So how exactly does one show a successful case of a fraudulent voter that has not been caught? They pretty much have to catch them to prosecute don’t they?
Well, I don’t prejudice my opinions based on who discovered a fact. i might not care for some particular person but when that person speaks truth, I will accept it as truth. If our newsmen did their jobs, people like O’Keefe would have nothing to do.
I cannot imagine why any one would be opposed to having to show ID to vote. Why not. Doesn’t everyone have an ID? A school ID or a driver’s license or military ID or passport or state ID to cash checks or something. It costs twelve bucks to get a State issued ID In Florida. If you have nothing else show your prison release papers.
You weren’t replying to me.
I rode to the welfare office with my niece with her 20 Sarah Palin bumper stickers on the back and was not surprised that most of the women in the office were weird right wing talkers.
I think you’ll find that the Democrats who support the law also support ensuring that whatever ID being required is available on-demand and free of charge, revealing that their intent is not related to voter suppression. Also, it’s 55% of Democrats, not 70%.
Good job being wrong twice in one sentence though.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/206300-poll-70-percent-support-voter-id-laws
Even free IDs don’t work if there is not an easy way to get them. It’s not actually free if you have to take time off of work, for example. There still will be people who are disenfranchised.
Bricker is the only conservative I’ve seen that has tried to address this. He proposes using fingerprints, though I’m not sure how you register them in the first place. If it’s at the polls themselves, I guess that could work, although I’m not sure how you’d verify their identity.
The thing we have to avoid is a lot of people showing up to the polling place without ID or a way to get one. Those are disenfranchised voters. Any one person not being able to cast their vote actually skews the vote about the same* as one person casting an extra vote.
*I’ll leave it to a mathematician to work it out directly, but some basic checks imply that they tend become closer to equal as the number of voters get larger.
Is that supposed to be a “gotcha!” or something?
Yes, let felons vote and buy guns. Or vote and not buy guns. The two issues are sufficiently distinct that consistency is not required. If that seems unconstitutional, then amend the constitution or use a more literal application in that every citizen who wants to own guns must be part of a well-regulated state militia with the potential obligation of being called into service in times of emergency, and membership in said militia is denied to convicted felons.
Personally, I think you should just legalize drugs and restrict handguns. And I want a pony.
IDs be all racizz.
What kind of a well regulated militia wouldn’t have ponies? Makes no sense.
I was replying to your “failed” comment. Snark is snark.
Yes, that’s how it should be. That’s not a big deal to do either.
Good job not reading the previous links on earlier pages. It’s a Marist poll done in 2013 for WaPo.
Always willing to help you not be wrong next time though:
There’s ALWAYS a way. Set up booths at grocery stores on weekends for those who work. Pretty much everybody goes to a grocery store.
Just what is a “gotcha”? I’m not clear on that.
It seems obvious to me that if a felon is safe enough to release from prison that all his rights should be restored, including voting and owning firearms. If not, why would we release a dangerous felon back into the population?
From your reply I suspect you do not agree but I doubt you’ll explain why you don’t.
Also, it seems you fail to understand “well-regulated”.
So, well regulated:
Lastly, if you look at the Congressional debate that determined the bill of rights, most states proposed amendments on various topics. Several states proposed amendments that make clear the meaning of the 2nd. That the wording got swapped around in the final copy changes nothing. The intent is absolutely clear "in the spirit manifested in the debates.
Other states:
The old militia argument just doesn’t stand up when you read the history of the debate. In all of these, the people having a right to keep and bear arms stands alone as a clause. The militia part is a completely separate part.
I understand “well-regulated” (it’s not a particularly complex concept, after all), but if someone was championing the 2nd Amendment as meaning all Americans have to right to keep and bear arms, I simply point out the “militia” as a possible justification as to why some Americans should not be so allowed. The text of the 2nd certainly doesn’t contain any asterisky language to the effect of “the people” excluding “people with felony records” but I have no problem with such laws recognizing and imposing a limitation to the 2nd as a matter of public safety, akin to the 1st Amendment not covering certain kinds of speech.
The connection to voting is unclear to me, though. I see no problem with letting ex-felons vote and am somewhat bemused by people who do. I see a potential problem with letting ex-felons buy guns, and am unbemused by people who agree. The issues are not sufficiently linked for me to be troubled by a suggestion of inconsistency.
You really are not very good at this, are you?
Aw, be kind. The poor feller has a great big hammer, and everything looks like a nail.
Probably because it is vapor. In the post quoted in the OP, the poster (on the CNN site) asserts that the Constitution never conveys any right to vote: the language “The right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged <per reason>” is not explicit, it only implies a right to vote. These people are claiming that “… the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is in some way less implicit than the declarations with respect to voting – as if it somehow matters. In terms of English grammar, there is no structural or material difference between these phrases, so I have no idea what their weird trip is, I only get the feeling that they just want to have the right to shoot the wrong kind of voters.
Why would you want to use year old data when the poll I cited is only a few weeks old?
You don’t know that! One could conclude that the group wishing to require ID only wishes to validate votes by making sure everyone gets one vote. The dead get none and the possibility of voter fraud is eliminated or at least curtailed,
Your assumption could just as easily be that voter fraud is rampant yet unchecked and un reported as you wish it to be so as to disenfranchise a group of voters by making sure they have no faith that their vote will count!
Boy, that’s some USDA, prime bullshit right there.