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

[DaShi]

It's clearly not "any" effort. You are simply refusing to understand the burden that it places on people. If PhotoID voting laws did make it easier to get photoIDs then there wouldn't be a problem. But clearly there is a problem or people wouldn't be complaining about it so much. However, your response, "It's ok for me" contributes nothing to the argument. Plus, you rely on vague ideas of what is onerous to suit your personal bias.

[rah]

And I work in market research so I have quite the understanding on how phrasing a question or how something is defined can influence things. Just why does a center that's open part time differ from one full time? I can pretty much guess that if they had included the part time in their statistics, that the numbers wouldn't have shown the point they were trying to make. (otherwise they wouldn't have gone out of the way making the distinction.)

And again, how is ONCE IN YOUR LIFE you have to go to the effort to get an Photo ID so onerous? IT's not like you have to do it for every election.
We should just hand everything to everyone so they don't have to lift a finger.

Your comment about servants is so typical. Playing on emotions instead of facts.

[rah]

Plus, you rely on vague ideas of what is onerous to suit your personal bias.

And you aren't?

I've said all along that this was a discussion on what is considered too onerous. It's obvious that we will not agree here.

[Jon Miller]

And again, how is ONCE IN YOUR LIFE you have to go to the effort to get an Photo ID so onerous? IT's not like you have to do it for every election.
We should just hand everything to everyone so they don't have to lift a finger.

You don't normally vote, but something comes up that is important to you and you want to vote.

Then you discover that you have to lose your job/etc because it isn't easy.

So you don't.

This is wrong.

JM

[rah]

I have no sympathy for people that only vote when they feel like it.
I can count on one hand the number of elections i've missed in almost 40 years.

Then you discover that you have to lose your job/etc because it isn't easy.

Wow, quite the extreme. If you lose your job because of it, you obviously didn't plan it out right.

[DaShi]

And I work in market research so I have quite the understanding on how phrasing a question or how something is defined can influence things. Just why does a center that's open part time differ from one full time? I can pretty much guess that if they had included the part time in their statistics, that the numbers wouldn't have shown the point they were trying to make. (otherwise they wouldn't have gone out of the way making the distinction.)

Pure speculation that allows you to dismiss the entire study because you don't like its conclusions. What's worse is that they did include part-time in their analysis. And can you really not see the difference between part-time and full-time? I'll explain it to you, if you can't.

And again, how is ONCE IN YOUR LIFE you have to go to the effort to get an Photo ID so onerous? IT's not like you have to do it for every election.
We should just hand everything to everyone so they don't have to lift a finger.

Photo IDs expire and are unnecessary outside of voting for many people. In addition, its quite costly. You are making the same emotional plea that they are lazy, because "it was ok for you."

Your comment about servants is so typical. Playing on emotions instead of facts.

Rah, you've provided zero facts in all of your posts here. You have played on emotions with your "I could do it" and "It's so easy" remarks. The absurdly arrogant, "Heck my job is farther than 10 miles and I get there every day."

I've provided facts that it is not easy for a lot of people. It is a fact that as your increase the difficulty to vote, fewer people will vote. If you increase the difficultly for one segment of a population to vote, that population will be disenfranchised. These are the basic facts.

[DaShi]

I have no sympathy for people that only vote when they feel like it.

We already know you're entire stance is based on personal bias, rah.

[Ming]

So... If a National ID was available for FREE, and easy to get (many locations, great hours, open 7 days a week) would people have a problem with a voter ID law?
Or would this too simply be too much of a burden for people...

[Jon Miller]

So... If a National ID was available for FREE, and easy to get (many locations, great hours, open 7 days a week) would people have a problem with a voter ID law?
Or would this too simply be too much of a burden for people...

I would have no problem.

JM

[DaShi]

So... If a National ID was available for FREE, and easy to get (many locations, great hours, open 7 days a week) would people have a problem with a voter ID law?
Or would this too simply be too much of a burden for people...

I think that's reasonable.

[rah]

X-post, so it seems we really don't dissagree that much.


And yours seems to be based on the reports by a advocacy group with an ax to grind that in my opinion is gaming their survey results through some definitions.

And I've said multiple times in this thread that it all comes down to an opinion of what you consider too onerous.

All opinions are personal bias. Yours is based on someone else's bias.

I don't see where I sank to emotions. I've pointed out a few personal examples which aren't the same thing. You used the word SERVANTS for it's negative connotation. Quite different.

Not having a voter's registration card also disqualifies you. People have to make an effort to get them. Why is this different? If it was required that states issue a voter's registration card with Photo for free, then no one could make excuses about being disenfranchised. I've already expressed my support for this earlier in this thread.

[DaShi]

X-post, so it seems we really don't dissagree that much.

No, we disagree a lot.

And yours seems to be based on the reports by a advocacy group with an ax to grind that in my opinion is gaming their survey results through some definitions.

That's your interpretation of the group based on your limited understanding (full-time vs part-time) and experience. What they describe is not limited to just IDs, but is an issue in healthcare, food security, and gainful employment. It's no surprise to me that this occurs with photoIDs.

I've based my stance solely on observable facts and reason.

As someone who works in marketing, you know how important product placement is. Even a little change can have a huge impact on sales. Any barriers, no matter how small, to purchase a product will reduce those sales. What I don't understand is how you can so blithely ignore these facts.

And I've said multiple times in this thread that it all comes down to an opinion of what you consider too onerous.

No, you can't make policy on the lives of thousands of people based on your personal opinions. That's extremely arrogant.

All opinions are personal bias. Yours is based on someone else's bias.

Again, I've merely stated facts in my case. You've only stated personal opinion.

I don't see where I sank to emotions.

That's because you treat your personal opinions as facts.

I've pointed out a few personal examples which aren't the same thing. You used the word SERVANTS for it's negative connotation. Quite different.

Because I was trying to make you understand how arrogant it is to use your own personal examples to judge other people who live entirely different kinds of lives. Reason clearly wasn't working with you.

Also, you were making an emotional argument because 1. personal opinions are not facts, 2. you were basically calling them lazy.

Not having a voter's registration card also disqualifies you. People have to make an effort to get them. Why is this different? If it was required that states issue a voter's registration card with Photo for free, then no one could make excuses about being disenfranchised. I've already expressed my support for this earlier in this thread.

You've also expressed support for photoIDs that are not free or as easy to get.

[-Jrabbit]

My problem is with disenfranchisement. People who have a voter's registration card and been voting for years in good faith but do not meet the new ID requirements (for whatever reason) are literally having their vote taken away from them.

That is wrong and anti-democracy IMHO.

[rah]

Actually all I prefer is a photo ID so we know the person voting is more likely to be that person. How they get the ID is more secondary. I would prefer it be part of the registrations process. AS I said back in post #89.

You keep calling the results of that group facts. You dismiss any questions about their methodology.

What is onerous is just an opinion that we disagree on. I don't see how that makes me a monster.

on·er·ous/ˈōnərəs/
Adjective:
(of a task, duty, or responsibility) Involving a burdensome amount of effort and difficulty.
Involving heavy obligations.


I'm sorry if I don't believe getting a photo id is a "heavy obligation" or a "burdensome amount of effort and difficulty"

[SlowwHand]

Ditto.