Guess in which states election laws are tightening?

Yeah, you're right. Some citizens just don't DESERVE to vote.

Why not just go back to property owners being the only ones allowed to vote? That's what your party wants anyway.

 

Here's what I don't get, and I'm being serious:

If you don't have ID, you are on the fringe of society. You just are. You can't work, you can't open a bank account.

Why doesn't this fact alone concern people? Don't these people need help and assistance even if it has nothing to do with voting?

Shouldn't there be an effort to help these people get ID?

 

It's the attitude that they have to have it that bothers me.

Making a government ID a necessity subtly shifts the psychology of the relationship from the government existing because of people to people being allowed to exist by the government.

 

Absolutely.

But here's the thing. Your party opposes those things too. It's why they do things like close or severely restrict the hours of driver's license bureaus in areas where those on the margins reside, as well as erecting Catch-22s that prevent people from ever getting the ID. (You have to have X to get Y, but you have to have Y to get X.)

 

Agreed. The Republicans are probably afraid that a lot of rich white people are voting without the proper paperwork.

 

I never said it was happening on a large scale. So what if it is or isn't?

As for the Social Security card, all I'm saying is that it would create a paper trail that would allow for east detection, prosecution, and deportation if someone fraudulently used one when they registered to vote.

And, you still haven't told me why I need to prove my identity to purchase a firearm or to run for office.

Are there exceptions to your blanket statement or not? And, if there are, why do you assume your exceptions are the only valid ones?

 

And this is why a Social Security card is a good form of ID in this case.

It will identify you in a way that we can find you and investigate you if there's probable cause to suspect voter fraud.

 

You are weighing a restriction on the voting rights of citizens against the states' interest in maintaining fraud-free elections. You can't make a proper weighting without knowing how large the problem is.

States are not bound by the 2nd Amendment, but they are bound to allow their citizens to vote. So that would cover firearms.

 

You don't need an ID to register to vote in most states. You just need to fill out a form or register online. So the argument that you had to prove citizenship to register is false.

As for needing an ID to vote, it amounts to an indirect poll tax. I am for everyone being able to get a basic government ID for free. A drivers license or passport can be an ID as well. I'm not a fan of charging for passports, BTW.

Getting an ID is a pain. I was in my 20s before I had a state-issued birth certificate. When I was a kid, the hospital certificate was good enough. Luckily the state I was born in just digitized the original birth certificates for the year I was born, so it took only a few days to get it.

 

Unless you don't have a Social Security card. And if you don't, good luck getting one.

But hey, if you were too dumb to get a Social Security card, you don't DESERVE to vote.

And if you can't see why voting should be treated differently, then I can't help you. If you want me to admit that "it's different," I'm happy to.

 

Do you have to have an ID to buy a gun? Maybe from a store, but I could get one on Craigslist pretty easily and it would be legal.

 

These rules, when put into practice in elections, will lead to lines stretching a quarter-mile or more, and people waiting for hours and hours to vote, in poor areas (which will be staffed at far lower levels than the ZIP codes where the rich white folk live, as the staffing patterns already show). It isn't aimed at rooting out the tiny tiny portion of unregistered voters as much as it is erecting another barrier in front of the working class.