ISTM your “rare harm” is *so *rare as to be statistically zero. Being able to conceive of a hypothetical does not make something real.
I’m sorry, I’m following you Bricker, I truly am…but I’m not seeing how you differentiate between the two. Is it simply that voter fraud affecting an election, unlike harm from a skeeve in a ladies’ room, is theoretically possible, so a voter ID law is justified?
.
There is no voter fraud though. They are about as statistically insignificant as men pretending to be women and entering women’s locker rooms
1974 New Hampshire’s US Senate seat was decided by 2 votes.
1984 Indiana’s 8th Congressional seat was decided by 4 votes.
2004 Washington state governor’s race: 133 vote margin out of 2.8 million votes cast.
And of course the one that takes the cake: Florida presidential, 2000, Bush over Gore by a mere 537 votes of nearly six million cast…AND in that same election, Florida becoming the one state that decides the overall result.
The harm in those cases is that the the losing side will claim fraud, and without Voter ID those claims will have traction that we, as a country, cannot afford.
That harm is not theoretical. It’s very real.
It is not “real” in the sense of “has ever come close to having happened, as near as we can tell.” It is not “real” in the sense of “is likely to happen some time in the next 1,000 years.” It is only “real” in the sense that “it is not beyond the realm of possibility that it could theoretically happen.”
In which sense, dudes pretending to be chicks in order to invade restrooms is similarly real. Isn’t it?
Normally, yes.
But if a specific election is decided by 8 votes, then, no.
No. I disagree. Clearly very close election results have happened.
To infer that one result of an ultra-close election would be cries of “Voter Fraud,” is not a absurd leap of logic. It happened in Florida in 2000, for goodness sakes.
Gotcha. Not that the sort of voter fraud (ostensibly) targeted by voter ID laws happens on a statistically meaningful level, nor that is ever has or will affect the outcome of an election…but that with the law in place there is less chance of the losing side challenging the election on the basis of fraud.
OK. I disagree that such a challenge constitutes harm, but I understand, thanks.
.
Thank YOU for staying with the issue, asking questions, and helping me explain myself.
The quote supplied comes from a group that is apparently already acting in that capacity. Does the definition they gave suffice to determine the policy?
Are all the conditions described necessary, or one of them, or some subset of them? If we are going to be enforcing a public policy, the basis for that policy ought to be clear, and consistent.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t remember any cries of voter fraud in 2000. *Election *fraud, yes.
Just as an update. The law is well and truly dead, at least for this session. They couldn’t muster enough votes for an override.
Let’s try it this way - the next time you find the occasion to visit a public necessary, please loudly and insistently question every single person sharing the facility with you as to the biological nature of their junk and whether or not they have the right to engage their biological functions in the same room as you.
I eagerly await your report as to the results of this survey.