# Can voter ID laws increase the chance of a fraudulent outcome? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 12, 2014, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273 "2014-09-12T10:19:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2014, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/81 "2014-09-13T10:06:09Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, that is ultimately where I was headed, so I guess I’ve got no grounds to quibble over the sequence, so let’s revisit your earlier “meaningfully” comment, specifically: > > Is one case in a thousand meaningful? One in ten thousand? One in a million? Is there a stark prevarication in the following two sentences: > > 1. No one is being meaningfully denied a right to vote by any Voter ID laws. > 2. Voter fraud is not meaningfully affecting the outcomes of elections. > > Is there a meaningful difference in how “meaningfully” is being used? In short, is the problem supposedly being addressed bigger than the problem being created? Both sentences are fair. Voter fraud only very rarely, in ultra-close elections, has a potential to sway the results of an election. In the vast majority of elections, voter fraud is of so minor a dimension that it simply doesn’t change the result. But the “problem being addressed,” is not simply the results of elections. It’s the confidence voters attach to the results of elections, especially ultra-close elections. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2014, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/82 "2014-09-13T10:15:00Z")
> [@Parthol](#): > > No. My “1” rating applies to someone whose _only_ inconvenience is 30 minutes during which they had to wait in line. Assume in that case they could otherwise walk to the polling place after they get off work and suffer no other costs. But you pick nits, and avoid my main objection. > > Logistics of voting are an unavoidable evil in the system; like just about everything else in life, they impose more of a burden on the poor. Effectively adding another fairly arbitrary $20 dollar fee to obtain a voter ID will just discourage that many more disadvantaged people from voting – more, I’m convinced, that the number of fraudulent votes the Voter ID prevents in the first place. I see that as a failure of the system. It’s not fairly arbitrary. It is clearly and rationally related to a reasonable state goal of ensuring that only qualified persons vote. I get that you see it as a failure of the system. I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2014, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/83 "2014-09-13T11:08:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No one is being meaningfully denied a right to vote by any Voter ID laws. > [@Bricker](#): > > That point being: the threat of prosecution is generally regarded as a deterrent. And this is _exactly what I was talking about_. This is _insanely_ hypocritical. Yeah, voter ID laws serve as a “deterrent” to voter fraud. They also serve as a deterrent to _actually voting_. You don’t get to claim that one is meaningful and the other isn’t. > [@Bricker](#): > > Both sentences are fair. Voter fraud only very rarely, in ultra-close elections, has a potential to sway the results of an election. In the vast majority of elections, voter fraud is of so minor a dimension that it simply doesn’t change the result. Indeed, I challenge you to name _one_ American election where voter fraud swayed the results. One. > [@](#): > > But the “problem being addressed,” is not simply the results of elections. It’s the confidence voters attach to the results of elections, especially ultra-close elections. LOL. This line again. Let me be clear on something. The “confidence” of the kind of person who don’t get that voter impersonation fraud is incredibly rare because it has virtually no effect is meaningless. Yes, let’s discourage a whole bunch of people from voting so that a few paranoid folk stop irrationally believing that there was widespread fraud. GENIUS IDEA. Except that voter ID laws would do nothing to stop jackasses like the folks from “Unskewed Polls”. They’re conspiracy theorists. You think this is going to convince them that Obama won legitimately? No! And even if it would, the tradeoff is _absolutely not worth it_. You’re making it far more difficult for large swathes of people to vote - providing a _deterrent_ (I believe you’ve used that term before…) which in many cases can be quite extreme - while ultimately stopping a crime which _almost never happens_. Voter confidence is a big fat waste of time. The people who are convinced that voter fraud is the reason their side lost the election will still be convinced that voter fraud is the reason their side lost the election after we implement voter ID. Because they’re not looking at this rationally. They’re not examining the evidence. They know fuck-all about the electoral process. They’re _conspiracy theorists_ who just cannot believe that their side lost. **Bricker** , you are proposing cheapening our electoral process, making it significantly harder for many people to vote, to try to _appease conspiracy theorists_. That’s a _terrible_ idea! It’d be like ordering a 1:1 replica of the twin towers be built, then flying planes into them to appease 9/11 truthers, except that all that would be is a colossal waste of money, rather than a debacle that heavily skews election results in favor of republicans. (Oh, And when it does happen, it’s something like 40x rarer than, say, absentee ballot fraud, but we never see you guys bitching about not needing a notary to file those.) ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2014, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/84 "2014-09-13T11:29:42Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > de minimis If getting an ID didn’t require a trip to the DMV, I might agree. DMVs are notoriously few in number, and have notoriously long waits for service. A person can easily be on the hook for a half to full day adventure trying to get their ID, assuming their documentation is spot on, and they have access to personal transportation. Make one mistake, and you’ll have to do it all again in the future. Interestingly enough, I can get a passport at the Post Office, and there’s one of those in every town, and the lines are almost never 2 hours long. But for a regular ID that doesn’t cost $100, sorry, go drive 30 minutes to the DMV, wait for 2 hours to see the angry person behind the counter, and drive 30 minutes back with vague instructions on what to fix when you come back tomorrow. De minimis, it is not. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2014, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/85 "2014-09-13T11:37:43Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > And this is _exactly what I was talking about_. This is _insanely_ hypocritical. Yeah, voter ID laws serve as a “deterrent” to voter fraud. They also serve as a deterrent to _actually voting_. You don’t get to claim that one is meaningful and the other isn’t. Why not? Certainly they don’t deter by the same mechanism. Voter ID laws deter illegal voters with the treat of prosecution. If they deter legitimate voters, it’s a minimal effect having to do with the difficulty of obtaining ID. There are orders of magnitude of difference. > [@](#): > > Indeed, I challenge you to name _one_ American election where voter fraud swayed the results. One. How would we know? What standard of proof is necessary before you agree with a case of voter fraud? > [@](#): > > LOL. This line again. Let me be clear on something. The “confidence” of the kind of person who don’t get that voter impersonation fraud is incredibly rare because it has virtually no effect is meaningless. Yes, let’s discourage a whole bunch of people from voting so that a few paranoid folk stop irrationally believing that there was widespread fraud. Not widespread fraud. As I have clearly and repeatedly maintained: > [@Bricker](#): > > Voter fraud only very rarely, in ultra-close elections, has a potential to sway the results of an election. In the vast majority of elections, voter fraud is of so minor a dimension that it simply doesn’t change the result. > [@](#): > > ! And even if it would, the tradeoff is _absolutely not worth it_. You’re making it far more difficult for large swathes of people to vote - providing a _deterrent_ (I believe you’ve used that term before…) which in many cases can be quite extreme - while ultimately stopping a crime which _almost never happens_. I understand that you don’t believe the trade-off is worth it. I do believe it’s worth it. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2014, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/86 "2014-09-13T11:50:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why not? Certainly they don’t deter by the same mechanism. Voter ID laws deter illegal voters with the treat of prosecution. If they deter legitimate voters, it’s a minimal effect having to do with the difficulty of obtaining ID. There are orders of magnitude of difference. :rolleyes: Of course there is. Because making it almost completely impossible for some is orders of magnitude less of a deterrent than the threat of persecution. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > How would we know? What standard of proof is necessary before you agree with a case of voter fraud? Well, here, let me give you a hint. In Al Franken’s congressional bid, his opponent alleged voter fraud. Then, the courts took over. If they had agreed with the plaintiff, I would have accepted it. I don’t fully understand the mechanism there, but I’d assume that if there were no mechanism, the courts wouldn’t have wasted 6 months investigating it, would they? > [@](#): > > Not widespread fraud. As I have clearly and repeatedly maintained: Oh, great, so what we have is a bunch of people worried about something which even they understand has no effect anyways. And in response, we should make it harder for everyone else to vote. That’s incredible. I’m virtually lost for words. > [@](#): > > I understand that you don’t believe the trade-off is worth it. > > I do believe it’s worth it. And one of us is clearly _wrong_. So how do we go about determining this? I’ve provided evidence. You haven’t. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2014, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/87 "2014-09-13T12:05:54Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > And one of us is clearly _wrong_. So how do we go about determining this? I’ve provided evidence. You haven’t. You haven’t provided any evidence that counters my claim that, as a matter of policy, it’s better to require ID even if it creates what I see as a minimal, incidental burden. Have you? How can you provide evidence about which choice is better for society – about how society should weigh one against the other? So how we go about determining this is: we each try to convince the public, and outer elected representatives, of the wisdom of our position. Those elected representatives will pass laws consist with the results. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2014, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/88 "2014-09-13T12:19:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You haven’t provided any evidence that counters my claim that, as a matter of policy, it’s better to require ID even if it creates what I see as a minimal, incidental burden. Have you? How can you provide evidence about which choice is better for society – about how society should weigh one against the other? Yes, I have. 120 miles in each direction with no driver’s license and no public transit available is not _minimal, incidental_. Neither is 30. That’s the whole point - there’s noting minimal or incidental about this burden. The reason people are against it is _because_ it’s not cheap and painless to get photo ID! Your claim that it’s better to require ID if it creates nothing more than a minimal burden is something I have no trouble with. That’s why I have _no problem_ with requiring ID to vote here in Germany, where you can get photo ID in virtually every small town and where the people with no ID are a tiny, fringe minority. But in the US, where getting ID can be notoriously difficult and many people (10% or so) don’t have one? I’m sorry, but the fact that you see it as minimal or incidental means your eyes are closed and you’re fast asleep. > [@](#): > > So how we go about determining this is: we each try to convince the public, and outer elected representatives, of the wisdom of our position. Those elected representatives will pass laws consist with the results. Right. Because that worked so well when it came to evolution, global warming, and the like. And those aren’t even issues about _rights_! See, that’s the thing - voting about whether or not we let people vote is, in general, a terrible idea. This issue needs to be determined by people who know what they’re talking about, not an electorate who isn’t even aware of the problems and often gets their information from horribly biased and dishonest sources (remember how long FOX touted that bullshit O’Keefe video about voter fraud?). The fact is that this is one of those cases where the vast majority of people are not well-informed, and most of them are simply wrong. Even if it wins the popular vote, _that doesn’t make it right_. Ask a popular vote if George Zimmerman should go to jail and you’ll probably find a solid majority in favor; that doesn’t make them right. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2014, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/89 "2014-09-13T13:44:46Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > From the excerpt in the OP, I thought the concern was depressed turnout of legitimate voters, with larger effect than the depressed turnout of fraudulent voters. Exactly. Just a different way of saying it. The new ID requirements depress in person voting, while not depressing absentee voting. Since absentee voting likely has a bigger percentage of fraudulent votes than does in person voting, you end up with what you describe and have an increase in the percentage of fraudulent votes. From this, it could be argued that ID laws actually increase the incentive to commit fraud by absentee ballot, since such fraud will have a greater effect. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2014, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/90 "2014-09-13T14:11:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Both sentences are fair. Voter fraud only very rarely, in ultra-close elections, has a potential to sway the results of an election. In the vast majority of elections, voter fraud is of so minor a dimension that it simply doesn’t change the result. > > But the “problem being addressed,” is not simply the results of elections. It’s the confidence voters attach to the results of elections, especially ultra-close elections. Is it fair to say that helping you (or anyone else with confidence concerns) to feel better about rare effects on rare elections is not worth a single citizen losing their chance to vote, as well as pointing out that the “dimensions” of inefficient voting processes, malfunctioning voting machines, human errors in counting and good old election fraud and malfeasance by officials are all historically far more influential than the Ramon Cues of the world and if maximizing confidence is the goal, why not concentrate on those? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2014, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/91 "2014-09-13T16:30:41Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Yes, I have. 120 miles in each direction with no driver’s license and no public transit available is not _minimal, incidental_. Neither is 30. That’s the whole point - there’s noting minimal or incidental about this burden. The reason people are against it is _because_ it’s not cheap and painless to get photo ID! Public polls have shown a pretty consistent majority _in favor_ of Voter ID laws. I think the burden is minimal and incidental. You seem to disagree. So, as you pointed out, there must be a way to decide which of our views gets to become law. > [@](#): > > Right. Because that worked so well when it came to evolution, global warming, and the like. And those aren’t even issues about _rights_! See, that’s the thing - voting about whether or not we let people vote is, in general, a terrible idea. This issue needs to be determined by people who know what they’re talking about, not an electorate who isn’t even aware of the problems and often gets their information from horribly biased and dishonest sources (remember how long FOX touted that bullshit O’Keefe video about voter fraud?). The fact is that this is one of those cases where the vast majority of people are not well-informed, and most of them are simply wrong. Even if it wins the popular vote, _that doesn’t make it right_. Ask a popular vote if George Zimmerman should go to jail and you’ll probably find a solid majority in favor; that doesn’t make them right. So what’s the new solution, instead of letting people vote? Where shall we find a group of people who “know what they’re talking about?” Can I be on the group? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2014, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/92 "2014-09-13T16:46:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think the burden is minimal and incidental. You seem to disagree. Can you quantify that, even speculatively? One voter in a thousand? Ten thousand? A million? > [@](#): > > Can I be on the group? A bad idea doesn’t morph into a good one by virtue of popularity. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2014, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/93 "2014-09-13T16:59:58Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Is it fair to say that helping you (or anyone else with confidence concerns) to feel better about rare effects on rare elections is not worth a single citizen losing their chance to vote, as well as pointing out that the “dimensions” of inefficient voting processes, malfunctioning voting machines, human errors in counting and good old election fraud and malfeasance by officials are all historically far more influential than the Ramon Cues of the world and if maximizing confidence is the goal, why not concentrate on those? No. I think people should get to decide what level of confidence they wish in their elections. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2014, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/94 "2014-09-13T17:07:37Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Can you quantify that, even speculatively? One voter in a thousand? Ten thousand? A million? I don’t agree the proper analysis is the number of votes. I say it’s an analysis of the weight of the burden. If the burden is a reasonable, minimum one, then the fact that some people choose to not vote in the face of it is not fatal to the adoption of it. > [@](#): > > A bad idea doesn’t morph into a good one by virtue of popularity. Who gets to decide which ideas are bad and which ones are good, though, and by what mechanism except popularity do you expect laws in a representative democracy to get made? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2014, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/95 "2014-09-13T17:07:39Z")
Absolutely they should be able to make such decisions about what they wish. The question is should their confidence be used to justify law affecting, indeed disenfranchising, others? I get that it _can_ be, and has been, so used. The mechanism of bad decisions put into effect is not in doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2014, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/96 "2014-09-13T17:10:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree the proper analysis is the number of votes. I say it’s an analysis of the weight of the burden. If the burden is a reasonable, minimum one, then the fact that some people choose to not vote in the face of it is not fatal to the adoption of it. This is not a casual choice for some, and the need for the burden at _all_, regardless of what metric of “reasonable and minimal” is applied, remains unclear. > [@](#): > > Who gets to decide which ideas are bad and which ones are good, though, and by what mechanism except popularity do you expect laws in a representative democracy to get made? I repeat my earlier comment: The mechanism of bad decisions put into effect is not in doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2014, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/97 "2014-09-13T17:18:16Z")
Incidentally, as regards the question of the thread title, I conclude from this: > [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree the proper analysis is the number of votes. …that Bricker’s answer is “Who cares?” Well, I do. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2014, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/98 "2014-09-14T02:49:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree the proper analysis is the number of votes. I say it’s an analysis of the weight of the burden. If the burden is a reasonable, minimum one, then the fact that some people choose to not vote in the face of it is not fatal to the adoption of it. > > Who gets to decide which ideas are bad and which ones are good, though, and by what mechanism except popularity do you expect laws in a representative democracy to get made? You know what I’m getting from all of this? “I reject epistemology outright in favor of the vote of the uninformed public”. That’s what I’m getting from this. Obviously, whether or not it becomes law in a democracy has to do with how many people vote for it. But this is a debate. On a forum. We’re not talking about “is it popular” or “can we get a lot of people to vote for it”. We’re talking about _is it right_. **Bricker** , do you care whether or not what you believe is right? Because the implication I’m getting from all of this is a solid _no_. You don’t seem to care whether or not your ideas are right. You just care whether or not you can get a bunch of people who don’t know any better to vote for them. And at that point, it becomes a complete and total waste of time to even begin to debate with you. Because _you don’t care if you’re right_. You only care if you can get people to agree with you. At any given point, that is the end of the discussion. Full stop. We’re done. And nobody should even begin to engage you on the topic. > [@Bricker](#): > > Can I be on the group? God forbid. > [@Bricker](#): > > No. > > I think people should get to decide what level of confidence they wish in their elections. Right. And if they think the only people allowed to vote are those who can provide not only their own birth certificates, but the birth certificates of their families from within the USA going back 5 generations…? Ugh. Just… no. This is a colossal waste of time. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2014, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/99 "2014-09-14T03:02:57Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > You know what I’m getting from all of this? > > “I reject epistemology outright in favor of the vote of the uninformed public”. > > That’s what I’m getting from this. > > Obviously, whether or not it becomes law in a democracy has to do with how many people vote for it. But this is a debate. On a forum. We’re not talking about “is it popular” or “can we get a lot of people to vote for it”. We’re talking about _is it right_. > > **Bricker** , do you care whether or not what you believe is right? Because the implication I’m getting from all of this is a solid _no_. You don’t seem to care whether or not your ideas are right. You just care whether or not you can get a bunch of people who don’t know any better to vote for them. And at that point, it becomes a complete and total waste of time to even begin to debate with you. Because _you don’t care if you’re right_. You only care if you can get people to agree with you. At any given point, that is the end of the discussion. Full stop. We’re done. And nobody should even begin to engage you on the topic. I care deeply about whether it’s right. You know what I’m getting from all this? That you and I have very different ideas about what constitutes “right.” Our ideas are so different that I don’t see any real middle ground. If you try to sell me a widget for a dollar and I offer sixty cents, there is obviously room to negotiate. If I offer sixty cents and you say you were thinking six million, the next step is not me saying, “How about three million?” It will be clear that we’re in completely different worlds. That’s what’s happening here. I am overwhelmingly concerned with doing right. But I don’t think you have any clue what ‘right’ is. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2014, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273/100 "2014-09-14T03:09:14Z")
I’m unclear on the moral calculations that leads one to conclude that empathy with people with reduced confidence after ultra-close elections is better than empathy with people who lose a chance to vote, I admit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-voter-id-laws-increase-the-chance-of-a-fraudulent-outcome/698273.md?page=6)