Where does gerrymandering fit in this milieu?
I’ve made my disdain for Gerrymandering clear on many occasions in this thread. It’s quite similar to voter-suppression-through-voter-ID-laws. Not perfectly analogous, but similar. (Note that I’m talking about cynical maximize-my-party’s-votes gerrymandering, as opposed to well-intentioned-make-sure-the-black-voters-have-a-black-district gerrymandering, which is also a topic worth debating but is pretty clearly a different kettle of fish.)
Edited to add: Do you agree, by the way, with the distinction I’m making between trying to suppress votes and just cynically supporting something that is popular?
Part the first: No, despite my tongue in cheek support of unicorn leash laws in response to elucidator’s wrypothetical, I don’t IRL support such laws. You know why? Because unicorn stampedes don’t actually fucking happen, and if unicorns exist (as mutant goats or whatever the fuck) they exist in such insignificant numbers as to pose no threat to the “confidence” of the public in the government’s ability to control unicorn mayhem.
Part the second: You appear to wish others to think you’ve made some effective rebuttal concerning burden of proof. You have not. You still need to support your own assertions in an argument, or be derided by your respondents as a big weenie.
Thus: you’re a big weenie, Bricker.
I think the burden of proof question is interesting as it applies to this thread.
In general, I think the obvious rule is correct… whoever is proposing a change has the burden of proof to support it.
On the other hand, this thread is quite reasonably interpreted as not saying “hey, let’s change these voter ID laws” but rather “hey, these voter ID laws that people are proposing, they are a bad idea”, so I don’t know if we get much from that.
Furthermore, I don’t think most people’s basic argument in this thread was “these laws are bad, case closed, prove me wrong”. So it’s not like our side has been failing to meet said burden of proof even if we have it.
I’m not sure how this counts as a rebuttal, if that was the intent. **
Personally, I’m not surprised either, although slightly disgusted.
Did you proofread this paragraph before submitting it, or it this a claim that political bias prevents rational analysis such that Democrats could not see the problem (whether it exists or not) and Republicans could not help but see the problem (whether it exists or not)?
Being neither Democrat nor Republican, I’d just like to know if the problem actually exists.
** From the later-noticed post 5520, I see this was NOT the intent, in which case, I don’t know what your intent was. You made a numerical claim, said you would “bet” on it, so how would we prove it right or wrong? And if it cannot possibly be proven right or wrong, how is it different from any unsupported pulled-from-the-ass speculation?
I agree there is some distinction to be made, but both are at different points along a continuum of behavior, and both are on the sleazy, as opposed to saintly, side. So while I agree there is some difference, it’s the kind of difference that is often characterized as, “The cleanest cockroach under the sink.”
Ok. But the reality is that my active respondents deride me regardless. Still, your numerical dominance is impressive.
But: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Virginia.
See the problem? Congratulations on your win of the SDMB. Here, no one will have to show ID to vote. In real life, however, your whining that legislative and court decisions don’t mean a thing for allocating the burden of proof is curiously ineffective.
I think this would be one of those situations in which we’d take an extrapolation from samples as the total error rate, rather than demand to substantiate individual instances.
Okay, what are your samples and where can I read about them?
That’s 748 votes out of 102,484 cast.
What fascinates me most is the Counselor’s singular privilege to wear the player’s jersey over the referee’s shirt. “That’s not a cite, that is a question” and poof! gone! Ruled out of bounds, the Counselor need not answer, his case is unaffected. As well, he is privileged to determine whom bears the burden of proof, the rest of us shall sit quietly while he ponders the question and renders his verdict.
Since he is such a skilled and just advocate, is it any wonder those decisions favor his position so often? Not a bit of it, that is only as it should be, since he is the smartest man in the room, so already knows his decisions are just and fair. Since he already knows better than any of us here what is proper and correct in the context of argument, he is least likely to have erred! So naturally he wins the greater number of those calls.
Anyway, if he goes for the field goal from 85 yards away and it lands in a cheerleader’s lap on the fifty yard line, then it’s eight points. Extra points for “valid neutral justification”. Or just, because.
Oh, look, its the Old Great Hulking Slab of Cite Trick! You know, the one where you drop a giant chunk of verbiage onto the intertubes, slice out what tidbit most favors your own position. and blandly offer the opportunity for rebuttal to anybody willing to slog through a swamp of Congressese.
But the question was in the plural, yes? “Samples”, rather than “sample”? Perhaps we should get a ruling on whether or not one big ass sample is the same as several.
Be that as it may, pretty sure its Bryans turn as designated big ass cite reader. I did it last time, pretty sure about that, though my memory isn’t what is once was…
A different viewpoint.
Well, kind of. I mean, drunk driving resulting in a fatality is on a continuum of reckless vehicular behavior that also includes speeding. But we treat people who speed VERY differently from people who drive drunk and kill people.
In addition to how different the acts are there’s also the issue of how universal they are. “Everyone else is doing it to” doesn’t make something OK, but it does make it a bit silly to pick out a particular example of that act and get outraged about it. Thus, to the extent that you are saying “sure, this is scuzzy, but everyone does scuzzy things, so why are you getting outraged about this particular example?” I reject your premise. Everyone doesn’t do it. And “everyone does something kind of comparable, so why are you getting outraged about this particular example” is just reductive and silly.
I’m skimming the cite now. So far, I find this interesting:
I’m still reading, but there’s a second part to my question: even if some measurable ratio of fake votes is accepted to exist, what’s the effect on voter confidence? Was there a backlash after the above decision? Loretta Sanchez, the winner of the disputed election in 1996, is still in office with no indication (I’m aware of) of a lack of confidence from the electorate, though the issue is a bit confusing since the district’s number changed from 46 to 47 and back again during Sanchez’s tenure.
Elucidator, you rejected another’s post with the snarky point that it was not cited and represented mere anecdotal evidence:
Remember those posts?
Subsequent to those posts, you yourself offered up anecdotes in place of cited data.
Now you complain that I ask you for a cite?
Hint: a cite typically involves a reference to the authority which supports the claim you have made. It does not typically require a question mark as punctuation.
The bet aspect related only to the incidence of bad votes, though, right?
And had you negotiated terms of the bet at the time in such a way that this report might have satisfied them, you might be two dollars richer.
My loss, I suppose. But I was well aware of this report at the time; nothing in it comes close to satisfying the standard you were advancing: indictments and convictions.
If I may deflect a bit here, there is the issue of the cost of IDs. Here in Oregon, it costs $44.50 for an “Identification Card”. I think we violate the poll tax provisions of the Constitution if we require this fee to be paid before you can vote. Any thoughts?