Supreme court upholds voter ID law, disenfranchising native Americans in ND

[Cuddles]

My circular logic? Look, it is illegal to sell someone ineligible, so people shouldn't do it, but they still do. We agree. Loopholes that allow people to do this should be closed, wherein ID is required for all gun purchases, private or otherwise. We agree. It is illegal to vote if ineligible, so people shouldn't do it. We agree! Where you stop is you don't agree people actually do it. You think voter fraud doesn't occur. I'm the one going further to say ID should be required to vote, just like it should be required in gun sales. You're the one saying ID should be required for one and not the other. And it's my circular logic, somehow. WTF.



How convenient for you to look at it this way! Where is it established as a "right"?

We're actually asking where it's established that voting is a right? Ok then, I'm done here

And I've repeatedly said voter fraud occurs in insignificant numbers, which doesn't warrant disenfranchising many by instituting voter ID laws. See, the same reasoning you guys use anytime there's a mass shooting (not enough people die from it to institute tougher gun laws).

 

[Tsing Tao]

We're actually asking where it's established that voting is a right? Ok then, I'm done here

Asking where it was established in the constitution, that's all.

And I've repeatedly said voter fraud occurs in insignificant numbers, which doesn't warrant disenfranchising many by instituting voter ID laws. See, the same reasoning you guys use anytime there's a mass shooting (not enough people die from it to institute tougher gun laws).

I've never used such reasoning. In fact, I've been on record saying all loopholes (such as the one that allows people to sell privately to a third party with no background check) should be closed and tougher laws should be required ensuring everyone who gets a gun is thoroughly vetted. With ID.

Just like voting.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Yes, your argument is astonishingly simple and absurd. Motivation is obviously not a problem on the left because democrats consistently have higher turnout in elections.

I’m sorry for your weather conditions. I’ve always advocated for more polling places and a more efficient voting system. We should move toward that and making voting easy for everyone.

So, no answer to where you live. You are another Nine-Ender type.

The country has had to endure a couple years of histrionic wailing about how Hillary was the real winner but the voters just didnt turn out where the electoral votes were. Now you tell me "democrats have higher turnout in elections." Okay fine, whatever.

Higher turnout and higher percent of turnout are two different things. No one doubts there are more democrats in lefty states with large populations.

Anyway, glad to hear the turnout worked out for you in in 2016. Worked for me too.

 

[UsualName]

Voting is NOT a constitutional right.

Now let's move forward from there.

Hold on one second here, buddy. Voting may not be explicit but it certainly is an inherent right. Do t mistake that.

Now for the presidency is a different matter. How the states choose to send their electors there is not an inherent right but for Congress, absolutely.

Additionally, numerous amendments protect the right to vote and give guidance for the age at which people can vote. Interestingly with age it’s not 18 and over, its 18 and under.

 

[UsualName]

So, no answer to where you live. You are another Nine-Ender type.

The country has had to endure a couple years of histrionic wailing about how Hillary was the real winner but the voters just didnt turn out where the electoral votes were. Now you tell me "democrats have higher turnout in elections." Okay fine, whatever.

Higher turnout and higher percent of turnout are two different things. No one doubts there are more democrats in lefty states with large populations.

Anyway, glad to hear the turnout worked out for you in in 2016. Worked for me too.

Let it never be said you can’t take a punch and keep moving.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Hold on one second here, buddy. Voting may not be explicit but it certainly is an inherent right. Do t mistake that.

Now for the presidency is a different matter. How the states choose to send their electors there is not an inherent right but for Congress, absolutely.

Additionally, numerous amendments protect the right to vote and give guidance for the age at which people can vote. Interestingly with age it’s not 18 and over, its 18 and under.

I think his point was (and he is correct) that it is not in the Constitution. An amendment may have been passed, but that's not the same thing. Still, it is a right. So let's stop arguing over technicalities and stay on the crux of the issue.

 

[UsualName]

No, as I said, you are technically correct in that ID is not required in all private sales because of a loophole. I also said it should be required. How this is obfuscation is beyond me.



Politifact has been known to be wrong in the past. It is a left leaning, partisan organization. This is the only statement to have any source reference whatsoever in the link you posted:

Voter fraud

Election administration expert Justin Levitt, who has been tracking allegations of voter fraud since 2000, most recently wrote on the topic in the Washington Post in August 2014.

Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said in the piece that dating back to 2000 he found around the country 31 "credible allegations of potential fraud that might have been prevented by a rule requiring ID at the polls" -- that is, possible fraud involving impersonation.

Other election experts, including Lorraine Minnite of Rutgers University, also have used the lightning strike comparison.

It’s fair to say, however, that impersonation cases can be hard to count in that they are hard to prove -- particularly when no photo ID requirement is in place and a voter can cast a ballot simply by stating the name of a registered voter.

So the number of cases of in-person fraud by impersonation may be higher than that cited by Levitt, but no independent source suggests it is higher than the number of lightning strikes.​

The first source, Justin Levitt, said he only found 31 credible allegations of potential fraud that might have been prevented by requiring an ID. This is fantastic for Justin, but the Heritage investigation found more. The second person, Lorraine Minnite, "also used the lightning strike comparison", but the article shows absolutely no study, or any reference to anything she's ever done. Of course, one would expect such a statement from the author of the book Keeping Down the Black Vote: Race and the Demobilization of American Voters.

On the sole basis of these two people, Politifact rated this "true". Well now, that's some extensive analysis and research! I'm convinced!

Not.

Good. So we can move on from the argument that the sale of guns does not always require an id and comparing the obstacles of owning a gun as an equivalency for justifying ID requirements for voting is imperfect.

That only took 3 days.

Comparing in person voter fraud, and notice the in person qualification because we are talking about ID requirements, to lightening striking Americans may not suit your standards but it is certainly close enough.

There is something like 1000 cases of fraud in the last billion votes cast or which is about one millionth of one percent of fraud in the system. It’s nothing.

 

[LS1Z28]

https://www.investors.com/politics/...n-live-adults-a-red-flag-for-electoral-fraud/
According to census data, it's estimated that there are approximately 3.5 million more registered voters than living adults in the US.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/pacei-ken-block-presentation.pdf
A recent study of 21 states showed that there were 8500 duplicate votes cast in the 2016 presidential election. It's estimated that as many as 40,000 duplicate votes may have been cast, but many states refused to give up voter data.

The amount of people who have been convicted of voter fraud is insignificant, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of voting fraud that slips through the cracks. Voter ID laws help to maintain the integrity of our election system regardless of how much fraud there actually is.

The far left will tell you that voting fraud is basically non-existent. The far right will tell you that millions of illegal immigrants vote in every elections. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

 

[Cuddles]

https://www.investors.com/politics/...n-live-adults-a-red-flag-for-electoral-fraud/
According to census data, it's estimated that there are approximately 3.5 million more registered voters than living adults in the US.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/pacei-ken-block-presentation.pdf
A recent study of 21 states showed that there were 8500 duplicate votes cast in the 2016 presidential election. It's estimated that as many as 40,000 duplicate votes may have been cast, but many states refused to give up voter data.

The amount of people who have been convicted of voter fraud is insignificant, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of voting fraud that slips through the cracks. Voter ID laws help to maintain the integrity of our election system regardless of how much fraud there actually is.

The far left will tell you that voting fraud is basically non-existent. The far right will tell you that millions of illegal immigrants vote in every elections. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Did they consider counting the Americans living outside the country?

Don't trust anything the Whitehouse website says with this guy at the helm

 

[LS1Z28]

Did they consider counting the Americans living outside the country?

Don't trust anything the Whitehouse website says with this guy at the helm

It's my understanding that they checked the duplicate votes by full name, date of birth, and social security numbers.