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

[MaxTheVool]

@Bricker

My own objection is much less dramatic. I think it sucks, but ultimately the power to fix it rests with Massachusetts voters, and they don’t seem discomfited, so I’m OK with it.

And that right there is the key difference between the MA Senate thing and voter ID laws. IF the liberals here are right, and IF some of these laws in fact will reduce voter turnout in a way which disproportionately affects one party, then the voters might NOT have the power to fix it, because it TOOK THAT POWER AWAY FROM THEM. That’s the same reason that black people in the Jim Crow south didn’t just vote to change the system, and the same reason that once a legislature is elected from gerrymandered districts, the people can’t just vote in new legislators to fix the situation.

No matter how douche-y the MA senate thing was, nothing about it in any way interfered with the ability of the voters of MA to throw the bums (those bums being the MA legislators who engaged in this chicanery) the next year if they so desired.

[MaxTheVool]

@adaher

Actually, I think that law would improve Republican turnout, seeing as how Republicans have jobs that might keep them away from the polls.

Cite?

[ElvisL1ves]

@MaxTheVool

No matter how douche-y the MA senate thing was, nothing about it in any way interfered with the ability of the voters of MA to throw the bums (those bums being the MA legislators who engaged in this chicanery) the next year if they so desired.

Except we didn’t so desire, because we wanted and voted for a Democrat for the seat. The law change that prevented Romney from overriding our desire and appointing a Republican (which would also have shifted control of the entire US Senate, which accounts for Bricker’s continued pouting about it), was in alignment with the principles of democracy, while not doing so would have been in opposition to them. Yes, that was in the interests of the party that is far more closely aligned with expanding and strengthening democracy; either doing or *not *doing what was done would have resulted in a partisan advantage for somebody, so that isn’t really a deciding factor in this debate, is it?

[Bricker]

@MaxTheVool

And that right there is the key difference between the MA Senate thing and voter ID laws. IF the liberals here are right, and IF some of these laws in fact will reduce voter turnout in a way which disproportionately affects one party, then the voters might NOT have the power to fix it, because it TOOK THAT POWER AWAY FROM THEM. That’s the same reason that black people in the Jim Crow south didn’t just vote to change the system, and the same reason that once a legislature is elected from gerrymandered districts, the people can’t just vote in new legislators to fix the situation.

No matter how douche-y the MA senate thing was, nothing about it in any way interfered with the ability of the voters of MA to throw the bums (those bums being the MA legislators who engaged in this chicanery) the next year if they so desired.

If, if, and might.

OK: While each state elects its own senators, those senators make laws for the whole country. in fact, one reason the Massachusetts deal was so key was the prospect of an evenly divided Senate. So do the legislators of Massachusetts have the right to tilt the entire US Senate?

How do the people of Mississippi get to weigh in on the chicanery of the Massachusetts legislators?

[Bryan_Ekers]

I just like how a legislature passing a mostly-futile, virtually symbolic law is okay (you don’t like it? Shut up, fuck you, you’re a goddamn democracy-misunderstanding hypocrite for not objecting just as hard to this vaguely similar situation somewhere else) but if a prosecutor tries to enforce a mostly-futile, virtually-symbolic law… well, that’s just crazy talk, that never happens.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

in fact, one reason the Massachusetts deal was so key was the prospect of an evenly divided Senate.

It wasn’t a “prospect”, liar. It was the existing reality.

So do the legislators of Massachusetts have the right to tilt the entire US Senate?

They *prevented *that from happening, liar. Which is why you’re not happy simply with Kennedy being dead; no, that wasn’t enough for you, was it? You wanted to overturn a democratic election not only in Massachusetts but nationwide, for your own partisan secular interests.

How do the people of Mississippi get to weigh in on the chicanery of the Massachusetts legislators?

They don’t and didn’t. Now, how does a single Governor get to decide the party control of the US Senate, in your so-called “philosophy”?

You’d have been thrown out of court if you tried such a lying argument there.

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

I just like how a legislature passing a mostly-futile, virtually symbolic law is okay (you don’t like it? Shut up, fuck you, you’re a goddamn democracy-misunderstanding hypocrite for not objecting just as hard to this vaguely similar situation somewhere else) but if a prosecutor tries to enforce a mostly-futile, virtually-symbolic law… well, that’s just crazy talk, that never happens.

How was the Massachusetts law “virtually symbolic?”

Paul Kirk, the Democratic National Committee chairman, did not symbolically become a U.S. Senator. He ACTUALLY became a U.S. Senator.

A prosecutor cannot convict in the absence of evidence. The reason prosecutors don’t generally bring Non-Voter ID fraud cases is that convictions are difficult, since the prosecution cannot easily prove the person actually voted – just that “someone” voted using that name.

ETA: or was the symbolic law the Voter ID law?

[elucidator]

@Bricker

…A prosecutor cannot convict in the absence of evidence…

Really. Hmm. Quite sure about that, are you?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

Paul Kirk, the Democratic National Committee chairman, did not symbolically become a U.S. Senator. He ACTUALLY became a U.S. Senator.

And yet the party balance in the Senate did *not *shift, despite your saying that it did. How could that be? :rolleyes:

The reason prosecutors don’t generally bring Non-Voter ID fraud cases is that convictions are difficult, since the prosecution cannot easily prove the person actually voted – just that “someone” voted using that name.

There’s another possible reason those cases don’t exist, isn’t there? :rolleyes:

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bricker

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.

I suspect the reason Democrats aren’t making absentee voting harder is because they don’t want to make ANY voting harder.

So i don’t agree with you.

But what about confidence in the election results?

Surely they aren’t succumbing to the will of the the AARP (see Republican reaction to AARP support of Obamacare).

No. I don’t agree.

I don’t think you are seeing things clearly and objectively.

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).

Fake IDs are used to pretend to be someone you are not.

@Bricker

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?

We are not talking about illegally cast votes, we are only talking about in person voter fraud, right?

@Bricker

Why would a prosecutor waste time indicting cases he cannot prove?

Well, he can provide a prima facie case to a grand jury but that doesn’t mean he will win every time.

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.

And in what way does a voter ID requirement make it easier to prosecute these cases? I’m just curious. How is it that we have been able to find so much absentee ballot fraud but have not been able to find very much in person voting fraud?

[elucidator]

Scandal breaks, Republicans pass plan to distribute rabid puppies to inner city children. (NOTE: Snarkasm warning, there is no evidence to date of any such plan…)

We moonbats gather in outrage, outraging, on page one of “Rotten, Stinking Republicans Spread Rabies to Poor Children!”. Probably BG as OP.

At page 85 of Rotten, Stinking etc.,** Bricker** is still trying to bend the conversation to his contention that, really, puppies are very good things for children, being cute, playful…

On page 86, I shriek with frustration “Not about the gorram puppies! About the rabies! Rabies, Bricker, rabies!! AAAAiiiieeeeee!..Why are you promoting rabies for children!?!”

Bricker blinks once, twice “Well, I can prove differently, but not until you have adequately demonstrated your non-hypocritical outrage about Massachusettsgate! Then, and only then…”

I stumble down the street to the package store, get some cheap shit vodka.

“Fuck sane and sober, I gotta choose…”

When I get back, Bricker is saying “…anyway, puppy distribution is a valid neutral criterion, because puppies are good for the mental health of the young…”

[Trinopus]

@Bryan_Ekers

Huh. I thought he was saying he’d have more confidence that a close election reflected the will of the electorate if photo ID laws were in place. . . .

Cool. That was not at all clear from his posts.

The absurdity is that even if the literally one-in-a-million case of voter fraud was stopped and there were absolutely no other effects whatsoever, simple tabulation errors have a much greater influence.

And, worse, other system errors of interpretation. A Mayoral election in San Diego was decided by a judge, who threw out a number of write-in ballots.

(People had clearly written in the name of the candidate…but hadn’t also checked the check box. To most of us, the writing in of the name indicates the intention unambiguously, but the judge felt otherwise.)

Problems like this are real, immediate, and decisive. They need addressing far more desperately than the question of people voting wrongfully, which hasn’t even been demonstrated to exist as a problem!

[Trinopus]

@Bricker

. . . Whether you agree or not, can you accurately summarize or paraphrase what I have said?

I can.

Note, though, that Bryan Ekers explained it before you did, much more clearly, more succinctly, and more sensibly, without the excursions and diversions, and without the insulting request for regurgitation.

You are a very bad writer, sir. Your posts are murky, confusing, turgid, muddy, excessively complex, and unclear.

You’re also remarkably rude. It’s as if you aren’t here to fight ignorance; you’re just here for a fight. Small wonder that the vast majority of your posts are in the Pit. It’s much more your natural habitat than most of the other forums here.

I do really admire your taste in music. I wish we could have more interaction in Café Society.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

ETA: or was the symbolic law the Voter ID law?

Nice save, Mariano.

[elucidator]

Funny about that whole prosecuting voter fraud thingy. Anybody else remember back when the Bushiviks unleashed a nation-wide program to root out voter fraud, to be conducted by Federal prosecutors? Got Ms. Gonzalez’ boy Bertie in a peck of trouble.

Here in Baja Canada, the local head of the Feds was replaced by a young, aggressive graduate of Liberty University Law School. (Jerry Falwell, Asshole Emeritus). Never mind those trivial gun and drug crimes, get yer asses up to the Rez and root out voter fraud in the American Indian community.

First result:bupkiss. Second result, mutiny. She has moved on.

[elucidator]

@Trinopus

…(People had clearly written in the name of the candidate…but hadn’t also checked the check box. To most of us, the writing in of the name indicates the intention unambiguously, but the judge felt otherwise.)…

Well, sure, but if the law clearly says the check box must be checked, regardless, then said judge had no other option. Dunno anything about this, but the possibility remains.

[MaxTheVool]

@Bricker

If, if, and might.

What a meaningless response. Obviously there are a bunch of IFs and MIGHTs. That’s why this is a debate thread on the SDMB as opposed to an outright case of election-stealing that even you couldn’t deny. Everything I’ve ever posted in this thread (with possible exceptions of hasty posts in the heat of things) has acknowledged that no one is claiming there is 100% certainty that X percent of voters will be suppressed. Which is of course part of what makes it so insidious. There could easily be an election “stolen” by this technique that no one can ever decide for sure ever was or was not stolen.

OK: While each state elects its own senators, those senators make laws for the whole country. in fact, one reason the Massachusetts deal was so key was the prospect of an evenly divided Senate. So do the legislators of Massachusetts have the right to tilt the entire US Senate?

How do the people of Mississippi get to weigh in on the chicanery of the Massachusetts legislators?

An interesting tangent, but not at all responsive to my point, which is that nothing the MA legislature did affects the elections that elect they themselves. Nothing that they did has the chance to be self-perpetuating the way that (for instance) gerrymandering does. Which is why the generic “sure, but if they’re being rascals they can always be voted out of office” argument, which you are correct to point out is often an overriding trump card, does NOT necessarily apply to voter ID, but certainly does apply to MA senate shenanigans.

[Trinopus]

@elucidator

Well, sure, but if the law clearly says the check box must be checked, regardless, then said judge had no other option. Dunno anything about this, but the possibility remains.

Agreed…except that another clause in the law says that the clear intention of the voter must be taken into account.

(e.g., someone who checks near the box, but not actually in the box, someone who very slightly misspells a write-in name, etc.)

The two clauses in the law are in conflict, and many of us scorn the judge for choosing the most restrictive one.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Can’t they put monitors up in polling stations for people waiting in line to look at featuring an attractive woman demonstrating procedures like this? It what they use to distract the people queued up at theme parks.

[BrainGlutton]

Meanwhile, in Texas, 92yo woman struggles to get voter ID. (Oh, and she is white, BTW.)

Bellmead resident Ruby Barber was born in Guys, Tenn., to sharecroppers who never signed a birth certificate, and now the 92-year-old is struggling to prove her citizenship so she can vote in the upcoming gubernatorial election.

“I’m sure (my birth) was never reported because I was born in a farmhouse with a coal oil lamp,” Barber said. “Didn’t have a doctor, just a neighbor woman come in and deliver me.”

Barber visited the Texas Department of Public Safety office last week to request an election identification certificate, but was refused one because she doesn’t have a birth certificate.

<snip>

Barber has outlived all of her documents.

Barber’s marriage license burned in a house fire in 1992 and she let her driver’s license expire four years ago.

When applying for her election certificate, Barber took her Medicare card, Social Security card and expired driver’s license to the DPS office. But officials wouldn’t issue her an election card without the birth certificate.

Barber could purchase a birth certificate online through the Tennessee Health Department’s website for $15 plus a processing fee, but said she doesn’t have anyone to help her.