It's not that difficult people. It's common sense to require voter identification.

Most of the argument has been it targets minorities and the elderly. Some on a fixed income that cannot afford a standard issue ID, which is beneficial to have to get many services and if something was to happen, it helps ID the patient. Then there's the issue of transportation to get said ID.

In today's world, it's beneficial for everyone to have some type of photo ID.

Would it be crazy to suggest that tax revenue could be allocated to help underserved people receive a Voter ID?

Good point on patient identification. If you put critical medical info on an ID, perhaps it could save someone's life in the event of an emergency.

I think that's a great idea. Unfortunately, many have opposed their medical history being public record.

Most IDs now have a barcode. If it's in the barcode it's not out for the world to see, only those with a scanner.

(10-15-2014 10:24 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 10:05 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 10:00 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:53 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  I don't understand the problem with Voter ID. If an individual cannot afford at Voter ID, then there should be an exception to allow them to get one for free or at a cut rate cost (just like school lunches).

It's not that difficult people. It's common sense to require voter identification.

Most of the argument has been it targets minorities and the elderly. Some on a fixed income that cannot afford a standard issue ID, which is beneficial to have to get many services and if something was to happen, it helps ID the patient. Then there's the issue of transportation to get said ID.

In today's world, it's beneficial for everyone to have some type of photo ID.

Would it be crazy to suggest that tax revenue could be allocated to help underserved people receive a Voter ID?

Good point on patient identification. If you put critical medical info on an ID, perhaps it could save someone's life in the event of an emergency.

I think that's a great idea. Unfortunately, many have opposed their medical history being public record.

Most IDs now have a barcode. If it's in the barcode it's not out for the world to see, only those with a scanner.

I bet those barcodes can be read with a device purchased off the internet like with credit cards, etc.

(10-15-2014 10:05 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 10:00 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:53 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  I don't understand the problem with Voter ID. If an individual cannot afford at Voter ID, then there should be an exception to allow them to get one for free or at a cut rate cost (just like school lunches).

It's not that difficult people. It's common sense to require voter identification.

Most of the argument has been it targets minorities and the elderly. Some on a fixed income that cannot afford a standard issue ID, which is beneficial to have to get many services and if something was to happen, it helps ID the patient. Then there's the issue of transportation to get said ID.

In today's world, it's beneficial for everyone to have some type of photo ID.

Would it be crazy to suggest that tax revenue could be allocated to help underserved people receive a Voter ID?

Good point on patient identification. If you put critical medical info on an ID, perhaps it could save someone's life in the event of an emergency.

I think that's a great idea. Unfortunately, many have opposed their medical history being public record.

I like the way France does it. You have a card on you with a chip. When you go to the doc or hospital, you stick the card in a slot and type in your PIN, and it accesses a national health database. It has your medical record, your history, allergies, medications, and your insurance data. Doc reviews your file, does the work, somebody codes it in, and the money is wired on the spot. You pay your copay and it's done.

The data isn't on your card, all that is on your card is the key that you unlock with your PIN. And there is an emergency PIN that the doc can use if you're not conscious.

Obviously, if you don't have your card, it is a little more complicated. Lost cards are replaced within 48 hours.

Then dip Your finger in an ink jar that shows You already voted once. Change the ink color for the second , third, fourth times or until You run out of fingers. Simple enough and won't cost voters a dime.

(10-15-2014 11:25 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Then dip Your finger in an ink jar that shows You already voted once. Change the ink color for the second , third, fourth times or until You run out of fingers. Simple enough and won't cost voters a dime.

That's an excellent idea. The problem however is that it isn't going to have the desired effect of the GOP.

Btw.. Texas's voter ID law stays in effect this year: Per the 5th circuit court.


I expect it'll be challenged again before the next elections.