Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Surprising Statistics behind Voter ID Laws

Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 10:47:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are two general explanations for why we should require photo identification for voters.

1. It fights a significant problem made up of in-person voting fraud (thousands of votes which could sway a close election)
2. It is meant to voting groups who are less likely to own photo ID

Well, interesting fact I just learned is that of all known accusations voter fraud (around 2,500 since the year 200), LESS THAN TWELVE CASES RELEVANT TO VOTER ID LAWS EXIST (http://assets.news21.com...=#).

This comes from a survey of over 600,000,000 votes counted since 2000 (http://votingrights.news21.com...).

1 in-person voter fraud/double voting case per 50,000,000 votes is disgusting insignificant. Consider that on a YEARLY level. That's ONE F*CKING VOTE A YEAR OUT OF 600,000,000.

There is either willfull or unintentional ignorance at play by people who say low-income voter suppression is worth fighting the "monster" of in-person voting fraud.
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 10:54:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Republican National Lawyers Association found something like 320 cases of vote fraud total in every single election every year for the past ten years.

Not a single one was found in Pennsylvania and they reported that Voter ID laws would do NOTHING to help the problem even IF it existed. This is just the right playing political games to suppress voting rights of demographics that vote democratic.

On top of this, right-wing districts are given longer early voting periods while left-wing districts have early voting shortened. Then special additional voting times are given to groups that vote republican like military families.

It's shameful, cowardly, and EXACTLY what I would expect from the right.
Sapere Aude!
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 11:08:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I always had cut Republicans slack, but this was when I started losing respect for them and finally bought into the idea that they arent as good willed as they say (I know it took forever and I should have seen it earlier, but i gave them too much rope)
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 11:32:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 10:54:38 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
The Republican National Lawyers Association found something like 320 cases of vote fraud total in every single election every year for the past ten years.

Not a single one was found in Pennsylvania and they reported that Voter ID laws would do NOTHING to help the problem even IF it existed. This is just the right playing political games to suppress voting rights of demographics that vote democratic.

On top of this, right-wing districts are given longer early voting periods while left-wing districts have early voting shortened. Then special additional voting times are given to groups that vote republican like military families.

It's shameful, cowardly, and EXACTLY what I would expect from the right.

I'm glad to see the voting period discrepencies overturned in court.

I don't have a problem with a state saying 'Everyone can vote early' or 'Nobody can vote early'. I do have a problem with 'This county can vote early, this one can't', or any other such unfair practice.

I agree. I support Romney, but I hate seeing the GOP pull such tactics. To be fair, the door swings both ways. The D's push for early voting for everybody, because they get better turnout wth the 'church-to-polls' programs. When the D's push for early voting, it is simply because they know they will get more votes from it, it's just the other side of the coin.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 11:34:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 11:32:06 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/17/2012 10:54:38 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
The Republican National Lawyers Association found something like 320 cases of vote fraud total in every single election every year for the past ten years.

Not a single one was found in Pennsylvania and they reported that Voter ID laws would do NOTHING to help the problem even IF it existed. This is just the right playing political games to suppress voting rights of demographics that vote democratic.

On top of this, right-wing districts are given longer early voting periods while left-wing districts have early voting shortened. Then special additional voting times are given to groups that vote republican like military families.

It's shameful, cowardly, and EXACTLY what I would expect from the right.

I'm glad to see the voting period discrepencies overturned in court.

I don't have a problem with a state saying 'Everyone can vote early' or 'Nobody can vote early'. I do have a problem with 'This county can vote early, this one can't', or any other such unfair practice.

I agree. I support Romney, but I hate seeing the GOP pull such tactics. To be fair, the door swings both ways. The D's push for early voting for everybody, because they get better turnout wth the 'church-to-polls' programs. When the D's push for early voting, it is simply because they know they will get more votes from it, it's just the other side of the coin.

i know and agree, but its easy to justify extending voting hours (considering the % of people who vote is pretty low) more than limiting voting hours when its clear its done as a political move....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 11:37:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 11:32:06 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:

I'm glad to see the voting period discrepencies overturned in court.
The appellate courts upheld the voter ID laws, which matter much more given they affect 2 million Penn voters. Apparently, the State Supreme Court is split 3-3 rep/dem with one Rep having a career of objective, non-partisan rulings (which I respect immensely and why I wanted Rob Portman to be Romney's VP).

I don't have a problem with a state saying 'Everyone can vote early' or 'Nobody can vote early'. I do have a problem with 'This county can vote early, this one can't', or any other such unfair practice.

I agree. I support Romney, but I hate seeing the GOP pull such tactics. To be fair, the door swings both ways. The D's push for early voting for everybody, because they get better turnout wth the 'church-to-polls' programs. When the D's push for early voting, it is simply because they know they will get more votes from it, it's just the other side of the coin.

Allowing more people to vote, even IF one party thinks they can benefit is not a bad thing at all. How can higher levels of representation and citizen participation in our democracy be a bad thing? If Republicans think they will get more votes by having more people vote, more power to them. But trying to limit people from voting is a terrible thing. I don't see the opposite as a bad thing in any way.
Sapere Aude!
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 11:42:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 11:37:37 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 8/17/2012 11:32:06 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:

I'm glad to see the voting period discrepencies overturned in court.
The appellate courts upheld the voter ID laws, which matter much more given they affect 2 million Penn voters. Apparently, the State Supreme Court is split 3-3 rep/dem with one Rep having a career of objective, non-partisan rulings (which I respect immensely and why I wanted Rob Portman to be Romney's VP).

I don't have a problem with a state saying 'Everyone can vote early' or 'Nobody can vote early'. I do have a problem with 'This county can vote early, this one can't', or any other such unfair practice.

I agree. I support Romney, but I hate seeing the GOP pull such tactics. To be fair, the door swings both ways. The D's push for early voting for everybody, because they get better turnout wth the 'church-to-polls' programs. When the D's push for early voting, it is simply because they know they will get more votes from it, it's just the other side of the coin.

Allowing more people to vote, even IF one party thinks they can benefit is not a bad thing at all. How can higher levels of representation and citizen participation in our democracy be a bad thing? If Republicans think they will get more votes by having more people vote, more power to them. But trying to limit people from voting is a terrible thing. I don't see the opposite as a bad thing in any way.

It's because the only reason why D's try to extend voting periods in some areas is to disproportionately increase their voter base. They aren't doing it for 'equal opportunity', they are doing it to increase their chances.

Intent matters.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 11:45:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 11:42:00 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/17/2012 11:37:37 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 8/17/2012 11:32:06 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:

I'm glad to see the voting period discrepencies overturned in court.
The appellate courts upheld the voter ID laws, which matter much more given they affect 2 million Penn voters. Apparently, the State Supreme Court is split 3-3 rep/dem with one Rep having a career of objective, non-partisan rulings (which I respect immensely and why I wanted Rob Portman to be Romney's VP).

I don't have a problem with a state saying 'Everyone can vote early' or 'Nobody can vote early'. I do have a problem with 'This county can vote early, this one can't', or any other such unfair practice.

I agree. I support Romney, but I hate seeing the GOP pull such tactics. To be fair, the door swings both ways. The D's push for early voting for everybody, because they get better turnout wth the 'church-to-polls' programs. When the D's push for early voting, it is simply because they know they will get more votes from it, it's just the other side of the coin.

Allowing more people to vote, even IF one party thinks they can benefit is not a bad thing at all. How can higher levels of representation and citizen participation in our democracy be a bad thing? If Republicans think they will get more votes by having more people vote, more power to them. But trying to limit people from voting is a terrible thing. I don't see the opposite as a bad thing in any way.

It's because the only reason why D's try to extend voting periods in some areas is to disproportionately increase their voter base. They aren't doing it for 'equal opportunity', they are doing it to increase their chances.

Intent matters.

if they wanted to do it in ALL areas would it be justified?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 11:46:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 11:42:00 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/17/2012 11:37:37 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 8/17/2012 11:32:06 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
I agree. I support Romney, but I hate seeing the GOP pull such tactics. To be fair, the door swings both ways. The D's push for early voting for everybody, because they get better turnout wth the 'church-to-polls' programs. When the D's push for early voting, it is simply because they know they will get more votes from it, it's just the other side of the coin.

Allowing more people to vote, even IF one party thinks they can benefit is not a bad thing at all. How can higher levels of representation and citizen participation in our democracy be a bad thing? If Republicans think they will get more votes by having more people vote, more power to them. But trying to limit people from voting is a terrible thing. I don't see the opposite as a bad thing in any way.

It's because the only reason why D's try to extend voting periods in some areas is to disproportionately increase their voter base. They aren't doing it for 'equal opportunity', they are doing it to increase their chances.

Intent matters.
If they are pushing for early voting in specific areas that support them more, of course I agree. But I disagree that intent matters when discussing it as equal extension for everyone. I can't think of single reason that increased representation and citizen participation is a bad thing. Can you?
Sapere Aude!
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 11:49:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 11:45:56 PM, imabench wrote:
At 8/17/2012 11:42:00 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/17/2012 11:37:37 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 8/17/2012 11:32:06 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:

I'm glad to see the voting period discrepencies overturned in court.
The appellate courts upheld the voter ID laws, which matter much more given they affect 2 million Penn voters. Apparently, the State Supreme Court is split 3-3 rep/dem with one Rep having a career of objective, non-partisan rulings (which I respect immensely and why I wanted Rob Portman to be Romney's VP).

I don't have a problem with a state saying 'Everyone can vote early' or 'Nobody can vote early'. I do have a problem with 'This county can vote early, this one can't', or any other such unfair practice.

I agree. I support Romney, but I hate seeing the GOP pull such tactics. To be fair, the door swings both ways. The D's push for early voting for everybody, because they get better turnout wth the 'church-to-polls' programs. When the D's push for early voting, it is simply because they know they will get more votes from it, it's just the other side of the coin.

Allowing more people to vote, even IF one party thinks they can benefit is not a bad thing at all. How can higher levels of representation and citizen participation in our democracy be a bad thing? If Republicans think they will get more votes by having more people vote, more power to them. But trying to limit people from voting is a terrible thing. I don't see the opposite as a bad thing in any way.

It's because the only reason why D's try to extend voting periods in some areas is to disproportionately increase their voter base. They aren't doing it for 'equal opportunity', they are doing it to increase their chances.

Intent matters.

if they wanted to do it in ALL areas would it be justified?

I wouldn't object to it, but I would still consider it dirty politics. It would be hiding under the appearance of 'fairness' which just happens to benefit you more than the other guy.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 11:51:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 11:49:46 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/17/2012 11:45:56 PM, imabench wrote:
At 8/17/2012 11:42:00 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/17/2012 11:37:37 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 8/17/2012 11:32:06 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:

I'm glad to see the voting period discrepencies overturned in court.
The appellate courts upheld the voter ID laws, which matter much more given they affect 2 million Penn voters. Apparently, the State Supreme Court is split 3-3 rep/dem with one Rep having a career of objective, non-partisan rulings (which I respect immensely and why I wanted Rob Portman to be Romney's VP).

I don't have a problem with a state saying 'Everyone can vote early' or 'Nobody can vote early'. I do have a problem with 'This county can vote early, this one can't', or any other such unfair practice.

I agree. I support Romney, but I hate seeing the GOP pull such tactics. To be fair, the door swings both ways. The D's push for early voting for everybody, because they get better turnout wth the 'church-to-polls' programs. When the D's push for early voting, it is simply because they know they will get more votes from it, it's just the other side of the coin.

Allowing more people to vote, even IF one party thinks they can benefit is not a bad thing at all. How can higher levels of representation and citizen participation in our democracy be a bad thing? If Republicans think they will get more votes by having more people vote, more power to them. But trying to limit people from voting is a terrible thing. I don't see the opposite as a bad thing in any way.

It's because the only reason why D's try to extend voting periods in some areas is to disproportionately increase their voter base. They aren't doing it for 'equal opportunity', they are doing it to increase their chances.

Intent matters.

if they wanted to do it in ALL areas would it be justified?

I wouldn't object to it, but I would still consider it dirty politics. It would be hiding under the appearance of 'fairness' which just happens to benefit you more than the other guy.

i see and understand your point of view.

Heres a thought though, what if there was a compromise where voting hours were broadened but photo ID would be requited? How would you react towards that?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 11:52:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 11:51:44 PM, imabench wrote:

Heres a thought though, what if there was a compromise where voting hours were broadened but photo ID would be requited? How would you react towards that?

That's a terrible compromise. It doesn't matter how long voting is open if you can't vote.
Sapere Aude!
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 11:57:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 11:46:38 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 8/17/2012 11:42:00 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/17/2012 11:37:37 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 8/17/2012 11:32:06 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
I agree. I support Romney, but I hate seeing the GOP pull such tactics. To be fair, the door swings both ways. The D's push for early voting for everybody, because they get better turnout wth the 'church-to-polls' programs. When the D's push for early voting, it is simply because they know they will get more votes from it, it's just the other side of the coin.

Allowing more people to vote, even IF one party thinks they can benefit is not a bad thing at all. How can higher levels of representation and citizen participation in our democracy be a bad thing? If Republicans think they will get more votes by having more people vote, more power to them. But trying to limit people from voting is a terrible thing. I don't see the opposite as a bad thing in any way.

It's because the only reason why D's try to extend voting periods in some areas is to disproportionately increase their voter base. They aren't doing it for 'equal opportunity', they are doing it to increase their chances.

Intent matters.
If they are pushing for early voting in specific areas that support them more, of course I agree. But I disagree that intent matters when discussing it as equal extension for everyone. I can't think of single reason that increased representation and citizen participation is a bad thing. Can you?

Sure, I can think of a reason. This is just off the top of my head.

The vast majority of citizens, without any extensions, have a reasonable opportunity to cast a vote.

If you have a group of people who don't take advantage of the existing process, but will vote if given extra time and encouraged, and shuttled, by their church, then I think it is unreasonable to extend the entire process to accomodate people who don't make the effort, the same as everyone else.

I don't think it is good for the country to try to pander to people who are too lazy/unmotivated/apathetic to the politcal process to vote like everyone else.

I could probably present it better than that, but I'm sure you get the point.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 11:58:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 11:52:44 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 8/17/2012 11:51:44 PM, imabench wrote:

Heres a thought though, what if there was a compromise where voting hours were broadened but photo ID would be requited? How would you react towards that?

That's a terrible compromise. It doesn't matter how long voting is open if you can't vote.

DO NOT INTERRUPT ME GETTING THOUGHTS OUT OF MY HEAD. IF I DONT DEFRAG MY HEAD THESE IDEAS BUILD UP AND MAKE ME DO SOMETHING STUPID. LAST TIME THAT HAPPENED I PUT MYSELF ON TRIAL!!!!
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 11:58:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 11:46:38 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 8/17/2012 11:42:00 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/17/2012 11:37:37 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 8/17/2012 11:32:06 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
I agree. I support Romney, but I hate seeing the GOP pull such tactics. To be fair, the door swings both ways. The D's push for early voting for everybody, because they get better turnout wth the 'church-to-polls' programs. When the D's push for early voting, it is simply because they know they will get more votes from it, it's just the other side of the coin.

Allowing more people to vote, even IF one party thinks they can benefit is not a bad thing at all. How can higher levels of representation and citizen participation in our democracy be a bad thing? If Republicans think they will get more votes by having more people vote, more power to them. But trying to limit people from voting is a terrible thing. I don't see the opposite as a bad thing in any way.

It's because the only reason why D's try to extend voting periods in some areas is to disproportionately increase their voter base. They aren't doing it for 'equal opportunity', they are doing it to increase their chances.

Intent matters.
If they are pushing for early voting in specific areas that support them more, of course I agree. But I disagree that intent matters when discussing it as equal extension for everyone. I can't think of single reason that increased representation and citizen participation is a bad thing. Can you?

And it's exactly what Obama is doing in Ohio. He is trying to get early voting for everyone, under the ruse that 'it's not fair for military personnel who are going to be absent to be able to vote early, if everyone isn't given that opportunity'.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 12:01:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 11:51:44 PM, imabench wrote:
At 8/17/2012 11:49:46 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/17/2012 11:45:56 PM, imabench wrote:
At 8/17/2012 11:42:00 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/17/2012 11:37:37 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 8/17/2012 11:32:06 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:

I'm glad to see the voting period discrepencies overturned in court.
The appellate courts upheld the voter ID laws, which matter much more given they affect 2 million Penn voters. Apparently, the State Supreme Court is split 3-3 rep/dem with one Rep having a career of objective, non-partisan rulings (which I respect immensely and why I wanted Rob Portman to be Romney's VP).

I don't have a problem with a state saying 'Everyone can vote early' or 'Nobody can vote early'. I do have a problem with 'This county can vote early, this one can't', or any other such unfair practice.

I agree. I support Romney, but I hate seeing the GOP pull such tactics. To be fair, the door swings both ways. The D's push for early voting for everybody, because they get better turnout wth the 'church-to-polls' programs. When the D's push for early voting, it is simply because they know they will get more votes from it, it's just the other side of the coin.

Allowing more people to vote, even IF one party thinks they can benefit is not a bad thing at all. How can higher levels of representation and citizen participation in our democracy be a bad thing? If Republicans think they will get more votes by having more people vote, more power to them. But trying to limit people from voting is a terrible thing. I don't see the opposite as a bad thing in any way.

It's because the only reason why D's try to extend voting periods in some areas is to disproportionately increase their voter base. They aren't doing it for 'equal opportunity', they are doing it to increase their chances.

Intent matters.

if they wanted to do it in ALL areas would it be justified?

I wouldn't object to it, but I would still consider it dirty politics. It would be hiding under the appearance of 'fairness' which just happens to benefit you more than the other guy.

i see and understand your point of view.

Heres a thought though, what if there was a compromise where voting hours were broadened but photo ID would be requited? How would you react towards that?

I don't like allowing for the opportunity for something to be abused. I think too long of a voting period just opens up more opportunity, and not needing photo ID opens up opportunity as well.

I would support voter ID laws if they were passed now, and went into effect in 2016, but allowed everyone who needed one to be able to get one from the government for no charge right away. That way, there is more than enough time for everyone to get one.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 12:02:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
How accurate are those voter fraud numbers? If it was really that easy to catch voter fraud, why the need for photo IDs then?

I am skeptical.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 12:02:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 11:58:36 PM, imabench wrote:
At 8/17/2012 11:52:44 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 8/17/2012 11:51:44 PM, imabench wrote:

Heres a thought though, what if there was a compromise where voting hours were broadened but photo ID would be requited? How would you react towards that?

That's a terrible compromise. It doesn't matter how long voting is open if you can't vote.

DO NOT INTERRUPT ME GETTING THOUGHTS OUT OF MY HEAD. IF I DONT DEFRAG MY HEAD THESE IDEAS BUILD UP AND MAKE ME DO SOMETHING STUPID. LAST TIME THAT HAPPENED I PUT MYSELF ON TRIAL!!!!

GUILTY!

nac
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 12:03:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 12:02:02 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
How accurate are those voter fraud numbers? If it was really that easy to catch voter fraud, why the need for photo IDs then?

I am skeptical.

I would think that voter fraud would be underreported for a few reasons.

First, it could be very difficult to prove in many cases.
Second, it could be very expensive per incident to investigate.
Third, it could disproportionately target minorities, labelling investigators as 'racists'.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 12:12:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 11:57:30 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:

Sure, I can think of a reason. This is just off the top of my head.

The vast majority of citizens, without any extensions, have a reasonable opportunity to cast a vote.

If you have a group of people who don't take advantage of the existing process, but will vote if given extra time and encouraged, and shuttled, by their church, then I think it is unreasonable to extend the entire process to accomodate people who don't make the effort, the same as everyone else.

I don't think it is good for the country to try to pander to people who are too lazy/unmotivated/apathetic to the politcal process to vote like everyone else.

I could probably present it better than that, but I'm sure you get the point.

I understand your point. But by that logic, mail-in ballot should be banned, as well.
Sapere Aude!
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 12:15:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 12:12:44 AM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 8/17/2012 11:57:30 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:

Sure, I can think of a reason. This is just off the top of my head.

The vast majority of citizens, without any extensions, have a reasonable opportunity to cast a vote.

If you have a group of people who don't take advantage of the existing process, but will vote if given extra time and encouraged, and shuttled, by their church, then I think it is unreasonable to extend the entire process to accomodate people who don't make the effort, the same as everyone else.

I don't think it is good for the country to try to pander to people who are too lazy/unmotivated/apathetic to the politcal process to vote like everyone else.

I could probably present it better than that, but I'm sure you get the point.

I understand your point. But by that logic, mail-in ballot should be banned, as well.

Personally, I would say everyone has 3 days to vote. Mail-in ballots would be allowed if someone could show that they won't be present to vote.

We need to stop trying to encourage everyone to vote. It's bad enough as it is, people voting who have no idea about any of the issues.

The biggest thing I would like to see is some kind of test to be able to vote in the first place.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13