When grownups do things, does it always look like naked and unprincipled cynicism? So, they actually used to believe in democracy, but grew out of it?
Yes, if we’re idiots. :rolleyes: Again, I’m going to straight-up make the claim: voter ID laws make elections less representative of the will of the populace. And I have pretty good backing for that – voting fraud is negligible, while the number of people with no ID is not. The point being, of course, that it takes a certain level of ignorance for this law to increase our confidence in democracy. And by that, I mean you have to have no fucking clue about voter fraud. Hell, I already pointed out how we could implement other methods which would be way better. AlienVision pointed out how much larger the issues of the actual vote-counting are. Why not start there?
Yes. Only if you’re a moron, or if you don’t have the full picture, or if you’re a partisan hack with no respect for the democratic process. I think you’re options 1 and 3; most of the Americans supporting this law are option 2, mainly because they were told it by people who were partisan hacks.
Great. Let’s solve that problem first. Let’s make it so that voter ID laws don’t disenfranchise more people than are liable to be disenfranchised by fraudulent voting before we implement voter ID laws. Hell, I can instantly think of ways to fix the problem. Retinal scans, performed upon the first time you register. Fingerprinting. DNA testing! None of this is contingent upon the person in question having something that 10% of the population lacks, and it also completely removes any possibility of voter fraud, unlike voter ID laws, where a fake ID still allows for fraud.
But you know what? I’m kinda worried that you’d say this:
“Frankly, voting is the least of THEIR worries.”
That’s scary. You (and others) have, in this thread, repeatedly implied the opinion that those without ID don’t deserve to vote, or just don’t vote (the latter with no evidence whatsoever, of course). Newsflash: voting is a basic right. If you cannot self-determine your government, that’s a problem. And you seem to have the perspective that if they cannot get their shit together and get ID, they don’t deserve to vote. Am I out of line in inferring this? Because if not, you should really be ashamed of yourself.
Still waiting on your values for X and Y, by the way.
All known levels of voter fraud in the US are between 0.0004% and 0.0009% and that level remain consistent because as the Brennan Centre explains, voter fraud is extremely rare and irrational. On a national scale assuming the most pessimistic levels (0.0009%) in the 2008 presidential elections where 131 million turned out to vote 1200 votes were due to voter fraud.
Let’s stick with the recent Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election because that was hotly contested and both sides were expecting a win. Walker won 53% to 46% and by over 170 000 votes. Of the over 2.5m votes cast in Wisconsin around 22 votes can be attributed to outright voter fraud with the currently accepted voter fraud rates. To change the result (over 170 000 votes) would require over 7000X more fraudulent voters in Wisconsin alone than in the entire United States.
You also make the assumption that voter fraud sways the results in the direction of one party only. In reality it probably affects each party equally and has a cancelling out effect despite the implications that voter fraud goes one way and one way only.
So never mind fraudulent voting, the fact of the matter is that errors in vote counting is much more significant. Nearly 1000 times more significant. Yet the efforts of the Voter ID proponents to ensure that their elections have ‘integrity’ are to focus on the issue that is far far less worrisome.
And that’s because it is much less risky getting someone to stay to home who would’ve voted for your opponent instead of organising a large conspiracy to move elections in your candidates favour. And much more effective.
In the 2008 elections nearly all cases of reported voter suppression not due to long waiting lines (in Michigan, Montana, Minnesota and Wisconsin) would favour Republican candidates.
And again in this revealing example from the 2010 Maryland gubernatorial elections (from the above link):
30 days for possibly shifting over 100 00 votes? Shouldn’t Voter ID proponents be screaming for the death sentence here?
So wail and punch at the phantom of fraudulent votes, your own vote is a thousand times more likely to have been erroneously counted. Who knows how many times you’ve voted for the other party?
And as for the GOP’s own party’s track record of voter suppression… well that speaks for itself.
And you think that would work? Sure, give it a try next time you’re in the neighborhood.
Voting is trivial. The polling places are generally as convenient if not more so than the corner store, especially in those areas where people are least likely to meet the increased burden of proof GOPers are trying to gerrymander into the system. And voting by internet would probably be harder. Polling places have people that will help you. Again, you betray a lack of familiarity with the circumstances of the poor. You claim you grew up poor, but at best you seem to have lost the perspective and understanding of the consequences of being poor.
You should be able to register to vote with any of a number of pieces of evidence of residency whenever polling places are open.
Grownups aren’t making the rules. They’re gaming the system. This shit doesn’t pass the smell test. You don’t add rules to the system without demonstrating that in fact they address a problem in the system and that the burden and impact of said rules do not cause more of a problem than they’re intended to solve. These GOP shenanigans do none of that.
No, everyone who is eligible to vote should vote. But there are eligibility requirements that have to be met. There may be an age restriction, there may be a criminal conviction restriction, there may be residency requirements. There are logistical restrictions: you must get your ass down to a polling station, etc. They all exist and must be met before you can vote. Each one of those restrictions can cause disenfranchisement. Many of them stop more people from voting than a simple ID requirement.
My personal opinion is that the opinion of people who can’t do simple tasks like getting an ID are not the people you want deciding much of anything let alone who runs the country. If it the most powerful country in the world, even less so. If they can’t manage basic requirements, then I don’t think you are missing anything if their opinion, such as it is, isn’t heard.
BPC, it makes more sense if you think of it as a kind of “electoral eugenics”. Only the most worthy pass on their political will to the country.
Harder? Why? I could write a Javascript counter for a webpage in five minutes.
Of course, it would rely on the honor system, but as you say, voting should be as easy as possible – no barriers like proving your identity or ensuring you only vote once should be in place to mar your perfect, Utopian, voting experience.
Right?
Not remotely. What I understand is the need for all voters – poor and comfortable alike – to take responsibility for being able to vote, and undertake certain reasonable actions in furtherance of that right.
I don’t care what your personal “smell test” is. I care about two things:
- Did the legislature pass the law?
- Did the court system approve the law as not violative of the Constitution?
In the case of Voter ID, the answer is Yes, and Yes. Your personal gut feels, smell tests, or other bodily function-based analysis is of no interest to me. You’re like a toddler, with your stamping your feet and declaring, “You don’t add rules to the system without demonstrating that in fact they address a problem!” Yeah, I do. It’s done. Read the papers. It happened.
Let’s be honest here Bricktwat. The only two things you care about is Bricker and Bricker. You’re amoral.
It is legal, but the question of the thread is if it is right. They aren’t the same thing.
And someone with a molecule of class would realize that a law passed by a sudden partisan majority that came in on a wave, that didn’t actually solve the problem in purports to, and actually keeps thousands of times as many people from voting as would have fraudulently voted, and just-so-happens to create an enduring electoral advantage for that partisan majority, is a bad thing.
I wonder, do you feel a sense of honesty and suppress it, or do you just not have one?
I am forced to accept the legality of abortion, even though I personally believe it’s not right. This is because in a representative democracy, we don’t make rules based on what some minority thinks is “right.”
I don’t agree with your assessment of right and wrong in this situation. And you don’t agree with mine on the question of abortion.
So I accept that duly elected representatives, and the court system, have the legitimacy to make policy concerning abortion. I don’t whine like a little puppy about how wrong it all is, because as a grown-up, I recognize that my own vision of right and wrong must sometimes yield to the majority’s view. I don’t enjoy it, but I accept it.
You, on the other hand, simply don’t understand this process. You’re stuck at the whining stage. So my only advice to you is: go ahead. Continue to whine. For variety, perhaps you can piddle on some spread-out newspapers to show your outrage. That will have roughly the same effect.
You do know that this is an internet message board, right?
Are you of the opinion that the only things that can be discussed here are things that are not yet enacted by a legislature? What a vapidly stupid idea.
It’s weird, it’s like you’re stuck in gloat-mode. “This is the law, nyaaaa!” is becoming a common Bricker talking point. Well, I guess it’s easier than justifying your opinions based on intelligent reasoning.
Keep fucking that chicken, Bricktop.
Keep pissing on the newspaper, Lobohan.
Keep on pissing on the founding fathers, you unprincipled scallywag!
Jesus Christ, these political pittings grow fast.
I’m not going to read through nineteen pages of vitriol and partisanship, but I want to ask a question (if it hasn’t been asked already) to stir the pot a little: If Republicans are so concerned about voter fraud, why were the obviously flawed, insecure, buggy, paperless Diebold voting machines rammed through Congress into law?
Been very honest. Brazenly cynical, an unflinching worship of power for its own sake. Made a stab at dressing it up to look all principled and high-minded, but now we’re down to the nitty gritty, which is fuck you, we win, suck on this, neener neener.
Rather refreshing, in a way, like a cold glass of lemonade squeezed from a rotten lemon.
And if it works out, if the Republicans eek out an electoral “victory” out of all this, he will be right down here to tell us about how the people have spoken, how their will is made manifest by the sacred rite of voting, and how we should all honor and applaud the pristine purity of the electoral process.
Oh, and liberal hypocrisy. That will probably get a mention as well.
That’s a good question. I don’t know. What law are you talking about?
“Scallywag?” Wow. How … 19th century of you.
Well, sir, you are a blackguard.
The Help America Vote Act of 2002.
Wait—I think you’re being unfair here. I mean, you may believe you are right on abortion or some other issue, but Lobohan really, really believes he is right on this and other issue. I don’t think it’s fair of you to ignore that distinction.
Bricker; most of the time you seem to be arguing simply that the voter suppression laws are legal and that is the end of discussion, other than the gloating and chuckling–which is distasteful, but expected–there is little argument against that, however, that is not the subject of this discussion. The issue at hand is whether the laws are good, on a few occasions you have said in this very thread that the laws are good, citing (I guess) voter confidence, yet you fail to show harm. I cannot see any damage you have incurred as a result of your supposed unsureness. Have you quit voting? Have you lost anything? I do not see that you have any standing in this discussion, your dog is not in this fight.
I hold several professional licenses, I have a valid passport, I have numerous ways to show my residency and for that matter I have credit cards in a rainbow of precious metal colors. None of these will allow me to vote if the Minnesota Constitution is to be changed this fall. I will, reluctantly, be forced to go obtain a Minnesota Identification, this harms me.
My grandmother does not have a birth certificate, I assure you she was born. The hoops she would have to jump through to get a state ID are onerous. Harmful.
I know a lovely, hard working couple without state ID. They will have to request two birth certificates and as she took his name a copy of the marriage certificate. Two free state IDs, $59. Harmful.
I know a very intelligent (yet occasionally practically challenged) young man who stupidly parked his car in the wrong place, for various reasons he couldn’t afford to get the rust bucket jalopy out of the impound lot nor pay the parking ticket. His driver’s license has since expired and there isn’t a damned thing I can do to convince young homey to go to the DMV. It’s right there, next to City Hall, yeah, right there where those cop cars are parked, let’s go!. No way. Harmful.
It’s all well and fun to talk about the issue of voter suppression but most of you are talking theory, I am right here to tell you that actual harm is possibly going to be done to me.
Uzi; unless you can show proof of residency, you cannot just waltz into a polling place. My mother has been an Election Judge in Edina MN for fifty years, registration is not as easy as you may think. I am somewhat heartened to see you admit that you think some people are not as worthy as you to cast their ballot. Wouldn’t it be lovely if those yucky people just kept quiet and out of the way!