- Jul 10, 2006
And this is another straw man. Nobody made the claim you are arguing against. Also, calling someone fundamentally dishonest while intentionally misrepresenting their argument is kind of poor form.SNIP
As far as your logic, it is simply flawed. We do not in fact negate ID requirements for buying a gun simply because one can also kill with a knife or a golf club. We do not in fact negate ID requirements for buying alcohol simply because a minor can have an adult buy alcohol for him. Yet you are pretending that because a particular law does not close down every possible avenue of voter fraud, it is invalid. In our entire legal system, laws which block one possible way to do something bad without blocking every possible way to do that something bad are the rule, not the exception, and in pretending otherwise you are, again, either an idiot or fundamentally dishonest. There are valid short-term non-partisan reasons for opposing voter ID laws (difficulty with providing the required number of people with ID in the remaining time) and valid long-term partisan reasons for opposing voter ID laws (disproportionately affects Democrat voters), but the ability to commit voter fraud through absentee ballots is not reasonable for either.
The claim is twofold. One, it goes to the motives of the people pushing the laws given that they are ineffective in actually accomplishing the stated goals of the Republicans because they are going after the absolute least effective form of voter fraud that barely even exists and just so happens to have an enormous deleterious effect on their political opponents. Second, and more pressingly, pointing out it has an absolutely minimal impact on fraudulent voting while having an enormous negative impact on legitimate voting is a reason to oppose it and pointing out other, more prevalent, more effective methods of voter fraud exist is an important mark against the effectiveness.
You're basically making the claim that it's okay for your side to commit widespread voter fraud because it's not the most effective way to commit voter fraud, at the same time you're fighting against laws that would actually make it possible to identify to what level this kind of voter fraud exists. We absolutely know that Step 1, registering imaginary people, exists. We don't know if Step 2, imaginary people voting, is a problem because we have virtually no way of catching these imaginary people. You are asking us to accept on faith that absentee voting is a much more effective way of committing voter fraud. Is it? For absentee voter fraud one must have an address; the ballots are mailed out for each election. That address is a vulnerability during every election cycle. Registering an imaginary person, and then voting for that person, does not require that one have a valid address at all. Thereafter, as long as no identification is required, there is no way short of being recognized that one can possibly be caught.SNIP
The non sequitur simply means literally "does not follow", that the premises of an argument do not lead to the conclusion of the argument, or, at least, do not lead only there. Applied to this case specifically, two problems immediately emerge. First, the argument itself doesn't work because, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, you don't need an ID to vote absentee which is how people actually interested in voter fraud would do it short of just flat out replacing the card in the voting machine which is way more effective anyway.
Minnesota for instance had over 6,000 same-day registrations returned as "No such person/no such address" in the 2008 Senate election stolen with a mere three hundred duplicate ballots. Where then is your evidence to prove fraudulent absentee voting is an even bigger problem? In absentee voting, one must have a valid address to receive the ballot. In election-day voting without ID requirements, one simply shows up, registers, and votes. No fuss, no muss, and if you're not from the area virtually no risk of being caught. The fraudulent voter will be flagged for the NEXT election cycle when his voter verification card bounces, but without ID requirements he can simply re-register and vote as someone new. Worse, as long as one has any valid address to receive the initial registration packets, the fraudulent voter will never be detected. Again, very little risk since those at the valid address can simply say they don't know why their address appears on someone else's voter registration card. That's quite a bit more difficult to claim if the imaginary person's absentee ballots have been mailed to one's home for years.
Your distinction that supporting ID for purchasing a gun is not analogous to supporting voter ID rests solely on your claim that committing voter fraud by registering and voting in person is not as effective as committing voter fraud by absentee ballot. That is simply not supportable.
Attaching a label to someone's argument is not the same as invalidating that argument, by the way.