Fight against so-called voter "fraud" unwittingly targets legitimate voters.

[rah]

God, you treat your younger brother like that? I'd be ashamed. I'd never treat Ming like that.

[Ben Kenobi]

God, you treat your younger brother like that? I'd be ashamed. I'd never treat Ming like that.

Wrong way. I'm used to that treatment from them trolling me for their amusement.

[DaShi]

How many people would it be too onerous for?

See the links on the first or second page and in the other two other threads on this topic.

You'll then be the second person to use actual facts and evidence here.

[rah]

Most of what I saw was anecdotal examples and speculation. Also what is too onerous? In one of the cases an absentee ballot was a solution. I don't see that as too onerous. I have yet to see any hard core evidence of how many people it would be too onerous for. That's why I was asking the question. I don't read every thread here.

[kentonio]

So we don't need hard evidence of the fraud that apparently makes this necessary but we do need hard evidence of the number of poeple who it will disenfranchise? Despite those generally being the people who are hardest to get hold of to survey?

[rah]

I would like hard evidence for both, but as you have pointed out, it's very difficult to quantify either. So it comes down to what we believe.

[DaShi]

Try post 28

[rah]

I went to the first link and I don't think that's good enough. They even give examples of voter fraud but claim it's not rampant because they only know of so many. They keep tossing around rarer than getting hit by lightening without really substantiating it. The author definately has an agenda which must be considered also. They admit that it happens. What about the cases that we don't know of. I'll agree that it's not as bad as some would lead us to believe. But I also don't believe that requiring a photo id would necessarily keep as many from voting as all the doom sayers keep claiming. I haven't seen definative proof there either.
I'll admit that growing up in Chicago biases me a bit, but that bias was earned. And I got a voter card for my dog. It's not that hard. It's going to take more to convince me otherwise.

[DaShi]

They are an advocacy group. But they also seem to be the only ones doing meaningful research on the topic. Their biggest problem with the photoIDs for voters is that they are often not accompanied by easier means to obtain such IDs: distance to offices that provide photoIDs, cost of photoIDs (or supporting documents), few offices that provide photoIDs, and the offices often being open for only short periods of time during the week.

Here's an article directly on the topic describing the barriers created by potentially onerous ID laws for voting:

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/the_challenge_of_obtaining_voter_identification/

[rah]

I read the summary and am still not convinced. All it could state was that it would be harder. Heck my job is farther than 10 miles and I get there every day. I agree that it will take effort but it's not what I consider onerous. They make a big point siting places open part time and those open more than 2 days a week. Now it's down to convenience. When I renewed my drivers license, it was at a part time center. That didn't stop me, it just made me plan a bit more. It's not like it's something they would have to do every year. Once an done. And it's still an advocacy group with an agenda.

As for cost, I have said all along that states should be required to offer free photo ids. Heck I have no problem with a free national ID. But that's another issues.

[DaShi]

You can't use yourself as an example here. You are nothing like the people being affected by this.

Seriously, it's the same arguments that were used to justify Jim Crow laws.

[rah]

Any teenager that was hot to get their license was never stopped by accessibility to a DMV. They figured out a way. Yes for some it was harder, AS I"VE SAID I AGREE WITH MANY TIMES HERE. But when they really want something people always figure out a way. We're arguing over the level of effort needed. Just because they don't go door to door handing out photo IDs doesn't mean it's to onerous to get one.

As soon as they said open more than 2 days a week, they were cherry picking their stats to make their point.

I don't remember voter fraud being the main excuse to justify Jim Crow Laws?

[DaShi]

I clearly wasn't referring to voter fraud. I'm referring to the argument, "It doesn't seem too rough to me, therefore it's perfectly fine."

It's like talking to children.

[DaShi]

Any teenager that was hot to get their license was never stopped by accessibility to a DMV. They figured out a way. Yes for some it was harder, AS I"VE SAID I AGREE WITH MANY TIMES HERE. But when they really want something people always figure out a way. We're arguing over the level of effort needed. Just because they don't go door to door handing out photo IDs doesn't mean it's to onerous to get one.

As soon as they said open more than 2 days a week, they were cherry picking their stats to make their point.

Please, you are just cherrypicking here because you don't like their conclusion. Do you think it's perfectly fine to make it harder for some people to vote because it wouldn't inconvenience you?

You asked if it was onerous for people. I provided several points of evidence. You're only response is, "It's fine for me. I don't have these problems. Why are they complaining?" How can you expect to be taken seriously?

"Why are all those poor people complaining so much? They should just have their servants do it for them."

[rah]

Saying any effort is too much is just plain ridiculous. Calling me a child does not validate your argument and will do nothing to change my opinion. If you really don't want to discuss it, I'll oblige you.