Systematic Issues

Originally posted by socool8520
Have you ever stopped to think that maybe there aren't that many instances of voter fraud because there are rules in place? It makes sense logically that less people will attempt to commit an act if there is a law against it.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
that's weird. I thought SS cards were only for citizens; hence why illegals sometimes have to use a stolen/fake SS number to gain legit employment.

Originally posted by socool8520
Have you ever stopped to think that maybe there aren't that many instances of voter fraud because there are rules in place? It makes sense logically that less people will attempt to commit an act if there is a law against it.

Originally posted by Stigma

I noticed you did not answer my simple question directed at you. Can you answer it? Let me repost it.

No you shouldn't. However if there's no evidence of may people like you voting, and we know there are thousands and thousands of people who voter id laws are deterring from voting, what exactly is the point of the restriction.

The only way to argue for voter ID restrictions is from a pragmatic standpoint, however that gets you nowhere as there remains no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

Originally posted by socool8520
[B]Such as? I assume drugs? I figure it is more for keeping you away from others when you're under the influemce so that you don't harm others (violate their rights)

Originally posted by socool8520
Again, such as? If it was petty theft, you're still a criminal and have shown poor character. If you have comitted several minor crimes it also shows a trend of untrustworthy behavior that should be highlighted during the hiring process. Your actions have consequences. If you don't want unfavorable outcomes, don't do stupid things.

I do think not allowing them to vote after they have served their time is wrong.

Originally posted by socool8520
I don't see a problem with making them work. They broke the law and are being punished. Labor is one of the ways to do so.

Originally posted by socool8520
it could be said the requirements have helped combat voter fraud hence why it is so low.

The rest of these things are a problem and should be fixed. /

Originally posted by Stigma
Apparently not. I studied in the US for some time. Maybe that's why I got it.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
we already have 18 sates where no id is required, and many more that require a signature rather than photo ID.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
No you shouldn't. However if there's no evidence of may people like you voting, and we know there are thousands and thousands of people who voter id laws are deterring from voting, what exactly is the point of the restriction.

The only way to argue for voter ID restrictions is from a pragmatic standpoint, however that gets you nowhere as there remains no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-voter-fraud-a-real-problem/voter-fraud-deniers-ignore-the-facts

http://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/heritage-explains/voter-fraud

http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/pewupgradingvoterregistrationpdf.pdf

I've provided several sources.

voter fraud is real rock.

please don't simply ascribe to an ideology contrary to common sense. you're being played

if you research well enough it will be proven that having an id is not "raci ist" and does not significantly reduced voting. please come out of that bubble

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
No you shouldn't.

Well, in that case:

How can you stop me from voting in the US without proper ID laws? What if all tourists that are in the US during the election time choose to vote just for giggles?

I think you see my point.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
However if there's no evidence of may people like you voting, and we know there are thousands and thousands of people who voter id laws are deterring from voting, what exactly is the point of the restriction.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Once again you are using a pragmatic argument to argue against IDs; that you don't believe voter fraud is likely to happen regardless. You seemingly agree with the "principle" that non-citizens shouldn't be able to vote, you just naively assume that it won't happen even if there's no mechanism in place to stop it from happening. But according to your own logic, if there were more confirmed cases of voter fraud then you would possibly agree that IDs should be required. So your argument rests entirely on pragmatism; I.E. no need to tackle an issue that you don't see as real.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
So what would stop you from also getting a photo ID here? Like I said you don't actually need a Birth Certificate. I got one once just using a SS card and a college transcript.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Once again you are using a pragmatic argument to argue against IDs; that you don't believe voter fraud is likely to happen regardless. You seemingly agree with the "principle" that non-citizens shouldn't be able to vote, you just naively assume that it won't happen even if there's no mechanism in place to stop it from happening. But according to your own logic, if there were more confirmed cases of voter fraud then you would possibly agree that IDs should be required. So your argument rests entirely on pragmatism; I.E. no need to tackle an issue that you don't see as real.

I'm using the pragmatic argument because the pragmatic argument is the only way one could hope to argue for voting restrictions. However the Pragmatic argument completely falls apart because there's no evidence it's doing more good than bad. We know it's massively lowing voter turnout, but we have no evidence it's having any noteworthy effect on voter fraud.

There's simply no basis to argue for preventing thousands of people from voting in every state when the proof of voter fraud is virtually non existent.

Unless you can prove voter restrictions prevent more non-citizens from voting than actual citizens, it's simply bad policy.

Now I'm open to having voter ID laws and having the voter ID be easy for anyone to receive. However untill you've successfully managed to do that, there is no pragmatic or principle based justification for a law that prevents tens of thousands of people from participating in the democratic process.

Originally posted by Stigma
Thanks for answering.

If nothing stops me from simply walking into a voting booth without my identity checked first then there is no way to even check if voter fraud is massive or not.

We know it does bad, we don't know if it does good, how is that a solid basis for enacting policy?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Again, you need documentation that costs hundreds of bucks to qualify for those ID's.

Give me solid proof, 100%, of what you just said. I know people who got ID's and didn't spend that much. So...they lied to me, I guess?

Originally posted by Surtur
Give me solid proof, 100%, of what you just said. I know people who got ID's and didn't spend that much. So...they lied to me, I guess?

And, yeah, there are people who don't have to pay as much. However we don't legislate policy based on cherrypicked anecdotal evidence. And frankly it shouldn't matter the amount. Making someone pay to vote is the equivalent of the poll taxes that were levied against people in the 60's.

There's no justification for people having to pay to vote.
The source is the one I've provided.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
So why would we enact policy we know lowers voter turnout based on an unknown?

We know it does bad, we don't know if it does good, how is that a solid basis for enacting policy?

I just think Afro Cheese thoroughly asnwered that concern of yours, so I'm not going to basically restate what he said.

I also think as long as a non-US citizen like myself can easily vote in US election in many states you mentioned, there's something fundamentally wrong about the laws.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
we already have 18 sates where no id is required, and many more that require a signature rather than photo ID.

That seems like a poor practice imo. Really nothing to stop somebody from voting more than once.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Uh yeah, that's now what jail is for. Jail is for crimes, not potential crimes you may or may not commit.

So you don't imprison murderers to also keep them from murdering others? Hmmm. okay.

Also, drug use is a crime so you should be punished.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Prison is a consequence. The government has no business trying to stretch said punishments into life-time ones. If an employer is really concerned about someone who was a robber a couple years ago or who's done weed, then it's their responsibility to find it out, not the government's.

So no one should ever know the crimes you have committed? I don't agree with that at all. Don't commit crimes if you are worried about the ramifications later. It's as simple as that.

The employer does find out...with a background check. lol How else are they going to come up with your criminal history, your honesty?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Uh, what? Why is slavery an acceptable form of punishment?

If you can't see the difference between slavery and conditions of imprisonment for criminal activity then I really don't know what to say.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
There are still 18 states which don't have any requirements, and none of those states has produced evidence of widespread voter fraud.

It would be hard to know if there's fraud if you don't have any way to check it. lol

Originally posted by socool8520
It would be hard to know if there's fraud if you don't have any way to check it. lol

California registers people to vote at the DMV when they get their DL and they allow illegal immigrants to get DL now. So yeah, let's not pretend that there isn't some level of voter fraud.

Maybe NY has a similar policy in place now?

Originally posted by snowdragon
California registers people to vote at the DMV when they get their DL and they allow illegal immigrants to get DL now. So yeah, let's not pretend that there isn't some level of voter fraud.

Maybe NY has a similar policy in place now?

I'm not sure what you're saying, but I'm under no illusion that there isn't voter fraud.