So this is the extent of your own comment on Crosscheck. You have no intelligible comment to make on it one way or the other? Thousands of posts by you in this thread in support of GOP perfidy and you have nothing further to add?
Well, we have to admit that most of us were misled by the OP and the title, which strongly suggested that the central issue of the thread was Republican conspiracy and perfidy. Only Bricker had the insight and intelligence to realize that the true central issue of the thread was the validity of voter id, as a principle.
Yes, but he’s also demonstrated malice on the issue of voter names, laughing at an old man who can’t vote because the name on his birth certificate was misspelled. Bricker thinks that man won’t deserve to vote until he goes through the bureaucratic rigmarole required to adopt the misspelling, 70 years later or such.
I can see him laughing at the voters disenfranchised by Crosscheck: “If you really want to vote, change your surname from Gonzales to something more WASPy. Ha ha ha! Nanner Nanner Nanner! Your side would do it too if you had smart cookies like Karl Rove on your team.”
Which is why others have to speak for him. If he has nothing to add then there’s no debate, so they have to fill in the blanks.
If I remember correctly, your actual dialog was something to the effect of “they tried to restrict minority voting this way in the past, which is evidence that when they did the exact same thing this time they weren’t targeting minority voters.” Which wasn’t particularly convincing as far as arguments go.
But perhaps if you can find evidence that Republicans have tried to restrict minority voting using name databases in the past, which would be evidence that when they do the same thing this time they not actually trying to restrict minority voting, because reasons.
I believe it stems from a legalistic mode of thought that contends, among other concepts, “you can’t prove I’m lying, therefore I’m telling the truth.”
If you’re writing my dialog, why would you want me to interfere?
While I admit my own curiosity how long you’ll spin out the “you clearly don’t want MY opinion” mock indignation, it’s in close competition with how you (or anyone, really) can put a positive spin on this.
If neither you nor anyone else will step up, I’ll try to think up something on my own. Whether or not it will end up looking like a parody of something you’d say will be in the eye of the beholder.
You constantly whine about how oppressed you are. Maybe you should take some personal responsibility.
So you think we’re asking for your opinion because we don’t want to hear it? Birds-of-a-feather flocking-together may mean that most of your acquaintances are lying hypocrites, but that doesn’t mean we are.
Crosscheck has been in the news recently. With no less than Two Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Bricker posts in this thread, can’t you spare a paragraph or two to give us the Brckerite wisdom on Crosscheck? Does it improve citizen confidence in electoral integrity? Is the fact that only GOP legislatures adopt it evidence that the GOP is the Party most concerned about fair elections?
I suppose there are one or two Dopers who will just parse your words for their humor content, but surely you have hundreds of fans eagerly awaiting your wisdom.
Bricker has said, repeatedly, I might add, that I support the actions of the Mass legislature flipping who appoints replacement senators. He said that his evidence that I support it was that I didn’t post anything about it.
In that respect, we must assume that Bricker supports Crosscheck without reservation. Or, that he’s a stupid hypocrite bitch. One or the other.
Crosscheck exists because states are violating the Help America Vote Act, which requires states to maintain updated lists of voters, and to regularly purge voters who are dead or have moved.
I’d note that Help America Vote, which has ID requirements and purge requirements, was passed with overwhelming support from Democrats. ALthough that was before they realized they had a turnout problem.
That may be why it exists but is it helpful in the maintenance of voter lists to assume the John Smith listed in one state and the John Smith listed in another state are the same person, on name-basis alone?
The concerns about the right way to do voter purges are legitimate. What is not legitimate is to oppose all purges because there might be mistakes. If Republican states are overzealous in their purge efforts that should be called out. But Florida actually wanted to do their purges right a few years ago and had to go to court to get the federal government to share their databases because the administration didn’t want any purges at all.
The better question is why you would want to allow him to write your dialog.
This shit is why I consider you really partisan. It’s what you refuse to say.
Got an example of a purge done right? May as well establish a baseline.
:smack: Crosscheck is the brain-child of Kris Kobach a partisan right-winger who became famous for legal mischief (overriding his Assistant) to scre the Democratic ballot in a 2014 Senate race.
For newcomers: Ignore everything adaher writes. If it doesn’t come with a cite, you can assume it is a lie.
Purges are a regular feature of maintaining databases. Generally they only make headlines when they go badly wrong, or when a partisan administration decides to interfere in contravention of the law.
It’s good for Rolling Stone to report on Crosscheck, and I’m surprised the mainstream media hasn’t been interested. There’s certainly room for mischief here, although Rolling Stone failed to prove any. All they found is that government databases are not very accurate. Who knew?
I suggest you read up on the Help America Vote act, which requires regular maintenance of voter databases.
Democrats supported that law. If they now oppose purges, then they should pass laws outlawing the maintenance of voter lists. Oh wait, no balls. Democrats also have yet to have the guts to actually repeal a voter ID law either. They know where the public stands on this, so they work through unelected activist groups and the courts instead.
Yes. Elections, like prisons, are best turned over to the private sector.