I can pretty much jay-walk with impunity, since nobody much gives a shit. Don’t really want to, but I guess I’m compelled to, since I can do it with impunity. Just wish there was someplace across the street I wanted to go. Could ask the chicken, I suppose…
Probably I could buy shoes a size too small with impunity as well, at least no legal consequences. Damn, next week is gonna be tough…
Why should we think that the only thing preventing massive in person voter fraud is the legal consequences? Even if you could get away with it, its not all that smart, easily exposed. Maybe yes, maybe no, probably no, but why do you *assume * it would happen?
Good Lord, you’re not gonna go back to “its happening all over, we’re just not catching them” again? Please, don’t, that one makes the brain cringe.
Hong Kong requires ID cards after age 11 and then as an adult over 18. It is free and also mandatory to carry it everywhere. Geez, it seems it would be easy to ask someone in the HK government how this works and then just implement it.
It is clear on what documents are needed.
The information on the card (includes thumbprints):
Gee, thanks for the update on how things are done in Hong Kong! Well, join us next week for our next installment “Flashlight on Uruguay: Land of Contrasts”.
I look forward to cites of American politicians who are advocating voter ID and following the Hong Kong example.
Heck, even one advocating the Canadian example (i.e. the establishment of a nonpartisan government agency with the function of maintaining voter rolls and setting standards for election procedures) would be nice.
I don’t know how strongly I can emphasize enough how much an idiot you are. The system is built and there is a model for implementing it. There is a model on how to use it. No wonder you people are having such a hard time implementing any changes, you figure you have to start from scratch because there is no way the ‘heathens’ could have done it better or before. Health care being a prime example.
The data is already being collected pretty much everywhere. This is just centralizing it into something useful.
Of course it CAN be done. I’m not personally aware of any particular American effort along those lines, though, so the relevance of Hong Kong’s example is unclear.
I was answering this statement essentially saying that it can be done easily with minimal burden to people. It has already been done here and probably in other places as well.
(I realize I’m about 3 posts behind in responding to things actually addressed to me, this thread moves so fast!)
But I want to comment on this… “some judges have struck these down, others have not” fairly clearly divides these laws into some that are currently legal/constitutional, and others that are not. It does NOT, however, reflect very well on their ethical and rational basis overall. When you (generic you) seek to pass a bunch of similar laws in various states, and you are accused of doing so for partisan political advantage, and the claim is made that your laws are based on a deceptive veneer of justification, then “sure, some states have struck these laws down, but hey, some haven’t” isn’t a very stirring defense.
I don’t think the non sequitur is because your assertion is absurd or illogical or has no basis. Your assertion regarding the burden of voter ID laws (what I recall, anyway) is not a non sequitur. There are judges who agree with you, yes.
The non sequitur is that you dismiss Bricker’s position because no hard evidence supports it (none that satisfies you, anyway), but don’t feel that a similar absence of evidence has any bearing on your position.
And Bricker, as I recall, was supportive of rulings like PA’s where they pushed out the implementation to allow a reasonable amount of time for people to comply with the ID obligations. So, on the surface, there’s no disagreement that the laws inherently create an additional burden. The question is, how much? And does it rise to a level that led to even a single person not being able to vote? So far, the answer to the second question is, “None that anyone can find.”
So the discussion goes around and around. Bricker opines that he feels the burden is not onerous and addresses a legitimate concern. His opinion is actually mainstream. You say the burden is material and that it addresses a phantom concern. IMO, neither side has produced a wealth of hard evidence that takes either position outside of the realm of “reasonable opinion.” The difference, ISTM, is the the anti-ID tribe won’t acknowledge this, and there’s a good bit of sputtering and anger in this thread in response to any refusal to accept their position as self-evident.
Before the 2000 presidential election, over 1,000 voters were wrongfully dropped from voting rolls as a result of an effort to clear registered-voter lists of convicted felons. On Election Day, many of the dropped voters showed up to vote but were turned away from the polls.
[/QUOTE]
These particular disenfranchised voters should be relevant – this GOP perfidy might have affected the 2000 outcome.
Voter purges are required by federal law. And Florida asked nicely for the federal database that would have made the purge more accurate. Instead, the feds dragged their heels, not wanting voter purges to be done at all.
And this is why the Republicans complain that the administration doesn’t care about the law. The Help America Vote Act, passed by huge bipartisan majorities, requires voter purges to keep the voting lists current.
HAVA also requires regular “maintenance” of the statewide list including removing ineligible voters and duplicate names are eliminated in accordance with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA).
BTW, the Help America Vote Act also contains an ID requirement for first time voters.
I’ve fairly clearly expressed my take on Bricker’s position - voter fraud exists, but in such tiny quantity that no reasonable person could say it shakes “confidence” in an election result, unless that person was willing to ignore much larger sources of error, including simple human error in counting votes and, yes, efforts to make voting more burdensome.
I feel okay in predicting that November will yield sufficient anecdotal evidence. I may be wrong, of course. I’ll deal with that contingency when and if it happens. Meantime, we have isolated cases of people who can’t get (or have to go absurd lengths to get) the necessary identification in their venue and the expressed opinions of people promoting voter ID legislation that it very specifically is intended to give their party an edge.
As far as I’m concerned, the discussion stopped the moment Bricker demonstrated that he is deluding himself. All follow-up has just been used to determine the extent.
Oh, there’s nothing inherently unreasonable in requiring voter identification. You’d have to be determinedly stupid not to see the larger issue at play - election gaming.
Anyway, if Bricker or anyone else doesn’t accept this as self-evident, then… well… he and they have been suckered, is all I can say. It’s great that he would support efforts to make the issuing of ID as easy as possible - now let him find some place in the U.S. where such efforts are happening, I’d like to read about them.
My cite was the wikipedia article. Voter lists must be maintained, duplicate names and ineligible voters removed. That is a purge.
Now in 2000, you certainly have a case that the voter purge was partisan-motivated. Which is why HAVA was passed, to bring more order to the process. But no reasonable person can deny the need for voter purges.
The 2011-2012 voter purge, by contrast, was done scrupulously according to the law and the Scott administration asked the federal government for their database to ensure the accuracy of the purge. Florida sued in court, and won.
The agreement, made in a letter to Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s administration that was obtained by The Associated Press, grants the state access to a list of resident noncitizens maintained by the Homeland Security Department. The Obama administration had denied Florida’s request for months but relented after a judge ruled in the state’s favor in a related voter-purge matter.
Voting rights groups, while acknowledging that noncitizens have no right to vote, have expressed alarm about using such data for a purpose not originally intended: purging voter lists of ineligible people. They also say voter purges less than four months before a presidential election might leave insufficient time to correct mistakes stemming from faulty data or other problems.
While I agree that I don’t like such lists being used for other purposes, the alternative is a less accurate purge. And no, not purging at all is not acceptable.
I was using 2012 to show that voter purges are not inherently disenfranchising or partisan. The 2000 purges were, I don’t dispute that. Which is one of the reasons the Help America Vote Act was passed.
