re: #16 Sergey Romanov

Assertion (about difficulty) is not an argument either.

Well, it’s a good thing I’ve gone beyond assertion, then.

Incorrect. Citizens who are felons can’t vote in some states. Citizens who are underage can’t vote.

Ah jesus. Sure, you know what I mean: a legal voter is not determined to be legal by their ability to prove it. It is a quality of the voter, not the circumstances of the voter. It is a right held by them which cannot be taken away without cause.

You did not answer my question though. How does one prove one’s identity in the US without any sort of ID? If there is a general mechanism, why it can’t be used to get IDs?

It entirely depends on what you’re proving it for. I can prove my ID to pay my water bill in a different way than I can to get a passport. As it should be.

I don’t see why I should explain it though. Yes, it’s OK because it already works elsewhere. That’s quite enough. I don’t see why I should get bogged down in details of a special case.

Why should I believe that it works okay elsewhere?

Sure, but so what? In such an exceptional case voting would be difficult indeed (unless on temporary documents, not sure if it works). And that’s IMHO how it should be.

Why do you think it’s an exceptional case, and why should it be that way? Why is it okay for a voter to have their right to vote denied because of this?

If that’s what it takes, then it would be very realistic for a less scrupulous group of people to go around several polling places and fraudulently vote in someone else’s name (whether it has or has not been recorded in history hardly matters; the point is that it may happen).

Are you just ignoring the reasons that I laid out why this would be difficult to do and get away with, for some reason?

How did I ignore this? I addressed this situation.

You basically said it’s okay if those people can’t vote. Why do you think that’s true? If what you say is important is the individual right to vote, why are you okay with it being trampled for those people?