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

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@D_Anconia

Does the federal government have the same power? Under the Constitution, I mean.

To regulate commerce? Hmm. Constitution. Commerce. Gee, something is on the tip of my tongue…

[Bone]

I looked back at the last 3 pages of this thread, did this get mentioned before? (from the Washington Post)

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

…

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin.

…

We also find that one of the favorite policies advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective. Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Bricker has responded to D’Anconia, acknowledging his existence. Will this mean Bricker will not again claim to be the sole and lonely voice of conservatism, or am I expecting too.much?
D’Anconia, for his part, is quite obviously a troll/sock, not making an imaginative or original effort, and is unworthy of response in general.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Based on post 7142, I nominate Bone to replace Bricker as the voice of conservatism in this thread, if he wants the job. Bone brought a relevant cite, and managed to do so without expressing fantasies of how liberals behave or accusing anyone of secretly planning to overthrow the U.S. government.

[Bricker]

@D_Anconia

Does the federal government have the same power? Under the Constitution, I mean.

Explicitly, yes, with respect to interstate commerce.

Implicitly, maybe: Wickard v. Filburn allows a strikingly expansive reach of the interstate commerce power, but recent cases have curtailed it to some degree. Still, the regulation discussed in that thread was state, not federal.

[MaxTheVool]

@Bricker

So, let me wrap my head around this.

I read the above, and I “bizarrely” interpret it as hearing you say that even if the legislature passed the laws in accordance with our democratic processes, and the courts at the highest level judged those laws are NOT violative of our constitutional guarantees, you still believe that the laws should be removed, somehow,

But you’re not arguing against the representative democratic system we use.

I honestly have no idea how to reconcile those two claims.

And that’s why I ask: what are you saying SHOULD happen?

That depends on what “should” means… but assuming we’re talking about something that has made it all the way to the supreme court, I would say that it means “I believe that the decision the supreme court has made, while clearly constitutional by definition, is immoral/antidemocratic/antiAmerican, and I hope that at some point they change their minds… I will further attempt to convince YOU, the person I am arguing with, that my position is correct”.

It would mean different but generally similar things if it was a law that had passed the legislature but not yet been challenged in court, and so forth.
Generally speaking, if I say “X should happen” I do not mean “the fundamental principles by which our country run should be cast aside so that X can happen by fiat”, I mean “I want X to happen, therefore I hope whatever needs to happen will happen so that X will take place within the fundamental principles by which our country runs, as I hold them dear”.
Does that clear things up? Any other liberals want to either agree or disagree with my formulation?

[D_Anconia]

@Bricker

Explicitly, yes, with respect to interstate commerce.

Implicitly, maybe: Wickard v. Filburn allows a strikingly expansive reach of the interstate commerce power, but recent cases have curtailed it to some degree. Still, the regulation discussed in that thread was state, not federal.

All the more reason to have a Republican Senate and a Republican President. Of course, there’s still the Chief Justice, but still.

[Bricker]

@Parthol

Really? You have no idea? You cannot stretch your imagination to include “The laws should be removed by 1) Educating/convincing the people that the passed laws were poor, and thereby 2) Getting different legislators elected who will overturn previous legislation and pass new laws.”

Because that’s implicit in pretty much everything that gets said on a message board like this, when discussing laws one side doesn’t like. I still find it odd that you can’t see or acknowledge that.

I find it odd because that would seem to be the natural answer to every time I said, “So what’s your proposed new scheme, then?”

And that’s not the answer people say.

You know why?

Because that’s NOT what they mean.

You know why it’s not what they mean?

Because the comeback to that statement makes their stomachs burn:

Yeah, good luck with that.

“1) Educating/convincing the people that the passed laws were poor, and thereby 2) Getting different legislators elected who will overturn previous legislation and pass new laws,” isn’t working. Indiana’s Voter ID law was passed in 2004 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007. Since then, many more states have added some variant of Voter ID. The trend has been almost entirely one way. So I don’t believe that’s the “implicit” message here. Because they can’t stand the rejoinder that it isn’t happening.

Try again.

[Bricker]

@MaxTheVool

Does that clear things up? Any other liberals want to either agree or disagree with my formulation?

I excluded you, by name, from the group of people that I contended meant something different, because I believe what you said – for many reasons not the least of which is: because you were able to forthrightly respond to my request the first time I asked it.

I do not believe your fellow travelers when they now, half-heartedly, join this formulation.

[Bricker]

@D_Anconia

All the more reason to have a Republican Senate and a Republican President. Of course, there’s still the Chief Justice, but still.

There’s no question that I believe it would have been better public policy if Wickard had been decided differently. But it’s now the law of the land, and it has served as the underpinning for fifty years worth of regulatory and statutory framework.

So if you mean we should elect a Republican President and a Republican Senate to ensure that we don’t move further into the world of penumbras and emanations, then i agree. But if you’re suggesting that the current doctrine of interstate commerce is somehow illegitimate and should be disposed of, I can’t agree.

[Bryan_Ekers]

So, Max, you’re the first respectable liberal in Bricker’s view and, since he closed the door behind you, the only one who ever will be.
Mazel tov.

[John_Mace]

@D_Anconia

All the more reason to have a Republican Senate and a Republican President. Of course, there’s still the Chief Justice, but still.

Don’t you have a copper mine or smelting factory to destroy somewhere?

[Lobohan]

Am I a fellow traveler, or an ilk?

I wish my Pinko Leftist™ membership card had that information on it.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Bricker

I do not believe your fellow travelers when they now, half-heartedly, join this formulation.

So, what, when you were asking the question again over the last few pages, that was disingenuous? You had made up your mind that anyone who now presented reasoning could be safely discarded as liars since they had not done so back when you first asked those questions?

I have to admit I’m confused. Is there* anything* that someone you consider a lefty in this thread (**Max **aside) could possibly do now to convince you that they don’t wish to overthrow democracy for their political ends?

[CannyDan]

Bricker has been playing his same “liberals want to rule by fiat” instrument for this entire thread. Way, way back in Post 1419 I replied to his allegations thusly:

@CannyDan

We do. It’s a message board. But you knew that.

None of us are in positions of power where we can directly control the weighty matters of our time. (Or at least, if any of us are, we don’t here allege to have that power, for fear of being laughed off these boards in disbelief.) So we claim and declaim, we argue and debate (to each their own). Some may learn from these exchanges, even reach new understandings of certain issues. Occasionally minds may be changed, or not, ignorance might be fought, and entertainment is commonly provided.

Evidence has been presented that the intention of voter ID laws (as presently constituted) is to reduce voter participation, or the effect will be to reduce voter participation, or both. And that reduction will almost certainly favor the party most strongly working for those laws. In such a context some of us declare the actions of “ID demanding GOP vote suppressors” to be wrong, counter to democratic (small ‘d’) principles, abhorrent, or worse.

It appears that the evidence compels you to a conclusion, too.

We (many of us, the pinko-hippie contingent at least) condemn this. We understand how the system works, we know that legislatures have passed these laws, and we are <sadly> cognizant of the rulings of courts of competent jurisdiction. And so we express our ire against those legislatures, and our disappointment in those court rulings. Because we believe that the result is to undermine the very foundation of our democratic process by providing an unfair advantage to one party over another, an advantage that by its very design could be a permanent distortion of the political fabric of this country. And we believe that this should be apparent, and equally disturbing, to any person who holds this country dear.

But you knew that too.

And knowing all of this, your best response is “The laws were passed and the courts upheld them. Neener neener!!”. Golf clap for you, buddy.

And more specifically, in response to this

@Bricker

So, specifically, what course of action do you seek?

<snip>

What, specifically, are you urging should happen?

I said

@CannyDan

To your questions above, yes, I think the legislatures should repeal Voter ID OR make a genuine and strenuous effort to facilitate the process of obtaining such ID. Perhaps through an educational campaign plus live and internet “help” facilities and extended days, hours and locations for State offices that issue Voter IDs. Sadly, I must agree that the former isn’t going to happen, at least not given the present political climate. And the later isn’t likely either.

SCOTUS has indeed weighed in and declared these laws constitutional, at least facially. But I remain hopeful that one of two eventualities may occur (which I’ve said before). Perhaps these laws will be seen to have the negative effect some of us fear, and perhaps that situation will cause a re-examination of these laws, and perhaps they will then be struck down as being discriminatory in their effect. Alternatively, perhaps the people who feel themselves the target of these manipulations of the ability to vote may become so pissed off that they’ll move heaven and earth to register (or re-register if needed), obtain IDs or whatever other esoteric ‘qualifications’ may be further required, and vote out of office the proponents of Voter ID.

What I may or may not be doing in my personal life to affect these laws shall remain just that – personal. But as a scribbler on a message board, I urge my readers to urge their representatives to either overturn outright or facilitate compliance with these laws as per my first paragraph above. These attempts should include both “soapbox” and election efforts to change the ‘present political climate’. And I count SDMB posting as “soapbox” efforts.

Having insufficient faith in the possibility of a court finding discriminatory effect and overturning all of the many jurisdictional variations of these laws, I instead put my faith in representative democracy. I believe that efforts to squeeze potential voters, to freeze them out of the process, should backfire and cause all citizens who believe in electoral fairness even when that might not serve a partisan purpose to reinvigorate the process with their input – and their votes. (Or if you don’t accept my characterization, maybe “efforts to solve a virtually nonexistent problem with a ‘solution’ that inconveniences many but fails to treat a potentially much more severe problem, that of fraud in absentee voting, justified only by the desire to assuage “voter uncertainty” at the possibility of an incredibly rare event”.)

I so urge. Is that specific enough?

Frankly, I long since tired of the deliberate misunderstanding that seems to be Bricker’s only contribution to this thread. I still read it for entertainment, and I applaud all of you who keep it going for my amusement, but I’m too lazy to repeat myself endlessly.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Lobohan

Am I a fellow traveler, or an ilk?

I understand trooper is also in play.

[Lobohan]

@Revenant_Threshold

…Is there* anything* that someone you consider a lefty in this thread (**Max **aside) could possibly do now to convince you that they don’t wish to overthrow democracy for their political ends?

You need to understand the axioms at play in Bricker’s mind.

[ol]
[li]He wants to keep poor people from voting so his side can win elections. (or at least he finds it irrelevant that poor people will find voting much harder)[/li][li]He strongly believes he is morally superior to liberals.[/li][/ol]

The only way he can keep those two thoughts in his head at the same time, is if liberals also want to dishonestly manipulate electoral mechanics to win. They want to overthrow the government, whereas, Bricker only wants to put his thumb on the scale.

Everyone’s a bastard, but Bricker and his conservative brethren are only just barely bastards.

[D_Anconia]

@Bricker

There’s no question that I believe it would have been better public policy if Wickard had been decided differently. But it’s now the law of the land, and it has served as the underpinning for fifty years worth of regulatory and statutory framework.

So if you mean we should elect a Republican President and a Republican Senate to ensure that we don’t move further into the world of penumbras and emanations, then i agree. But if you’re suggesting that the current doctrine of interstate commerce is somehow illegitimate and should be disposed of, I can’t agree.

I have mixed feelings. Of course the current doctrine is legitimate. That doesn’t mean it can’t be changed in the future.

[Bricker]

@CannyDan

Bricker has been playing his same “liberals want to rule by fiat” instrument for this entire thread. Way, way back in Post 1419 I replied to his allegations thusly:
And more specifically, in response to this
I said

Frankly, I long since tired of the deliberate misunderstanding that seems to be Bricker’s only contribution to this thread. I still read it for entertainment, and I applaud all of you who keep it going for my amusement, but I’m too lazy to repeat myself endlessly.

Well, there’s a very simple reason I did not include you when I said that no one else had responded.

I forgot your response.

[Parthol]

@Bricker

I find it odd because that would seem to be the natural answer to every time I said, “So what’s your proposed new scheme, then?”

And that’s not the answer people say.

You know why?

Because that’s NOT what they mean.

I can’t agree with this. The main reason they don’t respond is that it sounds like a rhetorical question challenging a belief they don’t hold.

You know why it’s not what they mean?

Because the comeback to that statement makes their stomachs burn:

Yeah, good luck with that.

“1) Educating/convincing the people that the passed laws were poor, and thereby 2) Getting different legislators elected who will overturn previous legislation and pass new laws,” isn’t working. Indiana’s Voter ID law was passed in 2004 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007. Since then, many more states have added some variant of Voter ID. The trend has been almost entirely one way. So I don’t believe that’s the “implicit” message here. Because they can’t stand the rejoinder that it isn’t happening.

Try again.

No, I won’t try again. Yes, the trend has been in a direction that I don’t care for, but that’s not a reason to stop trying. People didn’t give up in the past when the law enshrined injustices. I’m going to keep hoping that voters see through the nakedly partisan motives behind the laws, and realize that Voter ID laws should be accompanied by measures making it easier for the poor to gain ID, and fight in general to prevent indirect disenfranchisement. I know you don’t think things will move in that direction, and maybe in the short term they won’t, but it took over 50 years for Brown to overturn Plessy. So, I’ll keep plugging away.

Also, when you say this:

I do not believe your fellow travelers when they now, half-heartedly, join this formulation.

… are you accusing me of lying?