politics

Once again, R’s are making an issue of a non-issue.

Once again, R’s are making an issue of a non-issue. 

https://apnews.com/article/noncitizens-voting-republicans-election-2024-immigration-09b86e6768f755fd875f3c51b0e8ea70

Political activist. Founder of mydemocracy.app and /advocacy. Host of the /politics channel. RCs may or may not = endorsements.

Im genuinely curious though:
What data do they have to prove its rare? Amount of ppl caught? That sounds like a pretty unreliable data if thats the case. Imagine we estimate the amount of online piracy just with the amount of ppl getting caught...

/monad ecosystem growth | ex telco.in & everwave.xyz founder | /music moderator | writing on web3 & culture https://paragraph.xyz/@alixkun.eth

You have to register to vote in each state which is verified by the Secretary of State. Then when you go to vote, your name needs to be on the rolls and usually your signature has to match. Ita not like you can just show up anywhere and vote. Also, the benefit, to the voter, of voting isn’t worth the cost which is a felony.

To me its an either or question.
Either ppl do have to prove their idendity at some point of the process, receive an acknowledgement of that phase, and can present it on election day, and if thats the case then i dont understand what republicans are complaining about?
Or there are loopholes that need to be addressed.
 The "stakes are too high" to justify its not happening doesnt work for me. We have plenty of cases where ppl still commit felony where punishment wayyy outweight the benefit (ex, drink and drive)

But they do when they register to vote. There are no loopholes to get around having to register. 

Also, yes people still commit crimes but not voting crimes. We can’t even convince people who can vote to do so.

Bur if thats the case then, upon registration, why dont they issue some kind of official document, like a card or a piece of paper that would work as an id on election day? This sounds like an easy fix for everyone no?

Because you might deny someone their right to vote. I guess the question is which is worse: 1. Denying someone their right to vote. 2. Allowing someone to potentially vote illegally. 

I think 1 is worse. Especially, when the overwhelming evidence shows that 2 doesn’t happen.

Because you might deny someone their right to vote. I guess the question is which is worse: 1. Denying someone their right to vote. 2. Allowing someone to potentially vote illegally. 

I think 1 is worse. Especially, when the overwhelming evidence shows that 2 doesn’t happen. 

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Briefing_Memo_Debunking_Voter_Fraud_Myth.pdf

Your studies linked loop back to my first argument. They only base themselves on revealed cases. The one that got caught or triggered a redflag. Hence my argument with estimating online piracy with only caught ppl. It just doesnt make sense and is not a valid argument.

The difference with big foot i guess is that cases of voter fraud are registered every years across the globe, so maybe that s a sign that it exists? 

I gave a simple solution based on what u told me, which could suit every party: give a document to people upon registration that can work as an id on voting day. No extra step, no need to go somewhere to produce an extra id. To that your answer was, what if they lose it? Im sorry, but this is not a serious answer 🤷‍♂️

If i was a republican and see this kinda answer, i would 100% think u have an agenda (i know u dont, just explaining this argument doesnt play well)

I guess Big Foot exists and we should make laws to protect ourselves from him. 

Seriously though, show me a problem and we can work on solving it. But if the problem only exists in hypotheticals or “this could be happening” then it’s not worth discussing or passing legislation to fix. We have much bigger political issues to address. And honestly, the hard truth is that voter fraud is just another dog whistle against brown and black Americans.