IIRC, the Dem position on those absentee ballots was legally correct. They had not been correctly processed and, if one were to follow the precise letter of the law, should not have been counted. The Dems caved when confronted with hysterical bloviation about disenfranchising our heroes.
Of course, none of this matters because of the liberal hypocrisy displayed by the Massachusetts Massacre totally negates and nullifies any “sordid” actions by the Republican Party.
If our soldiers and sailors serving overseas can’t correctly fill out their absentee ballots, why should they have it counted, when some 90 year old struggling with a butterfly ballot doesn’t?
Just how picayune was the argument? The following paragraphs offer insight.
Now, for my two bits, I think every effort should be made to count a vote legitimately and sincerely offered, and yes, our service members overseas are due a bit of extra consideration.
Of course, all of this pales in the light of the Great Massachusetts Massacre! (It used to be just the Massachusetts Massacre, but in light of the weight our esteemed Counselor has placed upon it, it need an upgrade.)
There was also an issue with military ballots being postmarked *after *Election Day. I hope that doesn’t require an explanation.
Post 8301:
Such people are more likely to skip voting, yes. But the practice of near-universal registration, combined with the use of "walking-around money,’ on Election Day, suggests to me that people who didn’t plan on voting that morning might be induced to impulsively cast a vote. I have no metric to determine if an individual cares enough, but I was reasonably happy with the concept that an individual who cares enough to register and then get out to the poll on Election Day cares enough, without trying to define at what point past that might the line for “not caring enough” lie.
8307:
This appears to be a further request to answer 8301, which was done above.
8249:
This question was answered in my post 8251. You claim it’s non-responsive, but the post clearly and specifically offers a reason an unbiased organization could offer.
Post 8264:
Yes. Post 8244, which links to a story about the Oregon move with evident approval. Post 8246 opines that there is “no downside” to the Oregon proposal. Post 8255 reiterates this position.
8295:
Voting is regulated by laws, yes. “Voting” is also spelled with the English alphabet, another similarity with “free press.” But those similarities are not relevant to my point, any more than your observation that they are regulated by laws is. The area in which voting is sui generis is related to the fact that free press is simply permitted by the government. The government does not, as a consequence of the First Amendment, take an active part in encouraging people to buy printing presses.
That’s the reason voting is sui generis.
Does that address all your questions?
That post seems to offer a reason an unbiased organization could offer for voter IDENTIFICATION. I believe the actual question was in reference to voter REGISTRATION, specifically automatic voter registration - “What reasons do you assume a TRULY unbiased organization could find to oppose automatic registration?”
(bolding mine)
For the record, I definitely agree that voting is generally sui generis (although I would never use such a fancy term for it 
). I think any argument that tries to analogize voting to just about any other activity will be invalid.
Of course, that’s only a reasonable state to be in if the effort required to register and then get out to the poll is equal for all… or at least as close to equal as feasibly possible. Which gets us back to a root disagreement here. I would be very unhappy with a situation in which the average effort required for members of a Democratic-leaning demographic was consciously made 5% higher than the average effort required for everyone else. Bricker seems to think that situation would be OK as long as (a) the average effort is still below some nebulous threshold of sufficient easiness, and (b) there was some legitimate justification.
Untrue, of course.
You are arguing that the precise letter of the law was followed, but I’m willing to bet that you never actually read the law, and instead simply repeated what you read in “Mother Jones.”
If instead of Mother Jones, you read the Florida Division of Elections Rule 1S-2.103 you would have known that the actual rule does not require a postmark, but instead allows either a postmark or the signing and dating of the form to establish its validity:
Right?
Now, despite Bryan Ekers intense interest in making sure tghat I answer each and every question he poses and concede each and every factual point he makes, I predict that:
Let’s see how I do at the racetrack.
Very clever! You’re absolutely right. I didn’t read his question carefully.
But my objection was not to the Brennan Center’s position on voter registration. Indeed, as I have said, I share their support for this measure. My objection to their comments was detailed in post 8250:
So what I should have replied to **Bryan is just what I said here in this post. I inveighed against The Brennan Center for Justice based on their comments about voter identification. I have no quarrel with their comments about voter registration. My response to Bryan was indeed non-responsive to the question, and I was wrong when I denied that it was.
New York Times. Link posted.
Where is the link?
Even if the New York Times said as much, the text of the Florida rule remains what I posted, which means that while you may have relied in good faith on the NYT, your position is still factually wrong.
I’m reading this latest flurry with interest but since I work late on Wednesdays, it may not be until Thursday evening, eastern time, before I can compose a detailed reply.
In brief regarding 8328, though, it is not my responsibility to police the expressed opinions of other posters who may happen to be on the same side of an issue as myself, and it has long been a lame tactic of Bricker’s to suggest otherwise. If Bricker wants to directly ask my opinion of another poster’s comments, I cordially invite him to do so and I will probably indulge him. His passive-aggressive approach, though, I cordially invite him to shove up his ass.
Bricker,
I’ve only done a bit of preliminary research, but it looks like the rules in 2000 were different or, at least, there was a conflict between the statute and the rules.
From what I can discern, only overseas absentee ballots mailed with an APO, PPO, or foreign postmark were considered a ballot. See Section 101.62(7)(c). Florida Statutes.
[Section 101.62(7)(c) no longer exists - it appears to have been removed in 2007]
Relevant text 101.62(7)(c) “With respect to marked ballots mailed by absent qualified electors overseas, only those ballots mailed with an APO, FPO, or foreign postmark shall be considered valid.”
Well, not so good. Hoss.
Yes, that was the statutory language. But it didn’t control. See Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1273 (Fl. 2000). See also the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, 4 USC § 1973ff et seq and 39 USC § 3406 et seq. The Florida statutory scheme as applied to federal elections was prempted by federal law and the Rule at 1S-2.103(7) was implemented to conform Florida practice to federal mandate.
No confession of error from you. Check.
No other poster calls you on your bullshit. Check.
Seems to me my horse won.
Daring to wade into this thread again…
It seems to me that a universal automatic voter registration scheme would necessarily rely on other records to determine eligibility (minimum voting age and address to determine appropriate ballot for local elections, at least).
After all, *who *are we going to automatically put someone on the voter roles? Answer: everyone! How do we know who *everyone *is? Answer… uh, we’ve got a list here somewhere…
So, a truly neutral organization might choose to question the veracity of the information sources used to determine eligibility and further what happens to anyone whose information is not in those systems. Will such a scheme inherently miss the homeless or institutionalized (e.g. nursing home residents) persons? Persons with no driver’s license or Social Security card? Etc…
If, in the estimation of the neutral organization, the details are not sufficiently worked out to ensure that those on the fringes are not excluded then the organization might decide that the proposed universal voter registration scheme is not something they can support.
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!
I stated my position clearly, I would have preferred that the absentee military ballots not be excluded due to some legalistic technicality. And the whole point of the article was that the situation was ambiguous, both parties had a case. Pretty much all I said.
Point of fact, rather non-partisan. Just relating the ambiguous nature of the situation.
As far as insulting Mother Jones goes, I don’t read it. (Though I several times bought a subscription for a close male relative, as a Christmas gift. I’m quite the generous fellow…)
I admire their investigative work, but that work is always reflected in other sources, so it doesn’t much matter where I hear it. Truth is music, just as good from the trumpet as the trombone.
And, of course, I’m not a Democrat, too lefty to honestly say that I am. I usually vote for them, being the best I can get, and believing that choosing is a duty as well as a privilege. But I am not one, though I nurture the hope they may one day merit my approval.
Hope springs eternal in the human boob.
You said:
The only thing faintly ambiguous about your statement was “IIRC.”
The Dem position on those absentee ballots was NOT legally correct. You said it WAS legally correct.
That is error.
Leave it to the GOP to demand ID to vote but not to buy a AK47.