I don’t believe this statistic says what you want it to say.
There are plenty of toddlers that that are US citizens and don’t have photo ID.
How many adults?
That survey is eight years old, and predates the vast majority of Voter ID laws. I am sure that a large number of people in 2006 who did not have ID decided to get free ID if their state started asking for photo ID to vote.
Oh, good, you’re sure! Well, that certainly settles that!
It’s for you to provide better evidence than an eight year old survey, especially when the key issue being discussed has changed.
I could cite a survey from 2006 that proves that only a few dozen people use Twitter.
He’s giving up on “very few people don’t have ID” and switching back to “they can get it if they’re motivated enough”. And of course the response to that is that motivation isn’t the only factor. People with only slight motivation but who already have ID or can get it easily may be more likely to end up voting then someone who’s more motivated but has difficulty getting the ID (they’re miles away from the DMV or they can’t get a BC or whatever).
Sure you could argue that we only want the most motivated people to vote, I would disagree, but it’s not a totally unreasonable argument, provided that we start with a level playing field where everyone has relatively comparable hurdles to overcome so that motivation is the only factor.
Why do you get to be the one announcing all these rules that we must follow?
I have a rule: when legislatures enact it, governors sign it, courts approve it, and it had widespread public support, then it should be a law.
This system may sound crazy, but even if it creates a poor law, it’s not clear to me how else we would possibly craft laws.
How are you saying we should do it?
If this is the only system you can imagine, you probably can’t be educated further.
We all have the ability to judge the law and respond accordingly. Legality does not define morality.
What I cant get is why an adult would not want a picture ID? Sooner or later someones going to ask you for it, even to pay for something with a credit card.
You’re arguing with someone for whom legality is morality. Or, I should clarify - authority is morality.
Said has friend in America who never had a photo id. You said liar and moron. Now, you want to try to frame that in a way that seems calmly reasonable.
Please. Don’t start shit, won’t be shit.
Every time I come across one of the few stories on actual voter fraud having been caught, it’s a Republican who has committed it.
Wisconsin Republican donor busted for voting 5 times in Gov. Scott Walker’s recall election, plus casting two ballots in the April 2011 Supreme Court election, two ballots in the August 2011 recall election between Alberta Darling and Sandy Pasch, one illegal ballot in the August 2012 partisan primary election and two ballots in the 2012 presidential election, pleads insanity.
Wasn’t sure if this was better suited here or the Stupid Republican Idea of the Day thread.
P.S. Having to show an ID wouldn’t have prevented any of this in the least.
Where I used to live, the nearest DMV was 30 miles away. There was no public transport. Getting photo ID would involve one hell of a long bike ride, or asking one of your friends to basically spend the whole day helping you get your ID (and again, there’s no guarantee that everything will work the first time). Either way, if you work full time, it’s really difficult to do. This is not some rare circumstance; there are a lot of people for whom getting ID is a huge pain in the ass. They’ve never needed it, so why not go without it?
What a lying tool. You know exactly what survey I’m talking about and you’ve seen it many times.
Given that this figure has remained fairly stable for a long time, comparing it to a new form of technology is simply asinine. I suppose new data would be in order, but this comparison is so dumb I can’t even wrap my head around it. ID is useful for a great number of things beyond voting.
Listen very carefully, you phenomenal tool. The question is not and since the court cases has not been “is this law legitimate”. The question is and has at least in part been from the beginning, SHOULD THIS LAW EXIST. Is this law justified. Can we rationally say that it deserves support. Get that through your thick skull, you complete retard. Stop acting like “people voted for it” = “it’s a good idea”. This sort of posturing just paints you as clinically retarded at best and irredeemably dishonest at worst, especially after it’s been going on for years.
So how would you say we should make the laws?
It’s not a matter of wanting or not wanting. It’s a matter of the difficulty of obtaining one. In any case, not everyone has credit cards, and it seems likely that there’s a large overlap between those who don’t have a photo ID and those who don’t have a credit card. A lot of the people we’re talking about struggle financially on a daily basis and couldn’t get a credit card even if they wanted one.
It’s not a “new form of technology.”
It’s a law that creates a new incentive for having a photo ID, and also creates a free photo ID. It’s absolutely reasonable to say that the introduction of a new, free ID, and a law that requires photo ID in order to vote, will cause more people to get photo IDs.
But in order to support your claims that this law should not exist, you’re announcing all sorts of rules. If you say, for example, that everyone must have comparable hurdles to overcome, and then start to analyze the Voter ID law in light of that rule, you’ve won the argument: everyone will not have comparable hurdles to overcome.
But I say that’s not the correct rule. even without Voter ID, wealthy people can more easily afford to take time off work to go vote, and choose to vote during less busy times, which generally means that they’ll spend less time in line. And we accept this inequity, as we accept the fact that LOTS of things are easier for people who have money. That doesn’t make our current system “immoral.”
So my question goes to the creation of these rules. I’m asking you why, in a debate about the wisdom of a law, you get to be the one to craft these rules and you seem to feel I must accept them.
Can a generally moral system produce an occasional immoral result?
And I spent the better part of an hour outlining my reasoning in the other thread. None of this, of course, has anything to do with my objection, which is that every time you’re backed into a corner on issues like this, you immediately turn it into a discussion of democracy. That’s incredibly fucking dishonest, and blatantly transparent. All you’re doing is pissing people off.
And I spent time in the other thread explaining why I didn’t accept your reasoning.
So why do you believe you still get to announce it as a given?
Bricker, can a generally moral system produce an occasional immoral result?