Reply to How likely for save act to pass senate?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "How likely for save act to pass senate? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Ok, so most people register to vote at age 18. I guess they’ll need a passport or certified birth certificate. People aren’t married at age 18, mostly (I do know exceptions).

To vote during election, this person would then need to show a drivers permit, or license, or a passport/card. If they married after registering to vote, they’d need to show updated photo id or the marriage record.

If they divorce, they’d need to show updated photo id or court order showing name change.

What’s the issue? [/quote]

The issue is that the United States does not have a voter fraud problem. [/quote]

Then what’s the issue? If there’s no fraud, requiring ID won’t change anything. [/quote]

How does one positively confirm a person matches a voter registration if they don't show an ID?[/quote]

Please cite the number of times someone showed up to vote to discover someone had impersonated them and voted in their place.

(it doesn't happen, this is a non-issue)[/quote]

The only instance I know of was a guy who voted twice, once for himself and once for his dead mother. He used her photo ID to get an absentee ballot. 
He was a republican and voted for trump. 
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-government-and-politics-d34effeea6c341d6c44146931127caff#[/quote]

The SAVE Act sounds like “common sense” at first glance. Of course only citizens should vote. On that basic principle, there’s no disagreement.

But if we’re serious about governing like adults, we have to ask two questions:
- Is the problem real and significant?
- Does this solution fix it without creating bigger problems?

On the first question, the data are clear: proven cases of non‑citizens voting are vanishingly rare: just a few dozens of bad ballots out of hundreds of millions cast over the last decade. That’s not a talking point, that’s just what the investigations and prosecutions show. If this were happening at any meaningful scale, we’d see real numbers, real cases, and real prosecutions. We don’t.

So what does the SAVE Act actually do?

It creates new layers of paperwork and documentation requirements for people who are already citizens and already eligible to vote. That means:
- More bureaucracy for ordinary Americans
- More cost (fees for documents, time off work, travel to offices)
- More chances for government error to wrongly block a legitimate voter

All of that to maybe catch a handful of improper votes that haven’t been shown to exist at scale in the first place.

From a conservative perspective, that’s a bad trade:
- Big new federal rules
- New burdens and costs (which constitute an unconstitutional de-facto poll tax) on law‑abiding citizens
- No demonstrated, large‑scale problem being solved

If this were really about election integrity and not about making voting harder, the bill would look very different. It would:
- Make underlying documents (passports, certified birth certificates, etc.) free to obtain so as to not be unconstitutional if required for voting
- Fund fast, local access to those documents, especially in rural areas
- Build in strong safeguards so that no eligible citizen is turned away because of paperwork glitches

But that’s not what’s happening. In fact, we’re seeing the opposite: resistance to making documentation easier and cheaper, and even efforts to stop libraries and community groups from helping people get the paperwork they need.

That’s the tell.

If you believe in:
- Election integrity and
- Limited government and
- Protecting the rights of law‑abiding citizens

then you should be skeptical of a law that:
- Targets a problem that hasn’t been shown to exist at scale
- Expands federal red tape
- Shifts the burden and cost onto legal voters, especially the elderly, the poor, students, and rural citizens

You don’t have to be a Democrat to see the imbalance here. You just have to apply the same standard you’d use anywhere else:

If a law adds bureaucracy, costs money, burdens law‑abiding people, and doesn’t clearly solve a real, documented problem, is that actually “common sense,” or is it something else?

That’s the real question the SAVE Act raises.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics