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

[TJustice]

None of this argument is serious until the left admits that there could easily be a million illegal votes cast in CA. We don't even ID the voters.

And we have groups who fight to prevent a purging of the voter roles.

https://www.demos.org/blog/5/10/18/resisting-pressure-purge-voters-california

This is not behavior designed to ensure that the legal votes are being treated fairly.

This system is designed to make illegal voting as easy as possible.

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

 

[LS1Z28]

None of this argument is serious until the left admits that there could easily be a million illegal votes cast in CA. We don't even ID the voters.

And we have groups who fight to prevent a purging of the voter roles.

https://www.demos.org/blog/5/10/18/resisting-pressure-purge-voters-california

This is not behavior designed to ensure that the legal votes are being treated fairly.

This system is designed to make illegal voting as easy as possible.

Census data shows there are 3.5 million more registered voters than voting age adults in our country. That proves that a widespread purging of voting rolls is needed. I don't see how anyone could legitimately argue against it unless they want dead people voting.

 

[Tsing Tao]

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.

I didn't agree to the second part. We both agree that requiring ID for the purchase of firearms is needed and any loopholes allowing the purchase of such firearms - no matter how rarely used - should be closed. I am certainly willing to concede on the firearms question. Not surprisingly, you are not willing to concede on the simple comparison on requiring ID to vote.

That only took 3 days.

It takes so long because you are intentionally obtuse, overly technical and do your best to cloud the conversation with disingenuous arguments. Said another way, you twist everything to focus on the technicalities of the argument rather than the argument's validity itself, because you're focused on scoring points - not solutions. That's essentially your party strategy in a nutshell.

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.

Who are you to say it is nothing? Some races are decided in razor thin margins, and any fraud can upset this. Of course, this says nothing about the many cases that aren't undocumented because controls for such process are lacking.

It's like having no one guarding the border, and then saying "only a few people sneak across!" How do you know unless you actually enforce the border?

There is no substantial downside to requiring IDs for voting. There is tremendous upside. Your problem is that you don't like what the upside means.

 

[vanzandt]

There's an irony here that Freddie and Tony will miss.
The next time they start crying about how Hillary won by millions (blah blah blah)... they should keep in mind that the reason the Founding Fathers designed an Electoral College.... was exactly for States like this that have very few residents, no matter which way they vote. So they have a say too.

 

[UsualName]

I didn't agree to the second part. We both agree that requiring ID for the purchase of firearms is needed and any loopholes allowing the purchase of such firearms - no matter how rarely used - should be closed. I am certainly willing to concede on the firearms question. Not surprisingly, you are not willing to concede on the simple comparison on requiring ID to vote.



It takes so long because you are intentionally obtuse, overly technical and do your best to cloud the conversation with disingenuous arguments. Said another way, you twist everything to focus on the technicalities of the argument rather than the argument's validity itself, because you're focused on scoring points - not solutions. That's essentially your party strategy in a nutshell.



Who are you to say it is nothing? Some races are decided in razor thin margins, and any fraud can upset this. Of course, this says nothing about the many cases that aren't undocumented because controls for such process are lacking.

It's like having no one guarding the border, and then saying "only a few people sneak across!" How do you know unless you actually enforce the border?

There is no substantial downside to requiring IDs for voting. There is tremendous upside. Your problem is that you don't like what the upside means.

Ok. Even with that considered we do have a voting system that makes it so hard to scam the rate of fraud is about one, one-millionth of one percent. There is no reason to disenfranchise tens of thousands of Americans in good standing for such a low possibility that voter fraud may determine an election.

Can you site any election which the outcome was determined by in person voter fraud?

 

[smallfil]

Census data shows there are 3.5 million more registered voters than voting age adults in our country. That proves that a widespread purging of voting rolls is needed. I don't see how anyone could legitimately argue against it unless they want dead people voting.

It is outrageous that dead people are used to cast votes! That is disgusting on all levels! You do not respect those you died to leave them alone in peace. You have to use their names to commit voter fraud on top of it! Hard to believe election officials are not involved in it! Imagine, they had all these years to clean the voter rolls of dead people yet, did nothing about it?

 

[Tsing Tao]

Ok. Even with that considered we do have a voting system that makes it so hard to scam the rate of fraud is about one, one-millionth of one percent. There is no reason to disenfranchise tens of thousands of Americans in good standing for such a low possibility that voter fraud may determine an election.

Can you site any election which the outcome was determined by in person voter fraud?

Regarding your point on disenfranchising tens of thousands of Americans - can you show some source that proves requiring ID would disenfranchise tens of thousands of Americans? Not just someone saying it. Second, why is this considered disenfranchising someone when requiring an ID to get welfare, medical benefits and food stamps is not disenfranchising them? You never did answer this.

Regarding siting an election where the outcome was determined by fraud, that is a bit like asking you to show me evidence when someone who committed a crime with a firearm was not asked for ID when he purchased the firearm he used in the crime. It's a bit difficult to prove with current ID laws, but we know it happens.

 

[UsualName]

Regarding your point on disenfranchising tens of thousands of Americans - can you show some source that proves requiring ID would disenfranchise tens of thousands of Americans? Not just someone saying it. Second, why is this considered disenfranchising someone when requiring an ID to get welfare, medical benefits and food stamps is not disenfranchising them? You never did answer this.

Regarding siting an election where the outcome was determined by fraud, that is a bit like asking you to show me evidence when someone who committed a crime with a firearm was not asked for ID when he purchased the firearm he used in the crime. It's a bit difficult to prove with current ID laws, but we know it happens.

Second point first, no, we don’t know it happens. I don’t know anyone who has even joked around that they wanted to commit in person voter fraud. Most of these people that do are people who did not realize they should not be voting, like felons or people who didn’t change their address and went to their old polling place.

If we want to expand what we are talking about to some privileges such as a welfare benefit I guess we can say it does technically but these things aren’t constitutionally protected activities.

Also, frogs point, while sort of done as an emotional argument does bring up what conditions we can assume for monetary awards.

Here’s the thing since we have moved on and are actually drilling down on the subject, asking for ID in and of itself as a requirement for voting is not unconstitutional. However, it may be illegal under the voting rights act because it has a disparate impact on protected classes.

Now to the meat and potatoes, in the paper below you will find various voter id scenarios but the one which will help to prove ID does suppress 10s of thousands of votes is main study of the paper, a Texas case in which 16,000 people were denied voting due to ID but due to a courts decision their votes were allowed to be recorded through a “reasonable impediment” filing. Had that not been allowed those almost 20,000 voters would have been denied despite being fully qualified. And that’s just in one election in one state.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/f3oqui1jhq6nqie/FragaMiller_TXID_2018.pdf?dl=0

 

[FriskyCat]

It takes so long because you are intentionally obtuse, overly technical and do your best to cloud the conversation with disingenuous arguments. Said another way, you twist everything to focus on the technicalities of the argument rather than the argument's validity itself, because you're focused on scoring points - not solutions. That's essentially your party strategy in a nutshell.

Standard operating procedure for most of these clowns.

 

[Cuddles]