# 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:** 21
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/401 "2012-06-16T18:51:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Then why did you say that no one had answered you? > If you were to learn it came from a legislator, would that satisfy you? So, why does a lawyer answer a question with a question? Well, why _shouldn’t_ a lawyer answer a question with a question? Its perfectly legal! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/402 "2012-06-16T18:57:30Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > Which are required to vote now. I don’t have nearly as large of a problem with putting hurdles in front of the privilege of driving. Those same hurdles don’t belong in the voting process. Unless you want to suppress votes, that is. > What the fuck? You really are a piece of work. Gee, why? I have seen nothing but statements about why voter fraud isn’t a problem, because it’s low numbers won’t affect any election. Right? So why am I a “piece of work” for pointing out the same calculus affects your point? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/403 "2012-06-16T18:59:27Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So, why does a lawyer answer a question with a question? Well, why _shouldn’t_ a lawyer answer a question with a question? Its perfectly legal! In this case, because I am trying to figure out what answers will be swept aside as irrelevant. If i can point to a legislator making the point, but it doesn’t matter – then why bother? ---
**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:** [June 16, 2012, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/404 "2012-06-16T19:00:43Z")
Okay so in this thread we have Uzi, demanding that those lazy twats should just get IDs. The fact that millions don’t have them means to him that millions are too lazy to vote. He’s what I’d call the _Pissed Off Conservative_. We have Magellan, who’s just dim and pretty much echos anything he hears that’s right-ish. He’s what I’d call the _Simple Answers Conservative_. We have Emacknight, who I think is suffering from a bad case of the _libertarians_. He wants people to take responsibility and get IDs. So he’s the _Ayn Rand Memorial Spank Bank Conservative_. We’ve got Bricker, who is smart enough to know the rest of it is bullshit, but is largely amoral and uncaring about anyone that isn’t in his immediate circle. And he didn’t need no government helping him! So Bricker is a _Successful Without Any Help Conservative_. It’s like birdwatching. But instead of shitting on your car, they shit all over American ideals. So, great defense of this GOP initiative, guys. You are really doing God’s work here. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/405 "2012-06-16T19:02:26Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Perhaps you should have your own thread about this, **Bricker**? One about how voter ID laws are one hundred percent kosher and full of crunchy goodness, and leave this one to be about how the misuse and abuse of such laws are all stinky? About which, apparently, you have nothing more to say but yeah, tough shit, walk it off, legal and constitutional, you lose, neener neener. > > Did you notice the thread title? Does it say “I Pit Voter ID Laws Because They Are Illegal and UnConstitutional”? No? Well, then, why do you keep dragging the conversation in that direction? Beside, you’ve already stipulated the main point, that these laws hinder the voting of likely Dem voters, you just want to pretend that its an accident, an “oopsy-daisy”, an unintended consequence of a noble endeavor. > > We aren’t against puppies, we are against rabies. You can defend puppies all day long without once making a salient point, because it isn’t about puppies. Is this somehow too complicated for you to grasp, after a mere seven years of higher education? Yeah, it’s pretty frustrating to have someone come along and puncture your confident assertions, isn’t it? That’s my job, though. ---
**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:** [June 16, 2012, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/406 "2012-06-16T19:07:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yeah, it’s pretty frustrating to have someone come along and puncture your confident assertions, isn’t it? The trouble is you do nothing but bat your eyelashes and pretend to be too stupid to understand what is being said. > [@](#): > > That’s my job, though. Well, you actually suck at it. _Pretending to be too stupid to understand_ isn’t the same thing as _showing an assertion is without merit_. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/407 "2012-06-16T19:51:44Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > The trouble is you do nothing but bat your eyelashes and pretend to be too stupid to understand what is being said. > > Well, you actually suck at it. _Pretending to be too stupid to understand_ isn’t the same thing as _showing an assertion is without merit_. Except, Lobo, I haven’t said I don’t understand anything. Nor have I pretended not to understand anything in the thread. Instead, I have rebutted claims made in this thread. My basic position has been, and remains, that photo ID laws for voters area. Wise idea, because they will allow meaningful enforcement of anti-fraud laws. The general tenor of the response has been that because these laws may cause people who want to vote not to vote, they are bad. Since I don’t agree that they present restrictions that are too onerous, I don’t share that concern. Please tell me what I don’t understand. Or what I pretend not to understand. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/408 "2012-06-16T19:55:41Z")
Maybe he _isn’t_ pretending, **Lobohan**. It wouldn’t be a matter of intelligence as such, but of the tightness of partisan blinkers. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/409 "2012-06-16T20:26:43Z")
Here’s how it goes: the topic of the thread is the designated hitter rule, which I hold to be an abomination. **Bricker** responds that the typical baseball game is designed to be nine innings long. I point out that the designated hitter rule places certain players in special categories with special privilege. \*\*Bricker \*\*cites the Big Golden Book of Baseball, page eight, wherein in states that a baseball game is usually nine innings long, except in the case of a tie. This is repeated six or ten or eleventy-seven times, until **Bricker** declares that he has punctured my arguments adroitly, does a victory lap and pats himself on the back vigorously, having once again won the argument. His office wall must be festooned with Participation Ribbons. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/410 "2012-06-16T20:32:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Pretty extensive experience in the world of criminal law. 😕 “With an ID requirement, you have…” pretty extensive experience in the world of criminal law “to take to a jury?” Why don’t you try reading what you are responding to? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/411 "2012-06-16T23:21:29Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > 😕 “With an ID requirement, you have…” pretty extensive experience in the world of criminal law “to take to a jury?” > > Why don’t you try reading what you are responding to? I’ve defended a boatload of bad check charges. So I am fairly confident I understand what it takes to convict someone when the issues include an identity that was verified by a photo ID. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/412 "2012-06-16T23:31:20Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Here’s how it goes: the topic of the thread is the designated hitter rule, which I hold to be an abomination. **Bricker** responds that the typical baseball game is designed to be nine innings long. I point out that the designated hitter rule places certain players in special categories with special privilege. \*\*Bricker \*\*cites the Big Golden Book of Baseball, page eight, wherein in states that a baseball game is usually nine innings long, except in the case of a tie. > > This is repeated six or ten or eleventy-seven times, until **Bricker** declares that he has punctured my arguments adroitly, does a victory lap and pats himself on the back vigorously, having once again won the argument. > > His office wall must be festooned with Participation Ribbons. What you want it to be about is the evil motives supposedly animating the various state legislatures that support photo ID laws as a condition to cast a vote. So why am I talking about the legalities? Because your argument is based on an inference. You don’t have a mind reading machine; you’re not Kreskin. So when you say the motives involved are impure, you necessarily are asking the reader to infer that this is so, because any other motive is not credible. When I point out that these actions are legal and have valuable effects in a legal context, I am supplying another, more salubrious, and credible motive – to rebut the inference you urge upon readers. Suppose I were to offer absolutely convincing proof that the city council passed speeding laws to raise revenue in the form of traffic tickets. I have them on hidden camera admitting that if the revenue weren’t there, they would not bother. Does that mean we should be against the speed laws? Demand they be repealed? No. Even though they motive for their passage is improper, if we can see the laws serve an independent good, then we should keep them. You want to keep the argument focused on the improper motives of the lawmakers. I don’t care. I want the argument on whether the laws are wise in their own right. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/413 "2012-06-17T00:59:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’ve defended a boatload of bad check charges. > > So I am fairly confident I understand what it takes to convict someone when the issues include an identity that was verified by a photo ID. So just fucking say it then. What would the evidence be? Why are you being evasive? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/414 "2012-06-17T01:00:07Z")
So. Your case is bolstered, then, by slanderous innuendo such as: > [@](#): > > …If the new laws won’t stop illegal aliens and convicted felons from casting their reliably Democratic votes, why is one side so gung ho to stop those laws?.. Bereft of any evidence worth the name that there is any voter fraud worth our serious attention, you offer your intuition about the motives of Democrats. And my argument is “based on an inference”? Aren’t you dangerously close to the sort of hypocrisy you decry so very, very often? The actual substance of my argument you have already stipulated, as you did here: > [@](#): > > …OK, I admit it: The reason “liberals” care about this issue is that, in fact, the result of GOP’s vote-suppression drives will be to reduce the portion of voters voting Democratic… Mind reading is OK when you do it, but not for me? And who is this Kweskin fellow? I think I remember the old folks talking about somebody with a similar name. This is perhaps your most egregiouisly insulting argument wherein, once again, you pretend not to understand what others are saying: > [@](#): > > …Suppose I were to offer absolutely convincing proof that the city council passed speeding laws to raise revenue in the form of traffic tickets. I have them on hidden camera admitting that if the revenue weren’t there, they would not bother. > > Does that mean we should be against the speed laws? Demand they be repealed?.. Of course not, its beneath the dignity of a slime mold to even offer such an embarrassingly bad analogy. There are posters here so genuinely stupid that I can fairly offer them some slack, they know not what they do, nor how they do it. But they deserve my compassionate restraint, they don’t have the firepower, I don’t challenge Stevie Hawking to a Mambo contest. You are not offered such leniency, you demand respect for your intelligence. And you have it, but there is a cost. A just and worthy law is a fine thing, a gem of our civilization. By precisely the same token, a just and worthy law warped and twisted to an unjust end is a perversion. As a deft hand with erotic fiction can be a joy and a boon, crude porn is disgusting. If justice were not possible, and men incapable of it, then injustice is merely a universal condition. But justice is possible, men do reason, and when we fail at either or both, the failure is that much worse. The motivation for these actions don’t require mind-reading, just as jury verdicts do not require a universal wisdom of Solomon. We reason, we arrive at a reasonable conclusion. The restrictions on voting rights, the restriction on voting times and hours, and the restrictions on voting registration add up to a convincing case for voter suppression. Not beyond _any_ doubt, no leap of faith is required here. Beyond a _reasonable_ doubt. Now, you may assert as you claim to, that the beneficial effects of these actions far outweigh any negative effects. But you cannot prove the problem truly exists, and cannot prove that these efforts will solve the problem. Indeed, since we have almost no evidence that the problem truly exists, even if the problem is fixed we won’t know! Are there no solutions, none, that doesn’t require these adverse effects? You started out by declaiming on the sacred value of voter confidence. Surely a prejudicial application of the law to adversely effect the power of a given block of voters cannot have a positive effect on _their_ confidence? Do you imagine that black voters who find their Sunday voting custom specifically enjoined, they stand about and say “Well, that’s OK, because now I feel so much better about my electoral confidence!”? What about them? They don’t count? Or have you some reliable metric that shows that the positive effect of these actions outweigh the negative? Would that be in **Bricker** Units, this measurement? Once again, bereft of actual proof, you would be falling back on bald assertion. Your argument is little more than a tower of teetering rationalizations that can barely stand on their own, much less offer each other support. You demand that they be offered a respect they do not deserve, based on evidence you cannot offer. To sum up: Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot! ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/415 "2012-06-17T01:10:02Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Okay so in this thread we have Uzi, demanding that those lazy twats should just get IDs. The fact that millions don’t have them means to him that millions are too lazy to vote. He’s what I’d call the _Pissed Off Conservative_. You haven’t proven that it is too difficult or expensive to get an ID. Again, every other civilized country’s population seems to manage it just fine, yet you Americans can’t seem to make it work. If I said by next Wednesday, you had to get your ID, then you’d have a point. It would be almost impossible. Yet, you have years between elections! Years! Do you know what a year is such that you can honestly say it is impossible to get your ass down to whatever government agency handles this shit to do what you have to do? That you can’t cover off most of the requirements online before you get there so you don’t have to go back again? That you can’t arrange a friend or relative to drive you there if transportation is such a burden? The person who can’t get their ID within that time has either something seriously fucked up with their situation (a very small subset of non-ID holders) for which I honestly do feel sorry for them (a great opportunity for some enterprising political party to help them sort it out), or are so stupid such that simple tasks elude them, or are just plain too lazy. You seem to think that the latter two would just vote if you made it even easier for them to do so and that it is a great loss for democracy if they don’t vote.:dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/416 "2012-06-17T01:36:41Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Interesting that you bring that up. > > [Voter ID Accessibility Act of 2012 (2012; 112th Congress H.R. 4126) - GovTrack.us](http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr4126) > > Check out the “cosponsors” bit. _Not a single republican_. That bill is not likely to make it out of congress. I see, you expect the government to do something rather than the parties who want these people to vote for them. > [@](#): > > You know what I love about this post? “Can’t be bothered”. Not “Can’t take days off” or “Can’t afford to spend a bunch of money”, “Can’t be bothered”. That’s obviously putting the situation in a fair light, eh? In any case, I reject this notion, and would like a citation if you want to keep assuming it. But hey, you want to assume that only 1/100th of those involved can be bothered? _You’re still not making the election more accurate!_ Accurate? No person should vote who can’t prove who they are. Did you see the link I posted on how Canada does it? Those 10% who don’t have an ID can drag along a friend/neighbor who does have an ID to vouch for them. Simple. > [@](#): > > Okay, seriously? What “opportunity”? These people could vote before. Now they can’t. Did they vote before? > [@](#): > > They probably know that the republicans will block any bill coming their way along the lines of “let’s spend money to help people get their ID easier”. So, the Republicans will be in power forever? > [@](#): > > And I mean, what do you suggest for a solution? … I’m open to suggestions, but _highly_ dubious that, you know, you _have_ any. Gee, I’ve already mentioned it. An enterprising political party would investiage the requirements and arrange to get the forms for an ID to the people who need them. They would arrange transportation. They would help these people. > [@](#): > > … the republicans are passing a modern poll tax off as a necessary security measure to a threat which is non-existent. Which every other country does now. You need an ID. Simple. Using it to vote is one of all the other useful things you can do with it. > [@](#): > > Do you deny that a wide group of laws are being made with the obvious, though not stated, goal of suppressing voter turnout? (Shorter voter registration/early voting time, draconian restrictions on voter registration groups, etc.) If I made a law that said all Black people had to vote between 1AM - 4AM, that would suppress votes from a specific subgroup. If I made that same law such that is applied to everyone, it still would still suppress votes (who wants to vote between 1am and 4am?), but it is fair to all who choose to vote. One is wrong, the other just stupid. Saying voting is held on Monday, a month from now is neither. Canadian elections are held in similar time frames with similar notice. US elections are held a bit more regularly such that it is easier to plan when you do need your ID. You keep offering excuses as if they are deal breakers. Some small portion of the population will have a problem complying. Most will not. I don’t even know how you can get a job without ID let alone vote. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/417 "2012-06-17T03:51:58Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > So just fucking say it then. What would the evidence be? Why are you being evasive? What are you talking about? Let’s take the case of [Ramon Cue](http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/01/v-print/2827629/gov-rick-scott-florida-is-absolutely.html), who I have mentioned before. Cue is not a citizen, and records show he voted in 1996. But he says he’s a schizophrenic, doesn’t remember voting and said three others have his same name and birth date. If that’s true, then he has a reasonable doubt defense built in – any of the other three could have been the voter. But if Florida had had a Voter ID with photo law, then they could show that the voter had an ID with Cue’s address and Cue’s photo. A jury can conclude from that that Cue was the voter. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/418 "2012-06-17T04:06:07Z")
Let’s get this one addressed separately: > [@elucidator](#): > > So. Your case is bolstered, then, by slanderous innuendo such as: > > [QUOTE=Bricker] > If the new laws won’t stop illegal aliens and convicted felons from casting their reliably Democratic votes, why is one side so gung ho to stop those laws? [/quote] Is that slanderous innuendo? Did I say that? You didn’t link it. Did I really say that? Or maybe I said it, but there was some context. Like, maybe, in reply to another post? > [@Ludovic](#): > > Similarly, if newer, more restrictive laws will not disenfranchise more Democratic voters than Republican, why is one side so gung ho about it? > [@Bricker](#): > > If the new laws won’t stop illegal aliens and convicted felons from casting their reliably Democratic votes, why is one side so gung ho to stop those laws? Hmmm. So is **Ludovic** ’s line ALSO “slanderous innuendo?” Or just mine? And gee, why no link? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/419 "2012-06-17T13:59:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What are you talking about? > > Let’s take the case of [Ramon Cue](http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/01/v-print/2827629/gov-rick-scott-florida-is-absolutely.html), who I have mentioned before. Cue is not a citizen, and records show he voted in 1996. But he says he’s a schizophrenic, doesn’t remember voting and said three others have his same name and birth date. > > If that’s true, then he has a reasonable doubt defense built in – any of the other three could have been the voter. But if Florida had had a Voter ID with photo law, then they could show that the voter had an ID with Cue’s address and Cue’s photo. A jury can conclude from that that Cue was the voter. All it means is that the person casting the vote had an ID that passed the polling place worker’s scrutiny. It had a picture resembling the person presenting it and the name and address of a registered voter. Yeah, there’s just no way that a fraudulent vote could be cast there! But at least _someone_ might get convicted, which is a net positive in Bricker’s world. Eta: I’m not quite sure what they are going to be convicted of - denying that they cast a valid vote? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/420 "2012-06-17T15:09:01Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > All it means is that the person casting the vote had an ID that passed the polling place worker’s scrutiny. It had a picture resembling the person presenting it and the name and address of a registered voter. > > Yeah, there’s just no way that a fraudulent vote could be cast there! But at least _someone_ might get convicted, which is a net positive in Bricker’s world. > > Eta: I’m not quite sure what they are going to be convicted of - denying that they cast a valid vote? If the person were not a US citizen, they would be convicted of casting an illegal vote. If the person were a convicted felon in a state that does not permit convicted felons to vote, they would be convicted of casting an illegal vote. The difference between this scheme and the non-ID world is obvious: without an ID scheme, there is very little risk of a non-citizen voter being caught. With ID, there is a very good chance. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=22)