Your post says nothing, and is in no way responding to what I wrote.
The point I was making is that it’s meaningless for you to make some reductio ad absurdum argument about limos driving voters to the polls, because no one in this thread has made the claim that we should spend any amount of money to make voting as easy as possible for everyone. Fear Itself wrote “The trick is to implement the voting system that discourages the fewest voters.”, but it would take a determinedly perverse or obfuscatory individual to read that as “The trick is to implement the voting system that discourages the fewest voters NO MATTER WHAT THE COST, EVEN TO THE LUDICROUS EXTREME”.
Then of course you bring back the whole “well, who are you to decide” garbage as if that’s actually relevant. You know that I’m someone who engages you politely and respectfully when you actually make meaningful points. This was not one of those times.
[ul][li]Raise the minimum wage to $10? Why not raise it tp $200![/li][li]Raise the tax on Job Creators from 34% to 36%? Why not raise it to 99%![/li][li]Allow blacks to vote? Why not drive them to the polls in Cadillacs, let them cast three votes, and buy them a year’s supply of watermelon![/li][/ul]
This is all standard Republican cognition. Just because Clothy and ** Shodan** can’t recite case law, but Bricker can, you don’t still believe there’s any real difference among them, do you?
My father was an immigrant from El Salvador who came here literally with the clothes on his back.
Not really, no. We lived in an apartment in a poor area and went to a school that was a product of its environment.
No. Not “lucky.” I didn’t “have” the money. I achieved grades that qualified me for a scholarship; I tested out of a years’ worth of freshman courses by getting high scores on AP tests in various subjects, and I worked multiple jobs while in school to pay the balance of my tuition and expenses.
The only way this is “luck” is by expanding the word to reach universal conditions: lucky for me that the atmosphere was 20% oxygen!
Same idiotic picture of “luck.” As you yourself said, “Bricker has never admitted fortune has anything to do with success in life. Everything he has achieved has been through hard work and innate talent.” You clearly distinguish between innate talent and luck in that sentence, and now you want to sneak it in as synonymous.
No. People make luck. That’s why liberals stare dumbly at success. Lacking the wit to understand what drives success, they are unable to distinguish between luck that strikes from the blue and “luck” that masquerades as random beneficence but is in actuality the result of maximizing chances.
I remember a friend of mine who lost out on a job because of a flat tire on the day of the interview. “Bad luck!” No – the spare was flat, too, and my friend knew it, but had kept putting off fixing it. Anyone can get a flat. But when you prepare by checking your spare every time you fill the tank, you’re much less likely to get caught by a flat spare on the day your tire goes flat.
This doesn’t deny the existence of luck. But it’s the simple fact that the vast majority of “bad luck” is poor planning and preparation. I see it all the time. The grasshopper wants the freedom to play in the sun, and not drudge away collecting food for the winter. The grasshopper is entitled to have what everyone has, regardless of the sacrifices others made to get those things.
No, Max. That’s exactly the basis for our disagreement: how do we weigh the various competing schemes and the costs thereof? (Costs referring to more than simply money, of course).
You cannot say that the trick is the get the most votes, period, because that ignores the costs of having non-citizens vote, of having felons vote, of having people vote in multiple precincts in the same elections. I agree that no one seriously, literally proposes limos, but the idea of limos stands for the proposition that the costs associated with the mandate of 'the more votes, the better, period." That’s NOT the correct view, and to frame it thusly eliminates precisely the point that drives Voter ID proposals.
It’s not garbage. Why do you get to announce your ethical standard as though it’s the ethical standard that must be applied here? Why do we bypass the step where you prove it and I agree that you have proved it? Where did that step get lost?
I’d be curious for a cite on this, though I’m uncertain how you’d provide it (an potential issue in and of itself, I guess). I’m not disagreeing with you, per se, I just have no idea whether you’re correct.
Only a great fool disregards good fortune and attributes it to his own superiority.
Ethical standards can be tricky to defend or to rebut in complicated social contexts, but they need not and actually cannot be proven. But moral precepts can be shared, even among ideological foes, and this is certainly the case between the major political ideologies in the US. It’s certainly the case between Mssr.s Bricker and MaxTheVool.
What is done in ethical disagreements generally is to discuss how a proposed action either holds to or disregards various shared moral precepts. Typically, any ethical standard can be shown to uphold a particular precept or a set of precepts. If one wishes to rebut, one either disputes those specifics by demonstrating the reverse, or shows how the standard being argued violates a different precept or set, and the respondents can then argue the facts. At any point at which the facts are no longer in major dispute, the relative contextual importance of the precepts themselves becomes the issue.
But we don’t even seem to have reached that point in this thread, as one party refuses to accept evidence from non-legislative entities (and specifically, from entities not involved in drafting the particular and specific laws under discussion), or to consider arguments from indirectly concerned judicial entities, or indeed to accept any ethical reasoning whatsoever from opponents of enacted voter ID laws. So we’ve spent a good portion of this gigantic thread discussing that sort of moral cowardice rather than the pertinent ethical questions.
Much as I enjoy mocking Republicans, I don’t think this kind of poor argument is restricted to one political party. I’m sure that plenty of liberals do precisely the same thing. (For instance, from recent cop threads, “what, it’s legal for a cop to enter a house because they had a report that a neighbor saw a stranger enter that house and the door was unlocked? Well, I guess we can just throw out the concept of a search warrant entirely!!”).
I claim, however, that it happens rarely in each election and thus produces a small, generally statistically insignificant number of false votes as compared to the overall number votes cast.
Because the other side refuses to accept the principle that in a representative democracy, people have the moral right to set their own standards for confidence in elections and enforce that standard of confidence by reasonably ensuring that voters are in fact qualified to cast votes.
We do have studies, on the other hand, suggesting that there would be significant numbers of people who would not be able to vote were such ID requirements instituted. Is it not reasonable to weigh this as far more relevant, and far more dangerous than this unknown (but definitely very small) benefit from eliminating these tiny numbers of false votes?
It’s like the joke about the statistician with his feet in ice water and his head in an oven, saying “On average, I feel fine!” The danger is small as a matter of average, because the vast majority of elections are in no danger of being swayed by, say, 500 false votes. The winner wins by 934,350 instead of 934,850 votes, but he still wins.
But the danger is large because the President of the United States is Al Gore if 500 votes in Florida go a different way in 2000.
So because we can’t predict just when an ultra-close election may occur and apply ID measures just to that election, and because an ultra-close election is a terrible time to have people question whether the right person is being inaugurated, the danger is large, always.
You, and your side, keep trying to compare so-called “suppressed” votes to stopped fraudulent votes. And despite the fact that I keep saying that’s not my argument, it continues to be made.
Isn’t that exactly what a “strawman” argument is? You are crusading against an argument I have not made. I’m not saying that there are lots of fraud votes out there, or that they routinely sway elections. I’m saying that even the small chance of an ultra-close election is enough justification to clamp down on strong ID standards, because of the risk of loss of voter confidence.
Bricker I would be interested in having you critique the following logic.
The purpose of democratic representative system of government is to determine the person who the majority of those deemed by society to be of eligible to determine policy the hopes that such a person would be most likely to decide in a way that benefits the most people
As such the goal of an election should be as accurately as feasible determine the what percentage of the eligible population desires each candidate.
to that end the optimal result would be one in which every eligible voter who had an opinion had that opinion counted once and only once none who were ineligible had their votes counted.
In choosing among electoral options, the one that is most likely to resemble the result of step 3 should be used.
To that end a system offers no increase in feasibility and which eliminates orders of magnitude more legitimate votes, then it prevents illegitimate votes and does so in a manner that is biased in the direction of further reducing the weight of an already underrepresented sub-population of the electorate is against the ideals of democracy, and deserves to be opposed.
If all we are interested in is a well defined process unopposed by the population, then the method of electing Kim Jong Un is probably superior to what we have here in the US.
The arguments you HAVE made are not sufficiently compelling to encourage overlooking the consequence you are struggling mightily to pretend not to see.
But keep ignoring me again. I’ll just destroy your arguments unilaterally.
It’s not your argument, but you seem entirely unconcerned about the potentially suppressed votes.
I’m criticizing arguments that have been made by Republican officials, as far as the suppression of votes. And I’m criticizing your lack of concern for voter suppression.
I consider the potential suppression of votes far, far more damaging to voter confidence and to our democracy… chiefly, because our nation has a long, inglorious history of suppressing votes (and these votes just so happen to be from mostly the same demographics as those that were suppressed in the past).
Why isn’t that a risk with too strong ID standards? An ultra-close election can theoretically be decided by the number of people who didn’t get to vote but should have as well as the number of people who did get to vote who shouldn’t have. To the extent I’m coming at you with “suppressed votes” again, it’s because it seems like the problem you’re seeing - a close election, mistakenly decided due to accuracy errors - works both ways.
