That’s my new favorite.
Wow, if only I had made clear that vigorous advocacy must be within the bounds of the law. I could have said, for example, “As long as both sides follow the law, then there’s no room for complaining.” But by failing to include that sentence, I see I’ve left room for confusion.
So let me clarify: throwing out cast provisional ballots because the voter was in the wrong precinct: legal. And correct. Voters living in Ward 7, let’s say, have no right to vote for my Ward 6 council seat.
Ordering poll workers not to even provide provisional ballots: NOT legal. And, therefore, incorrect, and something I don’t support.
Yeah, well, one side has made it clear that they don’t respect the rule of law, only the rule of whatever gets them more power.
Yes, that’s unfortunately true, but we shouldn’t penalize the entire side for the actions of a corrupt few.
The Democrats deserve better treatment than that.
BWAHAHAHA!!
“After the law was challenged and upheld, the Florida Secretary of State declared that the law would be followed.”
Oh, the horror.
:rolleyes: Bricker, sometimes I think your political world-view is as far removed from reality – as far the reverse of reality – as Hugh Hewitt’s.
Anyway, I put the Florida thing in a separate Pit thread.
Repub judge what do you expect. Florida loves to cut out voters. They are very good at it. The Harris legacy is alive and well. BWAHBWAH my ass. People are having their right to vote taken away. The bedrock right on which everything else is mounted on, is ignored for political reasons again.
Absurd. If you don’t live in a given voting district, you have no “right” to vote there.
And was it, in fact, Republican judges who made these rulings?
Except to extend the analogy the people we are worried about is the Referees, not the other side’s coach.
If you knew the Refs were on the payroll for the Chicago Bears and they had bets on the Bears to win would you be comfortable with your team playing the Bears?
In the cases of Ohio and Florida the people responsible for overseeing a “fair” election were in the bag for one side.
Sounds like setting the fox to watch the hen house to me.
I don’t see a way to avoid that, since the Secretary of State will either be an elected official, or be appointed by an elected official.
Er, what? Can I have that in English?
Gonzomax: the judge who ruled in this case was Stephen Mickle. He’s a Democrat.
Why did you say he was a Republican, when that wasn’t true?
Why do you keep pretending that “voter fraud” is a Big Hairy Ass Deal, when you know it isn’t? And if you have proof otherwise, why won’t you present it?
Surely of the two of us, I’m in a better postion to say what I “know.” YOu may certainly claim I’m wrong, or mistaken, but you have no grounds to say I’m claiming something that I know isn’t true.
I don’t believe that you’re willing to accept the same inferences I am from the available facts.
My claim is that voter ID laws are a good idea. I would think locks on front doors are a good idea, even if my house has never once been burglarized – because I can reason my way through the process of seeing the threat and countering it before I have to fill out insurance forms listing the value of all my missing stuff.
See, Bricker, here’s the thing: there’s lots of evidence that people are being improperly removed from the rolls of registered voters, and in a biased way. There’s almost no evidence that people are voting fraudulently. Thus, I conclude that we need to safeguard against people being prevented from voting illegitimately, not people voting illegitimately. The one is a much more pressing concern than the other.
But what your analysis misses is that there’s very minimal harm from the removal from rolls, since a voter improperly removed can cast a provisional ballot and subsequently have his vote counted.
Its a figure of speech that presumes that the accused is smarter than his argument pretends. Its on a level of “Don’t bat those big brown innocent eyes at me, this ain’t my first rodeo”.
Well, if the fault is in my character, would the same question from a more worthy source be answered? Seems that question has been put to you a number of times, and thus far has gone a-begging.
To steal from Stephanie Miller, “Thanks for playing REALLY Bad Analogy”…
I have grounds to say so: Despite repeated challanges, you have never presented any evidence here or, AFAIK, in any other thread that voter fraud is a real problem. (Regarding which phrase see post #292). You are a Doper and a lawyer. You have research skills. You are visibly highly interested in this issue. The only plausible reason you have posted no evidence is that you can find none to post. If voter fraud were actually happening on a wide enough scale to affect electoral results, under the level of scrutiny which the RW, with the full support of the Justice Department, has directed at this purported problem for the past eight years, it would be impossible for the perpetrators not to get caught at some point (which is not what has happened in ACORN’s case). You are too intelligent to avoid the conclusion that it is not happening. You know voter fraud is not a problem.
Faulty analogy. You know that other houses have been burglarized; in this case there is no such justification, because there has never been a significant case of voter fraud.