• 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!

Poll: The Right of American Citizens to Vote Shall Not Be Infringed.

Glen Contrarian said:
And the entire conservative argument that such people COULD drive from voting district to voting district, voting multiple times for whoever they wanted to win, is not borne out by actual EVIDENCE. There's no EVIDENCE of widespread voter fraud in any state. Why? Because while most people cherish the right to vote, there's almost none who are willing to commit voter fraud. The instances of in-person voter fraud is almost completely nonexistent.

So what's happening - at least in the case of the conservatives who have drunk deeply of the rampant-voter-fraud Kool-Aid - is that they are willing to effectively disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of eligible voters just to prevent the vanishingly-small number of instances of in-person voter fraud.

But there's many conservatives who know that the voter-fraud red herring for what it is, who know that they are supporting voter suppression...and who simply think that such voter suppression is the way it should be in America, just as it was during Jim Crow.
Click to expand...

Yet that very same valid, state issued, photo ID requirement is seen as a must to legally buy alcohol, tobacco, guns or ammo. How does that logic work?
 
the right of dead people to vote is fundamental to california remaining a blue state
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That's the cliche yes.
There aren't any qualified candidates, imo and the future isn't looking any better.

The George Carlin perspective, is that if you do vote, you shouldn't complain.
You helped put them there, it's partly your fault.
Click to expand...

Not if I voted for someone else.

Hey, hey, don't blame me!

I didn't vote for the S.O.B!
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yet that very same valid, state issued, photo ID requirement is seen as a must to legally buy alcohol, tobacco, guns or ammo. How does that logic work?
Click to expand...

Because of this little thing called EVIDENCE. There's overwhelming evidence that if a photo ID is NOT required to buy alcohol, tobacco, guns, or ammo, then those who cannot buy them legally WILL buy them - and lots of them. On the other hand, there's precisely ZERO evidence that there would be widespread in-person voter fraud if photo ID were required.

Just because photo ID is necessary for many things does NOT mean that photo ID is necessary for EVERYthing.
 
Ancient Herald said:
Thank you for this. This is one of many reasons why I have a strong distrust of polls.
Click to expand...

Actually, polls that are well-designed can be trusted...which is why Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com went 50-for-50 in declaring who would win which state in the 2012 presidential election.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Because of this little thing called EVIDENCE. There's overwhelming evidence that if a photo ID is NOT required to buy alcohol, tobacco, guns, or ammo, then those who cannot buy them legally WILL buy them - and lots of them. On the other hand, there's precisely ZERO evidence that there would be widespread in-person voter fraud if photo ID were required.

Just because photo ID is necessary for many things does NOT mean that photo ID is necessary for EVERYthing.
Click to expand...

Since no one is keeping track, how do we know that there isn't voter fraud by people who don't have to show ID?

I had to show my ID to use a park pass to get into a national park the other day. Was that discriminatory? I showed it to use a credit card in WalMart, don't show it to buy alcohol.... maybe the sellers are getting careless.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Since no one is keeping track, how do we know that there isn't voter fraud by people who don't have to show ID?

I had to show my ID to use a park pass to get into a national park the other day. Was that discriminatory? I showed it to use a credit card in WalMart, don't show it to buy alcohol.... maybe the sellers are getting careless.
Click to expand...

"How do we know there isn't?"

That's a logical fallacy called "proving the negative".

Besides, if such were widespread, it would require at least some form of coordination, some kind of communication between those who are going to commit the voter fraud, even if it were something as simple as "let's all go vote in District A and then we'll all drive over to District B". Problem is, this is by definition a conspiracy, and conspiracies involving more than five people are incredibly difficult to keep secret...and the likelihood that the thousands - or hundreds of thousands - of registered voters that would be required to make a real difference would actually take the time and effort to secretly do so with the clear knowledge and understanding that they were committing felonies...approaches zero.

Actually, Ben Franklin put it best: "Three men can keep a secret, if two of them are dead."
 
Glen Contrarian said:
"How do we know there isn't?"

That's a logical fallacy called "proving the negative".

Besides, if such were widespread, it would require at least some form of coordination, some kind of communication between those who are going to commit the voter fraud, even if it were something as simple as "let's all go vote in District A and then we'll all drive over to District B". Problem is, this is by definition a conspiracy, and conspiracies involving more than five people are incredibly difficult to keep secret...and the likelihood that the thousands - or hundreds of thousands - of registered voters that would be required to make a real difference would actually take the time and effort to secretly do so with the clear knowledge and understanding that they were committing felonies...approaches zero.

Actually, Ben Franklin put it best: "Three men can keep a secret, if two of them are dead."
Click to expand...

Of course, you can't prove a negative. We can't prove that there isn't voter fraud. Similarly, we can't prove that there isn't a cat burglar scoping out your house, but it's still a good idea to set the alarm just in case.

And, if picture ID were to be required to vote, then the controversy would go away and we'd have to find a new cause to get behind.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Of course, you can't prove a negative. We can't prove that there isn't voter fraud. Similarly, we can't prove that there isn't a cat burglar scoping out your house, but it's still a good idea to set the alarm just in case.

And, if picture ID were to be required to vote, then the controversy would go away and we'd have to find a new cause to get behind.
Click to expand...

Apparently, you didn't read the paragraph where I show that it's simply silly to think that such would or even could be done to such a degree to affect an election.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Apparently, you didn't read the paragraph where I show that it's simply silly to think that such would or even could be done to such a degree to affect an election.
Click to expand...

I read it.

I just didn't believe it.

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. It doesn't even have to be actually happening to cast doubt on the outcome of elections.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
The CA governor just signed a bill allowing all California residents who are American citizens to automatically be registered to vote when they first get (or renew) their drivers license.

What's wrong with making it easier for American citizens (18 and above, of course) to vote? Why not remove all hindrances - such as required periodic pre-registration - to what should be the most basic of all American rights?
Click to expand...

What a horrible idea. The last thing we need is more voters.
 
Paleocon said:
What a horrible idea. The last thing we need is more voters.
Click to expand...

At last. Something posted by Paleocon with which I can agree.

What we need are informed voters. We already have too many of the other kind.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I read it.

I just didn't believe it.

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. It doesn't even have to be actually happening to cast doubt on the outcome of elections.
Click to expand...

Again, there's no EVIDENCE. It would be simplicity itself (though a real pain in the ass) to go check through the voting records and see if significant numbers of people voted in multiple places...and the only way they could do so is by saying "I'm so-and-so and I live at this address."

Remember, this is why there's such a thing as registration, to ensure that the voter lives in that precinct. If more than one person with the same name and address voted, then that would be evidence that there's a problem...but there's no EVIDENCE that this happens to any significant degree.

What happens instead with this voter-ID claptrap is that (without going into partisan observations here) a significant percentage of the voting public is disenfranchised in order to supposedly stop the apparently almost completely non-existent in-person voter fraud. It's silly.

IF the people who want voter ID so badly were to compare the lists of who voted - and it's pretty easy in this era of user-friendly databases - then if in-person voter fraud is as big a problem as they claim, then the evidence would be there. But they haven't done so, have they? And they won't...because they know what they won't find.
 
Dittohead not! said:
At last. Something posted by Paleocon with which I can agree.

What we need are informed voters. We already have too many of the other kind.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The majority of people don't know squat about politics, nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That is why the franchise should be restricted as much as possible.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Again, there's no EVIDENCE. It would be simplicity itself (though a real pain in the ass) to go check through the voting records and see if significant numbers of people voted in multiple places...and the only way they could do so is by saying "I'm so-and-so and I live at this address."

Remember, this is why there's such a thing as registration, to ensure that the voter lives in that precinct. If more than one person with the same name and address voted, then that would be evidence that there's a problem...but there's no EVIDENCE that this happens to any significant degree.

What happens instead with this voter-ID claptrap is that (without going into partisan observations here) a significant percentage of the voting public is disenfranchised in order to supposedly stop the apparently almost completely non-existent in-person voter fraud. It's silly.

IF the people who want voter ID so badly were to compare the lists of who voted - and it's pretty easy in this era of user-friendly databases - then if in-person voter fraud is as big a problem as they claim, then the evidence would be there. But they haven't done so, have they? And they won't...because they know what they won't find.
Click to expand...

Now, there's the real sticker: How is it that a significant percentage of the voting public would be disenfranchised by requiring voter ID? Surely, there can't even be a significant percentage who don't already have a picture ID of one kind or another, and, even the few who don't have one could benefit from a push to provide them one. Everyone should have a picture ID anyway. Require one for voting, and the political parties will see to it that anyone who is likely to vote their way has a free ID.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
The CA governor just signed a bill allowing all California residents who are American citizens to automatically be registered to vote when they first get (or renew) their drivers license.

What's wrong with making it easier for American citizens (18 and above, of course) to vote? Why not remove all hindrances - such as required periodic pre-registration - to what should be the most basic of all American rights?
Click to expand...

It is already infringed upon.

State Felon Voting Laws - Felon Voting - ProCon.org
 
dimensionallava said:
which groups do you think should lose the right to vote?
Click to expand...

Ideally, the franchise would be abolished wholesale. Barring that, it should be restricted as much as possible. Restricting it to men, or raising the voting age, or requiring voters to own a certain amount of land would all be good ideas.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Now, there's the real sticker: How is it that a significant percentage of the voting public would be disenfranchised by requiring voter ID? Surely, there can't even be a significant percentage who don't already have a picture ID of one kind or another, and, even the few who don't have one could benefit from a push to provide them one. Everyone should have a picture ID anyway. Require one for voting, and the political parties will see to it that anyone who is likely to vote their way has a free ID.
Click to expand...

In Alabama, they've just instituted voter ID and simultaneously closed down several voter-registration locations - there's several counties now where there's no place to register to vote. Those without a car have to find their way to the next county over in order to register to vote - and really, when it comes to people who are poor, who among them is going to go to that time and trouble when they're having so much trouble making ends meet already?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom