So “our democratic republic’s rules” are that our collective decisions are made by Fox polls, not by elections? Why do we even bother with elections, then? Why bother restricting access to the things, when you don’t even need them at all? What the hell are you afraid of that might happen? Is that the ditch you’ve fallen back to now in your attempts to convince yourself your position is not only legal but right? 
:rolleyes:
Dear, sweet Og, that IS what it’s come to now.
That article is pretty thin on specifics. How many cases of voter impersonation occurred, and what is the proof of this? Why doesn’t Fund give a number? He mentions a specific number for the non-registered voters, 23, but he can’t figure out from Schmidt’s report how many impersonation cases were “proven”? Surely the original report says how many. Do you have a link to Schmidt’s 27 page report? It would be helpful to this discussion. It seems to me that, if this report actually proved anything, the state would have loved to have used it in their court case. Why didn’t they?
Have any of the fraudsters Schmidt found been arrested? Surely if this is such a huge problem, it would be important to make very public examples of these people, yet I, in the Philly suburbs, haven’t heard of one case. Are the supporters of voter ID laws publicly demanding investigations and arrests?
Nice try. But even when a survey asks about the possibility of discouraging legitimate voters as an outcome of VOter ID, it gets majority support. So the equivalent would be mentioning the black helicopters and gun listing in your survey, and if your survey got popular support for those measures, I would accept it.
See, that’s what you just can’t stand. You want the voters, but only while they support the ends you want. The moment the majority doesn’t like your goals, you reject their authority to choose.
How about the voters that agree with me, that abortion should be legal under some circumstances? Why did you mention the people who think it should be illegal under any circumstance?
Perhaps because your position is not consistent and therefore not respectable. If you do, as you repeatedly tell us, believe abortion to be murder, then allowing abortion under some circumstances is allowing *murder *under some circumstances. There obviously cannot be such circumstances, right? So your position cannot be the result of thinking through a problem based on a consistent moral code. But you hold that position nevertheless.
Likewise, if you do believe in the high importance of democracy, then you cannot allow undermining of democracy “under some circumstances”, if you cannot articulate such circumstances in a way that is definable separate from partisanship, which is the case. But you hold *that *position nevertheless.
Is it really puzzling that your attempts at special pleading receive such derision?
Do you have a link to that survey? Exactly what question was asked? (The exact wording please.) Who was asked? What were the possible answers (assuming multiple choice)? Were the respondents given information regarding the evidence (or lack of evidence) for the actual occurrence of impersonation fraud? Was it explained to them just what the difficulties could be for legitimate voters, how many legitimate voters would have difficulty because of the law, and what those difficulties would be? Were the issues regarding the time and resources available to correct those problems before the election discussed?
It’s all well and good to ask simple questions of people without informing them of the issues but it does a disservice to both those people and the truth.
And in case you’re planning to respond that I don’t respect the public or that I think they’re stupid; no, I do not disrepect them or think that they’re stupid. I do think that, unlike you and I, most people aren’t political geeks and don’t have the time, resources, or inclination to research such issues. Certainly they’re not going to be able to do so while being asked a survey question about something they may not even have thought about before that moment. None of that makes them stupid.
In my native Texas, the one I grew up in, the majority of citizens approved of laws that oppressed and disenfranchised the minority. So did I, until I knew better. You could look it up, but I assure you it happened, because I was there.
It is tricky, to be sure, to balance individual rights against the will, and the errors, of the majority. To guarantee that the rights of the majority to rule do not become the tyranny of the majority. I assert, in almost blind faith, that a reasonable people can manage it. I insist that we try.
You attended law school, and this was never discussed? Is this why you offer a version of “majority rules” that could have been debunked by an Afterschool Special about civics? How very odd.
And, of course, I flatly reject your insinuation that my commitment to democracy is subject to blind partisanship, as you simultaneously twist your reasoning into knots trying to justify a partisan corruption of voting rights. You have quite good argumentative skills, Counselor, a pity that you whore them out to such a corrupt purpose.
It’s ironic that people who advocate policies that suppress voting then try to use the supposed will of the majority to justify those policies.
I’m not saying it’s proof, just that this is the kind of thing Republicans are concerned about. To prove it would require someone non-partisan who actually cared to look into it, something that no one wants to do. Voter fraud is just assumed away, and since no one but Republicans ever look for it, this is cited as proof that it doesn’t exist.
The reason we can’t find Nessie is because Nessie does not exist. Same for Bigfoot. And why would we believe that the only reason we cannot find it is because only Republicans look for it? Because they did look for it, hooo doggies, did they ever look for it!
But why not simply tell us what you believe? Cut you a temporary pass, you don’t have to prove it, just tell us what you believe. How much voter fraud runs rampant through our nation? To what effect?
Correction: It’s the kind of thing Republicans SAY they are concerned about.
The fact that those with the most interest in finding it, and thereby proving that it really is a problem and really is the source of their worry, cannot find it should be revealing. However, those such as you who consider evidence and *lack *of evidence to be equivalent concepts will not be worried over such a small matter as mere obvious bullshitting.
Impersonation fraud (let’s be specific) is not just assumed away, any more than invisible pink unicorns are just assumed away. If it happens in any meaningful numbers than there would be instances of people being caught at it. Not everyone would be caught, but some would be.
The assertion that it’s always a perfect crime is ridiculous. Someone, somewhere, would be recognized as a fraud by a poll worker who’s a neighbor of the person they’re impersonating. Most people can’t even be bothered to vote at all, let alone take a risk like this.
It’s unlikely that anyone would even try to get away with it. Who would risk years in prison for 1 vote? Who would risk committing such a crime publicly, amongst people who may very well know the person you’re attempting to impersonate?
Have you ever heard the saying “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”? The claim that there are a meaningful number of people who take this risk for little personal gain is an extraordinary claim. Not only is there not extraordinary evidence for it, there’s no evidence, or at least very little, I’m not aware of any and neither is the state of Pennsylvania.
To be ruthlessly fair, they were not required to provide any such evidence. They could not have done so, but didn’t have to.
Your link does not connect to anything Schmidt-like. Goes to the Gallup poll. Ooopsy daisy!
It’s a great argument though, gotta hand 'em that. If you cut yourself loose from the mere everyday, grubby world of facts and evidence and reality, you can say and do whatever the fuck you want. It even actually becomes the duty of anybody who disagrees to prove you wrong. Unfortunately, though, it’s indistinguishable from clinical psychosis.
And the pro-ID-law is not motivated by a lack of connection to reality, not actually, not even psychotically. It just isn’t the reality that they say it is. The motive is obviously and pathetically not the reality of a problem with *integrity *of elections, but with their results. It is sad that supporting an effort to address that “problem” requires such extensive bald-faced lying, but sadder still that the lying works.
Now, time to move on to the unicorn leash law.
Of course the majority isn’t always wrong but when you have a law that addresses a virtually non-existant problem and in the process disenfranchises a lot of people by erecting barriers to the polls, then you can say it is wrong whether it is a minority view or not.
It is one of the duties of the judiciary, to overturn the popular will of the people when they are wrong. A duty that at least one Pennsylvania judge has failed.
But seriously, you’re going to present any evidence you have in your favor whether it’s required or not, right? You don’t discard whatever opportunity you can to tilt things in your favor. And people who have the legal resources of the state of Pennsylvania behind them could find examples if anybody could, right? Research is a big portion of what a law firm does.
At the very least, I’d think that if they had evidence, they’d at least publicize it in order to discredit us naysayers. Someone, somewhere in the US would know of a case if it existed. Even if PA can’t find an instance, the Republican Party surely would have found something somewhere that fits the bill, even if it was something that only served the purpose if you looked at it kinda sideways and squinted.
“But it’s all legal! Ha, ha, suck on it!”
There. That’s out of the way.
It’s more Rovian misdirection, accusing the other guys of a problem to inoculate themselves against it. There is a problem with public confidence in elections, yes, but the lack of confidence is in how they’re run and how the votes are counted, all of it stemming from the 2000 hijack of democracy they orchestrated. By establishing the lie among the credulous that the Democrats’ attempts to let masses of illegal-alien and minority-felon (with all the associated racial dogwhistles) vote at all, they to some degree dissipate their factual history.
Well, now, hold on a second there, hoss! Bricker supplied that very thing, above, a one woman crime wave of voter fraud! Voter registration fraud, but same thing! Close enough! So, one, count 'em, one! And four times! Our nation reels in horror…
Not if it’s so laughably trivial as to invalidate your argument. It’s actually more credible to handwave it away than to present it.