I understand your point. But since others are still saying “disenfranchise,” I am still obligated to debunk them. You may safely assume that every time I debunk the claim of disenfranchisement from now on, I am aware that you, elucidator, are not making that claim, and that my debunking is not aimed at you.
As to your point: if getting cowpox means that you won’t ever get smallpox, then we can say that smallpox is worse than cowpox, and getting cowpox IS desirable.
If that analogy isn’t clear: even if voter ID makes voting harder for a tiny minority, the benefit we derive in being able to trust election results makes up for it.
God you’re a douchbag. You already admitted that it’s perfectly possible to estimate the amount of voter fraud. Since it has been estimated to be around 0, you know that this confidence bit is a complete sham.
You’re willing to hang your hat on it because in terms of integrity you’re a fraud yourself. It serves your purpose of getting Mitt Romney elected.
Think about that - you’re willing to trade any appearance of integrity to get Mitt Romney elected. MITT. ROMNEY.
Well, sir, we’ve already determined what you are. Now we’re just negotiating a price.
I realize, Hentor, that the only way you can win arguments is to simply announce what your opponents know, what they have conceded, and toss in a couple of insults for good measure, but I as much as I like to help the disadvantaged, I am afraid I can’t let you continue the practice unchallenged.
No, I don’t agree that it’s perfectly possible to estimate the amount of voter fraud. That’s YOUR bizarre claim, based on the framework that unless voter fraud is proven by criminal conviction it doesn’t exist.
Anyway, the idea that individuals voting illegally will be able to sway the result of any election above the level of County Dogcatcher are hilarious.
If people were so petrified of voter fraud they should be focused on the actual ways in which one could sway an election: the manufacturers and source code of electronic voting machines (who, like Diebold, tended to have executives who campaigned for Republican causes). Why go through the efforts of convincing thousands of people to risk jailtime voting illegally when you already control how the votes are counted?
Standardising on audited, open source voting machines would be much more effective than any Photo ID law in cracking down on fraud.
Good evening, I’m Leonard Pinth Garnell, and this is Bad Analogy Theater. Tonight, we have another really bad analogy from that Master of the Form, the Counselor…
You don’t “get” cowpox by vaccination, your body responds to the introduction of the cowpox virus by manufacturing antibodies that also work perfectly well against smallpox. And no, ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny, so don’t even go there!
And so long as we are about it, exactly who is making the claim of disenfranchisement that so urgently requires your rebuttal? From here, it appears you are asserting a truth simply for the novelty of the experience…
As far as I know that’s the correct spelling. You shouldn’t assume something is misspelled because the spell-checker in your browser doesn’t know the word. incentivises - Wiktionary, the free dictionary
No, it allows stupid and uninformed people (who think that there is a large amount of voter fraud) to feel more confident. If ever there was an example of what a horrible person you are, this is up there.
Well, since I’ve demonstrated that it isn’t a good law, we are left with only your blind and vapid partisanship to speak for it.
I really wish that God did exist, just for the outrage you’d have at being cast into hell.
Skip, nobody really claims that voter fraud sways elections in favor of the Democrats. Nobody here, at any rate. They will imply it, insinuate it, sidle up next to it, sure, but not actually say it.
All of which you have done - including conceding that there is no evidence whatever that the alleged problem exists in any significant or even detectable amount, that such evidence either way is unobtainable, that there is no evidence that the *perception * of this invented “problem” your party’s mouthpieces invented actually exists, or that your proposed “solution” would address the problem even if it did exist.
Yet you stick with your position nonetheless. Remarkable.
That is your patented approach to “debate” here - the assertion that *only *the law and its results matter. But it’s an improvement to have you acknowledge that it’s “bizarre”; that’s a new and welcome development - unless it was actually just an inadvertent slip, as is more likely.
Given the above facts and your acknowledgment of them, one can only infer that your definition of “trust in the outcome” is based on what the outcome is, not how it was arrived at. One wonders if you’d rather just dispense with elections altogether, but one doesn’t have to wonder much.
IOW, you have proven once again what a dishonest partisan hack you are.
Just curious, how long did you have to live in this alleged “poverty” before the ARENA version of Odessa bailed you out? :dubious:
You’re the one who keeps dragging convictions into this, bitch. I’ve never said a word about them. So, logical contortions, fallacies, argumentum ad populum, and now outright lying. This thread has been one big embarrasing loser for you.
Well of course not. That would require evidence of illegal voting actually having a statistically significant effect.
Voter ID proponents have their panties in a knot over an average 0.0009% discrepancy in electoral results. Observe this graphic from the most recent elections in Wisconsin showing percentage incorrectly counted votes by county. In some counties up to 0.76% of votes were incorrectly counted! That’s nearly 850X more significant than illegal voting.
I’m sure the politicians who are vigorously campaigning for Voter ID laws will quickly move to this much more (850 time more) pressing concern? Right?
That’s right by merely choosing the correct type of vote tabulation method one can effect the results by a full 1%! That’s over 1100X more significant than our sinister horde of illegal voters! Someone get Hans Van Spakovsky on the phone stat!
As a matter of fact, for most of the 30 years I’ve been voting, all I had to do was walk up and sign under my printed name to vote. And most of the time the people manning the polls recognized me because the polls are “right around the corner”. Registration should be just as easy. They could even offer registration at the polls.
The issue here isn’t about voting, it’s about making registering to vote harder than the act of voting.
It is not up to government to put barriers in the way of voting. It’s ironic in the extreme that it’s the “small government” people that are in favor of government getting in the way of voting.
Canada has similar laws with higher rates of voter participation. Plus our elections run for a month and are usually not predictable as to when they occur. We don’t have a 4 year lead time to sort out our ID.
Oddly enough every country that has voter ID has higher levels of voter participation. Coincidence? Probably, but who knows.
For 90% of people this isn’t a barrier. They just show up and flash their ID. They then vote.
For the majority of the remaining 10% this isn’t a barrier, they can get an ID. So, for the last 1% (probably a hell of a lot smaller actually) what are you doing for them to help resolve their problem? Not just to resolve their issue with voting, but their issue with not being able to prove who they are so they can apply for government services and all the other benefits that ID can bring you? Frankly, voting is the least of THEIR worries.
So to add insult to injury, you deny them their vote? On the off chance a handful of them commit voter fraud (rather than voter registration fraud), you decide hundreds of thousands of people need to jump a special hoop?
The fricking vote is the foundation of a democracy. It should be the easiest thing in the country to do.
This is like those “public safety” roadblocks they sometimes erect in the south on election day. No sir, everyone coming out of that black neighborhood, black or white, is going to be stopped. We’re not being selective.
Budgie?Gamey? Sorry, but you each lose 50 internet points for semantic imprecision. Bricker wins the internet, adding another to an unbroken string of 10,314. Shodan will be reading the message on his answering machine or voicemail…
