Requiring photo ID in order to vote.

=== Cost My opponent states that some states have stricter photo ID requirements, such as requiring the current home address to be accurate, etc. However, I am not here to argue that we require a photo ID with X, Y, an Z. I'm here to argue that we should simply require a photo ID. Therefore, I am not arguing for these stricter laws that go beyond simply requiring a photo ID. As far as I'm concerned, the only stipulations we should have is that the photo ID be verifiable. Whether or not the current home address is reflected on the ID is meaningless, since it does not affect the identity of the person voting. The system knows your current home address based on your identity, so requiring both is overkill. My opponent also suggests, once again, that some number of eligible voters will be unwilling to vote in the new system. My answer? Oh well. We already have a system where voting is not painless. We have to register to vote, we have to drive somewhere to vote, we have to spend our precious time voting. People are already being cut out of the picture with these stipulations. It's true that a few more people will be cut out of the picture with requiring a photo ID, but this number is quite small. The cost, as I've explained, is roughly 10 dollars and a trip to the DMV for most people. Anyone willing to go through the trouble of voting in the first place is almost certainly willing to do this. There will of course be a few who simply could not get around to doing it, but that is the reality of life. I believe I have shown that this is an acceptable loss. Let's talk about the elderly. They all have places to live. If they plan on voting, they have a way to get a ride somewhere. And very few elderly people who would vote tend to not have 10$ - this is covered in the 'poor' group. Now, students, another 'key' group my opponent brings up. Very few students don't have an ID. We need ID to smoke, drink, etc. Most of us voing age students, even if we don't have cars [metropolitan areas?] will have University-given ID's. And as I stated, these fit the bill already. Even so, hardly any students would be unable to scrounge up a ride to the DMV and 10 bucks. Even if we didn't almost all have ID's to begin with, we could easliy go get one. And now, finally, the poor. In a few cases, poor people do not have a place of residence, and may therefore not be able to go get an ID. In these cases, realize that vagrancy is in most places a crime already. We should not give ID's to people who are definitely actively committing crimes, nor should we allow such people to vote. However, most poor people at least have a place of residence. Are the poor willing, though, to give up 10 bucks and a trip to the DMV? Possibly not, depending on the extent of their poorness. This is a loss, but it is an acceptable one. The group "poor people who would have voted were it not for that 10 bucks and a trip to the DMV" is quite small. Most poor people already have ID's anyway, and most who are unwilling to waste that small amount of time and money getting an ID were already unwilling to spend that time and effort voting. === Effects My opponent says I mislead you all on the negative effects. He rewrites my 2 negative effects, while acknowledging the positive effects I listed [all 3 of them]: My old N1 and N2: N1. Some people who would have voted will not vote, due to it being too much trouble or costing too much for them to get a Photo ID. N2. People who have no ID will have to spend ~10 bucks and go to their DMV to get an ID. His re-written versions of these, eliminating my so-called trickery: N1. Poor, elderly, and rural and urban citizens will not be able to vote. N2. Illegals who want to vote still will be able to through fake ID's Since he disagrees with my old N1 and N2, we can dismiss those. Now I will rebut his new ones. ---N1 As his re-write reads now, my opponent would have you think entire voting groups are being blocked by this, when in reality it is only a very small minority of people in these groups who would be affected. I believe I have shown this round and last just how insignificant the affected portions of these groups are. Rather, I find my old N1 to be a superior explanation of the same thing, though I will modify it to indicate a slight bias towards affecting democratic groups. FINAL N1. Some people, consisting mostly of democrats, who would have voted will not vote, due to it being too much trouble or costing too much for them to get a Photo ID. ---N2 My opponent changed this to "Illegals who want to vote will still be able to vote through fake ID's" WHAT? Talk about contradicting yourself. My opponent's case so far has been that introducing a small amount of trouble, namely a trip to the DMV and ~10 bucks, will stop people from voting. However, let us realize something: getting a convincing fake ID is difficult, costly, dangerous, etc. Very few people have access to convincing fake ID's, and they no doubt have to pay quite a bit for them. If we concede that this will not hinder illegals from voting, we should also concede that a much smaller burden, getting a real ID at the DMV, will also not stop anyone from voting. So either my opponent's N2 or the rest of his case should be considered gone, since they directly contradict each other. My positive effects, which my opponent conceded to, are located in my 2nd round. Scroll up to read them again.