Voter ID

[a777pilot]

Paradoxical Quote of The Day From Ben Stein:

"Fathom the Hypocrisy of a Government
that requires every citizen to prove
they are insured... but not everyone
must prove they are a citizen."

 

[nehalem256]

First of all, stupidity has no effect on what rights you have or whether they can be restricted. Secondly, a job is not the same as the right to vote. A right to a job is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, while the right to vote appears in numerous amendments.

And where does it say you can vote without having to present ID to show who you are?

The right to hold a job is not mentioned because it is so inherent. The constitution also doesnt mention a right to breathe or to drink water.

And I still want a reasonable explanation about how an adult is suppose to legally survive without ID.

 

[Lithium381]

Can someone explain to me WHY it is voter suppression? I see that thrown around in threads here and there but I cannot fathom how it's voter suppression to ask for an ID when you vote? If it's because "it's hard for minorities and old people to get ID's" that doesn't make sense. . . . there are 4 months until election this year, in that time-frame they can't fill out a single form?

 

[nehalem256]

Can someone explain to me WHY it is voter suppression? I see that thrown around in threads here and there but I cannot fathom how it's voter suppression to ask for an ID when you vote? If it's because "it's hard for minorities and old people to get ID's" that doesn't make sense. . . . there are 4 months until election this year, in that time-frame they can't fill out a single form?

On the most technical level it is voter suppression.

It suppresses:

criminals (such as people working off the books)
senile elderly
dead people

I just want an explanation about why we should care if any of those groups are suppressed.

 

[CPA]

Can someone explain to me WHY it is voter suppression? I see that thrown around in threads here and there but I cannot fathom how it's voter suppression to ask for an ID when you vote? If it's because "it's hard for minorities and old people to get ID's" that doesn't make sense. . . . there are 4 months until election this year, in that time-frame they can't fill out a single form?

It's not, just some of the most ardent liberals, and moonie, want you to believe that all democrats have no ID's and therefore can't vote.

The minority and old people argument is bunk because in order to get ANY medicare, SSI or Social Security you better damn well have an ID.

 

[fskimospy]

And where does it say you can vote without having to present ID to show who you are?

The right to hold a job is not mentioned because it is so inherent. The constitution also doesnt mention a right to breathe or to drink water.

No. It mentions a right to vote, period. This means that such activity is protected to a higher level than other activities. I do find it interesting that you are now reading new rights into the Constitution though, are you sure as a presumably right wing person that you want to do that? Anyways, your argument is silly. Your right to life is in fact protected by the Constitution, and depriving someone of breathing or water would infringe upon that. I am unaware of any right guaranteed by the Constitution that being employed is a prerequisite for. Can you give me one?

And I still want a reasonable explanation about how an adult is suppose to legally survive without ID.

Millions of Americans do so every day, and do so legally. This is common knowledge, but your question is irrelevant anyway. You wish to restrict the right to vote by adding more requirements. It is now incumbent upon you to explain why such a thing is a good idea, hopefully producing valid statistical evidence to support your case. The people you are attempting to suppress are under no obligation to explain why you shouldn't suppress them, the burden of proof is on you.

Justify this law. Use statistics, not anecdotes. If you can't provide evidence, explain why you wish to add additional layers of regulation based on nothing. Better yet, explain why the lawmakers pushing for voter ID laws want them to be enforced while ignoring the real avenue for voter fraud which is absentee ballots. (which of course have no ID requirement) If you can think of a single reason they would do that outside of suppressing unfriendly constituencies, I'd love to hear it.

 

[fskimospy]

It's not, just some of the most ardent liberals, and moonie, want you to believe that all democrats have no ID's and therefore can't vote.

Yes, of course we want you to believe that not a single democrat has an ID. That's an incredibly stupid straw man, even for ATPN.

The minority and old people argument is bunk because in order to get ANY medicare, SSI or Social Security you better damn well have an ID.[/QUOTE]

This is so obviously wrong that it borders on incoherent. It is indisputable that millions of Americans live without valid ID. The fact that you would need ID to get government benefits is 1.) Irrelevant to voting rights and 2.) A non-seqitur.

 

[HomerJS]

Foxtards want to have strict voting ID laws except when it concerns absentee ballots.

Model of consistancy!

 

[fskimospy]

Foxtards want to have strict voting ID laws excect when it concerns absentee ballots.

Model of consistancy!

If you increased regulations on absentee ballots you would stand a chance of reducing Republican votes, which of course were cast by Real 'Murricans. Don't let that pesky 'evidence' that says absentee ballots are far larger vehicles for voter fraud confuse you, it's all a librul trick.

 

[nehalem256]

Yes, of course we want you to believe that not a single democrat has an ID. That's an incredibly stupid straw man, even for ATPN.

The minority and old people argument is bunk because in order to get ANY medicare, SSI or Social Security you better damn well have an ID.

This is so obviously wrong that it borders on incoherent. It is indisputable that millions of Americans live without valid ID. The fact that you would need ID to get government benefits is 1.) Irrelevant to voting rights and 2.) A non-seqitur.[/QUOTE]

I never stated that they dont live without ID. I said they dont LEGALLY live without ID.

Considering that without ID you can get a job or government benefits. How is one suppose to procure food without ID?

 

[nehalem256]

No. It mentions a right to vote, period. This means that such activity is protected to a higher level than other activities. I do find it interesting that you are now reading new rights into the Constitution though, are you sure as a presumably right wing person that you want to do that? Anyways, your argument is silly. Your right to life is in fact protected by the Constitution, and depriving someone of breathing or water would infringe upon that. I am unaware of any right guaranteed by the Constitution that being employed is a prerequisite for. Can you give me one?

(1) See the 9th and 10th Amendment. The right to have a job is so obvious that no one felt the need to spell it out.

(2) See the 2nd Amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". And yet ID is required to purchase a firearm. No where does it say "the right to vote, shall not be infringed". It does outline several things such as Age, Gender, Race that cannot be used to abridge it. But how are you for example going to prove your age without presenting ID?

 

[soundforbjt]

So even with all of the examples out there, the most recent being in Illinois, perpetrated by democrats, illegal voting is really just a boogie man in our heads?

Don't for get the recent repub in charge of actually counting the votes (where the real fraud takes place) convicted in Indiana and Gov. Daniels wanted to keep him on the job.

 

[fskimospy]

I never stated that they dont live without ID. I said they dont LEGALLY live without ID.

Considering that without ID you can get a job or government benefits. How is one suppose to procure food without ID?

Many of the elderly have ID's that have expired, people live with family members, etc, etc. This is a pointless discussion however as, once again, your right to vote is not in any way affected by whether or not you can procure government benefits or sign up for a job. They have literally zero to do with one another. The lack of an ID is not in fact evidence of criminality, which is of course what you are trying to allude to.

You are concocting absurd straw men because you can't defend these laws on their own merits. Come on, defend it on the merits. Tell us what benefits the United States will see from it. Be specific, and use empirical evidence to support your argument.

 

[fskimospy]

(1) See the 9th and 10th Amendment. The right to have a job is so obvious that no one felt the need to spell it out.

(2) See the 2nd Amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". And yet ID is required to purchase a firearm. No where does it say "the right to vote, shall not be infringed". It does outline several things such as Age, Gender, Race that cannot be used to abridge it. But how are you for example going to prove your age without presenting ID?

1.) The 9th amendment is not a source of enforceable rights, nor has it ever been found to be so by any court. In fact, numerous Supreme Court justices across the ideological spectrum have explicitly denied that the 9th amendment could be used in that way. It is a way in which to interpret the Constitution. I'm glad to hear you are not a strict constructionist however, I will remember that for future discussions.

1.)(a) The 10th amendment has to do with powers, not rights. It is irrelevant to this discussion.

2.) All rights are subject to reasonable restriction. Nowhere did I, or anyone else argue that the right to vote could not be restricted in any way. (if that were the case even registration would be illegal) The question for the right to vote, the right to own a gun, and every other right is whether or not that restriction advances a legitimate government interest. In the case of voter ID laws, it does nothing to advance any interest as there is no evidence that the type of fraud that it seeks to prevent exists in any meaningful capacity.

Furthermore, although I do believe that these laws are unconstitutional, my argument doesn't rest on that. My argument is that they are stupid, and nakedly partisan efforts to suppress voting. Not all bad laws are unconstitutional.

As for how you would prove your age without ID, think about it. How did you get that ID to begin with?

 

[nehalem256]

Many of the elderly have ID's that have expired, people live with family members, etc, etc. This is a pointless discussion however as, once again, your right to vote is not in any way affected by whether or not you can procure government benefits or sign up for a job. They have literally zero to do with one another. The lack of an ID is not in fact evidence of criminality, which is of course what you are trying to allude to.

You are concocting absurd straw men because you can't defend these laws on their own merits. Come on, defend it on the merits. Tell us what benefits the United States will see from it. Be specific, and use empirical evidence to support your argument.

Except liberals claim these laws would unduly effect minorities with the implication these are working age individuals. Are you suggesting that large numbers of working age individuals are mooching of family members because they are too lazy to get an ID?

Merits:
Why are these laws supported by large bi-partisan majorities of people. Simple, they want to have faith in their voting system, and no reasonable person finds it absurd to require people to show ID to vote, just like they do for dozens of other activities.

 

[Lithium381]

Okay, but ID's are good for YEARS, typically 5. . . there are 5+ months until the election . . . there are maybe two forms to fill out . . . honestly how hard would it be to get one now and avoid the issue altogether?

 

[fskimospy]

Except liberals claim these laws would unduly effect minorities with the implication these are working age individuals. Are you suggesting that large numbers of working age individuals are mooching of family members because they are too lazy to get an ID?

Merits:
Why are these laws supported by large bi-partisan majorities of people. Simple, they want to have faith in their voting system, and no reasonable person finds it absurd to require people to show ID to vote, just like they do for dozens of other activities.

The demographics of people without ID's are irrelevant as to the merit of the law.

So your merit is that people will feel happier about voting regardless of whether or not the law is actually doing anything. Hopefully you realize how incredibly weak that argument is.

 

[HomerJS]

The demographics of people without ID's are irrelevant as to the merit of the law.

So your merit is that people will feel happier about voting regardless of whether or not the law is actually doing anything. Hopefully you realize how incredibly weak that argument is.

The merit of a law is irrelevant as to the "need" for the law.

86 voter fraud convictions out of over 300 million from 2000-2007 doesn't sound like a overwelming need.

There is a much greater problem with how ballots are counted.

 

[nehalem256]

The demographics of people without ID's are irrelevant as to the merit of the law.

So your merit is that people will feel happier about voting regardless of whether or not the law is actually doing anything. Hopefully you realize how incredibly weak that argument is.

I would say being able to have faith in the Democratic process is pretty important.

And if the demographics who will be disenfranchised are:
-People working under the table (and avoiding taxes)
-People mooching off relatives (because they are too lazy to get ID
-Senile old people
-the deceased.

Yeah, I think the demographics matter a little bit. I have no problem disenfranchising those people, because none of them should be voting.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Paradoxical Quote of The Day From Ben Stein:

"Fathom the Hypocrisy of a Government
that requires every citizen to prove
they are insured... but not everyone
must prove they are a citizen."

/thread

 

[fskimospy]

I would say being able to have faith in the Democratic process is pretty important.

And if the demographics who will be disenfranchised are:
-People working under the table (and avoiding taxes)
-People mooching off relatives (because they are too lazy to get ID
-Senile old people
-the deceased.

Yeah, I think the demographics matter a little bit. I have no problem disenfranchising those people, because none of them should be voting.

I find it interesting that you believe that the elderly without IDs are mentally impaired. What evidence are you basing this on? Please be specific.

I'm also trying to find some legal text that supports the disenfranchisement of those who aren't working and are living with relatives. The best I could find was Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections that explicitly barred property requirements for voting. Strange that you would implicitly endorse such a thing.

Your enduring failure to actually come up with a rationale for these laws outside 'it will make people feel good' is pretty telling as to just how utterly filled with horseshit they really are.

 

[cybrsage]

Foxtards want to have strict voting ID laws except when it concerns absentee ballots.

Model of consistancy!

If you increased regulations on absentee ballots you would stand a chance of reducing Republican votes, which of course were cast by Real 'Murricans. Don't let that pesky 'evidence' that says absentee ballots are far larger vehicles for voter fraud confuse you, it's all a librul trick.

One problem at a time. Only libtards think that if you cannot fix EVERY problem at once, you should not fix any of them at all.

 

[HomerJS]

One problem at a time. Only libtards think that if you cannot fix EVERY problem at once, you should not fix any of them at all.

So what's the bigger problem, dead people voting or how ballots are handled/counted?

 

[Bowfinger]

It's not, just some of the most ardent liberals, and moonie, want you to believe that all democrats have no ID's and therefore can't vote.

The minority and old people argument is bunk because in order to get ANY medicare, SSI or Social Security you better damn well have an ID.

I want to compliment you on your exceptional ability to create straw man arguments. Well done! I am curious, however. Do have any ability to actually form honest arguments? We've certainly seen no evidence of it in this thread.

 

[mchammer187]

One problem at a time. Only libtards think that if you cannot fix EVERY problem at once, you should not fix any of them at all.

Like the Buffet Rule amirite?