That’s a feature of the BBQ Pit. It’s true I didn’t keep every single post GD-quality. But the substance of that post is: it’s legal.
Not quite. The issue being raised was the ease of obtaining ID. Since that’s a key factor in court analysis of whether the scheme is constitutional, it’s certainly fodder for the discussion of whether it’s legal.
It’s easy to see it as a sober analysis of voter ID’s legality, in other words, except your interest is not in a fair recitation of my words, is it?
Not at all. Here I point out the absurdity of of the standards demanded by the opponents of Voter ID to show that there’s any fraud at all, and the issues that can arise to shake voter confidence in the system. Since voter confidence in the system is the legitimate state goal further by such legislation, it’s absolutely relevant to its legality.
And once again I make the points that this thread is about the legality of Voter ID laws. For cripes sake, the very line you quote says it: Thanks for linking to a page about voter registration purges to question whether Voter ID laws are legal.
No. The law must be rationally related to a legitimate state goal. This comment shows the rational relationship.
I have no idea what “suppression program” you mean. DO you mean the entirely reasonable requirement that voters avail themselves of free photo ID cards?
Then, no, whether it affects the election is as meaningless to this analysis as if I announced that I was going to place a voodoo curse on Obama voters, and you could prove that this affected 20,000 voters. I still don’t care; if such a threat stops 20,000 voters then too damn bad for them.
And if the entirely reasonable requirement of identifying yourself at the polls stops voters, then too damn bad.
It’s not “Were they stopped?” It’s “Why were they stopped?”
Hey, now that this election is over, let’s work on improving the voting process.
Where should we start?
Standardization of the voting process? Getting all counties in all states on basically the same page. Everybody gets the same quality booths, ballots and what-not.
Voter ID? Not a fan of the idea but if we’re gonna do it it should be NOW and not 6 months before a presidential election. But if you get Voter ID, you HAVE to give up the purge. If a citizen must present a government ID to exercise his/her right to vote, then government must have probable cause to remove any voter from the rolls. That means showing that there is a particular reason to believe a particular voter in the roll may not be valid.
**Penalties for voter fraud? **I believe they should be draconian. This would of course include registration fraud. I personally believe that those caught altering or destroying registration forms should be stripped of citizenship and deported to Monster Island. Or 10 years in prison. Whichever. Anyone caught hacking, or conspiring to hack into an electronic voting machine? Grisly death!!
Absentee Ballots? To use them you MUST BE ABSENT ON ELECTION DAY!!! Go to polls, you lazy sumbitch!!!
Interestingly, when I started a lengthy spin-off thread in GD precisely concerning that issue, you ignored it entirely.
As for your general claim that most posters in this thread have been using “CAN not language”, I just disagree. I’m not saying that NO ONE has made such a claim, and I’m sure there have been claims using somewhat vague language (ie, “they shouldn’t be able to do that”, or words like “illegitimate”), but I sure don’t remember anyone actually giving a legal argument as to why the laws as passed were in fact illegal or unconstitutional.
You claimed “The bulk of people were, however, literally arguing that such a law was illegitimate”. What does “the bulk” mean to you in this context? say, 75%? So you think that if I were to pick 5 pages of this thread at random, count all the liberals who posted in those 5 pages, and sort them into “claim that this law is illegal/unconstitutional” vs “claim that the law is dumb and evil and Republicans are poopyheads”, the first category would outnumber the second by a large margin?
I do find it interesting that, as far as I know, only one State sent its Voter ID law to the voters in the form of a referendum. In Minnesota, Voter ID was rejected by the voters.
I believe it is too early to declare that Voter ID laws have “won.”
Romney Co-Chair: Voter ID Would Have Won Us Wisconsin
To my comrades on the front lines of the ACORN/CASA/Soros Conspiracy, I salute you! A voter fraud conspiracy that brings out 200,000 votes is awesomely proletariat.
Now now, let’s not misquote the Brickhead. I think he’s conceded that there would only be about 4 fraudulent human voters in a state that large. Something like 50,000 of the votes would have been from dogs who were registered and voted illegally. (IIRC, the news report showed that it was Republicans registering their dogs, but that’s likely just more bullshit from the liberal media.) These dogs fooled precinct workers, but would have been unable to present driver’s licenses.
Still that leaves at least 149,996 voters who couldn’t have been arsed to get ID for the same reason they can’t be arsed to eat fresh fruit. But I’m sure they would have felt it their patriotic duty to be denied the vote, so that all of us could feel more confidence in the validity of the electoral process.
To be ruthlessly fair, it should be noted that this is a pretty minor functionary of the Republican Party. But I point her out more as a representative of an unknown factor: how many Republicans sincerely believe that voter fraud is the reason a center-right America sometimes checks the wrong box.
It would explain a lot. It would account for why Republicans who buy that crap can see the whole voter suppression stuff as fair play. The Dems are cheating, bringing in busloads of God alone knows who… So if they aren’t going to play fair, why should the Republicans?
Also accounts for the urgency, the desperate need to get it done before the next election. Because that unknown number of Republicans believe sincerely that voter ID will solve all of their problems. A silver bullet right between the eyes.
Which leaves the question: how many truly believe this, and how many are merely manipulating that fear to their advantage? I’m always gratified when I can answer a complex question like that instantly and without hesitation: I don’t know.
I know the number isn’t zero. Can pretty much prove that.
Every fucking teacher I’ve ever had has answered the question of, “Can I go to the washroom?”, with, “I don’t know. May you go to the washroom?”. I blame the school system and teachers for this thread.
One of my classmates–and, no doubt, he’s not the only one in the English-speaking world to have pulled this particular stunt–responded to that comment from a teacher with, “I’ll check right now.” Then he walked out of the classroom and headed for the washroom. In a few minutes, he returned to the classroom, looked at the teacher, said, “Yes,” and sat down. Later in the day, he told me he didn’t mind getting in trouble for that stunt.
That almost belongs in the Stupid Republican idea of the day thread.
200,000 votes via fraud really stretches the bounds of credibility, especially when she doesn’t cite a single case. In 2012, there were two arrests for fraud. In Nevada. And, as usual, they were Republicans.
With all due respect, I was very unclear about what you meant with that thread; I ignored it because I didn’t understand the point you were proposing. This criticism was echoed by elucidator, and I would humbly suggest if both he and I had that reaction, the reason was not partisan disagreement with your underlying point.
I agree completely. In a state that size, absent compelling evidence to the contary, I would not expect to see in-person fraud over 100 people, if even that. No way were there 200,00 fraudulent votes.
No, it is not. I am more of a “the courts should strike down some laws that violate civil rights” kind of guy. But I believe that you do use that standard when evaluating same sex marriage and, presumably, voter ID laws, which is why I bring it up here. Plus, I believe you are the one who made the claim that voter ID laws enjoy widespread support and thus are a fait accompli. I thought this was an interesting data point in opposition to that proposition.
Perhaps we can narrow it down, since your comment is non-specific. (0 is less than 100).
Would you expect 75 - 100 cases of in-person fraud in a state of that size? 50-74? 25-49? 1-24? 0?
And what do you base this estimate on? Your gut?
If there are (say) 26 cases of in-person fraud in a state of this size, would 13 be Democrat and 13 Republican? Or all Democrat? What do you base this estimate on? Tea leaves?
Yeah, that was clearly not a career highlight of mine when it comes to lucidity. If you’re actively interested in pursuing that topic, I’ll give it another shot, as I do find it an interesting topic.
I’ll answer your post when you repost it without the tea leaves comment. I regard that comment as spoiling for a fight, since you must know that “tea leaves” would not be the answer.
Heavens, I hope that I have not offended you! Just imagine that I posted the “tea leaves” comment to an unspecified other rude poster who was talking about my “comrades” as if i was a card carrying communist.
Perhaps we can narrow it down, since your comment is non-specific. (0 is less than 100).
Would you expect 75 - 100 cases of in-person fraud in a state of that size? 50-74? 25-49? 1-24? 0? What do you base this estimate on? Cite?
If there are (say) 26 cases of in-person fraud in a state of this size, would 13 be Democrat and 13 Republican? Or all Democrat? What do you base this estimate on? Cite?
