# 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:** 295
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2014, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5881 "2014-08-08T17:24:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure, in-person voter impersonation is a great way to define the subject for your side, but it’s not the issue It being the only problem that voter ID laws would actually address, if it actually existed, hell yes it’s the issue. > [@](#): > > and I don’t agree to debate it, because I’m not saying it’s the issue. IOW, you’re conceding the central point right up front, and acknowledging that the rest of your argument and the grounds its based on are imaginary. Another thing you’re imagining is that those engaging you are too dumb to understand your claims for what they are, when in fact their unanimity should suggest to you that they’re actually too \*smart \*to be fooled by the likes of you. Gotta be frustrating as hell for you, I know, but that’s the price of intellectual honesty, something you’ll never know. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2014, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5882 "2014-08-08T17:26:33Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I agree it’s evidence. I disagree that it’s good evidence. It’s legally sufficient. > [@](#): > > Which is beside the point, because prosecuting felon voters is hardly the reason for this law. Yes, it is. Or more to the point: the credible threat of being able to prosecute unqualified voters is a reason for this law. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2014, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5883 "2014-08-08T17:27:55Z")
But it is! You see, the only reason **Bricker** can’t prove his case is because they can’t be prosecuted! So, put laws in place to prevent illegal voting and then there would be no illegal voting! Which would prove that there _was_ illegal voting, because now its gone! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5884 "2014-08-08T17:35:05Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > But it is! You see, the only reason **Bricker** can’t prove his case is because they can’t be prosecuted! So, put laws in place to prevent illegal voting and then there would be no illegal voting! Which would prove that there _was_ illegal voting, because now its gone! Bricker doesn’t need to prove his case. Bricker’s case already won. The dancing, remember? ---
**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:** [August 8, 2014, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5885 "2014-08-08T17:39:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I didn’t misrepresent it. > [@Bricker](#): > > I have already noted the fatal flaw in that empirical research – it asked people who were asked for photo ID for their sense of confidence – but those people were well aware that photo IDs were not REQUIRED, so of course the mere asking does not boost confidence. > [@Me](#): > > The study linked in the article under discussion uses a representative survey sample. I don’t know what, if any, study you’re talking about, but the one in question was not selected by history of being asked for voter ID. It is entitled: “Vote Fraud in the Eye of the Beholder: The Role of Public Opinion in the Challenge to Voter Identification Requirements” > > You might have actually read it if you did not make your decisions solely on what your chosen authorities tell you. > [@the Methods of the Study](#): > > Our study examines survey data from 2006, 2007, and 2008 to calculate how pervasive Americans believe vote fraud to be and to understand whether such beliefs affect a person’s likelihood of voting. YouGovPolimetrix,18 of Palo Alto, California, conducted national matched-random sample surveys of American adults as part of the 2006 and 2007 Cooperative Congressional Election Studies (CCES).19 The 2006 survey included questions about voter identification and voter turnout, and the 2007 survey included questions about respondents’ perceptions of different types of vote fraud. For our study, YouGovPolimetrix conducted an additional survey in 2008 in order to > probe respondents’ beliefs about voter impersonation fraud in particular.20 Although respondents were selected through various internet based methods, the resulting sample mirrored the main demographic characteristics — gender, age, education, race, region, and income — and the political characteristics, especially party identification and ideological orientation, of other surveys.21 Comparison of the sample with the observed vote in 2006 provides a validity check on the sample methodology. The sample was not limited to “people who were asked to show ID.” The sample was representative, and wasn’t even limited to people who had voted. At this point, you’re just lying about it. ---
**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:** [August 8, 2014, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5886 "2014-08-08T17:42:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I told him I wasn’t talking about voter impersonation. Why should I let him dictate the subject? Sure, in-person voter impersonation is a great way to define the subject for your side, but it’s not the issue, and I don’t agree to debate it, because I’m not saying it’s the issue. > > So why should I respond to his forlorn hope to limit the conversation to voter impersonation when i clearly and explicitly said it wasn’t about that? Not in the post you responded to. Look, I get it. You fucked up, and then that asshole Lobohan and those other liberals called you on it immediately. It sucks. I get why you’re doing this. I just want you to know it isn’t working. > [@](#): > > You actually are. I have no idea what you do in real life, but I cannot imagine it’s something that requires any great degree of intelligence, because you are, in fact, monumentally stupid. I suspect your real-life past is littered with monumental failures, each explained away by you because you’re so much smarter than those around you. > > Am I right? Poor grades, low-paying jobs with supervisors too stupid to understand your brilliance, a conviction that they’re all just jealous of you, or too dim to get you… huh? C’mon – tell the truth. That’s you, right? This being the anonymous internet, I can say whatever I’d like. The truth is, I’m not a CEO of a major company. I don’t own a private jet. I do have a job that pays significantly over the average wage in the US. I have a wife that makes nearly twice what I do. I have a beautiful daughter. I don’t have expensive hobbies. I drive a Nissan Leaf, not a BMW. I think I might get a Tesla next. Because of luck, and some reasonably hard work, I’m not doing that bad. But none of that makes a difference. If I were struggling at a minimum wage job, I’d still be right, and you’d still be wrong. Although, this post does show what utter contempt you hold the poor in. It pretty clearly demonstrates that you’ve mistaken your luck with superiority. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2014, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5887 "2014-08-08T17:45:35Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Am I right? Poor grades, low-paying jobs with supervisors too stupid to understand your brilliance, > > Although, this post does show what utter contempt you hold the poor in. It pretty clearly demonstrates that you’ve mistaken your luck with superiority. And the academically inferior. Don’t forget how much I despise them. :rolleyes: Actually, it’s just you I despise. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2014, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5888 "2014-08-08T17:51:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. I clearly said that the issue was ultra-close elections for which we cannot trust the results because we don’t know that all the cotes came from qualified voters, and **adaher** ’s 100-plus cases fit that description. I gotta say that in this case, at least with respect to that one exchange, you are the one being weaselly. The exchange basically went like this: **Elucidator** : Here is a new paper I found which claims that he only found a total of 30 allegations of voter impersonation ever (note that post 5814 specifically includes the words “voter impersonation”) **Bricker** : I reject your claim due to the political leanings of the author (note: this is not in and of itself a ridiculous thing to say) **Elucidator** : (exact quote) He’s lying, or he’s wrong about the numbers? OK, prove it. But aren’t you somewhat obligated to do a better job of it than just exposing his unsavory political leanings? **Bricker** : Adaher’s link shows over 100 in one state. In context, your post clearly appears to be referring specifically to cases of voter impersonation. At best, it was a careless miscommunication, and not owning up to that is poor form. It’s certainly also the case that plenty of times in this thread you have made the (not ridiculous) argument that voter impersonation MIGHT in fact be an issue, but we don’t know, because how would we ever know that successful voter impersonation had happened, which is why you want voter ID laws, to help prevent that (and other such things). So don’t act as if the number of cases of voter impersonation that have actually occurred is just totally irrelevant to your position. ---
**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:** [August 8, 2014, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5889 "2014-08-08T17:53:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And the academically inferior. Don’t forget how much I despise them. > > :rolleyes: > > Actually, it’s just you I despise. Really? I don’t hate you, Brickie. I pity you, you’re a victim of your parent’s lies about Jeebus, and Reagan’s lies about economics. You’re just a dupe acting on your programming. Clothahump with an education. Naw, I’m kidding, I do think you’re a shit. \<3 ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2014, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5890 "2014-08-08T17:56:56Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I agree it’s evidence. I disagree that it’s good evidence. > > I used to be a door person. I had much more experience checking IDs than most people working the polls. The idea that a person, checking a thousand or more people over ten hours is gonna be able to reasonably testify that every ID he saw is genuine is a bit far fetched. And any lawyer is gonna be able to generate a hefty wad of doubt off of that. I don’t see why the guy testifying one way or the other is particularly relevant. If the guy who runs the polling place is trained to check for IDs, and in general is observed always checking for IDs, and we see that someone named Joe Bob signed in and voted at 3:45 p.m., then the default position is that “Joe Bob” provided an ID and the guy running the poll checked it. Whereas if there is no ID requirement, there is no such default position. That’s not proof of anything, and a lawyer could argue that it’s possible that poll-guy might have failed to check the ID carefully, etc., but it’s still certainly the case that the defendant is much better off with everyone agreeing that no one checked anyone’s ID because no one ever checks anyone’s ID, than having to argue that the guy running the poll, whose job it was to check all IDs, might have screwed up in that one particular case. Again, not proof in and of itself, but far from irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2014, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5891 "2014-08-08T18:01:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Fairly subtle points are very difficult to convey with success in an age of sound bites and rabid accusations. Look at this thread, two years old, a point made a zillion times by me and you are the only poster who shows any evidence of understanding it. I don’t blame legislators for a reluctance to enter that affray. Or the more cynical view is that the legislators never cared either about the more obvious voter impersonation issue, or the more subtle easier-to-convict-and-thus-raise-confidence issue. Rather, they just cared about suppressing democratic votes, and chose voter impersonation as their bullshit cover story of choice. And if, from the beginning of the thread, you had wanted to, you could quite clearly have said “oh, you know what the guys who ARE ON MY SIDE in the legislatures are saying about voter impersonation, the thing they’re using to sell this? Well, I think they might be entirely wrong. Instead, I support these laws for entirely different reasons…”. You certainly don’t tend to go out of your way to clearly spell out precisely what your position is. Which I think is a good debating tactic, not so good as an actually-convincing-people-of-your-position tactic. > [@](#): > > That. Ramon Cue article is over two years old. Why would you imagine that the circumstances related there are particularly rare? Because if it happened a lot, you would be rubbing our faces in it? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2014, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5892 "2014-08-08T18:10:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …Actually, it’s just you I despise. Wait, what? Only **Lobo** gets to be on the “despise” list? No fair! ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2014, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5893 "2014-08-08T18:14:52Z")
If Bricker truly despised **Lobohan** , he’d be on his Ignore list. (_smirking_) ---
**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:** [August 8, 2014, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5894 "2014-08-08T18:16:02Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Wait, what? Only **Lobo** gets to be on the “despise” list? No fair! It was the _royal “you.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2014, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5895 "2014-08-08T18:16:18Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > **Bricker** : I reject your claim due to the political leanings of the author (note: this is not in and of itself a ridiculous thing to say) I take issue with the accuracy of this summary. I agree that, if this were all I said, my communication could indeed be called careless. But what of this paragraph of mine: > [@Bricker](#): > > As extensively hashed out in this very thread, the issue is not a concerted effort to steal an election. It’s an election that comes down to the wire, ultra-close, and for which we cannot trust the results because we don’t know that all the cotes came from qualified voters. (Rather embarrassing that my c-for-v typo has to be re-quoted and immortalized so often.) Why does that line deserve amnesia? Where was that sentiment in your summary? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2014, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5896 "2014-08-08T18:18:16Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > It’s certainly also the case that plenty of times in this thread you have made the (not ridiculous) argument that voter impersonation MIGHT in fact be an issue, but we don’t know, because how would we ever know that successful voter impersonation had happened, which is why you want voter ID laws, to help prevent that (and other such things). So don’t act as if the number of cases of voter impersonation that have actually occurred is just totally irrelevant to your position. Not totally irrelevant, nor am i acting that way. But also clearly my claim has never been limited to voter impersonation. ---
**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:** [August 8, 2014, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5897 "2014-08-08T18:19:21Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > If Bricker truly despised **Lobohan** , he’d be on his Ignore list. > > (_smirking_) It’s just a job. This is Bricker and I every morning. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/p_u3YRZb74w/hqdefault.jpg "Sheepdog and ̶C̶o̶y̶o̶t̶e̶ Ralph the Wolf (my bad)") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_u3YRZb74w) ---
**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:** [August 8, 2014, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5898 "2014-08-08T18:22:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I take issue with the accuracy of this summary. > > I agree that, if this were all I said, my communication could indeed be called careless. > > But what of this paragraph of mine: > > (Rather embarrassing that my c-for-v typo has to be re-quoted and immortalized so often.) > > Why does that line deserve amnesia? Where was that sentiment in your summary? Because that clearly establishes that you have stopped referring to the quote in reference to which you specifically started the exchange. I see where you say “I’m not talking about voter impersonation, like I quoted, but am now talking about voting in general.” Okay, that was sarcasm, to clarify for Bricker. A moral person would feel shame. A slimy weasel would keep fucking that chicken. ---
**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:** [August 8, 2014, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5899 "2014-08-08T18:32:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Evidence that Voter IDs with addresses and names would clear up the confusion nicely. It hasn’t been established that a crime occurred; is there anything to be confused _about_? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2014, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5900 "2014-08-08T18:50:11Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Because that clearly establishes that you have stopped referring to the quote in reference to which you specifically started the exchange. I see where you say “I’m not talking about voter impersonation, like I quoted, but am now talking about voting in general.” Okay, that was sarcasm, to clarify for Bricker. > > A moral person would feel shame. A slimy weasel would keep fucking that chicken. I quoted the line and then _distinguished it_, to show that I was not accepting the limitation of only talking about voter impersonation. OK, let’s just say, for fun, that my sentiment was unclear. Is it NOW clear? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=294) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=296)