Only one House Dem voted in favor of voter ID, proof of citizenship in US elections
- Thread starter Hephaestus
- Start date
And yet you are here mindlessly parroting the GOP line and supporting the SAVE act.
Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com)
Trump on Democratic opposition to the SAVE America Act: "They know if we get this, they probably won't win an election for 50 years, maybe longer"
bsky.app
The Democrats do not have the election strategy you made up for them.
You obsessing about phantoms you made up in your mind is on brand for you, but foolish and a waste of time.
Meanwhile, you have avoided answering the simple question asked earlier about Canadian ID laws and whether you think they need to be changed, since voter ID and the integrity of voting systems is something you've decided to pretend to care about.
Well, looks like the Supreme Court is going to find an excuse to fuck with election law again.
The high court’s decision is expected by this summer. Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked the Republican Party’s lawyer, Paul Clement, if there would be enough time for the decision to take effect and apply to midterm elections this fall. Clement said there would be.
Remember that the rule is that there is never enough time to implement a decision on elections that favours Democrats and never too little time to implement a decision that favours Republicans.
But it does look like "unelected justices decide legal votes don't count" is coming.
The high court’s decision is expected by this summer. Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked the Republican Party’s lawyer, Paul Clement, if there would be enough time for the decision to take effect and apply to midterm elections this fall. Clement said there would be.
Remember that the rule is that there is never enough time to implement a decision on elections that favours Democrats and never too little time to implement a decision that favours Republicans.
But it does look like "unelected justices decide legal votes don't count" is coming.
you confuse yourself
I have never needed the GDP to tell me that voter ID is necessary to ensure the integrity of the election process. That is self evident
boarder control is also necessary to ensure the integrity of the election process
if you voted in Canada you showed your ID, proving your citizenship.
or did you have a hissy fit at the polling both and walk away from your chance to legally participate in the election process?
Did you want to have 5,000 red necks from very safe blue Alberta / Saskatchewan ridings make the trip to your riding to register with no ID required?
They need to spend all that filthy oil money one way or another , a trip to Ontario ? see mom, dad, grandma afterword's ?why not ?
Sure they do, read the title of this thread
All but one voting against is the party line vote,
A party line vote that required strategic co-ordination and communication
However based on their latest election results you might be tempted to argue they had no election strategy at all
Nope
The arguments against both boarder control and voter ID are ridiculous and disingenuous
You can not have open boarders and fund govt services.
There is no limit on the volume of people who will exploit that
Which specific question was that?
Was it in a post from someone I have on ignore?
Was it about the loonie lefty who wants to load up key ridings with a 100 + candidates, so granny cant find her preferred choice? (after she shows ID of course)
Yeah , that's got to change
A general election is a serious matter, attention seeking clown shows are not welcome
Last edited:
Would it be ok if the open boarders paid rent?
Would they then be allowed to vote?
oh yeah, the spelling police
boarders vs borders
Busted !
to answer your silly question : no
crossing the border illegally requires immediate recrossing the border in the opposite direction or a one way ticket to wherever you started your illegal border crossings
no time to rent, boom your gone if you break the laws
no
that right belongs to citizens
It seems liberals have conveniently forgot Mayor Daley the elder and a host of Democratic city bosses.
Could you imagine the Daley machine with Illinois' current ballot harvesting laws?
With lax mail-in balloting rules, Mayor Daley would have seen the city had a 90% turnout.
It's a good question, but its useful to contrast the U.S. election system with other Western democracies.
Canada just happens to be here at TERB under our nose sort of speak.
I wouldn't wish the U.S. system on Canada. You should be running away from it as fast as possible. Voters need to know the greatest care has been taken in running elections. This includes proper identification, ensuring chain of custody, etc.
Last edited:
I don't like the SAVE Act as it is written.
However, U.S. election law has changed the last ten years. Some states have changed their election laws more than others.
I have always been asked to present an ID when I vote. I have lived in both blue states and red states. Yet on this thread support for such becomes a debate.
ID isn't necessarily the issue with the SAVE act. The issue is they require a type of ID that a majority of Americans do not possess, or can easily or cheaply acquire. I haven't gone through the entire thread, so apologies if this has been posted before (or maybe several times). The SAVE act is basically designed to disenfranchise minorities and women. Here's how:
First, a driver's license is not adequate ID (except for five states where they have enhanced licenses), so people would need to bring a birth certificate (or passport...which also requires a birth certificate). Now, for the millions of women who've married and taken their husbands last name, they don't qualify because the names no longer match.
Under 50% of Americans have passports, and they cost about $165. They also take time. And, if everybody who wants to vote in November tries to get one, there is no way the system could handle so many applications. And, you need to do it in person. So, folks in rural areas would need to get all their paperwork, a photo, the fee, and then likely travel a distance (which could be pretty far) to a city where there is a passport office. That costs time and money, things a lot of poorer Americans do not have.
On a constitutional level, requiring people to pay money to get ID in order to vote boils down to a poll tax, which is something the 24 Amendment outlawed.
Finally, it should be pointed out that the number of undocumented people voting in US elections is ridiculously small. The Heritage Foundation (which is pretty hardcore rightwing, and published Project 2025) found only 40 instances of these people voting since the 1980s. That's a fraction of a fraction of people who voted, and no where near enough to swing 99.99999999% of elections.
In many ways, all this is is a voter suppression bill. They could significantly cut voter turnout from many people who would likely vote against the GOP. It unfairly burdens minorities and women, and would probably be thrown out by the Supreme Court (though with this group of corrupt right-wing judges, who knows). It is also just the latest game the GOP is playing to rig the mid-terms that started with Trump asking Texas to gerrymander the districts to help give the Republicans an extra seat or two. They know there will likely be a bloodbath in November, which is why they are pushing so hard for this bill to pass.
I don't support the SAVE Act as written, but I think IDs in today's world are necessary. As I said earlier, all of the issues with the SAVE Act could be banged out if the two parties would work together in Congress. You can waive fees for IDs, etc.
It is not good for the U.S. to have 50 different election systems and rules particularly for Federal elections. One can argue all they want about this Red State has this and that restriction (often a common rule). That's why I think it is fair to compare this to the Canadian system for reference. Otherwise, it's just the usual political rhetoric coming straight from the U.S. liberal media without much reflection.
PS- The Obama Administration opened up the mid-decade gerrymandering. Gerrymandering itself is quite common across most states but of course you know that. By the way over the years, TERB has been littered with well-meaning Canadians telling us how atrocious Red State gerrymandering is. Having some knowledge is often limiting.
Last edited:
wrong
democrats would be better advised to get government-issued photo identification for 3 million rather than flooding the country with illegal voters
if you want to vote, get ID
Oh, thank god Johnny Boy got us an AI review! Because AI is never wrong!
But, you are wrong: The ID the majority of Americans have is not the type the SAVE act requires. As I, and may sources have mentioned, a regular drivers license (which most people have) is not sufficient. Either is birth certificate if you've changed your name. Passports work, but nearly half the population doesn't have one. And, as your own AI slop points out, the SAVE act would likely disenfranchise minorities, the elderly, and low-income individuals who are all citizens.
As the bill is currently written, to register to vote you would need either a passport, enhanced drivers license (which only six states have: MI, MN, NY. WA, VE & WY) or a birth certificate. How many of us have their original birth certificate handy? How many of us have passports?
As for the number of undocumented people who have voted, why not use AI to ask this: How many undocumented people have illegally voted in US elections?
The results, no matter the AI, all say basically this:
So, all the clutching of pearls about undocumented people illegally voting is just a massive exaggeration. In fact, there have probably been more GOP members caught voting illegally in some manner in the past decade than undocumented people...
Here's the thing, when the Democrats tried to pass a couple law a few years ago called the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Both were blocked because the GOP called it federal overreach. What the FPA would have done was automatically registered citizens to vote (or the ability to register to vote online), stop gerrymandering, and protect voters rights. This came in the wake of a bunch of red states passing laws that restricted voting by eliminating polling stations or cutting hours, along with other bullshit like purging voters lists.
Now, as for your claim about Obama's administration opening up mid-term gerrymandering...I can find no evidence about that. What I did find was that in 2010 census, several red states (or states led by the GOP) did some massive redistricting. Those state include North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and shockingly, Texas. I'm not saying Democrats haven't gerrymandered in the past (or even today), but all studies show red states are the worst offenders. In Canada, we don't really have gerrymandering because we have Elections Canada set the riding boundaries with all parties getting some input.
According to roddermac its still possible to live a life with only two brain cells.
I honestly think you just plain elect too many positions. So many of your positions should just be hired ones in administration. Up hear we elect people primarily to watch the money, pass laws. Not enforce them or do paperwork.
It creates imo lots more opportunities for graft.
