For those too tired to click elucidator’s link, it goes to an article that predicts (based on the same Brennan Center study we’ve heard so much about) chaos and confusion on Election Day in Pennsylvania.
Of course, Indiana faced similar challenges when they passed their Voter ID law, and things went fine there, so much so that their scheme was upheld by the Supreme Court.
I wonder why this article fails to mention that?
Any speculation, elucidator?
Funny you should mention that.
I have volunteered to be available as part of a team of lawyers that will be available on Election Day to help respond to legal challenges that may arise from Voter ID or any other … tactics… that might be used.
And these series of threads were an impetus for my public spirit.
I don’t fully understand your point there. The Brennan Center report talks about how the courts have upheld the voter ID laws. All the study is trying to argue is that in states with voter ID laws, “many rural, urban, poor, and minority voters must overcome substantial obstacles in order to retain their right to vote.”
You keep trying to change the debate from the appropriateness of requiring voter ID laws to that of the legality of it, but people aren’t claiming it’s unconstitutional. (Some people are claiming that it should be found unconstitutional).
Gee, why should anyone anticipate chaos in Pennsylvania? Maybe the fact that the person in charge of carrying out this scheme doesn’t even know what they law says?
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/01/13067741-i-dont-know-what-the-law-says
Yeah, this should make everyone super confident about the integrity of the process.
Yeah, make sure your name tag says “Hi, my name is Partisan Douchenozzle. Neener, neener, neener. Suck. On. This. Law.”
Such an unbiased and impartial interpreter of the law. What a valuable contribution to the integrity of the whole process. Make sure that you do what you can to hunt down those sleeper Swedes who’ve been biding their time since pre-1970 in order to cast a fraudulent vote.
As part of an apolitical organization, for the RNC, or for an RNC affiliated group?
Part out of curiosity and part because I hope that you’ll get to see some Republican shenanigans. Either way, though, good on you.
Oh, there’s a more principled, non-partisan, liberal objection to mandatory nationwide ID (while this takes a different form, strictly regulating which types of ID are sufficient and tying them to a civil liberty is essentially homologous). When there were indications Labour would institute a nationwide ID, I didn’t pay much attention to the objections. I was enamoured with little illustrations of the City of the Future, where one ID would be sufficient to pass security, purchase shopping and prove one’s capacity to drive, or drink, depending on the inclination (wee callow whelp that I was).
The really serious count of hypocrisy comes from voter drives. They have the veneer of respectability: countering systemic bias, ensuring the democratic legitimacy of government and all that nonsense. In reality, such travails are only for partisan gain. Ever seen an ACORN rep help a rich middle aged white man vote? Thought not. Most oppressed demographic in the US, to be honest. Perhaps worldwide.
For an RNC-affiliated organization.
Did you read the link I was responding to?
It depends on the particulars of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. To the extent that any of these reasons rest on your personal convictions, it’s a blow to their validity.
And, indeed, how could they not, since the arguments come down to weighing the additional difficulty the voter encounters against the additional security the measures bring to the results.
But in a thread condemning Armenians, in which you have waxed eloquent about how terrible and unprecedented their actions are, when someone has provided links to the Turkish genocide… it becomes willful ignorance.
Tell me, then: what if I were to simply dismiss your opinions about how to weight voter inconvenience against ballot security as uninformed? That is, you deliberately cocoon yourself, aver that you have no particular obligation or even interest in learning anything that might advance a more balanced view – how is your opinion on how to assign persuasive weight to these issues of any value at all?
You’re right that it’s virtually impossible to find identical issues. But what I have tried to do is identify the key elements. No one (except Lobohan) would say, “Well, yes, but the Democrats did that on a Monday. The Republicans did it on a Wednesday, which is obviously different.”
Here, at least according to elucidator, the key elements were elected officials using their official power to promote partisan ends.
Well, not quite. If the Democrats used that shenanigan – as they did – to get the health care law passed, they have gained an advantage that sustains itself, since it will be harder to get a bill repealed than initially passed.
And for you to claim that the Voter ID laws create an advantage that is self-perpetuating, it seems to me that your claim is premature, as you yourself acknowledge:
So my response is: there’s no evidence yet of significant voter decline, and who cares how you find the situation, since you deliberately shield yourself from comparative information about wrongdoing from your own side and are thus unable to draw any meaningful comparisons?
It would help your argument if the examples you used weren’t in scope and frequency a small fraction of what they’re being compared to. The “he did it too” defense doesn’t work well when you’re a habitual violator of the offense in question.
You’re actually flipping between dishonest nonsense and declarations of victory.
Why? I’m not the one lying here. You outright lied about my position on gerrymandering and when shown it you didn’t have the courage or integrity to admit to it.
Do you think if you bluster long enough people will forget what a wretch you are, Bricker?
Why do you feel the need to argue under a cloud of lies?
Please don’t lie about my positions, Bricker.
If I offer a distinctly left-leaning site, I pretty much always say so. Point of honor.
Any number of explanations are possible, including mendacity. Here’s the thing: I am entirely well aware of that. I link to ThinkProgress and Talking Points Memo because they have yet to burn me, they have yet to offer me ammunition that blew up in my face. And they don’t play cutey-pie games of insinuation and suggestion, as some dishonest sources and posters are inclined to do. For instance, if they told me some yarn about scurrilous CASA volunteers, and told it twice, it would be the same story on both occasions.
Are the Brennan Center reports lies, as you would like to insinuate? Then you will have no problem proving it, since you apparently have the facts right at your fingertips, but were in too much of a hurry to offer. For several days, now.
I mean, you would never do such a thing without having the facts at hand, since that is how you arrived at your opinion, yes? Examining the facts, yes? Which means, you have them to examine, yes?
Further, you suggest that the Supreme Court ruling on the Indiana laws was a ringing endorsement of the procedures, and reflect the Supreme Courts total confidence in Indiana’s ability to ensure secure and speedy compliance with the requirements for voters who have id issues.
Perhaps, when you have a moment, you will point out to us where such a statement of confidence was issued? It appears to have escaped the attention of the NY Times. Regretably, it also failed to note Justice Scalia sneering down at the plaintiff’s attorney with a Brickeresque “Hoosier Daddy?”
So, I’m guessing here that the failure of *ThinkProgress *to mention the court’s ruling was based on the utter irrelevancy of that ruling to the matter at hand. If you have contrary evidence, now would be a good time to offer it.
Cue the crickets…
Addenda: perhaps this was ever so slightly off topic, but I think it matters because it speaks to the mind-set of the authors of this atrocious nonsense. Specifically, what provisions did they make to offset the impact of these laws on voters? In what way did they provide for honestly registered voters to keep the same rights they have enjoyed before? What effort has been made to ensure that voter id’s are offered, supplied and readily available in a manner that is timely, speedy, and convenient?
And if there no such provision, what does it say about the motivations of the Republican legislators? Nothing good. This, coupled with an absolute urgency to ram these laws into place before the next elections speak volumes. This is cynicism masquerading as civic virtue, its sole object is to win the next election, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!
From the above linked article:
A second hand anecdote, to be sure, but telling. If I were an unprincipled cynic, I might be inclined to celebrate this disaster. There is a good to excellent chance that the Pubbies has set their asses on fire. Not looking good in Pennsylvania. Texas and Florida may well prove to be a galactic level clusterfuck. The voters will blame the Democrats? Good luck with that.
But I am not such a person, I am committed to democracy, I want to win fair and square, or not at all. That’s what a commitment to democracy actually means. Truth over victory, Bricker. Sure, seeing the Republicans nail their collective pecker to a tree and set the tree on fire, can’t help that a part of me gloats in true Brickeresque fashion. But that’s at least somewhat wrong. I don’t want the destruction of the Republican Party, I want its reformation, I want an honest and loyal opposition, a genuine conservative party, one that we might be proud of, even as we disagree.
And what we have now? Not even close.
It’s hard for me to believe your claims.
Because if they were true, it sure seems like your condemnation of Massachusetts’ actions would have been strong, and not couched entirely as a comparison to how bad the Republicans had been.
You’re actually committed to seeing the left win, fair or unfair.
Never have yet.
“He did it too,” is not the defense.
“They did it too, and you don’t care,” is the defense.
They didn’t do it to the same extent. Nor was the example indicative of a pattern of behavior.
Imaging both defenses coming out of the mouth of a 12 year old. Now, did your correction really help your argument?
So if my argument were (simplifying slightly here):
(1) These voter ID laws will make it much harder for people in these demographics to vote (here’s some data)
(2) Those demographics are largely democratic-leaning (here’s some data)
(3) Voter fraud is barely a problem at all (here’s some data)
(4) Plus this law doesn’t even address voter fraud as it usually happens (here’s some data)
(5) Therefore, I think the negatives of the law outweigh the positives, because I find party-specific voter suppression on the scale of tens or hundreds of thousands of votes to be a more serious blow to democracy than voter fraud on the scale of ones or tens or conceivably hundreds of votes
Then clearly the part of that argument that comes down to personal opinion is (5). So I make that argument, and then you say “yeah, you CLAIM that you think party-specific voter suppression in the scale of tens or hundreds of thousands of votes is a more serious blow to democracy than voter fraud on the scale of ones or tens or hundreds of votes, but that sure isn’t what you said when we were discussing the MA issue in which, uhh, neither party-specific voter suppression nor voter fraud were part of the issue at all”.
You can see how I think that your objection is specious?
The only relevant word there is “unprecedented”. If I were in fact saying “Armenians are doing bad things, AND ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD WHO HAVE EVER DONE BAD THINGS”, then showing evidence of a Turkish genocide would in fact disprove my claim, and if you then provided evidence of it and I was just like “la la la, don’t want to read your links, want to keep talking about how Armenians are the only baddies ever”, then you would in fact have some justification in complaining. But I’m not saying anything like that. A better analogy would be… I’m complaining that Armenians did some specific bad thing, say, bribed gymnastics judges in the olympics or something, and then you popped in and said “well, I haven’t seen you complaining enough about the Turkish genocide of Armenians, clearly you’re only complaining about that olympics thing because you are prejudiced against Armenians. In fact, I flatly reject any possible validity of your argument about the olympics issue until and unless you express an opinion about the genocide issue”.
Well, you’re free to dismiss anything you want as uninformed. And if in fact there was a learned but accessible paper that someone had written in which the negative effects on a democracy of voter suppression vis a vis ballot security had been written and data was actually available, then that would actually be relevant to the issue at hand. But the MA state legislature dicking with the procedure for special senatorial elections has nothing to do with the issue at all. Furthermore, there’s difference between “here’s a link which provides more information about the topic at hand. I think you should read it. Please read it, it contains useful information” and “here’s a link to a vaguely comparable situation. Please read it so that I can catch you in hypocrisy. Aww, c’mon, read it!”.
There’s also some very very serious irony here, in that as far as I can tell, your positions on the two issues are that what the Pubs are doing in the voter ID thing is good, and what the Dems did in the MA thing was bad. Whereas my position is that what the pubs are doing in the voter ID thing is bad, while what the Dems did in the MA thing was also bad, but just much less bad in a much less important issue. In other words, my positions are actually CLOSER together than yours. (Unless, of course, you think that what the Dems did in MA is just fine, in which case I withdraw the irony.)
Well, if “elected officials using their official power to promote partisan ends” were a crime worthy of pitting, then we would never talk about anything else ever, and every politician in the history of the world would be constantly pitted.
That’s such a vague statement as to be meaningless. I can’t speak for Elucidator, but that is only a fraction of the issue as far as I’m concerned. Or rather, that’s an extraordinary simplification of the issue.
That’s a pretty vacuous point. I think you’d definitely agree that stealing one election is not nearly as bad as stealing all elections from now until the end of time. But of course, you can steal one election, and then pass a law, and then that law is there and on the books, and oh my god it’s just like stealing all elections until the end of time because you passed a law!
I’ve acknowledged many times that I’m not really debating the specific details of the actual laws, I have made no claims involving actual numbers of votes likely to be suppressed, real demographic arguments, etc. Partly, that’s because I’m lazy, but mainly because I just don’t have the expertise necessary to really analyze the topic. I’m a computer programmer, not a demographer or political scientist. But as far as I can tell, your position seems to be that even if the analysis being made by the lefties in this thread (and in various newspaper articles, etc.) is correct, then you STILL think the law is just fine because it had a justification.
Is your position that you don’t think it will meaningfully suppress voter turnout? It seems to be that you either don’t have an opinion on that, or do in fact thing it will suppress voter turnout, but just don’t care.
So if in fact your position is that you agree that it will plausibly or likely suppress voter turnout and still don’t care, then THAT is what I find disturbing, and what I am arguing with.
By the way, you didn’t respond at all to this part of my last post, I’m curious what your position is: