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

[Felch]

Who cares if you think it's convenient? Do you think that the law lacks merit? Should states be required to let non-citizens vote? Should states be forbidden from enforcing their voter registration laws? Should voting become a lawless free for all, with no standards and no accountability?

[kentonio]

Who cares if you think it's convenient? Do you think that the law lacks merit? Should states be required to let non-citizens vote? Should states be forbidden from enforcing their voter registration laws? Should voting become a lawless free for all, with no standards and no accountability?

Aww it's cute watching you dance away from that thorny little question of why now.

[Felch]

Why not now? Should we wait until an election is stolen before we do anything about it? Or should reasonable and responsible laws be passed and enforced now, not later, in order to ensure that elections are uncorrupted?

[giblets]

I just find it ever so convenient that this stuff just suddenly becomes an issue now, after no-one seeming to care for the last couple of hundred years. Must be all that fraud they found since the last election right?

Republican politicians probably aren't that concerned about Obama's ethnicity, they just had an unusually good year in the 2010 elections and are trying to exploit it to the fullest. It's every bit as cynical and opportunistic as gerrymandering.

[Dinner]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to limit voting to citizens.

I'm just going to chalk your post up to a reading fail because the article clearly says they're legal US citizens.

[Felch]

I'm just going to chalk your post up to a reading fail because the article clearly says they're legal US citizens.

If legal US citizens can't get documentation proving that they are citizens, then that is the fault of the government and the people who work for the government. I sympathize with anybody who has to have dealings with the government, and I understand that state sector workers are among the laziest and most useless tubs of **** walking the planet, but I don't think that there is any problem with requiring proper documentation as a condition for voting. Rather, we should reform the bloated bureaucracies, and make it easier for people to get the documents they need to vote.

Can you imagine how bad health care would be if it were run by the people responsible for documenting citizenship? 10 million Hispanics wouldn't be able to visit their doctors because some AFSCME dip****s lost their paperwork.

[MrFun]

I will accept some voter fraud if it means protecting the right to vote for all legitimate, citizen voters.

[MrFun]

Just as pro-gun fanatics accept the occasional mass shooting in order to protect law-abiding citizens' right to bear arms.

[kentonio]

Nicely put.

[DaShi]

Why don't we just have UN inspectors monitor our elections, if there is so much fraud?

[Felch]

I will accept some voter fraud if it means protecting the right to vote for all legitimate, citizen voters.

I don't think that legitimate voters should have their ballots cancelled out by fraudulent voters. I think it is the government's responsibility to see to the legitimacy of elections.

Just as pro-gun fanatics accept the occasional mass shooting in order to protect law-abiding citizens' right to bear arms.

Is the GOP trying to end all voting forever? Or are they just trying to make sure that legitimate voters aren't being cancelled out by illegitimate voters?

Why don't we just have UN inspectors monitor our elections, if there is so much fraud?

Because any problems that may exist can be easily solved by ourselves. Besides, how can we even know if there is fraud if we're not allowed to ask for ID?

It's a ****ing mystery to me why anybody would oppose sensible precautions to ensure the validity of elections. I guess partisanship trumps democratic principles.

[DaShi]

Probably because when they did ask voters to prove their citizenship only around 0.01% were found to have possibly committed voter fraud. The whole thing is a waste of money and will likely prevent more legitimate voters from voting than illegitimate voters. You'd be cancelling out a lot more legitimate votes.

[Ben Kenobi]

partisanship trumps democratic principles.

It's clear that Mr. Fun wants me to vote in the upcoming elections - thereby nullifying his vote.

[MrFun]

It's a ****ing mystery to me why anybody would oppose sensible precautions to ensure the validity of elections. I guess partisanship trumps democratic principles.

Because, I and others think that this drive against so-called voter fraud is actually a racist-motivated attack on legitimate citizens' right to vote. They don't want that black man to be reelected as president.

[Zevico]

Because, I and others think that this drive against so-called voter fraud is actually a racist-motivated attack on legitimate citizens' right to vote. They don't want that black man to be reelected as president.

Like those damn Rhode Island Democrats. They hate blacks, which is why they introduced voter ID laws. Right? I mean there's no other explanation for it. Right?

The drive against voter fraud is a drive against voter fraud. Your concern with its racial motives are not proved by an argument about whether there is merit to a drive against voter fraud, particularly because members of the party you voted for have supported that very drive against voter fraud for the same reasons the opposing party has expressed. So when those reasons are used or referred to in argument they don't prove your point. I'll say it again: the very laws you oppose--laws you describe as an "attack on legitimate citizens' right to vote"--were supported by members of your party. It is not inherently racist to support these laws unless we accept that Rhode Island democrats are inherently racist.

Which means that all that is left of this argument is a rank assertion: the Republicans are evil racists. As proof, you offer a policy which members of your own party openly enacted into law.