How long are we going to play this ridiculous game? We bring up cites and data and you pretend they don’t exist.
Firstly there is no way to eliminate voter fraud. Ever. It happens now. It’ll happen when Voter ID laws are introduced.
Secondly as has been shown over and over again fraudulent votes in the US have absolutely no effect on the outcome of an election.
Anyone who believes that removing voter fraud will suddenly swing the results of elections is so ignorant of the actual facts that you might as well be arguing against a brick wall. They obviously don’t care about evidence or facts (or reality) so what’s the point?
Penn. has voted solidly D since 1992 with a 8% advantage. Do you honestly believe elimination of “voter fraud” is going to swing an election 8%? Do you think Turzai believes that?
Actually, friend Bricker, you are either lying or mistaken about that.
In that long ago thread Voyager said:
Emphasis mine. You quoted the emphasised section and said:
That was the last thing you said in that thread. There is no context missing, you simply made that post and stopped talking. Why are you saying you’re taken out of context? Why are you misrepresenting the conversation?
So which is it? Are you lying or are you mistaken?
This isn’t Mayberry where Goober knows that he can get a lift from Gomer. We’re talking the inner cities where you’ve got people working all kinds of odd hours to keep themselves going. Can they get to a government office across town? Maybe. Except for the hours. Except they may need a birth certificate, which they don’t have. Which requires another trip to another government office.
Absolutely, let’s help get them their IDs. It just isn’t going to be as easy as you think nor are there any benefits to them besides voting.
What you’re doing is asking one segment of society to make a significant investment in time and money to get something that more affluent people already have just so they can vote, with no other motivation for doing so than to make it so inconvenient that some will give up and not vote, changing the results of elections to those that you want to see.
I have a question that I don’t think has been covered. If I understand those opposed to voter ID laws, their reasoning, at least in part, is that it would disproportionately disenfranchise minority voters. The reasoning seems to be that there are a lot of poor minorities, particular Black voters, who are 1) poor and 2) don’t live near cities or towns that may have DMVs where they can get their IDs.
My question is, are we sure that people who fit criteria 1 and 2 are predominantly Black, or minorities. I was under the impression that most of the Black population was concentrated in cities, and, generally, the poor White people were more apt to live in the country or remote areas. Basically, inner-city ghettos tend to be Black and trailer parks and struggling farm and mining communities tend to White.
I also recall reading more than once, even on these boards, that there are many, many White people on welfare than Black people. That seems to give support to my thought that it seems very possible that voter ID laws might, in fact, rob more votes from a Republicans than Democrats.
I’ve heard it said that the people most likely to be without IDs are minorities, the young and the elderly (because they may not drive any more).
I don’t know the specific numbers and breakdowns, but I’d assume that most rural poor people have a drivers license. Many poor people in cities don’t drive cars.
I think the distinction is between urban poor and rural poor. Rural poor are much more likely to have drivers licenses and much more likely to vote Republican. Urban poor very often don’t drive and have no need for photo ID and trend Democratic. Voter ID laws would have little effect on one group and a devastating effect on the other.
You think the Republicans will sit idly by and let that happen? Did you notice how in Texas and Florida they rushed to add on extra voter registration restrictions? Did you wonder why?
The very first step the left made in that direction, of helping people get their documentation together? How long, do you think, it would be before the Pubbies start screaming “ACORN!!” at the top of their lungs? Measured in microseconds.
Magellan: to answer your question, I guess I’m not sure, but it seems to be something that (a) makes prima facie sense, and (b) no one seems to be disputing. To me at least, the theoretical part of this is more interesting than the practical sense. So if you come up with stats showing that the voters who don’t have IDs and would find it difficult to get IDs in some state that is considering enacting such a law are divided evenly among party lines, my objection to the law would, if not vanish, at least strongly decrease, but I think the generic and theoretical debate about legislatures changing the laws that govern their own election, laws whose actual justification is not what people claim it is, etc., would continue.
Keep in mind, it need not be “devastating”. It need only trim away enough votes to gain an advantage in close races. I think this was the original strategery of minds vast, cool, and unsympathetic. A smart, sound strategy with oodles of deniability built in, cynicism in its crystalline form.
I’m starting to think that the original planners of this have lost control. The inmates have taken control of the asylum, and aren’t taking their Thorazine any more, having switched to meth.
Hmm, fair point… certainly there’s been a fair bit of discussion of the issue of people who live far from DMVs, but I agree that there’s also a rural poor vs urban poor divide in which case those affected are in fact the ones who live in cities or towns.
That said, on a overall level I think that magellan basically grokked what our point was and asked a basically reasonable question.
Yes, mistaken. In my memory, you were the poster that prompted the statement; I forgot completely Voyager’s involvement. My error.
However:
You’ve quoted the context yourself: If you don’t accept that it is proper for society to tax its citizens to provide life sustaining healthcare for every person…
I don’t think it’s proper for society to tax its citizen to provide life sustaining health care for every person, and I can’t believe you do either. If the cost of the life sustaining health care is huge, the person elderly, and the time that the care could provide is miniscule --the $500,000 for monthly sustainment of a ninety-year-old – then I don’t agree it’s proper.
Do you?
But somehow, when you quote my response, you never quote the whole question I was replying to.
So I agree – I conflated you and Voyager; that was an error. But on the substance of your repetition of what I said, no. You quote that line without quoting the statement I was responding to? Deliberate removal of context.
Very good point. Yes, they don’t need to suppress enough votes to cause riots in the street. They just need to suppress enough to serve as a thumb on the scale to get the result they want.
Well, unfortunately, that pretty much ends all possibility of discussion on these lines… I mean, the key disagreement on at least the high-level theoretical part of this discussion (as opposed to nitty gritty about how far people live from DMVs, etc.), is whether a law which was legally passed, is constitutional, enjoys popular support, and has what claims to be a rational basis can in fact be unethical and antidemocratic (since I and others are arguing that these voter ID laws are unethical and antidemocratic, and you’re, at least in part, saying “Well, they’re A and B and C and D, therefore they are ethical and nonantidemocratic”). And I’ve come up with what I think is just a crackerjack counterexample, and feel like I’m all full of, if not “gotcha”, at least “well, Bricker’s going to have to explain his position more fully here or something”, and then, uhh, debate called on account of rain?
I might also suggest that if you are espousing a position which, when soundbited, makes you seem horrible and evil, well, that doesn’t mean that position is WRONG but probably means that it’s worth a good bit of consideration.
And finally, let’s face it, plenty of people on the SDMB already hate you and bag on you all the time. What difference will it really make if some small subset of them have another quote to attempt to beat you with?
Some of them do. The real question is how many, how many buy into the Republican myth that real Americans are totally on their side, and the only reason Obama is in the White House is the massive horde of illegal aliens the Dems funnel into the voting booths.
The number of Republicans who believe that isn’t zero. I haven’t the foggiest notion as to how many. Information wise, I’d like to know. Fear and loathing wise, not so much.
I already agreed that such a law can be unethical.
You already didn’t answer my question about whether voting age limits are undemocratic. If they are, we’ve handled the question just fine.
Yes, this is true.
My concern is not for those mouth breathers. My concern is a quote like the one Lobohan uses is far more likely to sway a neutral observer, and it’s for the (possibly foolish) hope of swaying neutral observers that I participate in this pigpen.
