>>>>I mean, c'mon Mike, this is all total BS. Voters should have to prove who they are, right? How else do you get rid of voter fraud? Proof of ID should be a responsibility of a voter for God's sake. Personally, I summarily reject any arguments against proof of ID because AFAIAC they are all very suspicious rationales.
>>>
>>>Didn't we have this conversation before? Bottom line for me is that unless ID is available for free and without undue hardship (like missing work), it's a poll tax. Make ID available for free in every public library and local district court (justice of the peace) and have the ID stations open days, nights and weekends, and I'm okay with it. But if someone has to pay for it, or take off work to get it, or needs a car or complicated public transit trip to get it, it's unreasonable.
>>>
>>>Every adult citizen, from the richest to the poorest, should be able to vote, and any requirement that makes it harder for poor people to vote is wrong.
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>
>>Poor people get enough cash for eating, housing, etc.,etc. They also have plenty of free time on hands. So telling that $10 ID card taking 1 hour to receive is an impossible expense borders on insincerity. Elimination of voter fraud is no less important societal obligation than guaranteeing voting rights.
>
>You seem to feel that all poor people aren't working. In fact, there are lots of people out there who are working and not making very much and who can't time off work without risking losing their jobs. (Ever read "Nickle and Dimed in America"?) Any cost to be allowed to vote is a poll tax and the Supreme Court outlawed those.
>
>As for your last sentence, just as I'd prefer 100 guilty to go free rather than punishing one innocent, I'll accept a certain amount of voter fraud to ensure that everyone who is entitled to vote is permitted to. That said, everything I've read indicates that the amount of actual voter fraud in this country is quite low; the Republican party makes a big deal of it every two years as an excuse for trying to disenfranchise people they assume will vote Democratic.
>
>Tamar

It just means, in plain English, that you prefer 100 illegal votes for Dem party instead of losing 1 legal vote due to "disenfranchisement". Frankly, I don't see how innocent/guilty rationale can apply to this situation.