Voter ID Laws: Necessary to combat rampant fraud or subtle subjugation of the Democratic demographic

Great Debates
61

I don’t get it.
Voter ID laws are bad because they dienfranchise voters (no numbers cited)
There is not reason for voter ID because voter fraud is a non-issue (again no numbers cited)

Can we at least get some statistics on the quantitative effect of voter ID laws?

PS: I know for a fact that there is voter fraud. I have been a victim of it once and I know non-citizens who vote in Phoenix because to register you simply have to say your a citizen. At best current voter ID laws only prove residency.

62

Bricker, this “confidence of the electorate” that you hold so dear, is there any way you can make that more tangible? Its a bit like the rosy scent of the unicorn. By what measure is the “confidence of the electorate” threatened? Or is it that the c of the e might become threatened at some future date, unless immediate and urgent steps are not taken?

I know what the unemployment rate is. The number of registered voter in Iowa. What is the “confidence of the electorate”?

63

Bricker,
If the argument isn’t about turnout then what is it about? Why does confidence matter if it has no effect on the outcome?

Regarding your point about people being willing to walk 60 feet versus being able to walk 250. It isn’t always about what people are willing to do. In some cases it’s about what they’re able to do.

But even if is just about what they’re willing to do, why make things more difficult for legitimate voters when you gain nothing in exchange for it?

But forget all that for a moment. Forget the study. You say that the law does nothing to decrease fraud by any meaningful amount. You say that, even so, it is justified because it increases voter confidence.

Okay. Suppose it does increase confidence. Suppose confidence does matter. What is the legitimate response to that? A law that doesn’t actually increase the security of elections? A law that, because it achieves nothing, does nothing to give them any legitimate (as opposed to imagined) reason to have increased confidence?

What kind of governance is that? Rather than attempting to correct their ignorance, let’s just play into it, even if it means making voting more difficult (or even impossible) for some.

If the problem is confidence and the lack of confidence is based on misconceptions, isn’t better to spend that money on educating them and correcting those misconceptions?

At the very least, isn’t it better to spend that money on something that would give them a real reason for increased confidence, such as increased security for absentee voting or doing something about the lack of any meaningful verifiability for many of the voting systems we use?

Why is it that out of all the possible ways to increase confidence, the one used is something that doesn’t actually increase security but does make if more difficult for many to vote? Hell, one would almost thing that someone is intentionally trying to suppress voting, but that’s never happened in this country, has it? :rolleyes:

64

“Voter confidence” is a fallback argument due to the fact that he’s had to admit that individual voter fraud is not a meaningful problem. (Hey, I’m sick of beating around the bush, let’s call it what it is.)

65

Because there’s no difference between someone having to walk a little farther and someone who is denied the right to vote even if they make that walk.

Next, you want to claim that unless a toga-clad government servant hand-delivers our ballots and feed us grapes while we tick off our selections at whatever time and place we happen to be when we want to vote that we are disenfranchised?

Your false equivalancy, that you would compare the inconvenience of having to walk a little farther with the inconvenience that many face in aquiring ID, is obvious. Also, the path to the gym doesn’t have a toll road on it, does it? Because it costs money to get a replacement birth certificate, it costs money to get an ID (although some states waived that for voters, which actuaally cost the states revenue), and it costs money for someone to take off their jobs to go to the local agency to get the ID.

We have established that some voters are being legitimately disenfranchised by Voter ID laws. We have established that there are already laws against voter fraud. We have established that those affected are predominantly Democratic voters (students, the poor, the elderly). If you have to start redefining what “disenfranchising” is to laughable degrees in order to bolster your point, you should reconsider your point.

Or just own up to it that you think it’s fine to disenfranchise x-number of voters in order to address a problem that doesn’t exist.

66

Reading my last couple of posts, I realized that it could seem as if I’m accusing Bricker of wanting to suppress the vote. I don’t believe that that is his motivation.

67

Can you think of another? His stated reason of “supporting confidence in the process” is not even worthy of serious discussion.

68

I speak to the issue of uncertainty in the electoral process. The 2000 presidential election raised the specter of doubt in election results. (Is that an unfair reading of your words?) And you believe that voter ID laws will instill greater confidence in the voting system. Why? How will laws against voter fraud solve a problem (lack of confidence) that was not caused by voter fraud in the first place?

If I might continue your analogy, what you are proposing amounts to anti-counterfeiting measures on the tickets to attend the game. The possibility of a bad call affecting the outcome remains just as likely as before.

69

I honestly don’t think that Bricker is consciously coming up with bullshit arguments that he knows are bullshit arguments because his true motivation is to suppress the Democratic vote. I think he’s defended a position with an argument that even he has finally had to admit doesn’t hold water, but his ego prevents him from abandoning the position altogether so he had to come up with something else - voter confidence.

We all do it at times. I know I’ve done it. We all hate to admit defeat.

70

No, that’s not what you said. I assume this post means you misspoke in your OP. I’d be willing to accept that, except your current post says this:

Did you misspeak again?

The last cite dealt with voter registration fraud. I don’t know how many, if any, of those fraudulently registered votes were actually cast. So I can’t say whether Voter ID laws would have prevented any votes in those cases.

All the other examples dealt with people casting fraudulent votes. Presumably, the Voter ID laws would prevent all of those examples.

Which of my examples do you believe would not have been prevented by Voter ID laws?

I think you’re confused.

The current regulations punish voter fraud that’s already occurred. Voter ID laws are aimed at preventing voter fraud from happening.

The fact that there are voter fraud convictions is evidence that the current laws are not sufficient at preventing voter fraud from occurring.

And for the record, no, Republicans are not against regulations. In fact, Republicans are in favor of a lot more regulations than I am.

71

How many of those convictions are for things that would have been prevented by these laws? Show us some examples.

72

So, for the third time, the question: did Democrat-controlled legislatures in Rhode Island and Delaware have voter suppression on their minds when they passed voter ID laws?

73

I answered this elsewhere in the same post.

74

I already replied to this - those laws are quite a bit different than the ones in other states. Which is probably why Democratic-led states passed them.

75

Really? Presumably?

Even if you are correct: If they were caught and convicted, why do we need new laws? To doubly catch and convict them?

76

Age Quod Agis, how come we need laws to catch people who have already been caught? I do know that the law wouldn’t do anything about registration, which is at least one of your cites. (I am now at work and have limited time and a firewall to deal with.)

77

Can you point out the differences, backed by the text of the laws, of course?

And whether they are different or not - can you explain why Democrat-controlled legislatures are passing voter-ID laws when you keep insisting that they are not needed?

78

Can you read the post I already made with citations that does exactly this? Or do I need to quote myself quoting citations?

Because Democrats are not perfect either, they too - even in safe states - will kowtow to illogical laws based on faulty premises.

But they do so with regard to this issue with far less frequency, and the laws that they wind up passing are also different than those passed by their counterparts in Red States with more safeguards set in place.

79

Ah I see you replied. You say provisional ballot in Rhode Island - but a lot of other voter-ID states have the same provision. How is Rhode Island’s different?

80

I already addressed this in my earlier post.

Once again, Voter ID laws aren’t intended to catch people after fraudulently voting. They’re intended to prevent those violations from happening.

And yes, “presumably.” I don’t own a crystal ball. I can’t be certain they would have been caught. Are you now suggesting that I have to be certain that Voter ID laws would have prevented these individual cases before I can support it? If so, we really need to talk about finding a single location for those goalposts.