New poll shows 78 percent are in favor of stronger voter ID laws

[CF DolFan]

Again ... unless you are in the media, Hollywood, or a liberal politician ( I should probably add TDMMC poster) you probably support stronger voter laws. The media and politicians are trying to make you think you are in the minority and most people are against it or it's evil and all but the reality is much, much different. I've seen this type of thing mentioned several times but this latest poll seems to have shaken some people.

The phone survey — which was conducted June 8-June 13 with 800 registered voters, 31 percent of whom identify as Democrats, 29 percent as Republicans, and 36 percent as independents — found 80 percent of its participants feel verifying voter ID “is an important security measure,” while 89 percent said that they are in favor of “purging voter rolls” after individuals
....

McDaniel added that some former critics of voter ID laws, including voting rights activist Stacey Abrams, have come around to voice support for the change despite previously criticizing the push, crediting numerous polls for their change in heart.

“Stacey Abrams in April was against voter ID, it was voter suppression, all of the sudden she says, I was always for voter ID,” she said.
HAHAHA ... you can't make this up.




New poll shows 78 percent are in favor of stronger voter ID laws
https://nypost.com/2021/07/08/new-poll-shows-78-percent-are-in-favor-of-stronger-voter-id-laws/

[Spider-Dan]

“Stacey Abrams in April was against voter ID, it was voter suppression, all of the sudden she says, I was always for voter ID,” she said.
HAHAHA ... you can't make this up.

Apparently, not only CAN you make this up, you HAVE to:

"We are always for voter ID. We are never for disproportionate voter ID,” Clyburn added. “When you tell me that you got to have a photo ID, and a photo for a [college] student for an activity card is not good, but for a hunting license it is good, that’s where the rub is.”

Manchin initially offered his compromise last month as one of a series of proposed changes to the For The People Act, the massive federal election reform measure that passed the House of Representatives along party lines in March. Senate Republicans used the legislative filibuster to defeat the legislation last month, but congressional Democrats and the Biden White House have promised to revisit the issue.

The Manchin proposal would mandate that states check for some form of ID, but allow election officials to accept documents like a utility bill as proof of identification. Currently 15 states have adopted that requirement, including Manchin’s home state of West Virginia. The compromise was endorsed by former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams — a key Democratic spokesperson on election law — but rejected by Senate Republicans who insist on photo ID requirements.

Glad to see you guys now believe in polls again, though!

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

commissioned by the Republican National Committee and conducted by former Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway, 

I would like to see how the questions were worded, before I put too much stock in thar poll. 

As for ID laws.  I am okay with them as long as they are liberal enough to not disadvantage poor people and minorities.  Such as allowing a utility bill or an EBT card as an id.

[ArtieChokePhin]

I would like to see how the questions were worded, before I put too much stock in thar poll. 

As for ID laws.  I am okay with them as long as they are liberal enough to not disadvantage poor people and minorities.  Such as allowing a utility bill or an EBT card as an id.

I'd require a picture ID plus one of those so you can prove your residence.  That way you don't have issues like the 1997 City of a Miami Mayoral election

[Spider-Dan]

I'd require a picture ID plus one of those so you can prove your residence.

Why would you need a picture ID plus a utility bill?  If you don't believe the address on the photo ID, why would the address on the utility bill be any more convincing?

I don't even understand what your goal is, here.  The voter's address is established when they register to vote.  Isn't the point of these laws to prevent a person from pretending to be someone else and casting a fraudulent vote?  Or are you saying that we need to overhaul our election system to stop the scourge of... legal registered voters casting their ballots in the wrong districts?

That way you don't have issues like the 1997 City of a Miami Mayoral election

Requiring voter ID would have had absolutely zero impact on the 1997 Miami mayoral election, as the fraud was done via absentee ballots.

Now, if you think we should abolish absentee ballots to avoid another 1997 Miami mayoral election, then say so.  But voter ID has literally nothing to do with it.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

That election is constantly brought up because literally the only significant case that has occurred in the last 50 years.  One incident in 50 years.  None in the last 20 years.

[Fau Teixeira]

you could always do what Europe does and provide every citizen with a citizen card .. that's a combination of voting id, social security, healthcare and tax id card all rolled into one with a chip like a credit card for security. Then sure .. everyone gets id'd.




It actually looks alot like a green card that the US government already issues.

But we don't want to treat all citizens equally .. we want to craft laws that allow the republicans to suppress the poor vote enough to win elections.

[Dave Gray]

I'm not like frothing at the mouth agog that the GOP are pushing these.

On the surface, I understand the argument.  I just don't take them at face value that they give one iota of shit about election security.  They're trying to shave votes.  This is a solution seeking a problem.

But whatever, we just have to do whatever we can to make sure that this doesn't disproportionally affect one voter block over the other.

[Dolphster]

I'm not like frothing at the mouth agog that the GOP are pushing these.

On the surface, I understand the argument.  I just don't take them at face value that they give one iota of shit about election security.  They're trying to shave votes.  This is a solution seeking a problem.

But whatever, we just have to do whatever we can to make sure that this doesn't disproportionally affect one voter block over the other.

Dave is typically a voice of reason here who seems to care more about facts than party loyalty.  So I want to kind of piggyback on his comment about the GOP pushing voter ID to shave votes.  If we can all step aside from what we want for our parties, I think the fact of the matter is that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats give nearly as many F's about people as they do their own power.  And that is what the whole voter issue (as well as the immigration issue) really boils down to.  The Republicans would be more than happy to limit low income people voting for the same reason they want to limit "undocumented immigration".   Both of those demographics are extremely likely to be Democrat voters.  And the converse is true as well.  Democrats seek to limit the enforcement of both voter ID laws and "undocumented immigration" because of the plethora of votes in those demographics.  That is really what it comes down to.  Both parties use people as pawns to their own benefit and their posturing themselves as "fighting for the little guy" or as "fighting for morality" make me want to puke.  As it would make each and every one of you want to puke if you would set aside your blind party loyalty to your respective political overlords and see things as they really are as opposed to the marketing that they sell you on. 

[pondwater]

I'm not like frothing at the mouth agog that the GOP are pushing these.

On the surface, I understand the argument.  I just don't take them at face value that they give one iota of shit about election security.  They're trying to shave votes.  This is a solution seeking a problem.

But whatever, we just have to do whatever we can to make sure that this doesn't disproportionally affect one voter block over the other.

If so, it would also disproportionally affect those same people when it comes to their 2nd amendment rights. If you need a certain type of ID to buy a gun. Common sense would dictate that those are the same IDs that should be required to vote.

[Spider-Dan]

And that is what the whole voter issue (as well as the immigration issue) really boils down to.  The Republicans would be more than happy to limit low income people voting for the same reason they want to limit "undocumented immigration".   Both of those demographics are extremely likely to be Democrat voters.  And the converse is true as well.  Democrats seek to limit the enforcement of both voter ID laws and "undocumented immigration" because of the plethora of votes in those demographics.

There is a rather significant moral difference between "trying to maximize the voting access of demographics that are favorable to you" and "trying to curtail the voting access of of demographics that are unfavorable to you."

You don't see Democrats trying to make it harder for rural Americans or wealthy Americans to vote, under the auspices of reducing voter fraud or some such BS.

[Dolphster]

There is a rather significant moral difference between "trying to maximize the voting access of demographics that are favorable to you" and "trying to curtail the voting access of of demographics that are unfavorable to you."

You don't see Democrats trying to make it harder for rural Americans or wealthy Americans to vote, under the auspices of reducing voter fraud or some such BS.

Not really.  They are both utilized as ways to stack the deck in favor of their respective parties. Neither party is particularly moral in my opinion.  But I do get your point.  And you are right that it is BS for the Republicans to act like it is about reducing voter fraud.  Just like it is BS that the Democrats care about the poor immigrants and inner city folks who may not have a valid ID to show for voting.  Both parties are just using those as excuses for trying to stack the deck. 

True.  The Democrats don't try to make it harder for rural Americans or wealthy Americans to vote.  Repressing the vote is the Republican tactic to stack the deck.  Trying to bring in huge numbers of "immigrants" and avoid Voter ID laws is the Democrat tactic to stack the deck.  Just different sides of the same slimy coin. 

When it comes to politics, neither party has a leg to stand on when it comes to morality.  I don't know why everyone is so reticent to accept that.  

[pondwater]

There is a rather significant moral difference between "trying to maximize the voting access of demographics that are favorable to you" and "trying to curtail the voting access of of demographics that are unfavorable to you."

You don't see Democrats trying to make it harder for rural Americans or wealthy Americans to vote, under the auspices of reducing voter fraud or some such BS.

Again, how is it any different from curtailing 2nd amendment rights by requiring ID. Poor black Americans and minorities have the right to own firearms too. Seems discriminatory, maybe we should allow a utility bill or an EBT card as an id for firearm purchases. I mean since you guys are fighting for the rights of the minorities. Fight for their 2nd amendment right too. It's a actual right protected by the constitution, voting isn't.

[Spider-Dan]

Not really.  They are both utilized as ways to stack the deck in favor of their respective parties.

Set the partisan politics aside.
Do you even have an opinion on what the morally correct action is?  Or is everything boiled down to "Team A wants this, Team B wants that, therefore Both Sides Are Greedy and a pox on both houses"?

It is not only possible, but ethically necessary, to be able to say whether unnecessarily making it harder for legally entitled citizens to vote is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing.

And you are right that it is BS for the Republicans to act like it is about reducing voter fraud.  Just like it is BS that the Democrats care about the poor immigrants and inner city folks who may not have a valid ID to show for voting.  Both parties are just using those as excuses for trying to stack the deck.

Again, your choice to look at the issue solely through the lens of partisan benefit is misguided.  If you believe that the right thing to do is to make it easy and straightforward for legally entitled citizens to vote, then we shouldn't AVOID doing that solely because one party benefits from it more than the other.

If one party gains a greater benefit from maximized enfranchisement of legally entitled voting, the appropriate response is NOT to stop said enfranchisement.  The appropriate response is for the other party to change their policies so they are better at winning votes.  That's how a democratic republic is supposed to work.

Repressing the vote is the Republican tactic to stack the deck.  Trying to bring in huge numbers of "immigrants" and avoid Voter ID laws is the Democrat tactic to stack the deck.

If you want to make an argument against immigration, then make that argument.
If you want to make an argument for Voter ID laws, then make that argument.
But don't hand-wave away Republican voter suppression and expect that "both sides" is to be accepted as justification.

When it comes to politics, neither party has a leg to stand on when it comes to morality.  I don't know why everyone is so reticent to accept that.

You criticize us for being unwilling to accept that neither party has a moral leg to stand on... but you can't even bring yourself to stand up for whatever it is that YOU believe to be the greater good.  Because then you'd be picking a side, which must be avoided at all costs.  So instead, you denounce Both Sides while staying safely above the partisan fray.

[Spider-Dan]

Again, how is it any different from curtailing 2nd amendment rights by requiring ID.

I'll tell you the spin-free difference between voting rights and gun rights:

The rights guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment are necessarily finite and intentionally limited.
And until the day that any 18-year-old can walk into a store and buy an RPG, the American judicial system agrees with that claim.

But maybe I'm wrong.  Feel free to tell me how and why we should restrict the ability of law-abiding adult American citizens to vote.