If Drumph wins, I’ll blame the democrats.

[vector2]

---

Members don't see this ad.

And may I add to the above comment that the State issued REAL ID is really inexpensive and less than the cost of one 6-pack beer in most states!

Anyway, no one seems to be objecting to folks needing to show their valid drivers license ID for purchasing EtOH!

Buying alcohol isn't a Constitutionally protected right. Voting is.

 

[deleted1156722]

Buying alcohol isn't a Constitutionally protected right. Voting is.

Very true… so wouldn’t a conscientious citizen be glad to give up alcohol for a week in order to perform their constitutional right/civic duty? Then, the cost factor shouldn’t be an issue!

 

[vector2]

Very true… so wouldn’t a conscientious citizen be glad to give up alcohol for a week in order to perform their constitutional right/civic duty? Then, the cost factor shouldn’t be an issue!

Pointing to cost is a canard. The issue at hand is that Republicans are inventing a "solution" in search of a "problem" (i.e. voter fraud) that doesn't exist. Or more specifically, doesn't exist in a fashion that actually substantially alters the results of any election at any level.

Granted though, I can see why a large percentage of the country is confused about that given how loudly and for how long trump has shouted his big lie about widespread voter fraud.

 

[nimbus]

Wouldn’t it be just simple and easy to standardize the state-issued REAL ID drivers license ( or state issued non-driver REAL ID) as a valid ID for voting across the country? After all, REAL IDs are becoming the standard requirement for airlines across the country beginning May 2023.

After all, the fee range is only $14-$45 for 4 years of drivers license in all 50 states (maybe these fees can even be waived by the individual states instead of lawmakers passing more bills or contesting those bills regarding the creation of /processing more Govt issued voter IDs).

This would address the Dem’s core issue of providing voting access, rights and eliminating costs for underprivileged members of the society, while simultaneously addressing the GOP core issue of maintaining voting integrity and fraud prevention in elections.

It is just as unfair for Dems to ask for “no voter ID” citing that as barrier to voting for citizens, just as it is unfair for Texas GOP to allow concealed carry permit for voting, but not student ID as valid IDs.

A lot of eligible voters don’t drive. My aunt and uncle lived in Manhattan for 50 years and never had a drivers license.

 

[deleted1156722]

A lot of eligible voters don’t drive. My aunt and uncle lived in Manhattan for 50 years and never had a drivers license.

True that, and that’s why I stated the use of State issued non-drivers REAL ID in my original post. I have personally lived in Manhattan and used the non-Drivers ID issued by NY (as I chose to mainly used the subway system).

 

[rowsdower88]

And may I add to the above comment that the State issued REAL ID is really inexpensive and less than the cost of one 6-pack beer in most states!

Anyway, no one seems to be objecting to folks needing to show their valid drivers license ID for purchasing EtOH!

Which of these bills do you want? The Idaho one didn't seem that bad compared to others, the League of Women voters raised some issues but I didn't see much other reporting on it. Some reporting speculated that the cost of not allowing student IDs would be disenfranchising ~104 Americans. That's not really a cost I think is worth it given how low risk voter fraud is, but if the proposed bill specifically outlined ways to re-enfranchise those Americans then I could be on board. The bill also restricts absentee voting which is a big deal for seniors, the military and people who work a lot and don't want to wait in line like me.

So let's assume this law as written would prevent 2-5 additional cases of voter fraud (BIG ASSUMPTION), would that be worth it with a subsequent ~104 American decrease in the voter roll to you? If so, why?

Idaho Senate votes to eliminate use of student IDs for voting • Idaho Capital Sun

The Republican-controlled Idaho Senate voted to eliminate student IDs as an acceptable form of identification to vote in Idaho elections.

idahocapitalsun.com

The Georgia voter ID law on the other hand had a lot of negatives attached to it (can't feed people waiting in line, reduced drop box access in black neighborhoods, cutting the time for absentee ballot requests, reduces the authority of the secretary of state). There's pretty wide variation between these bills.

Florida restricted felons from voting despite a ballot initiative passing which was designed to re-enfranchise them.

Show us the specific bill you want and maybe some of us would be on board with it.

 

[epidural man]

Do you have any evidential or factual basis for not trusting Trump-appointee Chris Krebs and the rest of CISA when they said 2020 was a secure election?

Repudiating Trump, officials say election 'most secure'

WASHINGTON (AP) — It's hard to put it any more bluntly: "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes or was in any way compromised.”

apnews.com

I am not smart enough to have any idea about what this has to do with what I said.

 

[epidural man]

Tell you what, I will listen to that podcast, and let you know how it goes. Trust me though, I come from a very conservative family and half of my friends are Republicans, so I am willing to listen.

You are going to love it!

By the way, it is an NPR podcast, not Republican in the least.

 

[deleted1156722]

Which of these bills do you want? The Idaho one didn't seem that bad compared to others, the League of Women voters raised some issues but I didn't see much other reporting on it. Some reporting speculated that the cost of not allowing student IDs would be disenfranchising ~104 Americans. That's not really a cost I think is worth it given how low risk voter fraud is, but if the proposed bill specifically outlined ways to re-enfranchise those Americans then I could be on board. The bill also restricts absentee voting which is a big deal for seniors, the military and people who work a lot and don't want to wait in line like me.
Show us the specific bill you want and maybe some of us would be on board with it.

l still don’t understand why the issue of all voters having a valid Govt issued ID is such a charged topic in a democracy ( even if we all agree to ignore the GOP’s alleged voter fraud issue).

None of us as physicians protest the need for a patient to produce their medical insurance card and their SSN/ Photo ID at check-in for their elective surgery/procedure.( except these rules may not apply for our colleagues in ER with EMTALA). Then why not the same for voting?

IMHO, this should not be a democrats or republicans issue. Having a valid Govt issued ID is a matter of pride and safety for all the citizens.

 

[vector2]

I am not smart enough to have any idea about what this has to do with what I said.

You said to numtacos "spend some time talking to more republicans that you like and trust. You may change your mind on this. [voter fraud]" ...which presumably meant that one would discover upon talking to said people that voter fraud is a some kind of serious problem.

So I'm asking why we shouldn't believe a Republican, appointed by trump, who was the head of the Homeland Security branch that deals with voter fraud, when he says that the 2020 election was very secure.

 

[epidural man]

Also, when you say I should listen to Republicans about their concerns about voting fraud, where do they or you get their information so I can be better informed?

This is a problem.

The crux of the issue, is people seem to think that if someone has a concern, in order for you to understand their concern - you have to first agree with the concern, or believe that the concern comes from a place of fact. This is why we suffer.

If your small child thinks there is a ghost under the bed and they really really really want you to look under the bed, trying to tell your kid how dumb they are for believing in ghosts is not great parenting, especially if they KNOW and can FEEL there are ghosts under the bed - but looking under the bed, and letting them know there are no ghosts - sometimes - is the best way to help them. And then you can discuss the validity of ghosts.

You seem to think that in order to come to an agreement with the right on voter ID (because they have a concern about something), they have to first prove that their concern is valid by prooving wide spread voter fraud. That is really dumb in my mind. Like I said...if people actually cared about one another, and wanted to actually listen to other's concerns and come to a conclusion...the solution about voting is very simple.

But anyway, try listening to that podcast as I said...maybe...just maybe...it could help.

 

[epidural man]

You said to numtacos "spend some time talking to more republicans that you like and trust. You may change your mind on this. [voter fraud]" ...which presumably meant that one would discover upon talking to said people that voter fraud is a some kind of serious problem.

So I'm asking why we shouldn't believe a Republican, appointed by trump, who was the head of the Homeland Security branch that deals with voter fraud, when he says that the 2020 election was very secure.

OH - I can see the disconect.

I wasn't saying he would change HIS mind about voter fraud by talking to Republicans. Numtacos seemed to think that Republicans were insincere in their belief that voter fraud was real and that the real goal was much more dark and sinister, and all repulicans are evil and only want to supress votes (a truly evil thing).

I suggested that he talk to more republicans and see if he actually comes to that conclusion. In my experience, they STRONGLY believe that voter fraud is real.

 

[vector2]

This is a problem.

The crux of the issue, is people seem to think that if someone has a concern, in order for you to understand their concern - you have to first agree with the concern, or believe that the concern comes from a place of fact. This is why we suffer.

If your small child thinks there is a ghost under the bed and they really really really want you to look under the bed, trying to tell your kid how dumb they are for believing in ghosts is not great parenting, especially if they KNOW and can FEEL there are ghosts under the bed - but looking under the bed, and letting them know there are no ghosts - sometimes - is the best way to help them. And then you can discuss the validity of ghosts.

You seem to think that in order to come to an agreement with the right on voter ID (because they have a concern about something), they have to first prove that their concern is valid by prooving wide spread voter fraud. That is really dumb in my mind. Like I said...if people actually cared about one another, and wanted to actually listen to other's concerns and come to a conclusion...the solution about voting is very simple.

But anyway, try listening to that podcast as I said...maybe...just maybe...it could help.

OH - I can see the disconect.

I wasn't saying he would change HIS mind about voter fraud by talking to Republicans. Numtacos seemed to think that Republicans were insincere in their belief that voter fraud was real and that the real goad was much more dark and sinister, and all repulicans are evil and only want to supress votes (a truly evil thing).

I suggest that he talk to more republicans and see if he actually comes to that conclusion. In my experience, they STRONGLY believe that voter fraud is real.

I have no doubt they sincerely believe it's a real issue.

But your argument here is because grown-ass adults believe in the Bogeyman without any evidence, we should believe them, validate their feelings, go looking for the Bogeyman, and then and only then decide that the Bogeyman doesn't exist.

That's quite an irrational line to take if you ask me.


e: also, I don't think the average Republican voter is insincere in his belief about voting fraud, but I do believe R politicians like Mitch McConnell are very, very insincere when it comes to voting rights.

 

[epidural man]

I have no doubt they sincerely believe it's a real issue.

But your argument here is because grown-ass adults believe in the Bogeyman without any evidence, we should believe them, validate their feelings, go looking for the Bogeyman, and then and only then decide that the Bogeyman doesn't exist.

That's quite an irrational line to take if you ask me.


e: also, I don't think the average Republican voter is insincere in his belief about voting fraud, but I do believe R politicians like Mitch McConnell are very, very insincere when it comes to voting rights.

Um...I'm not quite saying that, just using a silly example to illustrate an very important point. I still can't seem to get through however.

And I 100% agree with you that politicians push these issues and are insincere. The sad thing is, if you pick a side ( a really really stupid thing to do..but ya'll do it), you seem to think that those on your side ARE sincere.

For example, people on the left talk like getting a voter ID is a MONUMENTAL TASK, and it is "voter supression" to ask of such a thing - when the politicians know damn well that it is super easy to get an ID.

To not agree to voter ID because you think the right believes in a bogeyman is ludicrous. You seem to care more about making sure your point is correct, rather than solve the problem.

 

[vector2]

Um...I'm not quite saying that, just using a silly example to illustrate an very important point. I still can't seem to get through however.

Then explain it again. Because the analogy that you used (the kid believes the ghost is under the bed so we should look anyways to placate them) is the same as the analogy I made with a different choice of words.

And I 100% agree with you that politicians push these issues and are insincere. The sad thing is, if you pick a side ( a really really stupid thing to do..but ya'll do it), you seem to think that those on your side ARE sincere.

For example, people on the left talk like getting a voter ID is a MONUMENTAL TASK, and it is "voter supression" to ask of such a thing - when the politicians know damn well that it is super easy to get an ID.

To not agree to voter ID because you think the right believes in a bogeyman is ludicrous. You seem to care more about making sure your point is correct, rather than solve the problem.

As I said to another poster, cost [of an ID] is not the issue here. What you personally think of the difficulty of obtaining an ID is not the issue here. The *base case* of a Constitutional right is that it should be extremely easy for any citizen to exercise, and only if there is evidence of significant malfeasance should one create laws that make exercising that right more difficult. If there is no significant issue with voter fraud occurring (and all the available evidence says there isn't), then yelling for more stringent voter ID laws does nothing but suppress legitimate voters like the elderly or college students who don't necessarily all have cars or drivers' licenses.

 

[deleted1156722]

Pointing to cost is a canard. The issue at hand is that Republicans are inventing a "solution" in search of a "problem" (i.e. voter fraud) that doesn't exist. Or more specifically, doesn't exist in a fashion that actually substantially alters the results of any election at any level.

Granted though, I can see why a large percentage of the country is confused about that given how loudly and for how long trump has shouted his big lie about widespread voter fraud.

Cost issues and the difficulty of getting a simple state issues voter ID were one of the major and often repeated Dem talking points in opposing voter ID requirements.
Govt issued Voter ID ( such as state REAL ID) is a low cost, perfectly reasonable and easily met requirement that protects the integrity of our democracy, and helps strengthen the public confidence in our elections.
The vast majority of Americans of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, and regardless of political ideology, support this common-sense election reform.
As I have said before, we require a state issued Photo ID to drink, to drive, to travel, to access medical care, and to get any state/federal benefits etc… No one is protesting those requirements…Then why not for the voting process in one of the world’s largest representative democracies?

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Um...I'm not quite saying that, just using a silly example to illustrate an very important point. I still can't seem to get through however.

And I 100% agree with you that politicians push these issues and are insincere. The sad thing is, if you pick a side ( a really really stupid thing to do..but ya'll do it), you seem to think that those on your side ARE sincere.

For example, people on the left talk like getting a voter ID is a MONUMENTAL TASK, and it is "voter supression" to ask of such a thing - when the politicians know damn well that it is super easy to get an ID.

To not agree to voter ID because you think the right believes in a bogeyman is ludicrous. You seem to care more about making sure your point is correct, rather than solve the problem.

Except in some states it is not so easy to get a voter ID.

 

[rowsdower88]

l still don’t understand why the issue of all voters having a valid Govt issued ID is such a charged topic in a democracy ( even if we all agree to ignore the GOP’s alleged voter fraud issue).

None of us as physicians protest the need for a patient to produce their medical insurance card and their SSN/ Photo ID at check-in for their elective surgery/procedure.( except these rules may not apply for our colleagues in ER with EMTALA). Then why not the same for voting?

IMHO, this should not be a democrats or republicans issue. Having a valid Govt issued ID is a matter of pride and safety for all the citizens.

Engage with my comment if you're going to reply to it. I tried to be good faith with you, if there's a bill out there you support it's conceivable I might as well. The problem is all of these bills as far as I can tell have significant downsides that aren't adequately accounted for.

Do you like the Idaho bill? Do you think the costs are worth it? Can you at least understand why other people might think those costs aren't worth it?

 

[vector2]

Cost issues and the difficulty of getting a simple state issues voter ID were one of the major and often repeated Dem talking points in opposing voter ID requirements.
Govt issued Voter ID ( such as state REAL ID) is a low cost, perfectly reasonable and easily met requirement that protects the integrity of our democracy, and helps strengthen the public confidence in our elections.
The vast majority of Americans of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, and regardless of political ideology, support this common-sense election reform.
As I have said before, we require a state issued Photo ID to drink, to drive, to travel, to access medical care, and to get any state/federal benefits etc… No one is protesting those requirements…Then why not for the voting process in one of the world’s largest representative democracies?

How many of those things are Constitutional rights?


Ultimately, it would be one thing if the buck with the GOP only stopped at easily obtainable voter ID. But it doesn't. Please educate yourself on the number of insane laws that were passed by Republicans in the wake of 2020.

Then you can tell us how making the types of acceptable IDs very narrow, removing drop boxes, reducing or shutting down drivethrough voting, restricting absentee voting, cutting early voting hours in urban areas, cutting early voting days, requiring all mail-in ballots to be received by election day, preventing college students from registering to vote with their college dorm/apt address, ending same day voter registration, and making ballot collection a felony......are policies that are really being enacted in the name of "safety."

​

​

​

​

While defending recent Republican voting proposals in the state, Idaho Representative Mike Moyle stated, "You know what? Voting shouldn’t be easy".[179]​

​

The first bill to advance was the ballot collection bill (HB 88, introduced by Mike Moyle), which has been amended to be less restrictive.[180] Moyle has justified his bill by pointing to false claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election.[179]​

 

[epidural man]

Except in some states it is not so easy to get a voter ID.

Then the struggle...the fight...the push...should be to make it extremely easy to get an ID. Make it as easy as it is to get a gmail account.

 

[epidural man]

Then explain it again. Because the analogy that you used (the kid believes the ghost is under the bed so we should look anyways to placate them) is the same as the analogy I made with a different choice of words.

As I said to another poster, cost [of an ID] is not the issue here. What you personally think of the difficulty of obtaining an ID is not the issue here. The *base case* of a Constitutional right is that it should be extremely easy for any citizen to exercise, and only if there is evidence of significant malfeasance should one create laws that make exercising that right more difficult. If there is no significant issue with voter fraud occurring (and all the available evidence says there isn't), then yelling for more stringent voter ID laws does nothing but suppress legitimate voters like the elderly or college students who don't necessarily all have cars or drivers' licenses.

I will explain it again. But first - listen to that very well done podcast, come back and let me know what you think I wanted you to get out of it - and then we can continue the conversation.

Two simple questions. Does Voter IDs supress votes? If it does, why?

 

[nimbus]

Which of these bills do you want? The Idaho one didn't seem that bad compared to others, the League of Women voters raised some issues but I didn't see much other reporting on it. Some reporting speculated that the cost of not allowing student IDs would be disenfranchising ~104 Americans. That's not really a cost I think is worth it given how low risk voter fraud is, but if the proposed bill specifically outlined ways to re-enfranchise those Americans then I could be on board. The bill also restricts absentee voting which is a big deal for seniors, the military and people who work a lot and don't want to wait in line like me.

So let's assume this law as written would prevent 2-5 additional cases of voter fraud (BIG ASSUMPTION), would that be worth it with a subsequent ~104 American decrease in the voter roll to you? If so, why?

Idaho Senate votes to eliminate use of student IDs for voting • Idaho Capital Sun

The Republican-controlled Idaho Senate voted to eliminate student IDs as an acceptable form of identification to vote in Idaho elections.

idahocapitalsun.com

The Georgia voter ID law on the other hand had a lot of negatives attached to it (can't feed people waiting in line, reduced drop box access in black neighborhoods, cutting the time for absentee ballot requests, reduces the authority of the secretary of state). There's pretty wide variation between these bills.

Florida restricted felons from voting despite a ballot initiative passing which was designed to re-enfranchise them.

Show us the specific bill you want and maybe some of us would be on board with it.

I used absentee ballots in the last 3 elections. For me, the absentee ballots allowed me to research all the obscure ballot measures and propositions that I hadn’t thought about before looking at the ballot. If I were voting at a crowded polling station, I probably would have rushed through it knowing there was a long line of people behind me. Also doesn’t matter if I have a long workday on Election Day, I don’t have to worry about getting off work before the polls close. I live in California where every registered voter is automatically sent a mail in ballot.

 

[vector2]

I will explain it again. But first - listen to that very well done podcast, come back and let me know what you think I wanted you to get out of it - and then we can continue the conversation.

Two simple questions. Does Voter IDs supress votes? If it does, why?

Let me say it for the third time. Voting is a Constitutional right.

You are are skipping ahead and making an implicit assumption that the base case is voter ID is necessary, and then making the point of contention about the difficulty or lack of difficulty of obtaining said voter ID. My point is that the difficulty level is irrelevant.

Because you first need to explain why voter ID is even necessary *to begin with* if the incidence of voter fraud is so negligible that it doesn't substantively change the result of any local, state, or federal election.

 

[nimbus]

I will explain it again. But first - listen to that very well done podcast, come back and let me know what you think I wanted you to get out of it - and then we can continue the conversation.

Two simple questions. Does Voter IDs supress votes? If it does, why?

It suppresses the voting rights of of a lot of people who can’t get their s*** together. Not everybody is a highly functioning, mobile and capable professional but they still have a right to vote. Old people, blind people, people who don’t have internet, illiterate people all have a right to vote.

 

[chessknt]

Then the struggle...the fight...the push...should be to make it extremely easy to get an ID. Make it as easy as it is to get a gmail account.

But it isn't easy for some people. Essentially every real ID requires a birth certificate and social security card. If your parents were responsible and gave those to you then yea that is no big deal, but if they werent you have to go get them which creates new obstacles. I can keep going down the rabbit hole of how hard it can be to get copies of these documents (because they frequently require documents to prove who you are, see the catch 22 there) but you get the idea that it isn't just stroll in to the DMV and walk out with an ID 39 minutes later. Asking someone with limited cognitive/financial/time resources to do this is going to result in that person just not voting which is exactly the point of these laws since fraud functionally doesn't exist at a level where this would outweigh the cost.

 

[epidural man]

Let me say it for the third time. Voting is a Constitutional right.

You are are skipping ahead and making an implicit assumption that the base case is voter ID is necessary, and then making the point of contention about the difficulty or lack of difficulty of obtaining said voter ID. My point is that the difficulty level is irrelevant.

Because you first need to explain why voter ID is even necessary *to begin with* if the incidence of voter fraud is so negligible that it doesn't substantively change the result of any local, state, or federal election.

how is a voter ID any different from signing your name? It's just a way to prove you are who you say you are. It has nothing to do with the constitution in the way you are describing.

 

[epidural man]

It suppresses the voting rights of of a lot of people who can’t get their s*** together. Not everybody is a highly functioning, mobile and capable professional but they still have a right to vote. Old people, blind people, people who don’t have internet, illiterate people all have a right to vote.

We have very clever people in this country.

I bet if we put our heads together - we can figure out a way to get a Voter ID in EVERYONE's hand that wants one and deserves to have one. If amazon can get a pillow case to every household, I bet we can get an ID to anyone who wants it.

 

[epidural man]

But it isn't easy for some people. Essentially every real ID requires a birth certificate and social security card. If your parents were responsible and gave those to you then yea that is no big deal, but if they werent you have to go get them which creates new obstacles. I can keep going down the rabbit hole of how hard it can be to get copies of these documents (because they frequently require documents to prove who you are, see the catch 22 there) but you get the idea that it isn't just stroll in to the DMV and walk out with an ID 39 minutes later. Asking someone with limited cognitive/financial/time resources to do this is going to result in that person just not voting which is exactly the point of these laws since fraud functionally doesn't exist at a level where this would outweigh the cost.

See there...you are assuming people want to force an ID because they know it is hard to get. Perhaps you aren't listening close enough to those who are asking for an ID. Try listening a little closer.

Start with that podcast I posted. It MAY help.

 

[epidural man]

I personally feel that those of you who are arguing against voter ID are not being intellectually honest.

Let's see if we can agree on a few things (boy...these forums are sometimes a hard way to communicate)

Do we all agree on two things.

1.that an important goal is that people who vote have to be a citizen of the country, and that they can only vote once?
2. Whatever we have done in the past has done exceptionally well with goal #1?

 

[vector2]

how is a voter ID any different from signing your name?

I don't need to get a SSN card wait two hours at my local DMV to sign my name?

It's just a way to prove you are who you say you are. It has nothing to do with the constitution in the way you are describing.

Sure, it does. There's no point placing restrictions, onerous or otherwise, on Constitutional rights unless there is a compelling reason. The compelling reason in this case would be that so much election-changing voter fraud is occurring that it is infringing the Constitutional right of citizens by subverting the legitimate result. If there is no significant voter fraud, then all creating useless voter ID laws does is needlessly make it more difficult for citizens to exercise their right, which depending on the degree of difficulty, is potentially unconstitutional.

 

[nimbus]

We have very clever people in this country.

I bet if we put our heads together - we can figure out a way to get a Voter ID in EVERYONE's hand that wants one and deserves to have one. If amazon can get a pillow case to every household, I bet we can get an ID to anyone who wants it.

The will is not there. The people who want voter ID laws don’t want every eligible voter to vote. I’d estimate at least 10% of my patients who are US citizens would have a very hard time getting a voter ID.

 

[rowsdower88]

I personally feel that those of you who are arguing against voter ID are not being intellectually honest.

Let's see if we can agree on a few things (boy...these forums are sometimes a hard way to communicate)

Do we all agree on two things.

1.that an important goal is that people who vote have to be a citizen of the country, and that they can only vote once?
2. Whatever we have done in the past has done exceptionally well with goal #1?

1. It is an important goal among many but is significantly less important if it comes with significant costs as all of these voter ID bills seem to have. (See above post of mine looking at the Idaho and Georgia bills) Can you agree on that?
2. There is no significant voter fraud, nor has there been, so nothing has really changed. Which begs the question, why worry about #1 if it's not an actual problem to be solved?

 

[NumTacos]

This is a problem.

The crux of the issue, is people seem to think that if someone has a concern, in order for you to understand their concern - you have to first agree with the concern, or believe that the concern comes from a place of fact. This is why we suffer.

If your small child thinks there is a ghost under the bed and they really really really want you to look under the bed, trying to tell your kid how dumb they are for believing in ghosts is not great parenting, especially if they KNOW and can FEEL there are ghosts under the bed - but looking under the bed, and letting them know there are no ghosts - sometimes - is the best way to help them. And then you can discuss the validity of ghosts.

You seem to think that in order to come to an agreement with the right on voter ID (because they have a concern about something), they have to first prove that their concern is valid by prooving wide spread voter fraud. That is really dumb in my mind. Like I said...if people actually cared about one another, and wanted to actually listen to other's concerns and come to a conclusion...the solution about voting is very simple.

But anyway, try listening to that podcast as I said...maybe...just maybe...it could help.

I just listened to it; fascinating, and I consider myself usually up to speed on "neuropolitics". I definitely learned a few things. The most interesting thing is to reflect on myself and others in my family....all of my pets are rescues from the pound, and my very conservative in-laws in Tennessee insist on thoroughbreds! Fascinating how your political orientation seeps into a million other areas of your life you may not have considered.

And you are right; you don't necessarily have to "prove" to me that there is widespread voter fraud in order for me to understand why it is a big concern for you. I take your concerns at face value. However, I am not going to be persuaded by your innate sense of threat; I will be persuaded by evidence. You should expect the same from me as well.

This guy, Professor Hibbing, has done a ton of research on this, and from what I gather, it really comes down to how each of us is wired to respond to various threats. During the podcast, I listened to the head of the NRA, Wayne Lapierre, as he goes off on a rant about all the scary things that happen in the world and why it justifies everyone to be armed to the teeth with firearms. They then play a clip of Jon Stewart basically making fun of him. I have come around to the idea that responding that way to conservatives is counterproductive.

However, we are all blessed with these incredible brains that allow us to suppress our innate levels of anxiety when presented with a threat (as the behavioral economist Daniel Kahnemann puts it, System 2 thinking), and use our higher levels of thought to be more analytical in our approach to various problems. That is why I get frustrated, not angry, with smart, brilliant conservatives (and liberals) who cannot take off the tribal mask and really discuss the issues based on the facts as they are understood. Motivated reasoning is a powerful thing, it afflicts all of us, and it may be why we survived as a species. But it can hurt us too, as evidenced by the fact that all politics are not that great right now. I wish we could lean more heavily on what we have in common, because we share this country, this world, together. We rise and fall together.

On the other hand, I often wonder if this division of political labor is a product of our evolution, and helped us to survive. You needed some fraction of the group to be hyperaware of potential threats, but you also needed some people to get out there and explore. Like Thomas Jefferson said, “The same political parties which now agitate the United States, have existed through all time,” wrote Jefferson. “The terms of Whig and Tory belong to natural, as well as to civil history,”. I think he's right, and maybe now that we understand to a large extent how this all works, we can hopefully constructively use these impulses for the betterment of our societies. Hard to see it now, but I am hopeful.

 

[epidural man]

1. It is an important goal among many but is significantly less important if it comes with significant costs as all of these voter ID bills seem to have. (See above post of mine looking at the Idaho and Georgia bills) Can you agree on that?
2. There is no significant voter fraud, nor has there been, so nothing has really changed. Which begs the question, why worry about #1 if it's not an actual problem to be solved

Why?

I...just...can't....

Oh my gosh.....

We are doomed.

I'm done with this.

I will leave with a few quotes -

"Those who pray for your downfall are concentrating negative thoughts towards you, without taking cognizance of the slippery ground in which they are standing, which could lead to their downfall."

– Michael Bassey Johnson


"The straight line leads to the downfall of humanity."

– Friedensreich Hundertwasser

"One sticks to an opinion because he prides himself on having come to it on his own, and another because he has taken great pains to learn it and is proud to have grasped it: and so both do so out of vanity.”

― Friedrich Nietzsche

“Time and time again does the pride of man influence his very own fall. While denying it, one gradually starts to believe that he is the authority, or that he possesses great moral dominion over others, yet it is spiritually unwarranted. By that point he loses steam; in result, he falsely begins trying to prove that unwarranted dominion by seizing the role of a condemner.”

― Criss Jami, Salomé: In Every Inch In Every Mile

 

[epidural man]

I just listened to it; fascinating, and I consider myself usually up to speed on "neuropolitics". I definitely learned a few things. The most interesting thing is to reflect on myself and others in my family....all of my pets are rescues from the pound, and my very conservative in-laws in Tennessee insist on thoroughbreds! Fascinating how your political orientation seeps into a million other areas of your life you may not have considered.

And you are right; you don't necessarily have to "prove" to me that there is widespread voter fraud in order for me to understand why it is a big concern for you. I take your concerns at face value. However, I am not going to be persuaded by your innate sense of threat; I will be persuaded by evidence. You should expect the same from me as well.

This guy, Professor Hibbing, has done a ton of research on this, and from what I gather, it really comes down to how each of us is wired to respond to various threats. During the podcast, I listened to the head of the NRA, Wayne Lapierre, as he goes off on a rant about all the scary things that happen in the world and why it justifies everyone to be armed to the teeth with firearms. They then play a clip of Jon Stewart basically making fun of him. I have come around to the idea that responding that way to conservatives is counterproductive.

However, we are all blessed with these incredible brains that allow us to suppress our innate levels of anxiety when presented with a threat (as the behavioral economist Daniel Kahnemann puts it, System 2 thinking), and use our higher levels of thought to be more analytical in our approach to various problems. That is why I get frustrated, not angry, with smart, brilliant conservatives (and liberals) who cannot take off the tribal mask and really discuss the issues based on the facts as they are understood. Motivated reasoning is a powerful thing, it afflicts all of us, and it may be why we survived as a species. But it can hurt us too, as evidenced by the fact that all politics are not that great right now. I wish we could lean more heavily on what we have in common, because we share this country, this world, together. We rise and fall together.

On the other hand, I often wonder if this division of political labor is a product of our evolution, and helped us to survive. You needed some fraction of the group to be hyperaware of potential threats, but you also needed some people to get out there and explore. Like Thomas Jefferson said, “The same political parties which now agitate the United States, have existed through all time,” wrote Jefferson. “The terms of Whig and Tory belong to natural, as well as to civil history,”. I think he's right, and maybe now that we understand to a large extent how this all works, we can hopefully constructively use these impulses for the betterment of our societies. Hard to see it now, but I am hopeful.

Thanks for listening!

So good, right?

By the way - I just need to point out, I have NEVER said I thought there was widespread voter fraud in the last presidential election. I think those that believe such a thing are basically re-tarded. It's hard for me to see how anyone believes that given the lack of any evidence.

HOWEVER, that isn't the point. The point is about listening to concerns and trying to understand and trying to come to an agreement that satisfies everyone. I also can't wrap my head around how anyone would be against a Voter ID (since it is soooo easy to make it available and accessible to everyone.)

By the way, if you liked Kahneman's book, you really should read the book by Michael Lewis that describes his relationships with Tversky. It is wonderful.

Amazon product ASIN 0393254593

 

[Iso4ane]

Can someone explain to me the feeding and water of people in line? Are they afraid it's going to flip votes? If they think the other sides is more like to feed and water voters, that says a lot of what they think of their own constituents, and is a reflection of who they are.

 

[NumTacos]

Thanks for listening!

So good, right?

By the way - I just need to point out, I have NEVER said I thought there was widespread voter fraud in the last presidential election. I think those that believe such a thing are basically re-tarded. It's hard for me to see how anyone believes that given the lack of any evidence.

HOWEVER, that isn't the point. The point is about listening to concerns and trying to understand and trying to come to an agreement that satisfies everyone. I also can't wrap my head around how anyone would be against a Voter ID (since it is soooo easy to make it available and accessible to everyone.)

By the way, if you liked Kahneman's book, you really should read the book by Michael Lewis that describes his relationships with Tversky. It is wonderful.

Amazon product ASIN 0393254593

So funny, I read that book by Michael Lewis too, loved learning about those two Israeli geniuses. It's a shame that Tversky died at such a young age; it would be awesome for him to still be around and to ask what he thinks about the state of the world right now!

And I think you are on to something....just the fact of listening and taking those concerns into account is usually all that is needed. Not that there would be complete agreement, but at least you would know that your ideological opponent actually listened and doesn't think you are a monster for having the views you have. Although we should not get too carried away because some of our fellow hominids have some truly terrible beliefs that we should NOT consider. Thankfully, these folks are in the minority, but they punch way above their weight, especially in the age of social media.

I am glad we had this discussion, and although I can't promise to not be politically snarky in the future, I will do my best to keep it all constructive!

 

[pgg]

Buying alcohol isn't a Constitutionally protected right. Voting is.

Between the 18th and 21st Amendments, it wasn't, but it is now. 😉

The right to travel is another Constitutionally protected right (not so much explicitly, but inferred in several places in the Constitution with regard to rights of citizens related to interstate travel and their P&I upon arrival in a new state), but ID is required to board a plane, board a train, or operate a motor vehicle. It's hard to argue that interstate travel is really feasible in the modern era without planes trains or automobiles, unless you expect people to hitchhike. You can't even board a Greyhound bus without ID.

I'm posting, so you know I'll bring up the 2nd Amendment 🙂 ... Firearm ownership is also a Constitutionally protected right, yet purchasing one requires ID.

The *base case* of a Constitutional right is that it should be extremely easy for any citizen to exercise, and only if there is evidence of significant malfeasance should one create laws that make exercising that right more difficult.

Setting aside the details of the appropriate level of scrutiny that permit regulating a Constitutional right ... I'll agree with you that firearm possession carries some potential for malfeasance and that requiring ID and a background check a purchase are reasonable, minimally encumbering burdens upon the exercise of that right.

Similarly, showing ID to prove one is of legal age to consume alcohol and thereby exercise one's sacred post-21st-Amendment right to get smashed, is also a reasonable, minimally encumbering burden upon the exercise of that right.

Showing ID to travel ... well ... I think it's a bit of a stretch, even in the post-9/11 era, to require people to show their papers in order to freely move about. But it seems that showing ID under those circumstances is also a reasonable, minimally encumbering burden.

With regard to voting, it certainly isn't an absolute right. A felony conviction is sufficient to lose the right to vote. You argue that voter fraud is vanishingly rare, and of course it is, but one reason that it is rare is because of various election integrity safeguards ... of which ID has been one.


If you think getting ID in order to vote is an absurd burden, perhaps the best use of energy and advocacy would be to make getting ID easier.


I have never really understood why Democrats have chosen THIS particular hill to die on. Virtually every democracy in the world requires ID to vote. Mexico, Canada, every nation in the EU (since the UK left), Japan, South Korea, etc. While it's nowhere near the polarizing electoral issue that abortion or guns are, it's certainly one that ordinary people think is a weird thing to get upset about. Resistance to something as simple as voter ID lends a veneer of credibility to whacko claims of election fraud.

There are plenty of worthy voter suppression battles to fight, but opposing a requirement for ID is just farcical on the face of it, especially in view of how the vast majority of other liberal democracies somehow require ID and yet function in transparent and admirable form.


Elections don't sneak up on you, the way a hankerin' for a beer might. Everyone's got plenty of time to get their ID sorted out well in advance. I still don't see a reason to oppose voter ID requirements, even if you think it's a solution looking for a problem.

 

[chessknt]

See there...you are assuming people want to force an ID because they know it is hard to get. Perhaps you aren't listening close enough to those who are asking for an ID. Try listening a little closer.

Start with that podcast I posted. It MAY help.

I understand they are worried about fraud (which isn't real) however there are real consequences of indulging this phobia that I am worried about that you either do not share or understand. Imagine you are 2 months behind on rent working 2 jobs, actually want to vote but can't because you have no social security card and you lost your birth certificate when you got evicted last year. How is this person supposed to get a real ID? Or more specifically how much time and what fees would you expect this person to have to incur to be able to vote?

 

[pgg]

Can someone explain to me the feeding and water of people in line? Are they afraid it's going to flip votes? If they think the other sides is more like to feed and water voters, that says a lot of what they think of their own constituents, and is a reflection of who they are.

Campaigning is prohibited within a certain radius of polling stations, in order to prevent intimidating tactics.

The purported justification for the anti-food and -water law is that it's an effort to ensure that partisans aren't bothering voters. The actual intent is to make voting unpleasant for people who live in areas where lines to vote may be long. Generally, these are areas with a high percentage of minorities, and likely Democrat voters.

 

[pgg]

I understand they are worried about fraud (which isn't real) however there are real consequences of indulging this phobia that I am worried about that you either do not share or understand. Imagine you are 2 months behind on rent working 2 jobs, actually want to vote but can't because you have no social security card and you lost your birth certificate when you got evicted last year. How is this person supposed to get a real ID? Or more specifically how much time and what fees would you expect this person to have to incur to be able to vote?

How's this person supposed to get on a bus to move to another state for a new job?

How's he supposed to buy a beer to drown his sorrow?

He works two jobs. He's obviously responsible and hardworking. Why do you think he's helpless in the face of the DMV bureaucracy? Show some respect. 🙂

In the worst case, he calls the local party he's planning to vote for, and they'll undoubtedly send a volunteer to drive him around and walk him through the process.

 

[chessknt]

How's this person supposed to get on a bus to move to another state for a new job?

How's he supposed to buy a beer to drown his sorrow?

He works two jobs. He's obviously responsible and hardworking. Why do you think he's helpless in the face of the DMV bureaucracy? Show some respect. 🙂

In the worst case, he calls the local party he's planning to vote for, and they'll undoubtedly send a volunteer to drive him around and walk him through the process.

I have the benefit of seeing how bad outpatient compliance is for people like this--your idealized version of how someone should be able to operate differs from my observed reality. Depriving them of the right to vote because they couldn't try hard enough doesn't seem libertarian at all ...

 

[vector2]

Between the 18th and 21st Amendments, it wasn't, but it is now. 😉

The right to travel is another Constitutionally protected right (not so much explicitly, but inferred in several places in the Constitution with regard to rights of citizens related to interstate travel and their P&I upon arrival in a new state), but ID is required to board a plane, board a train, or operate a motor vehicle. It's hard to argue that interstate travel is really feasible in the modern era without planes trains or automobiles, unless you expect people to hitchhike. You can't even board a Greyhound bus without ID.

I'm posting, so you know I'll bring up the 2nd Amendment 🙂 ... Firearm ownership is also a Constitutionally protected right, yet purchasing one requires ID.



Setting aside the details of the appropriate level of scrutiny that permit regulating a Constitutional right ... I'll agree with you that firearm possession carries some potential for malfeasance and that requiring ID and a background check a purchase are reasonable, minimally encumbering burdens upon the exercise of that right.

Similarly, showing ID to prove one is of legal age to consume alcohol and thereby exercise one's sacred post-21st-Amendment right to get smashed, is also a reasonable, minimally encumbering burden upon the exercise of that right.

Showing ID to travel ... well ... I think it's a bit of a stretch, even in the post-9/11 era, to require people to show their papers in order to freely move about. But it seems that showing ID under those circumstances is also a reasonable, minimally encumbering burden.

With regard to voting, it certainly isn't an absolute right. A felony conviction is sufficient to lose the right to vote. You argue that voter fraud is vanishingly rare, and of course it is, but one reason that it is rare is because of various election integrity safeguards ... of which ID has been one.


If you think getting ID in order to vote is an absurd burden, perhaps the best use of energy and advocacy would be to make getting ID easier.


I have never really understood why Democrats have chosen THIS particular hill to die on. Virtually every democracy in the world requires ID to vote. Mexico, Canada, every nation in the EU (since the UK left), Japan, South Korea, etc. While it's nowhere near the polarizing electoral issue that abortion or guns are, it's certainly one that ordinary people think is a weird thing to get upset about. Resistance to something as simple as voter ID lends a veneer of credibility to whacko claims of election fraud.

There are plenty of worthy voter suppression battles to fight, but opposing a requirement for ID is just farcical on the face of it, especially in view of how the vast majority of other liberal democracies somehow require ID and yet function in transparent and admirable form.


Elections don't sneak up on you, the way a hankerin' for a beer might. Everyone's got plenty of time to get their ID sorted out well in advance. I still don't see a reason to oppose voter ID requirements, even if you think it's a solution looking for a problem.

You know all those times you've stated you'd never vote for a dem or back "reasonable" gun legislation because you know it's all a pretense and a slippery slope to a total national firearms ban?

Think of it the same way when I talk about voter ID. If it really was just about ID, then I honestly probably wouldn't care too much. But, to quote myself from my post above:


""
Ultimately, it would be one thing if the buck with the GOP only stopped at easily obtainable voter ID. But it doesn't. Please educate yourself on the number of insane laws that were passed by Republicans in the wake of 2020.

Then you can tell us how making the types of acceptable IDs very narrow, removing drop boxes, reducing or shutting down drivethrough voting, restricting absentee voting, cutting early voting hours in urban areas, cutting early voting days, requiring all mail-in ballots to be received by election day, preventing college students from registering to vote with their college dorm/apt address, ending same day voter registration, and making ballot collection a felony......are policies that are really being enacted in the name of "safety."

​

While defending recent Republican voting proposals in the state, Idaho Representative Mike Moyle stated, "You know what? Voting shouldn’t be easy".[179]​

​

The first bill to advance was the ballot collection bill (HB 88, introduced by Mike Moyle), which has been amended to be less restrictive.[180] Moyle has justified his bill by pointing to false claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election.[179]​

""

 

[BobLoblaw78]

I don’t understand why everyone says democrats are smarter and more educated than republicans. Then they say that democrats can’t figure out how to get an ID but republicans easily can.

And I believe it is demeaning to say minorities are more suppressed than other groups bc they can’t manage/figure out how to get an ID.

If it is too difficult to find the time to get an ID to vote, then maybe we should remove the voting deadlines. Why put a deadline on voting? Are people trying to suppress the vote? (I may be on to something…this would motivate the active president to do a much better job. Can you imagine if the voting was a shifting number over the 4 years term?!?!) 😱

 

[pgg]

I have the benefit of seeing how bad outpatient compliance is for people like this--your idealized version of how someone should be able to operate differs from my observed reality. Depriving them of the right to vote because they couldn't try hard enough doesn't seem libertarian at all ...

C'mon

How many of those allegedly helpless noncompliant patients are smokers or drink alcohol? Most of them?

Buying cigarettes requires ID under age 27.

 

[pgg]

You know all those times you've stated you'd never vote for a dem or back "reasonable" gun legislation because you know it's all a pretense and a slippery slope to a total national firearms ban?

Think of it the same way when I talk about voter ID. If it really was just about ID, then I honestly probably wouldn't care too much. But, to quote myself from my post above:

You know, I almost asked in that post if voter ID was a strategic line for you, the same way my resistance to universal background checks has been. 🙂

Because that was the only way I could make sense of the resistance. I respect the tactic, and fully agree that attempts at voter suppression is a real and pervasive thing from the GOP.

(Edit - Also, I would add that my resistance to universal background checks is a tactic in the sense that it's something I'd offer up in a true compromise bill, in which my side is getting something in return. I've mentioned trading it for repealing waiting periods for 2nd+ firearms, or removing suppressors from the NFA, or repealing the Hughes Amendment, or national CCW reciprocity, or any number of other concessions from the gun control side. It also serves double duty as a rhetorical device and thought experiment, to illustrate that the gun control side never acts in good faith, and that their refusal to ever offer anything at all in return betrays the lie of the compromise they demand but won't participate in.)


And. In the face of Trump getting the nomination again, I suppose I might vote for a Democrat instead of a third party. NYSRPA v Bruen has afforded a little breathing room. How times change.

 

[FutureInternist]

Don't waste your time on this...its not worth it. Dust off your shoes and walk away. These days there is more hate on the left numerically than the right. The left wants to use the power of government, DOJ, DA, etc to enforce their ideology. That's why if you are a political target the left will prosecute you but if you are a criminal they let you go free.

 

[FutureInternist]

You should really listen to that podcast I posted above.

And you really should listen to Trump’s own AG saying there was virtually no fraud…. And the ones that have been caught have been overwhelmingly Republican

 

[FutureInternist]

Then the struggle...the fight...the push...should be to make it extremely easy to get an ID. Make it as easy as it is to get a gmail account.

And thats what the Republicans don’t do.
Folks move (sometimes in bad circumstances) lose homes in floods, hurricanes etc, with limited access to birth certificates, IDs etc

 

[epidural man]

And you really should listen to Trump’s own AG saying there was virtually no fraud…. And the ones that have been caught have been overwhelmingly Republican

For your reading pleasure….I know…I know…it sounds preechy of me to try and teach you something…maybe a little condescending…but I have to try. I just have to.

What Is the Fallacy Known as the False Dilemma?

False dilemma is a fallacy of oversimplification that offers a limited number of options (usually two) when, in reality, more options are available.

www.thoughtco.com