Out of curiosity, what is your estimate of the cost of such a system?
How does a thumbprint prove you live at the address stated on the voter rolls?
But that wasn’t my question. My question was about voter confidence. I may not have made it clear that I was linking that to my “what would you do question”.
If photo ID failed to solve the voter confidence issue, would you then advocate spending money on a campaign of voter education to assure everyone that voter ID has solved the fraud problem and all is now well?
Or are you saying that only thumbprints will solve the confidence problem?
I agree. Civil rights issues should not be determined by majority support.
No, I’m talking about the posters on the SDMB who wanted the Voter ID laws scuttled.
It doesn’t. It just proves you were the person that claimed to lie at that address.
How should they be determined?
Well, in the short term by elected representatives but ultimately by an independent judiciary using a formal constitution and evolving societal standards as a guide. Not a perfect approach, to be sure, but I’m not familiar with a consistently better one.
Okay, what I’m trying to get you to do, Bricker, is explain how what you’re accusing others of (“imposing,” “wanting scuttled,” etc) is different from simply disagreeing with a law.
If I say “three strikes laws are wrong,” am I, by saying that, imposing my will on voters, and do I, by saying that, show that I want the law scuttled?
If not, what more do I have to do to be imposing my will and to show that I want the law scuttled? And how specifically have people on the SDMB done that something-more that you are talking about when you use these terms?
Bricker:
(1) What do you think about the specific claims made in the article linked in the OP. Do they in any way trouble you or make you reconsider your position? They clearly did so for the author of that article… what does he know that you don’t, or vice versa?
(2) I think it’s fairly meaningless to say that we lefties want to impose our will on the majority, here. Lots of people here are expressing opinions that these laws are bad public policy, with varying levels of specific claims about whether they’re unconstitutional or not. But I don’t see a lot of people saying “hey, those laws should just not exist just because I say so”. I mean, people all the time on both sides about all sorts of issues say that a particular law or public policy is bad, that they would prefer it to be a different way… is every example of that “wanting to impose their will on the majority”? If not, what’s the difference?
Democracy as the last refuge of a scoundrel? California’s old Prop 183 also passed by a huge margin and had broad support. It was also unconstitutional. Funny little thing.
Well, if Bricker’s home state ever majority-vote passes the “Anyone Can Kick Bricker in the Nuts on Friday” law, he can be assured that us SDMB cadre types will oppose it, and not because we’re particularly fond of Bricker or his nuts, but because we recognize the inherent flaw in allowing majorities to determine law.
I think a special day to kick lawyers in the nuts is marketable, if not strictly legal. “Good Friday? How about a GREAT Friday!”
Yeah. It’s a bit shameful that Bricker has resorted to the “but it’s so popular!” line of fallacious reasoning.
Evidence. We have provided evidence that many people will be disenfranchised. We have provided evidence that Republicans are doing it to try to manipulate the election. We have provided evidence that there is no voter fraud to be protected against.
You’ve provided nothing. All opinions are not equal. Those with evidence beat those without.
Ok, so if the point of your system is to eliminate voter fraud at the poll sites and your system doesn’t do that how is it a useful system in eliminating voter fraud?
One guy can go around to every voting station in the metro area, claim to be person X, put a thumb print down, vote and go on his merry way. If he’s not even in the system, you can’t catch him by trying to run his thumbprint through any databases. Meanwhile, person X shows up to the polls and can’t vote because someone else has already placed a thumb print down in his spot. Plus we’re not even getting into the cost of implementing this system.
Has no one noticed this typo? I nominate it for Freudian slip of the month.
I don’t think that was the point. Rather, he was pointing out the irony of people who feel that voters’ rights are absolutely sacred things–except when used for purposes we disagree with, in which case we can sweep them aside.
I think that’s a very apt and succinct description of how the Republicans who are trying to implement these voter ID laws feel about voting rights.
Who evaluates the evidence and decides which set is compelling?