# 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:** 460
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2016, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9181 "2016-04-15T17:53:00Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Sounds like you shouldn’t have the death penalty because the odds of a false positive (an executed innocent), while low, are higher than acceptable. I take it you’re now arguing that you shouldn’t increase voter ID requirements because the odds of a false positive (a citizen left unable to vote), while low, are higher than acceptable? > > If you’re going to use the death penalty as a reference, you should try arguing that the death penalty is _needed_ because even if an innocent is executed, the greater good (preventing murderers from killing again) is more important. From there, you can argue that even if a citizen is denied a vote, strict voter ID laws are _needed_ because the greater good (ensuring the integrity of elections, or at least public confidence in the integrity of elections) is more important. > > The analogous action to determinedly denying that an innocent has ever been executed is determinedly denying that any citizen has even been denied his or her vote i.e. denying that a mechanism designed to punish criminals ever snagged an innocent. > > If someone is determinedly denying that an illegal vote was ever cast (I’m not sure who is actually doing this, but I’ll play along for the sake of argument), that would be comparable to someone claiming that no-one had ever committed a crime that was deserving of the death penalty, hence there is no need for the death penalty. > > Basically, your rhetoric has gone all Mobius Strip on you. Flat, with a twist. How about someone saying there are no illegal votes cast compared to someone saying no innocent person has ever been executed? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2016, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9182 "2016-04-15T18:19:09Z")
What difference would it make? If we are to assume that voter confidence is such a towering and compelling motivation, one might argue that such confidence must be assured regardless of whether or not such a problem as voter fraud actually exists or not. Besides, if the formal structures of trial and conviction are followed, all such persons as were found guilty are, in fact, guilty. Since we can be fairly sure no person found to be _not_ guilty has ever been executed, not even in Texas!..then the question of an innocent being executed is moot. That’s a penumbra of the widely admired **Bricker** Principle. Legal and Constitutional. If you are found guilty, you _are_ guilty. And if duly elected legislators and appointed judges determine that voter confidence is more important than actual voters, then it is! ---
**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:** [April 15, 2016, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9183 "2016-04-15T19:38:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How about someone saying there are no illegal votes cast compared to someone saying no innocent person has ever been executed? I don’t know who is saying there were never any illegal votes cast. The opposite is clearly implied in my post 9169, which seems to have kicked off this bizarre death-penalty tangent. The relevant aspect, I thought should be obvious, is how much law-enforcement power should government have. Should the government be allowed to execute people even if we know there is a chance an innocent person might be executed? Should the government be allowed to demand stricter ID standards even if we know some citizens will be blocked at the polls as a result? Are the alternatives of government not having this ability worse? Make your case that the greater good is served even with those risks. If anyone is living in denial, it’s _you_, maintaining with as much stubborn resolve that _nobody_ will lose their chance to vote (end of argument! I have spoken!) as the people you describe, who are maintaining with stubborn resolve that _nobody_ innocent was ever executed (end of argument! I have spoken!). This is a more elaborate version of your “absentee” gaffe, where your choice of rhetoric undermines the point you’re trying to make. You should have taken the more coherent approach of “yes, sometimes law enforcement inadvertently victimizes the innocent but that’s the price we pay if want murderers to face justice and/or confidence in our elections.” ---
**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:** [April 15, 2016, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9184 "2016-04-15T19:58:15Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Legal and Constitutional. If you are found guilty, you _are_ guilty. And if duly elected legislators and appointed judges determine that voter confidence is more important than actual voters, then it is! I wouldn’t have expected it, but it looks like Bricker is so determined to claim victory over us Lib’ruls that he’s actually flirting with a pro-death-penalty argument. Jesus wept… ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2016, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9185 "2016-04-15T21:10:48Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > . . . If you’re going to use the death penalty as a reference, you should try arguing that the death penalty is _needed_ because even if an innocent is executed, the greater good (preventing murderers from killing again) is more important. . . . I have a friend who argues exactly that. He wants to do away with lots of the “technicalities” that protect defendants. For instance, he wants to eliminate the exclusionary evidence rule. Who cares if a fingerprint was taken illegally: if it proves the guy is guilty, it needs to be used against him at his trial. I asked him if he was concerned that this would make it easier for an innocent person – himself, for instance – to be wrongly convicted, and he said he was willing to take that risk. At least he isn’t a hypocrite… ---
**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:** [April 15, 2016, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9186 "2016-04-15T21:50:10Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I have a friend who argues exactly that. He wants to do away with lots of the “technicalities” that protect defendants. For instance, he wants to eliminate the exclusionary evidence rule. Who cares if a fingerprint was taken illegally: if it proves the guy is guilty, it needs to be used against him at his trial. > > I asked him if he was concerned that this would make it easier for an innocent person – himself, for instance – to be wrongly convicted, and he said he was willing to take that risk. At least he isn’t a hypocrite… Now I’m kind of curious when “he got off on a technicality” started to sneak into the zeitgeist. The first _Dirty Harry_ movie was in 1971 and the similarly-themed (but greatly toned down) TV shows _Hunter_ and _T.J. Hooker_ (i.e. a cop willing to bend the rules in order to see justice done) ran through the 1980s, but are there earlier examples of a character who works for law enforcement feeling stifled by the civil rights of the people he wants to arrest? Did stories written after _Miranda v. Arizona_ spark a nationwide belief that the justice system was being overly generous to criminals? I’ll assume vigilante-style mob justice including lynchings are sufficiently distinct. Off-topic, I know, but the topic itself is pretty played out until the next round of relevant court decisions. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2016, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9187 "2016-04-15T21:50:14Z")
You’re right. That’s the least. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9188 "2016-04-16T00:00:37Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > What difference would it make? If we are to assume that voter confidence is such a towering and compelling motivation, one might argue that such confidence must be assured regardless of whether or not such a problem as voter fraud actually exists or not. > > Besides, if the formal structures of trial and conviction are followed, all such persons as were found guilty are, in fact, guilty. Since we can be fairly sure no person found to be _not_ guilty has ever been executed, not even in Texas!..then the question of an innocent being executed is moot. That’s a penumbra of the widely admired **Bricker** Principle. > > Legal and Constitutional. If you are found guilty, you _are_ guilty. And if duly elected legislators and appointed judges determine that voter confidence is more important than actual voters, then it is! And the people who were found guilty but then exonerated by DNA? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9189 "2016-04-16T00:02:26Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Now I’m kind of curious when “he got off on a technicality” started to sneak into the zeitgeist. The first _Dirty Harry_ movie was in 1971 and the similarly-themed (but greatly toned down) TV shows _Hunter_ and _T.J. Hooker_ (i.e. a cop willing to bend the rules in order to see justice done) ran through the 1980s, but are there earlier examples of a character who works for law enforcement feeling stifled by the civil rights of the people he wants to arrest? Did stories written after _Miranda v. Arizona_ spark a nationwide belief that the justice system was being overly generous to criminals? > > I’ll assume vigilante-style mob justice including lynchings are sufficiently distinct. > > Off-topic, I know, but the topic itself is pretty played out until the next round of relevant court decisions. At least one Dragnet episode has featured a uniformed officer complaining about the civil rights of criminals, and receiving a dressing-down by Sgt Friday, c. 1969. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9190 "2016-04-16T00:15:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And the people who were found guilty but then exonerated by DNA? Are in the custody of a Higher Court. ---
**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:** [April 16, 2016, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9191 "2016-04-16T00:28:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And the people who were found guilty but then exonerated by DNA? They are the clearest possible evidence that government power must be tempered, justified and monitored. By the argument you are NOW presenting, it is improper to put tighter restrictions on voters, because some innocent citizens might get caught in the trap, unless there is a very compelling reason to do so such as a massive increase in voter fraud. The argument you were presenting EARLIER was more along the lines of it being better to sacrifice some innocent votes just to calm the fears of the general public that SOME elections MIGHT be inaccurate. By that position, why _can’t_ you execute a bunch of criminals just to assure the public that justice is being done, if that’s what the public wants? You were willing to sacrifice votes in the name of calming baseless fears, so why not sacrifice lives to the same end? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9192 "2016-04-16T00:36:18Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > They are the clearest possible evidence that government power must be tempered, justified and monitored. By the argument you are NOW presenting, it is improper to put tighter restrictions on voters, because some innocent citizens might get caught in the trap, unless there is a very compelling reason to do so such as a massive increase in voter fraud. The argument you were presenting EARLIER was more along the lines of it being better to sacrifice some innocent votes just to calm the fears of the general public that SOME elections MIGHT be inaccurate. By that position, why _can’t_ you execute a bunch of criminals just to assure the public that justice is being done, if that’s what the public wants? You were willing to sacrifice votes in the name of calming baseless fears, so why not sacrifice lives to the same end? Let me think. Think think think. Nope, can’t think of a single difference between a vote and the loss of a human life. You got me. ---
**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:** [April 16, 2016, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9193 "2016-04-16T00:54:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Let me think. > > Think think think. > > Nope, can’t think of a single difference between a vote and the loss of a human life. You got me. Well, now that it has been made obvious to you that bringing up the death penalty in the first place was a mistake on your part, you’re trying to shrug it off with a bit of lame flippancy. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9194 "2016-04-16T04:13:39Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, now that it has been made obvious to you that bringing up the death penalty in the first place was a mistake on your part, you’re trying to shrug it off with a bit of lame flippancy. An analogy is a device intended to highlight a particular similarity, not a total congruence. ---
**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:** [April 16, 2016, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9195 "2016-04-16T04:39:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > An analogy is a device intended to highlight a particular similarity, not a total congruence. I realize that the analogy you were trying to make is: 1. “There are people who deny that illegal votes were ever cast.” 2. “There are people who deny that innocents were ever executed.” The immediate problems are: who in this thread is in group (1), and why should anyone in this thread care about group (2)? There are people who deny all kinds of things - belief in God, evolution, the sphericality of the Earth, the Apollo program, the American citizenship of Barack Obama… name anything, and somebody somewhere is stubbornly denying it. This does not demonstrate that denial is inherently irrational, even if someone _was_ denying that illegal votes had ever been cast and, again, _who is so denying?_ A far more compelling and relevant analogy is: 1. “We can reasonably infer that the government, in trying to execute criminals, has executed some innocents.” 2. “We can reasonably infer that the government, in trying to prevent voter fraud, has effectively disenfranchised some citizens.” If anything, this argues for close study of what governments can be allowed to do. Is it really _necessary_ to have a death penalty, knowing false positives are possible? Is it really _necessary_ to have enhanced voter ID requirements, knowing effective disenfranchisement is possible? At least with capital punishment, we _know_ that violent sociopaths _do_ exist and _do_ kill people and _do_ cause a great deal of misery. On the voter ID side, we have “dozens of votes over aggregate elections”, and my request for a cite of _one_ dozen in any _one_ election was ignored by you. A case could be made that the death penalty should exist. Certainly the death penalty is _popular_ in the U.S., and even if doesn’t have an actual deterrent effect, the public (much of it, anyway) _feels_ that it does and that it should continue. What the case for enhanced voter ID? Because the public _feels_ that is is needed, even if the effect on elections is unproven? There are people who’ve been decapitated by IEDs that have suffered less of an exploded-in-the-face effect than you, once you decide to invoke the death penalty. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9196 "2016-04-16T05:57:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > An analogy is a device intended to highlight a particular similarity, not a total congruence. Then why do you descend into third-grade petulance when one of those differences is pointed out to you? “We’re talking about votes.” “Well, it’s a little like talking about executions.” “Agreed: the government has made errors in both cases.” “Oh, haw haw haw, you think that votes are like executions!” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9197 "2016-04-16T11:16:44Z")
Bryan: It’s not merely “denial.” It’s the reasoning that the denier demands: “Name the innocent person, specifically, that was executed, or you haven’t proved any person executed was innocent.” This particular type of denial rejects the valid inference that because many people sentenced to death were later exonerated, we know that the process is untrustworthy. Therefore, we can confidently say that innocent people have been executed, even without being able to name the particular people. IN LIKE MANNER, “Name the illegal voter, specifically, that was convicted, or you haven’t proved any illegal voters exist.” Because I can show that there were some illegal voters, and I can show that the process of finding illegal voters is untrustworthy, I can reliably infer that there were more illegal voters in an election than there were CONVICTED illegal voters in an election. Do you agree? ---
**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:** [April 16, 2016, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9198 "2016-04-16T11:21:23Z")
Incidentally, when did the RCC become opposed to the death penalty? Their history suggests they were very much hands-on in favour for a very very long time. Further incidentally, if in numerous U.S. states, the death penalty has popular support, legislative support _and_ executive support and is settled law, isn’t Bricker advocating imposing his own moral standard on these states any time he speaks in opposition to the death penalty? Should these states put him on a watchlist as a possible insurrectionist/revolutionary? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9199 "2016-04-16T11:28:30Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Incidentally, when did the RCC become opposed to the death penalty? Their history suggests they were very much hands-on in favour for a very very long time. > > Further incidentally, if in numerous U.S. states, the death penalty has popular support, legislative support _and_ executive support and is settled law, isn’t Bricker advocating imposing his own moral standard on these states any time he speaks in opposition to the death penalty? Should these states put him on a watchlist as a possible insurrectionist/revolutionary? No. I have always said that despite my opposition to the death penalty, I would be dismayed over and strongly oppose a judicial finding that it was unconstitutional. I have explicitly acknowledged that it is constitutional, and don’t want courts to end it. I certainly hope legislatures will end it, however. See the difference? ---
**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:** [April 16, 2016, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9200 "2016-04-16T11:30:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Bryan: > > It’s not merely “denial.” > > It’s the reasoning that the denier demands: “Name the innocent person, specifically, that was executed, or you haven’t proved any person executed was innocent.” > > This particular type of denial rejects the valid inference that because many people sentenced to death were later exonerated, we know that the process is untrustworthy. > > Therefore, we can confidently say that innocent people have been executed, even without being able to name the particular people. > > IN LIKE MANNER, “Name the illegal voter, specifically, that was convicted, or you haven’t proved any illegal voters exist.” Wouldn’t it be IN EVEN MORE LIKE MANNER to name citizens who were unable to vote because of enhanced ID laws? They’re a lot more analogous to the executed innocent than illegal voters, in the sense that both are victims of governmental false positives. Otherwise, what’s your point? “Look, some people are denying something, and that’s just like those other people over there who are denying something!” Big deal. And it remains unclear who in this thread is denying that illegal votes were ever cast, so the relevance is even more tenuous. > [@](#): > > Because I can show that there were some illegal voters, and I can show that the process of finding illegal voters is untrustworthy, I can reliably infer that there were more illegal voters in an election than there were CONVICTED illegal voters in an election. > > Do you agree? Sure, and I can show reliable inferences that the estimated number of people blocked from voting is _several magnitudes larger_ than your inferred number of people who got away with illegally voting, so now you have to decide - is punishing a small number of guilty people worth punishing a larger number of innocent people? Of relevance to the death penalty, is the satisfaction of killing a murderer worth the risk of killing an innocent? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=459) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=461)