Nonsense. However ill-conceived assault weapons bans may or may not be, I’ve never heard anyone seriously propose that they will interfere with the integrity of the electoral process.
Note that I do not say that they won’t help Democrats win elections, because they might, in the “lots of people like the Assault Weapons bans, and then they go vote for democratic candidates” sense (although of course it might have precisely the opposite effect). But that’s true of almost everything that anyone in Washington ever does, and is very distinct from gerrymandering or voter ID laws which (arguably) interfere with the very mechanics of voting and the franchise, which is why so many of us find them to be so loathsome.
I disagree. The tone was gleeful, certainly. But gleeful doesn’t necessarily mean “it’s certain that this is true”, it just means “oh, what delicious irony”. If news came out tomorrow that serious evidence had surfaced linking someone that we liberals really dislike, such as Dick Cheney or Sarah Palin, to some wonderfully ironic misdeed, and if this was at least quasi-substantive evidence, I might well post about it in a very gleeful tone, and at great length. I might write a little song. What I would hopefully NOT do is overstate the extent to which this evidence was PROOF of anything. If later on the whole thing went to some sort of trial and the person was found innocent of the crime, I would not feel that retroactively I had been wrong to be gleeful. (Note that there is a distinction between a situation where there is actual evidence about which I was gleeful and it ends up not being enough for a criminal conviction; vs a situation where this is actual evidence about which I was being gleeful and the case ends up not being tried for some arcane or possibly corrupt reason; vs a situation where it turns out the evidence was actually fabricated or misrepresented in the first place… only in the third case would I potentially feel guilty about my glee.)
As a real life example, surely you remember when Cheney shot an old guy in the face. He shot. An old. Guy. In. The. Face. And then THAT OLD GUY APOLOGIZED TO DICK CHENEY INSTEAD OF THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!! It was fricking hilarious. Many of us on the left had a good laugh about it. Did the fact that we were on some level so delighted by that mean that we believed that Cheney had actually acted criminally in the situation? Not at all. Much as I relish the idea that Cheney is actually literally a James Bond villain, it’s hard to believe that the shooting was anything other than an unfortunate accident, worst case a careless one. But still, glee glee glee.
Not an unreasonable point. But (and bear in mind here that I’m not speaking in legalistic terms) I don’t think it’s as immediate as you seem to think. I mean, if we wake up one morning and there’s a news story saying “yesterday, the Hawaii legislature debated and then instantly passed a law forbidding all private handgun ownership” vs “yesterday, the Hawaii legislature began debate on a law forbidding all private handgun ownership”, in both cases there’s still a change to the status quo being discussed. The fact that in one case the law already passed before we on the SDMB even had a chance to debate it doesn’t really change anything, from our perspective.
Obviously this is a flexible standard… what’s “recent” here? But I think that from an SDMB-debate perspective, as opposed to a legalistic perspective, there are two things that sorta-kinda require burden of proof/justification:
(1) proposed changes to the status quo
(2) any side of any position that restricts rights as opposed to extending them
In this case, your “side” is doing both.
(Granted, that’s just a standard I made up this moment, but I think it’s a reasonable one…)
Shit, the old guy apologizing ain’t shit. When the Texas cops came around to give him a breathalyzer test, he said he didn’t much feel like it, but they could come back in the morning and ask again.
I would pure-D love to get away with that! It would be worth getting shot in the face with a shotgun. And who knows, maybe the Tommy Lee Jones look would work for me.
I see a great deal of, “Why does anyone need an assault rifle?” questions – which places the burden squarely on the gun rights advocate. But a law restricting assault rifles is a proposed change to the status quo, and certainly restricts Second Amendment rights… yes?
Absolutely. And gun control is an issue which I think that the left in general, both in general and on the SDMB, frequently takes positions I party or largely disagree with, and argues for those positions poorly. (Nuclear power is another such issue.) That said, you neatly (well, not THAT neatly, as I noticed it immediately) avoided actually responding to the substance of my post.
No – what I did was hold in abeyance my response to your post, because your answer to my question about the gun control debates would dictate my response. Had you claimed that somehow the gun control debates were exempt from this ruleset you proposed, I certainly would not have taken the ruleset as seriously.
So for purposes of discussion between you and me, I accept this framework.
I’m tempted to point out, though, that Indiana has had a Voter ID law since 2005 or thereabouts, so the general concept might still be said to have passed into status quo, but I’ll also let that go, and agree that when a new state makes a change, that resets the “clock” for these purposes.
I do know the answer: less than $250 per voter roll book, which is double the per-unit cost to generate a bound voter roll book. In other words, adding space next to each voter name line for a fingerprint means each name takes up triple the space. So the maximum delta is $250, assuming no economies of scale produce more savings.
Your turn.
Yup. Of course, I still say that had it passed, a passport would have been sufficient, but now we’ll never know. Still, I was unequivocally wrong in predicting it would pass.
I love how Bricker is arguing both sides of the street here…
In one thread, it is economically reasonable to require voter ID laws because… well just because.
In another thread, it would be economically ruinous to fix the voting system so that people would not have to wait for hours in line, because… well just because.
Congrats to you Bricker!
A excellent week at the debates for you. Give yourself a cookie!
Not “just because.” Because we already know what those costs are: Indiana has been doing it for eight years.
And again wrong. I don’t say it would be economically ruinous to “fix the voting system.” I say it would be economically ruinous to set up a system were no single voter is ever required to wait longer than 51 minutes. Or even three hours.
Why don’t you quote me, instead of just paraphrasing me?
I know of no state that can say they have NEVER had a wait time longer than three hours for any voter.
I assume plenty of states have average wait times less than three hours.
Are you talking about average times, like RTFirefly did? Or no single voter over three hours, as Ms Whatsit did? Or no single voter over 51 minutes, as HMC Iruncible did?
Then it should have been trivial for someone to provide those costs, demonstrate how it would work in Florida, and work out the tax increase necessary to provide it. Then, a reasonable debate could have happened about whether it is worth said increase.
Or, you could continue making increasingly idiotic jabs at Bricker whilst he runs rings around your* “arguments”.
I wonder if you(* – yes, there’s a plural there) are pretending to be stupid, or if you(*) really are as stupid as you seem.
I posted a link earlier that implied that the queueing inequity in Franklin Cty, Ohio 2004 could have been avoided with the purchase or rental of one voting machine per 1000 registered voters, just in precincts with high proportion of African-American voters. Let’s inflate that enormously and purchase a new machine for every 500 voters nationwide. Stipulating a $2500 machine cost, the expense will be paid in one year with $5 per voter, or about $2 per citizen. Do you need that broken down by taxation mode?
(If the topic is improving U.S. elections, I have a variety of suggestions and buying more voting machines would not be on the list. But here, we’re playing your silly game, just to expose how pathetically imbecilic your “argument” is.)
Would anyone be able to guarantee absolutely, with 100.00000% certainty, that no voter would ever face a delay of three hours? Obviously not. Heck, I can’t be 100.0000% certain that one of Brickhead’s turds won’t spontaneously jump out of the toilet and start singing Deutschland über alles.
Such a singing turd does seem unlikely. But perhaps not so unlikely as Brickhead saying anything worthwhile in this thread.
As I said above, there is always a possibility that power will go out, a truck will overturn or a several machines will go on the fritz.
But if you have previous long lines, and polling shows high turnout likely, and you reduce availability, you’re a shitheel.
The standard should be (I’d say) wait times under half an hour, unless there is some unexpected situation. If voter turnout is twice what polling predicts, if a drunk driver smashes into the polling station and wrecks some machines, if half the staff gets sick with the Tubgirl Stomach Flu, whatever.
The problem is when you know it’s gonna be bad and you cut times, machines, workers and locations. Personally I’d say you should shoot for even shorter wait times. Voting should be painless. Especially when the poorest among us have the tightest time constraints.