# Voter ID vs Majority Rule **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 2, 2012, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-vs-majority-rule/636439 "2012-10-02T00:45:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2012, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-vs-majority-rule/636439/1 "2012-10-02T00:45:17Z")
If there are two topics this message board loves it’s libertarianism and voter id laws, so what could be better than a thread that combines them both! If (and when) voter ID laws are put to a vote, and pass by 50% +1, should the government abide by the will of the majority to suppress the minority? Or should the government resist the temptation to increase regulations, even though it’s what the people want? Do we want a government that’s strong enough to suppress voter rights, or strong enough to stay out of people’s lives? ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2012, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-vs-majority-rule/636439/2 "2012-10-02T01:03:55Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Do we want a government that’s strong enough to suppress voter rights, or strong enough to stay out of people’s lives? My understanding is that the right to vote is constitutionally protected, so all these laws don’t really have teeth, or a federal law would require an amendment to the constitution to pass. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2012, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-vs-majority-rule/636439/3 "2012-10-02T02:01:30Z")
Heck, I’m opposed to deciding civil rights issues by majority vote in general. You get a lot of bad decisions that way. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2012, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-vs-majority-rule/636439/4 "2012-10-02T02:13:02Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Or should the government resist the temptation to increase regulations, even though it’s what the people want? You can’t “regulate voting” in that sense. That’s like regulating the military, or the USGS. They’re programs where the gov’t is inherently involved. Banning black people from voting is a regulation. So is allowing black people to vote. There isn’t a “small gov’t” form of voting in the same way there isn’t a “small gov’t” form of aircraft carrier. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2012, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-vs-majority-rule/636439/5 "2012-10-02T05:34:46Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > If (and when) voter ID laws are put to a vote, and pass by 50% +1, should the government abide by the will of the majority to suppress the minority? I don’t see Voter ID laws as inherently discriminatory. They can be set up to be inclusive. It’s just that the ones the GOP has been passing are deliberately not so. But ignoring that, in my view the answer is a resounding “yes”. The law has been properly passed and should be enforced. Government should not attempt to overrule the will of the people. Obviously voting discrimination is wrong but the recourse should be to convince people of this rather than seeking to subvert democracy. > [@](#): > > Do we want a government that’s strong enough to suppress voter rights, or strong enough to stay out of people’s lives? As **Simplicio** points out, the government has to regulate vote counting in any case so it becomes neither stronger nor weaker with discrimination. The only factor making the government stronger or weaker in you scenario is the decision of whether it can ignore the will of the people. Those who answer “no, the government should not enforce discriminatory Voter ID” are answering in favor of stronger government. Those agreeing with me (which I expect will be a distinct minority) are standing for weaker government in this instance. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2012, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-vs-majority-rule/636439/6 "2012-10-02T06:29:15Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > If (and when) voter ID laws are put to a vote, and pass by 50% +1, should the government abide by the will of the majority to suppress the minority? No. > [@emacknight](#): > > Do we want a government that’s strong enough to suppress voter rights, or strong enough to stay out of people’s lives? A government strong enough to function is strong enough to suppress voter’s rights. This libertarian idea that you can prevent tyranny by making the government weak doesn’t work; a government too weak to be a tyrant is too weak to be said to exist at all in any meaningful fashion. A government too weak to be a tyrant is a government weaker than an individual person, which is too weak to do anything at all. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2012, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-vs-majority-rule/636439/7 "2012-10-02T15:06:28Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > My understanding is that the right to vote is constitutionally protected, so all these laws don’t really have teeth, or a federal law would require an amendment to the constitution to pass. The Supreme Court disagrees with you. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2012, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-vs-majority-rule/636439/8 "2012-10-02T15:07:30Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > If there are two topics this message board loves it’s libertarianism and voter id laws, so what could be better than a thread that combines them both! > > If (and when) voter ID laws are put to a vote, and pass by 50% +1, should the government abide by the will of the majority to suppress the minority? > > Or should the government resist the temptation to increase regulations, even though it’s what the people want? > > Do we want a government that’s strong enough to suppress voter rights, or strong enough to stay out of people’s lives? Since Voter ID laws don’t suppress voter rights, as a general rule, you’ve offered up a false dichotomy. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2012, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-vs-majority-rule/636439/9 "2012-10-02T15:28:44Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > This libertarian idea that you can prevent tyranny by making the government weak doesn’t work; a government too weak to be a tyrant is too weak to be said to exist at all in any meaningful fashion. A government too weak to be a tyrant is a government weaker than an individual person, which is too weak to do anything at all. A brief hijack to say I’ll agree with this statement by itself (while not presenting an opinion on Voter ID _per se_). Political power, rulership, whatever you want to call it, abhors a vacuum even more than the proverbial “nature” itself. A government too weak to _be_ a tyrant is too weak to _resist_ a tyrant. Even if it is not directly overthrown, its power will be replaced by some other entity in effect. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2012, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-vs-majority-rule/636439/10 "2012-10-02T18:29:50Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > If (and when) voter ID laws are put to a vote, and pass by 50% +1, should the government abide by the will of the majority to suppress the minority? No. Our government was founded the way it was to prevent [tyranny of the majority’](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority). ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2012, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-vs-majority-rule/636439/11 "2012-10-02T18:45:22Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > My understanding is that the right to vote is constitutionally protected, so all these laws don’t really have teeth, or a federal law would require an amendment to the constitution to pass. [Ask a felon if their right to vote is constitutionally protected.](http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/1018/Supreme-Court-rejects-Massachusetts-felons-voting-rights-challenge) ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2012, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-vs-majority-rule/636439/12 "2012-10-02T22:29:55Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > No. Our government was founded the way it was to prevent [tyranny of the majority’](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority). Our government was also designed to protect slavery. Obviously it’s not infallible. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2012, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-vs-majority-rule/636439/13 "2012-10-14T19:31:31Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > “…should the government abide by the will of the majority to suppress the minority?” > No. > \ > A government too weak to be a tyrant is a government weaker than an individual person, which is too weak to do anything at all. So you want a government strong enough to be a tyrant, but you don’t want it to oppress the minority. Shouldn’t a democratic government represent the voice of the majority, otherwise who are they representing? And lastly, what’s to stop a government strong enough to be a tyrant from then becoming a tyrant? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-vs-majority-rule/636439/14 "2012-10-15T00:25:56Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > So you want a government strong enough to be a tyrant, but you don’t want it to oppress the minority. > > Shouldn’t a democratic government represent the voice of the majority, otherwise who are they representing? > > And lastly, what’s to stop a government strong enough to be a tyrant from then becoming a tyrant? Our government was specifically designed to prevent a tyranny of the majority. Most modern democracies have followed our example. If the government’s strength comes from the legitimacy it gets from the support of its people, then people would have to vote for that tyranny. We do not have a majority of voters that would accept tyranny even if it meant they could get everything else they wanted politically. Conservatives would vote for FDR and Liberals would vote for Ronald Reagan to avoid real tyranny. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-vs-majority-rule/636439/15 "2012-10-15T23:50:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Since Voter ID laws don’t suppress voter rights, as a general rule, you’ve offered up a false dichotomy. That’s right, they don’t suppress voter rights (in most cases), they suppress voter participation. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2012, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-vs-majority-rule/636439/16 "2012-10-16T13:27:17Z")
What on earth does this have to do with Libertarianism? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2012, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-vs-majority-rule/636439/17 "2012-10-16T14:05:02Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > So you want a government strong enough to be a tyrant, but you don’t want it to oppress the minority. If a government isn’t strong enough to be a tyranny, it isn’t strong enough to do _anything_; including keep the peace. It takes a strong government to protect minorities. A weak government doesn’t mean freedom, it means the law of the jungle. > [@emacknight](#): > > Shouldn’t a democratic government represent the voice of the majority, otherwise who are they representing? As far as possible, everyone. > [@emacknight](#): > > And lastly, what’s to stop a government strong enough to be a tyrant from then becoming a tyrant? The desires of the people, _including_ the people in the government, to not be a tyranny. The same thing that prevents the military from overthrowing the present government and setting up a dictatorship. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2012, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-vs-majority-rule/636439/18 "2012-10-16T14:40:58Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > My understanding is that the right to vote is constitutionally protected, so all these laws don’t really have teeth, or a federal law would require an amendment to the constitution to pass. First, there are other rights that are constitutionally protected where ID can be required to exercise them. Secondly, registration is a burden on voting rights. Why is requiring registration constitutional but ID not, according to those opposed to ID? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2012, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-vs-majority-rule/636439/19 "2012-10-16T14:43:18Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > If a government isn’t strong enough to be a tyranny, it isn’t strong enough to do _anything_; including keep the peace. It takes a strong government to protect minorities. A weak government doesn’t mean freedom, it means the law of the jungle. I don’t think people want weak government, so much as limited government. Government should have great power to exercise its enumerated powers. It should have no power at all to exercise powers it is not granted. Besides, the less a government has to do, the better it can be at doing what it’s supposed to be doing. Right now we have a government that no one man can possibly be responsible for, yet our Constitution elects one guy to do the job. So by supporting big government, we’ve given up democratic accountability. It’s never anyone’s fault when things go wrong unless the head of government was personally involved. Which is a great incentive to not get personally involved in anything that might be unpopular. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2012, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-vs-majority-rule/636439/20 "2012-10-16T14:45:46Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I don’t think people want weak government, so much as limited government. Some people certainly do want a weak government. **emacknight** in this thread comes to mind. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-vs-majority-rule/636439.md?page=2)