So evidence of something out in the open is questionable, but a lack of evidence of something people are intentionally trying to keep hidden is rock solid. Got it.
If 10 percent of voters couldn't vote (bullshit number democrats throw out) that wouldn't reduce turnout overall? There's no evidence whatsoever that voter ID had hurt turnout. Check out the article I posted. Increase in minority voting was the same in states that had Id laws
Record turnout as evidence of zero effect is a logical fallacy. That's like saying that since Tyler Bray is in the NFL, clearly playing for Dooley had zero detrimental impact on his future. There's no "evidence" to prove that the outcome wouldn't have been significantly better under different circumstances.
From the article: Haha. I forgot that NC moved its primary earlier, making it significantly more important. No wonder they had record turnout
Either way, no one has explained to me why Republicans cutting down early voting (mostly used by Democrats) and youth registration efforts (who overwhelmingly vote Democrat) is some noble, innocent effort to cut down on voter fraud. I'm sure the fact that it makes it easier for the people making these laws to keep their jobs and their power is nothing more than a happy coincidence.
This is the same legislature that just got in trouble in federal court for blatant gerrymandering, but there's no way they'd try to manipulate the electoral system for political gain. It's just a conspiracy theory, am I right?
I should (quickly) also add this important fact: SCOTUS has upheld Voter ID laws. As it is perfectly legal, the entire debate seems moot, save merely wanting to make what are, for all legal purposes, meaningless points of personal contention.
Without ID, his does one prove one is old enough to vote? Is a US citizen? What would keep Akeem Al-Azeem from voting while here on a visa?
It's like some of you have never voted. There is a voter registration. Look it up. You provide either your social security number or state ID number. You tell them where you live, and whether you are updating from a previous registration. All of this is fine and the existing framework. Expecting people to have more than a social security number at that point is not only redundant but in my opinion also unconstitutional unless the federal government starts going around issuing photo ID's.
Not everyone has a SSN or a government ID. Should they be required to have one of those to vote? If so, why not just blanket photo id requirement? If you have to register to vote now, is that not a step that would keep people from voting? My stance is it is OK pretty much the way it is now. But I don't understand the blow back on photo id requirements either. There are already road blocks to me waking up one day, never having registered or gotten a SSN that would keep me from voting the day of the election. And I will ask again: if there is one instance of voter fraud, that person has disenfranchised someone. Is that less evil than a photo id req causing someone disenfranchisement?
Absolutely nothing. And with 20M+ illegals in the country, you can see the potential for significant - and illegal - harm.
Every person should have to prove their legal eligibility. Every single person. Before any vote. But otherwise, we should be making every effort to make it easier and more accessible to vote. If the ease and accessibility was vastly increased, I would even be for a tax on those who were eligible to vote, but didn't, and would earmark those fees for a federal voter awareness and identification program.
In today's age of technology, this is ridiculously inexcusable. Now, the question becomes....does anyone really believe that either Party wants to worry with appealing to any potential voter who doesn't neatly fit into one of their camps? Because this is the vast majority of non-voters in this country, and who are somewhere between the extremes of either Party's regular loyalists, almost by definition. And that's exactly the type of voice that isn't being heard, and IMO, is most needed. But therein lies the rub - all that either Party pushes for, and spends millions of dollars pursuing are those votes which we will be cast for them, alone. Both see it as a "win" when potentially oppositional voters sit at home. And that's my point.
I'd prefer you explain to me why someone else's motivations matter one iota when you are arguing against me.
Did you read the article I posted that showed zero difference in minority voting between states with voter ID and states without? I guess not
What's your evidence that early voting is mostly used by democrats? And youth registration efforts cost money and have shown to have little to no marginal effect.
According to this early voters are more likely to be republican: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-are-the-early-voters-and-why-do-they-matter/
Clinton's Cronies (TM) have been doing a masterful job of suppressing demographics that don't align with her strengths without hindering her's. You are correct, each party is tailoring the process for specific demographics, and the one they each care least about are working people 25-45 (collectively).
Early voters tend to be older, so I am not surprised. I still think voting should be as easy as filing taxes, regardless of who you vote for or who would ultimately benefit. It's principle.
