Drudge bounced me to an article in the American Prospect entitled: You Can't Beat Voter ID with Facts
Jamelle Bouie (who probably needed photo ID to get into his place of employment, to obtain a driver's license to get to his place of employment and....well, you get the idea) opines that "Liberals tend to offer evidence for their policy positions, but what they need is a competing vision."
He fails to realize that, in the instance of merely wanting to limit voting to those actually eligible, Liberals have neither facts nor vision.
He posits: "So far, liberals have devoted their time to showing the rarity of in-person voter fraud—the kind ostensibly prevented by voter ID"
It seems the American Prospect is unaware of the Acorn scandal of a few years ago. Perhaps the editorial staff was busy at the time filling out voter registration forms in the name of dead people, cartoon characters and irregularized residents.
UPDATE: Liberals can devote their time to something else. They cannot show the rarity of voter fraud, because it isn't rare. Now, to be fair. Jamelle's attack on voter ID hinges above on the alledged rarity of 'in-person voter fraud'. The 31 ballots in question in the Miami case were absentee ballots. So, what he's saying is, there's no sense in trying to stop one type of voter fraud because there is an easier and more popular one that you aren't trying to stop.
He goes on, "Conservatives benefit from the the fact that their position sounds reasonable—if identification is required to buy beer and drive cars, then why isn’t it required for elections? Everyone agrees that voting is one of the most important things you can do as an ordinary citizen, and the conservative argument is that we should make it more secure from fraud." Of course the position sounds reasonable is because it is, in fact, reasonable. He continues, "Debunking the myth of voter fraud doesn't address the normative point that we ought to protect the integrity of the vote, regardless of whether fraud is likely." Of course, failing to debunk the possibility, let alone the reality, of voter fraud doesn't help the Liberal argument either.
Jamelle Bouie (who probably needed photo ID to get into his place of employment, to obtain a driver's license to get to his place of employment and....well, you get the idea) opines that "Liberals tend to offer evidence for their policy positions, but what they need is a competing vision."
He fails to realize that, in the instance of merely wanting to limit voting to those actually eligible, Liberals have neither facts nor vision.
He posits: "So far, liberals have devoted their time to showing the rarity of in-person voter fraud—the kind ostensibly prevented by voter ID"
It seems the American Prospect is unaware of the Acorn scandal of a few years ago. Perhaps the editorial staff was busy at the time filling out voter registration forms in the name of dead people, cartoon characters and irregularized residents.
UPDATE: Liberals can devote their time to something else. They cannot show the rarity of voter fraud, because it isn't rare. Now, to be fair. Jamelle's attack on voter ID hinges above on the alledged rarity of 'in-person voter fraud'. The 31 ballots in question in the Miami case were absentee ballots. So, what he's saying is, there's no sense in trying to stop one type of voter fraud because there is an easier and more popular one that you aren't trying to stop.
He goes on, "Conservatives benefit from the the fact that their position sounds reasonable—if identification is required to buy beer and drive cars, then why isn’t it required for elections? Everyone agrees that voting is one of the most important things you can do as an ordinary citizen, and the conservative argument is that we should make it more secure from fraud." Of course the position sounds reasonable is because it is, in fact, reasonable. He continues, "Debunking the myth of voter fraud doesn't address the normative point that we ought to protect the integrity of the vote, regardless of whether fraud is likely." Of course, failing to debunk the possibility, let alone the reality, of voter fraud doesn't help the Liberal argument either.
No comments:
Post a Comment