If the supposed blocked voters are permitted to cast provisional ballots, why is it wrong to later ignore those provisional ballots if the result of the election would be the same either way?
For the same reason that we encourage people to vote in the first place, even though each individual vote is unlikely to change the results of an election (and for the same reason they don’t just stop counting votes when it’s clear a candidate has won). We believe, as a society, that there’s something of value in making sure that, when it comes to voting, everyone’s views are heard and represented, and that civic participation is a positive good.
To let people cast provisional ballots and then not count them seems a waste of time and also seems to make a mockery of civic virtue. It’s saying, "We’re going to let you fill out a ballot, but we’ve decided ahead of time that your vote isn’t going to count.
This, of course, doesn’t take into account those cases where a small number of votes could have an effect on the results, such as Florida in 2000, where we know registered voters were denied the right to vote due to state error.
So what’s your take when I talk about the effect on voter confidence of not checking IDs – if people believe their votes are negated by illegal votes, even if they are not, this is something worth curing?
Or is this phenomenon somehow unidirectional?
But that’s not what’s done. A person who casts a provisional ballot has ten days to show up and provide the requisite identifying evidence.
We do? Why would this be so? Why wouldn’t any such person cast a provisional ballot?
Depends on the numbers, doesn’t it? If ten voters get provisional ballots, and they are evenly split when it comes to candidates, pretty much a wash. How about if a hundred thousand voters get provisional ballots? And they tend markedly towards one candidate over the other? Is the system prepared for such, can state offices handle a hundred thousand requests for documentation in ten days?
What effect on voter confidence to you anticipate if Romney officially wins by one hundred votes and there are one hundred thousand provisional ballots cast, and those likely to tend towards Obama by a major degree? Are we supposed to pretend that a Republican state administration will pull out all the stops, bend every effort, to get those people what they need?
We already know this effort was made in the first instance to trim the voter rolls of such unreliable persons, why would we believe that, suddenly, they will rush to assist the Obama voter?
You seem to waver on the whole “voter confidence” thingy: sometimes its the one most crucial and important factor, sometimes for several pages it escapes your notice.
Tell us, do you expect a wholesale uptick in the voter confidence of such voters who are hampered and insulted by this effort? The blacks, latinos, students, the poor…they are likely to brim over with civic pride at being officially and legally hampered and restricted, to be told in so many words that their votes are of a lesser value that a white Republican? Seems unlikely to me, but perhaps you have a credible explanation, one that does not involve that voodoo that you do, so well.
Which could be cured or at least mitigated by the simple expedient of telling them the truth. As galling as this prospect may appear, if stern duty demands…
And let us not forget that there are such unscrupulous persons who will, given the opportunity, offer insinuation, anecdote, slander and sophistic rationales to support the notion that voter fraud exists to some tangible degree. Which is misleading and underhanded, but some folks are like that.
You probably know somebody like that. Most likely, you’ll see him next time you shave.
I can understand the argument around the poor having a potential issue. And poor people who are Black, Latino or students. But if they aren’t poor, then what is preventing them from getting ID’s like the majority of their fellow countrymen (and the majority of people within their own group)? Why do you list them as being equal to the poor? Is this some sort of white man’s burden thing you got going on or liberal guilt trip that you think people can’t figure this shit out on their own without some form of government support group babying them?
Really, you keep grouping the supporters of the left into a ‘retards’ category incapable of completing simple tasks.
Personally, I tend to group the right into a ‘retards’ category incapable of understanding simple facts.
*Oh snap!
*
In a word, no. In several more, what in the fuck are you talking about?
I agree. I don’t know what Lobohan is talking about either.
For:
- Most of the civilized world has voter ID: Fact.
- Most of the US population supports voter ID: Fact.
- The courts agree that voter ID is legal: Fact.
Against:
- Voter ID will prevent eligible people from voting: Opinion.
Bertrand Russell: “The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more often likely to be foolish than sensible.” (1930)
Edward Dowling: “The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor is that we have a democracy; and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it.” (1941)
John Kenneth Galbraith: “People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage.” (1977)
Oh, just as with voter ID laws. A belief in voodoo and an incapacity to get an ID only affects stupid lazy retards!
Well, emperor penguins are much bigger on average, though I suppose the average penguins glans very little from that irrumation. When it comes to a head, perhaps they should take the tip.
Gotta admire Uzi’s style: simple, direct and insistent repetition, untroubled by contrary fact, it rolls on without so much as a bump. Compare to Bricker. Bricker releases an “argument”, it gets taken apart and ground into dust. He goes back to the shop, reassembles it, gives it a new coat of paint, a geegaw, a gimcrack and a steam whistle and rolls out the new! improved! version with all the same features as the previous, but with more electrolytes.
None of that fancy manuevering for Uzi, nosir! Uzi, we are convinced! The sheer adamantine insistence has undone us, we surrender, you win the interwebs! There is no further need for you to return to this thread, you may proceed directly to your victory faceplant. I mean, victory boogie. Yes.
Others may needlessly post to this thread, you may safely ignore it from this point on, you have totally won the argument, and there is no further need for your insights. Congratulations, and the thanks of a grateful nation are yours. Here’s your ribbon. Its a Total Victory ribbon. I know its says participation ribbon, but its all we had left, Bricker kept grabbing the Total Victory ribbons out of our hands and stuffing them down his shorts, and nobody will volunteer to fetch them back.
Fucking amazing how those two can argue in all seriousness that a fabricated suspicion of a problem completely trumps the resulting *real *problems. **Uzi **further adds that the real problems aren’t real, no matter how often he’s shown otherwise. Bricker just doesn’t give a shit as long as his party benefits; country and democracy are just abstractions while partisan advantage is the only reality. It’s literally psychotic.
Before responding, I will note that questions of that sort are actually weirdly ambiguous. If I say “I support somewhat vaguely defined policy X” and you say “yeah, but what are the details of X going to be?”, you might be saying “I am intrigued by your ideas concerning X, and would like further clarification”, or you might be saying “I believe that the details of X could not ever be worked out, and I will point that out in a sarcastic fashion”.
That said, the levels of scrutiny, or whatever, would be determined the same way that such things are always determined… laws or judicial decisions. I’m not saying “hey, I believe that the following is a realistic and detailed route as to how to improve electoral law in each of the 50 states and at the federal level in the US today”, I’m saying “here’s a theoretical statement about democracy in general, feel free to agree or disagree”.
So on that note, here are some positions I hold with respect to the voter ID issue, and the larger issues of electoral fairness and hypocrisy. Please express your opinions on each of these positions… not whether you think they are currently legal or not, but whether you personally agree or disagree, and any comments you might have.
(1) If elected bodies can easily (ie, 51% majority) adjust the laws that govern how they themselves are elected that presents a systemic danger to democracy itself, because unscrupulous people (and there are unscrupulous in every party) will try to use that power to adjust the laws in their favor, and if they do, the elections that should be able to correct that injustice when public opinion swings the other way will already be corrupted.
(1a) How would I address this? My ideal solution would be for elections to be administered by a totally independent organization, one which is set up in a way to ensure that it is as fair, transparent and nonpartisan as possible. Alternatively, there could be a very high level of scrutiny required in order to pass laws affecting elections, or a supermajority required, or something (although any of these ideas also risk making it very very hard to right injustices, should injustices make it into law.)
(2) “Voter Confidence” is such a non-issue that I’ve never heard it mentioned or discussed in any context other than in this thread. Seriously, if you go out to a man on the street and say “OK, start listing the problems that affect the US right now”, he’ll start with the economy or what have you, and start listing less and less important things, and might well get to voter fraud and/or voter suppression at some point, and possibly the unreliability of recordless voting machines, but “voter confidence”? I just don’t see it. Furthermore, if someone was proposing a law requiring voter IDs to reduce voter fraud, and said “OK, there are two benefits to this law, what are they?”, I would immediately say “well, one is to reduce voter fraud” but “oh, and all the people who vote and are now asked for IDs and thus feel more secure that the election is secure, and that’s better for democracy, go USA” would not soon occur to me.
(3) The voter ID issue is incredibly dissimilar to the MA senatorial special elections issue. Reasonable and impartial people can reasonably hold quite dissimilar opinions about them, and have quite dissimilar reactions to them, without demonstrating any level of hypocrisy.
(4) Pointing out that someone has not posted about topic X, or has not expressed outrage about topic X, proves almost nothing about their opinion of topic X.
(5) When someone makes an argument about something, bringing up their opinion on other topics is irrelevant to the strength of their argument in all but the most extreme and unusual situations.
(5a) And that sort of argument, in the context of the SDMB, almost never results in anything other than hijacking and derailing the thread. Seriously, you spent a fairly large amount of this thread trying to bring up the issue of the MA senatorial special elections. Did that actually get us anywhere, other than to have a meta-discussion of that topic? What was your planned endgame? I mean, I can imagine you coming up with a couple of cites showing that voter fraud is a bigger issue than I thought, and that the voter ID laws were not as onerous as I had thought, and the combination of those cites and some clever arguing on your part might make me at least partly reconsider or retract my position. But how the heck do you ever get anywhere productive or meaningful by bringing up a vaguely similar topic and starting to throw around accusations of hypocrisy? I mean, if that’s what you enjoy, then I guess you can go right ahead, but if you have at least the glimmer of an idea that what you say might actually cause people to reconsider their present opinions and even in the smallest way maybe kind of come around to your way of thinking even a tiny bit, do you really think that’s the way to go about it?
Max, your profile says you work in video games. By chance, can you get me the names and addresses for the people who put out Dark Souls for the X-box? I’m making a little list…
Can’t help you, sorry 
[sub](It’s probably Bricker’s fault)[/sub]
Not likely. True, his is a twisted, dark, and fiendish imagination, but not even he…
ElvisL1ves
On the other hand, one would think that since a bunch of states have had these laws in place for as long as ten years, one would be able to find certifiable individual cases of disenfranchisement or “real problems”. And that opponents to these laws would be trotting them out to bolster their case. But there just don’t seem to be any - at least not that I can find easily. Apparently even those trying to prove the point can’t find them either. Harvard Law study linked below even notes this.
Link to PDF: http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Voter-ID-and-Turnout.pdf
You’d also think that with the skill, ferrvor and resources, of those arguing against these laws in court that verifiable data (i.e. testimony of witnesses) would have been developed by now. Or if it has, it would be more readily available for review. Now I don’t have the greatest research resources or skills, but can’t find even a reference to any testimony by an individual that states “I have been harmed by this Voter ID law” related to the various cases heard already.
So, it could be held that the disenfranchisement argument is as unprovable/specious -or “fabricated” - as the voter fraud argument is claimed to be. At least there are a number of verifiable cases of fraud.
No, picking on the disadvantaged/disenfranchised is doing your patriotic duty as an American, and besides, it’s good for them.
Only if, by “an unknown concept”, you mean “a concept that is not used as a code word for things one believes, but would rather not fess up to.”
Two things. As far as I’ve read, they have produced people that cannot get ID in time for the general election.
Additionally, while it may have been law for 10 years in some states that you have to produce proof of residency and identification, these are the first laws that require specific picture ID.
Nobody is arguing that it’s too much trouble to bring a few bills with you proving residency.