We can ensure to a far greater degree than before, despite imperfection. The change moves in the direction of perfection.
Maybe someday we will figure out a perfect system of voting. Until then I am going for the one with the most confidence and fewest flaws.
In general, when we speak of ensuring something is true, we do so in the context of degrees of confidence.
We issue driver’s licenses in part to ensure that the police can correctly issue a traffic summons to the proper person, rather than simply allowing a person to self-report their name and address.
That system is not infallible. But it allows a much greater degree of confidence that when the police issue a summons, they are doing so using the real name and address of the driver.
The word “ensure,” in this context, does not require absolute certainty.
OK. So is it fair to say that it appears that voter ID laws generally enjoy popular support?
If you’ll examine any admissions I’ve made, you won’t find that one.
I did agree that the proponents of the laws undoubtedly are motivated by the belief that this will bring them partisan advantage.
But since Georgia, to take one example, saw a rise in minority voting turnout following the adoption of voter ID laws, I don’t necessarily agree that this perception is correct.
Oh, good! They’re evil, but they’re stupid! What a relief!
In Tennessee, perhaps.
Ok. I’ll just say that I missed that your little gem about corporate profits was in response to one of my posts. Not sure how you can claim that I started it, though, but that’s small potatoes.
Do you honestly not know how we ended up with the individual mandate? Do you honestly not know that it was a compromise with the insurance companies to cover things like the pre-existing conditions clause? Because if you honestly don’t know that, then I can excuse the position you’re taking. Otherwise, I would think you were putting forth the idea that the entire insurance industry should just suck it up and reduce their profits (which are easily in the mid-range of all industries in the US) in order to provide us with a bunch of goodies. I would be forced to believe that you think these corporations wouldn’t find some way to pass these costs on to consumers or reduce the quality of the product in order to get their profits back to where they were. Or, I would be forced to think that you expect the government to regulate the amount of profit that an insurance company can make. After all, Obamacare is not a government takeover of the healthcare industry. Right?
And just so you know, no amount of cajoling is going to make me think you believe any of those things.
And also, just so you know, I stand by everything I said earlier. No poll is worth its salt if it asks voters whether they support a certain policy if it doesn’t also ask the voters if they are willing to pay for it. Doesn’t matter what the policy is. If you think otherwise, you’re welcome to explain why you think that. However, in the interest of not hijacking this thread any further, can we do that in a new thread, devoted to that subject?
Well, John, but as I’m sure you already know, bugger the numbers one way, Obamacare will ruin our grandchildren unto the seventh generation, bugger them the other way, we save money. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Since the results reported by the Fox and Rasmussen polls are similar to the Tennessee poll, then, and since you agree that the MSTU poll was generally valid, it seems to me the burden ought to shift to you now.
That is, I suppose it’s possible that by coincidence the Fox and Rassmusen flawed polls produced results very similar to the unflawed MSTU poll, and I suppose it’s possible that there is great discrepancy between Tennessee and, say, Kentucky, but at this point I have made a prima facie case for the proposition.
Do you have any polls at all that show voter ID laws as DISFAVORED by the general populace?
I’m not going to delve into anything Rasmussen concludes, for the reasons I’ve already given you.
As for the Fox poll, no, I don’t agree that it’s similar to the Tennessee poll. Rather than simply asking whether they thought such laws were good ideas or not, the Fox poll makes reference to the debate surrounding the issue, and the intent of those proposing such laws. It’s like they’re asking the respondents to pick what team they want to be on. But more fundamentally, if the poll is vague on the question of whether there actually is a problem with illegal voting that needs solved, or that such laws have resulted in eligible voters being turned away at the polling stations, then all you’ve really gauged is what the poll respondents value more: preventing any illegal voting, or making voting easier. If they had dug deeper, they may have found the position of their respondents to be more complex.
But they didn’t dig deeper. Now why would Fox News not want to dig deeper? Vexing…
Now, I could lay the same criticism against the MTSU poll. But that poll wasn’t held up in an attempt to make grandiose claims about what The American People believe. Its purpose was to gauge the general opinion of the people of Tennessee on their law, and their knowledge of what IDs are acceptable. Fox News, on the other hand, used their single question to support their claim that “Most Americans think voter identification laws are needed to stop voter fraud.”
:dubious: . :dubious: , I say.
You ignored the Franklin and Marshall College poll that showed that 87% of Pennsylvanians support voter id laws.
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20120604_Protect_votes_of_all_citizens.html
I’ll tell you what. We have been asking your side for 12 pages (and that’s not even counting all of the other threads) for one simple number: how many people are incapable of obtaining a photo ID for finacial reasons. When your side decides to find out that number instead of nebulous claims of “a lot”, then we will start counting the number of fraudulent votes Voter ID laws would stop.
Where would anyone get such a number? What kind of research would derive it? If you simply want to send us off on a wild goose chase and pretend you’ve made some kind of point, well, OK. But if you know how to get such a number, you could certainly share that. Otherwise, what’s your point?
Ooh! I have a side! How great! Do I get a uniform? What’s your team like?
I thought I just had a point. And that point is that we do not need additional government regulation and bureaucracy to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
Why is “your side” all gung ho to increase bureaucracy to address a non-existent problem? You want to increase the size and cost of government, yet you cannot even say if there will be more, less or the same amount of fraudulent votes after you are done. All just so that people can show their papers when such are demanded of them.
Brennan Center estimates that 11% of voting age citizens don’t have current and valid ID.
It’s not about the cost of the IDs; if you need an ID to vote, the state has to provide one for free. But supporting documents may be costly and difficult to obtain (such as a birth certificate). Younger voters who move around more or elderly voters are less likely to have an ID with their current address. State motor vehicle bureaus may not have the locations and hours necessary to service the number of people needing new IDs, and there are populations of people who can’t get to the bureau regardless because of disability or lack of transportation. And state advertising campaigns to inform people of the requirements of these new laws may not reach the most vulnerable populations.
The result is that states must incur substantial costs to administer the laws (which includes having to evaluate provisional ballots given to those who show up at the polls without proper ID), and the greater danger of people being turned away at the polls or not having their votes counted because we’re worried about imaginary goddamned problems.
Government bureaucracy to provide IDs already exists.
That link goes to a page that says:
That doesn’t answer the question posed, which was, “How many people are incapable of obtaining a photo ID for finacial reasons?”
And how can I evaluate those studies? What were they? What methods did they use?
Kind of like asking how many fraudulent votes have been cast under a system with no real way to detect fraudulent votes.
It’s almost as if you didn’t read my entire post.
You’re a smart guy, I’m sure you can figure out how to navigate a website.
That’s a weak attempt at evasion. If it did already exist in the manner we are presently debating we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
But let’s play stupid then. What is the name of the agency that produces federal Voter IDs? Out of which agency’s budget do the funds come to provide no-cost voter IDs, to manage the relevant databases, to monitor enforcement, to provide technical support and training, and so on and so forth? You say this already exists, so please tell me who in fact is responsible for it.