No, you didn’t.
This is futile!
If you want me to go on arguing, you’ll have to pay for another five posts.
That was never 5 posts just now.
It’s not free if the requirements to get it cost.
Put a camera in the polling booth and make it as easy to get ID as vote and I’m all for it.
Not in the booth. That makes it too easy to link the vote to the voter. The picture should be taken at the table where they sign you in.
Now I’m curious what happens if photo evidence shows two illegal voters in an election with a margin of ten votes. Is confidence sufficiently shaken to require a revote? Is there any level contemplated that would so require?
In fact, there are protocols for having secrecy and auditability in balloting which can be adapted for the purpose. One would then learn how the fraudulent voter voted, but that’s the whole point.
But the larger point is, of course, that people will not risk arrest to cast a vote whose value is small.
The thread is about vote-suppression by the GOP and Bricker has managed to hijack it into an irrelevant discussion.
It would be refreshing for Bricker to state he’s aware of how despicable GOP malice in electoral practices is. (Maybe he has – with 1500 Bricker posts in this thread, I’m certainly not going to search for it. What would the search terms be anyway? “… apologize … I’m a hypocritical twit …”?)
You’re expecting far too much self-awareness there. It’s like expecting Smapti to recognize that the fact that his arguments can be used to defend and endorse slavery and the holocaust means it’s a bad argument, or expecting Clothahump to actually utter a coherent thought in the SLIOTD thread.
Then don’t try to advance your side of the argument with gratuitous assertions. The gainsay of a gratuitous assertion is perfectly permissible in debate.
Yes. And?
Ramon Cue. Neville Waters.
I know how despicable it is that your view of good government is, “Rules I want, period.”
Been there, done that. Some Republicans may have corrupt motives, but the thing itself remains pure and unsullied because voter confidence is a valid neutral justification and in a super-dooper close election a unicorn stampede might effect the results.
Also, we don’t know that voter fraud isn’t rampant because we didn’t have laws to prosecute voter fraud and now we do, so when we see there is no voter fraud now its because these laws work so good.
If you’re using anecdotal evidence to argue that the laws are needed, can someone use anecdotal evidence to argue that the laws are harmful, with equal or at least comparable justification?
The post you quote was refuting septimus’s claim, “…that people will not risk arrest to cast a vote whose value is small.”
It is permissible to refute a claim by providing a single counter-example. That’s not an example of anecdotal evidence.
Nevertheless I see you invoking Cue and Waters quite often. Is this ONLY to refute claims that voter fraud never happens?
Assuming for the sake of argument that Cue and Waters are guilty, of course.
See, this is just pathetic. Nobody is arguing this. Nobody is arguing that their opinion should be fiat rule (not even our resident fascist is arguing for that). This discussion is not and has never been about “does the system make voter ID law”. Every time you present it in that light, you’re being a disgusting liar. Stop being a lawyer for five minutes - there’s a reason everyone hates them.
It sounds like you’re still pretending that I, and fellow thinkers, oppose legitimate efforts to improve election integrity. In fact, as we’ve explained to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, what we oppose is blatant voter suppression by the GOP.
You mystify me, Bricker. Periodically you emit farts which reek of above-average intelligence. Yet on many simple matters, such as the preceding paragraph, you exhibit willful stupidity which puts you in the same category as Shodan and the other SDMB right-wing dolts.
No. Sometimes it’s a proof of concept.
Here, however, it was a rebuttal.
Then what are you saying should happen?
Everyone is arguing the law should be erased, but no one is arguing that fiat rule should be used.
So be specific: what, precisely, are you arguing should happen?
You announced, offended, that you’re not arguing for fiat rule, and then you go back to demanding that a rule be removed from existence.
By what mechanism? Specifically?