sundin13 said:
Yeah, I get that, but it just seems so weird to be so adamantly against something and then immediately start listing exceptions. At the core of the voting rights debate is a conversation about rights and injustices. That said, the main fronts of the voting rights debate are twofold: 1) Voting for individuals who have been convicted of crimes. You already stated that you agree with the democrat perspective on this issue. An interesting anecdote regarding this is that in 2018, Florida held a vote regarding re-enfranchising individuals who had their voting rights revoked because of a criminal conviction and the people overwhelming supported it. However, immediately, the Republican state government started trying to chip away at it, attaching conditions and going against the will of the voters. 2) Voter ID. This goes in the opposite direction. It is an example of Republican governments adding new rules which restrict voting by demanding individuals have certain kinds of documentation. These laws predominantly disenfranchise poor, often minority voters who generally vote Democrat. You spoke earlier who it is typically the left who seeks to change the rules in unfair ways to benefit themselves. This is not what I have seen in America. The left fights for things like voting rights from ex-cons which you seem to support, while the right seems to favor disenfranchisement of voters. I suppose my question is: are you unaware of this dichotomy, or do you disagree with my assessment? |
I don't think it is weird at all. I just don't like rule changing as a tool to benefit a certain political group, instead of a tool to make justice for a group that needs it. Again, how can I be against giving women voting rights in countries where it is forbidden for example? Let's say for example the democrats wants to pass a law to allow teenagers older than 14 to vote. Well we can clearly see why they would be doing it.
As for voter ID sorry I may not be the right person to answer it because in my country voter ID is obligatory. Funny enough voting is also obligatory and you get a fine if you do not vote. And we have no trouble with voting ID because before the elections the government broadcasts for months and months for everybody to update their voting ID document if necessary. And if for some reason you dont have it you can just use any ID like your driver's license to vote. But to be fair my home country has a very long and large history of corruption everywhere. I was very impressed when I moved to Europe and realised there is no voting ID here. Brits are crazy, what forbid me to go voting under another person name?
Anyway, why does the republicans want to have voter ID? When did this discussion started? Was it a counter attack on democrats expanding voting for immigrants for example in a way to keep a level field? Is there any history of fraud in elections due to people not having voter ID? Why can't minorities have a voter ID? what would be the problem for them to get one? If there is no reason to do it then I'm totally against it and the rules should kept the same.
What dichotomy? That republicans want to restrict voting and democrats want to expand it? It depends, I dont think voter ID is restricting voting but then again I'm the worst example since my poor home country does it and we have no trouble with it so a rich country should be able to do the same and in theory this should bring no different in voting counting for both sides and also has the advantage of helping preventing fraud. At the same time I see democrats asking for 16 year voting, illegal immigrant voting, convicts voting, mail voting. I don't think there is a fair comparison here. But maybe I need to study more about the subject.
