Those? Seriously, those? The dog who registered? The guys who jiggered primary votes for a party nobody ever fucking heard of? That’s it? Man, when you get desperate, you get desperate! You know, I’m starting to feel a little bad about how much fun this is…
I really don’t care about voter fraud. I’m actually for literacy tests or intelligence tests, but I realize that the former has a poor racial history and that both could be corrupted by political influence or honest disagreement over what constitutes intelligence. But mandatory ID laws…
This is not 1912, it is 2012. If you are an adult living in this country and have so isolated yourself that you have survived without a valid picture ID, then I seriously question how engaged you have been with society to be able to make rational decision about who to elect to public office.
If told that you will not be able to vote unless you get said absolutely free picture ID, and you still refuse, then that clinches it, and you shouldn’t be able to vote.
This is the most unintrusive law that people actually get worked up over. (Oh noes, it costs 50 cents to catch a bus to get the free ID!!! Evil!!!)
That’s not it. That’s simply the first link I found as I started reviewing the thread. There are others.
So I found a new one. You asked to see earlier ones. I provided them. Now you say, “That’s it?”
Why don’t YOU go back through the thread and find them? It takes me ten times as long to find them as it takes you to ask the question.
Not the point, JT. The whole subtlety is that it is not so intrusive that guys like you will get worked up, its only intrusive enough to have a valuable strategic advantage for the Republicans. Some unknown number of potential Dem voters will be discouraged, and the Pubbies will reap the rewards. (And where do you catch a bus for 50 cents? Caught one lately?)
Is it legitimate for one party to manipulate the laws to their electoral advantage? I think not, YMMV.
And this:
All I ask is that you think carefully, and ask yourself if you really want to get to judging who deserves to vote, and who doesn’t? The people who already have it easy, already set and squared away…what did they do to “deserve” to vote?
Ms. Sowers was convicted for sending in absentee ballots with other voter’s names. How is that relevant in a thread on voter ID?
Or have you switched to our side and are now agreeing that voter ID won’t do a damn thing and if we’re going to do reforms, it should actually be in the places that will actually make a difference?
Well, it proves that all you guys who said there never ever was any sort of voter fraud ever were like totally lying! I demand that everybody who ever said there was never ever any voter fraud come here and apologize to Bricker! I didn’t say that, and you didn’t, but there’s just a whole bunch of people who did! Can’t recall any off hand, but we are assured that there’s just a ton of them!
So all they have to do is prove that it ever happened, anywhere, at any time, and its total victory!! Yeah, I know, they set the bar kinda low, but then, they have to, don’t they?
Clearly, jtgain has never used public transportation. It can take most of a day to get anywhere using it.
Talk to elucidator, who keeps announcing it’s not about Voter ID.
Is it?
Its not about the validity of voter ID, but the misuse of that validity to political gain. I’ll remind you any time you need me to, Bricker. Now that I know the extent of your memory issues, how could I refuse?
Oof. What a fail. Called out for screwing up and you cannot even man up.
Are you having a stroke?
Fuck, is this all you have left? Gibbering something and hoping no one will notice?
Let it be said just for the record: Bricker is the only one who had the stones to admit that it was a cynical partisan political tactic. Gotta count for something.
I really want to live in this world that keeps getting brought up where ID is just something you “get.”
Yes, that’s all I have.
Well, that and the number of states that have Voter ID laws! Woo hoo! Winning!
And you are a little poorer now than you were five minutes ago.
I’m not saying you aren’t on the winning side. I’m saying you’re a completely amoral partisan failure as a human being.
I’m saying your mother and father failed to create in you anything resembling decency while raising you.
Not that you aren’t currently supporting the guys who, having been swept in on a wave, decided to make it harder for their political enemies to get elected again. You’e evil, not losing.
Get it, dipshit?
Are you asking sarcastically, as in, “well, how would you propose to solve THAT, good sir”? Or are you genuinely curious?
And, before I attempt to answer, do you think this would be a good idea? If someone proposed a mechanism by which it would clearly be much harder for political parties to manipulate election-related laws for partisan gain, and the proposal was clearly sound and did not obvious loopholes or exploits, would you support it?
One side note: now that I think about it, I think this issue is a LOT like gerrymandering, in that it’s a party with a (presumably slim) majority at one point in time messing with the elections to the very legislative body they sit in in order to make their slim majority more permanent and robust than it should be. I think gerrymandering is INCREDIBLY unethical and antidemocratic, but it’s certainly legal in many places.
As for how I would “fix” things, at some level, my answer is “beats me, I’m not a political scientist or student of government”. But it would probably involve something like a non-partisan panel or governing body that is selected (like judges) for long terms, and this group of people is the one that oversees elections and election-related stuff. Basically, no elected body should ever be making laws about its own elections, as that’s such an invitation to partisan BS. Or there might be a much better idea… like I said, I’m not really qualified to come up with a solution here.
Now, “gerrymandering” is a fascinating and complex subject, one I cannot dismiss out of hand. As Facebook Bimbo says, “Its complicated.” The complex political dance that goes into creating districts for the House of Representatives is fascinating, in a mega-geek sort of way.
For instance, would I favor districting with an eye to racial demograpics, and thus ensuring black people a more direct voice? As a progressive with a strong egalitarian streak, sure. But wait. I also want racial barriers to dissolve, I want white Lutherans to vote for a black Muslim. Like where I live, gloat, gloat, lord it over…
What I instinctively oppose is “gerrymandering” as it was done in Texas, for no other purpose but to cage as many voters as possible into homogenous districts that have the effect of diluting a “wrong” demographic groups political power. Like if there’s 2000 black democrats in district 1A and 200 white Republicans in district 1b and they both get one representative. (An extreme example from imagination, so hold your “cite?” rockets…)
Worse is when they collude in it, the fucking whores! Like when the black politician accepts a larger population that is more reliably black, thus diluting their power, in return for safe seat, while his conservative counterpart stakes out the suburbs. They wink, they nod, they shake hands, and the deal is made.
Perhaps if we didn’t elect deal-makers? But they have to be deal-makers to perform their function, argument and compromise. You don’t hire a blind man to paint your house…
But enough. Suffice for the moment to say that I think it may be one of those functional evils that can only be mitigated by relentless vigilance on our elected servants. Servants steal, you know, if you don’t keep a sharp eye on them.
I think the entire idea of geographical political districts is a bit archaic in the age of the internet, and I think we should jettison it.
If 10% of a populace is absolutely passionate about issue X, and is going to want to elect candidates who will work on issue X, then you should end up with a legislature that has 10% of its members who are Xers, regardless of whether the 10% of the populace all live in a group together or whether they’re spread out all around.