Let My People Vote!

#52
#52
burntorangeVOLffle said:
You take yourself way too seriously.
Click to expand...

Maybe I do... I don't know. This argument just pisses me off. Not only is there over 6 weeks til the election but I've known for probably a year now that I'd have to have a state issued ID if I wanted to vote.

If this prevents anyone from voting they have no one to blame but themselves.
 
#53
#53
Cdywolfe said:
Maybe I do... I don't know. This argument just pisses me off. Not only is there over 6 weeks til the election but I've known for probably a year now that I'd have to have a state issued ID if I wanted to vote.

If this prevents anyone from voting they have no one to blame but themselves.
Click to expand...

Does it bother you that this entire step appears absolutely unnecessary and will have little to no impact on the historically reported cases of voter fraud in America (most of those being cases in which the poll-workers were committing the fraud)?

So, even if you say that individuals have had a year to prepare; that the ID is free; that transportation has been provided on certain days; the state is still unnecessarily inconveniencing the citizens (to say nothing of the individuals that might be working on the days that the transportation is offered).
 
#54
#54
therealUT said:
Does it bother you that this entire step appears absolutely unnecessary and will have little to no impact on the historically reported cases of voter fraud in America (most of those being cases in which the poll-workers were committing the fraud)?

So, even if you say that individuals have had a year to prepare; that the ID is free; that transportation has been provided on certain days; the state is still unnecessarily inconveniencing the citizens (to say nothing of the individuals that might be working on the days that the transportation is offered).
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying don't get me wrong. I guess I just don't see it as that big of an inconvenience. Plus regardless of the intentions of the law, I just don't see having to prove who you are with a photo ID being a bad thing.
 
#55
#55
it's no more an inconvenience than being forced to register to vote.

Yes voting is a right but it's also a responsibility IMO. If you can't be bothered to take a little time somewhere in the past year to get a free ID so you can vote then you aren't likely to really know who/what you're voting for anyway (yeah I know- wide brush)
 
#56
#56
utvolpj said:
it's no more an inconvenience than being forced to register to vote.

Yes voting is a right but it's also a responsibility IMO. If you can't be bothered to take a little time somewhere in the past year to get a free ID so you can vote then you aren't likely to really know who/what you're voting for anyway (yeah I know- wide brush)
Click to expand...

I registered through the mail in Massachusetts. I imagine that Massachusetts is not the only state with such a system (heck, in Washington the ballots are mailed out; everyone either sends them back in the middle of October or simply drops them off at ballot drop-off stations on Election Day). Thus, getting a photo ID would be a much larger inconvenience in Massachusetts.

I understand the argument that for most people it is simply an inconvenience of time; however, if even one person has to choose between losing a job or not getting a photo ID, then I would argue that the system is unjust.

As I have stated above, there are many measures that could be taken by states and between states that would be much more effective at reducing voter fraud. This seems to be an ineffective measure that is pissing people off; I just do not understand the huge push behind it (it also has to be fiscally inefficient: providing transportation and having the state eat the cost of the printing and laminate has to be more costly than the alternatives).
 
#57
#57
I still see this whole deal as a cynical effort by Republicans to suppress voter turnout among groups that typically vote Democrat.

Rick Scott ending Sunday voting in Florida for church-goers in black communities and that state rep from PA flat admitting that the ID law he helped pass was in order to give the GOP an electoral edge tells me all I need to know.

Laws and initiatives of all sorts (not just this; marijuana legalization, gay marriage, etc.) are coordinated in state houses across the country. They all know what the score is, the aforementioned state rep just spelled it out.
 
#58
#58
milohimself said:
I still see this whole deal as a cynical effort by Republicans to suppress voter turnout among groups that typically vote Democrat.

Rick Scott ending Sunday voting in Florida for church-goers in black communities and that state rep from PA flat admitting that the ID law he helped pass was in order to give the GOP an electoral edge tells me all I need to know.

Laws and initiatives of all sorts (not just this; marijuana legalization, gay marriage, etc.) are coordinated in state houses across the country. They all know what the score is, the aforementioned state rep just spelled it out.
Click to expand...

It is. I don't find anything wrong with having to present ID to vote. But It is obvious this whole thing (timing of new ID laws and different voting days) is just a political ruse.
 
#59
#59
therealUT said:
Currently, voting is a protected and free privilege for all American citizens (minus some ex-cons in some states) 18 and older; however, in my experience, state issued photo ID cards (driver's license) cost money. If you must have a state issued photo ID card to vote, then you must pay to vote. How is this separate from a poll tax and/or a financial price for citizenship?
Click to expand...

You have pay for transportation to vote too. It's outrageous.
 
#60
#60
azVolFan said:
You have pay for transportation to vote too. It's outrageous.
Click to expand...
Not equivalent.

Bottom line is that some states are deliberately taking a hit on the deficit in order to provide free ID's when there's little evidence showing that it does anything to curb voter fraud (if it exists).
 
#63
#63
utvolpj said:
it's no more an inconvenience than being forced to register to vote.

Yes voting is a right but it's also a responsibility IMO. If you can't be bothered to take a little time somewhere in the past year to get a free ID so you can vote then you aren't likely to really know who/what you're voting for anyway (yeah I know- wide brush)
Click to expand...

I'll ask again...

I agree that voter fraud, if it exists, needs to be rectified.

But if you prevent 5 voter frauds and in that process prevent 5,000 otherwise valid voters from voting I think we're cutting off our nose to spite our face.

So what do you really think the ratio of fraud prevented vs valid ballots denied?
 
#64
#64
Danl said:
I'll ask again...

I agree that voter fraud, if it exists, needs to be rectified.

But if you prevent 5 voter frauds and in that process prevent 5,000 otherwise valid voters from voting I think we're cutting off our nose to spite our face.

So what do you really think the ratio of fraud prevented vs valid ballots denied?
Click to expand...

IMO ballots denied is zero under this. Every opportunity is given for those that want to vote to do so. If you do not feel the need to do the things required to cast a ballot then I don't see it as being denied.
 
#65
#65
utvolpj said:
IMO ballots denied is zero under this. Every opportunity is given for those that want to vote to do so. If you do not feel the need to do the things required to cast a ballot then I don't see it as being denied.
Click to expand...

You are much better than this. The rules for voting are being changed by adding new requirements. If the new additional requirements cause, for any reason, some otherwise legal voters to be denied their wish to vote then its wrong.

And you still have not answered the question. It is a legitimate question. Do you really believe that many more illegal ballots will be excluded than otherwise legal ballots representing real, actual, legal votes?
 
#66
#66
Danl said:
You are much better than this. The rules for voting are being changed by adding new requirements. If the new additional requirements cause, for any reason, some otherwise legal voters to be denied their wish to vote then its wrong.

And you still have not answered the question. It is a legitimate question. Do you really believe that many more illegal ballots will be excluded than otherwise legal ballots representing real, actual, legal votes?
Click to expand...

Check again, I did answer your question with an exact figure.

I do not see it as being denied if someone makes the choice not to fulfill the requirements that have been in place for 11 months
 
#67
#67
Danl said:
You are much better than this. The rules for voting are being changed by adding new requirements. If the new additional requirements cause, for any reason, some otherwise legal voters to be denied their wish to vote then its wrong.

And you still have not answered the question. It is a legitimate question. Do you really believe that many more illegal ballots will be excluded than otherwise legal ballots representing real, actual, legal votes?
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
#68
#68
OK, DC and PJ, just for the record, how many fraudulent votes were cast in TN in the 2008 election that will be eliminated this election?
 
#69
#69
don't know. Think it was more than zero?

if all were known it would be pretty easy to fix
 
#70
#70
Danl said:
OK, DC and PJ, just for the record, how many fraudulent votes were cast in TN in the 2008 election that will be eliminated this election?
Click to expand...

I already mentioned this earlier in this same discussion. When there is no ID requirement, it's almost impossible to identify. Much less prosecute.

If you assume that the ceiling for voter fraud is only those cases which are prosecuted, then I can see where you might reach your conclusion.

But there have been very recent instances of elections where the turnout (the number of cast votes) were greater than the number of registered voters. That's impossible to have without a massive voter fraud.

I have residency in two states. If I wanted to, I could easily get away with voting in both states. I would never do that, but I'm 100% positive I could get away with it.
 
#71
#71
DC_Vol said:
I already mentioned this earlier in this same discussion. When there is no ID requirement, it's almost impossible to identify. Much less prosecute.

If you assume that the ceiling for voter fraud is only those cases which are prosecuted, then I can see where you might reach your conclusion.

But there have been very recent instances of elections where the turnout (the number of cast votes) were greater than the number of registered voters. That's impossible to have without a massive voter fraud.

I have residency in two states. If I wanted to, I could easily get away with voting in both states. I would never do that, but I'm 100% positive I could get away with it.
Click to expand...

Is there a number of fraudulent votes cast in TN in 2008 in there somewhere?
 
#75
#75
Danl said:
I'll ask again...

I agree that voter fraud, if it exists, needs to be rectified.

But if you prevent 5 voter frauds and in that process prevent 5,000 otherwise valid voters from voting I think we're cutting off our nose to spite our face.

So what do you really think the ratio of fraud prevented vs valid ballots denied?
Click to expand...


Please. You don't really think any if these measures, adopted only in states with far right GOP legislatures, has anything to do with voter fraud, do you ?

Lets just call it what it is -- throwing up hurdles to make it tougher to vote for the opposing party.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top