You seem to be lost-Maybe I can help.
Scroll up to the top of the page and check out the name of this forum.
The disagreement is that ultra-rare voter fraud is more concerning than not-rare-at-all voter failure.
There is the idea that it’s better for 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be jailed. In this case, we’re trying to block one guilty fraudster and have hundreds of innocent voters fail to cast a vote due to our efforts. Not only are we reversing the concept, we’re flipping the ratio as well.
Caveat: the five republican justices on the court said. This was a partisan decision by a partisan court, with a 5-4 split. Every democrat on the court dissented.
And hey, if a hundred thousand legitimate voters get thrown off the registers with no notification until they show up at the polls and are told they’re not allowed to vote, who gives a shit, right?
The number of legitimate Georgia voters who were struck from the rolls due to this policy is 33 times the margin in the last gubernatorial election in Georgia. You want distrust in the outcome? Give us an election with a margin of several thousand with over a hundred thousand angry people whose voices were not heard because of arcane legal bullshit meaning they could not vote.
Honestly, this has all been explained to Bricker. He knows all this shit. He just doesn’t care. As long as what the republicans are doing to win is technically legal, he doesn’t give two fucking shits about any other concerns. If the republican senate passed a law stating that it was legal to murder liberal judges, and it passed the supreme court in a 5-4 split, I thoroughly expect him to sit here saying, “Well, it’s legal”. This is the smart republican on the board.
There is nothing worth saving in this party. Every person who advocates it is either impossibly stupid or evil or both. This is the enemy. They do not care about democracy. They do not care about norms. The only thing we can do is get the fuck to the goddamn polls (making sure we pay close attention to their many attempts to prevent us from doing so) and vote these evil, disgusting scumbags out.
Y’know, I apologize. This isn’t fair. Bricker is a catholic and would probably turn his nose up at murder.
He’s still fucking scum who puts party ahead of democracy, though.
Kim Jong-Un has never once imprisoned anyone who’s committed no crime. Nor did Il. What they did instead was to make it a crime to offend the Dear Leader, and then imprisoned people who committed that crime.
Now, that shouldn’t be a crime. But now we’re right back to the point, which is that what should be legal is more important than what actually is legal.
This is not imprisoning people who cannot manage to return a card. So the analogy fails: the reason it’s better to let ten guilty go free is that prison is a horrible sanction to the inncocent. But having to cast a provisional ballot because you ignored your mail and didn’t vote after that in two successive elections is not horrible. It’s not in the same balllsrk as horrible. It barely registers on society’s meter of outrage, unless you’re a Democrat whose priorities are rightly ignored by the rest of society.
And you have graciously agreed to advise the country on what should be legal?
No thanks. Keep your day job. I’d rather stay with the system in which legislators decide what should be illegal by, you know, passing laws. Because we’re not getting laws the same way North Korea does, you see.
Despite your best efforts.
Just as you say, “ultra-rare”. So, therefore, its only tangible effect is the feeling it creates, a feeling of “distrust in the outcome”. So, OK, according to our legal expert, feelings count.
Then the feelings of distrust among the black voters of Georgia also count. I daresay that seeing as how thousands of actual votes are in jeopardy here, those feelings are well grounded in fact. Not “ultra-rare”, unlike the dread threat of voter fraud. Indeed, an election as close as this one is might well be decided by this.
Feelings of distrust because of voter fraud is largely a phantom, “ultra-rare”. Thousands of black voters are not. If feelings count, theirs count more, because they are real.
But the .00001% fraudulent vote is horrible?
The only reason any voters are disturbed by Voter Fraud™ is the Republican Party jumping up and down like it’s a tragedy. They did so because they could use it as a weapon to disrupt the vote.
It’s a vile, anti-democratic act, and it doesn’t surprise me at all that you love it.
But only because there is a law against it: both in Catholicism and in the government. The idea that there is something fundamentally wrong with murder is not a belief he holds.
That, in my opinion, is Bricker’s fatal flaw. He has no fixed morals other than that which is established by law. Anything else is okay as long as it benefits him or his side, and wrong if it doesn’t benefit him or his side.
That’s why the guy who usually is all about how facts trump feelings, and insists on citations to establish things is now pushing “feelings” that there are voter fraud. There’s no consistency there. It’s at odds with why we are here on this board, even: to fight ignorance. But he’s promoting something that works entirely on ignorance because it helps his side.
His integrity is for sale to his party.
Close, but not quite. As long as the republicans say that what they’re doing is legal, your opponent doesn’t give two fucking shits. We are talking about a man who thinks the fact that Republicans said what they were doing wasn’t torture is proof that what they were doing wasn’t torturing people, after all. They say it, he believes it, that settles it.
We live in a representative democracy, and I don’t think anyone elected you to decide what that means.
And, hey, shocker: the people that WERE elected to decide what that means have decided what that means.
Bricker, thanks for responding to my PM.
Fairly decent response, I thought.
Let me get back to you when I have acess to a keyboard.
(I also PM-ed Shodan, but he expressed a preference for discussing the issue in the Elections thread.)
Are the reports that they can cast a provisional ballot false?
If they can go get what is missing, take it to the appropriate office, have it approved? accepted? and then return with that document to the polling people and then the provisional ballot becomes real. Time limit, three days.
http://sos.ga.gov/admin/files/GAInfoguide.pdf
(PDF no cutty, no pasty)
Subject to court interpretation. Doesn’t that mean anything to you?
If hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters have been removed from the voter rolls with partisan intent, it’s not a particularly representative democracy. To say that the way people should change the system that is doing everything possible to prevent them from voting is by voting is to admit that you’re perfectly happy with subversion of the democratic process because it’s currently rigged in your favor. And to once again paste a thin veneer of victim-blaming (“they couldn’t manage to return a card”) over a coordinated effort to keep Democratic voters away from the polls is to demonstrate a level of disingenuousness already well-established.
Bingo. Antidemocratic neofascist cunt.
And this is exactly where the thinking I described creates a contradiction. Because law is the only way he can conceive of something being true, he now thinks that the elected government decides what is and is not representative democracy. He can’t understand that there is a transcendent meaning to the topic.
He denies our very founding principles in doing so: “We hold these truths to be self evident.” It has never, ever been up to the government to decide what is and is not democracy. Because then they could take a dictatorship and say it is actually democracy.
And he’s a lawyer. He should know this. It’s basic civics. But here he is defending tyranny and saying it’s a form of democracy because the people in charge say so. It’s absurd.
In reading his posts one can’t help but envision some grey, mid-level bureaucrat with a fussy mustache sitting before some war crimes tribunal somewhere, insisting that he had done nothing wrong because everything he did was perfectly legal at the time.
(Cue the inevitable accusations that the reason we criticize his narrow focus on the legality of reprehensible actions is because we all want to be dictators who hate the rule of law, rather than because there’s a long history of justifying immoral, undemocratic and sometimes horrific acts on legal grounds and that legality is not in itself a defense of them. But he’ll do anything to avoid admiting that he’s excusing or facilitating some extremely heinous practices by this narrow focus, and the man can DARVO like a motherfuck.)