Wrong again. Unless by “general public” you restrict to the poorly informed, and phrase the question to be simplistic and misleading.
If the poll question were phrased to fairly reflect reality, and only well-informed(*) citizens were polled, I think it would be closer to 47%-47%, right along party lines. 
(* - if FoxNews viewers are disqualified from being considered “well-informed”, sentiment against “voter ID” would be much higher than 50%.)
Heck, even if 90% of the population was determinedly ignorant, that hardly justifies taking away someone’s vote.
Really? That’s… remarkable, really. That question presents the two easily-foreseeable and significant results of a proposal, in a straightforward, non-emotionally-charged way.
Imagine that I was proposing a law that would force everyone in america to accept a $100 bill. Now, it so happens that 0.0001% of the population has a deadly allergy to $100 bills, but a majority of the people in the country don’t know that. Now imagine these two poll questions:
“Would you be in favor of a law that obliged each citizen to accept a $100 bill?”
“Would you be in favor of a law that gave each citizen $100, though 0.0001% of the population will die as a result?”
It sounds like you’d consider the second to be a push-poll, but that the first would be just fine.
Or to ask you a different way: if a ballot measure has a foreseeable, unavoidable consequence of which much of the public is ignorant, do you consider it push polling to mention it in a question about that measure?
Edited to add: And even assuming it IS a push poll, please still answer the question about how you think the public would respond. Would it be: “I think people would reject the proposal, but it’s an unfair question and so the results of the poll are meaningless?”
Who gets to decide it’s a delusion?
You don’t get to decide what constitutes a delusion. This is a question of weighing different concerns against each other. Neither one is a matter of objective fact. The electorate gets to decide what risk is too much to take, not you.
Sucks to be that voter.
What system do you propose? A system i. Which that voter gets to tell the vast majority how to do things?
We return to this point over and over. What is your proposed system for making rules?
Actually, strike that. Who cares what your proposed system is? You can’t have it. Shut up about it.
Really? Cite?
And who gets to decide “fairly reflect reality?” Let me guess: you and editorial board of Mother Jones.
Yes, it does. In this country, 2/3rds of the Congress and 3/4ths of the state legislatures can amend the constitution.
“Stop saying we hate democracy, Bricker! And let us get back to explaining how 90% of the electorate can’t make the laws! The enlightened liberals can, no matter what their majority. THAT’S democracy!”
I think response would be about even, with a slight majority still favoring Voter ID, but nowhere near the strong majority that now exists. But it’s an unfair question and so those results, hypothetical though they are, are meaningless.
What’s unfair about that question?
I think this is a legitimately tricky issue. On the one hand, it’s obviously tempting, any time the public as a whole doesn’t agree with you (generic you) to blame it on “well, they don’t have all the information, if they REALLY knew what was going on they’d agree with me”. Of course there’s clearly no way to just randomly go around overturning election results due to “hey, those voters weren’t sufficiently informed”.
On the other hand, a simpler question isn’t always fairer. Which of these is a “push poll”? “Do you want your taxes cut 10%?” vs “do you want to eliminate all art and music and sports from all public schools and close down all public parks and also cut your local taxes 10%, which will add up to a net savings to you personally of about $12 per year”?
It doesn’t discuss the ultra-close election.
The second is unfair, and a push poll.
We have a representative democracy. We can state the proposed law, and allow the public to apprise themselves of what the results are.
We’re not going to change this system.
What if it did? Is any question other than “do you support requiring voter ID for voters” a “push poll”?
Why? Assuming that that’s a 100% accurate and complete description of the law… the bad (getting rid of stuff) and the good (cutting taxes), how is it unfair?
Clearly. But in this context we’re not discussing the actual voting, we’re discussing opinion polling. If you say “this policy is supported by 70% of the population”, and try to use that level of popularity as support for your position (which is certainly often a reasonable thing to do), then it is entirely relevant to discuss what the precise phrasing of the question is. And I don’t understand your standard for what is an “unfair” “push poll” and what isn’t… can you explain?
The Atlantic Monthly has an interesting article on the recent court case, in which the trial judge’s opinion that SB14 was specifically written to prevent minorities from voting, was ignored by a majority of SCOTUS on grounds that the convenience of Texas was more important than the voting rights of minorities.
According to the article this sheds new light on Chief Justice Roberts’ views on racial discrimination:
[QUOTE=Roberts’ opinion paraphrased]
If when you say racial discrimination, you mean bussing children based on their skin color, or admitting unqualified nigras to the schools erected by our white forefathers, then certainly I am against it.
But if when you say racial discrimination, you mean tricks to reduce the political power of these people – who weren’t even allowed to vote in God’s great country 150 years ago – then certainly I am for it.
[/QUOTE]
ETA: It migt be amusing to hear Bricker’s views on overturning the trial judge’s finding of fact.
No burden at all. Uh huh.
Then propose a constitutional amendment requiring voter ID and see where that takes you.
Well, it’s a constitutionally-limited democracy, so far the best kind known.
No need to overturn it.
The law of the land is: the motives of legislators isn’t enough to stop the voting procedure. In Crawford v. Marion County, the Court said:
So the Court can accept the finding of fact, and still rule as they did.
Have you ever heard of that case? Have you ever heard of that standard enunciated in the case? Did you know that the judge’s finding of fact was not relevant?
Why? We already have Voter ID. Why would I want to impose it on states that don’t want it?
Just as I support the power of states to impose a Voter ID law, I equally fervently support the power of states to decide the question in the contrary. As much as I would love to see liberals’ heads explode at a nationwide Voter ID requirement, I would oppose such a plan. Our traditional principles of federalism place on the states, not the federal government, the responsibility of regulating voting procedure.
Because, unlike liberals who seek the result in each case which benefit them, I am governed by principles.
No. No burden that society is prepared to recognize as unreasonable.
No, but mentioning the number of voters supposedly “prevented” (by voodoo) from voting without mentioning the actual justification for the increased barrier is a push poll.
It’s factually impossible. How would everyone’s local tax burden be $12 per year?
I did above.
To be clear, of course, I don’t support legislation by polling. So all of this is tangential to the validity of the Voter ID laws. But if there is a “moral” (ha, ha, ha) aspect to having public support, then look at how you twist and turn. You know the initiates HAVE public support, and so we’ve now crafted an alternate hypothetical universe in which we have created a push poll that has generated less public support, and we’re now using that fantasy polling result to show the rightness of your cause.
Step back and look at how pathetic that is.
The actual legislatures passed the laws. The actual governors signed it. The actual courts upheld it. The actual public sees the actual laws and actually supports them. A push poll isn’t necessary: “Do you support the actual laws passed in your state requiring voters to provide a photo ID?”
Against that tower of support, your side now tries to prove that if only you got to ask the public the RIGHT question, those stupid sheep would finally see what’s good for them and say “no.”
If only the voters agreed with you democracy would be worthwhile.
Before I answer that, tell me why 90% of the population supporting an idea is equivalent to a constitutional amendment for it, as you suggest.
Seriously, is that how you view things? 90% support = constitutional amendment? Take a poll, get a 90% result, the amendment process is automatic?
If not, why are you stalling by bringing up the amendment process?
On second though, don’t answer - it’d just be another stall.
Hah, sure you are. And I see I’m still not a liberal by your definitions, so I can’t even take offense, as I gather was your intent to give it.
No, the process needs to be followed – but a plan supported by 90% of the electorate would have no trouble gaining an amendment.
Probably, but my original statement (“justify”) remains correct. Yours is a stupid objection and I dismiss it.