Help me understand why anyone would be opposed to proving citizenship in order to vote
I don't follow politics terribly closely because for the most part it just makes me unnecessarily angry whenever I do read up on it too much. Recently however, I saw a story about a bill that narrowly, and of course almost entirely along party lines, passed in the House of Representatives where the bill in question was reportedly all about proving citizenship in order to register to vote and also to vote.
As always, I am posting this as a genuine question, not as a lecture to anyone else out there. I try to understand the left's opposition to things but because of how biased our media is I feel as thought it is nigh on impossible to get any real information about basically anything that is happening.
src
It's called the SAVE Act and the vote went 220-208 and unless I am reading bad information in my simple search, there are 220 Republicans and 213 Democrats in the House.
So this means that not a single Democrat voted for this bill and I would like to know if anyone out there can tell me why. I mean, I understand that in today's political turmoil that virtually anything that goes on in the House, or the Senate for that matter, ends up going down party lines, but unless there is a bunch of shit in the bill that doesn't actually have anything to do with non citizens voting (which I presume there is because there almost always is), I can't understand how anyone would really be opposed to non-citizens voting in US elections.
src
I was able to find a few quotes, but to me this sounds like someone is making this out to be a much bigger deal than it actually is
“Coupled with President Trump’s recent anti-voter election executive order, the SAVE Act would end the voter registration process for all Americans as they know it."
and
Republicans have repeatedly failed to present any evidence that noncitizen voting at a federal level has ever affected the outcome of any election
Ok, that very well may be true, but at the same time wouldn't it be a good idea to ensure that non-citizens can't vote in US elections, even if it is a small amount of people? I'm a simpleton redneck with a rather high level of specialized education, but that doesn't mean that I am trying to act like I know more than other people about all things. I have no high horse. I'm just trying to understand why all Democrats would be opposed to this.
When Republican governor Youngkin did such a purge to the Virginia voter rolls, 1600 people were removed because of non-citizen status. I'm not suggesting that I know that all of those were actually non-citizens, nor am I suggesting that this is a significant amount of voters. According to a quick search there are over 6 million registered voters in Virginia, so yeah, this is a very small amount.
At the same time though, just because something rarely happens doesn't mean that it shouldn't be addressed does it?
So to the sensible and better-informed-than-I-am people out there, please help me understand why anyone would be opposed to this bill passing. To me it just seems like people are not going to vote for anything that the other side comes up with, no matter what it is about.... but then again, I could be missing some very crucial aspects of why they are opposed to it because of media suppression of information and because all politicians make sound bytes that appear to simply be geared towards benefiting themselves, rather than actually inform anyone about anything.
Help me out please!
Actually four House Democrats voted for it: Ed Case of Hawaii; Henry Cuellar of Texas; Jared Golden of Maine; and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington.
It’s probably just red meat for MAGA. I doubt it will be able to get 60 votes in the Senate. Cloture is a high hurdle, and Chuck Schumer just said “It is dead on arrival in the Senate.”
Maybe, just maybe, protecting the integrity of voting is not the real thrust of SAVE. It is entirely coincidental that Republicans tend to do well when barriers to voting are erected but tend to lose when voting has few barriers.
Thanks, I thought I would be able to count on you to point this out :)
If it is dead on arrival in the Senate I am sure we are going to be hearing about this come time for re-election, over and over and over and over again.
I see a lot of good comments on this, but I don't see anyone actually explaining WHY the Dems are opposed to it, just that they ARE.
I guess the main reason is because of the framing. Republicans frame it as protecting the security of elections; Democrats frame it as voter suppression. Republicans essentially tend to see voting as a privilege; Democrats see voting as a right.
I think even you can admit that much of this is political posturing though, wouldn't you agree? I don't think any reasonable person can suggest that preventing non citizens from voting in US elections is a bad thing. But I get what you mean in that there is almost certainly some sort of ulterior motive for having this bill in the first place.
Cloture is a hurdle, until Schumer is presented with something he want's or witholding of something he needs for his District, then he will come to the table. The Save Act, might not be the particular Bill that anyone wants to burn capital over.
Some of the tougher bills will come closer to the midterms for the purposes of posturing. Americans have short memories, so recency is an important component of political theater.
Posted using Political Hive
I have a better idea: let's agree it's too hard to get ID, and start dismantling the system we've been handed by our ancestors who trusted government too much.
There are lots of reasons not to trust government but getting an ID is not hard.
Only a racist would suggest it's easy to get ID! 🤣
getting a driver's license in North Carolina is a huge pain in the ass! But that is just because the DMV is the most inefficient establishment in existence on the planet and is a case study about how the government will do anything in the worst way possible.
My local DMV (in Florida) isn't too bad provided you make an appointment. The process for getting a state ID is pretty much the same as getting a driver's license without the testing requirements of course.
I wonder if my state just has a seriously bad version of the licensing procedure. When I talk to people in other states it certainly seems like we do!
DMVs have a horrible reputation in general though. As luck would have it, I have an appointment to renew my driver's license this afternoon and also become RealID compliant. We'll see how that goes.
I know that when I go I know I am in for an all-day affair. The people behind the counter, I wonder what sort of arduous process they have to go through to get the job done because it just seems like a snail-pace process for an ID.
My experience getting my DL renewed (and updated to Real ID compliance) wasn't terrible. Here, you basically have to make an appointment online and when I made mine the soonest available was 2 weeks out. I arrived at my appointment time and it was a total of 50 minutes from the time I walked in until the time I walked out with my new DL. That included them having issues with their signature machine and having to ultimately switch to a new window.
If you want to do anything walk-in it would be more difficult. You basically have to arrive when they open first thing in the morning and then wait and hope they have an opening.
this made me laugh. good one!
Generally, democrats arguments are that forcing someone to get an ID is too much of a hurdle, particularly for low income individuals. Personally, I think that's nonsense. Even a passport application can be done in an afternoon (though I understand the cost could be prohibitive for some people) though getting a state ID (if you don't already have a drivers license) is much easier and cheaper (or at least in Florida, I guess I can't speak for all states).
Since you need a legitimate ID for almost everything, I can't imagine that there are enough people out there without one to impact elections. The potential for people to be voting that shouldn't be seems much higher. This is complicated by the fact that in some places you don't have to be a citizen to vote in local elections.
I've kind of found the notion that getting an ID is too difficult, especially for minorities to be a very weak, and quite racist statement. Are they suggesting that brown people aren't smart enough to know how to get an ID?
It might well be difficult for folks who don’t own a car. And under SAVE, having an ID still doesn’t allow one to vote.
There are a number of things you occasionally need to leave wherever it is you live for. Getting food, registering to vote in the first place, etc. Getting an ID that only needs to be renewed once every 10 years does not seem like an undue burden.
Under the SAVE act you would only need something you should already have. A birth certificate. Those don't even need to be renewed.
This is the kind of statement where you just stare at the one who said it until they excuse themselves for existing.
Basically, if this was shown to be true, we would have proven conspiracy treason. And people, including many politicians would be hung.
However, we see all kinds of signs. Like, watch "2000 Mules"
Vote manipulation is how the elite stay in power. How these mother WEFers control things. It is life/death for them.
Remember the baby in congress, while the lady said we need to be able to vote while we are not here. (once you set that system, then the mother WEFers can just change the vote as the see needs)
Now, the other half
Woke / Dumbocraps want to help the poor, the down trodden, the who racism is against. And that is the illegal immigrants who are here illegally who might have a hard time getting ID so that they could vote for all those people that are registered to vote. Like, they would have to have an ID for every person they are impersonating.
And then, all those people who are busy pushing daisies, and collecting Social inSecurity at age 150+ won't be able to vote as easily anymore.
So, the wokesters feel they are battling for the oppressed, and Dumbocraps need their breathing impaired voters to keep voting.
That is about the size of it.
I did watch some of that, it's pretty crazy stuff but right on queue, the media and various politicians jumped out of the woodwork to attack the creator of this film rather than the subject matter that it addressed. I believe that they tried or perhaps even succeeded in pressing charges against him. Not sure about that.
Thanks for your insight, although I cant tell you are far more angry than I am :)
Makes no sense besides the Dems farming more votes. There can be no other reason besides manipulation and cheating.
that's kind of the way that I tend to look at it as well. If true, this is a very dirty tactic and it is amazing that people don't get in trouble for it. If that is happening, they do a very good job covering their tracks and pointing the finger at various fall guys.
In my eyes this is a form of treason and hose doing this should be locked up or face the death penalty. This needs to have serious consequences and people should not be pussies when dealing with those involved.
Opposition mainly hinges on a few things, as @preparedwombat mentions, But just to go more in-depth:
the idea that there has never been any proof of widespread voter fraud—that despite the constant complaints of it from the GOP, they have never been willing or able to show any real evidence. Not only that, but there have been numerous bipartisan investigations and court rulings have confirmed the rarity of voting fraud—so this is all a complete waste of time and resources. It is simply the Republicans pandering to their base by stoking outrage over a largely nonexistent issue.
The history of laws framed as "keeping out the illegal vote" but actually being used for voter suppression in the past and the fear that strict ID laws could be used the same way. As I'm sure you know, things like poll taxes, literacy tests, residency requirements, even seemingly crazy things like math tests have been used for this in the past, especially to prevent Blacks from voting. On the surface, simply requiring an ID seems neutral, but we have learned from history to be doubtful of such things and to expect their misuse. That may be a cynical attitude, but it is what is fueling the Democratic fears, anyway.
It seems to be aimed at people who tend to vote Democrat. Namely: low-income individuals, minorities, and college students. These people are more likely not to have an ID and face obstacles in getting them. The process of getting an ID often requires involves multiple steps—traveling to a DMV, providing documents like birth certificates, etc.—which can be particularly difficult for people in rural areas, disabled individuals, those without flexible work hours, or college students who might be in school many states away from where they need to travel to obtain the ID. None of these barriers are insurmountable, but they do put obstacles, sometimes difficult ones. Obstacles that Democrats feel are not only unnecessary but encourage people to not bother and just skip voting.
Even if IDs were easy to get, which in many cases they aren't, there is a lot of Bureaucratic burden to all this, which is made even more difficult by the fact that Republicans are constantly trying to cut funding for the very things that they want to require. For example, Republicans are constantly trying to cut DMV hours and locations in areas with high minority populations.
thanks for that. This is good information.
Congratulations @beelzebubba! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next payout target is 26000 HP.
The unit is Hive Power equivalent because post and comment rewards can be split into HP and HBD
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP