# 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:** 182
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/3621 "2013-10-31T18:11:22Z")
Maybe…_tonight!?!_ ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/3622 "2013-10-31T18:13:54Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > [Nate Silver](http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measuring-the-effects-of-voter-identification-laws/?_r=0) has a pretty objective piece on it. > There is also [this study](http://faculty.washington.edu/mbarreto/papers/PS_VoterID.pdf) showing that in Indiana, 88% of whites meet all photo ID requirements, compared to 81% of blacks, 80% of Latinos, and 80% of Asians. And yet it doesn’t affect turnout. So who cares? ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/3623 "2013-10-31T18:14:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > (2). Why: experience in actual results in states that have implemented such laws. Clearly a very reasonable position, although of course this is one of those issues where very minor differences in implementation can have large impacts on outcome, so what happened in one state might be very different from another state, and it does seem to be the case that the jury is somewhat still out. In any case, however, this all leads to the obvious question: if voter ID laws in fact have no impact on turnout, why are so many Democratic leaders making such a big deal out of it? I can see several possibilities: (1) Democratic leaders honestly believe what most of us in this thread believe, that these laws are likely to have a voter-suppression effect (and that that was in fact the intended purpose of the laws) (obviously there’s a 1a and a 1b in which the Democratic leaders are right or wrong in their analysis) (2) Democratic leaders know that lots of fraudulent votes are always cast for them, so they’re against voter ID laws for purely nefarious political gain (3) Democratic leaders are philosophically opposed to the idea of voter ID laws on a purely theoretical level By Occam’s razor, far and away the most likely is (1). Now, I’m just some schmoe on the internet. I don’t really know much about voting patterns and sociology and whatever aspects of political science one needs to understand to do a good job of actually predicting what the actual outcome of these laws will be. And, as far as I can tell, neither is anyone else in this thread. But some people are, and those people tend to actually work for politicians and in elections, and those people are at least associated with the people who are actually protesting these laws. Which isn’t to say that I take everything politicians say at face value, but if Democratic leaders are saying “we opposed these laws because they are likely to have an unequal effect of suppressing poor and minority votes” I can’t for the life of me come up with what the nefarious hidden purpose they would be lying about would be, whereas when Republicans say “we support these laws because we value the integrity of elections and voter fraud is a problem”, it’s all too easy to cynically believe that what they really want to do is gain electoral advantage. None of which is because Democrats are inherently purer of heart than Republicans or anything, it just happens to be the case that in this particular situation there’s a very obvious motive for dishonesty on one side and none on the other. > [@](#): > > Now let me ask you a question: given that there appears no measurable deleterious effect in voter turnout when these laws are actually implemented, do you feel any concern about continuing to argue that such deleterious effects are so certain? I’m not remotely arguing that they’re certain. What I am arguing is that people who know more about than I do seem concerned that they’re likely, which, combined with the fact that they seem to be addressing a non-problem in the first place, makes me believe that they are intended to have a voter-suppressing effect, which I consider strongly anti-democratic (small-d there). > [@](#): > > Since the Florida debacle of 2000, I have actively supported them. Before that, I would have said that they were largely unnecessary. But having watched the actual occupancy of the White House hang in the balance while local election boards seriously debated how to handle a ballot that averred support for the “Lizard People,” I became a fierce convert to the idea that cast votes need to have a clear provenance. All sorts of problems in the US voting system were exposed in Florida in 2000. But what does someone writing in “Lizard People” have to do with voter ID at all? But let’s give you the benefit of the doubt for a moment and assume that voter ID is just one small part of a larger group of issues that you are supporting, which include auditable electronic voting machines with voter-verifiable paper printouts, and so forth. And let’s say that by 2020 these are all implemented, and everyone is now super duper confident that when someone goes into the polling place, (a) they are who they say they are, (b) the candidate they think they are voting for will in fact be the candidate that they do vote for, and (c) their vote will be counted in a 100% auditable fashion. At that point, is your job done? Because to me, there are two somewhat related issues involved here. One is how accurately an election can be monitored and tracked and audited and counted. Another issue is how accurately the election actually reflects the will of the people. And an election in which the votes are counted by super-awesome-counting-and-verifying machines, but in which a massive voter roll purge took place a week before the election, or people in heavily-democratic districts have to wait twice as long on average to vote, or turnout was reduced by 3% among one racial group for whatever nefarious reason, or the districts are so ridiculously gerrymandered that 55% of the votes for an elected body were cast by one party but the other party ended up with a majority of seats – all of those examples are situations where the actual mechanics of the election may be close-to-perfect but the correlation between the election and the will of the people is questionable at best. That’s the type of thing I’m worried about, at least with respect to voter ID laws. So auditable paper-trail voting machines might make the mechanics-of-election phase 20% better while leaving the election-corresponds-with-will-of-the-people phase unchanged. Voter ID laws might make the mechanics-of-election phase 2% better but make the election-corresponds-with-will-of-the-people phase 15% worse. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/3624 "2013-10-31T18:20:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And yet it doesn’t affect turnout. So who cares? Let’s look at the Indiana data. 12% of whites would be disenfranchised by strict enforcement of voter ID, compared to about 20% of everybody else. So non-whites are nearly twice as likely to lose their vote because of voter ID law. That is by anyone’s definition, a disparate impact. Now it could be that the non-whites would be so enraged at these barriers that they get riled up and vote more than ever. Or it could be that they don’t. Suppose we had a track meet where we ran the 400 yard dash so that there were hurdles placed in the lanes of the black runners only. But we say, oh so what, they’re going to finish anyway. It wouldn’t make it less outrageous. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/3625 "2013-10-31T18:23:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And yet it doesn’t affect turnout. So who cares? So, if an evil plan doesn’t work, its not evil? Shit, I can get some _mileage_ out of that! “Sure, honey, I tried to boink your sister, but she said no, so it doesn’t count!” Good luck with _that_ shit! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/3626 "2013-10-31T22:48:04Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Let’s look at the Indiana data. 12% of whites would be disenfranchised by strict enforcement of voter ID, compared to about 20% of everybody else. So non-whites are nearly twice as likely to lose their vote because of voter ID law. That is by anyone’s definition, a disparate impact. Now it could be that the non-whites would be so enraged at these barriers that they get riled up and vote more than ever. Or it could be that they don’t. Suppose we had a track meet where we ran the 400 yard dash so that there were hurdles placed in the lanes of the black runners only. But we say, oh so what, they’re going to finish anyway. It wouldn’t make it less outrageous. Except it isn’t happening. You’re like the apocryphal who proved, aerodynamically, that bees can’t fly. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/3627 "2013-10-31T22:51:28Z")
> [@Rotten Sumbitch](#): > > So, if an evil plan doesn’t work, its not evil? Shit, I can get some _mileage_ out of that! > > “Sure, honey, I tried to boink your sister, but she said no, so it doesn’t count!” > > Good luck with _that_ shit! What the hell does “count” mean? It does not count, so far as I can tell. The objection to the plan is that it will stop some minorities from voting. Endless parades of professors were trotted out to swear that this would happen. It did not. So, yes, it doesn’t count. It does prove how willing the Left is to make shit up to support a Cause they feel is Good. It does “count” there. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/3628 "2013-10-31T23:04:13Z")
[QUOTE=MaxTheVool;16808078 By Occam’s razor, far and away the most likely is (1). . . . Which isn’t to say that I take everything politicians say at face value, but if Democratic leaders are saying “we opposed these laws because they are likely to have an unequal effect of suppressing poor and minority votes” I can’t for the life of me come up with what the nefarious hidden purpose they would be lying about would be, whereas when Republicans say “we support these laws because we value the integrity of elections and voter fraud is a problem”, it’s all too easy to cynically believe that what they really want to do is gain electoral advantage. None of which is because Democrats are inherently purer of heart than Republicans or anything, it just happens to be the case that in this particular situation there’s a very obvious motive for dishonesty on one side and none on the other. [/quote] “None?” How about option (3)? You start by assuming (1) is more likely, and in the space of one short paragraph transition to (1) being the only possible outcome. > [@](#): > > I’m not remotely arguing that they’re certain. What I am arguing is that people who know more about than I do seem concerned that they’re likely, which, combined with the fact that they seem to be addressing a non-problem in the first place, makes me believe that they are intended to have a voter-suppressing effect, which I consider strongly anti-democratic (small-d there). And does it trouble you even a bit that the raw numbers don’t remotely support this conclusion? Yes, yes, perhaps there’s a hidden effect that only rigorous analysis will reveal. If it does, I’ll happily retract what I’m saying. But right now, the actual evidence is all showing: no such effect. So (3), or (2), or (1) but they were honestly wrong. > [@](#): > > All sorts of problems in the US voting system were exposed in Florida in 2000. But what does someone writing in “Lizard People” have to do with voter ID at all? But let’s give you the benefit of the doubt for a moment and assume that voter ID is just one small part of a larger group of issues that you are supporting, which include auditable electronic voting machines with voter-verifiable paper printouts, and so forth. And let’s say that by 2020 these are all implemented, and everyone is now super duper confident that when someone goes into the polling place, (a) they are who they say they are, (b) the candidate they think they are voting for will in fact be the candidate that they do vote for, and (c) their vote will be counted in a 100% auditable fashion. At that point, is your job done? Tentatively, yes – with respect to election procedures, anyway. > [@](#): > > Because to me, there are two somewhat related issues involved here. One is how accurately an election can be monitored and tracked and audited and counted. Another issue is how accurately the election actually reflects the will of the people. And an election in which the votes are counted by super-awesome-counting-and-verifying machines, but in which a massive voter roll purge took place a week before the election, or people in heavily-democratic districts have to wait twice as long on average to vote, or turnout was reduced by 3% among one racial group for whatever nefarious reason, or the districts are so ridiculously gerrymandered that 55% of the votes for an elected body were cast by one party but the other party ended up with a majority of seats – all of those examples are situations where the actual mechanics of the election may be close-to-perfect but the correlation between the election and the will of the people is questionable at best. That’s the type of thing I’m worried about, at least with respect to voter ID laws. Those are not trivial problems, but they also not part of the main issue in play here. I’m also worried about lack of vaccinated children reducing the voter base. But like gerrymandering, it effects voting but isn’t related to voting procedures – or election mechanics, a turn of phrase you use and I like. > [@](#): > > So auditable paper-trail voting machines might make the mechanics-of-election phase 20% better while leaving the election-corresponds-with-will-of-the-people phase unchanged. Voter ID laws might make the mechanics-of-election phase 2% better but make the election-corresponds-with-will-of-the-people phase 15% worse. We already have a system in which the will of the people can be thwarted. That’s why we’re not a direct democracy. And I notice your love for the will of the people is absent when it comes to this issue: large majorities of the people favor Voter ID. That doesn’t matter? The people’s will must be respected, unless it’s something the damn fools stupidly want? ---
**Author:** ![Parthol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/dec6dc/32.png) [@Parthol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Parthol)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/3629 "2013-10-31T23:33:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And does it trouble you even a bit that the raw numbers don’t remotely support this conclusion? Yes, yes, perhaps there’s a hidden effect that only rigorous analysis will reveal. If it does, I’ll happily retract what I’m saying. But right now, the actual evidence is all showing: no such effect. And yet, the raw numbers don’t support any claim that there’s voter fraud, either. You seem to base your opinions on the _possibility_ of voter fraud swaying close elections, even though there’s no evidence of it. And more, that that mere unproven possibility is enough to affect voter confidence, to a degree that ID laws are a net benefit. Why, then, is it vital to your argument that there’s no direct evidence (yet) that Voter ID laws are substantially affecting turnout among likely Democratic voters? I’d say that the possibility of unfairly suppressed votes, due to voters having to (for instance) pay for birth certificates required to get “free” ID’s, or needing to take a whole day off of their hourly-wage job because the only place to get their ID is 3 hours away by bus, has way more effect than the specter of voter fraud, on my confidence that election results accurately reflect the will of the voters. In short: why does one side of this argument need proof that Voter ID laws selectively reduce turnout, but the other side needs no proof that voter fraud exists in the first place? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/3630 "2013-10-31T23:40:43Z")
> [@Parthol](#): > > And yet, the raw numbers don’t support any claim that there’s voter fraud, either. You seem to base your opinions on the _possibility_ of voter fraud swaying close elections, even though there’s no evidence of it. And more, that that mere unproven possibility is enough to affect voter confidence, to a degree that ID laws are a net benefit. > > Why, then, is it vital to your argument that there’s no direct evidence (yet) that Voter ID laws are substantially affecting turnout among likely Democratic voters? I’d say that the possibility of unfairly suppressed votes, due to voters having to (for instance) pay for birth certificates required to get “free” ID’s, or needing to take a whole day off of their hourly-wage job because the only place to get their ID is 3 hours away by bus, has way more effect than the specter of voter fraud, on my confidence that election results accurately reflect the will of the voters. > > In short: why does one side of this argument need proof that Voter ID laws selectively reduce turnout, but the other side needs no proof that voter fraud exists in the first place? Because one side has the laws already passed, and the other side is seeking to change the status quo. I don’t need to persuade you of anything: the status quo is fine with me. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/3631 "2013-11-01T01:34:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. The most obvious explanation is the correct: I was alive in 2000. I watched people desperately debate the depth of a dimpled chad. And it became clear to me that while the vast majority of cases gave no cause for alarm, when a rare ultra-close election happens, people will seize on any perceived irregularity to bolster their desired outcome, and that having a system in which a small number of questionable votes are tolerated breaks down in that circumstance. I don’t understand how your confidence (if is well-reasoned and unbiased - I suspect not) hinges on the rare bad voter, when every example you cite has them vastly outnumbered by bad vote-counters. > [@](#): > > Yes, I lack confidence in the process of any state that fails to verify the identity and eligibility of its voters. This does not mean I lack confidence in each and every election result, mind you – it means I regard that state as being at high risk if there is ever a razor-thin margin. Well, what _is_ an election, really? Isn’t it an expression of the will of the electorate? Your confidence is being shaken by the rare bad voter, apparently, but not the several-orders-of-magnitude-outnumbering disenfranchised voter. For the sake of solving (?) one problem, the proposed solution creates hundreds or thousands of new problems. Forget politics - that’s an offense to efficiency, unless one’s definition of efficiency is that the hundreds of new problems are no problems at all, i.e. they were probably going to vote “wrong”. > [@](#): > > My mistake. Washington State, 2004. I checked the presidential vote - nope. The senate vote - nope. The house votes - nope… I gather you meant the gubernatorial vote. I’m not chasing any more rabbits. If you want to say things like “_X_ comes to mind as something that tends to support my concerns”, I’m not indulging you if you won’t put in the minimal effort of a few sentences clarifying _X_ and its relevance. I’ve shown sufficient patience already. Judging from the wiki summary, the potential impact of voter fraud was trifling compared to the impact of mishandled votes. If anything, this suggests the need for strict and improved standards in ballot-handling and tabulating. Feel free to fall back on your favourite (and numbingly obvious) mantra “the law, passed and signed, is about voter fraud”. We get it; it’s a bad law passed with cynical intent, but a law nonetheless. I can only hope the judiciary in the various states fulfills its function, after SCOTUS fumbled its own. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/3632 "2013-11-01T01:43:03Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Which is it? Or is there a third option? That proving who you are before you can vote is a ‘duh, of course you do’ kind of thing? And that having a consistent standard on what that ID is makes sense because it is known exactly what you need to to do in order to vote. Page 73 and people are still arguing about this? Really, it is time to start ignoring those Luddites who continue to think that they can still live in the 19th century and not have appropriate ID to interact with the rest of society. ---
**Author:** ![Parthol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/dec6dc/32.png) [@Parthol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Parthol)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/3633 "2013-11-01T02:04:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because one side has the laws already passed, and the other side is seeking to change the status quo. I don’t need to persuade you of anything: the status quo is fine with me. So if we were discussing a state considering a Voter ID law, but they hadn’t yet decided to try passing it – in other words, the status quo was “no ID law yet” – your arguments would be substantially different regarding whether such a law were just and/or desirable? ---
**Author:** ![BigAppleBucky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigapplebucky/32/178_2.png) [@BigAppleBucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigAppleBucky)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/3634 "2013-11-01T02:19:48Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Are you referring to an actual study that has compared relative turnout in those states against national averages across multiple elections? Or are you just referring to the fact that Indiana, say, had more black people vote in 2008 than 2004? > > Genuinely curious, as I had thought that the people doing statistical analysis were basically saying that right now there isn’t enough data to really say one way or the other what the effect has been, given the need for various controls and comparators. [http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measuring-the-effects-of-voter-identification-laws/](http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measuring-the-effects-of-voter-identification-laws/) **Measuring the Effects of Voter Identification Laws** By **NATE SILVER** > [@](#): > > Based on the experiences of other states, it is more likely that these laws will prevent something like 2 or 3 percent of registered voters from actually casting a ballot, rather than 9 percent. > > Still, that could be meaningful depending on which candidate these voters would have chosen. None of the studies I mentioned have sought to measure how a decline in turnout could effect the Democratic and Republican candidates in particular, rather than the overall figure. Silver figures the net benefit to the GOP is anywhere between .4% to 1.2%. He does not attempt to estimate the effect on minority voting. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/3635 "2013-11-01T02:27:31Z")
OK, then, “endless parades of professors” _and_ Nate Silver. Big deal, bunch of numbers. ---
**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:** [November 1, 2013, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/3636 "2013-11-01T03:58:53Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > That proving who you are before you can vote is a ‘duh, of course you do’ kind of thing? And that having a consistent standard on what that ID is makes sense because it is known exactly what you need to to do in order to vote. > > Page 73 and people are still arguing about this? Really, it is time to start ignoring those Luddites who continue to think that they can still live in the 19th century and not have appropriate ID to interact with the rest of society. Earlier in this thread you’ve already shown that you have no intention or ability to understand the issues at stake here, so I’ll not waste a bunch of time trying to communicate with you. But to the extent that I’m willing to waste time on you, do you agree that voter ID requirements should be accompanied by a robust attempt at getting as many people as possible with no cost IDs, as efficiently as possible? ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/3637 "2013-11-01T04:23:44Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Earlier in this thread you’ve already shown that you have no intention or ability to understand the issues at stake here, so I’ll not waste a bunch of time trying to communicate with you. There are no issues at stake because you haven’t proven that given enough time to comply with a new requirement that people who wish to do so can’t realistically do so. Because most places in the world seem to manage just fine. And yes there are a few (a very few) exceptions what may affect a very small minority of people. The world should stop revolving to wait for them? > [@](#): > > But to the extent that I’m willing to waste time on you, do you agree that voter ID requirements should be accompanied by a robust attempt at getting as many people as possible with no cost IDs, as efficiently as possible? No, what must happen is that the requirements are clear and enough time is given to comply. It is up to the people themselves to determine if they want to comply and vote. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/3638 "2013-11-01T05:40:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “None?” How about option (3)? > > You start by assuming (1) is more likely, and in the space of one short paragraph transition to (1) being the only possible outcome. I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Why do you think Democratic leaders so strongly oppose voter ID laws? > [@](#): > > And does it trouble you even a bit that the raw numbers don’t remotely support this conclusion? Well, Nate Silver knows a heck of a lot more than I do, and he seems to think it will benefit Republicans by 1.5 to 3 percent, if I’m not misunderstanding various things linked to in this thread. > [@](#): > > Those are not trivial problems, but they also not part of the main issue in play here. Why not? If everyone else in the thread is saying that voter ID might make the election mechanics x% better but makes election-reflects-the-will-of-the-people y% worse, how do you have the right to say that this discussion is only about election mechanics? Or is that not what you’re saying? > [@](#): > > We already have a system in which the will of the people can be thwarted. That’s why we’re not a direct democracy. Sure, but that doesn’t mean “make elections less represent the will of the people” isn’t a bad thing… > [@](#): > > And I notice your love for the will of the people is absent when it comes to this issue: large majorities of the people favor Voter ID. That doesn’t matter? The people’s will must be respected, unless it’s something the damn fools stupidly want? That’s an interesting question, and one I certainly find troubling. And I agree it’s very easy in situations like this for what I’m about to say to sound like “oh, those people don’t know what they actually want”. But I think there are some issues where opinion polls are pretty meaningless without really knowing how the question was posed. For instance, I’d say if you asked people “would you like your taxes reduced” you’d get nearly universal agreement. Does that mean that every proposed tax reduction of any sort automatically wins any argument because opinion polls support it? If we took this very thread, fairly summarized the positions and arguments on both sides, and showed it to people, would the percent who supported your side be the same as the percent who answered “yes” to “do you support requiring voter ID”? ---
**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:** [November 1, 2013, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/3639 "2013-11-01T11:29:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because one side has the laws already passed, and the other side is seeking to change the status quo. I don’t need to persuade you of anything: the status quo is fine with me. Christ you’re a stupid shitbag. ---
**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:** [November 1, 2013, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/3640 "2013-11-01T11:35:13Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > No, what must happen is that the requirements are clear and enough time is given to comply. It is up to the people themselves to determine if they want to comply and vote. So we should put a requirement on voting which has long-since been demonstrated to be odious for many people, but we shouldn’t make any effort to ensure that people can fulfill this requirement, or aid them in doing so, _despite the fact that we know that many won’t do it_. And now that we have some actual data on the effects of voter ID laws (something like 2-3% of voters did not vote because of them), we can say beyond the shadow of a doubt that the number of people this convinced not to vote is higher than the number of falsely cast votes this prevented. **Uzi** , be honest. This isn’t about ensuring that the results of the election match the will of the public - if it were, you’d be more worried about legal voters being able to get their vote out. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=181) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=183)