# I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 12, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943 "2012-06-12T19:15:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 29
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/561 "2012-06-20T21:48:39Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I mean, who isn’t in favor of there being less voter fraud, in a vacuum? Exactly. I’d love 0.000% voter fraud. But not at the expense of disenfranchising citizens. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/562 "2012-06-20T22:00:50Z")
And one more related point… simple majority rules CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT determine things like voting rights. First of all, for all the reasons that we don’t just let 51% of the population restrict any important rights of a minority group. But more importantly, because the moment you start mucking with voting rights and enfranchisement, you risk breaking the very structure of democracy in a way that the self-correction built into it won’t be able to correct. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/563 "2012-06-20T23:37:33Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > [QUOTE=Polerius] > Those of you who think that it’s “unreasonably difficult” to get an ID, for any person in the US today, are living in la-la land. This person clearly has no idea what he’s talking about, but that’s not stopping him. He’s bought full-scale into this assumption – “I got ID, so why should anyone else have trouble?” [/QUOTE] Nice strawman. I never claimed “I got ID, so why should anyone else have trouble?”. > [@](#): > > Ignoring the issue of people who can’t drive, people who work full-time in multiple jobs, people who simply can’t afford to take the time off and visit the DMV (which may be quite a good distance away). Ooooh, they’re far away from a DMV, and they work multiple jobs! I’m sure these people _never_ find the time to do anything but work and always travel within a few blocks from home. \*Now \*I understand why they can’t ever find the time to go to the DMV :rolleyes: In any case, I should state that, as part of a push for voter-ID’s, the state could send “mobile DMV’s” throughout the state in order to reach people. Also, waive the fee for people below the poverty line. Let’s get the logistics (cost and accessibility) out of the way and focus on the main argument. If someone believes “I should not need an ID to vote, just based on principle and on my understanding of my rights”, that is something that I can understand (though not agree with). Throwing all the logistics of obtaining an ID into the argument just masks the main points on both sides. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/564 "2012-06-20T23:51:27Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > And one more related point… simple majority rules CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT determine things like voting rights. First of all, for all the reasons that we don’t just let 51% of the population restrict any important rights of a minority group. But more importantly, because the moment you start mucking with voting rights and enfranchisement, you risk breaking the very structure of democracy in a way that the self-correction built into it won’t be able to correct. What rule do you propose? Right now, we also have a system whereby the courts can overturn the majority if the majority’s action violates basic Constitutional principles. Here, of course, that hurdle has also been met. So are you proposing some additional system? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/565 "2012-06-21T00:13:23Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > And guys, I’m still not missing the fact that _every one of you is a known right-wing partisan_, and these laws disenfranchise primarily democratic demographics. At least two states with Democratically-controlled legislatures have passed voter ID laws. Are they also known right-wing partisans? How do they like their porridge prepared? ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/566 "2012-06-21T00:27:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > no database of legal citizens How does the SSVN thingy mentioned earlier work? > [@dngnb8](#): > > Consider the amount of Identity Theft we experience. Enough for someone to duplicate a photo ID of a similar looking person? ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/567 "2012-06-21T00:35:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In this case, it’s the legitimacy of the laws. Not seeing it. You wrote: > [@Bricker](#): > > Here’s the bottom line As in, the most salient point. Which is always a scheme’s popular support. Unless its popularity contravenes the law or Constitution. If nothing else, it’s a red herring to introduce when people were discussing the effects of the laws, not whether they have popular support or not. > [@Polerius](#): > > Those of you who think that it’s “unreasonably difficult” to get an ID, for any person in the US today, are living in la-la land. Any difficulty above the minimum incurs an opportunity cost which functions like a poll tax. There may be a good reason for instituting barriers to voting for democratic reasons (in that, representatives were elected under the previous scheme which did not adequately represent the views of their constituents). One has yet to be forwarded. Missed edit window. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/568 "2012-06-21T01:18:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > At least two states with Democratically-controlled legislatures have passed voter ID laws. Are they also known right-wing partisans? How do they like their porridge prepared? Then they are wrong as well. Be that as it may, the central impetus of these actions are conservative and Republican, just as ALEC is not a progressive organization, and the overwhelming proportion of the support comes from conservative Republicans. Which you already knew. No doubt, some “blue dead dog” Democrats also feel threatened by the encroaching demographic changes, and fear some trouble from the side of the party that actually has some connection to progressive policies. Fuck 'em. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/569 "2012-06-21T03:48:41Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Any difficulty above the minimum incurs an opportunity cost which functions like a poll tax. Is the money you pay for gas or for the bus to go to the voting location also a poll tax? If the government does not reimburse us for our costs that we incur in order to vote on election day, is that a poll tax? If not, why not? If you guys are concerned about monetary costs and opportunity costs incurred in the process of voting, I suggest you focus your attention to trying to get elections moved to Sundays instead of Tuesdays. I would assume you would increase voter turnout much more if elections were moved to Sundays instead of working days, compared to any change you get from the existence or not of voter ID laws. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/570 "2012-06-21T05:34:56Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Nice strawman. I never claimed “I got ID, so why should anyone else have trouble?”. Nope, but it showed through in your post – the assertion that “nobody could ever have trouble getting ID” is quite frankly ludicrous. > [@](#): > > Ooooh, they’re far away from a DMV, and they work multiple jobs! I’m sure these people _never_ find the time to do anything but work and always travel within a few blocks from home. \*Now \*I understand why they can’t ever find the time to go to the DMV :rolleyes: Well, the DMV is also only open during standard business hours. > [@](#): > > In any case, I should state that, as part of a push for voter-ID’s, the state could send “mobile DMV’s” throughout the state in order to reach people. Also, waive the fee for people below the poverty line. Great plan. _Let’s do that first_. Once we have assured ourselves that everyone has ID, _then_ we can talk about making voting contingent upon it. > [@](#): > > Let’s get the logistics (cost and accessibility) out of the way and focus on the main argument. Wait what? No! I’m sorry, but hand-waving away the logistics of the acquisition of voter ID is missing the entire reason why it’s problematic. If it was possible for anyone to hop on the phone and then get some government guys to come to their house, take their photo and information, and then give them ID, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But no, it takes one (or more) trips to the DMV, which is only open during certain hours, and there isn’t one within walking distance of most people. > [@](#): > > If someone believes “I should not need an ID to vote, just based on principle and on my understanding of my rights”, that is something that I can understand (though not agree with). Throwing all the logistics of obtaining an ID into the argument just masks the main points on both sides. Here’s the thing: I wouldn’t _care_ about voter ID law if it wasn’t for these logistics. If everyone had 'em, I’d be right up there with Bricker cheering these actions on. Hell, Germany requires personal ID to vote in their elections, and I fucking _love_ the German system. But Germany also works very hard to ensure that _everyone_ can get this ID. They have much more of a nanny state going on (and I think they’re better off for it, honestly). USA? 11% of voting-age adults don’t have photo ID. Again, once you think about the effort needed for people without driver’s licenses to get photo ID, you realize why. The main point I’m making is that voter ID laws, while preventing the negligible number of fraud cases, make the election process _less_ representative by essentially removing the votes of those who can’t get their hands on ID easily, and that number is _not_ negligible. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/571 "2012-06-21T05:36:05Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > If you guys are concerned about monetary costs and opportunity costs incurred in the process of voting, I suggest you focus your attention to trying to get elections moved to Sundays instead of Tuesdays. I would assume you would increase voter turnout much more if elections were moved to Sundays instead of working days, compared to any change you get from the existence or not of voter ID laws. Why do you think we say that republican efforts to shorten early voting and get rid of voting on sunday show their hand? ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/572 "2012-06-21T09:45:29Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > If the government does not reimburse us for our costs that we incur in order to vote on election day, is that a poll tax? I’d consider those minimal costs of voting: not because they aren’t significant enough to prevent people from voting, but because it’s not plausible to hold elections without such costs (though allowing voting for a week or establishing a secure voting website would rectify some problems). If the costs are minimal, the government should be prepared to give a tax break equal to the cost of voting for the individual. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/573 "2012-06-21T12:08:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > At least two states with Democratically-controlled legislatures have passed voter ID laws. Are they also known right-wing partisans? How do they like their porridge prepared? I like how you don’t mention which ones, and suggest to broaden it by “at least”. I can only find one – Rhode Island. And lots of people aren’t particularly happy with that, especially in Rhode Island. Here’s an account of the voter ID case there, which notes that , even so, the rules in RI aren’t as restrictive as those passed in other states: > **[Governing: State and local government news and analysis](https://www.governing.com)** > > Get the latest news coverage about policy and management in state and local government. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/574 "2012-06-21T13:13:38Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > I like how you don’t mention which ones, and suggest to broaden it by “at least”. I can only find one – Rhode Island. And lots of people aren’t particularly happy with that, especially in Rhode Island. Here’s an account of the voter ID case there, which notes that , even so, the rules in RI aren’t as restrictive as those passed in other states: > > [Governing: State and local government news and analysis](http://www.governing.com/blogs/politics/rhode-island-voter-ID-law-game-changer.html) Lots of claims to demolish in this post. From your link: > [@](#): > > “This isn’t a strict photo ID law like the others being debated across the country,” says Scott Westbrook Simpson, press secretary for the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, an advocacy group that opposes photo ID bills. “This is not at all indicative of bipartisan support for these other bills, like the ones in Indiana or Georgia. Particularly, this law allows folks without a photo ID to still vote by provisional ballot.” Absolutely and blatantly untrue. Both Indiana and Georgia allow people without photo ID to cast a provisional ballot. IC 3-11-8-25.1 and Ga. Code 183-1-12-.06. What other differences, if any, do you now claim exist between Rhode Island’s law and the laws approved by “known right-wing partisans?” Did you check the first state, Delaware? Tit. 15, § 4937? Delaware’s state senate is 14 Democrats and 7 Republicans. The lower House is 26 Democrats and 15 Republicans. The Governor of Delaware is Jack A. Markell (D). Are they also “known right-wing partisans?” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/575 "2012-06-21T13:19:52Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > The main point I’m making is that voter ID laws, while preventing the negligible number of fraud cases, make the election process _less_ representative by essentially removing the votes of those who can’t get their hands on ID easily, and that number is _not_ negligible. In fact, that is the \*only \*identifiable real effect of these laws - they restrict participation in the fundamental process of democracy. The \*only \*identifiable real effect. The fraud myth has been sufficiently debunked by now (at least here) that the supporters _know_ that what they want to do undermines democracy itself. They can’t even define the hypothetical “problem” in such a way that their proposed “solutions” would even address it. So isn’t it about damn \*time \*we got some damn \*honesty \*out of those people as to their motives? :rolleyes::dubious: ---
**Author:** ![dngnb8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@dngnb8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dngnb8)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/576 "2012-06-21T13:57:35Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > There have been numerous investigations by multiple parties. [Here’s a big one by the Bush Administration’s Department of Justice](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?pagewanted=all). It turned up nothing. Youre article talks about organized effort. Let me say again, I live in Phx AZ. Im not saying the potential frauds are based on organized effort. > [@](#): > > And guys, I’m still not missing the fact that _every one of you is a known right-wing partisan_, and these laws disenfranchise primarily democratic demographics. Another knee jerk partisan claim fails. Just because I disagree with you, doesnt mean I agree with everyone else on all “right wing” issues. This statement just completely devalued your rebuttal. I am far from “right wing”. This response is typical of someone who is “Left Wing Partisan”. Funny how your left wing partisan responses are fine, but right wing partisans arent. Irony. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/577 "2012-06-21T14:29:11Z")
Delaware 15 4937: > [@](#): > > § 4937. Voting procedure. > > (a) A voter, upon entering the room where an election is being held, shall announce that voter’s own name and address and provide proof of identity, whereupon the clerks shall place a mark or make a notation of his or her name upon the election district record. In the event the voter does not have proof of identity with them, the voter shall sign an affidavit of affirmation that the voter is the person listed on the election district record. > > (b) If it appears that the voter is properly registered, an election officer shall hand to the voter a voter signature card which the voter shall sign. In the event that the voter is unable to sign a voter signature card for any reason the election officer shall sign the voter’s name on the voter signature card and the election officer’s name and make note that the voter is unable to personally sign the card. > > (c) In the event of a challenge as to the identity of the voter or residency of the voter, the voter’s right to vote shall be determined by a majority vote of the inspector and the 2 judges of the election. In the event that the voter is not permitted to vote, the voter’s signature card shall be marked “not permitted to vote” and signed by 2 election officers and shall be forwarded to the department at the same time and in the same manner as other voter signature cards are sent to the department. > > (d) If the voter is not challenged or if a challenge is decided in the voter’s favor, 1 of the election officers to be stationed at the entrance of the voting machine shall announce the name of the voter and permit the voter to pass through the entrance to the booth of the voting machine for the purpose of casting the voter’s vote. No voter shall remain in the voting machine longer than 3 minutes, unless for good and sufficient reason the voter be granted a longer period of time by the election officers in charge. When the voter has cast a vote, the voter shall at once leave the room. If the voter refuses to leave after a reasonable period, they shall be removed by the election officers. No voter, after having entered and emerged from the voting machine booth shall be permitted to enter the voting machine booth. No voter shall hold any conversation or communicate with any other person than an election officer while in the voting room, except as otherwise provided in this title. > > (e) The rest of this title notwithstanding, any parent, guardian or caregiver may be accompanied in the voting area and voting machine by the parent’s, guardian’s or caregiver’s children or by children for whom they are providing care who are 17 years of age or younger. Any challenge to the age of any child shall be resolved by the voter affirming to the inspector that the child or children being challenged are 17 years of age or younger. > > 19 Del. Laws, c. 37, § 19; 19 Del. Laws, c. 576; 21 Del. Laws, c. 38, § 18; 22 Del. Laws, c. 62; 27 Del. Laws, c. 65, § 16; Code 1915, §§ 1767, 1772; 34 Del. Laws, c. 111, § 1; Code 1935, §§ 1856, 1861; 45 Del. Laws, c. 154, § 12; 15 Del. C. 1953, § 4939; 57 Del. Laws, c. 181, § 58; 58 Del. Laws, c. 148, § 84; 68 Del. Laws, c. 222, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 388, §§ 1, 2; 70 Del. Laws, c. 505, § 3; 72 Del. Laws, c. 470, § 1; 73 Del. Laws, c. 404, § 1; 75 Del. Laws, c. 287, § 1.; Seems pretty weak in its requirements for voting. If you don’t have proof, you sign an affidavit. If nobody challenges you, you can vote. Not even anything about having to do it by provisional ballot Thanks for naming it, after being pushed. I’m at work, and really don’t have the time to pursue these. Don’t go citing “known right wing partisans” at me – I didn’t write that. Take up your disagreements with Simpson with the man himself. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/578 "2012-06-21T15:02:06Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > Thanks for naming it, after being pushed. Pushed? Look, I mentioned the existence of two Democratic state legislatures passing voter ID laws because it rebutted the argument from **Budget Player Cadet** : _And guys, I’m still not missing the fact that every one of you is a known right-wing partisan, and these laws disenfranchise primarily democratic demographics._ It’s only necessary to name them if someone disagrees there are two – which you did, and then which I did to answer you. You also claimed (or quoted with approval the claim) that Rhode Island’s laws are not a objectionable as Indiana’s, but the one fact offered in support of that argument was wrong. In contrast, the same claim about Delaware appears to be true: their requirements are more lax than Indiana. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/579 "2012-06-21T15:23:22Z")
> [@dngnb8](#): > > Youre article talks about organized effort. Let me say again, I live in Phx AZ. Im not saying the potential frauds are based on organized effort. Yes, but it would have caught unorganized efforts as well. There have been investigations, whether you like to admit it or not. Remember, these are people who were looking _very_ hard for evidence of voter fraud. They couldn’t come up with shit. Then there are the independent investigations. Cases like John Thune. John Thune lost by a tiny margin back in 2002, and called voter fraud. [Do I even have to explain what happened](http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/807465/posts)? And never mind that such events aren’t exactly uncommon. > [@](#): > > Another knee jerk partisan claim fails. Just because I disagree with you, doesnt mean I agree with everyone else on all “right wing” issues. And this in turn doesn’t refute the fact that you are a right-wing partisan, or at least damn close to it. > [@](#): > > This statement just completely devalued your rebuttal. I am far from “right wing”. This response is typical of someone who is “Left Wing Partisan”. I think it was either this thread or another where I pointed out that I’m all but a left-wing partisan, but only because the right-wing in this country is, as far as I can see, wrong on _literally every issue_. Well, except the Big Gulp ban. That was bullshit. Also, I hate to break it to you, buddy, but _nobody_ is buying the claim that you are “far from right wing”. Everyone says that here. > [@](#): > > Funny how your left wing partisan responses are fine, but right wing partisans arent. Irony. I don’t care about partisanship for the _validity_ of the argument. My comment about you, bricker, magellan, uzi, and others being partisans had nothing to do with how _valid_ your commentary is; merely a gauge of motives. To make it more clear, we all understand that those most hurt by these laws are poor, minorities, the elderly, and the young. All but one of these demographics swings heavily liberal, and the one that doesn’t is both a mixed bag and dying out anyways. We understand that voter fraud, as an issue, is _not_ limited to liberals; hell, it hasn’t been shown to favor democrats at all! So these voter ID laws would be a very tangible, very serious net loss for liberals and democrats. And lastly, we see a very, _very_ clear party divide here – you, bricker, and magellan are all very clear right-wingers. Me, Lucy, and Hentor are liberals. Huh. Call me crazy… That said, I really don’t know what’s going on in Rhode Island and Delaware. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/580 "2012-06-21T16:52:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What rule do you propose? > > Right now, we also have a system whereby the courts can overturn the majority if the majority’s action violates basic Constitutional principles. > > Here, of course, that hurdle has also been met. > > So are you proposing some additional system? I don’t have a super-detailed in-depth proposal with all the Ts crossed and the Is dotted. I do think that it’s a terrible idea for any elected body to be making rules about the elections that elect people to it. This is particularly clear for issues like gerrymandering… As for how I would set things up instead, I think I would have people who are basically judges (hopefully non-partisan, appointed for very long terms) whose sole job is to be in charge of ensuring fairness of elections. They would work in teams of 3 or so to discourage corruption, and would get swapped around every few years to discourage cronyism. I mean, I don’t necessarily see a way there from here in the current US with our current framework, etc., this is just a hypothetical. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=30)