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

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

Your Majesty:

Well, there you go, projecting. You said I could call myself “Queen of the May”, and now you’ve gone ahead and presumed that I’ve done so, so you can call me Queen of the May. You’re a child, arguing with an adult.

What you call a “fuck the poor,” attitude is what I call a willingness to accept a minimal burden in the interests of a valid state interest.

Your validity meter needs calibration.

I recognize that you disagree, Highness, but I must remind you that since you are only Queen of the May in your mind

No, I’m only Queen of the May in your mind.

you don’t get to transform your subjective judgement about how these concerns should be weighed against one another into an objective claim. That transformation exceeds even your Royal Perogative.

Nevertheless, I have done my best to present an objective claim based on what I feel is good reasoning. If have what you feel is good reasoning in reaching a different or opposing claim, please present it because you’d have not yet done so. So far, your position is a flimsy structure of deciding arbitrarily that someone else’s burdens are trivial, that voter fraud is real-ish, and that public fears of voter fraud justify doing (are at least risking) greater electoral error. It helps when your definitions are self-serving, i.e. the electorate is those who cast votes, ignoring those who would have cast votes but were prevented or at most dismissing them as not wanting to vote hard enough.

Your blindness is too obviously selective. I picture you suffering a mental short circuit such that when you consider “the poor” as a concept, your brain automatically prefixes it with a “fuck”.

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

So far, your position is a flimsy structure of deciding arbitrarily that someone else’s burdens are trivial, that voter fraud is real-ish, and that public fears of voter fraud justify doing (are at least risking) greater electoral error. It helps when your definitions are self-serving, i.e. the electorate is those who cast votes, ignoring those who would have cast votes but were prevented or at most dismissing them as not wanting to vote hard enough.

Your blindness is too obviously selective. I picture you suffering a mental short circuit such that when you consider “the poor” as a concept, your brain automatically prefixes it with a “fuck”.

Almost any weighing of burdens will involve a certain degree of arbitrary assignment of weight, I admit. But my weighting is no more arbitrary than yours.

And in this country, when we differ on how to allocate the weights associated with such issues, we have the legislature and the courts. Since my view largely aligns with theirs, and yours is mere wish list, I would say that yours suffers more infirmity than mine.

In shorter words: you insist you’re right. I reject your reasons. I insist I am right. You reject mine, and try to trivialize them to boot.

This continual attempt to declare that your weighing of these burdens is simply correct is what makes me suggest your delusions of royalty. This is not a scale with 40 kg on one side and 52 kg on the other. You have no objective method of declaring that the right to be free of a trip to the DMV to get a free photo ID is too onerous.

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

Almost any weighing of burdens will involve a certain degree of arbitrary assignment of weight, I admit. But my weighting is no more arbitrary than yours.

And in this country, when we differ on how to allocate the weights associated with such issues, we have the legislature and the courts. Since my view largely aligns with theirs, and yours is mere wish list, I would say that yours suffers more infirmity than mine.

Here is where you are wrong, the issue is not now the rejection of the fifth article, that is done.

Now the courts are finding that indeed many states that had the burden of demonstrating that they would not discriminate are like leopards that are not changing their spots. This is because the dismissal of the fifth article does not remove the other ones, and so the states that decided to “act cute” will anyhow have their new laws checked for the results and not the probable ones as it was done before.

The latest has been that estates like Texas do have to make then the request of an ID for voting to be fair and not discriminatory.

[Bricker]

@GIGObuster

Here is where you are wrong, the issue is not now the rejection of the fifth article, that is done.

Now the courts are finding that indeed many states that had the burden of demonstrating that they would not discriminate are like leopards that are not changing their spots. This is because the dismissal of the fifth article does not remove the other ones, and so the states that decided to “act cute” will anyhow have their new laws checked for the results and not the probable ones as it was done before.

The latest has been that estates like Texas do have to make then the request of an ID for voting to be fair and not discriminatory.

If the courts find that a particular state’s Voter ID laws are indeed unduly burdensome and discriminatory, then I certainly support changing the Voter ID laws in that state order to conform with the extant requirements.

Becuase, you see, I recognize that in this country, when we have a dispute about what the laws require, we resolve that dispute through the legislative and the judicial process. I am perfectly willing to accept their results, even when I personally would have reached a different conclusion.

Specifically which states are you thinking of? Your last sentence is more confusing than usual.

[elucidator]

You got the wrong end of the stick, there, Bryan. The law is not obligated to reflect reality, because the law is reality! If duly authorized robe-wearing lawyers declare that something is real, it is real. Simply because the evidence of voter fraud is such a poor thing, shriveled and misbegotten, is no reason that it cannot be declared a valid concern.

And therefore it follows that some sacrifice be made to address this valid concern. Well, who better to make such a sacrifice than those who are most used to it, who have developed the needed attitudes of submission and acceptance? Surely those who are not accustomed to such hindrances are far less capable.

Of course, it may seem to the unsophisticated and uneducated mind that such a burden is not neutral, as it falls more on one side than another. That is because they are not smart enough to recognize that once the gavel comes down, it becomes neutral, a form of legal transubstantiation. It was not"neutral" yesterday, but today it is. Just like how the Dred Scott decision affirmed that people could be property, and so it was, until the law was changed, then they were not property.

How is that possible? Well, that’s a mystery, would be better not to inquire too closely.

But enough, moving on. Many of us are left on tenterhooks, awaiting the Counselors methodological analysis of this recent “evidence” that the laws suppress the votes of our lesser citizens. How is that coming along, Bricker? When may we expect your definitive judgement? Any time soon?

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

Specifically which states are you thinking of? Your last sentence is more confusing than usual.

Gee, the last sentence does say Texas, BTW I already posted the link in post #8481 that explained why Texas was told to go back and change their discriminatory law.

[Bricker]

@GIGObuster

Gee, the last sentence does say Texas, BTW I already posted the link in post #8481 that explained why Texas was told to go back and change their discriminatory law.

Actually, the case was remanded to the trial court to decide again using the correct standard and to fashion a remedy short of striking down the law.

So no, Texas was not told to change their law.

Gee.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

Almost any weighing of burdens will involve a certain degree of arbitrary assignment of weight, I admit. But my weighting is no more arbitrary than yours.

I don’t know about that. If we wanted to inject some degree of nonarbitrary evidence we could compare the number of known or suspected voter fraud cases to the number of known or suspected disenfranchisement cases. I do not believe your position wins such a comparison.

And in this country, when we differ on how to allocate the weights associated with such issues, we have the legislature and the courts. Since my view largely aligns with theirs, and yours is mere wish list, I would say that yours suffers more infirmity than mine.

I cheerfully accept that all American legislatures and the entire American judiciary are capable of doing things that are stupid and harmful. Frankly, if they could be counted on to do the rational thing at all times, debates would largely be moot.

In shorter words: you insist you’re right. I reject your reasons. I insist I am right. You reject mine, and try to trivialize them to boot.

It turns out I don’t have to insist very hard that I’m right when your arguments are full of wrong; blinkered and determinedly ignorant wrong. Case in point:

You have no objective method of declaring that the right to be free of a trip to the DMV to get a free photo ID is too onerous.

The larger issue that you’re choosing to ignore is that voter ID itself is not the problem - it’s requiring a higher standard of identification (to address a mostly imaginary problem) while simultaneously making that standard harder to meet, i.e. by closing or restricting the operating hours of the outlets where the voter can get these “free” IDs.
Tell you what, find a legislator who is calling for higher voter identification standards who is simultaneously calling for improved government services to distribute these IDs, such that the additional burden to every voter is effectively zero. If your cause is just, this shouldn’t be hard.

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

Actually, the case was remanded to the trial court to decide again using the correct standard and to fashion a remedy short of striking down the law.

So no, Texas was not told to change their law.

Gee.

Like if that does not mean that soon the state will have to change it. Gee. (And I never said that the law was going to be struck down.)

The point stands, the dismissal of the fifth article does not remove the other ones, and so the states that decide to “act cute” will anyhow have their new laws checked for the results and not the probable ones as it was done before.

And the expert you quoted was in the end wrong. BTW that expert has been working at FOX for their polling now and after looking for months to their polls it is clear that they are constantly being skewed in favor of the Republican candidates when one compares them to many other polls.

[GIGObuster]

BTW the sad hangup you have about Texas not changing the law is that in reality they did it already adding bills to modify the results, and it was one of the reasons why the Appeal Judges did not make a more sweeping decision:

Court: Texas Voter ID Law Violates Voting Rights Act

Searching for and obtaining copies of birth certificates can cost $2 to $47. That’s partly why the law’s opponents – supported by Ramos’ ruling – called Texas’ law a poll tax, outlawed by 14th and 24th Amendments to the Constitution.

Texas lawmakers sought to address this issue during the last legislative session, however, passing Senate Bill 983, which allows Texans to obtain birth certificates free of charge – if they specify that it’s for an election ID.

Abbott signed the bill into law after Ramos ruled and after oral arguments in the 5th Circuit case, in which Haynes sounded perplexed that lawmakers had not already made the law more palatable to critics.

The state argued that the new law rendered the poll tax argument moot.

I will have to say it, bastards like Abbott were aware of why they did not make those changes early.

Bottom line, the papers did report that the court did decide that the “Texas Voter ID Law **Violates ** the Voting Rights Act”.

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

I don’t know about that. If we wanted to inject some degree of nonarbitrary evidence we could compare the number of known or suspected voter fraud cases to the number of known or suspected disenfranchisement cases. I do not believe your position wins such a comparison.

True. Or we could compare the number of home runs hit by Roger Maris in 1961 to the number of degrees Farenheit necessary to boil water and conclude that I win dramatically.

Since we’re picking irrelevant numbers to compare.

I don’t contend that the number of voter fraud cases is statistically significant. And even if they were, what level of “suspicion” would qualify? And what would be the level of burden before a “disenfranchisement” became “suspected?”

It turns out I don’t have to insist very hard that I’m right when your arguments are full of wrong; blinkered and determinedly ignorant wrong. Case in point:

The larger issue that you’re choosing to ignore is that voter ID itself is not the problem - it’s requiring a higher standard of identification (to address a mostly imaginary problem) while simultaneously making that standard harder to meet, i.e. by closing or restricting the operating hours of the outlets where the voter can get these “free” IDs.

If the specific state has created a situation in which IDs are not reasonably avaialble, then I’m willing to hear it. Generic, conclusory allegations about restricting hours isn’t enough. (For me – I realize it makes your little liberal soul quiver with indignation, which again goes to the subjective nature of the comparison).

Tell you what, find a legislator who is calling for higher voter identification standards who is simultaneously calling for improved government services to distribute these IDs, such that the additional burden to every voter is effectively zero. If your cause is just, this shouldn’t be hard.

If I did, you’d move the goalposts.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

True. Or we could compare the number of home runs hit by Roger Maris in 1961 to the number of degrees Farenheit necessary to boil water and conclude that I win dramatically.

Since we’re picking irrelevant numbers to compare.

You say these numbers are irrelevant. I am unsurprised.

I don’t contend that the number of voter fraud cases is statistically significant.

Of course not, counting actual voter fraud cases would provide facts and your position is determinedly avoiding them. Rather, your alleged motivation is to address the public perception that voter fraud is significant, in some ultra-close elections.

Thing is, I don’t believe you. I think you are lying. I do not believe that you care in the least about this public perception - to you, it’s just the rationalization you are choosing to justify your position.

And even if they were, what level of “suspicion” would qualify? And what would be the level of burden before a “disenfranchisement” became “suspected?”

I have some background in statistical analysis and am confident its very impersonal procedures could be brought into play to help form a reasoned estimation of the scope of the problem, but you don’t care about that and I decline to play along by pretending you do.

If the specific state has created a situation in which IDs are not reasonably avaialble, then I’m willing to hear it. Generic, conclusory allegations about restricting hours isn’t enough. (For me – I realize it makes your little liberal soul quiver with indignation, which again goes to the subjective nature of the comparison).

Ah, your go-to argument, saying “little liberal soul” (it used to be “liberal heart of hearts”). Were I not already convinced of the emptiness of your position, this would demonstrate it conclusively. Do any of these accounts matter to you, or are they all cancelled out by one case of Ramon Cue?

If I did, you’d move the goalposts.

Would I? Well, you’ll just have to take that chance, I guess. More likely, I’d be impressed by American legislators who were advocating for something akin to the Canadian system, including:

-automatic registrations; and
-the drawing of district lines not being up to the officials elected in those districts.

I understand there are some efforts underway here and there and I applaud them. Are there any efforts being sponsored by Republicans? I googled “republican election reform” and got this, which I’ll gladly read and report on, because unlike you, I don’t have mental blind spots or, to be less generous, am not a bald-faced liar.

[Bryan_Ekers]

The article is from 2013. It mentions, among other things, “states like Michigan, led by Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, a Republican, are looking to further integrate that automation, so that when you update your address with one government agency, your voter registration can be updated too.”

Good for Michigan. On further research:

@Michigan.gov

If you do not have a driver’s license or other acceptable photo identification, you can get a state identification card at your local Secretary of State branch office for $10. State ID cards are free to individuals who are 65 or older or blind or who have had driving privileges terminated due to a physical or mental condition. The fee can also be waived for individuals who present other good cause for a fee waiver. Proof of identity and residency are required when applying for a state ID card.

Looking at maps for Secretary of State branch offices… it looks like there are quite a few of them. The towns of Mesick, Bruce Crossing and Thompson are a tad isolated, likely quite a nuisance if you don’t have a car or access to one, but nothing’s perfect.

I see Ruth Johnson is still Michigan Secretary of State. I hope her 2014 election was, heh-heh, legit…

Anyway, Johnson’s own website seems lightly promising, though I’m a tad skittish about some of her rhetoric, i.e. “Ensuring Election Integrity”, which could be playing to fears of nonexistent voter fraud, rather than making sure all voters get a say and their votes will be correctly counted. I’ll do some more reading about her, look for youtube videos, maybe she’s someone worth supporting for Governor of Michigan and possibly President circa 2024.

You see, Bricker, I can speak calmly about reasonable Republicans when I find them. That is because I am an adult. You should try it sometime.

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

You say these numbers are irrelevant. I am unsurprised.

Of course not, counting actual voter fraud cases would provide facts and your position is determinedly avoiding them. Rather, your alleged motivation is to address the public perception that voter fraud is significant, in some ultra-close elections.

Thing is, I don’t believe you. I think you are lying. I do not believe that you care in the least about this public perception - to you, it’s just the rationalization you are choosing to justify your position.

Well, you’re welcome to that belief. But as a general principle, in debate one cannot rebut an opposing position by announcing a belief that one’s opponent is lying. Here, you may do as you please.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

Well, you’re welcome to that belief. But as a general principle, in debate one cannot rebut an opposing position by announcing a belief that one’s opponent is lying. Here, you may do as you please.

My rebuttal takes the form of the contradictions and oversights in your expressed position. It would be only an act of generosity to assume these are the result of ignorance and not mendaciousness. I am not feeling generous.

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

Do any of these accounts matter to you, or are they all cancelled out by one case of Ramon Cue?

This is a good example of weighing concerns.

From that link:

Proponents of government-issued photo ID laws say it’s simple to get “free” identification to exercise our most fundamental right. During an interview, Republican Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam, who signed into law voter ID requirements for Tennessee, stated he has hesitations with the new law because it will make it “unnecessarily hard” for some people in his state to vote.
“Given human nature, people tend not to address things until the last minute sometimes,” Haslam said.“I’m concerned about that last minute, when seniors say, 'I really want to vote, I want to vote at the polling place, I don’t want to vote absentee. Oh, I need to get a photo ID! … and I’m concerned about the waiting time [at driver’s licensing stations].”

I don’t share Haslam’s concern. I believe it’s perfectly acceptable to require people to plan ahead. “Human nature,” is not an obstacle that prevents someone from addressing things before the last minute. I believe it’s perfectly acceptable to limit voters to those people that planned ahead of time rather than people who tend not to address things until the last minute.

Is that objectively wrong somehow?

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

My rebuttal takes the form of the contradictions and oversights in your expressed position. It would be only an act of generosity to assume these are the result of ignorance and not mendaciousness. I am not feeling generous.

Do as you please, bucko. Voter ID is still the law, though.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

Do as you please, bucko. Voter ID is still the law, though.

And the trend represented by those laws is a source of pity that I have for your nation, somewhat tempered by that fact that these are self-inflicted harms.

Bucko.

[John_Mace]

@Bryan_Ekers

And the trend represented by those laws is a source of pity that I have for your nation, somewhat tempered by that fact that these are self-inflicted harms.

Wait a minute. Aren’t you Canadian? Doesn’t Canada have similar laws?

[MaxTheVool]

@John_Mace

Wait a minute. Aren’t you Canadian? Doesn’t Canada have similar laws?

Menstruating Christ!!!

You’re not stupid, John Mace, so you ought to have realized by now that basically no one in this thread is arguing against the idea of voter ID laws, in a vacuum. No one is saying “well, Germany has voter ID laws, clearly someone is screwing over the poor people in Germany, because that’s not how it should be”.

Rather, we’re complaining about switching from a system with no voter ID laws to a system with voter ID laws, with (potentially) insufficient access to IDs for all citizens, for blatantly partisan reasons.