I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1)

Really? I assume you don’t operate on the assumption that prosecutor budgets and schedules are infinite, but in any case the cites you’ve provided suggest Cue may have voted illegally. How would you go about proving that he did? Look for videotape evidence at the polling station from 1996? Witnesses who could pick Cue out a lineup a decade later?

This isn’t “proof” of concept. It’s at best a suggestion of concept. But let’s assume it’s true for the sake of argument and Cue voted illegally in 1996. Let’s assume a strict voter-ID law would have prevented it. Our valid concern is that your concerns stop there, indifferent to the effects such a law is likely to have on legal voters, i.e. people who aren’t Ramon Cue, people who vastly outnumber Ramon Cue.

And Neville Walters, I guess, but I don’t have enough information about him.

Saul Alinsky. A name that too few lefties and liberals recognize. He was an old-fashioned lefty, an organizer, and as such ignored or condescended to by the “new” left. But he was right.

He was the inspiration for ACORN, the idea that the best path to political power lay in the most modest and least glamorous methods: voter registration being the most prominent. The dull, dreary path of shoe leather, door to door organization. Register one hundred voters tomorrow, one hundred more the day after, and eventually you erode the power of the, ah, Forces of Darkness.

And it was working. That’s why they murdered ACORN, they were the sappers nibbling away at the foundations of power. As the elections got closer and closer, those efforts were bearing fruit.

So, the establishment Republicans pressed for voter id, not to disenfranchise hundred of thousands of voter, but just a few percentage points, here and there, just enough to get Republican candidates over the line. It was a shrewd and workable plan, depending on a simple formula easy to sell. “Well, you need ID to buy cigarettes and beer, why not to vote?”

But the inmates have taken over the asylum. They favor the blatant, in-your-face approach: curb voter registration, do away with as much early voting as possible, eliminate Sunday voting for black people. Credit where credit is due, friend Bricker nowhere defends such blatant skulduggery. Of course, he is not inclined to spend a lot of time renouncing, denouncing and condemning such, but that is because he is so busy with his campaign against the scourge of liberal hypocrisy.

And, of course, defending such undemocratic rot is nearly impossible, no reasonable person could stoop to that. Even a reasonable Republican, who might be tempted to employ the voter id ploy to trim a few votes here and there, will scruple at such debased tactics, Barry Goldwater would rise from his grave and puke his guts out.

Today’s Republican Party faces a cruel choice, an honest and idealistic position as the minority party, the Loyal Opposition, to criticize and oppose such liberal overreach as may arise (and certainly will, as we are composed entirely of humans…). Or throw themselves into a take no prisoners last ditch struggle for power by Any Means Necessary.

I hope they come to their senses, and accept the ethical choice. A car needs brakes just as much as it needs an engine. We need a conservative party. Besides, who could we blame if anything does wrong? When somebody proposes funding an English as a second language program for gay whales, we need to be able to say “Well, good idea, but the Republicans won’t go for it!”

The fact remains, Richard, that your actions paint a picture of someone who clearly expects me to keep my actions above a certain bar, but doesn’t care if anyone else does.

That seems unbalanced to me.

It also has the practical effect of strengthening the opposition I face. My opponents can use whatever dirty tactic they please; I have to respond with meticulous attention to facts. Their attacks take ten seconds but require a ten minute researched response.

That also seems unbalanced to me.

I’d say that’s about right. I don’t really care to read, much less rebut, the dozens of silly things people say about your positions in threads like this. In point of fact, I don’t think you should care to read and rebut them either.

I don’t think my criticisms of your posts have any practical effect whatsoever on “the opposition [you] face.” You are more than capable of pointing out in a few seconds when someone has deliberately misinterpreted you.

But more broadly, so what? You’re the one who thinks that it is important or necessary to rebut even silly or stupid attacks on your ideas. If responding to scurrilous criticism is eating up your time, maybe you should stop responding to scurrilous criticism and spend more time on the arguments that you think actually test your ideas.

(bolding mine)

I didn’t say how outraged I would be. I didn’t claim I would start lots of SDMB threads raking my own side over the coals. What I did say was that I would oppose it.

So, here’s hypocrisy:
(1) Republicans propose cynical voting laws clearly intended to make it more difficult for Democrats to vote
(2) MaxTheVool goes on the SDMB and lambastes the Republicans
(3) Then Democrats in another state propose cynical voting laws clearly intended to make it more difficult for Republicans to vote
(4) MaxTheVool goes on the SDMB and defends the Democrats

Here’s something that is NOT hypocrisy:
(1) Republicans propose cynical voting laws clearly intended to make it more difficult for Democrats to vote
(2) MaxTheVool goes on the SDMB and lambastes the Republicans
(3) Then Democrats in another state propose cynical voting laws clearly intended to make it more difficult for Republicans to vote
(4) MaxTheVool doesn’t post at all in the thread about the issue

Now, in the second example, it’s possible that I’m a hypocrite, and am super happy that the Democrats did what they did, and really want to defend them, but don’t want to reveal my hypocrisy. It’s also possible that I’m a hypocrite, and would have defended them on the SDMB if I had been around to post that week, but I was at a weekend retreat learning more about the Communist Manifesto with my elite brothers and sisters and the thread had fallen off the front page by the time I got back to a computer. It’s also possible that I’m NOT a hypocrite, and would have utterly laid into the Democrats if I’d seen the thread, but was at said reatreat. And it’s also possible that I’m NOT a hypocrite, and would not support the democrats, and in fact, if for some reason I was called on to express my opinion on the topic I would criticized them, but I just didn’t post in that thread, because I chose not to, or wasn’t interested, or didn’t care, or saw that the issue took place in a state on the other side of the country, or any number of other things.

You know what’s fun? When people you dislike do bad things and you can attack them for it. You know what’s NOT fun? When people you like do bad things, and all you can say is “yeah, these people I like did something bad”.

And do you know why I post on the SDMB? For fun. I’m not some paid professional arbiter of fairness who has a professional responsibility to always express an opinion on every topic. Why do you insist on judging me as if I was?
For all of the criticisms I’ve leveled at you over the years, and they are numerous, none of them has ever been attacking you for something you have NOT done. (It’s possible I’m wrong and I’ve at some point tossed off a sarcastic “well, where’s Bricker NOW” of some sort in some thread or other, and if I did, that was wrong of me.)

Clearly you do not. You certainly have not.

Well, in fairness, he has responded to many of my posts with the FACT that he thinks I’m a hypocrite. So there’s that.

Yeah… does this mean we can declare his argument meaningless if we find some Republican abuse he hasn’t commented on? So, Bricker, I see you’ve posted to the “Stupid Republican Idea of the Day” thread only 13 times. Hypocrite!

No, in fairness, I think that first we preemptively DEMAND that he comment on it, and only call him a hypocrite if he doesn’t want to randomly do everything we ask him to do.

Aww, you say the nicest things! This means we’re buds, right? Fist bump!

Otherwise, your post is stupid. If Cue (or the other one, whichever the name, you seem to have screwed that up) was on the voter roll, then the problem lies in his registration, not in his identification at the poll. Cue(person-x) goes to poll, says “I’m Raymond Cue”, poll worker looks at list, says “Yep, we’ve got one of those” or he says “Nope, not finding that name”. In the second case, he doesn’t vote. In the first case, he will be allowed to vote – previously with non-photo ID, currently with photo-ID (ignoring the question of whatever was required in whatever year this supposedly happened).

If he is actually unqualified to vote due to lack of citizenship, or felony conviction, or other problem, his presentation of photo ID or lack of same at the poll has nothing to do with his disqualification and will not change the outcome either way. He will be allowed to vote because he appears on the voter roll. Maybe it might prevent repeated such votes, if as you claim a picture ID resulted in successful prosecution, but the ID does zero to prevent the initial act. The problem isn’t with his identification at the poll, it is with the voting registrar’s act in putting him on the roll in the first place.

So again, the stupid laws you’re defending can only have an effect on in-person voter substitution fraud. You are correct when you say ‘That’s not “in-person voter substitution fraud.”’ in regard to Cue(x). Indeed it is not. And voter photo ID would have done nothing to prevent Cue(x)’s transgression (assuming it happened). Except in arrears. But this thread isn’t about all the zillions of illegal voters who have beaten prosecution for lack of these laws. It’s about the contention that these laws have as their purpose the prevention of illegal voting. Or will you now claim that proponents of these laws actually meant that successful prosecutions will prevent voter fraud by incarcerating the perpetrators – after their first, or perhaps their second, or maybe their third…. anyway, it’ll stop them eventually!

How humiliating that your own cite actually proves my point, not yours! Fist bump again, bud!

sigh

Cue and his buddy can’t be prosecuted. With no Voter ID, there’s really no proof that he voted.

Thus, his DECISION to vote is made in the knowledge that he flouts the law in perfect safety.

But if Voter ID were in place, there’s at least a legally sufficient case to be made that he voted. The knowledge that he can be prosecuted may not deter him – but we have laws to prevent armed robbery in the belief that it will deter armed robbery, even though we know that armed robbery still happens.

So my contention is that Voter ID WOULD prevent Cue and his pals from voting illegally, because they’d know they were realistically risking jail time.

Really? Have you read any of Cue’s statements? Does he sound like somebody who gives a farthing about rational assessment of realistic risks?

And now you’re admitting the goal post shifting! All this time the rest of us were busy pitting the cretins who promulgated laws having the apparent purpose of reducing Democratic votes but the declared purpose of preventing voter fraud. And you, gosh darn it, were working tirelessly all by your pitiful overworked self to find some kind of justification for these laws that isn’t transparently bullshit. And now you think you’ve found one! All those hordes of illegal voters who are deliberately and probably conspiratorially gaming the system to advantage Democratic (big D) ends, not folks who got confused about which precinct to vote in, or poll workers who erroneously marked Edward Miller as voting when it was actually Edwin Miller, or any of a huge variety of equally innocent errors, no, these hardened ideologues conspiring in the great election fraud scheme are going to be deterred (you say “WOULD prevent", caps yours, not ‘could prevent’) and have the whole enterprise overturned by some slightly increased chance of prosecution!! Well, indeed, I can see your point. Good job! I guess.

Why didn’t the proponents of these laws offer that justification themselves? Because it is equally transparent bullshit? Or is this simply and exclusively your own justification for your own support of these laws? Your own personal weasel-hole to hide in, all other justifications having been shown to be practically indefensible and morally bankrupt?

Can we at least wait six minutes, to give him a chance?

Wait, are you saying it’s impossible to prosecute or just too trivial to pursue? I mean, if the state’s willing to throw a hundred million dollars and twenty or thirty thousand man-hours at it… what did California spend in time and money going after O.J. Simpson? Surely this issue is more important, no? It challenges confidence in the democratic system, after all.

Cue says he didn’t vote. What evidence do you have to presume otherwise, i.e. that he made the DECISION you’re describing?

Out of mild curiosity and thrown out to anyone who wants to answer (I doubt you will), how much jail time does an illegal vote warrant? Are there degrees, i.e. knowingly impersonating another voter is first degree, showing up and just not telling them you have a recent felony conviction could be second degree, being a student from out-of-state who by a strict reading of the law shouldn’t vote but votes anyway might be third degree…

What “pals” are these? I don’t recall you citation mentioning any group activity. Is insinuating an untruth better than stating it?

Hey, once you presume guilt, it’s a short hop to presuming guilt by association.

Well, sure, but don’t the other guys have to exist?

One would presume, but this is confidence we’re talking about! Reality is for chumps, perception is king.

So, back to reality, I was hoping to actually get an answer as to how big the effects of the voter ID laws were. My uncle is a political scientist, so I emailed him and asked him if any actual studies had been done. He didn’t know of any, and after some quick googling the closest answer he came up with was the same Nate Silver blog entry from before the elections.

So any claims that we actually know how much of an effect there was, one way or the other, maybe premature.

The Brennan Center has a nice bibliography on the subject on their website.