Exactly. I’d love 0.000% voter fraud. But not at the expense of disenfranchising citizens.
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.
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?”.
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.
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?
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?
How does the SSVN thingy mentioned earlier work?
Enough for someone to duplicate a photo ID of a similar looking person?
Not seeing it. You wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nope, but it showed through in your post – the assertion that “nobody could ever have trouble getting ID” is quite frankly ludicrous.
Well, the DMV is also only open during standard business hours.
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.
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.
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.
Why do you think we say that republican efforts to shorten early voting and get rid of voting on sunday show their hand?
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.
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:
Lots of claims to demolish in this post. From your link:
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?”
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:
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.
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.
Delaware 15 4937:
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.
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.
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? And never mind that such events aren’t exactly uncommon.
And this in turn doesn’t refute the fact that you are a right-wing partisan, or at least damn close to it.
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.
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.
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.