(10-22-2015 11:11 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 06:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 12:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Disenfranchising millions to solve a problem that is almost nonexistent is a far cry from restricting access to guns to curb gun violence that kills an average of 36 people every single day.

Except it is not "disenfranchising millions" to solve a problem that is "almost nonexistent."

Yes, it is. DYK: In Kansas, they looked for voter fraud ... and discovered that in fact, the voter fraud was coming from machines purchased by the GOP state election commission? That's what I'd be worried about.

Interesting but meaningless to the point at hand. The voter fraud that could be detected may have come from that source, but the plain fact is that we have no idea how much identity fraud exists because without requiring some form of ID, there is no way to detect it.

Let's say that you are working at a polling place. Someone comes up and claims to be John Smith of 123 Main Street and wants to vote. With no ID requirement, how can you verify that he is in fact John Smith of 123 Main Street and entitled to vote? You can't. And if you cannot make that determination, then any notion of how many times it happens, based on number of detections, is false and misleading.

If you want to argue otherwise, start by indicating how such fraud can be detected without an ID requirement. How do you know it really is John Smith? And if you don't know that, then how can you possibly know how much identity fraud goes on?

And it's not disenfranchising anyone.

Here's the better question....

If voter ID is free and the only requirement to vote is that you identify yourself as someone legally authorized to vote...
no check of your mental status... no check of your knowledge of how to vote responsibly... no check of your finances... simply 'are you a convicted felon'.... Heck... you could be intent on overthrowing the US government and so long as you hadn't actually committed a crime

How is that any different than a basic background check for a gun?

There is no 'crime' for failing to report a stolen ID. There is no training required to vote. There is no check of your mental status or social media posts.

My point being that while I understand why we would be more stringent about guns (because they are deadly) than about voting... you are BY DEFINITION risking disenfranchising people when you place ANY restrictions on things.

If it's okay to risk disenfranchising people by requiring a background check for a gun that must be purchased (much less anything else) then it is okay to risk disenfranchising people by requiring a FREE ID to vote.

The focus in both instances should be on making sure that anyone who wants to exercise their rights has EVERY opportunity to do so... and NOT on seeking to make it so difficult to vote (or own a gun) and thus more difficult to 'cheat' that people simply find easier ways to cheat the systems.