Oh, I’m confident I’ve done more than merely rejoin, but this is leading into a strawman you’ve already used several times in this thread alone - someone doesn’t like a legal outcome, therefore that person wants to destroy democracy and create a fascist state.
And as has been pointed out, of course you can demand a law be rejected. You can demand anything you want. Results not guaranteed, of course.
Anyway, you accept that the range of influence on voter confidence may be as little as a (metaphorical) angstrom and no eligible citizen who wants to vote will be stopped by voter ID laws, i.e. the range of influence on legitimate votes is zero. Some of us don’t happen to share your confidence and we’re not unreasonable in doing so. An angstrom standard would be fairly easy to meet - I look forward to November.
Easy. They turn out because Pubs try to block them. People appreciate a thing most when somebody is trying to take it away from them. But, is there no measurable drop in votes counted? “Provisional ballots” are bullshit and you know it.
I ask this in all sincerity, because I don’t know: were the measurements you talk about taken during an election featuring the first African-american candidate in the country’s history?
But again you seem to be saying that it’s pointless or impossible to argue about fairness and other amorphous ethical concepts when it comes to laws… that all that matters is legality, or at least all that intelligent people can meaningfully debate is legality. But basically everyone else in the thread is saying the opposite, and you seemed to basically agree that it was reasonable to debate ethics when we specifically were discussing the gay marriage argument of a few years back.
So he says “unfair” and you say “fair”, and THEN BOTH OF YOU LAY OUT YOUR ARGUMENTS AND CLAIMS AND POSITIONS, and maybe someone will be convinced, or at least learn to understand the other position a little bit better.
And yes, clearly, if we have a debate on the SDMB about the fairness or something, and one side “wins” the debate, and then voters go vote and vote the other way, well, then the law is the other way. So? Does that mean there’s never in point on debating things on the SDMB when they either have been in the past, or will be in the future, voted on?
So if they turn out, then you (or AlienVessels, to whom I directed my reply) can’t claim that voting is decreased.
That seems relatively straightforward.
To remind you of the comment:
I think you and BrainGlutton should coordinate your theories. You, Alienvessels, say it’s obvious that voting will decrease. BrainGlutton says it won’t because Pubs try to block them, and people appreciate a thing most when somebody is trying to take it away from them.
He also says provisional ballots are bullshit, but his cite (his cite is my knowledge) says the exact opposite.
But when one side of the debate is supported by extant law and wide public support, the opposing side ought to include acknowledgement that theirs is the side that bears the burden of persuasion, and that side cannot simply assert claims and demand they be disproven. Moreover, especially for issues which admit to no objective answer, and which enjoy the status of law and wide public support, there ought to be some acknowledgement of the heavy burden to overcome, as opposed to simply expecting a win by virtue of home-field crowd support, so to speak.
I want abortion laws changed. But I recognize, in every debate, by explicit admission, that both the laws of the land and a strong percentage of the population does not agree, and I build my arguments accordingly. I do not pretend that these factors are simply not there and announce how illegitimate these existing laws are.
Who is saying voter ID laws are illegitimate? Bad idea, sure. Cynical attempts at electoral advantage, you bet. I’m just curious who has actually said “illegitimate”, if anyone other than the liberal cryptofascist stereotype Bricker has in mind.
Basically, Bricker’s argument comes down to is “you can’t demonstrate to me that under the current legal standards that it’s unconstitutional to enact these laws.”
Any argument that doesn’t address this narrow subject is nevertheless met with this same response. And if you try to push him into any other level of concern or analysis or argument, you are accused of playing King.
And that is why this discussion is circular and never-ending, because that narrow legal issue is not the beginning and end of this subject, nor of any political subject.
“Him” meaning peoples who spend $44.50 to get an ID?
I’m trying to visualize a group of people who are normally hiding in allies, dodging police and constantly scanning the skys for INS planes … just waltzing up to polling stations like it’s everyday.
Literally said the word “illegitimate?” No one that I recall.
But “illegitimate” means, inter alia, “not conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards.”
And plenty of people in this thread have posted comments that are fairly taken to mean that they view Voter ID laws as not conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards.
I’ll have to re-review Bricker’s earlier cite, but voting illegally doesn’t necessarily mean someone is in the country illegally. I can picture a resident alien with a green card who registers to vote, under the mistaken impression it’s something he should do.
At the time, wasn’t Georgia bound by obligations to the Justice Dept to conform to principles designed to prevent discriminatory voting laws, before the Supremes lifted the onerous burden from their shoulders? And did not the Republican legislatures in states like Texas fall all over each other in a pell-mell rush…immediately, as in, the very next day!… to get these laws in place as quickly as possible, laws that we may presume they couldn’t have gotten away with before? Or is that simply a happy coincidence?
Wouldn’t that imply that Georgia’s laws were crafted and imposed in a non-discriminatory fashion? And hasn’t our point been, all along, that whether or not voter id laws are the bee’s knees or not, a discriminatory application of those laws is not legitimate? But if those laws could be crafted and imposed in such a way as to ensure fairness and equality before the law, then we have no problem?
As well, isn’t it a fact that voter turnout goes upward year after year, simply as an effect of population growth? Indeed, isn’t it a fact that minority populations in the South have been growing disproportionately, due to a return of minority populations? Wouldn’t we then expect that minority voting would increase even if an effort had been made to restrict and retard that growth? An effort, I remind, that would have had to comply with JustDept standards?
You are on record as stipulating that “some” Republicans, perhaps even most, were complicit in a malign and nefarious plot to rig the game, yes? Are we now to believe that if they failed in that effort, then they are innocent?
And finally, an observation: your argument is more of a net than an argument, being full of holes held together by string.