I feel more confident already!
Ah, so the one voter that was turned away at the polls due to not having an acceptable ID did turn the race.
If I were a virginian, I would have lost all confidence in the election system at this point.
Not at all!
The people of Virginia are wise enough to understand that if anyone can’t get an ID to vote, when it’s offered for no cost, it’s their own damn fault, not a barrier to voting that should concern anyone.
That’s the way we roll in Virginia, where personal responsibility means something.
Then I guess it’s fortunate for all concerned that you’re not.
I’m a Virginian, and I can’t muster up much confidence for a system that practices psychometry on spoiled ballots.
Who cares?
Seriously, you keep saying this as though I’m arguing that there is.
I’m not. I am arguing that an ultra-close election can be tipped by only a few cases – not a “systemic” instance – of fraud.
You can’t address that point, so all you know how to do is pivot and whine about how there isn’t systemic fraud.
But you can hardly argue there is ZERO fraud. And while usually the incidence of fraud is so low that it wouldn’t affect results, when an ultra-close election comes along, that general rule changes.
Try addressing that argument, and not pretending I am saying anything about systemic or widespread fraud.
I argue that the “damage” is illusory, and that it’s perfectly legitimate to impose such a minuscule burden on the voter as the obtaining of a free photo ID represents. The legislature of Virginia agreed with me, as did the governor, and do did all the courts that issued final judgements on the issue. So that’s how it is – that’s how issues like this get decided in a representative democracy like ours.
Now, I know you only like democracy when it yields the result you like, and so you’re perfectly willing to try to overturn this decision by chicanery and unscrupulousness subterfuge like loudly claiming people are being “disenfranchised.” But it won’t work.
It’s amusing to watch you desperately try, though, so keep going. The next liberal proposal to count 2 as equal to 3, night as equal to day, and yes as equal to no should be highly entertaining.
Fortunate for me, sure, as I would be pretty pissed at the system. Of course, were I a virginian, I would have voted for the democrat, which would have taken care of the whole problem right there.
So, fortunate for me, fortunate for you who would prefer to see republicans continue to use any trick they can to prevent the people from asserting their power, but not so fortunate for the majority of people of your state who will need to suffer further under the regressive policies you and your party celebrate.
Even with voter ID, you cannot claim that there is zero fruad. Even if you have fingerpritnts and retinal scans and DNA assays, you still cannot argue that there would be zero fruad. Especially whne none of that is needed for an absentee ballot.
But, since you have made so damn sure that there is as close to no in person voter fraud as possible, then at least yo uknow that that is not the reason that your fellow virginians should have no confidence in the electoral system. Sounds like you should really be addressing other avenues of potential fraud, if your concern is actually the integrity of the election.
If you do not address other avenues of fraud, then your concern about vote integrity is shown to be a blatant lie.
Actually overturning the deicsion by democracy itself, electing people into office taht does not agree with you, that’s the goal. All your other implications are simply fantasies that your so hated strawman liberal would do.
Connection to reality=0
Case in point, your little ditty here.
Yeah, that’s what happens. You do know that the person that your party put into the presidency follows your script there exactly. You are projecting your own concerns and insecurities about your own failing party onto others, again. If you are so against these tactics, then stop fantasizing that it is your opponents that are engaging in them, and confront your own people that are.
I disagree with their acceptance of the tying vote according to the rules in this pdf.
Pgs. 4-6. My interpretation: Additional clarifying marks can be considered when indicating ‘approval’ of a candidate. Additional clarifying marks cannot be used to strike one of two indicated candidates unless all but one candidates are stricken through.
Except that you never see me attacking the goal of overturning legislation by this method.
Search in vain my eighteen years of posting here – you won’t find me criticizing this method of changing law.
You, on the other hand, are pleased when a court ignores the written text of the law in favor of the result you favor. That’s what you’re fighting for: judges to act as wise philosopher kings and rule by fiat, using their ideas of what a wise and just society should be doing, if only the stupid voters stopped voting for stupid unenlightened “unwoke” leaders.
Right?
Of course right.
And you never see me attempting to rule by fiat. I have pointed out numerous times that that is my preferred method of changing law, that you then attack me for wishing for a law to be changed is in fact, you attacking the goal of overturning legislation by that method.
Yeah, you can shove that right back in your ass where you pulled it from. I suggest using a cactus if you are having difficulties.
You need to get over yourself. You have some sort of paranoid fantasy version of liberal that you are debating against here, and it just makes you look pathetic to any neutral observer (that has made it this far), and discrediting yourself for when you actually do have a pont, and are right about stuff (which I will admit, does happen frequently, but not as often as you think or would like.)
Wait, are you saying you did NOT favor efforts to dump these laws by demanding the courts somehow stop them??
If so, then you’re right: I do owe you an apology for painting with too broad a brush.
Since when does someone need to deserve to vote?
I’m a Virginian and I think that laws that make it harder for folks to vote are both immoral and anti-Democratic. Even if the motivation is voter integrity (which, IMO, it’s usually not, at least from the legislators’ point of view). It’s far worse when the motive is partisan, as it usually is, IMO.
He means a real Virginian.
A venerated Virginian veteran, verily.
Cries the one who celebrates McConnell’s chicanery and unscrupulous[del]ness[/del] subterfuge.
As soon as I saw the headline in today’s post I knew that that you would come here to claim vindication. The problem is that while you seem to think that we are pointing to how few votes are illegal because we don’t think that a such a small number of votes matter, that we don’t recognize that a few grains of sand on one side of the scale can tip it one way or another.
This isn’t our argument at all. Our argument is that while an erroneous grain of sand might tip the scale, the thumb you put on the scale to prevent erroneous grains of sand is far more likely to tip the scale. Sure even with the thumb there its possible that the scale will tilt by one grain of sand, but that just means that without the thumb it would have been a runaway victory. We think that these laws are far more likely to turn the outcome due to discouraging willing legal voters than they are going to prevent the turning of the election due to illegal votes. We realize that you would far rather create unnecessary obstacles that discourage thousands of the party you oppose from voting rather than allow one additional illegal vote, but we think otherwise.
We may just need to agree to disagree.
Alternatively since as a solipist the only person I can actually know for sure exists is myself, I think just to be on the safe side I should be the only one who is allowed to vote. Can’t have any non-existant people voting can we. 
See, this is why you get pitted.
Nobody said there was zero fraud - that’s a straw man. Might work in your courtroom but it won’t work in this one. We’re talking about a handful of cases of fraud that were documented in the presidential election – compared to thousands of voters who are impacted by things like voter ID laws and who get their names thrown off of voter rolls by cross-check systems that target certain demographics.
That’s a shame. Do you also believe that your view on the issue should prevail even though more of your fellow Virginians disagree, and they expressed that disagreement by electing delegates and state senators who enacted that disagreement into law, and elected a governor who signed the law?
Is that your view of how this business should work? That you get to decide the issue, regardless of what the legislature says?
And in turn, my argument is that the “thumb,” doesn’t create any obstacle to voting that reasonable people would object to.
This is why Voter ID laws enjoy such broad public support.
But I am certainly willing to agree to disagree.