Callysta wrote:
Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it? I said I find it comical when people complain about needing an ID to prove who they are. You need one to travel abroad, buy alcohol, adopt a pet, purchase a gun (legally), receive a marriage license, get a job, cash a paycheck, receive food stamps or welfare... Why is it out of the question to require it to vote?
I have the right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean I get the gun for free. I still need to pony up the cash, pay for the gun and follow whatever procedures my state requires. Same thing with voting. Over 100 countries have mandatory national IDs and Mexico (among others) requires one to be presented to participate in Federal elections...
The right to own a weapon capable of killing people is not comparable to the right to vote.
And poll taxes are unconstitutional so your analogy there completely fails.
I Googled this statistic of yours and wound back up at the Wikipedia page you pulled it from. Funny enough you took the statistic out of context:
Quote:
According to a 1996 document by Privacy International, around 100 countries had compulsory identity cards. The card must be shown on demand by authorised personnel under specified circumstances. Often alternative proof of identity, such as a driver's licence, is acceptable. Privacy International said that "virtually no common law country has a card".
The US is a common law country, therefore, your cute "over 100" statistic is both a lie (since the quote actually says
around and not
over) and completely irrelevant.
The US is a far less stable and cohesive society than those "around" 100 other countries. The question of ID is tricky because the pluralistic and unstable nature of US society means that discrimination, persecution and basic access to service is a constant concern. This is not the case in homogenous societies, or societies with strong family units and extended communities.
The US is aberrant in other ways. There is almost no social safety net in this country, therefore the sorts of ID-related difficulties are much more intractable than in other countries where people can find a reasonable degree of life security to work things out (e.g., Dagery's point about being "trapped" in the projects and being reliant on foot power).
The US does not have an official national language, nor do Americans look similar. Other countries can determine citizenship status with reliable accuracy through appearance and literacy; the US cannot, again, breaking any comparison.
Those countries that do have national IDs distribute them according to a nationwide standard. That is not so in the US where IDs are distributed by the states according to their own arbitrary systems.
You broached gun rights, which are worth a cursory examination as they are relevant to the point that the US's difficulties here are due to the unusual conditions of American society. Many countries have legal gun ownership, but there is no other country that sees gun ownership as an appropriate means of ensuring personal defense or protection against government tyranny. Therefore, any comparison between American gun rights and those of other countries is inherently faulty.
Finally, you're conflating two separate issues: the advisability of establishing a national ID system, and the practicality of requiring ID to vote. In effect you are putting the cart before the horse, you are presuming that we have an ID system adequate to the task; we do not. Perhaps one should be established - I would agree on that point - but you can't just pretend it exists when it doesn't.
