Put it this way: If Bricker and I can actually agree on something, it is probably a “Good Government” Party issue.
Sure they are. And yet public support remains very high.
See, here’s the problem. The courts say the law is constitutional. The legislatures pass it. The governors sign it. The public approves of it.
That’s sort of the definition of how we make laws. Sure, you’re welcome to continue to argue that it’s bad public policy, but you’re not doing well at persuading many people.
Yes.
I’ve only skimmed the thread, but it looks like I’m with Bricker and BrainGlutton, though seemingly more from the latter’s camp since I am a consistent Democrat and strong Obama supporter. I find it embarrassing and nakedly partisan that Democrats except Jimmy Carter largely oppose voter ID.
And, of course, in deference to the religious convictions of a large minority of the American population, when we issue the national ID card, every card’s number should include “666” somewhere. And the number should also correspond to your barcode-tattoo.
And if it could be shown that there was actually a need for it and not just a want, and if it was just you promoting it, and not a particular political party, and if it wasn’t tied to other efforts designed to deflate the ranks of voters because that same political party actually believes that fewer voters overall gives them a better chance of winning, then maybe you could convince me. It’s like trying to convince me to open the windows for ventilation while asking me to ignore the swarm of bees coming towards the house “because it’s a separate issue that we’ll deal with later.”
I’m trying to inflate the ranks of voters. What I’m describing is automatic universal registration. No more need for registration drives.
And what I am saying is that such an attempt will cause even more people to drop of the system. If this would actually increase the ranks of voters, why are Republicans in favor of it?
Czarcasm, sure they are trying to keep our side’s vote down. But they have a reasonable position to take to do it. It makes us look terrible to oppose this, like we are actually trying to rig elections or even hinting that this is how we have been winning them, which of course is an impression the Right would love to convey in swing voters’ minds.
Instead of digging in our heels and opposing this, we should be fighting to shape it in a way that is fair and equitable and allows public funding for people to easily get these IDs. Then we need to use volunteers to help make sure all our voters get them and just keep on G-ing OTV.
See Bricker’s Post #69. “In principle” he would go for them, but the costs…you know. Of course, when it is pointed out the measures he wishes to implement would cost money, he says nothing. If you want to push such an all-encompassing agenda I’ll be behind you 100%, but I think all you’ll get from the Republican side is(at best) silence.
Here’s what I said a bit later:
I have bolded, and colored in red, the sentence you seem to be desperately wishing away.
Can you explain why you summarized my attitude, which I described with, “And I think the cost problems would be offset by the various advantages you outline. I’d agree to this,” as:
What is it that the reader knows, Czarcasm?
No. It will serve to strengthen the public’s faith and confidence in the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.
That I didn’t see that post, and that my attitude about your position on this matter has changed for the better.
Fair enough. Thanks.
How?
They’re not, just Bricker, and if he says he likes it for “Good Government” reasons I’m willing to believe him for once.
No one but Dopers in this thread are for or against this, yet, it’s not a public issue at all, just an idea I’m floating here.
Oh, I’m not entirely opposed to voter ID laws. I’ve worked for Elections Canada and you need to prove who you are to vote up here. Our list of ‘acceptable IDs’ is pretty broad though. I do think that voter ID, as implemented in some states, is pretty transparently part of a larger scheme to make voting more difficult.
If one were really trying to improve the security of the elections (and/or the public’s faith therein) there are much lower-hanging fruit than worrying about in-person voter fraud. Someone tackling in-person fraud over mail-in ballots, or electronic voting machine security/audibility is either incompetent or has some other goal in mind.
BTW, here’s Hasen’s Election Law Blog.
Do you believe that the number of voter ID fraudsters that are caught will exceed the number of honest voters that will feel disenfranchised enough to not bother voting?
When you posted this:
to show that it is possible that there could be many more-we just didn’t know, I responded with:
It’s kind of hard to tell if 35, 350 or even 3500 votes will impact an election if we don’t know what percentage of the voters those numbers represent. Are we talking about an “Elephant trampling through the begonias” sized problem, or an “ant trying to make off with a pumpkin” sized problem?
How so?
An integrity that was only called into question by scare mongering from conservatives? The only people who will feel better are the ones who uncritically accepted the pronouncements of fraud and believe a problem exists where there is none and never was.
The nation has stayed together just fine for 237 years without demanding photo IDs to vote. I have yet to see one case where people can point to rampant voter fraud of the sort that would be fixed by photo IDs. One can only marvel that the whole system survived this long. :rolleyes:
In fact, if anything, the conservative assault on voting rights in an attempt to disenfranchise voters (and make no mistake, that is ALL this is) serves to undermine my faith and confidence in the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.
It’s a small problem in terms of likelihood.
But when it happens, it has the potential to deliver huge consequences.
There will probably not be another governor’s race in Washington State for a hundred years that gets that close. There probably won’t be another presidential election in any state that gets as close as Florida was in 2000. And even if that happens, the odds of that state being the one to determine the outcome of the national race are just miniscule!
But how foolish would it be to ignore it, after it’s happened once?