I’m not talking about reaching the true believers, those beyond hope or reason. Nothing short of an affidavit from God Almighty countersigned the Archangel Gabriel is going to do it.
But for a lot of people, people who don’t want to believe this is a scheme cooked up to slant the election, its easier to believe that the moonbats are wildly exaggerating the effect of these laws, that really its only a minor inconvenience for a trivial number of people. True, only those tighty rightys who are amendable to evidence will be changed, but likely they both vote!
And, of course, legend has it that the courts are swayed more by fact than ideology. Its been mentioned before in these pages, how attorneys defending these laws admit that their evidence of voter fraud is tenuous. But, they claim it is significant enough to be a valid neutral justification because the negative effect is so minor, a mere inconvenience.
So, we got evidence, they got diddly squat. According to theory, we should win. After all, Posner changed his mind, and if he’s a lefty moonbat, then I really* am* the Queen of Romania.
This thread was begun more than two years ago.
During this lengthy period of time, most people who lacked a photo ID but needed one to vote, could have gotten one.
Just saying.
Don’t be absurd. The people in need of IDs each work eight full-time jobs apiece and the IDs are offered only in one tiny location, in a sub-basement behind a locked door marked “Beware of the Stobor.” By racists.
Let’s assume your attempt at ironic exageration is off by a factor of 1000, ie the real circumstance is only a thousandth as dire as you describe, if your description was taken seriously.
It’s still larger than the problem ostensibly being addressed.
Here’s a thought - does the Indian government strive to distribute voter IDs to all voting citizens? Are the various U.S. states under discussion doing that, or planning to do that?
Are you prepared to compare Indian voter ID distribution to that of Texas? Clothahump is suggesting we should, that if it can work in India, it should work in the U.S. If you.and I look into it, will we find Texas’s efforts to.put IDs into hands of its citizens is comparable to India’s efforts?
Sure, and they all make it really easy to get it too. Like, “We’re open every fifth Wednesday of the month.” Like you said, though, the easy solution there is just to drive at 60 miles an hour to the next closest office.
I have no doubt that every one of these “it’s no big deal” fuckfaces would pitch a huge bitch fit/flounce if they suddenly discovered that their preferred store made some slight change to their customer rewards program.
Bricker acknowledges that at least part of this whole enterprise is to reduce Democratic voter turnout, but he is also prepared to argue that these states make it easy to obtain the required ID.
Bringing this back up, Bricker, because it’s such a weak defense of the moral permissibility of this action. There’s no way to prove definitively what the primary motivators are, and in what ratio to other motivations, for those pushing such vote ID laws. That means that you can always defend it in this way.
It’s clear to some of us that this primary motivator for most of those pushing it is pure politics – make it harder for a mostly Democratic demographic to vote. If you were to be persuaded that this was in fact the primary motivator of most of them (and if you were persuaded that it would work in reducing Democratic turnout), would you still defend it as morally permissible?
I went ahead and started some preliminary research on Indian voter registration procedure. Apparantly one can apply online, after which a Booth Level Officer will contact the applicant to complete the process.
Does Texas (or any state in which this issue is currently under debate, I invite Bricker to choose one) have a comparable process and if so, what is it?
Incidentally, the mere existence of voter ID isn’t and was never the issue - it was adding requirements to get the ID with the knowledge that some citizens would not be able to comply, or would face burdens in doing so, such voters expected to
favour a particular party, as part of a strategy of election manipulation, under the specious excuse of preventing fraud.
This is obvious in the way these states invest their money. They spend it advertising that official ID is required. They don’t invest it in telling people how to get official ID, or in facilitating the process.
Actual governance on nearly any kind of change is preceded by impact studies. I cannot think of any examples wherein the proponents of these changes could answer even basic questions about how many people would be affected by these changes, let alone how many instances of in-person fraud exist.
Lay proponents are even dumber; they typically don’t even know that you already have to provide proof of ID in order to register to vote.
It’s a bald-faced desperate fraud, and Bricker is a full-throated proponent.
I don’t think Texas allows you to apply online. But the Indian online application must still be backed up by documentation showing identity, and each applicant must still journey to a “Designated Photography Locations (DPLs) or VRECs” to get photographed and receive their ID – things which i seem to recall gave you no end of tremors and fainting spells when Texas required them.
So what? What is your proposal – to read the mind of each legislator and discount his vote if his motives are sufficient odious?
Are the requirements themselves acceptable or not? I don’t give a rats ass about the alleged intentions or motives.
Your memory is as suspect as your reasoning. So how many DPLs are in India? Are they easy to get to, easy to use? If we look into it and discover access is easier for an Indian earning $1.25 a day than for a Texan earning $50 a day, could we venture any hypotheses about the laws and their applications?
I don’t have to read their minds. I can read their public comments.
Personally, before I’d judge a government regulation acceptable, I’d like some evidence that it was necessary. I’m not seeing such evidence here. But let’s say for laughs that Texas added any number of requirements, while simultaneously allocating $100 million to set up a Voter Management Agency whose purpose was make it as easy as possible for Texans to meet those requirements, including online registration, registration offices in every neighborhood with long hours, even door-to-door outreach efforts similar to census-takers… the requirements might still be useless and unnecessary, but at least the blatantly partisan goal will be thwarted.
But of course you don’t give a rat’s ass about that. I’ve not come to expect such from you.
It says a lot that you consider this an actual argument. I’m simply shooting random darts that you care not to respond to. Which is fine, but shows that you are indeed a bitch.
Both parties oppress the poor, more specifically they oppress the politically unconnected for the benefit of the politically connected. Just so happens that the poor tend to be politically unconnected.
What i actually said was that Democrats devote more resources towards removing barriers to voting than removing barriers to getting a job, starting a business, and staying out of jail. This is proof that they are bad people. They view the poor only as possible voters, they are not concerned with their well-being. They say it’s too hard to get ID, but they don’t actually care about ID barriers until ID is required to vote.
Are you aware of your racism? You hold up a racially homogenous country like Sweden as your Utopia. A bit disturbing when packaged with your complicity with Democratic efforts to harvest votes from minority communities.
This is why we can’t transform into your Powder White Socialist Utopia? What a shame.
I don’t want to transform society in any way. At least not in a top-down method such as you would suggest. I simply want to emancipate individuals from territorial monopolists of law and force.
My feeling were made clear. I do not believe there exists such a thing as a right to vote. There is state granted privilege to vote, but I take it much less seriously than infringement on actual rights. Such as the right to engage in peaceful exchange. Government efforts to squash voluntary exchange hurt the poor more than efforts to revoke voting privileges.
