# 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:** 279
**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:** [June 18, 2014, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5561 "2014-06-18T02:47:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. > > But none of those terms are objectively verifiable. You think it’s unfair. I think it’s fair. > > So I’ll simply repeat, “Fair!” And you rejoin, “No, unfair!” > > This doesn’t seem a useful approach. > > Or we could, ahead of time, agree on a framework for “fair” and “unfair.” > > When James Randi began his mission of debunking self-proclaimed psychics, dowsers, mediums, and the like, he adopted this policy: let’s agree, now, on the terms. Then later, after the fact, you cannot claim the test is unfair, because you agreed to the terms ahead of time. > > This situation is similar. We have a process for making law. The process has generated a result you don’t like. But the fact is that you cannot guarantee results you like if we all get a say in selecting people to lead us. Sometimes, these people create laws I don’t like. But I recognize that I can’t demand that these laws be rejected. Oh, I’m confident I’ve done more than merely rejoin, but this is leading into a strawman you’ve already used several times in this thread alone - someone doesn’t like a legal outcome, therefore that person wants to destroy democracy and create a fascist state. And as has been pointed out, of course you can demand a law be rejected. You can demand anything you want. Results not guaranteed, of course. Anyway, you accept that the range of influence on voter confidence may be as little as a (metaphorical) angstrom and no eligible citizen who wants to vote will be stopped by voter ID laws, i.e. the range of influence on legitimate votes is zero. Some of us don’t happen to share your confidence and we’re not unreasonable in doing so. An angstrom standard would be fairly easy to meet - I look forward to November. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5562 "2014-06-18T04:06:41Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > It’s obvious that hurdles placed in the way of otherwise qualified voters will decrease voting disproportionately among those with fewer resources to overcome those hurdles, whether the decrease is an angstrom or a kilometer, and consequently the decrease in the confidence of those who wish that the voting be maximally representative seems equally obvious. > > That you ask that question in earnest stretches credulity. You say it’s obvious, but the only measurements of actual minority turnout following the institution of a Voter ID law show no measurable drop. Can you explain the discrepancy? ---
**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:** [June 18, 2014, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5563 "2014-06-18T04:29:00Z")
Heck, YOU say it is obvious that voter confidence is diminished. Obviousness ain’t what it used to be. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5564 "2014-06-18T04:35:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You say it’s obvious, but the only measurements of actual minority turnout following the institution of a Voter ID law show no measurable drop. > > Can you explain the discrepancy? Easy. They turn out **because** Pubs try to block them. People appreciate a thing most when somebody is trying to take it away from them. But, is there no measurable drop in votes **counted?** “Provisional ballots” are bullshit and you know it. ---
**Author:** ![Parthol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/dec6dc/32.png) [@Parthol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Parthol)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5565 "2014-06-18T04:42:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You say it’s obvious, but the only measurements of actual minority turnout following the institution of a Voter ID law show no measurable drop. > > Can you explain the discrepancy? I ask this in all sincerity, because I don’t know: were the measurements you talk about taken during an election featuring the first African-american candidate in the country’s history? Because, if so, that might explain it. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5566 "2014-06-18T04:42:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. > > But none of those terms are objectively verifiable. You think it’s unfair. I think it’s fair. > > So I’ll simply repeat, “Fair!” And you rejoin, “No, unfair!” > > This doesn’t seem a useful approach. > > Or we could, ahead of time, agree on a framework for “fair” and “unfair.” > > When James Randi began his mission of debunking self-proclaimed psychics, dowsers, mediums, and the like, he adopted this policy: let’s agree, now, on the terms. Then later, after the fact, you cannot claim the test is unfair, because you agreed to the terms ahead of time. > > This situation is similar. We have a process for making law. The process has generated a result you don’t like. But the fact is that you cannot guarantee results you like if we all get a say in selecting people to lead us. Sometimes, these people create laws I don’t like. But I recognize that I can’t demand that these laws be rejected. But again you seem to be saying that it’s pointless or impossible to argue about fairness and other amorphous ethical concepts when it comes to laws… that all that matters is legality, or at least all that intelligent people can meaningfully debate is legality. But basically everyone else in the thread is saying the opposite, and you seemed to basically agree that it was reasonable to debate ethics when we specifically were discussing the gay marriage argument of a few years back. So he says “unfair” and you say “fair”, and THEN BOTH OF YOU LAY OUT YOUR ARGUMENTS AND CLAIMS AND POSITIONS, and maybe someone will be convinced, or at least learn to understand the other position a little bit better. And yes, clearly, if we have a debate on the SDMB about the fairness or something, and one side “wins” the debate, and then voters go vote and vote the other way, well, then the law is the other way. So? Does that mean there’s never in point on debating things on the SDMB when they either have been in the past, or will be in the future, voted on? ---
**Author:** ![Parthol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/dec6dc/32.png) [@Parthol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Parthol)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5567 "2014-06-18T04:48:46Z")
(Too late to edit my previous post – obviously I meant _Presidential_ candidate.) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5568 "2014-06-18T13:13:46Z")
> [@Parthol](#): > > I ask this in all sincerity, because I don’t know: were the measurements you talk about taken during an election featuring the first African-american candidate in the country’s history? > > Because, if so, that might explain it. No, this included 2010, when the first African-American President was not on the ballot. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5569 "2014-06-18T13:19:36Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Easy. They turn out **because** Pubs try to block them. People appreciate a thing most when somebody is trying to take it away from them. But, is there no measurable drop in votes **counted?** “Provisional ballots” are bullshit and you know it. So if they turn out, then you (or **AlienVessels** , to whom I directed my reply) can’t claim that voting is decreased. That seems relatively straightforward. To remind you of the comment: > [@AlienVessels](#): > > It’s obvious that hurdles placed in the way of otherwise qualified voters will decrease voting disproportionately among those with fewer resources to overcome those hurdles, whether the decrease is an angstrom or a kilometer, and consequently the decrease in the confidence of those who wish that the voting be maximally representative seems equally obvious. > > That you ask that question in earnest stretches credulity. I think you and **BrainGlutton** should coordinate your theories. You, **Alienvessels** , say it’s obvious that voting will decrease. **BrainGlutton** says it won’t because Pubs try to block them, and people appreciate a thing most when somebody is trying to take it away from them. He also says provisional ballots are bullshit, but his cite (his cite is my knowledge) says the exact opposite. ---
**Author:** ![JimNightshade](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jimnightshade/32/3354_2.png) [@JimNightshade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JimNightshade)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5570 "2014-06-18T13:24:43Z")
Holy crap - 5569 posts and you still haven’t reached any agreement. Good luck. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5571 "2014-06-18T13:33:59Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > But again you seem to be saying that it’s pointless or impossible to argue about fairness and other amorphous ethical concepts when it comes to laws… that all that matters is legality, or at least all that intelligent people can meaningfully debate is legality. But basically everyone else in the thread is saying the opposite, and you seemed to basically agree that it was reasonable to debate ethics when we specifically were discussing the gay marriage argument of a few years back. > So he says “unfair” and you say “fair”, and THEN BOTH OF YOU LAY OUT YOUR ARGUMENTS AND CLAIMS AND POSITIONS, and maybe someone will be convinced, or at least learn to understand the other position a little bit better. > > And yes, clearly, if we have a debate on the SDMB about the fairness or something, and one side “wins” the debate, and then voters go vote and vote the other way, well, then the law is the other way. So? Does that mean there’s never in point on debating things on the SDMB when they either have been in the past, or will be in the future, voted on? It’s certainly reasonable to debate ethics. But when one side of the debate is supported by extant law and wide public support, the opposing side ought to include acknowledgement that theirs is the side that bears the burden of persuasion, and that side cannot simply assert claims and demand they be disproven. Moreover, especially for issues which admit to no objective answer, and which enjoy the status of law and wide public support, there ought to be some acknowledgement of the heavy burden to overcome, as opposed to simply expecting a win by virtue of home-field crowd support, so to speak. I want abortion laws changed. But I recognize, in every debate, by explicit admission, that both the laws of the land and a strong percentage of the population does not agree, and I build my arguments accordingly. I do not pretend that these factors are simply not there and announce how illegitimate these existing laws are. ---
**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:** [June 18, 2014, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5572 "2014-06-18T13:39:08Z")
Who is saying voter ID laws are illegitimate? Bad idea, sure. Cynical attempts at electoral advantage, you bet. I’m just curious who has actually said “illegitimate”, if anyone other than the liberal cryptofascist stereotype Bricker has in mind. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5573 "2014-06-18T14:06:17Z")
Basically, Bricker’s argument comes down to is “you can’t demonstrate to me that under the current legal standards that it’s unconstitutional to enact these laws.” Any argument that doesn’t address this narrow subject is nevertheless met with this same response. And if you try to push him into any other level of concern or analysis or argument, you are accused of playing King. And that is why this discussion is circular and never-ending, because that narrow legal issue is not the beginning and end of this subject, nor of any political subject. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5574 "2014-06-18T14:23:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No Voter ID law prevents him from doing so. “Him” meaning peoples who spend $44.50 to get an ID? I’m trying to visualize a group of people who are normally hiding in allies, dodging police and constantly scanning the skys for INS planes … just waltzing up to polling stations like it’s everyday. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5575 "2014-06-18T14:38:33Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Who is saying voter ID laws are illegitimate? Bad idea, sure. Cynical attempts at electoral advantage, you bet. I’m just curious who has actually said “illegitimate”, if anyone other than the liberal cryptofascist stereotype Bricker has in mind. Literally said the word “illegitimate?” No one that I recall. But “illegitimate” means, inter alia, “not conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards.” And plenty of people in this thread have posted comments that are fairly taken to mean that they view Voter ID laws as not conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards. ---
**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:** [June 18, 2014, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5576 "2014-06-18T15:46:22Z")
Sure. That’s democracy in action. What’s your point? ---
**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:** [June 18, 2014, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5577 "2014-06-18T15:50:38Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > “Him” meaning peoples who spend $44.50 to get an ID? > > I’m trying to visualize a group of people who are normally hiding in allies, dodging police and constantly scanning the skys for INS planes … just waltzing up to polling stations like it’s everyday. I’ll have to re-review Bricker’s earlier cite, but voting illegally doesn’t necessarily mean someone is in the country illegally. I can picture a resident alien with a green card who registers to vote, under the mistaken impression it’s something he should do. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5578 "2014-06-18T15:58:43Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Sure. That’s democracy in action. What’s your point? Oh. Well, then, my defense of Voter ID rules is _also_ democracy in action, yes? ---
**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:** [June 18, 2014, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5579 "2014-06-18T16:01:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Oh. > > Well, then, my defense of Voter ID rules is _also_ democracy in action, yes? Sure. So? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5580 "2014-06-18T16:38:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You say it’s obvious, but the only measurements of actual minority turnout following the institution of a Voter ID law show no measurable drop. > > Can you explain the discrepancy? Georgia on your mind? At the time, wasn’t Georgia bound by obligations to the Justice Dept to conform to principles designed to prevent discriminatory voting laws, before the Supremes lifted the onerous burden from their shoulders? And did not the Republican legislatures in states like Texas fall all over each other in a pell-mell rush…_immediately_, as in, the _very next day!_… to get these laws in place as quickly as possible, laws that we may presume they couldn’t have gotten away with before? Or is that simply a happy coincidence? Wouldn’t that imply that Georgia’s laws were crafted and imposed in a non-discriminatory fashion? And hasn’t our point been, all along, that whether or not voter id laws are the bee’s knees or not, a discriminatory application of those laws is not legitimate? But if those laws could be crafted and imposed in such a way as to ensure fairness and equality before the law, then we have no problem? As well, isn’t it a fact that voter turnout goes upward year after year, simply as an effect of population growth? Indeed, isn’t it a fact that minority populations in the South have been growing disproportionately, due to a return of minority populations? Wouldn’t we then expect that minority voting would increase even if an effort had been made to restrict and retard that growth? An effort, I remind, that would have had to comply with JustDept standards? You are on record as stipulating that “some” Republicans, perhaps even most, were complicit in a malign and nefarious plot to rig the game, yes? Are we now to believe that if they failed in that effort, then they are innocent? And finally, an observation: your argument is more of a net than an argument, being full of holes held together by string. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=278) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=280)