Originally Posted by joeydb (Post 878041)

Calling someone who thinks ID is necessary to vote a racist is a tactic. The Democrats don't actually believe that. But if it gets you to shut up, then the tactic is successful.

The Democrats want (or need) the multiplicative factor of voter fraud through repeated voting - an illegal practice. This practice is easily stopped through the use of required ID and logging of poll attendance. Therefore, they will take the intellectually indefensible and ludicrous position of guaranteeing the continuation of this crime by not requiring ID and actively fighting states who are bold enough to enact their own ID requirements.

And, for the record, preferring someone because of their race is equally racist to the case of excluding someone because of their race.

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 878054)

yeah, originally all citizens didn't have the right to vote. the framers didn't think everyone should be able to.
explains why there had to be amendments made to the constitution. and those amendments came looong after the framers had all shuffled off this mortal coil.


an excerpt from an article i found:

Some Americans hoped the Constitution would clarify, unify, and perhaps expand voting rights nationally. It did not. Hayden wrote: "Under the constitution, then, the breadth of the right to vote for both state and national elections was fixed by state law. And at the time of ratification, this meant that many people—including most women, African Americans, Native Americans and propertyless white men—could not vote."

By not addressing the suffrage issue more broadly, the Constitution's authors fostered a long-running battle over voting rights. This struggle lasted well into the twentieth century, forming a focal point for the civil rights and women's rights movements.

http://www.history.org/foundation/jo.../elections.cfm

Originally Posted by joeydb (Post 878001)

Not to bait you at all, but just a question:

Why would the racial background or age matter when analyzing those who did not obtain official ID for themselves?

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop (Post 878083)

The electoral college system was conceived because the founders were afraid to give the full power of selection to the general public.
A correct assumption was made that people are suckers and could easily be fooled into electing someone completely unqualified.

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop (Post 878019)

Huh, you keep asserting that the framers made sure that all votes counted the same when the exact opposite is true.
I assumed you must have read this somewhere so I was curious if you interpreted the Bill of Rights differently than I did.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 878087)

It is against United States law to discriminate against any segment of our population when it comes to voting rights.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 878089)

But we don't live by the 1700's version, do we? Our laws and constitutional amendments say all our citizens have the franchise to vote. Right? ALL our citizens.

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis (Post 878090)

Who is telling them they can't vote? Or is this your way of twisting the facts again to support your senseless, baseless, opinion?

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop (Post 878092)

Actually they give the reasons you cannot tell someone that they cannot vote. Age, race, sex etc.
Does say you need to be a citizen, proof of citizenship is the key.
How do you prove it without a verifiable form of identification?

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop (Post 878092)

Actually they give the reasons you cannot tell someone that they cannot vote. Age, race, sex etc.
Does say you need to be a citizen, proof of citizenship is the key.
How do you prove it without a verifiable form of identification?

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis (Post 878090)

Who is telling them they can't vote? Or is this your way of twisting the facts again to support your senseless, baseless, opinion?

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 878096)

:zz: Look at your states current requirements to register to vote. Why do you want to eliminate some of those as invalid, making it more difficult for some to vote?

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop (Post 878019)

Huh, you keep asserting that the framers made sure that all votes counted the same when the exact opposite is true.
I assumed you must have read this somewhere so I was curious if you interpreted the Bill of Rights differently than I did.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 878087)

It is against United States law to discriminate against any segment of our population when it comes to voting rights.

Originally Posted by Antitrust32 (Post 878106)

lol, exactly. Not that it is right, but werent only male, white, land owners allowed to vote by our founding father's standards?

and then of course black people were only counted as 3/5 of a vote.

and women never voted until 1920. Poor people could NOT even vote in the 1960's until the poll tax was removed!!

Even in 2012... American citizens who have committed a felony are not allowed to vote.


now none of that stuff above is okay (except maybe not allowing felons).

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop (Post 878103)

Some are a bit of a stretch to prove that you are a citizen, even you would agree with that no?
Or that they prove you are in fact that person?

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 878087)

It is against United States law to discriminate against any segment of our population when it comes to voting rights.

Originally Posted by Antitrust32 (Post 878108)

this statement is false. Felons cannot vote. in 12 states, even felons who have completed their sentence and their probation and are "free" men.. they cannot vote.

Originally Posted by Antitrust32 (Post 878108)

this statement is false. Felons cannot vote. in 12 states, even felons who have completed their sentence and their probation and are "free" men.. they cannot vote.

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 878109)

blacks weren't counted as 3/5 of a vote.
originally, slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person in deciding population of a state. it was something the southern states forced thru, or else they wouldn't ratify the constitution, as that was the only way to keep an even keel in the house of representatives. they knew that northern populations were much higher, which would put them in a position of less say in congress. and of course that would affect the number of electoral votes as well.