And yet unstandardised and unsuitable voting procedures, which have an actual measurable impact on election results, have no effect on voter confidence right?
If you’re prepared to support stupid laws in the name of “voter confidence” with this effort I can only imagine the effort and support you will put in to lobby for a law that could improve election results (and “voter confidence”) by over 11 000%!
Also I should add that anyone who thinks that once Photo ID laws are implemented that voter fraud will somehow drop to 0% and remain there is seriously deluding themselves. ‘Voter confidence’ is a red herring and while you might claim it as your justification, very few other Photo ID boosters do.
For all intents and purposes ‘voter confidence’ will be the same as it is now: that 99.999% of all votes cast are legitimate.
Pretty much. Make noise about “voter fraud” while ignoring completely the much more prevalent (and more likely to swing elections) election fraud. And we don’t want to prevent voter fraud because it is or has ever been a real problem in regard to the validity of elections - but because it may be. Some day.
Zoiks! You’re getting tiresome. I already addressed this which you would know if you had actually read what I wrote before having a temper tantrum. I’ll grant you the benefit of the doubt that you simply overlooked what I said though my patience is limited.
I not only read the actual language, I quoted it. I read the amendment proposal, I read the referendum as proposed, I read the bill that was vetoed, I read the voter ID bills that were not passed. I live and do business here. The actual language says “valid photographic identification as prescribed by law.” It may come to pass that the law, yet to be written, will allow a passport to vote, or it may not. You may speculate that it will but you cannot say with certainty that it will. You also cannot say that I will be able to register using only my passport.
When I started this fight the proposal was for state issued ID proving identity and residency, which quite obviously would preclude the use of a passport. I worked against this and have seen the language grow weaker and more vague and ultimately the bill vetoed. I have invested a great deal of time, energy and money to defeat this entire issue. The victories are small and often short-lived yet I continue to fight and hope to see the referendum defeated at the polls.
And the voter confidence of those being harassed and hassled by all of this? Their voter confidence doesn’t count? Remember when I asked you about the Sunday voting that black voters were so fond of, asking you for a legitimate reason why this must be turned back? To your credit, you didn’t try to pretend you actually had an answer, you tossed out some lame suggestion about maybe they were trying to save money, and then ducked down your hidey-hole.
Well, what about their voter confidence? Can you explain this to them in such a way as to erase their reasonable suspicion that the Republican Party is looking to make it harder for them to vote, and to decrease their turnout?
Of course, in one of your rare but endearing bursts of candor, you have already admitted this. But clearly this will have a negative effect on their voter confidence, it can hardly do otherwise. And even more than just the people directly affected, black people all over the country will hear about this, one more yellow drop of pee as they are trickled down upon. Roughly one in ten Americans. Quite a lot of voter confidence being lost, wouldn’t you say. I will. Thats a hell of a lot of voter confidence lost.
Well, gee, says Bricker, that’s too bad, but its ok because it helps stem the dreadful threat of voter fraud. A sacrifice they should be eager to make, is it? To thwart a threat you cannot prove exists. And ten years of feverish effort on the part of the Republican Party cannot prove exists. What do you say to them, Bricker? Suck it up, walk it off?
Perhaps you should suggest that they make themselves a willing sacrifice, for the sake of the Republican Party, which has shown itself inimical to their rights and their concerns?
Damned white of you.
If voter fraud could sway some very, very close elections, then creating barriers for ten percent of the population to vote could sway some not-that-close elections.
But Bricker don’t care. Bricker has his, and poor people can eat a dick.
Bricker’s cure for a dozen people committing voter fraud in five years? Make it harder for millions of people a year to vote.
Bricker’s cure for a hang-nail? Cut off the arm at the shoulder.
I know you’re really butt-hurt by all this and frustrated that you’re doing so poorly in the debate, really, do you not get that there are two, or more, aspects to “voter confidence”? One is the degree to which the total votes are representative of the electorate. The other is the confidence that the vote YOU cast will not be undermined by an illegal vote. I know you focus on the former. But why the hell are you so opposed to increasing confidence in the latter?
By the way, are you aware that Bricker’s heritage is South American? Or maybe Central American…
Magellan, you grouse. I know you want to cuddle up to Bricker, since primarily what you do is grovel at the feet of conservative posters who seem stronger than you. But 'luci isn’t losing the debate.
There is no debate. There is the side that has all the legitimate arguments. And Bricker’s side, which advocates making it harder for millions of people to vote, so you can stop literally tens of fraudulent votes a decade.
There is no argument. *Everyone *who looks at this dispassionately can see that.
So what?
Apparently upset that you can’t actually rebut any claims I’ve made, you’re now reduced to saying that no one else claims this as their rationale? Why is that relevant? The question is: is a it valid? The answer is: yes.
No. My intents and purposes are, as I have successfully defended here, not in agreement.
Your real argument is what you’ve hinted: you’re OK with a few illegal aliens voting. It doesn’t bother you. They’re demonstrating American spirit!
No, not with certainty.
Not like this kind of certainty:
Is that the kind of certainty you mean?
That really seems how a lying bastard would characterize that comment.
I think an intelligent and honest person might say, “We should stop the ten or so cases of fake voting that happen each election (or whatever very small number). But the solution shouldn’t be worse than the problem.”
I’ve said this before, but I don’t recall your response:
I have a box that when you press it, it saves five random people from dying of a heart attack. But it causes heart attacks in ten thousand people.
Why do you fight so hard to press the button? Are you stupid?
Actually no that was sarcasm.
And I would guess that most of the rare and few cases of voter fraud do not involve illegal aliens, rather US citizens attempting to vote twice or in a jurisdiction where they are not registered. The risk of being caught for an illegal alien is far greater than the reward.
Sure I can. My explanation to such people is: go vote. Then your vote will not have been suppressed, discouraged, or in any other way vitiated.
The voter confidence I speak of relates to actions entirely outside the hands of the voters: the worry that other people voting illegally may skewer a future election.
The voter confidence you speak of relates entirely to actions under those voters’ control. Go get the required ID and vote. It’s simplicity itself.
I’m not white. But thanks.
There’s virtually zero risk of being caught for an alien voting where no IDs are required. And a close election may usher in a DREAM-Act friendly politician. I have personally heard CASA of Maryland volunteers telling illegal aliens how easy it is to vote.
And – sure. It was sarcasm. Uh huh.
It’s a moronic analogy. The penalty here is not equivalent to heart attacks.
And – you know, even people who seemingly hate my guts acknowledge I’m not stupid. I can find ten posts from political enemies saying things like, “Bricker is intelligent,” though of course they go on to decry how I’m using my smarts for evil.
Interestingly, I don’t recall any posts that go out of their way to praise your intelligence. Certainly none from your political enemies, and really, none that I can remember from your political allies.
This is what you’re having a melt-down pity-party over? A parenthetical statement to another poster qualified by “I suppose it matters not”? I don’t even know what to say.
I can help you:
“Sorry, Bricker. You were right. I was talking out of my ass, and was wrong. In fact, though I have my worries, I don’t know for sure whether passports will be acceptable IDs, and it was wrong of me to suggest otherwise.”
And lest you believe that your “parenthetical comment” meant nothing, you can see for yourself that at least one person was surprised:
You are* now.*