IPAM is insane. BYOIP requires IPAM. This makes things even more insane - if you want to manage any BYOIP addresses you need to enable IPAM for all IP addresses (not just BYOIP) in an account.
We tried this at a previous job to manage a pair of /24s and it ended up requiring us to manage _hundreds of thousands_ of rfc1918 IP addresses in IPAM, which cost us something like tens of thousands of dollars per month.
a) Republicans did the math and figured out that a lot of people who vote Democrat didn't have IDs. Old black people, in particular, were not likely to have IDs. Republicans also did stuff like accept fishing and hunting licenses for voting, but not university ID. None of this is a secret. A think-tank called ALEC came up with it. In-person voter fraud, the only kind of election rigging that voter ID laws prevent, is next to impossible in the US system and basically never occurs on more than a one-off basis.
b) A lot of those people who didn't have IDs have either gotten IDs or died off by now, so the Republican advantage of voter ID laws has faded.
c) Given (b), Republicans have moved on to other tactics like voter purges, shutting down registration offices and polling stations to create long lines in urban districts, gerrymandering, and limiting early voting and mail in voting. One of their favorite tactics is limiting early-voting mailboxes to one per precinct, whether that precinct has 1,000 voters or 1,000,000. You can guess which way the crowded urban precincts tend to vote.
The whole idea is just to put their thumb on the scale enough to discourage some small % of voters in the swing states that determine our president every four years. If you live in California, no one cares how you vote for President.
Bus pass is issued by the government though. Student id is issued by the college. I know because I made one at the student union to help with getting into nightclubs (allegedly).
And here we created fake state-issued driver's licenses when I was in college.
(Wish I could find a photo of a giant, fake driver's license on foam core with a rectangle cut out for the person to stand behind when a photo was taken.)
Can we have some numbers/citations on the proportion of democrat and republican voters without ID? Because I've heard that it will benefit Democrats and is a Reoublican own goal.
With how many top tech CEOs lining up behind Trump, I wonder how much of Californian democratic support backed by staunch belief, rather than political expediency.
Stats show that Tech workers mostly vote blue, but as you move up the corporate ladder they slowly start to vote more red because their increasing wealth gradually makes them more and more in touch with the forgotten factory workers in the rust belt and angrier about the handful of trans athletes ruining women's sports.
As a French I used to think too, "what's the big deal", "it has never been an issue here". But that's because we are used to it and getting an ID is easy and almost automatic. Whereas in a country like the US, it means missing several days of work, driving potentially hundreds of kilometers, and their geographic segregation means it's easy to make getting an ID harder for black people than for whites.
As a European I also find insane elections are held on workdays (in France it is always on Sundays), that you may have to wait in line for hours to vote, that voting stations may be hours from where you live, etc.
> As a European I also find insane elections are held on workdays
That's not really an issue, if you have enough polling stations. Denmark typically have elections on a Tuesday (but can technically be any day of the week). We have 80%+ turnout, one of the highest in the world, for countries without mandatory voting. The day of the week doesn't matter, IF you ensure that it sufficiently easy for people to vote.
If you actively try to make it inconvenient/impossible for people to vote, then it doesn't matter if it's on a Sunday. My take is that part of the US political system need as few voters as possible to turn up in order to have a chance of winning, so they will make it as complicated and inconvenient as they need it to be.
I do enjoy the idea of making election days days off, days to celebrate. But yes, it usually takes me about five minutes to vote in the Netherlands, so I don't really need the day off.
> Nearly 500,000 eligible voters do not have access to a vehicle and live more than 10 miles from the nearest state ID-issuing office open more than two days a week. Many of them live in rural areas with dwindling public transportation options.
> More than 10 million eligible voters live more than 10 miles from their nearest state ID-issuing office open more than two days a week.
> According to the study, between 15 and 18 million people in the U.S. lack access to documents proving their birth or citizenship, which can be integral to acquiring other forms of IDs.
This can force circular dependencies: for example, older black or Native American people who were born when they weren’t welcome at hospitals might never have been issued a birth certificate so they first need the travel, expense, and difficulty to get one from the clerk where they were born. Poor people are far more likely not to have bank accounts, so they can’t establish their in-state residency that way, etc.
None of these are insolvable problems but the people pushing restrictions haven’t been willing to put effort into solving them and often make things worse by cutting office locations and hours in ways which disproportionately impact poor and minority voters.
That doesn't explain why democrat run states like California can't have a sensible voter ID law that accepts such identifications?
If they just said "accept more IDs" instead of "stop voter ID requirements" people wouldn't think its a problem, but that isn't what democrats are saying.
The crux of the argument is that voting is a right, and voter ID laws create a unnecessary burden to exercising that right given the extremely low levels of individual voter fraud. Do I need my driver's license to practice free speech? Do I need my passport to be allowed to be an atheist?
It would be different if we were solving a problem with voter ID laws because then you're balancing rights with real pragmatism. You can as hypothetical about it as you want, you can go down the slippery slope fallacy if you want, but the evidence shows us we do not have an issue here.
It would also be different if IDs were easier to come by, because then the burden is not disproportionate to the problem. But neither of these things are true.
Instead we're just enacting barriers to the use of our constitutional rights, barriers to participation in society, not to solve a problem but to enact a political end.
What problem are you trying to solve here? Republicans say the problem is people voting who are ineligible, Democrats accuse them of trying to make it harder for democratic voters to vote.
People using others papers to vote, that is much harder if you must display a photo ID together with the papers you received that says you are allowed to vote.
Voting without an ID is like opening a bank account without an ID, its just dumb. Oh wait, I heard you had that as well in USA, which is why you have issues with identity theft...
Except every analysis has shown people are not doing this. Oddly, the few times there have been real cases, it's often GOP voting more than once or for their dead spouse or some such.
Think of it, if someone is truly not eligible to vote, why expose themselves to additional scrutiny for a single likely inconsequential vote?
Where fraud could happen is at scale, and with DOGE getting access to all systems and dismantling the agencies that guard against voting fraud, I feel that once again we're seeing that every accusation is an admission.
What analysis has shown that people are not doing this? All I have seen is that there aren't a significant number of convictions, but that doesn't really hold wait if you aren't actually trying to catch/prevent people from doing it. If it never happened, there wouldn't be a standard well known practice of casting a provisional ballot if you have already "voted".
When you show your id they check if you are allowed to vote, the id is just to identify you as a person it doesn't mean everyone with an id gets to vote.
I misunderstood what my West Virginian friend wrote me then, from my understanding the new ID laws will require an ID as 'proof of citizenship' to register to vote, which a driver license isn't. Those who vote among his group are a bit mad about it.
Not everyone has drivers licenses, especially poorer folks, especially minorities. The requirements for drivers IDs are now to get RealIDs and some of these folks don't have access to things like birth certificates and other requirements of getting a RealID.
There's also additional requirements of your gender matching your ID (which eliminates many transgender folks), your name matching on all documents (good luck if you're a married woman), etc.
Folks are rightly pointing out that these laws are engineered to suppress votes, and you seem to not be willing to listen to understand why.
> Folks are rightly pointing out that these laws are engineered to suppress votes, and you seem to not be willing to listen to understand why.
Are you saying democrats will engineer these laws to suppress votes? Is that why democrats don't have voter id laws? The GOP isn't relevant here, we are just wondering why democrat states can't seem to do this.
A black woman jumping between three jobs to make ends meet in Alabama doesn't have a "normal" life, then. Too bad for her! And for millions like her, in a country where elections are decided by single-digit majorities.
In canada, if you don't have an id, you can get someone who knows you (and has an id) to swear an oath you are who you say you are. You can also register at the same time you are voting.
Seems to work fine. I dont think we have ever had any issues with that system.
Even more radical: in Australia you turn up at one of many polling stations with no ID whatsoever and vote.
It works because voting in Australia is compulsory. They must have your name on their list, they cross if off it and hand over the ballot paper. The checks and balances you might expect and done after the event, making it fairly secure.
Only of those checks is you did vote, and a fine follows if you didn't.
Most states where voter id is mandatory also have policies where you can get a free ID and even a free ride to a location to get your ID. They implemented that in South Carolina and after the first few years, nobody used it.
Because you have to have an ID to do almost everything else in the country so everybody already has an ID and opposition to voter ID makes no sense.
"Free" ID generally means there is no fee paid to the issuer of the ID. It can cost hundreds of dollars to get the documents that you have to present to the issuer to get that "free" ID.
Also many states have accompanied their stricter voter ID requirements with reducing the number of offices that process applications and with reducing the hours they accept applications so that even if you can get a free ride to an office you might have to take an unpaid day off from work to do so. That can be a significant loss for many poor workers.
> Because you have to have an ID to do almost everything else in the country so everybody already has an ID and opposition to voter ID makes no sense.
Yet many millions get by without an ID [1]. A lot of things you probably think cannot be done without an ID actually can.
For example how can you cash a paycheck without an ID? You need an ID to open a bank account. An answer is you can cash checks using a third party endorsement. You don't need a bank for that. You just need a trusted friend who has a bank account. I'd guess that this is what the 6% of Americans without bank accounts do (23% among those making less than $25k/year) [2].
How about getting a job without ID? First, there are a lot of people who don't need jobs (e.g., the stay at home partner in a household where one partner works and the other takes care of the house). Second there are a lot of job that pay cash and are off the record.
Also there are a fair number of people who once had ID but no longer do. It has been a very long time since I've actually needed to show my driver's license to anyone.
My banking is all online, as is my check cashing (my bank has a great "deposit by photo" function).
When I signed up for Medicare, Medigap, and a Part D plan that was all through ssa.gov and medicare.gov, with no need to show ID. That was apparently all covered by when I showed ID years ago when I set up ID.me as a login method for my ssa.gov account. It will likely be the same when I apply for Social Security benefits. Afterwards all my interaction with SS and Medicare should be through ssa.gov and medicare.gov.
If when I'm older I am no longer fit to drive and let my driver's license expire and don't remember to get a state photo ID then there is a good chance I can live the rest of my life comfortably without ever running into anything where that causes problems.
The simplest way, though, to see that it is possible to get by reasonably well without an ID is to note the large number of undocumented workers that the current administration is trying to kick out. They are able to come here, find places to live, and get paying jobs all without a state issued photo ID.
This makes no sense. You can literally register to vote at the DMV and I know very few adult Americans, of one ethnicity or another, who don't have a driver's license.
You dont know many poor people, or very young people.
I work a furry convention in the Southern US, about 3% of our attendees have some ID related malady - can't get a timely appointment at DMV, missing core documentation, unable to prove residency, etc - nevermind rural voters who may live hours from a DMV.. which they can't get to without a license (assuming they can afford a car) or a ride. No bus service to speak of either.
Its a huge issue, I'd 100% support voter ID if getting an ID was free and easy, without it I'm skeptical.
Yeah, see the article about "RealID" yesterday. The first step is to require an ID, and the next step is to make it harder to get. For example, a married woman without a perfect paper trail of name changes? No Id.
I unironically keep an original copy of those documents in my safety deposit box because of this. In theory I should be able to go to the courthouse and get another copy but if 40 years down the line they've lost them I'm screwed.
I feel bad for the people in states that don't require court orders for this because they apparently have the worst time trying to update accounts.
What state do you live in? I think this argument is very frustrating when people who live largely in blue states (like California) that don't up any hurdles to getting an ID, can't imagine the level of dysfunction that is intentionally executed in other states in order to prevent people from getting IDs.
Yeah, everyone you know has a valid ID because you don't live in a battleground state that is currently fighting electoral welfare. Republicans don't care to put up barriers to getting an ID in California, Texas or New York.
Most people are friends with people like themselves?
The selection bias of extrapolating an entire country (not to mention one as large and diverse as usa) by using your friend group should be very obvious.
I'm just pointing out obvious ways in which you have selection bias here.
FWIW googling, allegedly 1 in 10 people in rural america do not have a license. Or at least that is the claim floating around the internet. So yes, i think figuring out if this is a real issue should include both checking on rural and urban people, along with many other demographics. It is not obvious how this situation differs between urban/rural.
RealID documentation requirements are a PITA. I have a birth certificate and passport and valid DL and it still was a nuisance the accumulate the required point allocation. People without those golden documents can be very hard pressed to meet the bar.
Republicans are trying to make it so that the vast majority of drivers' licenses do not work either. You may have to get a new one, with passport-level paperwork.
The group I stayed with in West Virginia (back to lander hippies basically) only had driver license, which to my understanding, is not a valid voting ID (it isn't a proof of citizenship), so they cannot vote (Lincoln county, WV). Some are a bit mad about it, most don't care.
I don't live in the USA to be able to name people, you have 350 million people, there's definitely enough to have gone through life without doing any of the stuff you mentioned, barring them from voting is antithetical to democratic values. It's very simple probabilities, there's a non-zero number of people that will be affected.
On top of that, making vote more difficult through technicalities (voter roll purges, increased friction to vote, increased uncertainty if one can vote and will be punished if not eligible due to a technicality, etc.) further tilts the scale of who votes or not, either being barred by technicalities or fear.
None of that has any place in a real democracy, if democratic values are to be uphold it should be as easy as possible for any eligible voter to exercise their vote if they so wish.
You want anecdotes to fight against statistics, I think you got stuff reversed there, mate...
Edit: ah, lol, I think I need to repeat your own words back to you:
No, I'm asking you to prove the existence of a situation. Sigh. For your sake I hope you are just pretending not to understand the difference.
Do you know anyone in your country who doesn't have a state issued ID card? It's simply not true that 10% of people lack a state ID, it's absolute fiction made up for political reasons. If you bother to look it up (of course you can't be bothered) you would find that it comes from a single phone poll which they then extrapolated using census data. It's beyond dubious.
> None of that has any place in a real democracy, if democratic values are to be uphold it should be as easy as possible for any eligible voter to exercise their vote if they so wish.
So Norway isn't a real democracy? Ireland? Germany? Sweden? Netherlands? Italy? India? Greece? Why aren't you on their forums calling them fake democracies?
The US highway administration says that 102% of driving age individuals in 3 US states have valid driver's licenses. 102%. That's a statistic published by the government. Don't try to explain to me that "you can't have more than 100%" because that's just an anecdote, mate. You have to just believe whatever the statistic says.
> Do you know anyone in your country who doesn't have a state issued ID card?
Where I live right now it's simply impossible because it's required to have an ID, we are also 10 million people so it's pretty easy to not fall into the cracks.
Back in my native country (Brazil), yes, I do know people who did not have any form of documentation up to when they died, like my great-grandfather, or a former's colleague grandmother.
> It's simply not true that 10% of people lack a state ID, it's absolute fiction made up for political reasons.
It's not about state IDs, read the fucking thing I posted, it's about "proof of citizenship" which 10% of the population does not have ready access for it, and rules have been changed for voters needing proof of citizenship, learn to read before spouting vitriol, please.
> So Norway isn't a real democracy? Ireland? Germany? Sweden? Netherlands? Italy? India? Greece? Why aren't you on their forums calling them fake democracies?
Here in Sweden is really easy to vote, nothing even close to what the US does to its voter rolls, or states deciding to purge them right before elections to tilt the scales, etc.
You simply are talking past through me, it's clear as day that people in the USA who want to vote many times cannot vote, you live there so probably have read more articles about this happening than I ever did. That is a problem, it's a fact, and it's used for political manipulation, 10% of the population will have increased friction to exercise their right to vote, that's simply anti-democratic, plain and simple :)
> Where I live right now it's simply impossible because it's required to have an ID, we are also 10 million people so it's pretty easy to not fall into the cracks.
The hypocrisy here is astonishing. You are fine with your country requiring an ID but not mine. I think it's really telling that everyone on this thread is concerned with letting people vote without an ID, but nobody is saying we should try to help get people IDs because without an ID your life must be a complete shambles and they have no access to many basic government benefits or just basic things in life.
A state ID is proof of citizenship. There is no federal ID card in the US. I'm sorry, you shouldn't express opinions on these things when you clearly don't have basic understanding of what is going on.
> You simply are talking past through me, it's clear as day that people in the USA who want to vote many times cannot vote
Right, that is what the media puts out there, but it never actually happens. That's why I said it must be easy to find at least one actual person who couldn't vote, because supposedly there are so many. I've never met one nor heard of one. In the worst case they give you a 'provisional' ballot and in the event the election is close enough they check each one to see if that person was qualified to vote before counting it, but they ALWAYS let you vote. I had to do a provisional ballot in Santa Cruz, California (one of the most liberal cities in the US) to vote for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. It's not uncommon, but they NEVER turn anyone away from voting. I'm sorry, but you just have absolute ignorance here.
I'm French too but I disagree a bit: first, voting if important to people, should be a good reason to get an ID, voting without an ID does seem insane, so what are they doing. Second, why black people ? Are they not human too ? They can read, they can work, they can complain, they can... get an ID card right ?
Simplest answer is they don't care, wash their hands off of the whole thing and then democrats complain that it's the requirement to identify voters that block them. But it's not a strange requirement, it's as you say, a completely normal part of being a citizen to get an ID, and a duty for a voting citizen to do what they need to do to get that ballot in.
And even if black people were somehow disenfranchised from getting IDs, it doesn't prevent the non-black people to vote rationally, in the end. So no excuse.
The issue is not that the barrier is insurmountable. The issue is that small amounts of friction become meaningful at scale in elections. Place the friction in the right spots and some people experiencing that friction choose not to bother. If the people who choose not to bother disproportionately vote for one side then there's a small electoral benefit to the other side.
>Second, why black people ? Are they not human too ? They can read, they can work, they can complain, they can... get an ID card right ?
As a black American who had crackheads in my family, I don't know anyone who was totally incapable of getting an ID card. I only ever see the argument brought up by white people on the Internet. Tyranny of low expectations. Heaven forbid that black adults be expected to shoulder some personal responsibility and figure out how to meet the basic requirements to exercise their civic duties, same as white people.
"The white liberal is the worst enemy to America, and the worst enemy to the black man." -- Malcom X
Oh thanks, as a French, it's my feeling also that this is a "white people" thing in the US, to infantilize black people. I come from a country where we try to be color blind, it's very rude to tell someone his skin color (last time I checked, we were now saying "ke-bla" if we really wanted to tell that some guy was black, a verlan reversal of the English word black because it's hard to even say it in French, like Japanese have trouble to say penis lol) and we force ourselves not to "overly help them" but to "overly ignore they're different".
So it always blew my mind Americans split themselves in random colors (especially the hispanics, like, why) and enrages me the self-described "whites" are so dismissive of the ability of "black people" to be, like, completely normal and boring and able to get whatever form is needed to vote...
What aspect of this video do you think supports your position, specifically?
My mother's side of my family is from North Philadelphia, same state as the first black woman featured in this video.
I spent three weeks in the US in 2021 when my mother had a psychotic breakdown and I had to put her life back together on short notice. She had lost her wallet and all ID. I got her a brand new birth certificate in Philadelphia and a NJ State ID to replace her Driver's License. This required setting up some appointments either online or via phone, and bringing some documents along, but it was manageable.
Expecting someone to have original birth certificate, SSN proof, and spouse's death certificate is....normal adult document management. I deal with a similar "burden of proof" every time I go to my local Japanese city office, or to immigration to renew our residency.
The next anecdote in the segment blasts Sauk City, Wisconsin for the ID center being closed on most days. According to Copilot, Sauk City is 96% white, with a median household income over $78,000 and a population of less than 4000. So a small middle class town of white people rarely has the ID office open? How is that supposed to support the argument that mandatory ID requirements disproportionately affect minorities again?
The second half of the John Oliver clip focuses on the voting events not the identification acquisition problem so I don't consider that part relevant and won't dissect it.
I'm from Pakistan, and the solution to 'it's difficult for people to get ID' was so simple even 3rd world poor illiterate country could do it: just go to them instead.
Our ID department has buses with computers and cameras/fingerprint machines on them, they go to remote villages and stuff and take everyone's bio data, then return a few weeks later and give everyone their cards.
There is literally NO valid excuse for NOT implementing voter ID.
NONE.
If we can do it, the richest country in the world can do it.
Such a pathetic hill for American Democratic party to die on.
That’s a government that’s interested and motivated in getting people an ID.
Now imagine the opposite. A government that’s not interested but rather is motivated in denying some people an ID. Why it increases that’s party likelihood of staying in power.
The US doesn't have a national id card, and the people who want to force ID for voting are the strongest block against having one, for religious reasons. What you suggest is impossible in the US.
I think democrats started out with good intentions, helping enfranchise black voters a part of the civil rights act .... but somehow they have made it their morality point and refuse to accept that it is no longer fit for purpose.
They should made no voter-ID a temporary measure and created proper voter-IS systems in the meanwhile.
lets see where this whole thing heads to. May be in the end we will see the birth of a true democracy, which is social and where the strong ones will take care of weak ones. At least it should be .. in a dream :)
The problem is that we don't have those same systems for getting an ID.
There's no "government comes to you" to give you an ID. And, many Democrats would love to make it easier to get an ID, but the Republicans often deliberately make it harder to get an ID.
They shut down offices and reduce hours of locations, so people have to travel farther and take more time off work. They increase the bureaucratic requirements and hurdles, so people are more likely to need to take multiple trips.
I personally wouldn't have a problem with making a voter ID a requirement to vote, if we could also agree to make it as easy as you describe to get an ID. The problem is the GOP wants to require getting a voter ID and simultaneously make it harder to get an ID.
>I am not an american, I don't have time for these petty excuses.
It's not that you don't have time for the excuses. It's that you are chiming in on a system you know nothing about and simply swallowing the propoganda that you read online.
If your mayor is actively undermining your ability to get an ID in order to surpress your vote, what does "holding him responsible mean"? And if your mayor is doing this at the behest of a billion dollar superpac that has run the number and realized that if they could get 1% reduction in opposition votes by implementing voter ID laws, what is lower class person to do?
It's incredibly easy to get an ID in democratic states, and the voter ID laws aren't about targeting states like California. They almost always target battleground states like Wisconsin where there are billions of dollars spent in TV ads. If you could guarantee that your opponent could like 2-3% of the vote by spending 1 billion dollars on Voter ID bullshit vs spending 10 billion on TV ads, what would you choose?
Electoral warfare is far more salient in US politics than in Pakistan - or any other country. The Heritage Foundation (one of the largest republican think tanks) already confirms that voter fraud is a non-issue - but billion dollar PACs have managed to convince a pakistani on the other side of the world that Voter ID is a real issue. You should ask yourself why you - a pakistani - has such strong feelings about Voter ID when Voter Fraud is completely a non-issue when both political sides look at the data.
Is it that Voter ID is a real issue, or has the billions being spent on making us think it's an issue bled into the media you consume as well?
> . You should ask yourself why you - a pakistani - has such strong feelings about Voter ID when Voter Fraud is completely a non-issue when both political sides look at the data.
Because as I said somewhere else in this post, when americans are unhappy, they spread their frustration on the entire world with a shovel.
And when I see that this frustration arises from something as stupid as voter ID, I wonder why they don't just fix it. I am not interested in the actual voter fraud numbers or some random foundation... I am interested in YOU guys being happy. And if (a sufficient number of) YOU believe in voter fraud, then for ffs, get voter ID, we all have it, why can't you?
It's like with the kids' blankie to save them from the monster under the bed, don't argue about the probability of bed monsters, understand the frankly low cost of providing the blankie, realise it's not worth quibbling about and just GIVE IT TO THEM.
It isn't about about voter fraud, it's about trust in the system. When americans don't feel trust in the system, they are unhappy. And when they are unhappy, they are often distracted by their elected leaders by other things.... things that affect the entire world, like tariffs or wars.
I don't speak about Brazilian issues, not because they don't affect us (we import soybeans from them which affects chicken prices, for example) but the effect is less... catastrophic.... but a Texan sneezes, I get the flu here.
It's part of the curse of being the world hegemon.
Unfortunately, it seems people can't or won't wrestle with the underlying issue. The underlying issue is complex, and it's easier to believe Americans are just too dumb to do voter ID.
I'm not explaining this just for you - but anyone else reading this post. Here is a video from Paul Weyrich, a highly influential republican, in the 1980s discussing why voter turn out should be reduced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR4wxlCGIu0
The symptoms are "trust in the system", "voter id" and "voter fraud". The PROBLEM is one major political party has found it extremely advantageous to ensure as few people vote as possible. If every American got voter ID tomorrow, republicans would simply invent a new issue to manufacture distrust in the system in order to suppress votes. Then another pakistani/european/canadian will be flabbergasted as to why American just don't do X and how all their friends do X everyday.
That's why I'm saying the problem is complex. You are viewing the problem as "Americans just won't adopt voter ID", and on it's face you are probably confused as to why a country as rich as America can't do Voter ID. What I'm saying the problem is that it is actually financially and politically advantageous for one party so sow distrust in the voting process (and this isn't some leftist conspiracy, this is openly admitted by them). Once you understand that you will see why Voter ID is so salient. It's not that we can't do Voter ID, its that Voter ID is the current boogeyman to sow distrust and if that is ever solved, we will simply invent a new problem in order to suppress voters.
I am not ignoring it, That disenfranchisement is deliberate, and NOT as a consequence of voter-ID.
Our government and population WANT to disenfranchise them, we WANT to be bigoted against them, and if photo-ID didn't exist, voter rolls STILL exist and then we would use THOSE to lynch them or whatever.
This is hilarious. When it's YOUR government trying to disenfranchise voters, it's deliberate and you can understand that.
When it's America, then it's somehow different. I even laid it out for you clearly that republicans WANT to disenfranchise them, but your prescription is that we need a 25 year plan to offer photo IDs on the cheap.
>and if photo-ID didn't exist, voter rolls STILL exist and then we would use THOSE to lynch them or whatever.
The irony in telling Americans to build a 25 year plan to roll out photo ID when they don't even solve issues for your government. Do you not see how foolish it is to tell Americans to spend time solving a problem that YOU KNOW won't solve the issue of government targeted disenfranchisement? You wrote 500 odd words telling Americans to build a system you just admitted doesn't work to solve the underlying problem.
> If every American got voter ID tomorrow, republicans would simply invent a new issue to manufacture distrust in the system in order to suppress votes.
And?
I am sorry, you fear.... governing? Because that's what life is. You fix one issue, some other arises.
The issue is NOT complex, let's admit it... you just don't want to lose 'face'. You have hitched yourself to the no-ID bandwagon for so long it kills you to admit it was wrong.
Democrats are trying to pretend something is a civil rights issue which NO left-leaning politician the rest of the world considers it to be so. TRUST in the system is paramount, this why Trump is in the office, it seems american citizens trust him more than they trust democrats.
It's a governance/bureaucratic issue. But as the guest on Jon Stewart's podcast said[1], democrats just can't govern.
Any other person would think of it a 25-year plan and start NOW. Start small, start with the most democratic cities in democratic states, and start offering photo ID on the cheap, on the doorstep. Use all those taxes you collect for it. Then move on to other cities in the democratic state, then slowly move outward.
Maybe one day you will again hold the federal government and then you can use the learning from that to help implement it elsewhere... and even if red states don't implement, at least you will have started something good, and you will have something to PRESENT.
But don't mind me, I am just going to spend sometime just trying to understand how trump's tariffs affect us (29%!!!), I feel I will be facing some severe shortages soon.
>You have hitched yourself to the no-ID bandwagon for so long it kills you to admit it was wrong.
Please explain to me clearly where I was wrong? What is the problem you have identified and the solution that I gave that was incorrect?
This rest of the text you posted is a massive non-sequitor. I identified to you that (1) there is no voter fraud problem (2) voter ID would not fix anything except cost the government more money and (3) it's a false claim made to disenfranchise voters.
Please clearly, explain whats wrong, backed with relevant data about voter fraud instead of waffling about Ezra Klein and John Stewart on a completely different issue.
>I am sorry, you fear.... governing?
I fear spending money trying to solve a made up problem. Something you pretended to care about when you brought up Ezra Klein. Except in the case of Voter ID you oppose Ezra Klein and you actually want to spend money doing bullshit that solves nothing. Please identify what is actually solved that is worth someone spending 25 years of their life handing out voter IDs.
The problem isn't NY or California, it's in swing states with a thin Republican majority that gerrymanders (and other dirty tricks) its hold on the state.
I have been a John Oliver viewer from the first season, and my comment will be the same as what I said 9 years ago: This is bullship.
Start small, but START. Start from Democrats accepting what every LEFT leaning person the rest of the world accepts: Photo ID is necessary, not to reduce voter fraud or whatever, but necessary to increase TRUST in the system.
It's a cost, just pay it. Yes you will lose 'face' to republicans, don't care.
Start small, start with free/cheap photo ID in deep democratic cities (I know local govt providing service, what an idea!).
Once saturation reaches 80% plus, start enforcing voter ID laws to cajole the last 20% to start applying, carrot and stick. Start offering door-step service for those unable.
Democrats pay taxes, don't they? start using them.
Spread to other cities in democratic states. So what if it takes 10-20 year? Times passes like nothing.
And once you have SET the standard of cheap, reliable access to Photo ID... and when democrats in power in the federal government again, they can use that to help implement cheap photo ID elsewhere, but even if Missouri doesn't get voter ID, it doesn't excuse democratic states NOT having it.
The fact that the DMV is only open three days a month or whatever? If it's a democrat led city, FIX it. If it's a republican city, you can come to it later.
But NOT starting, as some sort of fake 'rights' issue? Bullship.
Start. Start Small, Start NOW. in 25 years you won't even remember this.
So democrats should spend all this money, time and resources solving a problem they don’t have. And for what purpose? Nah I will rather my Democrat state focus on human welfare and giving people opportunities to progress in life
The UK Labour government was opposed to Photo ID it was the right wing that introduced it.
It is an Anglo-American thing not to have PhotoID probably related to never been invaded in the last two hundred years.
The issue is that to get back in power the Democrats need votes top overturn Republicans and so the IDs in Republican states matter those in Democrat states do not. So better top show full disapproval as they won't lose any seats over that and can keep some pressure up.
Some people in the UK had the same 'oh no we are being outnumbers' sort of mentality, and without mandatory ID, they had no sane voice in their head to tell them 'don't be silly, we track people with cards'.
It's funny how much the existence of the card gives the masses a weird sense of peace.
And? That's bigotry, a totally different issue from accessibility.
The population WANTS this piece of bigotry, heck our ancestors voted for the damn thing it, it's literally the 2nd amendment of our the constitution.
You can't blame NADRA for including it in their forms, they do it on government demand. Heck, I had to sign the damn thing to get my damn passport, there is no escaping it.
But NADRA also has vans that go village by village providing photo-ID on the doorstep. And THAT is accessibility.
Do I wish this piece of bigotry wasn't in on our forms? Yes. Today Ahmedis; tomorrow Shias; day after who knows, it might be me.
Does it mean CNIC are BAD? NO, they are perhaps the only actually part of cour damn governance, being able to provide ID.
We could obviously do better, but NOT having ID is crazy.
I think the problem there is that in Pakistan where they do this they can reasonably assume that everyone in that remote village is a Pakistani citizen - they probably don't need to see your birth certificate to get you an ID, right? In US they want to see proof that you are a citizen and you are who you say you are, which is what (some) people have an issue with, even if you sent buses with all equipment on them to random american towns people just might not have the right documentation on them to pass the checks.
But yes, I agree, it is a pathetic problem for a 1st world country to have - just sort it out.
> they can reasonably assume that everyone in that remote village is a Pakistani citizen
absolutely not! we have had massive migrations both from India (after independence) and Afghanistan (after the russian occupation). This is NOT a given.
Things have NOT been easy... and in fact dare I say, our ID department is rather dumb and stupid. I personally have had MULTIPLE issues with them.
But we have been doing SOMETHING, and the fact that the US doesn't... is insane.
When a child is born, the parent has to get them registered at the local council office. And then when my first card was made at 18, my dad went with me as verification, he attested that I was child #X as per the family tree, they confirmed someone with my name was in that family tree in their records, and used that as verification for me.
If parents are not available they can use relatives, as long as there is a family tree link. Not sure how they do it otherwise, but there is some system for refugees etc too.
>Whereas in a country like the US, it means missing several days of work, driving potentially hundreds of kilometers
Where did you hear this? When I lived in Pennsylvania, it was really easy to get a state ID. Just go into the DMV, show them your documents, pay the fee ($42 now), and you have your ID within the hour. They had centers all around the city, and they're open on Saturdays. Personally, I think this is an extremely weird hill for Democrats to want to die on. Most independent and swing voters think its a reasonable requirement.
Basically you need very specific letters where your exact name and address must match but those are issued without checking. So if one uses your middle initial instead of your name then no ID for you until you get it reissued.
That would make sense if driver licences were difficult to obtain in US in any way shape or form, and they just aren't - almost everyone has one and it's not a big deal to get one.
So forgive me for being flippant but....how hard can it be?
>>How do people with 2 or 3 jobs do?
I assume they drive to those 3 jobs, so they somehow found a way.Again, sorry for being dismissive, and I appreciate it might be time consuming at costly - but still, 91% of all American adults have found a way to do this, so my point is that driving licences(along other documents) seem like a perfectly acceptable form of ID for voting?
That's because you live someplace where the things described in the various links in this comment [1] do not happen or happen way less than they do in the US.
I don't, but we have a functioning citizen registration system; every voting eligible citizen gets sent a voting card when elections come up. That can only work if you're registered and have a known address. "Illegal aliens" don't have that, so they can't vote. Foreign nationals that are registered / stay here legally also don't get voting rights so they simply don't get the voting card mailed to them.
But also because of that registration, getting a kind of ID involves making an appointment at the county house, filling in a form and handing over a recent portrait photo. It's a bit of a hassle but nothing extreme.
You've fallen victim to GOP propaganda. They use 'Voter ID' as a reasonable sounding shorthand for a lot of policies that just make it harder to vote. The other responders highlighted many of them.
It's a different culture, one which is not used to have and use a national ID, which is completely common in the EU (with the exception of Ireland perhaps?)
That’s not true. I lived there for nearly a decade and you use driving licenses for id and there are other forms for id as well that don’t include the passport.
You need ID to do a lot of stuff just like any other country.
What is not true? A driving license may be a defacto ID, but it is not a dejure, designated national ID card. It's a different system. In the EU countries the ID cards are backed by a more-or-less central civil register.
(as an aside, it would be very funny to me if the they used the driving license for electronic signing of official communication with the authorities like we use it in some countries in the EU).
The article you posted confirms the 1 in 400 number:
"We found that around 0.5% of all voters reported being turned away at polling stations as a result of lacking ID in the local elections of 2023. We also found that four times as many people (around 2%) reported not voting because they knew they didn’t have the right ID."
There is no national id (other than passports; but most people don't carry theirs on themselves in their own country) because driver's licenses (issued by states) serve the same purpose. We don't have a non-DL id (that's popular at least).
Anyway, this is sort of by-the-by. Most adults have driver's licenses, and no one in Alaska is going to reject your Tennessee-issued DL so it is a de-facto national id.
91% of adults have a driver's license, leaving 9% of potential voters without a DL.
In a properly functioning democracy barring 9% of your voting population from voting because they lack an unrelated document (why should a driver's license be linked to ability to vote?) would be considered a major flaw.
You may elect to have your DL as a voting document as a convenience. It doesn't mean you have to have one in order to vote. A state's Board of Elections will issue you a voting document.
>>why should a driver's license be linked to ability to vote?
It's not, it's just one of many acceptable forms of id - along with a passport, birth certificate, and probably few others.
>>In a properly functioning democracy barring 9% of your voting population
Unless they are stopped from obtaining any document then they aren't barred from anything. Most Americans don't have a passport either but no one would argue that they are barred from travelling internationally, they just have to go and get a passport issued.
> Unless they are stopped from obtaining any document then they aren't barred from anything. Most Americans don't have a passport either but no one would argue that they are barred from travelling internationally, they just have to go and get a passport issued.
Making it difficult (as the article states, this 9% do not have ready access to documents proving their citizenship) is essentially barring with extra steps.
I hate this semantics/loophole game Americans like to play, seems to be quite common in your society to use the "akshually, technically" and going completely against the spirit of something. The spirit is: this makes it more difficult to vote, it will inevitably bar some people from voting, it's just salami-slicing...
I'm not American and I don't know why you'd assume I am - to me the fact that americans don't have ID requirements to vote is insane.
>>as the article states, this 9% do not have ready access to documents proving their citizenship
Again, do they simply not have them because they never bothered to get them, or are they unable to obtain them? That's quite a big difference.
I also hope we're not saying that if someone turned 18 and just simply never bothered to obtain any kind of acceptable ID(and there are usually many) then it's somehow unfair to not let them vote - because I really struggle to see how that would be true.
A lot of people seem to just assume that other countries have less friction (or no friction at all?) for people to vote, than the United States. My friends from other countries would find that amusing.
I get it that some states try to disenfranchise people and obviously that's wrong but the answer to that cannot be "voter id requirements are bad".
40% of the eligible voters sit out every election. No one who wants to vote is being barred from anything. They don’t lack an unrelated document, they lack the proof that they are allowed to vote. We have freedom of expression and yet to purchase alcohol you must be able to prove you are allowed to buy it. We have the freedom to bear arms and yet in many states you must prove you aren’t a nut job to own and carry a gun.
Driver's license is the defacto ID used everywhere. Which kind of makes no sense but that's the way it is. Just about everyone has one and arguments that requiring an ID to vote would disenfranchise citizens don't sound believable to me.
>>You also seem to think everyone has a car and thus a driving licence
I don't see how those two are related. In UK driving licences are also used as de facto ID everywhere(you can even get on domestic flights using your driving licence lol), and everyone gets one when they turn 18 because just get a provisional driving licence(identical to a normal one but with an L on it to indicate learner driver), no car necessary. In effect everyone in the country has a driving licence even if they don't drive or own a car. And you just apply by post, no need to go anywhere,
Obviously it would be much better to do it like other European countries do it and just issue everyone with an actual ID when they turn 18, but what UK is doing is close enough equivalent of this. So if the US has the DMV and already has an easily accessible way for people to get driving licences......what's the problem?
If it makes you feel any better the UK Conservatives tried this under the "we have to stop voting fraud" excuse. Turns out it backfired because the oldies couldn't figure out the new requirements leading to this scandalous quote from pantomime villain Jacob Reese-Mogg:
> Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding that their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections.
> We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well.
I don’t think we need to lie or be disingenuous about this gesture, Elon is not known for his hate of Jewish people. I think this obviously fake take helps him.
German media has been extremely coy calling Elon out about it. You would think that they'd be all over this, but them phrasing it as questions and digging out the "roman salute" (that no one here has heard of before) has been an eye-opening experience.
It's an opinion piece, and exceptions confirm the rule. Just search for German news articles on Google.de. See how many legit news outlets mention "Musk Hitlergruß" and how many more opt to beat around the bush when you search for "Musk Geste".
Do you even get a count of search results? They no longer include that number in my search results.
But I have just tried "Musk Geste" on google.de news tab (I don't know how Google is personalising either my search results or your results, but FWIW I'm in Berlin), and of the first page, 6/10 links explicitly call the gesture a "Hitlergruß" in the summary, and the other four call it that (or note that some people have called it that) in the body.
Either you've been living under a rock or you're trolling. In the very least, beyond the very public way he repeatedly did the Nazi salute and was very unapologetic about it, you can't ignore away how Musk went way out of his way to support a neoNazi party from Germany.
On the other hand, neonazis and their enablers are united in the inevitable cry for proof and "truth", and then looking the other way when it's delivered. Obviously this is a very efficient tactic, and I agree with you it's why the left lost.
Hey, I agree that he probably would never identify as a neo-Nazi. I think he thought he was being really cool and edgy throwing out the salute that was co-opted/adjusted by the Nazi party. The company he keeps still informs us on what he's willing to tolerate, and as I've laid out in your parent comment, he's chosen time and time again to endorse some pretty problematic ideas.
Here's an example of Elon Musk agreeing with a man who repeated an antisemitic belief that the Jewish community is inviting immigrants to further racism against the white population (also alluding to the Great Replacement theory - and if you want to claim that it isn't explicitly being stated, implicit nods are inherent to most political statements)[0].
Elon Musk also endorsed and spoke at an AfD event[1], which comprises members that are 7.5X more likely to participate in Holocaust denialism: believing that the Holocaust is Allied propaganda[2]. Multiple former leaders (including a co-founder) of the AfD describe the party as extremely far-right and authoritarian[3][4]. Elected members of the AfD have been found on a Facebook group sharing memes about baking Anne Frank in a pizza oven and insulting interracial couples[5]. Maybe you could claim that these are past events, but the frequency of these issues are alarming. Even so, we have a more recent example: in 2024, a leading member of the AfD was fined for using a slogan that was used by the Nazi military[6].
At best, you could call Elon Musk an absolutely bone-headed moron who has no idea who he chooses to support or where he chooses to attend. With Occam's razor it seems like he has embraced a lot of hateful ideology.
Obviously this is room for a flame war, but I don’t think the poster was being deliberately malicious, rather it is perfectly reasonable to interpret the gesture as a nazi salute. You may disagree that it was.
We shouldn’t let that argument distract from the impact it has had on Tesla demand in Europe. For me personally it was the final straw and I won’t be buying one as I had hoped to.
Along with other actions certain to hit sales, and the lack of an apology (which would have been wise, even if you didn’t mean it as a nazi salute) suggests that Musk doesn’t care about Tesla car sales.
I suspect he knows the writing is on the wall for Tesla, so he’s betting on robotics as an escape hatch. I wonder if he’s also hoping tariffs against china will help vs their EVs. Either way, I don’t see much hope for Tesla right now.
> The async featureset in Rust is far from complete, but async is also somewhat of a niche. You're not necessarily expected to use it, often you can just use threads.
I’m sorry but it’s not true. You lose access to most of the ecosystem.
> Filistine and Jerusalem did not have a problem with antisemitism and jew hate, UNTIL european settlers showed up. Antisemitism is purely european concept imported into Middle East.
Oy vey, granada is in Spain, you just proved my point that antisemitic pogroms are purely european thing.
Iraqi jews did not even want to migrate to Israel and leave Iraq. Mossad had to organize several bombings and false flags to scare the Iraqi jews and force them to migrate[1]
in other arab states, Ben Gurion paid money to encourage jews to immigrate and settle Filistine. Moroccan king begged jewish community to stay and not to immigrate
Granada in 1066 wasn't Spain, it was the Taifa of Granada in Al-Andalus. That part of the peninsula was fully invaded and governed by muslims. Already for two centuries. The massacre perpetrators were a muslim mob.
You're being presented with perfectly valid arguments, clearly proving that your point is false, and still insisting on ignoring them because they don't agree with your narrative.
The grand point still stands: when compared to Europe, Arab world largely coexisted and lived peacefully with jewish community. Until zionist settlers showed up.
Antisemitism is purely european concept, and some might argue that expulsion of jewish people from Europe to Middle East was the original Final Solution by Hitler (before he decided to just kill everyone).
So all that Zionists have achieved is just realized the dreams of Adolf Hitler
The Hebron, Mufti of Jerusalem and arab nationalism. The recent synagogue attacks, the examples are so countless that we even have an extra word for it. Oy vey, indeed, if you think that underlines your point.
I recently tried to use their IPAM and was amazed by the outrageous cost.
reply