Beyond laziness, IDs cost money. Money is an obstacle.
You can get ID for free.
I understand that libs want to cheat…having ID as a requirement makes it harder.
2 Likes
I have to travel to the DMV to get ID. If I don’t have a car, it costs money. Money is an obstacle as is the time.
You have no evidence for the idea they are “mostly Dems”.
There are plenty of “bundlers” both Dem and GOP and they use fear tactics to “bundle” voters all the time.
I personally witnessed it this past election season.
However, fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with increasing the number of days one can vote or allowing options for voting like mail in.
The “election integrity” rules make it harder for people to vote for pretty much zero “increased integrity” benefit.
Voting should only be as difficult so as to ensure a secure vote and no harder.
Reducing early voting days does not improve election integrity.
Limiting how mail-in ballots work does not improve integrity.
Limiting where one can drop off one’s ballot does not improve election integrity.
Conservatives used to be against senseless regulations.
Seems like many of today’s conservatives don’t have a problem with them anymore.
PS the additional step of doing the best we can to eliminate gerrymandering of Congressional districts (something that the Congress is constitutionally allowed to do as they do have the right to regulate federal elections) is something that DOES improve election integrity. The same software systems and algorithms that allow partisan gerrymandering to be done with ease can also make it easier to draw Congressional districts up more impartially.
1 Like
Too bad.
1 Like
Chalk you up as one that feels it should be harder than necessary to vote.
2 Likes
Chalk you up as one that wants to make it easier to cheat American people.
Oh…and making the ADMINISTRATION of elections more partisan in no ways improves election integrity.
These are the parts of those laws either passed or being considered that isn’t talked about as much. Chuck Todd pointed them out on Meet the Press.
*In Georgia, the SoS was stripped of election administrative power. Arizona’s would do this too.
*Arkansas’ laws allow a partisan state board to step in and take over administration for pretty much any reason.
*In Texas, the law the Dems thwarted by leaving chambers greatly lowers the evidence threshold bar for elections to be overturned in court due to “fraud”.
None of these changes enhances election integrity- these changes make election administration more partisan.
1 Like
Virtually nobody cheats in an national election. The data is not on your side
Boring left-wing talking points.
1 Like
If there was evidence of widespread cheating, you’d have a point.
There isn’t…so you don’t.
In fact, these new provisions giving greater partisan power over the administration of elections (what happens after people vote) that I pointed out in my previous post will make it far easier to “cheat”.
The partisan administrators are being given almost unchecked ability to change a result they don’t like after the fact.
These don’t “improve election integrity”…they reduce it.
1 Like
That wouldn’t stop me. I would do whatever’s necessary to obtain one, as would anyone else who really wanted to vote. That little requirement sure would play havoc with a bundler’s ability to gather votes among those who have no interest. Would make it darn near impossible. 
DEMs by their very nature want to control the electorate with lots of Big Government. Its all about dependency and what big government can do for you. In order to retain that power they need a captive audience. Coercing those who would not normally vote is what makes sense and lax voting laws are the key.
CONs by their very nature preach individual responsibility and pulling oneself up by their own bootstraps. The kind of bundling described above is completely foreign to that concept. What exactly would CONs even offer? Equal opportunity and self reliance? For someone fully dependent on the government, that would be laughable in so many ways.
No, this is really about DEMs desire to bundle votes on a large scale. That can only happen if election laws are extremely lax. If CONs were really in the same business of bundling votes on a large scale, wouldn’t they also want the lax election laws to make it possible??? 
2 Likes
In North Dakota, when they passed a law stating one needed an ID that contained a street address in order to vote, such a restriction was almost impossible for Native Americans who lived on reservations to fulfill…especially in the short time given them to do it the year it was passed…especially since many of them didn’t have the paperwork needed to get an ID in the first place.
The Native Americans successfully sued to change those conditions…rightfully so.
Any time unnecessary regulations are passed, they have bad unintended consequences.
Conservatives by and large used to know that…
1 Like
And yet both parties do exactly that all the time. More big government is always the problem, never the solution.
Conservatives are supposed to be better.
I see you agree they’re not.
They just change where they want big government to focus.
I’ve always preached less big government. I don’t like it when either side passes unnecessary regulations. In regards to voter ID I’m on board with requiring those that want to vote show an ID, just as they do for everything else. I don’t see that as an unnecessary or burdensome requirement. If not for the bundlers, there would be no controversy or pushback from DEMs because everyone who really wanted to vote would be able to do so.
Obviously for Native Americans, some accommodation needs to be made to ensure those that want to can vote. But that doesn’t mean we must get rid of voter ID altogether in order to do so.
Regardless your opinion, they are obstacles.
So you are fine placing obstacles as long as they don’t interfere with you voting. Got it.
1 Like
Yeah, minorities already have IDs and if not can get them easily. How dare they ask anybody to prove who they are to cast a legal ballot?
And all those extra “early voting” days? It’s an abomination and subverts the Democratic process I tell ya!
