Masks on planes requirement dropped by some UK airlines

> At least some of them is about proxy and postal voting. That has no relation to IDs.

Firstly, that’s not true. As quoted above:

> The vast majority of convictions have involved postal or proxy ballots, often in conjunction with attempts to manipulate the electoral registers by registering bogus electors or adding electors to the register at empty properties.

That requires processes that are slack about identity. The requirement to prove/provide identity at certain points in the process would render these problems moot. If you wish to focus solely on in-person voting then say so, but that’s not the same as there being no relationship.

Secondly, as with any conspiracy theory, you would have to:

- show me how you knew their intentions without recourse to mind reading

And with restpect to this particular case:

- show how needing ID would reduce (legitimate) votes cast (I hope it’s not something like this[1])

- explain why increased security is a bad thing (taking into account the ease and low cost of this solution)

It would be just as easy to claim that those who are against such measures wish to benefit from the fraud. That wouldn’t be possible without mind reading and I lack that ability. However, it does correlate, those against better election finance protections tend to benefit from them (Conservatives and Labour). Those against better proxy vote, postal vote and in-person voting fraud tend to benefit from it (Labour). In either case I don’t care, to improve the legitimacy of elections via simple measures like showing an ID are reasonable, cheap, and easy. What’s the downside?

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW2LpFkVfYk

> Sending one of these viral meme right wing videos…Slanted, edited, partisan stuff isn’t any better than what an average liberal person is thinking.

It's virality or not is irrelevant, and what slant is possible from the simple questions those people were asked? Maybe you could ask for a livestream instead of a video next time, to remove the edits… but why?

> I hope the next link isn’t to a right wing influencer “owning the libs” by debating college kids who don’t spend dozens and dozens of hours a month on the topic.

If it's relevant then perhaps.

> A downside or more so against the “well why not” is time committed to this. There is limited time for things.

People are so rushed that they don't have time to get ID? You said the "viral meme right wing video" "isn’t any better than what an average liberal person is thinking" and yet that sounds like the responses in the video.

> In the US there was a viral video

This is starting to smell of hypocrisy

> that showed things that actually occur at the state/provincial level. Where legislators vote for absentee legislators. Something like that should be handled first.

No, something like that:

a) can be handled simultaneously

b) isn't relevant to the point we're discussing

c) and I already pointed out that stuff like that should be handled.

> I know two people who didn’t have any form of [valid] ID for a year and multiple years, in each case. Recently. As adults.

And?

> Forget going through research, studies, and such.

So no viral meme right wing videos, and no research, studies, and such. Are we going to be left with only your protestations as valid evidence?

> Not letting either of them vote seems to be a downside to me.

They are allowed to vote, they simply need to provide ID.

> It took months of slowly prodding along to get each identification.

Security is often in opposition to laziness, yes. I do not fall down on the side of sloths though.

> Stuff that isn’t easy to do.

That is utterly false.

> Takes time. Obstacles that might be near impossible to do depending on your stage in life and if you have no one to help you.

We're back to the slanted and partisan video. Maybe it was an accurate portrayal of the views of a certain group of people?

> > conspiracy theory

> I don’t think being incredulous and doubting the words of major western political parties is a conspiracy theory.

You're not being sceptical, you're mind reading and asserting things to be true that can only be so if there is a conspiracy. Not all conspiracy theories are wrong, conspiracies happen, but the desire to paint your opponents as evil and divine their intentions while dismissing evidence contrary to your view and the use of self-defeating logic is a sign of the pejorative sort of conspiracy theory.

> Why are you for a conspiracy to withhold voting from people I know like above? /sarcasm

Did I mention something about painting opponents as bad people?

> From a higher up comment: > the idea that the Electoral Commission is going to produce investigations of any worth is sheer fantasy given some of their previous missteps

> [Completely] Doubting the electoral commission seems to fall in line with your viewing my take as a conspiracy theory.

The Electoral Commission has been showing in open court to be incompetent. Their plan wasn't a secret either. Do you know what a conspiracy is?