23 Mar '15 01:52>
See this thread, which I started a little over four years ago:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=136721
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=136721
Originally posted by EladarThere's absolutely no evidence that Voter ID laws do anything but repress and intimidate actual legal voters which is what they are intended to do.
Yeah, we wouldn't have to make people prove they can vote before they vote. That is simply not the way it should be done. We all know people are supposed to vote early and vote often.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHere's a thought, stop smok'in the pipe.
No, it's not an "endorsement." If it was an endorsement, he would say he supported the measure. He didn't.
Here's a thought. Why not attack actual policy proposals and the actual record of the Obama administration? For a president as weak as Obama, this is not very difficult.
Originally posted by sh76But a "democracy" that has a low voter turn out is an embarrassment to that said democracy. It shows a great amount of dysfunction, especially one that only has a 10% approval rating for Congress for the past couple of decades.
Forcing people to vote is one of the dumbest political ideas I've ever heard. Just as the right to speak implies the right to remain silent, the right to vote implies the right to desist from voting. If a citizen, in protest, decides to make a political statement by not voting, how can it be the government's right or job to prevent that from occurring?
What an abhorrent and cynical attempt to gain a political advantage!
Originally posted by whodeyAnyone who has to be forced to vote is probably not making a thought out decision. Quantity will lessen the quality of voters in a nation where people are already swayed by stupid reasons to vote (like the best zingers in a debate, or celebrity endorsements).
But a "democracy" that has a low voter turn out is an embarrassment to that said democracy. It shows a great amount of dysfunction, especially one that only has a 10% approval rating for Congress for the past couple of decades.
I think that is what drives the "get the vote out" campaigns. It's an attempt to try and legitimize the broken system.
Originally posted by PhrannyThose are different, admittedly serious issues. But a call to the (usually county) registrar is enough the get on the rolls of those to receive ballots by mail. (For what it is worth.) Admittedly as well, one must have a stable mailing address, or keep it up to date. But I am with you on the flaws of the system.
Voting by mail still requires you contact city hall. Unfortunately many on this site are clueless as to what life is like for millions of U.S. citizens who are barely scraping by with multiple jobs. It is entirely possible to work 40 hours or more and still qualify for public assistance. Now with all the money pouring into the two top parties, many people feel it is just a toss up, which I do not think is really true, at least not yet.
Originally posted by whodeyPlease present evidence that that is true.
What's worse is they repress illegal voters as well.
Originally posted by no1marauderThat there is voter fraud is not contested by any legitimate facts. It is worse some places than others. Chicago and Louisiana are notorious for pets, and dead people voting. In a nation where only a small percentage of registered voters bothers to exercise the franchise, and there is some evidence of fraud, requiring evidence of identity seems not any infringement on the voter's rights. A single fraudulent vote steals the franchise of one legal, legitimate voter. By far, the great majority of Americans have or can get some form of picture ID without much problem.
Please present evidence that that is true
I know you've never bothered to check, so I'll give a tiny number of cases where someone used their sister's name or some such but this isn't a serious concern). They know that poorer people and/or those of color have a much greater chance of A) Not having a photo ID and B) Voting Democratic. Anyone who claims differently is either being willfully ignorant or a liar.
Originally posted by normbenignYou've made such assertions before and I've shown that they are incorrect; obtaining the type of photo IDs that these laws require is often quite burdensome esp. when the State deliberately excludes certain types of photo IDs (like college IDs) and makes access to places where other IDs can be obtained difficult (as in rural counties where DMV offices are rarely open). Any burden on a right should be minimal and these aren't.
That there is voter fraud is not contested by any legitimate facts. It is worse some places than others. Chicago and Louisiana are notorious for pets, and dead people voting. In a nation where only a small percentage of registered voters bothers to exercise the franchise, and there is some evidence of fraud, requiring evidence of identity seems not any i ...[text shortened]... duty. When I decide it is not in my interest to vote, I don't want government telling me I must.
Originally posted by normbenignI like that you're acknowledging the trade-off inherent to these laws. But I still don't understand how you ultimately reach the conclusion that the added benefit of preventing ineligible votes outweighs the detrimental consequence of preventing otherwise perfectly valid votes.
In a nation where only a small percentage of registered voters bothers to exercise the franchise, and there is some evidence of fraud, requiring evidence of identity seems not any infringement on the voter's rights. A single fraudulent vote steals the franchise of one legal, legitimate voter. By far, the great majority of Americans have or can get some form of picture ID without much problem.