Bricker, how many close elections that you were a part of (observing interested party, voter, etc.) have you lacked confidence in the official outcome?
I mean, in your lifetime, and in your personal experience, how many elections had outcomes that were close and in which you lacked confidence in the officially published and determined results?
Would Voter ID have prevented the outcomes that you regard with a lack of confidence?
Four.
In 1974, Louis Wyman / John Durkin for Senate in New Hampshire. 2 votes. (Ultimately “settled” with a new election.)
In 1984, Rick McIntyre / Frank McCloskey for Indiana’s 8th. McIntyre (R) certified the winner by 34 votes. McCloskey (D) actually seated when Democratic House declared McCloskey the real winner, by 4 votes.
In 2000, Florida presidential. Bush initially certified the winner, then Gore, then no one. Recounts, Florida Supremes, US Supremes all added their views. Bush the “winner” by 537.
In 2004, Washington governer’s race, Christine Gregoire (D) wins over Dino Rossi (R) after Rossei was at first declared the winner; Gregoire “wins” by 133 votes.
Yes. when elections are that close, knowing that voters were ID’d adds a definite level of comfort.
The outcomes might or might not have been the same. That’s the point: I don’t know.
You don’t know, but support the laws anyway? Just to be safe?
I don’t know if the election was an accurate expression of legitimate voters’ will. This means that my confidence in the result is low.
When we speak of a “lack of confidence,” that terms means, “I don’t know if the election results can be trusted.”
Therefore, i support laws that will make my confidence in the election result higher.
Good, then surely you oppose and deplore efforts to inhibit voter registration and promote voter turnaways, too. The less representative an electorate is of the populace, the lower your confidence has to be, right?
Oh, wait, you *support *them. Odd, that. Wonder why.
I’m just gonna stop you right there. This election’s problem was not “in-person voter fraud”. Rather, it was fraud or fuck-ups at basically every other level. The Katherine Harris mess, butterfly ballots, legitimate voters being struck from the rolls, legitimate voters being struck from the rolls, LEGITIMATE VOTERS BEING PREVENTED FROM VOTING,
…Huh. Funny story, that.
Y’know, you keep saying that voters are being prevented from voting through voter id laws, but they’re not. They’ve had an additional hurdle placed in the way, but clearly it’s one that the American public believes is set low enough to be acceptable. I’m from India, practically my entire country is poorer than the poorest Americans, and even we don’t believe that voter identification is an unreasonable burden. For those people whom it is an unreasonable burden, well I’ve read a few of these debates and one thing I never see discussed is a compromise. If you do believe people are being disenfranchised through lack of id, there is a simple way to try and work around that - try and make sure they have relevant id. Do you have any data on how many people there are that have no id, and would be prevented from voting?
Not to be excessively snarky, but yes, that’s been studied extensively, and I hereby refer you to Google. The party pushing these laws has also been working to restrict voter access in other ways, including actively suppressing attempts by third parties to register new voters or make provision for easy availability of ID’s. I refer you to Google for that as well. For the historical context of efforts in the US to suppress voting by people of the wrong color, I invite you to open any American History textbook.
Sorry, but this has all been discussed extensively over the last few years.
Yes, and the post in which I said that the problem in that election WAS in-person voter fraud was… where?
Good question. Where IS the evidence that in person voter fraud was a problem in that election or any other?
Right. Now here’s why I disagree.
The gist of it is pretty simple: voter ID prevents exactly one kind of electoral fraud - in-person voter fraud. In order for voter ID to stop your fraudulent vote, you have to be casting it in-person at a polling station. This is exceptionally rare. The figures cited by the Brennan Center place this at something like 0.0004% - that is, for every 250,000 votes cast, one will likely be fraudulent. In stark contrast, the best available data we have for the number of people with photo ID is a 2006 survey that places it at around 10%, with numbers closer to 25% for poor minorities.
Now, make any assumptions you want about people without ID not wanting to vote, the fact of the matter is that in order to prevent something which is about as common as people healing their cancer with reiki (and which makes about as much sense to do), we’re placing a fairly substantial hurdle in front of a good 10% of the population. You say they’re not being prevented, and while that’s a good excuse legally, when it comes to actually justifying the law it really isn’t. People without photo ID necessarily do not have driver’s licenses, and DMVs are not always conveniently located. Back when I lived in Maine, the nearest DMV was almost 30 miles away from where I lived (Bar Harbor). Hell of a bike ride. In one court case in Texas, the distance cited by a plaintiff was 120 miles. In each direction. For a low-income person without a license, especially one that works, that might as well be the moon.
This is the issue. Not that anyone is prevented from voting - the list of people legitimately disenfranchised by voter ID laws is probably very low (albeit probably still higher than actual cases of voter fraud each year) - but rather that it presents a quite non-trivial hurdle. People often have to take time off of work, travel long distances, and if you are taking time off work you’d better damn well hope you got all your paperwork right the first time, and the DMV’s computers aren’t fried (which happens from time to time), otherwise you’re going back again. The end result is that a good number of people are going to say “I will not go through that effort simply to be a drop in a bucket”. So in the end, you have a solution to a non-problem that creates a much bigger problem. In a country where participation is already abysmal, I’d say that’s pretty bad. And that’s not even getting into the partisan aspect.
I live in Germany and here, I don’t think it’s an unreasonable burden either. Of course, in Germany, it’s almost never the case that you live more than a few miles from the nearest ID center, the government puts in a lot of work to ensure that you have that ID, and you’re all but mandated to have one. To my knowledge, if you don’t have photo ID, you virtually cannot get a job - at least not legally. They don’t do the whole SSN thing - their basic ID is a shiny card with your name, face, date of birth, and home address on it. It’s totally reasonable for them to ask for ID. In the US, you’d be surprised how many people do just fine with nothing more than their social security number. I can’t tell you how it is in India. I don’t live there, and I can’t find too much info on it. But in the US, the situation is liable to be very different.
Well, there’s the 2006 survey, which is somewhat dated and puts the number between 9% and 13%. There’s this studyof 2008 polling data, which has the number of registered voters with no ID between 5% and 14% depending on ethnicity. This 2011 study in Ohio found around 11%. How many of those would be prevented from voting… Not so much. That said, what I do have is an equation.
[QUOTE=me]
X / Y = 0.00004
So basically, given the knowledge that we have, in order for voter ID laws to make sense, the rate of people who simply cannot get photo ID for whatever reason, divided by the rate of error of the current investigations must be 0.00004. I’d be willing to take people’s word for it that X is something like 1%, but not that it’s something like 0.001% unless someone could actually provide evidence. Similarly, I’d believe that voter fraud detection is off by a factor of maybe 5 or 10, but not a thousand. Not without very good evidence.
[/QUOTE]
As for compromise, here’s a good one: get that number down! Make it considerably easier to get photo ID. Make it so that the number of people without ID is a lot less than one in ten. Do that before we make it a requirement to take part in democracy. How about we stop trying to shut down organizations like ACORN, who do their best to make more people participate in democracy? I bet, if they hadn’t been taken down by a dishonest, fabricated smear campaign, they’d be totally into helping people get photo IDs! Or how about a different system? We’ve had fingerprint scanner technology for ages - why not use that to prevent voter fraud? Or any other system that doesn’t mean even more of a huge hassle for the voter, in particular low-income minority voters?
Here, let me draw you a graphic of what just happened.
the point ------------------------------------------>
-> Your head
My point was that if you want to talk about confidence in elections, voter ID laws are almost the worst place to spend your time. In the 2000 election, there were all kinds of things wrong. One major issue? Legitimate voters being unable to cast their ballot. In particular, low-income black people. And when I say major, I mean “easily swings the election”. That kind of major. There’s a disgusting irony in there, isn’t there? But no, the way to go about “restoring confidence” is by attacking a fake issue that most people wouldn’t know or care about if the right-wing media didn’t spend so much time lying about it. And the way you attack it is making it harder for people to vote - in particular, low-income black people. Nice.
Also, still ignoring post 114? I realize I made a pretty big mess of your various distractions, but it would be nice to at least acknowledge that your big criticism previously has been answered.
And?
What’s the logical debate response to such a claim?
Trust me when I say that it’s not, “Well, your reasons suck.”
I don’t agree with the weight you’ve attached to your pros and cons. Neither do a majority of voters.
No. The goal of voting is to allow interested persons the opportunity to vote. If the goal were as you say, then we’d have a national mandatory holiday for Election Day and it would be on a weekend.
See, you’re writing the rules and then proving you win the game with those rules.
There’s not an inherent equality. I have used the “voodoo” threat as a thought experiment to illustrate this. Imagine a voodoo practitioner who said, “I will place a voodoo curse on anyone who votes for Smith.”
Even if I were to learn that this threat caused ten voters to stay home, I wouldn’t care, because their decision to stay home because of a voodoo curse is objectively unreasonable. I don’t agree that we simply count the votes: instead, we ask how reasonable the barriers are.
Therefore, you are factually WRONG.
I’m not going to continue answering this post, because your remaining commentary builds on your disproved commentary. You don’t to declare that missed votes are equal to fraudulent votes and then magically discover that you win the debate, because they are NOT equal.
Mmmkay?
Should government agents be promoting voodoo curses and other means to discourage voters?
No. But government agents certainly should promote things that improve the security of elections, even if an unintended secondary effect is to discourage some voters.
What if that secondary effect is far greater than the intended one?
Unintended, he says. :D:D:D:D:D:D
I noticed that. A typo maybe? The ‘u’ is right next to the ‘i’ and ‘n’ is right below it, so maybe when he tried to type ‘intended’ he fat-fingered ‘un’ first.
It depends on how you measure them. I don’t agree with measuring vote against vote, since society should not be swayed by a person who chooses not to vote in the face of a minimal burden.
So before I can answer your question, who gets to define the metrics for measuring the secondary effect?
There will always be impediments to voting, unfortunately, that will tend to discourage some set of the population from voting. Generally, these impediments fall into a few categories that can all be distilled into a dollar value: time, particularly when it removes someone from hourly employment; distance; and money directly. If someone has to travel 30 minutes to a polling station by bus, then spend 60 minutes in line, then 30 minutes back, one could place a dollar value on bus fare and lost wages. If one has to spend $40 on documentation needed to procure a Voter ID, it’s easy to place a dollar value on that.
Typically these impediments affect poor people more, by their nature.
Right now, there is some percentage of voters who are already discouraged, absent any new Voter ID laws or other impediments. There are people who think “Yeah, I’d like to vote, but I’m unwilling to stand in line for three hours like I did last time,” or similar.
If we added one more small impediment, the number of those voters would increase. If we removed one small impediment – say, we could wave a magic wand and make everyone’s wait time 5 minutes shorter – the number of those voters would decrease. It’s all on a continuum. Even you, Bricker, could be dissuaded from voting, even if you weren’t technically prevented, if that burden was onerous enough. What if one could provably eliminate voter fraud entirely, but the per-person cost in time and money equated to ten thousand dollars? A hundred thousand? Scrooge McRockefeller might decide that’s fine, that such a cost is a “minimal burden,” but you would disagree… in exactly the same way that you think $50 is a minimal burden, but a person for whom that means no food or medicine this week might disagree.
And because the “fair” location of that line falls in a different place for every citizen of this country, I think that when we contemplate a change to the system that will move the line, the only fair measurement of the change is “will it push more people over their personal line, from willing to vote, to unwilling to vote, than are the number of illegal votes being eliminated.”
You say “in the face of a minimal burden,” and then with your next breath ask “who gets to define the metrics for measuring the secondary effect?” Well, you just tried to, didn’t you, by declaring the burden minimal. So are you saying that you get to define that metric? Why you? Why not someone from Texas who will have to go a hundred miles without a car, or spend $40 they don’t have on a birth certificate from another state? Or why not Scrooge McRockefeller?
Two more related points: you claim, often, that as long as people vote for Voter ID, it must be fine. I find that morally unpersuasive. I believe a significant majority of people don’t think through the answer to a misleadingly simple question. “Are you in favor of Voter ID if it reduces fraud?” is the kind of question that just about everyone would say yes to. I mean, duh, it sounds great, right? But the question doesn’t invite people to consider the costs to people who don’t have an ID. Most people, who already have an ID and are affluent enough to get one without much difficulty, don’t consider the reality of people worse off than themselves. It’s human nature. I myself fell into that category, until I dug a little deeper and came to realize the true nature of the barriers so many thousands of people will face. I’m still in favor of Voter ID, but not unless access is made universal, easy, and actually free – not “free with the purchase of a $40 birth certificate.” Also, I personally take a dim view of the majority getting to vote the effective disenfranchisement of a minority. And that’s what this is… effective disenfranchisement.
As for voter confidence, I’m with you there, too. But confidence that fraudulent votes are minimized is just a subset of what voter confidence is really about: that the outcome of a vote accurately reflects the preferences of the legal voting populace who wish to vote. That’s what will give me confidence. And when stopping one fraudulent vote pushes the line of material burden across a thousand voters, voters who were already at their personal limit for what cost they were willing to pay in time, money and bureaucracy in order to exercise the franchise, then my “voter confidence” is greatly diminished.
One last thing, because I can see you pulling that straw-stuffed voodoo doll out of your back pocket. Yes, one can imagine all kinds of crazy psychological tricks one could play on the most credulous sliver of our population to stop them from voting. You said earlier that we should “ask how reasonable the barriers are.” I think it’s fair to say that we would agree about barriers that are purely psychological. But once we start ratcheting up the already-real cost of time and money, the “reasonable barrier” starts moving at the very first material impediment.