It would be impossible to administer and judge imo.

For example, if you asked the forum who controls the executive branch of the U.S. government, e_d would say "the president," Victor would say "capitalists", and Luckbox would say "a shadow group that has enormous enthusiasm for psy-ops."

Regardless of which person I most agree with, I'm pretty sure that all three people have devoted a lot of time to thinking about politics and government and should be allowed to vote.

You make it seem pretty great!

I'm pretty sure that Victor and Luckbox would not give those answers if they wanted to be allowed to vote. That's a terrible example.

But there isn't really a significant difference between your saying something would be impossible and my saying the same thing would be so difficult as to be not realistically feasible.

In general, I don't know why you and others feel the need to go on about how someone's ideal way to handle a situation would be impossible or bad policy.

Agree it’s pretty dumb for people to indulge in your fantasy world that you use to sidestep the realities presented in the opposing dialogue. Conversation would be better for everyone if it was just over at that point

Why don’t you use more of that fun thinking that you do to process what other people have responded with?

I have no such desire.

Sounds like a weak law school

Oh dear. How very... Athenian. (For those at the back who came in late, the 'democracy' of Athens was over 2,000 years ago, and it was actually a slave-owning state and an oligarchy, rather like the United States of America as originally constituted -- and frankly the USA hasn't changed as much as it should have done.)

I don't know that it is any more or less dumb than proposing the ideal but impossible solution in the first place. In any case, as you point out, my post wasn't really in tension with what you said, so I don't know why it annoyed you.

I just made an auxiliary comment that I didn't think being "elitist" in terms of voting rights was necessarily wrong. Of course I didn't mean it should be based on race or sex or property ownership, I stated based on knowledge of the candidates or the issues.

But then OMG, this reminds someone of a racist thing that happened in the past, or something those horrible members of some particular political party have advocated, so then people assume and accuse me of being racist, and of having policy opinions which have nothing at all to do with voting rights (vaccine policies, environmental policies, etc.).

Pretty much every regular poster in this forum has launched strawman attacks on me, because they can't seem to comprehend the idea that I might have come up with some nuanced ideas that don't exactly conform with the platform of any particular political party.

If you think my ideas are bad, that's fine, but leave the strawman and ad hominem attacks aside please.

That is how the left works if you do not agree with them

This is not an attack, I’m laying out how conversations with you historically go. People will present you with reality and you’ll escape into this fantasy land and people will rightfully call you dumb and uninformed.

You: How many people could be without IDs anyway?

Someone else: 20mm

You: We’ll how many of those people would really wanna vote anyway? ThEy shood make IDs fReE

You see how the conversation is not productive now? You’ve never properly acknowledged the information given to you and then say nothing meaningful until some other point is brought up that you insert yourself into that you know nothing about

I am curious what people do you think do not have ID? Do you think if these people wanted to vote there would not be organizations that would help with that.

For me I think ID is a must but I also think standing in line for over 30 minutes is nuts.

I just do not know how you can function in society without some form of ID

lol wat?

I don’t know the realities of people who can’t afford or obtain an ID, surprise!


The problem is that you have nearly 10% of adults who will are largely marginalised being unable to vote

You just scoffed at the idea of standing in line for 30 minutes. Good job making a point, barriers to entry no matter how minuscule will keep a large % of people from doing things they might otherwise do

I just think the ID is least hinderance to voting in an election.

I am not sure what you mean by 10 % of adults who are marginalised being unable to vote or are you saying 10% of Americans do not have voter ID

I think standing in line to long to vote or access to voting sites is a bigger thing than ID . I still have no clue how you function in society with no ID

Without acknowledging my prior central point there cannot be a coherent convo between us

I did acknowledge the 20m, I said I thought that was wrong, and the first estimate I found online (in a liberal media source) said 3m.

The conversation becomes unproductive because others then accused me of being racist, before any of those other things happened.

There was a study in 2005 co-chaired by Jimmy Carter which recommended national IDs that would be free and used for voting.
I don't think that's a crazy opinion for me to share. Of course I link to that study and not a single person comments on it, just like always happens when I provide references supporting something I agree with, because they are always reasonable and either clearly non-partisan or from liberal sources.

Yet still people accuse me of giving the Fox News or Republican party line, which are the main things I am actually uninformed of, because I don't follow right wing news sources at all, and the things I agree with the Republicans on are very few.

I am not uninformed about historical and current abuses with regards to voting rights.
You either assume I don't know that there were literacy tests and fees used to keep blacks away from the polls in the past, and that Republicans are currently calling for ID requirements as a way to suppress the votes of people who usually vote against them,or you assume that I support that sort of discrimination.

You guys must either watch a lot of right wing media, or else a lot of left wing media railing against the right wing positions, which is also ridiculous. Most of you should try thinking about an issue for yourself and actually understanding what someone states instead of just parroting the standard liberal response to the standard conservative beliefs in which you try to pigeon hole anyone who doesn't agree with you on everything.

So what you're saying is that you didn't. 20mm, 3mm, the number has a meaning that you at no point acknowledged

how many times does an idea have to have the same ridiculously predictable negative outcome before one can start saying it's a dumb idea?

Oh, now I have to acknowledge a specific "meaning" to the number? It's an estimate of the number of people in the US who don't have ID. I think the second number is closer to the correct one than the second. WTF other meaning am I supposed to acknowledge?

Hmm, I don't know, maybe at least once? We have never tried in the US to issue national ID cards and require them for voting, so you neither of us can know the "ridiculously predictable negative outcome", and I believe it would be a positive outcome, because those with no ID would be able to live much better than they do with no ID.

You asked a question within a conversation you were having and then refuted the given answer to something you didn’t care to research on your own until you were met with a figure because that information was of some meaning to you

Sounds like a good question for communists.

No one can make you absorb new information and incorporate it into your worldview. That’s the hero’s journey to need to take on your own.

Sounds like you’ve got nothing but lazy “whatabout” responses because you know your views are garbage.