Asked you to provide irrefutable proof.
Asked you to provide irrefutable proof.
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville
I mean, man, are you seriously taking the position that we should just let politicians remove whatever names they want from the list of registered voters with no oversight, so close to an election that nobody can challenge it? How can you see that as anything other than massive election fraud? I mean, look, I get that understanding why voter ID laws are bad requires a decent amount of knowledge. I get that intuitively it sounds like it would make sense, so people who haven't looked into it support it. Fine. But this? Letting politicians just take names off the lists of who can vote right before an election? Letting them do it AGAIN after they so flagrantly rigged the election in 2000 with this exactly same trick? There is just no way that you honestly don't see why that is a problem.
The voter I.D. law won't be in effect in the Wisconsin Recall Election.
How many want to bet that the poster will refuse to accept this?The infamous Florida purge of 2000—conservative estimates place the number of voters targeted for removal close to 12,000—was generated in part by bad matching criteria. Florida registrants were purged from the rolls if 80 percent of the letters of their last names were the same as those of persons with criminal convictions. Those wrongly purged included Reverend Willie D. Whiting Jr., who, under the matching criteria, was considered the same person as Willie J. Whiting.
Voter Purges | Brennan Center for Justice
First off, it isn't solving a real problem. No study, even ones conducted by far right organizations, has ever found any evidence of a significant number of non-citizens voting. So, that's it. That should be the end of the discussion. But, Republicans are generally too ignorant to know that the studies have shown it to be a lie and too stupid to understand that that defeats the point of the whole thing.
Second, the politicians aren't just requiring a valid photo ID. They are using this as a chance to tack on all kinds of other requirements that they think will skew the elections their way. For example, if you have a military base and a lot of retirees in your district and the retirees vote for you, but not the military folks, you support a "voter ID" law that accepts medicare cards, but not military IDs. If you have a college in your district that you don't want voting, you don't accept student IDs or out of state IDs. If you don't want the urban population to vote, you require a driver's license, but not other types of state issued IDs or passports that people who don't drive might have. If you want to exclude younger people you require that it has their current address and if you want to exclude older people you require that it not have expired. Etc. All told, the requirements they have tacked on in some states will prevent as much as 10% of the legal voters from voting.
It's just election fraud. Republicans are stupid enough that if somebody tells them they are doing something to fight against "illegals", they don't ask any more questions. So, politicians can do whatever they want when the Republicans are in the majority. They don't have to answer to anybody because their base isn't smart enough to understand stuff like this.
The problem is that there's totally different ways of seeing the problem. Those who are more on the liberal side want to make sure that everybody who can vote gets to vote. If a small percentage of fraud takes place, that's the price you pay, no system is perfect. The more conservative want to prevent all fraud, and if some people who can legally vote are prevenfrom voting, that's the price you pay, no system is perfect.
Do you ever ask why this is such a big deal to Republicans now? Was there no voter fraud in '04? Xf course there was , but they won.
Whether the problem is many or few the integrity of the system should be protected 100%, and there is no rational argument why this shouldn't be so. That's probably why the debate will continue.
I think everyone would want that, if they are legally entitled to of course.The problem is that there's totally different ways of seeing the problem. Those who are more on the liberal side want to make sure that everybody who can vote gets to vote.
No system is perfect but that doesn't mean steps shouldn't be taken to make it as secure as possible. This seems like a rather lame excuse.If a small percentage of fraud takes place, that's the price you pay, no system is perfect.
Why is just conservatives who want to prevent fraud? Shouldn't everyone share the same concern? It's hard to believe that there are people who would be indifferent to voter fraud. This is taken very seriously in most countries, apart from those in the third world perhaps.The more conservative want to prevent all fraud, and if some people who can legally vote are prevenfrom voting, that's the price you pay, no system is perfect.
It seems natural that voter fraud, whatever the numbers, would be a "big deal" to everyone. If there was clear evidence of voter fraud in the past, as you submit, then there should obviously be steps taken to prevent this in the future. Voter ID would certainly be one way.Do you ever ask why this is such a big deal to Republicans now? Was there no voter fraud in '04? Xf course there was , but they won.