# I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 12, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943 "2012-06-12T19:15:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/221 "2012-06-14T18:09:42Z")
> [@August\_West](#): > > I have yet to see an answer to my question about why it is any more difficult for a “minority” to get an ID than a “non-minority”. Where are you looking? ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/222 "2012-06-14T18:23:51Z")
> [@August\_West](#): > > I have yet to see an answer to my question about why it is any more difficult for a “minority” to get an ID than a “non-minority”. It’d be more accurate to say poor people have more trouble getting an ID. It just so happens that minorities have a greater chance of being poor. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/223 "2012-06-14T18:33:01Z")
> [@August\_West](#): > > I have yet to see an answer to my question about why it is any more difficult for a “minority” to get an ID than a “non-minority”. Folks, please, just let go of this faux naivete about “what on earth does minority status have to do with it?” [/wide-eyed wonder] To remind everybody of what this issue is about: The **facts** about voter-ID laws are these (and if you care to try to dispute them _as_ facts, knock yourself out): 1. There is a small but not insignificant proportion of registered voters, and a higher percentage of total eligible voters, who do not possess a government-issued identity document of the kind the voter-ID laws require. 2. These voters are demographically much more likely than the average voter to be poor or members of ethnic minorities, and consequently much more likely to vote Democratic than Republican. 3. Consequently, imposing voter-ID laws makes it statistically inevitable that there will be some net suppression of Democratic votes. _Whenever_ you impose a regulation making it more difficult or complicated to vote (e.g., having to acquire an official document that you don’t already own), it inevitably suppresses some votes. 4. That Democratic vote suppression is the only measurable impact the voter-ID laws will have. Even the proponents of voter-ID laws acknowledge that they cannot show any evidence that non-negligible amounts of voter fraud are actually occurring, nor will they be able to tell whether voter-ID laws are actually effective in preventing it if it **is** occurring. In other words, we can’t tell whether the alleged problem actually exists nor whether the proposed solution will solve it: we do know, however, that the proposed solution will have the “side effect” of suppressing some votes. So stop already with the cherubically innocent prattle about “but gosh folks, those poor and minority voters can just go **get** themselves the required ID! See, nothing to worry about!” The **point** , twinkletoes, is that _it is statistically inevitable that some voters who have to undertake a hitherto-unnecessary additional procedure in order to maintain their eligibility to vote won’t undertake it, **and this necessarily means that fewer poor and minority voters will vote** _. You know this as well as we do; in fact, it’s the only real reason that Republicans in general are supporting the voter-ID laws in the first place. So please drop the pretense that the fact that it’s disproportionately poor and minority voters who would be affected by these laws is somehow trivial or irrelevant. It’s the crux of the whole debate. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/224 "2012-06-14T18:46:43Z")
> [@DirkGntly](#): > > You know, logically to me, IF there is voter fraud going on, and IF it actually results in more votes for Democrats… > …then doesn’t it naturally follow that a voter-ID program will automatically result in fewer Democrat votes? > > Which, if those items are true, isn’t a BAD THING, people, electorally speaking. Now, it might be a bad thing for your side (if you’re on the “suppressed” side), but it is healthy for a republic… > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > How is what you’re describing healthy for a republic? > [@Bosstone](#): > > He’s assuming that 100% of the votes suppressed would be fraudulent votes. If all fraudulent/suppressed votes were for Democrats, it would certainly look like the Democrats were being unfairly suppressed in general, but being that the suppressed votes were fraudulent, in the end it would be healthier for the country. > > Of course, given that it’s nearly impossible to be that accurate without suppressing legitimate voters, it’s a silly damn assumption. That’s one way to read it; but **DirkGntly** actually **seemed** to be saying that “fewer Democrat votes” is what “isn’t a BAD THING, people, electorally speaking” and “is healthy for a republic.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/225 "2012-06-14T18:50:21Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Dirk isn’t being sarcastic, he’s just a member of the Leo Strauss, Avraham Stern and Joseph Vogt school of thought. You mean, the [Noble Lies](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noble_lie) of [Ignoble Liars](http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/06/0080073)? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/226 "2012-06-14T18:57:58Z")
> [@Sinaptics](#): > > But we’ve already established that ID doesn’t do that. No, we haven’t. Requiring an ID to cash checks does not ensure that no checks are ever fraudulently passed. But it does, as I said, create a framework that usually allows for successful prosecution of a bad check writer. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/227 "2012-06-14T18:59:19Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > That I can actually agree with, so long as the framework does not impede legitimate voters. That’s the hard part. > > By the way (this isn’t directed to you specifically **Bricker** , but to the conversation in general), it’s actually somewhat logical that enthusiastic voter fraud efforts would catch more Democrat voters than Republicans, even if it was 100% unintentional. > > Start with the following suppositions: > > - For any social program, including voting, there is the set of people who clearly qualify, the set of people who clearly don’t qualify, and the set of people who are on the ‘fringe’, where special circumstances or coincidences tend to make people who qualify hard to tell apart from the people who don’t qualify but can look like they do through their own special circumstances or coincidences. > - Ideally, both the left and the right would be happy to make sure 100% of the people who qualify get into the program and 0% of the people who don’t qualify don’t get in. However, it takes a lot of resources to pick apart the qualified people from the non in the fringe, typically more than we have available. Chasing the margins, basically. Because of this: > - Left-wingers _tend_ to want to extend social programs to everyone who qualifies, including the fringe, even if it means some people who don’t qualify get in. This makes sense, because generally the left’s goal is to provide services to people, and they don’t want to leave anyone out who could benefit from the service. > - Right-wingers _tend_ to want to restrict social programs such that nobody who doesn’t qualify gets in, even if it means some people on the fringe who do qualify get left out. This also makes sense, because even if the right agrees with the program, they want to be sure their money is well-used, which means not paying for people who don’t deserve it. > > The positions in general are sensible and in and of themselves non-partisan, in that they don’t take into account who the people are or who they support, only if they qualify for the program. > > But when it comes to voting, the people in the fringe will tend to vote Democrat, because there’s a better chance they will be let into social programs in general, whether legitimately or not. The fact that cracking down on the fringe will disproportionately affect Democrat voters is a side effect, not the goal, although I imagine it’s not an unwelcome side effect. > > Unfortunately, in doing so, it becomes a partisan matter and makes things real damn complicated. I think this is a fine, and generally very accurate, analysis. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/228 "2012-06-14T19:01:35Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > You know this as well as we do; in fact, it’s the only real reason that Republicans in general are supporting the voter-ID laws in the first place. So please drop the pretense that the fact that it’s disproportionately poor and minority voters who would be affected by these laws is somehow trivial or irrelevant. It’s the crux of the whole debate. Not true. As Bosstone correctly observes, this is a side effect, not the goal. How can you defend, as FACT, the claim that it’s the only real reason? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/229 "2012-06-14T19:02:00Z")
So, the Democrats aren’t willing to make teeny little sacrifice for the good of the Republic? OK, so a few Congressgits, Senators, maybe a President carved out of frozen mayonnaise…is that too much to ask in order to protect our sacred voter confidence? Guess we know who the real patriots are here! Republicans stand firm, perfectly willing to let the Democrats surrender their advantage in illegal aliens and felons. Of course they don’t feel good about it, they are simply fraught with anxiety over this. But if protecting the sanctity of our voter rolls mean that a few more Republicans are pressed into service, they are willing to face that challenge! Minorities, leftys, people like that, a few minor rights will be inhibited. But you may rest assured, your right to remain silent will not be abridged! But if you give up that right and insist on bitching about this, all bets are off. Rights are for patriots. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/230 "2012-06-14T19:05:27Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > 1. That Democratic vote suppression is the only measurable impact the voter-ID laws will have. Even the proponents of voter-ID laws acknowledge that they cannot show any evidence that non-negligible amounts of voter fraud are actually occurring, nor will they be able to tell whether voter-ID laws are actually effective in preventing it if it **is** occurring. In other words, we can’t tell whether the alleged problem actually exists nor whether the proposed solution will solve it: we do know, however, that the proposed solution will have the “side effect” of suppressing some votes. Do we know this for a fact? If you were to learn that total voter turnout ROSE in a particular state following the introduction of Voter ID laws, how would that fact affect your hypothesis? Might we imagine that the publicity surrounding the change motivated voters to go out, get ID, and vote – even voters that didn’t vote before? If no, why not? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/231 "2012-06-14T19:07:47Z")
I might think that the _population_ increased in a given state. Usually does, what with all the fucking… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/232 "2012-06-14T19:12:42Z")
Wait, no, I see it! The plan is to so infuriate minority and disadvantaged voters that they press ahead no matter what, leap over all the newly installed hurdles, register and vote Democrat! Thus handing the Republican Party a disastrous electoral catastrophe! Brilliant! ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/233 "2012-06-14T19:40:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think this is a fine, and generally very accurate, analysis. Thank you. Unfortunately it’s no good in finding a way forward, just for trying to get everyone on the same page. I admittedly do think that the side effect of suppressing Democrat voters is a reason this particular issue is being given so much attention, at least by certain Republicans, particularly the politicians who have much to directly gain from stacking the deck. However, absent direct admission, it’s really unproductive to proceed on that assumption, and dealing with the goal instead of the more inflammatory side effect is the best way to get something done beyond yelling at each other. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/234 "2012-06-14T19:42:38Z")
When the purported “goal” isn’t fucking based on fact, and the purported “solution” wouldn’t fucking address it even if it were, what other assumption can one make? You’re not fooling anybody with that pseudo-pious crap. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/235 "2012-06-14T19:43:00Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I might think that the _population_ increased in a given state. Usually does, what with all the fucking… Then you expect to see similar increases in turnout in other years. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/236 "2012-06-14T19:46:16Z")
Only a complete fucking retard or an utterly partisan jack-off would advocate a solution that would disenfranchise more people than would illegitimately vote. I wonder which Bricker is. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/237 "2012-06-14T19:47:58Z")
You have to choose one? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/238 "2012-06-14T19:50:43Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You have to choose one? Good point. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/239 "2012-06-14T19:50:49Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Folks, please, just let go of this faux naivete about “what on earth does minority status have to do with it?” [/wide-eyed wonder] > To remind everybody of what this issue is about: The **facts** about voter-ID laws are these (and if you care to try to dispute them _as_ facts, knock yourself out): > > 1. There is a small but not insignificant proportion of registered voters, and a higher percentage of total eligible voters, who do not possess a government-issued identity document of the kind the voter-ID laws require. > > 2. These voters are demographically much more likely than the average voter to be poor or members of ethnic minorities, and consequently much more likely to vote Democratic than Republican. > > 3. Consequently, imposing voter-ID laws makes it statistically inevitable that there will be some net suppression of Democratic votes. _Whenever_ you impose a regulation making it more difficult or complicated to vote (e.g., having to acquire an official document that you don’t already own), it inevitably suppresses some votes. > > 4. That Democratic vote suppression is the only measurable impact the voter-ID laws will have. Even the proponents of voter-ID laws acknowledge that they cannot show any evidence that non-negligible amounts of voter fraud are actually occurring, nor will they be able to tell whether voter-ID laws are actually effective in preventing it if it **is** occurring. In other words, we can’t tell whether the alleged problem actually exists nor whether the proposed solution will solve it: we do know, however, that the proposed solution will have the “side effect” of suppressing some votes. > So stop already with the cherubically innocent prattle about “but gosh folks, those poor and minority voters can just go **get** themselves the required ID! See, nothing to worry about!” > > The **point** , twinkletoes, is that _it is statistically inevitable that some voters who have to undertake a hitherto-unnecessary additional procedure in order to maintain their eligibility to vote won’t undertake it, **and this necessarily means that fewer poor and minority voters will vote** _. > > You know this as well as we do; in fact, it’s the only real reason that Republicans in general are supporting the voter-ID laws in the first place. So please drop the pretense that the fact that it’s disproportionately poor and minority voters who would be affected by these laws is somehow trivial or irrelevant. It’s the crux of the whole debate. That’s all fine and well, and much of it well said, but you run into trouble when you start to conflate the intentional and the accidental. If a good policy results in one group being hit by it a little more than the other, does that meson that it is necessarily a bad thing to do? Also, I’m of the mind that as long as steps are taken to get IDs to those who can’t easily get them themselves, all is good. Iraqis and others sometimes risk their lives to cast their vote. All we’re asking is that people show a damn ID. And if that’s too much trouble, then voting itself just isn’t that important to you and you can go about election day like any other day without the bother. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/240 "2012-06-14T19:54:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, we haven’t. > > Requiring an ID to cash checks does not ensure that no checks are ever fraudulently passed. But it does, as I said, create a framework that usually allows for successful prosecution of a bad check writer. How does it create a framework for prosecution? ID’s are easily falsifiable, especially nowadays. In another thread a did some research and found one can be bought online for $20-25 complete with readable magnetic stripe. Even if you’re not using a fake ID, non-citizens driver licenses do not convey that they’re non-citizens, as I’ve already shown. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=13)