Of course it’s the goal. Otherwise, they’d bar absentee ballots, which is where a boatload of the actual (albeit negligible) fraud occurs. Which Voter ID law was bundled with the elimination of absentee ballots again? I also don’t see you up in arms about the exceptionally long waiting lines in urban areas while the suburbanites can often breeze right in.
For fuck’s sake, you know better, and we know you know better. I’ve often disagreed with you, and even thought that you sometimes used twisted logic to try and defend your stance, but I don’t recall ever thinking that you were nothing more than a partisan shill. I do now.
Actually, smart has very little to do with this one. It’d simply understanding what a “lie” is and is not. Odd that this little nugget of information has been so elusive for you all these years.
By all means. Let anyone who wants to raise their hand an admit they share this bit of ignorance and idiocy with you stand and be counted. Of course, you still haven’t even pointed to a “lie”. You already backpedaled to “dishonest”, and that amounted to him only offering his side of the argument. Boo-hoo, poor Chuckle Head…Bricker didn’t argue your side of the debate for you.
You really don’t see how lame your on in this, do you? Ahh. Such is part of the beauty, I guess. Perhaps you might learn to keep your ad hominem yap shut a little more.
we might prevent some illegal votes before the fact and we can catch illegal voters after the fact but unless we abandon the secret ballot (now there’s an idea sorely lacking for an advocate!) . . . Gregoire still wins.
So, tell me again, exactly what does this voter ID thingy accomplish exactly?
I can clearly see how shifting voter confidence from elections in general to the legitimacy of a specific elected official might appeal to [del]Republicans[/del] some.
If the wet ink on the birth certificate don’t sway 'em surely the wetbacks will?
The first rule of voter ID fight club is you don’t mention the glaringly obvious security holes in voter ID fight club (see also: the solution to dead folks still being listed in poll books isn’t to properly maintain the books . . . it’s voter ID,
… it gets rid of your gambling debts it quits smoking
it’s a friend and it’s a companion
and it’s the only product you will ever need
follow these easy assembly instructions it never needs ironing
well it takes weights off hips bust thighs chin midriff
gives you dandruff and it finds you a job it is a job
and it strips the phone company free take ten for five exchange
and it gives you denture breath
and you know it’s a friend and it’s a companion
and it gets rid of your traveler’s checks
it’s new it’s improved it’s old-fashioned
well it takes care of business never needs winding
never needs winding never needs winding …
Tom Waits Step Right Up)
CMC fnord!
Interesting note: The thread *Do the flaws in electronic voting machines render American elections unreliable? * in GD has a grand total of 62 posts and the last one was on 06-12-2012. I guess some of the reasons for a lack of voter confidence in elections are just more important than others, or could it be that the solutions to flaws in electronic voting machines don’t do anything to advance the Quixotic quest for voter IDs? :dubious:
Well, you can call anyone a liar you want. You can call your chair a liar, too. Doesn’t make it so, though. And your explanation shows how your bias short-circuits your brain. It is wrong to think that what you describe has at its necessary and ONLY purpose Dem vote-suppression. For even if it is granted that such suppression is a necessary result—hell, even the intent of it—you also have the increased likelihood that only proper votes will be cast and the chances of a valid vote being undone by an illegal one is reduced. You have a more secure voting system that people can have increased faith in. So, you’re wrong.
You say it’s not about repeating honest disagreement. Well, you’re free to not respect honest disagreement all you want. But what I love is that you absolutely deny 100% that anyone can have a principled position on this. Why? Because you’ve declared it so.
Obviously I don’t agree. We can have that discussion here or in that thread – whichever you like.
Of course, I wonder why you’d bother. According to the current line, I’m simply an unrepentant liar. Why would you waste time constructing an argument, if I am the sort of person who would simply deny you had a point?
As I have mentioned several times, the purpose is creating a framework by which we can reliably associate voters with the fact that they voted. We can prosecute non-citizens who vote.
This will,I am confident, be a deterrent for non-citizens voting,in the same way that cameras in bank lobbys act a deterrent for bank robberies.
Are you telling me that you missed each and every previous post where I said this?
So you honestly believe that the Republican Party powers-that-be have data showing “a majority of Dem voters do not have valid government issued ID and are so busy being awesome that they can’t go get one in time for an election every four years.” And that upon seeing that data they decided that this law would would suppress enough votes for them to gain an advantage? That is what you think their master plan is?
Did you know that in the 2008 election only 57.37% of eligible voters bothered to cast a vote?
Of those, only 52.9% voted for Obama, about 10million more than for McCain. That’s not much more than a quarter of eligible voters, and you honestly believe that the Republican Party thinks they aren’t able to go get valid government id?
Of that 10million, how many do you think (a) did not at the time have valid government issued id and (b) would not have ever been able to get one because they’re so busy being awesome during the entire 4 years leading up to the election and (c) that group represents a significant enough MARGIN that it would have altered the electoral college in McCain’s favour all the while (d) not in any way suppress Republican votes in a district that might tip the scales in favour of Obama.
Harvard/Columbia study (Note: This appears to be a joint effort between members of the two institutions. John actually linked it twice as separate studies, which it’s not):
This study looks at the aspect of partisanship on voter confidence.
Among the findings:
John also referenced a book excerpt that I won’t link since we can’t adequately dissect it (unless someone wants to buy copies for everyone).
In response to these links, Bricker quotes the following from the Harvard/Columbia study:
And responds thus:
Bricker appears to be relying on the notion (correct me if I’m wrong) that when voters who were required to present ID were asked about confidence they were thinking about places that don’t require voter ID. This is the only explanation that I can come up with since the study states right in it’s conclusion that
Bricker in a follow-up post quotes this part of the study:
and writes that he rejects the reasoning of the study because
Which doesn’t make any sense because they specifically asked people who WERE required to provide ID.
These two studies together heavily suggest that voter ID will have no impact or a negative impact on voter confidence.
When I moved to Baltimore three years ago, I had to get a new drivers license. I drove to the closest DMV, which was a forty-minute drive from my house. I got there an hour before they opened, and the line was, no shit, halfway across the damn parking lot. It took me two hours just to get into the building. Once inside, it was another two hours before I was able to even start the process of getting my ID. Luckily, my wife is very organized, and had remembered to bring everything we needed to get our licenses- if I’d gone by myself, I wouldn’t have brought enough to prove that I actually live where I said I did.
Now imagine doing all of that on a minimum wage. Imagine doing all that without a vehicle. Imagine doing all of that in a wheelchair.
Yes, it is a goddamn “onerous burden”. Three years later, I still seethe when I think about how much bullshit that entire thing was.
When I had to renew my tags, I took my coworker’s advice and went the opposite direction, out into the country. Again, another forty minute drive- but at this DMV, I was in and talking to a clerk within ten minutes. Of course, no bus runs out there…
Personally, I don’t care whether we check IDs for voting. I was actually surprised the first time I voted and I didn’t have to present my ID. However, if you’re going to do it, it’s got to be as easy as voting is now. If it isn’t, if you require more hoops to jumped through, then you’re disenfranchising voters who would normally be able to vote.
And I’m sure it’s just coincidence that Republicans are the ones presenting this solution for a problem which may or may not exist, and which seems to disenfranchise voters who are more likely to vote for the opposition. Republicans are for small government, as long as it’s the government *they *want.
One thing that I postulated in another thread was a dual-system where you have to enter your SS # into a terminal prior to being allowed to vote. We already have plenty of systems with full lists of SS #'s that we could tie into, so setup shouldn’t be a burdensome problem. Additionally, only citizens have SS #s. If it comes up that you’re SS # has already been used, then ID could be provided to establish identity and an investigation could ensue.
I’m not sure what these questions are even doing here, since they are fair, reasonable, and cogent efforts aimed at either refining or rebutting my claims. It’s as if you brought in Bizarro World posts.
Not exactly correct.
From the Harvard study, page 1755:
(emphasis added)
It’s upon this supposition that the authors rest their claims. But it’s not a valid one. Most voters know that their state doesn’t require photo ID. They weren’t thinking of other states when they responded as they did; they were thinking of their own state and the fact that photo ID was not required. It was THAT lack which resulted in a lower confidence. A repeat of this study, divided between states that require photo ID and those that don’t, will prove my point.
See the distinction? Even people that were asked to produce ID were not required to produce PHOTO ID. That is the key upon which the whole voter ID discussion rests. Voters are not fools; they know a non-photo ID is weak or meaningless.
My wife is a citizen of the Dominican Republic and has a social security number. I’d love to get another right-wing voter on the rolls.
Second problem: let’s say I show up and the system tells me my SSN has been used to vote. A full investigation of my ID proves I am the legitimate holder of my SSN.
How do we identify and prosecute the previous voter, the one who used my SSN?
Hmm…wasn’t aware that territory members got SS numbers. Makes sense now that I’m thinking about it. I suppose since we know which SS #s come from the territories, we could just bar their use.
Not sure re: investigation. Also, since you (probably) couldn’t link the two systems, you wouldn’t know which way the false vote went to discount it. Maybe a thumb print (not linked to a database) at voting time? That way, we have a fingerprint with which to identify the illegally voting party. Additionally, the ink could keep people from voting more than once.
I would absolutely be in favor of a thumb print at voting time, reliably associated with the name and address of the voter. In fact, that’s better than a photo ID.
Er… the DR is not a US territory. Non-citizen permanent residents get Social Security numbers.