But would just the 3 US credit report companies would go bankrupt if the judicial system was doing its job ?

I agree that the government should not rate credit worthiness.

But we need a trusted third party that tracks your credit history (just the data of what/when you got credits, and missed payments). Something that the banks and loan shop could consult and compute their own risk assessment.

In some European countries, the central bank is the notary authority that keeps track of bad actors (missed payments, bounced checks, etc.) and private banks or loan shop can consult the registry and make their own decision if you are not credit worthy.

There’s no reason the the government would be any better at keeping data safe, but at least it would reduce the points of failure from 3 to 1... and I guess the government already knows your SSN!

Blockchain would probably work.

Oh HN, never change!

A credit score is different from simply a registry. A registry is just a record.

A score is opaque based on proprietary models, and scores can still be derived by private companies.

To be clear, though, his plan does give you a number that represents your creditworthiness, whether you want to call it a “score” or not. From the article: “a public, transparent algorithm to determine creditworthiness that eliminates racial biases in credit scores.”

It doesn’t say whether the bill will ban “private” credit score providers, but I’m not sure how it will put those companies out of business if not.

There’s no reason it would put them out of business unless they outcompete them.

What information is the registry supposed to contain? What if I don't want to put my information there?

The last time I checked my credit report, it was a (false) list of ex-employers and ex-addresses.

The credit agencies use "undisclosed" methods to verify their data. What would the government do instead?

> Politics shouldn't impact my ability to pay but it certainly will. Look at the games Republicans play to suppress minority voters. You want to give those same people power over your credit scores?

Or the Obama-era IRS supposedly targeting conservative groups. [1]

Without going down the rabbit's hole of which claims were true and by how much....it's certainly the sort of thing you would rather remove as far as possible from politics.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

> Republicans play to suppress minority voters.

What are they doing to suppress minorities?

Here are a few examples: https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-voter-suppre...

It is more than just requiring proper ID when voting. Turns out that you have to be on a list of pre-approved voters. There can be many reasons why you didn't end up on that list and many ways to bump you off.

Its not like you show up on voting day, scan your ID, and the system magically determines your eligibility to vote based on your current address, criminal record, age etc.. retrieved from a federal database that no one can question. No, the lists are prepared and very easy to game.

I dont know why people show up I usually vote by mail. Never had any issues doing so.

Many states, especially the Republican controlled ones, don't allow that unless you have a reason on a short list of pre-approved reasons.

That’s really surprising. I lived in a super Republican state and mail in ballots were allowed for anyone.

This recent article shows the growth in absentee ballots [0].

Most states allow no excuse absentee ballots but some states still require a reason. Some are republican states like Texas and West Virginia and South Carolina, but also includes most of New England- New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island all super blue.

[0] https://electionlab.mit.edu/research/voting-mail-and-absente...

Could you provide a citation that’s a little more reliable than a quora post?

They want to require people to show government-issued photo IDs when voting to prove they have the right to vote.

I'm a progressive liberal, but I believe this is hogwash. Many countries have a government issued national card for citizens. It's not a huge deal. Activists have made it seem like it's a way to suppress voters but I think that's largely BS.

We could start a campaign now, or just after the next election in 2020, and get people to sign up for cards by 2028, and enforce that then. We have census every 10 years, it's something the country can easily coordinate.

>I'm a progressive liberal, but I believe this is hogwash. Many countries have a government issued national card for citizens. It's not a huge deal. Activists have made it seem like it's a way to suppress voters but I think that's largely BS.

Have you tried educating yourself on the matter? For "some" reason, there are large swaths of land where people have to travel 25+ miles and pay with their already taxed income just for the displeasure of standing in line at the DMV/etc.

Tell me how much of a priority this is to someone who might not be able to drive their own car, or take time out of their job for.

I don't understand why someone would front their statement with "I'm a progressive liberal" while remaining intentionally obtuse, unless they're arguing in bad faith to begin with.

Your comment could be much better if you could please remove the ad hominem and tone down the snark.

Particularly on a political thread.

Sure, if you had a free and convenient citizen ID card, requiring ID to vote might be just fine.

As it is currently, it's absolutely a way to suppress the vote of low-income (and minority) people. In many areas of many states getting photo ID is non-trivial, especially if you're in a shitty job.

Hence why I said start the program today, with the same level of canvassing as a census, and then enforce it some time in the future.

You also have to work out some way of dealing with those who fear The Mark of the Beast.

There is a ton of literature on this. Many elected state and local governments, especially in the South, work actively against the voting interests of large swaths of their populations. Whether through gerrymandering, or processes that improperly remove registrations, or that remove polling places, or that place improper obstacles like fees or clean civic record requirements in the ways of voters, or any of literally hundreds of techniques. Requiring government-issued IDs is just the rhetorical cover for these far more restrictive and extremely pervasive techniques.

The basic argument is that requiring an ID to vote is racially motivated as a tool of suppression and an avenue by which to violate basic civil rights. If this the case, then is requiring a government issued ID to travel, either by auto or air, put in place to prevent minorities from freely traveling around the United States?

Are government mandated requirements to produce an ID when purchasing a firearm an effort to prevent black ownership of legal firearms?

Once you get beyond the arguments around voting, it wildly begins to fall apart, and either shows a complete lack of logical consistency in standing up for minority rights, or an ulterior motive is at play.

> Are government mandated requirements to produce an ID when purchasing a firearm an effort to prevent black ownership of legal firearms?

The registration/license requirement which was introduced with the gun control act (with NRA backing) was pretty much introduced as a response to Black Panthers publically/legally carrying guns. So, in a way, yes.

Republicans also conveniently oppose national ID cards and programs to provide hassle-free state IDs.

> hassle-free state IDs

What hassle? Nearly everyone has them already for driving and they're valid for 6+ years. Might take an hour or two of your time every 6 or so years.

Only 62% of 18 year olds have a drivers license[1]. That's not nearly enough to rely on it as a national ID.

[1] https://www.statista.com/chart/18682/percentage-of-the-us-po...

> Nearly everyone has them already for driving

No, not nearly every eligible voters has one, and the distribution is significantly skewed by race and a number of other demographic factors.

And more than one of the politicians pushing voter ID has been recorded in what seemed to be politically safe venues pointing to those biases as motivating factors.

Or you can just send every eligible voter their voting license when they turn 18 and cut out the middleman.

Sounds like a good idea to me, for those without driver's license it'd provide a way to vote without the hassle of getting a non-drivers ID card.

Only issues I could think of are: 1. No central registry of addresses, so how would the government know where to send the IDs. 2. Where would the photograph for the ID come from? 3. Possible fraud/abuse from stolen mail

Other countries were able to figure it out, so can we. Voting license proponents never seem to want to send eligible voters their free voting licenses, though.

> Other countries were able to figure it out, so can we

I mean the solution to #1 is obvious: forced registration. I think you'll have a hard time getting people on board with passing a law for that.

It just seems like an hour at the DMV would solve all 3 problems at once: provide address, current photo, and reduce fraud/abuse. Seems like a good system to me.

Can you give me an example of what other country(-ies) system you're thinking about? I'm curious how it's handled elsewhere as well without the need to appear in person to get an ID.

Sorry could you clarify... why would you need Voting Card? I mean normal state ID must be enough no? Like everyone has to have one so they can prove their age and citizenship and where they live no?

IDs are not mandatory at either the State or Federal level in the USA.

The most common type of identification is a State driver's license, but there are also alternative non-driver license ID cards available. None of these IDs are mandatory, but are nearly required to live in modern society (open a bank account, drive a car, vote, etc).

Oh right - they're still pretending to not like a strong federal government on some issues.

There are a lot of things in modern society that you need a government ID to do. If adding voting to that list is the defining feature that forces the government to make it economical for every adult to have an ID, then that is a win.

Everyone should have an ID because of how important they are for accessing government benefits, freedom of mobility, employment, etc.

If that means that getting an ID should pay you $100 instead of cost you $100 then I’m totally for that.

Again, to reiterate, I believe that getting an ID should be economically neutral at worst (which means you should be paid at least a few dollars for going through the trouble to get one) regardless of whether IDs are required to vote, but if a voting requirement is what it would take to make that happen it’s a perfect win/win.

No one opposing mandatory voter ID opposes this. But it's not what's going to happen.

I'm surprised there's nothing like that in the US already. Here in Mexico, the national ID is a voter ID card (IFE) and is carried by everyone.

Much of U.S. does require voter ID. Thirty-five states require it; 17 of those in form of a photo. [2] It gets contested a lot in the courts though.

Globally, it is pretty typical. Not just Mexico and the U.S., but France, Germany, Netherlands, Iceland, Canada, Brazil, India, Israel. [1]

[1] https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_identification_laws_by_state

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_Identification_laws

In Fiji we don't have a national ID but we can normally use one of either a voter ID card, drivers license, or tax ID card.

The same people that want voters to provide ID when voting are very against free national ID cards. There are plenty of games that you can play at the state level in discouraging or somehow confusing the ID issue (does the address have to up to date on your DL, or even the right state for college students?), which doesn’t apply when a national ID is considered (none of that info is on your passport, but it costs $100+ to get that).

Which is non trivial.

We require ID in almost every kind of daily transaction imaginable, from healthcare to banking, employment, travel, alcohol, cigarettes, all other government services, and so on. But go apoplectic when we try to use it for one transaction every two years and act as if over half the population lacks the ability to participate in daily basic society.

Black people are intelligent enough to get ID's, as are women and any other minority in this country. The constant denigration as if they lack the faculties or intelligence to get an ID is pretty insulting.

Let's get real.

So basically they're not trying to suppress minority voters?

It is a numbers game (no puns intended).

Let's say we have 100k people that live in a few poor counties where not everyone has government ID and they can't afford to spend time / money to go very far. Now, if 40k of those people need an ID to vote, reducing the hours that the nearest DMV operates will reduce the number of people that get an ID.

Now, you might say, "but why can't they just go to the DMV in the next county?" or "why can't they get their IDs well ahead of time?", and you'd have a valid question! But when you have 100k people.. creating what looks like a minor inconvenience will definitely translate to fewer voters in the end. Now, lets create a bunch of minor inconveniences and the numbers really start to shrink.

What are better suggestions to prevent voter fraud? We know from history that voting fraud is a thing, in the 1800s it was known that political parties would pay fresh immigrants to vote (like the scene in Upton Sinclaire's "The Jungle"), or to even kidnap people and force them into voting [1]. So we can't rely on good faith.

I'm under the impression that to vote you must register in a voting district, surely that registration requires something like a birth certificate or a SSN, which I believe is the only requirement for a government issued ID... Operating on the idea that the requirement for government IDs may in fact be a good faith measure to prevent voter fraud, would perhaps an optimal solution be to bring a web camera to that voting registration area and simultaneously issue IDs there?

To be honest, I thought it was a non-issue since my voter registration is also my draft registration, so I assume I provided some form of citizenship proof when I registered. It was a while ago though so I don't recall the details.

[1] https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/election-fraud-in-the-...

The common solution when little documentation exists is to apply ink at voting booths. Something that comes off in a few days, but otherwise bonds to the top layer of people’s skin. That’s plenty for one person one vote. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_ink

As to having non residents vote, vastly more eligible voters don’t vote than people ineligible to vote. Honestly, as much hoopla as this gets it’s clear from recent elections it’s a non issue. Look for actual examples of this happening and your coming up empty.

A paranoid individual might claim that this ink could be tampered with or replaced with washable ink.

Can the same argument not be made for requiring voter IDs? youeseh I'm replying to says it's "few numbers" adding up. Another thread from sverige in this tree links vox and nyt saying that requiring ID has small numbers effect of turnout. So saying that their concern of voter fraud is a small numbers thing kind of lacks heft as an argument.

If these are both the case, then why not go with the requirement (and possibly make the requirement "easier" by issuing IDs at the same time/place) so there's no possibility of contesting the election results with regard to this particular issue?

In person voter fraud requires a large base of conspirators who are never caught, committing a federal crime on behalf of a political actor who also needs to somehow incentivize them to do so without being caught.

Whereas suppressing turn out just requires making it difficult for someone to have a bunch of ID they normally don't need on them in any part of their lives.

These laws are never just "photo ID" - they're always a box truck of weird edge rules about the type of ID.

My state lets me get a state ID even if I don't have a driver's license. The ID has my current address on it and my face too. I think that's plenty of proof.

Also, the DMV offices, where I can get my state ID has plenty of locations and they're open often enough and long enough every day that it doesn't prevent people from getting their ID.

Between those two, I think we're doing a pretty good job of keeping enough people honest that voter suppression or voting fraud aren't big enough issues here.

>I'm under the impression that to vote you must register in a voting district, surely that registration requires something like a birth certificate or a SSN

In California, at least, you can just use your state ID number and last four digits of your SSN [1]. California gives IDs to illegal aliens and SSNs are available to many non-citizens. These might have been checked for citizenship or might not. I suspect that they are not since the SSA itself wants you to bring the naturalization certificate if you want to change your non-citizen SSN card to a citizen's one. California never asked me for proof of citizenship so either it has an access to the citizenship data unavailable to the SSA or it just registers anyone with an SSN and a state ID.

1. https://registertovote.ca.gov/

CA has also sent voter registration cards to those known to not be citizens in the Real 8D era.

We know from history that voter fraud is, very generally, something that can possibly happen.

However, the available evidence suggests that at present, voter fraud in the US (at least of the type that voter ID would prevent) is extraordinarily rare. [1] It's so rare that any measure that even slightly decreases turnout rates will likely cost at least an order of magnitude (if not multiple) more legitimate votes than illegitimate ones, meaning that the overall accuracy of the voting results will be reduced.

There's plenty of time to change course if and when there's an actual uptick in voter fraud, as opposed to an uptick in evidence-free allegations from politicians.

[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/B...

In Argentina everyone has a national identity card. It cost about US$5, and you can ask for an exception if you don't have the money. And I swear this is not the more organized and efficient country in the word.

To get one, you have to ask for a date about 2 or 3 weeks in advance, and you go to one of the official buildings. The process takes like 15 minutes and they send the ID to your home 2 or 3 weeks later.

Sometimes the government puts a truck with a mobile office in some parks. Sometimes you can get one also in some big shopping malls without a previous date. And if you wish, you can pay more to get the ID in the next day. Also, you can make your passport in the same office.

If we can, you can.

I heard this fraud implemented in Texas forces low income people without vehicles to travel 400+ miles by bus to the nearest DMV to get the correct replacement voting documentation (many seniors/disabled).

When conservatives (racists) attack voters using economics (in this case a voter tax), they know precisely which non-white voters they are targeting.

Poor people don't have IDs because they don't drive and don't have driver's licenses, and they don't have the work flexibility or the luxury to go to the DMV, afaik

This is the silliest argument against voter ID laws ever, and should be retired. [0] [1] [2]

[0] https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/15/14909764/study-vote...

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/opinion/voter-id-study-re...

[2] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rrBxZGWCdgs

Hey, I watched the video and found it interesting that the guy interviewed people in Berkeley and New York - places where voter suppression is not an issue.

Some counterpoints: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFOwlMCdto

Wow this thread reeks of classism.

You can't imagine an American that cannot afford $50-100 for a government I.D.? You can imagine (& possibly smell) the feces on the street but not the poor people who excrete it?

We know most Americans can't come up with $400 for an emergency, are you going to act like this won't impact voting?

This thread is why people are forcing diversity quotas even when it seems unnecessary, income diversity should be next.

You need a government ID to apply for food stamps or welfare or medicaid/social security, and to apply for unemployment or a job. It would seem like a poor person would utilize those services.

Also, you need an ID to have a bank account, buy a cellphone, buy alcohol or cigarettes.

> Also, you need an ID to have a bank account, buy a cellphone, buy alcohol or cigarettes.

Incorrect on all three accounts in the U.S.

Some states might have a law requiring ID for alcohol or cigarettes, but at least one definitely does not. Some stores actually violate their state's law with their store's ID policies.

I've done all three without ID (alcohol, not cigarettes though). Yes, it is possible to have a bank account without ID.

> Yes, it is possible to have a bank account without ID.

Where do you get that from? It seems incorrect: "You’ll need to provide a valid, government-issued photo ID, such as a driver’s license or a passport, or a state ID card from the Department of Motor Vehicles." [1]

> Some states might have a law requiring ID for alcohol or cigarettes, but at least one definitely does not. Some stores actually violate their state's law with their store's ID policies.

All states require you to be 21 to buy alcohol. Which states do not require you to provide ID for that?

Seems like we might be splitting hairs here due to laws such as Indianas that "Indiana has a photo identification requirement for all off-premises transactions to anyone who is or reasonably appears to be less than forty (40) years of age." [3]

So yes, some liquor seller might be lax on enforcement or judge you to look over 40. However, that doesn't change the laws.

[1] https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/banking/how-to-open-a-bank-a... [2] https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0388-alcohol-laws-stat... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alcohol_laws_of_the_Un...

> Where do you get that from? It seems incorrect

Personal experience. I've opened bank accounts online with credit unions. Never had to show them my ID, even when I went in person to withdraw cash.

If I was a third party reading these comments, I wouldn't trust a *.com website, but instead some law, or official govt website.

There's a lot of things in this word that "seem wrong" but are perfectly legal.

"To open a checking or savings account, the bank or credit union will need to verify your name, date of birth, address, and ID number. An ID number can be a social security number or an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). To get an ITIN, you will need to fill out a form with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) .

If you don’t have a U.S. government-issued SSN or ITIN, some banks and credit unions will accept a passport number and country of issuance, an alien identification card number, or other government-issued ID number." [1]

[1] https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/can-i-get-a-checkin...

Sounds good. So technically an ID is not needed.

Just to make sure we are on the same page, we are equating "ID" to a physical identification card, right? Since I think that's what this conversation stemmed from.

I bet those credit unions were just running my Social Security Number against a database to make sure it matched with the name, DOB, etc I provided.

I wonder if there is a legal definition of "verify" when it comes to banks and customers. Verifying could just be asking the customer, what their name is.

Since they need to verify your address as well I presume IDing with social security card also require providing a piece of mail.

Getting someone’s social security card is hard so this plus a piece of mail or government picture IDs seem fair for an election. Basically, the banking bar.

And they definitely don't buy alcohol.

What do you think is the cost of making an additional ID? Probably 1/2 hour of work (if that), printing and mailing.

So, like, a 24-pack of expensive hipster brew? $50?

It costs $31 to get an ID in California, and $9 if you can't afford $31.

They can afford their booze and still get an ID here, and hopefully in other states too.

Voter ID laws to start. It’s a modern day poll tax to require ID to vote which prevents a crime barely anyone is even committing that doesn’t scale easily to sway most elections.

I haven’t seen Republicans calling for easy access to IDs though and their efforts to suppress voting from people who side with the left are notorious.

Their gerrymandered maps are being struck down in places like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and N. Carolina.

They conveniently close polling locations in minority neighborhoods.

They oppose election security bills. (McConnell until recently).

They oppose informing the public about election interference (McConnell).

Their PACs refuse to disclose donor information.

They’re pro dark money in elections.

Trump just tried to pressure the Ukranian leader for dirt on Biden.

The electoral college heavily favors Republicans and has given them at two Presidents in the last twenty years alone who lost the popular vote.

When Democrats are elected they’ll obstruct their Supreme Court nominations until they can put in their own.

The Senate heavily favors rural populations with the Dakota’s receiving four Senators with a population just over one million while California gets two with just under forty million people.

McConnell won’t even bring bills passed by the House to the floor of the Senate and has referred to himself as the Grim Reaper.

Republicans do not support making election days national holidays.

Republicans consistently try to scale back poll hours and early access voting.

Republicans are anti-democracy and a grave danger to our free nation at this point and it’s terrifying. They use every trick in the book to undermine the populace’s ability to elect leaders that do not serve the rich and the rich only. They stand for absolutely nothing except tax cuts, profits, unbridled corruption, and the selling off of America’s resources wholesale to the highest bidder.

As a non-citizen I think it is fair to expect enforcement of only one vote per citizen and to verify that the right person votes.

Your assertion on how common voter fraud is contradic former NYC Democratic Commissioner of the Board of Elections Alan Schulkin which says it is prevalent in New York City, and he thinks there is a need for Voter ID laws: https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/117511800314022297...

This is a whole thread on how common fraud is: https://www.projectveritas.com/2018/11/13/elections-fraud-20...

Trump set up an entire committee to investigate voter fraud in the 2016 election and apparently found so little they were disbanded and never released their findings.

And I’m not basing much of my world view on that guys unsubstantiated claims or three video clips posted on Project Veritas (a Conservative non-profit which receives funding from the Koch brothers).

There’s a tweet from Governor Abbot talking about investigating this issue from 2018. I conveniently see zero follow up as to the results of that investigation.

How do you even distinguish voter fraud from a regular vote after the fact? This seems impossible because the vote is anonymous and there is no ID requirement, so no wonder putting a number on it after the fact is hard.

The source doesn't change the content of what they discovered, people caught red handed, or the statements made by officials such as NYC Democratic Commisioner Alan Schulkin.

For a non American you seem very invested in this.

I see no proof of people being caught redhanded and that’d be pretty easy to verify since voter fraud is a felony and they’d have a court cases.

It would take thousands of cases to sway most elections, so you’d need hundreds and hundreds of people to commit multiple felonies.

And yet somehow none of this giant conspiracy to manipulate voter fraud is leaking out? Seems implausible.

And they’d all need to assume identities of people already on the voter registration rolls.

So those hundreds of felons would have to somehow not take the vote of someone who would vote later that day, or someone who’d already voted.

This is a lot of work and a really grand conspiracy to keep under wraps.

It’s almost certainly easier, cheaper, and more effective to spread false narratives such as “voter fraud is a big issue and only Republicans care about the sacredness of _your_ vote” than it is to actually somehow find and organize enough people to make it worthwhile.

Not OP, not American either. The voter ID laws in India helps enormously in reducing fraud, if India can implement a system like that, Surely US should be able to as well ?

As I’ve explained, it’s a solution to a problem that doesn’t need solving.

Maybe it is a different situation in India, but here the people proposing voter identification laws are doing so in bad faith.

They’re trying to make it harder to vote so elections are less fair, as opposed to making elections more fair by guaranteeing the sanctity of the individuals vote which is the position they’re pretending to be standing on.

To make it harder a significant number of people need to have no ID. Banking require and id [1] and 93.5% of the population is banked. Most of the remainder probably has an ID for Government services that need them such as applying for food stamps, medicare, medicaid, having a job, unemployment support and social security.

In Norway, my home country, it has never been an issue in our 200 years as an independent country for anyone to get an ID to vote. And we used to be mostly dirt poor fishers and farmers that often lived in fairly isolated places.

Forgot link of evidence that banking require ID https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/can-i-get-a-checkin...

Generally that 6.5% of unbanked persons tend not to vote for less healthcare and more tax breaks for the rich.

Instituting the voter ID law makes it harder for 6.5% of people that rarely vote for Republicans to vote to prevent 0.000X% of votes cast fraudulently each election.

Do you get it now?

As I stated the unbanked are likely to be very old or poor so that use government services that require an ID. For instance, they rely on food stamps or Medicaid or social security. A large part of this 6.5% and the cohort you talk about therefor has an ID.

The reason why I think so is that people that are not poor can not lead their lives without a bank account due to the essentials for a non poor life requiring a bank account.

This is my last comment. The Republicans would much prefer to prevent or make it harder to vote for 2%, 1%, whatever.

They don’t care about voter fraud. At all.

They care about adding enough shit together that they can win elections.

That is all they care about.

It is not in good faith. It is not about protecting the sanctity of elections.

It is about the opposite. They’ve never been able to show that voter fraud has ever affected an election.

They’re in it because even shaving a percentage of people from voting Democrat is worth it for them.

That is it. That’s the only reason.

Goodbye.

Like gun ownership and free speech, you have the right to vote in America.

So, if the government wanted to make it harder for the bad guys to own a gun... why should the good guys have to suffer for it?

Similarly, just because the government wants to prevent bad guys from voting, then why should the good guys have to suffer the consequences?

96% of Americans have a cellphone and that require an ID: https://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/

Also, good guys have IDs to do one of the many things I listed that require IDs including poor people that need an ID for food stamps or medicare or social security.

It is actually quite hard to buy a gun as this journalist that thought it was easy found out when trying to buy one: https://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-gun-buying-review-vi...

Assuming that you're right that 96% have an ID, then what problem are we solving by forcing the other 4% into getting an ID? Is it even a problem? Do you have data to show that it is a real problem?

Check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFOwlMCdto

Btw, you shouldn't mix up Walmart with the government. They aren't. Walmart can structure their customer experience any way they want as long as they aren't breaking the law.

With the intersection between 96% with cellphones that need an ID and all the other places where an ID is needed the percentage without an ID will be much less than 4%.

For instance, it seem fair to assume someone without a cell phone is poor or very old. Such a person would utilize government services that require an ID such as foodstamps, medicaid or medicare or social security.

>96% of Americans have a cellphone and that require an ID

Citation that cellphones need an id?

They don’t. Maybe OP is thinking about postpaid plans?

Looking into it seems like only postpaid need ID, and it is hard to come by statistics on post vs pre paid. However, bank accounts require an ID [1] and only 6.5% of the US population was unbanked in 2017 which demonstrates the same point.

"If you don’t have a U.S. government-issued SSN or ITIN, some banks and credit unions will accept a passport number and country of issuance, an alien identification card number, or other government-issued ID number."

[1] https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/can-i-get-a-checkin... [2] https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/

I'm pretty sure that you need an ID in order to buy a gun.

Here in Florida they run a background check if you want to get any kind of gun. Depending on the gun you have a 3 day wait period. Handguns have a 3 day wait period. Rifles and shotguns do not but they will do a background check regardless.

No one said that you have the right to buy one. You have the right to OWN a gun. You have the right to vote.

That doesn't make sense. Does that mean it's okay if we just throw away the votes of people who don't have ids? After all, they have a right to vote but not to have that vote count.

Not at gun shows or other common purchasing avenues.

If the seller is in the business of dealing with firearms, they do as a matter of federal law.

Please keep Veritas/O’Keefe/political BS off of here. They’re well-known to be serial fraudsters (with his latest attempt consisting of trying to plant false rape allegations during the Kavanaugh confirmation affair).

That doesn't make sense to say when talking about videos. Investigative journalists in all ages have received this charge.

Votrts want favorite politicians to have power over them, forgetting that the next politician in charge may very well be someone they hate.

Anyways, ordinary business and our lives shouldn't be the concern of federal government. It is a different matter if a state went ahead with it.

Our elections are really a choice between communism and authoritarianism.

Communism is authoritarian...

Credit reporting agencies don’t give a “rating”. They keep a record of whether or not you pay debts in a timely manner or not.

They absolutely do provide a rating. Equifax, Transunion, and others provide a FICO score (or similar) based on the data they have.

Credit reports are not the same as credit scores. They are typically provided by different companies.

I meant as their primary purpose, if the government were to offer a similar service. They all started selling scores recently, but lenders don’t necessarily use that, they look at the details themselves and come up with a decision on whether or not to lend.

That's not accurate. I just finished my home refinance two weeks ago.

First, my score qualified me into a certain set of options (rates, points, etc) then they asked about specific details of the report after. But the score is the first pass/qualification.

The fair Isaac corporation issue the FICO score and each credit bureau has their own competing score. The Equifax one is call the "Equifax Credit Score"

If the algorithm is and remains transparent and open to revision I don't see the harm.