This isn't an issue about what's "morally wrong". This is simply an issue on whether the policy does more good than harm.
Voter ID laws reduce voter turnout by thousands. There's only been 31 cases of voter fraud in 16 years.
It's doing a lot more harm than good and hence is an ineffective and bad policy.
Again, states that don't use this policy still have ways of checking voters. It's just these methods significantly increase turnout and there's no evidence it's resulting in any degree of significantly greater voter fraud.
Last edited by Rockydonovang on Nov 8th, 2017 at 11:36 PM
That is assuming that reducing voter turnout is inherently negative. If you can't even manage to get an ID then maybe you don't have your shit together enough for America to value your political insight tbh.
This is my main problem with democracy. We are leaning on the wisdom of the mob. Yet the vast majority of people are utterly unqualified to make any serious policy prescriptions concerning most/alot of the very complex issues that dominate American politics.
Like does the cashier at Walmart really have great insight on what our foreign policy should be? I know that sounds elitist as ****... but as I indicated earlier I count myself among the crowd of people who's input is probably not worthwhile/necessary in many many cases. The judge thing you mentioned is a perfect example of an area where I would be virtually clueless. Yet if I take the time to stand in line and vote for president, I'm probably going to fill the whole ballot out regardless.
LMAO, yes, less people participating in the activity that our form of government is fundamentally based on is always a bad thing.
But hey, let's play this game; "If you're passionate enough to vote despite the act potentially endangering your livelihood, your political insight should be valued!".
The government doesn't have any business basing policy over whose political insight they consider valuable. A democratic government is obligated to enact policy that results in the largest voter turnout.
You're also acting as if voter ID is easy to get for everyone, it isn't.
For one thing, applying for voter ID, costs money.
So already there's a huge red flag with a policy here that potentially prevents people from voting on the basis of how much money they make.
And this has some seriously negative repercussions. If those so impoverished aren't represented in out democracy, then there's little hope of their needs being addressed.
Not to mention voter ID laws also burden the disabled, young people, ect.
There's no grounds to argue this is good policy.
Last edited by Rockydonovang on Nov 8th, 2017 at 11:58 PM
Hm... while we're taking the logic to the extreme in order to make it seem absurd, perhaps you wouldn't mind answering this question?
Because I'm assuming these "other ways" involve some form of documentation proving your identity. Which then, also, would exclude the people who don't have said documents for whatever reason. And by your logic, this is an inherently bad thing as well. So why should ANY proof of identity be required to vote?
That's how fundamental principles work. You don't drop them when it's convenient, they have to be applied universally and can't be dropped because of some "end justifies the means bullsh!t".
They're less strict and easier, though yes, I don't see the point of voter identification when there's only been about 31 cases of credible allegations regarding voter fraud out of more than a billion votes casted, and the requirement takes thousands out of our democratic process, many on utterly unacceptable grounds, like it not being financially feasible to get a birth certificate.
It's pretty simple math, thousands of people vs an amount not even closing in on a hundred.
And yes, I don't think there's a point to reducing voter turnout to address a virtually non-existent problem. The only way you can consider this a good policy is if you think the government should make policy with the intent of getting the people they want voting to vote which more or less defeats the purpose of democracy, that people hold politicians accountable, not that politicians get to decide who holds them accountable.
No, there is also the fact that if you aren't verifying who is voting then anyone could vote. Including people who are not citizens or legally eligible to vote. You can keep touting that it's a non-existent problem, but like you said yourself principals are principals. It seems to me that having a basic standard of identity verification to vote is a reasonable principal to have, considering there are some people who we quite literally do not want to allow to vote.
So I checked your source. Here's what it says:
This just seems like no verification at all. A signature? Biographical information? That's ghetto as ****. How exactly is it they verify the person who is signing/claiming to be who they say they are is legit?
And honestly... you need an ID to get a job, rent an apartment, open a bank account, etc. How is it all these people without IDs are getting by in the first place? This is what I meant when I said they don't really seem to have their shit together.
Again, if the people who don't have their sh!t together don't have a voice, then we're going to be ignoring their needs by restricting them from voting.
And again, this is an "ends justify the means" approach to sh!t. You're undermining the very principle you're seeking to improve with a lack of voter fraud.
Yeah, policies that restrict freedoms aren't based on principle, they are based on pragmatic effects. A democracy being clean of fraud is not a principle, it's part of an ideal version of the democratic process which remains fundamentally based on as many people as possible having a voice.
And frankly, even if you're going to frame this as the choice between two equally valuable principles, there's one principle which is being affected way more than another. Not to mention that voter id is an active action that's restricting a principle, where as a lack of voter ID is simply maintaining the democratic process our nation inherently has, so it's not really restricting anything as much as it's preserving the fundamental basis of democracy.
It's not a principle, it's an improvement which is self defeating if it ends up undermining the process it's supposed to be improving.
Itís not serious, if true. But I suspect voter fraud is much more common than statistics show. If you can just walk into a voting center and vote, no questions asked, or press a button on one of those voting machines, you can bet your ass there have been orders of magnitude more cases of voter fraud than 31 since 2000. Not sure if it warrants ID laws, but itís mind-boggingly naive to think that the 31 cases of voter fraud in the last 17 years statistic is anywhere even remotely realistic.
__________________ And from the ashes he rose, like a black cloud. The Sin of one became the Sin of many.
__________________ "I judged the Poles by their enemies. And I found it was an almost unfailing truth that their enemies were the enemies of magnanimity and manhood. If a man loved slavery, if he loved usury, if he loved terrorism and all the trampled mire of materialistic politics, I have always found that he added to these affections the passion of a hatred of Poland. She could be judged in the light of that hatred; and the judgment has proved to be right."