Yes, you’re right. 136 is more than 112.
But when the margin is 10,000 votes, and we see that there were 112 fraudulent votes, we don’t picture there’s any danger.
When the margin is 136 votes and we see that there were 112 fraudulent votes, we easily see the danger. That outcome show it’s plausible - that it’s a legitimate danger. That if legitimate 25 voters had stayed home that day, something different might have happened. It makes the possibility visceral; it makes it real.
To the extent that there’s a right to vote written into the constitution, the use of Voter ID laws doesn’t violate that right.
As the Supreme Court made clear in Crawford v. Marion County. A decision constitutional scholars are quite familiar with, I might add.
Hey stupid, you’re the one who said these were examples that it would have made a difference, and that was a lie.
Even pointing to extremes, you cannot come up with an example in which what is in reality likely an inflated estimate of voter fraud would make a difference. You still have to pivot from your extreme examples to a hypothetical.
By the way, visceral doesn’t equal real. Visceral means at a gut level rather than being rational or intellectual. That may be the first part of your many problems.
The issue in Florida wasn’t even Voter ID, it was the horrific ballot design.
19 000 ballots disqualified for double punching outstrips the 537 victory margin by an order of magnitude and then some.
I know what visceral means.
By the way, a semicolon is not an equals sign.
And, yes – the issue here is, as I have said from the start, about voter confidence. When voter see a 136 vote election and the possibility of 112 fraudulent votes, they get spooked. Viscerally.
And it was a Republican that designed that ballot, was it?
So if 1000 lost votes is less viscerally scary than 100 false votes, a law that discounts 1000 legitimate votes to prevent 100 false votes is a good law?
If you want to make the case that IF these laws were NOT being used to commit an injustice, then they might well be valid and useful, you will get no argument from me. But they are, and you know that they are.
In the course of our conversation, it has become utterly blatant and obvious, Republicans are trying to suppress the Dem vote and effectively steal the election. Way back at the start, you accepted that some Republican were indeed so motivated. No doubt you would have severely renounced, denounced, and condemned them if you hadn’t been so busy excoriating me for not being sufficiently upset about Massachusetts.
Did you ever get around to that, or were you too busy with the all-important issue of liberal hypocrisy? Don’t they deserve a good sharp dose of your stern disapproval? You want to be seen as a man of principle and integrity? Show some.
Of course not, but it’s illustrative that there are other problems that affect electoral outcomes (and the sanctity of “voter confidence”) by orders of magnitude more than the non-existent threat of in person voter fraud.
And if you had read the article you would have seen the same shitty ballots cost Bob Dole 14 000 votes in '96.
Perhaps.
How does the law “discount” 1000 votes?
If it’s by requiring ID in order to vote, that is such a small imposition that it’s perfectly acceptable. Why shouldn’t everyone have ID? It’s just such a reasonable proposition that I can’t regard the lost 1000 votes as serious, because they are only lost through the unwillingness of the would-be voters to handle even a tiny change to the mechanism of voting.
The judiciary of the Commonwealth of PA disagrees with you, at least as regards the effort to spring this bullshit at the last moment.
I have put your peanut snacks in a ziplock baggie for you.
Sure. And I concede they have a point. It’s a far cry from saying, “Everyone can reasonably get photo ID,” to saying, “Everyone can reasonably get photo ID inside two months’ time.” I personally would have made a different call, but I have no problem with a finding that says, in effect, “Photo ID is reasonable but this compressed time frame is not.”
And did you hear any of the Republicans pressing the case for voter id taking such a reasonable position? Like, OK, we’ll try hard to get voter id in the hands of anyone who wants it, we’ll provide for the funding, do an outreach, make sure than everyone who wants to vote has easy and convenient access to voter id? And if we can’t get it done by the next election, well, we’ll just go ahead as we’ve done before, and aim for the next one.
If you did, point him out to me, so I can shower my approval upon him. Take your time, don’t let the crickets bother you.
I’m simply enjoying his repeated assertion that his proposed requirement is “reasonable”, with no apparent realization of the circular, self-referential, question-begging, handwaving nature of that claim. And from someone who prides himself on knowledge of debate rules and procedures, at that.
Sure. This news story discusses a number of the outreach efforts. And of course the IDs themselves were free.
Deputy Secretary of State Shannon Royer described in detail during the hearing the multi-million dollar ad campaign, dedicated hotline, and website. The hotline was getting some 4,000 calls per week.
Did they press that effort from the beginning, Counselor, or in response to a loss in court? I read links, you should know that by now, and your representation of this story is…generous. Very generous.
Which is to say, they continued to misinform voters. Oopsy-daisy?
Boy, talk about moving with all deliberate speed!
And the hotline you referred to is not mentioned in this cited article.
Nice try.
Cleveland—Ohio GOP Secretary of State Jon Husted has become an infamous figure for aggressively limiting early voting hours and opportunities to cast and count a ballot in the Buckeye State.
Once again Husted is playing the voter suppression card, this time at the eleventh hour, in a controversial new directive concerning provisional ballots. In an order to election officials on Friday night, Husted shifted the burden of correctly filling out a provisional ballot from the poll worker to the voter, specifically pertaining to the recording of a voter’s form of ID, which was previously the poll worker’s responsibility. Any provisional ballot with incorrect information will not be counted, Husted maintains. This seemingly innocuous change has the potential to impact the counting of thousands of votes in Ohio and could swing the election in this closely contested battleground.
What? What? A Republican state government official buggering the voter? Well, too bad, but voter id is very, very popular! And it is all legal and constitutional. So minor issues like jiggering the voters to obtain a desired partisan goal is outside the purview of this thread, according to the Counselor. Do you have your Certificate of Adequate Outrage regarding the Massachusetts Fiasco? No? Well, then it doesn’t count, because liberal hypocrisy.
Jon Husted has not been convicted in a court of law for a crime, therefore what he is doing is completely acceptable and correct.
Now, you just hold it there with your insinuations, comrade! He has not been convicted, he hasn’t even been charged with anything. If anyone has any complaints, they are free to file them with office of the Attorney General of Ohio, wherein they will receive the attention they are due. Just as soon as the election is over.