What I support is all legally eligible voters being allowed to vote once in each election.
I don't believe anyone disagrees with this. Though I will state we need to make voting easier -- there should be no hours long lines to wait in before voting. We need to require workers have adequate time off on election day to vote (perhaps even make it a federal holiday). It is interesting that employers can be required to give people time off to attend church services but there is no similar requirement when it comes to voting.
I support voter ID and in no way think that it is racists or a hindrance to vote, that claim is hogwash.
While I don't think Voter ID, in and of itself, is "racist," the way some states have attempted to implement it is racist. North Carolina's law was found by the courts to have been racist, with discussions by State legislators actually stating they crafted the law to prevent people from voting. In some Southern states (Mississippi comes to mind), they shut down several driver's license offices, largely in poor, minority, towns and shortened the hours that the driver's offices that remained opened -- making it much more difficult for people in these poor areas.
Yes, states that ensure people have good access to driver's license offices with convenient hours, providing low cost/free ID cards, it is not racist. OTOH, an argument can be made that it is not needed -- that
voter ID does not change the amount of fraud that occurs. Again, I'm not against Voter ID (when done right) so have no interest in arguing this but, from what studies show us, it is more a "feel good" measure to score political points than an actual way of preventing voter fraud.
I support in person voting except in cases of disabilities, and laziness is not a disability that qualifies.
Sorry, I can't agree with this. How about someone who works two jobs and doesn't have the spare time on election day to vote? What about the elderly who, while not technically disabled, have a hard time waiting in line to vote (especially if that line is an hour or more)? What about military personnel, that often live in states other than where they are registered to vote, businessmen living overseas, etc. Even if you ban "mail in" voting, there are still plenty of groups that need to be allowed to vote by mail (including absentee ballots).
It also ignores states like Arizona, where mail in voting has been an option for roughly 20 years and where there is no significant evidence of extra fraud. Look at all the various "studies" that were authorized after the 2020 election. Again, I think "mail in" voting is something that is easy to make sound like lots of fraud occurs but those claims are not supported by any actual evidence.
Voting is a privilege as well as a right but bulk mailings of ballots is insane.
Again, this is apparently something Arizona (and other states) have been doing, with most states not having issues. I would say, particularly in today's Internet age, they likely should not be automatically sent but, in states that use mail-in voting, it should be easy for voters to confirm their identity and address, and request a ballot be mailed.
I would prefer paper ballots for obvious reasons.
I'm not quite sure, based on what some demagogues mean when they talk about "paper ballots," of what you mean by this. If you mean there should be a "paper trail," I absolutely agree. I think that either votes should be recorded on a paper ballot (which a machine can tabulate after the fact) or that, if you vote electronically, a paper ballot should be created -- with the voter given an opportunity (required) to ensure the vote was correctly recorded and that paper ballot put in a ballot box. It is an issue with voting machines in Texas, where votes are electronic only and, in past elections, there has been cases
where the machine "changed" votes.
There has been confirmed and prosecuted cheating on both sides and anyone who denies that it happens is not very well informed.
Though, it is worth noting, the amount of "cheating" has been very small, something like .003% of ballots.
I believe the electoral college system was created to give equal voice to less populated states. For example the voter desires of NY can not easily be forced on the people of SC. It is just an equalizer so 2 or 3 population concentrated centers cannot rule the entire country.
No, the Electoral College system was founded due to slavery -- giving the slaves a "3/5ths vote" even though they couldn't vote. They idea of stating it helped small states was only an idea to help sell the Electoral College to the smaller Northern states.
The real "equalizer" is the Senate -- where every state has 2 Senators, meaning if an idea isn't supported by a majority of "states" that it will not become law. As others have pointed out, all the Electoral College does is make some citizens votes be worth more than others -- a voter in Wyoming's vote being worth almost twice as much as a voters in California.
There is no good reason not to have votes for President to be by popular vote. This is particularly true since the Electoral College doesn't really help give more attention to the smaller states, it instead makes the "swing states" the ones that get the attention. In a popular vote, candidates would need to pay attention to all states, since voters not showing up in any state, or switching their vote to the other candidate, could make a big difference in the vote. Currently, politicians don't pay attention to smaller states that are one sided, as they know -- even with low voter turnout or some few switching votes -- they will still win that state by a comfortable margin.
