Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 06-14-2012, 12:57 PM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,469
Supressing far, far more legitimate voters than illegitimate ones is a BAD THING.
  #202  
Old 06-14-2012, 12:58 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkGntly View Post
You know, logically to me, IF there is voter fraud going on, and IF it actually results in more votes for Democrats...
...then doesn't it naturally follow that a voter-ID program will automatically result in fewer Democrat votes?

Which, if those items are true, isn't a BAD THING, people, electorally speaking. Now, it might be a bad thing for your side (if you're on the "suppressed" side), but it is healthy for a republic...
Logically, if she weighs the same as a duck...
  #203  
Old 06-14-2012, 12:58 PM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
In the end, you're reduced to ad populum. Sad. Desperate. Douchenozzle.
But how do we know the majority wants vote supression? I know, let's take a vote! wait....
  #204  
Old 06-14-2012, 01:09 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
In the end, you're reduced to ad populum. Sad. Desperate. Douchenozzle.
No. In a representative democracy, consensus is defined by popularity. Thus argumentum ad populum is not a fallacy when the subject is the legitimacy of a measure passed by democratic process. (If the subject were the objective correctness of a proposition, of course, you'd be correct. Good thing that's not what I'm claiming.)

Didn't you have to learn this stuff in high school? Wasn't there a class on speech and debate? A club? Something?
  #205  
Old 06-14-2012, 01:10 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
But how do we know the majority wants vote supression? I know, let's take a vote! wait....
Been done. In every state that's enacted voter ID laws.
  #206  
Old 06-14-2012, 01:14 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
No. In a representative democracy, consensus is defined by popularity. Thus argumentum ad populum is not a fallacy when the subject is the legitimacy of a measure passed by democratic process. (If the subject were the objective correctness of a proposition, of course, you'd be correct. Good thing that's not what I'm claiming.)

Didn't you have to learn this stuff in high school? Wasn't there a class on speech and debate? A club? Something?
So you're acknowledging that you're not right, but relying on the fact that most people want it.

Okay, I acknowledge that surveys may suggest that majorities would in general favor voter IDs. Let's provide them with facts, and then ask again. Let's ask if they think it would be worth the cost.

Relatedly, I suppose you must favor abortion rights. After all, majorities do, so therefore...
  #207  
Old 06-14-2012, 01:21 PM
Bosstone is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 15,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
You haven't been able to correspond with the majority of the voters about anything, Hentor. Is your contention that their general will is unknowable?

Should Obama be the president? Do the majority of voters want him? I didn't correspond with them, so I don't know.

In my opinion, we can rely on poll numbers and election results as a fair proxy for things the majority of voters want.
I thought voter fraud was a serious problem that could sway elections?
  #208  
Old 06-14-2012, 01:25 PM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkGntly View Post
You know, logically to me, IF there is voter fraud going on, and IF it actually results in more votes for Democrats...
...then doesn't it naturally follow that a voter-ID program will automatically result in fewer Democrat votes?

Which, if those items are true, isn't a BAD THING, people, electorally speaking. Now, it might be a bad thing for your side (if you're on the "suppressed" side), but it is healthy for a republic...
How is what you're describing healthy for a republic?
  #209  
Old 06-14-2012, 01:33 PM
Bosstone is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 15,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
How is what you're describing healthy for a republic?
He's assuming that 100% of the votes suppressed would be fraudulent votes. If all fraudulent/suppressed votes were for Democrats, it would certainly look like the Democrats were being unfairly suppressed in general, but being that the suppressed votes were fraudulent, in the end it would be healthier for the country.

Of course, given that it's nearly impossible to be that accurate without suppressing legitimate voters, it's a silly damn assumption.
  #210  
Old 06-14-2012, 01:35 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosstone View Post
I thought voter fraud was a serious problem that could sway elections?
That's not really been my argument. The chance of voter fraud affecting a given election is very small. When an election is decided by 50,000 votes, or even 10,000 votes, we simply can't posit a voter fraud problem that could have swayed it. Sure, there might have been 600 non-citizens voting -- who cares? So the winner won by 9,400 instead of 10,000 -- big deal.

The problem arises only in the very rare cases when an election's results are within a margin of error that includes voter fraud numbers.

The Washington State governor's race in 2004 is a good example. No one knew ahead of time that the race would be so razor-thin. After a recount, Democrat Christine Gregoire was ahead by 129 votes.

That is not the time to discover that 200 voters were illegal aliens.

What do you do? You can't subtract 200 votes from Gregoire -- that would clearly be unfair, absent some showing they all voted for her. At the same time, you realize that the opponent is going to point to those votes as evidence that the winner shouldn't be considered the winner.

So my point is: prudence dictates we implement a system ahead of time that allows us to reliably associate voters with voting. That may not stop fraud, but it creates a real framework for catching and punishing non-citizen voters, for example. Now, a voter can simply deny he was the one casting the ballots.

Last edited by Bricker; 06-14-2012 at 01:36 PM.
  #211  
Old 06-14-2012, 01:37 PM
Sinaptics is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
No. I have distinguished those studies, by pointing out that none of them address the particular type of voter confidence I am referring to.

Do you remember my doing that?
I do not. However, when I get a few minutes, I'll go through the other thread and take a look at your responses.
  #212  
Old 06-14-2012, 01:38 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Heh heh. OK, I admit it: The reason "liberals" care about this issue is that, in fact, the result of GOP's vote-suppression drives will be to reduce the portion of voters voting Democratic.

You said it. I was forced to agree my the power of your persuasion.
Why is "liberals" in quotes? I sometimes have difficulty trying to pin down precisely what insinuation you are trying to float, here. Must be all that flowery rhetoric.

And the loss of Democrat voters? Would that be the result of removing the Dem advantage in illegal alien voters and felon voters, the slime you posted previously? (I think that's number one on the Bricker Slime List, hard to top that one...) Or would that be the loss of perfectly legitimate voters?

So, anyway, if a few more Republicans are elected to Congress, or the President, who would not have otherwise been elected, that's a small price to pay to eradicate this desperately urgent crisis of voter confidence? Is that what this boils down to?

Gotta admire the stern rectumtude of the Republican Party here, no sacrifice is too great for the Democrats to make! Damned white of you guys!

Jeebus McRebus, Bricker, is there anything too low for you guys? Is there any line you won't cross? Any political trickery and deceit that is too disgusting for you to embrace?

Can you tell us what it is? Or would you prefer to keep that as a surprise?
  #213  
Old 06-14-2012, 01:41 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Dude, you can hardly give any examples of six fraudulent voters, let alone 60 or 600. [ETA: This was of course @Bricker's last post.]

Last edited by Hentor the Barbarian; 06-14-2012 at 01:43 PM.
  #214  
Old 06-14-2012, 01:41 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
...The problem arises only in the very rare cases when an election's results are within a margin of error that includes voter fraud numbers.....
A problem that, so far as you can prove, does not actually exist.
  #215  
Old 06-14-2012, 01:41 PM
Sinaptics is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
So my point is: prudence dictates we implement a system ahead of time that allows us to reliably associate voters with voting. That may not stop fraud, but it creates a real framework for catching and punishing non-citizen voters, for example. Now, a voter can simply deny he was the one casting the ballots.
But we've already established that ID doesn't do that.
  #216  
Old 06-14-2012, 01:45 PM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,375
The real issue here is that Bricker is okay with his side winning by cheating.
  #217  
Old 06-14-2012, 01:49 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,103
No, no, no! Its legal and constitutional, so its not cheating! If it was cheating, it would be illegal! Like the way the Democrats permit illegal aliens and felons to vote! That's cheating!
  #218  
Old 06-14-2012, 01:57 PM
August West is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: The Cheese Belt
Posts: 4,766
I have yet to see an answer to my question about why it is any more difficult for a "minority" to get an ID than a "non-minority".
  #219  
Old 06-14-2012, 01:59 PM
Bosstone is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 15,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
So my point is: prudence dictates we implement a system ahead of time that allows us to reliably associate voters with voting. That may not stop fraud, but it creates a real framework for catching and punishing non-citizen voters, for example. Now, a voter can simply deny he was the one casting the ballots.
That I can actually agree with, so long as the framework does not impede legitimate voters. That's the hard part.

By the way (this isn't directed to you specifically Bricker, but to the conversation in general), it's actually somewhat logical that enthusiastic voter fraud efforts would catch more Democrat voters than Republicans, even if it was 100% unintentional.

Start with the following suppositions:
- For any social program, including voting, there is the set of people who clearly qualify, the set of people who clearly don't qualify, and the set of people who are on the 'fringe', where special circumstances or coincidences tend to make people who qualify hard to tell apart from the people who don't qualify but can look like they do through their own special circumstances or coincidences.
- Ideally, both the left and the right would be happy to make sure 100% of the people who qualify get into the program and 0% of the people who don't qualify don't get in. However, it takes a lot of resources to pick apart the qualified people from the non in the fringe, typically more than we have available. Chasing the margins, basically. Because of this:
- Left-wingers tend to want to extend social programs to everyone who qualifies, including the fringe, even if it means some people who don't qualify get in. This makes sense, because generally the left's goal is to provide services to people, and they don't want to leave anyone out who could benefit from the service.
- Right-wingers tend to want to restrict social programs such that nobody who doesn't qualify gets in, even if it means some people on the fringe who do qualify get left out. This also makes sense, because even if the right agrees with the program, they want to be sure their money is well-used, which means not paying for people who don't deserve it.

The positions in general are sensible and in and of themselves non-partisan, in that they don't take into account who the people are or who they support, only if they qualify for the program.

But when it comes to voting, the people in the fringe will tend to vote Democrat, because there's a better chance they will be let into social programs in general, whether legitimately or not. The fact that cracking down on the fringe will disproportionately affect Democrat voters is a side effect, not the goal, although I imagine it's not an unwelcome side effect.

Unfortunately, in doing so, it becomes a partisan matter and makes things real damn complicated.

Last edited by Bosstone; 06-14-2012 at 02:03 PM.
  #220  
Old 06-14-2012, 02:01 PM
gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,291
Dirk isn't being sarcastic, he's just a member of the Leo Strauss, Avraham Stern and Joseph Vogt school of thought.

Anyway, here's a good primer on the 2000 election.

Edit:

Quote:
Originally Posted by August West
I have yet to see an answer to my question about why it is any more difficult for a "minority" to get an ID than a "non-minority".
As Bricker will no doubt point out, a law does not have to be explicitly written to discriminate in order to discriminate in fact.

This effect is demonstrated here for instance.

Last edited by gamerunknown; 06-14-2012 at 02:05 PM.
  #221  
Old 06-14-2012, 02:09 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by August West View Post
I have yet to see an answer to my question about why it is any more difficult for a "minority" to get an ID than a "non-minority".
Where are you looking?
  #222  
Old 06-14-2012, 02:23 PM
Sinaptics is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by August West View Post
I have yet to see an answer to my question about why it is any more difficult for a "minority" to get an ID than a "non-minority".
It'd be more accurate to say poor people have more trouble getting an ID. It just so happens that minorities have a greater chance of being poor.
  #223  
Old 06-14-2012, 02:33 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by August West View Post
I have yet to see an answer to my question about why it is any more difficult for a "minority" to get an ID than a "non-minority".
Folks, please, just let go of this faux naivete about "what on earth does minority status have to do with it?" [/wide-eyed wonder]


To remind everybody of what this issue is about: The facts about voter-ID laws are these (and if you care to try to dispute them as facts, knock yourself out):

1. There is a small but not insignificant proportion of registered voters, and a higher percentage of total eligible voters, who do not possess a government-issued identity document of the kind the voter-ID laws require.

2. These voters are demographically much more likely than the average voter to be poor or members of ethnic minorities, and consequently much more likely to vote Democratic than Republican.

3. Consequently, imposing voter-ID laws makes it statistically inevitable that there will be some net suppression of Democratic votes. Whenever you impose a regulation making it more difficult or complicated to vote (e.g., having to acquire an official document that you don't already own), it inevitably suppresses some votes.

4. That Democratic vote suppression is the only measurable impact the voter-ID laws will have. Even the proponents of voter-ID laws acknowledge that they cannot show any evidence that non-negligible amounts of voter fraud are actually occurring, nor will they be able to tell whether voter-ID laws are actually effective in preventing it if it is occurring. In other words, we can't tell whether the alleged problem actually exists nor whether the proposed solution will solve it: we do know, however, that the proposed solution will have the "side effect" of suppressing some votes.


So stop already with the cherubically innocent prattle about "but gosh folks, those poor and minority voters can just go get themselves the required ID! See, nothing to worry about!"

The point, twinkletoes, is that it is statistically inevitable that some voters who have to undertake a hitherto-unnecessary additional procedure in order to maintain their eligibility to vote won't undertake it, and this necessarily means that fewer poor and minority voters will vote.

You know this as well as we do; in fact, it's the only real reason that Republicans in general are supporting the voter-ID laws in the first place. So please drop the pretense that the fact that it's disproportionately poor and minority voters who would be affected by these laws is somehow trivial or irrelevant. It's the crux of the whole debate.

Last edited by Kimstu; 06-14-2012 at 02:33 PM.
  #224  
Old 06-14-2012, 02:46 PM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkGntly View Post
You know, logically to me, IF there is voter fraud going on, and IF it actually results in more votes for Democrats...
...then doesn't it naturally follow that a voter-ID program will automatically result in fewer Democrat votes?

Which, if those items are true, isn't a BAD THING, people, electorally speaking. Now, it might be a bad thing for your side (if you're on the "suppressed" side), but it is healthy for a republic...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
How is what you're describing healthy for a republic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosstone View Post
He's assuming that 100% of the votes suppressed would be fraudulent votes. If all fraudulent/suppressed votes were for Democrats, it would certainly look like the Democrats were being unfairly suppressed in general, but being that the suppressed votes were fraudulent, in the end it would be healthier for the country.

Of course, given that it's nearly impossible to be that accurate without suppressing legitimate voters, it's a silly damn assumption.
That's one way to read it; but DirkGntly actually seemed to be saying that "fewer Democrat votes" is what "isn't a BAD THING, people, electorally speaking"
and "is healthy for a republic."

Last edited by BrainGlutton; 06-14-2012 at 02:47 PM.
  #225  
Old 06-14-2012, 02:50 PM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamerunknown View Post
Dirk isn't being sarcastic, he's just a member of the Leo Strauss, Avraham Stern and Joseph Vogt school of thought.
You mean, the Noble Lies of Ignoble Liars?

Last edited by BrainGlutton; 06-14-2012 at 02:51 PM.
  #226  
Old 06-14-2012, 02:57 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinaptics View Post
But we've already established that ID doesn't do that.
No, we haven't.

Requiring an ID to cash checks does not ensure that no checks are ever fraudulently passed. But it does, as I said, create a framework that usually allows for successful prosecution of a bad check writer.
  #227  
Old 06-14-2012, 02:59 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosstone View Post
That I can actually agree with, so long as the framework does not impede legitimate voters. That's the hard part.

By the way (this isn't directed to you specifically Bricker, but to the conversation in general), it's actually somewhat logical that enthusiastic voter fraud efforts would catch more Democrat voters than Republicans, even if it was 100% unintentional.

Start with the following suppositions:
- For any social program, including voting, there is the set of people who clearly qualify, the set of people who clearly don't qualify, and the set of people who are on the 'fringe', where special circumstances or coincidences tend to make people who qualify hard to tell apart from the people who don't qualify but can look like they do through their own special circumstances or coincidences.
- Ideally, both the left and the right would be happy to make sure 100% of the people who qualify get into the program and 0% of the people who don't qualify don't get in. However, it takes a lot of resources to pick apart the qualified people from the non in the fringe, typically more than we have available. Chasing the margins, basically. Because of this:
- Left-wingers tend to want to extend social programs to everyone who qualifies, including the fringe, even if it means some people who don't qualify get in. This makes sense, because generally the left's goal is to provide services to people, and they don't want to leave anyone out who could benefit from the service.
- Right-wingers tend to want to restrict social programs such that nobody who doesn't qualify gets in, even if it means some people on the fringe who do qualify get left out. This also makes sense, because even if the right agrees with the program, they want to be sure their money is well-used, which means not paying for people who don't deserve it.

The positions in general are sensible and in and of themselves non-partisan, in that they don't take into account who the people are or who they support, only if they qualify for the program.

But when it comes to voting, the people in the fringe will tend to vote Democrat, because there's a better chance they will be let into social programs in general, whether legitimately or not. The fact that cracking down on the fringe will disproportionately affect Democrat voters is a side effect, not the goal, although I imagine it's not an unwelcome side effect.

Unfortunately, in doing so, it becomes a partisan matter and makes things real damn complicated.
I think this is a fine, and generally very accurate, analysis.
  #228  
Old 06-14-2012, 03:01 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
You know this as well as we do; in fact, it's the only real reason that Republicans in general are supporting the voter-ID laws in the first place. So please drop the pretense that the fact that it's disproportionately poor and minority voters who would be affected by these laws is somehow trivial or irrelevant. It's the crux of the whole debate.
Not true.

As Bosstone correctly observes, this is a side effect, not the goal.

How can you defend, as FACT, the claim that it's the only real reason?
  #229  
Old 06-14-2012, 03:02 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,103
So, the Democrats aren't willing to make teeny little sacrifice for the good of the Republic? OK, so a few Congressgits, Senators, maybe a President carved out of frozen mayonnaise....is that too much to ask in order to protect our sacred voter confidence?

Guess we know who the real patriots are here!

Republicans stand firm, perfectly willing to let the Democrats surrender their advantage in illegal aliens and felons. Of course they don't feel good about it, they are simply fraught with anxiety over this. But if protecting the sanctity of our voter rolls mean that a few more Republicans are pressed into service, they are willing to face that challenge!

Minorities, leftys, people like that, a few minor rights will be inhibited. But you may rest assured, your right to remain silent will not be abridged! But if you give up that right and insist on bitching about this, all bets are off. Rights are for patriots.
  #230  
Old 06-14-2012, 03:05 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
4. That Democratic vote suppression is the only measurable impact the voter-ID laws will have. Even the proponents of voter-ID laws acknowledge that they cannot show any evidence that non-negligible amounts of voter fraud are actually occurring, nor will they be able to tell whether voter-ID laws are actually effective in preventing it if it is occurring. In other words, we can't tell whether the alleged problem actually exists nor whether the proposed solution will solve it: we do know, however, that the proposed solution will have the "side effect" of suppressing some votes.
Do we know this for a fact? If you were to learn that total voter turnout ROSE in a particular state following the introduction of Voter ID laws, how would that fact affect your hypothesis?

Might we imagine that the publicity surrounding the change motivated voters to go out, get ID, and vote -- even voters that didn't vote before? If no, why not?
  #231  
Old 06-14-2012, 03:07 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,103
I might think that the population increased in a given state. Usually does, what with all the fucking...
  #232  
Old 06-14-2012, 03:12 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,103
Wait, no, I see it! The plan is to so infuriate minority and disadvantaged voters that they press ahead no matter what, leap over all the newly installed hurdles, register and vote Democrat! Thus handing the Republican Party a disastrous electoral catastrophe!

Brilliant!
  #233  
Old 06-14-2012, 03:40 PM
Bosstone is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 15,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I think this is a fine, and generally very accurate, analysis.
Thank you. Unfortunately it's no good in finding a way forward, just for trying to get everyone on the same page.

I admittedly do think that the side effect of suppressing Democrat voters is a reason this particular issue is being given so much attention, at least by certain Republicans, particularly the politicians who have much to directly gain from stacking the deck. However, absent direct admission, it's really unproductive to proceed on that assumption, and dealing with the goal instead of the more inflammatory side effect is the best way to get something done beyond yelling at each other.
  #234  
Old 06-14-2012, 03:42 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
When the purported "goal" isn't fucking based on fact, and the purported "solution" wouldn't fucking address it even if it were, what other assumption can one make?

You're not fooling anybody with that pseudo-pious crap.
  #235  
Old 06-14-2012, 03:43 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
I might think that the population increased in a given state. Usually does, what with all the fucking...
Then you expect to see similar increases in turnout in other years.
  #236  
Old 06-14-2012, 03:46 PM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,375
Only a complete fucking retard or an utterly partisan jack-off would advocate a solution that would disenfranchise more people than would illegitimately vote.

I wonder which Bricker is.
  #237  
Old 06-14-2012, 03:47 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
You have to choose one?
  #238  
Old 06-14-2012, 03:50 PM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
You have to choose one?
Good point.
  #239  
Old 06-14-2012, 03:50 PM
magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Folks, please, just let go of this faux naivete about "what on earth does minority status have to do with it?" [/wide-eyed wonder]


To remind everybody of what this issue is about: The facts about voter-ID laws are these (and if you care to try to dispute them as facts, knock yourself out):

1. There is a small but not insignificant proportion of registered voters, and a higher percentage of total eligible voters, who do not possess a government-issued identity document of the kind the voter-ID laws require.

2. These voters are demographically much more likely than the average voter to be poor or members of ethnic minorities, and consequently much more likely to vote Democratic than Republican.

3. Consequently, imposing voter-ID laws makes it statistically inevitable that there will be some net suppression of Democratic votes. Whenever you impose a regulation making it more difficult or complicated to vote (e.g., having to acquire an official document that you don't already own), it inevitably suppresses some votes.

4. That Democratic vote suppression is the only measurable impact the voter-ID laws will have. Even the proponents of voter-ID laws acknowledge that they cannot show any evidence that non-negligible amounts of voter fraud are actually occurring, nor will they be able to tell whether voter-ID laws are actually effective in preventing it if it is occurring. In other words, we can't tell whether the alleged problem actually exists nor whether the proposed solution will solve it: we do know, however, that the proposed solution will have the "side effect" of suppressing some votes.


So stop already with the cherubically innocent prattle about "but gosh folks, those poor and minority voters can just go get themselves the required ID! See, nothing to worry about!"

The point, twinkletoes, is that it is statistically inevitable that some voters who have to undertake a hitherto-unnecessary additional procedure in order to maintain their eligibility to vote won't undertake it, and this necessarily means that fewer poor and minority voters will vote.

You know this as well as we do; in fact, it's the only real reason that Republicans in general are supporting the voter-ID laws in the first place. So please drop the pretense that the fact that it's disproportionately poor and minority voters who would be affected by these laws is somehow trivial or irrelevant. It's the crux of the whole debate.
That's all fine and well, and much of it well said, but you run into trouble when you start to conflate the intentional and the accidental. If a good policy results in one group being hit by it a little more than the other, does that meson that it is necessarily a bad thing to do? Also, I'm of the mind that as long as steps are taken to get IDs to those who can't easily get them themselves, all is good. Iraqis and others sometimes risk their lives to cast their vote. All we're asking is that people show a damn ID. And if that's too much trouble, then voting itself just isn't that important to you and you can go about election day like any other day without the bother.
  #240  
Old 06-14-2012, 03:54 PM
Sinaptics is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
No, we haven't.

Requiring an ID to cash checks does not ensure that no checks are ever fraudulently passed. But it does, as I said, create a framework that usually allows for successful prosecution of a bad check writer.
How does it create a framework for prosecution?

ID's are easily falsifiable, especially nowadays. In another thread a did some research and found one can be bought online for $20-25 complete with readable magnetic stripe.

Even if you're not using a fake ID, non-citizens driver licenses do not convey that they're non-citizens, as I've already shown.
  #241  
Old 06-14-2012, 03:57 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobohan View Post
Good point.
Well, actually, Bricker is not a complete fucking retard, of course. He's actually quite intelligent, obviously, but he lacks a moral core to go with it, as this topic yet again demonstrates. His utter lack of a sense of responsibility greater than himself or the two institutions to which his fealty is absolute above all, the Republican Party and the Roman Catholic Church, lead him to utterly misuse his intelligence in highly destructive ways, ways which his misplaced absolute fealty prevent him from seeing, or even seeing as possible.

Certain other posters, yes, they're both.
  #242  
Old 06-14-2012, 03:57 PM
Sinaptics is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
No. I have distinguished those studies, by pointing out that none of them address the particular type of voter confidence I am referring to.

Do you remember my doing that?
Okay, went back and reread all 16 pages of that damn thread. Was a real pain in the ass because I went backwards and for the last 10 pages you were telling John Stamos to go back an read your answer, which was actually on page 1 or 2.

Since I want everyone to be able to play along, I have to craft a post that gives the links and summarizes the argument which will take a bit of time. I'll see if I can get to this later or tomorrow as I have to go back to work since I spent the last hour reading a 16 page thread.

However, in brief, I think you arbitrarily dismissed the findings of the study. They even directly contradict your expressed reason for accepting them.

Last edited by Sinaptics; 06-14-2012 at 03:59 PM.
  #243  
Old 06-14-2012, 03:58 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
...Also, I'm of the mind that as long as steps are taken to get IDs to those who can't easily get them themselves, all is good....
Sure. What are these steps, and where have they been taken? Do you mean the steps taken in Florida and Texas to make it more difficult and potentially criminal to mount a voter registration drive? Steps like that?
  #244  
Old 06-14-2012, 04:04 PM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Well, actually, Bricker is not a complete fucking retard, of course. He's actually quite intelligent, obviously, but he lacks a moral core to go with it, as this topic yet again demonstrates. His utter lack of a sense of responsibility greater than himself or the two institutions to which his fealty is absolute above all, the Republican Party and the Roman Catholic Church, lead him to utterly misuse his intelligence in highly destructive ways, ways which his misplaced absolute fealty prevent him from seeing, or even seeing as possible.

Certain other posters, yes, they're both.
He's got intelligence, it's true. But he has trouble using it, I think, when it comes to things that challenge what he's decided to believe.

He's certainly willing to lie, and deceive and more than willing to take a win that results not from honest arguing, but from his bullshit.
  #245  
Old 06-14-2012, 04:06 PM
Sinaptics is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinaptics View Post
However, in brief, I think you arbitrarily dismissed the findings of the study. They even directly contradict your expressed reason for accepting them.
For NOT accepting them. Missed the window.
  #246  
Old 06-14-2012, 04:19 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,103
Quote:
....He's certainly willing to lie...
Hey, now, lying isn't is first choice! Usually, his first choice is to re-frame the argument to a more sympathetic one. Failing that, use his zircon-encrusted semantic parsing tweezers. Then, if necessary, suggestion, innuendo, and sly slander. Somewhere along that line, he'll bitch about not getting a fair hearing because of liberal bias and hypocrisy. If all of that fails, then he'll lie! But it is not his first choice.

And the worst of it? He's still the most honest Republican on the Boards! Of course, that bar is so low, an earthworm could jump over it.

Last edited by elucidator; 06-14-2012 at 04:20 PM.
  #247  
Old 06-14-2012, 04:27 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
...He's still the most honest Republican on the Boards! ....
I though I was joking, and then I realized, I'm not. Damn, that is sooo depressing! I hate it when that happens.
  #248  
Old 06-14-2012, 04:36 PM
Sinaptics is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
I though I was joking, and then I realized, I'm not. Damn, that is sooo depressing! I hate it when that happens.
John Mace is right up there with him, though he claims he's not Republican.
  #249  
Old 06-14-2012, 04:43 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinaptics View Post
John Mace is right up there with him, though he claims he's not Republian.
Mace has way more integrity than Bricker.

There are any number of posters who used to be Republicans, but who've since left the party. If they're left with the likes of Bricker as their most honorable, it's not a positive reflection of his character by any stretch.
  #250  
Old 06-14-2012, 05:35 PM
magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobohan View Post
He's certainly willing to lie,
Can you give an example of his lying? His honesty is not really my fight (not that I question it for a second), but charges of this kind are thrown around on these boards too loosely too often. And they rarely pan out, resulting in the person hurling the charge looking like an ass. I'm sure that's not the case with you, of course, so, let's see these lies from Bricker that you allege.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017