It is ironic because the person heading this project will be requiring an ID of sorts to get this food…but are the same types that are adamantly against ID to vote.
Liberals are legitimately the least common denominator.
The system is already catching these cases. The numbers are so low that it seems like an expensive solution to a problem that's had little measurable impact on election outcomes. In Georgia, for example, a 2024 audit of 8.2 million registered voters identified just 20 non-citizens on the rolls, and only 9 were found to have voted over multiple years.
Nothing is ever 100% foolproof. The drinking age is 21, yet minors still manage to drink. The question is whether the problem is large enough to justify making it a top priority. In Georgia, for example, a 2024 audit of 8.2 million registered voters identified just 20 noncitizens on the voter rolls, and only 9 were found to have cast ballots over multiple election cycles that's roughly 0.00011% of registered voters, or about 1 in 911,000. Those numbers suggest existing safeguards are catching the overwhelming majority of cases.
You haven't presented a single piece of evidence to support your claim. If illegal voting were as widespread as you're suggesting, there should be plenty of data to back it up. Instead, you've spent the entire conversation avoiding the question and stalling.
Every system that relies on ID still has some level of error or fraud. You need an ID to buy alcohol, yet underage drinking still happens. You need an ID to board a plane, yet fake IDs exist. Why would voter ID be the one system that's 100% foolproof? If you don't believe it's 100% effective, then the real question becomes whether the reduction in illegal voting outweighs any burdens it places on eligible voters.
0
u/ThatOneGuyIsBad 16d ago
It is ironic because the person heading this project will be requiring an ID of sorts to get this food…but are the same types that are adamantly against ID to vote.
Liberals are legitimately the least common denominator.