Is that what you think I’m doing, just slapping on a label? You’re making no effort whatsoever to evaluate the quality of my arguments?
I guess I have no business being surprised at this.
You and I don’t agree on moral postulates. We don’t agree on all ethical principles. So yes: when you rest your arguments on morals or ethics as though your principles were universal, that’s precisely what you’re doing.
Bullshit. If you had evidence that voter fraud was really affecting elections (and not simply citing historically close elections where it MIGHT have been factor, but not actually demonstrating that it WAS) you’d have presented it and we could analyze it. You have not (and likely can not) so all you have left are lame accusations that I’m being arrogant or something.
How about comparing me (who doesn’t want to deprive any citizen of their vote) to the various political operatives who cheerfully admit that this is EXACTLY their goal?
Well, its a hard case to make to someone who’s a member of a group that has a problem getting to vote. To tell them the solution for their problem is to vote. We’d almost have to assure them that the people who are fucking them now won’t just fuck them harder if they try it.
Why should they believe? Ideas and plans abound for ways to ensure voter identity without doing any damage to voter access. It can be done, if the powers that be wanted it done. They don’t. Très duh, mais non?
And a case could be made, I suppose, that their voter confidence is not injured. Because they don’t vote, do they? Hence, they have no voter confidence at risk!
In these states which require ID to vote, may a voter cast a provisional ballot? In my state, if the precinct workers question the legitimacy of a vote, the voter may cast what’s called a provisional ballot in which it is separated and counted along with all of the other votes.
In the case of a contest or recount, the provisional ballots are explored and the commissioners determine whether the ballot was indeed legally cast. Is this procedure not available in voter ID law states?
Not at all. My accusation is not that you’re arrogant – it’s that we have a system for deciding how to weigh various competing social goals and reach a decision about how to craft laws to address that weighting.
In this regard, you’re on much firmer ground than they are.
But since you also hold other positions, ones which I find morally odious, this narrow ground isn’t remotely sufficient for me to regard you as a moral or ethical authority.
Yes, it is.
I’m told that this procedure, far from protecting the vote, is a brazen attack on marginalized communities. I don’t see it, but that’s the word on the street.
If you have a voter ID system, what’s the purpose of continuing to require people to register to vote in advance? Why isn’t the ID enough?
Does the ID say the holder is (or is not) a citizen? Does it say he is (or is not) a felon (relevant in states in which being a convicted felon is disqualifying)?
Yes, and what part of me expressing my opinion on how the decision is a bad one carried the implication that I want to trash the system and replace it with my own judgement? By your standard, isn’t *anyone *expressing an opinion that such-and-such law is needed (and here’s why) or that such-and-such law is harmful (and here’s why) implicitly expressing a wish to trash the system and replace it with their own judgement? Ultimately, isn’t the accusation of “you want to substitute your opinion for rule of law” a rather vapid and desperate one designed to put people on the defensive as they get sucked into trying to prove that they do indeed respect rule of law? Maybe against stupider opponents, this would be an effective stalling tactic.
I wasn’t asking for your blessing, just curious if you were capable of recognizing (even as tepidly and tenuously as the above effort) the immorality of the people you’re choosing to align yourself with.
Truth be told, I’m not even sure why this is a moral issue - if it’s granted axiomatically that every qualified citizen should have a right to vote (qualification being as even-handed as possible) and should be able to freely exercise that right, the notion of making voting more difficult should seem counterproductive and inefficient. You can try to put some kind of moral spin on it by saying things like “well, if we make it too easy, the people won’t appreciate it to a level I find satisfactory” but I gather the people would be well-justified in telling someone making such a proposal to get lost.
Most of the posts you make that lay out some flat rule like the votes discouraged must be less than the illegal votes prevented carries that implication. You’re proposing a rule when you do that, a rule you’re unable to get the legislatures or even your more traditional friends the judges to apply.
If we’re going to develop secular policy from someone’s sense of morality, then it should be mine, and not yours.
Is this another rule proposal?
I thought you were on board with merely taking photos and fingerprints on the spot. Why the sudden shift?
Regarding the relative morality of disincentivizing legitimate voters versus allowing hordes of frothing rabid Mexicans to pour across the border and line up at voting booths, I’d say that the only rational side for either side to take is weighing the real negative impact of one versus the real negative impact of the other. Which raises the question of what the negative impact of being too permissive might be.
Which leads us directly to the fact that it has not been shown that illegal votes are happening in any significant quantity.
Which makes it very difficult to believe that anybody is honestly arguing for a more difficult voting system with the goal of deterring illegal votes.
It’s really, really easy to believe that people want to block poor people from voting to partisan reasons, though. There is a very real ‘negative’ impact (in some people’s eyes) when the poor’s voice is unstifled.
Bullshit. I’m describing a standard which could potentially be used to determine if a piece of legislation causes more problem then it solves, in part because I recognize the concepts of Type I errors (in this case, a legitimate voter is blocked) and Type II errors (in this case, a vote is illegally cast). Got a different proposed standard? Do you have any proposed standard by which you could determine if this legislation is having the intended effect, because if you don’t and are relying solely on “the legislature followed the correct procedures”, then the value of your input to this debate is a mystery to me.
If you want to honestly ask me (or anyone) for actual *rules *I might hypothetically put on the legislative process, start a new thread. You could open with Trump’s proposal that any new regulation requires the cancellation of two existing regulations, and see where that takes you.
Before I ask why it should be yours, I’d have to have it clarified why it should be anyone’s. I’m not inclined to debate conclusions bases on suspect premises.
I haven’t proposed any rules. in this case, it’d hypothetically be someone saying to someone else “I have my rights, and I’m not interested in your opinion that I don’t appreciate my rights enough. Get lost.”
I would find this amusing.
Yes! "Voted on by a majority of the legislature, approved by the executive, and if challenged in the courts, upheld.
I know it’s simple, but it’s the system we have agreed to accept.
See, the way we pass laws (and repeal them) is the way I described above. The intended effect is whatever the voting puclic continues to approve by virtue of the elected reps not repealing it.
My point exactly. If I can’t have it be mine, I won’t let it be yours, and it seems you feel the same way. So clearly that won’t work as an alternate method.
Irrelevant. No doubt there are many useless laws on the books and many potentially useful laws left unpassed, because we’re all well aware that although results should be among the concerns of an ethical legislator, it often is not or it takes a backseat to more pressing political concerns.
Well, in this particular case, the ability of the voting public to express their approval/disapproval is itself under attack, though I figure that’s the inevitable corrosive effect of letting elected officials set the rules for elections.
And if it had ever been actually proposed as an alternative method, your point would have a point.
it’s that observation that is irrelevant.
Perhaps there is some Platonic ideal of perfect legislative results – in your opinion. My Platonic perfect results would be very different from yours. The actual results we obtain are a direct and inexorable consequence of accepting the compromise system in which neither you nor I wield absolute power. You speak blithely of the actions a set of ethical legislators would take while apparently blind to the obvious conclusion that my ideal ethical legislators would act differently to yours.
Every post you make is infected with the underlying assumption that your views are the only possibly ethically correct ones.
They are not. I don’t accept your ethics.
So as the night follows the day, so too does it follow that what you dismiss as simply “political concerns,” are in fact inevitable side-effects of a system that allows multiple voices, and your concerns are not about the multiple voices, but simply that the right voices – yours, and those that agree with you – are not prevailing in the debate.
Whoa, there. That’s not the system we have agreed to accept. You left out some important steps there. For one, we have the right to petition the government. That’s huge and you simply left it out.
So, let’s say Alec (our petitioning citizen) goes to his state rep and says, “Hey, my candidates keep losing elections and I think it’s because lots of fraudulent votes are being counted. Do something.” So, the rep considers Alec’s problem and decides that Voter ID is the solution. He then crafts a bill, has hearings, committee meetings, floor debate, etc. and his bill is voted upon.
Then your system comes into play.
I would hope that legislators would consider the “unintended” consequences of legislation before passing it. (I used quotes because the “unintended” consequences are actually the full intent of the bill, in this case.) I would hope that legislators would also consider the overall health of democracy when voting on a bill. Does the voter ID bill increase the strength of democracy or does it weaken it?
Finally, citizens have the right to complain when this law prevents them from voting. Then the whole petitioning the government starts again.
That’s because in this specific case, I can’t see the ethical value (any value, really, other than trying to appease the masses with falsehoods) in preventing Americans from voting to ostensibly address a nonexistent problem. On a different issue, where your position might be “we can’t let pregnant women kill their unborn babies”, I’ll gladly recognize an ethical difference on your part, rather than an ethical void.
Please stop projecting your authoritarian impulses onto me.
Actually, my ethical approach did indeed prevail (it was in fact in place before I got here), in the multi-voiced democracy where I live. What the Americans inflict on themselves is largely entertainment value for me.
Weren’t “Jim Crow” laws enacted by duly elected legislators according to legally valid procedures? For how many years did our courts perform the pretzel logic necessary to declare them just and proper? And solid majorities supported them.
You say “…So as the night follows the day, so too does it follow that what you dismiss as simply “political concerns,” are in fact inevitable side-effects of a system that allows multiple voices, and your concerns are not about the multiple voices, but simply that the right voices – yours, and those that agree with you – are not prevailing in the debate…”
Would you have offered the same argument to Dr. King? Would you have expected him to gasp in wonder and amazement at the clarity of your reasoning, and humbly changed his mind?
We have a system in place to elect the people who get to decide what is reasonable. And I get to vote for and advocate for candidates whose positions I feel are reasonable. I would not walk into the statehouse and demand that they change the laws to my liking, but I feel perfectly fine in telling my friends and acquaintances to vote for the guy that will fight to change the laws to my liking.
Discussing what those people we vote for are up to, and deciding whether or not we like their actions, is an important part of deciding who to vote and advocate for. So yes, I am going to look at my ideal, and then vote or advocate for candidates that most closely match my ideal. That doesn’t mean that my ideal will be made law, but it is the one power I have to try to move things towards that direction, and I am going to use that power to the best of my ability.
So, yes, when I say I want to have laws that make it easier to vote, that is simply shorthand for e saying that I will advocate and vote for candidates who will introduce legislation that will make it easier to vote (or at least, not introduce legislation that makes it harder.)
Assuming you are talking about #242, then I would agree with that framework, specifically because it gives alternatives if an ID cannot be procured through diligent effort, while providing ID’s (which are useful for other purposes) for those who do not have quite the same difficulties as someone born before records were well kept with a spelling variation to their name and a name change or two from marriage and lives an hour away from the nearest ID procurement place.
If the state laws about Voter ID followed Bricker’s framework, then most of us would not be debating against them. It seems as though some are turning into laws based on Bricker’s framework, thanks to the courts, but many still make it more difficult for some eligible voters to vote.
My standard is that anyone who is eligible to vote that wants to vote should be able to vote. Anything that stands between an eligible voter and a ballot is something that should be minimized or eliminated to create as few obstacles as are practical. Where exactly that line is, is a matter for debate, but any obstacles placed should be under the highest possible scrutiny to ensure that they are not created with the cynical intent, nor the unintentional consequence, of reducing voter turnout.
I thought about tracking down the conversation, but to be honest, I either see you as asking me to promote the arguments of others with whom I disagree, which I do not feel I have an obligation, nor a desire to do, or you are asking me to prove that there are those who are against thumbprint ID, which I feel is asking for a cite that water is wet.
If you can articulate how such a cite would contribute to this conversation in a meaningful way, I will reconsider your request.
And that procedure: voting for and advocating for candidates who will propose and vote on legislation that agrees with my version of ethics.
Part of the problem here is that there are quite a number of people who vote for these legislators that are not as well informed as you or bryan or I am on their positions and declared motivations. Most people vote for the person with the same letter in front of their name as their parents voted for. We’ve seen surveys that show that the majority of americans are in favor of Voter ID, but the majority of americans do not understand the nuances that distinguish a fairly crafted and balanced (if unnecessary, IMHO) law, vs a law that was put in with the specific cynical motive to suppress voter turnout, and only using the guise of securing the vote as an excuse. It is a complicated subject that requires more than just cursory learning to form an educated opinion.
So, those of us who do see this as a cynical attempt feel the need to educate our fellow voters about it, in the hopes that they care about the ideals of universality of suffrage as much as we do, and that it is only the practical ignorance of being a busy person with mundane matters to attend to that causes them to vote for legislators who would restrict suffrage to those who they deem to vote correctly.
There are no attempts at a coup or trying to change the legislative process or results by fiat. It is only an attempt at educating the public so that they can make more informed decisions based on the attitudes and motives of the candidates. What we do here will change few, if any minds, but, what we do here may give us the tools to change a few minds IRL.