Immanuel
Gold Member
- May 15, 2007
- 16,828
- 2,269
- 183
That's not the issue, Immie. It's things like, say, a student at Univ. Of Florida not being allowed to vote in Gainesville, but only in the Florida town they live in.
Bullshit like that.
I'm hoping that Democrats turn their attention to absentee voting to foil these blatant attempts to make it difficult for young people to vote.
Said student would have the right to vote absentee or to register in Gainesville. I do not see any reason why that would be a problem. But the requirement of having an ID had nothing to do with your scenario as that student would not be able to walk into the polls and cast a vote in Gainesville either way. He/she should not be allowed to with or without an ID.
( why would he not be able to vote where he lives, even if it's a college?)
I honestly cannot understand why anyone would have a problem with requiring a voter to produce identification. I do understand the argument that not everyone has ID's, but quite frankly, I think that is bogus and for the few that do not have proper identification or simply can't afford to get it, I have no problem with supplying it.
Immie
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html
So? What is your point?
Laws are written to stop potential crime not crimes that have already been committed.
Just because no one has been convicted does not mean that it does not go on. Nor have I said it is widespread. That does not mean that provisions should not be taken to prevent it. Nor does the lack of convictions prove in any manner that it does not go on. Without the means of identifying who is voting, there would be no way to find out if someone is going into multiple polling places and voting in each one. These laws are written as fail safes.
Immie