Why does intent matter? Most other countries have these requirements. Were they all implemented for nefarious reasons? Yet the end result will be the same: Stricter voting requirements.
and Sinaptics posted a study in post 272 of this thread which shows voter ID does not improve voter confidence.
Really? Here in PA, we have video tape of a state legislator stating that the law would guarantee the state for Romney.
We have other government officials saying, in court, that there “have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states.” [Warning: link is to a PDF.]
Frankly, neither of these inclines me to believe that the people enacting the law are doing it to “ensure voter confidence”.
You appear to have me confused with someone else :), in fact I posted that to show a actual case of voter fraud and guess what? Voter ID laws would not have stopped it, and preliminary info suggests it was in favor of a republican candidate.
These laws would not do diddly to stop any example of actual fraud I’ve seen.
The difference I think is that in these unnamed countries there is a national ID system that is “free” to the citizenry and easy to acquire, the government WANTS everyone to have an ID card.
In the USA instead we have state issued ID instead of national, unless you count a passport. This has serious drawbacks like there being a charge for the ID and wildly varying requirements including proof of residency etc. It is harder to get a state ID than a US passport in a lot of states, and the passport costs $100 dollars itself. However you slice it ID costs more and is harder to acquire in the USA.
Mea culpa. I was a bit quick on the trigger yesterday, wasn’t i? 
And did I respond to that study? With specifics of what the study was missing?
But not saying that the law was intended to do that – rather, he predicted that the rsult of the law would be to have the state go for Romney, since in his opinion Obama benefited from illegal votes.
As explained elsewhere - a stipulation exists for the purposes of a court case. The government says that because the law exists to protect voter confidence, it’s not relevant or necessary to discuss extant voter fraud.
But it does incline me.
How shall we resolve the difference of opinion between us?
Well, we could use reason and intelligence and put our partisan desire to win via any underhanded means to the side.
But we now know that you’re unable to do that, so flipping a coin?
Provide objective evidence for voter fraud.
I’ll wait. Or rather, I won’t, since you’ve already demonstrated that you are unable to assimilate new knowledge and are simply a sputtering automation that repeats the same thing over and again.
Well, other than you normally have to pay for the ID that the government wants you to have and that many don’t have a national ID program, you are correct.
Well, let’s see. We already have crafted, at great time, expense, and effort, a system to resolve differences. This system includes election of leaders to represent us and selection of judges to ensure our guiding principles are followed.
But since you don’t want to let go of your opinion when that system decides against you, you now propose a coin flip.
What possible reason do I have to believe that you’ll abide by the results of the coin flip. You won’t. You’ll lose, then look up and say, “OK, it should actually be the best two out of three flips.”
You’re being stupid Bricker. Which I guess you can’t help, since your conflicting sociopathy and Christianity are giving you HAL-like disruptions in logic.
*One partisan side got swept in and are systematically enshrining laws that give them a lasting advantage in elections. *
Honest, intelligent people know how they feel about that. And then there is you, a sloppy mess of a man who only knows that winning, even if by underhanded tactics or cheating, is all right by you.
Hey, I’m just trying to get simple concepts through your thick skull. Here, I’ll try again. ‘You have to prove who you are before you get to vote’. I know you still won’t be able to understand it, but I have hope.
What’s baffling is that you say you agree with me that there should be a national ID. You’ve provided the links yourself. But rather than fighting to ensure that the everyone gets a photo ID (and keep using excuses that you’re being prevented by the opposition from doing so), you’d rather block any attempt at implementation until the implementation is ‘perfect’. Of course, you think you should be the one that defines what ‘perfect’ is rather than those people who have been elected to do so and those people who judge the laws the former have implemented.
I’m really under the impression that the left is completely incompetent. You can’t get legislation passed when you have a majority and you can’t block it from being passed when have a minority. Again, the opposite from what your opponents seem capable of doing.
And yet …
Q: In your view, should voters in the United States be required to show official, government-issued photo identification – such as a driver’s license – when they cast ballots on Election Day, or shouldn’t they have to do this?
A: 74% say “Should be required” and only 23% say “should not be required.”
So 74% of the voters are not honest, intelligent people, but sloppy messes? Good to know that’s the official liberal attitude. I wish your liberal politicians would be honest and admit that this is how they view the electorate.
Still no apology for being a complete twat earlier in the thread? For shame. :o
State legislatures don’t necessarily have the same filibuster rules that the congressional Republicans are using to obstruct right now. So a simple majority (with a Governorship) allows them to get what they want passed. Note that the states that did this are largely those with Republican locks. They have the power and want to keep it by enacting these laws.
As for the national legislature, until this cycle, no one had used the filibuster as a standing obstruction, requiring 60 votes to do anything. That’s new in American politics and it isn’t a sign of being clever, it’s a sign that people for two hundred years had more class than the current clot of Republican Know-Nothings in the Senate.
No, because most people aren’t fully informed about the nuances of this issue.
You are. And because you know the details, and are still HAW HAW HAWing all the way to the ballot box, it shows that you are a hypocrite piece of shit, while someone who might otherwise agree with you can just be mistaken.
I’ll say it.
If someone can’t be bothered to go and get an ID that most people get and maintain as soon as they are 16, then they should’t be voting.
They are either an illegal immigrant, or a criminal, or just a loser. Or some combination of the three.
The fact that these people aren’t able to vote is a good thing for democracy.
Of course, the fact that voter confidence will increase as a result of these laws and fraudulent voting will be stopped because of these laws are true as well. But, as to people being “suppressed” by requiring a simple ID that everyone should have anyway? Cry me a river. If we turn away a couple of these bums from the polls I’m glad.
Even the cross-tabs prove you wrong. Support for the measure was still high among people who reported they had read “A lot” about the issue. And high among people who answered, “To what extent, if at all, do you think SUPPORT for voter identification laws is based on an effort to boost one political party over another” with “a great deal” or “a good amount”.
So – what’s the cite for your claim that most people aren’t fully informed? The majority support remains high even among people who are fully informed.
Hey, what a great idea! We’ll just elect Debaser to be final judge of who is worthy to vote, and who is not! Or maybe, me. See the problem, there, Debaser?
Democracy has flaws, the precise same flaws as the people it empowers. It is not more efficient, it is not more intelligent, it is simply more just. Remove that justice, and there is nothing left to fight for.