Linked by Howard Fosdick on Thu 8th Nov 2012 20:12 UTC
Editorial In the United States, state and local authorities are in charge of voting and the country uses more than a half dozen different voting technologies. As a result, the country can't guarantee that it accurately counts national votes in a timely fashion. This article discusses the problem and potential solutions to the U.S. voting dilemma.
Thread beginning with comment 541537
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Umm...
by saso on Thu 8th Nov 2012 23:57 UTC in reply to "Umm..."
saso
Member since:
2007-04-18

"The U.S. doesn't even have a national ID.

And we damn sure don't need one. That's a giant step towards an oppressive government,
"
Plenty of European and non-European countries have national ID systems and they don't seem repressive at all. If I were you, I'd worry more about e.g. the armed drones already flying over your heads while peeking inside your homes with IR cameras.

and it's already oppressive enough as it is.

The US government isn't oppressive. It's just wildly corrupt.

And besides, each one of us already has a nationally assigned ID card: Our social security card. The huge amount of fraud and misuse surrounding that particular identifier alone should be enough to tell the people that we don't need yet another layer of redundant ID.

You fail to appreciate the positive sides of having a way to identify citizens in some official manner - it makes interaction with authorities and certain businesses (e.g. banks) a lot simpler. To abolish all mechanisms for official identification would significantly complicate these routine interactions.

Please note that I am not trying to present a position here that is completely contrary to yours - what you said certainly has some merit. I just think a more nuanced approach is necessary. IMHO statements like "We don't need no stinkin' ID!" fail to capture the complexity of real life.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Umm...
by Morgan on Fri 9th Nov 2012 00:03 in reply to "RE: Umm..."
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Well, my point was more that we don't need it because it's already there. Our government is complicated enough without yet another unnecessary burden on the citizens. That's what I meant by oppressive, which is why I chose that particular word rather than repressive. They actually have different meanings though the former is often misused to convey the latter.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Umm...
by saso on Fri 9th Nov 2012 00:23 in reply to "RE[2]: Umm..."
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

Well, my point was more that we don't need it because it's already there.

I took it from your critique of the SSN that you'd prefer it didn't exist, but now I understand better, thanks for clarifying.

That's what I meant by oppressive, which is why I chose that particular word rather than repressive. They actually have different meanings though the former is often misused to convey the latter.

That word can have several meanings and its use to describe an unjust or tyrannical government is common: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oppressive?s=t
In any case, I get your point.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Umm...
by modmans2ndcoming on Fri 9th Nov 2012 15:47 in reply to "RE[2]: Umm..."
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

just make everyone get a passport.

Reply Parent Score: 2