Well, do you get the special voter ID from this person and if so, are you automatically registered in the process?
It sounds foreign to me because, well, it is.
Theirs is the casino’s game, where the house always wins, Five percent off the top, compounded interest, they win forever. And the only good thing about that is that it ain’t necessarily so. Ain’t necessarily so,
This seems unnecessarily harsh. I’m simply asking you what purpose does needing an ID to vote in your country serve? Surely, a law that requires an ID to vote must solve some issue that you had in your country before an ID was required.
Bullshit.
There is, so far as I recall, exactly one issue from this thread that I have been asked to supply a specific answer for and I have not. elucidator responded to my suggestion that there might be methodological flaws in the most recent study of voter turnout – the one that shows that Voter ID laws depress minority turnout – and asked for specifics. I have not yet answered that.
If there’s any other issue or question I suppose it’s possible I may have missed it, but certainly not for reasons of “ducking,” it, and I invite you to highlight it here.
Unfortunately for this explanation, Trinopus has also answered, affirming that he was speaking of that literal title. He has not yet explained — nor does your attempt explain – how a person in charge of registering voters would also be responsible for the issuance of the IDs. Moreover, his comment suggested a deliberate animus against particular voters, as opposed to difficulty arising from the requirements themselves.
Yes, actually. In my opinion, the Trump phenom arises in part from the fact that people look at voting as less of a civic duty and more of a cheer-for-my-guy process. If we could vote by calling a 1-800 number Trump would win in a landslide. The mere fact that he is doing as well as he is shows the devaluation of respect for the vote. It’s Idiocracy, The Prequel.
Now, because you are both hungry to misrepresent me and desperate to validate your own world-view, I have little doubt you, or another of the reliable ones here, will take what I have just written and start a post, “So you’re saying that XXXX!” with the xXXx being utterly wrong.
For example, how does what I just said reconcile with my apparent reverence for the results of the legislature’s actions, for the result of democracy, when I just said 1-800 voting would lead to undesirable results? Clearly inconsistent!
There are two answers. Want to hear them?
Maybe, but I should add that the brick-smashing and name-calling process goes on for almost two years in an American election. Our last election process ran for just under three months and that was well above average.
I’m not convinced that’s what you’re “simply” asking, but I’ll play along. Yes - here are some direct quotes from elections.ca
I don’t offhand know the history of Canadian voter-ID policies, and I don’t see its relevance unless we also take into consideration the history of American voter-ID policies, which include in living memory selective application of voter rules based on the voter’s skin colour, i.e. in order to demonstrate your eligibility to vote, the potential voter had to satisfy the election official by passing a literacy test and I trust we need not pretend this was applied to all citizens equally.
I don’t doubt Canada’s electoral history is checkered with blatant abuses and bigotry and manipulation, but we’ve made (since 1920) an effort to reduce this by taking the decisions of how to manage the vote out of the hands of the people who directly benefit from the vote. That your elected officials have control over district boundaries, election processes and voter eligibility is bizarre to me, and offers a clear incentive to manipulate the system - these bids for increasing the ID requirements being only the most recent version.
You haven’t answered my question from 8741, but I guess you could just declare this it was not in reference to an “issue from this thread” (not a term I used, incidentally) and it was fairly low-key and easily missed. I recognize the possibility that you’ve given a similarly low-key response which I missed, but it’s not the only example in this thread - just the most recent one that comes to mind for me.
Done. I’m willing to withdraw the use of the phrase “ducking”, as it implies a deliberate choice to not respond, as opposed to not choosing to respond, though the difference is a tad subtle.
And I asked a follow-up question to clarify the issue, as it remains unclear to me that this official’s duties include issuing voter IDs and registering voters. To be direct, I had (and have) high confidence that your comment to him and question to me hinged on the use of the specific term “registrar of voters.” I do not believe it matters to you if officials are making the process difficult for voters - just what the officials are officially called - because I’ve seen you use this kind of pointless pedantry as a tactic before.
Well, if this* is* a product of voters holding the vote in lowered esteem (I’m not certain it is - it strikes me more as a devaluation of American politics overall rather than of the vote itself), how will voter ID laws address it?
Yes, Bricker, these are the moments I live for.
Not really. I have other questions pending (and I’m not satisfied by your response to my “what are the effects of lowered esteem for the vote”) but I invite you to elaborate nonetheless.
Incidentally, I honestly don’t recall using the term “reverence” the way you describe, but I might have at some point.
Surprisingly, there are some people on this board who genuinely have questions about things without any “gotchas” or the need to feel superior by “winning” an argument with anonymous people on the Internet.
I wasn’t really trying to compare the different policies, systems, time-lines or anything. I’m not writing a thesis comparing and contrasting the two systems. I just wanted to know what your country’s voter ID law was trying to accomplish. I do , however, find it telling that one of the considerations in the link you provided (thanks, by the way) was “the integrity of the vote, including public confidence in the electoral system” which ISTM is what Bricker has been stating all along is the reason HE favors voter IDs in America.
Post 8741:
No. I suppose that genetics etc are luck, in a sense, but if so, then at some point the term ceases to have meaning. “Your perseverance is just due to your genetics and and your upbringing, not YOU.”
Of course there are. Are you one of them? If so, fine, we can have a serious discussion which I hope will not end up going down some kind of Socratic-ironic path.
I’m not actually anonymous, by the way.
Yes, but Bricker is indifferent to the line immediately above the one you’re citing and somewhat hostile to the one immediately below, which is the problem. As I said earlier, voter ID in and of itself is not the issue.
I would like to think so.
Anonymous in the sense that I don’t know who anyone on this board is in real life, nor would I try to find out.
I don’t know enough about your voter ID laws to know what “accessibility for electors who may face barriers in providing documentary proof of their ordinary place of residence” means
I have now answered 8741. What else?
No. The title could be “Locutuous of the Borg,” for all I care. The key element was the implication that there was a single official responsible both for registering voters and issuing photo ID.
The secondary element was the claim that the official was able to create this mischief as a matter of discretion, as opposed to simply following the rules without bias. An official who made it difficult for women to get IDs while easing the process for men, for example, would be an example of a serious abuse of position.
By ensuring that anyone who votes has made some minimal effort to do so. This will trend against the dilettante voter. If I can stay at home and dial 1-800-GO-TRUMP then I will; if I need to get dressed, go over to the precinct, park, pay the meter, go inside, stand in line, and only then vote…eh, what’s the difference, they’re all crooks anyway.
I don’t know why you’d draw that conclusion, or least not before asking my opinion on will, drive and ambition, i.e. “YOU” factors.
Ultimately, though, I figure the issue is a call for empathy. Your father may have elevated himself and his family out of poverty and his will/drive/ambition may have been a significant factor but the sheer randomness of life itself with elements that were entirely outside his control played a significant role as well. Surely there were people from his area with more will/drive/ambition who did worse (possibly much worse) than he, and people with less will/drive/ambition who did better, possibly much better. I’m not eager to judge people solely by the end result.
If there is someone (indeed we know of several someones) who has trouble satisfying a voter-ID requirement, why conclude that it is because of a lack of will/drive/ambition? It’s fair to question why the requirement is needed in the first place, and also to question why making the process easier for them is a bad thing. The risk of allowing them to exercise their vote “too cheap” leading them to esteem the vote “too lightly” is not one I can bring myself to feel concern over, pending your explanation of why I should.
Now, I know you’ve concluded that the process is already “free”, and since it’s equally “free” for everyone, it’s by definition fair. You use of the term has asterisks on it, whether you see them or not.
Well, not entirely, but no matter.
Sometime over the weekend, I might randomly pick one of the 174 previous pages and see what I can find.
Ha! And that doesn’t strike you as pointlessly pedantic? What difference does it make if it’s one official or several - if a citizen is having trouble meeting a requirement that the government has arbitrarily decided is necessary, who cares how many bureaucrats he has to deal with or what their titles are?
Clearly, but the official himself (or herself, lest I suggest bias) might be following the letter of the rules perfectly, but that won’t matter if the rules themselves are unreasonable. Is there a practical difference between following a good rule badly and a bad rule accurately?
I have in mind a lengthier response to this which I’m still mentally composing and which invokes Mother Theresa, among others, and I hope to write this up over the weekend. I think it will be quite a well-written and articulate explanation of how utterly fucked-up is the opinion you’ve just expressed. There will be comparisons between the Canadian and American approaches to the issue, and references to people who claim to sincerely believe that Obama is a Marxist. I’m looking forward to getting it all down and it may end up being one of my prouder moments on this board.
Indirectly, I’ll thank you now for being the impetus.
I don’t agree that sheer random events play a significant role.
Well, let’s expand that thought. Why does the house always win?
It doesn’t, I suppose. Surely you can find an example of someone who played crass for three hours, won $2000, and then walked away. But over time, for the vast majority of players, the casino takes in more money from the craps table than they pay out.
Do “sheer random events” play some significant role? No. They might affect an individual period time time, sure. But if our $2000 winner continued to play, ultimately, he’d give it all back.
By the same token, sure, a cement mixer might run a red light. But that’s not a significant chance. And it’s unfair to call the LACK of a cement mixer “luck,” without devaluing the term.
Because I have yet to hear of any significant number of cases that are not self-evidently a lack of preparation and planning.
Yes, you weigh the concerns differently than I do.
So what?
They are not strong enough to outweigh the other concerns. The ones you also weigh differently.
As I explained above, I don’t care what their titles are.
I do care what their functions are, and whether they are neutrally implementing the law or using their position to apply the law differently to different people. That is not a useless distinction.
Yes. The remedy is dramatically different. The official who acts poorly can be targeted for investigation and removal. The official who correctly implements the law is not a problem; it’s the law itself that must be changed. The two situations are absolutely meaningfully distinguished.
I will read it and respond to it.
I’m not sufficiently versed to answer, except to refer you back to the website with my personal observation that Elections Canada is proactive about registering voters, gathering info from other government agencies and such.
I just read through the web site. Seems like they are saying they took into account how hard it is for some people to get an ID that meets all 3 of the requirements (photo, name, and address). They even list some of the types of people who may find it hard to get an ID. I suspect they used this difficulty to ensure that many types of ID are acceptable, judging by the length of the list of acceptable IDs.
Tangent here: I’ve been skimming the thread, so I may have missed it. Has Bricker apologized for lying about what I said?
You know, where I said his dad accomplished what he did (assuming Bricker isn’t lying about that) with ability and luck, and he characterized what I said as, “ONLY LUCK!!!”
It seems there was back and forth about that comment’s attribution to all liberals or just one (me), but I can’t recall him accepting that he misrepresented it.
All very reasonable and rational and Canadian.
It must be the poutine.