Wisconsin Voter ID

WildCat said:
There's no way to tell how many ineligible people are voting, because there's no ID requirement.

thaiboxerken says there's lots of people voting who work and don't have IDs, if true that's kind of a red flag don't you think?
Click to expand...

No. Show us the fraud that encouraged lawmakers to pass this law or admit it is just a political ploy to discriminate against folks who can't afford to take a day off to wait in line for some dumb permission slip.

When I vote, a nice lady asks my name, I give her my name, she looks up my name on her nice lady list, since I am registered, I sign a form, and I am given a ballot. The nice lady does not know me, but we voters are aware that if we vote under someone else's name, we are liable to get caught and fined or sent to jail. It isn't worth the trouble. It is republican conservative paranoia that enables one to think lots of folks would do so. We don't cheat because we respect the political system.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Yes you did, you went on and on about a license. Why?
Click to expand...
Because a license is sufficient, which helps to explain why people who have trouble imagining how the world works for people who aren't very much like them don't think it's a big deal.

To say that a license is sufficient is not to say that a license is necessary.
 
Guys, voter ID laws have been found to be nondiscriminatory. By the SCOTUS. You libs will have to find some other way to argue against them.

And the only reason I can see the Dems being so anti-ID-laws is because they expect to be hurt by them. If not because FRAUD!!!, then what other reason is there?
 
Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Struck Down as Judge Cites Burden on Citizens

The judge, Bernard L. McGinley of Commonwealth Court, ruled that the law hampered the ability of hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians to cast their ballots, with the burden falling most heavily on elderly, disabled and low-income residents, and that the state’s reason for the law — that it was needed to combat voter fraud — was not supported by the facts.
Click to expand...
 
casebro said:
Guys, voter ID laws have been found to be nondiscriminatory. By the SCOTUS. You libs will have to find some other way to argue against them.

And the only reason I can see the Dems being so anti-ID-laws is because they expect to be hurt by them. If not because FRAUD!!!, then what other reason is there?
Click to expand...

Ultimately all of us are hurt by such laws.
 
casebro said:
Guys, voter ID laws have been found to be nondiscriminatory. By the SCOTUS. You libs will have to find some other way to argue against them.
Click to expand...
It's very far from settled. The only case that the court has heard was in 2008, and its findings were provisional. It would be nice if people would take their state representatives to task for this stuff, but that's unlikely.

And the only reason I can see the Dems being so anti-ID-laws is because they expect to be hurt by them. If not because FRAUD!!!, then what other reason is there?
Click to expand...
Because there are principles essential to a democratic society at stake. You'd think people would take that more seriously in a country with a long history of voter suppression and disenfranchisement. Unfortunately, preventing your opponents from voting, rather than just trying to win the most votes, has instead become a perfectly legitimate tactic in the eyes of too many Americans.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
I favor passing any law which suppresses turnout amongst the stupid.
Click to expand...

Well, in the abstract, I'm in favor of passing any law which denies access to the internet to smug douchebags who aren't a fraction as clever as their sad and desperate attempts to present themselves to be.

But then I remember the principles of a free and democratic society, and realize even people I don't like or approve of should have the same access I do.

Any law which serves no purpose but to impede the democratic process is a bad law.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Then the solution would be to support legislation to make the ID's easy to obtain if that's the core problem you see with the these kinds of laws. And push for reform of those laws to better facilitate obtaining them where they extend beyond the scope that they should. That's hardly a debate in my opinion to want to ensure that the laws function the way that they're intended while also protecting voter's rights. But suggesting that this is some sort of voter suppression/racism push belongs in the conspiracy section.
Click to expand...

Not in the US - and specifically in red states it doesn't. There is a conspiracy allright - to try to use ID laws and other fraudulent procedures (reducing polling hours and days for one) to disenfranchise persons who are smart enough to vote Democrat.
 
fuelair said:
Not in the US - and specifically in red states it doesn't. There is a conspiracy allright - to try to use ID laws and other fraudulent procedures (reducing polling hours and days for one) to disenfranchise persons who are smart enough to vote Democrat.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that "smart enough to vote Democrat" is quite fair. I'm pretty sure that there are still races where the Republican or another party candidate is clearly a better choice, when the candidates are actually reviewed individually. Still, there's little to nothing specifically wrong with most of the Voter ID laws that were pushed through, in and of themselves. It just that they were indeed a blatantly obvious political ploy, especially given the timing, made to address a practically non-existent problem that they hyped up rather overwhelmingly. In person voter fraud was the least likely form of voter fraud, by far, at last check, and that's the only form that they seemed to be seriously "targetting." If they were actually interested in reducing voter fraud, it would likely have been far more effective to add a couple government employees to actively maintain the voter lists and go out of their way to remove deceased persons and reduce that fairly minor, but actually verifiably used, avenue for voter fraud, or find ways to better verify mailed in ballots.
 
fuelair said:
Not in the US - and specifically in red states it doesn't. There is a conspiracy allright - to try to use ID laws and other fraudulent procedures (reducing polling hours and days for one) to disenfranchise persons who are smart enough to vote Democrat.
Click to expand...
Reducing polling hours and days? I can't think of any time in history where voting has been more accessible. Used to be you could only vote on election day unless you had a good reason for an absentee ballot.
 
WildCat said:
Reducing polling hours and days? I can't think of any time in history where voting has been more accessible. Used to be you could only vote on election day unless you had a good reason for an absentee ballot.
Click to expand...

In Ohio, for example, as I recall. The motivation for doing so was even admitted to be to reduce the number of votes from certain groups, as I recall.
 
Aridas said:
In Ohio, for example, as I recall. The motivation for doing so was even admitted to be to reduce the number of votes from certain groups, as I recall.
Click to expand...
So how many days and hours were available to vote in Ohio?
 
johnny karate said:
Well, in the abstract, I'm in favor of passing any law which denies access to the internet to smug douchebags who aren't a fraction as clever as their sad and desperate attempts to present themselves to be.
Click to expand...

Who would be left on this board then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom