# 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:** 303
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2014, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6041 "2014-08-13T19:33:00Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I think it’s definitely true that **Bricker** has received some very poor treatment from time to time (some of it arguably deserved, some of it clearly beyond the pale). Whether or not it can meaningfully be called “bullying” is a semantic issue I don’t have any great desire to dive into. By that standard, he certainly cannot claim to have been the sole recipient or the sole _acceptable_ recipient. Well, he _can_ in the sense that nothing is stopping him but deserves mockery for it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6042 "2014-08-14T08:02:20Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > This is not difficult, but it’s insulting to every fucking reader to pretend a word only has the meaning that’s convenient to you. > > So, for **Bricker** , for first time language users if any are reading, and for the very very stupid, here is an introductory level examination of the “meaning of endorse” interchange between Bricker and me. I provide this to illustrate the type of lying self-service to which the counselor is inclined in damn near every discussion, including and probably especially the ones involving voting rights and other “social justice” issues. > > My overall point, [which I made explicit when I first used the word](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17604844&postcount=171), about **Bricker** ’s _endorsement_ of behaviors is that if you accept an action as not illegal, you endorse its legality. In exactly the same motherfucking way, if you accept an action as not immoral, you are endorsing its morality. This is what makes the word “endorse” different but similar to the words “recommend” or “accept”. There are subtleties of meaning in word usage and the significance of a word or phrase is usually dependent on the context in which it is used. > > Those subtleties of intent are why I gave two clarifying examples of what I meant when I said **Bricker** , by arguing so vehemently in favor of the behavior’s legality and, according to him, its [moral neutrality](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17601402&postcount=136), was “endorsing” George Zimmerman’s continuing decisions to arm himself and go out searching for crime to fight. I mentioned the example of a parent giving implicit permission for certain behaviors by failing to correct them, and I mentioned the example of a lawyer acknowledging to a client that a proposed action is correct in a legal and ethical sense without giving recommendation for or against. > > What does a typical dictionary have to say about endorsement? (Bolding of the relevant portion added.) > > [endorse](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/endorse?s=t) > [en-dawrs] /ndrs/ > verb (used with object), endorsed, endorsing. Also, [indorse](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indorse) (for defs 1–6). > > **1. to approve, support, or sustain** : to endorse a political candidate. > 2. to designate oneself as payee of (a check) by signing, usually on the reverse side of the instrument. > 3. to sign one’s name on (a commercial document or other instrument). > 4. to make over (a stated amount) to another as payee by one’s [endorsement](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/endorsement). > 5. to write (something) on the back of a document, paper, etc.: to endorse instructions; to endorse one’s signature. > 6. to acknowledge (payment) by placing one’s signature on a bill, draft, etc. > > A basic reading of this says that if you support or sustain the correctness of an action, that is a form of endorsement. To claim that it is not an endorsement because one has made no approving comments, while otherwise passionately defending the action’s legality and supposed lack of moral hazard is the rankest sort of insincerity, designed purely to enable plausible deniability and avoid accountability for the consequences of that sort of cheerleading. Here’s why you’re wrong: It’s true that an action that is not illegal is legal. That’s because the criminal law requires us to define those acts which are criminally prohibited, and every act not prohibited is legal. In other words, there is no third option: an act is either criminal or it is not. So when speaking of the criminal law, it is correct to conclude that a judgement that an act is not illegal is identical to saying that it is legal. The are only two options. But when you say, “In exactly the same motherfucking way, if you accept an action as not immoral, you are endorsing its morality,” you reveal the problem. This is not true. An act may be immoral, or bereft of any moral quality, or moral. There are NOT only two options; it’s perfectly possible to declare something is not immoral without simultaneously declaring it moral. That state of affairs was what my “bananas on cereal” example was intended to address. See? ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6043 "2014-08-14T11:16:36Z")
Thank you for recognizing that the fight here is not about word usage. If you say “this act is not immoral” you are deeming it permissible. To say some action is “bereft” of moral quality, that it is unremarkable in your moral schema, is to say that there is nothing associated with the decision to take such an action which would factor into a moral equation. There are two things wrong here, sir. First, it is a bizarre moral calculus which assigns no moral significance to the act of arming oneself and seeking a confrontation with others. Second, and pertinent to the “endorsement” discussion, \*we are a society \*of humans. That is to say, Zimmerman’s actions nor mine nor yours are taken in isolation. What we each do affects all of us, and we all take our cues from each other. If your message to me is “carrying a loaded and concealed weapon as you seek evildoers is quite legal and morally equal to putting bananas on cereal” shall I not see you as a supporter? Even if I hate bananas? Shall others see you as a critic of my actions, or as a defender of them? The very thing that _you_ say ticked you off about the OP in your first reponse to that other thread was the “vague insinuation of wrongdoing.” You wanted it noted in no uncertain terms that the actions under discussion were legal and carried no moral freight, that George was being pilloried for doing things he had every right to do. There is but one message carried in that sort of defense of an action. You can stamp your feet and shout “He _wasn’t_ wrong, he _wasn’t_ wrong! Wasn’t, wasn’t, wasn’t!” And when looked at sternly place your hands behind your back, look up to heaven and sweetly declare “But I ain’t sayin’ he was riiight.” But you are saying that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6044 "2014-08-15T02:30:10Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > Thank you for recognizing that the fight here is not about word usage. > > If you say “this act is not immoral” you are deeming it permissible. To say some action is “bereft” of moral quality, that it is unremarkable in your moral schema, is to say that there is nothing associated with the decision to take such an action which would factor into a moral equation. > > There are two things wrong here, sir. First, it is a bizarre moral calculus which assigns no moral significance to the act of arming oneself and seeking a confrontation with others. Where are you getting that he was armed? > [@](#): > > Second, and pertinent to the “endorsement” discussion, \*we are a society \*of humans. That is to say, Zimmerman’s actions nor mine nor yours are taken in isolation. What we each do affects all of us, and we all take our cues from each other. If your message to me is “carrying a loaded and concealed weapon as you seek evildoers is quite legal and morally equal to putting bananas on cereal” shall I not see you as a supporter? Even if I hate bananas? 1. I don’t agree he was armed. 2. No, you should see me as someone who has correctly observed that the act is not prohibited by law. I am perfectly capable of saying what I mean, and you have no right to sketch into my words meanings I have not stated. > [@](#): > > Shall others see you as a critic of my actions, or as a defender of them? The very thing that _you_ say ticked you off about the OP in your first reponse to that other thread was the “vague insinuation of wrongdoing.” You wanted it noted in no uncertain terms that the actions under discussion were legal and carried no moral freight, that George was being pilloried for doing things he had every right to do. There is but one message carried in that sort of defense of an action. > > You can stamp your feet and shout “He _wasn’t_ wrong, he _wasn’t_ wrong! Wasn’t, wasn’t, wasn’t!” And when looked at sternly place your hands behind your back, look up to heaven and sweetly declare “But I ain’t sayin’ he was riiight.” But you are saying that. Nope. And you can phrase your narrative however colloquially you like – it does not permit the inference you seek. Words have meanings. The best you can say here is that your reading of my words created an impression in you that turned out, upon further inquiry, to be wrong. You cannot claim that I unambiguously said what I plainly and clearly did not say. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2014, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6045 "2014-08-16T16:01:38Z")
As this thread has partly turned into a general discussion of Bricker and his posting style, I think it’s worth pointing out that in the “Ferguson, MO” thread, Bricker had a long back-and-forth about technicalities of the legality of a particular situation there… and the entire conversation went fine without anyone insulting Bricker or misinterpreting everything, because it was clear to everyone involved that legality (as opposed to morality) WAS in fact what they were discussing. So there is clearly a place for that kind of debate, and it can happen on the SDMB without exploding into personal insults etc. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2014, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6046 "2014-08-16T17:38:38Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > As this thread has partly turned into a general discussion of Bricker and his posting style, I think it’s worth pointing out that in the “Ferguson, MO” thread, Bricker had a long back-and-forth about technicalities of the legality of a particular situation there… and the entire conversation went fine without anyone insulting Bricker or misinterpreting everything, because it was clear to everyone involved that legality (as opposed to morality) WAS in fact what they were discussing. So there is clearly a place for that kind of debate, and it can happen on the SDMB without exploding into personal insults etc. Or because there was already a conservative whipping target in place to be the target of insults. I am sorry, Max, but I firmly believe that if my entry into that thread had happened in the exact same way, with the exact same words I used, but without the presence of anyone else offering up anything that could be construed as support for the police, there would have been the usual onslaught. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6047 "2014-08-17T01:39:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Or because there was already a conservative whipping target in place to be the target of insults. I am sorry, Max, but I firmly believe that if my entry into that thread had happened in the exact same way, with the exact same words I used, but without the presence of anyone else offering up anything that could be construed as support for the police, there would have been the usual onslaught. In the Ferguson thread, your posts have addressed, in a specific and helpful way, with very pertinent questions from you to others as well, the specific legalities involved in lawful orders to disperse, and subject compliance with those orders. At no time during your involvement, have I seen you insult another poster or directly address in any way, much less in a condemning or condescending way, the opinions offered by various posters regarding their perceptions that the police tactics employed by the city and by St. Louis County police were heavy-handed, counterproductive or Immoral. Nor have you made any comments regarding liberal hypocrisy. These facts may have more to do with the mild reception of your posts than the presence of **Terr** and others in that thread. I’ll remind you that there have been plenty of quite outspoken rightwingers in this thread and in the Zimmerman thread who failed to act as lightning rods or whipping boys to distract the rabid liberals from savaging your otherwise tempting person. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6048 "2014-08-17T16:16:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Or because there was already a conservative whipping target in place to be the target of insults. I am sorry, Max, but I firmly believe that if my entry into that thread had happened in the exact same way, with the exact same words I used, but without the presence of anyone else offering up anything that could be construed as support for the police, there would have been the usual onslaught. It’s possible that that’s a factor, although as xenephon points out, there were certainly Zimmerman threads in which you became the target of hostility when there were plenty of other people also becoming the target of hostility. To me the big difference is that you at no point, intentionally or not, conflated moral/ethical statements about the situation with legalistic statements about the situation. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2014, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6049 "2014-09-03T15:43:16Z")
[Texas’ voter-ID law is facing a court challenge under the VRA.](http://www.thenation.com/blog/181433/will-texas-get-away-discriminating-against-voters) ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2014, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6050 "2014-09-03T18:27:14Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [Texas’ voter-ID law is facing a court challenge under the VRA.](http://www.thenation.com/blog/181433/will-texas-get-away-discriminating-against-voters) Holy shit! From that article: > [@](#): > > During the first round of court proceedings, Texas admitted that between 600,000 to 800,000 registered voters in the state lacked a government-issued photo ID, with Hispanic voters between 46.5 percent to 120 percent more likely than whites to not have the new voter ID. Those without a voter ID needed to pay for additional documentation to confirm their identities, with the cheapest option being a birth certificate for $22. Attorney General Eric Holder called it a “poll tax.” > > Getting a voter ID in Texas isn’t as easy as you’d think. There are no DMV offices in eighty-one of 254 counties in the state, with some voters needing to travel up to 250 miles to obtain a voter ID. Counties with a significant Hispanic population are less likely to have a DMV office, while Hispanic residents in such counties are twice as likely as whites to not have a voter ID. (Hispanics in Texas are also twice as likely as whites to not have a car). So far, Texas has issued only 279 new voter IDs, even though hundreds of thousands of registered voters lack one. How the fuck can this possibly be constitutional? Edited to add: This article is a goldmine: > [@](#): > > Texas passed the voter ID law as “emergency” legislation at the beginning of 2011. It’s unclear what emergency the Texas legislature was responding to—since 2004, there have been only four cases of voter impersonation in the state. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2014, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6051 "2014-09-03T19:13:29Z")
We have been repeatedly and calmly assured that getting an ID is a trivial matter, and anyone too lazy to get one is too lazy to vote anyway. So there’s no problem. _Voter confidence!_ ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2014, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6052 "2014-09-03T19:19:08Z")
They only have to delay, drag their feet in response, file all the paper they can find. If they can hold it off until after the next election, they win. Then they will have the breathing room and the legislative power intact to come up with some other scheme. They are fighting a defensive rearguard action, one that is almost certainly, eventually, doomed to fail. And then brothers and sisters, pals and gals, the trajectory of the shit will intersect the locus of the fan. Can I get an “Amen!”? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2014, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6053 "2014-09-03T20:12:39Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > They only have to delay, drag their feet in response, file all the paper they can find. If they can hold it off until after the next election, they win. Then they will have the breathing room and the legislative power intact to come up with some other scheme. > > They are fighting a defensive rearguard action, one that is almost certainly, eventually, doomed to fail. And then brothers and sisters, pals and gals, the trajectory of the shit will intersect the locus of the fan. > > Can I get an “Amen!”? So, a technical legal question, maybe for **Bricker** : Suppose the Texas voter-ID law is found to be unconstitutional, but not until after the election. Suppose further that it can be established that the unconstitutional law had an impact on the outcome of the election. Does the outcome of the election still stand? ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2014, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6054 "2014-09-03T22:10:08Z")
The solution to all this is quite simple, quite available and quite easy to implement. When you sign in to vote, you not only sign in, you leave a fingerprint. If there is a question about irregularities, you compare the fingerprints. Duplicate votes get tossed out and the voter goes to jail. ---
**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:** [September 3, 2014, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6055 "2014-09-03T22:14:11Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > The solution to all this is quite simple, quite available and quite easy to implement. > > When you sign in to vote, you not only sign in, you leave a fingerprint. If there is a question about irregularities, you compare the fingerprints. Duplicate votes get tossed out and the voter goes to jail. I agree a hundred percent. The trouble is, the guys who institute these laws don’t want to solve the problem of voter fraud. They want to make it slightly harder for a given demographic to vote. Now, if we could only get to agreement about global warming. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2014, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6056 "2014-09-03T22:26:15Z")
Either a fingerprint or have your picture taken. Few cheaters would be willing to subject themselves to either of these. Of course, as **Lobohan** points out, neither of these solves the real problem that they’re trying to solve: too many of the wrong type of people voting. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2014, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6057 "2014-09-03T22:51:07Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > The solution to all this is quite simple, quite available and quite easy to implement. > > When you sign in to vote, you not only sign in, you leave a fingerprint. If there is a question about irregularities, you compare the fingerprints. Duplicate votes get tossed out and the voter goes to jail. When you’re right, you’re right. I agree 100% here as well, and I’ll go further and say I think this could be a [relatively minor, but still] spur to voting in some areas. Does anybody else remember [this from the Iraqi election in 2005](https://www.google.com/search?q=iraq+vote+purple+finger&num=100&newwindow=1&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=RZoHVJCLD4mQgwSB-YGgCA&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1600&bih=704)? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6058 "2014-09-04T01:03:18Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > The solution to all this is quite simple, quite available and quite easy to implement. > > When you sign in to vote, you not only sign in, you leave a fingerprint. If there is a question about irregularities, you compare the fingerprints. Duplicate votes get tossed out and the voter goes to jail. Tossed? Wouldn’t this require a cast ballot be linkable to a specific voter? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6059 "2014-09-04T01:48:24Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > So, a technical legal question, maybe for **Bricker** : Suppose the Texas voter-ID law is found to be unconstitutional, but not until after the election. Suppose further that it can be established that the unconstitutional law had an impact on the outcome of the election. Does the outcome of the election still stand? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6060 "2014-09-04T01:50:25Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Tossed? Wouldn’t this require a cast ballot be linkable to a specific voter? You’re right. The sole remedy would be criminal charges against the cheating voter. You couldn’t find the right vote to toss. But it’s still a huge deterrent to cheating. Very few people would risk this. Of course the real fun would come from watching Republicans trying to manufacture a reason that this plan is vastly inferior to voter ID. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=302) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=304)