3 ms·

I certainly don’t think we should restrict voting to landowners but maybe having a minimum requirement for citizens to participate in democracy (having an ID) i

I certainly don’t think we should restrict voting to landowners but maybe having a minimum requirement for citizens to participate in democracy (having an ID) isn’t a bad thing. I think the concern with not requiring ID is that it could allow non-citizens to vote. Making it illegal for non-citizens to vote also disproportionately affects minorities, but that doesn’t justify changing that. Do you know any minorities personally who have struggled to get an ID? Most minorities I know would be pretty offended by that implication.

Timon3 2y ago
> I certainly don’t think we should restrict voting to landowners but maybe having a minimum requirement for citizens to participate in democracy (having an ID) isn’t a bad thing. Come on, you can't mean this in good faith as a response to my previous comment. It's a fact that minorities are less likely to have government ID, and that it's on average harder for them to acquire it. This is not "a minimum requirement", this is a requirement that - in the current system - deliberately shifts power by disenfranchising voters. > I think the concern with not requiring ID is that it could allow non-citizens to vote. Making it illegal for non-citizens to vote also disproportionately affects minorities, but that doesn’t justify changing that. It is already illegal for non-citizens to vote, but I'm sure you know that. You also know that there is no comparison between the two things. The worst part is: non-citizens voting would be a valid concern if there were any evidence for this happening beyond a handful of cases per election. But there isn't, because non-citizens generally don't want to risk being caught for one single additional vote. And it's not for a lack of looking - the GOP has spent millions upon millions of dollars to find anything, and they have not been able to procure evidence of non-citizens voting in any meaningful capacity. Yet apparently the rules must be changed anyway, no matter the cost to democracy. > Do you know any minorities personally who have struggled to get an ID? Most minorities I know would be pretty offended by that implication. Do you have anything meaningful to contribute to this discussion? Any response to any of the points I've already brought up? I don't need to bring up anecdotal evidence when this topic has been broadly researched, and basic logic leads to the same inevitable conclusion.
- sroerick 2y ago
  > Come on, you can't mean this in good faith as a response to my previous comment. I sincerely do, I don’t know what else to tell you. > It is already illegal for non-citizens to vote, but I'm sure you know that. In many states, non citizens can vote in state or municipal elections just not the federal. In states without Voter ID, a non citizen could easily register with an electric bill. It would be illegal, but it would be very hard to prosecute. > Do you have anything meaningful to contribute to this discussion? I think you bring up great points in a challenging and partisan topic. I’m just outlining some of the concerns that people have with not requiring Voter ID. You can dismiss them as invalid if you want! But I think you would have more luck trying to prevent the disenfranchisement of minorities if you wouldn’t dismiss all of these concerns out of hand. Again, you’ve made a fairly strong case that voter ID disproportionately affects minorities, but you haven’t made the case that wide swaths of voting citizens are actually disenfranchised, nor have you made an argument that justifies abandoning the concept of election security altogether.
  - Timon3 2y ago
    > In many states, non citizens can vote in state or municipal elections just not the federal. In states without Voter ID, a non citizen could easily register with an electric bill. It would be illegal, but it would be very hard to prosecute. Let's play this scenario through. You're a non-citizen and risk being found by registering to vote. You get a provisional ballot (since you can't have registered properly before, as that would have been validated and found). This provisional ballot will be counted once your registration is validated, which it won't be, since you're a non-citizen. So what is the exact danger here? > I think you bring up great points in a challenging and partisan topic. I’m just outlining some of the concerns that people have with not requiring Voter ID. You can dismiss them as invalid if you want! But I think you would have more luck trying to prevent the disenfranchisement of minorities if you wouldn’t dismiss all of these concerns out of hand. Thanks, but I'm not dismissing them out of hand, I'm asking for evidence that these things actually happen. If that evidence exists I'll gladly agree that election security must be improved. > Again, you’ve made a fairly strong case that voter ID disproportionately affects minorities, but you haven’t made the case that wide swaths of voting citizens are actually disenfranchised, nor have you made an argument that justifies abandoning the concept of election security altogether. Of course I haven't made an argument that justifies abandoning the concept of election security altogether, because who would want that? I want elections to be secure, just like everyone else. I think I've made a pretty good case that enough voting citizens would be disenfranchised. Why does it have to be wide swaths? Why should you be allowed to disenfranchise even a small percentage of voters, even though you have no evidence that your security concerns are actual issues?

Timon3 2y ago

> I certainly don’t think we should restrict voting to landowners but maybe having a minimum requirement for citizens to participate in democracy (having an ID) isn’t a bad thing. Come on, you can't mean this in good faith as a response to my previous comment. It's a fact that minorities are less likely to have government ID, and that it's on average harder for them to acquire it. This is not "a minimum requirement", this is a requirement that - in the current system - deliberately shifts power by disenfranchising voters. > I think the concern with not requiring ID is that it could allow non-citizens to vote. Making it illegal for non-citizens to vote also disproportionately affects minorities, but that doesn’t justify changing that. It is already illegal for non-citizens to vote, but I'm sure you know that. You also know that there is no comparison between the two things. The worst part is: non-citizens voting would be a valid concern if there were any evidence for this happening beyond a handful of cases per election. But there isn't, because non-citizens generally don't want to risk being caught for one single additional vote. And it's not for a lack of looking - the GOP has spent millions upon millions of dollars to find anything, and they have not been able to procure evidence of non-citizens voting in any meaningful capacity. Yet apparently the rules must be changed anyway, no matter the cost to democracy. > Do you know any minorities personally who have struggled to get an ID? Most minorities I know would be pretty offended by that implication. Do you have anything meaningful to contribute to this discussion? Any response to any of the points I've already brought up? I don't need to bring up anecdotal evidence when this topic has been broadly researched, and basic logic leads to the same inevitable conclusion.

sroerick 2y ago
> Come on, you can't mean this in good faith as a response to my previous comment. I sincerely do, I don’t know what else to tell you. > It is already illegal for non-citizens to vote, but I'm sure you know that. In many states, non citizens can vote in state or municipal elections just not the federal. In states without Voter ID, a non citizen could easily register with an electric bill. It would be illegal, but it would be very hard to prosecute. > Do you have anything meaningful to contribute to this discussion? I think you bring up great points in a challenging and partisan topic. I’m just outlining some of the concerns that people have with not requiring Voter ID. You can dismiss them as invalid if you want! But I think you would have more luck trying to prevent the disenfranchisement of minorities if you wouldn’t dismiss all of these concerns out of hand. Again, you’ve made a fairly strong case that voter ID disproportionately affects minorities, but you haven’t made the case that wide swaths of voting citizens are actually disenfranchised, nor have you made an argument that justifies abandoning the concept of election security altogether.
- Timon3 2y ago
  > In many states, non citizens can vote in state or municipal elections just not the federal. In states without Voter ID, a non citizen could easily register with an electric bill. It would be illegal, but it would be very hard to prosecute. Let's play this scenario through. You're a non-citizen and risk being found by registering to vote. You get a provisional ballot (since you can't have registered properly before, as that would have been validated and found). This provisional ballot will be counted once your registration is validated, which it won't be, since you're a non-citizen. So what is the exact danger here? > I think you bring up great points in a challenging and partisan topic. I’m just outlining some of the concerns that people have with not requiring Voter ID. You can dismiss them as invalid if you want! But I think you would have more luck trying to prevent the disenfranchisement of minorities if you wouldn’t dismiss all of these concerns out of hand. Thanks, but I'm not dismissing them out of hand, I'm asking for evidence that these things actually happen. If that evidence exists I'll gladly agree that election security must be improved. > Again, you’ve made a fairly strong case that voter ID disproportionately affects minorities, but you haven’t made the case that wide swaths of voting citizens are actually disenfranchised, nor have you made an argument that justifies abandoning the concept of election security altogether. Of course I haven't made an argument that justifies abandoning the concept of election security altogether, because who would want that? I want elections to be secure, just like everyone else. I think I've made a pretty good case that enough voting citizens would be disenfranchised. Why does it have to be wide swaths? Why should you be allowed to disenfranchise even a small percentage of voters, even though you have no evidence that your security concerns are actual issues?