As you have already admitted, there’s no way to detect fraudulent votes under your alternative system either.
So, since you can describe no net benefit to your proposed system, but must acknowledge that it will involve a high cost (both in terms of resources and in terms of disallowing legitimate voters the opportunity to vote), you must just get off on someone saying “Show us your papers!”
I did?
i did describe a net benefit to my system: securing voter confidence in the outcome of elections, especially close elections.
I wonder what’s causing this lack of confidence.
Truly a mystery.
Yes. You acknowledged that your preferred system would not prevent fraudulent votes.
How would confidence be improved when you cannot say how many fraudulent votes presently occur, nor how many fraudulent votes would occur under your preferred system?
Do you know what “net” means? How did you determine a net benefit when you cannot remotely describe the magnitude of one of the components you would use to figure out the net benefit?
You’re just spitballing nonsense from an ideological agenda. You are completely unable to put this into any practical terms.
Let’s say your house does not have a security system. You’re not quite sure, but you have a weird feeling (maybe nothing but your imagination) that someone’s been peeking in your windows to case you for a burglary.
In short, you do not feel very confident in your home’s security when you go to work.
So you get a security system with all the bells and whistles and every angle covered by cameras.
Since you do not know that there was a potential burglar or even a window peeper, how could your confidence (snicker) possibly be improved?
When you are told that burglars may still come and peep in your windows and your new security system will not detect them, you’d have to be a complete idiot to feel more confident, wouldn’t you?
Did you miss the part about casing the house for a burglary? The peeping isn’t the problem. The potential burglary is.
Ahh, so it is only the proponents of these measures who “undoubtedly” believe they are gaining a partisan advantage, eh? But you can see right through them and their foolish delusions, so you don’t know, or are not convinced of, or refuse to admit, or whatever hair splitting ploy you wish to proffer, that an actual advantage will be gained. And that makes everything OK.
It appears, sir, that I have overestimated you.
I thought there was more to it than “We’re going to address a fictitious problem we’ve made up with a ‘solution’ that provides fictitious benefits to the country, motivated by our belief that this will confer a partisan advantage to ourselves, and justify it by declaring that it solves, not the made-up ‘problem’, since we can offer no proof of that, but the tangential and even more esoteric and immeasurable problem of potential lack of voter confidence, some day, somewhere, in some hypothetical future election. And we are certain that voter confidence will indeed rebound once we get these laws passed, not because we actually expect them to protect against voter fraud, but because we will then stop our orchestrated screaming about the emergency crisis of illegal voting.”
Party before country – the modern face of Republicanism.
And you missed the point. If the installers tell you on their way out the door that your expensive new system may not go off when someone breaks in, you’re a fool if you feel more confident.
(Besides, how can you know the intentions of buglars who exist only as a creepy feeling in the back of your mind? Sounds like a good reason to keep a handgun under your bed. I also have a big bag of bear repellant to keep the bears off your porch.)
You have cameras covering every angle of your home. This system detects window peepers.
You’ve spent thousands so that you CAN detect them.
Well, to be fair you worded your response to read that the system wouldn’t detect the peeping, not the burglary. Still, no system is going to be 100% effective. I don’t know how to evaluate the effectiveness of a given system, but “better than no system” is certainly one way of looking at it.
Nope, our hypothetical burglar alarm works in all instances, is what the installers say when they leave.
The hypo home owner is concerned about both, but of course more concerned about an actual burglary.
Then I have no idea what the value of this hypothetical is. What we are talking about is installing a Voter ID system that is not in fact infallible, and about which we have no idea as to the change in fraudulent voting.
Do you have a hypothetical that’s relevant to the discussion?
And how do you come to the conclusion that it is better than no system? For example, the Maginot Line was certainly a system that differed from no system.
Certainly, the confidence of the Republican electorate will be protected, even enhanced. That part of the electorate that has been, once again, insulted and marginalized, not so much. But they are clearly not as important, and may be safely ignored.
Then you cannot argue that a significant number of Americans are disenfranchised by voter ID if you have no clue what that number is.
Let’s turn it around
Me: There are millions of illegal immigrants voting since proof of citizenship is not required to vote.
You: Really? Where are the studies that show that? How did you get your numbers?
Me: Well everyone knows that illegal immigrants vote.
Or how about your complete dismissal of Bricker’s contention that voter fraud exist. You demand him to justify his statement with actual numbers. So why does pro-Voter ID side need to provide quantitative data and your side does not?
lol
Well, whats it gonna be, sport? You want to talk quantitative analysis, or content yourself with railing against liberal hypocrisy?
This is a good point, except for those pesky facts. Those illustrate that every time the issue is examined, vanishingly small numbers of cases are found.