I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors

[Steophan]

They'd lose, badly, if everyone was forced to vote.

[elucidator]

Not quite the question I asked, but close enough for rock 'n roll.

[Uzi]

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

You're not doing Y, therefore you don't really believe X". But that's ridiculous, because PEOPLE ARE LAZY.

You've misunderstood me. The 'people are lazy' is the reason that most people who don't have ID's now won't get them.

People have to want something, need something, or be forced to get something, before they will. If they don't need an ID for driving or some other task, they won't get an ID. If voting isn't high enough on their 'Want' list, they won't get an ID. And no one is putting a gun to their head to force them.

As to what you personally do or don't do, I have no other way but to take your word for it.

I really honestly believe, deep in my heart, that it's very important to help poor and disadvantaged people get registered to vote.

I've never found poor people's opinions to be of much particular value. But I also don't believe that makes them incompetent and not able to do what everyone else does - if they want to.
My experience being 'poor' when I was younger was that the poor always had enough money for smokes and booze. Not enough money to fix the car (even though my dad was a mechanic), but enough to have a drink in one hand and a smoke in the other saying that we didn't have enough money to fix it.

But sometimes circumstances force a person to be in a particular situation and I personally have no problem helping them. Which is why ID's are free to those who can demonstrate the need. I have a problem making the task overly complex, though.

[IntelliQ]

As a life long resident of Chicago and Gary Indiana area, the arguments presented here on behalf of minorities are delusional.

You have no idea what people will stand in line for or how long when the incentive is "allgood".

There is no such thing as "too hard or too far", there's way too much liberal ideological ignorance going on here. I dont give a fuck if you read an east coast study, spend a day here and then come back here with the "omg you're making it too hard to vote" because the shit we go through here on a daily basis, getting a goddammned ID is the simplest fucking thing there is.

Knock off the mental gymnastics you're not impressing anyone but yourself.

[IntelliQ]

My favorite pinhead argument is that "what if you work 3 jobs and dont have time to get to the DMV" or whatever.

That's got to be the dumbest thing Ive read in a long time, and I lurk here quite often.

[MaxTheVool]

Originally Posted by Uzi

You've misunderstood me. The 'people are lazy' is the reason that most people who don't have ID's now won't get them.

People have to want something, need something, or be forced to get something, before they will. If they don't need an ID for driving or some other task, they won't get an ID. If voting isn't high enough on their 'Want' list, they won't get an ID. And no one is putting a gun to their head to force them.

Sure, I agree completely. If you add an obstacle that makes it harder for people to do X, then fewer people will do X. That's precisely the point I've been trying to make this whole thread. If it's harder for a certain group to vote, then fewer of that group will vote, even if that obstacle is one that a fair number of that group COULD overcome if they cared sufficiently. But people are lazy. And therefore if you put an obstacle for a particular group only, then that group will experience voter turnout decline, and if that group leans heavily towards one party or the other.... hey, persto, massively unethical electoral manipulation without actually full-on-disenfranchising anyone.

(Granted, it's usually a bit more complicated than that, as there will probably end up with some sob stories about people for whom the obstacle happened to be nearly impossible to overcome due to various circumstances... but there will be far fewer of those than of the larger, lazier group that just didn't try hard enough. But it's the larger group that is more important, electorally.)

[Uzi]

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

But people are lazy. And therefore if you put an obstacle for a particular group only, then that group will experience voter turnout decline,

Back to what I said near the beginning.
What opinions of their's should we be worried that we haven't collected? I'm not saying that they don't have a right to vote, what I'm saying is that I don't give much credence to a fry cook on how to do brain surgery, nor run the government. Someone who is too lazy or can't figure out how to get an ID is someone's opinion that isn't worth much.

and if that group leans heavily towards one party or the other.... hey, persto, massively unethical electoral manipulation without actually full-on-disenfranchising anyone.

Why? No one is being prevented from getting an ID if they manage to bring the correct documents to the register. Are you suggesting that Republican supporters are better organized than the Democrat's?

[Budget Player Cadet]

ITT: conservative republicans arguing in favor of legislation which would make the voting process more difficult, cost millions upon millions of dollars to implement, and that would solve a problem which is completely and utterly non-existent, while encouraging voter apathy, a problem that we know is very real and very serious.

*deep breath*

You people are fucking retarded.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

ITT: conservative republicans arguing in favor of legislation which would make the voting process more difficult, cost millions upon millions of dollars to implement, and that would solve a problem which is completely and utterly non-existent, while encouraging voter apathy, a problem that we know is very real and very serious.

How would it encourage voter apathy? Seems like it would make one's vote more important, not less, it it would increase the confidence that one's found won't be undone by a vote illegally cast.

So, where would the increased apathy come form?

[Sinaptics]

Originally Posted by magellan01

How would it encourage voter apathy? Seems like it would make one's vote more important, not less, it it would increase the confidence that one's found won't be undone by a vote illegally cast.

So, where would the increased apathy come form?

It's self evident. If you make it harder, some people are just going to throw up their hands and say, "Screw it. It's not worth the effort." Apathy.

Evidence was cited on page one that voter ID does not increase voter confidence.

You are right though about it will make voting more important. With less voters voting, each vote is worth more. It's our position that's the Republican's whole goal, and not keeping out illegal voters.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Sinaptics

It's self evident. If you make it harder, some people are just going to throw up their hands and say, "Screw it. It's not worth the effort." Apathy.

That assumes a desire to do it in the first place. I'm sure it will effect some in the way that you fear. But it seems self evident to me that reminding people that the ability to vote is so important that we protect the sanctity of the vote would encourage some people to vote who qualify and may have beeb apathetic in the past. Though we're both guessing.

Originally Posted by Sinaptics

Evidence was cited on page one that voter ID does not increase voter confidence.

I looked quickly and didn't see it. It wasn't in the Rolling Stone cite. Did I miss it? But I don't get how increasing the likelihood that one's vote won't be subverted by an illegal vote could possibly lessen confidence in the act of voting.

Originally Posted by Sinaptics

You are right though about it will make voting more important. With less voters voting, each vote is worth more. It's our position that's the Republican's whole goal, and not keeping out illegal voters.

If you agree that it makes voting more important, isn't it possible that m ore people who qualify might want to be involved in this important endeavor?

[elucidator]

If, tomorrow, suddenly, there was a huge and verifiable backlash, if the poor, minorities and student populations of this country showed a massive determination to obtain the necessary papers and register, the Republicans would drop this effort like a plutonium potato and swear it was all Obama's idea.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Bricker

If you really felt that way, you would have offered a much more scathing indictment when Massachusetts passed its switcheroo laws about appointment of senators to vacant seats. The best you could do was a weak comment about how the Emocrats did something bad because the GOP made them do it.

Just to clarify, in case anyone remains under the impression that Bricker can ever be presumed to be presenting any summary of any situation honestly: The change in the law was made in order to prevent the Republicans under Gov. Romney from gaining a partisan advantage, against the will of the people as expressed in the last democratic election in which they chose a Democrat for the Senate seat. That was the immediate purpose, and the longer one was to strengthen democracy itself by preventing the form of partisan hijacking of democracy that the Republicans were attempting.

Naturally, though, since Bricker is literally unable to conceive of any greater purpose of citizenship than temporary partisan gain, he must ascribe that motive to those fellow citizens he can see only as his party's antagonists. And so we get the above tiresome repetition of a tiresome lie, born of his and his party's frustration at being denied a partisan power they had not been entrusted with by We the People. He could at least take comfort simply in the fact that Ted Kennedy is dead, but no, that's not enough, is it?

His assertion that the problem is actually the perception of a problem, his having grudgingly conceded that the facts do not support it, is also easily dismissed. The perception is the creation of his own party and its in-house cable propaganda arm, and nothing else. If it were in fact not their own fabrication, it would be far more easily and far more cheaply dealt with by simply educating the public that it wasn't real. But you don't see him, or them, advocating that, do you?

His true motivations are found in his stated refusal to discuss Jim Crow's relationship to the problem. The reason for that is obvious enough - it would be to concede that he's been badly wrong, and for all the wrong reasons, about the subject, and he simply does not have the moral integrity to say so at this or any point.

I'm not entirely sure which is sadder - Bricker's habitual lying, or the fact that he thinks so little of anyone else's intelligence that he expects his lies to be believed by anyone else.

[ElvisL1ves]

More on the general topic, from the former chairman of the Florida GOP:

In the deposition, released to the press yesterday, Greer mentioned a December 2009 meeting with party officials. “I was upset because the political consultants and staff were talking about voter suppression and keeping blacks from voting,” he said, according to the Tampa Bay Times. He also said party officials discussed how “minority outreach programs were not fit for the Republican Party,” according to the AP.

Who here remains surprised?

[AlienVessels]

Originally Posted by magellan01

But I don't get how increasing the likelihood that one's vote won't be subverted by an illegal vote could possibly lessen confidence in the act of voting.

Seriously? If that increase requires that voters on your side are disproportionately suppressed and most likely in VASTLY more numbers than fraudulent votes, how could any reasonable person examining both sides NOT lose confidence in the process?

[ElvisL1ves]

Easy. Because the "confidence" he's discussing is confidence in a Republican victory. Anyone who might have concerns about that being what is best for the country is simply not thinking things through adequately, and therefore their views can and should be dismissed, and their attempts to oppose the proper outcome it can and should be neutralized. That's the mindset we see at work here.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by AlienVessels

Seriously? If that increase requires that voters on your side are disproportionately suppressed and most likely in VASTLY more numbers than fraudulent votes, how could any reasonable person examining both sides NOT lose confidence in the process?

For your concern to be justified, you'd have to know that any voter suppression would hit your side 1) more and 2) disproportionately. How do you know this? I asked the same thing upthread and never got a satisfactory answer. So, what is your side and how do you know it would be disproportionately "suppressed"?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Easy. Because the "confidence" he's discussing is confidence in a Republican victory. Anyone who might have concerns about that being what is best for the country is simply not thinking things through adequately, and therefore their views can and should be dismissed, and their attempts to oppose the proper outcome it can and should be neutralized. That's the mindset we see at work here.

You live in a different land. One where you think everything out of your mouth is unstupid. What a strange place you inhabit.

[AlienVessels]

Originally Posted by magellan01

For your concern to be justified, you'd have to know that any voter suppression would hit your side 1) more and 2) disproportionately. How do you know this? I asked the same thing upthread and never got a satisfactory answer. So, what is your side and how do you know it would be disproportionately "suppressed"?

And side doesn't matter. All you have to do is realize that extra resources are required to vote and it's absurd not to realize that it would disproportionately affect those with fewer resources. And that the numbers affected eclipse any likely *voting* fraud numbers.

Before you ask for "satisfactory" evidence, you need to define what you'd find as acceptable. IMO, adding to the bureaucracy to correct a problem for which there is very little evidence, especially coming from the "small government" faction should have a crystal clear basis of support.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by AlienVessels

And side doesn't matter.

Wait—this was the reason you stated:

Originally Posted by AlienVessels

Seriously? If that increase requires that voters on your side are disproportionately suppressed and most likely in VASTLY more numbers than fraudulent votes, how could any reasonable person examining both sides NOT lose confidence in the process?

One side being disproportionality affected is at the heart of that statement.

[ElvisL1ves]

How tragic it is that nobody on this board, and probably in real life either, is of evolved enough a species to be able to recognize your superior perception and insight and reasoning ability. The constant pain of that knowledge must be unbearable.

[AlienVessels]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Wait—this was the reason you stated:

Which side YOU'RE ON doesn't matter. Remove the labels and just look at the resource requirements of the law.

One side being disproportionality affected is at the heart of that statement.

And I explained the basis for that, i.e. resources required affecting low resource voters.

I note you choose not to define what you'd accept as evidence.

[elucidator]

Of course! Why didn't anybody think of that except for the brilliant and innovative thinker, Mags! The Pubbies are doing all of this strictly from a sense of civic virtue, they are entirely innocent of partisan motivation. Why, it never occurred to them that this would result in any partisan advantage. And if it was somehow pointed out to them that this would result in a disadvantage to white Republican voters, they would have gone right ahead anyway, because partisan advantage was not even remotely a concern of theirs!

This is my official royal opinion, in my capacity as Queen of Romania.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

More on the general topic, from the former chairman of the Florida GOP:Who here remains surprised?

The guy is in trouble for several different kinds of corruption. Just because a liar tells you something you don't expect him to, doesn't mean he's telling you the truth. And, unless I'm very much mistaken, he is relating nothing more substantial than an anecdote. Granted, I think what he's saying is quite probably true, but his saying it adds nothing to the evidence already before us. It could be nothing more than bitterness and spite.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by AlienVessels

Which side YOU'RE ON doesn't matter. Remove the labels and just look at the resource requirements of the law.

Huh? YOU are the one who claimed that it had to do with the votes of one side being depressed disproportionally. (see below)

Originally Posted by AlienVessels

And I explained the basis for that, i.e. resources required affecting low resource voters.

No, you did not. But maybe I missed it. If so, can you point to the explanation for you bringing up:

(emphasis mine)

Originally Posted by AlienVessels

Seriously? If that increase requires that voters on your side are disproportionately suppressed and most likely in VASTLY more numbers than fraudulent votes, how could any reasonable person examining both sides NOT lose confidence in the process?

That's the reason you provided. Are you changing your view? Something else?

Originally Posted by AlienVessels

I note you choose not to define what you'd accept as evidence.

Because I don't know what evidence you seem to be offering to deliver. I'm not following you here. Probably because you haven't answered the questions I've asked. You seem to willing to generate evidence for ___________. Can you clarify? But first, it would help if we could clear up what your position is. We then may or may not need evidence.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

There is no such thing as "too hard or too far"

Register for the presidential election several counties away from where you live and attempt to get public transport there, please.

Originally Posted by Uzi

My experience being 'poor' when I was younger was that the poor always had enough money for smokes and booze.

Ever read the Road to Wigan Pier?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Register for the presidential election several counties away from where you live and attempt to get public transport there, please.

Why would someone do that? If they were registered in one county and then moved to another, or another state, they register in their new home county. What's the big deal?

[elucidator]

So, they're making it all up then? They are protesting these laws even though it won't have any effect on them? Got nothing better to do, is that it? The ACLU,which simply teems with lawyers, they are spending their money on this in Pennsylvania 'cause, what the heck, they are rolling in bucks anyway. And that woman who they are offering as the test case, she's lying? Same in Florida and Texas, nothing to see here, move along?

In the interests of bi-partisan neutrality, I promise to give this suggestion all of the consideration it is due. Ah. There. Done. Anything else?

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Granted, I think what he's saying is quite probably true, but his saying it adds nothing to the evidence already before us. It could be nothing more than bitterness and spite.

OK, true, it could be that the people the GOP chooses for its leadership are merely corrupt and mendacious, not actually antidemocratic. That's a fair point, if not entirely a supportive one.

[elucidator]

Well, he is sort of implying that it was those other guys, not him, and he was shocked shocked. Just a virgin who suddenly realized he was surrounded by sluts.

[Sinaptics]

Originally Posted by magellan01

That assumes a desire to do it in the first place. I'm sure it will effect some in the way that you fear. But it seems self evident to me that reminding people that the ability to vote is so important that we protect the sanctity of the vote would encourage some people to vote who qualify and may have beeb apathetic in the past. Though we're both guessing.

You're suggesting that because the vote will be marginally more secure, that more people will vote who wouldn't have voted before? And you think that will outnumber those who just throw up their hands? That's an interesting position. I don't see a way to prove this supposition incorrect other than pointing out the studies previously cited on voter confidence not being increased by voter ID seems to indicate that, in general, if people feel their vote doesn't matter, or isn't secure, that ID won't change their mind.

Originally Posted by magellan01

I looked quickly and didn't see it. It wasn't in the Rolling Stone cite. Did I miss it? But I don't get how increasing the likelihood that one's vote won't be subverted by an illegal vote could possibly lessen confidence in the act of voting.

I summarized them in post 272.

Originally Posted by magellan01

If you agree that it makes voting more important, isn't it possible that m ore people who qualify might want to be involved in this important endeavor?

That's the rub. Their only more important IF more people don't get involved In general, I don't think people think this way. They either vote because they feel it's their civic duty or because they feel it's important to elect the persons they feel will govern best. But not because they're vote is more valuable.

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by magellan01

How would it encourage voter apathy? Seems like it would make one's vote more important, not less, it it would increase the confidence that one's found won't be undone by a vote illegally cast.

So, where would the increased apathy come form?

This really shouldn't be difficult, but I'll explain it anyways for you, you thick fuck.

10% of the country's voting populace is going to be told "if you want to vote, you have to go stand in line at the DMV". What percentage of those people do you think will say "ah, fuck it, my vote doesn't matter anyways, and I hate both candidates". And if the problem is "I'm scared that illegals will undo my vote", then you know what the solution is? EDUCATION! Because that is a lie made out of whole cloth by republican shitbags like YOU!

Jesus christ, there is no way you are actually that stupid. Is there?

[John DiFool]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Of course! Why didn't anybody think of that except for the brilliant and innovative thinker, Mags! The Pubbies are doing all of this strictly from a sense of civic virtue, they are entirely innocent of partisan motivation. Why, it never occurred to them that this would result in any partisan advantage. And if it was somehow pointed out to them that this would result in a disadvantage to white Republican voters, they would have gone right ahead anyway, because partisan advantage was not even remotely a concern of theirs!

It would sure be refreshing to have one of our wingnuts, just one, have the cojones to admit the real reason behind a law of policy that they are championing, not these wishy-washy pseudo-reasons which they don't actually personally believe for a microsecond. Well actually, there's the Bricker's of this world (who are intelligent enough-enough-to be fully cognizant that it is all a bunch of obtusfucating propaganda, tho they still lack the moral fiber to recognize the wrongness involved and the damage said policies does to our nation and world), but there are also the magellan's of this world too (who are in fact too stupid to realize that they are being duped and truly do believe the bullshit reason, blissfully unaware of the real reason).

Still would be refreshing tho: "YES! I ADMIT IT! All those GOP governors signed these laws to screw over Democrat-leaning voting blocs-and I'm completely glad for it! The quicker we can get that n***** out of the White House, the better! Screw due process and for that matter screw any sense of fair play! This is a power play pure and simple!"

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

Jesus christ, there is no way you are actually that stupid. Is there?

Yes. Yes there is.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by John DiFool

Well actually, there's the Bricker's of this world (who are intelligent enough-enough-to be fully cognizant that it is all a bunch of obtusfucating propaganda, tho they still lack the moral fiber to recognize the wrongness involved and the damage said policies does to our nation and world)

That fact genuinely makes me sad, what with the "winning!" quotes. I only saw them being quoted, so I don't know the full context, IYKWIMAITYD, but it's genuinely sad that there are those that know that the main purpose of the disenfranchisement is to help one party and are completely okay with it.

[Uzi]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

What percentage of those people do you think will say "ah, fuck it, my vote doesn't matter anyways, and I hate both candidates".

I've already posted a link that the primary reason people don't vote is because they don't like either candidate. IIRC, more Republicans have this an excuse. Imagine if they had a likable candidate. The left would be screwed.
2nd reason is because they are too busy.
Lack of ID will be way down the list as a valid reason*.


*The excuse they'll give to the pollster rather than admit that they couldn't be bothered to vote.

[elucidator]

...but it's genuinely sad that there are those that know that the main purpose of the disenfranchisement is to help one party and are completely okay with it.

Well, he did walk that back some, more or less admitting that some Republicans are infected with the realpolitik virus, or that this motivation paid some role. I, for one, would actually be pleased and heartened to hear of a Republican in Texas or Florida raise an objection. And there were those Republican election officials in Florida who told the Governor where he could stick his voter purge. (If you hadn't heard about it, the "purge" means removing names from the list, no one is getting shot, or anything. Leastwise, not yet...)

Still, let it be knouted for the record that his level of candor quite exceeded the standard for Republican veracity. Counts for something.

[Uzi]

Originally Posted by John DiFool

It would sure be refreshing to have one of our wingnuts, just one, have the cojones to admit the real reason behind a law of policy that they are championing, not these wishy-washy pseudo-reasons which they don't actually personally believe for a microsecond.

Well, if I'm included in this missive, then I've already admitted that is the case. It isn't relevant, though. The laws make sense, not the least of which that almost every other country does so and that most people want them.

Regardless whether ID laws actually stop fraud, most people think they do. Most people want to know their vote counts. This is why most people want them. Gah, sometimes you have to throw a bone to people if you want them to play your game.

[elucidator]

I'll try to break this down for you again, Uzi. Not about the validity or even the desirability of voter id. No matter how many times you defend it, it isnt the point. The point is using such validity as a veil to drape over political machinations.

It would be as if the cops pulled over anyone they thought was a Democrat on election day and kept them from getting to the polls. You can defend the value of speed limit laws all day long, and you still haven't said anything worth hearing. So, next time, think it over carefully, and then don't do it.

[Uzi]

Originally Posted by elucidator

No matter how many times you defend it, it isnt the point. The point is using such validity as a veil to drape over political machinations.

Why are you responding to something as if I didn't just acknowledge that it is true?

It would be as if the cops pulled over anyone they thought was a Democrat on election day and kept them from getting to the polls. You can defend the value of speed limit laws all day long, and you still haven't said anything worth hearing. So, next time, think it over carefully, and then don't do it.

That sounds real nice if they weren't actually being pulled over for speeding. They are. Telling the cop who just pulled you over that there were many more cars travelling faster than you were usually falls upon deaf ears.

And why don't you admit that your concern is for the votes that the Democrats may lose rather than for the people who can't vote? We already had one person say that old people don't matter (primarily Republican voters) because they'll be dead soon.

[elucidator]

Take it up with them, I got nothing against old folks, hell, another twenty years or so, and I'll be one.

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by Uzi

I've already posted a link that the primary reason people don't vote is because they don't like either candidate. IIRC, more Republicans have this an excuse. Imagine if they had a likable candidate. The left would be screwed.
2nd reason is because they are too busy.
Lack of ID will be way down the list as a valid reason*.


*The excuse they'll give to the pollster rather than admit that they couldn't be bothered to vote.

I also linked to that. To cite that, lo and behold, "my vote will be nullified/voter fraud makes it unimportant" was WAAAAAY down the list. So you might wanna think about that before you bring up that stupid "voter confidence" argument.

Originally Posted by Uzi

Well, if I'm included in this missive, then I've already admitted that is the case. It isn't relevant, though. The laws make sense, not the least of which that almost every other country does so and that most people want them.

Oh, really? So a law that would discourage (in many cases strongly discourage) 10% of the populace of the USA from voting (in a way that seems to fall quite clearly along party lines) is a sensible solution to a problem that doesn't exist? Every other country doing it is completely irrelevant; this is not "every other country" and there are significant differences. Most people wanting it is completely irrelevant; poll taxes were very popular.

Regardless whether ID laws actually stop fraud, most people think they do. Most people want to know their vote counts. This is why most people want them. Gah, sometimes you have to throw a bone to people if you want them to play your game.

Post 272. This argument is completely and utterly bogus; the assumptions it makes are dead wrong. Please stop making it, it's almost as stupid as Magellan is. Almost. And, obligatorily, I have to point out that it would be both cheaper and more sensible in such a case to educate the voters. Spend a little time explaining to them how voter fraud is a non-issue, rather than pandering to their stupidity and crying fire in a crowded voter booth.

EDIT: am I the only one who finds it hilarious that Mitt Romney apparently did commit voter fraud back in 2010 by voting in Massachusetts despite him having long since left the state?

[Uzi]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

I also linked to that. To cite that, lo and behold, "my vote will be nullified/voter fraud makes it unimportant" was WAAAAAY down the list. So you might wanna think about that before you bring up that stupid "voter confidence" argument.

And yet, the US has the lowest voter participation among western countries. Why? US Exceptionalism again?

Oh, really? So a law that would discourage (in many cases strongly discourage) 10% of the populace of the USA from voting (in a way that seems to fall quite clearly along party lines) is a sensible solution to a problem that doesn't exist?

There is a problem. More than half the people in your country don't bother to vote! And that includes a huge portion who currently have IDs. And rather than discourage them to vote, it might encourage them to get IDs.

Every other country doing it is completely irrelevant; this is not "every other country" and there are significant differences.

Keep saying it. It might make it true. Next time you bring up any other progressive initiative that you think you should have in the US that other countries have had for years, I'll remind you of this.

Most people wanting it is completely irrelevant; poll taxes were very popular.

Probably with the government collecting the tax.

[

url=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=15170550#post15170550]Post 272[/url]. This argument is completely and utterly bogus; the assumptions it makes are dead wrong. Please stop making it, it's almost as stupid as Magellan is.

Or the study is dead wrong and ignores the fact that other jurisdictions with voter ID have higher voter turnout than you do. And yes, culture does make a difference, but it isn't the only one.

Almost. And, obligatorily, I have to point out that it would be both cheaper and more sensible in such a case to educate the voters. Spend a little time explaining to them how voter fraud is a non-issue, rather than pandering to their stupidity and crying fire in a crowded voter booth.

Good luck with that. Most of your population thinks that a jewish zombie from 2000 years ago has something to say about how we should live today.

EDIT: am I the only one who finds it hilarious that Mitt Romney apparently did commit voter fraud back in 2010 by voting in Massachusetts despite him having long since left the state?

Did he have a proper ID proving that he was a resident? Was he prosecuted? Think if he was, then we wouldn't have some crackpot Mormon contending for the Presidency.

[AlienVessels]

Originally Posted by magellan01

No, you did not. But maybe I missed it. If so, can you point to the explanation for you bringing up:

Ok, one more try. Voter ID laws require people to spend more resources than they have in the past to register to vote. This hits people with few resources disproportionately. People with few resources tend to vote Democrat. Therefore, the Voter ID laws hit voters who tend to vote Democrat disproportionately.

Now if this basic proposition can't make it through your filters, the rest is moot.

[MaxTheVool]

Originally Posted by Uzi

Back to what I said near the beginning.
What opinions of their's should we be worried that we haven't collected? I'm not saying that they don't have a right to vote, what I'm saying is that I don't give much credence to a fry cook on how to do brain surgery, nor run the government. Someone who is too lazy or can't figure out how to get an ID is someone's opinion that isn't worth much.

I want to be totally clear I understand what you're saying here... your argument, which seems to be very different from that of Bricker and others who are also supporting such laws, is that we're better off without lazy or dumb people voting, and therefore anything that makes it harder to vote is a GOOD thing, because it filters out people who will do a bad job voting? Is that in fact your position?

Why? No one is being prevented from getting an ID if they manage to bring the correct documents to the register. Are you suggesting that Republican supporters are better organized than the Democrat's?

Well, I'm discussing things mainly on a theoretical level, I haven't done, nor do I feel qualified to do, the kind of demographic analysis that would be necessary to give a really convincing demonstration of the actual situation in an actual state.

But in a theoretical sense, I'd say it seems not only plausible, but in fact likely.

Let's start out by assuming that, demographically, people are approximately equally lazy across political parties, ethnicities, and so forth. So if all other things were equal, if you made it 10% more difficult to vote for a bunch of democrats and a bunch of republicans, then a similar percentage of each group would in fact fail to vote due to your change. But, and here's the key, any obstacle that is added to voting isn't just some theoretical thing that applies to everyone, it's something that affects different people in different ways.

So, consider something like reducing funding for polling places, so that lines will get longer and the wait to vote will be increased. This makes it somewhat harder for everyone (in the sense of less pleasant), but has a vastly different impact on people in different stages in their life. For instance, it's presumably not a huge impact on the elderly or on the unemployed, is somewhat of an impact on people with salaried jobs who presumably have some flexibility in their work hours, and is a really big deal for someone with an hourly job, or with really rigid time commitments with issues like children's school hours or what have you.

And here (finally) is the point: even if we assume that Democrats and Republicans are, in general, equally lazy, and thus equal worthy of voting in your view, as I understand it, it's also certainly the case that there are strong correlations between political party and various demographic categories (age, employment/income, English-language proficiency, etc). Therefore it's certainly possible for a particular obstacle thrown up in the way of voting to affect democrats more strongly than republicans, or vice versa, in a fairly directly predictable fashion. And (and to repeat myself, I don't claim to have proven that this is the case in the current debate, but I believe it is) that is what I find to be strongly unethical and antidemocratic.

So, imagine for a second that I came up with some really convincing charts and graphs and data and proved to you really convincingly that one of these voter ID laws did in fact affect Democratic voters far more strongly than Republicans, and also managed to convince you that the people who proposed the law in fact were totally and clearly aware of this, and it was their prime motivation.

Would you find that to be disturbing? Unethical? Unamerican? Antidemocratic?

[MaxTheVool]

Originally Posted by Uzi

And yet, the US has the lowest voter participation among western countries. Why? US Exceptionalism again?

I think that's a huge problem. It makes me sad. I don't see its relevance to the current discussion.

Probably with the government collecting the tax.

Do you know what a poll tax is?

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Why would someone do that?

To demonstrate that opportunity costs are a mere fiction and that there is no burden too hard nor any distance too far for an American individualist.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by John DiFool

It would sure be refreshing to have one of our wingnuts, just one, have the cojones to admit the real reason behind a law of policy that they are championing, not these wishy-washy pseudo-reasons which they don't actually personally believe for a microsecond.

[snip]

Still would be refreshing tho: "YES! I ADMIT IT! All those GOP governors signed these laws to screw over Democrat-leaning voting blocs-and I'm completely glad for it! The quicker we can get that n***** out of the White House, the better! Screw due process and for that matter screw any sense of fair play! This is a power play pure and simple!"

Dunno if you count me as a wingnut, but I completely agree that they're doing it because they think it will help them win. I'll not use your quote, though, because they have followed due process in getting these laws passed.

The thing is, what they've done is legal. That's what really matters here, and the fact that no-one is actually being stopped from voting. If people are so unconcerned with voting that they can't even be bothered to pick up free ID, then we're all better off without their opinion, frankly.

That said, if the left manage to stop whinging long enough to act, they can spin this to their advantage, help these people get ID, and stay in power for as long as they want. Given America's screwed up politics, that might actually be for the best, as a sensible centre-right party might emerge, that can actually get votes and act for the best of everyone, rather than the insane Republicans, or the trying to please everyone from centre right to hard left and failing to do anything as a result Democrats.

[Bookkeeper]

I am Canadian. I'm only a spectator here, but Canada, amongst others, has been repeatedly held up as an example of "other countries do it too". Canada does have a voter ID law, and I, whose political views are probably pretty far left by US standards, support it. However, this is not the same as the voter ID laws being implemented by most US states.

If I show up to the poll with Mrs. B, she can whip out her government-issued photo ID document and vote. If I have forgotten my wallet, and have absolutely no ID documents, guess what? I can vote, too! Because the Canadian voter ID requirement has been implemented as an identification requirement, not a mandatory document requirement, so Mrs. B can solemnly affirm to the poll clerk that I am, in fact, Bookkeeper. A wide variety of documentation or affirmations by other, already identified, voters or people like shelter/old age home staff, are acceptable as well as photo ID.

What is really at issue for most of the opponents of this in the US is not really voter ID as a concept, but the severe restrictions on what will be accepted as ID which are implemented in these laws. To me, and to many others here, this argues that the intent of the laws is clearly voter restriction rather than voter identification.

[AlienVessels]

Originally Posted by Steophan

The thing is, what they've done is legal. That's what really matters here, and the fact that no-one is actually being stopped from voting. If people are so unconcerned with voting that they can't even be bothered to pick up free ID, then we're all better off without their opinion, frankly.

The same reasoning was made for the poll tax and the requirement to own land to vote.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/3...y-nation-pres/

Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips said denying the right to vote to those who do not own property “makes a lot of sense” during a weekly radio program. Raw Story (http://s.tt/1dacr)

Originally Posted by Steophan

That said, if the left manage to stop whinging long enough to act, they can spin this to their advantage, help these people get ID, and stay in power for as long as they want. Given America's screwed up politics, that might actually be for the best, as a sensible centre-right party might emerge, that can actually get votes and act for the best of everyone, rather than the insane Republicans, or the trying to please everyone from centre right to hard left and failing to do anything as a result Democrats.

And so they have to expend resources they need in other areas of the election to compensate for additional barriers.

And by the way, the failing to do anything is a result of Republican expressed goal of getting rid of Obama and their declaration that the only compromise acceptable to their side would be when Democrats agree on Republican agenda. The result is that the GOP is willing to harm the country in the short term so that their longer term political goals can be achieved.