IOW, “Winning!”. 
Starvy? 'Zat you, bro?
I didn’t think so. I think ElvisL1ves misunderstood something.
Bricker, you’re not even close. According to the Brennan Center, the documented rate of voter fraud in Ohio in 2004 was 0.00004%, which translates to 4 in 10,000,000 people. A News21 study, released in August 2012 and covering elections since 2000, found only 10 verifiable cases of voter impersonation out of 146 million registered voters.
Are you going to tell us what else he could have meant or aren’t you? :dubious:
What else he could have meant by what? The quote about Fleming having equal claim to PA residency?
I don’t think that statement meant that it was okay to vote in both places at the same time, just that it was unclear (to Bricker) where Fleming actually resided and that he could have voted legally in one or the other, but not both.
I’m not by any means trying to defend Bricker. I just find it doubtful that he’d claim that it was okay to vote in more than one jurisdiction at the same time.
I don’t mean to argue with you. It’s not personal. 
I just think you misunderstood something.
We’re cool.
Let’s go back and see what he was responding to, though, shall we?
You: “The article states that Fleming was a Sugar Land resident so if he had simply voted there in person there wouldn’t be an issue. So it seems like the act that has to be proven was the absentee vote. How would voter ID help with that?”
Him: “Why doesn’t he ave an equal claim to Pennsylvania residency?”
So, unless he *did *mean that it was OK for Fleming to vote in more than one place, what else could logically follow? If he agrees that Fleming should have picked only one place to vote in, why could he be claiming that the place he physically lived in might not have precedence over a place he could only mail things too? Why the fuck would he even be arguing such a ridiculous point unless there really is no more to it than IOKIYAR?
We do already know of his utter contempt for democracy itself; that’s well-established in this thread and elsewhere. That helps us to see the rest following logically (OK, not logically, but self-consistently, you know what I mean).
Easy. If he can get some agreement that the in-person Sugar Land vote was the illegal one, he thinks he can convince readers that it was lack of voter ID law which allowed or encouraged the fraud (rather than the loose authentication rules afforded to absentee ballots).
In light of the fact that there is a LOT more voter fraud with absentee ballots than with in person voting, why aren’t these defenders of the vote passing laws requiring absentee ballots to be notarized. Better yet, make the notary check the voter rolls of all the other states to make sure the person cannot vote in any other state. I mean its a small cost for the integrity of the vote right?
Isn’t your concern about voter fraud really just a convenient excuse for instituting a voting practice that hurts turnout by Democrats. It is very clear that your concern isn’t the integrity of the vote but trying to defend an attempt to stifle voter turnout.
He’s certainly not dumb enough to think anyone would agree that the place where you live is not your residence.
You think he couldn’t get 27% to buy that?
The Democrats are not run by the radical left who instinctively demonize all conservatives but the Republicans seem to be much more influenced by the radical right that thinks that they have a MONOPOLY on good ideas. The consequence of the absolute certainty that they have a monopoly on good ideas allows them to do all sorts of things “for the long term greater good” and to save our country from being run by people with bad ideas. Even if it means things like a credit downgrade.
Of course it has. This concern is not genuine and it is not the concern that is driving this legislation.
Those legislatures aren’t worried about voter confidence, sate party officials have explicitly said as much.
Just to quibble on your sarcasm. I am not saying the number is imaginary in the same way that square root of -4 is an imaginary number. I am saying that the threat is imaginary.
So, for example, a paper cut is not imaginary but the threat to my life from a paper cut is imaginary and making me put on safety work gloves every time I handle paper is probably more about getting me to use the printer less than it is about protecting me from the life-threatening effects of paper cuts.
Those are things that require more than mere majorities. And the democratic process can in fact justly limit the franchise (see felony disenfranchisement) but we don’t want simple majority to be able to disenfranchise the other 49%, I think even you agree with that.
Well, sort of, I didn’t make that announcement, SCOTUS did. Of all the rights in the constitution, the most sacred is the right to vote. It is THE most fundamental right, it is the right upon which all of our other rights depend. The Supreme Court applies strict scrutiny to such fundamental rights. Strict scrutiny means you can’t fuck with it unless you have a good reason, its how strict scrutiny analysis is supposed to work. The state bears the burden of making the case for why a law that limits such fundamental rights is constitutional. It must make a case that there is a COMPELLING state interest that is at stake.
I submit to you that if this voter confidence this was such a compelling state interest (even if only in the minds of the state) they would address the gaping chest wound of absentee ballots before they tried this bullshit.
It seems to me that the motive of the legislature in passing these botier ID laws should be dispositive in a case involving strict scrutiny.
I have been disappointed in how SCOTUS has been minimizing the importance of voter confidence when it comes to SuperPACS but giving so much weight to it when it comes to limiting the franchise.
How do they know who sent in the absentee ballot?
How?
He’s only off by a factor of 10,000% I think he was off by two decimal point because he forgot that the figure upthread was in percent.
I think his point (which I disagree with) was that, since Fleming does own a home in Yardley PA, his claim of residency there is just as legitimate as his claim of residency in Sugar Land Texas, and therefore he could legally have voted in one or the other but not both. I don’t see how what you’re saying follows from his statement. But it’s no biggee, we can agree to disagree on that, and I think you and I both agree that, since he was running for office in Sugar Land, any claim of residency in PA is problematic at best.
At least it’s problematic if Texas requires candidates to actually reside in the state, which I assume is the case.
Documented voter fraud.
Is your position that each and every case of voter fraud was, in fact, documented?
They have? All of them? Lots of them? Who?
Is it your position that imaginary voter fraud should be included in the statistics?
No, but voter perception s a valid basis to legislate additional controls, even if the perception is flawed.
No. My position is that out of the several thousand cases known and investigated, they were only able to prove voter fraud in a percentage so small it was several places to the RIGHT of the decimal point, and that you and the people who are pushing voter ID laws need something better than, “we know it must be happening, even if we can’t find it” as a reason.
Proof, Bricker. Something you, as a lawyer, are supposed to believe in. Give us some actual, verifiable, numbers, legal prosecutions, news stories–anything!-- showing that in-person voter fraud is an issue, and I’ll reconsider my position.
Frankly, if there are no more than 2 or 3 voters in the entire state of Pennsylvania (where I live) who are voting fraudulently, I don’t consider the issue serious enough to justify the time and expense of creating and enforcing these laws, nor do I think they justify the disenfranchisement of several hundred thousand people.
Call it a riff on the “better a thousand guilty people go free than one innocent go to prison” if you like. I’d rather have several hundred thousand people who can legitimately vote not be prevented from voting in the quest to prevent 1 or 2 from illegally voting.
ETA: Oh, yeah, and cite that people’s perception that this was a problem even existed before Republican-controlled legislatures started making a big noise to make it look like one. Better (easier, even), cite that a significant percentage of the population thinks it’s an issue even now.
By the way: for all of you sneeringly confident of the correctness of your position – how do you intend to reverse the massive popular support Voter ID laws currently enjoy? You must admit that in our current system, that represents at least a tiny obstacles to the Great and Wise Lefty Cause.
I’m going to surprise you, Bricker. I don’t actually have an objection to showing ID to vote.
What I object to about these laws is that so many of them seem to have been passed with limited time between passage, taking effect, and this election cycle, making it difficult for voters who don’t drive to get their ID. In Pennsylvania, for example, the DMV said there was no way they could provide ID to the 700,000 or so people who are legal voters without driver’s licenses between the time the law took effect and the time of the election.
And I object to how states such as WI have rigged it so that places where you can get ID are very available in Republican-leaning areas while being nearly unavailable to non-existent in Democratic-leaning areas.
You want my support for voter ID laws? Sure. As soon as you make it easy for everyone to get the ID they need, and have a good, long lead time between the law being signed and the ID being required, by which I mean at least a year and maybe two. And I want a trade-off, in that no non-governmental person can challenge someone’s right to vote if they show that ID.
Fair enough?
(P.S. I still think the laws are unnecessary, because they’re “solving” a problem that doesn’t exist.)
Why should I care what you think the right standard is?
Have you been elected to some leadership position?