Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem is the cost. About 3% of the voters no longer vote. That is a very high cost.
But OK lets do the NV protocol and everyone is happy. We have a camera at the polls and each voter has their picture taken and added to the state data base if not there already. Everyone ends up with a picture ID in in the voting system and nobody gets disenfranchised.
Why won't the Republicans do it this way? Nobody gets disenfranchised so it is not acceptable.
I think your idea has possibilities IF it is tied to other databases.
There are some cities and counties that EMBRACE illegals and want them. They are issued a driver's license, can get all sorts of welfare etc.
Your idea by itself would NOT stop ill gals and others if it stood on it's own
Last edited by Quick Enough; 02-23-2015 at 09:46 AM..
The thing that most people make this argument do not realize is that all of the above are not rights guaranteed by our Constitution where as voting is guaranteed by our Constitution and no where in our Constitution does it say that when you vote, you have to show an ID. And here I always thought that Republicans were all about the Constitution. Just goes to show that they actually nothing about it.
If you want it to become law, then put the damn words in the Constitution.
"where as voting is guaranteed by our Constitution and no where in our Constitution does it say that when you vote, you have to show an ID
Where does it say that ID's CANNOT be required?
Article 1. Section 4
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;
Why can't the left get their heads around the fact that proving that you are a legal resident doesn't constitute disenfranchisement?
apparently someone may not have English as a first language, Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or through practices, prevention of a person exercising the right to vote. Disfranchisement may be accomplished explicitly by law or implicitly through requirements applied in a discriminatory fashion, intimidation, or by placing unreasonable requirements on voters for registration or voting.
Regardless if you think or don't think the requirements are unreasonable (your opinion on the matter doesn't matter). The fact that the law would be applied in a discriminatory fashion (by impacting the poorest and people of a specific race. . .)makes it Disfranchisement.
yeah, i'm sure people like you said the same thing about the laws having people answer questions about the Constitution . . THEY COULD OF STUDIED.
how nice of you.
Any law designed not to address an issue (if voter fraud was a concern, Absentee is far more risky/fraudulent) --> but to stop people from voting is disfranchisement. Regardless if "unreasonable" in your book is not the same as unreasonable in someone else.
can't you fricken read studies, impact papers, etc.
Even the Republicans know this causes people not to be able to vote "through our voterid law, we will give Pennsylvanian to Mitt Romney"
you don't need to find some one (who doesn't have internet maybe, so good luck finding them here)
you just need to read about the impact of the laws, and what they do
These "studies" show that these laws impact participation rates among some population groups - the same groups that include the vast majority of non-citizens. This supports the claim that the voter ID reduce illegal voting - exactly what it's supposed to do.
A non-BS explanation how voter ID can prevent lawful voting is nowhere to be found.
Going back to the OP's question... liberals understand this perfectly well. They also understand they need illegal votes to win elections and do everything to prolong voting fraud.
Sorry, I don't really care whether any eligible voter would not be able to vote if states imposed sensible voter ID laws to verify eligibility. It is a fact that you must be a citizen to vote, and you must reside in the district in which you are registered. Verifying that eligibility is a protection for all eligible voters to ensure the value of their votes are not diluted by ineligible voters.
Anyone who can't manage their way through the process of securing a government ID does not deserve to vote. If they can't manage that, they are incapable of comprehending the issues about which they are voting. And this is precisely why they left won't tolerate voter ID laws. They are desperately depending on exactly that segment of the population.
Dave
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
