And I’m more amenable than most on this board to reasoned argument.
Let me ask you: when, on these boards, did you publicly acknowledge you were wrong – not about the provenance of some fact, but about a position? That is, when did reasoned argument sway you to change your mind here?
You may have. But I sure can’t think of it.
I have.
Which of us is immune to reasoned argument?
Really? Voting twice is not a concern? How many times is the magic number?
According to the article, the address on the voter registration also matched where she resided before.
I do not believe that any documents were planted or forged in this case either. In my case though, I don’t believe that she double-voted, but rather someone else voted in Florida. But I’m not going to insist my version is the absolute truth.
Would right now be ok?
I forgot about this:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10289966&postcount=30
I freely admit that I was wrong. I thought you were still arguing the great ACORN conspiracy.
Heh.
OK, you got me to grin.
Yes, right now would be fine. 
one person alledgly voting twice once a long time ago does not equal whole sale voter fraud that requires draconian expensive attention.
I don’t know if the documents are forged, either. However, I’ve seen enough examples personally of fucked up data to believe it’s more likely that a date got entered wrongly than anything else. In any event, this one particular case does nothing to sway me to believe that whole sale voter fraud is rampant anywhere.
Just as you keep pretending that we are all up in arms about voter id requirements, when, point of fact, we are pissed off that some persons, who may very well be of the Pubbie persuasion, are warping the intent of voter laws to perverse ends. Those perverse ends being the suppression of votes and voters that are averse to one’s own ideological bent.
That you refuse to directly engage that question is uncharacteristically dishonest of you. If this is Bricker V2.0, we don’t want the “upgrade”. Too many features.
Well, my thoughts on that matter are spelled out in some detail in the GD thread on that specific topic.
ACORN is an organization out to elect Barack Obama, and to that end, they engage in legal (mostly) tactics to increase the number of votes for Barack Obama.
That’s perfectly legitimate.
It’s equally legitimate to use legal means to reduce the number of votes or voters voting for your opponent. The Democrats did this in Florida in 2000 with militray absentee ballots, to very little protest here, for example.
Before we proceed, you need to be busted for this. “Mostly”, yer ass!
You have not proved that the organization ACORN willfully engaged in illegal tactics to gain their ends. Confronted with your lack of evidence, you have gone so far as to suggest that my invulnerability to evidence renders such evidence moot. Which is to say, you have solid proof, but cannot be bothered to present it.
Horseshit. Total horseshit. As has been pointed out to you over and over, no such evidence exists, despite massive attempts by the Forces of Darkness (whose thrall you are) to discover some. All you have are suppositions and innuendos. Challenged to prove your assertions, you retreat to evasions and accusations of prejudice.
Be so kind as to not insult my intelligence? Pretty please? I’m just a country boy from Waco, but I’m damned if you’re smarter than me.
No, no – the “mostly” was a sop to the various individual criminal acts that are the result of simple laziness on the part of workers; it wasn’t intended to suggest that ACORN fields a massive conspiracy. “Mostly” legal is correct, but I agree that the exceptions are individuals, not a coordinated organizational effort.
First of all, to the extent that there is any truth to your claim about 2000, particularly assuming it was motivated by partisan reasons, I denounce and reject those actions. I can’t really say I care, 8 years later, but the impression I got the few times I hurt a few rumors about things like that was that right wingers were desperate to try to find something to balance out the race-based purging and so forth that took place in Florida and latched onto that. Because, hey, everyone knows the left hates our men in uniform. But it might actually be a legitimate issue, and as I said, if it is, I reject and denounce it.
But I find your overall claim to be utterly unbelievable. You and I agree, I assume, that it is perfectly legitimate for an organization (public or private) to provide transportation services to make it easier for voters to get to the polling place. And if it’s a private organization, it’s certainly legitimate for them to focus their efforts on particular areas chosen for partisan reasons. (The extent to which it’s legitimate for public organizations to ever do that is very very debatable… on the one hand, a poor area might need public financing for something like that much more than a wealthy one. On the other hand, if the government officials making those decisions are doing so for partisan reasons, I find that very troubling.)
However, the flip side of that, as I alluded to in a post earlier in this thread, would be a “keep in the vote” campaign… for instance, an organized effort to cause a traffic jam, or fill all the busses in an area with riders just going around in circles, or mailers reminding people to get out and vote, but conveiently with the wrong date, or with easy-to-misconstrue information about registration; or posting legal but misleading signage directing people to the wrong polling place, or various other such things. I find any such action to be utterly antithetical to democracy. So obviously, in fact, that I can’t believe a person like you who I’d like to think is genuinely reasonable would disagree.
Likewise. That’s why I started this GD thread.
There’s a line.
On one side are actions that have an effect of discouraging a vote, and may even be motivated in part or whole by the goal of discouraging a vote… but which have an actual legally cognizable salubrious effect.
On the other side are actions that have an effect of discouraging a vote because that’s their only purpose. Flyers such as you mention are not legal, and if they were, would have only the negative effect of discouraging voters, period.
Efforts to show that registered voters are legitimate may have the goal of stopping votes from some quarters, but are legitimate because they serve a legitimate purpose: ensuring that only legitimate voter vote.
Yes, there’s a line. And the line is between an action which has some cover justification, but which is solely (or largely) motivated by a desire to influence the outcome of the election by lowering turnout; and an action which will have a side effect of potentially influencing the outcome of the election by lowering turnout, but which serves some other compelling and useful purposes, one compelling and useful enough to take that action despite its antidemocratic side effects.
Now, pretty much any action can be claimed to have a legitimate side effect. Which is why I very strongly feel that any action which has a likely side effect of making it harder for people to vote should NOT just be another law like any other. Either it should come out of lengthy deliberations of some sort of non-partisan election commission; or it should have to pass some sort of very heightened scrutiny.
Nothing is more dangerous to the principles of democracy than giving elected officials the power to muck with elections, because it destroys the checks and balances. Ideally, if an elected official does something that the majority of people don’t like, he gets voted out. But if an elected official does something that screws up the election, and a majority of people don’t like it, he might NOT get voted out, and then you’re in some sort of vicious circle.
In any case, I’d like you to state your position very very clearly. Which one of the following does it most closely match:
(1) Laws and government actions that affect elections are (both legally and ethically) indistinguishable from any other law. Thus, as long as there’s any kind of legitimacy to reducing voter fraud (which there obviously is, on the surface of it), it’s totally reasonable and right for the party in power to pass such a law, and the voter-suppression side effects are totally irrelevant
(2) Voter fraud is such a huge problem in all these states (which just happen to all have republican-controlled assemblies or governors or whoever is promulgating these laws) that the need for reduced voter fraud is compelling enough to make it worth the risk of reducing voter turnout. Thus the actions are legitimate
(3) Sure it’s underhanded and a bit sleazy. But it’s all part of the politics game, and the party in power always does it, so f*ck y’all.
?
Voter suppression is real. Voter fraud is not. You know it, Bricker.
Sure she is going to do everything possible to see that the election is fair and above board, I mean just because she thinks of one of the candidates as a "young Adolf Hitler doesn’t mean she would be less than fair…
Indiana this year is considered a battleground state and with election officials like this it really means the the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, I hope somebody is watching these assholes.