Study finds Voter ID laws would reduce voting by 19-29 yo minorities by up to 700,000

[xBiffx]

those are not rights, voting is.

Prove it.

 

[Todd33]

You have a right to keep and bear arms, have you ever tried to buy a gun without a picture ID?

Not a good point. The amount of harm and crime that could be carried out with a gun compared to nothing with a vote. The reason voter fraud is near non-existent? There is little payoff, a single vote is so washed out by sheer numbers. One gun can kill dozens in minutes.

 

[lotus503]

Prove it.

Prove that voting is a right?

 

[dank69]

Every time these threads come up on voter ID, I cannot help but wonder what the real motivation behind not supporting - or at least, not blocking - the effort comes from?

It's clear that a properly implemented voter ID/state ID/national ID system would not only slightly increase the amount of government workers needed to implement such a system, and as such, those on the left just came in their pants at that thought.

It's also clear that such a properly implemented system would pose basically zero hindrance to those voting, given that they hold their vote so dear, would make sure to get their freely provided ID card well ahead of the elections.

What then is the reason for so much pushback? If people whose vote is so vitally important are going to be making sure they have their free ID (and that would include the proper code that goes with that ID for their online cast absentee ballot, no more paper ballots in such a system), and they have weeks/months/years to accomplish this simple task before the election, what exactly is the massive problem?

It can't be that this will add government overhead, as - generally - the people arguing against such an ID system cream in their pants at the thought of more government. Exactly what is the problem?

Chuck

The bolded statement should tell you that you do not understand the motivations of those on "the left." If "the left" were so in love with growing the government, then they would love this voter ID requirement. They don't love this voter ID requirement, so therefore, they must not love growing the government. Sorry to shatter your pathetic view of those on "the left."

 

[xBiffx]

Prove that voting is a right?

Was the request that unlcear? Yes, prove voting is a right.

Hint: Don't start looking in the constitution.

 

[nehalem256]

The bolded statement should tell you that you do not understand the motivations of those on "the left." If "the left" were so in love with growing the government, then they would love this voter ID requirement. They don't love this voter ID requirement, so therefore, they must not love growing the government. Sorry to shatter your pathetic view of those on "the left."

The left only wants to grow government when it benefits women, minorities, gays, etc.

So since voter ID will do nothing to help those groups they are naturally opposed to it.

 

[chucky2]

The bolded statement should tell you that you do not understand the motivations of those on "the left." If "the left" were so in love with growing the government, then they would love this voter ID requirement. They don't love this voter ID requirement, so therefore, they must not love growing the government. Sorry to shatter your pathetic view of those on "the left."

Er, No. It's just that they've done some kind of cost/benefit and decided that the grow on government that they'd normally be salivating over is not worth the bennie they plugged into their calculation. Given that it's not the actual rights of people they're worried about (because no rights would be hindered in reality, but anyways), but rather, something more political, one wonders what it really is.

My guess it's the appearance of 'fighting for the little guy', even if it's totally bunk given the little guy can get their free ID no problemo. I suspect the Left thinks long term on this, and realizes that once a state/national ID is implemented, it leads to other things like other Gov bennies being put on such card (no more selling your card at .80c on the dollar), and of course, immigration checks much more easier.

So they'll make the false excuse that this is limiting rights, even though it isn't, because they don't want the long term sh1t to kick in and F their constituency.

I think I understand those that pull the heartstrings on The Left pretty well...

Chuck

 

[thraashman]

You have a right to keep and bear arms, have you ever tried to buy a gun without a picture ID?

First, it says bear arms not buy arms. You also have to prove eligibility to register to vote. Second, how many videos have been posted on these forums of an officer responding to a call stops a person who is open carrying and that person refuses to show ID because they don't have to because it is their right? Hint, I personally can think of 3 times I've seen those.

 

[chucky2]

The left only wants to grow government when it benefits women, minorities, gays, etc.

So since voter ID will do nothing to help those groups they are naturally opposed to it.

Normally I'd agree with you here, but you're wrong. There would be an increase, however small, in the peoplepower needed to staff such a law. Who is going to get a greater amount of these Gov jobs at the peon level? Those on the Left. That's some good vote bribing power right there and it shouldn't be discounted.

Chuck

 

[monovillage]

First, it says bear arms not buy arms. You also have to prove eligibility to register to vote. Second, how many videos have been posted on these forums of an officer responding to a call stops a person who is open carrying and that person refuses to show ID because they don't have to because it is their right? Hint, I personally can think of 3 times I've seen those.

Since you're parsing with such a fine blade. You have a right to vote, but not cast a ballot without showing a picture ID.

 

[buckshot24]

Get some IDs guys!

 

[monovillage]

Not a good point. The amount of harm and crime that could be carried out with a gun compared to nothing with a vote. The reason voter fraud is near non-existent? There is little payoff, a single vote is so washed out by sheer numbers. One gun can kill dozens in minutes.

I disagree, I think Obama has done far more damage to this country then firearms have done to it in the last 3 1/2 years.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Was the request that unlcear? Yes, prove voting is a right.

Hint: Don't start looking in the constitution.

Well someone should, since it's obvious you didn't.

US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Twelfth Amendment (overwrites portions of Article 2, Section 1 not quoted above):

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Fifteenth Amendment, Section 1:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Nineteenth Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Twenty-fourth Amendment, Section 1:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Twenty-sixth Amendment, Section 1:

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

The US Constitution has an awful lot of amendments detailing the expansion of the "right to vote." But if the US Constitution isn't good enough for you, we also have some Federal Legislation aptly titled The Voting Rights Act.

 

[thraashman]

Was the request that unlcear? Yes, prove voting is a right.

Hint: Don't start looking in the constitution.

The 15th, 19th, and 24th Amendments to the Constitution establish textually voting as a right and that the right to vote cannot be denied by race, color, gender, or a poll tax. So yes, it IS in the Constitution as Amendments are part of the Constitution.

Edit: Seems AtomicPlayboy did it before me, and quite frankly better than me.

Since you're parsing with such a fine blade. You have a right to vote, but not cast a ballot without showing a picture ID.

Actually it would be that you have to show ID of some form upon registering, but once registered it was not required to show ID unless a reasonable suspicion of criminal act were involved. Thanks for playing though.

 

[buckshot24]

The bolded statement should tell you that you do not understand the motivations of those on "the left." If "the left" were so in love with growing the government, then they would love this voter ID requirement. They don't love this voter ID requirement, so therefore, they must not love growing the government. Sorry to shatter your pathetic view of those on "the left."

All it shows is that the left doesn't have consistent views. They like government control for some things and they don't like it for others.

Showing an ID is not that large of a burden.

Even if voter fraud isn't that big of a deal why not have a system where it is harder to commit it? If we have these laws people can't cry about fraud as much.

 

[dank69]

The left only wants to grow government when it benefits women, minorities, gays, etc.

So since voter ID will do nothing to help those groups they are naturally opposed to it.

Oh, gee, well, my mistake then.

Er, No. It's just that they've done some kind of cost/benefit and decided that the grow on government that they'd normally be salivating over is not worth the bennie they plugged into their calculation. Given that it's not the actual rights of people they're worried about (because no rights would be hindered in reality, but anyways), but rather, something more political, one wonders what it really is.

My guess it's the appearance of 'fighting for the little guy', even if it's totally bunk given the little guy can get their free ID no problemo. I suspect the Left thinks long term on this, and realizes that once a state/national ID is implemented, it leads to other things like other Gov bennies being put on such card (no more selling your card at .80c on the dollar), and of course, immigration checks much more easier.

So they'll make the false excuse that this is limiting rights, even though it isn't, because they don't want the long term sh1t to kick in and F their constituency.

I think I understand those that pull the heartstrings on The Left pretty well...

Chuck

I wasn't aware that all lefties do constant cost/benefit analysis of all policies. I've been doing it wrong this whole time.

 

[xBiffx]

Here is another hint. A right is not something that can be taken away without reason. A right is not something given to you by the state.

The constitution doesn't establish your so called "right to vote" anyways. The Voters Rights Act establishes that you cannot be denied the privilege of voting for certain reasons. It explains what the state cannot due with regards to voting but no where does it guarantee that you have that right without the act itself.

Funny, if its such a right, why does it need an act passed long after the ratification of the constitution. The act can be replaced/removed as easily as it was passed. This again explains how it isn't a right. Rights can't be taken away by the removal of a law or an act.

 

[jackstar7]

Every time these threads come up on voter ID, I cannot help but wonder what the real motivation behind not supporting - or at least, not blocking - the effort comes from?

It's clear that a properly implemented voter ID/state ID/national ID system would not only slightly increase the amount of government workers needed to implement such a system, and as such, those on the left just came in their pants at that thought.

It's also clear that such a properly implemented system would pose basically zero hindrance to those voting, given that they hold their vote so dear, would make sure to get their freely provided ID card well ahead of the elections.

What then is the reason for so much pushback? If people whose vote is so vitally important are going to be making sure they have their free ID (and that would include the proper code that goes with that ID for their online cast absentee ballot, no more paper ballots in such a system), and they have weeks/months/years to accomplish this simple task before the election, what exactly is the massive problem?

It can't be that this will add government overhead, as - generally - the people arguing against such an ID system cream in their pants at the thought of more government. Exactly what is the problem?

Chuck

Now list out the counterpoints and why do Conservatives support such government overreach and infringement on rights and additional spending... all to "solve" a non-problem.

Also, why are you fighting a caricature of the left and not the actual left?

 

[JohnnyGage]

Wait a second if these yout's or youths don't have ID. How are they getting into a nite club? Unless of course they Anthony Michael Hall from the Breakfast Club who had a fake ID to vote.

 

[nyker96]

Why don't state do this, start mailing out and giving out free voter id until it reaches 100% of voters in state. When everyone has this id, then they can push for a id check law.

However, I have a feeling, when everyone has this id, there will be no incentive for one party or another to push for such a voter id law since it presents no voting advantage for them.

in short, when 100% of voting population has this id, there will be no incentive for either party to push for a voter id law.

 

[Dannar26]

P&N is like debate team practice, at best.

Well said.

Common sense has no home here.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Republicans are pushing this for voter suppression. They've admitted as much.

It's also obvious to anyone asking themselves why Republicans support spending more money and increasing the size of government to do this one thing.

Is it still a good idea despite their motivation? Quite possibly. But what we really need is a national ID card, complete with biometric information. Basically the enhanced driver's license / ID at the national level.

With a national ID card we could eliminate the insignificant amount of in-person voter fraud, and also easily identify the illegal immigrants working, collecting services, etc.

"Show me your papers" is uttered as if it's a valid rebuttal to national IDs. But why? Just because police states use papers or IDs to track citizens doesn't mean having a universal ID will turn America into a police state.

 

[chucky2]

Oh, gee, well, my mistake then.

I wasn't aware that all lefties do constant cost/benefit analysis of all policies. I've been doing it wrong this whole time.

No no, not all Lefties. The vast majority just do whatever their masters that control each of the groups that make up the Left want. In this thread it's voter ID laws, in another it will be spend spend spend in another it'll be the po minorities etc. etc. etc. The tail very much wags the dog. Take comfort: You're not doing anything wrong, you're doing exactly what your masters want - and expect - you to do.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Now list out the counterpoints and why do Conservatives support such government overreach and infringement on rights and additional spending... all to "solve" a non-problem.

What counterpoints? Having a state/national ID hurts basically no one. The only people it could possibly screw are people that live so far out in the middle of no where, and have no means to come to their local DMV, that it truly is hard for them to obtain what is needed. There is no other counterpoint that could reasonably be made from a properly implemented state/national ID law.

Also, why are you fighting a caricature of the left and not the actual left?

No, this is the actual Left, no caricature. I can't help the way they are, that's on them. The Left actually believes people who are living in urban areas can't possibly get a free state/national ID because it's so much of a burden on them to do so. The insanity of that "logic" is not a caricature, that's the Left base. What's a caricature is the way those on the Left actually see themselves, vs. what they really are.

Chuck

 

[Brovane]

If you don't have time to get a proper ID then you probably have no business voting anyway. I don't see how someone could function in a modern society without some type of government issues photo ID. That is just the way things are now.