I don’t know how to stop people from getting struck by lightning. Does that mean, if someone proposes the solution of requiring every American to buy themselves a $50 personal Faraday Cage, I’m not allowed to opine that that’s a terrible idea?
No, I’m saying that preventing an incredibly rare event like this is not worth disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of people.
The year before I moved out of Chicago, I was told that I had already voted. I was also informed that my brother, who lived outside of Milwaukee, WI at the time, had also voted. I was surprised that he would have driven 180 miles, round trip, to vote and didn’t stop by my house. :rolleyes: My brother still denies that he snubbed me, and swears that he didn’t vote that day, but who am I supposed to believe, Mayor Daley’s distant relative, or my lying brother? 
Luckily, my local Daley Democrat ward-heeler knew me by sight, and he just happened to be at the polling place where, apparently, voter fraud was taking place. What a coincidence! He vouched for me and I was able to vote.
Can’t help you with the unicorn problem? Sorry.
Uhmmm, come in out of the rain? That doesn’t cost a thing.
Assuming your story is true and I have no reason not to, there may have been two people who risked a felony conviction in order to take your votes. I have no reason to believe the problem is widespread and I’m unwilling to disenfranchise thousands to prevent it. Some people think non-citizen voting, felon voting, and vote theft is a big enough problem that they’re willing to tolerate tens of thousands being disenfranchised by what is effectively a poll tax. I’m willing to tolerate a handful of miscast votes in order to prevent thousands losing their right to vote. If the election is close enough that those few votes matter, then roughly half the people are okay with the outcome and roughly half are not.
Now all I gotta do is get this unicorn poop off my shoes.
We do have systems to ensure that ineligible voters don’t vote. People have to swear an oath that they are eligible voters, and sign their names.
You don’t think that’s good enough? Ok, based on what?
I think it IS good enough, based on the fact that 99.9997% of voters in Ohio (2012) were eligible voters. I think that’s pretty solid.
Hmmmm … trusting a system where the way to stop someone from being dishonest is trusting their honesty? Don’t see how that can fail?
So succeeding 99.9997% of the time isn’t good enough for you? Are you willing to ensure that 99.9997% of those who want to get voter IDs can do so for free and with minimal effort on their part?
I’m not trusting honesty, I’m trusting incentive.
Do you remember The Breakfast Club? The scene with the fake ID, the one nerd boy got so he could vote? It’s a joke, the idea that someone would go through the trouble, and risk, to get a fake ID just to vote. It’s funny because it’s completely ridiculous. Fake ID to get beer? Sure. Fake ID to vote? It is to laugh.
The incremental benefit to securing an illegal vote is miniscule, and the numbers we do have seem to bear it out. Not that many people choose to commit a felony in order to secure a bit of civic pride.
Even so, I’m not blindly trusting. I’m totally willing to keep tabs on our electorate, to do the modest amount of surveying and investigation necessary to ensure that the numbers of illegal voters never rises to a problematic level. It is the other side that wants to avoid studying the problem, and ignores the most basic statistical concepts in creating their “solution”.
Let us stipulate that voter ID is cromulent and gosh all wonderful. Let’s just pretend that is so. Then the question becomes can a law that is so nifty keen be used for unjust purposes? Can a legitimate law be applied in such a way as to offer an unearned electoral advantage to a political party?
In which case, it is the application of the law that is flawed and unjust, not the idea itself. Defending the law itself is therefore irrelevant, since it is being applied to a sordid and malign purpose. That being the case, it is the duty of all honest Republicans to step forward and denounce, renounce, and condemn. So far, neither of them has seen fit to do so.
I highlight this point frequently because it’s not true that you’re merely arguing about what the law should be. Your side makes frequent, passionate declarations about what kinds of things are necessary for the law to do. Show me one post in this thread that talks about the actual process of changing the law. One.
You can’t. Because your schtick is not about gathering votes for the purpose of changing the law – it’s about invalidating the law by whining to sympathetic judges.
If you’re arguing about what the law should be, show me the post that discusses, in anything approaching any detail, anything about changing the law.
All you have are a parade of posts announcing how invalid the law is.
A: “I am deeply concerned about coyote attacks. Very deeply concerned. I propose a law requiring law-enforcement officers to shoot coyotes on sight.”
B: “Um, okay. Are coyote attacks actually a thing?”
A: “Yes. A guy named Ramon Cue was attacked by a coyote back in the 1990s.”
B: [reads cite] “It’s not really clear that Cue was attacked by anything, let alone a coyote, but I’ll accept that coyote attacks do occur, even if they are extremely rare. Trouble is, domestic dogs in the U.S. greatly outnumber coyotes, so a reasonable consequence of your proposed law is that more dogs will get mistakenly shot than coyotes.”
A: “Why are you so concerned that maybe there might be a domestic dog somewhere that’ll get hurt?”
B: “Well, because if even a small number of dogs gets hurt, that’s already a greater number than reported coyote attacks.”
A: “Are you saying coyote attacks never happen?”
B: “No, I recognize that they happen, but are very rare, and your proposed legislation could easily create a bigger problem than it’s trying to solve.”
A: “Of course they happen. Here’s that Ramon Cue cite again.”
B: “Yes, I read it the first time. How about if they legislation goes through, we add ways to reduce the odds of dogs getting shot. Maybe we could allocate funds to train law enforcement in coyote recognition.”
A: “No. The legislation doesn’t require that. It’s not needed to reduce coyote attacks.”
B: “I realize, but what you’re talking about is so rare that even a small number of accidental shootings, as in one percent of one percent, would out number them.”
A: “That’s not the issue.”
B: “Of course it is.”
A: “Are you saying coyote attacks never happen?”
B: “I’ve already acknowledged that they do. Why are you opposed to implementing your legislation in a way that could reduce the negative effects?”
A: “The law doesn’t need it.”
Rinse. Repeat.
Bricker, you confuse me for someone who thinks I need to take responsibility for anyone’s posts than my own.
Can you point to examples, in my personal posts, of this “schtick” you mention? Or of me “whining?” If so, I’ll gladly address it. Also, since I know this is a particular stick in your craw, if you can show an example of me holding you to a higher or different standard than other posters who agree with me, I’ll address those too.
As for how I want to change the law, I think I’ve been clear about that. Convince people, by public argument, of the rightness of my position. Hope they vote in greater numbers for legislators who are sympathetic. Hope those legislators vote against ID laws of the sort that dissuade lots of people from voting. Isn’t that how these things ought to work?
It’s not good enough because some people can’t read English very well, and others don’t read stuff they sign to begin with. I’m not saying there’s a massive CRIMINAL fraud problem. Just that for whatever reason, we always find out that felons and non-citizens vote. Your figure is based on convictions, which are rarely pursued. A study, in this case, is more accurate:
What the study also shows though is that voter ID laws are completely in effective. 75% of non-citizens were asked to provide ID, which they did. And then voted.
The key is the registration process. In their sample, 14% of non-citizens said they were registered to vote. That’s got to be fixed.
Here’s the problem with that. I absolutely understand, and agree, with the objection that you can hardly be held responsible for anything other than what you post.
But when I reply to someone else, and you jump in, then it’s difficult for me to separate the strings.
But I certainly withdraw any suggestion that you endorse anything you didn’t say, until such time as you say it.
Sure. And I have no heartburn with that – except, of course, to hope that your efforts are unsuccessful.
Then don’t. It’s the only way to fight Gozer.
Understood. But realize that from my point of view (or that of any individual poster), a vast majority of everything you post will be a “reply to someone else.” Inasmuch as I’m having a debate with you on a public message board, it’s nigh impossible for me to avoid “jumping in” as you define it. All I can do is stay as objective as I can. So, I think you have to separate the strings, as far as that goes.
Thanks.
Fair 'nuff.