Which just demonstrates your ignorance.
You’ve already been challenged to show the relevant facts that you think are wrong or being ignored in this subject. How about it, then?
Facts mean as much to you as they do to Uzi, don’t they?
Did you cite a fact that an ID requirement is more onerous than existing requirements?
Right after I cited that water is wet. :rolleyes:
Sorry, it’s not that obvious to me that an ID requirement is tougher than registering. For me, that was the toughest part of the process.
Doing 2 things = harder than doing 1 thing, fool.
Spit the gum out.
Since it’s firmly established that magellan believes 2=1, his objection is predictable.
I’m sure Cyros appreciates your grade and looks forward to getting into a good college, but gathering evidence for a possible after-the-fact prosecution is indeed quite distinct from on-the-spot ID checking. Heck, do away with all ID checks and just take a picture (and/or fingerprint) of each voter as they check in. It could theoretically speed up the process considerably, just like those full-body scanners at the airport were supposed to.
But what happens after a razor-close election at the trials of the illegal voters? Are they asked who they voted for and the vote tallies adjusted accordingly? What if they refuse to answer? Do we just assume they voted a particular way? Can a revote be required if the number of convicted voters is larger than the margin?
Let’s say Person A reports “I tried to vote but was told I’d voted already.” So once Person A establishes his identity by some reasonable means, investigators go through the records and find the time Person A’s vote was recorded and find a picture (and/or fingerprint) of someone who clearly is not Person A. Then what? I suppose if the fingerprint on record matches that of a previously convicted felon (who could not vote but really wanted to anyway and impersonated a voter to do so), go to trial and try to convince a jury that the picture and/or fingerprint is conclusive. If the penalties are made high enough (I’m curious what you have in mind for this), then the incentive to fight bitterly becomes attractive, all the way to SCOTUS if possible.
Potentially a lot of resources are being spent on this, and it won’t change the outcome of any elections anyway.
As a side note, I never really understood why a person who’d been convicted of a felony but has since been released from custody should be prevented from voting. It sounds counterproductive to me, unless they were convicted of a felony specifically relating to election fraud and thus could be plausibly “banned for life” from participating in the process in any capacity.
Well, golly gee, all of these good ideas, about how to have voter id installed, to allay the dreadful prospect of ultra-close elections. A bountiful harvest, only issue being which of many splendid ideas to implement. All good stuff, leaving only one ugly question, peering from the darkness beneath the garbage can lid: why didn’t they?
All of these splendid ideas, all these excellent ways to provide a voter id environment while scrupulously avoiding any taint, any hint, of partisan advantage. But they didn’t do it. In fact, in most cases, they upped the ante on partisan advantage, as the record clearly and abundantly shows. Curtailing early voting, hassling voter registration drives, so on and so forth.
I’m a bit of a radical, so my suggestion may strike the Gentle Reader as startling: I think they didn’t do it because they didn’t want to. I wholly agree with friend Bricker’s suggestion that its because “some” Republicans actually wanted to disadvantage and burden voters likely to vote in line with their opponents. (I’ll pause for a moment, here, so that those who have clutched their pearls and fainted dead away have a moment to recover…Ready? Good.)
They could have done any or all of these things, to advance the wonderful crunchy goodness of voter id without creating any partisan advantage. They didn’t because partisan advantage was the crux of the biscuit.
Now, I would not wish to stifle the creativity displayed here, in methods for installing a voter id standard that would not have onerous and sordid implications. Good stuff, no doubt. But they didn’t do any of that. They did the other thing, the one that does have those implications. And fought tooth and nail, hammer and tong, to keep it that way.
Now, I will not suggest that this sort of partisan skulduggery in any way approaches the shrieking horror of the Massachusetts Massacre. Still, not nice. Sorta kinda violates our presumed ideals of equality before the law, and free access to voting rights. Actually, it throws it to the floor and gives it a jolly good rogering.
But only “some” Republicans, who’s hypocrisy and treachery friend Bricker has excoriated so loudly and firmly! (I could provide proof of that, have it right at my fingertips, and will bring it forth as soon as Scarlett Johansonn returns my phone calls…)
Only “some”! The rest of the Republicans who advanced this cause and voted in favor, they were but innocent lambs frolicking amongst the daffodils. If only someone had told them!
Alas.
By the way…
Oh, you bet on it. Okay, I’ll take your action. Two bucks says in the November 2014 American midterm elections, no single election venue (by which I mean votes cast on a single election, be it for a congressional seat, Senate seat, state governor, statewide ballot initiative or any other reasonable application) with a reported vote of three million or more regardless of the outcome of said election has by the end of 2015, indictments for two hundred counts of in-person voter fraud, be it by two hundred separate individuals or a fewer number who voted illegally multiple times.
I’m open to negotiation and refinement of these terms, but not the stakes, as “two bucks” is an amount of personal significance reflecting my mockery of the seriousness with with the issue is being taken.
I agree that the efforts at voter suppression have backfired but that doesn’t make it right.
This is the part I don’t understand.
The problem I have with your argument is that in person voter fraud is generally understood to be tiny compared to absentee voter fraud. The only reason that in person voter fraud might cause a crisis of confidence is because Republicans have created that crisis of confidence focused on in person voter fraud while ignoring absentee voter fraud (at least in part fo partisan reasons).
I’d be OK with that as well because it is more effective and less burdensome on voters.
But the folks who are proposing voter ID laws would never propose that law because they are not actually concerned about voter fraud, they are concerned about suppressing votes. When you see people addressing one of the least common methods of voter fraud and do it in a way that is a second or third best alternative to actually eliminate that voter fraud (but is more likely to suppress votes) then you have to wonder if their concern is actually voter fraud or voter suppression.
Individuals are oppressed (not the case here) TURNOUT is suppressed. At the macro level there is going to be a population of people who won’t vote because of the voter ID laws, aren’t there?
You’ve never had a fake ID?
I agree that fingerprinting is better. They use it in countries around the world where voter fraud is an actual concern.
On further research, the “three million votes” requirement, I see, eliminates all congressional districts. The biggest single district is Montana-at-large, at it has less than a million constituents, of whom only about a third (!) voted in the 2010 midterms.
And looking at a list of U.S. states by population, 20 states from Mississippi down to Wyoming don’t even have 3 million population, let alone electorate, let alone likely active electorate for 2014. So that leaves us a relative handful of Senate and Gubernatorial races in populous states, plus whatever ballot initiatives there might be in those states. Not more than a few dozen in total, I expect.
Of course. I just laid out – not for the first time, not for the fifth time, and probably not for the tenth time – my explanation that without Voter ID laws in place, criminal prosecution of illegal votes is very difficult, because of the uphill battle the prosecutor faces.
Didn’t I?
Yet along you come now and offer to bet that there won’t be two hundred indictments.
It makes me suspect that you’re not quite understanding me.
I suspect that the reason Republicans (and Democrats!) aren’t making absentee voting harder is the same reason that Republicans (and Democrats!) don’t act to impose more stringent driving test for drivers over age 70. Any time the spectre of laws like that is raised, the wrath of the AARP quickly kills them.
So i don’t agree with you.
No. I don’t agree.
No. And typically, a fake ID is used to inflate the age of the possessor. (Brian Johnson of Shermer High School, Shermer, Illinois, would be an exception to this rule).
I’m willing to take you up on your “Sure, I bet there’s a few hundred felons/illegal aliens/double-location voters/impersonators” statement, and willing to do so on reasonable terms.
-You said two hundred illegal votes out of three million total. Fine.
-I’m willing to waive the presumption of innocence element in your favour and settle for mere indictments instead of demanding convictions. Sure, prosecution is an uphill battle - I’m happy to settle for the start of the uphill; I’m not demanding the summit. Do you want to propose an even gentler standard, like a prosecutor who simply claims there were 200 or more cases of voter fraud? I don’t think I can bend that far, I admit, but perhaps there’s a middle ground.
-I’m willing to wait until the end of 2015 for these indictments to be filed. If you want to extend that to the end of 2016, I’m game.
If you don’t want the bet, fine. Just don’t try to make this out as some kind of gotcha-game on my part because I decided to take you at your word.
True.
Although the real issue is ratios. An election of 232,000 total votes decided by a margin of four votes – as happened in the Indiana Eighth in 1984 – is in precisely the same position.
There’s no way to determine who cast votes in the Indiana Eighth in 1984. Only four votes switching sides changes the result. How can you say, with confidence, that there were not four illegal votes cast?
What? But didn’t you stipulate that, indeed, “some” Republicans had malign motives in all of this? Wasn’t that you?
Now, of course, you never quite got around to any notion of how many, and whether or not they constituted the majority here, but that’s understandable, since you were so busy renouncing, denouncing and condemning the sordid hypocrisy of “some” Republicans.
Hypocrisy is a big deal to you, and you are forthright in condemning hypocrisy in no uncertain terms. Well, “some” hypocrisy…
Why would a prosecutor waste time indicting cases he cannot prove?
But you haven’t! Your entire offer turns my word on its head: my whole point was that without Voter ID, criminal sanctions are simply not feasible. Now you come along and say, “Oh, yeah? Well, let’s see how many criminal sanctions happen!”
Very very few. That’s MY point.