Does the law say they have to ask for ID? Feel free to google it, since evidently it’s not a major concern around these parts. See, we can have the law on paper because we don’t have a history of misusing it (or in my experience, using it, period). Americans have such a history; it’s an act of self-deception to pretend otherwise.
I’ve never been asked for ID on a federal vote, either. I gave my name and address and they crossed me off a list.
eta: I gather as an afterthought that the significant element is that they have such a list, compiled by Elections Canada with the help of Revenue Canada. Yes, we have government agencies who are making voting easy. I’m not aware of any efforts to do otherwise.
Ah, the honor system. Proven to work in banking, international commerce, between individuals, etc. But then voting isn’t really that important an activity, so no worries. But not surprising that Quebec flouts federal law. As I asked before, but you never answered: Happy to use the same system during the next referendum?
What you say is true: discussion on the board is much better when people engage the best arguments, not the worst ones.
Unfortunately, I don’t agree that the casual reader can reliably do this. When there’s a slew of terrible arguments, the thread containing them develops a certain momentum, and the casual reader is likely to have difficulty picking out the wheat from the storm of chaff. For this reason, especially here, i believe it’s important to engage and rebut these terrible arguments, and it’s especially valuable for those kinds of rebukes to come from the same general side for the reason you identify: partisans calling out their own side for bullshit are much more effective than across-the-aisle anti-bullshit enforcement, because the casual reader can eliminate the idea that the argument is based on an underlying political conviction.
Well, we’d engage the arguments about why we need or should have voter ID laws, but since your last ones were completely shredded quite a long time ago, you haven’t really offered any.
Heck, you didn’t answer my other arguments, either, or more accurately, you fell back on your standby “well, the law was passed, and the law is the law”.
We should have them because they were passed by the legislature, signed by the governor, and upheld by the courts. That’s how we get laws in this country, and no one has identified any argument that contradicts this rather basic, Civics 101, fact.
What you perhaps mean to whine about is how you’re butthurt that the laws are so popular that your usual bullshit liberal whining doesn’t work. That despite your elite commentators telling the stupid populace what to think, and even consistently using reflexive accusations like “racism,” the stupid populace have stubbornly refused to adopt the positions urged upon them by the New York Times and Mother Jones.
Yes. Despite the law having been passed, you appear to want to go back to the stage in which we debate if we should pass the law.
Funny how liberals thought that was a horribly unfair tactic as applied to Obamacare. Funny how we heard repeatedly about respecting the law of the during that debacle. But here, hey, what law? We’re liberals; we don’t need no stinkin’ law.
Well somebody should. I doubt people who advocated the law bothered to. Besides, there’s nothing wrong with debating if a law has merit even after it gets passed. Maybe you should reacquaint yourself with the repeal process.
Pathetic attempt at misdirection. I think I’ve commented on the ACA… twice?.. and with mild mockery at best. But there you go again, justifying yourself by invoking the “casual reader” or “liberals” or other unnamed person(s) because it’s easier than dealing with what’s been presented directly to you.
But I wonder if you are. To repeal a law, the side seeking the repeal has the burden to persuade.
You seem to want to propose a repeal, and then begin the repeal discussion by asking me to prove that the law is what we want.
So – reacquaint yourself with the repeal process. The side seeking repeal has to persuade the legislative body to pass a repeal. It cannot sustain that burden by demanding that the other side persuade it of anything.
Out of curiosity, since I don’t live in a place where this is considered an issue, was there any subtext in advocating for these laws that they were needed because in addition to illegal immigrants stealing American jobs and criminals stealing American property, both were stealing American elections? Aside from the obvious benefit of gaming the system to favour a particular party*, I can see the fear-mongering being useful, too.
yeah, yeah, Democrats do it too, or at least they would if they saw a potential advantage in it
All right Bricker, since you so condescendingly insist on scoring this minor point on me, let’s run through it from the top.
Hand wave this away. From October 2012:
And how about this, from less than 2 months ago?
So, yeah, asked and answered. Your haughtily dismissive attitude toward all us ‘lefties’ has failed you, just as your arguments have failed in this thread. Your humble and all-encompassing apology will be forthcoming, I’m sure.
I dunno, you seemed to act like debating the merits of a law after it’s been passed was absurd, or something, prompting my comment regard repeals. If you don’t want to me to imply you’re being stupid, stop being stupid.
Oh, I know the law is exactly what was wanted by the people who passed it. It was sold as something else, of course, and rather successfully too. You bought into it, obviously.
Sure. Or the judiciary can weigh in if and when the law gets challenged. I have little expectation of any major change until maturity sets in and the Americans realize that elected officials should not be controlling the arrangement of the electorate.
In both posts you quote, you respond to my specific requests that you name something concrete you’d like done…and then admit that it won’t be done, which completely eviscerates your call to action:
Here, you offer an alternate plan about how you would have preferred the original laws be implemented:
…but not one word about what you propose to do now, after the fact, unless you failed to mention the design and use of a time machine to achieve the goal mentioned above.
AGAIN: what, specifically, are the actions you’re proposing NOW, today, in the real world? The only thing left from your quotes above is this gem:
<snicker> So, is that it? Your plan in a nutshell?
It seems you’re trying just that. But no one’s buying your version of “truth;” because they sense “bullshit.”
Still, I agree: if your plan was the “shine a light,” nonsense, then, yes, I concede you identified a plan of action. Silly of me to say otherwise, really.