The results are in: Voter ID Fraud a myth - but we knew that

Voter ID laws are great because they don't do anything about a current problem, but instead tackle a problem that might exist at some maybe time in the maybe future(although they do happen to prevent and decrease the vote amongst some legal voters).

Another law we should pass while we are at it is one that requires aliens from other planets to register with whatever county they are visiting the intention of their visit. That isn't hard to do. And at least that way we'd know that the aliens are here for sure, and that would be safer, and prevent a possible secret infiltration of space aliens.

Both situations cause about the same amount of problems at present, and both solutions aren't that difficult for either aliens or voters to comply with, so how could anyone be against it?

It doesn't matter that we have other actual real problems going on that we could use resources for.

 

Discerning about what someone "deserves" is not a condemning judgment. PGs that turn the ball over and don't initiate the offense don't deserve an NBA contract. Doesn't prevent him from getting one though. Are you saying that everyone (illegals too) are worthy to vote? I think that all US citizens have the right to vote but if they don't go through the law-abiding steps to vote they are not worthy-- same deal if they won't even get up and go to the polls. How can that be harsh? Do you have daughters? I do. Three. If some guy were slovenly and disrespectful, without hesitation I would say that he is not worthy to date my daughter.

They denied themselves. I didn't do anything except have an opinion about their choice to not follow the (presumed) voter ID law requirement. If they care enough to vote, the follow the law that would allow them to vote. Half of the eligible voters in this country don't vote anyway, how is it any kind of wild leap to figure that many of those are the same folks who would not bother with even simple voter ID requirements? If they can't/won't just show up to vote....

Republicans have won without voter ID laws. Yes, the Dem policies are trying to stack the deck. That's politics. Requiring voter ID is, in theory, a very neutral idea. Of course! Why not! We require all kinds of ID, why not one to safeguard the most precious right of our citizens. Yet somehow it gets demonized by The Left-- because of an anticipated effect that you don't like.

 

You are conflating illegal aliens (a problem regarding immigration) with illegal voter registrations (a problem regarding voting) the two are not the same.

You have not shown that illegal aliens = illegal voting registrations. You haven't shown how it has been a past problem, current problem or a trend towards a future problem.

Also since you brought it up you don't need to be a citizen to get a drivers license. So that isn't particularly relevant regarding voting. As I have noted before you often seem to mistake privileges with rights. It is a privilege to drive but a right to vote. There is a reason why the standards are higher for one than the other.

 

Is it a privilege or a right to have an NBA contract? Is it a privilege or a right to date your daughter? Is voting a privilege or a right?

I am willing to say that in principle I have no problem with voter ID if they can be provided easily, affordably and universally to all eligible voters. That is simply not practical and I find it ironic that those who frequently argue against imposition of regulation in regard to everything from business practices to firearms are vociferously arguing for mandatory ID and greater regulation when it comes to the right to vote.

 

Here is an example of one of giddyup's lazy, unmotivated people who shouldn't vote.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec12/pennsylvania_07-24.html


RAY SUAREZ: Sixty-year-old Wilola Lee of Philadelphia says she's voted in almost every presidential election since the '70s. She's a retired employee of the city's board of education who spent several years working at her local polling station.

But, in November, under the voter identification law passed in Pennsylvania, Lee may not be able to cast a ballot. The new law requires all eligible voters to have a state-approved form of identification issued by PennDOT, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. And the requirements for approval are strict.

Wilola Lee already has a number of identification cards.

WILOLA LEE, Pennsylvania voter: This is the only I.D. that I really have to identify myself, and it's the Social Security card. Then I have the personal Pennsylvania I.D. card.

RAY SUAREZ: But Lee doesn't have one document required by the law to get a state-issued I.D., her original birth certificate. It was destroyed in a fire.

WILOLA LEE: I have been trying to get my birth certificate for the past 10 years, over 10 years. So I did send to Georgia, where I was born at, in order to obtain a birth certificate. But they sent me a delayed birth certificate without a seal on it, and come to find out it's just only an application.

RAY SUAREZ: Lee is not alone. The state's most recent numbers show more than 750,000 registered voters in Pennsylvania lack the identification required to vote under the new law.

 

My point is that you can't/shouldn't drive without a Driver's License. Citizenship is not really such a factor there as we have welcome guests with work permits, diplomats et al.

... yet we allow the vote without a Voter ID. Is driving more precious than voting?

I know that that illegal immigration and illegal voter registration are not the same but it would seem to be ripe ground for abuse. Nothing wrong with preventive action. Not taking preventive action is how we ended up with some 15 Million illegal aliens at one point.

You can legally be required to show ID to purchase liquor but not to vote...
Voting is really not a "right" of every citizen as we have limited it to those of attained age 18. Perhaps it is actually a privilege.

 

That is stupid and tragic and the law is unrealistic. The Giddy Voter ID law would be far more pragmatic and flexible.

 

Fair enough - my issue is with the laws that are out there that do disenfranchise people in an attempt to solve nothing. If there were a way to ensure everyone had easy access to a free ID, I'd have no problem with the idea in principle.

 

Why do you think these laws are put into place? to prevent voter fraud:grin:? I have a beach front mansion to sale to you for only 10k.

 

If by squelch discussion, you mean bring actual facts into the discussion, then sure.

You're just being intellectually lazy, especially on a subject where appeals courts and even the Supreme Court have ruled in different directions. "Laws can change" is just a general cop-out for not willing to face up to the fact that you cannot articulate a general empirical strand of reasoning for your beliefs on this topic. This is especially galling because there can be quite a few; I could defend your position for you, honestly.

Now, like I said, if your goal in life is just to debate people on the internet in platitudes, than fine. Whatever. That's cool enough. But once you invite a legal discussion of your principles, it's fair game to assume you would at least attempt to engage in it.

Now, let's review the facts;

You asked how the Constitution might proscribe these laws.
I taught you why.
You, for one reason or another, want to run away now from that answer, because, "laws change ivory tower man".

Yeah, but they certainly don't on conjucture and generalities.

 

:/

Here we go again.

The Constitution does not set any lower bound on the age limit, it only sets a higher bound. If you wish to advance this nonsensical metaphor any further, it behooves you to show an overriding judicial principle for why youth should vote that can convince STATE governments to act or the federal government to step in and CRUSH state laws.

 

No, by squelch discussion I mean squelch discussion. You are stuck on facts in the present. What about ideals, rights, privileges et al. Those are not in the realm of facts. Not everything is determined by facts.

Doing the right thing the right way does not demand an empirical strand of evidence that would satisfy you. That's you modus operandi for squelching discussion.

You act as if I brought the Constitution into the discussion. I didn't. I've told you this repeatedly. I didn't ask for an amendment. I suggested the obviousness of a law which would require that people be able to prove that they are who they are when the exercise the privilege of the vote.

Run away? I've engage every loudmouth abuse you heap on me...

I think you are intellectually self-absorbed with wanting to impress yourself and thus the audience.

 

I only prove that the Constitution effectively limits what is thought of as a right by applying an age factor. I'm not seeking to change it or argue for any change to it. This fact seems to elude you!

 

The Constitution doesn't proscribe this. In fact, it explictly overrode state law to apply a lower age limit.

 

I said any changes: up or down. The point being that it is not an absolute right of every citizen. My middle school daughters cannot vote. That's a fact, Jack.

 

I think eating babies is the right thing. Jonathan Swift was right. My ideological commitment to eating babies defies fact or reason. It's right because it is right. In this way, my self-reinforcing logic overrides any attempt at discussion. I then accuse others of squelching discussion by inviting me to bring facts. I don't want facts! Facts are stopping my flow! Babies need to be eaten! My commitment to a voter ID law...oops, eating babies, has transcended facts that affect people. It is a PRINCIPLE and a FOUNDING LIGHT.

This seem, familiar, Giddy?

At this point, you might think I'm in it for the attention (which quite honestly, I don't care either way how you think), but really, I'm at the point where teasing you is just a bit of harmless, mostly well-intentioned fun.

 

It's not a fact written in the Constitution at all.

Work to lobby state governments to change that, they'll find no legal challenges from SCOTUS and the Constitution, at least.

 

Jonathan Swift wrote a farce; so have you. In fact, baby flesh would be nourishing. Cannibals prefer it. Tender. Tasty. Few or no hormones.

Sorry to report that our laws prevent it in spite of this good factual evidence for allowing it... because we value their human life.

That was a rhetorical question which pointed out that any kind of imaginable voter ID law was not driven by race, color or previous condition of servitude. That was thrown at me as a means of striking down the concept of voter ID laws.

Do you FAP to it? Probably. :grin: