Just found out that in Texas some people need to travel 300 miles to obtain an ID. I travel 3 miles for my ID. They need to have a traveling truck which allows people a chance at an ID at least once a month.

And they rarely move up out of poverty. Imagine that.

Can't go to a check cashing store without an ID either. I guess poor people only work for cash.

Poor 94-year-olds don't tend to have jobs.

Just keep ****in that chicken.

They also rarely go through a day without putting on socks.

FREE TOES = PROSPERITY

Are there any current or recent democracies that place requirements like writing or civic knowledge tests on voters, not for partisan purposes but to improve the ability of the electorate to represent their own interests?

What percentage of poor people make it to the nineties? Must be much, much smaller than the general population.

Also they do have IDs. You need them to collect SS.

First, let's agree that sometimes people/societies do things to prevent problems and are not just reactionary. Don't make me make strawman arguments.

Second, honestly at first glance I'm like, photo ID, what's the big deal? Then again I'm a privileged white male. So I have an idea that may be more amiable to someone like MrWookie....

What about, a 4 year headstart, ie: pass the law April 1st 2012, first election requiring such ID is any election after April 1st 2016?

woah woah woah

I hope by ribbing me for not understating correlation/causation with regard to the voting habits of poor people, you guys are not somehow implying that these poor people have some personal responsibility for their status. It is NOT their fault. We all know that if only more democrats were in positions of political power, there would be no more poverty. After all, only the democrats can fight "The Man" for them and be advocates for socks, living-wages, and ponies for everyone.

There's a saying that pertains to the historic voting patterns of the poor, and the subsequent change (or lack thereof) in socioeconomic status of said poor people, but I don't quite remember it. Something about doing the same thing over and over and insanity.

Despite the fact that it has been shown empirically and anecdotally again and again that poor people and minorities are far less likely to have an ID, you people keep coming up with these horrible arguments to incredulity.

You don't need a picture ID to collect SS or cash a check. You just need to be known by a bank employee or sign your check over to a family member who can put it in their account and give you the money. I imagine check cashing companies will also take other forms of ID.

That would make more sense. As well as making IDs easier to obtain instead of harder to obtain. But this won't happen because this isn't about preventing voter fraud. It's about gaming the system to favor Republicans. (Probably Democrats would do the same thing if there were some way to disenfranchise the rich.) That's why in Texas a concealed carry permit is good enough to vote, but a university ID is not.

Except that literally no one thinks this except conservatives when they imagine what liberals must think. So it's really a complete non-argument. But if it makes you feel better to vent nonsense go ahead.

If republicans really cared about voter ID's they would do this. As this is pretty much the *standard* way to implement any new law that's going to take people a while to comply with.

But we all know these voter ID laws are 100% about avoiding a repeat of 2008 in 2012 and zero % about reducing fraud.

lolwat?

I can only speak for Wisconsin, but the only reason Voter ID is finally getting passed is due to massive republican victories resulting in recent elections.

WI legislature had sent Voter ID to the desk of our democratic Governor three times in the past 9 years. All three times it was vetoed and couldn't garner 2/3 support to override the veto.

Based on that fact, your statement makes zero sense.

You just completely supported my argument.

I find it frustrating because I know insoo is capable of conversing without such complete nonsense. But when I read stuff like he wrote I just want to start dismissing him completely.

That seems to be a pretty standard tactic. Stick to the facts and reasoned arguments when you think you have a case, resort to ridiculous hyperbole and rhetoric when you don't.

Your trying to propose reasonable alternatives to the Dems. Good luck with that.

Right now most of the ID laws are being phased in over a couple years. That people can sign a provisional ballot and obtain an ID after the fact. It's really not going stop anyone from voting who wants to vote.

From the Dems side they do not want tougher voting laws. They do not care if noncitizens are voting, which I have seen studies estimating it could be as much as 1-3% in border states.

My suspicion is that if you linked those "studies" you'd run the risk of getting banned because they are from like, VDARE or whatever the **** Mark Krikorian's thinktank calls itself.

I want to make one million dollars in five years. I'm willing to put in 100 hour weeks, and I am above average intelligence.

Please tell me how to do it because I am ready and willing. Please, no generalities like "Start a business," or "Invest really well," we're talking blueprints here.

I figure you ought to know.

What are you preventing, though? Like, the technology to go up to a voting booth, say your someone else, sign your name as someone else, and then vote has existed for centuries. The notion that someone might want to do this has also existed for centuries. It's not a new idea. There is no reason for at-the-booth vote fraud to be a huge problem in the future if it is not now.

Why doesn't the voter ID crowd want to eliminate absentee ballots? You don't show your ID when you drop the absentee ballot in the mail. ANYBODY could have filled that out! It's as easy to fantasize about fraud with absentee ballots as fraud from in person voting.

Also the finger ink dye is really excellent and incompatible with absentee voting. So do what you must to prevent the frauds. Sure, it will be inconvenient for certain demographics: the elderly, the military. It's a coincidence that those are Republican strongholds, I swear. Gotta prevent the voter frauds and finger dye is the best way.

Now imagine you were raised with a ****ty education in a chaotic environment, you have no seed money and no one you know has even a dime you can borrow, and the bank just laughs in your face. Gogogogogo

We've had multiple reputable citations asserting that your 1-3% number is dead wrong. Provide a link to your study, and review forum rule #3.