Election fraud prosecutions

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
People its 2007 ...how can you do anything without a photo id?

Photo ID's have been around for YEARS.

The whole idea that someone can't afford it is a red herring.

No, but you can forget your ID. You can be in a rush, and not have time to take pictures. Remember, you only have one day to vote. Requireing an ID on that day can be a deterrant to voters. ProfJohn ,for once, made a good point. You can take the votes the day, and ask for proof after.

Oh i dont have a problem with allowing the vote and getting ID later...

BUT!

How did they get to the polling place? Drive?

Walk. Take the subway.

Most cities DONT have subways.

Take the bus. Take a bike. Not everyone has a car you know. Some people can't afford one.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp
CAD's arguement was that since both guns and votes are rights, if one doesn't need an ID, then the other doesn't either because it would be too tedious. That wasn't my arguement. Mine was that voting is a right, if you make it too tedious, you will infringe on a person's right, and requiring IDs to cast a vote on election day(not made clear before, but I'm clarifying) would be a deterrent for some people, and make it tedoius.

And no, CAD's position is not a valid comparison because the two procedures are totally different. You have a limited opportunity to actually vote. You can forget your ID. You can lose your ID. There's one day. If you forget it, then you're screwed. You can always put the ballet to the side, and validate if the vote is valid later. It won't hurt anyone, since there is a time from from the moment you cast your vote, to the moment the guy is elected.

On the other hand, you have as much time as you want to get a gun. If you miss out on the day to vote, then you're screwed for voting. If you forget your ID when you go get your gun, or apply for a gun licence, then you can always come back the next day, or the day after that, or the day after the next. The opportunity is still there! And also, if you do allow someone to not show an ID, and the guy kills someone with the gun becuase he faked something, you can't take the life back ever. You can throw away bad votes. You can't bring back people's lives. Hopefully, you will now see why it isn't a valid comparison at all.

Now, if you want to come up with your own reasoning on why people should be allowed to not show IDs when they purchase a gun, go ahead.

No, your arguement is that the same requirements for "tedious" needs to be applied throughout equally. I never said that it needed to be applied equally. You argued that it did. You can't say that, because essentially, things are different.What may be too tedious for one thing may not be too tedoius for another. For me, walking down the street is not tedoius. For a 100 year old man, it may be too tedious. Do you see my point? Think harder. You try to "extend" logic using strawman, because you can't think the whole thing through.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp
CAD's arguement was that since both guns and votes are rights, if one doesn't need an ID, then the other doesn't either because it would be too tedious. That wasn't my arguement. Mine was that voting is a right, if you make it too tedious, you will infringe on a person's right, and requiring IDs to cast a vote on election day(not made clear before, but I'm clarifying) would be a deterrent for some people, and make it tedoius.

And no, CAD's position is not a valid comparison because the two procedures are totally different. You have a limited opportunity to actually vote. You can forget your ID. You can lose your ID. There's one day. If you forget it, then you're screwed. You can always put the ballet to the side, and validate if the vote is valid later. It won't hurt anyone, since there is a time from from the moment you cast your vote, to the moment the guy is elected.

On the other hand, you have as much time as you want to get a gun. If you miss out on the day to vote, then you're screwed for voting. If you forget your ID when you go get your gun, or apply for a gun licence, then you can always come back the next day, or the day after that, or the day after the next. The opportunity is still there! And also, if you do allow someone to not show an ID, and the guy kills someone with the gun becuase he faked something, you can't take the life back ever. You can throw away bad votes. You can't bring back people's lives. Hopefully, you will now see why it isn't a valid comparison at all.

Now, if you want to come up with your own reasoning on why people should be allowed to not show IDs when they purchase a gun, go ahead.

No, my argument was not about guns - it was about your "logic" and how it doesn't hold together when applied to other "rights". guns was just an example of a specific "right"(one you still don't seem to understand) So in reality you are trying to argue about my "position" when you don't even realize it wasn't a "position", but rather an extention of your "logic". This isn't about guns and IDs - this is about voting "rights" and you calling it "tedious" thus claiming it is infringed upon. The extention of your "logic" to other "rights" doesn't wash - thus me pointing it out(just like the other thread).

No, your arguement is that the same requirements for "tedious" needs to be applied throughout equally. I never said that it needed to be applied equally. You argued that it did. You can't say that, because essentially, things are different.What may be too tedious for one thing may not be too tedoius for another. For me, walking down the street is not tedoius. For a 100 year old man, it may be too tedious. Do you see my point? Think harder. You try to "extend" logic using strawman, because you can't think the whole thing through.

So who decides what is "tedious" and when it can be applied to "rights"? You? :laugh:

Sorry, but you were caught once again trying to apply selective logic. You really need to think your statements through to make sure your logic can be applied consistently. Just trying to help.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp
CAD's arguement was that since both guns and votes are rights, if one doesn't need an ID, then the other doesn't either because it would be too tedious. That wasn't my arguement. Mine was that voting is a right, if you make it too tedious, you will infringe on a person's right, and requiring IDs to cast a vote on election day(not made clear before, but I'm clarifying) would be a deterrent for some people, and make it tedoius.

And no, CAD's position is not a valid comparison because the two procedures are totally different. You have a limited opportunity to actually vote. You can forget your ID. You can lose your ID. There's one day. If you forget it, then you're screwed. You can always put the ballet to the side, and validate if the vote is valid later. It won't hurt anyone, since there is a time from from the moment you cast your vote, to the moment the guy is elected.

On the other hand, you have as much time as you want to get a gun. If you miss out on the day to vote, then you're screwed for voting. If you forget your ID when you go get your gun, or apply for a gun licence, then you can always come back the next day, or the day after that, or the day after the next. The opportunity is still there! And also, if you do allow someone to not show an ID, and the guy kills someone with the gun becuase he faked something, you can't take the life back ever. You can throw away bad votes. You can't bring back people's lives. Hopefully, you will now see why it isn't a valid comparison at all.

Now, if you want to come up with your own reasoning on why people should be allowed to not show IDs when they purchase a gun, go ahead.

No, my argument was not about guns - it was about your "logic" and how it doesn't hold together when applied to other "rights". guns was just an example of a specific "right"(one you still don't seem to understand) So in reality you are trying to argue about my "position" when you don't even realize it wasn't a "position", but rather an extention of your "logic". This isn't about guns and IDs - this is about voting "rights" and you calling it "tedious" thus claiming it is infringed upon. The extention of your "logic" to other "rights" doesn't wash - thus me pointing it out(just like the other thread).

No, your arguement is that the same requirements for "tedious" needs to be applied throughout equally. I never said that it needed to be applied equally. You argued that it did. You can't say that, because essentially, things are different.What may be too tedious for one thing may not be too tedoius for another. For me, walking down the street is not tedoius. For a 100 year old man, it may be too tedious. Do you see my point? Think harder. You try to "extend" logic using strawman, because you can't think the whole thing through.

So who decides what is "tedious" and when it can be applied to "rights"? You? :laugh:

Sorry, but you were caught once again trying to apply selective logic. You really need to think your statements through to make sure your logic can be applied consistently. Just trying to help.

Ok, I'll put it in simpler terms for you, so you can understand better.

I claimed that if you make a right too tedioius, you will essentially deny it to a large amount of people. I'm sure many people will agree with this. A vote shouldn't take 10 hours to cast, a gun shouldn't take 10 years to buy.

However, you need to be reasonable in your approach. Can you make not showing IDs when you vote work? Yes, you can. You can set the votes aside, and count them at a later date when ID is shown.Voter fraud will be detected, and it won't hurt anyone.

However, you can't apply that same logic to guns, because it would be unreasonable. If you sell a gun to someone without proof of ID, they may use it the next day, as the Virginia Tech incident proved(although he had ID, he just was mental). Innocent people will be hurt, and the cost of lives would justify requiring an ID, especially since you can go to the store to pick up your gun at any time.

Edit: To answer your question, you need to be reasonable in applying "too tedious". You need to see what the risks are and what the benefits are.