3 ms·

>You are missing the point. No I'm not. >Even if there is no financial cost, it requires documentation and time to get voter ID. Yes, you must prove your eli

>You are missing the point. No I'm not. >Even if there is no financial cost, it requires documentation and time to get voter ID. Yes, you must prove your eligibility to vote. >It is not issued automatically. They are issued automatically after proving eligibility. >That's why 10% of the US population doesn't have form of ID that could be used to vote Correlation != causation >and will be disenfranchised under Republican voter ID requirements. No they won't. >Until that issue is fixed, voter ID is not something I can support. There are no issues to fix.

hackyhacky 18d ago
>and will be disenfranchised under Republican voter ID requirements. Can you explain this further? A person who can legally vote today, but in the future cannot vote because of election restrictions, will be disenfranchised. You are supporting election restrictions that disenfranchise 10% of the US population. >>That's why 10% of the US population doesn't have form of ID that could be used to vote >Correlation != causation I never made a claim of causation. I just said that 10% of legal US voting-eligible citizens don't have ID and will therefore be disenfranchised by your proposal. > They are issued automatically after proving eligibility. That's not what "automatic" means.
- throwawayfifo 6d ago
  >Can you explain this further? Yes, voter ID laws do not disenfranchise voters. The Supreme Court agrees with this statement. >A person who can legally vote today, but in the future cannot vote because of election restrictions, will be disenfranchised. Voter ID laws are not "election restrictions" the same way as registering to vote is not an "election restriction." >I just said that 10% of legal US voting-eligible citizens don't have ID and will therefore be disenfranchised by your proposal. That's not what the stat says. Nowhere does it say 10% of "voter-eligible" US citizens don't have IDs. >That's not what "automatic" means. Wrong, that is what automatic means.

hackyhacky 18d ago

>and will be disenfranchised under Republican voter ID requirements. Can you explain this further? A person who can legally vote today, but in the future cannot vote because of election restrictions, will be disenfranchised. You are supporting election restrictions that disenfranchise 10% of the US population. >>That's why 10% of the US population doesn't have form of ID that could be used to vote >Correlation != causation I never made a claim of causation. I just said that 10% of legal US voting-eligible citizens don't have ID and will therefore be disenfranchised by your proposal. > They are issued automatically after proving eligibility. That's not what "automatic" means.

throwawayfifo 6d ago
>Can you explain this further? Yes, voter ID laws do not disenfranchise voters. The Supreme Court agrees with this statement. >A person who can legally vote today, but in the future cannot vote because of election restrictions, will be disenfranchised. Voter ID laws are not "election restrictions" the same way as registering to vote is not an "election restriction." >I just said that 10% of legal US voting-eligible citizens don't have ID and will therefore be disenfranchised by your proposal. That's not what the stat says. Nowhere does it say 10% of "voter-eligible" US citizens don't have IDs. >That's not what "automatic" means. Wrong, that is what automatic means.