SCOTUS declines voter ID challenge

Politics & Elections
141

You mean the election where 500 voters fucked up their ballots and didn’t log the vote they wanted to log, or where 200 voters didn’t get to vote because they screwed up their registration? I actually supposed to care about 17 voters out of 5+million? The number is so far below the margin of error it doesn’t make logical sense to care about it. You would need an accuracy rate of 99.9997% to make those 17 votes the driving force behind the result. I wonder what has a similar accuracy rate. Wow, this does. Well, not quite. Six Sigma looks for 99.99966% accuracy, which I suppose is close enough.

Do YOU think that random people using machines once every 4 years in a church basement is going to match the defect rate of the highest quality controlled manufacturing processes in the world? I don’t, and it isn’t even a race.

The slop factor around an election is so high that the tiny percentage of illegal votes is swallowed up 1000x over by people just screwing up.
What you want to do is trade 17 statistcally meaningless votes for thousands of legal voters getting turned away because their ID expired, and thousands more having to sit at their kitchen table trying to figure out how to manage a trip to the DMV for an ID they never needed before. A trip that’s especially hard without a car because the DMV doesn’t particularly cater to the needs of pedestrians, being the Dept. of Motor fucking Vehicles. And it costs millions of dollars.

142

that argument brings me back to my own hobby horse: if such things don’t matter, why decide elections that are close based on just a few votes? Just declare any election that is that close a tie and resolve it through some other means.

But if we are going to let elections be decided by such low margins, then we can’t let felons and non-citizens be the difference.

143

And the Republican Party stands ready to allow the Democrats to make whatever sacrifices might be required to this noble end!

144

And the SCOTUS ruled that individual States can pass, and enforce, Voter ID laws. And the ID’s must be free of charge.

17 votes are not meaningless. They count among the losing tally for the losing candidate, or among the winning tally for the winning candidate.

Sometimes, people screw up their ballots, and according to the pre-determined rules that all of the voters are subject to, those votes don’t qualify as legitimate votes.

145

Really?

When you get down to one vs. three votes, why would you assume that the limit is one with any degree of confidence? Moreover, why would you think I would accept your same degree of confidence?

My position has won. Yours has lost. You want to move me off my position. I frankly don;t care what you think, because your position has already lost. Note that this thread is called, “SCOTUS declines voter ID challenge,” and refers to the Supreme Court refusing to overturn a binding precedent that upholds the voter ID.

You don’t get to define my position as something different than it is, and then attack that false position. I’m defending the extant position, the status quo. I get to define the debate because reality has already defined the debate.

And the vast majority of the public that favors Voter ID laws? Are you also talking to them? Dos it also boggle your mind that they weigh the factors similarly?

They vast majority of legislators that have enacted such laws, the governors that have signed them, and the judges that have upheld them?

Maybe your mind should boggle at the spectacle of you insisting that you’re right, and they’re all wrong, especially when the issue has no measurable, objective way to actually balance these types of concerns. How much weight do you give to the harm of a non-citizen vote? In grams, specifically?

146

I’m saying that if there is one illegally-cast vote in an election decided by four votes, it is mathematically impossible for that one vote to have changed the result.

I’m sorry, but you pursue this line of argument often, and it’s ridiculous. No one is arguing what the law of the land currently is; we’re arguing what it should be. Put another way: slavery was once the law of the land, and (I presume) upheld by the courts. Should anti-slavery folks just have thrown up their hands and said “Well, their position has won. No point in arguing about this any more, or trying to convince people of what we think is right.”

No, you don’t, and it hasn’t. We’re not arguing that the law is not the law. If we were, you’d be right. We’re arguing that the law, as it currently stands, is bad law, and it ought to be changed. That we’re in the minority (in some states, on some issues) has no bearing on that.

This is another softball you like to lob, and it’s just as easily hit. No, my mind doesn’t boggle at that, for a very simple reason. Imagine in your state a pollster asked this question: “Should the state take steps to reduce the pollution factories are dumping in our rivers?” You’d get overwhelming approval for this idea, I’m sure. But what if, in reality, there was only one factory dumping pollutants in the rivers, and it was an amount so small that it was allowed by current environmental regulations, and the only way to mitigate that small amount was by a process so expensive it would cost every taxpayer in the state $10,000. Don’t you think that the vote would suddenly reverse itself, if that knowledge were common?

The question of Voter ID is like that. The idea sounds like a no-brainer on the surface, and the polls only tread on that surface. I believe if people truly understood the tiny scope of the problem that Voter ID would solve, and the number of people that would be dissuaded from voting by the extra time and expense caused by most Voter ID laws, there would not be the public support you like to crow about. Thus, I like to engage in threads like this, where I can make a tiny inroad in terms of furthering that understanding.

46.003 grams. Which is exactly the weight I give to a poor person’s vote that is no longer cast because they were pushed over the “too much time/expense” line by a Voter ID law. And I’m confident that there are more of the latter than the former.

147

Very well written post, Parthol. I can’t improve on a single word.

Let’s be clear. Republicans want as few people as possible casting votes because it helps their cause. Those without IDs who would have difficulty getting them are predominately Democratic-leaning voters.

Voter suppression isn’t limited to voter ID laws.

If you’re an out of state college student living in Ohio and want to vote there, better be prepared to pay the poll tax. This will discourage college students from voting and therefore eliminate a Democratic-leaning bloc of voters. Fairness isn’t important to Republicans- winning is.

148

(post shortened)

According to Adalia Woodbury’s (possible biased) article -

On puzzling thing lies in the fact that this rider made it through the State Senate with unanimous support.

Passed with unanimous support? How unfair!

I guess Democrats can’t be bothered with actually reading the bills that they vote on.

149

(post shortened)

Since the SCOTUS ruled that States can create Voter ID laws, the fact that “we’re” in the minority has a overwhelming bearing on the issue.

150

No, it has no bearing on whether or not the laws in question are bad laws that should be fought and eventually changed. It only has bearing on whether the laws are constitutional, which is not what I’m arguing.

151

This was a last minute addendum but:

Perhaps the courts will fix this attempt to saddle young voters with a poll tax.

152

And you’ll still need a majority vote, so numbers overwhelming bearing on the issue.

I assume that by the time your side regains a majority, everyone who wants to vote will already have some approved form of ID.

153

I think you posted the wrong link, or I just can’t see the addendum?

Perhaps they will. As you describe it, it sounds as if it could/maybe/might be considered a poll tax.

154

From the cite:

If they want to play games with election rules, why do they want to sneak them into riders on unrelated bills?

155

What I don’t get is how the voter ID opponents propose to ensure that ineligible people don’t vote other than:

  1. I tdoesn’t happen - except it does and I was once a victim of it
  2. OK but it only happens a little- except the current system has a piss-poor way to actually see if people are cheating. How are you checking to see if they are eligible to vote? Oh yes you’re not. How do you see if a person is who they claim they are. Oh right you’re not. What happened to the guy that stole my right to vote? Nothing because try to find him. I bricker’s example, you claim it was one vote - not enough to make a difference. I claim it was one KNOWN vote and that you have no clue how many others there were.
    So c’mon non-voter ID crowd. Propose a way to ensure people are registering and voting legally.
156

Politicians playing games with legislation? Inconceivable! Maybe they wanted to pass the law so we could see what’s in it?

I expect my elected representatives to actually read the bills they are voting on. And I’m repeatedly disappointed. On the federal level, I’m currently represented by a Republican Congressman, a Republican Senator, and a Democrat Senator. Three phone calls, or three emails, or three obscene gestures, and my elected reps understand my position on any issue.

157

(Post shortened because some folks are too dumb to figure out what ellipses are…)

What do you mean by “ensure”? Totally, posolutely, absitively, no way anyone can cast an illegal vote? How much is that worth?

If it is necessary to “ensure” that all votes are legal, why is it not just as necessary to ensure equal access to voting?

If the Republicans had wanted to create a system whereby any citizen had quck and convenient access to voter ID, they would have done it, all kinds of ways to do that. Why didn’t they? Because they didn’t want to. Duh.

158

Why? It just isn’t a problem. Why don’t you propose a way for me to keep purple unicorns off my lawn?

159

So you’re saying I’m lying when I say someone once signed in as me and voted in my name? Or was it OK that I was cheated out of my right to vote because I’m a Republican?

160

So don’t answer the question? You don’t think there should be systems (even basic ones) in place to ensure
Non-citizens cannot register to vote?
Ineligible voters cannot vote?