Even if those numbers are high, you’ll grant that some people don’t have the requisite IDs, right?
Not having an ID, especially when poor or old, means spending a fair amount of effort to get one. This acts as a disincentive to vote. If Dems created a law that made likely GOP voters spend five hours on some tedious task to get to the point where they can vote, fewer would vote, right?
Obviously it’s possible for any individual to vote. But the roadblocks will discourage some. All to combat a problem that as far as we can tell, virtually doesn’t exist.
Your supposed “memory” issues arise again, elucidator.
Here is the sequence of conversation:
See? IF…THEN.
IF there are people unable to cast votes, THEN I’d be extremely supportive of mandating additional resources towards removing whatever barriers were creating the inability.
Now you want to demand the names of the politicians providing those additional resources without first identifying the names of the people unable to vote.
Well, judges in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Texas had blocked or overturned voter ID laws on the basis of the burdens they pose to voters (you know, actual real voters), so I feel confident that I’m not just making shit up here.
Great. Got any examples of politicians who are advocating for voter ID laws who are also advocating for streamlining of the issuing of said IDs?
Ooops, I already asked that.
I don’t know about “demand”, but it would certainly be helpful to know if some politicians advocating for extra burdens put on voters had put some thought toward allocating resources to make those burdens as light as possible. It would give some indication that they had honest concerns about the integrity of elections (i.e. the votes should be fair even if they don’t go our way), even in they were misguidedly and wastefully addressing a near-nonexistent problem.
You seem to have an awful lot of trust in the people claiming a significant problem exists and that photo IDs for voters will solve it without creating more problems. To me this suggest a rather shocking naïveté (including ignorance of historical efforts at strategic disenfranchisement) or possibly a deep disingenuity.
And other judges in those states, and other states, have disagreed.
So…? Why are those judges you mention the ones we should be listening to? How about we listen to the final judgement in each state? Otherwise, you pick the favorable and ignore the unfavorable.
It’s funny. Why does elucidator get to do his stuff without someone demanding that he respond honestly, and meanwhile everyone spends post after post announcing how disingenuous I am, and what a liar I am… but when I actually do make a (clearly identified) lying post, there’s no hesitation in asking me to respond honestly.
Seems to me if you folks truly believed I was so dishonest, the request you make above would never be made; you’d know it was useless.
Because 'luci was being silly. You, however, are attempting to pretend you’re a serious debater, and not a partisan ideologue.
You certainly seem disingenuous, since you spend your time obfuscating instead of engaging. The very post I’m responding to, is little more than an attempt to make your failed arguments take a backseat to the 'luci and the WAPO.
You want to solve a problem that you say impacts voter confidence, by causing a larger problem, that would cause a larger impact to voter confidence.
If you’re not being disingenuous, you’re too blinded by your ideology to be able to think about this clearly.
Because you pretend to be honest, and as more and more people see what a facade that is, I am tickled. <3
Yes, those numbers seem high, but yes: I grant that the number is certainly not zero.
Yes, I agree it acts as a disincentive to vote. But I contend it’s a small burden, a small disincentive, and acts on a small number of voters.
Meanwhile, I think there are illegal votes cast, because people know that they can do so with impunity. In most cases, the number of votes thus cast are not a danger to the result. In very close elections, however, they can be enough to call the result into question. Florida in 2000. Washington State in 2006. Indiana Eighth in 1984.
Assurances that votes cast can be reliably prosecuted if they are fraudulent is an excellent disincentive to cast them, and that, in turn, is sufficient good for the scheme to exist. That’s what I say. So does the US Supreme Court.
And my inclusion of the hash tag? I guess I messed up there, huh? I was a perfect disguise until I ruined my dishonesty by leaving the clue for eagle-eyed observers such as you.
Well, my warmth, charm and astonishing resemblance to George Clooney may be factors. Or it could just as easily be that nobody particularly likes me but they can’t stand you.
Because no matter how good the requirements gathering was to create the Use cases, there will always be an exception that someone has to go outside of the established processes and procedures to address. As for how many miles, as many as it takes. That’s their job and everyone else’s job on the planet: to problem solve.
You can listen to whoever you want. The sole point is that my objections are not as “non-sequitor” as Stratocaster suggested. I have judges who object to voter ID laws, you have judges that don’t. I guess we’ll see the effect, if any, come November.
Why not just make it easier and not create the problem in the first place? I lack confidence the gathering efforts were all that good, but I’m open to evidence of a politician who says something along the lines of “We should mandate picture ID for voters, and here’s my detailed plan to make these IDs available to every voter at no or minimal cost or burden to them, including the elderly who no longer have driver’s licenses, married women who may have identifying documents under their maiden and married names, and recently-sworn citizens. Further, I move we establish an independent agency with the sole and primary purpose of maintaining voter roles with the greatest accuracy possible.”