I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1)

The BBQ Pit
7041

Sounds suspiciously like an assertion of ethics. Given your insistence that “voter confidence” is intangible and amenable to your particular understanding of it (as something which can be shaken by even a tiny but definite possibility of voter fraud) but not to mine or to any opposing ideological understanding of it (as something which must also be affected by the imposition of definite and actual impediments to the voting process for statutorily qualified voters), we must count your preference for this particular social policy to be of an adulterated moral nature.

Your argument, IOW, boils down to an entirely faith-based proposition.

Unless you are willing for the government to base such legislation on scientifically rigorous attempts at quantification of voter fraud, data driven estimates of its effects on voter confidence and sincere attempts to model the probable consequences of such legislation on a) fraud prevention, b) voter confidence and c) vote suppression, then your support for those acts is purely moralistic. And your attempts to deny this are either laughable self-delusion or bald faced evasions. Or likely a bit of both.

7042

“Justify,” is an opinion. I grant you that it’s probably a correct statement of your opinion. It’s not a correct statement of fact, because there is no factual objective way to determine what justifies this type of risk.

You want to cloak your opinion in the garb of objective fact. But that’s deceptive.

7043

I am willing for the government to base legislation on the majority votes of legislators, and the sustaining of such legislation by the courts.

That’s all.

That’s not an assertion of my morality. Is it?

No. It’s a recognition about how we resolve the tie when your view and my view are not in accord about what the law should be.

7044

Wow, voter id is popular with the public? Guess that settles that, then, because when has any form of injustice been popular? I mean, outside of Texas. Alabama. Georgia, Tennessee, Florida…

Are we to take it that the Bricker Principle of absolute majority power holds that 51% if the population can tell the other 49% to shut up and go pick some cotton? Really?

Furthermore, this:

We have new information. You may have heard. That part about being “nondiscriminatory” is open to question, at the very least. Furthermore than that, it does not have to be “disregarded”, the problem could be fixed if partisan concerns were not the primary motivating factor

And finally for the one hundred and ninety-ninth time, we don’t have a problem with voter id as a thing itself. We have a problem with using it to carve out an electoral advantage for the Republican Party. We don’t think that’s quite fair. (Of course, on your side is the historical fact that the Supreme’s have never, ever, issued a ruling that supported and promoted an injustice…)

It would have been easy enough to put forth a voter id requirement that was, in fact rather than in lip-service, non-discriminatory. If voter id devoid of any partisan advantage was the desired result, it would not have been a Big Hairy Ass Deal. So, why didn’t they? Because they didn’t want to? That’s most likely it, don’t you think? Or do you prefer the notion that they were duped by “some” Republicans, the poor innocent dears?

As for this:

As a gentleman of mature years, I am no longer required to accept reading assignments and book reports. Read it yourself, then you can quote the parts that solidly support your case. And jolly good luck with that, too.

Full report in PDF format here: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665966.pdf

7045

No. We have agreed that some issues require super-majorities.

I read it. It says nothing that helps you.

I am not offering it up as a cite. You cannot validly demand that I need to dissect your cite to find evidence that supports my claim. The way it works – even for gentlemen of mature years – is you offer a cite, a quote from the source that supports your claim. You cannot validly link to a PDF and say, “My case is proved in this voluminous document, and I am too fucking decrepit to parse it but it’s there, I just know it.”

7046

I was going to suggest the idea that 90% of the American population might think Catholicism should be restricted (something I could picture happening circa 1840), but yours is good, too. This isn’t some trivial aesthetic choice like 90% of the American people thinking the White House should be painted green - it represents a serious infringement on some of its citizens based on ignorance, cynically manipulated by people with a blatant conflict of interest.

7047

I note with smug satisfaction that you continue in your habit of picking out the parts of a post you think you can rebut, and leaving the rest alone. May we therefore assume that you agree with the rest?

There are any number of analyses of the report, they are very similar. This from* Politico*, for instance…

Politico is lying, then? No such words appear? Googling “GAO report voter ID” bring oodles of such reporting, they are all lying?

No, my case isn’t proved, yours is injured. Not quite the same thing. I will cheerfully overlook the snide inferences, I am by nature a generous and good-hearted soul.

Does Crawford still apply if the laws are discriminatory? If “No”, and the laws are discriminatory, we are done, yes?

7048

No.

7049

Bricker can’t help it - he can’t assimilate the idea that a legislator should have ethical limits in addition to procedural ones. It’s too alien to him. You may as well try to explain a pencil sharpener to a clam.

7050

I find the idea that it’s okay to deny voting rights to a minority so long as one can get a supermajority to vote in favour of the idea morally repugnant. Legal, sure, but morally repugnant, as is anyone who supports such a thing.

7051

Why should I care what you find morally repugnant? You support laws that i find morally repugnant. That’s not reason to change those laws, is it?

7052

No, i get it – i just reject the idea that YOUR ehtical limits are the ones he should use.

7053

Sure. He should be motivated by reason, awareness of consequences, and an ethic that elections be won by persuading voters rather than blocking the “wrong” voters or otherwise manipulating elections.

If any of that strikes you as rejectable, than you’re a liar, a stooge, a lost cause, or some combination thereof.

7054

Almost totally forgot about this nugget of Brickerism. What in bleeding Hell were you talking about? Since when? Has the dictionary been changed? Is this in the Constituion somewhere? The Gospel According to St. Scalia?

Nothing more than morbid curiosity, but who’s ass did you pull that out of?

7055

You wouldn’t mind terribly if he still says the laws should be changed and gives his reasons why, would you? That’s not going to destroy the republic, is it?

Please reassure us that democracy can survive questioning the actions of democracy.

7056

But I agree with blocking the “wrong” voters: non-citizens, felons where prohibited, persons are voting elsewhere.

And I agree with placing into operations rules that verify voters’ identities so as to increase voter confidence that an ultra-close election result is the right one.

If any of that strikes you as rejectable, than you’re a liar, a stooge, a lost cause, or some combination thereof.

7057

I’m the only one not allowed to just state new rules by fiat, eh?

7058

Absolutely. Question away.

I don’t object to saying, “The legislature should change the laws,” at all. I object to saying, or hinting, that the laws are not legitimate as they stand. I also object to the conclusory hints that go the same way: saying that the process is immoral as though that suggests that the speaker’s view of morality is the controlling one in the discussion.

But of course you don’t wish to limit yourselves to “say[ing] the laws should be changed,” do you? That’s not working, after all.

7059

So if you block those, along with ten times as many “right” voters, you still think what you’re doing is positive?

Then you’re an idiot, adhering to an unquantifiable idea that you admit you don’t even believe and which can only occur under highly unlikely circumstances, while you ignore the problems induced in real life circumstances. An idiot, and possibly some combination of liar, stooge and lost cause to boot.

7060

Based on this, any further suggestion from you that a person who calls a law bad is also calling for the overthrow of democracy will be taken as a confession that you are an idiot.