# 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:** 505
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2016, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10081 "2016-08-06T07:11:31Z")
We seem to be wandering into the wilds of abstract Constitutional theory, where an effort to expand citizen participation in government…called “voting”, if I remember correctly…is on an equal footing with efforts to deny it, to hinder it. Which suggests that the Constitution is neutral when it comes to the values of democracy and equality under the law. That may be a rational argument, but it is not a reasonable one. Federalism or no, this is about cheating people out of their birthright. It should not be done, period, full stop. Can I prove that? Not exactly, but I can hold that truth to be self-evident. So I shall. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2016, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10082 "2016-08-06T07:23:44Z")
In that same mindset, devoid of relation to the value and importance of democracy as an institution and the value of increasing participation in it, the hypothetical “The Democrats would have done it if they could” is of equal value as the \*real \*“The Republicans \*did \*do it.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2016, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10083 "2016-08-06T07:26:46Z")
Well, as always, the important thing to remember is that both sides do it. This _cannot_ be emphasized too often. Apparently. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2016, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10084 "2016-08-06T11:19:56Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > As I understand it, this question contains an error: the legislature did not “do the exact same thing again after getting the racial data”; they altered the bill after getting the racial data. What did they do in 2011 that was different? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2016, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10085 "2016-08-06T11:22:58Z")
Yes or no: Could the legislature have known _before the racial preferences data was prepared_ that their proposed laws would primarily impact minorities? YES Yes or no: Could the legislature have reasonably expected that reducing minority voting would increase Republican electoral chances? YES Yes or no: Could the legislature have requested the racial preferences data as a way to refine their proposed laws to more effectively target minority voting? YES Yes or no: Did the legislature modify the proposed laws after receipt of racial preferences data in such a way as to effectively reduce minority voting? YES Yes or no: Did the appeals court consider the, in their opinion, deliberately racially discriminatory impact of the laws in reaching their conclusion? YES Yes or no: Was the appeals court correct to consider whether the laws deliberately targeted minorities when they made their decision? NO ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2016, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10086 "2016-08-06T11:26:10Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > The voters rights act prohibits voting laws that have a discriminatory effect. If a change to a voting law doesn’t reduce minority voting percentage below the voting percentage of the majority population, then it’s not discriminatory. In other words, the “ratchet” only ratchets up to the majority voting percentage, which I’m completely OK with. The practical effect of which is: any change to voting procedures can only benefit Democrats, and once enacted cannot be reversed. Yes, I can imagine you’re OK with that. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2016, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10087 "2016-08-06T12:43:23Z")
Translating from his native Weaselese: Strengthening democracy vs. weakening it, those are morally equivalent and either is just a matter of personal preference. Winning is the only thing. ---
**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 6, 2016, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10088 "2016-08-06T14:01:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The practical effect of which is: any change to voting procedures can only benefit Democrats, and once enacted cannot be reversed. Well, that’ll remain true as long as most nonwhite voters perceive Republicans as hostile to their interests. Do you think that’s something Republicans are powerless to change? It seems to me we have a situation where a party with a significant racist contingent is hurt when minorities are able to vote. They want to maintain power not by marginalizing the racist contingent, not by convincing minorities that they’re worth voting for, but by making it hard for minorities to vote. AS LONG AS THAT’S THEIR STRATEGY, then you’re correct in the bit I quoted. Sucks to be them. ---
**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 6, 2016, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10089 "2016-08-06T14:42:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The practical effect of which is: any change to voting procedures can only benefit Democrats, and once enacted cannot be reversed. > > Yes, I can imagine you’re OK with that. It can only benefit democrats, as long as republicans are not representing their constituency. If maintaining power involves manipulating the electorate so that the voters do not represent the constituency, then that is wrong. For instance, getting rid of absentee ballots would probably benefit democrats in most states, and yet, most of us would be against that, even though it would do far more to shore up against fraudulent votes than voter ID laws. ---
**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 6, 2016, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10090 "2016-08-06T14:51:15Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > For the next cycle, they’ll just have to try again. > > If this got to ridiculous levels, and there were no more evidence of significant attempts to discriminate in voting, then I’d be open to amending the VRA to prevent silliness (perhaps by including specific voting provisions which may be allowed or disallowed or something). > > But thank you for sharing so amicably. I clearly see that not everyone favoring voter ID (or other voting restrictions) does so out of racism, and you can see that many of us who oppose it do so without hypocrisy or partisan urges. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, let’s see how long that lasts… > [@Bricker](#): > > The practical effect of which is: any change to voting procedures can only benefit Democrats, and once enacted cannot be reversed. > > Yes, I can imagine you’re OK with that. Just under fourteen hours. Longer than I expected. ---
**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 6, 2016, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10091 "2016-08-06T15:35:52Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Just under fourteen hours. Longer than I expected. To be fair, Bricker’s view is, unlike many in this thread, that a greater participation in democracy is not inherently a good thing, that somehow, the electorate should be more elite. This is not something I agree with, but it is an opinion upon which he has stayed pretty consistent. I would love to see some movement on that opinion, but I don’t see it as likely. He is also of the view that manipulating the electorate for gain is perfectly acceptable, as long as one is not hypocritical enough to complain “when the other side does it”. I think he does agree that specifically harming groups of people is wrong, but that if a group of people just happen to be harmed in the cause of the greater good, then that it acceptable. I say this with no cynicism, so if I have misjudged your views, Bricker, I apologize, but, while I disagree with your opinion entirely, I certainly respect your right to hold it, and while respecting that right, I will do everything in my (extremely limited) power to fight against your opinion gaining sway. ---
**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 6, 2016, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10092 "2016-08-06T16:00:30Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > To be fair, Bricker’s view is, unlike many in this thread, that a greater participation in democracy is not inherently a good thing, that somehow, the electorate should be more elite. This is not something I agree with, but it is an opinion upon which he has stayed pretty consistent. I would love to see some movement on that opinion, but I don’t see it as likely. Possibly, but it’s mixed up with his stated views that voting should not be “esteemed too lightly”, which I took to mean he didn’t view voting as the domain of an elite, but that Bricker saw himself as an appropriate judge of whether or not someone deserved to vote and if they did so too casually, fie on them. It’s pretty arrogant at its heart - he’s offering hoops for people to jump through until he is satisfied with their performance and will (grudgingly?) agree that, yes, they’ve earned the right to exercise their rights. It’s not limited to this issue - I’ve seen him present that attitude elsewhere. > [@](#): > > He is also of the view that manipulating the electorate for gain is perfectly acceptable, as long as one is not hypocritical enough to complain “when the other side does it”. Well, in that case, he should be cheering efforts to remove the opportunity to manipulate the electorate from elected officials, the people who most directly benefit from such manipulation. Turn the process over to nonpartisan officials and such. Unfortunately, that might tend to creep toward those officials making it too easy for people to vote (in the interest of maximizing both efficiency and inclusion) and we’re back to insufficient esteem. I do not recall him ever describing at any time how the effects of insufficient esteem will manifest, beyond some vague notion that some people won’t respect something, or other. > [@](#): > > I think he does agree that specifically harming groups of people is wrong, but that if a group of people just happen to be harmed in the cause of the greater good, then that it acceptable. Well, I asked earlier what greater good was being served by the rollbacks, i.e. did it serve a budgetary interest. Bricker suggested my asking why was legally irrelevant and that the GOP changed the rules to gain voting advantage. He apparently sees no difference between: 1. Making things easier for citizens, to gain an advantage; and 2. Making things harder for citizens, to gain an advantage. …and yet freely throws out accusations of hypocrisy to those of us who do. Bricker certainly has a right to hold and express these views, and to base his voting/contribution decisions on them to whatever degree he desires. I feel no obligation to withhold my criticism and occasional mockery, though. ---
**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 6, 2016, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10093 "2016-08-06T17:15:01Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Possibly, but it’s mixed up with his stated views that voting should not be “esteemed too lightly”, which I took to mean he didn’t view voting as the domain of an elite, but that Bricker saw himself as an appropriate judge of whether or not someone deserved to vote and if they did so too casually, fie on them. It’s pretty arrogant at its heart - he’s offering hoops for people to jump through until he is satisfied with their performance and will (grudgingly?) agree that, yes, they’ve earned the right to exercise their rights. > > It’s not limited to this issue - I’ve seen him present that attitude elsewhere. That’s why I have presented the question of whether artifical hoops should be set up for _everyone_. I have pointed out that my voting experience is pretty damn easy, doesn’t even take 5 minutes out of my day most days. He has not responded to whter he wuld be fore setting up a waiting system, requireing everyone to wait a specific amount of time at the polls before they can vote to equalize the difficulty. There are plenty of people that spend hours in line every election cycle, while I and many of my ilk (middle aged, middle class white guy), just stream on through the polling place like I was picking up a pack of gum. I don’t like the idea of being forced to wait to vote, but then I don’t like the idea that anyone is forced to wait to vote. I would be very curious to know what bar he would set for voting, whether it be time taken, distance traveled, participation in the economy or what? All I have heard is that it is justifiable to take voting away from those who are not willing to work hard enough to keep it. I assume he would not roll back to white land owning males, but would he roll back to land owners? And so on, I would like his position on this. > [@](#): > > Well, in that case, he should be cheering efforts to remove the opportunity to manipulate the electorate from elected officials, the people who most directly benefit from such manipulation. Turn the process over to nonpartisan officials and such. Unfortunately, that might tend to creep toward those officials making it too easy for people to vote (in the interest of maximizing both efficiency and inclusion) and we’re back to insufficient esteem. I do not recall him ever describing at any time how the effects of insufficient esteem will manifest, beyond some vague notion that some people won’t respect something, or other. The effect would manifest by people voting democrat, I imagine. > [@](#): > > Well, I asked earlier what greater good was being served by the rollbacks, i.e. did it serve a budgetary interest. Bricker suggested my asking why was legally irrelevant and that the GOP changed the rules to gain voting advantage. He apparently sees no difference between: > > 1. Making things easier for citizens, to gain an advantage; and > 2. Making things harder for citizens, to gain an advantage. > > …and yet freely throws out accusations of hypocrisy to those of us who do. > > Bricker certainly has a right to hold and express these views, and to base his voting/contribution decisions on them to whatever degree he desires. I feel no obligation to withhold my criticism and occasional mockery, though. I meant greater good as in putting into a power the party that he believes creates better overall outcomes for the country and state. I think we have mostly gotten past the hypocrisy accusations part at this point, but I’m sure it’ll still rear it’s ugly little head again before this is through. Thing is, Bricker may be right. This democracy thing is an experiment, and we have no idea the end results. I am of the opinion that the greater the participation, the better the end result, but I could be wrong. There is something to be said for having to fight for suffrage. We complain about low-information voters, and how they can skew elections, if people had to fight to get their right to vote, they would be more likely to inform themselves better about the issues upon which they are voting, that may not be a terrible thing. However, if you are going to limit the electorate, it still needs to be done fairly. The effort to overcome the barriers to suffrage need to be identical for all parties. It is not fair to have a poll tax, as a rich man can pay it much easier than a poor, so it is not an equal effort. Even a percentage poll tax isn’t fair, as a rich man can afford to divest himself of say 10% of his income easier than a poor man living paycheck to paycheck. Heinlens’ Starship troopers had a society where you had to perform public service before you got to vote, dunno if I’d go in for that, but that’s at least more fair. Really, the only fair tax to impose is upon time. Whether it be through public service, or just having to wait around before you can vote. And in that case, many of the marginalized populations who are having their vote threatened have already paid a much higher price. I don’t agree with the idea that it being harder to vote is a good thing, but on the off chance that it is, making it harder to vote needs to be done equally. ---
**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 6, 2016, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10094 "2016-08-06T18:12:15Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > The effect would manifest by people voting democrat, I imagine. Maybe, but so what? Party platforms aren’t written in stone, and we’ve been eagerly reminded by some in this thread that there was a time when Democrats were the default party for southern racists (comically, they try to imply that since this was historically true, it still is, as though the last 40 years don’t count). Let’s say streamlining the voting process is likely to benefit the Democrats in the short term. Will this always be the case? Does it somehow prevent Republicans from evolving to appeal more to the voters who use the streamlining, thus turning the advantage toward them? I suggest it does not, and if improved voter access benefits Democrats today and possibly Republicans tomorrow… fine. In the meantime, the argument seems to boil down to: 1. Democrats think improving voter access to poor and/or black people means more votes for them. 2. Republicans think reducing voter access to poor and/or black people means fewer votes for Democrats. It’s possible these assumptions are wrong or the effect is actually pretty minor. Nevertheless, one approach is more ethical than the other _if_ you subscribe to the idea that democracy is better if all citizens get to vote, and as you point out, it is possible Bricker does not. And I expect that that if Bricker bothers to comment at all, he may point out that it’s not _all_ citizens who get to vote but only citizens who are 18 and over and therefore I’m hypocrite for not respecting the voices of nonadult citizens, etc., so I’ll anticipate and hopefully avoid the pointless nitpick. > [@](#): > > I meant greater good as in putting into a power the party that he believes creates better overall outcomes for the country and state. And he’s free to argue that this party is the Republicans in Great Debates or Elections to his heart’s content, but in this thread he’s not arguing that the outcomes will be better but rather defending efforts to put thumbs on scales. > [@](#): > > I think we have mostly gotten past the hypocrisy accusations part at this point, but I’m sure it’ll still rear it’s ugly little head again before this is through. Such accusations are among Bricker’s favourite tactics. I have no expectation he’ll grow out of them any time soon. > [@](#): > > Thing is, Bricker may be right. This democracy thing is an experiment, and we have no idea the end results. I am of the opinion that the greater the participation, the better the end result, but I could be wrong. > > There is something to be said for having to fight for suffrage. We complain about low-information voters, and how they can skew elections, if people had to fight to get their right to vote, they would be more likely to inform themselves better about the issues upon which they are voting, that may not be a terrible thing. And this is the seductive evil of “esteem too lightly”. What exactly do you mean by having “to fight” to get a right? Should people have to fight for other rights? How about mandatory military service to earn the right to gun ownership, i.e. someone will have to do a hitch in “the militia” first? Who are you, indeed who is _anyone_, to decide whether someone else is _exercising_ a right or _abusing_ a right, because they haven’t “earned” it enough? > [@](#): > > Heinlens’ Starship troopers had a society where you had to perform public service before you got to vote, dunno if I’d go in for that, but that’s at least more fair. If you want a real-world example, just look at democratic countries that have (or recently had) mandatory military service and see if their democracies are better (by some criteria you should establish beforehand). Looking down a wikipedia list, I guess one could consider: Austria Bolivia Brazil Chile Cyprus Denmark Ecuador Estonia Finland Greece Israel South Korea Mexico Moldova Norway the Seychelles Switzerland Taiwan Turkey Venezuela First up might be to pare the list down a bit - set a standard for what constitutes a democracy (or at least enough of one that comparisons to the United States aren’t strained), and in some cases conscription is on a country’s books but not in its practices, etc. Then set a standard for what factors are signs of a “better” democracy, and see if the conscription countries score higher on those factors than the U.S., or other democracies that currently lack conscription. That analysis, however, is better served in a GD thread than here, so I won’t comment further at this time. > [@](#): > > I don’t agree with the idea that it being harder to vote is a good thing, but on the off chance that it is, making it harder to vote needs to be done equally. Okay, prove that harder is better _first_, then discuss strategies for implementation. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2016, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10095 "2016-08-06T18:16:07Z")
“Better results”? Kind of implies that democracy is a “better” form of government, being more efficient, or more effective. It isn’t. Its is simply more _just_ that the governed participate in their government. Sign up for egalitarian democracy, that’s all the upside you get, really. Half of our electorate, that we empower, is dumber than average. No good deed goes unpunished. Does this lessen my commitment to egalitarian democracy? Not in the slightest. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2016, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10096 "2016-08-06T18:28:11Z")
What is most needed, in my not remotely humble opinion, is a nationwide reform in voting opportunity. As it stands, some people wait for hours and hours to get their chance, others whip through pretty quickly. As you might expect, this fact reflects economic status more than any other factor. Guess who doesn’t want to change that? And for good, solid Constitutional reasons, too. Don’t want the power-grubbing Feds interfering with local government. Sure, its unjust, even disgustingly so, but the Constitution! As if the written thing was more important than the ideals it embodies, however imperfectly. True, structure, order and stability can be important. So long as they are not regarded with more approval than justice. ---
**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 6, 2016, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10097 "2016-08-06T19:16:46Z")
Keep in mind that I am entirely against the idea of restricting the vote. I lean a bit more towards the idea of mandatory voting, in fact. I am just pointing out that having the opinion that the voting public be more invested in the process is not entirely a non-starter, nor those who hold that opinion to be evil. As far as results are concerned, I think the results are the day to day life of citizens. What kind of prosperity and freedoms they enjoy. If a dictatorship had in all ways but voting better prosperity and freedom, then that may be a better way of going about things. FTR, I do not hold the opinion that it would be. As far as access to the vote is concerned, I am no one to tell anyone else whether or not they have that right. Society is, however, by definition, in charge of making that determination. My only point along those lines is that if somehow, society were to decide that more investment in the process is a good thing, then that investment needs to be of equal effort. If I had to do X to get suffrage, then I do have the right to tell you that you have to do X to get suffrage. My main point along those lines is that there are currently people who are in fact fighting much harder than myself and probably many others in this thread to get their right to vote, so those are the people that may have a right to tell me that _I_ don’t esteem the vote highly enough. As far as adjusting the electorate for partisan advantage, I completely consider that to be a no-no. If one party is having difficulties getting into office, they should be looking at themselves, to see what they can change to better serve their constituency, rather than trying to change the electorate to better vote them into office. This is true whether democrats, republicans, greens, libertarians or rastafarians are doing it. ---
**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 6, 2016, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10098 "2016-08-06T19:16:52Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > “Better results”? Kind of implies that democracy is a “better” form of government, being more efficient, or more effective. It isn’t. Its is simply more _just_ that the governed participate in their government. Assuming you’re not being ironical, I daresay it’s possible to agree on a set of reasonable criteria (i.e. not just cherry-picked to support one’s premise) and show that the democratic countries score better. I’ll propose some criteria, with the understanding that none of them can be considered absolute: 1. Definition of “Democracy”: A country that gets rates as a “full democracy” on the [“Democracy Index”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index), as compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit. Their second tier, “flawed democracy”, will not be counted as a democracy for the purposes of this experiment. 2. A measure of what are the “better” countries: the [World Happiness Report](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report) of 2016, published by the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network. In trying to keep this manageable, I’ll compare the top 20 democracies (helped in part because the top 20 countries in the EIU’s list are “full democracies”, with #21 being the first “flawed democracy”) to the 20 “happiest” countries. If democracy was not relevant, I’d expect there to be no correlation and any overlap would be due to random chance. Results (assuming I haven’t read anything wrong): 15 countries (Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United States) appear in the top 20 of both lists. Israel is #11 in happiness, #34 (“flawed”) in democracy Costa Rica is #14 in happiness, #23 in democracy Puerto Rico is #15 in happiness, is not on the democracy list (I presume the EIU lumps it in with the U.S., and if so I agree with the decision) Brazil is #17 in happiness, #51 in democracy Belgium is #18 in happiness, #26 in democracy Malta is #15 in democracy, #30 in happiness The U.K. is #16 in democracy, #23 in happiness Spain is #17 in democracy, #37 in happiness Mauritius is #18 in democracy, #66 in happiness Uruguay is #19 in democracy, #29 in happiness Conclusion: Without going to trouble of calculating the _p_ value for picking 20 countries at random out of 157 or 167 (the lists vary slightly) twice and getting 15 matches, at this time I do not reject my null hypothesis (democracy is better). ---
**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 6, 2016, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10099 "2016-08-06T19:50:14Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > My main point along those lines is that there are currently people who are in fact fighting much harder than myself and probably many others in this thread to get their right to vote, so those are the people that may have a right to tell me that _I_ don’t esteem the vote highly enough. Well, anybody has the right to _tell_ you that. Slackers who’ve never held a job and play video games all day have the right to tell you that. Bricker has the right to tell you that. It’s moving from there to supporting laws to make people prove their esteem levels are sufficient by some imaginary standard that’s a problem, though. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2016, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10100 "2016-08-06T20:56:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > . . . Yes or no: Was the appeals court correct to consider whether the laws deliberately targeted minorities when they made their decision? > NO Why, exactly? If the targeting violated the Voting Rights Act, they are not only justified, but required, to consider this. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=504) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=506)