You keep doing that. You keep pretending that this is all about voter ID laws and their validity, or lack thereof. No matter how many times you are told otherwise, you just keep right on. We point out the problems, you defend voter ID. We point out the increased restrictions on voter registration, you defend voter ID. We point out the Floridian Clusterfuck in progress, and you defend voter ID. We point out what appears to be targeted restrictions on expanded voting hours, you defend voter ID.
Damn, you’re so willfully ignorant you don’t even see what the ignorance is.
Hint: Yours is being used to help promote a partisan agenda in opposition to the principles of democracy, under the false pretenses of eliminating a “problem” that doesn’t fucking exist and, even if it did, would not be solved by the proposed “solution”.
Your only excuse is that so many other people are similarly letting their own ignorance be manipulated. Yet you are actually claiming that as support. Ain’t enough rolleyes smileys for ya there, pard.
Simply a misstatement of a perfectly valid premise, that one group of citizens are not entitled to infringe on the voting rights of another group. Not much for you to gloat over, unless you’re really hungry.
Guys, can we stop? Please? It’s over, you lost (twice!), give it a rest. You lost in the public arena, where you tried to use democratic means to stop Voter ID laws. You failed in the courts, who went ahead and said “Nope, this is constitutional”. What’s next? Violent rebellion?
There have been a few cases, at various stages and with differing results. The process is hardly over, and the losses are hardly comprehensive. That’s the basic fact of the law, but it’s hardly a surprise that you can’t present it honestly.
The other problem, that you observe no distinction between what is legal and what is right, is something you are not capable of understanding.
Oh, yeah, Bricker, you totally rule! Like your answer to why it was needful to cut back expanded voting in the black community, you said it maybe it was to save money! And people say you don’t have much of a sense of humor! I’ll just refer them to that, that was a knee-slapper! Dennis Miller, look out! Republican humor has a new star.
Really, were you smirking when you typed that? C’mon, you can tell us…
Well the previous poll tax, that also targeted the poor and minorities, like this one was instituted by partisans who hate truly representative Democracy. It eventually died when people truly came to understand how ugly it was.
Eventually.
Meanwhile you never did answer my question. How come no Republican state has instituted a program to help the poor get IDs?
You haven’t proven that this will stop people from voting who actually want to vote.
If you think that going through the effort of creating a dummy ID to commit voter fraud is anywhere near as easy as just showing up at a voting booth and claiming to be someone else, then there is no hope for you.
Principles of democracy? You don’t have a clue.
As elucidator points out, and I think it is the only valid point on your side of this debate, there isn’t a universal ID system in the US. If everyone had an ID we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. I think you’d be fully on board with it as a requirement to be shown at the polling booth. And if you weren’t, you’d be in a group of one railing against it. Yet, other countries have ID requirements and do not have universal IDs.
One of those principles of democracy is that the electorate is informed and votes. Being informed means that they must know the requirements of how to vote. I’m pretty sure when you say ‘Principles’, you are just talking about the ‘rights’ portion of it rather than ‘responsibilities’ aspect.
What is right is that only the people eligible to vote in an election do so. That requires proof. That you can’t seem to link the two is your and your psychiatrist’s issue.
So why can’t people use the e-verify system and their social security number to vote?
Why no programs from Republican states to help people get this proof?
I’ll tell you why, because they’re antidemocratic hacks. Republicans hate democracy, and so do you.
Also, nice goal post shifting. This is what you said:
Apparently you’re against any American who can’t jump through Republican obstetrical voting.
You’re against democracy. Your mother was such a negligent whore she couldn’t even raise you to understand the basic principles of Democracy. Everyone gets a vote.
Really, you do need to go back and read the thread.
Um, you are claiming there’s a real problem of that nature, not me. No hope indeed.
Then do please enlighten us as to how restricting ballot access promotes democracy. This should be fascinating.
If there were a real problem, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Or if the “solution” being proposed by the same people who are telling you there’s a problem would actually address it, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But that would require you to be less willfully ignorant and less easily led, wouldn’t it?
Where’s the part about not being deterred or even banned from voting if legally qualified? :rolleyes: Hint: There is no basic principle that voters be informed, either. You’re willfully ignorant about that too.
But not that they be prevented from it? :rolleyes:
Your ignorance is pernicious to the point of being a danger to society.
A two year old gets to vote now? No, only people who are eligible get to vote. Now one of the requirements to be ‘eligible’ is having an ID. Which most people manage to do quite handily.
Hey, you yourself offered the figure that approximately 3% of the populace that didn’t vote didn’t do so because they were struggling with the voter ID laws. Maybe that number will go down, but anything more than a tiny fraction of a percent is not okay; refer to my equation. Others have pointed out
I’d like to hear your numbers for X and Y. What percentage of people without ID do you think lack ID because they simply can’t get it? What is the margin of error on the investigations into voter fraud that have happened in the last decade? Because if those numbers aren’t ridiculously low and ridiculously high, respectively, then voter ID laws are simply not worth it, and no other factor matters. Not laziness – your ability to vote is not contingent upon you jumping through hoops – not richness – your ability to vote is not contingent on your ability to pay for ID, certificates, or transportation – not ANYTHING ELSE. If the number of people effectively prevented from legally voting with this law is larger than the number of fraudulent votes stopped, then the law does not work, and must be scrapped. Full stop.
And yes, I have offered multiple explanations for why someone might struggle getting ID. I’ve pointed out how in my old hometown, there’s no public transport, and the nearest DMV is 30 miles away – this applies for all of the 10,000 year-round residents – any of them without ID are kinda fucked if they can’t get their friends or relatives to help them. I’ve explained how, if the closest DMV isn’t in walking distance, you generally have to pay for transit, and that already is too much of a charge for “free” ID for some people, who have to prioritize making sure they make their next rent payment over their ability to vote. I’ve gone over this shit time and time again, and others in this thread have pointed out their personal difficulty with getting ID. Hell, I even cited the case of a middle-class, white couple who took one of their only normal days off to drive an hour to the nearest DMV, spent all day there, and still couldn’t get ID. What’s not clicking here? I’ll say it again: you are suffering from “Atlas Shrugged Syndrome”: “I pulled it off while in a situation that was disadvantageous, so why can’t everyone else?” Well, duh, they aren’t in your situation. You were driving. That’s already a huge leg up on those with no photo ID!
I dunno, the fact that we live in a constitutional democracy, rather than a free-for-all? If over half the country says “people who have registered as republicans have shown that they are mentally incapable of holding the responsibility of voting, and therefore shall be stripped of the right to vote”, would that be okay? :rolleyes:
Yeah, we lost in the public arena. But much like the suffragists, we’re not done. Just because the public has fallen for a fairly obvious and clearly wrong propaganda campaign does not mean that we’re not going to stop trying to sway the public opinion. Voter ID is a common-sense solution, much like Euclidean geometry, Aristotelian physics, and racial profiling. And like those three, it’s a horrendously bad idea once you actually look into it.
There are already restrictions. You don’t seem to have a problem with them, only with ones that seem to prevent the retarded from voting for your party.
And did you see how many don’t vote because of the choice of candidates? Getting better candidates would do more for democracy than worrying about a few people who can’t vote because they are incapable of getting an ID.
That 3% is about the same as those who claim they didn’t vote because of the weather. Should you hand out umbrellas to get those people to come out? And a whole bunch more claimed they were busy. What should the government do to make them less busy? It’s the governments responsibility after all, just like you think it is their job to get them IDs. Explain why the government shouldn’t do something about the weather? Or about bus fair as that is just another form of poll tax, or gas money, or the baby sitter.:rolleyes:
Are people expected to have any responsibility in your world?
That’s your concern, not mine. This isn’t the same as ‘guilty beyond a reasonable doubt’. To vote you have to belong to the club and prove it. It is better that some don’t vote to prevent the one who shouldn’t, imho.
Again and again, those are excuses not reasons. There is no reason you can’t get to whatever registry you are required to get to in a 4 year period.
Where the rule of law is required to maintain that democracy. Without the law you have a free-for-all. If the law says that retards aren’t allowed to vote, then that is the restriction that the democracy deems necessary to get an informed opinion from its voters. You talk about rights as if they are separate from responsibility, but they aren’t.
Help me out here. I remember the Bill of Rights is right there at the beginning of the CotUS. The Bill of Responsibilities, I’m pretty sure it’s not at the end, it’s in the middle right?
