It's calculated to devalue the votes of city dwellers who don't have or need a license. Still, more voters is always good.
Its not calculated that way. Dems are the only group pushing automatic register voters anywhere, and they aren't going to cut into their city advantage if possible.
Its done this way because it's logistically simpler to implement, and DMVs tend to handle ID cards as well for those that dont drive.
What? How does getting easier access to registration for one group cut out the existing conditions for access from another?
I don't necessarily agree in this case that it's specifically calculated to do this but the idea is that it's not taking away an option from another group it's just only opening up a new option to a certain subset of a group.
Hypothetically, if two groups have 100 voters each right now they're split 50-50 right? Now this rule comes out and it means that for group A, 50 new people who had previously gone unregistered are now suddenly registered automatically but for group B only 25 new people are registered automatically, then now suddenly A has 150 registered voters but B has only 125. A suddenly has an advantage they didn't have before because their group benefited disproportionately from adding that method of registering.
Those people get government IDs. It's the same form.
They could. But why would they?
Are you asking why someone would get an ID? Lol what
Ok. Where does that give any reasons people decide not to get an ID?
Because many people don't have them. Why would you need one if you don't drive or drink?
To vote?
There's more things in life than alcohol and cars.
Lies!
You couldjust use the googles. But the fact doesn't change, not every eligible voter has a government issued ID and tying voting to getting one leaves out millions of people who could be voting.
It's almost like you need to be a registered identifiable entity to have a vote, I can't possibly imagine why you'd need to prove your identity for that, nope, not even one little thing.
That's nice and all but not the question I was answering.
That's nice and all, but if you don't understand why they're related that might explain why you thought you were answering a question.
Being related doesn't make it relevant. There are countless other aspects that are related but you didn't feel the need to bring any of them up.
Because they weren't relevant, you just said it yourself. Keep up.
You already need an ID to vote in PA, which is itself problematic, but automatic registration is purely an improvement
You can still get an ID without getting a liscense...
It's calculated to devalue the votes of city dwellers who don't have or need a license. Still, more voters is always good.
Its not calculated that way. Dems are the only group pushing automatic register voters anywhere, and they aren't going to cut into their city advantage if possible.
Its done this way because it's logistically simpler to implement, and DMVs tend to handle ID cards as well for those that dont drive.
What? How does getting easier access to registration for one group cut out the existing conditions for access from another?
I don't necessarily agree in this case that it's specifically calculated to do this but the idea is that it's not taking away an option from another group it's just only opening up a new option to a certain subset of a group.
Hypothetically, if two groups have 100 voters each right now they're split 50-50 right? Now this rule comes out and it means that for group A, 50 new people who had previously gone unregistered are now suddenly registered automatically but for group B only 25 new people are registered automatically, then now suddenly A has 150 registered voters but B has only 125. A suddenly has an advantage they didn't have before because their group benefited disproportionately from adding that method of registering.
Those people get government IDs. It's the same form.
They could. But why would they?
Are you asking why someone would get an ID? Lol what
Here ya go
https://www.voteriders.org/analysis-millions-lack-voter-id/
Ok. Where does that give any reasons people decide not to get an ID?
Because many people don't have them. Why would you need one if you don't drive or drink?
To vote?
There's more things in life than alcohol and cars.
Lies!
You could just use the googles. But the fact doesn't change, not every eligible voter has a government issued ID and tying voting to getting one leaves out millions of people who could be voting.
It's almost like you need to be a registered identifiable entity to have a vote, I can't possibly imagine why you'd need to prove your identity for that, nope, not even one little thing.
That's nice and all but not the question I was answering.
That's nice and all, but if you don't understand why they're related that might explain why you thought you were answering a question.
Being related doesn't make it relevant. There are countless other aspects that are related but you didn't feel the need to bring any of them up.
Because they weren't relevant, you just said it yourself. Keep up.
You already need an ID to vote in PA, which is itself problematic, but automatic registration is purely an improvement
You can still get an ID without getting a liscense...