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

[sys]

There is not always merit to "making everything easier."

humans aren't very rational.

[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.

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

2 sides of a coin.  Millions of people who are smarter than you wish you couldn't vote.  But they let you anyway.

[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  :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.

Being smart and engaged (how do you determine that, and who judges?) are not requirements for voting.  The tide of history is clear that virtually every action taken w/r/t voting has been aimed at expanding the franchise and making voting less burdensome.  It seems ridiculous to leave barriers in place that could be removed without creating additional risks for fraud or abuse simply out of fear of how those Americans would choose to spend their one vote. 

[michigancat]

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."

Restrictions on driving have direct safety implications - restrictions on voting do not.

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.

Why is it unrealistic for your team to appeal to "dumb/lazy" people? And I think having a government that represents a larger percentage of its citizens is raising standards, not lowering them.

Why do you think voting is a good thing in general?

[sys]

Restrictions on driving have direct safety implications - restrictions on voting do not.

more to the point.  we aren't discussing easing or reducing restrictions on voting.  we are discussing making it easier to vote for all people that are already currently eligible to vote.  it is an unqualified benefit to society.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Can anyone explain why showing ID to vote is a bad idea? Which eligible voters in the US are not able to obtain a local, state, or federal identification card? I have never heard a truly logical argument against.

[sys]

Can anyone explain why showing ID to vote is a bad idea? Which eligible voters in the US are not able to obtain a local, state, or federal identification card? I have never heard a truly logical argument against.

it's a good idea.  sometimes i feel like people aren't reading the thread.

[star seed 7]

most rational people are fine with it as long as it doesn't cost anything

[renocat]

This week the race card. Next republicans get branded as women haters by the Queen Genital Ripper.

[renocat]

It makes.me.sick how the media swarms over MG like bull peter gnats.  They don't care about the bull as long as they can suck blood from his happy cow tools.  Soon they are likely to flock to another bull. Just like last time when they chased young Obullma.  Even though a steer.

[Tobias]

*bowl

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Restrictions on driving have direct safety implications - restrictions on voting do not.

more to the point.  we aren't discussing easing or reducing restrictions on voting.  we are discussing making it easier to vote for all people that are already currently eligible to vote.  it is an unqualified benefit to society.

I think she's also proposing universal automatic registration, too, right? If you're not registered, you're not eligible.

[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.

2 sides of a coin.  Millions of people who are smarter than you wish you couldn't vote.  But they let you anyway.

Yeah, I don't think any part of that statement is true. I also think it's pretty silly to argue that imposing such tight voting restrictions that the electorate is cut to a few "millions of people" is really the same thing as requiring someone to register in advance, present an ID, and all the other minimal thresholds most states currently have for voting.

[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.

Being smart and engaged (how do you determine that, and who judges?) are not requirements for voting.  The tide of history is clear that virtually every action taken w/r/t voting has been aimed at expanding the franchise and making voting less burdensome.  It seems ridiculous to leave barriers in place that could be removed without creating additional risks for fraud or abuse simply out of fear of how those Americans would choose to spend their one vote.

You're right about the "tide of history" - but that's not an argument for expanding voting in a growing idiocracy. As for barriers that could be removed "without creating additional risks for fraud," that's part of the problem. I think adding additional convenience often does invite opportunities for fraud. Weren't you suggesting online voting a couple of pages ago?

[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.

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

2 sides of a coin.  Millions of people who are smarter than you wish you couldn't vote.  But they let you anyway.

Yeah, I don't think any part of that statement is true. I also think it's pretty silly to argue that imposing such tight voting restrictions that the electorate is cut to a few "millions of people" is really the same thing as requiring someone to register in advance, present an ID, and all the other minimal thresholds most states currently have for voting.

the people I know who are smarter than you want people who aren't as smart as them to just stay home on election day.

[michigancat]

I'd still like to hear why K-S-U thinks democracy/representative republics/voting is a good idea in general.

[Rage Against the McKee]

You're right about the "tide of history" - but that's not an argument for expanding voting in a growing idiocracy.

I like how you believe we are in a growing idiocracy and want to cut education spending.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

You're right about the "tide of history" - but that's not an argument for expanding voting in a growing idiocracy.

I like how you believe we are in a growing idiocracy and want to cut education spending.

There seems to be no correlation between education spending and the growing idiocracy, so why throw good money after bad?

[Rage Against the McKee]

You're right about the "tide of history" - but that's not an argument for expanding voting in a growing idiocracy.

I like how you believe we are in a growing idiocracy and want to cut education spending.

There seems to be no correlation between education spending and the growing idiocracy, so why throw good money after bad?

Maybe if you ignore all data and believe that we are actually in a growing idiocracy.

[Spracne]

Lol at the idea that voters are less-informed now than in the past when you could choose to get your news from CBS, ABC or NBC if you were lucky enough to own a television. 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Here's the most rational way to look at this:

1) Voting should be as easy as possible without relaxing on the already embarrassingly de minimus voter authentication process.

2) The government is responsible for voting, all third party voter registration mills should be shuttered as inherently and obviously corrupt.

3) Voting is done on Voting Day.  There is no early voting. If you have enough time to vote, you have enough time to hear all of the candidates out.

4) Party affiliations are to be removed from the ballott.

[puniraptor]

Here's the most rational way to look at this:

1) Voting should be as easy as possible without relaxing on the already embarrassingly de minimus voter authentication process.

2) The government is responsible for voting, all third party voter registration mills should be shuttered as inherently and obviously corrupt.

3) Voting is done on Voting Day.  There is no early voting. If you have enough time to vote, you have enough time to hear all of the candidates out.

4) Party affiliations are to be removed from the ballott.

i would also ask that the electoral college rules for each state be changed to the nebraska system. proportional electorate vote distribution is the only way we will ever have a chance at a 3rd party being relevant

[Dugout DickStone]

Here's the most rational way to look at this:

1) Voting should be as easy as possible without relaxing on the already embarrassingly de minimus voter authentication process.

2) The government is responsible for voting, all third party voter registration mills should be shuttered as inherently and obviously corrupt.

3) Voting is done on Voting Day.  There is no early voting. If you have enough time to vote, you have enough time to hear all of the candidates out.

4) Party affiliations are to be removed from the ballott.

What if I am in Iraq fighting ISIS?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Here's the most rational way to look at this:

1) Voting should be as easy as possible without relaxing on the already embarrassingly de minimus voter authentication process.

2) The government is responsible for voting, all third party voter registration mills should be shuttered as inherently and obviously corrupt.

3) Voting is done on Voting Day.  There is no early voting. If you have enough time to vote, you have enough time to hear all of the candidates out.

4) Party affiliations are to be removed from the ballott.

What if I am in Iraq fighting ISIS?

See #1. Or fill out an absentee ballot. Or grab Mary and ride your camel towards Bethlehem.

[Dugout DickStone]

Here's the most rational way to look at this:

1) Voting should be as easy as possible without relaxing on the already embarrassingly de minimus voter authentication process.

2) The government is responsible for voting, all third party voter registration mills should be shuttered as inherently and obviously corrupt.

3) Voting is done on Voting Day.  There is no early voting. If you have enough time to vote, you have enough time to hear all of the candidates out.

4) Party affiliations are to be removed from the ballott.

What if I am in Iraq fighting ISIS?

See #1. Or fill out an absentee ballot. Or grab Mary and ride your camel towards Bethlehem.

I can vote in Bethlehem?