The GOP War On Voting

Phoenix Rev wrote:
Lucan wrote:

Not sure what it's like in the US but over here the Town Hall is open between 11:00 and 16:00 on workdays. I can imagine that if you have two jobs to make ends meet, you can't actually afford the time to visit.

Phoenix proper is one of the largest geographical cities in America. With budget cuts on the state, county and city level, DMV places have closed to be consolidated (where one goes to get a state ID) and our meager bus system (we only have one light rail line) was cut back as well.

Imagine this past July when we went for several weeks of 110+ degree weather and thinking that someone can just walk a half mile to the nearest bus station and wait for the bus in the heat and then spend an hour on the bus (assuming no connections) to get to the nearest DMV. That is, of course, assuming they have a job that doesn't keep them there from 8 AM to 5 PM or they even have a job where they get paid time off (which would exclude low income workers who are wait staff working at a local diner).

Why should it be a requirement to invest hours upon hours of time to garner an ID just so you can exercise the constitutional right to vote?

Considering without an ID you can't:

Get a hotel room
Get a credit card
Get a grocery store discount card
Attend a school
Register your children for school
Get phone/cable service

etc etc etc

Yes? You really should invest the time to get an ID? Why does it have to be in Arizona in July? If you vote on november 5th, you have 364 other days a year to get your ID... the ID that you are required to have to work that job that you are claiming is keeping poor people away from the polls.

Sorry folks, but I dismiss the "it's too hard for poor people to get an ID" argument as utter nonsense.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
Lucan wrote:

Not sure what it's like in the US but over here the Town Hall is open between 11:00 and 16:00 on workdays. I can imagine that if you have two jobs to make ends meet, you can't actually afford the time to visit.

Phoenix proper is one of the largest geographical cities in America. With budget cuts on the state, county and city level, DMV places have closed to be consolidated (where one goes to get a state ID) and our meager bus system (we only have one light rail line) was cut back as well.

Imagine this past July when we went for several weeks of 110+ degree weather and thinking that someone can just walk a half mile to the nearest bus station and wait for the bus in the heat and then spend an hour on the bus (assuming no connections) to get to the nearest DMV. That is, of course, assuming they have a job that doesn't keep them there from 8 AM to 5 PM or they even have a job where they get paid time off (which would exclude low income workers who are wait staff working at a local diner).

Why should it be a requirement to invest hours upon hours of time to garner an ID just so you can exercise the constitutional right to vote?

Because I did it. And if I did, so can someone else.

Robear wrote:
Does anyone think there's a moral hazard with going out and rounding up people who you think are likely to vote for you, giving them gifts, and then delivering them to the polling station? One would think that if voting was important to you you'd get down to the polls and do it, or mail an absentee ballot, or something?

They are not telling you who to vote for... You seem to be arguing that there's a moral hazard in motivating people to vote...?

There's a moral hazard in giving people gifts to vote, yes. Honestly, if someone cannot be motivated to vote on their own, then I DO think it is a moral hazard herding them into the polling stations. I want people who care enough to do what is required to vote to vote.

bandit0013 wrote:

Sorry folks, but I dismiss the "it's too hard for poor people to get an ID" argument as utter nonsense.

That's not the argument. The argument is "it's not justifiable to put the burden on poor people to get an ID given the level of fear attached to the problem voter ID is supposed to solve is utter nonsense."

You can't just go putting burdens on people exercising their fundamental rights (btw, did you check to see if any of those things you listed are fundamental rights?) for edit: without a good enough reason (just to avoid technicalities)

sheared wrote:

There's a moral hazard in giving people gifts to vote, yes. Honestly, if someone cannot be motivated to vote on their own, then I DO think it is a moral hazard herding them into the polling stations. I want people who care enough to do what is required to vote to vote.

Thing is, what you want doesn't matter when it comes to someone else exercising their fundamental rights. I want people who are informed enough to make a justifiable choice between candidates to vote, but they just let any old nitwit who can get down to the polling station cast their vote if eligible to do so. Doesn't mean I should be able to stop them.

There's a moral hazard in giving people gifts to vote, yes.

Really? What is it?

bandit0013 wrote:

Sorry folks, but I dismiss the "it's too hard for poor people to get an ID" argument as utter nonsense.

A young man from a middle-class family (who happens to be currently unemployed) goes to the DMV in Wisconsin with his mom after passage of the recent Voter ID law.

In addition to an unstated "bank activity" threshold to determine residency which is apparently entirely at the clerk's discretion, citizens at the DMV to get their voting ID have to be aware not only that voting IDs are to be provided for free, but that they have to check a poorly-labeled box or they are charged the normal fee.

An estimated 300,000 eligible voters in the state of Wisconsin do not currently have a driver's license - a number made up disproportionately of the elderly, minorities, the disabled, and students.

A 2004 Ohio study showed voter fraud like that was 0.00004%. The Wisconsin vote fraud investigation (warning, PDF) MattDaddy linked to in the other discussion I mentioned upthread found that mistakes and fraud by election workers were a far more significant issue. I agree that it's critically important to ensure that election results accurately reflect the will of the people. However, instead of putting resources into the most likely sources of voting irregularities, the GOP is pursuing laws which are very likely to disenfranchise voters.

I'd love to hear a good articulation of why this is, other than "the voters most likely to be impacted tend to vote for Democrats".

Bandit, you're up.

bandit0013 wrote:

Yes? You really should invest the time to get an ID? Why does it have to be in Arizona in July? If you vote on november 5th, you have 364 other days a year to get your ID... the ID that you are required to have to work that job that you are claiming is keeping poor people away from the polls.

First, you are under no obligation to be employed in order to vote in this country. Additionally, the requirements for substantiating your right to work in the U.S. can easily be achieved without having a photo ID, and the documents you provide to establish your identity would not get you very far in meeting the requirements for being allowed to vote. For instance, if I provide an old voter registration card from any jurisdiction prior to the implementation of voter ID laws and my birth certificate, I can work. An old voter ID card and my birth certificate would not grant me access to my polling place since I need a photo ID.

Second, you don't have 364 other days. DMV offices in Arizona are open Monday-Friday, 8-5, and closed for all federal and state holidays. If someone is working that same schedule, they have to take time off from work in order to get an ID for voting purposes. If their employer does not give them time off with pay, they have to sacrifice money which they need in order to exercise one of the most basic rights they have in this country.

Sorry folks, but I dismiss the "it's too hard for poor people to get an ID" argument as utter nonsense.

"The law in all its majesty forbids the rich, as well as the poor, from sleeping under a bridge begging in the streets, stealing a loaf of bread." - Anatole France.

Additionally, I came across this:

More generally, there seems to be little statistical basis for the Republican fixation on voter fraud. The few studies that have been done show fraud to be insignificant to the outcome of elections; it has been measured at levels as low as .0004 percent of all ballots cast. Loraine Minnite, an assistant professor of political science at Barnard College, conducted a study of elections from 1992 to 2002 for Demos, a London- and New York-based public-policy think tank. Her analysis of the numbers showed that "the incidence of election fraud in the United States is low and that fraud has had a minimal impact on electoral outcomes." A 2006 report from the United States Election Assistance Commission, an independent agency created by Congress to "[conduct] research on election administration issues," calls Minnite's study the "most systematic look at fraud".

Perhaps someone might explain why we are so determined for finding a solution to a problem that barely exists.

To put it in perspective:

Brennan Center for Justice[/url]]The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. National Weather Service data shows that Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often.

The money spent on restrictive voter ID laws could just as profitably be spent on lightning rods for polling stations - and would have the added benefit of not disenfranchising anyone.

@Phoenix- I didn't say you had to have a job to vote, I just said if you did have one, it's very likely you have a state issued photo id already.

Second, you all have to address the fallacy that getting more people into the polling stations is a good thing. As someone else said, it would be best if the people hitting the polling stations were made up of informed voters. If someone is incapable of registering to vote on their own, or doesn't care enough to find out, what makes you think they add anything but randomness to the election?

Third, what's the count of illegal immigrants up to now? 10 million? 20? Having a national id would go a long way towards addressing that issue as well. Also, 300k people in Wisconsin who don't have identity cards, maybe the time would be better spent making sure they have them. I take it these people don't have bank accounts either, so I can't imagine how they manage their funds.

@Dimmerswitch- I find it particularly awesome that the link you submitted has several people from different states stating that the law hasn't seemed to cause any disenfranchisement nor has it seemed to reduce voter turnout.

All, let's see how our friends in left leaning Europe handle identification:

In Belgium, everyone above the age of 12 is issued an identity card, and from the age of 15 carrying this card at all times is mandatory.

It is compulsory for all German citizens age 16 or older to possess either a Personalausweis (identity card) or a passport but not to carry one.

A compulsory, universal ID system based on personal ID cards has been in place in Greece since World War II.

All Italian citizens can request an identity card issued by the municipality in which they live. The card lasts ten years and is a valid document to leave the country when travelling to another EU country. It is not compulsory to carry the card itself, as the authorities only have the right to ask for the identity of a person, not for a specific document. However, if public-security officers are not convinced of the claimed identity, such as may be the case for a verbally provided identity claim, they may arrest the claimant until his/her identity is ascertained; such an arrest is limited to the time necessary for identification and has no legal consequence.

Dutch citizens from the age of 14 are required to be able to show a valid identity document upon request by a police officer or similar official. Furthermore, identity documents are required when opening bank accounts and upon start of work for a new employer.

Every Polish citizen over 18 who is resident in Poland must have an Identity Card (Dowód osobisty) issued by the local administration.

All Portuguese citizens are required by law to obtain an Identity Card as they turn 16 years of age. They are not required to carry with them always but are obligated to present them to the lawful authorities if requested.

etc etc etc.

Frankly, things like voter fraud and illegal immigration aren't as big of a problem in most European countries because they are pretty diligent about keeping good records of their citizens and making sure they are easily identifiable. It would be near impossible for you to sneak into say, Sweden, and get a job, education benefits, or medical assistance. When it comes to identification and immigration, America's policies fall woefully short. If it were up to me photo ids would be compulsory at the age of 16.

bandit0013 wrote:

Second, you all have to address the fallacy that getting more people into the polling stations is a good thing.

Whoa. You need to explain how this is a fallacy.

bandit0013 wrote:

@Phoenix- I didn't say you had to have a job to vote, I just said if you did have one, it's very likely you have a state issued photo id already.

Second, you all have to address the fallacy that getting more people into the polling stations is a good thing. As someone else said, it would be best if the people hitting the polling stations were made up of informed voters. If someone is incapable of registering to vote on their own, or doesn't care enough to find out, what makes you think they add anything but randomness to the election?

How does being incapable to register to vote due to the economic reasons mentioned earlier imply that this person is also an uninformed voter.

bandit0013 wrote:

All, let's see how our friends in left leaning Europe handle identification

As your left leaning Dutch European friend I'd like to add that we don't have to register to vote. The necessary paper work is mailed to you about a week in advance. The government also goes to great lengths to ensure that every one votes. Polling stations tend to be located at walking distance from your residence. You can vote at any station in your manipulity, with a simple bit of paper work anywhere in the country. Opening hours are all day round.

That being said though. Getting an ID cart can only be done at inconvenient hours and will take a good chunk out of your day.

Robear wrote:
There's a moral hazard in giving people gifts to vote, yes.

Really? What is it?

People uninterested in the direction of the nation voting for the candidates that whoever gave them the gift told them to vote for.

NathanialG wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Second, you all have to address the fallacy that getting more people into the polling stations is a good thing.

Whoa. You need to explain how this is a fallacy.

I think what bandit is saying here is more that "more people" does not necessarily equate to "more informed people." The founding fathers were as terrified of a tyranny of the majority as they were of a tyranny of a king or oligarch. To suggest that they would be rolling in their graves just because some officials are trying to make it more likely that uninformed and under-invested voters are not going to the polling booth isn't just a potential misreading of Republican leadership intent, but is probably not keeping with what the founding fathers would have wanted anyway--were they alive today.

Does requiring an ID at the polling booth automatically disenfranchise voters? Maybe, but probably only those voters who don't care enough to go through the process of getting an ID. Voting is a privilege and responsibility. But if you are an ignorant voter, unaware of any of the candidates or issues, you really shouldn't be voting.

bandit0013 wrote:

Second, you all have to address the fallacy that getting more people into the polling stations is a good thing. As someone else said, it would be best if the people hitting the polling stations were made up of informed voters. If someone is incapable of registering to vote on their own, or doesn't care enough to find out, what makes you think they add anything but randomness to the election?

That person would be me: it's not about adding anything to the election. When it comes to a fundamental right like voting, the 'good thing' is the preservation of the liberty of the individual. We hope they use that liberty in a responsible fashion, but, when it comes to something like voting, the liberty is not just a means, but an end in itself.

All, let's see how our friends in left leaning Europe handle identification:

...

Frankly, things like voter fraud and illegal immigration aren't as big of a problem in most European countries because they are pretty diligent about keeping good records of their citizens and making sure they are easily identifiable.

No, it's because of a lot of things, like the guest worker programs of those countries, and because of the smaller need for low-skill labor due to differences in the economies: not a lot of work for people who pick lettuce in Sweden vs. in California.

When it comes to demands for low-skill labor with universal demand like, say, sex work, well:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/human-...

NevermoreRaven wrote:

The founding fathers were as terrified of a tyranny of the majority as they were of a tyranny of a king or oligarch. To suggest that they would be rolling in their graves just because some officials are trying to make it more likely that uninformed and under-invested voters are not going to the polling booth isn't just a potential misreading of Republican leadership intent, but is probably not keeping with what the founding fathers would have wanted anyway--were they alive today.

My guess is the founding fathers would not have wanted anything that would discourage the uninformed and under-invested voters of one ideological stripe to vote but would do nothing about the others. Better they cancel each other out if any of them are going to get to vote in the first place.

Voting is a privilege and responsibility.

at the very least, not in America--it's a fundamental right under our Constitution.

CheezePavilion wrote:

in America--it's a fundamental right under our Constitution.

Period, The End.

Paleocon wrote:

Interesting. One of my teabagger buddies just sent me this.

Why are left-wing activist groups so keen on registering the poor to vote?

Because they know the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery.

Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country -- which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote.

Frankly, if other people are going to vote in their own self-interest and not my own they shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.

I don't buy the anti-fraud angle.

In Belgium voting is compulsory so one can't make a straight comparison. But what happens is that every eligible voter gets a paper in the mail about two weeks before election date, with details on the place he's registered to. This is always the closest voting office to your domicile. You vote by handing over the paper and your ID on election day.

I see no reason why this should be different in the US. If you're against compulsory ID's fine, than use the fingerprint thing like in development countries. Bam, nobody can vote twice. It's not elegant, but it works and it's cheap and it doesn't invade your privacy except that people can see you went out to vote

Am I missing something maybe? Are there any real reasons why one should have to register in advance as a voter, except in the hopes certain voter blocks stay home on election day?

Robear wrote:

Quote:

There's a moral hazard in giving people gifts to vote, yes.

Really? What is it?

People uninterested in the direction of the nation voting for the candidates that whoever gave them the gift told them to vote for.

We already stipulated that in the factual case and the discussion, the people getting out the vote were not telling them who to vote for. You must have missed that.

Is there still a moral hazard when the people are not told who to vote for, as in the college get-out-the-vote drives that actually exist?

If it were up to me photo ids would be compulsory at the age of 16.

Try raising this issue at the next Tea Party meeting. It's not exactly conservative. Heck, Christian conservatives have fought this to avoid obvious danger of the Mark of the Beast, for decades...

Maq wrote:

Frankly, if other people are going to vote in their own self-interest and not my own they shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.

If I could +1 this, like this, give you karma, vote it up, I'd do it a 100 times. Vote early, vote often!

bandit0013 wrote:

@Dimmerswitch- I find it particularly awesome that the link you submitted has several people from different states stating that the law hasn't seemed to cause any disenfranchisement nor has it seemed to reduce voter turnout.

The two states I believe you're referring to are Indiana and Georgia.

Fuentes-Rohwer said Indiana's law hasn't been around long enough for researchers to paint an accurate picture of the law's effect. The closest seems to be a 2009 study conducted by Michael Pitts, a law professor with Indiana University-Indianapolis. Pitts' study concluded that of the 2.8 million Indiana voters in the 2008 election, 1,039 arrived at the polls without a valid ID and were forced to cast a provisional ballot. In the end, only 137 of those voters returned with a valid ID and had their votes counted.

That's 802 people who would have otherwise been able to vote. Assuming Ohio's incidence of individual voter fraud, 2.8 million voters would be 1.12 fraudulent votes. Let's round that up, and further posit that Indiana is such a cesspool of voter fraud that their fraudulent rate is 10 times that of their neighbor to the east. That brings us to 12 fraudulent votes prevented, and 790 citizens disenfranchised.

Similar concerns were expressed in Georgia, where lawmakers passed photo ID in 2007. To quell fears, officials there conducted an $850,000 education and outreach campaign that included thousands of radio ads.

Matt Carrothers, spokesman for the elections division of the Georgia Secretary of State, said the state has gone through 35 state and local elections since the law passed and so far there do not appear to be any problems with voter turnout. "If anything, the numbers have increased," he said.

In Georgia, minority voting increased dramatically between the 2004 election and the 2008 election. Indiana also experienced an uptick in minority voting. But election experts point out that the 2008 election, in which the United States elected its first black president, skews the results.

Emphasis added.

It's fine that you don't have a problem with making it harder for disadvantaged citizens to exercise their right to vote. I obviously disagree pretty strongly on that point - the right to vote is foundational to a democracy (I'd argue that in a democracy it's the most important right we have). The Voter ID laws the GOP are pursuing right now are solving a non-existent problem, at the cost of millions of dollars, with the unintended effect of disenfranchising voters who tend to vote for Democrats.

Royal Masset, the former political director of the Republican Party of Texas[/url]]requiring photo IDs could cause enough of a dropoff in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 percent to the Republican vote

Well, maybe not unintended...

[Edit to add: looks like that Houston Chronicle link throws a 404 intermittently. Here's a Google cache link]

Dimmerswitch wrote:

That's 802 people who would have otherwise been able to vote. Assuming Ohio's incidence of individual voter fraud, 2.8 million voters would be 1.12 fraudulent votes. Let's round that up, and further posit that Indiana is such a cesspool of voter fraud that their fraudulent rate is 10 times that of their neighbor to the east. That brings us to 12 fraudulent votes prevented, and 790 citizens disenfranchised.

You can't make the assumption that the 790 people are legit. Also, if the election wasn't decided by 790 votes its inconsequential. It's just as likely they knew this and didn't bother to go back and prove ID. If the election had been close would they have? We can't know.

CheezePavilion wrote:

My guess is the founding fathers would not have wanted anything that would discourage the uninformed and under-invested voters of one ideological stripe to vote but would do nothing about the others. Better they cancel each other out if any of them are going to get to vote in the first place.

Um, Tea Party people may have views you don't agree with, but them and republicans in general have surveyed to not only be more "invested" in the political process post Obama, but they consistently poll as being more informed on the workings of government and current events. I mean, it's totally fair to point out that both sides misrepresent facts, but democratic voters nearly always poll as the least informed, I recall seeing a poll before the last election that showed that only like 30% of democratic voters in the northeast knew that the democrats had a majority in the senate and only like 22% knew that Harry Reid was senate majority leader, contrasted with 65% of republican voters.

Lots of left leaning people hate right wing talk radio as well but listeners of talk radio consistently score the highest on being informed.

Robear wrote:
If it were up to me photo ids would be compulsory at the age of 16.

Try raising this issue at the next Tea Party meeting. It's not exactly conservative. Heck, Christian conservatives have fought this to avoid obvious danger of the Mark of the Beast, for decades...

I know, good thing I'm an actual living breathing independent. I also wouldn't vote for a tea party candidate because I find most of their views are asinine. As noted above though, they are more informed than the average voter, they just don't draw good conclusions imho.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

in America--it's a fundamental right under our Constitution.

Period, The End.

So is owning a firearm, but you still have to go through the process to exercise that right. Just because something is a fundamental right under the constitution doesn't mean you can't be asked to show proof of identity, etc to exercise that right. What is prevented is unreasonable actions (like a poll tax) deliberately intended to discouraged voters. Requiring a free state issued ID that is easily obtainable by anyone who is willing to take an hour of their time during the 250 days per year that most issuers are open is not unreasonable.

I highly doubt that anyone here would support the fundamental right of owning a firearm meaning that anyone without ID can just walk into a store and get guns and ammo.

bandit0013 wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

That's 802 people who would have otherwise been able to vote. Assuming Ohio's incidence of individual voter fraud, 2.8 million voters would be 1.12 fraudulent votes. Let's round that up, and further posit that Indiana is such a cesspool of voter fraud that their fraudulent rate is 10 times that of their neighbor to the east. That brings us to 12 fraudulent votes prevented, and 790 citizens disenfranchised.

You can't make the assumption that the 790 people are legit. Also, if the election wasn't decided by 790 votes its inconsequential. It's just as likely they knew this and didn't bother to go back and prove ID. If the election had been close would they have? We can't know.

Bolded the part I'm responding to. This is legally, morally, and factually wrong. Every vote needs to count in a democracy. By your logic, it would be okay to disenfranchise any number of people as long as it's less than the margin of victory. Furthermore, your logic would also mean that voter fraud is acceptable, as long as it's less than the margin of victory.

Is there any number of legitimate voters being denied the right to vote that would become unacceptable to you?

[Edit to add: and the point still stands that these laws are being passed to solve a statistically nonexistent problem, with the goal of suppressing Democratic turnout.]

@Dimmer,

They weren't denied the right to vote. They cast a provisional ballot and just had to come back with an ID. They didn't. It's on them.

In a democracy every valid vote should count and without proof of ID those votes were invalid. I was just pointing out that since the votes weren't in the margin of victory that probably those people didn't bother to come back and provide the proof. I have no issue with this, and I don't see why you would.

As for suppressing democratic turnout, have you provided real evidence that this is occurring? All your links seemed to have no evidence of it, just hyperbole. How about we flip the argument, instead of me having to prove why it's a good thing that voters can show they are who they say they are, how about you prove that it's a bad idea to do so? I would think of the two sides, that's the much more difficult argument to make.

If you don't have some form of identification and some alleges fraud occurred, how do you check it? Is that really a position you want to support?

I will come up (alone among the leftists?) and say that it is indeed a moral hazard to give gifts in order to get people to vote. The simplest way to solve this problem is to remove barriers from voting and put barriers up for not voting. I want mandatory voting.

bandit0013 wrote:

As someone else said, it would be best if the people hitting the polling stations were made up of informed voters.

I used to believe that as well, but now I no longer do. First of all, only a small minority of potential voters are informed. The vast majority of voters that think they are informed are actually "informed", meaning that they have come to their conclusion through a skewed or biased source/process and do not realize it. This could be due to getting all of their info from a set of similarly biased sources (like just watching Fox News), or due to an attempt to be more thorough, but through ignorance of the subject matter not realizing that the sources of one side of the issue do not have same validity or body of evidence as their opponent (easy to do with global warming for instance). Even someone that does all the right research and reads all the right sources can easily fall into the trap of overly weighting evidence you agree with and disregarding evidence that you don’t agree with so that you always finish with the same position you walked in with. I think that the true fallacy here is weighting the opinions of those that have done hours and hours of research simply to validate to themselves that their gut instinct as more valuable than the people who just stick with their gut instinct in general. In theory there is a huge difference between those people, but in practice there really isn’t. Second of all, barriers to voting do not tend towards informed voters, they really favor enthusiastic voters, and those aren't the same thing. There are apathetic informed voters, and very enthusiastic uninformed voters. If the barriers to voting rose ever and ever higher the shrinking number of informed voters dedicated to performing their civic duty would be swamped out by the people scared of the Secret Kenyan Muslim stealing their guns. Honestly right now I’m not as concerned with the tyranny of the majority, I’m more worried about the tyranny of the crazy. I think that the best way to combat that is to force all of those hard-working, exhausted, lazy, busy, normal people (aka the 43.2% that didn’t vote for their last President, and the 62.2% that didn’t vote for their last Congressman) to go out and vote each election.

bandit wrote:

All, let's see how our friends in left leaning Europe handle identification:

I find it telling that you want to look to "nanny-states" for guidance on how to oversee their citizens, but not for how to nurture them.

I would actually like to see where these folks would draw the line at legitimate vs. illegitimate tactics vis voter suppression.

Is it okay, for instance, to deny voters the right to vote based on typographical errors on voter rolls?
Is it okay, for instance, to deny voters the right to vote by falsely advertising an incorrect election date?
Is it okay, for instance, to deny voters the right to vote based on incorrect voter restrictions?
Is it okay, for instance, to deny voters the right to vote through police intimidation?
Is it okay, for instance, to deny voters the right to vote through acts of vandalism?
Is it okay, for instance, to deny voters the right to vote through acts of terrorism?

Is it okay to deny voters the right to vote at all?

bandit0013 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

My guess is the founding fathers would not have wanted anything that would discourage the uninformed and under-invested voters of one ideological stripe to vote but would do nothing about the others. Better they cancel each other out if any of them are going to get to vote in the first place.

Um, Tea Party people may have views you don't agree with,

The teabaggers have views the founding fathers would not have agreed with.

but them and republicans in general have surveyed to not only be more "invested" in the political process post Obama, but they consistently poll as being more informed on the workings of government and current events.

The top failing grade is still a failing grade.

bandit0013 wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

in America--it's a fundamental right under our Constitution.

Period, The End.

So is owning a firearm, but you still have to go through the process to exercise that right. Just because something is a fundamental right under the constitution doesn't mean you can't be asked to show proof of identity, etc to exercise that right. What is prevented is unreasonable actions (like a poll tax) deliberately intended to discouraged voters. Requiring a free state issued ID that is easily obtainable by anyone who is willing to take an hour of their time during the 250 days per year that most issuers are open is not unreasonable.

I highly doubt that anyone here would support the fundamental right of owning a firearm meaning that anyone without ID can just walk into a store and get guns and ammo.

Voter fraud is comparable to gun violence as a problem in our society?

I'm going to have some fun with your comments now Dimmer, please don't get offended. I'd like to note that concealed/carry permit holders are orders of magnitude less likely to be involved in a crime, and that a gun is 60 times more likely to be used in crime prevention than for committing a crime, and that 98% of the time a gun is involved for safety it isn't fired, the sight of a firearm is (sensibly) enough to deter crime.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

It's fine that you don't have a problem with making it harder for citizens to exercise their right to a firearm. I obviously disagree pretty strongly on that point - the right to bear arms is foundational to a our constitution (I'd argue that in the united states it's the 2nd most important right we have in the bill of rights). The Gun Control laws the Democrats are pursuing right now are solving a non-existent problem, at the cost of millions of dollars, with the unintended effect of disenfranchising citizens who want to be able to defend themselves, their family, and their property.

Again, just because something is a right doesn't mean that reasonable checks should be applied.