Voter ID Has Not Stopped Fraud

[emilynghiem]

So, we are going to change voters rights and privileges, if she is found guilty, over one individuals wronging the institution.
Is this a precedent to start over any and all rights?

There really is not enough evidence to convict or say their is an epidemic of voter fraud..
Please show one voter fraud, which is a felony, case which has been prosecuted.
When there is a problem to address then address the problem.

Why do you feel regulations are not a good priority?

And I would compare this with why mandates give people who buy insurance an AUTOMATIC exemption
even if there has been NO PROOF this covers what or how many people,
while anyone else who wants an exemption through a state alternative has to PROVE that it meets certain coverage.

So one person who believes in the insurance plan has freedom from an added tax penalty
and thus freedom to choose what they already believe in choosing anyway,
while the other person loses their freedom to choose
and has to jump through hoops, through a complicated UNDEFINED system that keeps changing,
in order to restore their original freedom to choose how to pay for health care that's wasn't fined or taxed before this bill.

I'm not saying one scenario is right or wrong or worse than the other.

I'm saying that BOTH sides are complaining the other is being
hypocritical and INCONSISTENT if you keep justifying regulations people don't consent to
when you don't want your consent violated when the shoe is on the other foot.

No matter what DIFFERENCES are explained back and forth,
people AREN'T changing their minds.

In BOTH cases they want their CONSENT respected and don't agree to laws otherwise.

So why can't this be respected equally?

You're missing my point of why I am comparing these scenarios.

The common factor is whether people AGREE to the regulations who are affected by them.

And the key to solving this is to focus on
A. either AGREED ways to prevent the fraud
B. AGREED ways to revise the regulatory procedures
C. AGREED ways to pay for the costs or burdens of
either implementing the regulations or not implementing them,
so the sides take responsibility for the consequences of either their plans or their objections

What is failing here is using arguments the other side doesn't follow, believe or listen to
and trying to use THAT to justify the regulations.

To get agreement on the rules, the people affected need to agree so they quit blocking and opposing them.

Both sides of both arguments keep pushing their own explanations,
and it is clear that neither is working.

So I am saying we need a different strategy to discuss
regulations and how to prevent the fraud; and
how to cover the costs of either one -- either the regulations if they
impose inconvenience or burden, or the cost of the problems if they are not implements or enforced property.

We can't just "override" objections and push the regulations "anyway", assuming the other side is wrong
and has some ulterior agenda for opposing it.
Because we don't agree to that happening in the other cases where we don't agree to regulations being pushed
against our objections. We may not agree on the reasons, but we have the right to our
objections and need to work those out before expecting people to agree on regulations.

Here is the most cited case I know of.
Ohio Woman Who Voted 6 Times For Obama Convicted Of Felony Voter Fraud -

What upset people the most, is that when she appeared in person
at a political meeting, she was applauded.

So this is why people see even one case as such a problem
because it used to encourage instead of discourage fraud.

It is treated like the riots and property damage in Ferguson as being encouraged and incited as
a justified statement to "send a message" so it has greater implications than just an isolated crime.

If we could break away from the rhetoric, and address issues as isolated crimes,
we might have a chance to discuss and decide based on reason.

But as long as these incidents are taken to "symbolize" things on a larger scale,
such as taking the issues in Ferguson and making global statements out of them,
the emotions and meanings attached go off the scale, and make it almost impossible
to get back to the level of reasoning through the facts on hand.

Hi boilermaker55
and this is similar to conservative arguments against losing liberty and free choice of paying for health care because of the abuses of others, just because certain parties believe insurance mandates are the best and only way to enforce this.

neither side is accepting full responsibility for the regulations they believe in as the best,
but both end up imposing costs or depriving liberties of people who don't consent to these losses imposed on them.

bills should be written where either convicted wrongdoers pay the costs. not law abiding
citizens unless they agree to the terms of adding costs or losing freedom to added regulations.

what's missing is consent if we are going to give up rights and freedoms we had previously.

first we aren't agreeing on how the laws are written and what are they targetting,
and secondly we don't all agree on the costs and consequences imposed on whom.

if we agreed on solutions we could prevent both levels of conflicts over these bills.
how are they written and focused going into the design
and how does it affect the public in practice, with costs or losses of freedom imposed on whom
vs. who is consenting dissenting or affected by this bill and who accepts what responsibilities for those effects.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Then why don't we just do away with ID's altogether? Why have an ID at all?

Apples and oranges fallacy.

It can be demonstrated that an ID is the only way to verify someone is old enough to buy liquor. It CANNOT be demonstrated Voter ID is the only means to prevent or stop voter fraud. And so the weak attempts to connect these two things utterly fails.

It never has been demonstrated that Voter ID is the only means to stop or prevent voter fraud. Not even once. Despite the best efforts of Voter ID retards. See the woman who voted six times in Ohio, even though Ohio has strict Voter ID.

And yet the tards scream and demand more government interference in the exercising of their right to vote. They demand more completely ineffective government regulations. And they call themselves conservatives? Really?

More like totalitarian wannabes.

Yeah, kids never buy alcohol.... works perfectly.



Good grief...