Not sure if this got posted yet, but the Justice Dept. is attempting to put a kibosh on things.
Voter ID Laws: Necessary to combat rampant fraud or subtle subjugation of the Democratic demographic
I know what Florida certified. I also well recall the controversy surrounding the balloting, the vote counts, the recounts, the lawsuits, and the certification. I am sure I would not be exaggerating if I state that said controversy was “enormous”. I alluded to that in my previous post. I have no desire to rehash the details of matter, or the result, here.
But if you are trying to persuade a neutral observer, let alone someone who may “lean Democratic” (assuming that a Democratic partisan hack would be beyond persuasion), bringing up the Florida 2000 presidential election as your example of “OMG!! There are really close elections!” seems counter productive.
As for fixing clerical errors, I agree they should be eliminated to the greatest extent humanly possible. But given that humans are involved, I am certain we will never eliminate every single instance of the ones mentioned by posters upthread. Someone is inevitably going to mark the wrong name on a list or some such. Perhaps some doddering old poll worker will do this repeatedly. Heck, doddering old poll workers seem to be the norm wherever I’ve voted. Maybe we need to investigate doddering old poll workers and ban them from access to lists of voters! Why, it’s a threat to the very confidence of the electoral system, isn’t it? There oughta be a law!!
But clearly there won’t be unless it confers an advantage to Republicans.
But if you didn’t understand my argument, how can you decide it only applied against one study?
[/QUOTE]
And you also claimed that the laws passed by Democrats were different in some meaningful way than those passed by Republicans.
Gee, it’s almost like Democrats are powerless to pass any laws at all. Maybe you guys should just go home and wait for the Republicans to tell you what to do.
Its blackmail. He’s saying if we don’t agree he’s right, Florida will elect GeeDubya II. Costa Rica will attack us, and we’ll invade Belgium.
Perhaps instead it indicates that Democrats, even given the power to do so, refrain from passing laws that put party above country. We suspect that this concept is foreign to Republicans so if you need me to explain it in simpler words I’ll make the attempt.
I’ve got some simple words for you CannyDan:
Horseshit.
Having been a Libertarian activist closely watching the struggle of getting and maintaining ballot access, not just in my state but all of them, for twenty-five years, I have seen the democrats and the republicans collude to keep third parties from becoming a threat, attempting to enforce two parties alone by force of law. We’ve had to sue umpteen times, and often won, to get or stay on the ballot.
Either flavor of republicrat is equally eager to preserve his party’s advantage and disturb that of the other’s. And both flavors have shown eagerness to keep third parties down. Some of the shit they’ve pulled to keep us off the ballot is amazing.
Disagree is unequal to misunderstand. I understand what you said. I disagree with it and I disagree with your conclusion. As did others. Maybe you need to revisit that?
And since you didn’t comment on the other citations - they came in somewhat later than the first - it’s fair to say that your criticism of the first study is not necessarily the same as the second, third or book chapter.
They are somewhat different than that of several Republican states. And this has been addressed already - again, I suggest you reread it. Or I can accuse you of not understanding if you like. That seems to be your MO.
Well, David42, I’d expect that someone having your personal experience with disenfranchisement would be even more outraged than the rest of us at such from all and sundry sources. Strange that you are so willing to accept Republican ploys that result in reduction in voting by minorities, the poor, and the aged (I deliberately avoided claiming outright disenfranchisement). But you’re quite ready to castigate me for complaining about it. Your “pox on both houses” rings hollow given your apologia for Republican voter suppression throughout the rest of this thread.
That’s because I am not convinced that Voter I.D. has no merit even if it has a disparate impact on one party.
When I think of the idea that voter confidence in sound and secure elections has no place in reasoning, I have a huge empty feeling inside that my vote has no meaning. My vote should mean something. It should mean something more than an illegal immigrant’s ideas on how to run the country on an equal footing, and it should mean something more than not knowing who is having a say in how our country is run.
Having experienced many times in my life when me or my family could fairly be called poor, (the two years my mom worked minimum wage jobs without child support or government benefits come to mind) and never finding reasons that I shouldn’t be very careful to make sure I have I.D., I do not think I am demanding something from others I am not willing to go through myself.
I prefer the ability to know our elections are sound over some people (mostly) not being responsible enough to maintain a situation necessary to exercise their right voting after all.
Apparently from evidence adduced in this thread, the truly disenfranchised (that care enough to want to vote enough to speak up) number about twelve in this country. About the same number of voting frauds if we believe you.
I can sleep at night knowing there isn’t going to be a republican dictatorship resulting over the issue.
I don’t believe you.
The reason I don’t believe you is that every time you have summarized my argument, it has been an inaccurate summary.
To clarify, though, if you restate my argument, and do so correctly, then it will be obvious I am wrong, and you disagree with my actual argument and not some strawman you have created for me, which I think you have.
You don’t understand and disagree. You don’t understand, period, since every time you’ve said, “…and Bricker thinks…” in this thread you’ve been wrong.
Just point me at a post number.
Some progressives have come to the conclusion that the influence of big money in political campaigns has made the Democrats the Washington Senators to Republican’s Harlem Globetrotter … paid to lose, basically. It’s a viewpoint that is consistent with the historical record over the last four years. In short, big money is already telling both parties what to do.
Great! Then why are you complaining? You have your marching orders; you’ve been paid. Seems rather ungracious to squawk about it now.
And it’s the Washington Generals that serve as the inept opponents to the Globetrotters.
I am crushed.
Actually, I never sumarized it at all except to say that you don’t feel the one study you commented on shows what the authors of the study claim it does. You find that inaccurate? As for the actual argument you made itself, I never even addressed it because others beat me to it. They also beat me to it when they remained skeptical even after you replied. Maybe you don’t recall this?
Really? Here is what I have said:
Bricker thinks that it is okay to disenfranchise voters in the name of Voter Confidence. He feels this way despite the fact that there are three studies from the likes of Columbia, Harvard and MIT and one chapter of a book by a Loyolla Law Professor that show no correlation between Voter ID and voter confidence.
He directly addressed one study out of all of them, but has yet to address the other two studies or the book.
Some posters here found his reasoning specious and others wonder why he didn’t even address the other citations. He also has yet to actually provide ANY citations for his own position. Oh, and the voter confidence is about preventing future fraud in future elections, a type of which has not actually happened yet. But he assures us that it will. And that’s not a slippery slope. Becuse Bricker told us it isn’t.
What about my “voter confidence”? What about my expectation that elections are conducted on a level playing field? Mine don’t count, mine aren’t part of the absolutely crucial issue of voter confidence? Seems to me that if the Republicans (or anybody else, for that matter) can pass legislation to tilt the field in their favor, that isn’t one hundred percent kosher. Actually, that’s mega-trayf, that’s a ham and cheese sandwich with a nice glass milk.
And this:
Bricker can be very circumspect and polite, the very paragon of civility. So long as he thinks he’s winning. When he thinks he’s losing the argument (which is fortunately quite rare), he gets nasty. Like this gem of cogent analysis.
Now, that’s a hard one to answer, because everybody knows that’s true, that Democrats court the massive illegal alien and felon demographic. Otherwise, they couldn’t ever win, since everybody also knows that America is a center-right country, and all right thinking Americans agree with Bricker. Can’t ask for a cite for something like that, its something everybody knows.
Punching below the belt isn’t good form, Bricker. Knifing below the belt is worse.
Not a question of merit, a question of method. Treating an infected toenail with antibiotics has merit, amputation does not.
Yes, and that does not accurately capture my argument.