Voter ID Law Opposed... Why Again?

I'm against adding new laws until we can uphold those already in place. If we don't enforce existing laws then what good are new laws?
I'm with you in principle, but the goal of effectively enforcing laws is a neverending type thing like "the war on terror"- a perpetual war- or "the war on drugs"- again, a neverending war.

In principle, it would be great if we could stem the torrent of excessive overregulation. But the ID thing- the more I think about it- we get carded to see the most inane events. Selecting the President of the United States, any schmuck can just walk in and do it. That needs to be changed asap.
 
I'm with you in principle, but the goal of effectively enforcing laws is a neverending type thing like "the war on terror"- a perpetual war- or "the war on drugs"- again, a neverending war.

In principle, it would be great if we could stem the torrent of excessive overregulation. But the ID thing- the more I think about it- we get carded to see the most inane events. Selecting the President of the United States, any schmuck can just walk in and do it. That needs to be changed asap.

I firmly support a photo ID for voting, but would the ID topic be such an issue if we had a handle on existing immigration laws and enforcement?
 
With the way Western countries are going (and they're only going to keep going that way unless something major changes), the question is, can any of our countries get a 'handle' on immigration (and most importantly, efficient enforcement of repatriating illegals)? And all that without people branding the government 'racists', 'xenophobes', etc?

I don't see it happening with the mainstream parties. In the UK and France, UKIP/F.N. (what some people call 'extreme' parties, but really aren't, relatively), who are gaining 'surprising' ground, might have a chance of being elected if more people start getting fed up... but I thought the idea of a '3rd party' winning the elections in the U.S. was implausible? Would it ever be realistically possible for people other than Republicans/Democrats getting into power? And considering how much mainstream politicians have to lose (since politics is a gravy-train career nowadays, rather than a service to the people), wouldn't they do everything in their power to prevent something like that from happening?

Basically, mainstream politics = same shit, different person, until something big happens or people get fed up and finally vote in a 'fringe' party. Could that happen in America? I admit I'm not the best informed of how 3rd parties work in American politics, so please let me know if I'm totally wrong about this.
 
Last edited:
Third parties typically do not win, but only serve to influence the major parties. Even Nader openly stated that the purpose of his running in 2000 was not to win, but to force Gore's hand on certain points.

It would be nice to see the majors have to listen to their constituents in order to maintain seats. That, however would require a populace with an above-room-temp IQ, which seems to be the point of failure; our politicians can do anything, up to and including criminal activity, and stay in office on name recognition alone.
 
Why have laws when Obama keeps throwing out Executive Orders like its the first of the month?O_o
 
Do you have proof that that 5% of votes were fraudulent or could they have been the percentage of the population that didn't have ID?

There is incredible money and resources involved in elections. Both parties know what they're doing and why there doing it and they know before they do it if it is going to help or hurt them. Democrats didn't push through motor voter registration with out knowing it was going to help them turn people out for election. Republican's aren't doing what they are doing because they think they're going to be hurt worse then the Democrats.

This issue isn't about election integrity it's about winning election as much as any other political activity like redistricting. Changing election rules has a purpose and you can take the money to the bank that the party proposing the changes stands to benefit from it. Just like the party that gets out fund raised in an election cycle belly aches about the need for campaign finance form. Then the next election cycle when they out raise the other guy they suddenly don't want to talk about the issue anymore.

Somebody prove the problem is statically significant and the solution isn't far worse then the actual problem I would change my tune.

It's curious that you're asking me for evidence to support an alternate interpretation of the clip you posted, when you provided no evidence of your own. Had you done that to begin with, it would have been unnecessary to point out the flaw in your logic, because there would have been no reasonable alternative interpretation. If you want to call me on lack of evidence fine, but I think there's something about a "pot" and a "kettle" in there somewhere.

To me voter ID *is* about election integrity. In many ways I don't care who wins, I don't vote in elections anyway. As an officer, I do care that the decisions that affect our country and my life are made by those whose election reflects the true will of the people.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that voter ID laws do not impress an undue burden on the poor and the requirement to show ID is "minimal and justified."

Illegal votes and voters DO sway elections. There is evidence of massive voter fraud in presidential elections in the 1960s.

Want a more recent example?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfre...fraud-revelations-call-for-ways-to-reduce-it/
 
Last edited:
Back
Top