Can I ask a follow-up question or two?
Would it be fair to say that even if you were to learn that, say, 200 non-citizens voted in your last state-wide election, that thought doesn’t particularly bother you? I mean, you mention with evident approval the drivers’ license policy; immigrants, documented and undocumented alike, are affected by the policies of government… does the idea that a couple hundred non-citizens voted bother you much, or at all?
Sure. We’ve got legislators wasting time on resolutions to declare August 15th as National Pickle Day, or some such guff. Hopefully, they’re not suggesting that failure to recognize pickles will weaken the nation’s confidence in the process, nor are there cynical and nondemocratic motives at play beyond, I guess, making pickle producers happy.
If 300 legislators vote “yes” on funding the new dam, how many voted yes because, having studied the issues, they believe the environmental impact has been adequately assessed, the hydroelectric capacity needed, the construction budget competently assessed, and the local employment impact of sufficient value to justify the expenditure?
And how many either voted for the dam in return for some past vote by the bill’s sponsors, or to obtain some future benefit from the bill’s sponsors, or because Smith’s Heavy Earth Construction Company was a major donor and asked for the vote, or because Local Damworkers 522 was a major donor and asked for the vote, or because even though they DON’T believe the environmental impact has been adequately assessed, the hydroelectric capacity is NOT needed, the construction budget is hideously bloated, and the local employment impact negligible, the fact that they voted for the project can be spun into some good campaign fodder?
And the 145 guys that voted no: same questions, in reverse.
I’m sorry, but I don’t believe the only times cynical motives come into play involve pickles.
But I also believe that even if Local Damworkers 522 wants the project because it will put their guys to work and their dues accounts in six digits, the dam might be a good idea. Or it might suck.
I feel like the right answer is always to evaluate the dam, and not the damn motives.
So let’s evaluate the “dam” (and not its motives). Can you quantify the effect of the diminishing of “voter confidence”, even to the level of proving that an effect exists?
Earlier on, you “bet” on a level of 200 fraudulent voters in an electorate of three million. Since that bet was accepted and then withdrawn, you’ve tried to shift the burden to having us prove voter confidence is not being affected and, further, that it doesn’t even matter if the issue is evaluated or what the results of that evaluation might be - if legislators want to pass these laws, they will.
Fortunately, judges can stop them, albeit not always and not until after the harm has been done.
Bryan, that’s not what happened. I bet that 200 fraudulent voters existed, and then you tried to morph that statement into a bet that involved my having to prove who those 200 were by some means. My statement was about the general rate of failure; you wanted me to prove each and every specific instance.
To answer your question: no. I can’t easily quantify the level of voter confidence, or the effect that occurs when it erodes.
Yes. Because that burden belongs to you. You’re the one seeking to reverse the law.
“Not always,” is technically true. But I’d say that judges “seldom” stop them, given the ratio of successful to unsuccessful court challenges.
No, that’s not what happened. I was prepared to bet that there wouldn’t be indictments for 200 counts of voter fraud (which I explicitly said could be filed against fewer than 200 people if some of them were voting multiple times). I don’t care about the specifics of who they are, just some evidence that they actually exist, and an investigation and the beginnings of prosecution by law enforcement is the only obvious metric of any authority. I suppose I could have accepted a study from a reliable statistician on the matter, saying there were more than 200 fraudulent votes with a confidence level of 95% if the discussion had gotten that far, but the gist was that you made a claim and then refused to discuss any means of proving that claim.
Then what’s the point of your “dam” hypothetical? To challenge a claim that legislators can have cynical motives (i.e. trying to hamper likely voters for their rivals) by describing a situation where legislators have cynical motives (i.e. building a useless and harmful dam to enrich contractors who make political donations)? Great, we’ve proven that legislators can have cynical motives.
And forget “easily”. If you had a multi-million dollar budget and a team of crack investigators and a two-year timeframe, could you quantify the effects on voter confidence at all? State and federal officials have these resources. Have any of them done any studies on voter confidence levels? If you know of any, please cite.
Well, and to argue that such laws shouldn’t be passed in the first place. Further, to argue that the issue should not be in the hands of elected officials overall.
I think speak for most Oregonians when I say that 200 extra votes won’t bother anyone, especially in the more populus western parts. 20,000 might raise a few eyebrows. The perception is that non-citizens tend to vote Democrat, so their votes aren’t going to effect the results. Western Oregon is one of the bluest of the blues.
I personally welcome illegal Mexicans with open arms … power to them … “whitie won’t do that work”. They make for the superlative tenant, and as a patriotic American it’s my duty to profiteer on this situation.
This principle, which has stood the test of time and is so widely acknowledged as a bedrock foundation of rhetorical excellence…when, exactly, did this become so honored and venerated?
Never mind “exactly”, if that proves troublesome, how about “approximately”, or even “roughly”? Or “ever”, for that matter. Was the principle first established in the Federalist writings of the Founding Fuckups? Was it the Jesuits, or Augustine? The Greeks?
Keeping mind, of course, that in some instances, these laws have not actually arrived at that point of being established, having been entangled in court. So, then, does this principle of the burden of proof resting upon those who would repeal an unjust law, does that apply equally well to those which have not actually been established? Should we sort that out before we proceed, lest we find ourselves in violation of such an ancient and venerated tradition?
(Of course, those of us who are radical and lefty…we might disdain to comply, those of use who delight in pointing out that the Emperor is butt nekkid and his shriveled peanut bobs up and down as he walks…)
In any case, can you offer us some education on the foundations and underpinnings of this long-established principle of rhetorical excellence?
If you petition the courts to overturn an unjust law, then yes, the burden of proof rests with you. Arguments based on justice will be refused, they must be based on the Constitution, judicial precedent or conflict with another law.
But in a debate setting if you’re arguing in favor of a law, citing an entirely subjective concern you feel that law quantifiably addresses, then the existence or nonexistence of the law in various jurisdictions is not relevant to the rhetorical requirements of argument, including backing up your own damn assertions.
Will unicorn leash laws effectively control the threat of unicorn stampedes?
I believe they would, ‘luc’.
Based on the known proclivities of herd animals to stampede when allowed to congregate in said herds and then spooked in some way (perhaps in the case of unicorns by the presence of a tribe of aggressive virgins), I believe a legal requirement to keep unicorns separated and leashed while out of the home or pen is a sensible precaution. Were we to discuss this in earnest, I’d be willing to research various outcomes of leash laws concerning less exotic pets, including such factors as per capita domesticated animal attacks or changes in the levels of feral cats and dogs before and after such legislation.
Unicorns being attracted to virgins, you’d think you’d see a whole lot more of them on this board …
They’ve been scared off by all the lawyers… (the unicorns have, that is. Not the virgins…)
Interesting points, Xeno, but subject to quibbles. Is a unicorn stampede a matter of animal aggression, or a more prosaic question of herd behavior and panic? One unicorn does not a stampede make, any more than one randomly ambulatory buffalo, wandering aimlessly at full speed.
As a native of Waco, I have some familiarity with the question, as herds of unicorn made their annual migration down the Brazos River to Baylor University, the last known bastion of the stainless steel hymen.
I keep hammering on this point, but… there’s a huge difference between a cynical act taken purely for electoral reasons which supports a policy which you think a lot of voters will support and will get people to vote for you; vs a cynical act taken purely for electoral reasons which you think will change the way elections are held so as to reduce turnout among groups of people who tend not to vote for you. One is a basically the standard MO of all politicians ever, the other is not. Certainly you never hear someone describing some politician’s “dirty tricks” as including “the time he voted for that really popular bill without doing due diligence as to whether it was really well thought out or not”.
And when you mentioned indictments it became clear that we were talking about the same thing.
My point was to prove that legislators seldom have a single monolithic motive, and that some legislative votes may be safely assumed to ALWAYS arise from a cynical motive.
Therefore, I am neither surprised nor unusually disgusted by one instance of such motives coming to light.
I don’t agree that such resources are available. Democrats would resist allocating money for such studies because it’s clearly not a problem that actually exists; Republicans would equally resist because it’s obvious the problem exists.
A law that has been passed by the legislature and signed into effectiveness by the executive enjoys a presumption of constitutionality. The burden rests on the challenger to show that the law is unconstitutional, not on the state to show that the law is constitutional.
Cite:
Get your state legislature to agree, get your governor to sign, and then you’ll enjoy no longer having to carry the burden of proof.
How is that going?
Er… That we WERE NOT talking about the same thing, I meant to say.