Except that, when pressed, you scurry to the dreadful danger of the ultra-super close election being decided by voter fraud. A mathematical phantasm, of course, rather like the old “infinite number of monkeys typing at random reproducing the works of Shakespeare”. Except that the number of monkeys is closer to three than infinity. And they are all sharing the same typewriter. Simultaneously.
Then I offer the experience here in Baja Canada, the Franken/Coleman election. Super dooper ultra close election, no voter fraud detected despite voter registration laws you define as “too lax”. Impact on voter confidence undetectable.
If the experience of one state, Georgia, can be used to insist that our concerns are hysterical paranoia, why is it that the experience of one state does not equally falsify your own argument?
Yours is a flexible yardstick, Counselor. A very, very flexible yardstick.
Nonetheless, I stand ready to heap praise on those Republican legislators who firmly and sternly scolded those members of their Party who brought such shame to the Party with their sordid and malign intent. I had hoped that friend Bricker could offer their names that we might pour our approval on their heads, but it appears unlikely that such a happy event will occur.
No doubt, such sterling characters as these are awaiting anxiously, eager for the approval of a DFH such as myself. The poor dears are doomed to disappointment, it would seem. Alas!
Is there proportionality? One person casts an illegal vote, gets 30 days. An election official “loses” a ballot box with 1000 votes, gets 80 years?
Well “you” can supply means for redress through the civil courts. I’m just surprised a victimized society (i.e. one with shattered confidence) is so helpless.
But my problem is this: no political party or movement supports all the same things I support. No matter what, I have to cheer a la carte for specific proposal items, and jeer at others. I can’t cheer for any political party’s proposals across the board.
You’re correct that far too many proponents of Voter ID are also putting forward other proposals that constitute poor public policy and amount to nothing more than gaming the system.
Even putting aside who she might vote for, I get the reasonable impression that people like this widow outnumber fraudulent voters in any given venue, if only because the fake voters are unicorn-like in their rarity.
I don’t agree that the impact on voter confidence was undetectable.
I believe I already mentioned, in post 5058, the trial that took place to determine the winner of that election and the fact that Minnesota did not seat a senator until June of the year following the election.
I answered this question before, in post 5058, by pointing out the hundreds of conflicting witnesses that testified at the trial and the six-month vacancy of the Minnesota Senate seat following the election. In other words, I contended that it’s valid to point to Minnesota’s experience, just as its valid to point to Georgia’s.
So far as I can tell, you read that post, did not respond, and are now simply acting as though it were never made. Why is that?
You’re parsing adjectives now? You’re suggesting confusion, in this context, over “fake voter”, “fraudulent voter” and (apparantly) “illegal voter”? Seriously?
You can assume that in the context of my earlier post, the terms are synonymous.
I don’t see the problem. Charles and David Koch generously donate literally hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure that American democracy runs efficiently. Assuming the woman is of a demographic likely to vote for [del]Kochian[/del] American ideals like Liberty™ and White supremacy, I don’t think there will be any trouble getting free taxi service to help the woman complete the voter registration process.
OK. Then I don’t agree that illegal voters have never had the potential to have changed the results of an election.
Frank McCloskey beat Rick McIntyre by four votes. (By the way – the original count had McIntyre beating McCloskey by 167; the revised count came from the Democratic-dominated recount House committee.)
But, since Democrats are honest and never place partisan advantage ahead of democracy’s principles, we know that the margin of four votes is the correct answer.
So, unicorn time: you are telling me that you’re certain that of the hundreds of thousands of votes cast, there were not five illegal votes? So certain that even to entertain the notion that there might have been five illegal votes is so fantastical that it’s correct to compare it to a belief in unicorns?
Indeed, they did, in a lengthy, complex and transparent process. But you did not claim to be preventing lengthy and complex solutions, but preventing an impact on the all-important value of voter confidence. “Problems” are not all identical, and a solution to one problem does not fit all.
(Jesus Marimba, did I *really *need to point that out to you?..)
Subsequent to these events, proponents of strict voter id laws here managed to get their proposition on the ballot as a referendum. It failed. May we not reasonably assume, therefore, that voter confidence was not shaken to the core, as a solution was offered, and rejected?
It is almost certainly a result of my liberal hypocrisy and my stubborn refusal to accept the crystal clarity of your argument. It is a pity so few of us measure up to your impeccable standards.
Indeed, there were problems with the ultra super-dooper close election. Voter confidence and illegal voters were two that were not.
So what’s your new argument? You started by claiming that Minnesota’s election did not damage voter confidence. I say that it did, based on the fact that it took over half a year to determine the winner.
Now you appear to have shifted to a new argument, but I can’t tell what it is.
So please state your new argument in simple form.
No. Voter confidence certainly was shaken. But not enough people in Minnesota believed that Voter ID would have made any difference in the particular shakiness caused by these circumstances. Or a great many people believed that Voter ID would be helpful, but that it would have undesirable effects that made it not worth adopting.
Which, of course, is perfectly within the province of the voters of Minnesota to decide. I am certainly not claiming that every state must adopt Voter ID. I think every state should, yes, but I am not the King. I respect each states’ voters’ decision on the matter.
Sure, he was DECLARED to have won by four, and as you point out, your lack of confidence is in the Democrat-dominated committee that (ostensibly) counted the votes. Why you’re letting yourself be distracted by who CAST the votes is unclear to me.
And I’ve never voted Democrat, so I’m not feeling the reflexive indignation I think you were trying for.
I can only repeat what I said earlier when you asked this question about this election and ignored my answer: for all I know, THOUSANDS of votes were mishandled, misread or disregarded (the wiki article about the election says as much, or at least it did at the time).
No you don’t. If they’re poor, and don’t currently have an ID, you think they can fuck off.
If you had to do five or ten hours of work in order to vote you maybe could do it. If you were elderly or poor, it is less likely.
But no, everyone must be judged by Bricker’s time and mobility standard.
The same mental defect that makes you fawn over the GOP is what’s at fault here. You can’t imagine that anyone less smart, educated and or wealthy than you deserves to vote as much as you do.
Have you really sunk that far? Have you no memory of just who stalled the count, and why, and what damage to voter confidence they caused thereby? Hint: It had jack shit to do with voting fraud.
Every time it looks like **Bricker **has reached the ultimate bottom in the honesty of his posts, he surprises us. But anyone reading this thread is now fully aware of the hollowness and unethicality of the voter ID “argument”, so he’s doing a service nonetheless.
Decision is singular. States’ and voters’ are plural possessive.
That means that I respect each state’s individual decision, made by their voters, as of course expressed through their legislature. It does not mean, as you bizarrely seem to have parsed, that i respect each individual decision made by each individual voter.
I believe in the rule of law, you see. You believe in the Rule of Lobohan.
Nope. Not my standard. The standard of the Supreme Court.
Because I believe in the rule of law. I accept the law, even if a particular state doesn’t agree with me.
You accept only the Rule of Lobohan. The law is irrelevant; the policy must conform to what you say.
