"Virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin.."

[cabri]

The left also has an "enviable" track record of screwing the people.
Both sides want it their way or nothing.

 

[Bowfinger]

The lengths you go to in order to ignore inconvenient facts never ceases to impress me. The power of ideology is really that strong.

He's just another example of putting faith over fact. It is not what his emotions tell him is true, so it must be "their" fault somehow. Cognitive dissonance rules.

If you have issues with the findings of fact he presented, please list them and explain why. Be specific.

Good luck with that. It's not like this is the first court ruling or study that documents the truth behind the RNC's voter suppression drive.

 

[sandorski]

You silly liberals. Don't you see that preventing the possibility that a few people could possibly attempt to commit Voter Fraud that 100s of thousands need to be kept from Voting? It's just common sense, gosh!!

 

[emperus]

Some times I think you suggest that everyone who disagrees with you is irrational.

I like discussing issues as much as the next one, but it is no fun when there isn't really an honest discussion being had. To be honest, the majority of your arguments in this thread have been non-coherent.

Your main argument went something like this:

It is imperative to immediately implement Voter ID laws to combat voter impersonation fraud. But in order to prove we don't need Voter ID laws you have to disprove voter impersonation fraud exists even though voter impersonation fraud has never been proven to exist. And to top it off, the fact that Wisconsin has said there has been 0 proven cases of Voter Impersonation fraud doesn't really matter because a Clinton appointed judge used those facts to write this ruling. :$

Apologies, if that sounds confusing, it is.

Lastly, if you haven't already seen this,

Voter ID Will Allow Romney to Win Pa. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8

Again. all reasonable people should see what this is.

 

[shira]

This was just the reasoning of a leftist judge. Completely worthless and meaningless.

No, it wasn't "reasoning." The judge documented the evidence that demonstrated that - at most - 2 possible instances of voter-impersonation fraud occur in Wisconsin every year. And further documented with evidence that the effort required to obtain an ID card (which included the personal testimony of 7 voters explaining why they were unable to obtain ID cards) would deter a significant fraction of the 300,000 Blacks and Latino voters lacking ID cards from voting in each election.

There are FACTS, not opinions. Tens of thousands of votes blocked vs 1 or 2 fraudulent votes prevented.

But you, in your heart, somehow know that Wisconsin's voter ID law is good. Please tell us why. And back up your argument with something more than just your beliefs and opinions.

 

[Bowfinger]

What's it called when you strawman someone else's argument to another person

In this specific case it's called mockery. You essentially asserted your intent to continue to spout uninformed opinions as fact, rather than actually educate yourself.

and then present some faux offense when they call you out on it?

Being bored with dishonest arguments and willful ignorance isn't taking offense. It's a common theme of the voter suppression cheerleaders.

So if we all agree it's a crime then why is it unconscionable to take reasonable measures to prevent it

Another straw man. We already take reasonable measures. The issue is excessive measures -- specifically, requiring current, state-issued photo IDs -- that will disenfranchise millions of legitimate voters while doing effectively nothing to actually reduce vote fraud. The only real problem these ID laws address is helping Republicans win elections, an increasing challenge as American demographics shift away from them.

- like requiring government provided documents to participate in government?

Because there are millions of Americans who lack such documents, and who face material burdens in obtaining them. They become another form of poll tax, something that has been ruled unconstitutional because it unjustly deprives some people of their right to vote.

I accept that their feelings might be hurt. I'm not persuaded by their feelings. These documents are required for an abundance of other things, if their feelings aren't hurt when they're obligated to participate in those things then I struggle to figure out why casting a ballot makes people so emotional.


If we had started that process 5 years ago it would be over. How do you enroll in school without any documents?

Two more straw man examples. You're attacking two arguments nobody made: "hurt feelings" and "enroll in school without any documents."

Some times I think you suggest that everyone who disagrees with you is irrational.

In IL a state ID is $10 (up from $5 when I was a minor). It's free for people over 60. A one day CTA pass is also $10.

I don't see the financial burden.

What YOU see is irrelevant. You are not representative of all Americans. Multiple courts have recognized there is a burden.

 

[shira]

It's not just the money that inhibits many people from getting voter ID cards. A significant problem is that many people lack the documentation required to get an ID card. For example, a birth certificate, a social security card, a passport, or other proofs of identity and/or residency.

It's the expense and/or hassle of obtaining the documents required to get an ID card that blocks these people, especially since they're otherwise able to live their lives without needing an ID card.

 

[Jhhnn]

You silly liberals. Don't you see that preventing the possibility that a few people could possibly attempt to commit Voter Fraud that 100s of thousands need to be kept from Voting? It's just common sense, gosh!!

Well, it follows logically from this-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw

It's Jim Crow in drag, with more of a class emphasis than a racial one. If the electorate won't go your way, just reshape the electorate. I'm sure that the leadership of the far right has no ethical concerns with doing that. They seek to re-instate the Rule of Wealth, overcome the obstacle of egalitarian democracy entirely.

 

[glenn1]

GOP is going about this all wrong. First, state issued personal identification cards should be free, the idea that IDs are a profit center for states is ridiculous. Secondly, instead of requiring government issued ID mandatory to vote, make the ID mandatory with no exceptions whatsoever to receive government benefits of any kind - welfare, social security, tax refund payments, etc. That resolves the "compelling goverment interest" and rights issues since the law is clearly aimed at preventing economic fraud against the state. That it would likely fix the Voter ID problem is a secondary but welcome benefit, plus I don't care if someone votes with no ID if they aren't receiving government benefits.

 

[Jhhnn]

That it would likely fix the Voter ID problem is a secondary but welcome benefit

We have the inevitable return to the false premise that belief in significant "voter fraud" is something greater than a firm belief in the existence of Bigfoot.

Confronted with the circular nature of their reasoning, True Believers just keep circling.

 

[glenn1]

We have the inevitable return to the false premise that belief in significant "voter fraud" is something greater than a firm belief in the existence of Bigfoot.

Confronted with the circular nature of their reasoning, True Believers just keep circling.

If it's not real, then why do you care if something "fixes" it? You should be all for my plan in that case since it doesn't impede voters in any way. I think benefits fraud is real enough to implement my solution regardless.

 

[thraashman]

If it's not real, then why do you care if something "fixes" it? You should be all for my plan in that case since it doesn't impede voters in any way. I think benefits fraud is real enough to implement my solution regardless.

The "fix" first off would cost a lot of money, thus not very fiscally responsible. And basically requiring all citizens to have a government issued ID is not very small government. The fact that both these go directly against the standard conservative claims just goes to show that the intent is not to "fix" anything other than fixing it so that certain groups have more difficulty voting.

 

[sactoking]

...

 

[Jhhnn]

You should be all for my plan in that case since it doesn't impede voters in any way.

More circling back to false premises, the sign of a True Believer.

Saying the same thing in a different way & claiming to have different reasons doesn't make it true. Requiring valid state issued ID to vote *obviously* impedes voting, despite all the coy obfuscations.

If it didn't, then all the "smaller govt" ravers wouldn't touch it with a pole. The whole thing is fundamentally and deeply dishonest, utterly shameful.

 

[glenn1]

The "fix" first off would cost a lot of money, thus not very fiscally responsible. And basically requiring all citizens to have a government issued ID is not very small government. The fact that both these go directly against the standard conservative claims just goes to show that the intent is not to "fix" anything other than fixing it so that certain groups have more difficulty voting.

The left has been seeking a "stimulus" for some time, so why not this? And providing free IDs is something which would without question benefit the poor, and citing "small government" claims is ridiculous.

More circling back to false premises, the sign of a True Believer.

Saying the same thing in a different way & claiming to have different reasons doesn't make it true. Requiring valid state issued ID to vote *obviously* impedes voting, despite all the coy obfuscations.

If it didn't, then all the "smaller govt" ravers wouldn't touch it with a pole. The whole thing is fundamentally and deeply dishonest, utterly shameful.

And again my plan made it clear that people would be allowed to vote without IDs, so again I don't see where your issue is. Requiring people to have IDs to get government benefits is not the same thing as not allowing them to vote without IDs. If this cuts off even one person from committing welfare or social security fraud, then feel free to have as many people vote without IDs as you want.

 

[cabri]

It's not just the money that inhibits many people from getting voter ID cards. A significant problem is that many people lack the documentation required to get an ID card. For example, a birth certificate, a social security card, a passport, or other proofs of identity and/or residency.

It's the expense and/or hassle of obtaining the documents required to get an ID card that blocks these people, especially since they're otherwise able to live their lives without needing an ID card.

Yet they were able to obtain the documents required for proof in order to register to vote. :whiste:

 

[nehalem256]

It's not just the money that inhibits many people from getting voter ID cards. A significant problem is that many people lack the documentation required to get an ID card. For example, a birth certificate, a social security card, a passport, or other proofs of identity and/or residency.

So they have absolutely no proof that they are a citizen or even a real person, but we should let them vote?:hmm:

It's the expense and/or hassle of obtaining the documents required to get an ID card that blocks these people, especially since they're otherwise able to live their lives without needing an ID card.

Good luck getting a bank account, job, or government assistance with absolutely no proof of your identity.

 

[glenn1]

Good luck getting a bank account, job, or government assistance with absolutely no proof of your identity.

For relatively minimal effort those on either side of the aisle could help the poor get IDs and be worthy of getting their vote in return. Not surprising the GOP side wouldn't bother but you'd figure the Democrats would be better than that since they claim to represent the downtrodden. Evidently both sides are fine with people living in the margins of society so long as they pull the correct lever, or aren't allowed to pull as they case might be.

 

[thraashman]

For relatively minimal effort those on either side of the aisle could help the poor get IDs and be worthy of getting their vote in return. Not surprising the GOP side wouldn't bother but you'd figure the Democrats would be better than that since they claim to represent the downtrodden. Evidently both sides are fine with people living in the margins of society so long as they pull the correct lever, or aren't allowed to pull as they case might be.

Any change in requiring IDs needs to include a grandfathering in clause. As far as government benefits without an ID, I'm not specifically opposed to that. Unlike voting, social welfare is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. But so long as any change that was made for government benefits was done with appropriate grandfathering, I don't see a huge deal.

 

[Pens1566]

So they have absolutely no proof that they are a citizen or even a real person, but we should let them vote?:hmm:



Good luck getting a bank account, job, or government assistance with absolutely no proof of your identity.

I opened a bank account 3 years ago online with zero ID provided at a major regional bank. Next.

 

[Pens1566]

Yet they were able to obtain the documents required for proof in order to register to vote. :whiste:

Documents required for registration != documents required for photo ID

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I opened a bank account 3 years ago online with zero ID provided at a major regional bank. Next.

It's also been proven many times that an I-9 can be completed without the IDs needed for voting so strike 2.

 

[glenn1]

Any change in requiring IDs needs to include a grandfathering in clause. As far as government benefits without an ID, I'm not specifically opposed to that. Unlike voting, social welfare is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. But so long as any change that was made for government benefits was done with appropriate grandfathering, I don't see a huge deal.

What possible need would there be to grandfather people from an ID which would be provided for free? There could obviously be a period (maybe even a couple years) in which to obtain said free ID but it shouldn't be permanent. Proving your identity should be a minimum threshhold for receiving government benefits IMHO.

 

[nehalem256]

It's also been proven many times that an I-9 can be completed without the IDs needed for voting so strike 2.

Except the claim was not lacking a photo id, but lacking any documentation of who you are whatsoever.

It's not just the money that inhibits many people from getting voter ID cards. A significant problem is that many people lack the documentation required to get an ID card. For example, a birth certificate, a social security card, a passport, or other proofs of identity and/or residency.

It's the expense and/or hassle of obtaining the documents required to get an ID card that blocks these people, especially since they're otherwise able to live their lives without needing an ID card.

Good luck completing an I-9 with no proof of your identity.

 

[nehalem256]

Any change in requiring IDs needs to include a grandfathering in clause. As far as government benefits without an ID, I'm not specifically opposed to that. Unlike voting, social welfare is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. But so long as any change that was made for government benefits was done with appropriate grandfathering, I don't see a huge deal.

There is no guaranteed right to vote without proving your identity.

You are merely prohibited from restricting voting based on sex, race, poll tax, or age < 18.

Restrictions on voting are fine. For example requiring you to register before voting or requiring residence in a state for a period of time.