Well, frankly, if you have that attitude I don't want YOU voting ... but we all have a right to vote and we should not make it harder to exercise that right unless we have a damned good reason.
Really poor analogy to say the least. Illegal voting can actually undermine the voice of legal citizens. Your example was a shot in the dark that hit nothing and meant nothing.Any time you place additional requirements on an actiivty you will reduce participation in that activity. Common sense should tell you that without having to look at a study.
Basically I think you're looking at this issue in an ass-backwards fashion. You don't justify a regulation by first looking at how hard it is to meet. I mean, hell, why not require that anyone walking in public wear a baseball cap? It's pretty easy for anyone to get a baseball cap, right? What' the big deal?
Rather, you start by looking at whether there is a proven need for the regulation at all. Then, IF there's a need for some kind of regulation, you look at whether the regulation that's suggested to address it is reasonable relative to the scope of the problem, or whether, perhaps, the regulation might do more harm than good.
In the present case, there is next to no evidence that voter impersonation is a real problem in this country. It appears to be all but nonexistent. So the alleged harm that states are seeking to address -- elections that aren't fully representative -- seems to be made worse, rather than better, but imposing voter ID laws.
To the extent that there is any real voter fraud it appears to occur almost exclusively as a result of manipulation by poll workers -- rather than as a result of voter impersonation. So if voter fraud is REALLY the issue, why aren't Republicans proposing all kinds of regulations to prevent improper manipulation of votes by poll workers? It makes one wonder if their real interest isn't voter suppression rather than voter fraud.
Speaking of Reagan, didn't he have the same reason for leaving the Democratic party?Arlen Spector was a moderate Republican for years. The party left him, before he left the party. He left specifically because of people like you, who pushed the party so far to the right that it didn't reflect his beliefs any more. For all the talk about a "true Republican" you've forgotten that the Republican party is supposed to be center-right. There should be room on the right for the extremists. For all the lip service given to Reagan by the TP, if he were a candidate, they'd dismiss him as a RINO.
Arlen Spector was a moderate Republican for years. The party left him, before he left the party. He left specifically because of people like you, who pushed the party so far to the right that it didn't reflect his beliefs any more. For all the talk about a "true Republican" you've forgotten that the Republican party is supposed to be center-right. There should be room on the right for the extremists. For all the lip service given to Reagan by the TP, if he were a candidate, they'd dismiss him as a RINO.
Really poor analogy to say the least.
Because illegals DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE, maybe? :roll:
Did you read Public Act Four passed by the Michigan Legislature on a straight party vote in 2011?
that is what the article was discussing.
You ask for evidence, then dismiss the evidence and tell me I have provided too much for you to read and want the short readers digest version. Please make up your mind.
Its all there for you - no matter if you want to dismiss it out of party loyalty or not. That does not change reality and the war on voting rights.
As I said, assuming that IDs were free, that removes any obstacle for people "too poor". If people were able to make requests through the mail, that would remove any obstacles for people "physically incapable". So it's not that hard to make it possible to get IDs if you want one. I'm sure that wouldn't stop the ACLU from making the same claim because there would be people out there who wouldn't even make the attempt to get an ID and thus, couldn't vote. Laziness is not an excuse.
And your reason for saying so would be....?
The only reason the ACLU can complain legitmately about this case is because of the possible disenfranchisement it can cause. And for all the flak that the ACLU gets for being "too liberal" most of its members, from what I've seen, are actually libertarian leaning.
That's the point of the law in the first place, to ensure that only people legally permitted to vote, ie. those with valid identification, can vote. :roll:
Can cause? Let's see evidence that it's ACTUALLY causing any.
You know how long it takes to get enough statisitcal evidence to prove one way or the other? With things like this, on AVG 5 years of data is required before an analysis can even be started.
I heard Joe Lieberman make the same arguement.
If you want a fraud proof voting system, call VISA or MasterCard.
They'd have one up and running in 30 days.
If you feel disenfranchised, call VISA, they'll enfranchise you.
Then get started. Let me know when you have any actual data.
Then get started. Let me know when you have any actual data.
If you want a fraud proof voting system, call VISA or MasterCard.
They'd have one up and running in 30 days.
If you feel disenfranchised, call VISA, they'll enfranchise you.
I'm afraid that the burden is on the party seeking to implement a new regulation to establish that there is some rational basis to support it. So as soon as you have some actual data establishing that voter impersonation is a real problem, let us know.
In other words, you've got nothing and you're shifting the burden of proof. No surprise there.
J, you have got to be kidding me lol. First of all, Lenin doesn't represent all socialists.
Secondly, yes, you can be socialist and believe certain things in the Bible.
Third, I thought all those liberation theologists were Marxists too?
I'm afraid that the burden is on the party seeking to implement a new regulation to establish that there is some rational basis to support it. So as soon as you have some actual data establishing that voter impersonation is a real problem, let us know.
No, the burden of proof is where it's always been -- on the party seeking to implement new government regulation. In this case that would be you.
I'm afraid that the burden is on the party seeking to implement a new regulation to establish that there is some rational basis to support it. So as soon as you have some actual data establishing that voter impersonation is a real problem, let us know.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?