I hope those votes are worth the price of your conscience, if you have one. Folks like you make it laughable that you're actually being serious about other vectors for vote fraud instead of just indulging in obstruction akin to what GOP does with Obamacare.
I would think that the people who would have trouble with a nagging conscience would be the ones who wanted to create barriers to voting to combat a nonexistent problem. They are wasting public funds in order to prevent eligible people from voting. It's deeply immoral.
I would think that the people who would have trouble with a nagging conscience would be the ones who wanted to create barriers to voting to combat a nonexistent problem. They are wasting public funds in order to prevent eligible people from voting. It's deeply immoral.
Yes, giving someone a free ID or requiring them to have another person vouch for their identity like I've suggested certainly are yuuuuuuuuuuuuuge barriers.
You know glenn doesn't get or accept in-person voter fraud doesn't happen often enough to be worthy of discussion. Hell, even NC couldn't find cases; neither could PA. Not one person prosecuted for in-person voter fraud. If it was so rampant, you'd think there'd be mountains of evidence proving such, but when asked to provide said evidence, diversion/deflection instead.
It's particularly odd that he wants to go ahead and impose costs on both people and the state, using his own tax money, to prevent something that he has no evidence takes place. He is usually angry about wasted tax dollars but can't wait to waste them here.
That's all irrelevant. If you want to have a public ID program then just have a public ID program. Tying it to voting is pointless.
This will be the last thing I say about it in this thread. If you want to enact policies to prevent in-person voter fraud then first you have to show that in-person voter fraud exists. If you don't do that you're engaging in irrational policymaking. It's simple.
Anyways back on topic, I wonder if Trump will have to ditch his third campaign manager. How is it he is so bad at hiring people? Maybe they weren't THE BEST.
I wouldn't give Glenn crap. He's willing to compromise and do something he hates to get something done that he feels is a problem. I personally don't believe in person or mail in voter fraud is a problem but I will say for whatever reason enough people are concerned about it so maybe its time to do something that most/all can agree on?
Some people want to live as "off the grid" as possible. They don't want the government to be able to track them. They don't want to be required to carry government issued ID. Should these people not be allowed to vote for candidates that support their preferred policies?The possibility of in-person voter fraud is merely a symptom of what I see as the real problem we can solve - namely there are lots of people without the simplest means to validate their identity and easy ways for someone to impersonate them. In this day and age people without IDs have serious problems doing some very simple and tasks like travelling, getting married, buying 'adult' products, utilizing many financial services, etc. Now whether it was a good idea for our society and government institutions to become (IMHO) overly reliant on photo IDs before allowing people to do these basic tasks is a different issue altogether, but we shouldn't refuse to help with an obvious problem where the costs are low, the benefits are widespread, and there are few technical barriers to implementing the solution. Even if you used one of the other methods to verify the identity of voters without photo ID (I've already named several), I would still think "free ID" was a worthwhile cause for our government to do.
"Feeling" that something is a problem is not enough justification to implement policy to fight it. You need to prove it is actually happening first.I wouldn't give Glenn crap. He's willing to compromise and do something he hates to get something done that he feels is a problem. I personally don't believe in person or mail in voter fraud is a problem but I will say for whatever reason enough people are concerned about it so maybe its time to do something that most/all can agree on?
Why would you have a public ID program then not leverage it during obvious use cases? That would be akin to issuing everyone social security numbers then saying you should prohibit states from asking for it before someone came to pick up their Social Security check - "oh we trust you, no reason to verify your identity with the most obvious means to do so."
Besides there's probably hundreds of ways the poor could benefit from "free" IDs every single day, you'd literally rather have them do without than be subjected to showing it once every couple years? Holy crap you must be really desperate for those extra votes to throw away your so-called core principles of doing things to help the "little guy."
That's all irrelevant. If you want to have a public ID program then just have a public ID program. Tying it to voting is pointless.
This will be the last thing I say about it in this thread. If you want to enact policies to prevent in-person voter fraud then first you have to show that in-person voter fraud exists. If you don't do that you're engaging in irrational policymaking. It's simple.
Anyways back on topic, I wonder if Trump will have to ditch his third campaign manager. How is it he is so bad at hiring people? Maybe they weren't THE BEST.
I hope those votes are worth the price of your conscience, if you have one. Folks like you make it laughable that you're actually being serious about other vectors for vote fraud instead of just indulging in obstruction akin to what GOP does with Obamacare.
Again, because it's attacking a problem that does not exist. If something does not exist it is pointless to expend any resources to combat it no matter how small. Whatever time or effort you want to put into this, you should be equally willing to contribute to an anti-unicorn patrol.
Remember though, there aren't any extra votes as in-person voter fraud effectively doesn't exist. My principles of good government preclude me from supporting irrational laws. If you want to give everyone IDs I'm totally on board, but tying it to an irrational voter ID law is stupid. Just make the ID program and dispense with voting requirements that are pointless. Then we get the benefit of ID for more people and we have one fewer useless law on the books.
I thought conservatives were all in favor of eliminating pointless regulations? If you are, voter ID is an easy one you should join us in opposing. Less useless government!
I guess it takes the risk of a Republican breaking voting laws for you guys to care. If it was just the issue of establishing someone's identity, or preventing voting in multiple jurisdictions, or absentee mail fraud you guys first need to do a quick analysis to determine if you think the person will vote Democratic before deciding what to do (or not do) about it.
This is just plain sad and I hope you're trolling. The idea that we'd give free IDs and then refuse to ask for them at appropriate times? That's like saying we should have taxpayer paid fire extinguishers for everyone but then say you can't use them if your house is burning. You would deliberately continue to use your completely useless measures for identification at the polls like an envelope from someone's mailbox when other non-disenfranchising means are available?
That being said if you fear people being forced to show their photo ID at inappropriate times then you can work to reduce some of the stupider times to require it, such as when you're getting married.
there is a purpose to these voter ID laws and laws eliminating early voting. Republicans know the reason and it helps them win elections.No matter your political persuasion e we gone should oppose these laws. They are literally purposeless.
This is plain sad, I agree. You are continuing to argue for new regulations for people at the polls to solve a problem that doesn't exist. This. Is. Irrational.
You're basically asking us why we don't want to follow along with your irrational idea because it would be easy to do. The answer is: because it's irrational.
I don't fear it at all, I simply don't like laws being passed without a basis for it. I guess I'm just a small government conservative that way, unlike you. As for photo ID requirements for marriage, there are many, many documented cases of people misrepresenting their identity or other important aspects about themselves in the process of getting married. You see this is how rational policymaking works: if there is a problem you take steps to address it. If there isn't a problem, you don't.
All you need to do to totally convert me to your side is to provide evidence that in-person voter fraud is happening in a meaningful way. Then I'll be right beside you! We've been asking you for this for a very long time though and you've utterly failed. What you should really be doing is asking yourself why you don't care about empirical evidence. What's the emotional attachment here?
^ And this folks is a grade A prime example of the logical fallacy "begging the question." It's irrational because I say it's irrational thus it's irrational.
Huh? My post isn't begging the question in any way, shape, or form.
I said it was irrational because this policy attempts to solve a problem that evidence indicates does not exist, not as the result of my own judgment. Similarly, I also oppose a unicorn patrol but after this conversation I am not convinced you wouldn't want to fund that too.
Maybe you think that spending time and taxpayer money to solve problems that don't exist is a great idea. This just means you should never complain about wasteful spending ever again as you're clearly fine with wasting time and money so long as it's wasted on something you like.
But we're not wasting any money because you already agreed to "free IDs" in this case. You just want to prohibit asking people to show their already paid for free IDs, so no money is being spent.
You might have a point if you had argued against free IDs outright, you just want to disallow them for one specific use. Which is both stupid and done for transparently partisan reasons. You can still have additional identity verification fail-safe methods that don't involve photo IDs (I've already mentioned several) but repeatedly refuse to even consider asking to see an ID that taxpayers would have already paid for under the guises that it's "irrational" is ridiculous even for you.
That's completely untrue. You have no need for photo ID to vote in Canada. If I don't have photo ID I can bring any 2 of about 50 other document options to vote. It's no work at all. Just so long as one has my current address. If I don't have something with my address I take an oath.As a Canadian I'm mystified at the whole voter ID issue. You have to have photo ID to vote here in any level of elections (well, you could actually get around it but it's a bunch of work) usually in the form of your driver's licence or health card. Just freaking implement a free photo ID system federally and stop yapping about it already.