I would absolutely favor the use of such a system.
Although that sounds like a bunch of moving parts, so I’m not sure how inexpensive it really is, nor how prone to breakdowns. But from an audit and surety perspective, that’s the right stuff.
And as various judges have blocked it in more than one jurisdiction, its legality is in question at best. Plus, there’s legal, and then there’s abso-fucking-loutely-no-evidence-to-support-its-reasoning. As it has been repeated to you many times, voter fraud happens so little that its irrelevant, and often done by Republicans trying to prove some point, and lead to actual voters being disenfranchised. But I guess as a conservative, if you can’t win at the polls, stop people from going to the polls :rolleyes:
Note to all that **Bricker **has never expressed any similar concerns over the effect on confidence of vote-*counting *fraud, or registration-cancellation fraud, which in fact were the issues in Florida 2000, his own chosen example. *Voting *fraud? Not a single bit, not then or ever or anywhere.
The “confidence” he’s concerned about is, as is obvious to anyone else and perhaps himself too, is confidence that the people he wants to win do win.
Time to link this yet again.
And is of course also the time that voter disenfranchisement efforts has the most chance of changing the result. Usually by a factor of 100 or more. But then we’ve been through this repeatedly.
But its possible! And to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, when you remove everything that is impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, means Bricker is right.
Based on the experience we had with Voter ID laws from 2008 until the voter suppression became widely publicized and created backlash.
So you would be OK with a voter ID requirement that only accepted food stamp cards, college IDs and ID cards that are freely available at any certain pawn shops and check cashing establishments? Right?
Right, because fraudulent in person voting was the problem in Florida:rolleyes:
Has there been a federal race in our lifetime where the voting was close enough to have been affected by in person voter fraud?
Why are irrational fears a proper basis for undermining voting rights by even one scintilla?
You might as well cite gun violence generally to justify an assault weapons ban.
ENOUGH already with the AWB!! Dear God, man, have pity! There’s a Pit thread about vegemite, have you found a way to shoehorn the AWB into that? Sweet Baby Jesus, man, give it a rest!
Not really, no.
As a matter of federal law, the Voter ID scheme used in Indiana is completely and utterly legal. That’s a fact. There’s nothing in question about it.
Other states have enacted other, slightly differing schemes. They may or may not pass muster.
What states do you contend have problematic laws, specifically?
Time to remind you that I identified flaws in that study again.
Listen carefully: in a representative democracy, you, personally, don’t get to decide what the proper basis for a law is.
You also don’t get to decide what is, or is not, irrational.
I suggest engraving that on a bracelet, in the manner of a medic alert reminder.
Still unanswered. Nobody knows?
Missed that. Please repeat.
That is the most pathetic, irrelevant, embarrassing, lameass, fumbling dodge of a nonanswer you have posted here in a very long time.
No, you didn’t miss it.
But sure, what the hell:
The study identifies known instances of voter fraud, and in each cases announces, “None of these cases would have been affected by the use of photo ID.”
But that’s not correct. The presence of a Photo ID requirement means that a legally sufficient case for fraudulent voting can be made. You may remember I linked, as an example, to the case of Ramon Cue in Miami. Mr. Cue is not eligible to vote. Yet records show he repeatedly voted.
But because he denied it, and there was no requirement for Photo ID, there’s no real way to convict him – and his case does not show up on the list of confirmed voter frauds.
That’s a main flaw of the conclusions of the Brennan Center study.
Ad hominem.
No, it isn’t. Read for comprehension.
Bricker and I have disagreed (fairly noisily) about Voter ID in the past (I generally feel that the burden it places on an individual in order to be able to exercise their franchise is objectionable), but I do recall a thread where we both agreed that fingerprinting voters would be an acceptable solution.
Here in Nevada, we do have the paper trail in (at least some of) our voting machines, and although I like it less than a fringerprint or other biometric ID, it is vastly preferable to an unaccountable voting machine.
And then answer the motherfucking question.
Successful vote-suppression measures are bad for Democrats and democracy. Unsuccessful or partially-successful attempts at them can be good for Democrats, and can be good for democracy if one doesn’t count the danger of them actually being successful.
Quite the contrary: Any form of democracy depends critically on each and every voter personally deciding both of those things. We don’t get to personally decide what the laws actually are, but we absolutely do decide what they should be.