I had a teacher once in seventh grade who asserted one day, “There’s no such thing as a one dollar bill.” When confronted with denials, he said that the green paper with Washington’s picture on it was a one dollar note.
I was undeterred, though, and asked him what he’d call it if he charged $1 on his credit card and got the bill in the mail. “That’s a $1 bill,” I said.
“No,” said he. “That is a statement.”
Now, I won that battle with him – I thought for a moment and said, “OK, in my curio shop, I sell odd things. Like duck parts – I charge a dollar for the part of the head that sticks out and surrounds the mouth. THAT is a dollar bill.”
But I recognized then what the teacher was doing – redefining words to suit himself.
So are you. So – cite for the proposition that “voter fraud” is as narrow as you say it is?
And although the innocent voter didn’t commit fraud of any kind, SOME person, presumably a voter himself, cast the fake absentee ballot in someone else’s name, which makes it voter fraud even by your narrow definition.
Why would you presume it was an individual voter that committed the individual fraud? It is far more likely that many such absentee ballots were put in the ballot box by the same group in an orchestrated conspiracy to influence the election. That’s not voter fraud. that’s election fraud. I maintain there is a difference between one voter trying to cast an illegal vote, and a political entity that seeks to influence an election through illegal means.
Perhaps, but you need to do something other than speculate about it. You need to produce some actual facts to show that a significant number of people are simply unable to acquire something as simple as a driver’s license or a state issued ID card. I really am curious to know. These people you’re talking about somehow have enough ID to get jobs or get on welfare, and to rent or buy housing. I mean, come on. How can you possibly function in our society if you’re such a fuck up that you couldn’t come up with something as simple as a picture ID?*
If you’re going to demand a factual argument from me, you should be willing to provide one yourself.
*I can maybe understand it in the case of some elderly people, and perhaps they could be grandfathered into the system (no pun intended).
And when we’re finished arguing about that, we can argue about whether or not Captain Marvel can beat up Superman. You really think this is some kind of important point you’re making here? Get real.
“Seriously? This is your case for not having voter ID?”
My case? What is this, a courtroom? I didn’t realize I was making a case. I was simply raising a question for those that are so gung-ho to institute this requirement. You don’t have to be so combative. I simply asked a question of you, since you are the one proposing this change to the voting law, and you respond with “Seriously?”. Yes, seriously. Do you think that there is no possible scenario where a legitimate citizen would be without a photo ID at the polls? Perhaps scoffing isn’t really the best response to a legitimate question about something that you are advocating.
Maybe this stat will interest you:
“And a surprisingly large number of legally registered voters could run afoul of a photo ID requirement. About 10% of the nation’s voting-age citizens – more than 20 million people – do not have a driver’s license or passport, according to studies and phone surveys presented to the high court.”
So is your answer to this, that everyone should just get a license? Is it legitimate for a person to not want to have a goverment issued photo ID? Does that eliminate their rights as a citizen? Should they be forced to get one under threat of losing the right to vote? I don’t think these are ridiculous questions at all.
I’m not a “you guys”, as far as i’m aware, and it wasn’t intended to be a snarky, gotcha type question, aimed at you. I don’t think i’ve speculated or even offered my opinion on the subject. It was intended honestly, and asked in general; what is the reasonable assumption of discovery to non-discovery? Your question is essentially the same; based on unsuccessful disenfranchisement, what rate should we assume of its success?
To vote, one must register. When you register, you will be issued a voter ID card, with your photo, at no charge. Then you don’t have to get a license or pay anything. But you have an ID to verify your status as a registered voter.
And it follows from this that they don’t have any other acceptable form of ID and aren’t capable of getting any? Of that 20 million, how many are actually registered voters? And how many of the unregistered ones remained unregistered because they couldn’t provide acceptable ID?
Not having a passport or a DL isn’t the same as not being able to get one. I remain immensely skeptical that there is any significant number of competent adult swho could not get some form of photo ID if they really wanted it.
Because I want you to understand how silly your post was. You can always tell when you’re winning an argument with a leftie. Either they accuse you of racism or want to nitpick and quibble about definitions.
So you are in favor of forcing everyone to get a DL or passport, even if they don’t want or need one? Under penalty of forfeiture of citizenship rights? Does that sound like a fair conclusion?
So you see no need to protect my vote from being nullifed by an illegal vote? You think I’m not deprived of my rights when that happens? You don’t think a competent, responsible adult should be expected to have the documentation necessary to prove that he is who he says he is?
Seriously, how many people could there be who really can’t secure some kind of photo ID?
You can always tell when you are winning an argument with a rightie. They persist in telling you how silly your argument is, yet they cannot leave it alone.
Wait, wait, I thought hispanics were a reliable Republican voting block?
More seriously, how does an illegal vote nullify your vote more than it does anyone else’s vote? I’m not seeing how the harm done you specifically matches up with your plan to burden all people with the obligation to obtain some form of official government identification papers. By way of analogy, every year brings 10 to 15 cases of the bubonic plague to America, yet there is no public outcry that each and every American should be forced to purchase a full vaccination from the disease.
What makes your voter fraud such terrible threat that we must all be forced to act in order to counter it?
Having never lost one, I have no basis to judge the accuracy of your suggestion.
Bricker, what’s your goal, here, anyway? You seem to suggest that the whole point is that someone, somewhere, said “Voter fraud doesn’t exist!”, which offends you. Does the statement “Voter fraud of the type we are discussing here is of no practical significance, and, for all effective purposes, does not really exist in any meaningful way” pass muster? Is there some crucial significance here, such that if you carry your point by careful Brickersonian semantic distinction, you are entitled to perform a victory dance?
Or have you found some way to transform farting around on the Boards into billable hours?
To avoid admitting defeat in the Battle of ACORN, perhaps? To avoid recognizing the true reason the battle was started in the first place? To cling to some floating splinter labeled Principle in the flotsam of the sunken SS Partisanship?