# I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 12, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943 "2012-06-12T19:15:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 111
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2201 "2012-08-04T17:21:29Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Your air of authority on the subject of this thread and other things aside, could you kindly leave my penis out of this? Thanks. Why the fuck is there a pink golf pencil hanging from your belt… _Jesus dude, put that thing away!_ ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2202 "2012-08-04T17:27:10Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Why the fuck is there a pink golf pencil hanging from your belt… _Jesus dude, put that thing away!_ While you both seem to share the same infatuation, it appears that you and **Elv1s** have had quite different baselines. ---
**Author:** ![Gagundathar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a183cd/32.png) [@Gagundathar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gagundathar)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2203 "2012-08-04T17:37:35Z")
I sense this discourse has devolved somewhat. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2204 "2012-08-04T17:53:41Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > (1) If elected bodies can easily (ie, 51% majority) adjust the laws that govern how they themselves are elected that presents a systemic danger to democracy itself, because unscrupulous people (and there are unscrupulous in every party) will try to use that power to adjust the laws in their favor, and if they do, the elections that should be able to correct that injustice when public opinion swings the other way will already be corrupted. I don’t agree. Manifest injustice is something voters of all stripes will respond to. When the 19th Amendment was being debated, women couldn’t vote. Yet it passed. > [@](#): > > (1a) How would I address this? My ideal solution would be for elections to be administered by a totally independent organization, one which is set up in a way to ensure that it is as fair, transparent and nonpartisan as possible. Alternatively, there could be a very high level of scrutiny required in order to pass laws affecting elections, or a supermajority required, or something (although any of these ideas also risk making it very very hard to right injustices, should injustices make it into law.) Certainly those are fine ideas. But surely you agree that it’s inappropriate to set up such an organization on your say-so. So stepping back one more meta-step, my question is: who should decide the question of how we run elections? Do you see the problem yet? > [@](#): > > (2) “Voter Confidence” is such a non-issue that I’ve never heard it mentioned or discussed in any context other than in this thread. Seriously, if you go out to a man on the street and say “OK, start listing the problems that affect the US right now”, he’ll start with the economy or what have you, and start listing less and less important things, and might well get to voter fraud and/or voter suppression at some point, and possibly the unreliability of recordless voting machines, but “voter confidence”? I just don’t see it. Furthermore, if someone was proposing a law requiring voter IDs to reduce voter fraud, and said “OK, there are two benefits to this law, what are they?”, I would immediately say “well, one is to reduce voter fraud” but “oh, and all the people who vote and are now asked for IDs and thus feel more secure that the election is secure, and that’s better for democracy, go USA” would not soon occur to me. That’s funny, for two reasons. One is that ensuring voter confidence was the state interest advanced by the state of Indiana when defending their law in the courts. It is thus a major interest and rationale in support of the laws. The second is that that you have already expressed your refusal to learn about issues that do not interest you. Why should I be particularly swayed that you have not heard about this issue? > [@](#): > > (3) The voter ID issue is incredibly dissimilar to the MA senatorial special elections issue. Reasonable and impartial people can reasonably hold quite dissimilar opinions about them, and have quite dissimilar reactions to them, without demonstrating any level of hypocrisy. Absolutely disagree. > [@](#): > > (4) Pointing out that someone has not posted about topic X, or has not expressed outrage about topic X, proves almost nothing about their opinion of topic X. In general, agree. However, there are special cases in which the refusal to express an opinion is tantamount to expressing an opinion. > [@](#): > > (5) When someone makes an argument about something, bringing up their opinion on other topics is irrelevant to the strength of their argument in all but the most extreme and unusual situations. Generally agree. But it’s quite important to discern what the actual argument is. When the argument against Voter ID laws includes a claim that the rhetor is personally offended by any tactic that would use the law to swing advantage to a particular party, then testing that claim becomes relevant. > [@](#): > > (5a) And that sort of argument, in the context of the SDMB, almost never results in anything other than hijacking and derailing the thread. Seriously, you spent a fairly large amount of this thread trying to bring up the issue of the MA senatorial special elections. Did that actually get us anywhere, other than to have a meta-discussion of that topic? What was your planned endgame? I mean, I can imagine you coming up with a couple of cites showing that voter fraud is a bigger issue than I thought, and that the voter ID laws were not as onerous as I had thought, and the combination of those cites and some clever arguing on your part might make me at least partly reconsider or retract my position. But how the heck do you ever get anywhere productive or meaningful by bringing up a vaguely similar topic and starting to throw around accusations of hypocrisy? I mean, if that’s what you enjoy, then I guess you can go right ahead, but if you have at least the glimmer of an idea that what you say might actually cause people to reconsider their present opinions and even in the smallest way maybe kind of come around to your way of thinking even a tiny bit, do you really think that’s the way to go about it? Is that really a question? It went on for a while. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2205 "2012-08-04T19:10:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …When the argument against Voter ID laws includes a claim that the rhetor is personally offended by any tactic that would use the law to swing advantage to a particular party, then testing that claim becomes relevant… As a general rule, when someone says they are offended by something, I tend to simply take their word, as I have neither the means nor the inclination to test the sincerity of their claims. When I say I am offended by the use of legislation to advance the power of a political party, I expect such an obvious reaction to be accepted as sincere, but you are as free to question that sincerity as you are free to go pound burdocks, To be strictly honest, I would find the latter to be vastly more entertaining, as the former is a commonplace, a standard\*\* Bricker\*\* tactic when reason and evidence are against you. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2206 "2012-08-04T22:27:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree. Manifest injustice is something voters of all stripes will respond to. > > When the 19th Amendment was being debated, women couldn’t vote. > > Yet it passed. > > Certainly those are fine ideas. But surely you agree that it’s inappropriate to set up such an organization on your say-so. So stepping back one more meta-step, my question is: who should decide the question of how we run elections? > > Do you see the problem yet? I’ve started [a GD thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=660957) to continue this part of the discussion, as it has fairly little to actually do with voter ID laws in specific. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2207 "2012-08-05T00:33:41Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > As a general rule, when someone says they are offended by something, I tend to simply take their word, as I have neither the means nor the inclination to test the sincerity of their claims. > > When I say I am offended by the use of legislation to advance the power of a political party, I expect such an obvious reaction to be accepted as sincere, but you are as free to question that sincerity as you are free to go pound burdocks, > > To be strictly honest, I would find the latter to be vastly more entertaining, as the former is a commonplace, a standard\*\* Bricker\*\* tactic when reason and evidence are against you. You have decreed that reason and evidence are against me. I have determined that the laws are still in place. So I’m perfectly satisfied. You decree whatever you please. It’s good exercise. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2208 "2012-08-05T02:44:05Z")
Sure, but its one of those Phallic Victories, where you win but then shrink drastically in size. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2209 "2012-08-05T08:22:56Z")
Former Florida GOP Chair Jim Greer says [they were actually planning to disfranchise blacks.](http://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/fla_republican_we_suppressed_black_votes/) > [@](#): > > In the debate over new laws meant to curb voter fraud in places like Florida, Democrats always charge that Republicans are trying to suppress the vote of liberal voting blocs like blacks and young people, while Republicans just laugh at such ludicrous and offensive accusations. That is, every Republican except for Florida’s former Republican Party chairman Jim Greer, who, scorned by his party and in deep legal trouble, blew the lid off what he claims was a systemic effort to suppress the black vote. In a 630-page deposition recorded over two days in late May, Greer, who is on trial for corruption charges, unloaded a litany of charges against the “whack-a-do, right-wing crazies” in his party, including the effort to suppress the black vote. > > In the deposition, released to the press yesterday, Greer mentioned a December 2009 meeting with party officials. “I was upset because the political consultants and staff were talking about voter suppression and keeping blacks from voting,” he said, according to the Tampa Bay Times. He also said party officials discussed how “minority outreach programs were not fit for the Republican Party,” according to the AP. > > The comments, if true (he is facing felony corruption charges and has an interest in scorning his party), would confirm what critics have long suspected. Florida Gov. Rick Scott is currently facing inquiries from the Justice Department and pressure from civil rights groups over his purging of voter rolls in the state, an effort that critics say has disproportionately targeted minorities and other Democratic voters. One group suing the state claims up to 87 percent of the voters purged from the rolls so far have been people of color, though other estimates place that number far lower. Scott has defended the purge, even though he was erroneously listed as dead himself on the rolls in 2006. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2210 "2012-08-05T15:02:21Z")
> [@](#): > > …Scott has defended the purge, even though he was erroneously listed as dead himself on the rolls in 2006. Mmmm, yes. “Erroneously”, of course. Has anyone actually seen the long-form death certificate? I didn’t think so… ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2012, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2211 "2012-08-06T03:27:45Z")
[Declarations of victory might be a bit premature.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-ohio-and-elsewhere-battles-over-state-voting-laws-head-to-court/2012/08/05/a56b8ad6-dc19-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_story.html) There are numerous lawsuits in action about Republican democracy-suppression tactics. ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2012, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2212 "2012-08-06T04:39:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s funny, for two reasons. One is that ensuring voter confidence was the state interest advanced by the state of Indiana when defending their law in the courts. It is thus a major interest and rationale in support of the laws. I admit I’m not up on the details, but on the face of it, this is incorrect reasoning. Just because the state of Indiana pretended that some bullshit concept “x” was their “interest” doesn’t mean it IS “a major interest an rationale” (much less _their_ major interest and rationale). Just replace the words “is thus” (in the last sentence of yours I quoted) with “was claimed to be,” and you’re good to go. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2012, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2213 "2012-08-06T13:10:04Z")
Certainly going to wonders for the “voter’s confidence” amongst those voters insulted and hampered by this bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2012, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2214 "2012-08-06T16:33:54Z")
> [@Hyperelastic](#): > > Democrats want uniform early voting rules, but Republicans say they disadvantage citizens living overseas, who need longer to get their votes in. I don’t think the scenarios are by any means analogous. For one, the purpose of early voting is to increase turnout, not reduce it. In fact, Republicans in Florida [restricted early voting](http://truth-out.org/news/item/9418-congressional-black-caucus-rallies-preachers-to-tackle-voter-id-laws) (despite turnout of [over a million](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_voting#United_States)). It’s pretty clear the equality under the law Democrats seek is in order to increase the democratic validity (as measured by how best Congress matches the population) rather than reduce it, by extending the early voting laws as best they could. According to wiki, suits were filed in Maryland because early voting could lead to fraud, which is the same motivator for voter ID laws (except mail-ins presumably wouldn’t require ID). Edit: Not to mention, I haven’t heard of any comment from Ohio Democrats saying “restricting military members from voting will guarantee an Obama victory” or anything comparable. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2012, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2215 "2012-08-06T22:02:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@me](#): > > > > The voter ID issue is incredibly dissimilar to the MA senatorial special elections issue. Reasonable and impartial people can reasonably hold quite dissimilar opinions about them, and have quite dissimilar reactions to them, without demonstrating any level of hypocrisy. > > Absolutely disagree. I (obviously) disagree with a fair bit of your post, but this one kind of takes the cake, for me. Here’s a brief summary of two situations: (1) The Dem-controlled state legislature of MA, which makes laws concerning what happens when a US Senator from MA needs to be appointed/elected in the middle of a term due to a sudden vacancy, changed the rule from “appointed by the governor” to “special election” when it looked like it might matter, and the governor was a Republican, and then changed it back again when it looked like it might matter, and the governor was a Democract. In neither case (as far as I know) did they offer any particular justification. (Note: I can’t remember whether they switched A-\>B-\>A or B-\>A-\>B. Seems like 6 of one, half a dozen of the other, as long as they were doing it for partisan advantage each time.) (2) Republican-controlled state governments are making laws which increase the requirements for ID required for voters in elections in various states. They claim that this is to address the issue of voter fraud and to increase voter confidence. Critics charge that those are both basically non-issues, that the proposed changes wouldn’t address them anyhow, and that the real Republican agenda is to suppress voting among Dem-heavy demographics by adding additional hurdles before they can vote Do you agree that those are both fair descriptions? If not, why not? And if so, then how on earth do you think those are so close to identical that someone MUST have the same reaction to both of them? I mean, I can (if you wish) list several important factors that are present in either one of them but not in the other. I’m not saying that I can prove what someone’s opinion should or should not be, I’m saying that I’m sure as hell not arrogant enough to state that someone HAS to have the same opinion about both. > [@Bricker](#): > > > [@me](#): > > > > (4) Pointing out that someone has not posted about topic X, or has not expressed outrage about topic X, proves almost nothing about their opinion of topic X. > > In general, agree. However, there are special cases in which the refusal to express an opinion is tantamount to expressing an opinion. So if we’re arguing about some topic X, and I say “hey, what’s your opinion on Y, I’m going to use it to prove that you’re a hypocrite”, where Y is some other topic that you know a general outline of, and it seems to you that Y, while having a few gross similarities to X, is really entirely different, and thus not relevant, and you say that it doesn’t matter and you refuse to get hijacked onto the defensive in that fashion, then (a) I can then conclude that I know what your position is, and (b) that you’re a hypocrite, and (c) refer to you as intellectually incurious… all of that without my even having to put forth a single bit of argument as to why X and Y are similar in the first place? Wow… I did not know I could do that. I can’t wait to give it a shot! > [@Bricker](#): > > > [@me](#): > > > > (5a) And that sort of argument, in the context of the SDMB, almost never results in anything other than hijacking and derailing the thread. Seriously, you spent a fairly large amount of this thread trying to bring up the issue of the MA senatorial special elections. Did that actually get us anywhere, other than to have a meta-discussion of that topic? What was your planned endgame? I mean, I can imagine you coming up with a couple of cites showing that voter fraud is a bigger issue than I thought, and that the voter ID laws were not as onerous as I had thought, and the combination of those cites and some clever arguing on your part might make me at least partly reconsider or retract my position. But how the heck do you ever get anywhere productive or meaningful by bringing up a vaguely similar topic and starting to throw around accusations of hypocrisy? I mean, if that’s what you enjoy, then I guess you can go right ahead, but if you have at least the glimmer of an idea that what you say might actually cause people to reconsider their present opinions and even in the smallest way maybe kind of come around to your way of thinking even a tiny bit, do you really think that’s the way to go about it? > > Is that really a question? It went on for a while. It was certainly not a single question, it was part of: " here are some positions I hold with respect to the voter ID issue, and the larger issues of electoral fairness and hypocrisy. Please express your opinions on each of these positions…" ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2012, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2216 "2012-08-07T19:03:56Z")
If anyone wants any insight into how Bricker can be so regularly dishonest: > **[Report: Cheaters Get 'High' From Breaking The Rules](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cheaters-high-incentive-break-rules_n_1749053?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009)** > > Report: Cheaters Get 'High' From Breaking The Rules ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2012, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2217 "2012-08-08T02:20:21Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Edit: Not to mention, I haven’t heard of any comment from Ohio Democrats saying “restricting military members from voting will guarantee an Obama victory” or anything comparable. Are you aware that Obama and the DNC don’t actually want to restrict anything? In reality they want everyone to be able to vote early all the way up to Monday before the election. Ohio didn’t give the military 3 extra days, they took 3 days away from the civilian population in 2004. Guess which group of people used to vote in large numbers on the Sunday before the election? Guess which group was in power when that option was taken away? We get it. The Republican party doesn’t want blacks to vote. Keep pretending otherwise all you want. As an aside, comparing the actions of politicians isn’t really germane to the problem most of us have with Bricker and his ilk. I want fair and easy voting for all, even if that costs the Democratic party every election for the next 50 years. So do most of my fellow liberals in this thread. If the Democratic politicians fought to make it difficult for pro-life, gun-wielding, homophobic white supremacists to vote, I’d call them on it. Last I checked, Bricker isn’t a politician, but he doesn’t seem to give a shit about helping ensure that everyone can vote and will happily lie his fucking ass off defending a bogus excuse for reducing the number of black, Hispanic, and poor voters, as long as it gets his guy elected. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2012, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2218 "2012-08-08T02:31:01Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > If anyone wants any insight into how Bricker can be so regularly dishonest: > > [Cheaters Get 'High' From Breaking The Rules: Study | HuffPost Impact](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/cheaters-high-incentive-break-rules_n_1749053.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009) If anyone wants insight into why illegal voters would vote even though the risk of being caught exists, read the above link. Thanks. Oh, and sorry to hear about your getting fired, Lobo. I had no idea you were a CFO. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2012, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2219 "2012-08-08T02:34:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If anyone wants insight into why illegal voters would vote even though the risk of being caught exists, read the above link. > > Thanks. > > Oh, and sorry to hear about your getting fired, Lobo. I had no idea you were a CFO. I’m self employed. I can’t fire me! _I quit!_ ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2012, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2220 "2012-08-08T02:53:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If anyone wants insight into why illegal voters would vote even though the risk of being caught exists, read the above link… Not sure I follow you here, **Bricker**. Are you offering a potential motivation for people who aren’t doing what isn’t happening? But if they were, that might be why? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=110) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=112)