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

[MaxTheVool]

@Velocity

Why should voters be required to register to vote at all?

It costs time and/or money, and poses an inconvenience to some people, which could disenfranchise them.

Disenfranchising any would-be voters is unacceptable.

Wait, what? I can’t tell whether you’re being serious or trying to make fun of the liberal position in this thread.

In either case, you’re making light of what is actually clearly a legitimately debatable and difficult issue, which is that there’s clearly a societal motivation both to (a) ensure the fairness and accuracy and legitimacy of elections, and (b) make voting as accessible as possible to every last legitimate voter. Those are both clearly desirable goals, and yet in a practical sense will often be at odds with each other. Reasonable people can strike different reasonable balances between those two goals; the problem is what to do when we suspect that the balance someone claims to want to strike is motivated by a desire to gain partisan political advantage. (The fact that both of those goals ARE legitimate and reasonable makes it hard to really prove what’s going on… this debate would be much simpler if it was pitting the puppy-murdering-GOP-voter-suppressors.)

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Bricker

Dramatis personae:

BRICKER, a patient conservative who says the same thing over and over for two years

VARIOUS LIBERALS, who cannot comprehend BRICKER’s words but sense that they are bad because Mother Jones said so. They toss in random comments and pretend to be relevant

MAXTHEVOOL, an annoying liberal by virtue of the fact that his responses show he DOES understand BRICKER’s words and consistently argues against the actual points BRICKER raises.

Act 27, Scene 313:

BRICKER [quoting a liberal blogger]:
“Instead, requirements to show ID at the polls are designed for pretty much one thing: people showing up at the polls pretending to be somebody else in order to each cast one incremental fake ballot. This is a slow, clunky way to steal an election. Which is why it rarely happens.”

BRICKER: Still, you have quoted a truly inspiring authority: a Washington Post guest-blogger who is a law professor and (gasp!) liberal as the moon is high. He offers his non-binding, libby liberal view of what the law should be.

ELUCIDATOR: He’s lying, or he’s wrong about the numbers? OK, prove it. But aren’t you somewhat obligated to do a better job of it than just exposing his unsavory political leanings?

BRICKER: Adaher’s link shows over 100 in one state.

LOBOHAN: Is it your stance, that felon voting is the same thing as in-person voter fraud?

BRICKER: [desperate to avoid looking like he got suckered by a link due to his partisan stupidity] Uh, I wasn’t talking about voter impersonation, despite the fact that I was responding to a quote specifically about impersonation that Hentor kindly bolded above in the quote I myself pulled from the article and to which anyone would have assumed I was referring when I said that over a hundred such cases were found. I was talking about general…uh, confidence, yeah that’s the ticket! Enforce all the voting laws! Yeah! See, sometime in 2012 I said something about felons voting, so yeah! Suck it libtards!

and…scene!

[ElvisL1ves]

You still give the Republican position too much credit, Max - they seek to “solve” a problem that exists only in their imagination by creating a *real *problem. Several of them, in fact. And so obviously knowingly as to make their reasons for claiming that imaginary problem to be real just as obvious.

Fact vs. fiction is a useful distinction, isn’t it?

[Sinaptics]

@Bricker

It seems to me that prior attempts to purge voter rolls created howls of outrage.

So, no. A surer method is holding people to obeying the law.

That was only due to the method employed to purge the rolls (less than 90 days before an election, based on name alone, etc). It was yet another way for certain governors to give their party a perceived electoral advantage.

If the purge was done fairly, I can’t see who in their right mind would object.

[Bricker]

@MaxTheVool

Bricker: Just to clarify here, it seems to me that what are claiming is your motivation for supporting voter ID laws (to establish a firmer foundation for successfully prosecuting illegal voting of a variety of sorts, not just in-person voter impersonation; and therefore to provide a stronger disincentive against people engaging in such acts) is a fairly subtle point, and not one that I’ve heard discussed by the Republicans who are actually proposing the laws. Do you think your motivation is the same as their claimed motivation? (Not sure it really matters one way or the other, but I’m curious).

Fairly subtle points are very difficult to convey with success in an age of sound bites and rabid accusations. Look at this thread, two years old, a point made a zillion times by me and you are the only poster who shows any evidence of understanding it. I don’t blame legislators for a reluctance to enter that affray.

All of that said, is there a nationwide epidemic of cases where:
(a) Someone was on the voter roles
(b) But they were not allowed to vote, despite still being on the voter roles
(c) And they voted
(d) And then they were prosecuted for voting
(e) But the case fell apart (or was not prosecuted at all) due to lack of evidence?

That. Ramon Cue article is over two years old. Why would you imagine that the circumstances related there are particularly rare?

Even if that’s now the problem that Bricker is attempting to solve (and, given that he has praised me for actually reading his posts, I find it a bit telling that up until now I would not have said that this level of ability-to-prosecute was the PRIMARY goal of his support of voter ID, as he now seems to maybe saying), that still strikes me a lot like the epidemic-of-in-person-voter-impersonation-fraud or the epidemic-of-people-not-having-confidence-in-the-outcomes-of-elections that we previously thought he was trying to solve, in that none of those actually seem to be real and substantial problems.

The primary goal remains voter confidence. The ability to prosecute sustains voter confidence.

[elucidator]

It didn’t start out to be a Big Hairy Ass Deal. It devolved. The original plan, as promulgated by ALEC, was modest in its goals but practical and effective. The goal was to trim just enough votes on the Dem side to win the close ones. To discourage and dishearten, not to forbid.

And it was well targeted, it played directly to the Republican sense of grievance. Republicans *know *that America is a center right country, they know that the majority of Americans favor their agenda. And yet, they lose some elections! What explanation can there be but that the other guys are cheating!

Voter ID is a simplistic notion that appeals to simple people. Well, of course you need an ID to vote, you need an ID to drink or smoke tobacco! Why, that’s just plain old common sense! That popularity was the perfect lever. Demand voter ID and a smallish subset of Dem voters would be discouraged, would shrug it off and say “Fuck it, not worth the effort”. Just enough, a couple percentage points at most, but in the very close elections, enough to carry the day. it was an exercise in the cold equations, by minds vast, cool and unsympathetic.

And then the batshit baboons got a hold of it, and went nuts. And got blatant about it. Stop all that Sunday voting, early voting. Make it more difficult for the ACORN, CASA and League of Women Voters Trotskyist alliance to register voters! They wanted to play Republican Poker, where they get seven cards, you get five, all yours are face up and they get to draw twice. Not to win, but to WIN!!

If ALEC didn’t exist, it would be a conspiracy theory. But they do, and it isn’t. And if you don’t know who ALEC is and what they were up to, you don’t know all of this began. But the smart cynics who devised this scheme lost control. If they had kept it modest and targeted, it would have worked, and they would have gotten clean away with it.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Inspired by the other pit thread on SDMB moves:

To Bricker: To follow an escalation from obfuscation to distraction, dissembling and finally running away when challenged in debate. Sprinkle with nit-pickery and goading neener neeners, and finally cover with a very thin veneer of legal acumen.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

…That. Ramon Cue article is over two years old. Why would you imagine that the circumstances related there are particularly rare?..

Why would I imagine that they *aren’t *particularly rare? Because of your evidence, your proof, or am I obliged to give your imagination the weight of fact? You don’t have to prove, but I do? Republican poker.

…The primary goal remains voter confidence. The ability to prosecute sustains voter confidence.

Republican voter confidence counts, the others, not so much. The base Dem voter gets to witness the spectacle of his legislature deliberately setting out to stack the deck. He gets to see his demographic insulted and harassed. How could that *not *affect his “voter confidence”? Why in the world would he trust those people to give him a fair shake and a clean deal?

What about his “voter confidence”? How come his doesn’t count?

[Bricker]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Inspired by the other pit thread on SDMB moves:

To Bricker: To follow an escalation from obfuscation to distraction, dissembling and finally running away when challenged in debate. Sprinkle with nit-pickery and goading neener neeners, and finally cover with a very thin veneer of legal acumen.

Who is running? I’m right here, saying the same things I’ve been saying for two years, and only one liberal on this board is smart enough to read and understand them.

[Lobohan]

I have no idea what Bricker looks like, but this is how I picture him realizing he fucked up on adaher’s cite: Imgur: The magic of the Internet

[Bricker]

@elucidator

Why would I imagine that they *aren’t *particularly rare? Because of your evidence, your proof, or am I obliged to give your imagination the weight of fact? You don’t have to prove, but I do? Republican poker.

The person who has to prove something is the one who is arguing for something to change.

You (I gather) want the laws governing Voter ID to change. I don’t. I’m happy. I’m doing a little dance right now, in fact. It’s an interpretive dance, modern, that tells the story of how pleased I am with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. There’s also a flashback sequence where you can see my joy in the US Supreme Court’s Crawford ruling, which the Wisconsin Supremes quoted in their brilliant opinion.

So, yes. You have the burden of proof. I am happy to do nothing, take no action, and have the world continue as it is right now, with Voter ID required in most states. I am blissfully content.

You, on the other hand, are the one who experiences severe intestinal distress at the very thought of a photo ID. You demand their removal and immolation. You inveigh against all photography; you curse the day Nicéphore Niépce was born.

You have to prove your case.

Republican voter confidence counts, the others, not so much. The base Dem voter gets to witness the spectacle of his legislature deliberately setting out to stack the deck. He gets to see his demographic insulted and harassed. How could that *not *affect his “voter confidence”? Why in the world would he trust those people to give him a fair shake and a clean deal?

What about his “voter confidence”? How come his doesn’t count?

His doesn’t count because his demand is unreasonable. He wants to vote without identifying himself. He sees people need photo ID for open a bank account, board a plane, and even get free health care from the government. But he wants to be able to vote without it. That’s a demand my society refuses to cater to.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Bricker

Who is running? I’m right here, saying the same things I’ve been saying for two years, and only one liberal on this board is smart enough to read and understand them.

See post 5850.

1. Explain your misrepresentation of the study that was linked to in the Washington Post piece.

2. State how many of the over 100 cases you referred to involved voter impersonation.

And now 3. State why you quoted the author of that piece specifically about voter impersonation, and then when challenged for numbers by elucidator, claimed that there were over 100 cases in the link.

All this bullshit about a consistent argument for years about the integrity of voting in general is an obvious post hoc attempt to distract from your bullshit. It’s just deceitful. You claimed there were over 100 cases that met elucidator’s request. This was false, and as you later established, intentional.

[Bricker]

@Lobohan

I have no idea what Bricker looks like, but this is how I picture him realizing he fucked up on adaher’s cite: Imgur: The magic of the Internet

Adaher’s cite is on point, matches perfectly with what I’ve saying in this thread for two years, and these truths don’t change no matter how much you ignore them. But this is the level of argument you’re capable of.

Why don’t you read MaxTheVool’s posts. He’s a liberal (for some bizarre reason) but can actually read, understand, and respond to the written English word. If my experience here is any guide, that makes him very rare in liberal quarters.

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

Who is running? I’m right here, saying the same things I’ve been saying for two years, and only one liberal on this board is smart enough to read and understand them.

The problem is, that there was a time you got the benefit of the doubt. But you’ve squandered that by being a vile, sentient hemorrhoid for years. I was looking at old threads the other day, and the Bricker from several years ago was reasonable.

The seething mass of hatred and misdirection that you are today, well, it’s obvious you don’t care about actually winning an argument. You care about creating the impression you won the argument.

[Bricker]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

See post 5850.

1. Explain your misrepresentation of the study that was linked to in the Washington Post piece.

I didn’t misrepresent it.

2. State how many of the over 100 cases you referred to involved voter impersonation.

I have no idea, since I was never talking about anything that would limit me to voter impersonation.

And now 3. State why you quoted the author of that piece specifically about voter impersonation, and then when challenged for numbers by elucidator, claimed that there were over 100 cases in the link.

I explained it very clearly when I quoted that piece. Post #5815:

@Bricker

As extensively hashed out in this very thread, the issue is not a concerted effort to steal an election. It’s an election that comes down to the wire, ultra-close, and for which we cannot trust the results because we don’t know that all the cotes came from qualified voters.

it’s true that “trying to steal an election” rarely happens that way. But that’s a strawman argument.

See what I said there? BEFORE I said there were 100 cases, I clearly, specifically, and explicitly said, “The issue is not a concerted effort to steal an election. It’s an election that comes down to the wire, ultra-close, and for which we cannot trust the results because we don’t know that all the votes came from qualified voters.”

THAT’S THE ISSUE. THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE ISSUE.

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

All this bullshit about a consistent argument for years about the integrity of voting in general is an obvious post hoc attempt to distract from your bullshit. It’s just deceitful. You claimed there were over 100 cases that met elucidator’s request. This was false, and as you later established, intentional.

You desperately want the issue to be about voter impersonation. It’s not. I never agreed that it was, and I have resisted each and every attempt from you to turn it into being about voter impersonation. Now you’re wetting your bikini low-rise underwear in the hope that I will suddenly agree that i need to defend voter impersonation.

No. I clearly said that the issue was ultra-close elections for which we cannot trust the results because we don’t know that all the cotes came from qualified voters, and adaher’s 100-plus cases fit that description.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

The person who has to prove something is the one who is arguing for something to change…

Oh, so these voter ID laws didn’t change anything? A law that says you gotta have a picture ID, but the picture ID from your university doesn’t count? A law that makes it more difficult and potentially illegal for the League of Women Voters to conduct voter registration drives, those aren’t changes?

If they aren’t changing anything, why did they have to pass laws? If they were simply about the status quo, why do anything at all? Did they pass “Everything Stays the Same” laws? Sure tried to change the law here in the People’s Republic of Minnesota, got it on the ballot. Lost, by the way. What, doesn’t count because its Minnesota?

If the laws aren’t strict enough for you and you want them to be stricter, that isn’t a change, and you don’t have to prove anything?

That’s your argument?

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

Adaher’s cite is on point, matches perfectly with what I’ve saying in this thread for two years, and these truths don’t change no matter how much you ignore them. But this is the level of argument you’re capable of.

I’m not talking about the stupid as fuck argument you’ve been making for two years.

I’m talking about what you said earlier in this thread, when you specifically stated to someone talking about in-person voter fraud that adaher’s post had over a hundred examples.

I’m not stupid Bricker, and neither are you. We both know you’re taking the piss here.

Why don’t you read MaxTheVool’s posts. He’s a liberal (for some bizarre reason) but can actually read, understand, and respond to the written English word. If my experience here is any guide, that makes him very rare in liberal quarters.

I’ve read them. He gives you the benefit of the doubt because he believes you’re acting in good faith, but simply misguided.

I’ve known your online persona long enough to know that you’re not.

[Bricker]

@Lobohan

The problem is, that there was a time you got the benefit of the doubt. But you’ve squandered that by being a vile, sentient hemorrhoid for years. I was looking at old threads the other day, and the Bricker from several years ago was reasonable.

The seething mass of hatred and misdirection that you are today, well, it’s obvious you don’t care about actually winning an argument. You care about creating the impression you won the argument.

Suuuure.

And the Wisconsin Supreme Court just created an “impression” that they left the Voter ID law in place, too, huh?

OK, Lobie. Let’s agree that you really won, and I just left an “impression” that I won.

How you intend to reconcile that view with the actual laws still in place and operating, I leave in your incapable hands.

[Bricker]

@Lobohan

I’m not talking about the stupid as fuck argument you’ve been making for two years.

I’m talking about what you said earlier in this thread, when you specifically stated to someone talking about in-person voter fraud that adaher’s post had over a hundred examples.

I told him I wasn’t talking about voter impersonation. Why should I let him dictate the subject? Sure, in-person voter impersonation is a great way to define the subject for your side, but it’s not the issue, and I don’t agree to debate it, because I’m not saying it’s the issue.

So why should I respond to his forlorn hope to limit the conversation to voter impersonation when i clearly and explicitly said it wasn’t about that?

I’m not stupid Bricker, and neither are you. We both know you’re taking the piss here.

You actually are. I have no idea what you do in real life, but I cannot imagine it’s something that requires any great degree of intelligence, because you are, in fact, monumentally stupid. I suspect your real-life past is littered with monumental failures, each explained away by you because you’re so much smarter than those around you.

Am I right? Poor grades, low-paying jobs with supervisors too stupid to understand your brilliance, a conviction that they’re all just jealous of you, or too dim to get you… huh? C’mon – tell the truth. That’s you, right?

[Lobohan]

@MaxTheVool

Lobohan: The point you are making in 5839 is, imho, quite wrong. If there’s a legal requirement that every person who votes have an ID checked, and if someone named “Joe Bob” voted last election, and if the person named “Joe Bob” should not have legally been allowed to vote, and if someone actually does some after-the-fact analysis and realizes this, then having had a voter ID law in place certainly makes a prosecutor’s case STRONGER against Joe Bob, because there’s now good evidence (if not proof) that the person who showed up claiming to be Joe Bob had ID with the name Joe Bob. (Although it’s clearly ridiculous in this day and age of computers for a voting precinct to have a list of the people who are registered to vote there, but NOT to have the additional information that these 32 of them have been stricken off the roles due to being felons, or what have you.)

I agree it’s evidence. I disagree that it’s good evidence.

I used to be a door person. I had much more experience checking IDs than most people working the polls. The idea that a person, checking a thousand or more people over ten hours is gonna be able to reasonably testify that every ID he saw is genuine is a bit far fetched. And any lawyer is gonna be able to generate a hefty wad of doubt off of that.

Which is beside the point, because prosecuting felon voters is hardly the reason for this law.