# I Pit GOP "voting reform" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 4, 2011, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180 "2011-09-04T19:34:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 26
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2011, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/501 "2011-09-12T14:58:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Even if I accept that the proposition that actual vote fraud is rare, measures that ensure public confidence in the results of the vote are independently valid precisely because they shore up public perception about the reliabvility of the result. > > The “alarm” you dismiss is real. People feel it. Their belief may not be rational, but public perception is key to the entire structure of elections. You’ve managed to say something I agree with. And I, along with many other Americans, **do not perceive the Presidential elections of 2000 nor 2004 as electing the President they would have if conducted fairly**. If Democrats were stealing elections in today’s America the way the GOP is, right-wingers would be overrunning government offices with shotguns and dynamite. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2011, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/502 "2011-09-12T15:17:09Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > You’ve managed to say something I agree with. And I, along with many other Americans, **do not perceive the Presidential elections of 2000 nor 2004 as electing the President they would have if conducted fairly**. > > If Democrats were stealing elections in today’s America the way the GOP is, right-wingers would be overrunning government offices with shotguns and dynamite. I don’t think you’re crazy with respect to 2000. The fact of the matter is that the margin of error in Florida in 2000 was so razor-thin that it’s impossible to say with confidence who the winner should have been. I don’t agree with your uncertainty about 2004. But the point stands: there is a worthy goal in placing safeguards in effect that increase public confidence about the process and results, even if the safeguards are in response to a potential, not an actual, problem. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2011, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/503 "2011-09-12T16:42:26Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] …Now, as to the motivation: I think on a scale of one to ten, “eight” is probably the partisan motivation for these laws and “two” the genuine desire to safeguard against voter fraud… [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Bricker] …But the point stands: there is a worthy goal in placing safeguards in effect that increase public confidence about the process and results, even if the safeguards are in response to a potential, not an actual, problem… [/QUOTE] I offer you another opportunity to display your skill in semantic gymnastics. You wring your hands, fraught with concern about the “public confidence about the process and results”. But you hold that this effort is primarily a partisan ploy to use the power of legislation to further the fortunes of one political party. But this can be legitimized if there is any chance that the “public confidence” may be affected. Well, all right, then, what about the “confidence” of those who are most affected by this? I think we can fairly say that their confidence will be diminished, we can fairly say it already has been. They don’t count? And this “potential” problem, which may or may not be an “actual” problem. How theoretical can the problem be, and still pass the test? I am deeply troubled by the incidence of unicorn impalement of voters at the polls. I note that unicorns are closely associated with virgins. There are many more virgins in the Republican Party, hence, I propose a series of searches and affidavits to ensure that Republicans are not trying to smuggle unicorns into the voting place. I note, with some small regret, that this will effectively harass and discourage Republican voters, but that’s OK, because I am addressing a “potential” problem with voter confidence. Not an actual problem, I don’t have to prove that its an “actual” problem, just as you don’t have to prove that voter fraud is an “actual” problem. Because it isn’t, just as unicorn impalement isn’t. And for the same reason. So, to sum up: you admit that this effort is primarily a partisan ploy to reduce the votes for Democrats. You justify this effort due to its healthy effect on public confidence. Clearly, this will adversely affect the confidence of those of the public who are adversely affected, couldn’t be otherwise. Do you offer us the suggestion that this is a worthy sacrifice, because it will bolster the public confidence of the rest of the public, that portion not affected? Shouldn’t you offer some support for that contention, some reason to believe that the voting public is fraught with anxiety about the “potential” threat of voter fraud? This will negatively affect the confidence of the target population, it may, theoretically, bolster the confidence of those not affected, who may or may not be in a dither about voter fraud. Which, effectively, does not exist. But, we must hinder the voting rights of some portion of the public in order to bolster the confidence of the rest. You really believe that? Or are you scurrying about trying to find the mayonnaise of legitimacy to make this shit sand which more agreeable? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2011, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/504 "2011-09-12T16:50:49Z")
[http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1115-02.htm](http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1115-02.htm) The NYT and other publications checked the Florida votes and determined that Gore had more votes in Florida than Bush. It was not put on the front page. So yes, there is voting fraud. The Supreme Court was wrong to interfere. But Gore did not carry Tennessee. You really should carry your home state. ---
**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 12, 2011, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/505 "2011-09-12T16:53:24Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > You’ve managed to say something I agree with. And I, along with many other Americans, **do not perceive the Presidential elections of 2000 nor 2004 as electing the President they would have if conducted fairly**. > > If Democrats were stealing elections in today’s America the way the GOP is, right-wingers would be overrunning government offices with shotguns and dynamite. 2004? Come now, there was no foul play in 2004. A brutal and false smear campaign that in some places could be the cause of a slander lawsuit or two, to be sure, but no _real_ foul play. 2000… Yeah. If you wanna talk about voter fraud, the fraud problem is _not_ on the voter end. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2011, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/506 "2011-09-12T17:09:16Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, all right, then, what about the “confidence” of those who are most affected by this? I think we can fairly say that their confidence will be diminished, we can fairly say it already has been. They don’t count? Sure, they count. But they cannot complain about a procedure which, no matter its motivation, is legitimate in its effects. Voter ID requirements simply identify voters. > [@](#): > > And this “potential” problem, which may or may not be an “actual” problem. How theoretical can the problem be, and still pass the test? I am deeply troubled by the incidence of unicorn impalement of voters at the polls. I note that unicorns are closely associated with virgins. There are many more virgins in the Republican Party, hence, I propose a series of searches and affidavits to ensure that Republicans are not trying to smuggle unicorns into the voting place. > > I note, with some small regret, that this will effectively harass and discourage Republican voters, but that’s OK, because I am addressing a “potential” problem with voter confidence. Not an actual problem, I don’t have to prove that its an “actual” problem, just as you don’t have to prove that voter fraud is an “actual” problem. But you do have to prove that some significant number of people are worried about the unicorn issue. > [@](#): > > So, to sum up: you admit that this effort is primarily a partisan ploy to reduce the votes for Democrats. You justify this effort due to its healthy effect on public confidence. Clearly, this will adversely affect the confidence of those of the public who are adversely affected, couldn’t be otherwise. Not quite. I said that the motive for the effort is partisan, just as the motive for ACORN-ish folks is to increase Democratic votes. And as long as the actual plan implemeted is legitimate (registering lots of voters or insisting that each voter is identified properly) then the motives are of no concern. > [@](#): > > Shouldn’t you offer some support for that contention, some reason to believe that the voting public is fraught with anxiety about the “potential” threat of voter fraud? Yes: > [@Rasmussen](#): > > A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 75% of Likely U.S. Voters believe voters should be required to show photo identification such as a driver’s license before being allowed to vote. Just 18% disagree and oppose such a requirement. (To see survey question wording, click here.) > > Eighty-five percent (85%) of Republicans support a photo ID requirement at the polls, as do 77% of voters not affiliated with either major party and 63% of Democrats. But then support for such a law is high across virtually all demographic groups. From [here.](http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2011/75_support_showing_photo_id_at_the_polls) > [@](#): > > But, we must hinder the voting rights of some portion of the public in order to bolster the confidence of the rest. > > You really believe that? Or are you scurrying about trying to find the mayonnaise of legitimacy to make this shit sand which more agreeable? Yes, I really believe that. And I have evidence in support of my view: > [@The Effects of Photographic Identification on Voter Turnout in Indiana: A County Level Analysis](#): > > Abstract: > I examine the change in voter turnout across Indiana counties before and after the implementation of photo ID > requirements. Overall, statewide turnout increased by about two percentage points after photo ID; further, there > is no consistent evidence that counties that have higher percentages of minority, poor, elderly or less-educated > population suffer any reduction in voter turnout relative to other counties. In fact, the estimated effect of photo > ID on turnout is positive for counties with a greater percentage of minorities or families in poverty. The only > consistent and frequently statistically significant impact of photo ID in Indiana is to increase voter turnout in > counties with a greater percentage of Democrats relative to other counties. These findings run counter to some > recent and prominent concerns that have been raised about voter identification reforms; however, these results > are consistent with both existing theory on voter behavior and the most recent and reliable empirical evidence on > the effects of voter identification requirements on turnout. From [here (warning: PDF)](http://truman.missouri.edu/uploads/Publications/Report%2010-2007.pdf) My guess is that even faced with this evidence, you won’t concede the slightest error. In a contest between ideology and facts, in your arena, the facts must lose to the conclusion ideology commands. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2011, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/507 "2011-09-12T17:31:25Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > 2004? Come now, there was no foul play in 2004. A brutal and false smear campaign that in some places could be the cause of a slander lawsuit or two, to be sure, but no _real_ foul play. 2000… Yeah. If you wanna talk about voter fraud, the fraud problem is _not_ on the voter end. :rolleyes: Even setting aside the smears, and deliberately long lines to vote at Democrat precincts, [serious people have made substantiated allegations that the 2004 Ohio vote-counting process was hacked.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=619542) ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2011, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/508 "2011-09-12T17:31:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure, they count. > > But they cannot complain about a procedure which, no matter its motivation, is legitimate in its effects. Voter ID requirements simply identify voters. Complete and utter nonsense. Increased voter ID requirements reduces voter participation by those for whom conforming to said requirements is more of a burden. We don’t need to take positive action to increase voter confidence. We simply need to shed light on the constant Republican efforts to assert an _individual_ voter fraud problem when virtually none exists, and shed light on the concerted fraud to discourage individual voters that DOES exist. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2011, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/509 "2011-09-12T17:38:40Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > Complete and utter nonsense. Increased voter ID requirements reduces voter participation by those for whom conforming to said requirements is more of a burden. I’m sorry but you just made yourself look extremely stupid. As he pointed out, studies have shown that since voter ID laws have been passed just the opposite has happened. > [@](#): > > I examine the change in voter turnout across Indiana counties before and after the implementation of photo ID > requirements. Overall, statewide turnout increased by about two percentage points after photo ID; further, there > is no consistent evidence that counties that have higher percentages of minority, poor, elderly or less-educated > population suffer any reduction in voter turnout relative to other counties. In fact, the estimated effect of photo > ID on turnout is positive for counties with a greater percentage of minorities or families in poverty. The only > consistent and frequently statistically significant impact of photo ID in Indiana is to increase voter turnout in > counties with a greater percentage of Democrats relative to other counties. These findings run counter to some > recent and prominent concerns that have been raised about voter identification reforms; however, these results > are consistent with both existing theory on voter behavior and the most recent and reliable empirical evidence on > the effects of voter identification requirements on turnout. Those of us who are members of the reality-based community recognize that it is a myth that voter ID laws reduce turnout and disenfranchise people. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2011, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/510 "2011-09-12T18:30:57Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > Complete and utter nonsense. Increased voter ID requirements reduces voter participation by those for whom conforming to said requirements is more of a burden. Cite? My cite affirming the contrary position was posted above. In case you missed it, here is the abstract of the study: > [@](#): > > examine the change in voter turnout across Indiana counties before and after the implementation of photo ID > requirements. Overall, statewide turnout increased by about two percentage points after photo ID; further, there > is no consistent evidence that counties that have higher percentages of minority, poor, elderly or less-educated > population suffer any reduction in voter turnout relative to other counties. In fact, the estimated effect of photo > ID on turnout is positive for counties with a greater percentage of minorities or families in poverty. The only > consistent and frequently statistically significant impact of photo ID in Indiana is to increase voter turnout in > counties with a greater percentage of Democrats relative to other counties. These findings run counter to some > recent and prominent concerns that have been raised about voter identification reforms; however, these results > are consistent with both existing theory on voter behavior and the most recent and reliable empirical evidence on > the effects of voter identification requirements on turnout. ETA: …as **Ibn Warraq** points out above. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2011, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/511 "2011-09-12T18:38:57Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Even setting aside the smears, and deliberately long lines to vote at Democrat precincts, [serious people have made substantiated allegations that the 2004 Ohio vote-counting process was hacked.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=619542) At best, what I read in those links sets up a case for how it could have been hacked, showing that the security was not set up to prevent hacking and actually allowed hacking – but no evidence of actual hacking occurring. That’s a very compelling case to fix the scheme so that such hacks can’t be done. But it doesn’t show that the hacks actually happened. In fact, it’s interesting to look at the parallel: when we discuss voter fraud, your position is that it didn’t happen, unless we show proof it did. Here, your position seems to be that it happened, because it could have happened. On the other hand, my position is consistent: we need to have voter ID to fix the “it might happen” problem and we need to improve computer security to fix the “it might happen” voting problem. But I don’t contend there’s a voter fraud that changed an election result and I don’t contend there’s a hacking fraud that changed an election result. ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2011, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/512 "2011-09-12T18:48:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Cite? > > My cite affirming the contrary position was posted above. > > In case you missed it, here is the abstract of the study: > > ETA: …as **Ibn Warraq** points out above. 😃 > **[Ohio House Speaker William G. Batchelder says Georgia’s voter ID law didn’t...](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/apr/04/bill-batchelder/ohio-house-speaker-william-g-batchelder-says-georg/)** > > Editor's note: The statement for this item was paraphrased after publishing for clarity. Republicans in the Ohio House s > [@](#): > > Speaker Batchelder was correct when he said voting increased in Georgia after its photo ID law took effect. Suggesting that the restriction caused the increase is a logical fallacy that ignores important other factors and is unsupported by research. > > We rate his statement Half True. It is very difficult to identify trends over time because so many variables are changing. [http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/Democracy/VRE/Hershey.pdf](http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/Democracy/VRE/Hershey.pdf) > [@](#): > > In sum, the immense literature on the costs of voting has > shown that costs ranging from the registration requirement > to strict voter-ID laws do reduce voter turnout to some degree > and that the impact seems to fall disproportionately on the > least educated and the least wealthy. At best, there is no clear evidence that voter ID does anything except allay fears drummed up by Republicans over essentially non-existent voter fraud at the polls. Since there is no clear benefit, the burden should be on those in favor of stricter voting requirements to support that higher bar to vote. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and even if they did, WTF? ---
**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 12, 2011, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/513 "2011-09-12T18:51:08Z")
@Bricker: I wish I had the time to look into that paper right now. I’ll try to get back to it, because if it’s legit, then I find that pretty convincing. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2011, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/514 "2011-09-12T18:54:58Z")
Are you suggesting the fact that hacking can occur is an accident? Plenty of experts ratted out that the computer vote machines had fixable back doors. When the head of the largest voter machine manufacturer, Diebold, told his people their job was to re elect Bush that was telling and damning. Their job was not to assure an honest count. For me that is plenty. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2011, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/515 "2011-09-12T19:02:13Z")
**Bricker** , I will respond at greater length to your most recent response to me, but quickly… you have said in this thread that the Republicans proposing these laws were 8 out of 10 motivated by partisanship, and also that ID laws don’t have a partisan effect. So your claim is that Republicans did something to gain partisan advantage, but did so incompetently? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2011, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/516 "2011-09-12T19:06:25Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > **Bricker** , I will respond at greater length to your most recent response to me, but quickly… you have said in this thread that the Republicans proposing these laws were 8 out of 10 motivated by partisanship, and also that ID laws don’t have a partisan effect. So your claim is that Republicans did something to gain partisan advantage, but did so incompetently? Yes. My best guess about their motivations is that they believed this change would affect their party’s election results in a positive way, just as Democrats believed the change would affect the election results in a negative way for their party. Both were wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2011, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/517 "2011-09-12T19:12:23Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > [http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/Democracy/VRE/Hershey.pdf](http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/Democracy/VRE/Hershey.pdf) > > At best, there is no clear evidence that voter ID does anything except allay fears drummed up by Republicans over essentially non-existent voter fraud at the polls. Since there is no clear benefit, the burden should be on those in favor of stricter voting requirements to support that higher bar to vote. This paper addresses a whole host of variables: early registration, ease of mail-in ballots, number and proiximity of polling places and wait times. When looking only at ID requirements, _from your own link:_ > [@](#): > > Few studies have examined the impact of voter-ID laws. > Alvarez, Bailey, and Katz (2008) show that in aggregate data, > voter-ID laws had no significant impact on turnout during > 2000–2006. Mycoff, Wagner, and Wilson (2007) concur, and > Vercellotti and Anderson (2006) find only a modest correlation > in 2004 between two voter-ID requirements—a signature > match and a non-photo ID—and statewide turnout, relative to > requiring only that voters state their names at the polls. Berinsky > (2005) argues that these null findings should be expected; > the more politically involved are more likely to learn about > voter-ID rules and also more likely to vote. When researchers don’t look at actual vote numbers, but predictions and CPS polling data, the results differ: > [@](#): > > But researchers differ in their findings at the individual > level. Using CPS data, Alvarez, Bailey, and Katz (2008) show > that stricter rules—the combination of having to present an > ID and a signaturematch, and the photo-ID requirement—did > depress the turnout of registered voters relative to the requirement > of stating one’s name at the polls. Mycoff,Wagner, and > Wilson (2007), with a smaller N, did not find an impact. Vercellotti > and Anderson, in a cross-sectional study, showed that > the signature, non-photo ID, and photo-ID rules were associated > with lower voter turnout in 2004, in the range of 3 to 4%. Note that “were associated with” is not the same as “caused by.” ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2011, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/518 "2011-09-12T19:37:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > At best, what I read in those links sets up a case for how it could have been hacked, showing that the security was not set up to prevent hacking and actually allowed hacking – but no evidence of actual hacking occurring. Well I’m not going to debate the legality of “circumstantial evidence” with a lawyer. 😃 I will say that your reading must have been remarkably narrow-sighted to ignore that the official counts differed dramatically from exit polls. AFAIK, exit polls are generally close to non-fraudulent official results. Had the Ohio exit polls been used in place of your supposedly non-hacked results, then John Kerry would have been inaugurated President in 2005. Hope this helps … ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2011, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/519 "2011-09-12T19:53:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@me](#): > > > > Because issues of voting and enfranchisement cut to the very heart of democracy, I think they should be viewed through an entirely different lens than just about anything else. If I propose some measure that statistically is likely to reduce voter turnout in a certain group of people by 5% or so, then a test which simply looks at the impact on any single individual, not on the group as a whole, is missing the forest for the trees. > > That’s great that YOU think that. But by what mechanism does your thought somehow translate into the standard the country must accept? Not sure what you’re saying here. I have an opinion about how things “should” be. I have no current practical plan for how to implement my opinion, nor do I have details precisely determined, but my general idea (“all laws and policies relating to elections should be handled by a special non-partisan commission of some sort”) is, while vague, not just something like “people should be nice” which obviously is unimplementable entirely. I think that the fact that partisan elected officials can make laws concerning voting is very very dangerous. (And I admit that, being an imperfect human being, I’m more likely to see abuses of the system perpetrated by Republicans.) I think the system should be different. What more do you want me to say? > [@](#): > > There’s a bunch of actions discussed in this thread. I approve, morally and ethically, of the Wisconsin voter ID law. What other actions would you like my reaction on? Well, the main thing was whether or not you approved of said law. Which, apparently you do. There’s also the issue of DMVs in democratic districts being closed and hours increased at DMVs in Republican districts, as discussed [here](http://progressivetoo.com/2011/07/23/wi-governor-scott-walker-to-cut-dmv-centers-in-democratic-districts/), but that’s something that I’m far from certain is really being fairly reported. But if, hypothetically, that were happening, with no justification or excuse other than “because Scott Walker said so”, would that bother you? > [@](#): > > There’s a great deal of plausibility about voter fraud alarm. The mechanism of voting has two components: there must be actual integrity of the vote, and there must be public confidence in the results of the vote. > > Even if I accept that the proposition that actual vote fraud is rare, measures that ensure public confidence in the results of the vote are independently valid precisely because they shore up public perception about the reliabvility of the result. > > The “alarm” you dismiss is real. People feel it. Their belief may not be rational, but public perception is key to the entire structure of elections. Well, we risk getting a bit into conspiracy theory territory here, but there’s a bit of a chicken and egg issue there… something is barely an issue at all, either in actual fact or in the general public consciousness. Then someone with a lot of influence and a loudspeaker gets all alarmed about it and starts spreading concern. So people are now concerned. And now the same group that started talking about it says “well, we have to take action, because so many people are alarmed”. This also strikes me as one of those issues where precisely gradations of language in poll questions could lead to vastly different responses. “Are you concerned about voter fraud by undocumented voters” is very different from “do you believe there is significant active voter fraud being perpetrated today that is regularly influencing the outcome of elections”, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2011, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/520 "2011-09-12T20:00:16Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Well I’m not going to debate the legality of “circumstantial evidence” with a lawyer. 😃 > > I will say that your reading must have been remarkably narrow-sighted to ignore that the official counts differed dramatically from exit polls. AFAIK, exit polls are generally close to non-fraudulent official results. > > Had the Ohio exit polls been used in place of your supposedly non-hacked results, then John Kerry would have been inaugurated President in 2005. > > Hope this helps … Once again, in a conflict in your arena between ideology and controlled study… ideology wins. From [the PDF of the report](http://www.electionmathematics.org/em-exitpolls/EvaluationJan192005.pdf) commissioned by the exit polling company, NEP: > [@](#): > > The exit poll estimates in the 2004 general election overstated John Kerry’s share of the > vote nationally and in many states. There were 26 states in which the estimates produced > by the exit poll data overstated the vote for John Kerry by more than one standard error, > and there were four states in which the exit poll estimates overstated the vote for George > W. Bush by more than one standard error. The inaccuracies in the exit poll estimates > were not due to the sample selection of the polling locations at which the exit polls were > conducted. We have not discovered any systematic problem in how the exit poll data > were collected and processed. **Exit polls do not support the allegations of fraud due to > rigging of voting equipment. Our analysis of the difference between the vote count and > the exit poll at each polling location in our sample has found no systematic differences > for precincts using touch screen and optical scan voting equipment. We say this because > these differences are similar to the differences for punch card voting equipment, and less > than the difference for mechanical voting equipment.** > Our detailed analysis by polling location and by interviewer has identified several factors > that may have contributed to the size of the Within Precinct Error that led to the > inaccuracies in the exit poll estimates. Some of these factors are within our control while > others are not. > It is difficult to pinpoint precisely the reasons that, in general, Kerry voters were more > likely to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters. There were certainly motivational > factors that are impossible to quantify, but which led to Kerry voters being less likely > than Bush voters to refuse to take the survey. In addition there are interactions between > respondents and interviewers that can contribute to differential non-response rates. We > can identify some factors that appear to have contributed, even in a small way, to the > discrepancy. (emphasis added) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180.md?page=27)