Question 1: Was there any documented voter fraud in recent elections?

 

Question 2: If there was none, to Clyde's main question, why are these laws being enacted?

 

I see two bottom line statements. One, if there was no voter fraud, then these laws should have no impact on future elections because all those that could legally vote previously will be able to vote in the future. That makes these laws a waste of time and effort.

 

Two, regardless of intent, it appears these laws are being enacted by Republicans and they have now handed Democrats ammunition to use in the upcoming elections. The perception Democrats put forth is that Republicans are elitists who are against the common man and against the middle class. These laws feed that perception. The Dems can easily point out that the party that wants less regulation and less government intervention is working awful hard to put more laws and regulations on the books in this area.

I did read them, and think they're incredibly prepostourous. You think it's because they want to keep black voters home. So I'll ask you again Clyde, since you're ignoring my questions. When would be a good time to enact the law and not upset Clyde?

 

All good laws are good to implement any time.

 

Most of these are a)not good as they serve no good purpose and b)have the sole motivation to suppress votes.

 

You don't see a problem with that?

^I'd say they serve a very good purpose. They're enacted to prevent illegals or non-American citizens from voting in our elections. How is that not serving a valid purpose?

^I'd say they serve a very good purpose. They're enacted to prevent illegals or non-American citizens from voting in our elections. How is that not serving a valid purpose?

 

We've had problems with illegals or non-Americans voting? Where and when? Cutting the days allowed for early voting solves that? Cutting Sundays out solves that? Requiring a student ID to be filled with info solves that yet allowing a concealed carry permit is OK? Requiring that voter registration cards be turned in in 48 hours solves that?

 

You continue to avoid the real question that I've asked a few times? Why now? Why are Rs writing laws that are aimed at decreasing the number of voters who typically vote D? What existing problem are they fixing?

 

Answer that. I've already stated that there is no proof of voter fraud yet you've given nothing but platitudes as the validity of these new laws.

I'm still waiting for someone to address the "why" for the sudden desire to change voting laws.

It's the same reason that gerrymandering happens everytime a new party takes control. The American election system is designed to pit one team against the other so they will always look for ways to tip the scales. Blaming it on voter fraud is just an easy way to get public support on your side (as evidenced by this thread). I absolutely believe the new laws are just a simple means of one party, in this case R's, attempting to gain a competitive advantage over the other.

We've had problems with illegals or non-Americans voting? Where and when? Cutting the days allowed for early voting solves that? Cutting Sundays out solves that? Requiring a student ID to be filled with info solves that yet allowing a concealed carry permit is OK? Requiring that voter registration cards be turned in in 48 hours solves that?

 

You continue to avoid the real question that I've asked a few times? Why now? Why are Rs writing laws that are aimed at decreasing the number of voters who typically vote D? What existing problem are they fixing?

 

Answer that. I've already stated that there is no proof of voter fraud yet you've given nothing but platitudes as the validity of these new laws.

 

Just because there's no proof that it happens, doesn't mean it doesn't. You're a smart guy Clyde, surely your not naive enough to think that voter fraud doesn't happen.

 

I didn't say anything about anything other than having to show identification to vote. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. You seem to always do that with posters.

Just because there's no proof that it happens, doesn't mean it doesn't. You're a smart guy Clyde, surely your not naive enough to think that voter fraud doesn't happen.

 

I didn't say anything about anything other than having to show identification to vote. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. You seem to always do that with posters.

 

Classic response. You said and I quote "THEY'RE enacted to prevent illegals....." which was in response to my point that MOST of the LAWS (plural) were put in place to suppress voting. How else was I supposed to take that comment?

Just because there's no proof that it happens, doesn't mean it doesn't. You're a smart guy Clyde, surely your not naive enough to think that voter fraud doesn't happen.

 

I didn't say anything about anything other than having to show identification to vote. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. You seem to always do that with posters.

 

Ummm...this right here is without a doubt addressing more than showing ID to vote.

 

I did read them, and think they're incredibly prepostourous. You think it's because they want to keep black voters home...

Let's make it simple since some of you are having trouble understanding the point of the thread.

 

Let's all agree that a picture ID is OK to be required. Read the rest of the points I mention and then answer the question: why now?

 

I think it's a simple matter of Acorn getting a lot of attention. No matter the problem, when something gets a lot of media attention and there is a perception that there is a problem, legislators feel like they have to do something to keep their jobs. Even though Acorn was voter registration issues it all gets lumped into voter fraud in the media.

I still love the line in the post about why you have to show an id to buy a beer but not to vote.

Classic response. You said and I quote "THEY'RE enacted to prevent illegals....." which was in response to my point that MOST of the LAWS (plural) were put in place to suppress voting. How else was I supposed to take that comment?

 

I used the wrong pronoun, my bad.

 

You can take it however you like, because you're going to anyways. Please show me where I said anything about shortening the early voting window, or requiring WI college students to have special IDs, etc.

 

The only thing I've ever commented on in this thread is making voters show ID prior to voting. How in the world you logically took that to mean I supported all these laws only god knows.

I used the wrong pronoun, my bad.

 

You can take it however you like, because you're going to anyways. Please show me where I said anything about shortening the early voting window, or requiring WI college students to have special IDs, etc.

 

The only thing I've ever commented on in this thread is making voters show ID prior to voting. How in the world you logically took that to mean I supported all these laws only god knows.

 

Pronouns have meaning.

Re-read the thread TOG and you'll understand the point of the thread. You're not following correctly.

 

BTW you are incorrect about KY requirements.

 

Oh really?

Link

 

Q: Do I have to produce Identification to vote? A: All voters must produce identification or be known by a precinct officer prior to voting. KRS117.227 and 31 KAR 4:010 provide the types of ID that can be used by the voter such as: Personal acquaintance of precinct officer, Driver’s license, Social Security card, credit card, or another form of ID containing both picture and signature.

 

As I stated, the precinct officer knows me but she has told me she ID's everybody (and she has been told to ID everyone), so as not to show any favoritism to anyone!

Ummm...this right here is without a doubt addressing more than showing ID to vote.

 

Them as in his thought"s" on requiring voter ID.

Oh really?

Link

 

Q: Do I have to produce Identification to vote? A: All voters must produce identification or be known by a precinct officer prior to voting. KRS117.227 and 31 KAR 4:010 provide the types of ID that can be used by the voter such as: Personal acquaintance of precinct officer, Driver’s license, Social Security card, credit card, or another form of ID containing both picture and signature.

 

You said a picture is required. You then cite the wording that says it's not required.

 

Is that heat still getting to you?