I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1)

[Robot_Arm]

@adaher

Your analogy is close, actually. To me, it’s low hanging fruit. It’s something the vast majority of Americans agree on, it’s just Democratic partisans who oppose it for reasons of electoral advantage.

I disagree. To me, the low hanging fruit should be the things I already mentioned. California (often derided here as an example of liberal excess) has a non-partisan redistricting commission. Such a thing seems to work. Voting machines could be tested to see which are most tamper-proof and produce the most accurate, repeatable result. Apart from who registers and who casts a ballot, can’t we all agree that we should be able to count the votes accurately? Those kind of things should be no-brainers.

If you think Democrats are opposing voter-ID for electoral advantage, do you think it’s also likely that Republicans are championing it because they think it will give them an advantage?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

My argument in this thread is not about “all GOP vote-suppression malice.” I am arguing in favor of laws that generally require a government-issued photo ID in order to cast a ballot.

And failing comprehensively, the facts and the reasoning being entirely against you. The problem you purport to be solving does not exist. If it did, Voter ID would not address it. The only effect is to damage democracy itself. Those are the facts. The rest of us know that; the problem here is your inability to admit, probably even to yourself, that you’ve been wrong and for all the wrong reasons.

I am not arguing in favor of reduced voting hours, purging voter rolls, or poking voters with sharp sticks as they wait in line to vote. I am arguing in support of Voter ID laws.

As if they weren’t part of the same Party Before Country package your guys have been pushing. As if the effects were unrelated, and if those effects weren’t the obvious motive too.

Stop insulting our intelligence.

[adaher]

In the absence of evidence either way, of course we go with our beliefs. Is there any evidence that ID laws reduce turnout among registered voters?

http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2008/0102-voter-id.php

THe only studies I’ve seen that actually measure turnout find no statistically significant difference between turnout in ID states and non-ID states.

[ElvisL1ves]

@adaher

In the absence of evidence either way, of course we go with our beliefs.

The unicorn stampede argument. Fucking idiot.

Is there any evidence that ID laws reduce turnout among registered voters?

Damn, boy, do you ever read threads before replying? Already done - effect is about 2 %.

[adaher]

@Robot_Arm

I disagree. To me, the low hanging fruit should be the things I already mentioned. California (often derided here as an example of liberal excess) has a non-partisan redistricting commission. Such a thing seems to work. Voting machines could be tested to see which are most tamper-proof and produce the most accurate, repeatable result. Apart from who registers and who casts a ballot, can’t we all agree that we should be able to count the votes accurately? Those kind of things should be no-brainers.

On the commissions I agree completely, but the details can trip up legislatures at times, which is why it may be low hanging fruit in regards to public opinion, but not implementation.

If you think Democrats are opposing voter-ID for electoral advantage, do you think it’s also likely that Republicans are championing it because they think it will give them an advantage?

I think it’s likely, but it’s not partisan strictly, since the public is behind the Republicans on this issue, as well as independents and even most Democrats in many polls. While some shrewd Republicans might see electoral advantage, I’d bet most just see that it’s popular, and politicians like to vote for things that are popular and easy to implement.

I’ve actually softened on this issue considerably over the years due to valid arguments from Democrats. I used to be in favor of a hard photo ID requirement. Now I’m willing to settle for what Rhode Island has, which allows other forms of ID, like a bill in your name, and even then they can fill out a provisional ballot and have their vote count if their signatures match.

We can get along if we’re talking about what forms of ID are acceptable, but we cannot agree if you insist that any identification requirement at all is not only unacceptable, but immoral as well.

[adaher]

@ElvisL1ves

Damn, boy, do you ever read threads before replying? Already done - effect is about 2 %.

Yeah, I know, nate Silver and all that. Thing is, I checked his work, and the studies he links to measure two different things. The studies that show an effect don’t actually measure turnout. They rely on self-reporting of voters. “yeah, I can’t vote because I don’t have ID.” Whereas studies that actually measure turnout in an actual election find no statistically significant change.

Silver’s personal estimate is 2%, but he also admits that he can’t tell whether there’s any statistical significance to that estimate.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

When an election in which millions of votes are cast is decided by 139 votes, it amazes me that you would argue only Republican voters would worry about the integrity of the result.

No, you are not amazed. You are phrasing an insult carefully, as befits someone as pious about polite discourse as yourself. And out of all the things I’ve said lately, points I’ve made, this is the only one you deign to respond to.

One more time, just for shits and giggles: it is not about the value of voter id, its legality or its Constitutionality. Its about using it for partisan ends. No matter how many times this is pointed out to you, you go right back to defending the value of voter id as though it were an answer. I suppose when all you got is lemons, all you got to sell is lemonade. Weak lemonade. Rotten lemons.

Asked about the Republicans who are not part of your special cabal of “some” Republicans, but nonetheless make themselves complicit by their votes, you are asked which among them spoke out against the malign intent of their fellows…you have the answer, surely, right at your fingertips, you could crush that question like a bug BUT…no, no, not until Max answers your question, or not until elucidator proves himself sufficiently horrified by the Massachusetts Massacre. Then you will dazzle and astound us with your rock solid evidence. And the kicker is, you get to decide what is sufficient! Republican poker.

You have the truth, right at your fingertips, but your ethical guidelines prevent you from revealing the truth until your dignity is assuaged. Uh huh. Sure. You bet.

What about them, what about those who will endure the burden of these oppressions? By the life history you have revealed, I am confident that you have seen injustice, as have I, you have even felt its sting, as have I. I rise to defend them, you rise to assure them its all for the best, that they should just suck it up for the greater good. Not for them, of course, their path is made harder, and longer, but for the benefit of those who are already well comforted, and would like a bit more.

But you and I, we’ve been through that, and this is not our fate. So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late. Said the Joker, to the Thief.

[adaher]

@elucidator

No, you are not amazed. You are phrasing an insult carefully, as befits someone as pious about polite discourse as yourself. And out of all the things I’ve said lately, points I’ve made, this is the only one you deign to respond to.

One more time, just for shits and giggles: it is not about the value of voter id, its legality or its Constitutionality. Its about using it for partisan ends. No matter how many times this is pointed out to you, you go right back to defending the value of voter id as though it were an answer. I suppose when all you got is lemons, all you got to sell is lemonade. Weak lemonade. Rotten lemons.

Asked about the Republicans who are not part of your special cabal of “some” Republicans, but nonetheless make themselves complicit by their votes, you are asked which among them spoke out against the malign intent of their fellows…you have the answer, surely, right at your fingertips, you could crush that question like a bug BUT…no, no, not until Max answers your question, or not until elucidator proves himself sufficiently horrified by the Massachusetts Massacre. Then you will dazzle and astound us with your rock solid evidence. And the kicker is, you get to decide what is sufficient! Republican poker.

You have the truth, right at your fingertips, but your ethical guidelines prevent you from revealing the truth until your dignity is assuaged. Uh huh. Sure. You bet.

What about them, what about those who will endure the burden of these oppressions? By the life history you have revealed, I am confident that you have seen injustice, as have I, you have even felt its sting, as have I. I rise to defend them, you rise to assure them its all for the best, that they should just suck it up for the greater good. Not for them, of course, their path is made harder, and longer, but for the benefit of those who are already well comforted, and would like a bit more.

But you and I, we’ve been through that, and this is not our fate. So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late. Said the Joker, to the Thief.

If it helps, I condemn the use of ID laws to achieve partisan ends. And some of the ID laws have actually been used that way. And been struck down. Every ID law that stands has been a reasonable use of the legislative power.

[Robot_Arm]

@adaher

On the commissions I agree completely, but the details can trip up legislatures at times, which is why it may be low hanging fruit in regards to public opinion, but not implementation.

It has been implemented, and in a state that leans heavily toward one party. What details are left to trip up another legislature? It works there, let’s do it here; that’s low-hanging fruit.

[elucidator]

Well, yes, of course we delivered smallpox infested blankets to the Indians. But smallpox only kills some of its victims, not all. And those who shake off this minor inconvenience, are permanently immune to the effects of smallpox! In a crude sort of fashion, this is a vaccination program!

So why are you guys so opposed to something so wonderful as vaccination? Sure, maybe some of the people who did this had malign intent, but clearly the wonderful effect of vaccination is a valid neutral consideration, and outweighs such minor flaws!
PS: your correspondent from the conservative wing of the extreme left is well aware that the whole “smallpox blanket” meme is a disturbin’ legend. It is offered here only for its allegorical value, and not as a statement of fact.

[Robot_Arm]

@adaher

Yeah, I know, nate Silver and all that. Thing is, I checked his work, and the studies he links to measure two different things.

Unskewing the polls again, are we?

[Buck_Godot]

@Bricker

When an election in which millions of votes are cast is decided by 139 votes, it amazes me that you would argue only Republican voters would worry about the integrity of the result.

Of course not, but we would be worried about it for different reasons. The Democrats would be worried because the additional burden placed on low income voter meant that an accurate reflection of the desires of eligible voters would have meant a clear victory on the order of thousands of votes, instead of the nail biter it turned out to be.

While on the Republican side, I guess the worry that multiple times the number of documented cases of voter impersonation fraud could have occurred all at once and all in the same direction could in some amazing coincidence turned things around.

I guess it just depends on whether you feel that rupturing your water main is the best way to fix a leaky faucet.

[magellan01]

@Lobohan

The integrity is cast further in doubt by making it harder for orders of magnitude more people of one party to vote.

I’ve asked this on these boards before and haven’t gotten a satisfactory response.

Question: how do you know that these laws will make it harder for the people of one party to vote? You can even ignore “by an order of magnitude”.

I think it’s fair to say that Voter ID laws will affect the poor more than any other group. But it seems logical that it would affect the rural poor more than the urban poor, as it is more likely that a rural voter would be further from a place to register for an ID. So, it seems that you’re making two really, really big assumptions. One is that Democrat voters will be affected more than Republican voters. And then your “order of magnitude notion”. Do you have any support showing that either of theses two assumptions is based in reality?

[magellan01]

@Drunky_Smurf

What about Mexican racism? Mexico requires voter ID. So Mexico is racist against Mexicans.

We have a WINNER!!!

[magellan01]

@ElvisL1ves

Stop insulting our intelligence.

It’s a good thing you put “our” in there. But one cannot insult what does not exist.

But here’s what you need to do to have a more intelligent discussion: ignore motive. If someone wants to to argue the pro-choice position in order that he can then try to persuade all pregnant women to abort all babies that he hasn’t fathered, that does not make the pro-choice position any less attractive, does it?

[elucidator]

Adaher, and then Mags. Come back, Bricker, all is forgiven.

[Bricker]

@Trinopus

I pointed out once already: voter ID laws are almost exactly as likely to cause a narrow result as they are to prevent it.

Your understanding of statistics may be not sufficient and slightly beyond the positive.

That is a mistaken understanding.

A narrow result is not the evil to be avoided.

Can you explain your best understanding of my position? Pretend it’s a school assignment. What do you understand my position with respect to narrow results to be?

[jayjay]

@Bricker

What do you understand my position with respect to narrow results to be?

If they’re narrow enough to fudge, all the better?

[adaher]

@Robot_Arm

It has been implemented, and in a state that leans heavily toward one party. What details are left to trip up another legislature? It works there, let’s do it here; that’s low-hanging fruit.

Yes, it’s worked very well, I agree. But the makeup of a commission is not a simple thing. Yes, it worked out great in the states that have done it, and it should be done everywhere. I just don’t see it happening all that quickly due to a combination of legislators liking gerrymandering and being able to agree on what constitutes a fair commission.

[adaher]

@elucidator

Adaher, and then Mags. Come back, Bricker, all is forgiven.

I keep on being told that Bricker is one of the good conservatives here. So if you’re all going to pile on him, someone has to be here to remind you that it can get a lot worse.