# 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:** 148
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2941 "2012-11-09T20:18:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That is a distinctly different message than **septimus** ’ message: > > [QUOTE=septimus] > Released from police custody, Evil Rick sends Suzy flowers and offers to take her out for lunch next time, before raping her. No, Brickhead, I’m not OK with that. Now, maybe liberals are more hip to the subtle nuance of meaning than conservatives, but that doesn’t seem to me like, “Voter ID isn’t a bad idea as such.” [/QUOTE] Boy, you really are dense, aren’t you? I shouldn’t have tried a “metaphor” with you, without providing Cliif Notes. Please use Google to translate the following into whatever your Native language is: **Voter ID isn’t a bad idea as such. But I want the system designed by good-spirited pro-Democracy people, not the cretins like you who just tried to rape us. Get it?** ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2942 "2012-11-09T20:42:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > They don’t; they can use those extant IDs to vote. If they don’t have any of those, they now have the free ID for voting. > > From the Pennsylvania Supreme Court: > > So far as I can discern, the court’s rationale rested squarely on the lack of sufficient time to distribute the cards, as opposed to any per se constitutional infirmity with the scheme itself. > > Do you disagree? OK, so now they can go do their ID card thing and it will be in place for next time (unless it gets sabotaged for some reason). HOWEVER I stand by my original suspcion that the whole thing was too “coincidental” and too “convenient” and too suspicious in that is was happening during the election. That is the “sufficient time” issue. Now let’s see if “certain of those people” have trouble getting a card. Not that it could ever happen in THIS country, where everyone is totally honest :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2943 "2012-11-09T20:45:55Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > This seems to me a commendably candid admission that the voter-ID movement is to some extent about considering poverty a disqualification for voting. > > Many conservatives do not like the way poor people tend to vote, and (or perhaps hence) they think that poor people ought to be discouraged from voting. > > **Bricker** is pointing out, AFAICT quite correctly, that those conservatives are entitled to push for the implementation of their views as far as the law will allow them to do so. Saying “but voter-ID laws tend to disenfranchise poor people” is not in and of itself a rebuttal to them, because the whole **point** of the voter-ID laws for them is to disenfranchise poor people. > Even if that so-called “real need” is ultimately manufactured by elitist conservatives deliberately manipulating and misinforming voters about the integrity of election results precisely in order to diminish their confidence in it? > > Suppose I manage to convince large swathes of the electorate that extraterrestrial aliens routinely put bombs in the body cavities of middle-aged white male voters on election days and therefore such voters need to be strip-searched when they get to the polls. The electorate is understandably worried about this “threat” and favors legislation mandating such precautions. > > Obviously, such legislation serves a real need, because people need to feel confident in the physical safety of the electoral process. So we should pass it, right? Because by **Bricker** logic, the fact that this “threat” inspiring the legislation _doesn’t happen to have any basis in what’s actually happening_ is irrelevant. To get in the spirit of Romeny’s “private” meeting with supporters… _fuck those 47 percenters, those leeches and bloodsucking bastards will never vote for me anyway._ ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2944 "2012-11-09T20:54:19Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Voter ID isn’t a bad idea as such. But I want the system designed by good-spirited pro-Democracy people, not the cretins like you who just tried to rape us. Get it? Got it. Except… I don’t really care what you want. Or, more accurately, I care about as much as you care what I want. Each of us has different ideas about how the system should be designed, and by whom. So how do we settle the conflict? Hint: we already have a system for doing just that. Only one of us opposes its use. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2945 "2012-11-09T20:54:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. They do serve a real need; people need to feel confident in the integrity of election results. Thank you for your response. I am going to confine my reply to this one part. Where is the evidence that voter fraud, of the type that could be combated by voter ID, is of sufficient concern to “people” to override the obvious concerns about voter suppression that arise from voter ID laws? Which is the greater concern and which is the greater threat to fair elections? I hear in various places a lot of concern about voter fraud arising from voting machines misbehaving, or from vote-by-mail. Voter ID laws do nothing for that. So which people are the ones who are not confident in the integrity of their elections, based solely on things like people voting twice, or unregistered persons voting, or whatever other “voter fraud” can be dreamed up? And where is the evidence for this lack of confidence? I suspect it will turn out that the people who claim to have this lack of confidence, if they exist, will be the people who agree with you politically; but this is only my own suspicion and I don’t offer it as fact. I wait to see what actual evidence there might be. Roddy ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2946 "2012-11-09T21:00:42Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Suppose I manage to convince large swathes of the electorate that extraterrestrial aliens routinely put bombs in the body cavities of middle-aged white male voters on election days and therefore such voters need to be strip-searched when they get to the polls. The electorate is understandably worried about this “threat” and favors legislation mandating such precautions. > > Obviously, such legislation serves a real need, because people need to feel confident in the physical safety of the electoral process. So we should pass it, right? Because by **Bricker** logic, the fact that this “threat” inspiring the legislation _doesn’t happen to have any basis in what’s actually happening_ is irrelevant. But that applies equally to ANY question before the body politic. Do we define some body to sit in judgement and ascertain the truth of a proposition before the legislature is empowered to act? How will such a body’s members be chosen? How long will this super-legislature sit? What if their factual determination is also skewed? Should we then empower a meta-super legislature to overrule them? It seems to me your proposal boils down to, “ **Kimstu** gets to decide these things.” Yes? Because you reject the current method; other methods are equally susceptible to the same flaw you identify with the current one. What kind of process can we agree upon to settle these sorts of disputes such that you would recognize its legitimacy even if you disagree with its results? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2947 "2012-11-09T21:13:46Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > Thank you for your response. I am going to confine my reply to this one part. > > Where is the evidence that voter fraud, of the type that could be combated by voter ID, is of sufficient concern to “people” to override the obvious concerns about voter suppression that arise from voter ID laws? Which is the greater concern and which is the greater threat to fair elections? > > I hear in various places a lot of concern about voter fraud arising from voting machines misbehaving, or from vote-by-mail. Voter ID laws do nothing for that. > > So which people are the ones who are not confident in the integrity of their elections, based solely on things like people voting twice, or unregistered persons voting, or whatever other “voter fraud” can be dreamed up? And where is the evidence for this lack of confidence? > > I suspect it will turn out that the people who claim to have this lack of confidence, if they exist, will be the people who agree with you politically; but this is only my own suspicion and I don’t offer it as fact. I wait to see what actual evidence there might be. A study quoted earlier in this thread placed the incidence of improper voting – non-citizens or felons voting, for example – at 0.004%. That translates to about a hundred votes out of 2.5 million, if I haven’t dropped a decimal point. Does that strike you as at least plausible? ---
**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:** [November 9, 2012, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2948 "2012-11-09T21:23:51Z")
Everyone should remember that Bricker supports making it harder or impossible for millions of Americans to vote to stop tens of people from fraudulently voting. Never mind that in-person voter fraud isn’t even the most common type of fraudulent voting. So making it harder or impossible for thousands or millions of people to stop a hand-full is what Bricker thinks would make voters _more confident_. It’s quite stupid. And only his bald desire for partisan gain at any cost blinds him to it. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2949 "2012-11-09T21:26:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But that applies equally to ANY question before the body politic. Do you have \*any \*fucking idea what the Constitution is _for_? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2950 "2012-11-09T21:28:55Z")
That votey-suppressy thing, how’s that workin’ out for ya? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2951 "2012-11-09T21:30:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But that applies equally to ANY question before the body politic. Of course it does. I’m not disputing that legislation and the courts are the proper way of implementing and modifying public policy, even when the motivation for policy proposals happens to be imaginary fears whipped up by manipulative elitists. I’m jeering at you personally for **supporting** policy proposals motivated by imaginary fears whipped up by manipulative elitists. Piously intoning “Well, I myself am not a manipulative elitist, but I think the public’s fears on this issue deserve to be assuaged with legislative action” is malarkey. If the public’s fears are illusory, then no, they **don’t** deserve to be assuaged with legislative action, even though we cannot (nor should we) prevent manipulative elitists from pushing for such legislative action. The question is not “Should the body politic be somehow autocratically prevented from passing stupid legislation in response to imaginary threats?” We both agree that the answer to that question is “No”. Rather, the question is “Should we be **supporting** stupid legislation in response to imaginary threats?” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2952 "2012-11-09T21:33:02Z")
Except that our system demands a degree of trust. As we are not just governing ourselves, but governing one another. We must be able to trust that no one will try to rig the system, otherwise we have little more than a slightly more egalitarian version of tyranny. You have stipulated that voter suppression is the motive of at least some of the authors of these laws. Why should we obliged to accept their judgement as equal to our own, when they have abrogated their responsibility and their duty to uphold democratic principles? Are they not sworn in on that basis, do they not pledge to respect those processes? Why are we obliged to respect their opinions when they cheat? You rag out on me and mine for not being sufficiently outraged about Massachussets, yet have nothing to say about these people? No renounce, denounce and condemn? And this just before you deliver another scathing indictment of liberal hypocrisy. Point out to us where you condemned such people, how you have worked to oppose them, what efforts you have made to stop them. Show us where you are the worthy inheritor of such men as Barry Goldwater, then perhaps we will offer your opinions the respect you demand, but refuse to earn. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2953 "2012-11-09T21:55:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Does that strike you as at least plausible? It’s plausible that there is a half-a-hangnail’s worth of fraud that could be stopped by having mandatory voter ID. The problem is, we don’t agree that cutting off an entire hand is a reasonable way of eliminating this hangnail. ETA: Especially when the cries of “cut off the hand! Cut off the hand!” are coming loudest and strongest just before an important election. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2954 "2012-11-09T22:00:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A study quoted earlier in this thread placed the incidence of improper voting – non-citizens or felons voting, for example – at 0.004%. That translates to about a hundred votes out of 2.5 million, if I haven’t dropped a decimal point. > > Does that strike you as at least plausible? Plausible as a number of fraudulent votes? Yes. Plausible as a cause for such concern that we have to take (probably damaging) steps to overcome it? No. I can live with 100 fraudulent votes out of 2.5 million, even in a close race (that would not have made a difference in 2000, the closest presidential race in recent memory, as an example). Does anyone really expect any system to be so perfect that there is both a) no fraud, and b) no voter suppression? I don’t. And if I have to choose one of those two, I pick b). Voter suppression does not seem to be a problem for you, at least not enough to rise to the surface in your comments (if I have missed that concern in the 60 pages of this thread, I apologize). Roddy ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2955 "2012-11-09T22:49:53Z")
[http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Woman-arrested-in-Nevada-for-alleged-voter-fraud-4004575.php](http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Woman-arrested-in-Nevada-for-alleged-voter-fraud-4004575.php) > [@](#): > > A criminal complaint accuses Roxanne Rubin of casting a ballot at an early voting location in Henderson on Oct. 29, then trying to vote again at a polling site in Las Vegas on the same day. … > Rubin, 56, lives in Henderson and is a registered Republican, according to the Clark County registrar’s office. > > Rubin was arrested around 4 p.m. at the Riviera hotel-casino, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. She was charged with one felony count of voting more than once in the same election. > > “There are two important points worth noting in this case,” Miller said in a statement. "First is that, as we’ve said and demonstrated in the past, we take all elections complaints very seriously and investigate them thoroughly. > > "Second, this demonstrates the integrity of the system. [http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/09/1170281/republicans-caught-voter-fraud-show-id-laws/](http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/09/1170281/republicans-caught-voter-fraud-show-id-laws/) > [@](#): > > Why Republicans Caught Committing Voter Fraud Show Photo ID Laws Are Unnecessary > > Over the past two years, state legislators affiliated with the controversial American Legislative Exchange Council mounted a furious push to enact strict vote-suppressing voter ID laws. But while advocates claimed these laws are necessary to prevent voter impersonation fraud, two arrests Tuesday demonstrate that the opposite is true. … In Nevada, 56-year-old Roxanne Rubin, a Republican, was arrested on Nov. 2 for allegedly trying to vote twice, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. The newspaper quoted a report by an investigator with the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office that said Rubin “was unhappy with the process; specifically in that her identification was not checked.” … She was arrested at the Riviera Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas and charged with a category “D” felony. > > On Tuesday in New Mexico, a Republican poll watcher was taken into police custody after also apparently trying to test the system. According to the Las Cruces Sun-News, the man voted, then obtained a second provisional ballot and announced he was simply “testing the system to see if people could get away with voting twice.” > > There are many reasons why in person voter fraud — the “problem” these voter ID laws purport to solve — is virtually non-existent. Most people accept the principle of “one person, one vote” and don’t try to cheat the system because doing so is morally wrong. Others recognize that doing so is illegal and do not want to risk being charged with a category “D” felony. And with more than 121 million votes cast in Tuesday’s presidential election, voting twice would be a hugely inefficient way to influence the election. > **[RNC Disavows Consultant Arrested For Election Fraud](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/reince-priebus-rnc-consultant-voter-fraud_n_1988619)** > > RNC Disavows Consultant Arrested For Election Fraud > [@](#): > > WAUSAU, Wis. – The chair of the Republican National Committee is disavowing a consultant who has been arrested for allegedly throwing out voter registration forms in Virginia, saying there is “no tolerance” for such fraud in the GOP. > > “It’s wrong,” RNC Chair Reince Priebus told The Huffington Post at a get-out-the-vote stop in Wausau, Wis. “If it’s true, the guy should be punished. He was fired, and he should have been fired. There’s no tolerance for this stuff.” > > Colin Small, 23, was arrested in Virginia on Thursday for allegedly throwing eight completed voter registration forms into a dumpster. Small worked for Pinpoint, which was hired by the Republican Party of Virginia to register voters. In Virginia and other states, it is a crime to accept a completed registration form and not hand it in. Hmmmm. It would APPEAR that the side that was screaming about fraud is the side that was DOING it. How Rovian is THAT. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2956 "2012-11-09T22:57:59Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Hmmmm. It would APPEAR that the side that was screaming about fraud is the side that was DOING it. How Rovian is THAT. Well that just shows you that it really is A PROBLEM, that must be STAMPED OUT, and the only way to do this is with Voter ID. Well, we won’t stress about it right away, but immediately before the next election? THEN IT WILL BE AN EMERGENCY! (what do you want to bet that these stories will be morphed by the right-wing nutbars over the next few years, and we’ll be hearing about them as attempts by the evil liberals to attempt fraud?) Protip: When it’s your OWN SIDE that is attempting (and failing) to destroy confidence in the system, it’s pretty disingenuous to cite “lack of confidence in the system” as a reason to get your way. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2957 "2012-11-09T23:10:17Z")
Some of them, at least, believe it. They are so certain that they are the majority, they are forced to find some plausible reason that they lose. “Voter fraud” fits the bill nicely. The people who exploit this opinion probably do not share it, but it is useful. It is a grave weakness of democracy that people can be so easily misled, and it will be a fatal weakness if we are not alert and vigilant. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2012, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2958 "2012-11-10T11:18:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t really care what you want. Bullshit. You do care what pro-democracy people like me want, because you want the opposite. We have to fight the assholes like you every step of the way, because, as you admit yourself, between the lines, as soon as you get political control you change the rules to make that control permanent. Ohio just voted for Obama, but is already proposing a rule change which, if passed by its GOP-controlled legislature, would have given most of its 2012 electoral votes (had it been in effect then) to Romney even with the non-suppressed vote. (To save you time, I just now posted in the other thread what your brilliant response to that move would be.) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2012, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2959 "2012-11-10T15:23:16Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > Plausible as a number of fraudulent votes? Yes. Plausible as a cause for such concern that we have to take (probably damaging) steps to overcome it? No. I can live with 100 fraudulent votes out of 2.5 million, even in a close race (that would not have made a difference in 2000, the closest presidential race in recent memory, as an example). > > Does anyone really expect any system to be so perfect that there is both a) no fraud, and b) no voter suppression? I don’t. And if I have to choose one of those two, I pick b). Voter suppression does not seem to be a problem for you, at least not enough to rise to the surface in your comments (if I have missed that concern in the 60 pages of this thread, I apologize). > Roddy Well, here’s why I am not concerned about this instance of voter suppression: it’s not unreasonable. What I mean is: asking for ID,when we already require ID for dozens of other functions, seems so straightforward that even if it discourages some voters, I don’t think that discouragement was itself reasonable. The analogy I used before was: suppose I announced that I had a voodoo doll, and would use it to curse every person who voted for Obama. I showed the doll and the cursing procedure on a slick TV commercial. And suppose you were then able to prove, convincingly, that a thousand voters were disturbed enough that they didn’t vote. My reaction would be: who cares? I am allowed to do what I did, it’s not unreasonable, and if votes are lost anyway the onus is on he voter who let himself be stopped by such a slight barrier. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2012, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/2960 "2012-11-10T15:46:47Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Bullshit. You do care what pro-democracy people like me want, because you want the opposite. > > We have to fight the assholes like you every step of the way, because, as you admit yourself, between the lines, as soon as you get political control you change the rules to make that control permanent. Ohio just voted for Obama, but is already proposing a rule change which, if passed by its GOP-controlled legislature, would have given most of its 2012 electoral votes (had it been in effect then) to Romney even with the non-suppressed vote. > > (To save you time, I just now posted in the other thread what your brilliant response to that move would be.) You still don’t say what system you propose to decide such questions. For the purpose of this argument, let’s say you’re right: I want the opposite of what you want. So here we are in a country. You want one policy; I want another – the opposite, in fact. What system shall determine which of us gets our desire? See the point I am making? I accept the results of the system we agreed to use, even when it cuts against me. I may argue for change but I don’t call the results I don’t like illegitimate. You only accept the results when they please you, and declare that contrary results are illegitimate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=147) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=149)