• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Do you support Voter ID Laws?

Do you support Voter Id Laws?


  • Total voters
    106
Low information voters?? Not smart enough??? Really....tell me again how you don't think voter ID laws aren't like a literacy test.

Reading comprehension again. I don't believe that. It's the Democrats that claim their voters would get disenfranchised.

Showing a photo ID is not a literacy test. It's simply proving who you are.
 
When you say you want voting tied to taxes you are effectively saying you want to artificially restrict voting and keep out people that aren't likely to vote as you would vote. There is no other explanation.

Voting and taxes should be 100% mutually exclusive. Fact is, government represents everybody to some degree, hence everybody has some "skin in the game" ("skin" is more than just money), hence everybody should have the ability to vote.

lets say the number of non tax payers (FIT) goes to 60%. what is to stop them from voting in people who will continue to raise taxes on the 40% of us who do pay taxes?

the current system will become that when there are more non-tax payers than tax payers since the politicians who want to win will cater to the majority

I want a tax system that prevents or strongly discourages such a possibility. a flat tax would do that-or weighted voting would as well

let
 
Personally, I think that you should have to get your voters' ID (which should be provided free) by passing the Citizenship Exam, the same as you get a Drivers License by passing a drivers' test.
 
Personally, I think that you should have to get your voters' ID (which should be provided free) by passing the Citizenship Exam, the same as you get a Drivers License by passing a drivers' test.


that would get rid of 80% of the voters I expect.
 
lets say the number of non tax payers (FIT) goes to 60%. what is to stop them from voting in people who will continue to raise taxes on the 40% of us who do pay taxes?

the current system will become that when there are more non-tax payers than tax payers since the politicians who want to win will cater to the majority

I want a tax system that prevents or strongly discourages such a possibility. a flat tax would do that-or weighted voting would as well

let
Voter laziness and apathy at the lower ends would prevent that. That's one of the more common scenarios I hear, but I don't think it'd happen. They're just not that pro-active or organized.

I am a strong advocate of a flat tax, btw.
 
Reading comprehension again. I don't believe that. It's the Democrats that claim their voters would get disenfranchised.

Showing a photo ID is not a literacy test. It's simply proving who you are.

Are you a democrat? I've never seen a democrat say that. Do you have any direct quotes of a democrat saying things like "low information" or "not smart enough" to get an ID, not smart enough to vote? Please back up your claim that democrats said that.
 
that would get rid of 80% of the voters I expect.

Then perhaps people would have an incentive to go read up on how we are supposed to be governed. In the meantime, we've filtered out the people who have no business helping to steer the world's only remaining superpower.
 
A minority ruling the majority usually doesn't end well.

It's been that way for years, or haven't you noticed how few people turn out to vote?
 
It's been that way for years, or haven't you noticed how few people turn out to vote?

The only way I'd know that is to see the exit polling or final tally and compare it to other years. So I can't say that I have personally noticed. But I think that it will be hard for democrats to inspire the same kind of turnout they had for Obama. But I don't know...it seems like blacks are getting more motivated to vote than they were before 2008.
 
That's a question a lot of people are asking.

That's a question a lot of Democrats are asking. Republicans have decided that they don't give a **** about government imposing solutions to things that aren't really a problem.
 
State that require Photo ID are required to provide Photo ID to all people who want it at no cost. Problem solved.

Shouldn't you first ask whether or not in-person voter impersonation is actually a problem worth dealing with?

For each fraudulent vote, how many legitimate votes are you willing to stop?
 
The only way I'd know that is to see the exit polling or final tally and compare it to other years. So I can't say that I have personally noticed. But I think that it will be hard for democrats to inspire the same kind of turnout they had for Obama. But I don't know...it seems like blacks are getting more motivated to vote than they were before 2008.

Most only turned out in 2008 so they could vote for a black president. They didn't come out in 2012 and it seems that is probably a one-time thing. But still, we're looking at barely half of eligible Americans heading to the polls in Presidential elections, even less for anything else.
 
PEOPLE who do not have a driver's license or similar ID I wonder about. I think that voting should be the same as buying a firearm in terms of ID requirement

I'm confused. Why would you wonder about people who don't have an ID?

There are lots of people, especially those who live in major cities, who don't have a car or drive. There are also lots of people who prefer bicycles, walking, riding a horse...why would they need a drivers license?

What purpose does a State ID do when you don't drive? Kids live perfectly happy lives without ID, because their parents can ID them. There are all sorts of ways to prove who you are without requiring a government ID.

As for comparing voting ID requirements with buying firearms requirements? There should be no ID requirements to buy a firearm! Much less an ID to vote. If you are a free citizen, not incarcerated, under supervision, or committed to an asylum, then there should be no restrictions on your right to keep and bear arms, OR VOTE. Period!
 
Last edited:
If it's not protected then what is stopping the states from out right banning minorities and women from voting?

Provisions of the US Constitution and Amendments because those are protected classes. There is nothing, however, to prevent states from denying the vote to people with blue eyes or who are less than six feet tall (for example), because those are not protected classes.
 
Provisions of the US Constitution and Amendments because those are protected classes. There is nothing, however, to prevent states from denying the vote to people with blue eyes or who are less than six feet tall (for example), because those are not protected classes.

It's unconstitutional for the government to pass laws that aren't uniform and applied equally to all the people. The 14th amendment expands on the protection against discrimination and incorporates that restriction on the states...so I would argue that you're wrong...the states can not legally discriminate or deny a protected right to any citizen based on their race, gender, class, etc.
 
It's unconstitutional for the government to pass laws that aren't uniform and applied equally to all the people. The 14th amendment expands on the protection against discrimination and incorporates that restriction on the states...so I would argue that you're wrong...the states can not legally discriminate or deny a protected right to any citizen based on their race, gender, class, etc.

And again, eye color and height (for example) are not protected.
 
It's unconstitutional for the government to pass laws that aren't uniform and applied equally to all the people. The 14th amendment expands on the protection against discrimination and incorporates that restriction on the states...so I would argue that you're wrong...the states can not legally discriminate or deny a protected right to any citizen based on their race, gender, class, etc.

"...based on their race, gender, class, etc., including that class of persons with blue eyes and that class of persons exceeding six feet in height."
 
They only claim racism because it is more likely to affect Democratic voters than Republican ones and nobody would care if they screamed foul because of that.

The truth is that democrats fear voter ID laws because it makes it makes it much more difficult to commit voter fraud. Illegal immigrants cannot vote, they cannot send people to vote on phony registration of names off of cemetary grave stones, etc. Individuals who intend to vote illegally are less likely to take a risk getting caught if they have to show a valid ID.
 
And again, eye color and height (for example) are not protected.

I think eye color and height are considered inalienable natural rights and are protected.
 
Let's suppose that they wildly underestimated it by a factor of a million. The popular individual elections were effected by a rate of about .3% skewed to one candidate over another. And this justifies keeping what probably amounts to a few million people voting every election how?

90 million people vote during presidential elections. Even if a few thousand people double their vote with fraud, it will not change the course of almost any election, but the price of voter IDs is that we keep ~1 million people from voting every year.

So which one of these stances is more democratic?

The stance that requires a voters to show a valid ID to vote. Otherwise your vote does not mean anything if it is canceled out by some voter not legally entitled to vote. And you suggestion that voter fraud has a very negligible effect is laughable. Many state and local elections are decided by a very small number of votes....the same with many congressional elections. And the 2000 presidential race was decided on less then 500 votes
 
Back
Top Bottom