Yes. That’s exactly right. That’s the prerogative of the people of Minnesota. They, through their elected representatives, voted into law certain restrictions on how people could register to vote and identify themselves as qualified voters. My own opinion is those are too lax – but I recognize that we have a system to address the creation of laws, and (sadly) it does not involve my imposing my opinion on the state: to their loss, it is.
So, yeah, Minnesota’s elected legislators made these rules, Minnesota’s governor signed them. I’m fine with that.
Not stupid. Couldn’t perform the sort of logical and semantic gymnastics as he does and be stupid. He even has his imitators, they try to do them, but its like watching the hippos dancing ballet from Fantasia. Stubborn, yes, stupid, no.
I don’t see why you’re getting so riled up about that particular rhetorical device.
Bricker is making what is in isolation a reasonable point, which is that eventually if two people disagree, and they live in a democracy, it doesn’t matter how persuasively they argue on a message board, what matters is what the majority of voters think.
That said, I think that that device applies poorly to the current situation for at least two reasons:
(1) The point I’ve been making repeatedly about how messing with the way elections themselves works risks invalidating the voters-can-always-fix-it mechanism
(2) It’s hard to say, looking at the very close elections and narrow balances of power in many legislatures, and considering the extent to which voter-ID-laws-in-specific are such a different issue from the-generic-idea-of-requiring-voter-ID, exactly what the electorate really wants right now (although of course that’s true about many issues)
But then we have to come back to context. Imagine a hypothetical in which, more or less out of nowhere, Democrats suddenly started pushing for measures that would make it EASIER for people to commit in-person voting fraud, by repealing voter ID laws, and reducing penalties, and, I dunno, various other things. And Republicans opposed those measures. And respected election observers like Nate Silver gave great credence to the idea that several percentage points worth of votes in any particular election might be Democratic voters committing in-person voter fraud. However, because of how things were set up, in this hypothetical no one had ironclad proof that this was occurring in that sort of numbers.
In that hypothetical, it would be entirely reasonable for you to post something like that.
However, in the real world, while it’s hard to come up with ironclad proof that voter ID laws (if implemented in the ways suggested in some states) will suppress Dem voters disproportionately, and it’s also hard to come up with ironclad proof as to precisely how many people are voting fraudulently in ways that voter ID laws would address, there are multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence that heavily support the idea that the voter-ID-suppression side of things is a legitimate concern while the in-person-voting-fraud thing is not:
-The fact that scuzzy Republicans who you have admitted support these laws, and Democrats oppose them, and those are all people who presumably are far more knowledgeable about the issue than you and I, causes me to believe that there is something there. What incentive would either of those groups have to do what they’re doing otherwise?
-Nate Silver
-Many anecdotes of people (many of them elderly) who suddenly had many extra hurdles to jump through to vote. As you’ve pointed out, many if not all of the cases we’ve heard about, WHICH ARE THE ONES THAT RECEIVED NATIONAL MEDIA COVERAGE, ended up with the person being able to vote. But as I’ve pointed out, that’s the ones that we’ve heard about, meaning that that particular person is already sufficiently motivated and capable that they were able to get attention and so forth. What about their neighbor who is 10% less able, or speaks 10% less good English, or is 10% busier working or parenting or whatever, and doesn’t have the time and energy to jump through those hoops?
Put all of those together, and I think there’s a much strong circumstantial case on my side of the issue than on yours.
But my point is not “oh no, if this law passes then it’s 100% certain that the Republicans will always have control of congress forever and we will never be able to stop it and this is our only chance oh no!”. My point is that, particularly in an era when public opinion is so starkly and evenly divided, any effort to put a finger on the scales of elections is particularly likely to bear fruit and continue to bear fruit, and is thus particularly odious. And efforts of those sorts are NOT just automatically something that voters can correct 4 years down the line.
Trying to antidemocratically steal elections like this should be viewed as exceptionally low. If a Democrat proposed a law that had a neutral justification that I kind of liked, but was one of a number of laws that, taken in their totality, suggested that that Democrat was really trying to make it easier to produce and sell kiddie porn, there’s no way in heck I would support even a single one of those laws, even if some of them, viewed purely in innocent-as-an-angel isolation, supported ideas or plans that I liked.
Of course, again I point out that the year is 2014. Many states have had Voter ID laws in place for multiple election cycles. And while respected election observers give great credence to the idea that future elections may see a loss of several percentage points, none of them seem to be offering any comment on past elections conducted with Voter ID in place.
Apparently because I have misgivings about police serving no-knock warrants, given stories like Blair’s that end in a resident getting fatally shot as well as stories about police going to wrong addresses (and residents getting fatally shot), he feels okay speculating that in my “liberal heart of hearts” (definitely not the first time he’d used that phrase on this board), I am sufficiently frantic to legalize drugs (the warrant being served was on drug-related charges) that I’m prepared to overlook that Blair apparently brought about his own death (which you can see here and judge for yourself).
This was not the only time Bricker accused me or others of having some secret radical agenda (I recall he once suggested I secretly wanted to do away with legislatures and replace them with councils of learned judges, but I can’t recall enough keywords for a search) and I can see why it’s a tempting albeit imbecilic and lazy accusation to make - it can be directed at anyone at any time. If expressing misgivings about legislation means you actually want to do away with democracy in favor of a dictatorship, why, such an accusation could be levied against Bricker himself based on this thread alone, if someone else wants to sink to that level. It means nothing except to betray the lack of a better comeback, masquerading as insight. To wit:
Person A: Everyone’s favorite ice cream flavor is chocolate.
Person B: Mine is vanilla.
Person A: You’re living in denial. Subconsciously, your favorite flavor is chocolate but you won’t admit it.
So, did Person A express an insight into Person B’s mentality, or is he just bullshitting because he doesn’t want to admit he was wrong and/or is trying to put Person B on the defensive?
Sorry, but as Max correctly observes, I am simply pointing out that you cannot demand to be the final authority on what the law is. In a representative democracy, we pass laws by action of our elected legislators. You don’t get to countermand the ones you don’t like.
No, no – nice try, but no. I am not literally suggesting that anyone wishes to become the monarch. I am pointing out that in our system, you cannot simply declare that legislation is invalid and have that declaration mean anything. Nor can you – or anyone else – demand the creation of new laws:
I didn’t take that for a literal demand, but the underlying point was that he felt lawmaking should be based on what his standards for “reasonable” were.
Of course you can. Under the system you currently have in the U.S., anyone is free to declare anything they want and demand anything they want. First Amendment 101.
It has no effect on others, your declaration has no meaning? Irrelevant.
Why, yes, when you put it like that! So very simple!
Well, BG, open your wallet, see if there’s a card in there that says “Decider, USA”. Because if not, then your pretenses to absolute authority are open to question, at the very least! Now, of course, he’s not saying this to be snide or insulting, its just that he is deeply concerned for you as a human being, one who’s self-definition is wildly inaccurate.
Sometimes, deeply sensitive and vulnerable people can seem to overstep their bounds, but its only because they care so much. You should offer Bricker a hug, he seems to need one.
And if you do, would it be a lot of trouble to take a video?
Grin! That sounds uncomfortably like the currently on-dragging abortion debate in GD…
Thank you for the links to Bricker’s previous use of this most irrational twist in illogic. It’s astonishing that someone who has as many opinions as he has can declare that having an opinion makes you want to be recognized as king. If it were a valid charge, it would apply at least as much to him as to anyone else here!
He seems to be one of those high-strung souls who snaps, every so often, and fleers off into an emotional diatribe, out of frustration that we aren’t swayed by his perfectly unanswerable and flawless logic. He makes me think of the Relativity Denier we had here a couple months ago. It’s all so very, very clear in his mind, he just can’t stand it that we maintain our perverse insistence on not comprehending.
Fascinating. So you scorn me for wanting to be recognized as king (when, in fact, I most definitely do not) because it would get in the way of your own absolute power?
You might benefit from a visit to a mental health care provider.
