Your allegation of both sides being equally guilty of something or other is, as you know, a fucking lie.
Many of those issues, though not all, have been fixed since the party you cheer for hijacked Florida in 2000. You might keep up. You desperately do need to know, if you plan to continue participating here, what the real weaknesses are today, and what the real effects of the laws the party you cheer for would be and are.
:rolleyes: Please. You do not argue about whether the system should even exist - which was, as you know the fucking point. It was also the fucking point of the Obamacare debates, on which you took the side your chosen team took rather than the one your own experience tells you was right, as you know. You didn’t learn a fucking thing about the value of your cheerleading even from Iraq, though, so it’s not to be expected that you’ll ever be capable of it.
The point is that ID possession is NOT universal here. Which is also something you know, but, as it is inconvenient for your partisan cheerleading, you sidestep. But you continue to prattle on as if it were a given. Cut the shit.
You know better about what they’re really worried about. Now you’re going beyond simple cheerleading into more simple lying.
You know exactly what those are. You also know exactly what the damage to democracy itself, much less the creation of partisan advantage, the laws you cheer for would cause (unless you haven’t actually been paying attention, simply looking for partisan-cheerleading talking points again). Your having ducked a request to show us you know, anything else you might think you’re “contributing” can be safely dismissed. But you may *not *know that.
And I have no complaint with that. The Pennsylvania law wasn’t consistent with the Pennsylvania constitution.
My understanding is that the legislature is going to take another run at crafting a law that will be, however. But for the moment, Pennsylvania doesn’t require ID to vote. That’s fine with me. That’s why we have a dual sovereign system: every state gets to adopt their own standards.
I’d be supportive of a Voter ID system, as long as the implementation of it, in terms of timing or accessibility did not mean that some groups of people would be at greater disadvantage in getting the ID.
Otherwise I’m fine, but when people suggest that driving 20 miles away is a solution, I question their motives with the implementation accessibility part of it. (NB: If the problem evident in that proposed solution is not clear, if you already have a driver’s license here, you wouldn’t need any additional Voter ID!)
It varies by state. Here is PA’s voter registration form. In particular, note that you have to have either a drivers license number or social security number.
Okay, how about .00004%. How about so low that virtually no elections in history would be affected by it. How about so low that Republicans in Alabama put out a $1,000 bounty for anyone who can point to a single instance.
It would be very easy. Ask the registered voter who is recorded as having voted if they actually voted. If they say no, you have an instance of voter fraud.
To go Bricker on you, I have here a court decision stating that Voter ID in PA is not required to keep voter confidence in the election process!!! NEENER NEENER!
No. If we do that, we set actual “disenfranchisement” as the standard, and that word has a very specific meaning, actually preventing someone from voting.
That is not the nature of the villainy. The actual nature of it is to harass and impede, to make difficult, to trim away people who might vote if it were easier, but are not willing to jump through a set of requirements to procure rights that are already theirs.
Bricker would be delighted to make “disenfranchisement” the standard for the argument, I see no good reason to accommodate him.
Even if it depressed overall participation in democracy, with or without a systemic partisan advantage? I have to differ with you on that. Ability to participate in the democratic process, without unnecessary difficulty, is pretty important to me.
You might go on to note that the ruling wasn’t on some abstruse technical point that can be fixed with a slightly modified law, as the local pro bono counsel for the GOP says. No, it was a comprehensive dismantling of the entire law, almost word by word, with the very same arguments that have been so patiently (and yes, mostly ineffectually vis a vis Bricker, being from us lesser minds) and thoroughly discussed in this very thread. The concepts are also not limited to Pennsylvania, as he also infers, with the vain hope of it having an effect.
Barring shenanigans with getting the ID to people, it would not be any more onerous than the current voter registration system, and in fact would probably make it easier. I can’t envision why it would depress participation. There typically are, and should, be mechanisms in place to allow for provisional voting if someone forgets their ID, so that shouldn’t be a significant concern.
I did note his hamfisted attempt to imply that there was some special aspect of the Pennsylvania constitution that came into play, yes. I decided not to pursue Bricker through a Pennsylvania-constitution-knothole though, and just let it slide. The virtual ass-pounding that the law took on the very issues we have repeatedly hammered Bricker on was satisfaction enough for me.
Not quite true as you can use your health card in Ontario and Quebec as they are photo ID. I would also argue that the list of acceptable id is much more robust than that required by these pieces of legislation and is already held by a larger percentage of the population that in the States. If not I’d certainly be amenable to adjusting the requirements to allow those who cannot get acceptable id more opportunities to get it.
The Georgia law was challenged on the same points, with very similar language – and yet in a 6-1 decision, the Georgia Supreme Court said:
See Democratic Party of Georgia, Inc. v. Perdue, 707 SE 2d 67 (Ga 2011).
How about Virginia? Arkansas? Indiana? Kansas? Mississippi? Tennessee? Texas? Which state’s rulings would you like?
Why in the world are you quoting Pennsylvania’s decision as though it has some relevance byond Pennsylvania? Why would it, and not Georgia? Virginia? Arkansas? Indiana? Kansas? Mississippi? Tennessee? Texas? Alabama? Florida? Idaho? Louisiana? Michigan? Rhode Island? South Dakota?
Why are you suggesting that Pennsylvania’s decision, based on Pennsylvania’s state law, is of broader effect, and none of those other states’ decisions upholding their Voter ID laws is of any effect?
You mean to say that legal decisions vary?? And that they may be subject to partisan political bias depending on the particular state in which they were decided?? So it was asinine for me to neener neener someone based on a legal decision, as if its existence proved my position to be fundamentally correct or superior in some way??
The problem: Fraudulent in-person voters, who number in the tens, distorting elections.
The solution: Institute a requirement for ID’s at elections.
The problem with the solution: Many thousands of people don’t currently possess the IDs. Most of those people are voters of one party.
Additional Problem with the solution: Getting the IDs can involve anywhere from several hours to several days, and many of those without the IDs are poor or elderly.
What a rational person would think: Well, until the ID situation changes, the very, very, small distortion to elections caused by in-person voter fraud would be dwarfed by many thousands of people who otherwise could vote being assigned hours or days of labor in order to do so.
What Bricker thinks: They don’t have ID? Fuck the lazy cunts. HAW HAW HAW!
Well you made the claim that it has been about voter id and not the implementation. How about you provide an example of someone who has exchanged 2 or more posts with you who has argued that voter id is bad period without making mention of negative effects that arise due to what they see as the implementation of that law. From my view it appears that most of the complaints are due to the perception that these laws place an unacceptably large (in their opinion and not necessarily in the eyes of the law) burden on certain people who, until now have not needed such id and do not have the resources to easily acquire it. I know you understand this point of contention because you have acknowledged and dismissed it. Did you really need me to cite a post or 4 on this point?
As far as I know, Bricker didn’t even start to consider implementation issues until prompted, back in #4985. Of course, it’s a long thread and of the nearly five thousand posts up to that point (about a fifth of which were Bricker’s), I suppose he might have touched on it.
Checking the current totals… wow, Bricker has made over 1230 posts to this thread. At a guessed average of 200 words each, he’s put a small novel’s worth of effort into this, and I’m not sure he’s managed to convince anyone of anything.
I have said that in order for someone to argue implementation issues, they need to identify a specific element of implementation with which they take issue.
Plenty of people have made some general mention, but there’s a shorter list of people who have identified specific issues that they claim render a particular state’s implementation suspect.
If you want a specific example, Bryan Ekers has exchanged 2 or more posts with me, and so far as I recall has not identified a specific state’s specific provision he objects to.
No, I get it. But equally obviously, I don’t agree that the burden is unacceptably large.
