It won't disenfranchise anyone that cares. Getting an ID is one of the easiest things for anyone to do and nearly everyone has one already. For the few rednecks out in the sticks that refuse to get an ID.....well it's their choice not to vote. Also, do you REALLY think those rednecks out in the sticks that don't have ID's REALLY vote for Democrats? Everyone else needs an ID for daily life and they are super easy to get. It's just protecting illegal votes, fraud that would only be detectable if you actually checked the ID of those voting instead of just taking their word for it. In a world of rampant identity theft, it's hilarious to think that no one would vote using their assumed identity.
Registering to vote is an ... impediment? Wow! How would these people be in the citizen database, if they've never gone through the process of getting an ID? SS Card? If they have that...getting an ID is easy..so what's the problem with having them get one? Possible. But then as we don't require ID, we wouldn't really know, would we? Tell me, through this process, without any ID, how on earth we then verify that the person that shows up is who they say they are? They probably do. Democrats have done the same (trying to disenfranchise the military, as an example...really, the military? who deserves to vote more than someone who as served their country?). BUT that doesn't mean that our process should include some way of positively identifying those who vote. Which neither you, nor anyone else, can make a REASONABLE argument against. Well, there already IS a free and easy way to get the necessary ID...you simply go get one. So, no they wouldn't have. What is more interesting, though, is how none of those against this have done anything to help these people, they claim to so desperately care about, perform this simple act, which has other useful benefits. It is hard to get along in today's world with no ID. Your inability to come up with any actual argument against this is duly noted, and reported to YOUR echo chamber. I'd bet money you wouldn't even be able to identify what my 'echo chamber' might be, in fact. So, congratulations on better displaying YOUR echo chamber. But then why not construct them better as opposed to arguing AGAINST properly identifying voters? ???? Ah, wonderful. So your ID of identifying them is 'Well, they said that's who they were, and they signed that as their name'? Seriously??? They can't compare signatures (why would they have previously voting listings there, and how could they do that if someone moved?). If they could, please explain, in detail, how this is better than showing an ID. So, we have you down for arguing that yes, indeed, our voting process should have lower security than writing a check. Duly noted, as is how this definitely validates your echo chamber, and calls into question the rest of your arguments. Have you considered WHY you don't have to sign a separate register (and you do, actually, that register being....your check)? Because you have to show your ID which is a much better form of identification. You want a better analogy? Try making an argument that we should abandon all requirements for picture ID on our passport and our passport application, and see how far that gets with the authorities. They will, correctly, dismiss it. Why? Because you cannot properly identify someone without it. Pretty simple, one would think. But yet people argue against it nonetheless. Why do we have our pictures on those state ID's, too, if putting it there is just so darned pointless? You could just tell your name to whoever asked, and sign something for them. That would definitively identify you, right? Oh, and they'd have to check and see if John Smith actually existed, somewhere. Ya, that's a big impediment, no one would think of doing that. I agree that the motivations here were likely political, as are the motivations for being against it. BUT that doesn't mean that doing this doesn't actually make sense...because it does. In fact, NOT doing it is what doesn't make any sense. The only question is HOW to go about doing it.
Has it? Voter fraud was so endemic in Chicago they coined the phrase "Vote early, vote often" There are examples (as mentioned in the article) of dead people voting. Which is pretty easy to imagine in today's system...just peruse the obits to see who died, then show up as them and vote. 1.8 MILLION of them still on registration rolls. Enough to sway an election? Definitely. No, of course not. All our ID's and passports requiring them, that's just stupid. Why does anyone ever request your ID, when it is so unnecessary. Who knew? By all means, please do start a cause eliminating the use of ID's...see how far you get. Because, you know, all these things requiring them, that's just discriminatory, so you must be against it, right? How dare anyone make me prove I'm not some dead person, when I signed my name, and verbally told them yep, that's me! No one would ever cheat that system, right?
No Gladio, Im arguing that voter ID laws are a red herring to the bigger picture at hand. I dont have a problem with voter ID laws because Im forced to show my ID to nearly every government building I go into these days. If you don't have an ID, then you should get one. Not having one is just an extremely poor excuse. This is not a poll tax. This is not disenfranchising anyone. I also dont care if ID is not required. You can only vote if your name is on the voter registration list. And with todays technology (at least I hope), people can not cast duplicate votes. So again, this is just a red herring argument. What bothers me is individual judges stepping in and arbitrarily reversing states decisions. When it comes to the election process, this is what bothers me: -Gerrymandering -No federal unified registration process -Not allowing everyone to vote (this includes criminals) The control parties have over elections -Open/Closed primary party voting (biggest sham ever) -Rules such as the super delegate process -Party fraud -Big money Now explain to me how voter ID is a bigger problem than any of those?
If this is about Constitutional assurances, why would someone need an ID to buy a gun, given that a right to bear arms is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment? Of course, this is all much ado about nothing as we abridge people's constitutional rights when it suits us... like being a convicted felon; that has all kinds of repercussions on a soul.
In your own article. Do you people even read your own articles? There's little evidence that this has led to widespread voter fraud, but it has raised concerns that the system is vulnerable. If you have evidence someone dead showed up to vote then post it. If you have evidence of some conspiracy for someone or anyone to show up to vote with dead people's names then post it. If you have a way to identify voters without discriminating along party or racial lines then post it. I just read a bunch of huffing and puffing without any evidence of anything and courts consistently now overruling these laws as racist and partisan. Or you could just do a Bobby and claim over and over again things you don't have in evidence . Then just say it would be silly to think otherwise in order to deflect from the fact you have no evidence and the courts keep shooting you down.
The fact, eh? Please do cite the case where the courts shot ME down on this. Go ahead...I double dare ya! Or is this more huffing and puffing with no evidence backing your claims?
All you people worried about voter fraud: it's the electronic ballots you should be freaking out about, especially after all the hacking we've seen.
There is a well known effort by the GOP since Obama was elected to pass laws to reduce turnout by DEM lending voters. That's wrong and need to be addressed. Saying that we need to reverse these discriminatory laws does not prevent addressing any other issues you have brought up. Grouping them together and then discarding the one you feel are "less important" is seen as a distraction to address something that is important to many folks. As someone that agree with your priority, I disagree that we should ignore addressing some of them or which one to address first. As seen from the result, it's relatively much easier to address these discriminatory laws. The bigger issue of election process isn't something that you can address through the court - they are legal. It takes an act of Congress in many of those cases and we all know how difficult that is. So of course many would not want to wait and allow discriminatory laws to linger until the bigger issue of election process is addressed.
100% of conservative Supreme Court Justices vote GOP.... an even more important demographic The Florida election recount of 2000 was a period of vote re-counting that occurred following the unclear results of the 2000 United States presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, specifically the Florida results. The Florida vote was ultimately settled in favor of George W. Bush, by a margin of only 537 votes out of almost 6 million cast, when the U.S. Supreme Court, with its final ruling on Bush v. Gore, stopped a recount that had been proposed by the Florida Supreme Court. The outcome of the original vote count, and all subsequent recounts resulted in Bush winning Florida, which in turn, gave Bush a majority of votes in the Electoral College, winning the overall presidential election.[1]
What is sad is you are falling right into both parties ploy. You are defending their actions which amount to nothing more than distractions. Arguments like 'Rural Americans can conduct business without ID but they can't vote' ... when the vast majority of rural american are REPUBLICANS. Tell me, which is a bigger issue? People who refuse to get updated ID's (its not like elections are a complete surprise) or LEGAL Americans with felonies, who's punishments are determined by the people they CAN NOT vote for. Why is BLM not fighting this cause? They b**** and moan police target them. 1.4 million black people can not vote because they are felons....not because of some trivial matter in which they are too lazy to go get an ID. Or are you advocating we should disenfranchise legal Americans because they are felons? Do they fit the low class that can't vote, much like women and blacks used to be? Go, waste your energies on fighting for pointless Voter ID laws. Continue to be a pawn of the system.
Odd to bring that up given that the same people who want background checks at gun shows are the same people who are against even checking ID at polling stations. It's just ideologically inconsistent. I am very much against people buying guns without showing ID just as I am against people voting without showing ID.
