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

[Robot_Arm]

@Uzi

Sorry, forgot that you think the world is flat and that other countries are just a myth perpetrated by the Inner party overlords.

You’re the one citing what happens in Hong Kong as if it applied in the U.S.

[MaxTheVool]

Bricker: please respond to 4597 when you get a chance.

[elucidator]

First you must complete the three quests…

[Bricker]

@MaxTheVool

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.

Again I would point out that my attempts to use this sort of response would be rejected:

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-altering vote fraud 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 illegal votes were cast. 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.

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.

Yes, I agree that you might posit a situation in which the voters could not rise up and defeat the scheme because they could no longer vote – but that isn’t reality. Voter ID enjoys wide public support. Your concern would be relevant in the real world if Voter ID were a more 50-50 proposition. So I grant the theoretical truth of your complaint, but give it no real weight because at present, there’s no actual danger.

[Bricker]

@Trinopus

My roommate passed away not too long ago. In the mail, I received his sample ballot. It would have certainly been possible for me to go and vote twice, one with my ballot and once with his. Or I could have conspired with someone to go and impersonate him and vote in his place, as I might have been recognized.

If the Voter ID proponents could show that this sort of thing actually does happen in significant numbers, I might have more sympathy for their proposals.

I’d also insist that voter ID cards be as easy to obtain as supermarket customer-loyalty cards. They’d have to be available, free, in five minutes or less, at any Post Office, any DMV, any Police Station, or any Library.

So, when the proponents manage to meet these two requirements: show an actual need for the law, and guarantee that it will not provide an undue burden to the right to vote – I’ll be more sympathetic.

Until then, I demand you put safety railings alongside all city sidewalks, because someone might slip and fall. Why not? It’s every bit as reasonable.

Sure.

Just one tiny itsy bitsy problem: you don’t rule the Land as King.

We have a system. Since I don’t want to recognize you as King, and you presumably (and unwisely) don’t wish to recognize me as King, we have agreed upon a system to pass laws.

So go ahead: take your safety railing proposal to the legislature.

Because right now, it’s NOT as reasonable as Voter ID, because Voter ID was passed by the legislature, signed by the governor, and upheld by the Supreme Court, and the Safety Rail Proposal was not. See: that’s how we make laws. We do not submit all laws for your approval.

If you think you can convince the legislature, go right ahead.

But what you’re really saying is that you WANT to be recognized as King. You want to get to make rules – or unmake rules – regardless of what the legislature does or the courts say.

[Bricker]

@Una_Persson

The only thing which I could contribute to a shambling horror of a thread as long as this is that I used to support strict voter ID laws…

…until I was disenfranchised by a stupid clerical error and as a result was prevented from voting in a local election.

When you receive a letter in the post telling you the election board never heard of you and that you need to prove your citizenship IMMEDIATELY, complete with vague threats that you might be guilty of a crime by attempting to vote without the proper qualifications, it sends a chill down your spine.

I’m sorry to hear about that. Were you given a chance to submit a provisional ballot?

And you know… I’m not sure why you should be chilled in your spine, or elsewhere. Are you saying that you believe voting without the proper qualifications should NOT be a crime?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

But what you’re really saying is that you WANT to be recognized as King. You want to get to make rules – or unmake rules – regardless of what the legislature does or the courts say.

Really, Bricker? You’re really going to fall back to that lame accusation? Again?

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

Really, Bricker? You’re really going to fall back to that lame accusation? Again?

I’m sorry – you’re right. It IS lame that he wants to be King.

“Leader?” “Dear Leader?” What’s the right title? I know liberals wouldn’t embrace a monoarchy in name. “Chairman of the Central Committee?” Is that the best approach?

The accusation is not “lame.” I want to know what system he proposes that allows him to to override the legislature, governor, and courts.

[Cyros]

@Bricker

Yes, I agree that you might posit a situation in which the voters could not rise up and defeat the scheme because they could no longer vote – but that isn’t reality. Voter ID enjoys wide public support. Your concern would be relevant in the real world if Voter ID were a more 50-50 proposition. So I grant the theoretical truth of your complaint, but give it no real weight because at present, there’s no actual danger.

Out of curiosity, is it the general idea of voter ID which enjoys wide support or the specific iterations that have been proposed/passed which enjoys that support? I mean, I can get behind the general idea of requiring voter ID but my support for any particular piece of legislation would hinge on the specific implementation (is it bundled with efforts to reduce ease of voting, ease of obtaining the ID, etc).

[Bricker]

@Cyros

Out of curiosity, is it the general idea of voter ID which enjoys wide support or the specific iterations that have been proposed/passed which enjoys that support? I mean, I can get behind the general idea of requiring voter ID but my support for any particular piece of legislation would hinge on the specific implementation (is it bundled with efforts to reduce ease of voting, ease of obtaining the ID, etc).

I don’t know of any poll, anywhere, at any time, that purported to accurately measure public support of the implementation details of any law – there are simply too many.

Polls have shown approval for Voter ID laws that have passed – but how much the public knows about the implementation is not really reliably measured, so far as I am aware.

Of course, since the vast majority of the public has ID, we can assume they are generally aware of what they had to do to get it.

[Wolf333]

Let me see if I have a couple of things straight…

We need voter i.d. laws because there is a very tiny chance that someone might attempt in person voter fraud, but…

We do not need to worry about fake I.d. because there is only a very tiny chance that someone would use them to commit voter fraud.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

…So I grant the theoretical truth of your complaint, but give it no real weight because at present, there’s no actual danger.

This from the guy who says that Voter ID is important because there might be an ultra-close election which could, in theory, be decided by votes which were, possibly, illegally cast…

[Bricker]

@Wolf333

Let me see if I have a couple of things straight…

We need voter i.d. laws because there is a very tiny chance that someone might attempt in person voter fraud, but…

We do not need to worry about fake I.d. because there is only a very tiny chance that someone would use them to commit voter fraud.

This might be the first post in a couple thousand that did not misstate an argument of mine while trying for a sly “Gotcha.”

It’s wrong, yes.

But it’s wrong because I did not really rebut the fake ID issue. It’s a accurate – if unfriendly – summary of what I said. My argument up until this point is correctly summarized by the above.

So without delving into other issues with fake IDs, let me just say: “Yes.” Because there is a very tiny chance of someone attempting in-person illegal voting, we need Voter ID.

But the second “very tiny chance” is not equal to the first: it’s a very tiny chance of any instances from the first set of successful very tiny chances.

That is, let’s say the “very tiny chance” is one in twenty thousand. Then we might imagine about fifty illegal votes in a million.

So out of an election of two million votes, about a hundred are illegal.

And from that HUNDRED, there is a very tiny chance - one in twenty thousand - that a fake ID is involved.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

This from the guy who says that Voter ID is important because there might be an ultra-close election which could, in theory, be decided by votes which were, possibly, illegally cast…

Yes. Because I can show – and have shown – that in real life there were ultra-close elections.

[Cyros]

@Bricker

I don’t know of any poll, anywhere, at any time, that purported to accurately measure public support of the implementation details of any law – there are simply too many.

Polls have shown approval for Voter ID laws that have passed – but how much the public knows about the implementation is not really reliably measured, so far as I am aware.

Of course, since the vast majority of the public has ID, we can assume they are generally aware of what they had to do to get it.

Ok, can you direct me to a poll or two that I can view tonight to see what questions were asked and what people were agreeing to? I think we can agree that there is a large difference between agreeing to the general concept of voter ID and agreeing to voter ID when 30% of the locations to get such ID have recently closed, or requirements are not communicated properly, or it takes appeal to a local TV station or a congressman to actually be able to obtain the needed ID.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Uzi

You do realize that China is on the other side of the planet in a different time zone?

Yet you were up posting just an hour or so before.

You could have saved the time you used sending this post in listing those facts you think I have wrong. Still waiting …

Schmuck.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

Yes. Because I can show – and have shown – that in real life there were ultra-close elections.

Sure! Had one right here in Baja Canada. Al Franken…(who publicly confessed his homosexual liason with his writing partner on national TV!) against Norm Coleman… (who is, best we can tell, the only man Garrison Keillor actually hates!)

Came down to a few hundred votes. And a recount, as demanded by state law. Hammer and tong they went at it, a lawyer feeding frenzy. Result: Franken by 312 votes, little or no voter fraud discovered. Of course, this is Minnesota, and these people are fucking weird! Quietly, calmly weird. But still weird.

Probably why I look out my window and gaze upon a smoking ruin, with scabrous zombies in hand to hand combat over cans of cream of mushroom soup. (Hot dish. Don’t ask.)

ETA: shit, he did it again, got me to argue with him about the only topic he wants to talk about, the wondrous crunchy goodness of Voter ID. Boy is as slippery as a catfish in a barrel of motor oil.

Not about the puppies, Counselor. About the rabies.

[adaher]

No voter fraud? That’s not actually true:

38 people were convicted of voter fraud in the wake of the Minnesota election in 2008:

http://www.ceimn.org/files/Facts%20about%20Ineligible%20Voting%20and%20Voter%20Fraud%20in%20Minnesota_with%20appendix.pdf

All of these convictions were due to a right-wing group poring over the voter database and referring their findings to the Minnesota Attorney General’s office. They actually found a few hundred illegal votes. The convictions are just the tip of the iceberg, so it is plausible to say that Franken may have won through fraud.

[elucidator]

adaher? Do you read what you cite? Like, for instance,…

…Based on the survey, nine ten-thousandths of one percent (0.0009%)of 2008 voters were convicted of fraud…

The horror. The horror.

(Note to self: stop arguing over irrelevant tangents…)

[adaher]

I realize, I just couldn’t let the assertion that there was no voter fraud go unchallenged.

And as you know, 38 convictions does not mean only 38 cases of voter fraud, given the standard of proof required to convict. For every crime proven, there are many that go undetected.