Hundreds of fake forms were submitted! THAT is the evidence that these measures are useful.
And as I mentioned – they came almost verbatim from a consent decree ACORN signed in another state… did the need for them there just magically appear as well?
They’re rules that make sense.
And you’ve made it blindingly obvious you have no idea what Republicans stand for, so it’s really not useful for you to offer suggestions about how it might have changed.
The evidence that these measures are useful is that hundreds of fake forms were submitted?
You are a unique thinker.
I would think your pony chewing on the back of the cart would be a clue.
So, if it was on a consent decree it’s automatically necessary and useful?
I’ll remember that.
Oh, I think this thread has been a brilliant showcase of what Republicans stand for.
Looks like the Forces of Darkness have decided to raise this goat leprosy to a campaign “issue”.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...politico/14568
**Palin: Obama must ‘rein in’ ACORN **
Further:
**
Bricker**, are you *sure *you want to associate with these sorts of people?
Why not hold them criminally responsible for bad penmanship too? You haven’t hinted or suggested a link to a public harm (except more of your political opponents getting their vote on).
No, wait, there is extra work for the registrar. But this thread is really about voter ID, so that’s not a reason to criminalize things.
And what if someone doesn’t want the canvasser to see their form?
I don’t think Senator Obama has any particular responsibility here, so to that extent, I will disagree with the lovely and talented Ms. Palin.
And I will also disagree with the lovely and talented jsgoddess when she obliquely suggests that calling this a problem somehow puts the cart before the horse.
The evidence that these measures would be useful flows from the fact that hundreds of these fake forms were submitted. Fake forms are a problem. These measures will greatly reduce the incidence of fake form submissions. See? Cart, pulled by horse, all in the right order.
First of all, I don’t have to show a public harm except by proving the law was violated; that’s a prima facie case for public harm. But the Supreme Court was helpful in this regard when they pointed out that fake voters reduce public confidence in the polls, and that is clearly a public harm.
No public harm comes from bad penmanship, and it’s not against the law, so I will decline your kind invitation to add that to the list of crimes at issue here.
I don’t think that anyone is arguing that fake voters reduce public confidence in the polls. But that is not what we are looking at here.
Is that a penumbra, or an emanation?
If our system is so fragile a bunch of policy wonks like ACORN can actually pose a threat, we could be taken over tomorrow by a putsch from the Campfire Girls. Who might, in turn, be overthrown by Unitarian fanatics.
No. You can’t say that they would work unless they have been tried. Useful = they work.
You may think that something is necessary to be tried. You can’t say what will work until it is tried. You are trying to make evidence of the existence of a problem be evidence that your solution will work. That’s putting the cart before the horse.
Tracking does not change the root issue, which is that some people will fill out forms with false, misleading, or fraudulent information. Tracking does bupkiss for this problem. What tracking does is allow ACORN to identify who brought the cards in and fire them, but the cards are still in and the cards must still be submitted “en masse.” Tracking happens too late in the chain to keep false registration cards from being filled out. The only way to prevent false registrations is to prevent registrations.
You have already said that ACORN telling the authorities about suspicious cards isn’t enough, so your proposals do not address the fundamental problem of the suspicious cards existing in the first place.
The rest of your posts boil down to “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire” with a side order of “It doesn’t matter if there’s evidence that my fixes will work, they should be put in place anyway” and “It’s fraud if I say it is” for dessert.
If you seriously want these three ideas to be SOP for Great Debates from now on, well, you’re crazy. But more power to ya.
Those bitches will CUT you.
Pardon me for dropping in late. I hadn’t realized that was the thesis of the thread. From the title, it just looked like standard conservative outrage misplaced in GD.
I think to prove your conclusion, you’d have to be able to at least establish that the preponderance of the evidence is that voter ID laws disenfranchised fewer legal voters than their absence allowed in the way of voter fraud. (That’s voter fraud, not registration fraud.)
If the price of keeping 50 people from casting fraudulent ballots is that 60 legitimate voters are prevented from casting their legitimate ballots, then voter ID laws are a bad idea. If it’s the other way around, then they’re a good idea. Then we’d just have to figure out on which side the preponderance of the evidence lay.
Does that sound like a fair standard?
Let me know if this is territory already hashed to death in this thread. One never knows when one shows up at the end of page 9. ETA: Beginning of page 10.
If we’re going to use the example of Florida to decide where to invest law enforcement monies to ensure good elections, then we would better spend the money making it criminal for a registrar or secretary of state to use improper tactics to dissuade or prevent opposition voters from casting ballots rather than chasing after hypotheticals that already require excessive effort on the part of the conspirators.
Now, we know that Florida Republican officials used a number of tactics to guarantee that potential Democratic voters were deprived of their vote. Do we have any evidence that Florida has rules more lax than those of Ohio to prevent actual multiple votes?
Neither a penumbra or an emanation.
The Constitution does not forbid voter ID requirements. We don’t need a penumbra or an emanation to decide that something ISN’T there.
It’s only when you try to create some phrase or rule that ISN’T found in the text that the discovery of penumbras and emanations is so handy.
It does, with this caveat: the reasons for the prevention must be legitimate, non-trivial ones. We can’t weigh equally, for example, “I can’t vote because I don’t have an ID card and I can’t afford one,” and “I can’t vote because they have cops doing security at the polls and I have a warrant out on me.”
The first is an example of a legitimate gripe; the second is too damn bad for the would-be voter.
False dilemma. We can do both – target fake voters and improper tactics.
I guess it’s a good thing that McCain has had absolutely nothing to do with ACORN, eh?
Oh, wait!. :rolleyes:
If he did not exist. He will not vote. Yet you call it voter fraud, not registration fraud. They are not the same. Mickey Mouse will not show up to vote. Therefore ,it is not voter fraud and will not be. This is a fabrication to give the repubs a chance to go over voters lists in poor neighborhoods and remove legitimate voters. That is what you are pushing. That was the result last time .That is what they want to do this time.
An article that appears to capture all of my sentiments on this issue, as posted by Biggirl in another thread.
For murder or rape, yes. For unpaid speeding tickets or failure to pay child support, no.
This may not be backed by any Supreme Court decision, but my view is that the use of the polls by the state as an opportunity to snag persons who’ve committed petty crimes and infractions, but whose continued freedom doesn’t constitute a menace to society, has a chilling effect on democracy. The right to vote should be pretty near absolute, and only the strongest justifications suffice for preventing, discouraging, or throwing up roadblocks in the way of the exercise of one’s franchise.
It is also my view that publicity by private actors (e.g. a political party, or persons allied with a political party) broadcasting the news (real or fictitious) that the cops will be nabbing such people at the polls, also has a chilling effect on democracy.
The right to vote cannot be one of the lesser rights in a democracy, one that can be chiseled away at for trivial gains of other sorts. If you believe otherwise, then our disagreement is fundamental, and we have nothing to discuss.
I’ve come up with a great solution for this issue:
Instead of relying on an organization like ACORN to register voters, howabout we make it into a governmental responsibility to get 95+ of eligible voters registered, to maintain the database, and to weed out fraud?
Because the system we have now is stupid and piecemeal.