Here’s my full post (again – I may have edited it after you read it first… bolding added):
Well, yes – that line is quoted here.
But that link also quotes:
And it refers to this document: (PDF at link)
I draw your attention specifically to: “…the legitimate administrative and cost concerns for large, medium and small counties.”
Finally, I draw your attention to the schedule of “in-person absentee voting” that remained available in Ohio for the May 2014 primaries:
Is it really your position that this schedule is insufficient, or that costs to maintain additional days were not a factor?
Bricker: “But it’s more than that. I agree that a legislator who said, “Voter fraud is a significant risk to change the results of most elections,” is indeed wilfully ignorant. But it’s beyond that to imagine that same legislator saying, “…and, therefore, I vote ‘yes’ to eliminate Sunday voting.” How, even in his mind, might he connect the two? …”
It seems obvious to me that the legislator’s underlying train of thought is something pretty much like “obviously, eliminating Sunday voting does nothing to address voter fraud, but I don’t expect the average citizen to examine the premise very closely. What I actually am about, but won’t admit, is expecting that eliminating Sunday voting will hurt the Dems a lot more that my side, and that’s why I’m doing it”.
I believe that Sunday was removed specifically because that day is most utilized by certain groups of heavily Democratic consitutents, and that if money was really the main issue, there are other ways that could save money (remove other days, for example) that wouldn’t have such an affect.
OK. CAn you point me to some source that shows that removing Sunday has a worse effect than removing, say, Monday, on Democratic constituents?
So why DID Ohio cut Sunday voting? Budget cuts?
I take it you didn’t read my previous cite? Here’s the cite-within-the-cite, which goes into detail.
You’re speaking of a hypothetical bill in a hypothetical world in which 90% of a hypothetical GOP have honorable motives.
Is it asking too much to talk about the real world?
IIRC, the topic is the Ohio legislature’s action to eliminate Sunday voting and make other changes intended to reduce Democratic vote. The link states that the voting in both Ohio houses was “along party lines” and the vote counts do agree exactly with the party counts in that legislature.
Are we supposed to infer that 20 of the Republican Senators were voting for honorable non-partisan purpose, but only 3 GOP Senators, and *all *10 Democrat Senators voted for partisan advantage?
I’m happy to stipulate that the ten Democrats probably wanted to get more Democratic votes; aren’t you honest enough to state that the probable GOP motive was to suppress them?
SCOTUS affirmed this Ohio action 5-4, also on exact “party” lines.
See, Brickhead? This is why some of us don’t know how to engage you except with name-calling. You are the ignorant one, albeit a pretentious feigned ignorance. You pretend that shit is sweet-smelling flower and babble on and on and on and on about the flowers, calling others names, but always ready to cry that yours was a hypothetical discussion about a hypothetical GOP. We’ve given up attempting to engage your reason; we just want to push your nose into the shit and ask “Can you smell it now?”
There’s an important difference, however, which is that a random insult doesn’t PRETEND to be anything other than a random insult. It doesn’t hijack, it doesn’t distract, it just insults. If you had responded to Trinopus’s insult by calling him a stupidhead, we wouldn’t have all spend 50 posts very precisely and narrowly arguing about what “stupidhead” meant. Whereas we all DID spend 50 posts clarifying that no, no liberal poster in this thread was literally saying that it was NEVER OK to remove voting hours but ALWAYS OK to add voting hours. Which of COURSE no one was saying, because it would be RIDICULOUS to say that. So I have no idea what you thought you got out of clarifying a point that clearly didn’t need the slightest bit of clarification to begin with.
Its outreach. If he drives you insane, you might become a Republican.
I did not.
So far as my quick read can determine, that paper makes the case that overall, minorites use the EIP (Early In-Person Absentee Voting) to a great degree.
I am having trouble locating the findings concerning Sunday. More people used the program on the final Monday, by a 4:1 margin, than the final Sunday.
Where does the 4:1 come from? According to my link, in 2012, it looks like it was about 1.3:1 (~41K to ~30K) for the final Monday to final Sunday. Further, unless I read it wrong, Husted’s plan would eliminate the final Monday as well as the final Sunday, which would seem to support the argument that the removed days were chosen for their utility to black voters.
I focused on Sunday, but it sounds like the final Monday was also a problem, and perhaps also chosen to be removed for the same reason.
Its totally about voter confidence! Republicans are voters, and if the lazy and feckless riff-raff have an easier access to voting, they might very well lose. Hence, their voter confidence is shaken. So, clearly, early voting has a negative effect on voter confidence.
On page 11:
Eliminated Sunday: 1825
Eliminated Monday: 4165
That’s not 4:1 – my mistake.
But it seems to me to equally support the obvious inference that people vote more on the last available day.
Also: this plan originated with the OLEO, a non-partisan (insofar as such is possible) group whose formation seems along the lines that Bryan Ekers suggested be placed in charge of election decisions.
Okay. That was for 2010. The numbers I referenced were for 2012, on page 8. Either way, it seems reasonable that the days removed (including the final Sunday and Monday) were chosen because of how much actual voting was going on those days, especially by black voters.
There’s an old joke: why do you always find your lost object in the last place you look?
Answer: because you stop looking!
Here, the same general principle applies. I argue that the numbers show people vote in greater numbers closer to the deadline, with the largest number coming on the last day. If you remove “the last day,” then the new “last day” will have the surge.
In other words, it’s fallacious to argue that eliminating one day out of many will lose the voters from that day: they’ll simply vote on another day.
That argument could be used to eliminate every day but one or a few – I think it’s reasonable to believe that some days really are different, and have different effects, and considering such efforts like the Sunday “souls to the polls” that one of my cites discusses (in addition to the numbers in the other cite), I think Sunday is one of those different days.
That’s what I’m looking for evidence of.
The cite we are discussing supports the “last day” inference more strongly than it does the “Sundays are special,” inference.
Is it really? There are always going to be marginal cases.
It’s reasonable to argue that the number of lost voters will be very small, but it isn’t fallacious to argue that there will likely be some loss of voters.
You’d also need to look at how much pressure each day removed adds to the long lines of election day. If a specific community has eight hour waits, then snipping days off at the outset of early voting is gonna make those lines longer and potentially push off more voters.