Or, in other words, you figured out your error, but somehow it’s my fault?
And the claim that I have “utterly failed to argue my case?” Gosh, Lobohan, is that also factual?
That’s poisoning the well, which is in fact a logical fallacy.
It’s not poisoning the well when we’ve already drunk our fill.
Your argument boils down to, “It’s not impossible for these people to get their IDs, so a minor inconvenience (hours or days of effort) is okay, given that the legitimate use of these laws is to increase voter confidence. There don’t need to be any cases of voter fraud at all.”
You’ll sum up your argument, I’m sure, if I’ve done a bad job. Which I may have. I don’t recite partisan liturgy very well.
You’re saying it’s okay to put a work-tax of several hours to several days on a segment of the voting population. And that it’s okay to do this because it will increase voter confidence, which is strained due to voter fraud.
But your whole argument is nonsense, because many more people would be inconvenienced from voting than would have committed voter fraud. Which would decrease voter confidence. If the hurdles put in by partisan Republican legislatures keep a million people from voting across the country, and 10 would have committed in-person voter fraud, that’s not a successful program. Unless you count suppressing the vote successful. Do you?
You’re literally arguing for a solution to an all but non-existent problem, that makes the problem worse.
Your argument is a partisan declaration, not rational thought. And we’ve been over it a dozen times. But thirteenth is the charm, right?
I notice you aren’t speaking for yourself alone here. Is this the royal we, or is there an intestinal parasite involved?
Or is it the safe, comforting group-think hive mind of the LDMB?
You cannot, by fiat, declare an argument over, especially when you acknowledge that you don’t quite grasp it.
To do so is poisoning the well, and strawmanning, two fallacies from the guy who moments ago indignantly denied any fallacies in his repertoire.
You, as you are welcome to do, weigh the benefits against the inconveniences and find them wanting. Others, to include the legislatures that have passed the laws and the vast majority of the populace that support them, perform the same weighing analysis and reach an opposite conclusion.
We, as in everyone who has dealt with you in the previous threads about this subject. You simply have failed utterly to make a case.
Anyone is more than free to back up your position any time. I’d look forward to it. But as of yet, no reasonable argument has been put forward for a law that keeps more people form voting than it prevents fraudulent votes. It’s simply a stupid law, and your loving it for partisan reasons doesn’t make it better reasoned.
Reread my post. Your last two attempts at asserting this have failed. I was wondering why you thought it would be different this time. Do you have anything new?
No, you have made arguments time and again, and failed so utterly that you are forced to simply laugh and declare victory because the law is on your side. You’ve done it in two threads, and now you pull out the same arguments here.
Where have I strawmanned you? Explain it in detail, if you would. I tried to portray your position as well as I could, but I suspect I may have missed some of the nuance. Please, do fill in.
And again you bring out the popularity. Don’t you get ashamed when you have to sink to this?
How do you imagine laws get made, in a representative democracy such as ours?
I’m arguing whether a law is sensible and a good idea. You are arguing whether it is popular.
The law is popular, owing to the outright lies and misinformation that the folks on the right popularize. Particularly about ACORN. Also about the New Black Panthers.
So the popularity doesn’t mean the law is a good idea. It means that the misinformation campaign run by the same people that created the laws to enshrine lasting partisan electoral advantage was successful.
Going back to this just as a note 1 in 25000 it still would not have been a game changer.
Final results were:
Christine Gregoire 1,373,361
Dino Rossi 1,373,232
Ruth Bennett 63,465
that’s a total of: 2810058
1 in 25000 would have only have made up 112 total votes
Also if there reason to believe even if the rate of fraudulently cast ballots is 1 in 25000, that fraud would occur in favor of a single party?
Of course! Fraudulent voters are exclusively illegal aliens and felons, all of whom are known to be 100% Democratic voters. Well, all except that Canadian gun nut guy, anyway.
The moment the fraud numbers are close to – or exceed – the margin of victory, the election’s result is in doubt.
That said, I am comfortable in speculating that more felons and illegal aliens votye Democratic.
The thing you are not addressing (which of course you know) is that the moment the number of people who are kept from voting is close to — or exceeded — by the number of fraudulent votes, election’s legitimacy is in doubt. This is so simple, you can’t possibly not understand it.
Never mind that only in your imagination can you assume that many more Democrats commit in-person voter fraud. I’d like to see evidence for that before we go around suppressing legitimate Democratic vote, howsabout?
By what margin? As I pointed out if it was 100% it still wouldn’t have changed the results. If it’s less then a hundred percent it’s even further from changing the results.
Elections are called into question even without fraudulent ballots. An election being called into question isn’t a very good standard for determining what level of fraud is worth pursuing at the cost of excluding actual voters at higher margins.
Late to this party. When all the voter ID zealots get on board with a national ID that can be used for voting preferences, then I’m willing to listen.
In that vein, why is it OK for States to have their own standards for who can vote in National elections? Some states like Maine and Vermont allow felons to vote while in prison, while other states disenfranchise felons for life, yet there is also a middle ground where felons get voting rights back after incarceration and/or parole and/or probations.
How do you mean “OK”? Legally, the Constitution seems to endorse the idea with things like “the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.”
It’s OK because our country is a dual-sovereign system. The federal government and the states are both sovereign.
In the US, we don’t have any “national elections.”
but the same citizen being allowed to vote in one State but not allowed to vote in another for a national election just doesn’t make a lot of logical sense. A convicted felon having served their debt to society and no longer on probation, can never vote in 4 states (Florida, Kentucky, Virginia and Iowa), yet the same person can vote in 38 states plus DC upon completion of their sentence, in some states there is a time lag before being able to vote, other states require an application to have voting rights restored, and in Maine or Vermont the same perp can vote while serving out their sentence in jail.
I’m a simple guy, the above seems to fly in the face of equality
What do you consider to be a “national election”?
Coming from Oregon, this whole Voter ID thing is so frustrating. Mail-in voting works VERY well. I don’t understand why the entire country can’t do it this way. It’s convenient, it’s cheaper, there is an ACTUAL PAPER TRAIL (as opposed to shady electronic voting machines), people can vote on their own time and research the issues as they are looking at their ballots, etc.
Seriously, we should just pass an amendment to outlaw anything but mail in voting for federal elections.
ETA: Kudos to Washington for also doing the mail-in voting thing. Any other states want to step up and become as responsible 
President