I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Say, Bricker, as long as you're here, want to take a crack at explaining why those "sunday voting" restrictions are such a good thing, and how, no , really, they are not about making things tougher for black voters, but really about something just totally good and wholesome!

No, my position is that as long as we can more or less reliably associate a voter with his registration, it's all good. I favor extended voting; I have no problem whatsoever with Sunday voting and don't agree with its elimination. If it's a cost issue, I suppose I understand that some early days have to be eliminated, but I'd choose by past usage records.

If it were to develop that a given state can only afford eight days of voting, then I'd look at the previous records when 14 days were allowed see what time period garnered the most use, and keep that.

Was that done here?

[elucidator]

I forgot, you'd already stipulated your agreement that this was a transparent Republican ploy to win electoral power by underhanded means. I do forget that you have occasional moments of integrity. A pity they are but moments, and fleeting.....

[Punoqllads]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

And I'm sorry to bust your utopian bubble, but the problem does exist. A lot of it could be cleared up by the states' purging dead people off the voter roles, but ghods forbid that should happen. The federal government is currently suing Florida to prevent them from taking dead folks off the list, and is refusing them access to necessary databases to validate others who are suspected illegals on the list.

The federal government is concerned that the so-called dead people might not all be dead. How many legitimate voters is it reasonable to disenfranchise in order to achieve the goal of purging illegitimate names of the list? Furthermore, you still have yet to show recent instances of persons showing at polls to vote under these names. If an erroneous name shows up as a voter, but no one casts a ballot as them (which would result serious legal consequences should they be found out) it doesn't change the final result.

One has to ask why our current administration is so damn desperate to keep dead people on the roles, and why liberals in general so desperately support them in doing so.

Because liberals apparently remember that literacy tests / poll taxes were historically used to disenfranchise minority voters, and are concerned that this is another grasp at the brass ring, so to speak.

[Kimstu]

As for the "why is one side so gung-ho" dispute:

So far, as noted by several posters, nobody has shown any evidence that individual voter fraud actually occurs on any detectable level. There simply is no significant number of documented instances of individuals spontaneously casting ballots in polling places who are not legally allowed to vote.

Neither has anybody disputed the estimates that on average nationwide, several percent of registered voters (and a higher proportion of eligible voters) lack a government-issued identity document of the sort that voter-ID laws mandate. Moreover, nobody seems to contest the claim that people without such identity documents disproportionately tend to be minorities and/or poor and to vote Democratic.


So we've got one side of the debate complaining about an alleged problem whose very existence they can't even document, and asserting that it requires a solution that will make voting more difficult and/or expensive mostly for voters on the other side. This is a textbook case of a situation where the proposed solution will create more problems than it solves---but since the resulting problems will be suffered by their political opponents, the proposers don't care.




(By the way, Bricker, I'm surprised that you lump "convicted felons" in with "illegal aliens" as people who are assumed to be not legally entitled to vote. I trust you know that not all convicted felons are permanently deprived of their voting rights? In fact, AFAICT, there are only twelve states whose laws impose permanent disenfranchisement as a consequence of a felony conviction.)

[elucidator]

Why let facts get in the way of a good slur?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

As for the "why is one side so gung-ho" dispute:

So far, as noted by several posters, nobody has shown any evidence that individual voter fraud actually occurs on any detectable level. There simply is no significant number of documented instances of individuals spontaneously casting ballots in polling places who are not legally allowed to vote.

Gee, no one's ever brought this point up before. What a zinger!


My answer is: under the current system, how would we know? Even if we identify a person, we simply claims he wasn't the one that cast the ballot. With the possibility of a conviction being virtually non-existent, how would you expect to see any such numbers?

My further answer is: in Florida in 2000, the fate of the White House turned on 537 voters.

When you say "no significant number" has ever been documented, do you mean that there's never been a documented question about a number of improper voters that could have swayed an election with a margin of 527?

These measures make sense in order to avoid a repeat of Florida, tainted with accusations that go nowhere. If 2012 has Florida teetering by 600 votes, and then its proven that 400 non-citizens voted.... what is the remedy? We can't assume they all voted one way and punish the winner, can we?

What would you recommend, in that situation?

(By the way, Bricker, I'm surprised that you lump "convicted felons" in with "illegal aliens" as people who are assumed to be not legally entitled to vote. I trust you know that not all convicted felons are permanently deprived of their voting rights? In fact, AFAICT, there are only twelve states whose laws impose permanent disenfranchisement as a consequence of a felony conviction.)

Well, the general tenor of the discussion has been on Florida, where the deprivation is more or less permanent -- only the Governor and the Executive Clemency Board have the power to restore those rights. But you're absolutely correct -- convicted felons should be lumped in with illegal aliens only where convicted felons are unable to legally vote.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Bricker

...What would you recommend, in that situation?....

That we solve that problem with a patient and sincere effort to clarify. Which does not include using it as an excuse to screw over voters who cannot be relied upon to vote Republican. Which you already know.

Of course, you'd much prefer to pretend that the argument is about the validity of voter id laws.

And, this whole "Sunday voting" thing simply reveals, in stark contrast, a situation that has nothing whatever to do with voter id, but simply moves to hassle black voters. It has nothing whatever to do with voter id, or fraud, or felons, or illegal aliens. Only about a demographic that is consistently Democrat leaning.

[Punoqllads]

Originally Posted by Bricker

My answer is: under the current system, how would we know?

Whether or not someone voted in a given election is public, correct? If deceased or illegal person voted, there would be a record that someone voted under their name.

Even if we identify a person, we simply claims he wasn't the one that cast the ballot.

Here in California, you have to write down your current address when you vote. Handwriting analysis plus testimony from the poll workers saying that they saw you vote should be enough for most sane juries, in my opinion.

If 2012 has Florida teetering by 600 votes, and then its proven that 400 non-citizens voted.... what is the remedy? We can't assume they all voted one way and punish the winner, can we?

What would you recommend, in that situation?

If Florida is teetering by 600 votes and 400 of them are proven invalid, there is still a margin of 200 votes for the winner.

But I admit, it would be easier and more fair to the candidates to deal with 400 citizens disenfranchised (remedy: give them provisional ballots at their polling place and do an investigation into their legitimacy if the number of provisional voters exceeds the margin of victory) than 400 illegitimate voters voting (remedy: revote for the district in which they cast their ballot if the number of illegitimate voters exceeds the margin of victory).

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Bricker

My answer is: under the current system, how would we know?

That's it? So, you're all eager to implement a proposed solution to an alleged problem whose hypothetical existence you admit not only that you haven't documented, but that you can't document?

You've got no evidence of the existence of a voter-fraud problem, and you claim that it would be impossible to produce any such evidence, irrespective of whether the problem really exists or not. Hmmm. You know, usually Republicans seem to like to think of themselves as opposed to increasing government regulation to solve hypothetical problems which nobody has found any evidence of.

The ostensible effect of the voter-ID legislation you support---namely, to rein in voter fraud---would by your own admission be completely undetectable, because you haven't shown (and according to you, can't even show) that any such voter fraud exists.

Whereas the practical effect of such legislation---namely, to make a significant minority of registered and eligible voters (who disproportionately vote Democratic) disqualified from voting unless they individually undertake the effort and/or expense of obtaining a government-approved identity document---would be a non-negligible reduction in the number of Democratic ballots cast.

The profound difference in the ostensible and actual effects of such measures makes it pretty clear what motives are really actuating their proponents.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Bricker, how would it be known if someone voted with a fake voter ID?

ETA: You just described how we would know under the present system: we ask someone if they cast the ballot. If they say they did not - Boom, fraud detected! That's not so impossible, now is it?

[elucidator]

You guys realize, don't you, that he is conning us. He is relentlessly insisting that the real issue here isn't voter suppression, but voter ID, and the validity thereof. Apparently, he didn't read the title of this thread, or decided it didn't matter, because it would get in the way of talking about what he wants to talk about.

[ElvisL1ves]

No, even in the GD thread, he wasn't actually stating that voter fraud is the heart of the problem - he was trying to sell us the perception of voter fraud as being the problem. But he didn't even show that to be real. Nor will he even acknowledge that his proposed "solutions" to either of these "problems" would have real antidemocratic effects, because of course that would expose the true reasons. Reasons which we know are the real ones because the ones he says are real are not based on demonstrable fact. However, we can give him credit for being aware of that, while the likes of Rand Rover and Clothy are not bright enough to grasp,

[BrainGlutton]

Awesome treatment on The Daily Show!

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Bricker

My further answer is: in Florida in 2000, the fate of the White House turned on 537 voters.

It would not have but for the purge! Og rot Jeb Bush, and you, you lying sack of shit!

[Clothahump]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Government-issued identity documents required by law for voting in federal and state elections ARE a "Big Government" thing, pretty much by definition.

It's rather silly to argue that it somehow ceases to have any "Big Government" impact just because you obtain the document itself at a local office.

Jeez, that's a stretching of semantics so wide one can drive a Mack truck through it.

Okay, we gotta go to the state government to get an ID. BIG FUCKING DEAL! As I pointed out, the cost is low and if one really wants to vote, one will make it happen. Good ghods, I can't believe that you're bitching about semantics like this. Anything to deflect from the issue.

If it does, then you should be able to show some evidence of it. Nobody so far has offered a shred of factual evidence supporting the claim that American elections are affected by any discernible level of voter fraud: i.e., violations that would be prevented by requiring individual voters to exhibit a state-approved identity document when voting in person.

You didn't read what I posted earlier.

It's been going on longer than this, but the first instance of voter fraud that I became aware of was LBJ getting elected to the Senate in 1948 by a bunch of dead people that clawed their way up out of their graves to vote for him. Apparently, they were an orderly bunch of zombies, as they seem to have done so in alphabetical order, in the infamous "Box 13" scandal.

If voter ID laws had been in effect back then, LBJ would not have gotten into the Senate and eventually into the White House. We all know how well *that* turned out for the American public. And that is just one incident. Wasn't there a tape of Obama talking near a hot mike just recently, where he is discussing the voter fraud problem?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

Wasn't there a tape of Obama talking near a hot mike just recently, where he is discussing the voter fraud problem?

First I've heard of it; please provide cite and link.

[DMC]

When the Voter ID pushers start pushing to eliminate absentee ballots, which is where you can find a huge portion of the otherwise minimal issue of voter fraud, THEN I'll stop believing that they are scumbags who simply want to deprive a certain class from voting. Fuckers can't make it to the polls, fuck 'em. Trusting of "the integrity of the process" is too important, or something like that.

So far, crickets.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

Jeez, that's a stretching of semantics so wide one can drive a Mack truck through it.

If you think so, then let's see you come up with a cogent argument for why voter-ID laws shouldn't count as a "Big Government" measure: not just your absurd blethering about how it can't be Big Government because the DMV is local.

Originally Posted by Clothahump

Good ghods, I can't believe that you're bitching about semantics like this. Anything to deflect from the issue.

No deflection at all. The issue, as I've pointed out quite clearly, is that the only thing that the proposed voter-ID laws will really accomplish is to disenfranchise Democratic voters.

The alleged aim of the voter-ID laws, as even their own advocates admit, is to address a problem that nobody has provided any evidence of and that nobody will be able to tell whether voter-ID laws are addressing successfully.



If a guy complains that there are too many invisible unicorns damaging his property and installs a bunch of invisible-unicorn traps that happen to kill wolves as "collateral damage", it's a pretty safe bet that killing the wolves is what he was intending to do all along.

Republicans have been assiduously whipping up public hysteria about the invisible unicorns of voter fraud and trying to pretend that it's not really about reducing Democratic votes. Understandably, they get upset when somebody sees through their ruse, but given what a transparent ruse it is, you couldn't realistically expect to have it taken seriously.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Bricker

And limiting his registration would disenfranchise all the lawfully voting dogs!

Because dog fraud has influenced the outcome of elections and disenfranchisement hasn't?

[Cyberhwk]

As a Washingtonian, this thread is amusing. I get my ballot from the mailbox. I fill it out. I put it back in. QED.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by gravitycrash

They are the ones where personal responsibility is an unknown concept.

Useful to have more evidence to present to the individuals denying the association between racism and conservatism.

[Kolak of Twilo]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

You didn't read what I posted earlier.

Kimstu may not have but I did and what you posted has nothing to do with what these laws do. Why don't you go look at post #95? This was a case of fraud by election officials.

It isn't like folks showed up at the polls back in 1948 and voted under the names of those dead people. Nope, the ballot boxes were stuffed with fake ballots by crooked election officials.

DOUBLE FAIL.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

Are you for fucking real?

This is not a "Big Government" solution. It never has been, it never will be. It's a matter of going to your LOCAL driver's license office . . .

"Big Government" is not synonymous with "federal government."

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

It would not have but for the purge! Og rot Jeb Bush, and you, you lying sack of shit!

From your link:

Nevertheless, the large number of errors uncovered in individual counties suggests that thousands of eligible voters may have been turned away at the polls.

Why is it, when others talk about voter fraud, you are a pious fan of precision: show me the cases! Where? Where are the names, the convictions?

But when this is the issue, you prove your case by saying (or quoting with approval) a claim that some thousands MAY have been turned away?

Who WAS turned away? And were they not able to cast provisional ballots? Was anyone turned away that was unable to vote at all, that was in fact a legitimate voter? How many of them? Significant numbers?

Why does your apparently love for absolute proof vanish when this is the subject?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

No deflection at all. The issue, as I've pointed out quite clearly, is that the only thing that the proposed voter-ID laws will really accomplish is to disenfranchise Democratic voters.

The alleged aim of the voter-ID laws, as even their own advocates admit, is to address a problem that nobody has provided any evidence of and that nobody will be able to tell whether voter-ID laws are addressing successfully.

I don't agree. If I say that voter confidence is the aim, and I point to widespread belief, supported by polling results, that Voter ID laws are a good idea to improve the security and trustworthiness of outcomes, how can you say there is no way to tell? The very fact that large numbers of voters favor such schemes is evidence that they have the desired effect.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I don't agree. If I say that voter confidence is the aim, and I point to widespread belief, supported by polling results, that Voter ID laws are a good idea to improve the security and trustworthiness of outcomes, how can you say there is no way to tell? The very fact that large numbers of voters favor such schemes is evidence that they have the desired effect.

And Dick Cheney was able to cite the NY Times in support on concerns regarding Iraqi WMD, after planting the story with them in the first place. You're being more than a little disingenuous here. If you gin up fear over a fictitious problem and then point to that fear to support your agenda, you've crossed the line into total douchebaggery.

Why ever bother with facts and empiricism when you're actually driven by ideology?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

And Dick Cheney was able to cite the NY Times in support on concerns regarding Iraqi WMD, after planting the story with them in the first place. You're being more than a little disingenuous here. If you gin up fear over a fictitious problem and then point to that fear to support your agenda, you've crossed the line into total douchebaggery.

Why ever bother with facts and empiricism when you're actually driven by ideology?

I don't agree that the concerns were invented out of whole cloth. I contend they arose from seeing what happened in Florida in 2000.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I don't agree that the concerns were invented out of whole cloth. I contend they arose from seeing what happened in Florida in 2000.

I contend that you're a mindless partisan douchenozzle who is entirely without principle or integrity. Let's add this one to the bookmarks to pull out whenever some rube goes down the "Bricker is a reasonable conservative" road.

[ElvisL1ves]

The sort of "problem" Bricker purports to address was in no way part of what happened in Florida in 2000, nor does he propose any solution or even acknowledge the existence of the real problems that did occur there as a result of his own party's hijacking of it. Which he obviously knows, of course; he's a smart fellow, as he'll proudly tell you.

IOW this is yet another silly lie from somebody with no regard whatsoever for building or strengthening, or even recognizing the existence of, democratic institutions. No, there is no principle higher than simple schoolyard-level temporary partisan advantage for him, he sees anyone else as an enemy rather than a fellow citizen, and he's willing to damage the republic itself in order to feel like he's controlling it.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

I contend that you're a mindless partisan douchenozzle who is entirely without principle or integrity. Let's add this one to the bookmarks to pull out whenever some rube goes down the "Bricker is a reasonable conservative" road.

I'd be happy to see this linked under those circumstances, Hentor. I'm offering reasoned rebuttal, and you're calling me a mindless partisan douchenozzle who is entirely without principle or integrity. I think this is an excellent illustration our our respective approaches to debate.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I'd be happy to see this linked under those circumstances, Hentor. I'm offering reasoned rebuttal, and you're calling me a mindless partisan douchenozzle who is entirely without principle or integrity. I think this is an excellent illustration our our respective approaches to debate.

No, reason would be something along the lines of "Here's the reason that voter fraud is an actual problem rather than a figment of my imagination."

What you're saying is that voter fraud is not a problem, but people appear to think it is, so therefore we should implement a costly government intervention that will prevent some legitimate voters for voting.

That's not based in any sort of reason that bears any resemblance to reality. Douchenozzle.

[Sinaptics]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I don't agree. If I say that voter confidence is the aim, and I point to widespread belief, supported by polling results, that Voter ID laws are a good idea to improve the security and trustworthiness of outcomes

While ignoring the 3 studies that show that voter confidence doesn't improve at all with mandatory ID.

[Farmer Jane]

Originally Posted by DMC

When the Voter ID pushers start pushing to eliminate absentee ballots, which is where you can find a huge portion of the otherwise minimal issue of voter fraud, THEN I'll stop believing that they are scumbags who simply want to deprive a certain class from voting. Fuckers can't make it to the polls, fuck 'em. Trusting of "the integrity of the process" is too important, or something like that.

So far, crickets.

Republicans hate absentee ballots in a lot of state. The people who most often vote absentee (eg elderly) vote Democrat. Until Republicans caught on that was a really good idea and mounted campaigns in Florida and the like. But prohibiting felons and people with the last name -ez and restricting Sunday voting? Yeah, good tactic. Lookin' at you, Ohio.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Bah. You lost. ... there's zero, zip, nada, and also zilch you can do to change this trend.

One thing I find loathsome about right-wingers is their juvenile attitude that politics is like a sports event. The umpire calls a play wrong? "Haha! Bah. You lost. ... there's zero, zip, nada, and also zilch you can do about it ... Natter natter natter."

On a different issue, where Bricker the Hypocrite might feel he were on the side of rationality or fairness, he'd take an opposite holier-than-thou pose.

The reason "liberals" care about this issue is that, in fact, the result of GOP's vote-suppression drives will be to reduce the portion of voters voting Democratic. That's a fact.

It might be nice for right-wingers to simply comment on whether they believe that fact to be true or not. I'll have respect for those who admit it to be true. The others? Well, we already knew you were mostly liars, imbeciles and hypocrites.

[LonesomePolecat]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Why let facts get in the way of a good slur?

It's certainly never stopped any of the lefties around here. Or anywhere else, for that matter.

[Sinaptics]

Originally Posted by LonesomePolecat

It's certainly never stopped any of the lefties around here. Or anywhere else, for that matter.

Cite? And not from Der Tris, we already know he's off the deep end.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Sinaptics

While ignoring the 3 studies that show that voter confidence doesn't improve at all with mandatory ID.

No. I have distinguished those studies, by pointing out that none of them address the particular type of voter confidence I am referring to.

Do you remember my doing that?

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by septimus

The reason "liberals" care about this issue is that, in fact, the result of GOP's vote-suppression drives will be to reduce the portion of voters voting Democratic. That's a fact.

Perhaps the saddest part of this discussion is the fact that so many people are themselves so incapable of putting country before party that they don't recognize that the concept can even exist, as for example we see right here. That is far more corrosive to democracy than any petty manipulation of voter rolls could ever be.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

No, reason would be something along the lines of "Here's the reason that voter fraud is an actual problem rather than a figment of my imagination."

What you're saying is that voter fraud is not a problem, but people appear to think it is, so therefore we should implement a costly government intervention that will prevent some legitimate voters for voting.

That's not based in any sort of reason that bears any resemblance to reality. Douchenozzle.

I'm saying that voter confidence in the outcome of elections is a problem. I don't agree that any of the schemes proposed are particularly costly.

You obviously disagree. I don't doubt you come by your opinion honestly, but you doubt I come by mine honestly -- even though mine is shared by a majority of the voters. So are the majority of voters, the ones that support this, ALSO "douchenozzles?" And is that just your view, or a more general view held by your companions on the left?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by septimus

One thing I find loathsome about right-wingers is their juvenile attitude that politics is like a sports event. The umpire calls a play wrong? "Haha! Bah. You lost. ... there's zero, zip, nada, and also zilch you can do about it ... Natter natter natter."

On a different issue, where Bricker the Hypocrite might feel he were on the side of rationality or fairness, he'd take an opposite holier-than-thou pose.

The reason "liberals" care about this issue is that, in fact, the result of GOP's vote-suppression drives will be to reduce the portion of voters voting Democratic. That's a fact.

It might be nice for right-wingers to simply comment on whether they believe that fact to be true or not. I'll have respect for those who admit it to be true. The others? Well, we already knew you were mostly liars, imbeciles and hypocrites.

Heh heh. OK, I admit it: The reason "liberals" care about this issue is that, in fact, the result of GOP's vote-suppression drives will be to reduce the portion of voters voting Democratic.

You said it. I was forced to agree my the power of your persuasion.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I'm saying that voter confidence in the outcome of elections is a problem. I don't agree that any of the schemes proposed are particularly costly.

You obviously disagree. I don't doubt you come by your opinion honestly, but you doubt I come by mine honestly -- even though mine is shared by a majority of the voters. So are the majority of voters, the ones that support this, ALSO "douchenozzles?" And is that just your view, or a more general view held by your companions on the left?

I haven't been able to correspond with the majority of voters, so I don't know. I suspect that very few of them know that there is actually next to zero voter fraud going on. Those who have this explained to them, who acknowledge that voting with a false ID would still occur, and who dismiss concerns about keeping legitimate voters from voting? Yes, I'd say that they are also douchenozzles and are deserving of no respect.

[Honesty]

My only problem with IDs is that they aren't free and constitute as a de facto poll tax. In my opinion, if the State wants to put onerous restrictions on a constitutionally protected right, then those restrictions ought to be free-of-cost. I don't remember paying for my Social Security Card (even for the replacement), has anyone else? It's absurd that voter id cards (or whatever they want to use) aren't free as well.

I agree with the OP, though. I think everyone wants to stop voter fraud but railing against IDs seems as a jab to disenfranchise minorities.

- Honesty

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Honesty

My only problem with IDs is that they aren't free and constitute as a kind of poll tax. In my opinion, if the State wants to put onerous restrictions on a constitutionally protected right, then those restrictions ought to be free-of-cost. I don't remember paying for my Social Security Card (even for the replacement), has anyone else? It's absurd that voter id cards (or whatever they want to use) aren't free as well.

I agree.

It is absurd. It's also untrue. Every single state that requires voter ID card offers them for free.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

I haven't been able to correspond with the majority of voters, so I don't know. I suspect that very few of them know that there is actually next to zero voter fraud going on. Those who have this explained to them, who acknowledge that voting with a false ID would still occur, and who dismiss concerns about keeping legitimate voters from voting? Yes, I'd say that they are also douchenozzles and are deserving of no respect.

You haven't been able to correspond with the majority of the voters about anything, Hentor. Is your contention that their general will is unknowable?

Should Obama be the president? Do the majority of voters want him? I didn't correspond with them, so I don't know.

In my opinion, we can rely on poll numbers and election results as a fair proxy for things the majority of voters want.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Honesty

I think everyone wants to stop voter fraud but railing against IDs seems as a jab to disenfranchise minorities.

- Honesty

I think everyone wants to stop the Molepeople from tunneling in and pilfering our bank reserves too, which is happening at about the same rate as voter fraud.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

I think everyone wants to stop the Molepeople from tunneling in and pilfering our bank reserves too, which is happening at about the same rate as voter fraud.

Yes... except that we still seem to want to place our bank reserves in steel vaults, protected with guards and alarms. And when someone wants to get into those vaults, we require a photo ID.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Yes... except that we still seem to want to place our bank reserves in steel vaults, protected with guards and alarms. And when someone wants to get into those vaults, we require a photo ID.

Because bank theft is a demonstrated problem. Didn't you know that? Are you saying that you're worried about Molepeople?

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Bricker

You haven't been able to correspond with the majority of the voters about anything, Hentor. Is your contention that their general will is unknowable?

Should Obama be the president? Do the majority of voters want him? I didn't correspond with them, so I don't know.

In my opinion, we can rely on poll numbers and election results as a fair proxy for things the majority of voters want.

In the end, you're reduced to ad populum. Sad. Desperate. Douchenozzle.

[DirkGntly]

You know, logically to me, IF there is voter fraud going on, and IF it actually results in more votes for Democrats...
...then doesn't it naturally follow that a voter-ID program will automatically result in fewer Democrat votes?

Which, if those items are true, isn't a BAD THING, people, electorally speaking. Now, it might be a bad thing for your side (if you're on the "suppressed" side), but it is healthy for a republic...

[ElvisL1ves]

Did you forget to flip your sarcasm flag on?