>A person needn't shop, work, nor participate in society to be a citizen -- they need only be born in the US.

Okay cool, but what's the point of this? Did the parent poster claim otherwise?

Right. Should there be a reasonable method to prove citizenship to vote? You literally have to prove it for an innumerable amount of 'things' in life.

Who cares who you are. I care that you’ve only voted once. Dipping your finger in ink solves that and prevents any gamesmanship around “qualifying ID”.

I think this is the exact opposite point to make for these believers above.

BUT I think it's a worthy policy debate. I could see myself being in favor of allowing long term residents the vote given how impossible it is to get citizenship (or hell even permanent status).

maybe then the point should be fixing our immigration system and naturalizing the huge backlog we have.

as is, millions are already being taxed but not represented and they are subject to the laws they don't get a voice in crafting.

While it’s an interesting conversation, it’s not my argument. My point is that merely asking for some verification of residency (name, address) plus a verification that you have not yet voted (dip your finger in the ink pot) reduces a lot of attacks on our election integrity (including voter suppression and disenfranchisement). I am also in favor of holding all elections on weekend and making them federal holidays.

My general gut instinct on this stuff is that we could have simple, safe elections, but we would need to be patient in receiving results, commit to competitive redistricting, and reduce political party influence over the details as they will always attempt to game them towards their preferred status quo.

We do already verify residency (voter registration) and check you haven't voted twice.

There are usually a few double voting cases. I think I remember a case of TX going after maybe i remember a young college student hard. it was on Vice News but I can't find it.

They verify the person with that name/address hasn’t voted twice, the ink assures the person standing in front of them hasn’t voted twice. Is it necessary? Probably not, but it would be an extra layer of security (and reinforce public trust in the process).

>Who cares who you are. I care that you’ve only voted once

You don't care that non-citizens can vote?

How do non-citizens vote? Have you ever voted in your life? Because it sounds like you haven't. You know, when you go to the polling station and identify yourself on the electoral roll, they check off your name, and you get given exactly 1 ballot to cast?

What would you do if you turned up, your name was already checked off, but you hadn't voted? What do you think happens then?

>What would you do if you turned up, your name was already checked off, but you hadn't voted? What do you think happens then?

Seems like an entirely plausible attack. Why don't you tell me what happens then?

The same illegal immigrants that don't report getting raped because of being afraid of the cops and getting deported are going to risk felony voting to change one vote? BS.

When I vote they ask for my name and address. I tell them, they cross it off the list, and I go vote. Add in an ink pot, and I am fully satisfied.

Do non-citizens even want to vote? How do they even register to vote?

In my state, you go to the circuit clerk, fill out a paper with your name and address, then receive your card in the mail. The receiving the card in the mail is the verification. No ID was necessary for me to register or vote. Seems like this could be gamed fairly easily.

>Do non-citizens even want to vote

Is there something about holding a green card for 5 years that makes you suddenly start to engage in politics?

>How do they even register to vote?

Presumably they take someone else's identity.

There already is. It's called voter registration. And some states make it pretty damn hard even for us <sarcasm>true blue blooded 'mericans</sarcasm>.

People are so privileged that they don't understand that a lot of people don't do those innumerable things because they're underprivileged and poor.

Shopping, working, and participating in society are also rights under the constitution by different names.

And it's also been upheld that private businesses have a lot of power in deciding how/who they allow shopping, hiring or workers, and participating in society.

Religious and 1st amendment leeway to discriminate goes both ways.

What are those names?

There are dozens. Right to privacy is one example. It’s not in the constitution but supported by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law. These decisions build on each other. For example, the right to an abortion is built on the right to privacy.

No, they aren't. Those are privileges.

Shopping is a privilege granted to those who have money, which isn't a right.

Working is a privilege granted to those who have skills the market is willing to pay for, which isn't a right.

Participation in society is preconditioned on obeying the law, and can be taken away through arrest and imprisonment.

“Privileges” aren’t a legal concept. You have the right to bear arms in the US, but that doesn’t mean the government will send everyone a gun in the mail.

Working, commerce, and social behaviors are all protected in US law to varying degrees.

>“Privileges” aren’t a legal concept. You have the right to bear arms in the US, but that doesn’t mean the government will send everyone a gun in the mail.

"A privilege is a certain entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. Land-titles and taxi medallions are pronounced examples of transferable privilege. These can be revoked in certain circumstances. In modern democratic states, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth.

By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_(law)

>Working, commerce, and social behaviors are all protected in US law to varying degrees.

But you said "rights under the constitution."

The constitution guarantees you the right to own and carry a gun. Not to employment, food, clothing, shelter, or the ability to participate in society. The latter are all conditional, dependent upon the market or the will of the state.

The constitution doesn't even guarantee a right to vote (obviously the framers didn't believe such a right should be universal) which is why felons can lose their voting rights. There are amendments like the 15th and 19th amendments which prevent voting discrimination, but an inalienable right to vote doesn't exist in the constitution.

> Not to employment, food, clothing, shelter, or the ability to participate in society.

The Supreme Court doesn’t agree with you.

Rights need not be provided to you for free. You have the right to buy a gun, or an abortion, or a political ad, or a wedding cake - but you’ll have to buy them.