No. How would I know what answer another poster would give? I’m not a mind reader.
I have no problem with the idea of securing our elections against fraud. I don’t think it happens often, and I seriously doubt that it has ever swung an election, but as far as a “neutral value” or whatever term of art Bricker likes to use, it’s a perfectly acceptable motive to have.
The problem, as has been discussed exhaustively in these threads is the implementation of voter ID, and how its implementation impacts (by accident or design, you decide!) the ability of eligible voters to cast their ballots.
If all voter ID laws were exactly the way they were, even the ones that have been struck down or altered by the SC, but, you had an alternative option of leaving your fingerprint behind in order to cast a vote, then there really would be none of this talk of disenfranchisement. The motives of those proposing such measures would not be called into question.
Of course, not having seen this being seriously proposed by nearly anyone (with the power to implement it), and not adopted by anyone at all (with the same caveat), when i is such a simple solution does call into question the motives of proponents of Voter ID.
Now, as far as whether Bricker himself really believes in using fingerprints as ID, and really has advocated on their behalf, or if he is just using it as a smokescreen to hide his motives is not something I know, or even care to speculate about. For the purposes of the discussion, I have no problem taking people at their word.
Politicians are a different beast. I start with a feeling of mistrust to their actions, and see where we go from there. Actions are all that are important in their realm, and so unless they actually implement a voter ID system that is all inclusive, then I must assume that their intent is to create a Voter ID system that excludes people.
There are two types of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
It seems to me that the topic changed to two people, who seem to have opposite views on a lot of things, agreeing that a fingerprint taken during the voting process would satisfy one’s thoughts on needing an ID while simultaneously satisfying another’s thoughts on the hardships associated with getting an ID.
For some reason, this agreement seemed to have provoked **elucidator’s ** spiel about voter suppression and electoral stacking. Since I really couldn’t see the connection between his outburst and the current status of this thread, I asked a follow up question.
Yes, and I extrapolated from his outburst that he is an idiot who can’t discuss something rationally. I simply asked him a question in order to disabuse myself of that notion and provide a way for him to show he’s not an idiot.
I can extrapolate all day long. I’d rather receive clear answers from people.
I’m not a mind reader either. I did, however, read the first paragraph of his post.
Since your such a fan of clear answers, can I trouble you to provide one. Are you for or against using voter ID laws as back door voter suppression?
I’m against it. Without using mind reading, only ordinary reading, my operational hypothesis is that elucidator is also against it. Where do you stand?
I really don’t care what method or ID you use, but if the only state-approved fingerprint ink somehow doesn’t work on fingers with high melanin content, be prepared for a court challenge.
You’re right! It also disenfranchises those people with NO HANDS! :eek:
I am against using voter ID laws as back door voter suppression.
Actually that was a trick question. I knew how you would answer it before I asked. Almost no one will state flat out that they are for using voter ID laws as back door voter suppression. Unfortunately, there are people in this world who are actually using voter ID as back door voter suppression. Those people are assholes and that is what this thread is about.
Some other hypothetical law that is not back door voter suppression can be debated on its own merits, but that is not what this thread is about. Attempts to make this thread about other imaginary laws that do other imaginary things may be met with an outburst.
I wasn’t aware that you or other posters were the “thread police” And I’m really astounded that if a thread becomes something else that you self-appointed “thread police” don’t think it should, it’s met with a written tantrum-like outburst on par with a 5 year old child.
Also, I cannot be fooled by “trick questions”
Gosh, Lance, I guess we’ve been told.
I’m pretty sure **Drunky Smurf **won’t appreciate you stealing his schtick.
I can’t be, I’m not even drunk yet.
Are you Blueish? You don’t look Blueish.
I give these guys $5 each month to do exactly that. http://www.voteriders.org/
If all of you guys did the same, maybe more people would be able to vote.
And you attest and aver, on The Cecil and the Luminous Mods, that you’ve checked them out and they got boney fidos? Good enough for me, $5 it is.
I don’t know how to check any further, but I can say they have a website that looks like a fair amount of effort has been put into it, a Wikipedia article, a recommendation in a Huffington Post article, and nothing negative that I can find through a Google search. They list a hotline and a contact email for people who need IDs, and they list a bunch of partner organizations they say they work with, like the Brennan Center and Rockthevote. I started donating because I was angry about all of the kinds of voter suppression I keep hearing about, and this was one that maybe I could do something to thwart it.
Sold. Chaps my hide to have to help solve a problem that ought not exist, but a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do, whacka-do, whacka-do.
Thanks for posting this link. Seems like a worthy cause to donate money.
Better than uselessly bitching about IDs on a message board anyway.