Burden of proof is a key concept in any debate. Legislation aside, his argument attempting to flout the burden is a fallacy of argument from ignorance.
Actually, friend Bricker, you’re missing that your evidence, didn’t actually demonstrate what you said it did.
As I explained, it simply doesn’t follow that an increase in the number of minority voters means that the ID had no effect. You haven’t shown that the increase wasn’t lower than it would have been.
In any case, there has already been a study: PolitiFact | Ohio House Speaker William G. Batchelder says Georgia’s voter ID law didn’t dissuade black voters from participating
It says that there was a suppression effect, but it wasn’t overly on minorities or ethnic groups. I don’t have time to try and track down the actual study, but I’d like to see if age was also a factor, since that would fall disproportionately on the Dems.
Again though, we’re talking about one state, where there was a huge get out the vote movement in response to the outrage over voter ID. We can’t know the specific effect in a vacuum.
From Lobohan’s link:
Ok, then. Game over.
Which is still more people disenfranchised from voting than have committed voter fraud.
A few tens of thousands of times more, sure, you want to get all picky about it.
Which is to say, whenever I am arguing with a guy who defends “things as they are”, he gets a free advantage, a little extra boost? I gotta bring the solid evidence, he can just say “neener-neener!”.
Well, I guess that’s fair, in a Special Olympics sort of way.
Can’t disenfranchisement for no good reason be bad enough on its own, even if there isn’t a demonstrable racial angle?
You claiming this as a win demonstrates that you’ve lost.
Let’s all remember, Bricker is pretending to be too stupid to understand that an increase in the number of voters doesn’t show anything at all.
If you have a hundred voters and keep 2 from voting because of voter ID, but an additional six vote because of any other reason, then the voter ID has lowered the number of votes that would have happened.
My guess is Bricker’s sudden new adoration of studies doesn’t extend to the GAO report.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/220147-gao-voter-id-laws-stunted-turnout-in-kansas-and-tennessee
Nope. The key point raised again and again has been that these schemes disproportionately disenfranchise minorities and the poor.
Every single voting method will discourage some percentage of people.
Nope, i still like studies. Like reading every word.
What happened to the claim that you can’t validly compare turnout between different states?
Some more than others.
And you dont see a problem with methods that ONLY discourage while ostensibly addressing a problem that doesn’t actually exist?
Personally, I don’t care if the disenfranchised group is of a particular race and/or economic class. I figure if left-handed people were known to tend Democrat and there was a way to modify the voting process to discourage them, Republicans would be exploring it. That is the degree of moral bankruptcy on display.
Bricker’s steadfast refusal to address the GAO report is because its the GAO. In other court cases, both sides trotted out statistics from reliable sources, for one side, the American Patriotic Eagle Institute for Number Stuff, the other, the Liberal Weenie Consortium. A judge could reasonably call them a wash, biased numbers from biased sources.
Then, since those demanding change face a higher standard of evidence than those supporting the way things is, the change side loses.
The GAO report is different, it is pure D gummint approved research, amounting to what is, in the technical legal term, “evidence”. (Hope I got that right, I’m a little leery of using arcane legalese like that, don’t want to get smacked with the ruler again…)
We got, they don’t, they lose.
Oh, really? You have some evidence to support such a sweeping generalization?
Here in the People’s Republic of Minnesota, under a system you describe as “too lax”, your neighbor can attest, under penalty of perjury, that you are you claim to be, that he knows you personally, that you reside where you claim to reside, and that’s that: you register, you vote, badda-boom, badda-bing and you betcha!
Even had a super-dooper close elections, a feeding frenzy for lawyers and recounts up the wazoo. Result: Franken won by a butterfly’s eyelash, but he won. Game over.
Minnesota has a very respectable voter turnout, right near the top every time. Pubbies tried, even got a referendum on the ballot voter photo id, they lost.
So, tell me how this “discourages” anyone.
However, you got that first part right. That is the “key point”. And after only 137 pages, the dim light dawns! We are very proud of you, Counselor, and look forward to more progress in the future.
Heh, I hadn’t noticed Bricker’s Scalia-moment, there. It should be quoted in all future threads on the topic as opposition to voter ID laws.
Even in Minnesota, some people don’t go to the polls and vote, but would vote if a poll taker came to their door and recorded their vote.
Therefore, the scheme of using polling locations discourages some voters.
But that’s perfectly okay.
The trick is to implement the voting system that discourages the fewest voters. We have reliable estimates for how many would be discouraged by voter ID. If you want to present comparable data for using polling locations as opposed to voting at home, please present it, and it will be apparent which has the most negative impact. Until then, we should base our policies on the known, not the unknown.
Drivel. “Discourage” is an active verb, it is an action, not simply a lack of encouragement, but a disparagement. Someone with your penchant for semantic and pedantic nitpickery knows that.
No, it’s not. We could clearly garner more voters if we funded door-to-door limo service, hot hors d’oeuvres, and entered voters into a drawing where the winner receives a handjob from Lindsay Lohan.
The trick is actually to balance the costs against the results
No, we don’t. We have pessimistic predictions whose unreliability was amply shown by the actual data.
I’m not advocating taking any action. So how can you possibly say I’m discouraging anything?