Tell me liberals .. Why is it racist to ask for an ID for voting but not for

[Dad2three]

I don't see a problem with asking for an ID when your ballot is cast.

I do. What if you dont have one?

Then get one like 99.99999% of the rest of the population.

getting welfare, hospital care, ride on a plane, write a check, go to the doctors, buy a beer , buy a car, buy or rent a house, If the so called poor people cant afford an ID or a car to get the voting booths do they have those problems to go to the grocery store? Go to the doctors office or hospital?

A better question to ask as a response to the OP is "why do we need an I D to vote?" What problem are we solving at the poll by requesting ID ? In a country that values freedom and the right to free speech and recognizing that voting is the ultimate in freedom of speech why would we add any encumbrance to the activity?

As long as any appreciable detectable vote deception is not proven, and I don't believe it has, we should shy away from any requirements that smack of discrimination.

Simple:


Paul Weyrich, "father" of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and various other groups tells his flock that he doesn't want people to vote.


"Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

 

[hadit]

I did refute it, several times. NRA convention goers are allowed to carry weapons everywhere except where a venue has rules against it. I found that in your own post, so how much more plain can it be? You're simply wrong.

" except where a venue has rules against it"

Thanks for agreeing

Yes, I agree that I've nuked your insane argument that NRA members attending the NRA convention are not allowed to bring their guns with them. They are, plain and simple. You're wrong, because you relied on an erroneous report and didn't bother to get the whole story. Don't worry, it happens. I see lefties do it all the time, because they tend to live in a bubble where emotion rules the day, and fact need not enter. It leads them into situations like this.

Stop projecting Bubba

You could try using fact, not emotion to actually support your case instead of posting facts that undermine it. Try it sometime.

Your projection noted Bubs

No, I checked. It's you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

getting welfare, hospital care, ride on a plane, write a check, go to the doctors, buy a beer , buy a car, buy or rent a house, If the so called poor people cant afford an ID or a car to get the voting booths do they have those problems to go to the grocery store? Go to the doctors office or hospital?

A better question to ask as a response to the OP is "why do we need an I D to vote?"

To make sure you are who you say you are.
The right to vote cannot be meaningfully exercised unless the state can verify any claim to that effect.

 

[HUGGY]

getting welfare, hospital care, ride on a plane, write a check, go to the doctors, buy a beer , buy a car, buy or rent a house, If the so called poor people cant afford an ID or a car to get the voting booths do they have those problems to go to the grocery store? Go to the doctors office or hospital?

A better question to ask as a response to the OP is "why do we need an I D to vote?"

To make sure you are who you say you are.
The right to vote cannot be meaningfully exercised unless the state can verify any claim to that effect.

That, on the very thin skin of the surface, SEEMS like a reasonable statement. It is not. All the state needs to verify is that the voter is old enough to vote. A copy of a birth certificate is all that is needed or just a simple sworn oath upon entry to the poll should be good enough when age is questioned. What the state needs is to know is that someone has not voted twice or more. This they can do easily by computer.

Using the "well you have to have I D to get food stamps etc" is a glib bait and switch reply as obviously one who goes to the voting poll is not looking to defraud the state in receiving illegal food stamps.

More and more people do not live in a stable self owned home as in the past. As this society becomes more mobile or displaced there is no GOOD reason to exclude them from their right to vote no matter where they happen to be when the election takes place.

 

[M14 Shooter]

getting welfare, hospital care, ride on a plane, write a check, go to the doctors, buy a beer , buy a car, buy or rent a house, If the so called poor people cant afford an ID or a car to get the voting booths do they have those problems to go to the grocery store? Go to the doctors office or hospital?

A better question to ask as a response to the OP is "why do we need an I D to vote?"

To make sure you are who you say you are.
The right to vote cannot be meaningfully exercised unless the state can verify any claim to that effect.

That, on the very thin skin of the surface, SEEMS like a reasonable statement. It is not. All the state needs to verify is that the voter is old enough to vote. A copy of a birth certificate is all that is needed or just a simple sworn oath upon entry to the poll should be good enough when age is questioned.

None of these things positively verify the ID of the person claiming to be you at the poll.
A state-issued ID is the least restrictive means of doing this.

What the state needs is to know is that someone has not voted twice or more. This they can do easily by computer.

Uh-huh. And what happens when you get the poll and are told you already voted?

 

[Dad2three]

getting welfare, hospital care, ride on a plane, write a check, go to the doctors, buy a beer , buy a car, buy or rent a house, If the so called poor people cant afford an ID or a car to get the voting booths do they have those problems to go to the grocery store? Go to the doctors office or hospital?

A better question to ask as a response to the OP is "why do we need an I D to vote?"

To make sure you are who you say you are.
The right to vote cannot be meaningfully exercised unless the state can verify any claim to that effect.

That, on the very thin skin of the surface, SEEMS like a reasonable statement. It is not. All the state needs to verify is that the voter is old enough to vote. A copy of a birth certificate is all that is needed or just a simple sworn oath upon entry to the poll should be good enough when age is questioned.

None of these things positively verify the ID of the person claiming to be you at the poll.
A state-issued ID is the least restrictive means of doing this.

What the state needs is to know is that someone has not voted twice or more. This they can do easily by computer.

Uh-huh. And what happens when you get the poll and are told you already voted?

New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed
New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed - Investigations

Republicans Admit Voter-ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters
Republicans Admit Voter ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters - The Daily Beast

The Most Brazen Attempt at Voter Suppression Yet

New revelations show GOP officials in key battleground states are attempting to purge millions of minorities from the voter rolls.

Al Jazeera America reveals massive GOP voter suppression effort Millions of minorities are being purged from voter rolls ahead of midterm elections.


Unbelievable GOP Statements on Voter Suppression

Governor Chris Christie: Same-Day Voter Registration Is a “Trick” and GOP Needs to Win Gubernatorial Races So They Control “Voting Mechanisms”

Fran Millar: Georgia Senator Complains About Polling Place Being Too Convenient for Black Voters



Doug Preis: An Ohio GOP Chair Says We Shouldn’t Accommodate the “Urban — Read African-American — Voter-Turnout Machine”



Greg Abbott: Texas AG Says Partisan Districting Decisions Are Legal, Even if There Are “Incidental Effects” on Minority Voters


Don Yelton: North Carolina GOP Precinct Chair: Voter ID Law Will “Kick Democrats in the Butt” and Hurt “Lazy Blacks”

Unbelievable GOP Statements on Voter Suppression BillMoyers.com



Roxanne Rubin, Nevada Republican, Accepts Plea Deal After Committing Voter Fraud

Rubin said that she was trying to show how easy it would be to commit voter fraud with just a signature. "This has always been an issue with me. I just feel the system is flawed," she told the AP Thursday. "If we’re showing ID for everything else, why wouldn’t we show our ID in order to vote?”

Rubin, like many Republicans, claim that the threat from voter fraud -- which is close to non-existent -- is why voter ID laws need to be in place. But Nevada has no voter ID law -- other than for first-time voters who didn't show ID when they registered to vote -- and she was caught anyway.

Roxanne Rubin Nevada Republican Accepts Plea Deal After Committing Voter Fraud

 

[JoeMoma]

The owner of the bar that didn't check his customer IDs also had no problem with underage drinking.

 

[squeeze berry]

Not sure why you need an i.d. to vote .

So YOU can't walk in to the polling place and lie about being a registered voter OR say you are me and vote MY legal registration. The ONLY POSSIBLE reason not to require valid ID is so YOU can cheat the system.

What did they do before ID?

The Ds voted early and often.

So george washington was the result of voter fraud?

perhaps Obama was???

 

[JoeMoma]

Let's say grandma no longer drives, so she lets her driver's license expire. Mom plans on taking grandma to vote. Well, grandma doesn't feel well on Election Day, so mom simply goes and votes in grandma's place. Mom knows how grandma is going to vote anyway! Nothing wrong with this is there? How would anyone know the difference without requiring picture ID to vote? All mom has to do is present Grandma's voter registration card when she votes in grandma's place.

Now that I think about it, it doesn't matter if Grandma's license has expired or not in this situation.

 

[HUGGY]

getting welfare, hospital care, ride on a plane, write a check, go to the doctors, buy a beer , buy a car, buy or rent a house, If the so called poor people cant afford an ID or a car to get the voting booths do they have those problems to go to the grocery store? Go to the doctors office or hospital?

A better question to ask as a response to the OP is "why do we need an I D to vote?"

To make sure you are who you say you are.
The right to vote cannot be meaningfully exercised unless the state can verify any claim to that effect.

That, on the very thin skin of the surface, SEEMS like a reasonable statement. It is not. All the state needs to verify is that the voter is old enough to vote. A copy of a birth certificate is all that is needed or just a simple sworn oath upon entry to the poll should be good enough when age is questioned.

None of these things positively verify the ID of the person claiming to be you at the poll.
A state-issued ID is the least restrictive means of doing this.

What the state needs is to know is that someone has not voted twice or more. This they can do easily by computer.

Uh-huh. And what happens when you get the poll and are told you already voted?

Uh...Huh.. You take it to your local sheriff or state patrol or your state elections people. You handle it like any crime. But seriously..??? How often does this happen? About as many people get their votes stolen as get hit by lightning? It certainly doesn't happen enough to get a complete state to jump through another hoop as an obstacle and an obvious attempt to get the poorest, least able and for whatever reason displaced from their normal residence of our citizens.

When it comes right down to it some people would rather have a certain type of citizens voting and not others.

We should back away from that kind of thinking.

Me? I would prefer only over 65 Atheists allowed to vote. I think Christians and Muslims and Jews should have to prove that there is a god to vote. If they can't then they are too crazy to pick our representatives... But that's just me.

 

[Care4all]

getting welfare, hospital care, ride on a plane, write a check, go to the doctors, buy a beer , buy a car, buy or rent a house, If the so called poor people cant afford an ID or a car to get the voting booths do they have those problems to go to the grocery store? Go to the doctors office or hospital?

A better question to ask as a response to the OP is "why do we need an I D to vote?"

To make sure you are who you say you are.
The right to vote cannot be meaningfully exercised unless the state can verify any claim to that effect.

That, on the very thin skin of the surface, SEEMS like a reasonable statement. It is not. All the state needs to verify is that the voter is old enough to vote. A copy of a birth certificate is all that is needed or just a simple sworn oath upon entry to the poll should be good enough when age is questioned.

None of these things positively verify the ID of the person claiming to be you at the poll.
A state-issued ID is the least restrictive means of doing this.

What the state needs is to know is that someone has not voted twice or more. This they can do easily by computer.

Uh-huh. And what happens when you get the poll and are told you already voted?

Uh...Huh.. You take it to your local sheriff or state patrol or your state elections people. You handle it like any crime. But seriously..??? How often does this happen? About as many people get their votes stolen as get hit by lightning? It certainly doesn't happen enough to get a complete state to jump through another hoop as an obstacle and an obvious attempt to get the poorest, least able and for whatever reason displaced from their normal residence of our citizens.

When it comes right down to it some people would rather have a certain type of citizens voting and not others.

We should back away from that kind of thinking.

Me? I would prefer only over 65 Atheists allowed to vote. I think Christians and Muslims and Jews should have to prove that there is a god to vote. If they can't then they are too crazy to pick our representatives... But that's just me.

Well, If I were not "me" I would say to you.... F you, I am voting, and I believe in this fairy God in the Universe!

 

[HUGGY]

A better question to ask as a response to the OP is "why do we need an I D to vote?"

To make sure you are who you say you are.
The right to vote cannot be meaningfully exercised unless the state can verify any claim to that effect.

That, on the very thin skin of the surface, SEEMS like a reasonable statement. It is not. All the state needs to verify is that the voter is old enough to vote. A copy of a birth certificate is all that is needed or just a simple sworn oath upon entry to the poll should be good enough when age is questioned.

None of these things positively verify the ID of the person claiming to be you at the poll.
A state-issued ID is the least restrictive means of doing this.

What the state needs is to know is that someone has not voted twice or more. This they can do easily by computer.

Uh-huh. And what happens when you get the poll and are told you already voted?

Uh...Huh.. You take it to your local sheriff or state patrol or your state elections people. You handle it like any crime. But seriously..??? How often does this happen? About as many people get their votes stolen as get hit by lightning? It certainly doesn't happheavenen enough to get a complete state to jump through another hoop as an obstacle and an obvious attempt to get the poorest, least able and for whatever reason displaced from their normal residence of our citizens.

When it comes right down to it some people would rather have a certain type of citizens voting and not others.

We should back away from that kind of thinking.

Me? I would prefer only over 65 Atheists allowed to vote. I think Christians and Muslims and Jews should have to prove that there is a god to vote. If they can't then they are too crazy to pick our representatives... But that's just me.

Well, If I were not "me" I would say to you.... F you, I am voting, and I believe in this fairy God in the Universe!

"F you" ??? Why all the HATE ???
Stick to your guns Sweetheart! You can have my spot in the heaven. Now you can stretch out with all the extra leg room. I'll be doing something useful like feeding worms.

 

[Care4all]

To make sure you are who you say you are.
The right to vote cannot be meaningfully exercised unless the state can verify any claim to that effect.

That, on the very thin skin of the surface, SEEMS like a reasonable statement. It is not. All the state needs to verify is that the voter is old enough to vote. A copy of a birth certificate is all that is needed or just a simple sworn oath upon entry to the poll should be good enough when age is questioned.

None of these things positively verify the ID of the person claiming to be you at the poll.
A state-issued ID is the least restrictive means of doing this.

What the state needs is to know is that someone has not voted twice or more. This they can do easily by computer.

Uh-huh. And what happens when you get the poll and are told you already voted?

Uh...Huh.. You take it to your local sheriff or state patrol or your state elections people. You handle it like any crime. But seriously..??? How often does this happen? About as many people get their votes stolen as get hit by lightning? It certainly doesn't happheavenen enough to get a complete state to jump through another hoop as an obstacle and an obvious attempt to get the poorest, least able and for whatever reason displaced from their normal residence of our citizens.

When it comes right down to it some people would rather have a certain type of citizens voting and not others.

We should back away from that kind of thinking.

Me? I would prefer only over 65 Atheists allowed to vote. I think Christians and Muslims and Jews should have to prove that there is a god to vote. If they can't then they are too crazy to pick our representatives... But that's just me.

Well, If I were not "me" I would say to you.... F you, I am voting, and I believe in this fairy God in the Universe!

"F you" ??? Why all the HATE ???
Stick to your guns Sweetheart! You can have my spot in the heaven. Now you can stretch out with all the extra leg room. I'll be doing something useful like feeding worms.

F you, because you were trying to take my vote away in your Dream scenario(because I believe in the fairy God without any proof)....but you know I was only kidding Huggy!

I don't need the extra space, I am a small, short stick of dynamite, I'd rather see you take up that space and be by my side!

 

[natstew]

getting welfare, hospital care, ride on a plane, write a check, go to the doctors, buy a beer , buy a car, buy or rent a house, If the so called poor people cant afford an ID or a car to get the voting booths do they have those problems to go to the grocery store? Go to the doctors office or hospital?

A better question to ask as a response to the OP is "why do we need an I D to vote?"

To make sure you are who you say you are.
The right to vote cannot be meaningfully exercised unless the state can verify any claim to that effect.

That, on the very thin skin of the surface, SEEMS like a reasonable statement. It is not. All the state needs to verify is that the voter is old enough to vote. A copy of a birth certificate is all that is needed or just a simple sworn oath upon entry to the poll should be good enough when age is questioned.

None of these things positively verify the ID of the person claiming to be you at the poll.
A state-issued ID is the least restrictive means of doing this.

What the state needs is to know is that someone has not voted twice or more. This they can do easily by computer.

Uh-huh. And what happens when you get the poll and are told you already voted?

New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed
New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed - Investigations

Republicans Admit Voter-ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters
Republicans Admit Voter ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters - The Daily Beast

The Most Brazen Attempt at Voter Suppression Yet

New revelations show GOP officials in key battleground states are attempting to purge millions of minorities from the voter rolls.

Al Jazeera America reveals massive GOP voter suppression effort Millions of minorities are being purged from voter rolls ahead of midterm elections.


Unbelievable GOP Statements on Voter Suppression

Governor Chris Christie: Same-Day Voter Registration Is a “Trick” and GOP Needs to Win Gubernatorial Races So They Control “Voting Mechanisms”

Fran Millar: Georgia Senator Complains About Polling Place Being Too Convenient for Black Voters



Doug Preis: An Ohio GOP Chair Says We Shouldn’t Accommodate the “Urban — Read African-American — Voter-Turnout Machine”



Greg Abbott: Texas AG Says Partisan Districting Decisions Are Legal, Even if There Are “Incidental Effects” on Minority Voters


Don Yelton: North Carolina GOP Precinct Chair: Voter ID Law Will “Kick Democrats in the Butt” and Hurt “Lazy Blacks”

Unbelievable GOP Statements on Voter Suppression BillMoyers.com



Roxanne Rubin, Nevada Republican, Accepts Plea Deal After Committing Voter Fraud

Rubin said that she was trying to show how easy it would be to commit voter fraud with just a signature. "This has always been an issue with me. I just feel the system is flawed," she told the AP Thursday. "If we’re showing ID for everything else, why wouldn’t we show our ID in order to vote?”

Rubin, like many Republicans, claim that the threat from voter fraud -- which is close to non-existent -- is why voter ID laws need to be in place. But Nevada has no voter ID law -- other than for first-time voters who didn't show ID when they registered to vote -- and she was caught anyway.

Roxanne Rubin Nevada Republican Accepts Plea Deal After Committing Voter Fraud

 

[timslash]

Voter id's should be issued! At least because on 2016 elections we will see same picture as on Obama's. Time to understand that illegal voters are not real voters and in fact dishonest officials will receive more votes!

 

[M14 Shooter]

getting welfare, hospital care, ride on a plane, write a check, go to the doctors, buy a beer , buy a car, buy or rent a house, If the so called poor people cant afford an ID or a car to get the voting booths do they have those problems to go to the grocery store? Go to the doctors office or hospital?

A better question to ask as a response to the OP is "why do we need an I D to vote?"

To make sure you are who you say you are.
The right to vote cannot be meaningfully exercised unless the state can verify any claim to that effect.

That, on the very thin skin of the surface, SEEMS like a reasonable statement. It is not. All the state needs to verify is that the voter is old enough to vote. A copy of a birth certificate is all that is needed or just a simple sworn oath upon entry to the poll should be good enough when age is questioned.

None of these things positively verify the ID of the person claiming to be you at the poll.
A state-issued ID is the least restrictive means of doing this.

What the state needs is to know is that someone has not voted twice or more. This they can do easily by computer.

Uh-huh. And what happens when you get the poll and are told you already voted?

Uh...Huh.. You take it to your local sheriff or state patrol or your state elections people.

Menawhile...
-You are not allowed to vote
-A vote was illegally cast in your name.
All because the state did not have a way to positively identify the person claiming to be you.

But seriously..??? How often does this happen?

Irrelevant - the state has a plenary compelling interest in protecting the rights of the voters, regardless of any demonstrable threat to same.

When it comes right down to it some people would rather have a certain type of citizens voting and not others.

Yes... those legally able to vote, as oppose to those ho are not.

 

[HUGGY]

A better question to ask as a response to the OP is "why do we need an I D to vote?"

To make sure you are who you say you are.
The right to vote cannot be meaningfully exercised unless the state can verify any claim to that effect.

That, on the very thin skin of the surface, SEEMS like a reasonable statement. It is not. All the state needs to verify is that the voter is old enough to vote. A copy of a birth certificate is all that is needed or just a simple sworn oath upon entry to the poll should be good enough when age is questioned.

None of these things positively verify the ID of the person claiming to be you at the poll.
A state-issued ID is the least restrictive means of doing this.

What the state needs is to know is that someone has not voted twice or more. This they can do easily by computer.

Uh-huh. And what happens when you get the poll and are told you already voted?

Uh...Huh.. You take it to your local sheriff or state patrol or your state elections people.

Menawhile...
-You are not allowed to vote
-A vote was illegally cast in your name.
All because the state did not have a way to positively identify the person claiming to be you.

But seriously..??? How often does this happen?

Irrelevant - the state has a plenary compelling interest in protecting the rights of the voters, regardless of any demonstrable threat to same.

When it comes right down to it some people would rather have a certain type of citizens voting and not others.

Yes... those legally able to vote, as oppose to those ho are not.

Thank you for your reply to my post. It is a stunning display of the divide between how you and I approach problem solving.

I invent things. Mostly new and useful tools and systems to do dangerous jobs better, faster and safer. I deal with solutions to ACTUAL problems and dangers that threaten the safety of workers and at the same time increase productivity.

You argue that it does not matter that you inconvenience voters because of a perceived problem that you glibly dismiss the unlikely probability that it even exists.

You and I are on polar opposites in the problem solving department. I look for solutions to workplace dangers that kill people by the hundreds every year. You make up problems to justify an agenda of restricting voting access to only those you approve of.

You freely admit the methods of your attempt to deny the vote to those that would probably cast their vote against those candidates you support. You just don't come clean on WHY you make up this threat that must be thwarted by this unnecessary demand.

You don't want poor blacks to vote. You don't want students to vote. You don't want the disadvantaged to vote. You certainly don't want the homeless to vote. You clearly are of the ilk that works tirelessly to bad talk a sitting president and carry water for those that want him to fail even if the country has to suffer decline as the real cost of your venom. You are the living breathing ghost of Aesop's "Dog In The Manger".

The Dog in the Manger
An Aesop's Fable
An Aesop's Fable
Aesop's Fable Index

A Dog looking out for its afternoon nap jumped into the Manger of an Ox and lay there cosily upon the straw. But soon the Ox, returning from its afternoon work, came up to the Manger and wanted to eat some of the straw. The Dog in a rage, being awakened from its slumber, stood up and barked at the Ox, and whenever it came near attempted to bite it. At last the Ox had to give up the hope of getting at the straw, and went away muttering:

 

[M14 Shooter]

To make sure you are who you say you are.
The right to vote cannot be meaningfully exercised unless the state can verify any claim to that effect.

That, on the very thin skin of the surface, SEEMS like a reasonable statement. It is not. All the state needs to verify is that the voter is old enough to vote. A copy of a birth certificate is all that is needed or just a simple sworn oath upon entry to the poll should be good enough when age is questioned.

None of these things positively verify the ID of the person claiming to be you at the poll.
A state-issued ID is the least restrictive means of doing this.

What the state needs is to know is that someone has not voted twice or more. This they can do easily by computer.

Uh-huh. And what happens when you get the poll and are told you already voted?

Uh...Huh.. You take it to your local sheriff or state patrol or your state elections people.

Menawhile...
-You are not allowed to vote
-A vote was illegally cast in your name.
All because the state did not have a way to positively identify the person claiming to be you.

But seriously..??? How often does this happen?

Irrelevant - the state has a plenary compelling interest in protecting the rights of the voters, regardless of any demonstrable threat to same.

When it comes right down to it some people would rather have a certain type of citizens voting and not others.

Yes... those legally able to vote, as oppose to those ho are not.

You argue that it does not matter that you inconvenience voters because of a perceived problem that you glibly dismiss the unlikely probability that it even exists.

You fail to understand that the state -always- has a responsibility to protect your rights and the meaningful exercise thereof.
Always.
Always making sure that the person at the poll is actually the person on the registration roll is as necessary as having the registration roll itself; without that positive verification, the registration roll has no meaning.

You make up problems to justify an agenda of restricting voting access to only those you approve of.

Why do you disagree with making sure only those allowed to vote are able to do so?

You freely admit the methods of your attempt to deny the vote to those that...

...are legally unable to vote. Why do you disagree with this?

 

[HUGGY]

That, on the very thin skin of the surface, SEEMS like a reasonable statement. It is not. All the state needs to verify is that the voter is old enough to vote. A copy of a birth certificate is all that is needed or just a simple sworn oath upon entry to the poll should be good enough when age is questioned.

None of these things positively verify the ID of the person claiming to be you at the poll.
A state-issued ID is the least restrictive means of doing this.

What the state needs is to know is that someone has not voted twice or more. This they can do easily by computer.

Uh-huh. And what happens when you get the poll and are told you already voted?

Uh...Huh.. You take it to your local sheriff or state patrol or your state elections people.

Menawhile...
-You are not allowed to vote
-A vote was illegally cast in your name.
All because the state did not have a way to positively identify the person claiming to be you.

But seriously..??? How often does this happen?

Irrelevant - the state has a plenary compelling interest in protecting the rights of the voters, regardless of any demonstrable threat to same.

When it comes right down to it some people would rather have a certain type of citizens voting and not others.

Yes... those legally able to vote, as oppose to those ho are not.

You argue that it does not matter that you inconvenience voters because of a perceived problem that you glibly dismiss the unlikely probability that it even exists.

You fail to understand that the state -always- has a responsibility to protect your rights and the meaningful exercise thereof.
Always.
Always making sure that the person at the poll is actually the person on the registration roll is as necessary as having the registration roll itself; without that positive verification, the registration roll has no meaning.

You make up problems to justify an agenda of restricting voting access to only those you approve of.

Why do you disagree with making sure only those allowed to vote are able to do so?

You freely admit the methods of your attempt to deny the vote to those that...

...are legally unable to vote. Why do you disagree with this?

If a thousand people are turned away from voting so you can protect us from one person stealing a vote I say you have not FIXED anything by your methods. All I can conclude is that you PREFER that the thousand are turned away. Why don't you come clean as to why you would want it so?

 

[M14 Shooter]

None of these things positively verify the ID of the person claiming to be you at the poll.
A state-issued ID is the least restrictive means of doing this.
Uh-huh. And what happens when you get the poll and are told you already voted?

Uh...Huh.. You take it to your local sheriff or state patrol or your state elections people.

Menawhile...
-You are not allowed to vote
-A vote was illegally cast in your name.
All because the state did not have a way to positively identify the person claiming to be you.

But seriously..??? How often does this happen?

Irrelevant - the state has a plenary compelling interest in protecting the rights of the voters, regardless of any demonstrable threat to same.

When it comes right down to it some people would rather have a certain type of citizens voting and not others.

Yes... those legally able to vote, as oppose to those ho are not.

You argue that it does not matter that you inconvenience voters because of a perceived problem that you glibly dismiss the unlikely probability that it even exists.

You fail to understand that the state -always- has a responsibility to protect your rights and the meaningful exercise thereof.
Always.
Always making sure that the person at the poll is actually the person on the registration roll is as necessary as having the registration roll itself; without that positive verification, the registration roll has no meaning.

You make up problems to justify an agenda of restricting voting access to only those you approve of.

Why do you disagree with making sure only those allowed to vote are able to do so?

You freely admit the methods of your attempt to deny the vote to those that...

...are legally unable to vote. Why do you disagree with this?

If a thousand people are turned away from voting so you can protect us from one person stealing a vote I say you have not FIXED anything by your methods. All I can conclude is that you PREFER that the thousand are turned away. Why don't you come clean as to why you would want it so?

Unsurprisingly, you did not address anything I said.
Why do you accept the necessity of registration but not the positive identification of those claiming to be on the registration roll?
Why do you disagree with making sure only those allowed to vote are able to do so?
Why do you disagree with denying the ability to vote for those not allowed to do so?