I see what you’re thinking; a trust test in order to vote would be good. Tell me more.
No...your argument is just irrational. You are stating that it's fine to basically disenfranchise millions of voters in order to stop 84 cases in 5 years of voter fraud. What next, are we going to invade Chile because someone died from a bad Chilean farm raised Salmon? You guys seem to be so blaise about making the voting process harder for millions of Americans...typically those that are worse off for less voter fraud votes needed to elect a highchool class President.
People really need to stop misusing the disenfranchisement argument.Disenfranchise - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary If you read the meaning it is simply to DENY a right. Requiring someone to prove that they are the proper person to exercise the right and not a family pet, dead person, made up name(mickey mouse has voted at one time), or stolen identity is NOT disenfranchisement and frankly every politician and other public political figure misusing the term for political reasons should be censured, fined, and jailed.
Legal citizens over 18 years of age already have the vote regardless of sex, religion, and race with the only restrictions being in some states felons or the mentally unfit so where do you expand to? Unless you mean the dead, Mickey Mouse, etc.
If that requirement is something people do not have...it fits in perfectly with the sentence used by the source your getting your definition from.
Sure. I just don't think it's big enough of a problem for me to actually care about it. I just have a problem with restricting rights based on negligible problems. However, I wouldn't have a problem with requiring an ID if the government ensures that people get it. Iliveonramen suggested having people get a specific Voter ID card when they register - that sounds fine with me.
Disenfranchising people that shouldn't be voting is a good thing. If you can't get some kind of ID, then there's a problem. There is no excuse not to have an ID these days.
Who is being disenfranchised? Who, tell me whom? Tell who can't get an ID.
No it doesn't. You have to prove you have the right by showing that you are indeed the person exercising the right. The rest of the definition is irrelevant which is why I didn't mention it, if it was said that people had to have property or drive their own vehicle to the polling place or pay a poll tax you would have a point, since all of those have been struck down properly by constitutional amendment there is no discussion necessary. ID is not property, it is not your property rather it is a government issued identification that you pay for which is why it is a felony to use one for the purposes of misrepresentation.
I do, but then again I live in one of the more historically corrupt states in the United States. Anything that changes the outcome of an election is a big deal, I don't care if it's a pizza party near the polling place, busing people to vote for a candidate by a candidate, or handing pamphlets out within the designated "no campaign" areas that many states enforce. All of those things influence or potentially so the outcome of an election and outright fraud can affect the numbers enough to make a challenge possible. No one is saying all fraud will be caught because frankly that is impossible, the idea is to make it harder to do than simply stating you are person x and signing a piece of paper to the effect. If you can't prove you are that person then how is a poll worker to know the difference?
Just in the last decade alone there have been numerous reports of more people voting in a location than the census report of total living members of the community.
Although it sounds like a reasonable requirement on the surface, no.
You'd need to provide some examples of that for it to be a valid debating point.
It's called Google. Have fun.
Not really. Some type of identification is normally needed in order to register to vote (mainly to put you in the proper voting district). Identifying yourself as the person who registered is somewhat redundant (realistically, how many people do you think are going to try to assume someone else's identity in order to cast their vote? And how are they to know the person they are trying to impersonate is actually registered?).
That level of misinformation is rather sad.
It's true, go ahead and look it up. I gave you the hint that google has plenty of great stuff out there if you want to be informed.
Exactly. I'll say this, during the time of Edgar Allen Poe there was an issue of people waiting outside of drinking establishments for the drunks to exit so that they could attack them to steal voter cards. Poe himself was found incoherent and in need of immediate attention, one theory is that he was a victim of cooping, or a "forced vote". Sometimes cooping was done using the same victim multiple times. Same principle, no photo ID requirement means all one would need is some kind of "official" statement with a name matching a voter roll.
Why does Elmer want to know who people are? Is it not sufficient that they are citizens?
Well, that's certainly a new one -- this practice still going on today, is it? :lamo
I don't even know why I bother with you. Okay, since you didn't make the connection between what happened without a photo ID at the time I'll try once more to make things a little easier. If someone buses in "community organizers" with fake names and socials it is a consensual version of the same practice a "hollow vote" if you will, and yes, it does happen.