It's only voter fraud when socialists lose. But don't worry, there's always some activist a-hole judge to erase the undesired results of fair elections.

And yeah, the voting age should be raised to age 25 except for those in the military.

Why shouldn't you provide ID when you vote?

Who dose not have an ID today?

>> ^bobknight33:

Why shouldn't you provide ID when you vote?
Who dose not have an ID today?


Did you not watch the video? These laws aren't saying "you need some ID", they're explicitly excluding types of ID that Democratic voting blocs are likely to have, while allowing ID types Republican voting blocs are likely to have.

Basically the idea here is to pretend to be cracking down on a problem...that doesn't actually exist, and "accidentally" have the new restrictions result in preventing lots of people (hopefully Democrats!) from voting.

It's voter suppression.

I did watch you need a driver license, passport or or mil ID. Any one can get these if they dont already have one.

If this is such a not problem then what the fuss about showing an ID? How does it prevent one from voting?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^bobknight33:
Why shouldn't you provide ID when you vote?
Who dose not have an ID today?

Did you not watch the video? These laws aren't saying "you need some ID", they're explicitly excluding types of ID that Democratic voting blocs are likely to have, while allowing ID types Republican voting blocs are likely to have.
Basically the idea here is to pretend to be cracking down on a problem...that doesn't actually exist, and "accidentally" have the new restrictions result in preventing lots of people (hopefully Democrats!) from voting.
It's voter suppression.

>> ^bobknight33:

I did watch you need a driver license, passport or or mil ID. Any one can get these if they dont already have one.
If this is such a not problem then what the fuss about showing an ID? How does it prevent one from voting?
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^bobknight33:
Why shouldn't you provide ID when you vote?
Who dose not have an ID today?

Did you not watch the video? These laws aren't saying "you need some ID", they're explicitly excluding types of ID that Democratic voting blocs are likely to have, while allowing ID types Republican voting blocs are likely to have.
Basically the idea here is to pretend to be cracking down on a problem...that doesn't actually exist, and "accidentally" have the new restrictions result in preventing lots of people (hopefully Democrats!) from voting.
It's voter suppression.



None of those are particularly easy to get, and they also cost money. Military ID kinda obviously only comes with being in the military.

I guess mostly the question is "why should you have to show ID?" we already make people register, and you get crossed off in the the roles when you come in to vote.

There's essentially no one who's ever successfully voted twice in the last decade, so why tighten restrictions on voting, except to make it harder for people who don't already have a form of ID to exercise their right to vote?

This is sort've like saying you shouldn't get a right to a fair trial unless you register and go through the requisite hoops to get a driver's license.

Give me a break.

You said "None of those are particularly easy to get, and they also cost money".

If you don't have 40 bucks to get an ID, which every one needs, then you have bigger problems and voting is not one of them.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^bobknight33:
I did watch you need a driver license, passport or or mil ID. Any one can get these if they dont already have one.
If this is such a not problem then what the fuss about showing an ID? How does it prevent one from voting?
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^bobknight33:
Why shouldn't you provide ID when you vote?
Who dose not have an ID today?

Did you not watch the video? These laws aren't saying "you need some ID", they're explicitly excluding types of ID that Democratic voting blocs are likely to have, while allowing ID types Republican voting blocs are likely to have.
Basically the idea here is to pretend to be cracking down on a problem...that doesn't actually exist, and "accidentally" have the ne
restrictions result in preventing lots of people (hopefully Democrats!) from voting.
It's voter suppression.


None of those are particularly easy to get, and they also cost money. Military ID kinda obviously only comes with being in the military.
I guess mostly the question is "why should you have to show ID?" we already make people register, and you get crossed off in the the roles when you come in to vote.
There's essentially no one who's ever successfully voted twice in the last decade, so why tighten restrictions on voting, except to make it harder for people who don't already have a form of ID to exercise their right to vote?
This is sort've like saying you shouldn't get a right to a fair trial unless you register and go through the requisite hoops to get a driver's license.

But you do concede that tightening the restriction would result in people who are eligible to vote, who are trying to vote legally, being denied the ability to vote, yes?

Voting is a right, not a privilege, isn't it?

>> ^bobknight33:

Give me a break.
You said "None of those are particularly easy to get, and they also cost money".
If you don't have 40 bucks to get an ID, which every one needs, then you have bigger problems and voting is not one of them.

I would concede to you argument only to an negligible amount.
Do yo believe having some kind of proof of citizenship should be necessary to vote?


>> ^NetRunner:

But you do concede that tightening the restriction would result in people who are eligible to vote, who are trying to vote legally, being denied the ability to vote, yes?
Voting is a right, not a privilege, isn't it?
>> ^bobknight33:
Give me a break.
You said "None of those are particularly easy to get, and they also cost money".
If you don't have 40 bucks to get an ID, which every one needs, then you have bigger problems and voting is not one of them.

>> ^bobknight33:

I would concede to you argument only to an negligible amount.
Do yo believe having some kind of proof of citizenship should be necessary to vote?

>> ^NetRunner:
But you do concede that tightening the restriction would result in people who are eligible to vote, who are trying to vote legally, being denied the ability to vote, yes?
Voting is a right, not a privilege, isn't it?
>> ^bobknight33:
Give me a break.
You said "None of those are particularly easy to get, and they also cost money".
If you don't have 40 bucks to get an ID, which every one needs, then you have bigger problems and voting is not one of them.



Do I think it's a reasonable thing for other people to want? Sure.

As a matter of hypothetical principle? I sorta feel like becoming a citizen of this country should be as simple as swearing the oath of allegiance.

Which is to say, if someone lives here, and cares enough about politics to want to vote, I say let 'em.

But that aside, you still have to be registered to vote. Registration is probably when they should affirm your citizenship, not at the polls. That gives you time (months, possibly years) of time to get your paperwork in order. Then all that happens when you show up at the polls is you give your name, and provide (any) form of ID as proof.

Like I've been saying, the case of someone committing voter impersonation is vanishingly rare. Even attempts to vote in the wrong or multiple districts is rare. And that's all these bills would guard against. And in trying to prevent one of those 4 in a decade cases, they're putting in place laws that will definitely wind up denying the vote to thousands of legal voters every year.