• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ACLU Leader Says Voter ID Law Akin to Jim Crow-Era Law

AdamT said:
Well, frankly, if you have that attitude I don't want YOU voting ... but we all have a right to vote and we should not make it harder to exercise that right unless we have a damned good reason.
Click to expand...

Because illegals DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE, maybe? :roll:
 
AdamT said:
Any time you place additional requirements on an actiivty you will reduce participation in that activity. Common sense should tell you that without having to look at a study.

Basically I think you're looking at this issue in an ass-backwards fashion. You don't justify a regulation by first looking at how hard it is to meet. I mean, hell, why not require that anyone walking in public wear a baseball cap? It's pretty easy for anyone to get a baseball cap, right? What' the big deal?

Rather, you start by looking at whether there is a proven need for the regulation at all. Then, IF there's a need for some kind of regulation, you look at whether the regulation that's suggested to address it is reasonable relative to the scope of the problem, or whether, perhaps, the regulation might do more harm than good.

In the present case, there is next to no evidence that voter impersonation is a real problem in this country. It appears to be all but nonexistent. So the alleged harm that states are seeking to address -- elections that aren't fully representative -- seems to be made worse, rather than better, but imposing voter ID laws.

To the extent that there is any real voter fraud it appears to occur almost exclusively as a result of manipulation by poll workers -- rather than as a result of voter impersonation. So if voter fraud is REALLY the issue, why aren't Republicans proposing all kinds of regulations to prevent improper manipulation of votes by poll workers? It makes one wonder if their real interest isn't voter suppression rather than voter fraud.
Click to expand...
Really poor analogy to say the least. Illegal voting can actually undermine the voice of legal citizens. Your example was a shot in the dark that hit nothing and meant nothing.
 
Last edited:
rocket88 said:
Arlen Spector was a moderate Republican for years. The party left him, before he left the party. He left specifically because of people like you, who pushed the party so far to the right that it didn't reflect his beliefs any more. For all the talk about a "true Republican" you've forgotten that the Republican party is supposed to be center-right. There should be room on the right for the extremists. For all the lip service given to Reagan by the TP, if he were a candidate, they'd dismiss him as a RINO.
Click to expand...
Speaking of Reagan, didn't he have the same reason for leaving the Democratic party?
 
rocket88 said:
Arlen Spector was a moderate Republican for years. The party left him, before he left the party. He left specifically because of people like you, who pushed the party so far to the right that it didn't reflect his beliefs any more. For all the talk about a "true Republican" you've forgotten that the Republican party is supposed to be center-right. There should be room on the right for the extremists. For all the lip service given to Reagan by the TP, if he were a candidate, they'd dismiss him as a RINO.
Click to expand...

I heard Joe Lieberman make the same arguement.
 
haymarket said:
Did you read Public Act Four passed by the Michigan Legislature on a straight party vote in 2011?

that is what the article was discussing.

You ask for evidence, then dismiss the evidence and tell me I have provided too much for you to read and want the short readers digest version. Please make up your mind.

Its all there for you - no matter if you want to dismiss it out of party loyalty or not. That does not change reality and the war on voting rights.
Click to expand...

I guess you were unable to quote anything relevant or you would have.
 
Dittohead not! said:
and totally unnecessary, as most of us already have them.
Click to expand...

And for those who don't, I doubt they've made any serious effort to do so. It's all a smoke screen.
 
Cephus said:
As I said, assuming that IDs were free, that removes any obstacle for people "too poor". If people were able to make requests through the mail, that would remove any obstacles for people "physically incapable". So it's not that hard to make it possible to get IDs if you want one. I'm sure that wouldn't stop the ACLU from making the same claim because there would be people out there who wouldn't even make the attempt to get an ID and thus, couldn't vote. Laziness is not an excuse.
Click to expand...

The only reason the ACLU can complain legitmately about this case is because of the possible disenfranchisement it can cause. And for all the flak that the ACLU gets for being "too liberal" most of its members, from what I've seen, are actually libertarian leaning.
 
AdamT said:
And your reason for saying so would be....?
Click to expand...

That's the point of the law in the first place, to ensure that only people legally permitted to vote, ie. those with valid identification, can vote. :roll:
 
xpiher said:
The only reason the ACLU can complain legitmately about this case is because of the possible disenfranchisement it can cause. And for all the flak that the ACLU gets for being "too liberal" most of its members, from what I've seen, are actually libertarian leaning.
Click to expand...

Can cause? Let's see evidence that it's ACTUALLY causing any.
 
Cephus said:
That's the point of the law in the first place, to ensure that only people legally permitted to vote, ie. those with valid identification, can vote. :roll:
Click to expand...

And my point is that there is virtually no evidence that people who aren't legally permitted to vote are voting. The fact that you think the new regulations are easy to comply with is irrelevant when the regulation is designed to address an imaginary problem. Hence my analogy.
 
Cephus said:
Can cause? Let's see evidence that it's ACTUALLY causing any.
Click to expand...

You know how long it takes to get enough statisitcal evidence to prove one way or the other? With things like this, on AVG 5 years of data is required before an analysis can even be started.
 
If you want a fraud proof voting system, call VISA or MasterCard.

They'd have one up and running in 30 days.

If you feel disenfranchised, call VISA, they'll enfranchise you.
 
xpiher said:
You know how long it takes to get enough statisitcal evidence to prove one way or the other? With things like this, on AVG 5 years of data is required before an analysis can even be started.
Click to expand...

Then get started. Let me know when you have any actual data.
 
1Perry said:
I heard Joe Lieberman make the same arguement.
Click to expand...

That's probably true. I believe that yes, it was also true of Reagan. I was limiting my comments to Spector.

With moderates like Spector, Leiberman, or Reagan, there'd plenty of room on either side. I still think that the TP would pillory Reagan as a RINO if he were around today.
 
CedarBear said:
If you want a fraud proof voting system, call VISA or MasterCard.

They'd have one up and running in 30 days.

If you feel disenfranchised, call VISA, they'll enfranchise you.
Click to expand...

Please tell me you are joking

Cephus said:
Then get started. Let me know when you have any actual data.
Click to expand...

And in the mean time you are harming society. No, in this case its better to have bases covered before enacting a law, espeically since the initial investment for covering those bases is pratically non-existent. I don't know what state changed its law, but one of them actually put into the law the "you get an ID for free if" and paired with a non-profit to get people to the DMV to apply/pick them up. Every state should do the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
Then get started. Let me know when you have any actual data.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that the burden is on the party seeking to implement a new regulation to establish that there is some rational basis to support it. So as soon as you have some actual data establishing that voter impersonation is a real problem, let us know.
 
CedarBear said:
If you want a fraud proof voting system, call VISA or MasterCard.

They'd have one up and running in 30 days.

If you feel disenfranchised, call VISA, they'll enfranchise you.
Click to expand...

Because identity theft has been completely done away with, right?
 
AdamT said:
I'm afraid that the burden is on the party seeking to implement a new regulation to establish that there is some rational basis to support it. So as soon as you have some actual data establishing that voter impersonation is a real problem, let us know.
Click to expand...

In other words, you've got nothing and you're shifting the burden of proof. No surprise there.
 
Cephus said:
In other words, you've got nothing and you're shifting the burden of proof. No surprise there.
Click to expand...

No, the burden of proof is where it's always been -- on the party seeking to implement new government regulation. In this case that would be you.
 
StillBallin75 said:
J, you have got to be kidding me lol. First of all, Lenin doesn't represent all socialists.
Click to expand...


Ok, if you say so. But if I am not mistaken are not Lenin, and Marx considered the fathers of socialism/communism? We can look around in these types of socialist/communist societies and plainly see that religion is discouraged, and sometimes forcibly stamped out.

Secondly, yes, you can be socialist and believe certain things in the Bible.
Click to expand...

Believe "certain" things? Or Use certain things to stifle an argument as taxigirl attempted with me?

Third, I thought all those liberation theologists were Marxists too?
Click to expand...

BLT is absolutely about a political end toward Marx. All one has to do is listen to the racist Cone for any amount of time to hear it.

j-mac
 
AdamT said:
I'm afraid that the burden is on the party seeking to implement a new regulation to establish that there is some rational basis to support it. So as soon as you have some actual data establishing that voter impersonation is a real problem, let us know.
Click to expand...

If there really is no voter fraud, and if one of the major parties wants to claim that a failure of theirs to be elected is due to voter fraud, wouldn't it be in their interest to keep the perception of fraud out there? Why give up a built in excuse?

My team would have won, but... the refs were biased, the other guys had home field advantage, our coach wasn't feeling well... whatever. If a team needs an excuse, then it had better get its act together, or see to it that it still has an excuse that fans will buy.
 
AdamT said:
No, the burden of proof is where it's always been -- on the party seeking to implement new government regulation. In this case that would be you.
Click to expand...

The only argument against it is an unsupported claim that anyone would be disenfranchised. Since we already have laws on the books, and have essentially since the nation started, that only citizens are able to vote, requiring that citizens produce legal identification proving they are, in actuality, citizens ought not be a problem. After all, they should have such things already. The only reason to claim it shouldn't be necessary is to allow those who are not citizens, those who do not have such papers, to vote.

Stop waving your arms around like you've got a clue.
 
AdamT said:
I'm afraid that the burden is on the party seeking to implement a new regulation to establish that there is some rational basis to support it. So as soon as you have some actual data establishing that voter impersonation is a real problem, let us know.
Click to expand...

See now, I can buy this arguement also. Too bad the ACLU didn't use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom