The value of a photo ID is obvious. So actually, yes, there are plenty of reasons it should be photo ID. Primarily, whatever method is used should be legally sufficient to establish identity in a subsequent trial. If I’m accused of voting in Montgomery County, and the evidence against me is that so done showed up with a copy of my phone bill, there’s no way I can be convicted.
That’s not demeanor.
And if that’s a sly reference to my discussion of the CASA volunteer’s exhortation to illegal aliens to vote…the variances between the two times I told the story were trivial, not substantial.
That’s fine. But that’s more of a statement of opinion.
In what specific way is my rebuttal flawed? Is it simply that it fails to support your preferred position?
As much as it the study itself fails to support yours.
About that question I was asking about the the State declaring that there were outreach programs and voter id projects to ensure that no one would be “discommoded” by these laws? I wondered what evidence was offered of such an effort. Have workers been assigned, offices opened, a budget arrived at? Usually what happens, isn’t it?
So, I wondered, did the State offer any such evidence to the judge in support of such claims?
Got my answer:
(emphasis added)
Must have been their demeanor.
In the same article, a side note of interest only to such pathetic wonks as might care about such stuff…
(Emphasis added and two separate paragraphs joined for brevity, full quote available at cite)
From that very site:
To me, voter ID doesn’t really solve much. Registration fraud is where the issue is. And absentee ballot fraud.
[/QUOTE]
And, as your cite implies, sloppy registration records. Do MN election boards not get informed of felony convictions, so they can rebuff felons who show up to vote instead of handing them ballots?
ID laws won’t solve any problem the GOP partisans have imagined might exist. Their actual goals are, of course, the actual effects, despite any other claims you might hear from them.
In what SPECIFIC way is my rebuttal flawed?
Surely the people behind these laws know the statistics. These laws where written and promoted by the good people of ALEC, who are anything but stupid.
They have to know that they don’t do anything to solve the types of fraud that actually do occur. They have to know that some number (be it large or small) of people who currently can legitimately vote won’t be able to this November. They have to know that it’s harder for poorer people to obtain the needed ID than it is for people who are better off. They have to know the demographics concerning how people vote.
I understand that there are many people who sincerely believe these laws are needed to stop voter impersonation. I’m not talking about them. They’re mostly people who don’t have the time, or the interest, to look beyond the propaganda.
I’m talking about the people who’ve proposed these laws and pushed the bad information. They must be either stupid or malicious, and, as I said before, these people aren’t stupid.
(Yes, yes. I know. Voter confidence. Please. :rolleyes:)
This is not what I would call a rebuttal that is remarkable for its cogency. Apart from “Please,” emphasized with a roll eyes smiley, why are you entitled to reject voter confidence as a reason?
Well, it is, but it’s not voter fraud we should particularly worried about. It’s more * Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?* But I don’t see Bricker spending endless hours debating whether we should be using electronic voting machines that don’t even bother keeping paper records. No, instead of machines with massive known security flaws that could potentially flip entire states, Bricker is worried about illusory legions of illegal aliens and convicted felons casting a handful of votes.
We’ve been through this all in other threads. Voter confidence is not a valid justification for passing laws that solve nothing while creating problems for legitimate voters.
And I am entitled to have my own opinions and reject ridiculous excuses, regardless of what you may think.
Yes, but having a real verifiable paper trail doesn’t make it harder for people to vote!
Why is it not a valid justification?
Well, of course you can have your opinion. But Elections, much like GD, is not a forum in which an unsupported opinion carries any currency. What evidence supports your opinion?
Since that citation is six years old, which states are currently using machines you believe are problematic?
Cheese Louise, Fin, don’t you know? Never give Bricker an opening to change the subject!
Well, now that I’veGoogled it for you, I guess your confidence in the voting process is at a new low?
Well, Bricker is arguing that the confidence in the voting system he gets from those voter ID laws helps him sleep at night. I figure that unless he’s some kind of colossal hypocrite, that once he finds out how flawed the voting system actually is, he’ll be equally relentless in his campaign against flawed electronic systems. My logic is flawless, right?
Never claimed he was personally worried about voter confidence. Merely claims that it is a valid concern, thus passing the lowest minimum bar. And therefore kosher, legal, and Constitutional regardless of the corrupt motivations of its originators. He has a very carefully compartmentalized system of thought.
Are you seriously arguing that voter confidence is at such a low point, that it’s such a threat to the union, that making voting much more difficult for large numbers of legitimate voters is a lesser evil?
It’s not an unsupported opinion, it’s a value judgement. My values tell me that the goal of increasing “voter confidence” does not justify the negative effects of these laws. My common sense tells me that “voter confidence” is a bogus justification for laws that have a much different purpose.
Making voting SLIGHTLY more difficult for a FEW voters. Yes, that’s exactly my position.
OK. But then why are your values offered up as automatically the only possible correct ones? Why must society ignore the clear mandate of its majority and instead follow your values?