Are republicans trying to suppress minority voting?

[Zeebadee]

Yes.

But then again, I'm not trying to steal an election.

Of course you are. Enfranchising ineligible voters is no less stealing an election than disenfranchising legal ones.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

Riight indeed. I thought it was proven to exsist? Didn’t someone post there was like 10 cases of voter fraud? Wouldn't 1 case be enough?

Ten cases of in-person voter fraud in a decade of elections in the entire United States.

How is asking for ID disenfranchising anyone? I don’t believe you have proven this is the case, and where did you get your “9% of the electorate being disenfranchised” number from? Was there some type of questionaire sent out that I missed? Whose ass was this number pulled out of? Let’s see a link to how this 9% figure was arrived at.

9% of Pennsylvanians that are otherwise valid registered voters do not have the requisite ID, and are thus disenfranchised by these laws.

Nationwide, it's much higher. It's actually 11%.

As many as 11 percent of United States citizens – more than 21 million individuals – do not have government-issued photo identification. Eleven percent of the American citizens surveyed responded that they do not have current, unexpired government-issued identification with a photograph, such as a driver’s license or military ID.8 Using 2000 census calculations of the citizen voting-age population, this translates to more than 21 million American adult citizens nationwide who do not possess valid government photo ID.

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/...file_39242.pdf

So basically the majority of Americans, 91% (according to your figure) HAVE an ID and nobody is squalling like a little baby about them having to show it, but for some odd reason it’s a horrible thing to ask of this 9% “to get out the ID". *sniffle*

Again, it's more like 89% that have an ID. I happen to be one of them, and I don't like these laws. They're an active attempt to rig an election.

And then we hear how it’s just the Democrats being hurt, it’s the minorities, it’s the poor, it’s the poor elderly….blah de blah but what’s strange is these groups need ID to get unemployment, need ID to get food stamps, need ID to qualify for government assisted housing, need ID to for Medicare, Social Security, and even should need an ID for cashing their welfare check.

Again, the issue is not how these people live without a photo ID - that is irrelevant. As for what groups it affects, I recommend you see: http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/...file_39242.pdf

I don’t hear anybody screaming how these government programs are “disenfranchising or suppresing” people for asking for an ID. Why’s that yarn? You don’t think 91% of Americans haven’t already wondered the same thing? This debate will soon be growing mold….But keep up the good work and make sure to keep the de factos coming. LOL

The laws disenfranchise people by changing the rules that ensure whether or not their vote is counted. Their vote will not be counted in Pennsylvania or thirty-two other states if they don't have a certain type of ID - regardless of whether or not they are otherwise a properly registered voter. People who already have an ID are not being disenfranchised, because they already satisfy the rules (again, provided they're a properly registered voter).

Asking that question is like asking how a poll tax doesn't disenfranchise poor people. Something's missing upstairs if you don't understand this issue.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

Of course you are. Enfranchising ineligible voters is no less stealing an election than disenfranchising legal ones.

NO ONE IS ENFRANCHISING INELIGIBLE VOTERS OR OTHERWISE ADVOCATING THAT THEY BE ALLOWED TO VOTE. Is that clear?

[Yarn]

Did you plan on answering all my questions or just a select few? Here tis again.

You don't need a current ID to be a student, to be on medicare, to be on social security, to have a job, assisted housing, to withdraw money from the bank (you can do it via computer, debit card, or machine), and unless you have to physically go some place to pick up food stamps, I very much doubt you need a current state ID for that either.

You may need an ID to sign up for these things in the first place, but once you have them an ID is no longer necessary in order to receive the service. IDs are really only consistently indispensable to drivers, and lots of people don't drive. Likewise, as I stated, student IDs or personal recognition often work.

The examples I gave you are real world examples proving this point.

[Zeebadee]

NO ONE IS ENFRANCHISING INELIGIBLE VOTERS OR OTHERWISE ADVOCATING THAT THEY BE ALLOWED TO VOTE. Is that clear?

When you make it extremely easy for ineligible people to vote, you are indeed enfranchising them. Is that clear?

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

When you make it extremely easy for ineligible people to vote, you are indeed enfranchising them. Is that clear?

Repeal of these laws wouldn't make it any easier at all for ineligible people to vote. Know why that's the case?

Because ineligible voters can't legally register as voters. Voter ID laws have absolutely no bearing on whether or not one can register as a voter. They affect absolutely nothing except whether or not your vote will be counted once you show up at your polling place.

They do not stop any significant amount of fraud. They do not protect the electoral process. They do disenfranchise people who tend to vote Democrat.

[lsbskins1]

When you make it extremely easy for ineligible people to vote, you are indeed enfranchising them. Is that clear?

Since you have absolutely no evidence that it is incredibly easy for ineligible voters to vote, your point is essentially meaningless. If frogs had wings and avian bone structues and feathers, they could fly. They don't. Illegal immigrants and felons are not voting en mass. If they were, you can bet your fucking ass the evidence would have been brought forth at this point. The vast majority of "voter fruad" is not fraud at all. Almost all cases where people cast votes illegally are votes akin to the one Ann Couler cast in Florida. Someone moves and votes in their old polling place because they either just don't think about it or believe, because of ignorance, that it doesn't matter. If you want to claim this should be considered "bad", you better start calling for Coulter's head. If you think it is fine for her, then it is just the same "mistake" for everyone else who does it. There is no "voter fraud" problem, either by illegal registrations or by pretending to be someone you are not. It plain is not happening on any scale that could turn an election.

And, when you start down the "one is too many road", you better get ready for public debt that will make your head spin. One accidental drowing is too many, so every municiple pool better have 24 hour life guards and security. One chocking death is too many, so every federal building better have 24 hour EMT service. One handgun murder is too many, so we better just collect 'em all. One child dying from a peanut allergy in our schools is too many, so we better ban peanuts. Get real.

[Trojan_Ripper]

Again, the issue is not how these people live without a photo ID - that is irrelevant.

I don’t care how they live with or without and ID, we have moved on. The question was that they were required ID to get on their government assisted programs.

The laws disenfranchise people by changing the rules that ensure whether or not their vote is counted. Their vote will not be counted in Pennsylvania or thirty-two other states if they don't have a certain type of ID - regardless of whether or not they are otherwise a properly registered voter. People who already have an ID are not being disenfranchised, because they already satisfy the rules (again, provided they're a properly registered voter).

“No” they disenfranchise themselves by not getting an ID and going to vote. If they want to whine the rules were changed, fine, rules change sometimes, that’s life. But don’t go get an ID when it means a welfare check, or an unemployment check, or Medicare, and on an on, and then claim you are being disenfranchised because you are asked for an ID to vote.

It’s phoney and people see it; even Obama isn’t talking about it. It’s seen as just another lame smear that is making the Democrats look desperate and running scared. That’s to bad when the incumbent should have a strong lead in the polls just on his record, but it’s a pity that is not the case with B.O.

[Trojan_Ripper]

You don't need a current ID to be a student, to be on medicare, to be on social security, to have a job, assisted housing, to withdraw money from the bank (you can do it via computer, debit card, or machine), and unless you have to physically go some place to pick up food stamps, I very much doubt you need a current state ID for that either.

You may need an ID to sign up for these things in the first place, but once you have them an ID is no longer necessary in order to receive the service. IDs are really only consistently indispensable to drivers, and lots of people don't drive. Likewise, as I stated, student IDs or personal recognition often work.

The examples I gave you are real world examples proving this point.

So in other words "these people had to get an ID to get on government assisted programs", and “they were not disenfranchised then”? But as soon as they are asked to have an ID to vote they all of a sudden “are being disenfranchised”? Hmmmm? Of course….”everyone should see and understand this reasoning, right?”.

[NoJingoLingo]

When you make it extremely easy for ineligible people to vote, you are indeed enfranchising them. Is that clear?

Except that there's not even a problem with voter fraud and the infinitesimally small amount that does exist (0.0004 percent according to the Brennan for Justice) CANNOT effect any election outcome. Is that clear? So if it's not a problem and can't effect election outcome, why pass laws to curb it? We have an actual problem with gun violence but do basically nothing about it...

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

I don’t care how they live with or without and ID, we have moved on. The question was that they were required ID to get on their government assisted programs.

Still irrelevant. Although not all people without an ID are on government assistance programs. Generalize much?

“No” they disenfranchise themselves by not getting an ID and going to vote. If they want to whine the rules were changed, fine, rules change sometimes, that’s life. But don’t go get an ID when it means a welfare check, or an unemployment check, or Medicare, and on an on, and then claim you are being disenfranchised because you are asked for an ID to vote.

Again, if you don't understand how these laws disenfranchise people, then you wouldn't understand how poll taxes disenfranchise the poor. Something's clearly missing in your comprehension of the issue. It's been pretty clearly explained by several people quite ad nauseum.

It’s phoney and people see it; even Obama isn’t talking about it. It’s seen as just another lame smear that is making the Democrats look desperate and running scared. That’s to bad when the incumbent should have a strong lead in the polls just on his record, but it’s a pity that is not the case with B.O.

No, it's not phoney. It's a serious issue. However, the average voter is not well-informed on the issue. Voter ID laws tend to poll well - because people automatically think "well, I don't want someone fraudulently voting!" without realizing that voter ID laws do not even address 99.5% of voter fraud. Hence, criticism of voter ID laws from the Democratic party has not been well-received.

In short, it's a matter of rhetoric versus substance. In this case, as has been demonstrated in this thread in my opinion, the substance of the argument clearly argues against voter ID laws. Rhetoric that supports the laws, however, is adequate to keep the ill-informed or the willfully ignorant from realizing just how these laws are intended to rig an election.

In other words, anyone with interest in politics and a couple of brain cells to rub together will come to the conclusion that voter ID laws are intended to unduly influence an election with only a modicum of study. Most people out there - including most voters - don't have enough interest in politics, or enough brain cells, to get past the rhetoric.

[Yarn]

So in other words "these people had to get an ID to get on government assisted programs", and “they were not disenfranchised then”? But as soon as they are asked to have an ID to vote they all of a sudden “are being disenfranchised”? Hmmmm? Of course….”everyone should see and understand this reasoning, right?”.

Voting is a constitutionally protected right, welfare isn't.