Actually you said that a majority of liberals hold this view, not that the majority of people with this view are liberals, which isn’t the same thing at all. And shouldn’t be surprising, because if someone holds this view it would by definition go a long way toward making them a liberal in your eyes, so it’s somewhat of a circular definition.
This is not even close to what you wrote.
Your wording was crystal clear: you said a majority of leftists believe illegal aliens should be allowed to vote in U.S. elections. To back that up, you linked to a thread where three people said illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote in and two others said immigration laws should be changed in a manner that would allow most illegal immigrants to vote. That was your evidence that most leftists think illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote, and you didn’t say all the people who think they should be allowed to vote are liberals.
They’re actually liberals, it’s not my fault. It’s not my definition.
Let’s argue about “is” next ok? :rolleyes:
We’re not arguing about your definition. We’re talking about your argument and the way you represented your own post.
Logic tells me that someone acting on their own, going into a polling place and voting as someone else, has to be an extremely rare occurrence.
Think about it. It’s a high risk, low payout crime.
What’s the reward for the act? One additional vote. This is highly unlikely to sway an election.
What’s the possible risk? You walk into a polling place, hoping that no one there knows Joe Blow and knows that you are not him. Polling places are neighborhood affairs. The person in front of you or behind you may know him. The election officials and monitors may know him. You could easily end up with criminal penalties. For what? One extra vote for your guy? Who’s going to take such a stupid risk for one vote?
Yes, I’ve heard the stories of dead people voting. But isn’t that more likely to involve election officials? Either they stuff the ballot box with the dead people’s votes, or in some other way collude in ways that wouldn’t be stopped by voter IDs. I can’t imagine long lines of people impersonating deceased voters, at least not without everyone in the precinct being in on it.
Any electoral fraud that has any meaningful effect would have to be some kind of inside job. IDs won’t stop this.
I’m not saying it never happens. But it’d take a lot to convince me that fraud that would be prevented by ID is a common enough occurrence to warrant this sudden flurry of legislation and to justify the barrier it adds to legitimate voting.
Yes because requiring a voter to bring in a free ID card mailed to them at the County’s expense is thisclose to causing the downfall of human civilzation.
In what sense is “cure is worse than the disease” equivalent to “downfall of civilization”?
Let me ask you a question that will perhaps clarify the opposition to this. How many valid voters turned away is acceptable per invalid voter denied? That is, if I could design a rule that catches 100 people attempting to commit voter fraud, how many legitimate voters being turned away (or simply deciding not to vote) would you be willing to exchange for that?
Because no matter how broadly you disseminate information about the ID requirement, people will forget to bring it. Hell, my wife forgot to bring any form of ID when she walked to her polling place in 2004 - she didn’t vote because she had to go to work before she could walk home and back (MO requires at least one form of ID or two election judges to recognize you).
Personally, unless you can tell me you’re stamping out election-changing levels of voter fraud I’m not willing to disenfranchise a single voter. And surely not when it doesn’t even address much more obvious and simple methods of fraud (absentee ballots in particular).
Let me deal with your last paragraph first. Any voter that cannot vote because someone stole their identity for that election is disenfranchised.
As for the rest, I have a problem with the idea that anyone can walk in, point to a name on the rolls and vote. You talk about disenfranchising voters and some have made the case that requiring state-issued photo ID disenfrancises voters to a significant extent but your argument is ridiculous. A wallet-sized card that is free and requires no work of the voter once they are registered serves to disenfranchise them because they may lose/forget it? That is not disenfrachising the voter unless you count closing times of polls as disenfrachising the voter because they may show up late or forget what day Election Day is. Or maybe not giving everyone a free ride on Election Day is disenfranchising the voter because they can’t or won’t walk.
Let’s establish one point right here and now. “Disenfranching the voter” is when the state has a policy that prevents the voter from voting. This does not include voter stupidity or not following directions (assuming the directions are in a language they understand) is not disenfranchisement. Giving the voter a “Voter’s Card” and them losing it is not disenfrachising them.
Isn’t most ‘voter fraud’ simply people voting in a precinct in which they no longer live in? When I was in college, I moved around a lot, but always voted in the precinct close to campus because it was convenient. Since the city council was elected at large, the ballot was exactly the same anywhere within a 5 mile radius of campus.
And IDs wouldn’t fix this.
Saint Cad,
People have explained this repeatedly. It’s obviously not going to get through to you, so there’s no point in explaining it one more time.
OK so I expect you to drive me to the polling place next Election Day otherwise I would be disenfranchised.
For the sake of argument, let just toss out the word “disenfranchise”. At the least, we have to distance ourselves from the utterly binary, yes/no, devil/deep blue sea approach you seem to be stuck on.
Lets posit some relatively minor inconvenience to the voter, something far, far removed from “disenfranchisement”. Maybe even your fanciful notion of a free ride to the polls (which actually happens, sometimes…) Doesn’t matter. But lets say that is the standard as it stands, that the state provides free rides to the polls.
Then suddenly the state says Nope, not gonna do it, ass, gas or cash, nobody rides for free - unless you belong in a demographic that is more likely to vote Republican, then you get the free ride. Knowing full well that such a move would lower the voting count for the Dem party by a significant amount.
Stinks, right?
But hey! Nobody is disenfranchised! You can still go the polls on the crosstown bus, or drive, or bike. Nobody is stopping you from voting, its simply a bit more convenient for the other guys to vote. It will definitely have a political effect, surely it will strengthen one party over another.
Why would we tolerate that? No, its not disenfranchisement, its only hampering a relatively small set of voters who just happen to lean Democrat. That isn’t as odious as out and out disenfranchisement, but that’s like saying swine flu is preferable to cholera.
And about how many voters does this happen to, roughly?
What is “non sequitur” Alex?
Hello, Saint Cad. I wonder if you will be willing to answer a simple question honestly.
Regardless of any issues of “fairness” or “propriety,” it has been explained to you that the practical effect of voter ID laws will be to reduce the turnout of Democrat voters – far more such voters will find it too inconvenient to vote, than cases of fraud prevented. This is likely to effect electoral outcomes.
How do you answer this? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but to save time you might pick from this list:
[ul][li] Voters too lazy to get the ID card don’t deserve to vote.[/li][li] I don’t believe the claims of ID difficulty. If that’s what left-wing researchers claim, they’re probably lying.[/li][li] Principles of right and fairness are more important than actual electoral outcomes.[/li][li] I’ll be happy if the Voter ID laws result in fewer Democrats elected.[/li][/ul]
From the political discussions on this Board, it is clear that the “two sides” really do have strikingly different senses of value and fairness, so I do hope you answer this question.
I think it’s bad to introduce a single point of failure unnecessarily. If voter ID is necessary (which I don’t concede), then there should be as many acceptable forms of ID as possible. Requiring a universally-mailed card would be better than requiring a REAL ID-compliant photo ID, but there isn’t much of a reason why someone who does have another form of identification shouldn’t be able to use it.
ETA: The very rare instances of people coming in to find that their vote has been used could also be partially remedied by doing away with registration, as was done in North Dakota in the 1950s.
If only there was some way that those who can’t easily get to their polling place could still cast a ballot . . . maybe someday. 
:rolleyes:
CMC fnord!
Why even argue? The whole point is to convince minorities and others to vote for their only hope… Democrats.
This.