3 ms·

> - Voters should show proof of citizenship when voting. You'll get no disagreement on this from any liberal. In fact the disagreement lies not in proving citi

by yardie 5y ago

> - Voters should show proof of citizenship when voting. You'll get no disagreement on this from any liberal. In fact the disagreement lies not in proving citizenship but in the methods to do so. If you have to show proof to register then why do you need to show proof to vote? In fact, if you have ID that proves you are a valid voter then registration shouldn't be necessary at all. Republicans not only want you to show citizenship. They want you to show it 2, 3, 4 times in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of The Leopard“.

bumby 5y ago
>If you have to show proof to register then why do you need to show proof to vote? Isn’t the argument that you need to prove the person voting is the same person who registered? Where I live, you only need to give a name and address verbally to vote and that can be gathered online fairly easily. (Just to be clear, I’m not saying voting fraud is rampant but can understand the risk)
throwawaycanal 5y ago
>You'll get no disagreement on this from any liberal. Maybe in France but in the US you will absolutely get disagreement from liberals. >If you have to show proof to register then why do you need to show proof to vote? If you showed proof to get your driver's license then why do you need to show proof to drive? If you showed proof to purchase/register your vehicle why do you need to show proof of registration when you get pulled over? >In fact, if you have ID that proves you are a valid voter then registration shouldn't be necessary at all. In fact, if you have ID that proves you are over 21 then registration of your firearm purchase shouldn't be necessary at all. Etc. Etc. Etc.
- bumby 5y ago
  >If you showed proof to get your driver's license then why do you need to show proof to drive? The general counter to this is that one is a privilege and the other is a right. Usually any hurdle to exercising a constitutionally protected is going to receive some pushback. The same goes for the firearm registration issue.
  - throwawaycanal 5y ago
    >The general counter to this is that one is a privilege and the other is a right. True. People on both sides of the isle use the "privilege not a right" counter on various issues. >Usually any hurdle to exercising a constitutionally protected is going to receive some pushback. The same goes for the firearm registration issue. Exactly. Owning a firearm is a right so this example still works here.
lelanthran 5y ago
> If you have to show proof to register then why do you need to show proof to vote? In fact, if you have ID that proves you are a valid voter then registration shouldn't be necessary at all. Why don't you ask every other country why they do such a thing? Seriously, if the issue was as clear-cut as you make it out to be ("Those peoples are just trying to suppress the votes of their opponents") then the US would not be one of the few places in the world where this is controversial. It's not controversial in some of the largest democracies in the world, and yet you want us to believe that you really think that it is controversial?
- bumby 5y ago
  The short answer is that doesn't always work because the U.S. is different in important aspects (and this doesn't mean necessarily claiming American exceptionalism). I think there are some problems when you bring in the "Why don't you ask every other country?" argument. For one, not every country has the same protections that the U.S. carries in the Bill of Rights. This is why you can't, for example, use this defense when it comes to banning intolerant speech even though it may be done elsewhere. I think the generous interpretation is this law feels like a "show me your papers" statute which the United States generally has a philosophical angle against. It would be comparable in some people's eyes to a "Show me your vaccine card" enforced by the State. Pragmatically, the ID law may also create de facto racial profiling. Although I think the opposite side of this feels the issue is more about State vs. Federal immigration enforcement than really striking down the "show me your papers" provision.
  - lelanthran 5y ago
    You misunderstand me - I am not saying that the law is needed/not needed. I'm not on any particular side of the argument. What I am saying is that presenting the argument as a clear-cut case of $PARTY wants to limit voter participation from certain demographics is disingenuous - it is NOT clear-cut at all because more countries require voter registration than not. So no one should be attacking labeling a proponent of this law as a Nazi just because they support it - the majority of the world's voting democracies can't be Nazis, now can they?

by yardie 5y ago

bumby 5y ago

>If you have to show proof to register then why do you need to show proof to vote? Isn’t the argument that you need to prove the person voting is the same person who registered? Where I live, you only need to give a name and address verbally to vote and that can be gathered online fairly easily. (Just to be clear, I’m not saying voting fraud is rampant but can understand the risk)

throwawaycanal 5y ago

>You'll get no disagreement on this from any liberal. Maybe in France but in the US you will absolutely get disagreement from liberals. >If you have to show proof to register then why do you need to show proof to vote? If you showed proof to get your driver's license then why do you need to show proof to drive? If you showed proof to purchase/register your vehicle why do you need to show proof of registration when you get pulled over? >In fact, if you have ID that proves you are a valid voter then registration shouldn't be necessary at all. In fact, if you have ID that proves you are over 21 then registration of your firearm purchase shouldn't be necessary at all. Etc. Etc. Etc.

bumby 5y ago
>If you showed proof to get your driver's license then why do you need to show proof to drive? The general counter to this is that one is a privilege and the other is a right. Usually any hurdle to exercising a constitutionally protected is going to receive some pushback. The same goes for the firearm registration issue.
- throwawaycanal 5y ago
  >The general counter to this is that one is a privilege and the other is a right. True. People on both sides of the isle use the "privilege not a right" counter on various issues. >Usually any hurdle to exercising a constitutionally protected is going to receive some pushback. The same goes for the firearm registration issue. Exactly. Owning a firearm is a right so this example still works here.

lelanthran 5y ago

> If you have to show proof to register then why do you need to show proof to vote? In fact, if you have ID that proves you are a valid voter then registration shouldn't be necessary at all. Why don't you ask every other country why they do such a thing? Seriously, if the issue was as clear-cut as you make it out to be ("Those peoples are just trying to suppress the votes of their opponents") then the US would not be one of the few places in the world where this is controversial. It's not controversial in some of the largest democracies in the world, and yet you want us to believe that you really think that it is controversial?

bumby 5y ago
The short answer is that doesn't always work because the U.S. is different in important aspects (and this doesn't mean necessarily claiming American exceptionalism). I think there are some problems when you bring in the "Why don't you ask every other country?" argument. For one, not every country has the same protections that the U.S. carries in the Bill of Rights. This is why you can't, for example, use this defense when it comes to banning intolerant speech even though it may be done elsewhere. I think the generous interpretation is this law feels like a "show me your papers" statute which the United States generally has a philosophical angle against. It would be comparable in some people's eyes to a "Show me your vaccine card" enforced by the State. Pragmatically, the ID law may also create de facto racial profiling. Although I think the opposite side of this feels the issue is more about State vs. Federal immigration enforcement than really striking down the "show me your papers" provision.
- lelanthran 5y ago
  You misunderstand me - I am not saying that the law is needed/not needed. I'm not on any particular side of the argument. What I am saying is that presenting the argument as a clear-cut case of $PARTY wants to limit voter participation from certain demographics is disingenuous - it is NOT clear-cut at all because more countries require voter registration than not. So no one should be attacking labeling a proponent of this law as a Nazi just because they support it - the majority of the world's voting democracies can't be Nazis, now can they?