No more than I trust the vote of anyone else. But that's the beauty of American democracy; we don't make our citizens pass qualifications to be eligible for the most basic of freedoms, including the right to vote for those who represent us. That's a central tenet of our entire republic.Can't visit the DMV, but can reach the ballot box....
They lack the capacity to independently function, but you trust their vote? Are you sure about that?
No more than I trust the vote of anyone else. But that's the beauty of American democracy; we don't make our citizens pass qualifications to be eligible for the most basic of freedoms, including the right to vote for those who represent us. That's a central tenet of our entire republic.
No more than I trust the vote of anyone else. But that's the beauty of American democracy; we don't make our citizens pass qualifications to be eligible for the most basic of freedoms, including the right to vote for those who represent us. That's a central tenet of our entire republic.
You have the same reasonable requirements that have been in place for 200+ years. You don't add more requirements to combat a problem that does not exist.Why make people register to vote then? If you have 'no requirements'.
Why make people register to vote then? If you have 'no requirements'.
The difference is that most basic freedoms have no real impact on others.
If you want to worship automobile tires or hand out flyers about the coming Apocalypse that is a bit crazy but has no impact on other.
Voting on the other hand...
And by the way in the early history of country was restricted. I am betting for precisely that reason.
Yes our right to say what we want, congregate with who we want, arm ourselves has no real impact on anyone else.
If you want to vote; follow the law.
Have you tried buying a gun in California lately? It is a right, just like voting. You'd have a point if voting was as expensive and difficult to exercise as buying a gun is, but it's not. It's a simple and easy task with many options.
LOTS of places require photo ID when using a CC.And if you want to suppress voters, make new ones.
Since when do you need an Id to use a CC? You need a signature. I have not shown an ID for alcohol for many years, it is not required.
And yet no one has answered my question. Why did we need this law? Stars show virtually no in person voter fraud. And you an EK just said its easy and no impact to voting. So why do we need this law. To spend more money? I thought passing laws to pay for things we don't need was "big government".
Are you for big government?
I have not been carded for alcohol in years, or for any controlled substance.
You have the same reasonable requirements that have been in place for 200+ years. You don't add more requirements to combat a problem that does not exist.
And yet no one has answered my question. Why did we need this law? Stars show virtually no in person voter fraud. And you an EK just said its easy and no impact to voting. So why do we need this law. To spend more money? I thought passing laws to pay for things we don't need was "big government".
Are you for big government?
Are you saying that election fraud is a big problem? Because the stats show it as affecting around one thousandth of one percent of the vote. That's 0.001%. For every 100,000 votes cast, one is fraudulent. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to 1 vote out of every 100,000 if it means I'm not disenfranchising anyone who is legally allowed to vote.We need the law as a beginning of a campaign to reduce election/voter fraud.
Are you saying that election fraud is a big problem? Because the stats show it as affecting around one thousandth of one percent of the vote. That's 0.001%. For every 100,000 votes cast, one is fraudulent. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to 1 vote out of every 100,000 if it means I'm not disenfranchising anyone who is legally allowed to vote.
So wait a minute are you saying elderly rural people may not be able to vote in this upcoming election? Anyone know who they as a group generally vote for? I'm thinking it's generally not the dems.
Muhaaaaaaaa!
Any conservatives having second thoughts about this?
Sudde
Those statistics are taken from Pennsylvania. ~6,000,000 people voted in the 2008 Presidential election in Pennsylvania. There have been fewer than 100 cases of electoral fraud in Pennsylvania in the last 5 years. Assuming that Presidential elections will have the largest turnout and therefore most of the electoral fraud will happen in that election, I figured on a fairly liberal 60 cases of voter fraud for the 2008 election (it makes the math easier). 60 cases of voter fraud divided by 6,000,000 votes comes to 0.001 percent of the votes, one thousandth of one percent. You can take issue with my statistics, but you've offered none to refute mine, so until you can offer up something that shows voter fraud is more rampant than what the state of Pennsylvania itself says, I'm going to think that your premise isn't based around any actual statistics but simple fear mongering.Since when is asking for a tiny bit of easily complied with security "disenfranchising" the vote? Except in the fevered imaginations of partisans that support vote fraud?
BTW nice made up statistics.
Those statistics are taken from Pennsylvania. ~6,000,000 people voted in the 2008 Presidential election in Pennsylvania. There have been fewer than 100 cases of electoral fraud in Pennsylvania in the last 5 years. Assuming that Presidential elections will have the largest turnout and therefore most of the electoral fraud will happen in that election, I figured on a fairly liberal 60 cases of voter fraud for the 2008 election (it makes the math easier). 60 cases of voter fraud divided by 6,000,000 votes comes to 0.001 percent of the votes, one thousandth of one percent. You can take issue with my statistics, but you've offered none to refute mine, so until you can offer up something that shows voter fraud is more rampant than what the state of Pennsylvania itself says, I'm going to think that your premise isn't based around any actual statistics but simple fear mongering.
Have you tried buying a gun in California lately? It is a right, just like voting. You'd have a point if voting was as expensive and difficult to exercise as buying a gun is, but it's not. It's a simple and easy task with many options.
Yes our right to say what we want, congregate with who we want, arm ourselves has no real impact on anyone else.
First, that's Minnesota, not Pennsylvania, and different states have different electoral processes. Second, you had 113 people convicted of voter fraud out of 2,850,000 votes cast. That's about 0.004 % of the votes cast. Even if you take the largest claim of that article, that 2,800 votes were illegally cast, that's less that one tenth of one percent of the vote. To put it another way, if every single one of those votes had gone to John McCain, Barack Obama still would have won by over 295,000 votes. And that was the worst case of voter fraud in 75 years, which is hardly representative of overall levels of voter fraud either nationwide or in Pennsylvania where this law is in effect.http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...ion-in-voter-fraud-convictions-131782928.html
http://www.electionintegritywatch.com/documents/2011-Report-Voter-Fraud-Convictions.pdf
You know the election where the Democrats stole a seat in the Senate with the use of fraud?
Are these IDs going to be provided free of charge? If not, they could violate the 24th Amendment.
Granted, it may not be strictly a tax, but requiring someone to pay a fee for the right to vote is unConstitutional. Providing government issued IDs for free is going to put a financial burden on the states that enact these laws. I hope it's worth it to them to combat the massive wave of virtually no voter fraud that's been sweeping the nation since never.
Lets just vote at the DMV dudes.
First, that's Minnesota, not Pennsylvania, and different states have different electoral processes. Second, you had 113 people convicted of voter fraud out of 2,850,000 votes cast. That's about 0.004 % of the votes cast. Even if you take the largest claim of that article, that 2,800 votes were illegally cast, that's less that one tenth of one percent of the vote. To put it another way, if every single one of those votes had gone to John McCain, Barack Obama still would have won by over 295,000 votes. And that was the worst case of voter fraud in 75 years, which is hardly representative of overall levels of voter fraud either nationwide or in Pennsylvania where this law is in effect.