ADVERTISEMENT

SCOTUS ruling VA

This reminds me of a discussion I believe with Aloha but one of the traditional conservatives. I suggested on government programs, conservatives would rather there be no fraud or waste even if that meant some entitled were incorrectly blocked. Liberals would put up with some waste and fraud so long as all entitled get what they are entitled to.

Many conservatives seem to be saying they are ok with legal voters being disenfranchised if it means no fraud, liberals will accept some fraud over disenfranchisement.

IU women up 45-14 in their first game. It actually isn't that close
To me, the bigger problem right now is perceived illegitimacy of the system and ease of administration.

Re "entitlement" and "disenfranchisement" I don't see it that way. We have limitations and requirements now on how to vote--timing, method, etc. This is just one extra requirement that is not going to prevent any competent person who truly wants to vote from voting, any more than requiring a driver's licence to buy liquor prevents people who want to buy liquor from purchasing it. I've never bought into the absolutely infantilizing argument that some people just can't get IDs because they're too stupid or so overworked.
 
Voter ID isn't an issue, no matter how many times it's trotted out for ridicule.
You sure about that?


 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
To me, the bigger problem right now is perceived illegitimacy of the system and ease of administration.

Just a very noisy group who want to feel good about losing by making up reasons they lost. Next it will be the sun for in their eyes.
Re "entitlement" and "disenfranchisement" I don't see it that way. We have limitations and requirements now on how to vote--timing, method, etc. This is just one extra requirement that is not going to prevent any competent person who truly wants to vote from voting, any more than requiring a driver's licence to buy liquor prevents people who want to buy liquor from purchasing it. I've never bought into the absolutely infantilizing argument that some people just can't get IDs because they're too stupid or so overworked.

Vote IDs are fine, I haven't spoken against them. Just that there must be exceptions. But a few years ago Alabama struck by closing license branches in poor rural counties. Now for people who may not have a car, that is a legitimate imposition.


There is no 100% perfect system, we need to prevent the perfect from being the enemy of the good. The tighter we lock things down, the more likely disenfranchisement happens. The easier we make it to vote, the more likely fraud is. The trick, the real trick, is to balance those

I keep mentioning that loophole of states not reporting people that move, and it gets zero traction from the "zero fraud can happen" crowd. Why? We have known about this problem for a long time, and Florida led the charge AWAY from the solution. Not sending out registration reminders was more important than fraud.
 
You sure about that?


Yes, I'm sure. I don't care how many links you provide or from whom, it's not an issue for serious discussion.

This election cycle, the concern should be about the plans to disrupt the certification process. The groundwork has already been laid.
 
This reminds me of a discussion I believe with Aloha but one of the traditional conservatives. I suggested on government programs, conservatives would rather there be no fraud or waste even if that meant some entitled were incorrectly blocked. Liberals would put up with some waste and fraud so long as all entitled get what they are entitled to.

Many conservatives seem to be saying they are ok with legal voters being disenfranchised if it means no fraud, liberals will accept some fraud over disenfranchisement.

IU women up 45-14 in their first game. It actually isn't that close
I’ve not made that argument. I’ve argued for voter ID and against the idea that it’s going to disenfranchise any voters. Basically, I’ve said any person that couldn’t be bothered with getting a free ID making him/her eligible to vote is probably not going to vote. Also, I’ve argued that even one fraudulent vote was too much, though I also realize eliminating it 100 percent is probably impossible. Eliminating it enough to ensure it won’t alter results is doable since it’s very, very rare now and hasn’t happened on a national level since JFK and that isn’t certain.
 
I don’t understand why we can’t make this really simple: your vote and ID must be completed on or by Election Day. End of story. If you wanted to vote so badly, then you go get your ID. This isn’t rocket science.
Amish can go to their local courthouse and get an ID that doesn’t have their picture on it. No one has a legitimate excuse to not get an ID if they want to vote.
 
Yes, I'm sure. I don't care how many links you provide or from whom, it's not an issue for serious discussion.

This election cycle, the concern should be about the plans to disrupt the certification process. The groundwork has already been laid.
Kamala Harris disagrees with you. As do major left wing think tanks and organizations. So I don't understand your second sentence. Do you mean that those groups aren't being serious (I agree) or that you just don't care about it?

On your second point, I am worried about that. I'm still sceptical that Americans will go that far.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT