Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)

[420seriouscat69]

We should make voting as hard as Josh Duggar at a family reunion.

[sonofdaxjones]

It doesn't take wide spread voter fraud for voter fraud to be effective.   Why is that so hard to understand?   

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Still waiting for anyone to explain why lowering the bar even more for the voting electorate is a good idea.

Still waiting... Seriously, I'm not trying to play gotcha - I really want to know who thinks this is a good idea and why.

[Dugout DickStone]

Still waiting for anyone to explain why lowering the bar even more for the voting electorate is a good idea.

Still waiting... Seriously, I'm not trying to play gotcha - I really want to know who thinks this is a good idea and why.

What if the dummies vote only counts as 3/5 of a vote?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

So nothing, huh? Nobody wants to explain why it's a good idea to make the voting electorate even dumber/lazier as a whole than it already is?

[puniraptor]

So nothing, huh? Nobody wants to explain why it's a good idea to make the voting electorate even dumber/lazier as a whole than it already is?

maybe to save money and shrink the goverment?

[puniraptor]

So nothing, huh? Nobody wants to explain why it's a good idea to make the voting electorate even dumber/lazier as a whole than it already is?

maybe to save money and shrink the goverment?

someones probably going to pop out and destroy me on this, but i really think filing your tax return should be your voter registration

[michigancat]

So nothing, huh? Nobody wants to explain why it's a good idea to make the voting electorate even dumber/lazier as a whole than it already is?

It's really only a good idea if you think democracy is a good idea

[Dugout DickStone]

So nothing, huh? Nobody wants to explain why it's a good idea to make the voting electorate even dumber/lazier as a whole than it already is?

There are people way, way smarter than you who would like to keep you from voting.

[Spracne]

You assume that the vast majority of people who don't vote now but would vote if it were easier would vote for D.  Why do you assume that?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

So nothing, huh? Nobody wants to explain why it's a good idea to make the voting electorate even dumber/lazier as a whole than it already is?

maybe to save money and shrink the goverment?

someones probably going to pop out and destroy me on this, but i really think filing your tax return should be your voter registration

Anybody from any country can file a US tax return, you don't even need a social security number. They will even give you a child tax credit check back in return. You don't even need to pay anything in.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

You assume that the vast majority of people who don't vote now but would vote if it were easier would vote for D.  Why do you assume that?

I answer that in two parts. First, I suppose it's possible that there's a lot of smart, engaged people out there who just don't vote because they don't have the time to jump through a couple of rudimentary hoops like registering and presenting an ID, but I really doubt it. So, I think I'm making a pretty safe assumption that making it easier to vote than it already is is going bring in lots of additional stupid and/or lazy people to the electorate (if not outright fraud) on net. Do you agree so far?

Second, who do those lazy and/or stupid people vote for? There are certainly stupid and/or lazy Republican voters, but I think the majority will by and large vote for the party that will give them more handouts. I think that is a fair assumption to make.

[Spracne]

You assume that the vast majority of people who don't vote now but would vote if it were easier would vote for D.  Why do you assume that?

I answer that in two parts. First, I suppose it's possible that there's a lot of smart, engaged people out there who just don't vote because they don't have the time to jump through a couple of rudimentary hoops like registering and presenting an ID, but I really doubt it. So, I think I'm making a pretty safe assumption that making it easier to vote than it already is is going bring in lots of additional stupid and/or lazy people to the electorate (if not outright fraud) on net. Do you agree so far?

Second, who do those lazy and/or stupid people vote for? There are certainly stupid and/or lazy Republican voters, but I think the majority will by and large vote for the party that will give them more handouts. I think that is a fair assumption to make.

1.) I fixed your quote function blunder

2.) So, you're admitting that your opposition to making voting easier is that you *think* that it will cause more people to vote for the party you oppose, based on nothing but your gut feelings?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

So nothing, huh? Nobody wants to explain why it's a good idea to make the voting electorate even dumber/lazier as a whole than it already is?

It's really only a good idea if you think democracy is a good idea

That's a flippant non-answer. Why is it good for democracy? We don't have a democracy, by the way, but a representative republic, precisely because we believed it would be a better form of government to not put every issue to the people for direct voting. Not unlike setting a threshold for voting in the first place.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

You assume that the vast majority of people who don't vote now but would vote if it were easier would vote for D.  Why do you assume that?

I answer that in two parts. First, I suppose it's possible that there's a lot of smart, engaged people out there who just don't vote because they don't have the time to jump through a couple of rudimentary hoops like registering and presenting an ID, but I really doubt it. So, I think I'm making a pretty safe assumption that making it easier to vote than it already is is going bring in lots of additional stupid and/or lazy people to the electorate (if not outright fraud) on net. Do you agree so far?

Second, who do those lazy and/or stupid people vote for? There are certainly stupid and/or lazy Republican voters, but I think the majority will by and large vote for the party that will give them more handouts. I think that is a fair assumption to make.

1.) I fixed your quote function blunder

2.) So, you're admitting that your opposition to making voting easier is that you *think* that it will cause more people to vote for the party you oppose, based on nothing but your gut feelings?

Yes. It's no secret that oppose most democrat policies. I believe that electing a party to power based on handouts will put our country into a death spiral. So, I don't think that giving Democrats more power is good for this country, and I therefore don't believe that loosening voting requirements is good for this country.

I've answered all of your questions, now how about answering mine. Do you disagree with my assumptions? If so, why?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

So nothing, huh? Nobody wants to explain why it's a good idea to make the voting electorate even dumber/lazier as a whole than it already is?

There are people way, way smarter than you who would like to keep you from voting.

We're talking about lowering requirements - not raising them.

[Spracne]

I'm not convinced that your assumptions are correct, no.  For instance, I did not vote in the last Presidential election, but I would have if I could have done it online, and I would have voted for Romney (Texas, tho).  So, I didn't even have to venture beyond my own personal space to find one example that goes against your assumption.  That makes me think, surely there are many others.  How many others? Well, I don't know.  While I appreciate your honesty about your personal motivations for opposing the policy, I don't think politically-biased assumptions carry enough weight to win a policy argument. 

[michigancat]

So nothing, huh? Nobody wants to explain why it's a good idea to make the voting electorate even dumber/lazier as a whole than it already is?

It's really only a good idea if you think democracy is a good idea

That's a flippant non-answer. Why is it good for democracy? We don't have a democracy, by the way, but a representative republic, precisely because we believed it would be a better form of government to not put every issue to the people for direct voting. Not unlike setting a threshold for voting in the first place.

It may or may not be "good" for democracy, but making it as easy as possible for every eligible voter to vote is the right thing to do.

Rather than disenfranchising a voting bloc you consider "lazy and dumb", perhaps candidates could do something to educate and reach out to those people and make them less "lazy and dumb". Wouldn't finding a way to make a large segment of the population more educated and productive be a good thing for society?

[CNS]

Not ignoring a large portion of society may prove to actually be a good idea and solution for resolving problems that occur in that community and cost everyone money. 

[Kat Kid]

It is disingenuous to argue, as KSUW seems to, that he favors a continuation of the status quo.  The status quo is dynamic--more restrictions/ID verifications/fewer voting days etc.  establishing a new line and then defending them means that the conversation is broader than "right now."  Because this issue is dynamic both in actual policy proposals (both democrats and republicans favor shifts to the status quo) policy preferences and in ideologies it is completely reasonable to discuss the alternative.  It is not a slippery slope to talk about more restrictions.

You made clear why you think that restricting the voting pool makes sense, others have shared why they think it is bad.  Why do you keep implying people are making bad faith arguments?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

You made clear why you think that restricting the voting pool makes sense, others have shared why they think it is bad.  Why do you keep implying people are making bad faith arguments?

I'm implying nothing of the sort. I'm genuinely interested in why people think we should make it even easier than it already is to vote.

[sys]

I'm genuinely interested in why people think we should make it even easier than it already is to vote.

a rational society should aim to make everything easier for the members of that society.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I'm not convinced that your assumptions are correct, no.  For instance, I did not vote in the last Presidential election, but I would have if I could have done it online, and I would  :ROFL:have voted for Romney (Texas, tho).  So, I didn't even have to venture beyond my own personal space to find one example that goes against your assumption.  That makes me think, surely there are many others.  How many others? Well, I don't know.  While I appreciate your honesty about your personal motivations for opposing the policy, I don't think politically-biased assumptions carry enough weight to win a policy argument.

As I already said, it's possible that at least some people are intelligent and engaged and still could not vote due to our minimal requirements. You're evidently one such person, though I am a little dubious as to why voting was such a burden for you (I don't know what advanced and mail balloting is permitted in Texas). That doesn't change my overall opinion that, if you're smart and engaged, it's really not that hard at all to vote, so the additional voters that lower standards would yield will be, on net, dumber/lazier. If you disagree, fine. I freely admit I'm just going off my gut instinct. If you have anything more definitive to the contrary, please share.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I'm genuinely interested in why people think we should make it even easier than it already is to vote.

a rational society should aim to make everything easier for the members of that society.

Sorry, that just doesn't make any sense at all. We impose standards for all sorts of things. Driving, college admission, etc. There is not always merit to "making everything easier."

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

So nothing, huh? Nobody wants to explain why it's a good idea to make the voting electorate even dumber/lazier as a whole than it already is?

It's really only a good idea if you think democracy is a good idea

That's a flippant non-answer. Why is it good for democracy? We don't have a democracy, by the way, but a representative republic, precisely because we believed it would be a better form of government to not put every issue to the people for direct voting. Not unlike setting a threshold for voting in the first place.

It may or may not be "good" for democracy, but making it as easy as possible for every eligible voter to vote is the right thing to do.

Rather than disenfranchising a voting bloc you consider "lazy and dumb", perhaps candidates could do something to educate and reach out to those people and make them less "lazy and dumb". Wouldn't finding a way to make a large segment of the population more educated and productive be a good thing for society?

To your first point, that's sys's argument and I addressed it above.

To your second point, that's a nice thought but it's not very realistic. It's also not a reason to lower standards. It is perhaps a remedy to lowered standards but, as I said, not very realistic.