Fine, then get all your crooks, ne-er do wells and illegal immigrants to vote by absentee ballot. They’ll still run into the same problems though. One way or another they’ve still got to prove they’re legally entitled to vote, whether by absentee ballot or at the polls.
I’ve known or at least suspected what the problem is all along - you are trying to justify something you knew was underhanded when you did it. Why else would you have assumed that when I said to Mr Moto “A reasonable person who realizes that a quote out of context is not to be accepted at face value! Kudos to you!” it must have actually been directed at you and how you tried to, at best, make it too much work to see where that quote came from? Why didn’t you take it at face value - that I was congratulating him for asking for more information?
A guilty conscience will tend to get you in trouble. And make you TL;DR
What color is the sky in your world?
You could at least link to the episode of Cheers you got that from.
I just can’t win with links this week.
But wait you were just going on about how people can’t vote without transportation to the polls, but now you’re goin on about all these boogy men. Is “ne-er do wells” your word for the poor?
I guess the question I’m asking is why should any eligable voter be denied because the state put up hurdles?
They were told not to put the signs up. The saga continues.
Do you have a link that states that, or did I miss it in a previous one? The article I linked states the signs were already put up.
No, I was asking if the gasoline, bus or taxi expense necessary to get to the polls constituted a “poll tax”, and if not, why does the expense necessary to get an ID constitute a poll tax when most people have them already whether they vote or not?
No, there are lots of people who are poor but still manage to pay their bills on time and otherwise live in a responsible manner.
The answer is in your question. Without proof, how do we know they’re “eligible”?
Having to provide proof of age and citizenship in order to vote in elections which by law stipulate age and citizenship requirements is not a “hurdle”.
Why don’t you guys just admit the truth? There are lots of nogoodniks out there who would vote your way (why is that anyhow?) except for the fact that they don’t want anybody to know who they are and where they live, so you’re trying to shoehorn them in through the back door by advocating the elimination of proof of eligibility requirements. You’re motives are painfully transparent and you aren’t fooling anyone, so why not drop the “ID is an unfair expense” dodge and just admit that you want anyone who’ll vote your way to be able to do so whether they’re legal or not? You probably won’t get any further but at least you’ll be able to look yourselves in the mirror and congratulate yourselves for being at least somewhat honest.
Bricker answered this upthread a ways.
Basically the direct cost of the mandatory photo ID is akin to a poll tax in that it is a direct cost required to vote. This is why, for example, Wisconsin tacked free voter IDs on to their voting law and why they were forced to put up signs and such about it.
I don’t really have a problem with free voter ID cards, and if a court in one state has decided to hold that the expense of obtaining valid ID constitutes a poll tax, then so be it, at least in that state. What I’m arguing against is the notion that people should be able to vote without without having to register or show ID at all, which was being advocated for at least a while in this thread, and probably for the very reasons I said: there are a lot of people who would vote Democratic but don’t want ID of any kind, and there are posters in this thread who would happily do away with proof of eligibility altogether as long as means more people voting their way. This of course would have the added benefit of not only picking up miscreant votes for the Dems but potentially millions of illegal immigrant votes too.
Depends when. I read that since the stories have come out about the “poll tax”, some DMV offices have quickly put some up.
nvm
Actually I take back my other post, teach me to post without reading all the posts:smack:. I’m not arguing against showing proof, I’m arguing against making proof a hardship.
The way I see it, if the state controls proof, than those in power in the state can adjust how much of a hardship getting proof is. Meaning the ruling party can put a lot of DMVs in their districts, and close down ones near the other party’s. That’s very bad. They could also adjust their fees, and office wait times to discourage one economic class and encourage another.
What I’m trying to argue is the state should have programs in place so that any eligible voter who wants to vote can without facing unequal hardship for it.
My article is dated the seventh, same as yours, but states that signs had been put up Wednesday, but not in response to media reports. Who would even think such a thing is beyond me.
So wait. Republicans aren’t hoping to prevent people from voting by implimenting new voter ID laws, but democrats want to do away with them so they can get the votes of millions of ineligible voters including illegal immigrants and “miscreants?”
And what the holy hell do you mean by miscreants and ne’er do wells? Are we really worried about Goofus and Dennis the menace voting?
You are obliged to identify yourself as entitled to vote to the poll attendants (by whatever term they are called in your jurisdiction). To be required to produce a particular form of identification as the only acceptable way to identify yourself as having the franchise, that particular form of identification (a) must be reasonably easy for the average citizen to obtain, and (b) may not cost one red cent.
I agree with everything in this post.
Absolutely in response. The stories forced their hands. They had no intention of telling people they could get free IDs for voting. Does it follow logically that they would put up signs? They fired a worker for letting customers know they could get one.
That’s great that YOU think that. But by what mechanism does your thought somehow translate into the standard the country must accept?
There’s a bunch of actions discussed in this thread. I approve, morally and ethically, of the Wisconsin voter ID law. What other actions would you like my reaction on?
(4) I don’t agree.
There’s a great deal of plausibility about voter fraud alarm. The mechanism of voting has two components: there must be actual integrity of the vote, and there must be public confidence in the results of the vote.
Even if I accept that the proposition that actual vote fraud is rare, measures that ensure public confidence in the results of the vote are independently valid precisely because they shore up public perception about the reliabvility of the result.
The “alarm” you dismiss is real. People feel it. Their belief may not be rational, but public perception is key to the entire structure of elections.
Again: I give two thumbs up to Wisconsin’s ID law. What other action do you want to know about?