I’m sorry, but I am having too much trouble reading this and figuring out what it says. If you, or anyone else, can render it comprehensible, I’d be happy to answer.
I don’t get why anyone who’d voted in an earlier election isn’t just grandfathered in.
That is, I wouldn’t get it, if I thought the rule changes were being done in good faith.
Of course I may have grammar issues, but as usual you ignore the point made clear in the article.
As pointed many times in the past, the new rules would not be bad if the local governments would not be ass holes about not funding or helping the people that loses a right that they had before.
Isn’t this the place where you offer your opinion that burdens are good for people, because otherwise they might take it all too lightly? Have you any evidence to offer, or is that nothing but your own private philosophy? Is that one of those “valid neutral justifications” you like to fling around?
What are its limits? If this wondrous moral ground, this character enhancing burden is inherently good, where does it cease to be good? If it used as a lever to enhance and protect the political power of a party…say, for instance, Republicans…beyond what it actually deserves from voter support…might we not think that it has been perverted, warped, exploited? Can you offer assurance that it hasn’t been and won’t be? Can you offer any evidence of your assurance?
Exactly. As I’ve learned fraudulent voting is such a tiniest percentage that it is negligible and not worth investigating. Which makes me wonder why Hillary supporters are trying to get recounts.
As a supporter of these laws, I have repeatedly explained that I don’t contend there is a significant number of people who cast fraudulent votes, so the lack of a long list of such people does not contradict my position.
:rolleyes:
Even when conservatives demand recounts is under the assumption that most valid votes were missed or unfairly dumped, the losing side hopes that a recount will found enough to make a difference. Both Republicans and Democrats do agree that any fraudulent votes should be dismissed.
[QUOTE=The link above in GIGObuster’s post]
So with the help of several lawyers, Settles tried to find it, searching records in courthouses in the D.C. area, where he grew up. But they could not find it. To obtain a new document changing his name to the one he has used for 51 years, Settles has to go to court, a process that would cost him more than $250 — more than he is willing to pay.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, so this guy is a retired engineer who paid “several lawyers” to search the dusty 52 year old records in a courthouse thousands of miles from his home, but is not “willing” to pay a filing fee to legally change his name? Note that he is not unable to do so, simply unwilling.
Further, if I believed the story, which I don’t, he could still cast a provisional ballot and in a close election would have millions of dollars coming his way to ensure that his vote was counted.
This guy would also need a valid TX ID to work or to even pick up his prescription medication. It is such a fancied story that would not apply except to the extremely rare individual, and if it is problem, it is one with the REAL ID act and not with voting requirements.
This looks to me like a manufactured attempt to find someone actually harmed by this law.
Sure. These examples virtually always fall apart on close examination.
The real problem is the people that just don’t want to bother, but opponents of Voter ID know that’s not something the public will get behind, so they desperately craft these “guy is working three jobs and lives in a hut 75 miles from the nearest DMV with no public transport and vicious wolves on the one road to the polling station!” stories.
Good to know that that is not the only one, in any case they demonstrate that many are indeed bothering to get the rights that they had before and the issue again (yes, again) is that the the new rules do make sense if they would actually fund the needs of the ones that are most affected by the change, if you are correct that they are not a big number** it should be a problem** to fund the ones that have problems getting back the right to vote that they had before.
It is clear to me that the issue is not the mandate, but that the mandate is not really properly funded.
It can be actually 250 miles away.
Goodness, these radical enemies of voter ID are quite a pack of scoundrels!
A question: is it a given in our dicussion that voter ID laws will be applied with scrupulous attention, so that no party is given any electoral advantage? That part is kinda important to me, and I find it woefully lacking.
The constitution doesn’t explicitly say it’s required so… no, apparently. They have to allow voting, but people who demand fair voting are just wannabe judicial activists who’d rule by fiat if they could.
If you get rid of ALL the voters, then you could.
All the voters? That sounds like *fairness *talk to me… :dubious:
True that, the fairest form of government would be one in which no one had a say, a voice, or any rights.
It is easier to take those away from all the people than it is to try to ensure that they are given equally to all the people.
In the plastic bag ban thread, we are being told that poor people can find 10 cents per bag in their couch cushions.
You guys cannot have it both ways.
It seems to me the lack of an ID is not so much about the money, but about the will of the person who decides not to get one.
For some, perhaps. For others it’s a lack of time and resources like transportation, and for others it’s a lack of money. Believe it or not, some people really don’t have any money at all. Others have just barely enough to survive, and nothing more, and no free time since they’re working all the time just to get by. And some others are lazy. I think making it easy and free for everyone is better – I’d rather those hard-working resource and time-poor people get to vote, even if the lazy ones do too, then all those groups being unable to vote.
Bullshit. We’ve explained the basic morality over and over again. You get mad when people assume other motives for what you say (like the racism angle), but you have no problem making them up for us.
We look for object lessons because it’s a whole lot easier to make a case if we can put a face on it. As long as it’s no one you know, it’s much easier to not care that you are disenfranchising them. It’s the same reason why knowing gay people increases support for gay causes.
Yes, Republicans then try to dismantle these things, finding the slightest flaw and breaking them apart. They can’t deal with the fundamental moral problem, but they can at least try to undermine our attempts to communicate it to them. They can use ad hominem or other logical fallacies to try and destroy the actual argument.
But the fundamental situation remains the same. One side is pushing for an act that disproportionately favors them and disenfranchises some of their opponents. This is unfair, and thus wrong. If you were to ask most people if they thought it was okay to deliberately keep the other party from voting, most would say no.
It is Voter ID that threatens the integrity of elections, by keeping some people from voting. This is a pure fact, and no amount of arguing will change that. The intentions of every single legislator can be pure as the whitest snow, and it’s still true.
And this is wrong. This is anti-democratic. This is against the very concept that most people hold about “one man, one vote” since it tries to take away votes from some of them. In addition the above, if you ask most people if it would be okay to reduce the number of poor people voting, they say this is wrong.
There is a good idea in making sure that there is no election fraud. But it has to be carefully constructed so that neither side is disproportionately affected. The only people who should be stopped from voting are those actually committing fraud.
And, frankly, I think that may be the way to go at this. Say we’re okay with Voter IDs, as long as the system can be shown to be fair. Heck, steal your idea and push it. Refuse any other ideas, but still be for Voter ID, so people can’t claim you want unfair elections.
Point out how the Republican Voter ID plans are unfair, but the Democrat ones won’t be. Actually play the political game, instead of thinking being the most moral will work. We already saw in this election that that strategy fails.
Say what they want, no one will say that Donald Trump is moral.
I’m not sure what you mean. My point was that I call bullshit on the guy’s story. Nobody purposely pays out of state lawyers a bunch of money to do what is trivially easy at the county courthouse. I’m not sure about TX, but in my state, anyone who cannot afford to pay a filing fee can file a name change petition free of charge. And the clerks will hand out a packet with instructions on how to do it.
So even in the rare case of someone who has survived for fifty years without being able to get a valid ID, can still do so now absolutely free of charge.
Any inconvenience in getting the ID because of heightened standards of proof is equally borne by thousands of working people who drive and also must comply with the new requirements.
The effort required to get a state issued picture ID for all but the most extreme cases is so minimal as to be laughable.