Yes, in theory, you could have a color blind system and some random change could have a negative impact on some group randomly.
That's not what happened in reality though.
"In theory, I might not have killed him" isn't a great argument for someone found standing over a body with a knife, you're generally looking for something a bit more concrete.
Someone standing on top of a giant pile of bodies and saying "As I've said for decades, I theoretically might not have killed them" is even less convincing.
From there I found a link to the evil Brian Kemp who dared to purge voter rolls! https://newrepublic.com/article/151858/americas-relentless-s...
Many believe that one of the greatest opportunities for fraud come from outdated voter rolls. We need more effort to purge them, not less. Again, I am not hearing a single thing from you that convinces me laws like voter ID laws are more harmful than beneficial. If this weren't a deeply partisan issue for an insanity-driven culture of divisiveness, there would be little argument against voter ID laws in this day and age.
Lastly, it is very partisan to focus on efforts of republicans to suppress democrat votes while ignoring democrat efforts to continuously game the system in their favor, like:
* Making Washington D.C. a state, which makes zero sense unless you just want to win.
* Stacking the supreme court, which, again, makes zero sense unless you just want to win.
* Abolishing the filibuster, which completely undermines the purpose of the senate. The founders of the constitution purposely did not set up a pure democracy and they had many good reasons for it.
* Federalizing election laws, obviously in ways that favor democrats, even ignoring the complete unconstitutionality of the law. if anything is obvious about the democrats, they see the constitution as an obstacle more than as a founding document.
* Purposely not enforcing existing immigration laws (this should be illegal and Biden should be in jail for it), and then fighting to allow non-citizens to vote (this is already legal in NYC), or to grant citizenship to illegal entrants. Fortunately, the Hispanic vote seems to be shifting right, so we can hope this evil strategy will backfire against the democrats.
* Gerrymandering that rivals or exceeds republican gerrymandering efforts. But, when it's the democrats doing it, the corporate media like to call it "redistricting".
The democrats have long ago made it clear that they will fight as dirty as possible to win. If anything, Republicans need to start fighting dirtier back.
The article you linked to talks about a lot of really horrible things, which I guess you agree with based on your linking to it and describing removing voters from the voters role for simply not voting in the previous election as no big deal?
My big picture take is that democracy is good, and depriving people of votes is bad. If thats partisan then I'm glad I'm not in the party fighting to reduce democracy.
Welcome to American politics. That you were willing to have a dialog at all with someone who disagrees with you might set you above the average.
My big picture take is that democracy is good, and depriving people of votes is bad.
How about this big picture take? Democracy is good, and citizen votes deserve protection. Every fraudulent vote dilutes a legitimate vote. Even the appearance of insecurity undermines faith in the democracy.
And yes, it's incredibly partisan for you to claim that republicans are trying to "reduce democracy." An attitude like that will both fail to convince anyone who disagrees with you, and also keep you in the dark about truths your party in general are unwilling to accept.
Is it, though?
My belief is that voter fraud is basically a non-issue, that it doesn't really happen very much at all, and that it is a bogus argument put forth by the Republicans to give an excuse for why they are so consistently fighting to not allow people to vote.
Google search "does voter fraud really happen", and "how bad is voter fraud":
https://www.google.com/search?q=does+voter+fraud+really+happ...
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+bad+is+voter+fraud
I can't find any results that don't back up my belief. Can you?
The Heritage Foundation, a far-right think tank, has a page on voter fraud: https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
But, in my opinion, it's kind of amazing that they leave the page up. The purpose of this page is to document and expose how bad voter fraud is, and they provide a searchable database on all the cases they have found and confirmed. Their database goes back to 1982, and they have found... 1340 cases of voter fraud.
This is an embarrassingly low number, isn't it? A few thousand fraudulent votes over the last 40 years?
Also, it's not like these cases are cases of people manufacturing thousands of votes. You can check for yourself, the entire list is here:
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud-print/search
These are overwhelmingly on the order of "a single extra vote was cast" because someone voted in two districts, or mailed in an absentee ballot for a deceased relative.
Meanwhile, do Republicans work to suppress votes? I think it's hard to argue otherwise in good faith:
https://www.google.com/search?q=do+republicans+suppress+vote...
Why does Mitch McConnell say that the idea of making election day a national holiday is a "naked power grab" for Democrats? Shouldn't making it easier for people to vote be a "good idea that strengthens our democracy"?
https://www.google.com/search?q=mitch+mcconnell+election+day...
Another belief of mine is that it's common knowledge in politics that the more people who vote, the worse Republicans fare in elections.
The Republican professional politicians are usually better at not openly admitting such things, but Trump gave us another example of "saying the quiet part out loud" with his usual eloquence: "They had levels of voting, that if you ever agreed to it you'd never have a Republican elected in this country again"
https://www.google.com/search?q=They+had+levels+of+voting%2C...
Why would Trump say that?
The Republicans are trying to reduce democracy. They lost the support of the people. They have only won the popular vote once in the past 30 years. Rather than changing their platform to try to appeal to more voters, they've decided that the people are their enemy.
From what I read, McConnell thinks most federal workers vote democrat. This makes sense in that if you work for the government you are probably pro-big-government. If they got a week off, they would just use that time to campaign for democrats, giving democrats an extra advantage. Also, it would result in an undue burden on the taxpayer, apparently to the tune of 4 billion a year: https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/04/18/new...
Here is a more comprehensive rebuttal of this H.R. 1 bill: https://republicans-cha.house.gov/democrat-politician-protec...
And here is the an op-ed written by McConnell himself: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/call-hr-1-what-it-is...
I'm not going to claim McConnell is right, but I will claim that from a quick search I can find there is a reasonable other side to this story different from "Republicans want less voters".
Since I've already spent too much time on this thread, I'll just say I have convinced someone to be more open-minded in the future and be willing to research more than one side of the issue.
I've never understood why discussion around voting laws / election integrity is always either somehow racist or harmful. Seems like a lazy rebuttal against a strawman but I'm open to having my mind changed. Gonna need more than "democracy good, laws bad" though.
Because "election security" - applied strategically and unequally (such as removing ballot boxes and voting stations in areas that are strongholds for your political opponents) is nothing but suppression tactics. Even voter ID laws, when applied only in places where gov ID is not common, can be weaponized.
You know this.
It's possible to be unfair with every law, and every law will have disparate impact. What a silly argument to make!
Roughly 11% of Americans don't have a valid government-issued ID and many of these individuals are lonely, ill, disabled, destitute, and are now being forced for the first time in their life to provide an ID to vote while at the same time their states are making it harder to get an ID. The Republican party is pushing these policies in almost every state, and prioritizing them over most other legislative concerns. This could not be less subtle.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-a-gun-license-accepted-as-a-vot...
"Your university I.D. was issued by a university compared to a government issued one. The license to carry contains your verified address, dob and all that. What does your University one have? The LTC required compete fingerprints and a background check. Seeing some differences here?"
Also:
"I cannot be 100% certain but its because Texas requires Social Security Numbers, Background checks and proof of citizenship to obtain a license to carry. So its a valid form of state issue ID. Not unlike a drivers license. Anyone could get a University ID. so long as they’re a student there. Including those on VISA’s or non-us residents."
At some point, I hope some of you all break out of your narrative bubble and start seeing that people on the other side aren't insane, racist, and power-hungry, and that we often have good reasons for what we do.
Why not get better integration with universities so it is a valid id?
This is Texas, not Massachusetts or New Jersey. The government does not get any more discretion in granting an LTC in TX than they do in issuing any other form of ID. Meet the requirements and they are legally obligated to give you one.
As an aside, getting an LTC in the shall-issue states is easier than getting a non-driver's license ID. In both cases it's just "meet requirements, show up, do paperwork, wait for them to check your computer records" but the police/sheriff issue it and they don't deal with nearly as many people wanting to file paperwork with them so they haven't optimized those processes for treating people like cattle the way the DMV has so it's a little easier.
> The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread
And, no, the law doesn't need to ensure every citizen gets a voting ID. How would one even do that? The voter rolls are out of date and don't contain every citizen. Also, how would you ensure the right IDs get to the right people?
You, as a citizen, do not have an inherent right to vote without having the ability to prove you are who you claim to be. You, as a citizen, may have to experience some inconvenience to get a valid ID if you don't have one already. As long as the inconvenience is reasonable, it should not prevent the creation of voter ID laws.
Incorrect. Every citizen can vote, without any additional barriers designed to prevent them from doing so. Poll tax, literacy tests, ID laws, etc. They are all illegal in that they deny the RIGHT to vote.
If voter fraud were common, you might have a point about needed to "prove you are who you claim to be". The problem is, it's incredibly rare. And there are checks and audits done after the fact to ensure fraud is low. You simply do not need to check ID at the polls to ensure someone is not voting fraudulently.
And you know this.
And where is the abuse that fuels this belief? What are the numbers?
And more importantly, how many people does doing so prevent from voting, which is just as fraudulent as allowing an extra vote?
And where is the abuse that fuels this belief? What are the numbers?
[1] https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2019CanLIIDocs1747
https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-vot...
Voting is meant to be a private activity free of all external influence. The solution to long queues is to set up more voting booths so the queues are smaller. The solution to getting thirsty standing in line is the same as for any other queue - bring a bottle of water with you. The solution to people not having ID they can use to prove citizenship is to get them that ID, not eliminate citizenship requirements for voting. This is, like, Intro To Civics level stuff.
Can you clarify your meaning?
> The solution to long queues is to set up more voting booths so the queues are smaller.
Yes. Laws are also being passed to intentionally decrease the number of polling places available, especially in counties dominated by the party that is not in power.
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924527679/why-do-nonwhite-geo...
> This is, like, Intro To Civics level stuff
I agree, but only because Intro to Civics probably skips over the more advanced topics like America's fraught history of use of land ownership, poll taxes, and literacy tests to deprive people of their citizen-guaranteed right to vote. As an American citizen, I'm not actually required to carry ID; therefore, imposing an ID requirement on my right to vote can be interpreted as a stealth literacy test ("Oh, you didn't know you needed an ID? No vote for you."). It is a reasonable position to treat any new such requirement as suspect (and a reasonable position to disagree).
I think most are aware of this history, voter ID is just the argument they can make in public. Because denying your political enemies the vote (largely along racial lines) isn't something you can advocate for without some kind of spin.
They aren't bad on the face of it, other than being chosen specifically because black people are less likely to have an ID, or be able to get one.
A new restriction like "you aren't allowed to give out water anymore" because black people were sharing water in the ultra long lines in the heat black people are forced to wait in to vote doesn't impact security at all though, only useability
https://www.amazon.com/Discrimination-Disparities-Thomas-Sow...
In short, if voter ID laws cause some groups of people to vote less than others, that doesn't make the law discriminatory or make the law bad. Scanning over this ACLU article, I see nothing to convince me that voter ID laws are bad. Many of us here are programmers and understand there is a tradeoff between usability and security. Our current voting process errs far too heavily on the side of usability at the expense of security.