Posted November 07, 2016
high rated
An Op-Ed at National Review, from a fellow at the Heritage Foundation? No wonder you don't know what you're saying.
You'll get some clarification if you take a look at what requirements are legally adequate and non-burdensome in this country, for demonstrating right to vote. Unsurprisingly, neither of those sources backs up your claim. And as usual, there's a key bit of logic crucially ignored: states want to impose new laws to increase the burden on voters, in an attempt to reduce voter fraud. However, there have been no epidemics of voter fraud (in fact, hardly any instances at all) and only a few of voter registration fraud (wholly different). But the states claim that if the new rules, which place new requirements on voters, are not passed, there could be fraud because the security given by those rules would not exist. Even though it hasn't thus far and has not been significantly abused.
"Do this or bad things will happen because you didn't do this." "But those bad things haven't happened and we've never done that" "BUT THEY WILL"
You'll get some clarification if you take a look at what requirements are legally adequate and non-burdensome in this country, for demonstrating right to vote. Unsurprisingly, neither of those sources backs up your claim. And as usual, there's a key bit of logic crucially ignored: states want to impose new laws to increase the burden on voters, in an attempt to reduce voter fraud. However, there have been no epidemics of voter fraud (in fact, hardly any instances at all) and only a few of voter registration fraud (wholly different). But the states claim that if the new rules, which place new requirements on voters, are not passed, there could be fraud because the security given by those rules would not exist. Even though it hasn't thus far and has not been significantly abused.
"Do this or bad things will happen because you didn't do this." "But those bad things haven't happened and we've never done that" "BUT THEY WILL"