I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1)

[Bricker]

@MaxTheVool

Now it appears that your interest in voter confidence expands into other non-voter-impersonation-issues such as felons voting, in which case the importance of voter ID laws is that it makes successful prosecution after the fact easier.

From two years ago:

@Bricker

Because the testimony of such a person, standing alone, if believed by the jury, would be legally sufficient to sustain a conviction.

So far as I can determine, you’re claiming that no jury would believe it. I don’t agree, but surely you can see that’s a matter for an individual jury to judge the demeanor of the witnesses and assess their credibility. I – nor you – have any idea how convincing and believable a given poll worker witness would be.

But from the standpoint of law, that poll worker’s testimony is legally sufficient to convict.

I was talking about the necessity of successful prosecutions two years ago, Max.

@Bricker

The quote you offer talks about voter impersonation fraud, but you talk about voter fraud.

What about the case in which Sven Amuldsen votes, correctly identifying himself as Sven Amuldsen, but casts an illegal ballot because he’s not a citizen, or a felon without restoration of his voting rights, or has already voted elsewhere? That’s not impersonation, in the sense your quoted author means, but it’s nonetheless a fraudulent vote.

I was talking about non-impersonation fraud two years ago, too.

Now, it’s possible that your own mental image of your own position is absolutely identical to what it was when you started posting in this thread. But if so, you certainly haven’t done a very good job of explaining the totality of your position… which suggests that it is in fact NOT particularly simple. Or else that you’re very bad at explaining said position (or hesitant to do so).

Your responses to me have generally been responsive to what I have actually argued. From this I infer that you generally understood my argument.