Outstanding point. If you’re here illegally, what you want to do is stay under the radar and not draw attention to yourself. The very last thing you’d do is attempt to register to vote. If you’re worried about “illegals” voting, I think you should worry more about your own bigotry than the non-existent threat to the electoral process.
Voter ID Laws: Necessary to combat rampant fraud or subtle subjugation of the Democratic demographic
I think what Jenaroph is saying is that lack of such a variance is evidence of a lack of large scale voter fraud. The inverse doesn’t necessarily follow unless all other possible reasons for such a variance are eliminated.
Counselor, you’re bluffing. If you had it, you would have brought it, and by now, you would be gloating.
I note, however, that you want to set aside a major portion of my argument, that which is based on logistics: how to organize, provide for, transport, and otherwise ride herd on any given number of covert voters. I’m wondering why that is. My guess is you find that sound and reasonable, hence, troublesome. So, poof! gone!
So now you want to pretend that my entire argument is the difficulty in keeping such a conspiracy secret, yes? You hope that I will endorse that position, apparently (and you are nothing if not utterly transparent…) because you’ve got a gotchaya in your pocket. Or at least you think you do.
Love the act, by the way. “I’m just an old country lawyer, and I’m not up on all these fancy rhetorical flushes ol’ 'luc uses, what with the long words, and all, so I gotta get that boy to boil it down into English.” Cheap trick, Counselor. Oughta be beneath you. Isn’t, but oughta be.
Gotta a nickel in my pocket says about 95% of the Dopers who read what I said know exactly what I’m talking about. And you do too. So, how’s about we move past the finger-fucking stage, and you just go ahead and devastate me, OK?
Unless, of course, as I suspect: you’re bluffing.
Then explain to me how once when I went to the poll in California (no voter ID), there was a scrawl (not mine) next to my nake in the poll book and I was told I already voted.
I guess according to Stamos’ Left Ear that does not count as a non-zero number of voter dienfranchisement.
And the people that show up for protests in support of the DREAM Act, and acknowledge during those protests that they are here illegally? Which radar are they avoiding?
No, you’re mistaken. I’m simply trying to figure out what the fuck you’re talking about.
Simple, declarative sentences. Why is that a challenge? You don’t like my version? Think it’s trying to trap you? Fine. Throw it away. Craft your own.
Or, one of the 95% of Dopers that know what you’re saying could step in and help out.
And the left always wants to steer it into bigotry.
What about my right to fair and honest elections?
And of course, no illegal EVER commits any other kind of crime. Might call attention to himself, you know.
Just because you point out why crimes might be senseless doesn’t mean they don’t happen.
I’m still wondering how the Manson family could have been thinking what they did think.
If you want fair and honest elections, voter ID rules aren’t going to help you. What they’re going to do is disenfranchise voters who are disproportionately Democratic-leaning. Which of course is precisely the aim of voter ID laws.
When you open your yammer about “illegals” somehow voting and ruining our elections, you’re engaging in hysterical bigotry. I call a spade a spade.
“Somehow” voting?
It’s not mysterious. There’s no way to check ID, after all.
I would set it aside because it’s freaking silly.
These “logistical problems” are solved as simply as writing a newspaper story that says your state is not requiring I.D. or proof of citizenship to vote. There ya go, the word is out. Individuals take it from there, after all the illegals spread the word that the democrats want them here, and it is easy to get away with voting when you’re not entitled to it.
BobLibDem:
Do you have anything besides handwaving to explain the fact that I actually LIKE hispanics?
Why are you so anxious to change the subject? What are you going to do now, refuse to bring your crushing counter-argument, because I won’t play semantic patty-cake with you?
Horseshit. If you had such, no power on Earth would stop you, you’d already be doing your victory boogie in the end zone.
You’re bluffing. Bring it. Double dog dare you.
What about the way Saint Cad was disenfranchised as he showed us? Does it matter?
ETA - I tried to post this at 11:30 this morning (local time) but apparently it didn’t go through. I hit Submit now. Sorry if some points upthread are skipped because of this time lag.
I hark back to this early post because I believe this premise is circular, self serving (referring to the Republican party, not you personally Bricker), and still misses the point.
Voter confidence in the system has been under active attack by the Republican establishment and its supporters. The destruction of ACORN is a case in point. So are other played and overplayed “exposes” by O’Keefe and others. Reports of voting by illegal aliens, felons (who in certain states lose their right to vote), and zombies (deceased but still registered voters) are trumpeted everywhere. The constant repetition at high decibel level and full blown indignation creates a climate in which even people who may be inclined to trust the present system begin to call it into question. (Smoke!! Fire!?!?) Added to this is the general decline in trust of government seen whenever the economy is troubled. The Tea Party (or parties, I recognize there are multiple entities) have made distrust of the government a watchword. So it would be no surprise if both Republican and Democratic voters now harbor suspicions, and even feel inclined or even compelled to “do something”. (Incidentally, I believe this explains the outlier Democratic legislatures passing forms of voter ID law.) And of course this crisis of confidence or the prospect of a future crisis of confidence is supported and further amplified by the fact that so many states are taking up, debating, and passing voter ID laws. (More smoke! Now I’m sure there must be fire!) This is the circular part.
The self serving part is that this crisis of confidence, if it even exists or has the potential to exist, is a wholly owned, deliberately created, and continually orchestrated subsidiary of the Republican establishment. Additional creative means whereby voter confidence may be undermined include such as http://www.brevarddems.com/general-news/florida-governor-should-stop-undermining-the-confidence-of-voters"]this
Other commonly linked “reforms” include reduction in early voting periods and adding requirements to the voter registration process that cause well respected and non-partisan groups (e.g., Florida League of Women Voters) to cease their registration efforts. The fact that such chilling efforts as well as most “voter ID” legislation has a disproportionate effect on a demographic that leans Democratic is recognized, accepted, but hand waved away as unavoidable collateral damage.
Finally, when it comes to actually improving the process, all these actions and rationalizations miss the point. As elucidator, Jenaroph and others point out, actual voter fraud, that is, vote count manipulation by impersonation of individuals, is well nigh impossible. Certainly impossible in numbers sufficient to turn even a close election. On the other hand, the absentee ballot systems of most states appear to have loopholes large enough to drive forklifts full of ballots through, yet these remain unaddressed, indeed unacknowledged, by those very same legislators demanding “voter ID”.
If there is in fact a problem, or potential problem (other than absentee ballots), it lies in voter registration. If huge numbers of illegal aliens get registered and actually vote, or if legions of the registered-but-dead rise from the grave by manipulated proxy and actually vote, or thousands of individuals named Mickey Mouse show up at the polls and actually vote, I would agree that the registration rolls need tighter scrutiny. But the requirement for picture ID at the poll on election day doesn’t address this at all.
In fact, if I were a betting man, and if I could get access to “the Truth” (whatever that is) to reliably settle the bet, I’d bet that this entire campaign, from the trumped up crisis of voter confidence to the proffered “solution” of voter ID is intended to address an actual problem (as far as Republican strategists are concerned) of Democrats winning elections, and not the stated problem of voter fraud by impersonation. Note that I said “Republican strategists”, not “Republicans” there. I do not in fact believe that the average Fox watching main street Republican is directly complicit in this scheme; rather, he/she is being duped and manipulated. But I do believe that scheme is an accurate description, and is correctly attributed to Republican strategists. IMHO, of course.
Not everybody who is in favor of Voter ID laws IS a bigot, but too often they are far too willing to exploit the bigotry of others. Playing the OH MY GOD THE ILLEGALS! card was a big part of the anti-health care reform hysteria, now it’s being used to justify the disenfranchisement of Democratic-leaning voters. I take you at your word that you like Hispanic people, but shouldn’t that tend you toward repudiating measures meant to intimidate minority voting?
How about me, who gets hassled because no one will believe that George Clooney isn’t here voting under an assumed name? How come my anectdote isn’t data?
(I can sorta understand it, the resemblance is striking, but still…)
Sheesh, Canny, couldn’t you put all that in plain English, so a fellow like Bricker, who’s only had about seven years of college, might have a chance at understanding?
I have no idea what to bring, elucidator. What’s your argument? How can I possibly deliver a stinging rebuttal to an argument I don’t comprehend? I am ready to discuss the problem of large numbers of people agreeing to conspire to rig the system. But from your last post, that’s not it, so no need to waste my time. But it leaves me unclear as to what your argument is.
Anyone else reading – apparently 95% of you understand elucidator’s argument, and I’m being a dim bulb. Please help me by stating it in clear, concise language.
Note to elucidator: I think I understood his entire post. Lots of big words, yes, but no rhetorical flourish, plausibly-deniable sarcasm, or other barriers that stopped me.
Of course, my response to him may belie my claim of understanding. We’ll see.
I disagree.
If huge numbers of illegal aliens registered and voted, how could we tell?
Well, one reason is the photo ID requirement. It does two things: by requiring the showing of legal presence, it cuts down on the number of illegal aliens that could vote. Anyone can register and then vote, but if you have to have a photo ID, it’s harder to get one without being able to show that you are lawfully present in the United States.
Secondly, it makes potential prosecutions easier. Illegally voting is a very safe crime, because there is virtually no way to reliably secure a conviction. But illegal voting when you use a photo ID is a much easier crime to prosecute.