What do you get when you throw three elephants in the pool?

A hernia.

I mean, if you're using soy as an alternative to meat, that's straightforwardly good for the rainforests...

>All americans are issued paper documents automatically at birth and ID in many states with voter laws count for anything including bank statements and utility bills.

1: Yes, at birth. How many adults still have those things lying around? I know I've needed new copies before. This is an obvious financial barrier you're pretending doesn't exist because it suits you.

2: In many states, sure, but not all of them, you're just hand-waving things away based on what might happen in an ideal situation.

3: Regardless of any of this, there is absolutely no reason not to pair the ID requirement with automatic registration except malicious opposition to voting rights.

​

>Do not misrepresent the source. The 0.31% is the most extreme rendition of the people who have been shown to vote without IDs in states that require it.

That's... exactly what I said. I said that it found rates between 0.1% and 0.31%. Hence 0.31% being the highest. It was you that misrepresented the studies by claiming they found no impact!

I think you're misunderstanding. Birth certificates and social security cards (not numbers) are commonly required to get the "free" IDs proposed in these laws. Many people don't have paper social security cards or birth certificates on file at home and need to go and get copies in order to provide evidence of their identity when requesting an ID. That costs time and money.

Saying that "Voter ID has no impact on turnouts" is false. Your source for that is not actually a study of impact on turnout -- they claim to find that only a small amount of voting occurs without ID, and thus assume the impact *must* be small. But it's worth noting that "small" here still means 0.1 - 0.31% -- more than enough to swing a close election, and potentially disenfranchising many thousands of voters.

There have been many studies on this, with some finding a negative effect of several percent. You can browse through some of them here: https://electionlab.mit.edu/research/voter-identification

It's worth noting that the reason for enacting these laws is, in itself, the hope that it will favor Republicans. Voter fraud is vanishingly rare, and when it occurs, IDs are unlikely to prevent it. These laws are pushed by Republicans, and almost always in states where Republican control is threatened by large non-White populations. Exactly how effective it is is open for debate, but favoring Republicans is the point.

What if you stored the energy in batteries and physically transported them out of the solar system before the energy was used?

Well, I listed two conditions, because barriers to participation come in both the forms of money and also time/knowledge. Voter ID laws consistently reduce voter participation, so you need to make voting easier to balance that out.

Also, it's worth pointing out that "free" IDs often aren't actually free -- you need to pay for things like birth certificates, you may need to take a day off work to go down to the social security office to get a social security card, etc.

And, further, a lot of ID laws are actually written in ways that are designed to specifically target minority communities (e.g., through the choice of what forms of ID to allow or disallow).

I mean, yeah, it is, because over here it's usually used to try and disenfranchise minority voters. Combine voter ID laws with, A: free state-issued IDs, and B: automatic voter registration, and then it would make sense. But usually the people pushing ID laws don't want those things, because what they want it to reduce the number of minority voters.

Loss of bone mass, slower healing, deceased cardiac function...

I mean, older people get less active for a reason. There's obviously a vicious cycle here.