# 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:** 27
**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, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/521 "2011-09-12T20:04:39Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > 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? Yes. I am also far from sanguine that this issue has been reported correctly. But if it has, and if that decision can be shown to be partisian (in fact, given the obvious inference, let me rephrase: if supporters can show it was NOT partisan) then I would strongly disapprove of such a move. A partisan motivation is fine if the end result is still justifiable as a neutral application of a valid idea. In the case of closing DMV centers to disadvantage political opponents, we don’t have that neutral application of a valid idea. ---
**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, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/522 "2011-09-12T20:08:10Z")
> [@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 … It’s too bad you’re not a reality based thinker but instead let yourself be guided by myths, prejudice, and ideology rather than facts. Moreover, if you were more familiar with elections you’d know there were a number of instances in which exit polls have been wrong. For example, in 2008 exit polls predicted California’s anti-gay marriage proposal would be defeated but it passed. The Ohio exit polls you refered to were heavily flawed because they oversampled early voters and young people which caused them to inadvertently oversample Democratic voters. That said, I notice you’ve decided to abandon your earlier claims that voter ID laws suppressed voter turnout since we’ve demonstrated that is false. ---
**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, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/523 "2011-09-12T20:16:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. I am also far from sanguine that this issue has been reported correctly… Well, of course you are! Have you any actual evidence of false reporting, or are you hoping that an innuendo will suffice? ---
**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, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/524 "2011-09-12T20:34:06Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > 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/). Your source for this claim is a hyper-partisan blog not a reliable news source. Furthermore the blog makes claims(that all ten DMV centers are in Democratic districts and that the DMVs that are having their hours extended are in Republican districts) that aren’t backed up by the article it links to.[http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9OKSP800.htm](http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9OKSP800.htm) ---
**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, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/525 "2011-09-12T20:54:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > When researchers don’t look at actual vote numbers, but predictions and CPS polling data, the results differ: Longitudinal studies are the worst kind to try to associate variables. But the argument remains: If this is just a move to reassure voters whose confidence has been undermined, instead of patching the system, address the core cause, i.e. concerted Republican attempts to establish fears of non-existent voter fraud. You’re attacking the cites when this is the fundamental issue you keep ignoring. ---
**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, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/526 "2011-09-12T21:43:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …Note that “were associated with” is not the same as “caused by.” Dully noted. However, my smattering of information on statistics is that the term “associated with” is a term of art for them. It does not mean that causality is not implied, it means that the statisticians regard causality as beyond their purview. It is possible, for instance, than an “association” of two measured phenomena are “caused” by a third phenomenon, underlying both. So, they adopt the neutral term to satisfy that. That “associated with” is not semantically identical with “caused by” is certainly true, but it does nothing to undermine the evidence or its relevance. Please note: if scolded and corrected by an authentic statistics geek, I will withdraw this comment. Seeing as how I’m not the kind of guy who is blinded by ideology and refuses to admit mistakes. ---
**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, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/527 "2011-09-12T21:51:14Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, of course you are! Have you any actual evidence of false reporting, or are you hoping that an innuendo will suffice? [Yes.](http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9OKSP800.htm) > [@](#): > > The recently enacted state budget requires that DMV driver license and ID card services be offered in all 72 counties at least 20 hours a week. Currently, only 30 counties have offices that meet that 20-hour requirement. > > Once the changes are made, **there will be 625 more hours of DMV service to the public a week or about 32,000 hours more a year** , said Kristina Boardman, the department’s director of field services who is overseeing the plan. > . > . > . > The state currently operates 88 DMV centers but it would drop to 78 under the tentative plan, Newson said. Many of those targeted for closure, like the one in Fort Atkinson, are temporary sites and not leased spaces, like the larger office in Watertown, he said. (emphasis added) ---
**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, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/528 "2011-09-12T21:54:09Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > Longitudinal studies are the worst kind to try to associate variables. > > But the argument remains: If this is just a move to reassure voters whose confidence has been undermined, instead of patching the system, address the core cause, i.e. concerted Republican attempts to establish fears of non-existent voter fraud. > > You’re attacking the cites when this is the fundamental issue you keep ignoring. The appropriate solution is to put in place a reasonable system to verify voter identity. In this case, since the evidence is that this does not actually affect voter turnout, this is clearly appropriate. ---
**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, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/529 "2011-09-12T21:55:17Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Dully noted. However, my smattering of information on statistics is that the term “associated with” is a term of art for them. It does not mean that causality is not implied, it means that the statisticians regard causality as beyond their purview. It is possible, for instance, than an “association” of two measured phenomena are “caused” by a third phenomenon, underlying both. So, they adopt the neutral term to satisfy that. > > That “associated with” is not semantically identical with “caused by” is certainly true, but it does nothing to undermine the evidence or its relevance. > > Please note: if scolded and corrected by an authentic statistics geek, I will withdraw this comment. Seeing as how I’m not the kind of guy who is blinded by ideology and refuses to admit mistakes. Indeed? Then where’s your admission on the studies already presented that show no actual drop-off in voter turnout? ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2011, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/530 "2011-09-12T22:01:26Z")
I cannot square the proposed voting reforms with the GOP’s avowed ambition to reduce unneeded government regulations, given that the proposed reforms are at best an attempt to make people feel better about voting and not to eliminate actual problems. I’m convinced that the actual number of fraudulent voters is very very small and that the proposed reforms are a solution in search of a 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, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/531 "2011-09-12T22:45:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Indeed? Then where’s your admission on the studies already presented that show no actual drop-off in voter turnout? For that matter, where’s yours that other legitimate studies do not jibe with your preferred outcome? Or does this only cut one way? Besides, you’ve already conceded the point that this was an effort at using the law to promote a partisan advantage. They were stupid and acted on bad information? Well, that’s a relief! And where do you get off with this pious \*ad hominem \*about objectivity? > [@](#): > > …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… You are no less a slut than any of the rest of us girls on the street. Your spotless communion dress notwithstanding. Which you probably rented. Spare me the mealy-mouthed pieties, OK? ---
**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, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/532 "2011-09-12T23:30:57Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > For that matter, where’s yours that other legitimate studies do not jibe with your preferred outcome? Or does this only cut one way? No. I don’t find any study that looks at an actual outcome of real voter data that does not jibe with my outcome. The study that disagrees with my results does some by analyzing CPS data, not actual voter numbers. > [@](#): > > Besides, you’ve already conceded the point that this was an effort at using the law to promote a partisan advantage. They were stupid and acted on bad information? Well, that’s a relief! Yes, I have conceded that. Because I concede points that are true, even though they cut against me. > [@](#): > > And where do you get off with this pious \*ad hominem \*about objectivity? > You are no less a slut than any of the rest of us girls on the street. Your spotless communion dress notwithstanding. Which you probably rented. Spare me the mealy-mouthed pieties, OK? Notably, this admonition does not come with any concessions, even though each point you raise I have rebutted with a cited study to actual data. ---
**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, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/533 "2011-09-12T23:32:42Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > I cannot square the proposed voting reforms with the GOP’s avowed ambition to reduce unneeded government regulations, given that the proposed reforms are at best an attempt to make people feel better about voting and not to eliminate actual problems. I’m convinced that the actual number of fraudulent voters is very very small and that the proposed reforms are a solution in search of a problem. The bulk of claims in this statement have been addressed upthread. I write now only to point out that this is in some respects a strawman claim – the GOP typically inveighs against federal government regulations. ---
**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, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/534 "2011-09-12T23:32:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The appropriate solution is to put in place a reasonable system to verify voter identity. In this case, since the evidence is that this does not actually affect voter turnout, this is clearly appropriate. Really? So the answer from a conservative is to spend money to fix a problem conservatives create? People have the impression that there is voter fraud at the polls because Republicans repeat it until it takes hold. And your answer is more bureaucracy to “fix” that problem? Both from the perspective of fiscal conservativism and small government, that seems a very contradictory position to hold. ---
**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, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/535 "2011-09-12T23:44:16Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > Really? So the answer from a conservative is to spend money to fix a problem conservatives create? > > People have the impression that there is voter fraud at the polls because Republicans repeat it until it takes hold. And your answer is more bureaucracy to “fix” that problem? > > Both from the perspective of fiscal conservativism and small government, that seems a very contradictory position to hold. How do you see more bureaucracy here? ---
**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, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/536 "2011-09-12T23:47:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How do you see more bureaucracy here? More people getting paperwork. More people to process the paperwork. Your own cite points out that the DMV will be open tens of thousands of hours longer. ---
**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, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/537 "2011-09-12T23:51:32Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > More people getting paperwork. More people to process the paperwork. > > Your own cite points out that the DMV will be open tens of thousands of hours longer. Fascinating. If the DMV is not open longer, the charge is that the scheme disenfranchises the poor. If I show that the DMV is open longer, the charge becomes “more bureaucracy?” OK. Yes. In order to serve the needs of the poor, more bureaucracy is added, and I’m fine with that. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2011, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/538 "2011-09-12T23:53:36Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > Really? So the answer from a conservative is to spend money to fix a problem conservatives create? > > People have the impression that there is voter fraud at the polls because Republicans repeat it until it takes hold. And your answer is more bureaucracy to “fix” that problem? > > Both from the perspective of fiscal conservativism and small government, that seems a very contradictory position to hold. So once it has been proven that photo ID has not reduced voter turnout, we’re down to it not being a very republican thing to do. That’s where we’re at now. It hasn’t been proven that getting an ID is an undue hardship. Thus far voters have not been disenfranchised. Even Wisconsin has been dragged kicking and screaming into following it’s own laws. It’s not a small government solution. :smack: Who the fuck cares? ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2011, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/539 "2011-09-12T23:58:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The bulk of claims in this statement have been addressed upthread. I write now only to point out that this is in some respects a strawman claim – the GOP typically inveighs against federal government regulations. Not so. Not only is it not a strawman, GOP politicians weigh in against regulations at all levels of government as anyone’s who’s been paying attention can attest, one example of which is cited here: [Link.](http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/03/gov_john_kasich_signs_legislat.html) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/540 "2011-09-13T00:12:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK. Yes. In order to serve the needs of the poor, more bureaucracy is added, and I’m fine with that. In what way are they the “needs” of the _poor_? :rolleyes: Tell us again, in your own words now, what is the real-world, proven-to-exist problem that you purport to be addressing with this extra intrusion of government? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180.md?page=28)