• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Conservatives Are Finally Admitting What Voter Suppression Laws Are All About

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
North Carolina's new voter ID law is ostensibly designed to reduce voter fraud. That's the official story, anyway. But if that's the case, why did North Carolina also pass a whole bunch of other voting restrictions, including limits on early voting? Phyllis Schlafly, the doyen of right-wing crankery, explains that the reason was simple: "Early voting plays a major role in Obama's ground game....[It] is an essential component of the Democrats' get-out-the-vote campaign." Steve Benen comments:

Read more @: Conservatives Are Finally Admitting What Voter Suppression Laws Are All About | Mother Jones

Like we already didnt know what this was about. Its about time they actually confess what this fraud called "Voter ID Laws" are about... Voter suppression..
 
It's a pretty long jump to say that proving you are who you say is voter suppression. Cutting down or doing away with early voting would eliminate a certain amount of voter fraud. What exactly is it that you oppose about the elimination of voter fraud??
 
It's a pretty long jump to say that proving you are who you say is voter suppression. Cutting down or doing away with early voting would eliminate a certain amount of voter fraud. What exactly is it that you oppose about the elimination of voter fraud??

:lamo
Where is this "voter fraud"? I hear its pretty rare.. But hey what the hell at least republicans are finally starting to admit that the reason they are doing this because most early voters voted for Obama, and thats why they are doing this.
 
:lamo
Where is this "voter fraud"? I hear its pretty rare.. But hey what the hell at least republicans are finally starting to admit that the reason they are doing this because most early voters voted for Obama, and thats why they are doing this.

If it is rare (and I'll guess that it is) then what it so suppressive about requiring ID? People are supposed to have ID and show it to the nice policeman.
 
If it is rare (and I'll guess that it is) then what it so suppressive about requiring ID? People are supposed to have ID and show it to the nice policeman.

Poll tax which is unconstitutional. Unless we give away ID's for free then its considered a poll tax, and its also not just that whats the point of getting rid of on the day registration, or how about early voting?
 
It's a pretty long jump to say that proving you are who you say is voter suppression. Cutting down or doing away with early voting would eliminate a certain amount of voter fraud. What exactly is it that you oppose about the elimination of voter fraud??

This is pretty simple. For every policy intervention, there are frequently multiple effects. One of those is supposedly to prevent voter fraud. Another would also reduce the amount of time a voter has to vote.

Now, next step. How serious is the voter fraud problem? From what we truly know about it, it is a rather small problem. On the other hand, it has massive public play.

Now, yet another step. How frequently is early voting used? From what we know, it is immensely popular in North Carolina and throughout the country. In fact, it is so popular many argue that the lines are still egregiously long.

In the supposed effort to make America's elections more secure from fraud and abuse, you would still impact the ability for the average, law-abiding citizen to vote by reducing his or her ability to do so.

While we can discuss the relative cost and benefits of a voter ID requirement (I say it is not needed, but also not always inherently difficult or expensive to acquire), what seems to be fairly obvious is that while we are chasing a small population (perhaps larger, but even then, people are arguing based on desperate guesswork) of lawbreakers, we are making it much more difficult for a much larger percentage of the population to exercise their civic duty.
 
It's a pretty long jump to say that proving you are who you say is voter suppression. Cutting down or doing away with early voting would eliminate a certain amount of voter fraud. What exactly is it that you oppose about the elimination of voter fraud??

Here is the problem. On the surface it seems irrational to oppose voter ID etc. When you look deeper however these changes primarily impact poor and minority voters who also happen to be democrats. There are documented confessions of GOP members admitting that this is their actual intent. It is part of their strategy. Think about it, if Obama targeted poor and minority voters to help assure a win doesn't it make sense that the opposing party would do something to minimize their voice when and where they can? If the GOP intentions truly so noble and all they are really interested in is minimizing voter fraud why not find a way that does not have these impacts?

In addition, voter fraud actually occurs in such tiny numbers it seems odd that members of a party that profess to be so concerned with spending would push programs that are very expensive in response to so few actual cases.
 
Poll tax which is unconstitutional. Unless we give away ID's for free then its considered a poll tax, and its also not just that whats the point of getting rid of on the day registration, or how about early voting?

We have an election day, not month or whatever. As to same day registration, there are also local elections/issues on the same ballot that have residency requirements. If a person can make it to a poll to vote, they should certainly be able to acquire the appropriate ID to do so, and yes, in most jurisdictions where IDs are required, they are available at no cost to those that say they cannot afford to purchase one...
 
We have an election day, not month or whatever. As to same day registration, there are also local elections/issues on the same ballot that have residency requirements. If a person can make it to a poll to vote, they should certainly be able to acquire the appropriate ID to do so, and yes, i most jurisdictions where IDs are required they are available at no cost to those that say they cannot afford to purchase one...

Not true. Im from Kansas, when i went to go pick up an ID it cost me $20 to pay for it.
 
Poll tax which is unconstitutional. Unless we give away ID's for free then its considered a poll tax, and its also not just that whats the point of getting rid of on the day registration, or how about early voting?

I take advantage of early voting because I'm not attracted to standing in line. I don't see a problem with same day registration either.

But the ID argument as being a "poll tax" can be taken pretty far. Must we provide a voting booth within walking distance of every possible voter?
 
Read more @: Conservatives Are Finally Admitting What Voter Suppression Laws Are All About | Mother Jones

Like we already didnt know what this was about. Its about time they actually confess what this fraud called "Voter ID Laws" are about... Voter suppression..

Mandatory identification is a method os social control, and I oppose it.

Whenever we agree to this type of classification document we are also agreeing that government needs a method of monitoring us beyond the immediate purpose of the ID.

In this case the claim is that in order to prevent fraudulent voting we need an ID to make sure "one person one vote" is enforceable. Why? All one needs do is show their voter registration card and then get an indelible stamp when they go to vote and viola, can't vote again for a week.

People often point to a drivers license as a good example of accepting the premise of ID's. Well once upon a time the drivers license sole purpose was to show one had completed the legal qualifications to drive a car. NOW it is used as a required form of ID for all sorts of other purposes. So much so that many (if not all) states have required either it or a "state ID" for identification purposes while a resident.

Meanwhile, our growing acceptance of the need to be "identified" as a government purpose is already leading to discussions of "electronic tagging" of all citizens at birth. Hell no!
 
Last edited:
But the ID argument as being a "poll tax" can be taken pretty far. Must we provide a voting booth within walking distance of every possible voter?

I dont see how poll locations and requiring a ID are connected...
 
Not true. Im from Kansas, when i went to go pick up an ID it cost me $20 to pay for it.

How do you function without ID? I hardly leave my house (I am servant to cats) and I must pull out my DL at least once a day. I'm curious how you manage around that. Do you pay all cash for everything?
 
I support voter ID laws but I oppose the elimination of early or mail-in voting.

I think that it would be a fairly simple matter to craft voter ID laws such that they reasonably accomodate those who wish to vote early or by mail.

I've proposed several times before that voter IDs be issued in-person through various government agencies/buildings (police stations, county and municipal courthouses or seats of government, post offices, National Guard armories, etc...).

I see no reason why the voter, at the time of applying for the ID or at a later date as the desire/need to vote early or by mail becomes manifest, couldn't show their ID at the issuing facility and register to vote early or by mail.

It may place a bit of additional burden on the voter but I don't think it's an unreasonable burden and it certainly isn't a poll tax.
 
I dont see how poll locations and requiring a ID are connected...

If I must travel to vote, that is a "poll tax" for my bus fare or my gasoline. So, are we not obligated to make voting completely free of cost without creating an inadvertent poll tax?
 
If I must travel to vote, that is a "poll tax" for my bus fare or my gasoline. So, are we not obligated to make voting completely free of cost without creating an inadvertent poll tax?

A poll tax is something you must provide or pay for to the government to physically vote in the booth.
 
Cutting down or doing away with early voting would eliminate a certain amount of voter fraud.

---------------------
How so?
Less people could vote, therefore, less voter fraud?
I would prefer it if more people voted.
 
Not true. Im from Kansas, when i went to go pick up an ID it cost me $20 to pay for it.

Dang, no wonder the non-issue is an issue. Progs can't even figure out when things are free.

Valid Photo IDs • S.A.F.E. Act • Kansas Secretary of State Kris W. Kobach

Free Photographic Identification
A registered voter who does not possess any of the approved government-issued photographic identification documents and who wishes to vote may apply for a free nondriver identification card through the Division of Vehicles, Kansas Department of Revenue.

In order to obtain a nondriver identification card, a person must present acceptable proof of identity and proof of residence to the Division of Vehicles.

In order to obtain a fee waiver for a nondriver identification card, the person must also sign a form containing an affidavit stating, among other things, that he or she:

1.is registered to vote in Kansas, and
2.does not possess a photographic identification document that is valid for voting purposes, and
3.has provided evidence of current Kansas voting registration status. Examples of such evidence of registration status include a voter registration card (original or photocopy) or a printout from Kansas VoterView.
 
Back
Top Bottom