"Privacy concerns"



I honestly think that people are worried about another Bernie Sanders fiasco (where votes from convicted felons were counted). That election was really, really close and it gave the Dems a filibuster proof majority. Anyway, I don't find these laws draconian in anyway.

Huh? Couldn't you make the same argument for state issued ID then? :/

Clearly the cashier at 7/11 is violating my right to privacy when he cards me for those smokes.

Well, each state has different laws. For example, as a Californian, I can't buy guns out of state. The other states refuse to sell guns to Californians. Also, there is the issue of residency in state elections. I'd argue that a state issued ID is necessary. Federal IDs, in my opinion, would be superfluous because it wouldn't help people vote anyway (why would a Nebraskan be allowed to vote in an Ohio election). Everything in America involving voting (including the election of the President) is done on the state level.

Oops I forgot about your weird election system.

In theory it gives states, rather than raw population, more input on the presidential candidate.

Yeah I know what it is, just forgot about it

The whole issue with the US system is that the voting in many states is very predictable. So there are a few swing states and those are basically the focal point of campaigning, political news etc. I don't like that. As it stands you could argue a vote in a swing state is more valuable than a vote in a non-swing state.

Without a doubt. But to change the vote to a populous system, we'd gain more individual power but states would lose power as a unit. I like the current system as a method of balancing the popular and state strengths.

Not to mention some states have several times more electoral votes per capita than other states (up to 3.3 times more).
And each state has 2 senators regardless of size (California and Alaska both have 2 senators each..)

The ruling doesn't matter whatsoever, it was going to be appealed to the state Supreme Court regardless of what the ruling was. The judge didn't even rule on the actual content, only to say that the state legislature had the right to impose it provided they had cause. The appeal is just going to be a relitigation over whether or not that cause actually exists.



It will hurt college students, because in Pennsylvania specifically a college ID is invalid if it doesn't have a status or expiration date. If someone let their drivers license expire, or never got one in the first place, their student ID is unsatisfactory unless it fits in the narrow definition of what's acceptable according to this law. The same applies to state-issue medical IDs that the elderly are using. If they don't have the above dates printed on them, they aren't valid. Half of the people that belong to the "Pennsylvania Hall of Fame" (a quirky honor that they give you in the state if you vote in 50 elections in a row) currently are not allowed to vote because they've fallen into one of the many holes of this monstrosity.