# 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:** 422
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8421 "2016-02-06T15:36:03Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > You’re not from around here, are you? Narrow-minded right-wingers will adopt any excuse to avoid educating themselves. :rolleyes: right back at you. I would ask if it were possible for you post something stupider than that, but I’m afraid you would take it as a challenge. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8422 "2016-02-06T15:43:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, it may well. For example, the paper targets the states with the most strict voter ID laws; assuming I agreed with its methodology and conclusions, I most likely would favor less strict voter ID standards. Which is to say, that given incontrovertible evidence that leads inexorably to an inarguable conclusion, you might, perhaps, change your mind. Maybe. ---
**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:** [February 6, 2016, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8423 "2016-02-06T16:54:51Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Which is to say, that given incontrovertible evidence that leads inexorably to an inarguable conclusion, you might, perhaps, change your mind. Maybe. To be fair, it’s conceivable that Bricker might consider the effect, even if proven, to be less problematic than the existence of the occasional Ramon Cue. It’s not inherently bad to prioritize based on one’s personal opinion, as long as one admits that it _is_ a matter of personal opinion and doesn’t pretend to be guided solely by reason. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8424 "2016-02-06T18:50:39Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > OK. So I guess your continued focus on whether the other link – the irrelevant link – is by a journalist or by a blogger is just a distraction, a case of picking on a weak irrelevant matter rather than doing what the intellectually honest do. No. It’s intended to address the issue. If your attention span is challenged by multiple topics under sequential discussion from post to post, then perhaps a message board format isn’t going to be easy fr you. > [@](#): > > And BTW, you either have more confidence in “peer review” than I do, or are just throwing that out as another distraction. This is a behavior pattern that may be appropriate for lawyers but won’t endear you to ordinary humans. > “Your honor, my client should not be found guilty of jaywalking because the signal light may have been broken. Yes, prosecution has submitted a report that the light worked 24/7, _ **but that report was never peer-reviewed.** _” I have some confidence in the peer review process. Your counter-example is inapposite. A specific light working is typically not the sort of report that requires peer review. Peer review is appropriate when inferential conclusions are reached by collecting and analyzing disparate data. Ordinary humans participating in this board are presumably as interested as I am in fighting ignorance. Since this study reaches different conclusions than that reached by prior studies, why aren’t you, as an ordinary human, interested in the reasons this happened? Why is this report automatically credited and the others rejected? Peer review offers a chance for the authors’ peers to scrutinize the methodology and the conclusions drawn. Your attack on it seems like a nod to the sort of anti-intellectualism that would be condemned if it were used in service of denying global warming. > [@](#): > > And BTW, although that working paper may not yet have been refereed, [the lead author’s webpage claims that over a dozen of his papers on related topics have been refereed.](http://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/documents/hajnalcv_000.pdf) > > HTH. I don’t understand. Are you suggesting that an author should earn some sort of “bye,” akin to the PGA’s allowing a star golfer to compete even if he does not make the cut in a particular tournament? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8425 "2016-02-06T20:45:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t understand. Are you suggesting that an author should earn some sort of “bye,” akin to the PGA’s allowing a star golfer to compete even if he does not make the cut in a particular tournament? I don’t think that is his point, the reality is that the main author of the paper has published in peer reviewed journals before, that is indeed very important in assigning value to a paper that will be reviewed for sure. I do tend to agree with others though that what I see here is just trying to stall and you do not have a good reply to it, so this is what you are reduced to. So, just for the record, here is what the authors have found so far: > **[voterIDhajnaletal.pdf](https://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5/documents/voterIDhajnaletal.pdf)** > > 364.63 KB > [@](#): > > The analysis suggests that strict ID laws of any sort do impact the racial balance of the electorate. > > Working through the effects of the significant interactions, we find that the gap in turnout between Latinos and whites is estimated to grow by 13.3 points in strict non-photo ID states. Likewise the gap between Blacks and whites is 7.4 points higher in strict non-photo ID states all else equal. > > The pattern of estimated effects for primary elections is nearly identical. In primaries with strict non-photo laws, Latinos fall a further 14.2 points behind whites and Blacks end up 11.4 points further behind whites, according to the model. Requiring identification of any sort appears to have a real effect on who votes and who does not. These laws hurt the minority community and help to give whites an outsized voice in American democracy. We could, however, find no effects for state laws that merely requested that voters provide identification. Turnout was not noticeably higher or lower in states that requested identification (whether it was a photo identification or not) and we find no significant interactions between race or any other demographic variable and the presence of a law that requested voter identification. > > Put simply, there was no discernable difference between states that have no voter identification laws and those that request some form of identification (photo or otherwise). We don’t know why these kinds of laws had little impact. It could be that residents knew that they could ultimately vote without an ID and thus were not deterred. Or it could be that minorities did not feel as threatened by these more lenient laws. Like I pointed before to you many times in the past, who are the executors of the laws and what authorities are in place (like Arpaio and henchmen) are IMHO the main reason for the difference, it is no coincidence that the laws that we are discussing about are mostly coming from places full of prejudice. And it is important to notice who are the ones that are **enforcing** the new rules and how. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8426 "2016-02-06T23:49:07Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I don’t think that is his point, the reality is that the main author of the paper has published in peer reviewed journals before, that is indeed very important in assigning value to a paper that will be reviewed for sure. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8427 "2016-02-06T23:53:16Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Like I pointed before to you many times in the past, who are the executors of the laws and what authorities are in place (like Arpaio and henchmen) are IMHO the main reason for the difference, it is no coincidence that the laws that we are discussing about are mostly coming from places full of prejudice. And it is important to notice who are the ones that are **enforcing** the new rules and how. It’s important because you say so? What if I don’t agree it’s important? Why do you get to be the one who dictates what’s important? I say what’s important is what the law says. Your invocation of Boogeyman Arpaio is irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2016, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8428 "2016-02-07T00:54:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s important because you say so? > > What if I don’t agree it’s important? Why do you get to be the one who dictates what’s important? I say what’s important is what the law says. Your invocation of Boogeyman Arpaio is irrelevant. I wish Arpaio was a boggeyman; your attempt at making the the sheriff as an imaginary thing is really silly. Arizona has Strict non-photo ID required for voting, and the most populous county in Arizona is the one that enforces it, they are btw the ones that do vote for Arpaio as sheriff. Anyhow, that difference between states with ID laws and the ones that are more relaxed can not be dismissed that easy as much as you like, because if it is not the result on how the minorities see the enforcement of the law, then other reasons that are related to making it hard for minorities to vote are at play. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2016, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8429 "2016-02-07T01:22:51Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Arizona has Strict non-photo ID required for voting, and the most populous county in Arizona is the one that enforces it, they are btw the ones that do vote for Arpaio as sheriff. Shouldn’t EVERY county in Arizona enforce the law? > [@](#): > > Anyhow, that difference between states with ID laws and the ones that are more relaxed can not be dismissed that easy as much as you like, because if it is not the result on how the minorities see the enforcement of the law, then other reasons that are related to making it hard for minorities to vote are at play. Learn to write clearly. ---
**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:** [February 7, 2016, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8430 "2016-02-07T01:34:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > … Since this study reaches different conclusions than that reached by prior studies … Cite? Perhaps you’ve linked to such studies before, but it seems very likely that you’ve misinterpreted whatever the conclusion was. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2016, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8431 "2016-02-07T01:41:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Shouldn’t EVERY county in Arizona enforce the law? > > Learn to write clearly. Learn to deal with what the study said then. After all, I do acknowledge that I have trouble with grammar, but it is in the end just a distraction on your part. If the differences between states with voter ID and the ones that are not are clear, then the evidence is compelling; the reasons put forward by the proponents of voter ID are really just looking more like excuses to disenfranchise enough of their political opponents to influence elections. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2016, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8432 "2016-02-07T02:33:57Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Cite? Perhaps you’ve linked to such studies before, but it seems very likely that you’ve misinterpreted whatever the conclusion was. Post 4812. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2016, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8433 "2016-02-07T02:57:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Post 4812. So that was just about Georgia, and it included this caveat: [http://www.ajc.com/news/news/despite-voter-id-law-minority-turnout-up-in-georgi/nR2bx/](http://www.ajc.com/news/news/despite-voter-id-law-minority-turnout-up-in-georgi/nR2bx/) > [@](#): > > NOT ALL VOTES COUNT > > Under Georgia’s law, an in-person voter who arrives at the polls without a photo ID may cast a provisional ballot. The provisional ballot is counted only if the person returns with proper identification by the Friday following the election. > > Records show that since 2008, 2,244 provisional ballots were cast by voters lacking photo ID. Of those, 658 returned with an ID and 1,586 did not — meaning their votes did not count. > > That disturbs Laughlin McDonald, director of the Voting Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the original plaintiffs who challenged the law. > > “If one person is deprived of their right to see their vote count, that’s a violation of the Constitution,” McDonald said. > > Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp said law has been a success, although he could not identify specific instances of fraud it had prevented. > > “There is no doubt in my mind that our voting process is more secure because of photo ID,” he told The AJC in an interview. “The people of Georgia are plenty capable of obtaining a (photo) ID. I think most of them already have one, and I don’t think its a real big burden to get one.” > > > [@](#): > > > > Some academics caution against drawing conclusions about the impact of voter ID from so little data. > > Justin Levitt, an election law expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, called 2008 a “tidal wave” election for minority voters because of Obama. It will take time, he said, before the effect of voter ID can be parsed out from other factors that drive turnout. > > “We need a big enough data set that it will squeeze out that extra noise,” Levitt said. “And that is going to take some time.” And so the new study is pointing to things like the Obama run as a good part of the explanation why the ID regulation did not affect voting of minorities as much in Georgia then, but the recent numbers do point at what is happening in other states and Georgia too, as it was pointed before “If one person is deprived of their right to see their vote count, that’s a violation of the Constitution,” IIRC the numbers even in the article you cited for the ones that are denied the vote are much higher than the so called fraud numbers the proponents of ID voting claim that are talking place. Not good enough IMHO to justify the new laws. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2016, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8434 "2016-02-07T04:51:52Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > So that was just about Georgia, and it included this caveat: > > [http://www.ajc.com/news/news/despite-voter-id-law-minority-turnout-up-in-georgi/nR2bx/](http://www.ajc.com/news/news/despite-voter-id-law-minority-turnout-up-in-georgi/nR2bx/) > And so the new study is pointing to things like the Obama run as a good part of the explanation why the ID regulation did not affect voting of minorities as much in Georgia then, but the recent numbers do point at what is happening in other states and Georgia too, as it was pointed before “If one person is deprived of their right to see their vote count, that’s a violation of the Constitution,” IIRC the numbers even in the article you cited for the ones that are denied the vote are much higher than the so called fraud numbers the proponents of ID voting claim that are talking place. Not good enough IMHO to justify the new laws. Why should I care what your opinion is? Especially why should I care when you have returned to the vote fraud issue again, despite the countless prior times in this thread that I have disclaimed an interest in voter fraud as a justification for the new laws? ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2016, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8435 "2016-02-07T05:06:30Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > After all, I do acknowledge that I have trouble with grammar, but it is in the end just a distraction on your part. It’s not just grammar. You also have a problem with meteorology and geography. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2016, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8436 "2016-02-07T05:59:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why should I care what your opinion is? > > Especially why should I care when you have returned to the vote fraud issue again, despite the countless prior times in this thread that I have disclaimed an interest in voter fraud as a justification for the new laws? Then we should not care for yours, as the Republicans do not care for it either. Voter fraud is one of their main concerns. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2016, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8437 "2016-02-07T06:02:44Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > It’s not just grammar. You also have a problem with meteorology and geography. Meteorology is not climatology you numnuts. And you missed that I acknowledged the issue with the hurricane in that very same thread. Your ignorance in that subject anyhow knows no bounds. It’s also another reason why you should not trust the Republicans at all. > **[Ted Cruz's junk science: GOP candidate denies climate change while citing...](https://www.salon.com/2015/12/10/ted_cruzs_junk_science_gop_candidate_denies_climate_change_while_citing_debunked_data_and_touting_his_inherited_math_skills/)** > > Texas senator calls climate change a "theology" and a pseudo-scientific scheme to give liberals more power ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2016, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8438 "2016-02-07T08:49:14Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Then we should not care for yours, as the Republicans do not care for it either. Voter fraud is one of their main concerns. Yes, that’s apparently true, at least for some Republicans. But it’s not mine. So why ask me to defend it? ---
**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:** [February 7, 2016, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8439 "2016-02-07T09:43:32Z")
So now the claim is that Bricker isn’t worried about voter fraud. :eek: [QUOTE=SDMB Search engine] Search took 0.84 seconds. Search: Keyword(s): voter, fraud ; Posts Made By: Bricker ; Forum: The BBQ Pit and child forums … 331 results [/QUOTE] I didn’t click all 331 ( :smack: ) Here’s one: > [@Bricker](#): > > As has been repeatedly pointed out, incidents of in-person voter fraud are so rare that they generally can be safely said to not influence the result of an election. But in ultra-close races, that’s not true. Oh. So you’re not worried about voter fraud in elections where it doesn’t matter. You’re worried about voter fraud in elections where it affects the result. Got it. Meanwhile, it’s been pointed out to you, over and over and over, that votes suppressed by Republican voter suppression laws are vastly greater than the number of fraudulent votes. Have you ever conceded this? _ **Any “ultra-close” election in a state impaired by GOP voter suppression laws would certainly have voted Democrat without the suppression.** _ An academic paper shedding light on this is cited and you find quibbles, and deflect the dialog into the difference between a blogger and a journalist. (Ummm … the paper was written by a Professor, not a blogger or journalist.) In rebuttal you refer to an article cited by you in #4812(\*). That _article_ is the one written by a blogger or journalist (did you think it was refereed? ) and, in any event, manifestly does not claim what you think it does. (\* - For future reference, you can link to a post by clicking the Quote, or multiquote button, or by clicking on the “#4812” notation itself. Maybe if you’re going to post on a message board you should learn such things.) ---
**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:** [February 7, 2016, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8440 "2016-02-07T13:31:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But it’s not mine. Okay, I’ll bite. What _is_ your motivation? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=421) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=423)