I beg your pardon. I meant to say, “…that MsWhatsit wants…”
My error. I apologize to MeanOldLady, who said no such thing.
I cannot, of course, be responsible for or defend every action Republicans take. All I can do is express agreement for those policies with which I agree, no matter where they come from.
In general, I agree we should work to improve the status quo as regards voting.
Indeed, I think we are all pretty well informed on the efforts you would make to improve the status quo as regards voting. Oh, yes, quite.
In the post you were responding to in post #360, MsWhatsit specifically referred to the 3-hour wait times, as she has done numerous times in this thread.
So, are 3-hour waits a statistical outlier? If so, your evidence please.
The former, at least, is nonsense on stilts. If you were trying to solve the problem of money disappearing out of bank accounts, would you consider it a “distraction” to question whether the cause is honest accounting error or deliberate embezzlement?
It’s kind of rad that I got confused with MOL.
Since multiple other posters have been able to clearly and effectively restate my points, I believe I made those points clearly and effectively. Bricker is still trying to frame my arguments to make them sound insane, which they are not, because he disagrees with me, which in and of itself is fine. Or would be fine if he weren’t continually misrepresenting what I said in an effort to make himself look better.
Anyway, I’m reasonably confident that I’ve made myself understood. Thanks to those of you who have contributed to meaningful debate here.
No. But insisting on a system in which not a single voter waits 3 hours IS a statistical outlier – by definition.
And that, she does insist on.
How about the idea that other posters have modified your posts, because they’re trying to save your arguments, and you are cravenly taking the best of both worlds: you don’t have to explicitly disclaim your earlier words, and you can claim that because they are softening the blow, your original points were made clearly and effectively.
The thing is: the onyl way these words can be saved is by either claiming you were joking/speaking with hyperbole/otherwise not speaking literally:
See? That’s not “reducing the average.” That’s policy by statistical outlier. To demand that NODOBY can experience a single instance of a three hour wait is absurd.
Now it’s an hour.
Here was your best attempt at reformulating:
Even then, though, you seemingly fail to recognize that extreme outliers are to be expected: “I said that it is unacceptable for such a thing to happen, meaning that if it does, we need to analyze the situation and make changes to our procedures so that it doesn’t continue to happen in the future.”
Not exactly literally correct even there, are you? We cannot make changes so it NEVER happens in the future. We can only make such changes as will reasonably improve the process at a reasonable price. Right?
I think I get what you’re saying…but it amazes me that even after pages of being begged to speak literally, your best effort to do so apparently still involves some hyperbole. Are you capable of expressing an idea literally, without recourse to any hyperbole at all?
I think (just my interpretation, subject to her correction) that 3 hour waits by *anyone *are a demonstration of a problem that must be addressed. But by “addressed” we might mean that obtaining the explanation that ‘many more voters showed up than we reasonably expected, or more machines broke than we reasonably expected’ would be accepted. That would be a failure of the system, but an unpredictable one that does not point out a generic failure. The failure would be an outlier.
On the other hand, having multiple people waiting for 3 hours because too few machines were provided for the reasonably expected number of voters, perhaps amplified by cancellation of alternative means or dates of voting, would indeed constitute a generic problem with the system. And generic problems should be addressed and corrected. A widespread and/or continuing problem isn’t an outlier.
ETA - didn’t read post 388 yet, simulposted
No, it is not, at least not by definition.
To determine that, we’d have to compare voting systems in the 50 states plus DC, and in other developed countries. If multiple states/countries have managed this trick, then it wouldn’t be an outlier, now would it?
I didn’t say we could. This is what I mean when I say you are continually misrepresenting my posts. Early on I thought perhaps I had just not been clear enough for you, but at this point I’ve said the same things so many times, and had enough other people in the thread understand me perfectly clearly, that I am now pretty sure you are deliberately misstating what I said in order to try to score points. It is obnoxious behavior and is making me think of you as a dishonest debater.
Nope. Voting access is not something that we provide only so long as it’s reasonably cheap. Now, it likely will be reasonably cheap, and we know this by looking at the many localities that have managed to provide this access without bankrupting themselves. But fundamental rights in our society, like the right to vote, are not predicated on whether or not we can provide them at a reasonable price.
You continually insist on drawing out this point, which I have made many times over very simply and clearly, into some kind of ridiculous hypothetical in which we are bankrupting our society, paying millions of dollars, etc., etc. Obviously if we can’t provide access to the polls without bankrupting ourselves, then we’ll need to come up with some other solution that doesn’t involve bankrupting ourselves, which is also something I’ve now said multiple times, quite clearly and simply. Unless your position is that there is no system of voting in which we can provide equal, convenient, and easy access to the polls that will not also be nonsensically expensive, then you are just playing silly semantic games.
My points, in order:
-
Everyone should have reasonable access to the polls. This means setting up polling places so that people can get in and out reasonably quickly without having to take special time off from work.
-
If we can’t provide that on any given occasion, we need to investigate the problem to find out why it is happening. (Not enough machines? No backup voting method? Poor publicity for alternate voting methods? Poll workers didn’t show up? Not enough polling places?)
-
Once we have found out why it is happening, we can take steps to keep it from happening again. (Possibly including, but not limited to: more machines; changing voting methods; providing more polling places; better poll worker hiring/training procedures; etc.)
-
“Taxpayers won’t like the cost” is not an acceptable reason to have long waiting lines at polling places.
No. If we had an entire nation in which wait times did not exceed an hour, and one voter whose wait time DID exceed an hour, THAT, by definition, is a statistical outlier.
Very defensible points, all. (I quibble with #4, but it’s a matter of opinion; more on that later).
So in light of these posts, can you now answer this simple question: must we continue to spend money on improvements if, in the entire nation, only one person has a wait time that exceeds three hours?
Don’t wait for the translation, just answer the irrelevant and stupid question that nobody but me is on about because I am a tedious nitpicker when I want to distract and derail a discussion because it makes Republicans look bad.
Come ON people. We experience 1 hr+, even 3 hr+ waits all the time. At the DMV, at a free clinic, to see an opening day movie, sporting events, at an amusement park, traffic, black friday…
Why is it be so upsetting to find out that sometimes, under the most extreme of circumstances, an event that involves 100-130 million other people that you might have to wait a couple of hours? Why is that unforgivable?
By the 2 definitions of unreasonable, I would expect both that the average wait time can/is under 1 hr and the max wait time can/is over 3 hrs.
No. No more on that later. I was just as clear as it is possible to be, and you even admit that you agree with me on all points, and you still want to have a big fight about a ridiculous hypothetical you have made up. I am not arguing with you about whether your hypothetical is ridiculous or about further hypotheticals you might want to drag in or about things I did not say or things other people who are not me may or may not have said. No. Eight pages is enough for you.
edit: This was in reply to Bricker’s post, obviously.
No, you weren’t “just as clear as it’s possible to be.”
If you were, you could say one of two things: “If we’re talking about a single, solitary person, I think I would regard our work as done.”
Or “No! Even one person waiting for more than three hours is unacceptable, and we must fix it no matter the cost!”
I think you believe the second sentence, and you want to say the second sentence, but you know it’s crazy-town sounding, so you don’t. But you can’t bring yourself to say the first either, so you act high, mighty, and offended that I refuse to read between the lines and accept what you’re saying without your explicitly saying it.
What I profferred was not a hypothetical. It’s your own words: “I want them to make sure that nobody has to wait more than an hour in order to vote in person at the polls.”
If that’s a ridiculous hypothetical – if you were speaking hyperbole – why can’t you now just say so?"
Of course. That’s absolutely reasonable.
Then why not disarm me by answering the question directly, straightforwardly?
Sorry to interrupt the eight page Bricker pile on, but can I ask a simple question?
Why did we let this person become a citizen? According to the cite on page one of the thread she became a citizen in 2005. So she would have been about 95 years old. Do we not have enough non English speaking, Haitian born farm workers who are 95 years old in the country?
I’d say long lines to vote pale in comparison to who we are allowing to become citizens who then vote.
You should meet the following criteria to become a citizen: 1. Speak the language. 2. Have skills that we need.
She does neither.