# 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:** 350
**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:** [October 25, 2014, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6981 "2014-10-25T00:34:27Z")
Finding himself buried under the weight of his lies and being eyed as the evil twat that he is, Bricker scans the horizon for a distracting issue… Wait… can Bricker take something 'luci said and act too stupid to understand it and deflect the attention away from his utter failure for a bit? Let’s watch and find out… ---
**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:** [October 25, 2014, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6982 "2014-10-25T00:36:12Z")
Also, who do I have to bribe to swap the B for a P in you-know-who’s username? ---
**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:** [October 25, 2014, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6983 "2014-10-25T00:36:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Wait…are you saying voter fraud doesn’t exist AT ALL? That the incidence is literally zero? That voter fraud that “exists to any extent that would move a reasonable person to action” and “like you fantasize”, i.e. at levels that are significant, doesn’t exist but we can’t _prove_ it doesn’t, much like we can’t prove unicorns don’t exist. Does he really need to put on the qualifiers _every single time_ “voter fraud” is mentioned, or can you train your short-term memory to retain the information? Heck, I’ve no problem accepting that voter fraud has happened in scattered individual cases. Is it at a level that efforts to address it won’t catch a greater number of legitimate voters? Not that I’m aware of. ---
**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:** [October 25, 2014, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6984 "2014-10-25T00:38:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Your answer is above from post 5079. I’d say “yeah, so?” but that gives you another opportunity to go off on a time-wasting tangent. So instead of one vapid belief, you have _two_ vapid beliefs. Throw yourself a parade. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2014, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6985 "2014-10-25T01:25:15Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Throw yourself a parade. Ooooooooh I like that; I’ma steal it! ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2014, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6986 "2014-10-25T01:33:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Moreover, the ID procedures are not “specifically designed” to hinder certain voters. they are as neutral as can be imagined: they require every voter to substantiate his identity. That’s only neutral if we accept the assumption that substantiating one’s identity is equally easy (or hard, really) for any person. It’s like saying a law requiring every voter to jump over a two-foot-tall stone in order to be able to vote is neutral. Neutrality does not simply equal “the rules apply to everyone equally” because “everyone” isn’t the same, even if the test is. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2014, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6987 "2014-10-25T01:35:53Z")
**Bricker** may be delighted to learn that [a Wisconsin alderman won’t answer one of his constituent’s questions about voting until she proves she’s not a terrorist.](http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/10/22/politician-refuses-to-answer-muslim-residents-question-until-she-proves-shes-not-a-terrorist/) I’m sure that, since the woman isn’t black, this proves that voter suppression isn’t racist. (I found this via SRIOTD.) ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2014, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6988 "2014-10-25T01:39:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It is. But I’m not. I haven’t once suggested that anyone follow my morality – except perhaps sarcastically, as a method of illustrating the infeasibility of following your morality. > > You can scour my posts in this thread – you won’t find a post from me arguing that any action should be taken because it’s moral. I know you and I don’t share a moral framework and so I don’t suggest that my moral code be the basis for any social policy. Wait, you don’t vote by your moral code? That’s a hell of an impressive and/or scary separation of mindsets there. ---
**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:** [October 25, 2014, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6989 "2014-10-25T01:49:49Z")
Jeez, Bricker, it’s okay if you _vote_ how you want. Nobody’s gonna question that. Well, somebody probably would, but they’re a jerk. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2014, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6990 "2014-10-25T16:27:17Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > That voter fraud that “exists to any extent that would move a reasonable person to action” and “like you fantasize”, i.e. at levels that are significant, doesn’t exist but we can’t _prove_ it doesn’t, much like we can’t prove unicorns don’t exist. But I don’t fantasize that voter fraud exists at levels that are significant. You know that, right? You said you understood my position to be, "“it doesn’t matter if voter fraud is trivial, the legislature passed the law, neener neener neener,” or “Voter confidence drops after close elections if voter fraud is possible.” Those aren’t the same thing, of course, but they share a common trait: both statements impute to me a claim that voter fraud is quite low: either trivial or simply possible. Right? So what’s elucidator saying about what I fantasize voter fraud levels to be? According to you, he’s saying that I believe voter fraud occurs “at levels that are significant.” Well? You act as though I deliberately misunderstood him. What’s the real story here? ---
**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:** [October 25, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6991 "2014-10-25T16:35:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What’s the real story here? That you’re using trivial nitpicks to stall for time. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2014, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6992 "2014-10-25T16:45:55Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > That’s only neutral if we accept the assumption that substantiating one’s identity is equally easy (or hard, really) for any person. It’s like saying a law requiring every voter to jump over a two-foot-tall stone in order to be able to vote is neutral. Neutrality does not simply equal “the rules apply to everyone equally” because “everyone” isn’t the same, even if the test is. “We” don’t accept the assumption that the task is mathematically identically easy. But we do accept that it’s easy enough for everyone that requiring it is reasonable. Now, YOU, personally, don’t. Sure. So we agree to disagree. Unless you’re also saying that your disagreement should mean that the law gets changed or something. Are you? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2014, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6993 "2014-10-25T16:49:59Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > That you’re using trivial nitpicks to stall for time. This thread has gone on for two years and seven thousand posts. What the fuck does “stall for time” mean? Is there a referee in the corner on a slow count? How can anyone “stall for time?” It’s in the top ten most idiotic things you’ve ever said, and that, my friend, is an area of great competition. Anyone can read a post from a week ago, a month ago, or a year ago and reply to it anew. Anyone (even you, dummy) can raise an unaddressed post from any time since the beginning of this message board and quote it and ask for a reply. There is no such concept as “stall for time.” Let me show you: > [@](#): > > You said you understood my position to be, "“it doesn’t matter if voter fraud is trivial, the legislature passed the law, neener neener neener,” or “Voter confidence drops after close elections if voter fraud is possible.” > > Those aren’t the same thing, of course, but they share a common trait: both statements impute to me a claim that voter fraud is quite low: either trivial or simply possible. > > Right? > > So what’s elucidator saying about what I fantasize voter fraud levels to be? According to you, he’s saying that I believe voter fraud occurs “at levels that are significant.” > > Well? > > You act as though I deliberately misunderstood him. What’s the real story here? Well? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2014, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6994 "2014-10-25T16:53:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It is. But I’m not. I haven’t once suggested that anyone follow my morality – except perhaps sarcastically, as a method of illustrating the infeasibility of following your morality. > > You can scour my posts in this thread – you won’t find a post from me arguing that any action should be taken because it’s moral. I know you and I don’t share a moral framework and so I don’t suggest that my moral code be the basis for any social policy. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Wait, you don’t vote by your moral code? That’s a hell of an impressive and/or scary separation of mindsets there. Maybe you could connect the dots for me here. It looks like you’re trying to equate the act of voting with “suggesting that my moral code serve as the basis of social policy.” Are you? ---
**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:** [October 25, 2014, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6995 "2014-10-25T17:10:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well? You’re still stalling, but now acting indignant after getting called on it. You’re right that stalling on message board is pointless. I suggest you stop doing that. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2014, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6996 "2014-10-25T17:26:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “We” don’t accept the assumption that the task is mathematically identically easy. > > But we do accept that it’s easy enough for everyone that requiring it is reasonable. A necessary codicil to your point. > [@](#): > > Now, YOU, personally, don’t. Sure. So we agree to disagree. > > Unless you’re also saying that your disagreement should mean that the law gets changed or something. Are you? I don’t think I’ve actually expressed an opinion on that yet. There’s a lot of possibilities. I think I’d need to see some numbers before I was convinced of anything. > [@Bricker](#): > > Maybe you could connect the dots for me here. It looks like you’re trying to equate the act of voting with “suggesting that my moral code serve as the basis of social policy.” > > Are you? No. As to that question, it’s trickier; if I’m against abortion due to my moral code, I could still technically vote on some other basis as a matter of policy. Tricky to tell, really, even I imagine for the person themselves, but there are I’m sure plenty of people out there who hold a moral code and yet don’t vote on that basis. I’d say “and so vote against it” but I think when we get to that point the number’s going to drop sharpish. As a guess, anyway. No, what I was saying was a reference to the first part of your post. “I haven’t once suggested that anyone follow my morality”. I would argue that voting is such a suggestion, and the issue with bases for support there doesn’t apply; all that’s required is that one votes for a _result_ that follows one’s morality. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2014, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6997 "2014-10-25T17:57:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Moreover, the ID procedures are not “specifically designed” to hinder certain voters. they are as neutral as can be imagined: they require every voter to substantiate his identity. I am reminded of a _60 Minutes_ piece from the '70s about a sexist police chief who was ordered to let women on the force. So he instituted a height requirement few women can meet and said, “You want equality?! Come and get it!” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2014, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6998 "2014-10-25T18:47:18Z")
[Interesting article.](http://www.salon.com/2014/10/25/the_republican_partys_electoral_philosophy_cheating_wins/) > [@](#): > > There is now a large literature studying the effects of voter ID laws. James Avery and Mark Peffley find, “states with restrictive voter registration laws are much more likely to be biased toward upper-class turnout.” The GAO finds that voter ID laws reduce turnout among those between ages 18-23 and African-Americans (two key Democratic constituencies). A 2013 study finds that the proposal and passage of voter ID laws are “highly partisan, strategic, and racialized affairs.” They write, “Our findings confirm that _Democrats are justified in their concern that restrictive voter legislation takes aim along racial lines with strategic partisan intent.”_ [Italics in original] The authors also find that increases in low-income voter turnout triggered voter ID laws. A more recent study finds, “where elections are competitive, the furtherance of restrictive voter ID laws is a means of maintaining Republican support while curtailing Democratic electoral gains.” That is, not all Republican legislatures propose voter ID laws — only those that face strong competition from Democrats. If Republicans are concerned about election integrity, why do they only pass voter ID laws when they’re about to lose an election? Because they’re cheaters. ---
**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:** [October 25, 2014, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/6999 "2014-10-25T20:29:08Z")
Cheating?! That identical situation occurred in the New Hebrides Open. Kaduffleblaze versus Fuddle in 19-aught-18. And what about Fradis versus Ginfritter? Bizbo versus Stoigen in the Casablanca Amateur? “Cheating” indeed. The \*nerve! \* ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2014, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7000 "2014-10-25T20:49:53Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > A necessary codicil to your point. > > I don’t think I’ve actually expressed an opinion on that yet. There’s a lot of possibilities. I think I’d need to see some numbers before I was convinced of anything. No. As to that question, it’s trickier; if I’m against abortion due to my moral code, I could still technically vote on some other basis as a matter of policy. Tricky to tell, really, even I imagine for the person themselves, but there are I’m sure plenty of people out there who hold a moral code and yet don’t vote on that basis. I’d say “and so vote against it” but I think when we get to that point the number’s going to drop sharpish. As a guess, anyway. > > No, what I was saying was a reference to the first part of your post. “I haven’t once suggested that anyone follow my morality”. I would argue that voting is such a suggestion, and the issue with bases for support there doesn’t apply; all that’s required is that one votes for a _result_ that follows one’s morality. Offhand, I can’t think of any vote I have ever cast in which I chose a moral issue over a policy issue I favored for reasons other than merely moral. In other words, there hasn’t been an election in which I have cast a vote for the reason that it follows my morality. Admittedly, no vote has _run counter_ to my morality, but that’s because my morality and wise public policy are happily congruent. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=349) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=351)