Wisconsin Voter ID

Aridas said:
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.
Click to expand...
I would happily agree with you if there were any actual Republicans left - those people who are conservative but not beholden to religious nuts (dundies) and the incompetent tool teabaggers - there were a quite reasonable number of them before the 80's - since then not enough to worry about counting - and those have no influence with the crazies. I miss Republicans.
 
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...

I'm in Florida - and the ******* Rick Scott and his crew of ***** certainly have!!! Your used to be is already way past it's dead date - but a number of states (including FL) are working hard to get back to it. Back to no voting help for the poor and less for the dying middle class.
 
tyr_13 said:
If they don't care enough to vote, extended voting wouldn't help them, but certain types of stringent voter ID laws would hurt. As there is evidence that the extended voting allowed more people to vote, yet fraud of the type that ID laws would help address is almost non-existent, your hand wave here still falls flat. Even if you don't care about people who don't care enough to vote, because you claim it wouldn't help them vote anyway, these people did vote. This excludes them from the group you claim not to care about, and the justification for you opposing extended voting.
Click to expand...
How do voter ID laws hurt those who want to vote? It's not difficult to get an ID. I have yet to see any evidence that people wanting to vote but don't have an ID can't get one.

tyr_13 said:
Why? If you don't want the vote to be more representative, why does that matter? If you think voting is already representative enough, then what utility is there in ensuring those people voting are eligible?
Click to expand...
I don't know that those voting without an ID are qualified to vote, and neither does anyone else.

tyr_13 said:
The Democrats are trying to reduce voting days? You might fault them for not expanding them when it could be useful, but you can't claim they're trying to restrict them further.
Click to expand...
If 28 days is reducing the vote then certainly 13 days reduces it further, yes? I find it absurd that a 28 day early voting window is claimed to be restricting the vote, and I've yet to see any evidence that it does.
 
fuelair said:
I'm in Florida - and the ******* Rick Scott and his crew of ***** certainly have!!! Your used to be is already way past it's dead date - but a number of states (including FL) are working hard to get back to it. Back to no voting help for the poor and less for the dying middle class.
Click to expand...
Do tell how Rick Scott is preventing the poor from voting.
 
Tony Stark said:
You can be sure that if high voter turnout was good for Republican candidates they would do everything possible to make sure that voting was as easy and painless as possible.
Click to expand...

Maybe.
Do you believe if high voter turnout was good for Republican candidates the Democrat party would do everything possible to make sure that voting was as easy and painless as possible?
 
WildCat said:
How do voter ID laws hurt those who want to vote? It's not difficult to get an ID. I have yet to see any evidence that people wanting to vote but don't have an ID can't get one.
Click to expand...

How does a gun registration or background check requirement prevent the people from using 2nd Amendment rights? How do medical 'safety' requirements prevent people from accessing abortions? Come on, you know the devil's in the details.

I don't know that those voting without an ID are qualified to vote, and neither does anyone else.
Click to expand...

That's a non-sequiter to the part you quoted...

If voting is representative enough for you now, they what does it matter if they are qualified to vote?


If 28 days is reducing the vote then certainly 13 days reduces it further, yes? I find it absurd that a 28 day early voting window is claimed to be restricting the vote, and I've yet to see any evidence that it does.
Click to expand...

No. If the voting started at 32 days, then becomes 28, that's a reduction. If it started at 13 and stays at 13, that is not a reduction. It might indeed be best practice to expand to 32 days, if the benefits over 13 days is worth the cost. Same with keeping it at 32 rather than reducing it back to 28.

I'm not sure what the best policy is. There are obviously costs and benefits, and different ways to run elections. Some of the same basic ideas can be used either way, to suppress the agency of voters or support it, depending on the implementation.
 
tyr_13 said:
How does a gun registration or background check requirement prevent the people from using 2nd Amendment rights?
Click to expand...

They don't, so long as they're free and immediate. Same deal with ID checks, so long as they're free (i.e. no poll tax) and immediate, who cares? I don't see why we should reject the idea of the laws outright without considering the specific details of a law that implements it.
 
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...

I don't believe a person needs to work to vote. A non-working person isn't necessarily lazy, stupid, or apathetic.

What is the purpose of voter ID laws? To suppress votes. It has nothing to do with curbing voter fraud.
 
tyr_13 said:
How does a gun registration or background check requirement prevent the people from using 2nd Amendment rights? How do medical 'safety' requirements prevent people from accessing abortions? Come on, you know the devil's in the details.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting we require voter training (perhaps a civics exam), a licensing fee ($150 should cover it for 3 years), and a waiting period (say one election cycle) before they are allowed to vote?

tyr_13 said:
That's a non-sequiter to the part you quoted...

If voting is representative enough for you now, they what does it matter if they are qualified to vote?
Click to expand...
Because I don't want people who have no vested interest in my district, ward, and precinct voting on issues and candidates that affect me.

tyr_13 said:
No. If the voting started at 32 days, then becomes 28, that's a reduction. If it started at 13 and stays at 13, that is not a reduction. It might indeed be best practice to expand to 32 days, if the benefits over 13 days is worth the cost. Same with keeping it at 32 rather than reducing it back to 28.
Click to expand...
Maybe there was no advantage for a 32 day period, and it's just extra money for no benefit.

Do you have any evidence that 28 days is not enough time?

tyr_13 said:
I'm not sure what the best policy is. There are obviously costs and benefits, and different ways to run elections. Some of the same basic ideas can be used either way, to suppress the agency of voters or support it, depending on the implementation.
Click to expand...
Neither you nor anyone else here has shown that shortening the voting period from 32 days to 28 or requiring voter ID suppressed any votes.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Yes, in the same way gay people have always been allowed to marry.
Click to expand...
No, not even remotely similar. That's just silly.

thaiboxerken said:
I don't believe a person needs to work to vote. A non-working person isn't necessarily lazy, stupid, or apathetic.
Click to expand...
Earlier you spoke of working people who had no ID and no time to get one who would no longer be able to vote. What kind of person works but has no ID ken? People who shouldn't be voting perhaps?

thaiboxerken said:
What is the purpose of voter ID laws? To suppress votes. It has nothing to do with curbing voter fraud.
Click to expand...
It has to do with ensuring the integrity of the vote.

thaiboxerken said:
There are plenty of studies that can answer your question.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/research-and-publications-voter-id
Click to expand...
Not going to do a link bomb. Name one you find compelling.
 
Last edited:
There is tons of evidence that voter ID laws suppress votes. There is scant evidence of voter fraud.

Evidence vs non-evidence, seems to be a common theme with Republican policies.
 
eeyore1954 said:
Maybe.
Do you believe if high voter turnout was good for Republican candidates the Democrat party would do everything possible to make sure that voting was as easy and painless as possible?
Click to expand...

Probably not. But I also don't think that they would use the non-existent problem of voter fraud to fraudulently push laws whose real purpose is to keep people from voting.
 
WildCat said:
Can you name one source for this "tons of evidence"?
Click to expand...

I just did earlier in the thread. There are multiple studies that have found that voter ID laws suppress votes.

You claimed yourself that people who work without having an ID are voting.
Click to expand...

So? How is that evidence of voter fraud?
 
WildCat said:
You posted a wall of links from moonbat sites. Do you have any actual evidence?
Click to expand...

The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York School of Law is a moonbat site? You are just ignoring evidence and dismissing it because it disagrees with your beliefs. That one web page has many peer reviewed studies within it.


The entire Republican establishment has not shown any significant amount of voter fraud occurring in the USA, ever.

Once again, you show that Republicans care not about evidence and only their ideology; from Creationism, to anti-AGW, to the insinuation that voter-fraud is a problem.


Guess which kind of voters do not have ID.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom