401
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] drthunder@midwest.social 12 points 6 days ago

Here's my general summary of why this is an issue: the US has been denying people the right to vote since day 1. You had to own land to vote in 1788. Half the country seceded and started a civil war that killed more of our citizens than any war since, over the right to own people. The 15th amendment was passed in 1870 to make it so you can't deny Black people the right to vote, but places made it happen anyway. They made it so you had to pass a "literacy test" with intentionally ambiguous instructions, or pay a poll tax, or one of your grandparents had to have the ability to vote (afaik, the origin of the phrase "grandfathered in").

These were all legal until the 1960s. Lots of people here have parents who were alive before legislation was passed to end Jim Crow. Without that, the racists that be turned to the War on Drugs, because lots of places take away your right to vote if you've been convicted of a felony. They started passing voter ID laws and closing down DMVs in areas with lots of black people and reducing their hours. A politician in Wisconsin bragged after the 2016 election that these laws here threw the state to Trump. They've also started banning giving food and water to people in line to vote and throwing out mail-in votes that show up after election day.

This isn't about election security and it never has been; voter fraud has never changed an election in the country's history. The real election fraud is in suppressing people's votes and fucking with voting machines (2004) and having allies in positions of power to throw the election your way (2000). There's more than that too, but it's a tangent.

[-] WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I mean I would argue the whole system of having to show up in person to a place to vote on a non-holiday day and wait in a long line is in of itself a way to stop poorer people from voting. I've lived in a state with only mail in voting for my whole life and as result we have some of the highest voter turn out. It makes sense the Republicans want to do everything they can to to alter that as the harder they make it for poorer people to vote the better their odds of winning are.

[-] drthunder@midwest.social 2 points 6 days ago

100% agreed

[-] Wrrzag@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 days ago

Doesn't most of the world already work like this? I have to identify myself to vote in my country, it's the obvious way to prevent people from voting more than one time.

[-] Jhex@lemmy.world 15 points 6 days ago

The key is what id would be acceptable.

They'll raise the bar until only ids most people (they don't like) don't have and they have already destroyed the public service so getting one will ve very very hard and/or expensive

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

Interestingly, it may backfire on them. For example they cite Real Id or passport.

So passport only people who travel internationally bother to get. The rural MAGAs are less likely to get this.

For Real Id, it's more likely since that can be done with your license, however most people I know who do not fly have not bothered, because it's a hassle, they have to find DMV acceptable materials for a feature they don't even need (if you aren't flying, you still won't need real id for much of anything).

[-] ptu@lemm.ee 3 points 6 days ago

Yeah I don’t get it either. Every election I voted in I’ve had to have id. It’s been like this for a long time and it hasn’t shifted so that we need proof of ethnicity or some other bs people here are suggesting will happen next.

[-] prole 9 points 6 days ago

Are people really not aware of the issues with voter ID laws? Do we really need to go over this basic shit again?

[-] drmoose@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

What are these issues? Every other country in the world ids voters.

I'm not Trump fan by any means but it's hard to argue against voter ID. Americans in general seem to live in 3rd world when it comes to IDs with your social security number shit etc.

[-] Flisty@mstdn.social 3 points 6 days ago

@drmoose @prole The UK only just brought it in a few years ago, against the advice of the Elec Commission as we don't really have any fraud and we don't have universal ID cards so it's complicated to know what you'd need to bring. Mostly it's passports or driving licences which relies on people having the cash to drive or travel, and their name matching the voter roll. If someone is turned away for not having ID they might not come back.

[-] drmoose@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

Maybe its time to join the 21st century and issue citizen ids?

No wonder identity theft and scams are so rampant in the US.

[-] 13igTyme@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

We have citizen IDs. If you really don't understand the issue. Open a history book. I'll even give you a starting point. Read about Jim Crow laws.

[-] drmoose@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Nah that's not a justification. Just fix your country instead of running away from your problems. Seriously americans are spineless as fuck.

[-] Flisty@mstdn.social 2 points 6 days ago

@drmoose it was discussed in the 00s (in the UK!) but was massively polarising and got dropped. People didn't like the idea of having to carry something that proved who they are.

[-] drmoose@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

That's just crazy to me. How can society function when people are afraid to identify themselves to officials they should be trusting and relying on.

[-] Flisty@mstdn.social 2 points 6 days ago

@drmoose dunno, we have a strong tradition of petty bureaucratic jobsworths who take rule-following too far, and also a nasty history of over-policing protests.

[-] prole 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

In person voter fraud is so statistically inconsequential that it might as well not exist. The idea that this is meant to prevent voter fraud is preposterous. It's just pretense.

All this does is create more hurdles for people who already have difficulty voting from decades of disenfranchisement. It's the goal of these laws, and Republican politicians have literally admitted it.

How do you get an ID if you don't have an address? They can't win with policy, and high voter turnout always means the results skew left, so they focus on stopping people of certain demographics from voting altogether.

[-] drmoose@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

It's not about voting fraud but your entire culture being so crippled by fear that you avoid basic societal structures that are accepted as a net positive literally everywhere else. Maybe it's time to stand up for yourself?

[-] prole 1 points 5 days ago

Yeah you're right, I should have realized and done something about that sooner. Thank God you were here to tell me.

[-] jhymesba@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

It really depends on what the purpose of voter ID is.

If it's to ensure that everyone that is entitled to vote votes once and only once, you'll see some key properties. It'll be free and easy to get. Applying for it is as simple as applying to vote (which itself will be easy to do), and it'll be virtually automatic that you get it. In many cases, it'll arrive unannounced as the Government already knows everything it needs to get you this card, and you won't have to do anything but show up at the polls election day with the card they gave you.

If it's to ensure that only 'desirable' voters can vote, it'll have other key properties. Getting it will be as easy as the above if you're the preferred class. But if you're the undesirable class of voter, getting it will have more hassles than its worth. It'll cost money. It'll have onerous requirements. It'll take you lots of time, and require transportation. It'll be designed to discourage you from voting. Because that's the goal. Onerous enough that you give up and let your betters rule you like God intended.

Can you guess what the United States' goal with voter ID is? Here's a hint. We have a long history of treating certain groups of people like crap, and despite 1865's end of the Civil War, there are STILL people who would rather see Black people in chains and treated like animals.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Every election I voted in I’ve had to have id.

I'm currently trying to get my newborn son a passport, as the offices that handle this - SSA, Post Office, etc - are rapidly being dismantled by DOGE. I have no idea how we'll be able to maintain or renew our documentation in coming years, given that there's simply not going to be anyone to stamp the forms and mail me renewed papers at this rate.

it hasn’t shifted so that we need proof of ethnicity or some other bs

It specifically has for transgender people. We've seen both state and national rules changes that no longer recognize change of gender identity on forms. So a person who shows up to vote with a form that shows "Man" when presenting as a Woman is prime target for disenfranchisement.

We're also increasingly seeing Hispanic and Arab people targeted for arrest and imprisonment, purely on an individual not currently carrying ID (and - in many cases - despite this fact). It isn't hard to imagine this persecution continuing into the next election cycle, with DHS agents grabbing people at polling stations.

[-] ptu@lemm.ee 2 points 6 days ago

Thank you for your insight. I hadn’t realized how obtaining an id could be an issue. We just use our driver’s licence (issued by the police) which most of us have already at hand. Wish you and the family all the best.

[-] Longpork3@lemmy.nz 1 points 5 days ago

There are other methods. In NZ every enrolled voter's name gets printed into a physical book, and then crossed off by poll workers when they arrive to vote. An "easy vote" card is also mailed out to everyone, which is basically in index card to make it easier to look you up in the book.

As part of the vote counting process, all these books are checked against each other, to identify if a person has cast a vote at multiple polling places. With any duplicates investigated by the electoral commission.

Effectively the only way to manipulate the vote count would be to spend election week driving around the country, voting once per polling station under the name of a person you knew was enrolled to vote, but would not be voting themselves.

There were ~150 cases of attempted/apparent vote fraud in the last election, out of ~2M votes cast. That seems like a fairly low number to me, and I would not support any attempts to restrict voting to prevent it.

[-] Guns0rWeD13@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago
[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

Held by whom? Pointed at whom?

[-] Guns0rWeD13@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago
[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

In western states, quite a few of the people are the fascists. Quite a few more are sympathetic to fascists. And those who work forces are regularly the ones who burn crosses.

“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”

― Malcolm X

Needless to say, we live in a nation full of uncareful people.

[-] Guns0rWeD13@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

i'm pretty sure any society that truly wanted to fix itself would require a pretty large purge.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

DOGE is a purge, of sorts. I don't think its fixing things.

[-] Guns0rWeD13@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

we have to stop making goose and gander comparisons. they're sociopaths. we're the good guys. it's ok when the good guys do it.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

they’re sociopaths. we’re the good guys

They're sociopaths, certainly. But they're sociopaths who the liberal faction seem content (perhaps even eager) to roll over for.

I don't see many good guys. Only the bad and the ugly.

[-] Guns0rWeD13@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

ok, so don't purge? i don't understand what point you're trying to make other than to be contrary

[-] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 days ago

Elections are STATE things, right? Is he nationalizing elections?

[-] MoreFPSmorebetter@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 days ago

I truly do not understand how this bothers people. In other countries you have to prove who you are to vote. It's ludicrous to me that there hasn't been a requirement to prove who you are this whole time.

[-] Redditsux@lemmy.world 117 points 1 week ago

Trump is doing this to distract media attention from the biggest fuck-up of his administration so far, and there's been a lot.

[-] 10001110101@lemm.ee 14 points 6 days ago

Well, destroying democracy is pretty distracting, so kudos, I guess.

[-] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 43 points 1 week ago

the biggest fuck-up of his administration so far

The biggest fuck-up of his administration this week.
His administration is a scandal factory.
They will fuck up and make a mess, and their solution is to make a bigger mess to distract from the one they just made.
What about the bigger mess? Well I guess they'll just have to make an even bigger mess to cover that one up.
Rinse and repeat.

[-] prole 3 points 6 days ago

Yeah but Kamala brought Liz Cheney on stage, so...

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Perhaps using Richard Cheney's daughter to rebut the guy running for Unitary Executive was a mistake.

No, no, no. It was definitely just voters being stupid. I guess democracy was a mistake and we should have simply consolidated power under a more liberal dictatorship sooner.

[-] prole 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Yeah, because I must think it was a good idea simply because I'm not stupid enough to use it as a reason to not vote for her. Another straw man from another "leftist" completely unwilling to accept reality.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Another straw man

Harris lost. She performed worse than the two other democrats who ran against Trump. That's not a strawman, its a simple fact.

Perhaps you think it is a strawman to suggest she might have been responsible for her exceptionally poor performance?

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] adespoton@lemmy.ca 94 points 1 week ago
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 36 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Call your local & state officals about this. The federal government does not run elections. It's the state and local officals that do even for federal office. They are the ones who chose to follow or not follow a blatantly illegal order

Trump is threatening to pull unrelated federal funding if they don't, but he's been pulling funding for many states anyways for zero reason. Make sure your local & state officals know you'll have their back if they don't bow down

[-] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 27 points 1 week ago

I think if we get through this, we'll look back at this in horror.. for about 60 years, and then we'll have a crop of neo-trumpists because no one ever seems to learn anything.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2025
401 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22612 readers
4223 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS