# 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:** 360
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2014, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7181 "2014-10-28T01:09:36Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I mulled it over and went back for a second look at Bone’s cited article. The numbers involved are actually smaller than I might have first implied. From their table: > > ```auto > > Estimated Voter Turnout by Non-Citizens 2008 2010 > Self reported and/or verified 38 (11.3%) 13 (3.5%) > Self reported and verified 5 (1.5%) N.A. > Adjusted estimate 21 (6.4%) 8 (2.2%) > > ``` > > So they’re extrapolating an estimated turnout among noncitizens (6.4%) based on an estimate of 21 (self-reported) occurrences. Notably, there’s no information that I can see breaking this already small number down into absentee voters (which would not be prevented by ID laws) and at-poll voters, though there is this: > > So three-quarters of some fraction of 21 people (maybe as many as 38) could meet the ID standards anyway. Further, the assumption that noncitizen voters favour Democrats is based on: > > So 80% of 21 (or 38) noncitizens voted for Obama. That’s 16 to 24 votes, and no indication if they were all in one electoral venue or across several. > > The article states: > …but the link goes to the CCES welcome page (on my computer, anyway) and not to any specific study of noncitizen voters. I’m sure the original data is there, but I’ll leave it to others to find. > > The article _does_ link to [another article](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973), who abstract is: > > _That’s_ interesting, though I’m not going to pay $19.95 to read the whole article. I hope whatever sample set they used was larger than the one described above. I know, I know. You need sixteen double blind peer-reviewed studies, blessed by Mother Jones and the New York Times editorial board, before you’ll accept anything. Unless it’s the elderly voter who marched with Dr. King and now works four full time jobs and can’t get a photo ID because those jobs don’t give time off. Then you’re like a kid watching Seasame Street, ready to believe. What a good thing the actual country doesn’t listen to you. And the real laws that actually govern us are in place. What a good thing your ideas are marginal and impotent. A fine thing indeed. ---
**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 28, 2014, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7182 "2014-10-28T01:11:46Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I wonder how it could go about, though, when there’s the inherent issue (as **Bryan** brings up) that we’re looking into something where those being studied have a lot of reasons not to declare themselves. Actually, it was elucidator who brought that up. I’m prepared to cheerfully ignore all concerns about non-citizens getting in trouble and even _then_ the numbers presented are small and the assumptions are major. As a casual aside, I’d even gladly go along with an assumption for the sake of argument that, say, 1% of all votes recorded in any given American election are cast by people who were not eligible to do so. A concerning number, to be sure, which could be reduced in any number of sane, rational ways. I do not include among those ways a procedure that would reduce the number of eligible votes by 2%, because I object to “solutions” that create bigger problems. ---
**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 28, 2014, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7183 "2014-10-28T01:18:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I know, I know. You need sixteen double blind peer-reviewed studies, blessed by Mother Jones and the New York Times editorial board, before you’ll accept anything. Tell you what, YOU pay the $19.95 and then quote excerpts from the article for us to read - short excerpts, of course, in keeping with copyright law and the policies of this message board. Meantime, you’ve yet to address a single one of my criticisms of the original linked article, falling back instead on your one-track neenery. I stand by my observation that you have abandoned all pretense of moral and rational analysis of this issue. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2014, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7184 "2014-10-28T01:25:42Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > To be honest, if everyone who could possibly be disenfranchised by voter ID laws voted for anti-Voter ID law candidates, it wouldn’t matter. Because voter ID laws are not just popular, they are widely popular. As in 75% popular. So I guess it’s those people (the majority of voters) who matter. To be honest, that _was_ a bit much, it was never about preventing voting, it was about making it more difficult, more tiresome, more time consuming, with an eye to trimming away just enough votes to win. So, not bubonic plague just smallpox. Shame on me. Dully noted. Not about what a marvelous thing voter id is, or is not. Its only about the way it is being implemented, to tilt the electoral field to benefit Republicans. Seems to me, they ought not do that, and, having done, they ought not get away with it. They have, and they will, most likely. If we are in agreement on that, we have no issue, and your rebuke is nestled securely in my short term memory until the next bright object or wobbly tissue comes into view. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2014, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7185 "2014-10-28T01:51:54Z")
I don’t think it’s going to tilt things one way or another. And my post was not a rebuke. Like I said, most industrialized countries have voter ID laws, and they seem to be doing just fine. The US is an outlier. The Republicans might be looking for some short term gains, but as long as people are given a year or so to adjust, these laws simply aren’t a deterent to people who actually want to vote. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2014, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7186 "2014-10-28T02:10:41Z")
Oh. So, there is a threshold of sincerity, then? People should be willing to demonstrate their ardor? Is that requirement spread fairly and evenly across the electorate? The citizen of comfortable circumstances, his challenge is approximately the same as those faced by an economically disadvantaged citizen? Gosh, I’d love to think so. I don’t, but it would be cool! ---
**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 28, 2014, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7187 "2014-10-28T02:15:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How can you possibly believe I am losing the argument, when you don’t know what my argument is? Some guy told me once I understand your argument… > [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. > > That’s exactly correct. > > Why have you imputed other arguments to me? Why have you miscast my position dozens of times, if you understood it? > > if you think that position, the one that you accurately summarized, is in error, then why can’t you show how it’s in error? Why make up all these distortions? > No, no – not remotely. I just wanted to understand whether I was actually being understood. The answer seems to be yes, at least by you. > > So since you understand that position, tear it down. Address that argument, the one you just summarized. Oh right, that was you. I understand what you’re sayin’, it’s just profoundly unpersuasive. And if you follow the link to the original posts, you can see that I explain why in some detail. I’m even polite, which is a bit weird to read. ---
**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 28, 2014, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7188 "2014-10-28T02:33:15Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The Republicans might be looking for some short term gains, but as long as people are given a year or so to adjust, these laws simply aren’t a deterent to people who actually want to vote. Perhaps there’s a fundamental philosophical divide in play, but I find I can’t get behind the idea of having citizens prove their worthiness to vote. Rather, I tend to put the onus on making the government prove its worthiness to rule. Sure, have some form of identification to vote, acceptable forms being as numerous as feasible, coupled with an effective and (for the citizen) as effortless as possible registration system. In short, I figure the burden on the citizen should be as rock-bottom minimal as possible, with no need on their part to demonstrate that they really _want_ to vote - it’s their right, period, and they can treat it as seriously or as flippantly as they like. The notion that the citizen has to show that he _wants_ to vote is troubling - it invites more mandatory demonstrations, on the assumption that a citizen has to somehow _earn_ his vote to the satisfaction of a government employee, and if he doesn’t do so, then by definition he didn’t deserve it. It reminds me of a passage from Heller’s _Catch-22_: > [@](#): > > Almost overnight the Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade was in full flower, and Captain Black was enraptured to discover himself spearheading it. He had really hit on something. All the enlisted men and officers on combat duty had to sign a loyalty oath to get their map cases from the intelligence tent, a second loyalty oath to receive their flak suits and parachutes from the parachute tent, a third loyalty oath for Lieutenant Balkington, the motor vehicle officer, to be allowed to ride from the squadron to the airfield in one of the trucks. Every time they turned around there was another loyalty oath to be signed. They signed a loyalty oath to get their pay from the finance officer, to obtain their PX supplies, to have their hair cut by the Italian barbers. To Captain Black, every officer who supported his Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade was a competitor, and he planned and plotted twenty-four hours a day to keep one step ahead. He would stand second to none in his devotion to country. When other officers had followed his urging and introduced loyalty oaths of their own, he went them one better by making every son of a bitch who came to his intelligence tent sign two loyalty oaths, then three, then four; then he introduced the pledge of allegiance, and after that “The Star-Spangled Banner,” one chorus, two choruses, three choruses, four choruses. Each time Captain Black forged ahead of his competitors, he swung upon them scornfully for their failure to follow his example. Each time they followed his example, he retreated with concern and racked his brain for some new stratagem that would enable him to turn upon them scornfully again. When symbolic gestures are made normal, there’s no obvious limit to how many can be required. ---
**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 28, 2014, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7189 "2014-10-28T02:37:41Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Oh right, that was you. Bricker can’t keep track of individual “liberals” any more. To him, we’ve all merged into Libertron or Liborg or something. ---
**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 28, 2014, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7190 "2014-10-28T02:45:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How can you possibly believe I am losing the argument, when you don’t know what my argument is? Wow, you’re doing THAT again? ---
**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 28, 2014, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7191 "2014-10-28T03:04:47Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Generally speaking, if I say “X should happen” I do not mean “the fundamental principles by which our country run should be cast aside so that X can happen by fiat”, I mean “I want X to happen, therefore I hope whatever needs to happen will happen so that X will take place within the fundamental principles by which our country runs, as I hold them dear”. > > Does that clear things up? Any other liberals want to either agree or disagree with my formulation? Is _that_ what we’ve been debating for 9000 posts? I considered that formulation all too obvious to require mention. > [@Parthol](#): > > Really? You have no idea? You cannot stretch your imagination … The only reason I hang around in the thread is because I can’t quite decide whether Bricker is a stupid man pretending to be smart, or a smart man pretending to be stupid. I’d suggest the NSF issue a grant to study his brain, but the money would probably be better spent playing with bunnies. > [@Bricker](#): > > _Yeah, good luck with that._ And this seems to summarize Bricker’s delicate political view: _Nanner, nanner, nanner. Eat shit, rational-thinking scum!_ > [@Lobohan](#): > > Am I a _fellow traveler_, or an _ilk_? > > I wish my Pinko Leftist™ membership card had that information on it. You don’t need any ID to get on the Ilk Bus. If we ask for your papers, we’re just checking to make sure you don’t have a Concealed Carry Permit. ---
**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:** [October 28, 2014, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7192 "2014-10-28T03:07:19Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I don’t think it’s going to tilt things one way or another. And my post was not a rebuke. > > Like I said, most industrialized countries have voter ID laws, and they seem to be doing just fine. The US is an outlier. The Republicans might be looking for some short term gains, but as long as people are given a year or so to adjust, these laws simply aren’t a deterent to people who actually want to vote. Well, mostly, although a year seems kind of arbitrary and short. After all, these models that you’re on about aren’t examples of instituting a new, additional ID in one year. Mostly, they are examples of using a national ID that people would have anyway, along with - for the most part - ample provisions for voting if you don’t have the ID. That’s because those models you’re on about weren’t fabricated with the intent of rigging elections. ---
**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 28, 2014, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7193 "2014-10-28T03:13:12Z")
What would it take to get the Americans to set up a semi-independent agency like the Federal Reserve, with the mandate to equitably and rationally manage electoral districts, voter registration and election procedure? Anything short of orbital mind-control lasers? ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2014, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7194 "2014-10-28T03:44:22Z")
You know, I seem to remember, a few pages back, that taking and checking fingerprints (or perhaps photographs) at the polling place was something that all of us, even **Bricker** , thought was pretty nifty and keen and stuff. I only pop in and out of this monster thread occasionally, so did I miss something? It seemed like a compromise that everyone could get behind yet now I see everyone arguing again. Has the idea been abandoned for some reason? ---
**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 28, 2014, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7195 "2014-10-28T04:02:14Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > You know, I seem to remember, a few pages back, that taking and checking fingerprints (or perhaps photographs) at the polling place was something that all of us, even **Bricker** , thought was pretty nifty and keen and stuff. > > I only pop in and out of this monster thread occasionally, so did I miss something? It seemed like a compromise that everyone could get behind yet now I see everyone arguing again. Has the idea been abandoned for some reason? I gather the point is that while sane, rational methods to ensure electorate integrity (i.e. all eligible persons can vote, and _only_ eligible persons) are reasonably feasible, the Republicans who are pushing for (and to various degrees have succeeded in) legislating stricter controls on voting are quite obviously disinterested in electorate integrity - they wish to depress voter turnout from demographics likely to vote Democrat. We’ll see the impact, if any, on American elections shortly. Bricker’s stance is that the legislation is a victory in and of itself, because legislators pass laws, that’s what they do, yes-sir-ree-bob… The moral and rational implications are not his concern, so pushing for stricter controls on the non-eligible without pushing for funding of expanded access for the eligible does not strike him as a problem. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2014, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7196 "2014-10-28T05:59:48Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Well, mostly, although a year seems kind of arbitrary and short. After all, these models that you’re on about aren’t examples of instituting a new, additional ID in one year. Mostly, they are examples of using a national ID that people would have anyway, along with - for the most part - ample provisions for voting if you don’t have the ID. > > That’s because those models you’re on about weren’t fabricated with the intent of rigging elections. So what? If voter ID marginalizes certain groups, what different does it make what the motivation of the lawmakers is? But yes, you do raise a good point that these other countries have a longer tradition of a national ID. But they had to start somewhere, and so we are now at that starting point. And of course the real answer is to do what some states are already doing-- eliminate in person voting and shift everything to vote by mail. ---
**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 28, 2014, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7197 "2014-10-28T10:32:54Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Actually, it was elucidator who brought that up. D’oh. Apologies. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2014, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7198 "2014-10-28T14:24:21Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > So what? If voter ID marginalizes certain groups, what different does it make what the motivation of the lawmakers is?.. Well, gosh, John, I mean, its not really very _nice_, now is it? What if it were something important, like the Super Bowl? ---
**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:** [October 28, 2014, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7199 "2014-10-28T14:46:45Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > So what? If voter ID marginalizes certain groups, what different does it make what the motivation of the lawmakers is? Really? Intentionality doesn’t matter? “You hit a guy with your car. Who cares whether you did it on purpose!” “You shorted the cash drawer $100. Who cares whether you did it on purpose!” I could go on, but the idea that motivations don’t matter is laughable. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2014, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7200 "2014-10-28T14:52:21Z")
I’m sure you were joking that both result and intent are acceptable even if they align, no matter the damage to democracy and legitimacy, weren’t you, **John**? Please say you were joking. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=359) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=361)