[detbuch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Laws and regulations are not passed only to prevent which is "ripe" to occur. They are also passed to prevent something that "might" occur, especially if they are in regard to an important and fundamental process or right. And when abuse or trespass has occurred, it does not require that the abuse or trespass become "ripe" before prevention against it is justified. Just because murder may not be a frequent occurrence in a given community doesn't obviate the need to pass laws against it. The fundamental right to vote is too important not to have safeguards against its abuse.

Quote Spence:
But there are already safeguards against abuse and by most if not all measures they appear to be working quite well.

There's that "appear" qualification again. It "appears," however, that many don't believe they are working well enough. And those articles which point out the "relatively" few numbers of voter fraud convictions, leave out the more numerous numbers involved in voter fraud which were documented but ignored (therefor not prosecuted) for various (usually political) reasons and which did have effects or possible effects on the outcome. There is growing suspicion and mistrust of government, much of which is not unfounded, and if the majority of people approve of a safeguard against possible corruption, why do you protest so much against it?

Quote Spence:
Murder, unfortunately happens all too frequently.

It does not occur frequently in all communities. It does, however, "appear" to occur "all too frequently" in some communities which, all too often, "appear" to be poor or minority. Should we burden those communities where murder rarely occurs with laws against it? Or is the possibility of such a crime against a most fundamental right to life enough to create laws to discourage and punish it?

Quote detbuch:
Obviously, there must be some proof of validity required to vote. I don't know which proof is the least inconvenient for poor or minority voters, nor how it is less so in any other area of their lives.

Quote Spence:
Hence a registration process so that people can't vote twice. It may not be perfect but it also may not need to be perfect. It's a minimalistic solution with primarily localized oversight and effective results...a delightfully conservative approach.

There is, unfortunately, the very real possibility, especially in "get out the vote" drives in which numbers of folks who normally wouldn't bother to vote are taken to registration sites to register (with who knows what real or manufactured ID) and whose registered name can be used at election by others to vote. Hence, having a valid photo ID at election time would verify that they are the one who is registered. And if the ID was required to register, why would it be an extra burden to show it when voting?

Quote detbuch:
The misfortune, at least that portion which is due to fate, of being poor results in more difficulty in all aspects of life. There is no realistic answer on how to change that. Stretching government power to resolve it by fiat creates burdens on those that must pay for it, and the inequities which government claims not to abide. I am not exactly poor, certainly not wealthy, but have to provide ID for so many things, and have to go through irritating and inconvenient processes to re-establish ID when I lose a card, whether it be a driver's license, a social security card, a bank card, an insurance card, or any other card of which seem to spread in quantity like weeds as life becomes more bureaucratic and "advanced." Why it is so much more burdensome for the poor or minorities to suffer the same inconveniences, I don't know. It is by the vary nature of being poor that everything becomes more burdensome. But the more important something is to the life of the poor, the more, I would think, they would be willing to overcome the inconveniences posed by their poverty. And if a minority is not poor, having ID should be no more of an impediment than it is for the majority.

Quote Spence:
But if being poor did present an additional burden (it does) and whites were proportionally less poor (they are) than there would certainly be a greater burden to the minorities.

Yes, being poor makes most of life a greater burden. That greater burden is the motivating factor which drives the poor to escape poverty. If the burden is artificially removed by government, the motivation to not be poor is lessened, and for many, removed. The constant policy of the progressive state to remove burdens creates a populace which becomes satisfied with its station thus mostly stays in place, and the more natural and evolutionary process of struggling to improve dissipates. The result is most propitious for authoritarian regimes, as the people are mollified and made malleable to whatever dictates the government imposes.

This lack of confidence in people's natural ability to seek and gain improvement in a free society is a hallmark of socialism. It leads to an over-coddling of the poor, which in turn destroys the major motivation for them to improve and creates a reverse motivation in many to not seek improvement, which in turn creates greater numbers of "the poor." Which all, of course, creates a greater need for government coddling. Poverty becomes the economic standard for fiscal policy. A maintenance above some defined quantity of wealth must be provided for all, so must be equitably distributed from those with more to those with less.

And it is assumed, therefor, that it is more difficult for the poor to vote and to present competent ID. That it may be more difficult poses no legal requirement to make it easier, especially if that would lower the barriers to abuse. It also overlooks that it would be easier for many poor to vote than it is for many who are busy improving their life or maintaining a higher economic status. It simply, and erroneously, assumes that it is more difficult for the poor and poverty becomes, once again, the standard for regulation.

Is making things easier for the poor compassionate governance? In some cases it might be so. But when that becomes a standard, a constant factor in policy, is it compassion for the poor, or are the poor a tool to be used for societal transformation? And is poverty so strictly apportioned among minorities that they automatically are assumed to be victims of poverty and in the need for voting assistance? I think it would be more accurate to identify a subset of people, regardless of race, who have some specific handicap that makes it not "difficult" but overburdensome to acquire ID and make it possible for them to get photo Id, not just for voting, but for all the other things necessary in our increasingly complex society.

Quote Spence:
The Salon article I posted for Jim does a nice job of laying out the reasons why. Which comes back to my original comment...if there's not a problem, why burden ANYONE with a solution?

Government, especially overarching, socialistic government, yearly pumps out tens of thousands of pages of new regulations where there are no "problems" except for ones it newly defines, or ones that "appear" to be a problem--and mostly problems which it has created with previous laws and regulations. And it is constantly burdening We The People with solutions that make daily life and business more difficult. Anything We The People can do to make the governmental process less corruptible and more difficult for it to abuse us should be welcomed. You "appear" to have little or nothing to say about massive government intrusion in our lives, yet your all up in a twit about voter ID.

Quote detbuch:
If you're referring to the Grossman article, you are not correct. He related that the great majority of legislation discussed was liberal, not all of it.

Quote Spence:
Yes but he does lay out an over-simplified test for what "Conservative" or "Liberal" legislation is.

-spence

It is not "over" simplified. Did you want him to write a book? You can certainly tell us how it is "over" simplified. If you have time.