Should Ohio allow three extra days for the military to vote?

[AndyZ]

Unfortunately the BEST fix for the state id issue gets everyone running lockstep with each other. Particularly the civil libertarians and privacy advocates.

A National ID program would fix a LOT of problems but everytime it's brought up it gets shouted down for a myriad of reasons.. almost ALL of them dealing with the right to privacy..

Personally, I think it could fix a LOT more problems than it could cause.

Gun Permits on a national level would make it easier to track gun ownership
Driver's licenses in a national setup would keep DUI drivers who lost their license in one state from fleeing to another to get it again. (I got a friend who had a family member killed by a person who had lost their license.. three times due to lack of state communication)

Not a big fan of the National ID rules simply because I don't trust the federal government with that kind of power.  Of course, thanks to Social Security, we already have one anyway, so it might be moot.  Then again, look at how powerless the government has been to stop all kinds of identity theft, and think how much worse it would get if it was something like a card.

This is probably a good compromise, but it's still disagreeable because of the investment of time. Many government offices are notorious for their wait time, and the unpredictability of the length of time means that you have to clear a couple hours in your schedule when you go there.

All of this to exercise a basic right to vote. If someone can offer an ID such as their social security card or their birth certificate, they've proved their citizenship and should be allowed to vote. We have come to think of photo ID as the only valid kind of ID for proving identity, while forgetting that until and unless we want to start handing out photo IDs to everyone at birth - which would bring up privacy concerns, not entirely invalid ones - it is an extra burden of time and money to exercise a right.

The person is not buying cigarettes or booze.

They are not trying to drive a car.

They are not attempting to cash a check.

Those are all privileges that we enjoy that can (and sometimes do) require photo ID. Voting, on the other hand, is a right.

I believe that in order to make it more difficult to exercise a right, it is the responsibility of the government (state or federal) to prove that there is a genuine threat to that right against which we must protect. Currently, the proposed threat is voter fraud. And so far, the governments in question have not demonstrated a clear and present threat from voter fraud. Ergo, I believe that they should not be allowed to restrict voting under the auspices of protecting against voter fraud until and unless they do demonstrate clear and present threat from voter fraud.

Logical, though I'm not sure I like the idea that people are denied privileges simply by not having said ID.

I found a writeup for pro-voter ID, and here's the list of things they suggested:

Look in your wallet. I imagine you will see a photo identification card that you need in Pennsylvania to marry, drive, travel on an airplane, ride Amtrak, enter a federal building, purchase a handgun, open a bank account, cash a check, enter Philadelphia City Hall, take the SAT, purchase cough medicine or alcohol, get your signature notarized, enter most Center City office buildings, rent a car, prove your identification to police, submit to a background check, use a credit card in most stores, start a new job, and vote in November, thanks to Pennsylvania's recently enacted voter-ID law.

Bolding is mine.  I'm not honestly sure where some of these things stop becoming privileges and start becoming rights.

The way I see it, there should be a reason why some of these things would require ID and some would not, and the reason should follow down the line.  Of course, politics are notorious for double standards, but I like to point such out and figure out what they should be.

[Callie Del Noire]

Thank you Trieste...

Once again, you put in concrete words what had been lurking in my head looking for the right words.

You shouldn't have to work so hard to get something to exercise a right. Particularly the right to Vote.

[Trieste]

Swiping your quote.

Look in your wallet. I imagine you will see a photo identification card that you need in Pennsylvania to marry, drive, travel on an airplane, ride Amtrak, enter a federal building, purchase a handgun, open a bank account, cash a check, enter Philadelphia City Hall, take the SAT, purchase cough medicine or alcohol, get your signature notarized, enter most Center City office buildings, rent a car, prove your identification to police, submit to a background check, use a credit card in most stores, start a new job, and vote in November, thanks to Pennsylvania's recently enacted voter-ID law.

Okay, I'm a single mom in an urban area working as a waitress. I'm not married, and you can forget affording a car, a plane ticket, or an out of town train ticket. I walk to work, or I take the bus or a subway. I get paid in cash either via cash tips or having the restaurant add the tip to the patron's credit card bill and then taking the equivalent cash from the register (which is a common practice). I don't own a handgun, I don't exactly frequent city hall, I stay the hell out of the way of the cops, and if I do have money for alcohol, I buy it at the corner store down the block and I never get carded because I've lived in this neighborhood forever and the guy knows me. And credit cards? Are you kidding? My credit is shot; I couldn't pay them to give me a credit card. Either that or I'm smart enough to realize that credit is a trap for someone as poor as I am. And I didn't exactly take the SAT. Do I still not have the right to vote?

So now I'm a college student, or a recent graduate. I haven't met the right guy yet so I don't need to worry about a marriage license. I live on campus, or I've moved in with a bunch of friends and I catch rides from them, so I don't drive. When I go home to visit my parents, I catch a ride with my best friend from high school, which is good because I don't have the money for Amtrak or airplane tickets. It has never occurred to me to own a gun, and the only times I go to federal buildings are with student protests where they don't check everyone's ID as they're entering - all you have to do is not set off the metal detector. I still use the bank account my parents opened for me on my sixteenth birthday, or I use the school's meal plan/financial account system for what I need. Besides, with all the perks they were giving up until recently on campus from banks, I don't really need more than my student ID - which isn't valid under voter ID laws because it never expires - to open an account with a bank that deals with students a lot. Again, I stay the hell away from cops and I don't need my ID to start my on-campus job. Do I still have the right to vote?

I could probably keep thinking up examples of people who very easily get along without their ID every day. I can't say I know about others, but my ID doesn't come out of my wallet unless I'm buying something and getting carded for it. I almost never need my license, even though I have one.

It's annoying to have to get by without an ID sometimes, but it's doable if you don't have the time or the money to go get one. That doesn't mean you don't still have the right to vote.

[AndyZ]

Thoughtful and logical.  I'm going to let this ponder a bit if nobody minds.

[Callie Del Noire]

Thoughtful and logical.  I'm going to let this ponder a bit if nobody minds.

Please.. always good to get folks thinking. Neither party likes a thinking voter though.. so beware!

The biggest problem I have is a LOT of issues aren't reported fully or clearly anymore. (Or in some cases.. at all) and it's only getting worse.

[AndyZ]

I'm registered independent, though I'm closer to Libertarian than anything else.  You'll see that in my post in your other thread.

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm registered independent, though I'm closer to Libertarian than anything else.  You'll see that in my post in your other thread.

I got nothing wrong with Libertarians.. anymore than I do with Republicans or Demcrats. I grit my teeth when new folks call a former president 'President X' and in the same sentance refer to the current president as 'Mr. y' (It's disrespectful)

I have issues with the Party Leadership paying lip service to the people they claim to represent, using factions within the party to maintain control at all costs. I really dislike how the elected ones listen more to the unelected officials of the party than the people who put them in office.

I want these things more than anything
-A mandatory 1 term break in office for all officials elected. It's too easy to become a career politician. Term limits would be good too. The founding fathers didn't want a class of lifetime politicians.
-A roll back on the massive amount of money a politician in office. TRUE blind trust running of their companies and assets with full financial disclosure of their actions.
-Something simliar to what the president did with his staff on taking office. A 2 year 'cooling' off period before joining special interest and lobbyists.
-Restoration of the old rules of order and conduct in congress. No more party in power setting who gets to lead the committees.

I want politicians who TALK to their rivals.. rather than talking at or down at them.

[AndyZ]

I definitely understand the desire to see genuine communication.  There's the old concept secondhand or thirdhand from Lovecraft (who I don't think ever actually used it) where knowledge itself could be a terrible thing and rot the mind if you learn some terrible truth.  It's completely bogus: the truth is the truth, and you should refute it and work towards it.  I try to listen to everyone who isn't outright nasty (like, I tried having Keith Olbermann on on MSNBC but he didn't have anything but making fun of people's names and claiming that the tea party people were waiting for the Rapture).

Term limits: I'd be happy seeing a 12 year term limit for both houses of Congress.  Get these career politicians the crap out.  The only issue I can see is where families become Dynasties, like the Bushes have already done (I've heard some talk about people even wanting Jeb as president) and the Clintons are pushing towards with having Hillary after Bill was already elected.  It's definitely obeying the letter but fighting the spirit, but I don't know how one would even fix such things.  Maybe just a break in between would be sufficient?  I don't know how you'd handle that, and I'm not sure if you can.

I don't even know how to fix the money situation.  It's a complete mess, and I'm not even sure if you should be allowed to send money to a candidate if you want to anymore.

I like the whole no lobbyists thing, but Obama didn't actually hold that promise: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/mar/17/obamas-lobbyist-rules-promise-broken/

If you catch me doing the President vs. Mr. thing, call me on it.  If I'm not writing my novel, I tend to use words pretty interchangeably and likely didn't even notice.

One thing I remember some guy talking about was the idea that you should be able to explain someone else's point to the degree that they agree that you understand it before they even start the debates.  We may be past the point where the parties would even be able to do that, but I'd be interested in seeing it attempted.

[Callie Del Noire]

I like the whole no lobbyists thing, but Obama didn't actually hold that promise: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/mar/17/obamas-lobbyist-rules-promise-broken/

If you catch me doing the President vs. Mr. thing, call me on it.  If I'm not writing my novel, I tend to use words pretty interchangeably and likely didn't even notice.

One thing I remember some guy talking about was the idea that you should be able to explain someone else's point to the degree that they agree that you understand it before they even start the debates.  We may be past the point where the parties would even be able to do that, but I'd be interested in seeing it attempted.

I meant the one where supposedly people LEAVING the white house were excluded from special interests for 2 years.. It's hard to find an expert in anything who wouldn't quality as a lobbyist ENTERING the White House cabinet level.

[AndyZ]

Ah, okay.  Going to admit I'm not knowledgeable to know how to fix the lobbyist thing either.

Leaving this open so that I can remember to do Trieste's reply.

[Callie Del Noire]

Ah, okay.  Going to admit I'm not knowledgeable to know how to fix the lobbyist thing either.

Leaving this open so that I can remember to do Trieste's reply.

To be honest.. I'm not sure how to either. I would SUGGEST that the best way to cut influence and put special interests back in line with what they are supposed to be is to restrict ALL campaign contributions to individuals. Set the cap at whatever is (10k) and that's it. No unions, PACs, churches, companies or whatever be able to give anything else.

There would have to be some major support changes on buying ad time for politicians and such.. BUT it would put the special interests back in an advisory role. Which is what they should be.

[vtboy]

For me, what proves the lie behind these photo ID requirements is this:

Let's say your state doesn't require presentation of a photo ID to vote. On election day, when you show up at the polls, the poll watcher asks you who you are and where you live. Perhaps you are also asked for some other proof of identity and residence, for which a recent utility bill (without photo) will generally suffice. You gain entrance to the voting booth solely on the basis of your word that you are who you say you are (or are the person named in the utility bill).

Let's say you live in a state that requires you to present a state-issued photo ID to vote. If you don't have one, you go to the DMV, probably with a recent utility bill or tax return or other photo-less document, hand it to the clerk, and pay a fee. Taking your word that you are the person named in the document, the DMV clerk has you smile into the camera, and then hands you a shiny, new photo ID. You now have your key to the voting booth on election day, based solely on your assertion that you are who you say you are.

If there is anything less susceptible to fraud in the latter procedure than in the former, I fail to see it.

[AndyZ]

Okay, I'm a single mom in an urban area working as a waitress. I'm not married, and you can forget affording a car, a plane ticket, or an out of town train ticket. I walk to work, or I take the bus or a subway. I get paid in cash either via cash tips or having the restaurant add the tip to the patron's credit card bill and then taking the equivalent cash from the register (which is a common practice). I don't own a handgun, I don't exactly frequent city hall, I stay the hell out of the way of the cops, and if I do have money for alcohol, I buy it at the corner store down the block and I never get carded because I've lived in this neighborhood forever and the guy knows me. And credit cards? Are you kidding? My credit is shot; I couldn't pay them to give me a credit card. Either that or I'm smart enough to realize that credit is a trap for someone as poor as I am. And I didn't exactly take the SAT. Do I still not have the right to vote?

So now I'm a college student, or a recent graduate. I haven't met the right guy yet so I don't need to worry about a marriage license. I live on campus, or I've moved in with a bunch of friends and I catch rides from them, so I don't drive. When I go home to visit my parents, I catch a ride with my best friend from high school, which is good because I don't have the money for Amtrak or airplane tickets. It has never occurred to me to own a gun, and the only times I go to federal buildings are with student protests where they don't check everyone's ID as they're entering - all you have to do is not set off the metal detector. I still use the bank account my parents opened for me on my sixteenth birthday, or I use the school's meal plan/financial account system for what I need. Besides, with all the perks they were giving up until recently on campus from banks, I don't really need more than my student ID - which isn't valid under voter ID laws because it never expires - to open an account with a bank that deals with students a lot. Again, I stay the hell away from cops and I don't need my ID to start my on-campus job. Do I still have the right to vote?

I could probably keep thinking up examples of people who very easily get along without their ID every day. I can't say I know about others, but my ID doesn't come out of my wallet unless I'm buying something and getting carded for it. I almost never need my license, even though I have one.

It's annoying to have to get by without an ID sometimes, but it's doable if you don't have the time or the money to go get one. That doesn't mean you don't still have the right to vote.

Here's the thing: I feel like you have the right to own an ID, as well as buy a handgun, go to city hall, take the SAT and some of that other stuff also.

Now, I definitely get wanting to have people show ID and having handguns registered to them.  However, you should also be able to protect yourself, and statistically, if you're poor, you're more likely to live in an area with higher crime.  This could explain why: it's harder to legally get a gun if you can't get an ID, while people who don't mind breaking the law don't have to worry about such things.

I'm also good with having your student ID count for voting, although if it never expires, I can see the reason for not having it.  Maybe it'd be best to have an Issued date somewhere on the card so that you're not actually holding a 20 year old card for someone who looks like the original card owner?  That may not even be necessary since you can tell if a card is 20 years old.

I feel like part of what you're saying is that it's a hassle, and that you have to give up privileges in order to not have to deal with getting an identification card.  If this is correct, it seems like it'd be better to streamline the process instead of making it unnecessary.

Now, you do have people who "zero out" and deliberately live under the system who don't want identification cards, which I figure they certainly have the right to do.  These cards shouldn't be forced on anyone, nor should they really be necessary before you're 18.  These people have the right to vote if they want to.

On the other hand, you have the possibility of identity theft and voter fraud.  If we aren't sure whether it happens, it would be madness just to believe that it doesn't.  For example, Madison had 119% of voter turnout during the Scott Walker recall election.  Now, it's possible that 6 people showed up for every 5 who are registered, but should our justice system be making sure it's all on the level, or should we just shrug and hope that it's fine?

I'll point to Vtboy's post next:

For me, what proves the lie behind these photo ID requirements is this:

Let's say your state doesn't require presentation of a photo ID to vote. On election day, when you show up at the polls, the poll watcher asks you who you are and where you live. Perhaps you are also asked for some other proof of identity and residence, for which a recent utility bill (without photo) will generally suffice. You gain entrance to the voting booth solely on the basis of your word that you are who you say you are (or are the person named in the utility bill).

Let's say you live in a state that requires you to present a state-issued photo ID to vote. If you don't have one, you go to the DMV, probably with a recent utility bill or tax return or other photo-less document, hand it to the clerk, and pay a fee. Taking your word that you are the person named in the document, the DMV clerk has you smile into the camera, and then hands you a shiny, new photo ID. You now have your key to the voting booth on election day, based solely on your assertion that you are who you say you are.

If there is anything less susceptible to fraud in the latter procedure than in the former, I fail to see it.

To me, this is a failure on the part of the DMV.  It shouldn't be as simple as a recent utility bill in order to get an ID, although if not, I don't know what it would require.  Perhaps knowing your full social security number?

By the same token, the DMV should give some kind of notice that an ID has been issued in your name to your address.  Whenever I use Paypal, I get an e-mail notification that somebody's used the account, so that if I get ripped off, I can instantly let them know.  By the same token, the DMV should mail you something to let you know that an ID has been issued to you.  I don't think you get anything in the mail to confirm your vote; maybe you should.

So, here's where I'm at with everything right now.  If you can't get everyone an ID, it's a bad idea, but if you don't have it, how do you possibly even try to watch for corruption?

[Trieste]

More later, but uh...

By the same token, the DMV should give some kind of notice that an ID has been issued in your name to your address.  Whenever I use Paypal, I get an e-mail notification that somebody's used the account, so that if I get ripped off, I can instantly let them know.  By the same token, the DMV should mail you something to let you know that an ID has been issued to you.  I don't think you get anything in the mail to confirm your vote; maybe you should.

I don't actually know of a state that gives you your ID on the spot; in every state where I've lived, it was mailed to the address you proved was yours (with the utility bill). And in every state where I've lived they also have required your birth certificate and your social security card to get a new license issued to you. So, there's that.

You don't get anything in the mail to confirm your vote because the US has a secret ballot system. Your vote is not supposed to be identifiable to your name. No one else has the right to know how you voted, at all, ever.

[AndyZ]

Good to hear; that definitely handles vtboy's worries.

Also, I wasn't talking about sending back how you voted so much as sending back whether or not you did vote.  I thought I remembered hearing that they did keep track of that.

[Serephino]

They do, but wouldn't that take a lot of time and money?  The whole point is that every citizen 18+, with a few exceptions, has the constitutional right to vote.  Anything that would prevent that is denying them that right.  A photo ID isn't required for as much as you think.  I don't ever remember needing one  to get a credit card, or to use one.  You can get one online now with just your SS number.  Cashiers might be expected to check when you use one, but they don't.  I can't remember the last time I was carded when buying alcohol.  It's kind of depressing. 

My boyfriend doesn't have a bank account.  After all the rotten luck he's had with them, he refuses.  He pays his stuff with money orders, and when he can't use those he has a prepaid Visa.  You don't need any proof of identity for those because you can only spend what you put on it.  I saw something on the news where those have become very popular with poor people because you can get your paycheck direct deposited on them with no fee, and they don't require a photo ID

[Aidonsious]

They should most definitely give extra days for military personal to vote. My husband has been doing absentee ballots for the past two presidential elections because he has either been out of state for training or deployed to the middle east.

Even the spouses do not have access to vote in the state that they PCSed to or are moving to because of the 6 months living in one state rule so they need the extra time to vote so their opinion will be counted. My husband is stationed at Fort Bliss but I am registered to vote in Mass. So we both are doing absentee ballots because there is no way we can go to Mass just to vote and than come down here.

The people that are throwing a fit over this are not considering the sacrifices that the military families make and how they have a right to vote too.

[AndyZ]

Aidon, even though this is kinda how I feel on the subject, I want to get Socratic on you.  You obviously know this stuff and so you'd be the best person to ask.

Couldn't the military just handle things a few days earlier in order to make sure that all the men and women serving get the chance to vote?  Why do they instead need to give the military extra days?

[Callie Del Noire]

They should most definitely give extra days for military personal to vote. My husband has been doing absentee ballots for the past two presidential elections because he has either been out of state for training or deployed to the middle east.

Even the spouses do not have access to vote in the state that they PCSed to or are moving to because of the 6 months living in one state rule so they need the extra time to vote so their opinion will be counted. My husband is stationed at Fort Bliss but I am registered to vote in Mass. So we both are doing absentee ballots because there is no way we can go to Mass just to vote and than come down here.

The people that are throwing a fit over this are not considering the sacrifices that the military families make and how they have a right to vote too.

The thing is.. It's NOT to prevent the military family to vote. It's to restore the rights of something like 93,000 voters who are getting excluded. Mostly moderates like myself or democratic types.

I've been in the service.. I don't think I every voted in my jurisdiction.. Absentee Ballots all 15 years of service.

[Chelemar]

The people that are throwing a fit over this are not considering the sacrifices that the military families make and how they have a right to vote too.

@ Aidons
First, This effects "in person" voting only, and not absentee voting that is out of state/Country also, it does not effect military personnel or their families, only non-military citizens of Ohio  :)

Second, While I do understand feeling upset, the military already has 3 days extra to vote, the challenge was not to take away the military's 3 extra days, but to protest the  change that Ohio made in removing saturday, sunday and monday from the rest of the population who had also had the right to vote early those 3 days.   

First, This effects "in person" voting only, and not absentee voting that is out of state/Country also, it does not effect military personnel or their families, only non-military citizens of Ohio. 

@ AndyZ

Couldn't the military just handle things a few days earlier in order to make sure that all the men and women serving get the chance to vote?  Why do they instead need to give the military extra days?

Under federal requirements, (Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voter Act) and later the MOVE act, states are required to send absentee ballots.

The main reason military personnel and their families are given extra time to vote is that they are often not in the state in which they are registered.  When you serve you generally do not give up your state of residency when you go to...oh let's say you go ARMY... BT in Missouri  for  6 weeks then, move onto Alabama for 6 months spec training.  The Presidential election falls during those 6 months.  The Army isn't going to let everyone go home to vote--they are active duty, and thus  given absentee voting privileges.  That's understandable.   Their home states and localities are required to transmit absentee ballots 45 days prior to any
election for Federal office, which includes all general, special, primary (including Presidential preference primaries) and run-off elections. 

[OldSchoolGamer]

We're all sitting here talking about this like the Forbes 400 can't just game the voting machines to get whatever results they want.

[Trieste]

We're all sitting here talking about this like the Forbes 400 can't just game the voting machines to get whatever results they want.

I'm really not sure that we would have our current president if that were entirely the case.

And for you to be part of the 'we' talking about this, you'd kind of have to enter the discussion enough to participate instead of making a comment that, for all appearances, is meant to shut the discussion down. If that wasn't your intent, the perception might be something to consider next time you post.

[OldSchoolGamer]

I'm really not sure that we would have our current president if that were entirely the case.

And for you to be part of the 'we' talking about this, you'd kind of have to enter the discussion enough to participate instead of making a comment that, for all appearances, is meant to shut the discussion down. If that wasn't your intent, the perception might be something to consider next time you post.

Sorry, but every election that passes just convinces me more and more that the system is rigged.  Like how close the major elections always are.  Hanging chads.  Recounts.  I find it hard to believe that the American people are consistently divided 48-49.99% one way, and 50.01 to 52% the other.  I think the Forbes 400 use the media (which they own lock, stock and barrel, by the way) to keep moving the dividing line so roughly half the country is on one side and half on the other.

And nothing ever really changes, no matter who we elect...except the rich keep getting richer while the rest of us tread water.  I've come to the conclusion it's a staged drama.  Something to keep the plebs engaged...to keep us thinking it really matters who we pull the lever for.  I think Matt Groening nailed it a couple decades back with his Simpsons episode where the two aliens want to take over the world...so somehow one becomes the Democratic candidate and the other the Republican.  They laugh at the horrified crowd and proclaim, "It's a two-party system.  You've got to vote for one of us."  Someone from the audience brings up the notion of voting for a third party, and the alien laughs.  "Go ahead, throw your vote away!"  And the scene ends with the Simpsons (along with the rest of Springfield) being enslaved by the aliens (one of whom presumably won the election). 

[Caela]

I don't know about OH, but I think we all should have extra days to vote. Holding elections on just one day, in the middle of the work week is designed to disenfranchise and limit voting to begin with. There are millions of people who can't afford to take a day off work, and thousands of businesses that won't give them the time off even if they could afford it. Lots of places can't close even if it were a federal holiday (ex. I work at a major hospital in my area, we can't just close because it's voting day) and a lot more that simply won't. Polls should be open from something like 5am-9pm and people should have at least a week to get down to them to vote.

Personal opinion and it'll never happen but it's my opinion all the same.

[Callie Del Noire]

I agree that something should be done to better empower our voters. This is a sad thing that only something like 1 in 3 or 4 eligible voters actually vote. And if changing poll times, access and or days would help I would endorse such a thing happily.