> No because proximity to a Post Office isn't a reasonable criteria for suppressing a persons right to vote.

In rural areas, one often has to travel a long distance to reach a post office or DMV. In urban or suburban areas, while the distance may vary, on average it is significantly less.

So, if requiring someone to go to a government office to receive ID to vote suppresses the vote of people who live far away from that office, you'd expect that to produce more voter suppression in rural areas than in urban or suburban areas. But, since rural areas tend to skew Republican and urban areas tend to skew Democratic (with suburban areas being more mixed/swinging), this would seem to suppress Republican voters much more than Democratic ones.

Does it follow therefore that Republicans would be primarily suppressing the vote of their own voters? If that's true, why should Democrats be upset about such a self-inflicted wound on their political opponents?

Requiring Voter ID enables suppression. Specifically by making it harder for some people to vote. Consider the example of the polling station bus being targeted. Those people could have complied but because of their race were prevented.

> Consider the example of the polling station bus being targeted. Those people could have complied but because of their race were prevented.

I take it you are talking about the incident you mentioned in another comment, in Louisville, Georgia, in 2018, in which African-American senior citizens got on a bus to take them to an early voting center, and then told to get off the bus and it didn't take them there? (Did they end up voting in that election? Did the organisers find another way to get them to the polls?)

I don't fully understood what happened in that case, but from what I've read of it, it sounds like the bus was owned by the county, and someone objected to using a county-owned bus for a trip organised by a political advocacy group which was de facto running a GOTV operation for a single political party, and that led to the bus trip being cancelled at the very last minute.

That rule – (implicitly or explicitly) partisan political groups can't use county-owned resources at election time – in itself doesn't seem inherently unreasonable. Possibly it was being enforced in a biased way, but a single incident by itself can't demonstrate bias in the application of a rule. (And even if you had evidence that Jefferson County was indeed applying that rule in a biased manner, how do you determine whether that bias is racial or political?) So, I really don't think this particular incident is a clearcut example of "voter suppression".

The retirement home belongs to the county. I see no claim the van does. I don’t know the details either but I can’t find any evidence to support your claims.

That is one example of literally dozens on that page alone. Many of them more concrete, with convictions.

> The retirement home belongs to the county. I see no claim the van does.

So, yes, having read some more, it sounds like bus in question belonged to the activist group rather than the county.

Still, what I don't quite understand here is – they got on the bus, did someone from the county force them to get off the bus? Ask them nicely? Threaten them with something if they didn't? Exactly what happened is rather unclear.

> I don’t know the details either but I can’t find any evidence to support your claims

That's the thing – neither of us really knows what happened at that event. I was just speculating based on incomplete knowledge – much as you are. I'm not aware of any clear, detailed and independent account of what actually happened. But, you seem to be citing this as an example of a pattern without knowing much about what really happened–which is a rather questionable approach.

> That is one example of literally dozens on that page alone. Many of them more concrete, with convictions.

I'm reading that Wikipedia page, who has a conviction for voter suppression?

* In 2006, in Wisconsin, four Democratic campaign workers, from John Kerry's presidential campaign, were convicted of slashing tires of Republican Party vehicles to stop them from driving voters and poll workers to the polls in the 2004 election, and sentenced to 4-6 months jail

* In 2011, in Maryland, a Republican campaign manager was sentenced, albeit to no actual jail time (probation, community service, home detention, and a suspended sentence), for having placed fake calls to Democratic voters (the majority of whom were African-American) to try to trick them into not voting in the 2010 Maryland gubernatorial election. Despite this tactic, the Republican candidate still lost by 10 points.

Those are the only two mentions I can find on that page of anyone actually being convicted of voter suppression (and in neither case changing the outcome of the election). Is there something else I'm missing, or when you speak of "convictions" do you only mean those two cases?

What are you even arguing here?

I have continually provided you with clear true facts that you either misinterpreted or ignored. With further evidence that you drew incorrect conclusions you then doubled down on your initial unfounded position.

I am left with no choice but to conclude that you have nothing constructive to provide to this conversation.

Is your point that the conviction doesn’t literally say “voter suppression”? If so you don’t understand how the US legal system works either.

No, my point is two convictions for voter suppression are insufficient to tell us whether it is a serious problem in practice, just as two convictions for voter fraud (which you can also find) would be insufficient to tell us whether voter fraud is a serious problem in practice - yet you pointed to those two convictions as support for your view that voter suppression is a serious contemporary problem.

Furthermore, you clearly believe that one side of US politics is much more guilty of contemporary voter suppression than the other, yet the convictions you point to are 50-50 (1 Republican case, 1 Democratic) - and the Democratic case involved more defendants (4 vs 1), and a greater punishment (actual jail time vs no jail time). I think your belief may well have some degree of truth to it, but the evidence you point to in supporting it is rather poor.

I think you read something that you interpret as supporting your beliefs, and don’t stop to think about how well it actually does. And when someone else points out the poor quality of your argument, your response is to attack them rather than consider whether they actually have a valid point.

>No because proximity to a Post Office isn't a reasonable criteria for suppressing a persons right to vote.

How does Europe do it? Do you believe the way they do it suppresses a person's right to vote? If we did it the same way as Europe would you be fine with ID laws in the US?

If requiring an ID is suppressing voting rights then requiring and ID and a background check (that you may even have to pay for) to purchase a gun is a violation of rights. Do you support removing the background check cost and ID requirement? If not then I don't really care if you think requiring an ID is suppressing voting since you support suppressing other rights with ID requirements.

>Especially because

There are two hardships currently

1. You have to prove you are who you say you are.

2. You have to wait in the DMV

For #1 this is a requirement in Europe as far as I know. I haven't seen anybody saying that suppresses votes. You may be the first?

For #2 that is easy to solve by allowing ID services at additional places like the post office. I would be open to more than just the post office and DMVs, I just used the post office because they already have passport services so it is easy to add other IDs.

> How does Europe do it? Do you believe the way they do it suppresses a person's right to vote?

Not sure, I assume lots of ways? Europe is a whole continent full of countries that have a long history of disagreement. I wouldn't be surprised to learn some of them do suppress votes.

> If we did it the same way as Europe would you be fine with ID laws in the US?

"Europe" is not itself a compelling reason for me to do anything so, no.

2A WARNING. My words relate to my interpretation of the Second Amendment and do not indicate support.

> If requiring an ID is suppressing voting rights then requiring and ID and a background check (that you may even have to pay for) to purchase a gun is a violation of rights.

I think the Second Amendment says I can call Boeing and buy an F/A-18 Super Hornet, with missiles. So yes, I think asking for a background check or a name or literally anything other than "paper or plastic?" is a violation of my Second Amendment rights.

> Do you support removing the background check cost and ID requirement?

I think it is unconstitutional to impose a background check on the purchase of any weapon of war.

> If not then I don't really care if you think requiring an ID is suppressing voting since you support suppressing other rights with ID requirements.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Let's keep this civil.

> There are two hardships currently

You forgot "you have to actually get to the place to get the ID". This may not be the DMV but it may be deliberately chosen to reduce your personal likelihood to try. You may be harassed on the way. The reasons for this may be racial, religious, or political. There is a long, established history of this behavior in the United States specifically. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_Unite... for inspiration.

You are still overlooking the part where the voter ID doesn't actually do anything useful. Making it easier to get doesn't change the fact that it provides no meaningful benefit while also infringing constitutional rights.

>Not sure, I assume lots of ways? Europe is a whole continent full of countries that have a long history of disagreement. I wouldn't be surprised to learn some of them do suppress votes.

>"Europe" is not itself a compelling reason for me to do anything so, no.

I didn't mean to imply you would support something just because Europe does it. Many people who oppose voter ID laws are fine with Europe's laws. I don't actually know how European countries do it, but since nobody really thinks it violates rights I would be fine doing it however they do it.

If some of them may violate rights then presumably some don't? If that is the case then it seems like it is possible to implement voter ID laws without suppressing rights? What would it take for you to support voter ID laws that don't suppress rights?

>I think the Second Amendment it says I can call Boeing and buy a F/A 18 Super Hornet, with missiles. So yes, I think asking for a background check or a name or literally anything other than "paper or plastic?" is a violation of my Second Amendment rights

>I think it is unconstitutional to impose a background check on the purchase of any weapon of war.

Are you being sarcastic or do you genuinely believe this? It seems pretty sarcastic to me.

>This does not mean I agree with the Second Amendment as written but lets stay on track here.

>Please don't put words in my mouth. Let's keep this civil

Seeing how you sound like you are opposed to the second amendment you are likely not a libertarian / anarchist and as such are probably being sarcastic in your support for no ID requirements on weapons. I will continue with that assumption.

If somebody is not some arbitrary distance to a DMV or post office it would be a violation of their rights. If that is a violation then so is ID requirements for guns.

>You forgot "you have to actually get to the place to get the ID". This may not be the DMV but it may be deliberately chosen to reduce your personal likelihood to try. The reasons for this may be racial or political. There is a long, established history of this behavior in the US.

I did forget that one. I am in favor of widespread locations for getting an ID to eliminate this issue. Do you also believe that not allowing mail in voting is a violation for the same reason? If you do believe that then do you think it was a violation of rights to not implement mail in voting until the late 70s for California and later for other states?

>You are still overlooking the part where the voter ID doesn't actually do anything useful. Making it easier to get doesn't change the fact that it provides no meaningful benefit while also infringing constitutional rights

Regardless if it does anything tangible it increases confidence in our elections. Also, voter turnout increases when voter ID laws are implemented. (It may or may not be related though.) It also will lower the amount of accusations of stolen elections.

We also don't know how much voter fraud (that would be stopped by IDs) there really is so it is hard to say it wouldn't have an impact. It may have no impact but also could. Just because you don't catch crimes doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There are very few investigations into voter fraud.

I would also say that anytime a person illegally votes it cancels out a legitimate vote. This is in essence voter suppression. This is just as bad as stooping a legitimate person from voting.

> I don't actually know how European countries do it, but since nobody really thinks it violates rights I would be fine doing it however they do it.

I don't think Europe is relevant to this conversation. We have a functioning democracy. People can look around and form their opinions then vote on it. Personally I don't know or care how voting is done in Europe.

> If some of them may violate rights then presumably some don't?

Logically this does not follow.

> If that is the case then it seems like it is possible to implement voter ID laws without suppressing rights?

It might be theoretically possible but I don't believe it is practical or necessary to try. Even if it is possible I think the risk outweighs any benefit.

> What would it take for you to support voter ID laws that don't suppress rights?

Evidence of widespread voter fraud materially impacting the outcome of an election. Also exhausting other options that don't run up against the 14A.

> Are you being sarcastic or do you genuinely believe this? It seems pretty sarcastic to me.

I am 100% serious that I believe that is what the 2A says. As I very, very explicitly said, that does not imply I support the 2A. Drawing any conclusion about my gun control beliefs based on that statement would be misinformed.

> Seeing how you sound like you are opposed to the second amendment you are likely not a libertarian / anarchist and as such are probably being sarcastic in your support for no ID requirements on weapons. I will continue with that assumption.

Labels aren't going to be helpful here. I am not being sarcastic.

> ... are probably being sarcastic in your support for no ID requirements on weapons.

I expressed no such support and in fact explicitly disclaimed it. Please do not put words in my mouth, especially these types of words.

> If somebody is not some arbitrary distance to a DMV or post office it would be a violation of their rights. If that is a violation then so is ID requirements for guns.

I think both the 2A and 24A say you can't make this hard for people. In the case of the 24A I don't think it goes far enough. I'm deliberately avoiding providing my thoughts on the 2A because it's irrelevant here.

> I am in favor of widespread locations for getting an ID to eliminate this issue.

There is literally no issue to resolve here. There is no voter fraud problem. It is made up.

> Do you also believe that not allowing mail in voting is a violation for the same reason? If you do believe that then do you think it was a violation of rights to not implement mail in voting until the late 70s for California and later for other states?

I do believe that opposition to mail-in voting is another form of attempted voter suppression. I would not say that lack of access to mail in voting itself means your vote was suppressed. But this feels like nitpicking.

> Regardless if it does anything tangible it increases confidence in our elections.

Maybe, but it also rewards people who lied about the need for them in the first place. I'm not convinced this is a benefit to society.

If you lack confidence in our elections I invite you to learn how they actually work. It's an impressive system of checks and balances that ensures both anonymous results and verified participation. It's a fascinating application of decentralized systems and trustless cooperation. The system as it stands for actually voting is very much trustworthy. There may be chances for improvements but I don't think Voter ID is one of them.

> Also, voter turnout increases when voter ID laws are implemented. (It may or may not be related though.)

I'd like to see those numbers to make sure this isn't because turnout is measured in terms of registered voters instead of eligible voters. Even if it is true I don't believe Voter ID laws are a necessary or desirable method of improving turnout. Something like making election day a national holiday would do more for that and has fewer constitutional hangups.

> It also will lower the amount of accusations of stolen elections.

I don't believe this is a real problem and it is instead a cynical attempt to suppress voting. I believe this because of the long historical record of exactly that happening. So I believe Voter ID laws would actually increase accusations that our elections are stolen. In fact I believe Voter ID laws are themselves an attempt to steal elections.

> We also don't know how much voter fraud (that would be stopped by IDs) there really is so it is hard to say it wouldn't have an impact. It may have no impact but also could. Just because you don't catch crimes doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I prefer not to have my rights infringed until we have a compelling reason. "Maybe" isn't compelling. Especially given the historical context.

> There are very few investigations into voter fraud.

This is obviously false. Post 2020 election there were endless lawsuits and claims of voter fraud with nothing to show for it.

> I would also say that anytime a person illegally votes it cancels out a legitimate vote. This is in essence voter suppression. This is just as bad as stooping a legitimate person from voting.

Sure but which one is actually happening? Consider there's no evidence of any widespread voter fraud or of any significant effects on election outcomes. Meanwhile there is long and established history of voter suppression.