And I agree as well.
That’s why I said, in 2012:
Ahem:
Again, my words from 2012.
Valid neutral justification. It’s the reason that keeps on giving.
One problem I can see would be that it may deter paranoid conspiracy theorists who are worried about the government having their fingerprints.
The thought occurs that maybe that wouldn’t be such a bad thing. But that’s treading on the same territory that we’re accusing some Republicans of (board members excepted).
Maybe taking your picture when you vote would be better. Again, it would deter most everybody, plus, other than the first time, they can compare you to your previous photo. Instant photo ID with no effort from the voter!
Followed, of course, by two years of defending voter ID laws as written.
I wasn’t referring to you specifically when I mentioned Republicans manufacturing reasons. I was talking about the policy makers and people on places like Fox News. I remember you proposing this idea before.
Actually, I was curious how well the concept of saying goodbye to the secret ballot would go over. As I recall, dictatorial regimes are fond of electoral processes that keep track of how a citizen votes. I wasn’t aware of any movement to set up similar programs in the United States in the name of preventing the rare case of voter fraud, but then I’m not a Fox News viewer.
Sure. Voter ID laws, as written, that are perfectly constitutional.
You can search the past two years of my defending very carefully, and I guarantee you that not one post will show me defending them by saying they’re the best possible solution.
My defense is: they’re a legal solution that adds some value to the framework of voting.
Certainly a better solution would be fingerprints. But of course, the opposition to fingerprints in this thread came from liberals – not conservatives.
That seems like a more expensive solution.
But then again, web cams are ubiquitous now; every polling station will be equipped with a laptop or two, I imagine, so perhaps the cost would be minimal.
In any case, I certainly don’t object to the idea itself.
What, if anything, is wrong about the idea that additional safeguards of any kind are unnecessary, as the problem ostensibly being addressed is near-nonexistent? Is that a specifically “liberal” stance?
Nothing at all. I’m just trying to come up with a solution that will solve the claimed problem without deterring voting in any way. Not because I think that there’s a real problem to be solved but rather to disarm Republicans of this particular weapon.
This is just the latest in a generations-long effort by the party of race and money, under whatever name at the time, to find ways to limit voting by the wrong kind of people. Take this one away and they’ll just move on to another one.
“Adds some value” is the assertion you’ve spent the bulk of your voluminous efforts in this thread pursuing. Two years worth of borderline eloquent, undeniably verbose defense of “not the best solution.” Some might take that as more of a… what’s the word? An endorsement of all the intended consequences of those laws, not just those which might address the nominal “problem” the laws purport to fix. But that’s just some folks who’d think that, so I wouldn’t worry about it.
Really? Can’t find any objections from liberals to the principle of voter verification, through fingerprints or any other method that doesn’t create disparate burdens. Can you narrow that down to a few usernames?
Meh. Maybe if you deny them opportunities to pander to their racist nativitist base, it’ll starve the beast or something.
Well, Czarcasm:
Another:
One, maybe. Maybe.
Czarcasm might have been serious. And I’m not convinced it is a liberal position. Certainly I don’t share it.
I believe Euphonious Polemic is sarcastically riffing off one of the common “justifications” proponents have given for many different voting “reforms” (like reducing early voting opportunities) – that being to save money. The silly “raise taxes by 50%” gives it away.
I agree that in both cases it’s a bit hard to tell exactly how serious those posters are being.
I personally have no objection to vote-time fingerprinting. I think that it’s pretty far down on the list of priorities of how to actually improve actual voter confidence, WAY behind paper-auditable-electronic-voting-machines (and I suspect that others might agree, and disgust at an issue of such perceived triviality might be leading to the above-mentioned sarcasm), but I don’t have any actual problem with it.
Yeah, I think I’m gonna have to give you Czarcasm’s comment, Bricker, but not Euphonious Polemic’s. So, unless Czarcasm comes in to clarify otherwise, I think that’s legitimately one objection from one liberal poster. I think it was offered in the context of the NSA hysteria that had just ramped up at the time, and I’m not sure it was an objection Czarcasm actually felt was justified, or just one he felt would negatively affect voter turnout. In either case, I’m not sure it was an objection to the principle, just to the imagined effect.
You are a cotton-headed ninny-muggins and a farty-pants.
Well. I think that ends it then. Argument over.
I’ve started a thread in Great Debates on an interesting new take on this subject. The possibility that voter ID laws may actually increase the chances of a fraudulent outcome.