SC voter ID law shot down

[Bricker]

@Zakalwe

Actually, now that I think about it, I’ve changed my mind. I’m fully in favor of this law and hope that it withstands challenge.

At which point, I hope several states immediately pass laws requiring that gun owners obtain a “free” state-issued photo ID. After all, it’s not a burden to go get a free id, so it can’t be an “infringement”, now can it?

Under federal law, the purchase of a firearm in all fifty states requires photo ID. Many states also issue special permits, NOT FREE, to own and/or carry.

I am not aware of too many who seriously object to this rule, for precisely the reasons you mention. Certainly I don’t.

In any event, glad to see you’re on board.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Terr

Again, those are “potential” ones. The laws have been on the books, in various states, since 2003. Show me actual ones.

Fair request. This paper shows that photo ID laws are associated with a 1.6% decrease in voter turnout (edit: it’s a pdf, and for some reason the link isn’t working: here’s the direct link. http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Voter-ID-and-Turnout.pdf). Unless you’re looking for names and social security numbers, I think that should satisfy your request.

Furthermore, haven’t we already stipulated that these laws are being fought on partisan grounds? Hasn’t everyone agreed that at least one reason why Republicans are pushing these laws, and Democrats are fighting these laws, is that they’re anticipated to decrease Democratic turnout? Do you now disagree with this position, or do you disagree with Republican and Democratic expectations on what these laws will do?

[Terr]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Fair request. This paper shows that photo ID laws are associated with a 1.6% decrease in voter turnout (edit: it’s a pdf, and for some reason the link isn’t working: here’s the direct link. http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Voter-ID-and-Turnout.pdf). Unless you’re looking for names and social security numbers, I think that should satisfy your request.

Thank you. You just showed that the voter fraud that the ID’s prevent is about 1.6% of the turnout. And note: the ACTUAL voter fraud cases I cited have names and social security numbers.

Furthermore, haven’t we already stipulated that these laws are being fought on partisan grounds? Hasn’t everyone agreed that at least one reason why Republicans are pushing these laws, and Democrats are fighting these laws, is that they’re anticipated to decrease Democratic turnout? Do you now disagree with this position, or do you disagree with Republican and Democratic expectations on what these laws will do?

I expect the laws to decrease voter fraud, primarily on Democrat side.

[Zakalwe]

@Terr

Thank you. You just showed that the voter fraud that the ID’s prevent is about 1.6% of the turnout. And note: the ACTUAL voter fraud cases I cited have names and social security numbers.
I expect the laws to decrease voter fraud, primarily on Democrat side.

Did you ever have any intention of debating this honestly? Just curious.

[Terr]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Sometimes it’s hard to tell whether you’re being totally facetious, or whether you’re trying to make a clever point by oblique analogy, or whether you’re actually serious. So let’s begin with, “cite?” and take it from there.

The Supreme Court in Purcell v. Gonzalez: “Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised.”

[Terr]

@Zakalwe

Did you ever have any intention of debating this honestly? Just curious.

Absolutely. In the paper you cited, it shows that two studies purport to show that turnout decreased with the voter ID laws. THREE studies showed that it either stayed the same or increased. Now, if you were going to debate this honestly, why didn’t you mention that?

And as I said, why would you claim that the decrease that two studies claim is due to “disenfranchised” voters and not to decreased fraud? Did the studies give any evidence? Like actual voters that wanted to vote but couldn’t? Oh one study did claimed 22 that claimed that they were - out of 22,000. Big whoop.

[Fear_Itself]

@Ibn_Warraq

On the very first page after OMGABC pointed out that people were required to produce IDs to buy booze or cigarettes so why shouldn’t the have to produce IDs to vote you huffily said

Now, such a statement would suggest to every reasonable person that you were asserting that it was wrong to require people to produce IDs to vote because the right to vote was “guaranteed by the Constitution”.

As I’ve point out, by that logic you should be arguing that the state shouldn’t require people to produce an ID in order to purchase a gun.

Now, I doubt you feel that way.

I’m simply pointing out that you made a poorly thought-out and fairly unimaginative argument unless you honestly believe that shouldn’t be required to produce IDs in order to buy handguns.

I’d recommend withdrawing your argument and coming up with a new line of argument.

Is English your first language? If not, I will give you a pass for being whooshed by rhetorical sarcasm. Otherwise, your criticism is just deliberately obtuse.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Fear_Itself

Is English your first language? If not, I will give you a pass for being whooshed by rhetorical sarcasm. Otherwise, your criticism is just deliberately obtuse.

Oh, so then you disagree with people who say “It’s ridiculous to say ‘what’s wrong with requiring photo IDs to vote since you have to produce IDs to buy alcohol’ since voting is a constitutional right while buying alcohol isn’t”?

[Fear_Itself]

@Ibn_Warraq

Oh, so then you disagree with people who say “It’s ridiculous to say ‘what’s wrong with requiring photo IDs to vote since you have to produce IDs to buy alcohol’ since voting is a constitutional right while buying alcohol isn’t”?

No. That’s two strikes, one more and you are out.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Fear_Itself

No. That’s two strikes, one more and you are out.

You’re making no sense.

I’m just trying to ascertain your reasoning.

On page one of this thread you indicated that you attacked a poster and insisted that people shouldn’t have to produce picture IDs to vote because voting is “protected by the Constitution.”

Well, gun ownership is also protected by the Constitution so if you were being intellectually consistent you’d also argue that people shouldn’t require IDs to purchase or own guns.

However, you don’t seem to feel that people should be allowed to buy guns without producing IDs.

Please explain this logical inconsistency?

Thanks

[Fear_Itself]

@Ibn_Warraq

Please explain this logical inconsistency?

Rhetorical sarcasm. I am not going to hold your hand every time the conversation gets over your head. Figure it out your self, or drop out.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Fear_Itself

Rhetorical sarcasm. I am not going to hold your hand every time the conversation gets over your head. Figure it out your self, or drop out.

So then when you told OMGABC

Because cigarettes and booze are not guranteed by the Constitution.

you weren’t making a serious argument but engaging in “rhetorical sarcasm”.

I’m sorry, but I think most reasonable people would agree that it’s hardly obvious that the phrase “Because cigarettes and booze are not guranteed by the Constitution” was meant sarcastically.

So then if constitutional protections aren’t relevant to the discussion then didn’t OMG have good point by pointing out the government require IDs to buy alcohol and cigarettes?

[Fear_Itself]

@Ibn_Warraq

So then when you told OMGABC

you weren’t making a serious argument but engaging in “rhetorical sarcasm”.

No, I am sorry, you are still incapable of grasping rhetorical sarcasm. Perhaps it is a cultural thing, or a language thing. I am sure it is very frustrating for you, but that is not my problem.

[elucidator]

@Terr

The Supreme Court in Purcell v. Gonzalez: “Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised.”

In which our Court flexes its astonishing capacity for telepathic empathy. But why should voters fear such a thing? Who has told them this grim fairy tale? Might it be the same sort of people who told us that ACORN was smuggling under-age hookers?

The same sort of person who could say this:

…I expect the laws to decrease voter fraud, primarily on Democrat side.

with a presumably straight face?

This Democrat voter fraud, you have proof of this? The kind of absolute proof that meets the standards you demand of us?

You got, you bring. You got? I think not.

[twickster]

Fear Itself, you’re getting pretty freaking close to personal insults. Dial it back, please.

Thanks,

twickster, Elections moderator

[Fear_Itself]

As you wish.

[Terr]

@elucidator

This Democrat voter fraud, you have proof of this? The kind of absolute proof that meets the standards you demand of us?

You got, you bring. You got? I think not.

I gave you way more examples of voter fraud (hundreds) than you (0) gave me examples of people who wanted to vote but couldn’t because of ID check.

As for whether this voter fraud is “Democrat voter fraud” - who knows, but I suspect it is since Democrats are so dead set against the ID check.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Fear_Itself

No, I am sorry, you are still incapable of grasping rhetorical sarcasm. Perhaps it is a cultural thing, or a language thing. I am sure it is very frustrating for you, but that is not my problem.

First of all, there’s no reason to insult me as you’ve done repeatedly on this thread.

I’ve been polite and asked perfectly legitimate questions and you’ve given fairly evasive answers.

Our discussion began because after I pointed that following the logic of your statement

Because cigarettes and booze are not guranteed by the Constitution.

that would mean that people shouldn’t have to produce IDs in order to purchase guns, since doing so is protected by the Constitution.

You then claimed that you were engaging in “rhetorical sarcasm” and insinuated that because of my nationality I was unable to understand.

Then when I asked if you were engaging in “rhetorical sarcasm” when you said

Because cigarettes and booze are not guranteed by the Constitution.

you responded “no” and then once again implied that due my nationality I couldn’t understand your logic.

Ok, so it’s a very simple question and answering it shouldn’t be a problem.

Was the statement “Because cigarettes and booze are not guranteed by the Constitution” an expression of your own reason why you think it’s ok to card people buying booze but not trying to vote or were you just being sarcastic?

Thanks

[Fear_Itself]

You have repeatedly mischaracterized my statements (“So what you are saying is…”). I stand by all the statements you have quoted; I see no inconsistencies. I believe further explanation would be fruitless. Believe what you wish.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Fear_Itself

You have repeatedly mischaracterized my statements (“So what you are saying is…”). I stand by all the statements you have quoted; I see no inconsistencies. I believe further explanation would be fruitless. Believe what you wish.

How have I mischaracterized your statements?

I thought when you told OMG

Because cigarettes and booze are not guranteed by the Constitution.

what you meant was that since voting is protected by the Constitution and buying cigarettes and alcohol isn’t that it’s wrong to require IDs for the former but permissible to require IDs for the latter.

Isn’t that an accurate description of what you meant by that statement or did you mean something else.

Thanks