# 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:** 253
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2014, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5041 "2014-06-01T18:23:52Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > It’s more predictable that frustrating by now. If some inconvenient element messes up your theory, you ignore it. No, I don’t. You would know that, if you understood what my theory was. I have explained it. You have ignored the explanation. I have asked you to summarize what you understand my theory to be, so that I could point out where you are mistaken. But you have simply refused to do this. It’s pretty clear to me that you don’t have any interest in doing that because it would rob you of the chance to keep lying about what I am saying. You don’t want to get pinned down admitting you understand me perfectly, because then you’d be forced to acknowledge it in future arguments. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2014, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5042 "2014-06-01T18:31:16Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Interesting that you ask that. Since upthread I asked you, “Also, do you think that the people who can’t find five or so hours and a weekday off to stand at the DMV don’t deserve to vote?” > > And your evasively answered that, “Nuh-Uh, they can go on the weekends!” Was that useless tangent meant to evade the question? No, it did not evade the question. As I clearly explained, no state requires any person spend five hours and a weekday in order to get ID in order to vote. > [@](#): > > Extra points for answering this question, “Do you think that someone who can’t find five hours or so out of their schedule to stand at the DMV doesn’t deserve to vote?” > > I imagine you’ll huff and say, _“In two years? Of course! Lazy Dems! [moist farting noise]”_ The answer is yes. A person unwilling to spend five hours once, over a two year period… that is not a burden that I would call onerous. I am comfortable in saying their unwillingness to expend that effort means they have chosen not to vote. I don’t know about the word “deserve.” The government is not handing out rewards to those who deserve them. I have no idea. Who “deserves” to vote. That term has no place in law in this context. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2014, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5043 "2014-06-01T18:40:01Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > So is there a practical difference between being unable to vote and being unable to get the necessary identification to vote? A I recall there are (or were) some provisions about being able to fill out a sworn statement or have someone vouch for you. Are those preserved in all or most of the proposed Voter ID laws? Yes. Every Voter ID state offers multiple avenues to proving one’s identity for the purpose of voting. I would be happy to discuss the particulars of any state whose procedures you contend are problematic. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2014, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5044 "2014-06-01T19:16:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well? Trinopus? Fear Itself? > > Is refusing or evading a pointed question is symptomatic of a weakness in an argument? Refusing to answer a pointed question is good common sense. In what year, exactly, did you last commit grand theft? You must answer with a year. ---
**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 1, 2014, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5045 "2014-06-01T19:58:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, it did not evade the question. As I clearly explained, no state requires any person spend five hours and a weekday in order to get ID in order to vote. Well, you asserted that no state requires you to only go on a weekday to get an ID, you later said that you meant in order to vote. > [@](#): > > The answer is yes. A person unwilling to spend five hours once, over a two year period… that is not a burden that I would call onerous. I am comfrtable in saying their unwillingness to expend that effort means they have chosen not to vote. Okay, now that we’ve established that you think a five hour vote tax is acceptable. Is an ten hour vote tax? I’d just like to nail you down on particulars. Can you tell me what particular hour of toil would push the ticker on to onerous? Also, would you support a hypothetical law that 1: made likely conservative voters spend 5 hours chasing down some paperwork in order to vote? 2: upheld voter confidence? I suspect you’d say yes, but I think that you’re only willing to say that because the hypothetical is unlikely. > [@](#): > > I don’t know about the word “deserve.” The government is not handing out rewards to those who deserve them. I have no idea. Who “deserves” to vote. That term has no place in law in this context. Well, people rarely get what they deserve, since we don’t live in a just universe. We should, however, try to construct a society that smooths out the bumps your Carpenter friend left on His creation. ---
**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 1, 2014, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5046 "2014-06-01T20:00:49Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Refusing to answer a pointed question is good common sense. > > In what year, exactly, did you last commit grand theft? You must answer with a year. Bricker, has your wife forgiven you for the time you forced her to have an abortion? Yes or no, please. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2014, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5047 "2014-06-01T20:04:37Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Refusing to answer a pointed question is good common sense. > > In what year, exactly, did you last commit grand theft? You must answer with a year. I cannot. Any year I answered with would be a lie. See how easy that was? Now, you’re welcome to answer my question any way that conveys the accurate answer: what judges have ruled the federal Equal Protection Clause was implicated by any Voter ID law? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2014, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5048 "2014-06-01T20:05:28Z")
> [@](#): > > …you forced her to have an abortion? Yes or no, please. As much as the man annoys me, I think references to family is hitting below the belt. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2014, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5049 "2014-06-01T20:11:32Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Well, you asserted that no state requires you to only go on a weekday to get an ID, you later said that you meant in order to vote. Yes, because what I asserted was in response to your statement about needing IDs to vote. What good is the QUOTE feature if you ignore what I am responding to? > [@](#): > > Okay, now that we’ve established that you think a five hour vote tax is acceptable. Is an ten hour vote tax? I’d just like to nail you down on particulars. Are we talking about ten hours spent standing in line, with no bathroom and people poking you with sharp sticks? Or ten hours waiting for the mailman to arrive with your replacement birth certificate? > [@](#): > > Can you tell me what particular hour of toil would push the ticker on to onerous? Also, would you support a hypothetical law that 1: made likely conservative voters spend 5 hours chasing down some paperwork in order to vote? 2: upheld voter confidence? > > I suspect you’d say yes, but I think that you’re only willing to say that because the hypothetical is unlikely. If the law upheld a valid state interest, and was passed by the legislature, and was upheld by the courts as being not overly onerous? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2014, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5050 "2014-06-01T20:13:35Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Bricker, has your wife forgiven you for the time you forced her to have an abortion? Yes or no, please. The question assumes a fact that’s not in evidence. I have never forced my wife to have an abortion. I’m not demanding anyone answer any question that assume facts not in evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2014, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5051 "2014-06-01T20:16:19Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > As much as the man annoys me, I think references to family is hitting below the belt. Your fellow posters do not share your view: > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I am not a programmer, so I welcome the chance to learn a skill. Let me try: > > “IF \*\*Bricker’s \*\*daughter is a prostitute, THEN her cunt smells like spoiled mackerel.” > > Do I get a gold star? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5052 "2014-06-01T20:28:02Z")
Except that according to you, voter fraud’s impact on voter confidence is a valid state interest. Despite the fact that in person voter fraud, for all practical purposes, does not exist. Would protecting the public from unicorn stampedes be a valid interest? Would protecting the public from the\* fear\* of unicorn stampedes be a valid interest? Does a thing need to actually exist to be a valid state concern? Or are we obliged to protect the citizenry from fears based on their own ignorance? You are fraught with concern over dreadful consequences in super-dooper ultra close elections. I present you with Minnesota’s Coleman/Franken election. Super dooper close, voter id laws you describe as too lax, and no problem. Doesn’t prove anything, according to you. Leastwise, nothing you acknowledge. But then if Georgia has experienced no negative impact on minority voting after installing voter id restrictions, according to you that renders any argument about negative impacts on minority voting…how did you put that?..“paranoid hysteria”, I believe it was? In one instance, the experience of a single state is ignored, or at least not regarded as crushing your case beneath the weight of fact. But in the other example, the experience of a single state, without even considering any other factors, utterly destroys your opponents argument, renders it akin to a mental illness. Seriously? Is this how you argue in court? And that works for you? ETA: the previous is not a response to post #5051 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2014, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5053 "2014-06-01T20:30:55Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I think the real question here is not whether that’s cause to take some sort of legal action against the priestess, but whether it’s cause to call into question the legitimacy of the election result. > > And again, there’s a question of context… So our setup is that there’s a town with a narrowly divided electorate, and a large population who believe in voodoo, who are overwhelmingly Democrat. > > Variation 1: > So in our most innocent example, the priestess is in no way thought to be politically interested at all. And every once in a while she warns that the blood of a slaughtered pig have informed her that some particular day is one when the devout should stay inside and pray. This happens every other month or so. And then one year it happens on (already scheduled) election day. No evidence at all that this was done intentionally by the priestess, but sure enough Democratic turnout is noticeably lower and the Republicans win. Did anyone do anything wrong? Well, it was wrong of any voter to place stock in the efficacy of pig blood. But other than that kind of “wrong,” no. > [@](#): > > Variation 2: > Same as the above, but the priestess announces the stay-inside days way in advance, and then a Republican-dominated city council, which has the authority to schedule a special election on a wide variety of possible days, schedules it on one of the stay-inside days. Illegal? Scuzzy? Not illegal, but slightly scuzzy. The more the needle moves from an ad hoc event to a regular religious observance, away from the agency of the priestess, the more weight the council should give it, and the more scuz attaches to their exploitation of it. > [@](#): > > Variation 3: > After the election has happened, phone and bank records emerge proving that the priestess was bribed into naming that one day as a stay-at-home day. The briber was a wealthy local businessman with Republican leanings, but the Republican elected officials had no idea that was happening. Illegal? Scuzzy? Can I also choose “funny?” Still not illegal, as far as I can see, although I am willing to be convinced otherwise. Very scuzzy on the part of the briber and the priestess; no change from my answer for (2) with respect to the city council. > [@](#): > > Variation 4: > Same as variation 3, but it’s a member of the city council who does the bribing. Illegal? Scuzzy? Same answer as (3) – except now one member of the city council is also the briber, so he is tarred with the “very scuzzy” brush. > [@](#): > > And if your focus is purely on how much of a burden there is, without context; that is, if your answer to all of those is just “well, clearly those people COULD still leave the house on a stay-at-home day, if they didn’t believe something so silly”, then replace “voodoo” with “orthodox judaism” and replace “priestess announced a stay-at-home-day” with “the polling place is in the lobby of a hog slaughterhouse”. Does that make a difference? The difference us that – for whatever reasons – society is prepared to recognize Orthodox Judaism’s strictures in a way that they are not prepared to recognize the voodoo. In some measure this relates to the lack of an ad hoc nature surrounding the Jewish beliefs at issue and the lack of human agency involved in the situation. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2014, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5054 "2014-06-01T20:34:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Your fellow posters do not share your view: No shit, Sherlock? ---
**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 1, 2014, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5055 "2014-06-01T20:45:18Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > No shit, Sherlock? Trust me, in all honesty, I have nothing but sympathy for Bricker’s wife. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2014, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5056 "2014-06-01T21:36:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Your fellow posters do not share your view: You have a problem with my programming? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2014, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5057 "2014-06-01T22:43:26Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I am not a programmer, so I welcome the chance to learn a skill. Let me try: > > “IF \*\*Bricker’s \*\*daughter is a prostitute, THEN her cunt smells like spoiled mackerel.” > > Do I get a gold star? > [@elucidator](#): > > As much as the man annoys me, I think references to **family** is hitting below the belt. > [@Bricker](#): > > Your fellow posters do not share your view: > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > You have a problem with my programming? No. I have added emphasis in the above quotes to more clearly identify the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2014, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5058 "2014-06-01T23:00:55Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You are fraught with concern over dreadful consequences in super-dooper ultra close elections. I present you with Minnesota’s Coleman/Franken election. Super dooper close, voter id laws you describe as too lax, and no problem. Doesn’t prove anything, according to you. Leastwise, nothing you acknowledge. Why do you say there was “no problem?” The election resulted in a seven-week court trial in which hundreds of witnesses were called to testify. Franken was not declared the victor until June of the following year. This was “no problem?” > [@](#): > > But then if Georgia has experienced no negative impact on minority voting after installing voter id restrictions, according to you that renders any argument about negative impacts on minority voting…how did you put that?..“paranoid hysteria”, I believe it was? > > In one instance, the experience of a single state is ignored, or at least not regarded as crushing your case beneath the weight of fact. But in the other example, the experience of a single state, without even considering any other factors, utterly destroys your opponents argument, renders it akin to a mental illness. I don’t discount anything. I don’t agree that Minnesota’s experience in an ultra-close election was fairly described as “no problem.” ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2014, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5059 "2014-06-01T23:03:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. > > I have added emphasis in the above quotes to more clearly identify the issue. Then I guess you don’t understand IF/THEN statements either. Go to the back of the class! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2014, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5060 "2014-06-01T23:51:28Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Then I guess you don’t understand IF/THEN statements either. Go to the back of the class! Certainly I do. I am suggesting that your particular IF condition was offensive, even as an IF condition – that is, the entire reference is problematic. I am fully aware that parsing the IF..THEN statement you offered results in a nullity because the IF condition is not a Boolean truth. But in order to evaluate the truth of the proposition, it had to be considered, and that activity itself was unpleasant. Moreover, as **elucidator** said: “I think references to family is hitting below the belt.” You can hardly deny that your IF..THEN construction references my family, can you – regardless of the fact that the conditional predicate is not met. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=252) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=254)