Cite for this ensuring voter confidence in the results? There’s still absentee voting, which (pace Dallas Jones) stinks of fraud left, right, up, and down. This is a ploy to interfere with the people who actually show up in person to vote in person, but leave unmolested those who steal their neighbors’ or family members’ ballots to falsify their votes by mail.
At which point she’ll have 6 days to come up with ID that she doesn’t have, or her vote is disallowed.
That’s an interesting concept, your vote doesn’t count if you walk up to your official voting location and present yourself physically to voting officials, but if you hide at home and process your vote in secret, it’s good.
Do we really need to re-hash every argument toward how requiring someone to take extra steps in order vote causes disenfranchizement? That’s the whole crux of the argument. Saying that someone needs to get an ID in order to vote and proving that it’s simple by stating, “hey, ID’s exist,” is practically begging the question.
It’s the hoops that that are the issue, not where one lands once he jumps through them.
At a cost of what, two or three million dollars per prevented vote?
I really have trouble squaring these voter ID laws with the voting rights act.
a lot of the arguments that can be made against literacy tests seem to be applicable here as well, voter IDs are obviously easier to defend but the motive and the effect are similar.
Motives? Why, the motive is as pure as the driven snow, it all about voter integrity and confidence! And if, to this worthy end, some several thousand Democrat voters disappear, that is an unfortunate result, but one the Republicans stand ready to accept, as stern duty demands.
Damned white of them.
… by a Republican judge. I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you!
Big, fat lie. There has never been a single shred of evidence for your baseless claim, and even the plaintiffs in this case conceded out of the gate that they would be bringing no evidence of ANY sort.
None.
Zip.
Zero.
Nada.
You just keep making shit up.
Please stop repeating the right wing frames. EVERY time we do, even to debunk them, we inadvertently reinforce them.
Please read this.
Understanding the science behind how these games work is going to be critical to winning this fight.
Thanks!
You were never not confident before your craven, lying, stealing, election cheating party told you to be a big ol’ fat scardy cat without a damn shred of evidence to show you why you should be, which their followers lapped up like hungry pigs (which they knew they would do). It was a fucking DOG WHISTLE. Period.
From the Pit:
[QUOTE=Bricker]
You, personally, want the Democrats to benefit from illegal votes, both from non-citizens and felons. You crave it. You live for it. It’s obvious – no need to deny it.
[/QUOTE]
As I noted there, this could simply be you doing some personal one-on-one trolling, so I asked you to clarify. So far, nada.
(emphasis added)
Now, this has to be a bit of good news, softening potential harm. What evidence did they show? Were there provisions for outreach in the law, and a budget to support such efforts?
Why should I cite a blessed thing?
Sure, if I were arguing that we should pass such a law, then it would be incumbent on me to cite claims I made to encourage its passage.
Now, it’s a done deal. It’s the status quo. The burden is not on me to continue justifying it. If someone seeks to repeal it, or to enjoin enforcement of it, THEY have the burden of persuasion.
If I were doing some personal, one-on-one needling in The Pit, admitting it would sort of blunt the effect, wouldn’t it? And in the Pit,I never said it was widespread or even if it existed: I merely claimed Lobohan wanted it.
And I asked you to stop attributing opinions to me that are not mine. I actually think the vote is the bedrock of democracy. And I would be against this even if it were Democrats that were the ones likely to gain the advantage. Partisan position has to be subordinate to democracy itself.
I would note that you seem to suggest that it is acceptable to make it harder (and perhaps in some cases impossible) for millions of people to vote, to combat an all but non-existent problem.
This particular conversation belongs in the Pit.
Then don’t bring it up and name me specifically with an untrue aspersion to my morals and character.
How about addressing the second paragraph?
I didn’t bring it up.
Slightly harder? Yes, it’s acceptable to add a tiny additional burden to combat a very real issue with voter confidence.
The burden isn’t tiny. Many people simply won’t be able to vote, because they don’t know that their ID is insufficient. Many others are in a catch 22 situation where they would have to spend many hours figuring out a solution, if possible.
Also, how does making it harder (or in some cases impossible) for millions of Americans to vote, while keeping perhaps tens of people from falsely voting increasing the integrity of the system?
To the extent that it would increase confidence, it would be because of outright lies on the right that have created a false narrative that groups like ACORN were involved in voter-fraud. So, if voter-fraud is largely a concern based on a lie, it’s still a good idea to make it harder for millions of Americans to vote, just so you can combat the non-existent problem?
It makes the integrity of the polls worse, not better, so it’s a bad law.
Unless you think severing someone’s arm is a great solution to a hangnail.
Shayna, this isn’t appropriate for this forum. You can attack the argument, but you have to do it without comments about the poster like “You just keep making shit up.” Calling a post a “big fat lie” is also borderline.
You can accuse other posters of trolling in the Pit, but not here. Don’t do this again unless you’re in the correct forum.
Voter ID laws are just common sense. And the bipartisan Baker-Carter commission recommended voter ID, along with a lot of other suggestions, to tighten up the integrity of the elections process.
http://www1.american.edu/ia/cfer/
http://www1.american.edu/ia/cfer/report/CFER_section2.pdf
And for those who think the problem is too small, why not apply that same logic to tax enforcement? The number of tax fraud convictions is pretty darn small. Since we are spending a lot of money to burdening a lot of people to fight a very small problem, then shouldn’t we stop audits?
Wouldn’t this also apply to travel? What problem is requiring ID to get on a train or plane supposed to solve? How frequently does the problem of people not being who they say they are travelling come up?
Untrue.
If it were true, the petitioners could have produced a witness or two to say so. They looked desperately for them and couldn’t find one.
Not true again. The lack of confidence arises from the obvious example of Florida in 2000, which brought home the real possibility of a razor thin electoral margin.
Says you. I say nay nay. And in a representative democracy, guess how we resolve disputes like this one?