Aww, that’s adorable! So, to interpret the snark, the real problem is that we lefties aren’t smart enough to understand these complex issues, and should rely on the opinions of a sophisticated thinker, like yourself?
As could the much more likely scenario of 5,000 legitimate voters having been turned away at the polls. But I guess it is better than 100 legitimate voters be turned away than 1 illegitimate vote be cast, particularly if those 100 tended towards Democrats.
The rest of us are arguing on a more complicated level than that, but if that’s the level you are comfortable with I’ll try to dumb it down for you from now on.
I thought he was indicating what level of political discourse he was comfortable with.
And if a party (temporarily) in power fiddles with the machinery of elections to suppress its opponents’ votes, would this have any effect on how faithfully the government represents the ‘wishes of the people’?
OK, lets make a deal. Voter ID totally kosher, so long as every sincere effort is made to provide such ID to every citizen with maximum possible convenience.
Early voting hours expanded and protected.
All voting places funded and staffed to an equal degree, such that the citizen of an economically disadvantaged neighborhood has a roughly equal ease and convenience of voting with his better placed counterpart. If it takes a half hour for the guy in the Republican dominated districts to vote, it takes the same amount of time for someone in a more Dem area.
Voting hours extended as needs be (though early voting is likely to ease this problem considerably).
Restrictions on voter registration drives erased. It wouldn’t that hard to link voter registration drives with voter id drives, so long as the effort is sincerely made and sincerely funded.
Why, I have little doubt that the Republicans would sign this political suicide pledge in a heartbeat, fair-minded people that they are! And in my capacity as the Queen of Romania, I would heartily endorse it!
Are you? Well, that explains your puzzlement with the existence of the Voter ID laws. I grant that vampire voting is more complicated than the legislature passing laws, but then, I’m a simple man. So you guys go ahead with your rarified discussion of garlic repellants installed at voting booths, and remain puzzled about how the actual Voter ID proposals are now laws.
It’s possible – but that’s why we also have courts to review these things.
And, hey, look at that! From our biggest, bestest Court of all:
My only concern would be paying for it. I don’t object in principle to any of the above.
I dub thee Sir Bricker of Transylvania (the spiritual home of lawyers everywhere!)
As Emperor of China, We concur.
Cite that I showed such puzzlement at their existence?
Although it wasn’t my analogy, I thought it rather cute. Never mind what laws we actually need-just promote fear of something vague happening and reap the results.
Actually, the discussion about garlic and vampires was rather short and to the point, but if you want to pretend that it was the main point of this thread, go right ahead-it’s what we expect from someone who posts insulting links like this one.
And what position would you take in threads about those measures…or would you not do anything to get in the way of those who oppose such measures?
Well, as I’m sure someone, somewhere, has explained many times: courts are for determining if a law is constitutional, not for determining if a law is good public policy.
But courts aren’t the only check on legislative hanky-panky. Public outcry is there to motivate voters to elect different representatives (or scare current representatives into changing their votes to ward off electoral defeat). And look! Here are people pointing out bad (in their opinion) changes in election law (including but not limited to voter ID) to try and stop those changes. It’s the system (kinda) working!
I’d bet if it was discovered that a significant proportion of Democrats suffered sever garlic allergies, Republicans would start to care.
Weird.
Voter ID laws will cost money. Certainly the ID itself needs to be made free else it amounts to a poll tax. What about the cost of documentation you need to get the ID (e.g. birth certificates)? Those free too? Either way it is a cost to the taxpayer.
A cost that, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, will have no benefit whatsoever (unless you count disenfranchising certain groups a benefit).
Voter fraud of the sort that ID laws would stop is practically non-existent. What teeny, tiny, miniscule amounts that can be found simply do not effect election outcomes. More, it is nearly inconceivable to see how someone could pull off massive fraud of this sort, massive enough to sway elections, and not be found out.
So, you support spending my money for nothing. This is not I think $1 should be spent on a bridge and you think it should be spent on a tank. This dollar will be spent to no effect whatsoever UNLESS your goal is to disenfranchise a certain section of the public. What you just agreed to seems to deny you are in it for disenfranchising people so why support this? I thought you were for smaller government if anything.
Bricker is busy pretending that the “Voter ID fraud” issue has absolutely nothing to do with the larger issue of Republicans trying to disenfranchise voters.
Another advantage of the national-database idea: When you buy a gun, the background-check can be done instantly and easily. No excuses to omit it even at gun shows. 
I’m confused-Is it the “Less Government!” Party promoting this, or the “More Government!” Party?
It’s just me promoting it. But I’d say it appeals to the “Good Government” Party. Just like having elections run by civil servants instead of elected officials, or letting the nonpartisan LWV run the presidential debates once again, would appeal to the “Good Government” Party, though I doubt the Dems or the Pubs would want to touch it.