Not quite. He sidled up to it, even right next to it, but facing away from it. He admitted that some Republican lawmakers are corrupt and cynical, but didn’t hazard a guess as to the proportion, then moved briskly along to his premise: that it doesn’t matter how stinky the procedure and corrupt the motives, its good anyway because its got magical neutral justification. No, wait, “valid neutral justification”. Similar to magical, being invisible and very nearly miraculous.
“Man this Robin Hood chap could really get things done! The government are useless at wealth redistribution!”
Bricker, in the GD thread, you agreed that vote fraud probably occurs at a rate of 1 per 25,000 votes, or. 00004%.
The difference of 537 votes in Florida represented 00009%. Your estimated fraud rate would have resulted in 237 fraudulent votes.
Still lower, bitch.
Beyond that, voter ID will lead to between 1% and 14% of voters not being able to vote. That would be between 59,225 and 829,154 votes in Florida in 2000.
Would that be more accurate? More valid? More confidence inspiring?
Clearly, the answer is yes, yes and yes, as long as those votes suppressed were votes for Democratic party candidates. Cause that’s the name of the game here. As long as it’s legal that is.
PA Judge Simpson begins his review today.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57519656/court-begins-review-of-pa-voter-id-law/
In a majority of cases, its reasonable to think that it isn’t likely to make a difference, or not much of one. But the Bricker Uncertainty Principle may come into play, with unknown consequences.
Say Romney wins Pennsylvania by a hair’s breadth, but would have lost if the provisional ballots had been cast as “real” votes. Then what? The people who cast those ballots will know who they voted for. But will we know? Do they plan to count the provisional ballots and release the results?
Let’s say there are five thousand provisional ballots cast, four thousand of them for Obama, and Romney has a lead of “real” votes of two thousand. See the problem? Suddenly, five thousand people have six days to put Pennsylvania in the Obama column. Six days to show their proofs and have them verified. Verified by whom? Any chance that the verifying body will be dominated by Republicans? Or Democrats, for that matter? Even given totally non-partisan honest scrutiny, will six days be enough?
What efforts by Republicans to impede the process may we expect? Battalions of lawyers converging on the capital? Or on each individual “provisional” ballot-caster to get their votes authenticated? Remember the “Brooks Brothers Riot”?
If counting the provisional ballots fairly and squarely means Obama would win, does anyone truly believe that the Pubbies will simply lube up and bend over?
Results like this are unlikely, but possible. A rational argument if ever there was one. And its effect on “voter confidence” would be spectacular! Voter confidence would crash and burn like the Hindenburg, everybody will be pissed, everybody will think their guy has been cheated.
Thermonuclear clusterfuck. Compliments of the Pennsylvania Republican Party.
Bricker, m’lad, you’d best hope that Obama totally romps on Romney. By such a margin that this scenario becomes moot, that even with all the provisional ballots being counted for Romney, Obama wins. Otherwise, the ugly side of the Republican Party will be on full display, in hysterical hair on fire mode. We already know what sordid tactics they are willing to use to hamper voters, what do you think they’d be willing to do to stop Obama from winning?
Publicly sacrifice their first-born to Cthulu? I don’t doubt it. But hiring a battalion of lawyers? Damn sure bet. Done it before, will do it again.
Thank Heaven we have the utterly unbiased and non-partisan Supreme Court to save the day! Again.
Let’s hope that Judge Simpson prevents that possibility.
Now, Universe, I know I haven’t been a very good pantheist…
I don’t care.
The reason I don’t care is because the supposed reason that these voters are “unable” to vote is nonsense.
If I called a press conference and announce I was putting a voodoo curse on any person who voted for Obama, and you then showed me absolutely solid, verifiable proof that because of my announcement, 15,000 people chose not to vote and risk a voodoo curse, I would not feel in the least responsible for that outcome… because voodoo curses are nonsense, and someone who chooses not to vote because of nonsense is not countable as a suppressed vote.
In precisely the same way, someone who chooses not to vote because they can’t be arsed to get a free ID is not countable as a suppressed vote.
I am reasonably confident that Judge Simpson will find that the procedures being used by the state are perfectly sufficient.
What about those people who don’t “choose not to vote because they can’t be arsed to get a free ID” but rather are unable to vote because they can’t get the proper ID because they work two or three jobs during the hours the ID centers are open or because they are elderly, can’t drive, and don’t have an ID center in their county? Are they countable as a suppressed vote?
Maybe “can’t be arsed” is actually some obscure legal term that includes those kinds of circumstances, in which case I bow to your superior knowledge counselor.
ETA: Cite, before anyone asks for it. Inquirer.com archives
Because you’re a partisan hypocrite piece of shit. Now why not run off in failure and scream about how you’ve won, coward.
Says the guy who thinks crackers mystically become meat. 
N
Don’t forget that you are talking to a guy who believes that people in such circumstances can easily travel at 1 mile per minute to a town 20 miles away in order to get their documentation.
In other words, he doesn’t actually give a shit. If you cannot get your documentation it is only because you are a lazy sack.
Well of course. If you’re not idle rich and thus able to spend hours at a photo ID center it’s your own damn fault! Hell, if you’re not so rich that you can’t just buy a congressman and not even have to bother to vote then you’re practically un-American!
I’m fine with letting that go as long as we don’t consistently disenfranchise 10 times that amount of people with “solutions”. Voter fraud is ok and should be allowed to happen because all proposed solutions for solving it creates even more voter fraud. So bring on the voter fraud! Fraud it up!
In which case the PA Supremes would certainly follow with a Writ of Cut the Shit, Retard, We Already Fucking *Told *You What To Do. Or however you say that in Blackstonian Latin.
But then, you cannot even comprehend the concept of country before party, or the concept of the value of democracy itself, so you actually deserve pity rather than contempt. And the rest of us need to be protected from you and your fellow partisan fanatics.
Excuse me, but precisely where in our beloved Constitution is there a proviso that abrogates civil voting rights for the lazy? I know that Sloth is a deadly sin, one of my personal favorites, but I was unaware that it had Constitutional status.
And I note with wonder and astonishment your apparent lack of concern for the possible consequences I have laid out, above. (Post 2466, glad to help!)
Is that a very discreet vote of confidence in the Pennsylvania authorities, your complete satisfaction that no such dreadful results are possible?
Or, as seems more likely, you would simply prefer to ignore it, and hope I’ll just shut up and go away. After all, it was you who brought up the possible terrible consequences of a very, very close election, and now you want to pretend you didn’t? No goose sauce for your gander, then?
I don’t think she was focusing on the redistribution so much as the abuse of government power over the governed. The way to get rid of this abuse isn’t to petition for anarchy but to have a government of, by and for the people.
So in what way is not having a car like a voodoo curse? The cost of ignoring that particular hurdle is very very low. The cost of overcoming the Pennsylvania voter ID law is not always.
Undue burdens on the right to vote are not defensible. How many people would have to take an unpaid day off of work to get the ID would I have to produce for you to think that the law might be an undue burden?
I can justify limiting the franchise to landowners, people who have served in the military, people with children, people with a high school degree, people who have voted in the primary, all for facially neutral reasons and even though partisanship MIGHT be one of the reasons, it might pass muster under crawford because it is not the ONLY reason.
Why would you think that?
I think that Crawford should have been overturned under article 2 of the Voting Rights Act but given the instruction of the higher court, why would the trial level judge do the same damn thing? That would be just begging to get overturned, wouldn’t it?
Ah, so you are for having a limo pick people up with door to door service to the polling station. Or better yet, public transport that stops in front of their houses. I’m sure some people don’t vote because the bus stop is down at the end of the street. Better buy them cars. Good for the economy as well. Do we need to provide them with a free license? Probably. The hoops for them to get a driver’s license may cause them not to want to drive their car to the polling station and thus not to vote. So, a free driver’s license as well. But how will they get their free driver’s license? We’ll need the limo to pick them up and get them down to the DMV. Let’s pay someone to stand in line for them. Can’t have someone missing work from one of the dozen jobs they hold at one time while they stand in line, can we? Blah, blah, blah…