3 ms·
> I refer you to this comment, which you should have seen by now. Court case, concrete evidence. No frivolous arguments please. There are a lot of comments in
by RightMillennial 9y ago
> I refer you to this comment, which you should have seen by now. Court case, concrete evidence. No frivolous arguments please.
There are a lot of comments in this post so I did not see that. In this case, it does appear that the NC legislature did intentionally act maliciously to affect who could vote. That being said, I still stand by my position that an ID should be required to vote, and that it should be easy acquire an ID.
> Are you saying that ... it might be abused? But is it actually, in reality? Your "what if" isn't good enough without concrete evidence.
I'm saying that not requiring an ID makes it easier for voting to be abused. I doubt it's abused much because it would be too fragile and require too much orchestration, but I don't think it's nonexistent. I think it's one of many safeguards to help ensure that elections are legitimate.
> Enough double-think.
I fail to see how I'm being logically inconsistent. I simply asked for evidence which you did provide. Most of the time people mention vague events without any citations.
- SideburnsOfDoom 9y ago> I think it's one of many safeguards to help ensure that elections are legitimate. Requiring voter Id, while making it not trivial to get voter id, has pros and cons. The pros are theoretical, as you say "I doubt it's abused much", and the cons are actual. That alone should indicate that it's a bad idea. The position that "an ID should be required to vote, and that it should be easy acquire an ID" is logical and defensible, except when that's made out to be the actual situation. The problem that it solves is theoretical, the abuses of it are manifest.