I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1)

The BBQ Pit
5601

Because it’s rather simple to show that ANY additional burden on the registration process will result in fewer people registering proportional to their lack of resources to meet that burden. It’s rather difficult to poll those people about what kept them from registering because they probably don’t have the time to deal with the poll either. And who cares enough about them to spend the resources to find out anyway?

I don’t require documented cases. Even if you had them and I did too, that would just be anecdotal.

Are you suggesting that the number of fraudulent voters are greater than or equal to the number of voters inhibited by additional registration requirements? And I’m not asking for proof, I’m asking for your judgment of the situation.

5602

But:

(Emphasis added)

No. But “inhibited,” is not the same as “unable.”

5603

OK, so it is definitely wrong to prevent prospective voters of a selected demographic from voting. But “inhibiting”, obstructing and harassing those voters is kosher because voter confidence?

Unseemly, perhaps, unfair, not stricly aligned with our alleged principles of equality before the law, but still! acceptable, in support of the all important principle of voter confidence?

And in a very close election, an election that the Democrats might have won if the lazy, indolent and feckless demographic had voted? The Democrats should simply take comfort in knowing that their sacrifice has offered reassurance and comfort to those who worry themselves sick about felons and other illegal voters? Who are, by all available evidence, Republicans.

How very partisan of Democrats! What a pity that they cannot emulate the selfless civic virtue of Republicans. Alas.

5604

I dunno, kinda new? But… the entire “Burden of Proof” discussion is just a distraction. “Burden of Proof” is a rigorously defined and in fact vital concept in a criminal trial. It’s only vaguely defined and in fact fairly irrelevant in a discussion like this, at least the thread as a whole.

If two intelligent and well meaning people are debating an even remotely interesting topic in an SDMB-like setting, neither one of them is ever going to say “well, clearly YOU have the burden of proof so I’ll just sit here and say nothing until you make your argument, and if your argument is not persuasive, I’ll just declare myself the winner by fiat”. Even in a pretty contrived example, like, someone claims that there should be no laws against murder, unless you think that person is a troll you don’t respond by saying “OK, you have the burden of proof, go”, you say “well, here are some pretty basic and obvious reasons why laws against murder are near-universal… what’s your counterargument”? (I mean, I’d expect someone who made that claim to actually start by making an argument, and if they just said “there should be no laws against murder” and left it there I’d assume they weren’t interested in serious debate… but I wouldn’t frame that as “they have the burden of proof”, because that ascribes to the entire situation a more rigorous courtroom-y legal framework than it really has.)

So instead, please respond to my other recent post, #5597.

5605

Fine. How about we change the poll location for your precinct to something interesting and see if you still think “inhibited” isn’t a significant issue?

It’s the old “think locally, act globally” thing in action it seems.

5606

Precisely. Confidence that the right sort of people are the ones voting. Don’t you think patriotic Americans white enough to carry a gun, and with the wherewithal to obtain a gun and concealed carry permit will have no problem getting voter ID?

You Democrats just want to coddle semi-humans too unmotivated to even get voter ID. Next you’ll want right to vote for your pets and animal-sodomy partners.

Bahh!!

5607

Think Globally, Act Loco. Works for me.

5608

Bricker isn’t this stupid. He’s just a complete asshole.

He’s failed so much in this thread, that all he’s doing is looking for distracting issues. Once his most recent failure is three or four pages back, he wins again!

It’s a magical thing self-delusion.

5609

A common sense approach. But this is a matter of law, wherein such strictures do not always apply. Its perfectly sensible to assume that a debate over a law is the same whether or not the law has been enacted, it either is or is not a good thing, no side to the argument has any special burden of proof.

But no. All of that would be true up to the point where the law in question is actually passed, but at that very moment of legislative sanctification, it becomes law, it gets an extra special bonus of presumption, and the burden of proof is miraculously generated to defend it!

You see, legal life begins at the moment of legislation…

5610

I agree that parts of California are massively left-leaning, but I’d suggest other parts merely slightly tilt.

Still, I agree. California’s scheme is about neutral as it’s possible to get on paper, and I have no reason to think it doesn’t work that way in practice as well.

I would only note that other, more strongly Democratic bastions have not followed suit, which makes me question your overall premise: liberals in general are not adopting California’s scheme. And I’d further point out that California’s scheme came into being via California Proposition 11 in 2008. The California Democratic Party was virulently opposed to Prop 11 and campaigned hard against it. So did Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi. And the NAACP both opposed it and funded opposition ads against it.

By the way, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger supported the measure.

So… while I agree with you that the idea is a good one, I flatly reject the picture you try to paint that this was supported by the political left. In fact, the establishment Democrats tried desperately to kill the measure.

(more follows)

5611

Me, too. But just as you don’t abandon support of the Democratic party because they tried to scuttle Prop 11 in 2008, I don’t abandon the Republican party because they try to scuttle early voting…

Part of the problem here is that you and I are not speaking in a vacuum. I am responding to other posts besides yours.[sup]*[/sup] You are, I agree, not saying anything I find unsupportable as far as demands that the law be abolished or flat statements of the law’s lack of legitimacy. But in turn, please recognize that I am responding to the more definitive tone offered up by others in this thread. Your position is perfectly defensible: you are troubled by the motives surrounding the laws, and think them an absolutely unwise governance policy. I don’t agree they’re unwise, but I do agree that the motives from some, perhaps most, of the legislators supporting them are indefensible.

That’s the proper division in these particular cases, because (in my opinion) none of the obstacles raised are severe. If someone chooses not to vote because of the mild obstacles under discussion, I am absolutely comfortable with trivializing it as “chooses,” because the obstacles themselves are trivial.

I absolutely agree that auditable voting machines are an extremely worthy goal. But I don’t agree that they are definitively the first step, and that choosing another step invalidates the stated purpose.

Yes, I do think it’s so routine that everyone does it, so much so that when California tried (successfully) to curb it, the chief opponents were the majority party in California. And it’s only a topic that needs to be moved if we want to explore the nuances in depth – for this thread, it’s relevant because part of the general oppositional argument has been that messing with election rules for partisan advantage is uniquely Republican, and the counter-example shows that this is not the case: it’s a generically invidious practice by both parties, done whenever they can expect to realize gain and avoid too much bad publicity.

  • I appreciate it, as always, when you take a moment to respond to other posts which agree with your position but mangle the rules of logic.
5612

So, now, after 113 pages, it turns out its all about gerrymandering and equivalence. Who gnu? Turns out, everybody is guilty, therefore nobody is guilty, therefore the Republicans are innocent. There’s something wrong with that, but I can’t quite put my finger on it, young Methodist boys seldom get any training in the rigors of Jesuitical reasoning.

But for this: gerrymandering is mostly about divvying up voting districts, hence, voters. It tends to be a bi-partisan bargaining for the benefit of the Incumbency Party, the party composed of incumbent politicians who would prefer to remain so. As such, it depends on the actual fact of voting, it derives from voting. It is not about harassing voters to limit their political power, it is not about obstructing voters.

And voting is the essential fact of democracy, it is the crux of the biscuit, the essence, the thing itself.

Now, I admit my opinions are somewhat radical. Well, maybe “admit” isn’t precisely the right word, but never mind. I only mention that to cushion the blow of my moonbat extreme position, which is as follows:

Voting is so central, so crucial, that it even exceeds the importance of (gasp!) voter confidence! I’ll give the reader a moment to absorb that astounding suggestion, as it is admittedly a wildly radical notion…

But where there is no voting, there is no confidence. In a condition of celibacy, there is no difference between good sex and not-quite-so-good sex. Because there is no sex.

Gerrymandering can, and often is, little more than whore’s trading or it can devolve into a sordid exercise. Hindering, obstructing and harassing voters cannot be anything but sordid! It strikes at a principle so central to democracy that not even the sacred value of voter confidence can overrule it. It is the ingredients of the stew, the stock of the soup, the Holy Gruel.

Thank you, the witness may step down. No, quite all right, we need not delve into the fascinating topics of gerrymandering and equivalence, you are excused. You may shut up now.

5613

Then remove all restrictions on voting. Let anyone who wants to vote do so as long as they can find a way to check the box off. Lets see what that’ll do for voter confidence and voting patterns. If you’re worried about how dastardly those republicans are by putting extra requirements in place just imagine how well they’d do without any at all!
Really, though. It is about the level of requirements that are in place because any requirement will stop at least someone from voting.

5614

Interesting, but not as efficient or as effective as the current GOP plans, of “one dollar = one vote”.

5615

No, I don’t agree. We, the voters, have an absolute right to place into being restrictions that will ensure the confidence in the result. Yes, you disagree. But your position is moonbat extreme, as you yourself concede.

So in the exercise of the more correct position, voters have approved Voter ID, long may it stand.

What are you going to do about it? And how effective will that approach, whatever it is, be?

5616

Wow! A humorless ad hominem, a irrelevant tangent, AND a “neener-neener”! Classic Bricker, deserves a place in your Greatest Hits collection.

5617

Sure, sure. I’m the worst.

So about the Voter ID laws. What are you going to do about them? And how effective will that approach, whatever it is, be?

5618

Could I actually make your position more ridiculous than you already have? Perhaps, but the challenge is daunting, and my son has left his Xbox unattended…

5619

From what I gather so far, your plan is to inveigh against me, and hope that your entreaties will change my mind. If that’s correct, I can share with you the sad news that this strategy is unlikely to be effective.

So what else are you going to do about the Voter ID laws? And how effective will that approach, whatever it is, be?

5620

Well, we see how Bricker got 1000+ posts in the thread: Redundancy. The following posts were issued back-to-back-to-back. I assume it was a cut-paste job.

I’ve called you on your cognitive dissonance before. Just answer Yes or No, please. Do you see why these responses appear to have the form
Nanner Nanner nanner nanner!! Right and wrong is irrelevant; my side is winning , Ha ha!

Anyway, I think I finally got my answer about Bricker’s mentality, albeit from a different thread. In defense of a bunch of assholes who “needed” to enter a restaurant heavily armed, Bricker wrote:

I won’t argue the idea that all Americans between the ages of 7 and 70 be armed – that principle is apparently as American as apple-pie, lynchings, and larcenous dog-eat-dog health costs, but Bricker’s defense of the assholes and his admission that he needs a concealed weapon reminds me that cognitive models vary dramatically. Blame it on my time in the Marxist town of Berkeley, but despite decades spent in America, AFAIK I only met one American with a concealed gun. That was at a bridge tournament, with the guy proudly showing it to us when he sat at our table. (Perhaps he was trying to intimidate us if a bidding battle began. :stuck_out_tongue: . I do remember my partner scoffing “surrogate penis” in the guy’s face.)

Anyway, I wondered why the intelligent-seeming Bricker had such strange political beliefs. It appears that the many psychological studies are right, at least in his case. His beliefs are molded by fear, perhaps fear of Kenyans, etc.

Charlton Heston, presumably up there with Karl Rove as one of Bricker’s idols, gave two reasons for his guns:
[ul][li] “Because I can.”[/li][li] “America has ethnic diversity.”[/li][/ul]

Which is it with you, Bricker? Celebration of the Second Commandment written by the Finger of God? Fear of little brown men? Or fear of liberals? :cool: