But that could have been easily done, if there were a sincere intent behind it. See any evidence of that, see any evidence of a sincere effort on the part of the Republicans who backed this to ensure that photo id could be easily and conveniently obtained? Any “outreach” programs? Any effort to locate small and convenient offices within reach of the disadvantaged?
Now, I can certainly understand your need to keep your focus strictly on the voter id part of all of this, because all of that other stuff reveals the true motivation starkly and nakedly. So, of course, for the sake of this argument you would like to pretend none of those other things are pertinent. But they are in the sense that they make motivation clear.
Can you show us even one example of a Republican who’s scruples and ethics would not permit him to support any of these repulsive initiatives? Even one? How about a state that pushed forward a voter id law with plenty of attention to making it freely and easily available to the disadvantaged? Even one? OK, how about a Republican legislature that passed voter id laws but abstained from the kind of things that both you and I denounce, renounce, and condemn? One? Shirley, there must be at least one if your premise has any actual reality?
I decline your attempt to define the terms and then declare yourself a winner.
I am talking about photo ID laws. If you want to talk about restricting Sunday voting, it’s a short conversation. I disapprove. But there’s no reason that I can’t still support photo ID laws, is there?
I’m not sure, but I think it is a dark shadowy place, where no one will ever be sure of your precise stand on the states power to restrict or guarantee an individual’s right to vote.
And that is where we differ. The product of a representative democracy that reduces the number of legal votes cast is antithetical to the very idea of one man, one vote, and should be overturned.
I don’t believe you believe it. The most flattering possible interpretation is that you’re willing to ignore facts for what you see as advancing a greater good. In your Florida example, the number of illegally cast votes are trivial compared to number of miscounted votes (inevitable to some extent) and eligible citizens prevented from voting because they had names similar to felons.
Well, a person who uses selective stupidity as a debate tactic could pull it off. Anyway, do YOU lack confidence in the voting process as regards illegally cast votes (personally, I think “miscast” could apply - I can picture someone unwittingly voting in an election they were not supposed to) or are you crusading on behalf of some vaguely-defined people somewhere that lack confidence?
Truth be told, I don’t know why you’re invoking Washington State 2006. That there might be a voter-fraud issue is news to me. Checking wiki, the smallest margin for any federal election that year was 7000 votes, in their 8th district. Was there some local dogcatcher election that was closer?
There are no pedantic terms of art in that post, it is simple English, as simple as feeding the chickens. But OK. Which of my terms do you find objectionable, and dishonestly slanted against fair argument? Feel free to point them out and redefine them in a manner more conducive to your scrupulously fair standards for argument.
Which is to say, Counselor, you are bluffing. You’re bailing out in the guise of making a principled stand.
So if the law goes into effect, there are two possible outcomes:
(1) it will have a disproportionate effect, reducing voter turnout among Democratic-leaning constituencies, likely along both race and class lines, more than Republican-leaning constituencies
(2) it will have no such effect
Which do you think is more likely to occur? Why?
If in fact you think (2) is more likely, imagine for a second that you were convinced by some very clever arguing that in fact (1) is quite likely. Would that change your support for the law?
One final question: obviously you’ve been arguing in favor of voter ID laws in this thread. Do you actively support them, in the sense that if they weren’t on the books, you would go out of your way to propose them? Or do you merely support them in a more passive “well, they were proposed and passed, and they seem reasonable, so I will argue that they are OK even if I wouldn’t have necessarily actively wanted them in the first place myself”?
No. The most obvious explanation is the correct: I was alive in 2000. I watched people desperately debate the depth of a dimpled chad. And it became clear to me that while the vast majority of cases gave no cause for alarm, when a rare ultra-close election happens, people will seize on any perceived irregularity to bolster their desired outcome, and that having a system in which a small number of questionable votes are tolerated breaks down in that circumstance.
Yes, I lack confidence in the process of any state that fails to verify the identity and eligibility of its voters. This does not mean I lack confidence in each and every election result, mind you – it means I regard that state as being at high risk if there is ever a razor-thin margin.
(2). Why: experience in actual results in states that have implemented such laws.
No – and given that we have already seen actual, not-imagined-by-hysterical-liberals-results, it would have to be clever argument indeed.
Now let me ask you a question: given that there appears no measurable deleterious effect in voter turnout when these laws are actually implemented, do you feel any concern about continuing to argue that such deleterious effects are so certain?
Since the Florida debacle of 2000, I have actively supported them. Before that, I would have said that they were largely unnecessary. But having watched the actual occupancy of the White House hang in the balance while local election boards seriously debated how to handle a ballot that averred support for the “Lizard People,” I became a fierce convert to the idea that cast votes need to have a clear provenance.
No matter how voter ID winds up, people will still have a chance to vote for Lizard People, as is their right.
The Florida 2000 debacle was due more to the butterfly ballot design in some precincts whereby many votes intended for Al Gore wound up in Pat Buchanan’s column. Add to that having punch card ballots where some lack either the physical dexterity to punch out the chad entirely or lack the diligence to check their ballot for incompletely punched chads. Voter ID had nothing to do with it. So the cure for a problem that is so miniscule as to be statistically insignificant is to erect barriers to voting that are more easily cleared by supporters of one party than the other. I think it’s more of a case of desperation of a party that is demographically doomed than it is any concern for fair elections.
Well, there’s a simple test – how many of the people offering this rationale criticized the infamous Palm Beach “butterfly ballot”, which left quite a few voters unsure that their own votes, much less those of others, had been properly and honestly counted, in the very election Bricker cites as an example of the need for “voter confidence”.
I am reminded of the Doonesbury cartoon where Phil Slackmeyer interviews for a position at the Tobacco Institute, but fails the test of saying “Cigarettes do not cause cancer” with a straight face. Apparently you would have done better.
Actually, the answer to the question doesn’t really matter. Photo ID laws are widely perceived to have the described disproportionate effect. This undermines public confidence in the fairness of elections whether or not the perception is objectively correct, and thus (by Bricker’s argument) cannot be permitted.
There are possible ways to solve the problem, however. For example, the photo ID requirement could be paired with another mandate that 1)also increases confidence that illegal voters are blocked and 2)is perceived as affecting the wealthy and Republican to approximately the same extent that the photo ID requirement is perceived to affect the impoverished and Democratic. One possibility is a requirement to produce title documentation* where applicable (i.e. to owners but not to renters) as part of one’s proof of residency in the precinct.
*Obviously, the degree of nit-pickery as to what sort of documentation is and is not sufficient must be similar in both cases (e.g. if student ID is excluded from the former, a reasonably equivalent category must be excluded from the latter).
As this would clearly filter out another avenue for fraud, and would increase public confidence in both the integrity and fairness of the system, I await Bricker’s endoresement.
I know the accepted wisdom in threads like this is that Dems would be affected more by the law. But I’m not so sure that’s the case. Basically we’re talking about the poor, who might not already have an ID. BUt if the ID becomes available for free, the urban poor (which slants Dem) will find it easier to get the ID than the rural poor (which slants Rep). The offices to get the ID will be closer and the people will also have plenty of public transportation to get them there.
I’m not sure how the densities in cities would affect things, but I just don’t think that its clear that Dem voters would be disproportionally affected.
Not so sure about that. Billy Joe Jim Bob may be poor as a churchmouse and live in a trailer, but he’s probably got a car, even if it’s a beater. He still has to take time off work to get his ID, he still has to drive to get to the ID office, but when he gets there he probably has a short wait. The urban poor are going to find themselves in a line with 100 people in front of them and lose a whole day’s pay to get that precious ID.