Democrats are Racist?!

[kanageddaamen]

Kasz216 said:
B) You totally do need a photo ID.  I needed to show mine to open up my bank account.

B2) Except it isn't 1% or a tiny fraction of a percent.  What that study is showing is people who don't meet the requirment currently.  Not people who can't meet such a requirment for voting.  That's like argueing that requring a gun saftey class to own a gun would be ruining the second ammendment because 85% of gunowners haven't currently passed such a test.

When actually trying to find people who can't meet states requirements, none were really found.   They found one woman in the Pennsylvanian case... and after they lost the case... she ended up going through the process to get a voter ID with no problem.

Now the people who can't get an ID this way... THAT is a minute statistic not worth considering... because the people who file these lawsuits can't one person who fits the bill.

D) Because there is absolutely zero chance to get caught.  I've noticed you've completely ignored my asking of how such people would be caught, because your starting to realize there is no real way to catch this, and no real way to prevent it.

E)  Except you know... false votes would still count.  Good fake IDs cost a lot of money, and you have no actual rpoof that it's a statistically minute portion since i've proved that it's a nearly undetectable with current laws. 

Though yeah, these laws do not go far enough, since absentee fraud seems to be even more common.  You should have to provide an ID to get an absentee ballot too.  Still, stopping a perfectly valid, common sense law supported by a VAST majority because it doesn't go far enough or because there are other issues seems quite honestly, a stupid argument.

B) Not for numbered accounts.  There are many people who don't want to be "in the system" so some banks offer accounts not tied to a person directly and require no id to show

B2) Oh, we are arguing different points.  I am not saying people can't get IDs, I am saying people don't have IDs, not valid ones anyway, and that is why I am having problem with the timing of this.  I am sure the number of people who are actually unable to get IDs is tiny

D) Of course there is a chance to get caught.  Problems with the signatures matching could tip off an investigation.  Someone who goes to vote and has already had someone vote for them, etc.  If these investigations just don't happen, then that is part of the problem

E) You certainly don't need a good fake ID.  If a simple chalked ID is good enough to fool the guy at the grocerie store, something similar is good enough to fool the retiree volunteering to work the polls.

You can't use the specter of a problem to say "see there is a problem."  Your argument could just as easily be reversed and I could claim you have no proof there IS a problem.  so why the outrage?  why the sudden, pressing need to resolve this "problem"

There is a solution that requires no extra money, and no extra actions on the part of the actual voters as it should be:

To maintain these ids, there will need to be a picture database any.  Instead of requiring IDs, the first time a person goes to vote, take their picture and add it to the database tied to their registration, so it can be compared when they vote next time.  Then if people vote multiple times, their picture is there and available in the database.  That will be a much greater deterant than having an ID, will require no new action on the part of the voter, providing no barrier to them, and really only require a laptop.