Are voter IDs racist?

marke

Well-known member
What are the arguments for and against voter IDs? Here is an article:


Voter identification laws require voters to present some form of identification in order to vote at the polls. In some states, photo identification is required.

Whether states should require voters to show identification before voting is a subject of debate.

Supporters of voter identification laws argue that requiring voter identification prevents voter fraud, that voter identification laws do not decrease minority voter turnout, and that requiring identification to vote is not burdensome.
Opponents of voter identification laws argue that voter identification laws are a burden for many voters, that voter identification laws target minorities, and that in-person voter fraud is rare.


What sort of logic compels Americans to buy into the argument that voter security is too much trouble to require and puts too much burden on voters? How stupid is that argument? Do Americans believe no securities are needed because disgruntled voters have given us their word they will not cheat in the absence of laws criminalizing cheating?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I oppose democracy altogether.

Who gave man the right to vote on what is right and wrong?

God certainly didn't.

Who gave man the right to vote on who leads a nation?

God certainly didn't.

Therefore, it's a moot question to ask if voter identification is a good or bad thing, because the system as a whole is wrong.
 

TomO

Get used to it.
Hall of Fame
I have never voted without showing my I.D.....I don't recall ever having felt persecuted or other wise discriminated against about it.

The logic of why it is needed is obvious, you either have to be a farm animal or a Democrat not to get it it seems.

.....Or perhaps you just have to be trying to subvert a republic.

 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
I oppose democracy altogether.

Who gave man the right to vote on what is right and wrong?

God certainly didn't.

Who gave man the right to vote on who leads a nation?

God certainly didn't.

Therefore, it's a moot question to ask if voter identification is a good or bad thing, because the system as a whole is wrong.
Any system that encourages stupid people to choose our leaders or set our policies is inherently flawed.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
I oppose democracy altogether.

Who gave man the right to vote on what is right and wrong?

God certainly didn't.

Who gave man the right to vote on who leads a nation?

God certainly didn't.

Therefore, it's a moot question to ask if voter identification is a good or bad thing, because the system as a whole is wrong.
I'm curious as to your point of view.

How does liberty mean man deciding what is right and what is wrong? I don't see your path to that unless you associate law and morality as being one and the same. They are not.

As to man choosing leaders:
Deuteronomy 1:12 How can I myself alone bear your cumbrance, and your burden, and your strife?
13 Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.

God and Moses allowed the people to choose who would be their leaders and help govern them.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I'm curious as to your point of view.

How does liberty mean man deciding what is right and what is wrong?

It doesn't. It has very little to do with it.

Democracy doesn't equate to freedom. There is no inherent right that the 51% has over the 49%, and indeed, as Jesus said, the majority is evil (Matthew 7), and thus, when evil holds the majority in a democracy, they hold power over the, generally speaking, innocent minority. Maybe you can spot the problem with that.

Authority naturally flows downhill. From God to the government, to the people, from the individual man, to his wife, to her children, and even the kid can kick the cat off the couch.

Democracy, on the other hand, reverses that flow, and tries to put the people over the government, which is over the people, which is over the government, which is.... Etc. Circular authority flow functions the same as circular reasoning: it's illogical, and worse, it subverts the natural flow of authority established by God.

I don't see your path to that unless you associate law and morality as being one and the same. They are not.

God's law is moral. Love God, and Love thy neighbor as thyself. Any law that violates those two is no law at all. Democracy, as stated above, allows for the evil majority to establish their preferred laws, which are guaranteed to violate them, as a natural outcome of democracy.

As to man choosing leaders:

God and Moses allowed the people to choose who would be their leaders and help govern them.

WRONG.

First: Numbers 16. Read it. God opposed democracy, so much so that He caused the earth to swallow up the people who were involved in the rebellion.

Second (pardon the pun): Deuteronomy is a second retelling of the law. In chapter 1 verse 12, Moses is recounting when he appointed JUDGES to ease the burden he had in determining the outcomes of cases. Literally all you had to do was keep reading:

“And I spoke to you at that time, saying: ‘I alone am not able to bear you.The Lord your God has multiplied you, and here you are today, as the stars of heaven in multitude.May the Lord God of your fathers make you a thousand times more numerous than you are, and bless you as He has promised you!How can I alone bear your problems and your burdens and your complaints?Choose wise, understanding, and knowledgeable men from among your tribes, and I will make them heads over you.’And you answered me and said, ‘The thing which you have told us to do is good.’So I took the heads of your tribes, wise and knowledgeable men, and made them heads over you, leaders of thousands, leaders of hundreds, leaders of fifties, leaders of tens, and officers for your tribes.“Then I commanded your judges at that time, saying, ‘Hear the cases between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the stranger who is with him.You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small as well as the great; you shall not be afraid in any man’s presence, for the judgment is God’s. The case that is too hard for you, bring to me, and I will hear it.’And I commanded you at that time all the things which you should do. - Deuteronomy 1:9-18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy1:9-18&version=NKJV

Moses is referencing Exodus 18, where his father-in-law, who is honored in this passage for being one of the most brilliant men in history concerning judicial theory (at least in my opinion), came up with the entire idea mentioned in Deuteronomy 1!

And so it was, on the next day, that Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood before Moses from morning until evening.So when Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he did for the people, he said, “What is this thing that you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit, and all the people stand before you from morning until evening?”And Moses said to his father-in-law, “Because the people come to me to inquire of God.When they have a difficulty, they come to me, and I judge between one and another; and I make known the statutes of God and His laws.”So Moses’ father-in-law said to him, “The thing that you do is not good.Both you and these people who are with you will surely wear yourselves out. For this thing is too much for you; you are not able to perform it by yourself.Listen now to my voice; I will give you counsel, and God will be with you: Stand before God for the people, so that you may bring the difficulties to God.And you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and show them the way in which they must walk and the work they must do.Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.And let them judge the people at all times. Then it will be that every great matter they shall bring to you, but every small matter they themselves shall judge. So it will be easier for you, for they will bear the burden with you.If you do this thing, and God so commands you, then you will be able to endure, and all this people will also go to their place in peace.”So Moses heeded the voice of his father-in-law and did all that he had said.And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people: rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.So they judged the people at all times; the hard cases they brought to Moses, but they judged every small case themselves. - Exodus 18:13-26 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus18:13-26&version=NKJV

Third: There is a MUCH BETTER way to choose leaders, especially considering our current method here in the US, which pits wife against husband, brother against brother, neighbor against neighbor, and wastes billions of dollars that could be spent in far better places than in political campaigns.

Proverbs 18:18 says:

Casting lots causes contentions to cease, And keeps the mighty apart. - Proverbs 18:18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs18:18&version=NKJV

As for that, see my pinned thread titled "Constitutional Monarchy" in the Politics section.
 

marke

Well-known member
What are the arguments for and against voter IDs? Here is an article:


Voter identification laws require voters to present some form of identification in order to vote at the polls. In some states, photo identification is required.

Whether states should require voters to show identification before voting is a subject of debate.

Supporters of voter identification laws argue that requiring voter identification prevents voter fraud, that voter identification laws do not decrease minority voter turnout, and that requiring identification to vote is not burdensome.
Opponents of voter identification laws argue that voter identification laws are a burden for many voters, that voter identification laws target minorities, and that in-person voter fraud is rare.

What sort of logic compels Americans to buy into the argument that voter security is too much trouble to require and puts too much burden on voters? How stupid is that argument? Do Americans believe no securities are needed because disgruntled voters have given us their word they will not cheat in the absence of laws criminalizing cheating?
Democrats in Virginia installed unmonitored ballot boxes in 2020 allegedly because of the coronavirus pandemic. Those boxes can be filled with illegitimate ballots and nobody would be the wiser. Why would democrats want to open voting up to unsecured voting that could allow thousands or tens of thousands of illegal ballots to be dumped into the system while nobody is watching? Democrats lie when they claim they want to ensure that no illegitimate vote is cast in elections.


The Republican Party of Virginia, unnerved by the high number of drop boxes around the commonwealth that are not monitored by public officials, has deployed volunteers to keep an eye on the ballot receptacles.

Drop-box voting, launched by the state’s Democratic-run government in 2020 as part of COVID-19 measures, is a ballot security issue for the state GOP as Virginians decide the close governor’s race between Republican Glenn Youngkin and Democrat Terry McAuliffe.

“You have them in secure locations, namely in the registrar’s office, and they’re only accessible to the public, obviously, during business hours of the registrar’s office,” Virginia Republican Party Chairman Rich Anderson told The Washington Times. “But once they’re outside, those are the ones we’re concerned about — that somebody could go drive up to one under current law and dump a bushel basket of ballots in there.”
 
Top