State-issued IDs only matter to combat in-person voter fraud. If in-person voter fraud was a problem that IDs could solve, then we should require them. But nobody has shown that in-person voter fraud is a problem.
The goal should be to come up with a voting system that is both easy and secure. Everyone should have equal access to the ballot box. So we should not make it harder for one group of people to vote.
State-issued IDs make it harder for certain segments of the population to vote. So they should not be used unless absolutely necessary. You need a balance between security and ease of access.
How can you function in society today without an Id?
Lots of people do function without an id. And it's their right to do so.
Again, he goal should be to come up with a voting system that is both easy and secure. Everyone should have equal access to the ballot box. So we should not make it harder for one group of people to vote.
State-issued IDs make it harder for certain segments of the population to vote. So they should not be used unless absolutely necessary. You need a balance between security and ease of access.
How can you function in society today without an Id?
Lots of people do function without an id. And it's their right to do so.
Again, he goal should be to come up with a voting system that is both easy and secure. Everyone should have equal access to the ballot box. So we should not make it harder for one group of people to vote.
State-issued IDs make it harder for certain segments of the population to vote. So they should not be used unless absolutely necessary. You need a balance between security and ease of access.
Lots of people do function without an id. And it's their right to do so.
Again, he goal should be to come up with a voting system that is both easy and secure. Everyone should have equal access to the ballot box. So we should not make it harder for one group of people to vote.
State-issued IDs make it harder for certain segments of the population to vote. So they should not be used unless absolutely necessary. You need a balance between security and ease of access.
Again, the goal should be to come up with a voting system that is both easy and secure. Everyone should have equal access to the ballot box. So we should not make it harder for one group of people to vote.
State-issued IDs make it harder for certain segments of the population to vote. So they should not be used unless absolutely necessary. You need a balance between security and ease of access.
Again, the goal should be to come up with a voting system that is both easy and secure. Everyone should have equal access to the ballot box. So we should not make it harder for one group of people to vote.
State-issued IDs make it harder for certain segments of the population to vote. So they should not be used unless absolutely necessary. You need a balance between security and ease of access.
How is it making it harder for one group of people to vote? I gave that list of what is requires an state-issued ID. Unless one is living in the wilderness like Ted Kaczynski, 99.99% of people should already have IDs. Give me just one instance of someone who might not need an ID. It is ridiculous to suggest an ID is not necessary to live in society today.
Again, the goal should be to come up with a voting system that is both easy and secure. Everyone should have equal access to the ballot box. So we should not make it harder for one group of people to vote.
State-issued IDs make it harder for certain segments of the population to vote. So they should not be used unless absolutely necessary. You need a balance between security and ease of access.
How is it making it harder for one group of people to vote? I gave that list of what is requires an state-issued ID. Unless one is living in the wilderness like Ted Kaczynski, 99.99% of people should already have IDs. Give me just one instance of someone who might not need an ID. It is ridiculous to suggest an ID is not necessary to live in society today.
If 99.99% of people already had IDs then it wouldn't be a problem. That would only disenfranchise about 33,000 people.
But according to a 2016 study, about 3.5% of eligible voters don't have a government ID. That disenfranchises almost 11 million voters.
How is it making it harder for one group of people to vote? I gave that list of what is requires an state-issued ID. Unless one is living in the wilderness like Ted Kaczynski, 99.99% of people should already have IDs. Give me just one instance of someone who might not need an ID. It is ridiculous to suggest an ID is not necessary to live in society today.
If 99.99% of people already had IDs then it wouldn't be a problem. That would only disenfranchise about 33,000 people.
But according to a 2016 study, about 3.5% of eligible voters don't have a government ID. That disenfranchises almost 11 million voters.
How is it making it harder for one group of people to vote? I gave that list of what is requires an state-issued ID. Unless one is living in the wilderness like Ted Kaczynski, 99.99% of people should already have IDs. Give me just one instance of someone who might not need an ID. It is ridiculous to suggest an ID is not necessary to live in society today.
If 99.99% of people already had IDs then it wouldn't be a problem. That would only disenfranchise about 33,000 people.
But according to a 2016 study, about 3.5% of eligible voters don't have a government ID. That disenfranchises almost 11 million voters.
How can 11 million not have an ID? They don't drive. They don't work. No bank account. No welfare. No unemployment. No welfare. No food stamps. No car. Don't have an apt or house. No medicaid and no social security. Are not married. Can't travel. Can't get hotel room. Can't fish and can't hunt. No cell phone. Can't pick up prescription. How are they surviving? Unless they have a rich person supporting them they are breaking the law.
If 99.99% of people already had IDs then it wouldn't be a problem. That would only disenfranchise about 33,000 people.
But according to a 2016 study, about 3.5% of eligible voters don't have a government ID. That disenfranchises almost 11 million voters.
How can 11 million not have an ID? They don't drive. They don't work. No bank account. No welfare. No unemployment. No welfare. No food stamps. No car. Don't have an apt or house. No medicaid and no social security. Are not married. Can't travel. Can't get hotel room. Can't fish and can't hunt. No cell phone. Can't pick up prescription. How are they surviving? Unless they have a rich person supporting them they are breaking the law.
It's just a fact. They don't have ID.
Don't you think Americans should have the right to not have their photo on file with the US government?
This seems like a strange thing for Conservatives to want. Maybe you want everyone to have an embedded microchip as well?
If 99.99% of people already had IDs then it wouldn't be a problem. That would only disenfranchise about 33,000 people.
But according to a 2016 study, about 3.5% of eligible voters don't have a government ID. That disenfranchises almost 11 million voters.
How can 11 million not have an ID? They don't drive. They don't work. No bank account. No welfare. No unemployment. No welfare. No food stamps. No car. Don't have an apt or house. No medicaid and no social security. Are not married. Can't travel. Can't get hotel room. Can't fish and can't hunt. No cell phone. Can't pick up prescription. How are they surviving? Unless they have a rich person supporting them they are breaking the law.
Ah, a reminder of the good ole' days. When folks of different political persuasions could have discussions where the argument on both sides had, arguably, at least some merit. Problem is.....
ONE side then decided to just agree with what one man said and did (and a really crappy man, at that).
Trumpers, don't you want to go back to those days? Make your arguments about voter ID, abortion, taxes, foreign policy, immigration, political correctness, etc.
But don't say that (hourly!) blatant lying is OK. And shaking down foreign leaders. And ignoring pandemics and/or making them worse. And trying to steal elections. And mocking POWs (he SHOULD have been dead RIGHT there, long before the first election....but the "patriots" ignored it). And abusing the office of President in a thousand ways. And.....
Again, the goal should be to come up with a voting system that is both easy and secure. Everyone should have equal access to the ballot box. So we should not make it harder for one group of people to vote.
State-issued IDs make it harder for certain segments of the population to vote. So they should not be used unless absolutely necessary. You need a balance between security and ease of access.
What "one group" are you referring to? Every group agrees that voter ID is a good idea but white liberals...
The "segments of the population" that white liberals think are too stupid to figure out how to get an ID do not agree with the white liberals.
Proving who you are isn't an unreasonable requirement for voting.
There's only one reason to oppose this and everyone knows what it is.
If 99.99% of people already had IDs then it wouldn't be a problem. That would only disenfranchise about 33,000 people.
But according to a 2016 study, about 3.5% of eligible voters don't have a government ID. That disenfranchises almost 11 million voters.
How can 11 million not have an ID? They don't drive. They don't work. No bank account. No welfare. No unemployment. No welfare. No food stamps. No car. Don't have an apt or house. No medicaid and no social security. Are not married. Can't travel. Can't get hotel room. Can't fish and can't hunt. No cell phone. Can't pick up prescription. How are they surviving? Unless they have a rich person supporting them they are breaking the law.
This is all you can come up with to justify voter suppression?
You've been at this for years and have never bothered to look it up. Just around NYC there are a lot of people with no need to drive, and thus no driver's license. You can do those other things you mentioned with other proof of identity. But of course, plenty of redneck states only want to accept a specific proof that they know is disproportionately lacking with non-whites. Until those states can come up with evidence of material voter ID-related fraud, they continue to have no fair reason to push these measures.
How can 11 million not have an ID? They don't drive. They don't work. No bank account. No welfare. No unemployment. No welfare. No food stamps. No car. Don't have an apt or house. No medicaid and no social security. Are not married. Can't travel. Can't get hotel room. Can't fish and can't hunt. No cell phone. Can't pick up prescription. How are they surviving? Unless they have a rich person supporting them they are breaking the law.
It's just a fact. They don't have ID.
Don't you think Americans should have the right to not have their photo on file with the US government?
This seems like a strange thing for Conservatives to want. Maybe you want everyone to have an embedded microchip as well?
Don't you know deep state shenanigans is totally fine as long as it hurts "them"?
How can 11 million not have an ID? They don't drive. They don't work. No bank account. No welfare. No unemployment. No welfare. No food stamps. No car. Don't have an apt or house. No medicaid and no social security. Are not married. Can't travel. Can't get hotel room. Can't fish and can't hunt. No cell phone. Can't pick up prescription. How are they surviving? Unless they have a rich person supporting them they are breaking the law.
This is all you can come up with to justify voter suppression?
You've been at this for years and have never bothered to look it up. Just around NYC there are a lot of people with no need to drive, and thus no driver's license. You can do those other things you mentioned with other proof of identity. But of course, plenty of redneck states only want to accept a specific proof that they know is disproportionately lacking with non-whites. Until those states can come up with evidence of material voter ID-related fraud, they continue to have no fair reason to push these measures.
If you want to vote. Get an ID... Is it "driving suppression" if people can't drive without a license?
Democrats scapegoat photo-ID laws for losses in states where minority turnout rose in 2018. It has long been an article of faith on the political left that Republicans win elections by disenfranchising certain voting blocs. W...
Again, the goal should be to come up with a voting system that is both easy and secure. Everyone should have equal access to the ballot box. So we should not make it harder for one group of people to vote.
State-issued IDs make it harder for certain segments of the population to vote. So they should not be used unless absolutely necessary. You need a balance between security and ease of access.
What "one group" are you referring to? Every group agrees that voter ID is a good idea but white liberals...
The "segments of the population" that white liberals think are too stupid to figure out how to get an ID do not agree with the white liberals.
Proving who you are isn't an unreasonable requirement for voting.
There's only one reason to oppose this and everyone knows what it is.
I'm talking about any one group. If we tried to pass a law that kept a group of Fox News viewers from voting then I would be against that too.
Again, the goal should be to come up with a voting system that is both easy and secure. Everyone should have equal access to the ballot box. So we should not make it harder for one group of people to vote.
State-issued IDs make it harder for certain segments of the population to vote. So they should not be used unless absolutely necessary. You need a balance between security and ease of access.
Everyone but white *American* liberals. Voter ID isn't controversial in most democracies. Such a strange thing to be against, of all hills to die on.
That's because other countries have systems in place that make ID and voter registration seamless and simple. The barrier to entry is low.
Everyone supports fair voting. But when you look at these policy proposals it's clear that their intent is to leverage that fact that it's extremely difficult to get an ID or to register to vote in some areas and for certain groups.
What "one group" are you referring to? Every group agrees that voter ID is a good idea but white liberals...
The "segments of the population" that white liberals think are too stupid to figure out how to get an ID do not agree with the white liberals.
Proving who you are isn't an unreasonable requirement for voting.
There's only one reason to oppose this and everyone knows what it is.
I'm talking about any one group. If we tried to pass a law that kept a group of Fox News viewers from voting then I would be against that too.
Again, the goal should be to come up with a voting system that is both easy and secure. Everyone should have equal access to the ballot box. So we should not make it harder for one group of people to vote.
State-issued IDs make it harder for certain segments of the population to vote. So they should not be used unless absolutely necessary. You need a balance between security and ease of access.
The rules are identical for every group... Everyone has equal access to the ballot box.
You're asking for special treatment.
It is easy to get an ID.
It isn't possible to secure an election if you can't verify who's voting.
Which "segments" of the population can't get ID's?
The answer is making it easier to get these people ID's not getting rid of the ID requirement for voting.
