Voter ID would make it possible to prosecute them. A point I have made repeatedly. Do you not recall it?
Do you think you understand my argument?
I earlier challenged Lobie to accurately summarize my argument.
Can you?
Heh, the “can you summarize my argument” gambit. A modern classic.
In this case, it’s easy. Bricker fucked up, and is in spin/denial. That’s an accurate summary of his argument. “I didn’t say what I just said.”
Seriously pathetic. The guy is capable of so much better.
So, no.
But since my argument isn’t particularly complicated, and since I know the basics are getting across because MaxTheVool understands it, what other explanation can there be except you deliberately pretend to not get it in order to avoid addressing it?
Honestly, I’m not seeing it. Do you know of a thread, possibly from a while back, where Bricker was more impressive?
Your argument is really actually NOT particularly simple, and in fact I’m far from convinced that you had a fully fleshed out argument when you started posting in this thread. In particular, there have been several exchanges between us in which I was trying to suss out exactly what your position was (questions like “which of the following is closest to what you believe… (1) or (2) or (3)”). If your position was simple (or at least, simple and well-stated) I would not have had to go to such lengths to actually understand it.
For instance, as far as I can tell you’ve done, well, not a 180, but maybe 75 degree turn quite recently. Previously, I would have said that your interest in voter confidence, and how it related to this debate, was that even if actual incidents of voter-impersonation were not particularly high, voter ID laws would ensure that they would be nearly-zero, which would be kind of good all by itself, but would have the additional benefit that everyone would KNOW that they would be nearly-zero, thus, voter confidence. Now it appears that your interest in voter confidence expands into other non-voter-impersonation-issues such as felons voting, in which case the importance of voter ID laws is that it makes successful prosecution after the fact easier.
Now, it’s possible that your own mental image of your own position is absolutely identical to what it was when you started posting in this thread. But if so, you certainly haven’t done a very good job of explaining the totality of your position… which suggests that it is in fact NOT particularly simple. Or else that you’re very bad at explaining said position (or hesitant to do so).
From two years ago:
I was talking about the necessity of successful prosecutions two years ago, Max.
I was talking about non-impersonation fraud two years ago, too.
Your responses to me have generally been responsive to what I have actually argued. From this I infer that you generally understood my argument.
Fair
First of all, you can make that analogy til the cows come home, all it means is that you have, in fact, made that analogy, not that that analogy successfully demonstrates anything. I strongly disagree with the point you attempt to argue with said analogy… but then we’ve beaten that to death. More importantly, though, that analogy has to do with whether it’s unreasonable for someone to not vote, NOT whether it’s unreasonable for someone to feel a lack of confidence.
If your analogy comes to pass, and a voodoo priest announces a hex on voting day, and the voodoo-practitioners stay home, and they were overwhelmingly democratic, and republicans win a close election… then some number of people who are NOT voodoo-practitioners are going to believe that the election was stolen in that fashion, and they will NOT have confidence that the will of the electorate was fairly represented, and whatever precise badness that you believe comes from lack-of-electoral-confidence will ensue. I’m not entirely sure what that badness is, but whatever it is, there it will be.
Even if I accepted all of the battle grounds on which you have chosen to frame this debate, which I don’t, this claim would still only be relevant if you could demonstrate that the amount of increase of voter confidence among supporters of voter ID laws, upon adoption of those laws, would be net greater than the amount of decrease in voter confidence among OPPONENTS of those laws. If 60% have their confidence level increased 2% by voter ID laws but the other 40% have their confidence level decreased 10%, then that’s a net loss.
Not saying that somehow the will of the minority should prevail, I’m saying that “voter confidence”, and its links to a controversial issue like this one, is pretty much impossible to quantify or predict. Like I said, look at Bush-Gore 2000. There were no voter ID laws in Florida at the time (were there?). Do you remember any group of concerned citizens after that election earnestly sitting around talking in alarmed tones about how likely it was that there was significant amounts of in-person voter fraud, unprosecutable-improper-felons-voting, or any other issue that voter ID would have helped improve? You claim voter ID would improve voter confidence, I claim that in the most confidence-shaking close election in US history it is barely on anyone’s radar screen.
Has it been only two years? It seems like so much longer.
In any case, I went back and skimmed over all your posts in the first 5 pages of this thread, then tried to find all exchanges between you and me in the first 30 or so pages of this thread. And I think doing so caused me to age several years 
But seriously, I didn’t find either a post from you in which you really explicitly laid out that your position also had additional benefits entirely outside the realm of in-person-voter-fraud (although post 210 clearly references it, at least in hindsight), or one in which you explicitly said that it ONLY applied to in-person voter fraud. So I’ll leave that one as a gray area.
Jeez, Max, I may have misled you with a joke. Re-reading **Bricker **posts does not, in fact, qualify as a form of penance in *any *known religious denomination. I was kidding when I said that.
Oh, OK. So, what did the rest of them do about it, except maybe vote for it. Nobody told them, it was secret?
To expand on this thread a bit, I initially thought your position was:
-if people have to show voter ID, it will be harder for people to commit in-person-voter-impersonation-fraud, so that type of fraud (which is bad) will be reduced
Nice and simple
Then the issue of voter confidence came up, so I thought your position was:
-if people have to show voter ID, it will be harder for people to commit in-person-voter-impersonation-fraud, so that type of fraud (which is bad) will be reduced
-in addition, the fact that this law prevents fraud of that type will give everyone greater confidence in the accuracy of elections, which is good in and of itself, even if there was never much or any fraud to begin with
Somewhat more complicated of a position
Now it appears that your position is:
-if people have to show voter ID, it will be harder for people to commit in-person-voter-impersonation-fraud, so that type of fraud (which is bad) will be reduced
-in addition, the fact that this law prevents fraud of that type will give everyone greater confidence in the accuracy of elections, which is good in and of itself, even if there was never much or any fraud to begin with
-Furthermore, there are some other fairly specific types of voter fraud, such as felons-who-are-still-on-the-voter-roles-voting, in which the voter would in fact be able to provide voter ID, because they are who they claim to be, but having to produce voter ID would make successfully getting away with the fraud in the long term more difficult because it would potentially prevent one possible defense that could hypothetically be used in court if that person was charged
That’s a complicated enough position that I don’t think it would be surprising for people not to understand it until/unless you went pretty far out of your way to really precisely explain it.
“Oh, yeah?”
I can’t point to them, but there have been several threads, in the past, where he was shown wrong, and admitted it, in a mature and respectful fashion.
(As a matter of fact, I got schooled in that respect, for I accused him of never admitting when he was wrong, and I was shown to be wrong myself in this.)
Here, however, he has clearly blundered by conflating two entirely separate issues, and is clinging to his error, even though it doesn’t support his main idea. It isn’t normal for him to be quite this infantile.
And your explanation for the links to my posts from two years ago, also clinging to that same “error” I made today?
How did I manage that? You figure I hitched a ride with the Ninth Doctor to confound and amaze you?
Still not relevant. Voter ID would not prevent these felons from voting.
You keep ducking and weaving, and citing yourself as evidence, but you don’t have a point here. You fucked up, charley, and you won’t admit it.
This is sad, because, in times past, you have had that much integrity, at least.
You could also find a post from a couple years ago about your thoughts on the bus routes in Wisconsin. That doesn’t mean that your primary issue has been public transit in Wisconsin and not voter impersonation.
Max has provided both a fair characterization of your argument and conducted a comprehensive review of your posts in this thread. You do him a great disservice to ignore him and continue to be a weasel-fuck. Like I said before, you’re just a despicable piece of trash.
#BrickerBookmark
Still, would really like to know which “some” Republicans had sordid and underhanded motives. I mean, don’t want to blame the other guys if all they did was vote for it! Wouldn’t be fair!
As I said two years ago:
Max:
Please look at this post of mine. Look at the date it was posted, and compare it to the “complicated position” you feel is just now evident.
Can you please address why you felt originally that my position was:
if people have to show voter ID, it will be harder for people to commit in-person-voter-impersonation-fraud, so that type of fraud (which is bad) will be reduced?
When that post says, “…prudence dictates we implement a system ahead of time that allows us to reliably associate voters with voting. That may not stop fraud, but it creates a real framework for catching and punishing non-citizen voters, for example. Now, a voter can simply deny he was the one casting the ballots.”
This post of mine from a couple of years ago is in this exact thread on this exact issue.