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

[kentonio]

Zev, when the first paragraph you quote incudes the line..

This is an absurd claim for which there is no evidence whatsoever and simply more propaganda by a radical organization that opposes all efforts to improve the integrity of the election process.

..then you just might be acused of being a bit bias.

[Zevico]

Zev, when the first paragraph you quote incudes the line..



..then you just might be acused of being a bit bias.

If the facts and arguments put forward by the author are convincing, then the organisation responsible for suggesting that 20 million voters will be disenfranchised is at the very least, doing some very, very sloppy work.

[kentonio]

If the facts and arguments put forward by the author are convincing, then the organisation responsible for suggesting that 20 million voters will be disenfranchised is at the very least, doing some very, very sloppy work.

Do you really think that an article using extremely partisan language like that is going to convince anyone who isn't already convinced?

[Guynemer]

The fact that it is from the Heritage Foundation might be another stumbling block.

It'd be equivalent to MrFun posting something from Daily Kos.

[Zevico]

Do you really think that an article using extremely partisan language like that is going to convince anyone who isn't already convinced?

As opposed to one promising 20 million disenfranchised voters? What next? Plagues of locust and demons? Strangelove's piece is from a left wing orgnaisation. This one is from a right wing organisations. So what? Isn't that how discourse works? You look at the left, the right and you make up your mind on the issue at hand.

[rah]

Yep, just because a few (ok, maybe more than a few) try to use restrictions as a means to sway elections in their favor, doesn't invalidate all use of restrictions. The supreme court has validated some and struck down others. If nothing else, that should show that all attempts are not EVIL. I'm sure there are a couple of people that were disenfranchised by the simple process of getting a voter's registration cards. Does that mean that there should be no controls at all? The trick is finding the right balance.

[Wezil]

Some voters are disenfranchised by the requirement to go to a polling station.

[rah]

So using the logic of some here, that shouldn't be a requirement either.

[Wezil]

I asked earlier why we don't let people vote by mail. Aside from someone pointing out the groups we do allow to vote by mail, no one answered.

[Wezil]

I'm told "millions" of people will be unable to make it out to get proper ID over a period of months/years yet I'm supposed to believe these same people are all going to make it out to the polls on election day. Surely a huge number are "disenfranchised" by this onerous requirement.

[DaShi]

Absentee ballots

[DaShi]

A cheaper way to get the same results as some of these voter ID laws would just charge people $200-500 to vote. Problem solved, and we can use the money to drive down the debt.

[kentonio]

Why not just have the candidates go through a Billy Madison style competition and then everyone can phone vote a winner? #BESTTVSHOWEVAR

[DinoDoc]

Why not just have the candidates go through a Billy Madison style competition and then everyone can phone vote a winner? #BESTTVSHOWEVAR

That would also disenfranchise voters.

[kentonio]

I thought we were past caring about such trifles?