Bricker would you accept any change in voting procedures if there was no declared intent to bias against one party? Suppose I suggested we save money by closing down half the polling places in the 2012 election? Certainly a non-partisan suggestion.
And we’ll implement it in a neutral non-partisan manner. We’ll close the polling places based on population - we’ll close the polling places that are used by the fewest number of people and keep open the ones that are used by the most people. The people that live near a closed polling place can just drive to a polling place that’s still open.
Of course the actual effect of this neutral cost-saving plan will be the closing of a lot of polling places in rural communities while we keep open the polling places in the inner cities. But keep in mind this is a non-partisan plan that isn’t baised in favor of either party.
My not-too-subtle point is that plans that are supposedly non-partisan on the surface almost always have a partisan bias underneath. Political statisticians can figure out apparently neutral factors that weigh against one party of the other. They may have found, for example, that Democrats are nine percent more likely to have an embarassing middle name than Republicans so a plan to have every voter state his full name in public would favor Republicans.
I suppose we could all agree that if a person is not allowed to vote, they should immediately be taken off the tax rolls. The old taxation without representation thing. If they are not allowed input, we should not accept their output.
Yes, I do, because the damage done by fraudulent votes is greater by far than merely offsetting a valid vote. The knowledge that there are fraudulent voters tolerated decreases the interest in voting and eviscerates the authority of the ballot box.
Yes. And I said it above: as long as the restriction is, objectively, reasonable, then I wouldn’t disturb it.
No, because it’s objectively unreasonable. It’s too limiting, and what kind of ID costs $50? There are fifty states in the union; not one charges $50 to issue a state ID.
Yes, I swear that my support of voting restrictions is entirely separate from the issue of what party might benefit.
I don’t agree that I have a campaing against ACORN, so I can’t make any statement about it. There was a general campaign against ACORN, and I agree that was in large measure motivated by partisan interests.
I do so love lawyerly elocution! Yes, I think you are on pretty safe ground there. I can also agree that Jim Crow laws were, “in large measure”, an effect of racism. I also agree that American’s entry into WWII was, “in large measure” a result of the attack on Pearl Harbor.
To add a little twist to your hypothetical, let’s say a new study comes out indicating that 80% of social phobics who are afraid of saying their full name in public are Republican. A legislature controlled by Democrats votes (purely on party lines) to require voters to say their full names to the room. Is that legit?
I’d argue that a person who was eligible to vote but was denied his vote is just as fraudulent as an ineligible person voting. Arguably even more so because ineligible voting is seeking anonymity. So people are more likely to be aware of eligible voters being denied the opportunity to vote than they are of ineligible people voting. Therefore the perceived invalidity of the results is greater.
But taking them as having equal weight, I’d say that eligible votes denied and ineligible votes allowed should be combined into a single fraudulent vote count. And by that standard, if you create a procedure that prevents one ineligible vote but at a cost of turning away two eligible votes, your procedure failed.
Sure. Because even if the Democratic legislature acted with an impermissible motive in their hearts, their action was, objectively, totally reasonable. It’s simply an added treat that the objectively reasonable move hurts Republicans.
We can think of the same calculus when redistrciting happens. Every redistricting decision is supposed to neutrally allocate district boundary lines to serve the population distribution. In reality, both parties seek to obtain partisan advantage. So as long at the decision they make is objectively defensible, they’re covered.
Hahahaha. My son must be an idiot. He has a PhD in math and lives and works in the DC area. He moved from the other coast and somewhere during the move misplaced his passport. His fiance signed the lease for their apartment and they didn’t have any utilities billed to his name. His CA driver’s license was useless for establishing residency. He could not vote in the last election. I’m sure it’s easier if you’re poor, unemployed and English is your second language.
Voter fraud is very rare. Preventing qualified voters from voting through caging lists or any other ruse is common. It isn’t the well off who have their right to vote denied. Of course it is pure coincidence that is is primarily likely Democratic voters who lose their rights. Another is that it is the Republicans frequently screaming about illegal voters who don’t exist.
“The DC area,” could be Maryland, Virginia, or the District itself.
In Virginia, here is the form that must be filled out to register. Submitting this form in person does not require the production of any identification. This registers you to vote. To actually cast a ballot, you must either present identification or sign a statement, subject to felony penalties for false statements pursuant to Va Code §24.2-1016, that the person is the named registered voter. So if your son lives in Virginia and did not vote because he lost his passport and had no utillity bills, yes: he’s an idiot.
But perhaps it was Maryland?
Here is Maryland’s voter registration form. As the form explains, if you do not have a Maryland driver’s license or an MVA ID card, you must supply the last four digits of your social security number. So if your son lives in Maryland and did not vote because he lost his passport and had no utillity bills, yes: he’s an idiot.
So I guess it was DC.
Except…
I bet you know what’s coming, right?
In fact, I’ll leave it as a surprise. Except to say my sympathies to your son, the idiot.
I try to avoid absolute statements, especially when there are obvious exceptions.
There are people, me among them, that can point to a whole host of reasons for America’s entry into World War II, including the Export Control Act in the Pacific, which was an unfriendly act against Japan, and the oil embargo in July 1941, which only cemented the Japanese perception that the US wold interfere with their military conquest of the region. Nor was even the attack on Pearl Harbor sufficient to convince everyone; the founding Vice-President of the ACLU and member of Congress Jeannette Rankin famously voted ‘no’ to FDR’s request for war following the Pearl Harbor attack.
Obviously these are outliers; equally obviously, they exist.
And the reasonable, honest motivation for the Republicans to oppose the measure, for which the reduction of public participation in democracy is merely an unfortunate side effect, is what, please? :dubious:
Oh, come now, you cheerled that campaign right here far past any point you can claim to have been “reasonable”. Cites available on request. Yes, you yourself had a campaign against ACORN, even if you won’t accept responsibility for it after its tawdry motivation had been made clear to you.
Cite. Now. Or shut the fuck up; either way will do; just do us all a favor, including yourself, and stop dissemniating known falsehoods here. You know better.
The fight against ACORN was primarily classism with a solid streak of racism running through it. The original intent was to stop a program that registered poor voters. They happened to be primarily black. Was that part of the intention? Perhaps not, but it surely was the result. Many blacks and other minorities were being denied their right to vote. They were also likely to favor the Dems. If you know about Harris in Florida, you know who she worked for. You know about caging lists. You probably know in Michigan voters whose homes were being foreclosed were being denied the right to vote.
Is it all coincidence that these people were likely Democratic votes? Hell no.
But that does not translate into stopping fraudulent voting. There is almost none. So we need to prevent millions of voters from exercising their voting rights in order to stop practically non-existent voter fraud.
The ACORN witch hunt was designed to suppress likely Democratic voters. It was not a plan to purify voter rolls. That claim is dishonest.