Why is a picture ID opposed for voting?

On Aug 11, 5:22 pm, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...Fdd4ae8204bf7b

In article
,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
On Aug 11, 3:26 pm, wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...38baa9ed3ad848
In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
On Aug 11, 1:33 pm, wrote:snip"Poll place
officials have to go through some minimum vetting....Everything is
subject to tampering and that is an entirely separate issue." snip
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...7ff51a3bff2e35
Dude, there were so many illogical fallacies in that reply its funny,
for instance if everything is subject to tampering why not poll
volunteers themselves, or the so called vetting process.
The point is that everything may be subject to tampering but that is
an issue totally separate from the issue of showing an ID to vote
might be subject to identity theft.
Next, are you claiming id theft can be done by the yellow pages, or
would the date of birth on a voter id/drivers license be more
helpful?
Personal names and addresses don't appear in the yellow pages, that is
for business.
Having a date of birth is marginally usefull but not without the other
financial information you are already disclosing at businesses but
are NOT disclosing to vote.
You just hypocritically argued that since there are risks, another
risk is not a concern, which is utter nonsense. You argued that
because you dont "see" any problem, there is none, which is appealing
to your own authority. In an effort to make walk in voting 100% clean,
you just skipped over the other option, which is not 100% clean. You
did this by using with the statement "Everything is subject to
tampering and that is an entirely separate issue.", which is an
illogical fallacy, based on the fact you are trying to clean up the
election process. If you are going to come back with a reply, how
about making it logical, and well reasoned, because you just trumped
yourself with your own words.
No, that is not my arguement at all.
My arguement is that you have your panties in a wad over a miniscule
risk of identity theft that is by far overshadowed by the rest of
practical life.
I would guess that your reaction to a fire in the house would be to put
slip covers on the sofa to keep it clean having totally lost track of
what the real issue is.
The need to show a voter ID, or standard picture id (drivers license)
reveals, name, date of birth, address, drivers license # (if card is
used), at a place where the the voters name and address are found on a
printed list. You are creating a focal point for personal
information, a potential situation for a person/group of people to
steal information, based on a mandate that all walk in voters share
personal information. So to your example, it would appear, in an
effort to fight one fire, you placed a whole lot of flammables right
next to another fire, i guess you could feel good about one fire
fighting effort, until the other house explodes.
The whole Democrat argument is bogus. It is being advanced so that they
have a main avenue to corrupt the electoral process.
The registrars' assistants already have a copy of names and addresses
(which we sign when we vote). They are not going to copy down the
details of your driver's license while people are standing in line
behind you, waiting to vote.

my argument is non-partisan, and equal, as opposed to yours which is
partisan and assigns malice to some but then illogically assumes good
civil behavior with others. With todays cell phone cameras, one only
needs a press of a button, and a good memory for numbers and names a
poll volunteer could take advantage of the voter id mandate. Name of
voter and address are listed, but you are mandating i provide an id
which contains my address (for cross reference), date of birth, and
possibly a drivers license number, to those who have access to that
list.