# ACORN submits fraudulent voter registrations en masse **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 8, 2008, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-submits-fraudulent-voter-registrations-en-masse/466984 "2008-10-08T13:55:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-submits-fraudulent-voter-registrations-en-masse/466984/141 "2008-10-08T19:36:40Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I find it insulting to imply people are blaming poor people for the loans they took out. It would be like blaming children because someone encouraged them to play with firecrackers. Whoa! While I generally agree with your position, your analogy is truly insulting—to poor people. We don’t ascribe as much blame to children because they are not expected to be on equal footing with adults. They are not fully developed individuals yet. While education levels might not match those of wealthier citizens, do you really want to say, or even imply, that poor people are similarly deficient? They they are unable to make informed decisions. If so, why should we let them vote at all? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-submits-fraudulent-voter-registrations-en-masse/466984/142 "2008-10-08T19:49:39Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Whoa! While I generally agree with your position, your analogy is truly insulting—to poor people. We don’t ascribe as much blame to children because they are not expected to be on equal footing with adults. They are not fully developed individuals yet. While education levels might not match those of wealthier citizens, do you really want to say, or even imply, that poor people are similarly deficient? They they are unable to make informed decisions. If so, why should we let them vote at all? I’ll say it…they (the poor) are generally deficient when it comes to financial matters such as mortgages. I am deficient in this regard and I am college educated. I need to pay an attorney to represent me at closing and explain to me all the things I am signing. Even then I don’t follow a lot of it and just hope my attorney is keeping me out of trouble. Prior to the closing figuring out all the ins-and-outs of the financing and what is best and what it means for me are bewildering to say the least. It is a labyrinthine process and I do my best to educate myself but I never feel like I have a solid handle on it all. I simply cannot imagine someone with a crappy inner city high school education and unable to afford advisors to do better. Particularly when unscrupulous lenders are actively trying to lead them astray. Since there is no intelligence requirement to vote that is a non-starter. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-submits-fraudulent-voter-registrations-en-masse/466984/143 "2008-10-08T19:56:32Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > ACORN is as corrupt as they come. I’m still waiting for you to provide a factual response to the cite I gave. Here’s a clue: shrugging him off as a “right wing hack” is not a factual response. It’s just childish. To be fair, while I agree with you that elucidator has provided no substantial rebuttal, I too don’t consider the testimony of one person to be “facts”. Certainly you are right to demand a factual argument against it to which a sneer falls quite short, one person’s opinion likewise falls short of factual evidence. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-submits-fraudulent-voter-registrations-en-masse/466984/144 "2008-10-08T20:00:00Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > ACORN is as corrupt as they come. I’m still waiting for you to provide a factual response to the cite I gave. Here’s a clue: shrugging him off as a “right wing hack” is not a factual response. It’s just childish. You are having some difficulty grasping the notion of a “cite”. An opinion piece is not a cite, unless it is offered to prove that somebody thinks a certain way, or has a particular partisan slant. But as support for a fact-based argument, it is useless. With me so far? Good. Mr Gorlock offers only his own testimony to support his suggestion of being under threat from ACORN “thugs”. Again, unless some evidence is offered to support that contention, it stands solely on Mr. Gorlock’s say-so. Mr Gorlock has a long history as a partisan Republican, available via Google. I characterize that as “hack”, you are free to think of it as “gospel”, it is nonetheless partisan. If simple assertion without further support is a “cite”, then I can slap any comment from _Daily Kos_ onto the screen, and demand that it be accepted as fact unless proven otherwise. Which is why we have standards. An unsupported opinion piece (you can check that, it says “opinion” right there on the page…) does not rise to that standard. It is not a cite. It does not deserve the dignity afforded to a cite. Need I type slower? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-submits-fraudulent-voter-registrations-en-masse/466984/145 "2008-10-08T20:10:56Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I’m losing track of who is trying to make what point I think **Bricker** ’s point is that the Left on the SDMB tends to deny, ignore, and downplay malfeasance from the Left. The point of the Left on the SDMB is that it didn’t happen, doesn’t matter, and the Right is much worse anyway. Glad to be of service. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Randy\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ee7513/32.png) [@Randy\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randy_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-submits-fraudulent-voter-registrations-en-masse/466984/146 "2008-10-08T20:15:05Z")
> [@Parthol](#): > > **Bricker** , I ask this without snark, but simply because I want to get a sense of your priorities: > > If a proposed voter ID law could be proven to prevent 50 acts of voter fraud, and it could also be proven to prevent 100 legal voters from voting because of the additional logistical barrier, would you support that law? Would you see it as serving the common good? What if it those numbers were 50 and 51, respectively? 50 and 50? 50 and 49? Any different? > > Now, I’m extremely confident that the Indiana ID law is suppressing some non-zero number of votes. Imagine if there was only one BMV in the whole state, and the average voter had to drive 5 hours to reach it. Surely even you would concede that many voters would be disenfranchised by that. Now, what if that time were 4 hours? 3 hours? It’s all on a sliding scale – ANY impediment to voting will reduce the number of voters. So the question is, basically, what is the ratio of prevented-frauds to suppressed votes that makes an ID law desirable? Prevention of voter fraud is not the only reason to have a voter ID law. In the recent Supreme Court decision that found Indiana’s ID law constitutional, _Crawford v. Marion County Election Board_, the state proposed three interests:[ol][li]Prevention of voter fraud[_]Modernization of elections[_]Maintaining voter confidence[/ol]Of course the lion’s share of both the majority and the dissenting opinions focused on the first state interest: preventing voter fraud. This is a much sexier topic than the other two. The dissent harped on the fact that IDs don’t really work to prevent fraud, and there’s little proof there’s even a problem. The majority conceded this point to some extent, but instead focused on the other side of the balancing test: the potential burden on voters. The majority found that there was little proof that anyone would actually be disenfranchised by this law. They asked the plaintiffs (organizations and politicians suing to overturn the law) to produce a single person who would suffer, or to show one reliable statistical study showing that people would be deterred/prevented from voting, and the plaintiffs could come up with nothing.[/li] In my opinion, the third interest received short shrift from all three opinions (there was a concurrence). Safeguarding voter confidence. The best reason to require ID at the polls is to avoid this scenario: Voter: I’m here to vote! Here’s my ID! Poll worker: Oh, we don’t require any ID, here’s your ballot. Voter: I don’t need ID? So anyone could just claim to be me and vote in my place? Poll worker: Well, that’s not really very likely. If someone wanted to commit voter fraud, they’d more likely… Voter [interrupting, wildly]: Oh god! The state doesn’t care about my vote at all! Democracy is a sham! [moves to Cuba] Okay, a bit of hyperbole there. But the point remains. Realizing that IDs are not required at the polls is a bit of a hit to a voter’s confidence in the system. And general confidence in democracy as a system of government is the only thing that gives our government a popular mandate. If everyone thinks his vote is worthless, what right does the government have to rule? [To learn more about this case, and about the history and status quo of laws that potentially burden the right to vote, see my upcoming article that – despite the fact that I’m spending three freaking months writing it – will likely never see the light of day.] ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-submits-fraudulent-voter-registrations-en-masse/466984/147 "2008-10-08T20:24:21Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Did I miss something, or has **Bricker** not addressed ACORN’s rebuttal of the allegations? > > They might just be outright lying, I suppose, but since they allege various falsifiable facts, why should we believe that? ACORN’s rebuttal seems contradicted by the affidavit filed by the investigator. In pretty much any case alleging a crime, the affiant for a search warrant, let’s say, makes allegations which the accused malefactor denies. While the accused is entitled to his day in court, and entitled to a presumption of legal innocence, it’s also fair to say that the affidavit establishes probable cause to believe the allegations are true. So: I take ACORN’s self-serving denial with a grain of salt, but also acknowledge that nothing is proven here beyond probable cause. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-submits-fraudulent-voter-registrations-en-masse/466984/148 "2008-10-08T20:26:37Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > To be fair, while I agree with you that elucidator has provided no substantial rebuttal, I too don’t consider the testimony of one person to be “facts”. Certainly you are right to demand a factual argument against it to which a sneer falls quite short, one person’s opinion likewise falls short of factual evidence. In most parts, we consider the person making the claim to be required to show the facts. There is no right of rebuttal for any wild claim someone wishes to make. “X is the case – prove me wrong!” is not the way discussions work for most folks at the SDMB. Probably you already know this in your heart of hearts, but you can see it is quite practical besides being fair and encouraging the slightest bit of intellectual honesty. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-submits-fraudulent-voter-registrations-en-masse/466984/149 "2008-10-08T20:27:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Since the building fire was put out with some water, I don’t see the need for fire extinguishers on every floor. And when we have fire extinguishers on every floor, and we still have the occasional building catch fire, what’s the next step? And the one after that? And the one after that? No matter how many procedures we put in place to prevent voter fraud, there are still going to be some people, somewhere, who try to get around them. If you’re going to convince me that we need to have tighter voter fraud laws, you’re first going to have to show me some evidence that the laws we have are insufficient. Pointing to an example where the existing system works as intended is not compelling evidence that the existing system is disfunctional. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-submits-fraudulent-voter-registrations-en-masse/466984/150 "2008-10-08T20:28:36Z")
> [@Parthol](#): > > **Bricker** , I ask this without snark, but simply because I want to get a sense of your priorities: > > If a proposed voter ID law could be proven to prevent 50 acts of voter fraud, and it could also be proven to prevent 100 legal voters from voting because of the additional logistical barrier, would you support that law? Would you see it as serving the common good? What if it those numbers were 50 and 51, respectively? 50 and 50? 50 and 49? Any different? > > Now, I’m extremely confident that the Indiana ID law is suppressing some non-zero number of votes. Imagine if there was only one BMV in the whole state, and the average voter had to drive 5 hours to reach it. Surely even you would concede that many voters would be disenfranchised by that. Now, what if that time were 4 hours? 3 hours? It’s all on a sliding scale – ANY impediment to voting will reduce the number of voters. So the question is, basically, what is the ratio of prevented-frauds to suppressed votes that makes an ID law desirable? I’m generally a strong proponent of personal responsibility. Having a government-issued ID is so much a part of modern society, needed to claim and cash paychecks, receive government benefits, and the like that I don’t regard it as a serious barrier. In other words, if it merely makes it inconvenient for people, I don’t agree that it’s “suppressed.” If there was one BMV in the state, plenty of other issues besides voting would be impacted and the situation would be fixed in short order – so I don’t believe that’s a realistic scenario. Yes, any impediment will reduce the number of voters. But if someone can’t be arsed to do something basic and simple, I’m not too upset that he isn’t going to vote. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-submits-fraudulent-voter-registrations-en-masse/466984/151 "2008-10-08T20:30:26Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I think **Bricker** ’s point is that the Left on the SDMB tends to deny, ignore, and downplay malfeasance from the Left. The point of the Left on the SDMB is that it didn’t happen, doesn’t matter, and the Right is much worse anyway. Not only is this **Bricker’s** point, but I think he just might be onto something. Certainly, I would expect nothing less from our friends here on the left than well-expressed outrage, when these problems are found on the other side (see that, guys? I said “when,” not “if,” indicating my understanding that both sides are sometimes guilty of…shenanigans). I’m not the biggest fan of ACORN’s work. I think that **elucidator’s** point that if they are fighting social justice, then that’s good enough for him is understandable, but short-sighted. Certainly, we are now seeing the unintended consequences of helping people get loans that they can’t afford. And I think we would all agree that there are some tactics that shouldn’t be taken no matter what cause we are fighting for. Regarding voter IDs, I used to be against them, but now I’m going the other way (it’s what we in the biz call a “flip flop”). I’m still against them being issued by the feds…it’s too close to a national ID card, which I don’t like the sound of. But, showing a state ID of some kind seems reasonable to me, and certainly it would go a long way to solving these kinds of problems. I have thought a lot about the issue of disenfranchising voters, and living as I do in an area with a large population of down-and-out types, I do find it to be a concern. However, any system that requires involvement of the citizens to do something for themselves is going to cause problems a certain small percentage of folks, which is unavoidable and not necessarily a good reason not to improve the system overall. ---
**Author:** ![Baldwin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baldwin/32/7264_2.png) [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-submits-fraudulent-voter-registrations-en-masse/466984/152 "2008-10-08T20:31:28Z")
**Bricker** – are you ready to ask a mod to change your thread title to something more accurate? (Such as, “ACORN hirees submit fraudulent voter registrations to ACORN, which alerts proper authorities; SDMB previously unaware of this minor story”.) I only knew about it myself because some jackass had a column in the _Atlanta Journal-Constitution_, misrepresenting what happened and pretending it provided justification for the Voter-ID laws that are being pushed all over the place. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-submits-fraudulent-voter-registrations-en-masse/466984/153 "2008-10-08T20:31:30Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > In most parts, we consider the person making the claim to be required to show the facts. There is no right of rebuttal for any wild claim someone wishes to make. “X is the case – prove me wrong!” is not the way discussions work for most folks at the SDMB. Probably you already know this in your heart of hearts, but you can see it is quite practical besides being fair and encouraging the slightest bit of intellectual honesty. I agree that that’s the best way to do it, i’m simply pointing out that neither should expect the other to agree with them based solely on what they’ve posted, as they each appear to do. **elucidator** calls it slander, **LP** calls it facts. Neither have attempted to prove anything. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-submits-fraudulent-voter-registrations-en-masse/466984/154 "2008-10-08T20:33:10Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Tell me, can you meet the same standard of evidence that you’re demanding of Sam? This requires comment, but just barely. **Sam** has a long standing presence as one who, for the most part, plays hard and plays fair. Sometimes he slips, as he did here, and as **Diogenes** did as well. I overlook it for two reasons: one, it is the exception rather than the rule, two, I have seen them both, when confronted, back down and offer sincere _mea fuckups_. I also have it on good authority that **Sam** is a big fan of Warren Zevon. Such a person simply cannot be all bad. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-submits-fraudulent-voter-registrations-en-masse/466984/155 "2008-10-08T20:34:09Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I’ll say it…they (the poor) are generally deficient when it comes to financial matters such as mortgages. I am deficient in this regard and I am college educated. I need to pay an attorney to represent me at closing and explain to me all the things I am signing. Even then I don’t follow a lot of it and just hope my attorney is keeping me out of trouble. Prior to the closing figuring out all the ins-and-outs of the financing and what is best and what it means for me are bewildering to say the least. It is a labyrinthine process and I do my best to educate myself but I never feel like I have a solid handle on it all. I simply cannot imagine someone with a crappy inner city high school education and unable to afford advisors to do better. Particularly when unscrupulous lenders are actively trying to lead them astray. > > Since there is no intelligence requirement to vote that is a non-starter. That’s part of the problem.😃 As far as the responsibility one has in his or her own financial decisions, the final burden must rest with the individual. Recently I looked into buying trading options through my Schwab account. There are some restrictions (regulations), which is good. still, I can fill out the paperwork and qualify. But if I then start trading options, which can be very complicated, and I lose my shirt, whose fault is it? On the other hand, maybe I make a truck load of money. If you want to allow for the latter to happen, you have to accept the possibility of the former. Now since I realized that this option stuff is more complicated than I’m comfortable with, I chose to not indulge in what would be very risky behavior for me. But if I did and lost money, I wouldn’t expect someone to come in and save me. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-submits-fraudulent-voter-registrations-en-masse/466984/156 "2008-10-08T20:43:52Z")
> [@Baldwin](#): > > **Bricker** – are you ready to ask a mod to change your thread title to something more accurate? (Such as, “ACORN hirees submit fraudulent voter registrations to ACORN, which alerts proper authorities; SDMB previously unaware of this minor story”.) > > I only knew about it myself because some jackass had a column in the _Atlanta Journal-Constitution_, misrepresenting what happened and pretending it provided justification for the Voter-ID laws that are being pushed all over the place. So requested. Suggestion: remove the words following the semi-colon in the title. However, it’s my thesis that this DOES provide justification for the voter ID laws. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-submits-fraudulent-voter-registrations-en-masse/466984/157 "2008-10-08T20:44:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s also fair to say that the affidavit establishes probable cause to believe the allegations are true. I don’t doubt that the legal assessment of probable cause is satisfied by the affidavit. What I doubt is that the affidavit, when viewed in the light of ACORN’s rebuttal, is sufficient grounds for you to conclude that ACORN has committed voter fraud and that SDMB liberals should be ashamed of not pointing it out. It’s as if you caught me standing over the body of a man I just shot and I’m telling you that I shot him in self-defense, and then you run to the newspapers declaring that **Richard Parker** is a murderer. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-submits-fraudulent-voter-registrations-en-masse/466984/158 "2008-10-08T20:51:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t object to a sliding scale. It’s not unreasonable to ask me to pay for my ID – or, I suspect, to ask you. If the ID in question is to be required for voting, it’s unconstitutional, unless there’s some “from each according to his ability” verbiage hidden away in some emanation from a penumbra of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-submits-fraudulent-voter-registrations-en-masse/466984/159 "2008-10-08T20:56:44Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That’s part of the problem.😃 > > As far as the responsibility one has in his or her own financial decisions, the final burden must rest with the individual. Recently I looked into buying trading options through my Schwab account. There are some restrictions (regulations), which is good. still, I can fill out the paperwork and qualify. But if I then start trading options, which can be very complicated, and I lose my shirt, whose fault is it? On the other hand, maybe I make a truck load of money. If you want to allow for the latter to happen, you have to accept the possibility of the former. Now since I realized that this option stuff is more complicated than I’m comfortable with, I chose to not indulge in what would be very risky behavior for me. But if I did and lost money, I wouldn’t expect someone to come in and save me. I agree at the end of the day we need to take responsibility for our own actions. However, buying a house is not usually considered in the same risky investment realm as trading options. Also consider what happens if your Schwab broker is intentionally leading you astray so he can make higher broker fees. Granted in the Options environment this is more your own issue to deal with but again buying a house to raise a family is not seen in the same risky behavior category. Society wants people in houses…society does not care if it gets another trader. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-submits-fraudulent-voter-registrations-en-masse/466984/160 "2008-10-08T20:58:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m generally a strong proponent of personal responsibility. Having a government-issued ID is so much a part of modern society, needed to claim and cash paychecks, receive government benefits, and the like that I don’t regard it as a serious barrier. > > In other words, if it merely makes it inconvenient for people, I don’t agree that it’s “suppressed.” If there was one BMV in the state, plenty of other issues besides voting would be impacted and the situation would be fixed in short order – so I don’t believe that’s a realistic scenario. > > Yes, any impediment will reduce the number of voters. But if someone can’t be arsed to do something basic and simple, I’m not too upset that he isn’t going to vote. Have you considered running for Congress? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-submits-fraudulent-voter-registrations-en-masse/466984.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-submits-fraudulent-voter-registrations-en-masse/466984.md?page=9)