Poll: 74% support voter ID laws

Democracy4Sale wrote: Buying prescription meds is a privilege...not a right.
Buying guns may be subject to legislation to keep them out of the hands of convicted felons, spousal abuse cases, etc....Therefore, it is a privilege, not a right. (Or at the very least a right, subject to limitations.)

Voting is a RIGHT...Not a privilege. Conspiring to deprive people of that right is criminal.

Convicted felons are excluded from the right to vote as well as the right to own or even possess a firearm SFB. That would mean, according to the feelings you expressed earlier, that voting would be a privilege and not a right (or at the very least a right subject to reasonable limitations) as well. As the courts have so often opined, the existence of a right doesn't mean that it isn't subject to reasonable restrictions. One such reasonable restriction, as a matter of what you like to serially refer to as "settled law" by virtue of the decision reached by the union's Supreme Court, is the requirement to present a valid form of identification which includes a photo that has been issued by a legitimate government agency when presenting one's self at the polls to cast their ballot.

The matter has been adjudicated and found not to be an infringement on the right to vote, but rather a legitimate exercise of the State authority taken to maintain the legitimacy of the process. Tilt at windmills all you wish, make up any lies that come to your guano packed cranium and feel free to regurgitate whatever you hear in the echo chamber to your bigoted heart's desire - it will not change not a single thing.

PrintSmith wrote:

Democracy4Sale wrote: Buying prescription meds is a privilege...not a right.
Buying guns may be subject to legislation to keep them out of the hands of convicted felons, spousal abuse cases, etc....Therefore, it is a privilege, not a right. (Or at the very least a right, subject to limitations.)

Voting is a RIGHT...Not a privilege. Conspiring to deprive people of that right is criminal.

Convicted felons are excluded from the right to vote as well as the right to own or even possess a firearm SFB. That would mean, according to the feelings you expressed earlier, that voting would be a privilege and not a right (or at the very least a right subject to reasonable limitations) as well. As the courts have so often opined, the existence of a right doesn't mean that it isn't subject to reasonable restrictions. One such reasonable restriction, as a matter of what you like to serially refer to as "settled law" by virtue of the decision reached by the union's Supreme Court, is the requirement to present a valid form of identification which includes a photo that has been issued by a legitimate government agency when presenting one's self at the polls to cast their ballot.

The matter has been adjudicated and found not to be an infringement on the right to vote, but rather a legitimate exercise of the State authority taken to maintain the legitimacy of the process. Tilt at windmills all you wish, make up any lies that come to your guano packed cranium and feel free to regurgitate whatever you hear in the echo chamber to your bigoted heart's desire - it will not change not a single thing.

Except the law that the Supreme Court upheld allowed individuals to vote without a photo id.

Something the Dog Said wrote: What Printsmith and Fred fail to tell you is that the Supreme Court held that since the Indiana law allowed you to vote without a photo id by affirming that you were the person you said you were, it was upheld.

And what our resident canine decided not to tell you is that every law which requires one to present a photo ID has a provision for casting a provisional ballot just like the one in Indiana does.

PrintSmith, why do you support voter ID? It is to combat a problem that doesn't exist. Do you think voter fraud is a real problem? Or could it be that you are fully aware these laws will disproportionately affect minorities?...minorities which are quite likely to vote opposed to your radical views?

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: What Printsmith and Fred fail to tell you is that the Supreme Court held that since the Indiana law allowed you to vote without a photo id by affirming that you were the person you said you were, it was upheld.

And what our resident canine decided not to tell you is that every law which requires one to present a photo ID has a provision for casting a provisional ballot just like the one in Indiana does.

So if there are exceptions to photo id, why is it so imperative to create burdens on about 10 percent of the voters? Why create an unequal burden on in person voters as opposed to mail in, drop off and absentee voters? If one is so determined to fraudulent vote, would it not be easier to do by those methods? Is it not more important to ensure that every American entitled to vote is able to freely do so, including those 23 million Americans without government issued photo ids, as opposed to preventing the .000001% of actual in person voter fraud that might have occurred.


According to the only studies published on voter fraud, in person voter fraud is essentially non-existent, while almost all voter fraud occurs by mail in, drop off and absentee ballots.

plaidvillain wrote: PrintSmith, why do you support voter ID? It is to combat a problem that doesn't exist. Do you think voter fraud is a real problem? Or could it be that you are fully aware these laws will disproportionately affect minorities?...minorities which are quite likely to vote opposed to your radical views?

Why do you believe that minorities are less likely to have photo ID? Isn't that the worst kind of racism saying that minorities can't be expected to have photo ID's?

Why do we need voter rolls at all?

FredHayek wrote:

plaidvillain wrote: PrintSmith, why do you support voter ID? It is to combat a problem that doesn't exist. Do you think voter fraud is a real problem? Or could it be that you are fully aware these laws will disproportionately affect minorities?...minorities which are quite likely to vote opposed to your radical views?

Why do you believe that minorities are less likely to have photo ID? Isn't that the worst kind of racism saying that minorities can't be expected to have photo ID's?

Because published studies have shown that minorities and the elderly are the most likely to be affected by these laws. Of course we are still waiting for those studies showing that photo ids are critically needed to combat the epidemic of in person voting that conservatives are claiming

plaidvillain wrote: PrintSmith, why do you support voter ID? It is to combat a problem that doesn't exist. Do you think voter fraud is a real problem? Or could it be that you are fully aware these laws will disproportionately affect minorities?...minorities which are quite likely to vote opposed to your radical views?

My views are only radical to those on the extreme left wing - reasonable people are more likely to place me equidistant between the actual middle and the far right wing, perhaps even closer to the middle than that given some of my views. I support voter ID simply as a means to protect the integrity of the vote. I also believe, as a result of such things as same day voter registration, that there is far more fraud occurring than is being uncovered. When you stop and realize that the election of one president came down to a margin of 537 votes out of 6 million which were cast in one State (less than one one hundreths of a percent of the votes in that state and roughly 5 ten thousandths of a percent of the total votes cast in the election) you quickly understand that it doesn't take a whole lot of fraud to alter the outcome of an election by whatever means it is accomplished. I support stringent safeguards on every level, not just the photo ID law. If I had my way it would be more difficult to vote by mail or in absentee than it is to show up at the polls on election day. Considering the wailing and gnashing of teeth that goes on about a simple thing like a photo ID, I can't begin to imagine how many knickers would be in knots if the protections needed were attempted to be put in place with regards to the mail in ballots.

PrintSmith wrote:

plaidvillain wrote: PrintSmith, why do you support voter ID? It is to combat a problem that doesn't exist. Do you think voter fraud is a real problem? Or could it be that you are fully aware these laws will disproportionately affect minorities?...minorities which are quite likely to vote opposed to your radical views?

My views are only radical to those on the extreme left wing - reasonable people are more likely to place me equidistant between the actual middle and the far right wing, perhaps even closer to the middle than that given some of my views. I support voter ID simply as a means to protect the integrity of the vote. I also believe, as a result of such things as same day voter registration, that there is far more fraud occurring than is being uncovered. When you stop and realize that the election of one president came down to a margin of 537 votes out of 6 million which were cast in one State (less than one one hundreths of a percent of the votes in that state and roughly 5 ten thousandths of a percent of the total votes cast in the election) you quickly understand that it doesn't take a whole lot of fraud to alter the outcome of an election by whatever means it is accomplished. I support stringent safeguards on every level, not just the photo ID law. If I had my way it would be more difficult to vote by mail or in absentee than it is to show up at the polls on election day. Considering the wailing and gnashing of teeth that goes on about a simple thing like a photo ID, I can't begin to imagine how many knickers would be in knots if the protections needed were attempted to be put in place with regards to the mail in ballots.

No one seems to have an answer to my question up thread. Why do they have voters rolls at all?