Why Voter ID laws are superfluous

[Amused]

you think this thread exists because of made up instances? GOOD ONE! like i said easier to prove he doesn't piss himself then proving the % of fraud. One is very easy to prove the other is impossible unless there is some kinda compelling drug that is forced on people to confess their secrets.

Holy shit. I spelled it out in crayons for you.

Provide evidence of widespread voter fraud anywhere significant enough to shift an election or admit there is no evidence of any such "problem."

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

EVERY election leaves MULTIPLE verifiable paper trails to EVERY SINGLE VOTE and VOTER. No confessions needed.

The multiple steps in the registration, voter rolls, paper ballots and validation of voter eligibility provide a CLEAR and virtually fool proof level of election security.

So much so, the TRUMP DOJ declared the last election the most secure in history.

You're trying to fix a ghost. A non-existent problem you cannot prove is happening. And you look desperate.

Why?

 

[soundforbjt]

Laws are created to solve ACTUAL problems.

In this case, it would be like creating a law to stop aliens from wetting your bed. (Prove they aren't!!! DERP)

Adding ANY further steps to voting simply makes it harder to vote and isn't solving a problem that doesn't exist.

Except in the case of republicans. I guess there is an actual problem their trying to “fix”, it’s the election itself.

 

[fskimospy]

proof is proof you are asking for things that cant be quantified at a rational rate (people don't usually make videos or confessions of crimes of this nature), he should be able to prove he hasn't wet the bed a whole lot easier. wouldn't it be insane to believe people don't commit voter fraud. Naïve

I already told you exactly how to quantify it. You ignored it, presumably because you have no response.

 

[soundforbjt]

I already told you exactly how to quantify it. You ignored it, presumably because you have no response.

But his feels....

 

[MrSquished]

like i said you want to be one of those peps who say prove it or doesnt exist. so tell me is there only one type of voting fraud? is it always known what fraud is happening when it is happening or does sometimes it take years for it to come to light? YUPPPP keep preaching that bs that is all that comes out you peps mouths. "prove or doesnt exist" OK bed wetter maybe you can provide the proof that i asked you for.. when do you think you will expect that data.. bwahah

id bet my life that every major election on earth has had fraud, if it was someone counting ballets or casting them im 100% sure it happened in every election you want to pretend it has never happened or give one of those made up numbers like .00000000000000000007% right...

Ever here of proof beyond a reasonable doubt you infinite right wing moron?

 

[fskimospy]

Ever here of proof beyond a reasonable doubt you infinite right wing moron?

I don’t think we should need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to enact restrictions but that’s not what the voter ID people want. They want to enact restrictions despite having zero evidence, even after exhaustive efforts to find it. This is irrational.

 

[ondma]

I gu

You don’t have to PROVE it, but it is common sense that passing laws and regulations that cost money and burden people should only be done when there’s reason to believe that society is getting something of value in exchange. We COULD pass a law that every American must purchase and maintain an anti-Bigfoot defense system for their home, but it’s probably wise to only do so if Bigfoot attacks become common. Right?

In the case of voter ID, it serves only one purpose, to prevent in person voter impersonation. As a society we have spent a great deal of time and effort to see if this sort of voter fraud is happening and…well…it isn’t. When you think about it, the fact that it isn’t happening makes perfect sense. It’s extremely risky for the fraudster and nets only a single extra vote, so it’s a terrible way to steal elections.

So I guess the question is if we want to pass laws that will prevent legitimate voters from voting in order to stop something that almost never happens and wouldn’t matter much even if it did. Does that sound like a wise use of government to you?

It comes down to how much of a burden having a photo ID is, and if obtaining one is a significant barrier to a significant number of people. I think this is where we disagree. You view it as some sort of intimidating barrier set up to discriminate and make life difficult for the poor. I just view it as a necessary item to participate in society today, whether I like it or not. Therefore, I dont really view it as an obstacle to one's right to vote.

I am extremely concerned about election integrity, but more so in regard to the Republican's gerrymandering and passing laws which make it easier for election results to be overturned. Not so much simply having to show ID when you vote.

 

[BurnItDwn]

If I was going to pick a long single word to describe Voter ID laws, I would use opprobrious instead of superfluous.

They are used as a mechanism for voter suppression. Make it harder for working people to reduce their political power.
The intent of all voter ID laws are fueled by hate and exist to abuse the working class.

 

[Meghan54]

So why does one have to prove a crime has been committed before passing a law to prevent it? Is it not the purpose of a regulation or law to *prevent* a crime or improper event from occurring in the first place?

So the fact no one has ever been able to find widespread in-person voter fraud, despite Repub admin after Repub admin searching for just that, says nothing to you?

Trump searched for a year and disbanded that without anyone being recommended for prosecution. GWB searched for over 4 years, out of which was recommended prosecuting fewer than 90 people nationwide…out of over 100 Million votes.

So the crime has been studied and found to not need any intervention because there is not a problem with in-person voter fraud.

 

[hal2kilo]

If I was going to pick a long single word to describe Voter ID laws, I would use opprobrious instead of superfluous.

They are used as a mechanism for voter suppression. Make it harder for working people to reduce their political power.
The intent of all voter ID laws are fueled by hate and exist to abuse the working class.

Republicans have always known that the more people that vote, the less they win. They only believe in rule by the elites. My obligatory repetition of what needs to be repeated. This is over 40 years old.

Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote" (Goo Goo) - YouTube

 

[fskimospy]

It comes down to how much of a burden having a photo ID is, and if obtaining one is a significant barrier to a significant number of people. I think this is where we disagree. You view it as some sort of intimidating barrier set up to discriminate and make life difficult for the poor. I just view it as a necessary item to participate in society today, whether I like it or not. Therefore, I dont really view it as an obstacle to one's right to vote.

I am extremely concerned about election integrity, but more so in regard to the Republican's gerrymandering and passing laws which make it easier for election results to be overturned. Not so much simply having to show ID when you vote.

That's fine, but your position is still irrational. While you have already been shown evidence that this burden is significant for millions of people that doesn't matter. The extent of the burden is entirely irrelevant because for all intents and purposes the thing you're trying to prevent does not exist.

Back to my previous example - imagine the government required you to spent about $10 to buy a bunch of things that it says will ward off a bigfoot attack. Your argument is 'it's only $10!'. My argument is 'bigfoot isn't real'. It doesn't matter if you think a person needs a government ID to live the sort of life you think they should live. It's not up to you, because their rights don't depend on you deciding to grant them.

 

[nakedfrog]

I gu

It comes down to how much of a burden having a photo ID is, and if obtaining one is a significant barrier to a significant number of people. I think this is where we disagree. You view it as some sort of intimidating barrier set up to discriminate and make life difficult for the poor. I just view it as a necessary item to participate in society today, whether I like it or not. Therefore, I dont really view it as an obstacle to one's right to vote.

I am extremely concerned about election integrity, but more so in regard to the Republican's gerrymandering and passing laws which make it easier for election results to be overturned. Not so much simply having to show ID when you vote.

Maybe you missed when this happened, I haven't found a follow-up on how well they've done at addressing the situation.

Feds: Closing driver’s license offices in Ala. violates civil rights

Officials say certain proposed closures would underserve the African-American community.

thehill.com

And then there's this.

Southern U.S. states have closed 1,200 polling places in recent years: rights group

States across the American South have closed nearly 1,200 polling places since the Supreme Court weakened a landmark voting-discrimination law in 2013, according to a report released by a civil-rights group on Tuesday.

www.reuters.com

The veneer of "preventing voter fraud" approach was always put over the actual goal of "making it harder for certain people to vote".

 

[Meghan54]

You know, I've always wondered why identification that's valid to use to identify yourself when you register to vote is somehow not valid to identify yourself when you go to vote.

Never get much response to that question...

 

[soundforbjt]

You know, I've always wondered why identification that's valid to use to identify yourself when you register to vote is somehow not valid to identify yourself when you go to vote.

Never get much response to that question...

Yeah, that’s a real head-scratcher.

 

[ondma]

That's fine, but your position is still irrational. While you have already been shown evidence that this burden is significant for millions of people that doesn't matter. The extent of the burden is entirely irrelevant because for all intents and purposes the thing you're trying to prevent does not exist.

Back to my previous example - imagine the government required you to spent about $10 to buy a bunch of things that it says will ward off a bigfoot attack. Your argument is 'it's only $10!'. My argument is 'bigfoot isn't real'. It doesn't matter if you think a person needs a government ID to live the sort of life you think they should live. It's not up to you, because their rights don't depend on you deciding to grant them.

Absurd argument. Bigfoot is not real, and never can be. Voter fraud, significant or not, is not some imaginary creature roaming in the woods. Plus the mythical "Bigfoot protection" has no other purpose than to protect against an imaginary creature. An ID, in addition to being used for voting, serves many other purposes. Hell, I even have to show a photo ID to get to see my doctor!

 

[fskimospy]

Absurd argument. Bigfoot is not real, and never can be. Voter fraud, significant or not, is not some imaginary creature roaming in the woods.

An analysis of voter impersonation found 31 credible counts of it out of 1 billion ballots cast, which would be a fraud percentage of 0.000031%. For all meaningful public policy purposes that makes it imaginary.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/

Plus the mythical "Bigfoot protection" has no other purpose than to protect against an imaginary creature. An ID, in addition to being used for voting, serves many other purposes. Hell, I even have to show a photo ID to get to see my doctor!

Irrelevant. If you think they should get an ID then support a program offering free IDs, but requiring them to prevent imaginary fraud is irrational.

 

[killster1]

Holy shit. I spelled it out in crayons for you.

Provide evidence of widespread voter fraud anywhere significant enough to shift an election or admit there is no evidence of any such "problem."

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

EVERY election leaves MULTIPLE verifiable paper trails to EVERY SINGLE VOTE and VOTER. No confessions needed.

The multiple steps in the registration, voter rolls, paper ballots and validation of voter eligibility provide a CLEAR and virtually fool proof level of election security.

So much so, the TRUMP DOJ declared the last election the most secure in history.

You're trying to fix a ghost. A non-existent problem you cannot prove is happening. And you look desperate.

Why?

You seriously think im trying to fix anything? im not in charge of legislation, this is not my thread and most likely since you are wasting your life on the forums you are not in charge of anything at all either. I dont even vote, and never have. My opinion is they should require 3 forms of ID to vote its my opinion you cant take that from me you can have what ever opinion you want but because i dont jump to provide this

 

[killster1]

That's fine, but your position is still irrational. While you have already been shown evidence that this burden is significant for millions of people that doesn't matter. The extent of the burden is entirely irrelevant because for all intents and purposes the thing you're trying to prevent does not exist.

Back to my previous example - imagine the government required you to spent about $10 to buy a bunch of things that it says will ward off a bigfoot attack. Your argument is 'it's only $10!'. My argument is 'bigfoot isn't real'. It doesn't matter if you think a person needs a government ID to live the sort of life you think they should live. It's not up to you, because their rights don't depend on you deciding to grant them.

so funny that you pretend to know if bigfoot exists or not, you are the all knowing being of the world. thank you for gracing us with your presence. i didnt argue its only 10$ i argued that if you are a productive member in society you would have a ID.

 

[Paratus]

He's asking you to prove your POSITIVE claim and you're attempting to equate that into proving a negative?

Seriously?

You entered the thread with a claim. Prove that claim with valid evidence or admit there is no evidence of it.

Claims made without evidence may

Absurd argument. Bigfoot is not real, and never can be. Voter fraud, significant or not, is not some imaginary creature roaming in the woods. Plus the mythical "Bigfoot protection" has no other purpose than to protect against an imaginary creature. An ID, in addition to being used for voting, serves many other purposes. Hell, I even have to show a photo ID to get to see my doctor!

A simple question. Increasing the burden to vote disenfranchises voters. How many voters are you willing to disenfranchise to prevent a fraudulent in person vote?

1:1?
1000:1?
1:1000?

I might argue that the state ID you use that’s easily forgeable by under age kids to get alcohol isn’t secure enough. Maybe we should require HSPD-12 badges and federal background check like government workers use should be the minimum required.

This would cut any in person fraudulent votes down to nothing. Sure only federal workers could vote but I use an HSPD-12 badge everyday so I don’t see the burden.

 

[Paratus]

You seriously think im trying to fix anything? im not in charge of legislation, this is not my thread and most likely since you are wasting your life on the forums you are not in charge of anything at all either. I dont even vote, and never have. My opinion is they should require 3 forms of ID to vote its my opinion you cant take that from me you can have what ever opinion you want but because i dont jump to provide this

This Is for the best. Keep up the good work.

 

[killster1]

my vote doesnt matter if california in some miracle goes republican i might be tempted to vote, otherwise its a wasted vote.

This Is for the best. Keep up the good work.

 

[killster1]

A simple question. Increasing the burden to vote disenfranchises voters. How many voters are you willing to disenfranchise to prevent a fraudulent in person vote?

1:1?
1000:1?
1:1000?

I might argue that the state ID you use that’s easily forgeable by under age kids to get alcohol isn’t secure enough. Maybe we should require HSPD-12 badges and federal background check like government workers use should be the minimum required.

This would cut any in person fraudulent votes down to nothing. Sure only federal workers could vote but I use an HSPD-12 badge everyday so I don’t see the burden.

im 100% sure they dont want voter ID. im the one that said your hspd-12 badges are a good idea just in life too who cares about voting lets improve all ID's.

 

[woolfe9998]

So the fact no one has ever been able to find widespread in-person voter fraud, despite Repub admin after Repub admin searching for just that, says nothing to you?

Trump searched for a year and disbanded that without anyone being recommended for prosecution. GWB searched for over 4 years, out of which was recommended prosecuting fewer than 90 people nationwide…out of over 100 Million votes.

So the crime has been studied and found to not need any intervention because there is not a problem with in-person voter fraud.

Right, but not just republican administrations. If you read GOP lawyer Ben Ginsburg's op-eds, he explains that in every single election, whether federal or state, the GOP employs an army of lawyers and others to comb through voting data. They've been been actively looking for evidence of fraud since at least the 1980's and have always come up with nothing. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when such extraordinarily measures have been taken over such a long period of time to locate any such evidence and have found nothing.

 

[Saylick]

my vote doesnt matter if california in some miracle goes republican i might be tempted to vote, otherwise its a wasted vote.

Maybe we should eliminate the Electoral College and make the Presidential election a pure nation-wide popular vote.

 

[Amol S.]

WOW, way to manipulate and twist the facts.. The argument is that ID is NOT needed at the polls to cast your vote. No where did I, or anyone else say ID (proof of who you are) is not needed at all in the voting process. Why lie? Where did I act like or even remotely imply you can take just one item (voter ID card) into the DOL and they will issue an ID? How the hell did you come of with that twisted logic? We are talking about what the requirements are to vote, not about what you can and can't take into the DOL to get your license. Requirements are not the same as acceptable documentation (items that can be used to full fill/prove the requirements) So, again, Which of the driver's license requirements do you believe is not a requirement to vote? how about you answer that question.

Although I am not the forumer you were replying to, just wanted to give you an FYI that New York State allows illegal immigrants to obtain a driver's licence. However, it is illigal for any non-US citizen to vote. Just answering that question of which one of the requirements is not a requirement to vote.