I agree that your arguments get more scrutiny than other people’s arguments. I don’t particularly see what can be done about that, realistically.
As for your Feynman quote, I think there’s a bit of an parallel (not sure if this is how you intended it)… if you have a group of people who are debating a topic, and it’s 99 vs 1, and it turns out the 99 are wrong, it might take longer to realize that than if the 1 is wrong, because the 99 spend so much time reassuring each other and assuming that because they’re in the majority they must be correct. If in fact that is what you are saying, then yes, that is a problem. I’ve said multiple times that the SDMB would be better off with more conservative debaters, and this is another reason why that’s the case.
This is definitely one of the cruxes of the issue, at least as far as the specific disagreements between you and me.
I heard about a bunch of voter ID laws in a bunch of states. I heard people who (a) are generally intelligent and knowledge, (b) don’t have an obvious motive to cry wolf here, and (c) one of them is my uncle who I absolutely certainly know is very very smart and well informed and has a ton of integrity; complaining that these laws were naked political maneuvering.
There’s clearly a fairly obvious hole in my knowledge here, in that (a) I don’t know what specific states are being talked about, (b) I don’t know what the specifics are in any of those individual states that suggest that those particular laws are likely to have a disparate impact, and (c) even if I did know (a) and (b) I probably don’t have the knowledge base to really evaluate (b) and (c).
So, there’s a certain extent to which every post I’ve made in this thread has been from a place of complete ignorance. I mean, how can I be arguing about voter ID laws when I don’t even know what STATES those voter ID laws are in?
So I’ve tried to make it clear that the points I’m making are not specific ones about specific details of specific laws (since after all I don’t know any specific details about specific laws, so how could I argue about them?) but are general points about the topic in general.
Several of them relate specifically to you:
(1) On a general attitude level, you claim that your position is something like “the party that I support has been putting forth a package of cynical voter-suppression tactics such as voting-hours-reductions. I do not support most parts of that package. But I do support the voter ID laws that are parts of those packages of laws in several states”. Which is on some level a reasonable position, EXCEPT that you seem remarkably non-disturbed by the fact that your party, which you are generally quite loyal to, supportive of, and fond of, is engaging in odious antidemocratic tactics. It’s one thing to say “well, the party that I support wants to put a regulation on ethanol. I oppose that. They also want to put a regulation on fracking. I support that”. It’s another to say “well, the party that I support is trying to cook the books and put their finger on the scale of fair elections in unethical ways. I oppose that. Also they’re proposing voter ID laws. I support that”. Where’s the outrage? Where’s the vitriol? Even if you with absolute good faith and integrity are completely 100% supportive of all these voter ID laws, your apparent lack of disgust at other “similar” tactics is a bit galling.
(2) It’s at some level clear that I’m kind of assuming that the voter ID laws are written badly, well, just because. But I’ve been very clear about that. Whereas you seem to be assuming that the voter ID laws are NOT written badly, well, just because. That is, you’ve said repeatedly that you support the voter ID laws. There are many laws in many states. Does that mean that you have specifically studied and analyzed ALL of these laws, and come to the conclusion that every single one of the recently proposed spate of voter ID laws is written in a fashion as to be “good”? That seems a bit unlikely and if you have, you haven’t mentioned it. Or is your position that you just kind of assume that they’re good until proven otherwise? And if so, why is that the correct assumption? Particularly given the context and the agreed-by-you motives of the people who wrote the laws? You could quite reasonably hold a position like “I support the basic idea of voter ID laws, and I’ve read the specific law in Virginia, and think that it’s acceptable for reasons X, Y and Z. As for the other states’ laws, I haven’t fully studied them, and I’m troubled by the context and the motives of the people who proposed them, so I’m willing to discuss their individual details if anyone wants to debate them, and if they do appear likely to lead to a disparate impact, I will withdraw my support for them” or something like that. Which is probably actually fairly close to what your actual position is, but is presented ENTIRELY differently.
(3) I claim that any time you make something HARDER, even if it’s not IMPOSSIBLE, that’s necessarily going to mean fewer people will do it, as a basic fact of human nature. For instance, using a hypothetical weather machine to cause a storm when you know that one party’s voters have less mobility than the other. I would view any such action as odious and undemocratic. It’s a bit unclear to me where you stand on that sub-issue.
(4) And the one thing that I think I do fully understand your position on… to me, it’s a horrible flaw in the system that any elected body gets to oversee its own elections. That doesn’t seem to bother you. So, well, I guess we just agree to disagree on that point.
Actually I possibly do, but it’s such a ridiculous tangent (analogies to speeding tickets) that I will just drop it.
Tried that. Advertized on Facebook, stuff like that, “Honest conservative poster wanted”. We got adaher. We didn’t have a Plan B.
You could add your voice to calling out crap argument when you see it isn’t getting called out.
Yes, it’s precisely what I am saying. But while this may seem a desirable goal in the abstract, look at what happens in real life. I enjoy defending my point of view against vigorous challenge. But in this thread alone I have been attacked for my poor command of the English language and my my willingness to switch sides on issues if the issue switched party proponents. That creates a mood, a tone, on the board, and even if it’s just a few outlying posters that do it, the board sanctions it by simply not responding. I don’t think the board wants more conservatives here, even though you do.
And sometimes I do that. And sometimes I don’t do that. But that’s not really a solution unless you get LOTS of liberal posters, if not MOST liberal posters, to do it. Which seems difficult. When I go to a message port primarily for fun I’m not signing up to be the arbiter and moderator of every thing ever said by people who or in any way on my side of any issue. That would be exhausting and sure as heck take all the fun out of the experience.
Little kids don’t want to eat their vegetables, but they SHOULD eat their vegetables. The SDMB is hostile towards conservatives (exactly how hostile is probably something we would disagree about), but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be better off with more of them.
Ok. But since the debate really does involve specifics, I think it would be of value to to to pick a state, and find something specifically objectionable. I cannot possibly refute your overall reaction to the topic in general, can I? But if you say that you object to the fact that voter IDs are issued only on weekdays and I show you a cite that this claim is not true, then I CAN refute that.
Yes, I suppose there’s some truth to that. But the thing is: I don’t believe I have to endorse everything my party stands for. If that were the requirement, I could support no party: the Republicans are staunch death penalty advocates, a practice I find frankly far more odious and vile than the various voting barriers we’re discussing here. My chosen party advocates a proper role of government that includes deliberately killing a human being who poses no danger to other lives.
I hate that.
But we have a two party system. Realistically, I have to make common cause with the GOP or the Democrats. So I have to ask myself: on balance, across the board, which party do I find the least odious and vile? Which is the cleanest cockroach under the sink?
Because it always belongs to the proponent of a claim to advance evidence for the claim. We start with “they’re good,” because I can read the enacted statutes, which I have for every single state. If someone wants to claim there are problems that were not evident in the text of the law, then let him make that argument.
Yes, that’s a basic fact of human nature. But I contend the extra difficulty is not unreasonably great, and it serves a valid purpose.
Yes. Although I would support a general rule that no substantive change in electoral procedure can be effective until one election cycle has passed between its passage and it’s effective date. That is: no elected body can directly change the rules; the people should have a shot at voting them out before the new rule goes into effect.
The thread’s still moving along at a good clip, so I’ll just address this specifically:
No, it shows an understanding of the larger issues at play, which your spherical-chicken-in-a-vacuum limited scope does not take into account.
This is pretty much bang-on my own views of this thread, with the minor difference that I feel no obligation whatever to be polite or respectful to Bricker.
Yes, you failed to do the math. The 2008 election was marked by a young voter surge. The bulk of the voter suppression legislation was a targeted response to that surge. The argument is that the hurdles being created are designed to reduce the opportunity to vote or decrease the likelihood of registration and that the numbers would be impacted.
And all you’ve got it that the legislation is justified because it increases voter confidence. Which was deliberately eroded by FUD tactics claiming armies of zombie voters. And I’m a hell of a lot more scared of horked voting machines than I ever was of said armies. Which is why I think every possible effort should be made to assist people in voting.
His cite does cover that, actually, but there was no need to busy himself with trivial side-issues that might obscure his main point: “…Yes, as the Georgia example shows, the claims that imposing Voter ID will lessen minority turnout are paranoid fantasy…”.
So, its entirely possible that voter ID had little, if anything, to do with the effect he is so anxious to advise us about. At least, that’s what his cite says. Probably saw no need to bring up such a minor quibble.
As well, seems to me if the data from one state can be taken as proof positive that “…claims that imposing Voter ID will lessen minority turnout are paranoid fantasy…”, then my example of the Minnesota election should put to rest any extravaganet notions about the dread horror of super-dooper ultra close elections. Sauce for the goosed, and all that.
Probably doesn’t see it that way. Just guessing.
And the 2010 election? And the 2012 election?
Your claim is that even though we’ve had Voter ID laws in states like Indiana since 2005, you still can’t show any actual numbers to support your claim of a decreased minority voter turnout?
It’s now 2014. If the effect existed, you could show some actual numbers.
Where are they?
Did Justin discuss Indiana’s law, passed in 2005?
Was that also affected by the 2008 young voter surge?
Was Dr. Who involved? Did the TARDIS travel back to 2006 with a few cartloads of eager, surging young voters?
Then you’re deliberately arguing against a strawman; deliberately misrepresenting my arguments.
You cannot simply announce that you know what my argument REALLY is. You can certainly argue that I am not taking into account other issues; you cannot declare that the other issues are what I really meant and here’s what I said about them.
Well… actually, you can, I guess.
But since it’s obviously a strawman, I can correctly respond by gratuitously denying it.
So: nope, you’re wrong.
Your arguments are failing to take into account a genuine and legitimate concern, just handwaving it away by declaring the burden on legitimate voters is trivial. By your own estimation (your original “I bet” numbers, until I said okay and your bet was abruptly withdrawn), there might be as many as 200 illegal voters in an electorate of three million. I think this is highly improbable or at least unsupported by any evidence I’m aware of - evidence that you say can’t be collected anyway, so the claim is unfalsifiable - but okay, that’s one illegal voter for every 15 thousand legal voters. I have my doubts that 15000 people can all get a voter ID, especially if the standards for getting said ID are strict (you should have your birth certificate, you should have a current driver’s license, all your identifying documents should have the same name on them, etc.) I am plausibly expecting at least one to have enough difficulties that they’ll miss a chance to vote, and there goes your so-called confidence.
Your argument is flawed. That’s what it REALLY is.
I know what you’ve said about them. I’ve quoted you several times.
Yeah, I’m not, though. Of course, it may turn out that neither fake voters nor voter ID will sway any elections in November. I look forward to the analysis.
I never made the claim that turnout would be reduced. I made the claim that some voters, disproportionately Dems, would be discouraged by hurdles the GOP is putting in place. The NET turnout is influenced by many factors, those hurdles being just one and probably not the largest.
There will be a drop in turnout in the 2014 elections, but that doesn’t support my argument any more than the surge voters obscuring smaller affects on turnout supports your “lack of effect” claim.
I’m assuming that since you argue that voter ID will not prevent the illegal voting but will make it easier to convict that you can show some numbers from states that have had voter ID in place for a while that show an increase in convictions? If there is no increase in convictions in these states do we have any way of telling if it was due to a lack of an issue in the first place or if the illegal voters are scared straight by the mere prospect of showing the ID?
I was musing on a way to phrase that question - since Bricker’s using existing ID laws to claim that people are not being denied votes, could he also use them to claim that illegal voters are being caught, and if not, that just raises another question.
Maybe the mere existence of the laws scared away all the illegal voters. Like my magic rock keeps tigers out of my yard.
You lack the ability to correctly summarize the arguments I have made. Ergo, you don’t understand them. A bonobo can hit the ‘quote’ button.
Oddly, we don’t assess the effectiveness of laws against burglary with the same analytical approach. Instead, we take as a given the notion that laws against burglary disincentivize burglars from the exercise of their craft.
Yeah, if you start with a false premise, you can conclude anything you like.
True. And in fact, that may be where the discussion ends. We are starting from different premises, those having to do with how we weigh the relative harms and the extent to which we are willing to impose individual responsibility on voters.