[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

<< not realizing they were not allowed to vote << Introducing laws that don't affect the (already low) level of fraud << voter fraud is rare

Hmm. Just the perception of fraud among the population is enough to undermine the system. We can argue whether Republicans in this case are simply playing to their base by drumming up doubt in the voting system or rigging the system for their benefit or both, but if you are going to admit that a) people who are not supposed to vote do vote b) argue that laws to penalize such votes don't work, you sound about as partisan as they do ( and merely arguing for 'your' side ). Just sayin'.

<< Voter ID laws disproportionately affect a very specific subset of the population,

Why is that important to you?

[fugalfervor]

> Why is that important to you?

I am telling you that people are being prevented from voting. Why is that _not_ important to you?

It is important to me because it is not fair.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

I am going to go out on a limb here and I assume you are, in fact, human ( this is a rhetorical device and not accusation of poster being llm ). As such, you likely should know that life in general is inherently not fair. And if you are going to be bold and trot out society during this argument, we are going to have a lot of fun.

[fugalfervor]

I suggest trying to make life more fair for the citizens of a democracy and you make fun of me. Please proceed with your intimations that I am, what? Gullible? Naiive?

You haven't presented a supported argument.

[fugalfervor]

> if you are going to admit that a) people who are not supposed to vote do vote

They do. And the system already functions: their votes are caught and discarded.

> b) argue that laws to penalize such votes don't work

I didn't argue that. I argued against voter ID laws, which are not "laws that penalize such voters". Those laws already exist, catch fraud, and penalize those who commit fraud intentionally. Those who do so accidentally have their votes discarded. There's no evidence the existing laws are insufficient. The available evidence shows that incidences of voter fraud are rare in the USA.

> you sound about as partisan as they do ( and merely arguing for 'your' side ). Just sayin

What? I haven't argued for a side. I have spoken what I understand based on the research I have done. I have cited sources in other posts. I don't like being accused of being partisan when I'm basically just repeating the conclusions of those who have studied this. Knowledge isn't partisan.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

>> There's no evidence the existing laws are insufficient. << b) argue that laws to penalize such votes don't work >> I didn't argue that.

Ok, maybe it is just too early. What did you argue?

[fugalfervor]

If you read my argument, you will find out what I argued.