# 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:** 418
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8341 "2015-10-08T03:44:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You said: > > The only thing faintly ambiguous about your statement was “IIRC.” > > The Dem position on those absentee ballots was NOT legally correct. You said it WAS legally correct. > > That is error. Well, gosh-a-rooty, I’m in your favorite playground, the gymnasium of precise legalistic semantics! The Dems had a case, because that particular law says what it says. They were “correct”, so far as that goes. The Pubbies also had some law to fling around, they were “correct” as well. Hence, ambiguous. Rather the whole point of the cited article. Lots of different people wrote about that, lots of divergent opinion, several by persons with legal boney fidos. If there were no unanimity on behalf of so many legal beagles, what gives you the authority to declare winners? Haven’t you, in the past, advised us that only the Supreme Court can make such a finality? And yet, here you are… Irwin Corey, Esq. the World’s Foremost Legal Authority. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8342 "2015-10-08T12:11:46Z")
> [@CGav8r](#): > > If our soldiers and sailors serving overseas can’t correctly fill out their absentee ballots, why should they have it counted, when some 90 year old struggling with a butterfly ballot doesn’t? There is no allegation that the overseas ballots were not filled out correctly by the voter. The issue was the lack of postmarks. Because USAFPO mail is free, and requires no stamp, it is often not postmarked when processed by the mail system, but as I am sure you are aware, the person who mails a letter is not responsible for postmarking it. Can you explain what particular error you feel was made by the voters in this case? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8343 "2015-10-08T12:15:38Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, gosh-a-rooty, I’m in your favorite playground, the gymnasium of precise legalistic semantics! > > The Dems had a case, because that particular law says what it says. They were “correct”, so far as that goes. The Pubbies also had some law to fling around, they were “correct” as well. Hence, ambiguous. Rather the whole point of the cited article. > > Lots of different people wrote about that, lots of divergent opinion, several by persons with legal boney fidos. If there were no unanimity on behalf of so many legal beagles, what gives you the authority to declare winners? Haven’t you, in the past, advised us that only the Supreme Court can make such a finality? And yet, here you are… > > Irwin Corey, Esq. the World’s Foremost Legal Authority. Yes, I have advised you that only the relevant Supreme Court can address the issue with finality, and I gave you the citation to the court case in which the Florida Supreme Court explained that the law you quoted was superseded by federal law and the requisite method of handling ballots was implemented by the Florida law I quoted. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8344 "2015-10-08T12:19:42Z")
> [@Grsz11](#): > > Leave it to the GOP to demand ID to vote but not to buy a AK47. The GOP only demands ID to vote in government elections. The GOP is happy to have you vote for your PTA officers or homeowners’ association board with no ID. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8345 "2015-10-08T12:27:13Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, gosh-a-rooty, I’m in your favorite playground, the gymnasium of precise legalistic semantics! > > The Dems had a case, because that particular law says what it says. They were “correct”, so far as that goes. The Pubbies also had some law to fling around, they were “correct” as well. Hence, ambiguous. Rather the whole point of the cited article. > > Lots of different people wrote about that, lots of divergent opinion, several by persons with legal boney fidos. If there were no unanimity on behalf of so many legal beagles, what gives you the authority to declare winners? Haven’t you, in the past, advised us that only the Supreme Court can make such a finality? And yet, here you are… > > Irwin Corey, Esq. the World’s Foremost Legal Authority. And you are among the worst of the dishonest rhetors with this tactic. If you used a similar confusing attempt in the field of climate science (“…lots of divergent opinion, several by persons with [sciency] boney fidos…” so why should we believe global warming?) you’d rightly be attacked by dozens of posters, mercilessly mocked for such an inaccurate and deceptive description of the (non) controversy. There is no lack of legal consensus on the point: in Florida, absentee ballots do not require a postmark to be valid. Any “divergent” opinion is bullshit, without wiggle room, factually untrue. Wrong. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8346 "2015-10-08T12:48:14Z")
We get that sort of shit from \*\*Bricker \*\*quite a bit, don’t we? Reminds me of the Obamacare ruling he was dead sure about, too … ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8347 "2015-10-08T14:36:36Z")
Oh, the Florida Supreme Court has the final say? You see, when I say “Supreme Court” I’m talking about that one in Washington, D.C. Fairly common understanding of the phrase, I believe. So, what this means is that the US Supremes have not ever overruled a State Supreme Court? Is that an historical coincidence, or is it impossible to do so? Never happened, and cannot happen? Anyway, what’s the Big Hairy Ass Deal, here? My original posting about this was not partisan in nature. I _do_ think the whole Florida debacle was a travesty wrapped in bullshit, but that I lay squarely at the feet of the Supreme Court (U.S.). And as I said, my personal preference was that the votes be counted, fully cognizant that such a decision would benefit the Forces of Darkness. So, what exactly is your problem? Are you so eager to hang my scalp on your lodge pole that you will attack my pants cuffs like a killer chihuahua on the slightest opportunity? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8348 "2015-10-08T14:47:22Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Daring to wade into this thread again… > > It seems to me that a universal automatic voter registration scheme would necessarily rely on other records to determine eligibility (minimum voting age and address to determine appropriate ballot for local elections, at least). > > After all, \*who \*are we going to automatically put someone on the voter roles? Answer: everyone! How do we know who \*everyone \*is? Answer… uh, we’ve got a list here somewhere… > > So, a truly neutral organization might choose to question the veracity of the information sources used to determine eligibility and further what happens to anyone whose information is not in those systems. Will such a scheme inherently miss the homeless or institutionalized (e.g. nursing home residents) persons? Persons with no driver’s license or Social Security card? Etc… > > If, in the estimation of the neutral organization, the details are not sufficiently worked out to ensure that those on the fringes are not excluded then the organization might decide that the proposed universal voter registration scheme is not something they can support. Thanks for your analysis, but my mistake in not being more clear in my question. It has to do with the automatic registration in conjunction with drivers licenses as implemented in Oregon, not a country or state wide automatic registration for everyone. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8349 "2015-10-08T14:59:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Very clever! You’re absolutely right. I didn’t read his question carefully. > > But my objection was not to the Brennan Center’s position on voter registration. Indeed, as I have said, I share their support for this measure. My objection to their comments was detailed in [post 8250](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18737652&postcount=8250): > > So what I should have replied to \*\*Bryan is just what I said here in this post. I inveighed against The Brennan Center for Justice based on their comments about voter identification. I have no quarrel with their comments about voter registration. My response to Bryan was indeed non-responsive to the question, and I was wrong when I denied that it was. Well thanks for responding. But I wasn’t really interested in The Brennan Center for Justice’s opinion, nor your opinion of THEIR opinion. I’m simply curious about the objections to the driver’s license/automatic voter registration system as implemented in Oregon. Because of the highly visible partisan split during the voting, it just sparked my curiosity. Due to the fact the every single republican in both houses of the Oregon state government voted against it, it seems to me that there must be something inherent in the Republican ideology that is against voter registration tied to driver’s licenses. I’m simply asking you, as a Republican/conservative, what you think that might be, because without an justifiable (and I can accept a reasoned opinion while simultaneously disagreeing with it) explanation (other than catch phrases like “privacy concerns” without any substantiating information), it simply seems to me that Republicans, in Oregon at least, are simply against it because 1) They are automatically opposed to anything that Democrats are for or 2) They are against it because it will help more people vote, two things that cannot be admitted publicly for fears of public outrage. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8350 "2015-10-08T15:46:50Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Oh, the Florida Supreme Court has the final say? You see, when I say “Supreme Court” I’m talking about that one in Washington, D.C. Fairly common understanding of the phrase, I believe. > > So, what this means is that the US Supremes have not ever overruled a State Supreme Court? Is that an historical coincidence, or is it impossible to do so? Never happened, and cannot happen? A common misunderstanding. The US Supreme Court is a final arbiter of federal questions, not questions of state law. The US Supreme Court can overrule state courts when the issue is federal constitutional law, or the application of federal statutory law in areas in which the federal government has exclusive power or has pre-empted state legislation. In issues of pure state law the federal courts, including the US Supreme Court, cannot overrule a state supreme court. And as it happens, the specific question was indeed asked of the federal courts. One Robert Harris (obviously no relation to Florida Secretary of State K. Harris) and some companions sued Florida to force them to stop following rule 1S-2.103(7) and follow the statute you quoted as authoritative, Section 101.67(2) Fla. Stat. (2000). For ease of reference, we will henceforth call that Luci’s Law. And for similar ease, we’ll need a name for 1S-2.103(7), the rule that permits signed and dated ballots to be counted _sans_ postmark, as well as requiring the counting ballots received within ten days after the election. How about, “Bricker’s Armed Services Support For Undoing Crazy Kiboshes of Luci’s Law?” So Robert Harris and friends – perhaps a fellow traveler of yours? – sued to require Florida to enforce Luci’s Law and not count absentee ballots unless they were postmarked and received by Election Day. The State of Florida objected that Bricker’s ASSFUCK of Luci’s Law was legally required. They reminded the court that back in 1980, Florida was sued by the Attorney General of the United States to enforce the provisions of the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act. Pay attention to this next part, **elucidator** , because it’s spooky. It’s like those guys in 1980 saw you coming. They predicted, with accuracy even Nostradamus would envy, your arguments. I could paraphrase, but Senior District Judge Paul, the author of _Harris v. Florida Elections Canvassing Commission_, said it so well that any effort of mine would be a pale shadow: > [@](#): > > In the typical situation, a citizen must be aware of the relevant court authority, look it up in case books, and read it in conjunction with the statute to determine the state of the law. In the 1984 order, however, Judge Stafford went one step further toward clarity and accessibility. Rather than merely putting the 35-day deadline and other requirements in an order which would reside in a law book where hopefully election officials would know to look, Judge Stafford opted for a more obviously accessible solution. He directed that the required provisions be put into the Administrative Code, where election officials and citizens will naturally refer to determine the procedures for voting. > > In short, Judge Stafford ordered that the state statute would run afoul of two federal laws, the OCVRA and the FVAA, unless the administrative rule were engrafted onto the statute. Thus, the Administrative Rule was not, as the plaintiffs characterized it, the product of a rebellious state executive branch flouting the authority of the state legislature. Instead, it was the product of the state executive branch, the authorized representative of the state in a lawsuit against the state, enacting a measure to bring the state into compliance with a federally ordered mandate in a situation where the state legislature refused to do so. Do you see that first sentence, **elucidator** , you lovable scamp? That’s not you! That’s what you didn’t do! That’s what Judge Stafford wanted to save you from. Judge Stafford knew you’d come along and not read the caselaw. So he ordered that the correct statement of law be enshrined in the state admin code, so that even a no-account shiftless low-life such as yourself could become aware of what the actual law was. Of course, he didn’t reckon with the pure-D stubborness that would permit you to see the FUCKING LAW AND STILL DENY ITS AUTHORITY. If only Doctor Who could step in and take us back to 1980, Judge Stafford could realize that even his herculean effort to make the requirements of the law crystal clear would be ignored by you, and perhaps he could order that it be tattooed on your ass, in reverse so that it could be read by you in the mirror. Judge Stafford’s decision may be found at 122 F. Supp. 2d 1317. Your pal Robert Harris was sufficiently motivated to ask the federal circuit court to review this decision, even though it was self-evidently Wise and Good. And lo, the Eleventh Circuit spake, and verily they did saith unto Robert Harris and his Ilk: > [@](#): > > Turning to the merits, we see no reversible error in the district court’s judgment. We note in passing that the district court’s views are consistent with recent comments of Florida’s highest court about the working of the absentee ballot law. We also observe that to read Florida’s law as Plaintiffs ask us to do would be a significant change in the actual election practices of Florida. While Florida law seems to favor counting ballots, this change would take away the votes of thousands of Florida citizens — including members of America’s armed forces on duty outside of the country pursuant to the nation’s orders — who, to cast their ballots, just did what they were told by Florida’s election officials. In addition, we have seen nothing and been cited to nothing indicating that Florida’s legislature — during the sixteen years of the Rule’s existence — has ever expressed an intent to overrule the Rule legislatively. _Harris v. Florida Elections Commission_, 235 F. 3d 578 (11th Cir 2000). The Supreme Court did not grant certorari review of this decision, meaning that is is the precedent-setting law of the land in the Eleventh Circuit, which perforce includes Florida. There’s really nothing else that can possibly be said. There is no ambiguity. There is no dispute among legal scholars. There is no anything, except crap written to deceive and obfuscate the issue by you and your friends. You were factually, completely, utterly, absolutely wrong. > [@](#): > > Anyway, what’s the Big Hairy Ass Deal, here? My original posting about this was not partisan in nature. Your original posting was factually, completely, utterly, absolutely wrong. Having demonstrated this in precise, complete, excruciating, and sometimes humorous detail, the Big Hairy Ass Deal is your refusal to acknowledge error, and everyone else’s complete lack of interest in calling you on it. In other words, a normal day at the SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8351 "2015-10-08T17:10:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …and everyone else’s complete lack of interest in calling you on it. > > In other words, a normal day at the SDMB. Oh, you poor dear. Are you sure you are quite happy here? So, what we have here is that the Democrat lawyers in Florida were woefully ignorant? Uniformly, unanimously stupid? They never had any sort of case, then, that a first year law student from Liberty University could not chop to pieces? And, further, they conned the _New York Times_ into believing they _did_ have a case? Did it occur to you, even for a moment, that everyone’s complete lack of interest stems from a complete lack of interest, period? That you have exaggerated the significance of this beyond all reason? And why do you have the need to keep referencing “friends…fellow travelers…” and so on? Unless your main objective is advance your premise of the honest conservative beset on all sides by evil minions. There must be a message board somewhere that would not torment you so heartlessly? Somewhere that your candor and honesty would get the universal approval that is denied you here? Do you shave? If you do, have a glance. You’ll see your problem, and it isn’t me. ---
**Author:** ![Trion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@Trion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trion)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8352 "2015-10-08T17:34:05Z")
“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you. And when they call you out on errors that they _totally_ wouldn’t call anybody else out on. And when they don’t treat you as nicely and politely as they treat 'luci. Or some other people. I forget who exactly. Probably liberals.” “That’s nice Lord, but you don’t have to turn **ALL** the water into wine.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8353 "2015-10-08T18:59:12Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Oh, you poor dear. Are you sure you are quite happy here? I’m unhappy about some things; happy about others. You, on the other hand, should feel like a pig in mud, since this environment allows to you to spew misinformation with no real social consequence. You have such a high regard for the truth that you use it sparingly, to steal the words from Connor’s mouth. > [@](#): > > So, what we have here is that the Democrat lawyers in Florida were woefully ignorant? Uniformly, unanimously stupid? They never had any sort of case, then, that a first year law student from Liberty University could not chop to pieces? And, further, they conned the _New York Times_ into believing they _did_ have a case? What they had was a piece of text they could seize on to create a public stir, and what the New York Times had was reporters highly sympathetic to their cause who were disinclined to question the issue. Did it never occur to you to wonder where the follow-up stories were, by the way? I mean, ultimately the courts read the law correctly. They didn’t split on the issue. What was the NYT’s excuse for printing claims that were roundly rejected by courts? > [@](#): > > Did it occur to you, even for a moment, that everyone’s complete lack of interest stems from a complete lack of interest, period? That you have exaggerated the significance of this beyond all reason? Of course. You made a factual misstatement, and I called you on it, and you refuse to admit error. Naturally you wish to minimize the issue now. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8354 "2015-10-08T19:35:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …What they had was a piece of text they could seize on to create a public stir… “A piece of text”? Section 101.67(2) Fla. Stat. (2000)? So, it wasn’t actually a law, then, just “a piece of text”? Gosh, how did it come to have that fancy ass name, Section 101.67(2) Fla. Stat. (2000). Seems like a lot of dignity to bestow on a piece of text. Was it _Mother Jones_? The Brennan Center? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8355 "2015-10-08T19:49:32Z")
Jesus man, seems a helluva lot easier to just say “Hmm, guess they were wrong on that one, good to know that.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8356 "2015-10-08T20:10:56Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > “A piece of text”? Section 101.67(2) Fla. Stat. (2000)? So, it wasn’t actually a law, then, just “a piece of text”? > > Gosh, how did it come to have that fancy ass name, Section 101.67(2) Fla. Stat. (2000). Seems like a lot of dignity to bestow on a piece of text. Was it _Mother Jones_? The Brennan Center? What do you call a law that’s been negated by court decision, or by another law? “A law,” fails to capture the impotence of the section. But if you call it a law, and don’t reveal that it’s been castrated, then your listeners will assume it’s in force. So I think someone interested in honestly and accurately describing it would not say merely that it was a law. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8357 "2015-10-08T20:28:46Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Jesus man, seems a helluva lot easier to just say “Hmm, guess they were wrong on that one, good to know that.” He can’t. He just can’t make himself do it. ---
**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:** [October 8, 2015, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8358 "2015-10-08T22:43:14Z")
Well, I finally got the time and opportunity to compose a detailed reply to Bricker’s 8325. I hope the nesting doesn’t make this unclear. > [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > > > I imagine that a much greater percentage of votes will be cast by people who don’t particularly care. > > > > Aren’t such people likely to skip voting, even if registered? > > > > Or did you have a specific idea in mind for what constitutes “care”, as well as some kind of metric to determine if an individual cares enough? > > Such people are more likely to skip voting, yes. But the practice of near-universal registration, combined with the use of "walking-around money,’ on Election Day, suggests to me that people who didn’t plan on voting that morning might be induced to impulsively cast a vote. I have no metric to determine if an individual cares enough, but I was reasonably happy with the concept that an individual who cares enough to register and then get out to the poll on Election Day cares enough, without trying to define at what point past that might the line for “not caring enough” lie. To be honest, I don’t know what the “walking-around money” reference means or what significance it has, and I’m actually prepared to let this go in light of how Bricker’s original comment started with “I imagine”. I’ve started comments similarly and have always taken “I imagine _X_ will happen…” to mean “I predict _X_ will happen, but I have no immediate means to prove it nor am I especially invested in it”, i.e. it’s a bit of off-the-cuff speculation. What I object to is the empty rhetorical concern that a voter might not “care” enough. It’s a vapid and useless claim. Bricker, you may as well just express concern about how “_those_ people” will ruin society. _How_ will they ruin society, is the kind of question I might write in reply, with no real expectation of a detailed or factual answer. > [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > > > Is making it easier for more people to vote a bad thing, though? If it helps the Democrats, doesn’t that suggest that the Democrats represent the will of the majority? Bricker tried to equate partisan efforts to increase the active electorate with partisan efforts to decrease the active electorate, but I’m unconvinced. > > > > If, for example, Democratic lawmakers make it extremely easy to get registered and cast a vote and it works against them, i.e. the larger turnout leads to Republican gains, was it still a bad thing to make it easier for citizens to vote? It seems fairly obvious to me that the contrary is true, i.e. if Republicans make it harder for some citizens to vote and even if it doesn’t help them, it was still a bad thing to do. > > > > Of course, I’m still waiting on Bricker’s clarification of “if voting is too easy… something something something… bad stuff.” I think it may take some time. > > This appears to be a further request to answer 8301, which was done above. _The last paragraph_ of the text you quoted was along similar lines to 8301. My question of whether or not trying to increase the size of the active electorate (which in some circumstances may benefit Democrats) is actually morally comparable to trying to decrease the size of the active electorate (which in some circumstances may benefit Republicans) was not addressed by you. Your writing suggests you believe the two _are_ morally comparable (that is to say, when you use your favoured tactic of “Democrats do it, too!”) but I question this and invite you to question it as well. > [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > > > What reasons do you assume a TRULY unbiased organization could find to oppose automatic registration? > > > > Not that your ad hominem isn’t utterly convincing in itself, of course. > > This question was answered in [my post 8251.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18737671&postcount=8251) You claim it’s non-responsive, but the post clearly and specifically offers a reason an unbiased organization could offer. No. It wasn’t. I see this has been addressed since, but I don’t think you ever did answer the actual question. Iggy and manson72 have, though, for which I thank them. > [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > > > Can you quote examples of this love? Before I offer up some possible opinions for debate, I kind of like to know if you’re squaring off against figments of your own imagination, because that would modify my approach significantly. > > Yes. Post 8244, which links to a story about the Oregon move with evident approval. Post 8246 opines that there is “no downside” to the Oregon proposal. Post 8255 reiterates this position. This constitutes “love” to you? Gosh, Bricker, you’re so romantic. When you proposed to your wife, did you say "Well, you meet with my evident approval, and I see no downside, so will you marry me and make the among the midrange of contentest men on Earth? Now, I’ll happily assume “love” in your original comment (“I’m a little surprised at the love for this initiative being shown here”) could have been replaced by a more accurate but less evocative phrase (“I’m a little surprised at the clearly more emotional than rational support for this initiative being shown here”), but even this rather tepid reworking is unsupported. Frankly, your comment strikes me as rather mealy-mouthed; accusing unnamed persons of vaguely-defined offenses, and upon examination the accusation is demonstrably false. _I’m_ a little surprised you thought your cites bolstered your claim. > [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > > > > [@Fear Itself](#): > > > > > > > > Any other rights guaranteed by the Constitution you think come too cheap? Freedom of Speech? Freedom from Unreasonable Search? > > > > > > I think voting is sui generis in this regard. > > > > How so, since voting is regulated by laws, which themselves are limited by constitutional amendments. In this regard, voting is quite a lot like speech and gun ownership. > > > > But if we’re still speculating, what negative results do you envision if the voting process becomes much easier, i.e. if voting can be done from home with as much effort as shopping at Amazon? > > Voting is regulated by laws, yes. “Voting” is also spelled with the English alphabet, another similarity with “free press.” But those similarities are not relevant to my point, any more than your observation that they are regulated by laws is. The area in which voting is sui generis is related to the fact that free press is simply permitted by the government. The government does not, as a consequence of the First Amendment, take an active part in encouraging people to buy printing presses. > > That’s the reason voting is sui generis. You don’t really have a “point”, as such, you have a tautology; voting is _sui generis_ because voting is _sui generis_. Certainly voting has some unique aspects to it, but the observation that it is _sui generis_ is not meaningful in itself - it could be used to justify any conclusion and it certainly doesn’t usefully answer Fear Itself’s question: Bricker: Voting should not be too easy, or else citizens will think it cheap. Fear Itself: Is that true of all Constitutional rights; should they have restrictions put on them to fend off the possibility of being viewed as “cheap” ? Bricker: No, voting is unique in this regard. Bryan Ekers: How so? Bricker: What a silly question. Voting is unique. If this is acceptable: A. Voting is _sui generis_, therefore putting obstructionist regulation on it is acceptable, even if this is not true for other Constitutional rights. Why not this: B. Voting is _sui generis_, therefore any politician who advocates putting obstructionist regulation on it should be charged with treason, even if this is not true for other forms of legislation. And as with your “esteem too lightly” reference, you are resorting to empty rhetoric in lieu of anything verifiable. I think we get it: you _feel_ voting should be a test of citizenship, that the voters must _earn_ their chance to vote. This isn’t any more debatable than your religious beliefs. > [@](#): > > Does that address all your questions? No, but it’s likely the best response I could have expected. ---
**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:** [October 9, 2015, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8359 "2015-10-09T11:25:49Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > And as with your “esteem too lightly” reference, you are resorting to empty rhetoric in lieu of anything verifiable. I think we get it: you _feel_ voting should be a test of citizenship, that the voters must _earn_ their chance to vote. That was my conclusion as well. When he said that, I pretty much knew I had won that point, and all I need to do was let that turd stink. When your adversary can’t justify his position other than to say “it’s special”, you know they are boxed. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8360 "2015-10-09T12:04:08Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > And as with your “esteem too lightly” reference, you are resorting to empty rhetoric in lieu of anything verifiable. I think we get it: you _feel_ voting should be a test of citizenship, that the voters must _earn_ their chance to vote. This isn’t any more debatable than your religious beliefs. On what possible objective scale might we weigh the issue? Why are your feelings that voters must be given every incentive to register and vote a matter of established and scientifically verifiable fact? Or are they? Why is my rhetoric on the point empty, and yours full of factual verifiable goodness? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=417) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=419)