3 ms·

Appreciative to see we've all moved on from, 'voter id is inherently racist,' to, 'what if my dog ate my voter id?' (Aside, today is having fun with quotes day

Appreciative to see we've all moved on from, 'voter id is inherently racist,' to, 'what if my dog ate my voter id?' (Aside, today is having fun with quotes day.)

ModernMech 5y ago
Abusive partners exerting control by restricting access to important documents is a very real problem for many women, and men for that matter. Also this is something abusive parents and human traffickers do. It should not be minimized and trivialized as “my dog ate my voter id”.
- isoskeles 5y ago
  I’m trivializing the use of the victim of an event as justification to say we can’t have voter id. It’s a strange argument, coming off as if voter id laws and protecting people from spousal abuse must be at odds, so anyone who supports voter id must support spousal abuse as well. Is the next argument that Hitler wanted voter id? At what point do we get to actually discuss the merits of validating a person is who they say they are so they get exactly one vote?
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    If you want to champion a law that impacts someone's fundamental rights as a citizen, rights protected by the US Constitution, it's your duty as a fellow citizen to consider the impact of that law on everyone, and to show that you've taken appropriate consideration as to the first and second order impact of your proposal. Implementing a voter ID law in the way being pushed right now will disenfranchise people, and it seems like every time an example of an impacted group is brought it, they are summarily dismissed and their existence minimized as "edge cases" or mocked. e.g. "What, are minorities so dumb they can't get an ID?" or in this case "What, did the dog eat your voter ID?" But it doesn't change the fact that this law you are pushing will take away their rights. What are you going to propose to make them whole, or did you not think it through that far? It would just be nice if you would demonstrate you are as concerned with disenfranchising your fellow citizens as you are cracking down on suspected and heretofore yet unproven massive voter fraud. > At what point do we get to actually discuss the merits of validating a person is who they say they are so they get exactly one vote? Well, it would be nice if the side claiming massive systemic voter fraud would prove their claims. That would be a good starting point. Then we could have actionable fixes that address a specific problem to minimize collateral damage. I just don't understand why we have to engage in a massive civic project that will strip rights from citizens under literally no burden of proof for those making these claims.
    - isoskeles 5y ago
      Why do you think I'm obligated to defend the position that "massive systemic voter fraud" is the only valid reason for asking people to identify themselves when voting? It's interesting considering I never brought up massive systemic voter fraud, I only brought up that a $250 fee to resolve a one-off problem with someone's identity, that his mother ultimately caused, isn't a "poll tax."
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

Appreciative to see we've all moved on from, 'voter id is inherently racist,' to, 'what if my dog ate my voter id?' (Aside, today is having fun with quotes day.)

ModernMech 5y ago

Abusive partners exerting control by restricting access to important documents is a very real problem for many women, and men for that matter. Also this is something abusive parents and human traffickers do. It should not be minimized and trivialized as “my dog ate my voter id”.

isoskeles 5y ago
I’m trivializing the use of the victim of an event as justification to say we can’t have voter id. It’s a strange argument, coming off as if voter id laws and protecting people from spousal abuse must be at odds, so anyone who supports voter id must support spousal abuse as well. Is the next argument that Hitler wanted voter id? At what point do we get to actually discuss the merits of validating a person is who they say they are so they get exactly one vote?
- ModernMech 5y ago
  If you want to champion a law that impacts someone's fundamental rights as a citizen, rights protected by the US Constitution, it's your duty as a fellow citizen to consider the impact of that law on everyone, and to show that you've taken appropriate consideration as to the first and second order impact of your proposal. Implementing a voter ID law in the way being pushed right now will disenfranchise people, and it seems like every time an example of an impacted group is brought it, they are summarily dismissed and their existence minimized as "edge cases" or mocked. e.g. "What, are minorities so dumb they can't get an ID?" or in this case "What, did the dog eat your voter ID?" But it doesn't change the fact that this law you are pushing will take away their rights. What are you going to propose to make them whole, or did you not think it through that far? It would just be nice if you would demonstrate you are as concerned with disenfranchising your fellow citizens as you are cracking down on suspected and heretofore yet unproven massive voter fraud. > At what point do we get to actually discuss the merits of validating a person is who they say they are so they get exactly one vote? Well, it would be nice if the side claiming massive systemic voter fraud would prove their claims. That would be a good starting point. Then we could have actionable fixes that address a specific problem to minimize collateral damage. I just don't understand why we have to engage in a massive civic project that will strip rights from citizens under literally no burden of proof for those making these claims.
  - isoskeles 5y ago
    Why do you think I'm obligated to defend the position that "massive systemic voter fraud" is the only valid reason for asking people to identify themselves when voting? It's interesting considering I never brought up massive systemic voter fraud, I only brought up that a $250 fee to resolve a one-off problem with someone's identity, that his mother ultimately caused, isn't a "poll tax."
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]