I’d say that it is more like saying that if someone is arrested for jaywalking, that shows that laws against jaywalking aren’t necessary, because arresting them for it doesn’t serve any purpose. The fact that some jaywalkers also are carjackers shouldn’t be an excuse to make jaywalking illegal.
And there are a lot of people who sincerely believe that vaccinations cause autism and a host of other problems so it’s common sense to act if it’s a near certainty and outlaw vaccinations, right?
- Maybe ask @Thing.Fish that, since it’s their claim?
- I’m not aware of any evidence that there is widespread ballot fraud taking place in recent U.S. history, in 2020 or otherwise. There have been some cases, such as the 2018 race I’ve repeatedly cited, but beyond that, I’m not aware of much. Certainly not enough that Arizona’s “ballot security” provisions seem justified. But maybe I’m wrong. What’s the evidence for widespread ballot fraud?
No. For the 123098th time, I’m NOT AGREEING WITH THE REPUBLICAN ARGUMENTS.
I just don’t see a “public admission” by the Republican lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court that the GOP is engaged in “voter suppression…just to win elections.”
I think the Republican “ballot security” measures are driven largely by genuine but unfounded concerns over ballot fraud, and that those concerns are actually largely driven by motivated reasoning and an inchoate anxiety over changing demographics and culture. I don’t think most Republicans are actually consciously, intentionally trying to disenfranchise legitimately eligible minority voters, but the measures they are pushing not coincidentally have that effect. If you think that’s a distinction without a difference, well, I’m actually not going to try to argue with you over that.
Well, ok, that makes more sense, but that’s a bit different. If I understand you correctly, what you’re saying is that ballot harvesting shouldn’t be illegal because ballot tampering already is. If all that was going on upthread was confusion over what folks meant by “ballot harvesting”, I apologize.
I was challenging a specific assertion that there is a “unanimous consensus of election officials and observers across America” that there is no widespread ballot fraud taking place.
I am not aware of any evidence of widespread ballot fraud taking place in 2020 or any other election. However, per my understanding, voting procedures are such that it would be difficult to find evidence of such fraud were it to exist.
Which is kind of the crux of the dispute over these issues. ISTM that the same people who make the biggest deal over the fact that there is “no evidence” of voter fraud are the same people who are most adamantly opposed to measures that would capture such evidence.
FWIW, I’m skeptical as to whether election-changing fraud is common. If it were, there would probably be instances of people ratting out other people and such. But I imagine it does happen here and there and goes under the radar because there’s not really much that can be done to catch it under the rules in place (and the attitude in certain circles that anyone alleging voting fraud is a racist vote-suppressor). Hard to know just how common.
Ballot harvesting can create the conditions in which ballot tampering can become easier to do.
But, IMHO, that shouldn’t make ballot harvesting illegal, just more scrutinized.
Yes, I agree.
What leads you to that understanding?
I understand that that was a claim made by some of Trump’s surrogates while he was contesting the election, but when asked to demonstrate any evidence to that effect, they were unable to do so.
And, no I’m not talking about evidence of fraud, I’m talking evidence that procedures would make hard to detect. They had no evidence that these procedures would make fraud harder to detect.
So, the only thing that they had was that they had no evidence of anything done wrong, nor that procedures would make it hard to find that evidence, but they used that lack of evidence to prove that there must be fraud.
Really? Stacey Abrams, among others, might beg to differ.
IMO most of your arguments in this thread are very much on-point, but in this case I think you’re giving Republicans a little too much benefit of the doubt.
I’m sure she would. Plenty of others in this very thread have…
Maybe I am. I could be wrong. It’s my opinion, not a rigorously demonstrated proof.
And what I’m trying to say is that the sincerity of those beliefs doesn’t matter. I don’t doubt Jenny McCarthy’s sincerity in the slightest but that doesn’t make the harm she has caused any less lethal.
Likewise the unfounded beliefs of the Republicans – leadership as well as rank and file – is leading to actions no less suppressive than if they were cynically motivated.
Well,
I know that they’re being crafty with the rhetoric of their argument, but I still think the OP’s point still stands. They’re not directly arguing that expanded voting should be prohibited, but they’re making the argument that when the opposition uses GOTV practices to help voters who have a more challenging time voting that, Republicans lose. So yeah, they’re arguing they lose when more people vote - I don’t see how we can see it any other way.
I’m not reading their arguments that way. But, of course I could be wrong. Where in their written or oral arguments before the court are they arguing that?