# 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:** 497
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9921 "2016-08-04T20:13:46Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The problem is in defining “barrier”. Lack of early voting is not a barrier. Seems like liberal judges are saying that once voting is made easier, a state can never go back. Which is very… convenient, if not legally sound. And of course once again they basically removed residency requirement in effect by saying that votes cast in the wrong precinct must still count. Not sure how that’s a barrier either. NC explicitly tried to justify the provisions by claiming that voting was too easy for black people. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9922 "2016-08-04T20:13:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > . . . the same legislators attacked these voting measures before requesting the racial data. Therefore, they were aiming at undoing the 1999 changes that made it easier for Democratic-leaning voters to vote. . . . That’s the point that’s being thrown against you: they deliberately made it harder for a specific class of people to vote. Why in hell are you defending such behavior? ---
**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 4, 2016, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9923 "2016-08-04T20:14:07Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Lower your prices to $1.50 #capitalism ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9924 "2016-08-04T20:15:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I would remove “no excuse” absentee ballots and require that good cause be shown: medical issues, deployed out of district, and the like. Why, exactly? What benefit is there for the nation, or democracy, by making it harder for people to vote? What do you want out of this? You’re coming across as a nasty old miser, rubbing his hands and laughing at the poor. What are you actually arguing in favor of? ---
**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 4, 2016, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9925 "2016-08-04T20:16:49Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > That’s the point that’s being thrown against you: they deliberately made it harder for a specific class of people to vote. Why in hell are you defending such behavior? Because he’s not a very good person. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9926 "2016-08-04T20:24:28Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Why, exactly? What benefit is there for the nation, or democracy, by making it harder for people to vote? What do you want out of this? You’re coming across as a nasty old miser, rubbing his hands and laughing at the poor. What are you actually arguing in favor of? I favored these things when I was poor. In my view, the system we have works best when the people who vote are the people who have invested themselves in the outcome – when they feel a sense of civic duty, when they ask what they can do for the country instead of what the country can do for them. Your comments about nasty misers are ad hominem and not remotely relevant to rebutting any portion of what I’ve said. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9927 "2016-08-04T20:29:25Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > NC explicitly tried to justify the provisions by claiming that voting was too easy for black people. Specifically, what was said? I mean, despite my showing that this is a biased summary, you keep using it. So defend it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9928 "2016-08-04T20:32:08Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > That’s the point that’s being thrown against you: they deliberately made it harder for a specific class of people to vote. Why in hell are you defending such behavior? Because they were reversing the changes made in 1999 by the Democrats that deliberately made it easier for that same specific class of people to vote. Why is it okay to nudge the scale one way – coincidentally towards more Democratic votes – but not the other? Is this a one-way rachet? Any voting change can be nade if it adds more Democratic voters but can then never be reversed? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9929 "2016-08-04T20:34:54Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Why, exactly? What benefit is there for the nation, or democracy, by making it harder for people to vote? What do you want out of this? You’re coming across as a nasty old miser, rubbing his hands and laughing at the poor. What are you actually arguing in favor of? He was responding to my question about absentee ballots. From what I have seen, those are a much better target for fraud, which is my concern. (Though I do not consider it a great enough concern to actual advocate legislature into changing it.) When it comes to effort needed to vote, those are also much easier to vote and cast, which is consistent with his idea of too easy voting being not a good thing. The “gotcha” about absentee ballots is that removing them would be a burden to the elderly, who tend to vote republican. If I were to see democratic legislatures cutting absentee ballots, without creating a provision to assist those who relied on them in the past, I would disagree with it quite strongly, even though it may nominally favor my preferred party. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9930 "2016-08-04T20:36:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Specifically, what was said? > > I mean, despite my showing that this is a biased summary, you keep using it. So defend it. > **[Appeals Court Smacks Down North Carolina’s Attempt to Suppress the Black Vote](https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/07/fourth-circuit-strikes-down-north-carolina-voting-restrictions.html)** > > On Friday, the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit invalidated North Carolina’s stringent new voting restrictions, holding that the law... > [@](#): > > Indeed, the state even acknowledged that it had eliminated one early voting day, a Sunday, because it was a traditional “souls to the polls” day, when black voters were provided transportation from church to the polls. “Counties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black” and “disproportionately Democratic,” the legislature said—so, in response, it did away with one of two days of Sunday voting. This, the 4th Circuit writes, is “as close to a smoking gun as we are likely to see in modern times” ---
**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 4, 2016, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9931 "2016-08-04T20:43:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why is it okay to nudge the scale one way – coincidentally towards more Democratic votes – but not the other? > > Is this a one-way rachet? Any voting change can be nade if it adds more Democratic voters but can then never be reversed? Feel free to suggest modifications to voting rules that make it easier for people who tend to vote Republican. Just don’t pretend this is equivalent to changing the voting rules to make it harder for people who tend to vote Democrat. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9932 "2016-08-04T20:45:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because they were reversing the changes made in 1999 by the Democrats that deliberately made it easier for that same specific class of people to vote. > > Why is it okay to nudge the scale one way – coincidentally towards more Democratic votes – but not the other? > > Is this a one-way rachet? Any voting change can be nade if it adds more Democratic voters but can then never be reversed? Get rid of the word “Democrat” in both of those sentences, and you will see why. About the vote being esteemed too lightly, do you think it would be a good idea to require that people have to wait at the polling place for 2 hours or so before they are allowed to vote, just to make sure that it is not too easy? I actually kind of like that idea. Take the average of all wait times, or half the longest wait time (whichever is longer), and require that voters spend at least that much time at the polls before they can vote. I wouldn’t like waiting around myself, but I bet that wait times would be shortened for people who currently wait hours in line. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9933 "2016-08-04T20:46:01Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > **Bricker** , if you’d like to calibrate your hypocrometer, look at whether someone has both supported absentee ballots for folks (e.g., military folks) overseas, and supported voter ID laws; such dual positions could well be hypocritical, as would holding both opposite positions. They could be hypocritical, but are not per se hypocrtical. That is, support for absentee ballots for military and medical issues is not inconsistent with the general view that voting should require investment of energy and commitment. > [@](#): > > Someone that opposes use of absentee ballots and supports voter ID might be a terrible person, but they’re being consistent. Yes. And I don’t think any of this implies “terrible person.” I think it’s merely a disagreement over which policy produces a better result in the electorate. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9934 "2016-08-04T20:47:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In my view, the system we have works best when the people who vote are the people who have invested themselves in the outcome – when they feel a sense of civic duty, when they ask what they can do for the country instead of what the country can do for them. We could set up a system that affects people equally, regardless of financial status. Require everyone to be smacked on the hand with a ruler before they vote, or require everyone to sing a stupid song to embarrass themselves. We could set up a system that lets only the most committed people vote–say, people who have donated the maximum allowed to at least one political campaign. Where do you set the bar? Why do you choose to favor inconveniences that disproportionately affect poor people? For myself, I favor any system that makes it easier to vote, as long as it doesn’t materially increase fraud. I think our system works best when the maximum number of people are invested–that is, rather than seeing voting as a reward for civic investment, I see it as an excellent gateway drug for civic investment. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9935 "2016-08-04T20:54:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because they were reversing the changes made in 1999 by the Democrats that deliberately made it easier for that same specific class of people to vote. > > Why is it okay to nudge the scale one way – coincidentally towards more Democratic votes – but not the other? > > Is this a one-way rachet? Any voting change can be nade if it adds more Democratic voters but can then never be reversed? “We recognize that elections have consequences, but winning an election does not empower anyone in any party to engage in purposeful racial discrimination,” ruled Judge Diana Gribbon Motz. “When a legislature dominated by one party has dismantled barriers to African-American access to the franchise, even if done to gain votes, ‘politics as usual’ does not allow a legislature dominated by the other party to re-erect those barriers.” Have you advised this poor deluded woman that she is obviously wrong? You can reach her at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. She awaits your instruction. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9936 "2016-08-04T21:21:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Nothing. > > But that’s not an accurate description of what happened. > > Some members of the legislature deliberately made it harder for Democratic voters to vote. And because black people vote so strongly Democratic, the effect of that change – but not the intent – was to make it harder for black people to vote. > > And what makes the hypocrisy exist is that you don’t object to the legislature deliberately making it easier for Democratic voters to vote. :eek: Do you really see the following scenarios as ethically equivalent? (1) “Mr. Speaker, our research shows that making it easier to vote will expand the franchise overall, but will increase vote totals for our party’s candidates more than for their opponents.” “Great! Get a bill written up, and let’s get it through committee and onto the floor so we can pass it in time for the next election.” (2) “Mr. Speaker, our research shows that making it harder to vote will decrease voter turnout overall, but will decrease vote totals for the other party’s candidates more than for ours.” “Great! Get a bill written up, and let’s get it through committee and onto the floor so we can pass it in time for the next election.” ---
**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 4, 2016, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9937 "2016-08-04T21:27:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That is, support for absentee ballots for military and medical issues is not inconsistent with the general view that voting should require investment of energy and commitment. When did that become a “general” view, and even if it is, why should it matter? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9938 "2016-08-04T21:32:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. And I don’t think any of this implies “terrible person.” I think it’s merely a disagreement over which policy produces a better result in the electorate. Do you think it’s reasonable to call legislators who tried to justify rolling back certain voting days because those were the days that more black people voted terrible people? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9939 "2016-08-04T21:34:24Z")
The police called. Your Freshman Composition 101 teacher is on a ledge, threatening to jump. ---
**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 4, 2016, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9940 "2016-08-04T21:42:29Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > :eek: Do you really see the following scenarios as ethically equivalent? It’s not the first time I’ve seen Bricker use that tactic. In the course of an argument, he once said these cases: 1. Start (ideally) with a presumption of innocence where the state must prove guilt, and 2. Start (clearly) with a presumption of guilt where the individual must prove innocence …were “similar”. It was in a thread with a related premise (“Why prevent felons from voting?”) and his argument was that the state should be free to purge felons from the voter rolls and if a few noncriminals with names similar to felons lost their votes in the process, too bad - the onus would be on them to remedy the situation, by whatever means the state decided. This wasn’t the first time his indifference to ethics was on display. Won’t be the last, I’m sure. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=496) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=498)