This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: ""

jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (6 posts)

In what world does this make sense?

  1. mattheos profile image72
    mattheosposted 4 years ago

    In what world does this make sense?

    I have two parts to this question:
    1 - In what world does racism mean making sure voters are who they say they are?
    2 - Doesn't the fact that Democrats are fighting against an ID law mean they are concerned about losing votes that shouldn't count?

  2. profile image0
    alexsaez1983posted 4 years ago

    It has nothing to do with that. You're totally twisting the issue. The problem is that a lot of the people affected don't have IDs, like passports or drivers licenses. This is mostly due to financial roadblocks, making them unable to pay the fees for a passport or afford the driving tests. These voter ID laws have been put in place to target poorer individuals, which, incidentally, happen to be some minorities.

    If anything, it's Republicans who are benefiting from these restrictions, snuffing out hundreds of thousands of votes that would otherwise go against them.

    1. profile image61
      chevyssbowtieposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It doesn't cost that much for someone to get at least a photo I.D card.

    2. profile image0
      CalebSparksposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You are right, chevyssbowtie. Virtually anyone can get a photo ID inexpensively.

    3. profile image61
      retief2000posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      In Indiana a legal ID is available through Bureau of Motor Vehicles at no charge.  That is not sufficient to satisfy those who pretend it isn't about vote fraud. As a victim of vote fraud I can tell you that poll workers couldn't care less about laws

  3. LandmarkWealth profile image80
    LandmarkWealthposted 4 years ago

    It's not racist at all. Racism is the term thrown out every time the left doesn't like a law.  It works well so they use it for just about everything. 

    The first argument against this is that there a very few documented cases of in person voter fraud.  Well, clearly if you're not checking the identification to begin with, then you'll never be able to prove it.  The political left likes to refuse to enforce laws and then tell you that there is no evidence of a crime taking place.  I guess if we didn't prosecute murder, then we would have a very low homicide conviction rate as well.  So we should just ignore the fact that there are counties that have more votes than registered voters. The truth is that voter prosecution data reflects reality about as much as the number of prosecutions of kids drinking under 21 demonstrates how many have actually had an underage drink.  I am not saying it's as pervasive.  Only that if you consciously choose not to aggressively prosecute something, than your data on documented cases is greatly flawed.

    The second argument is the inability to obtain ID.  First of all, in most states the cost to obtain an id even if you don't drive is less than $20 every 7 years or so.  But many have proposed giving the ID out for free to combat the argument that it's not affordable for some. Keep in mind that it's illegal under Federal law to open up a bank account without proper ID for the last decade.  I tend to wonder just how many of them have a savings or checking account to deposit things like Social Security checks or to pay a bill.  If you can afford a cell phone which are everywhere in the poorest neighborhoods, you can afford an ID.

    Another common argument is that these proposals pop up just before an election to surprise people.  That assumes that only Democrats would be surprised by a new law.  However, in this recent case you have this being applied well before a major election, and giving plenty of time to the potentially disenfranchised to prepare for this requirement.

    The reality is that it makes perfect sense to verify who is voting, and that they're eligible to vote.  The only reason why anyone would be rationally opposed to this, whether they admit it or not, is they think their preferred candidate is likely to benefit more from whatever potential fraud is out there more than those they oppose.  But they will come up with the most ridiculous excuses about why it is so difficult to complete the simplest of tasks.