No, they’re different circumstances and different states. Different motivations, different voting patterns, etc. It’s not just about population.
The statements of many of those pushing eliminating early voting. Because I think they’re doing this to reduce Democratic turnout, I think it is worse.
It’s wrong to take actions that are designed to try and make it more difficult for supporters of one’s political opponents to vote.
NO – it was an effort to introduce quantifiable metrics to a discussion dominated by uncited assertions, such as “It is wrong.”
OK.
And what is the evidence for the proposition that these actions were taken to make it more difficult for supporters of one’s political opponents to vote?
We have a reliable source, someone of impeccable integrity and proven candor who attests that “some” Republicans have malign motives.
Friend Bricker should be wary of pretending to be so stupid. Because after a while, his brain could stick like that.
Surely you’re not implying you’re the only one making this effort. I recall asking several times if “voter confidence” could be quantified. My overall impression was that you were disinterested in quantification of the issues, beyond describing voter burdens as “minimal”, hence my curiosity about your sudden reference to population statistics. If such numbers matter, why not compare the number of people who will be unable to get the necessary ID (even minimal allows the possibility of some) versus the number of people known or suspected to have committed voter fraud?
“Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”
Remember?
Would that matter to you? I thought you and I had agreed earlier that it was almost certainly the case that the motives of some of the Republican legislators was impure, but you didn’t seem to care, as long as their was a legitimate neutral justification.
Obviously it’s hard bordering on impossible to PROVE what someone’s motives were. Which is why we look at the pattern of other things that were going on, which you have admitted you do not support, as evidence of a pattern.
In any case, however, I feel like you’re now trying to once again track down liberal hypocrisy, this time at the state level. Ohio restricts early voting hours. But New York never HAD early voting hours. But we say Ohio is evil. But we don’t say New York is evil. Hypocrites! Hypocrites!
Except of course the issue is not an exhaustive analysis of all the implications of early voting existing or not, the issue is the narrow fact that Ohio Republicans at one particular point in time modified election rules in a way that (we claim) was clearly intended purely to limit the turnout of certain demographics that they believed would not support them. That action can be discussed and analyzed in isolation.
Let me see if I’ve got this straight.
[ul][li] In one state, no one has ever proposed Sunday voting. The legislature never passed Sunday voting since it was never proposed. And there was never any campaign to repeal Sunday voting … because there was never such a law in the first place.[/li][li] Another state adopted Sunday voting. One Party noticed that this made it easier for the wrong sort of people to vote. That Party wants to disallow Sunday voting to hinder such voters.[/li][/ul]
And in your mind, these situations are exactly equivalent?
Wow. I suppose to you it’s all another of what you call tu quoque: “Your side would be just as slimy as us if you were as smart as me!”
When you grow up, maybe you’ll learn to spend time checking your facts instead of just practicing your Latin. Clicked on Karl Rove’s biography yet?
I see Bricker has not changed. He is still the most dishonest person the SDMB has to put up with.
What about that guy who use to hang around in IMHO: Fakey McNigerianPrince?
I miss him and his comically bad typing.
Yes.
Are you endorsing iiiAndyiii’s position? You seem to have leapt in the the questions I was asking him in an effort to clarify his views. He appears to be ready to offer some sort of evidence as to motive. Are you and he teamed up on this discussion?
No. Because I would not misuse the word. Hypocrisy is advocating for one position while acting in a way that shows a contrary position.
Here, at best, I’d call the stance “poorly thought out,” “poorly supported,” or the like.
That’s not exactly what your debate partner said:
No. But they certainly share a key similarity: we end up with two states that don’t permit Sunday voting.
And one of those states is fine. Another one is evil.
That’s a contradiction that I’d say looms large over your argument, whatever that argument might be.
Ad hominem.
Ad hominem.
But don’t worry. You’re free to make them the crux of your attempts to argue.
Because freedom.
How do you feel about a woman who has an abortion vs. one who never gets pregnant? Key similarity - no child.
Depends on whether or not you consider expanded participation in democratic elections to be a good thing. As it happens, I do, as do many of us here. A valid neutral justification, if I dare say so. And I do dare, do dare, all the livelong day.
Then the questions arises how best to implement such a goal. Clearly, if some of our citizens must wait hours to vote and some others need not, equal access to voting has not be achieved. We need not expect or demand perfection, but all reasonable and practical solutions would be considered by a sincere legislature.
The level of urgency will, of course, depend on the severity of the problem. If the problem of equal voter access is worse in Ohio than New York, then clearly the solution is more urgent, and failure to enable the solution is more badder.
TG, IANAL, so I am free to ask questions I don’t know the answer to, but is the worst wait time, or average wait time in Ohio substantially different than New York?
The trend over the last few years, without significant evidence of actual voter fraud, of Republicans focusing efforts in swing states and swing districts to alter voting requirements, including eliminating and shrinking alternate and early voting, along with statements by Republican officials that these actions will help them win elections by reducing Democratic turnout.
My observation of your dishonesty was not in any way the “crux” of my attempt to argue.
Another example of your dishonesty.
My God, man, are you even trying?
Very trying.
Oh you!