I've notice referendums in dry counties and cities go wet around here lately. Maybe that's because those against alcohol sales never bothered to get and ID.
How much time do you spend on the paperwork? Does a government agent come visit you at your house if you accidentally vote for the wrong candidate?
I spent less time doing my taxes (~2 hours, and I'm slow), than I did standing in line to caucus and then caucusing (3 hours).
I don't even know what you're talking about right now. Silliness? No one has even demonstrated a need for an ID, and you're acting like it would somehow address the problem I'm pointing out regarding how much time and difficulty there is in voting WITHOUT them? And by the way, I have an ID. Most people do. But not everyone, and the constitution doesn't say [penis] about having a right to vote "as long as you have gotten out and gotten an ID."
What if I told you that there was no net loss of voters in states that required ID's at the polls? Then, what if I told you that it actually lead to more voting, in some states, and that not a single evidentiary proof has been given to show that it has any negative impact at all?
Then I would point to the people who are American citizens who are not allowed to vote, by the hundreds and thousands. You can easily see them getting turned away. Voter turnout has been increasing despite of all this because people are increasingly fired up.
But the Constitution details quite thoroughly all the hoops we jump through to uphold one of the first ten bills, right? Pretty sure the original version had all that waiting period and background check stuff in there. And the kind of outfits that wait to solve an easily correctable problem until there is ample evidence that the problem is rampant are exactly the kinds of businesses that go bankrupt, or more specifically, the kinds of governments that measure their debt in the tens of trillions.
Or unable to. Or unable to miss an entire day of work waiting. Or unable to afford a 60 dollar round trip Uber to get there. Or any number of reasons that shouldn't take their constitutional rights away.
Then it would sound like you've solved a problem that doesn't even exist. Of course, it would have to be true, as well, but it's not.
Who gives a shit how long? Prove we need it first, then make voting more cumbersome for people as a result of a need.
No, it wasn't. These assistants could be demonstrably proven to be poor coaches, which is something that can't be proven in your scenario about IDs.
No. We'd bring in four and five star talent. A few would evidently perform very well and the head man pretended all was well. We allowed an easily correctable problem to fester until we lost to mother****ing Vanderbilt. That's how unsuccessful operations work.
Losing to Vanderbilt is evidence that they weren't doing very well. I'm not sure you're following how this analogy should work.
