• surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s calculated to devalue the votes of city dwellers who don’t have or need a license. Still, more voters is always good.

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Its not calculated that way. Dems are the only group pushing automatic register voters anywhere, and they aren’t going to cut into their city advantage if possible.

      Its done this way because it’s logistically simpler to implement, and DMVs tend to handle ID cards as well for those that dont drive.

    • NOPper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      What? How does getting easier access to registration for one group cut out the existing conditions for access from another?

      • EmptySlime@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t necessarily agree in this case that it’s specifically calculated to do this but the idea is that it’s not taking away an option from another group it’s just only opening up a new option to a certain subset of a group.

        Hypothetically, if two groups have 100 voters each right now they’re split 50-50 right? Now this rule comes out and it means that for group A, 50 new people who had previously gone unregistered are now suddenly registered automatically but for group B only 25 new people are registered automatically, then now suddenly A has 150 registered voters but B has only 125. A suddenly has an advantage they didn’t have before because their group benefited disproportionately from adding that method of registering.

    • Asifall@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You already need an ID to vote in PA, which is itself problematic, but automatic registration is purely an improvement