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

[Stratocaster]

@AlienVessels

We have the capability, but due to the polarized ideological split, not the will.

I think a HUGE part of the problem is that a whole lot of people don’t identify with a whole lot of people that get by without ID or getting on a plane. A fuckton of people never travel outside their state. There are plenty of hotels that will take cash, although perhaps not ones you personally would patronize. And if you don’t know how to buy a bottle of wine without ID, I’m curious as to what country you grew up in.

U.S., thank you, and I had no problem buying beer when I was underage, but I realized that was illegal. That was my point. It would be a pain in the ass to go through life without ID, which was intended to acknowledge what a drag that must be, not disbelief. And yet we still require such evidence, however people circumvent that requirement.

This thread seems to be strenuously trying to categorize people into unambiguous camps, to make sure everyone understands what jersey one is wearing. I think that’s why there is some of the scolding and head shaking and talking past each other. I, for example, am on the record saying it should be as reasonably easy as possible and that I consider the Texas laws (as an example) as being more burdensome that I would prefer. I also said I’d make birth certificates free, or install a board that could consider individual circumstances if alternate evidence is the only evidence available. But that was ignored IMO because I haven’t unequivocally condemned the current voter ID laws. So in fact, I’m on the record as being in the camp that says I don’t think the current design is optimal, in any instance where the evidence for the “free ID” will cost some non-trivial amount of money.

But the argument is more nuanced than that. “Less than optimal” is not enough to overturn a law, IMO. I can’t (won’t) go back and read all 150 pages of a thread I’ve read sporadically, and that pisses some off who seem to have a lot of emotion invested in the thread, including what they said back on page 32 or whatever. Fair enough. It seems to me that this thread has thoroughly distilled the matter down to what is opinion and, shockingly, not everyone shares the same one. It has not, I don’t think, rendered the matter into a reasonable set of conclusive facts for either side. If someone believes it serves a valid function, and the impact for voter fraud is (1) only a factor in close elections and (2) impossible to accurately assess historically because of the nature of undetected fraud–how do you argue that away except with facts (not anecdotes)?

I think it’s a reasonable opinion that fraud is miniscule and that the remedy will disenfranchise a substantial percentage of people. But that’s an opinion as well, right? It comes down to what one considers an undue burden. ANY requirement will cause SOME number of people to not vote who otherwise would have. I speculate that it is a very, very small number of people who have virtually no means of meeting the requirement. But that’s speculation. For everyone else, the question is, where is the “lazy line,” the point beyond which it’s just not reasonable to ask such a thing of people, but short of it it, well, you’re just not motivated enough to bother? That’s pure opinion. But if your position is that these laws serve absolutely no material purpose, your line will be different than if you believe it does. And neither person will be “wrong.”

I support the judges who have said, “No, that’s not enough time to expect compliance with this law.” But I also agree with those who say where no legal issue has been found, it’s incumbent on the detractors to provide some evidence that the laws will do what they predict before I could support overturning a duly ratified law. I jumped back into the thread when someone offered an example that was bullshit. One can be sympathetic to the trouble that Texas fellow went through, but he was a fail of an example since he can vote if he wants.

Some other specifics. “These laws were in part motivated by the desire to suppress Democratic votes.” Check, I agree. But that doesn’t mean that the laws themselves are not legitimate or can’t serve a valid purpose. Which leads only to the execution and details…

“These laws, as currently designed, place an undue burden on the poor.” They certainly place a disproportionate burden on them, but that’s unavoidable except by degree. The poor have less discretionary energy to devote to ANYTHING additional. They have enough to worry about as it is. But if we stop there then no law is acceptable in the absence of hard evidence that it remedies widespread fraud, where widespread equals “more than what the impact would be on voter turnout.” If we take it further and say that it’s legitimate to guard against a fraudulent outcome in a tight election and that it can be a burden but not an unreasonable one, then we’re back on the same endless cycle of opinion, ISTM.

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

All very well, John, I certainly have no objection to someone having such a principled argument. Somewhere else, maybe, some thread not titled about Republicans and voter suppression.

Now, I grant you that a particular poster has done his level best to* change* the subject like that, over the repeated and strenuous objections of the Moonbat Mob. Gotten on my nerves a bit, truth be told.

If you would like to host such a discussion, I cheerfully invite you elsewhere.

Are you seriously proposing that after 150 pages, this thread has not gotten off track? Don’t want to participate in the discussion being held now, you don’t have to. Or, perhaps you can flag down a passing mod to smack the rest of down for discussing something other than Evil Republicans.

@septimus

But in the context of this debate, talk of good-spirited voter ID proposals is a digression. John Mace, do you agree that almost all the effort spent by GOP on recent voter ID proposals is primarily intended to stop likely-Democrat voters from voting? (Many Republicans have said as much in so many words.)

I think that’s possible, but it’s also something that is impossible to know. We’d have to assume that the majority of Republicans are unprincipled scoundrels. Yeah, I know that’s easy for many of the folks here to assume, but I’m not ready to join that bandwagon. (“Many” have said this? Out of the hundreds of Republican legislators, roughly how many have said this? Wouldn’t “few” be a better descriptor?)

[What_the]

What’s the distinction between wholesale vote suppression and wanting to stop the one illegal vote that renders my vote worthless?

My guess is who the “suppressed” are voting for.

[septimus]

The amoral liberal scumbag on SCOTUS had a cite that 600,000 Texans will be disenfranchised! That seems a large enough number to be easily tested. I found the following figures for Texas voter turnout:

2006 4.399 million
2008 8.086 million
2010 4.971 million
2012 7.994 million

Even ignoring the Presidential years, the variation is so high that the 2014 result may not give a clear answer. Better would be to see a breakdown of voting by race.

As good scientists, Dopers should prepare statistical criteria before Tuesday’s experiment, to test the hypothesis that as many as 600,000 voters may be disenfranchised.

Personally, even if the 600,000 figure is off by an order of magnitude I would find it more troubling than 7 cases of voter fraud. I wonder if Republicans would still argue that the 7 cases of voter fraud were more significant if the 600,000 disenfranchised were GOP voters.

[John_Mace]

I suspect that people with better data and analytical tools than we have will weigh in after the election wrt the effect of the Texas voter ID law. But still, I’d wait another election cycle to draw any conclusions, since it’s going to take time for people to adapt to the new system.

[elucidator]

@John_Mace

Are you seriously proposing that after 150 pages, this thread has not gotten off track? Don’t want to participate in the discussion being held now, you don’t have to. Or, perhaps you can flag down a passing mod to smack the rest of down for discussing something other than Evil Republicans…

No, I’m not proposing any such thing. But I do admire the insinuation of the passive voice, that somehow the thread just got off track, wandered away, without any actual effort on anyone’s part.

And I thank you for the reminder that I am free to participate or not participate as I so choose, but assure you that I had not forgotten. But thanks for the timely input! How very thoughtful!

As for flagging down a mod to smack you down…have I ever? Have you ever even suspected that I have? Have you any evidence for such a suspicion, or may I assume that it is simply an insult? As you may know, I am entirely capable of repayment in kind, if that’s the way you would like us to go. Your call.

…I think that’s possible, but it’s also something that is impossible to know. We’d have to assume that the majority of Republicans are unprincipled scoundrels. Yeah, I know that’s easy for many of the folks here to assume, but I’m not ready to join that bandwagon. (“Many” have said this? Out of the hundreds of Republican legislators, roughly how many have said this? Wouldn’t “few” be a better descriptor?)

“Assume”? You mean, reach a conclusion in advance of any evidence? Well, gosh, John, sure don’t want to go around assuming such things, but I am of the opinion there is a considerable body of evidence here.

Now, if you like, we can say that only a few Republicans are unprincipled scoundrels looking to stack the deck, and the rest are simply innocent lambs frolicking among the daffodils. Didn’t hear any objections or complaints, nobody called them, there was nothing in the papers about it… So, in their pristine ignorance, they just went ahead and voted for it anyway! Sure thing! Hugh Betcha!

There! Feel better now?

(And John? This is all kinda atypical for a benignly unbiased non-partisan such as yourself. Are you sure you’re getting enough fiber?)

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

No, I’m not proposing any such thing. But I do admire the insinuation of the passive voice, that somehow the thread just got off track, wandered away, without any actual effort on anyone’s part.

Well, mistakes were made.

And I thank you for the reminder that I am free to participate or not participate as I so choose, but assure you that I had not forgotten. But thanks for the timely input! How very thoughtful!

As for flagging down a mod to smack you down…have I ever? Have you ever even suspected that I have? Have you any evidence for such a suspicion, or may I assume that it is simply an insult? As you may know, I am entirely capable of repayment in kind, if that’s the way you would like us to go. Your call.

Never said you did.

“Assume”? You mean, reach a conclusion in advance of any evidence? Well, gosh, John, sure don’t want to go around assuming such things, but I am of the opinion there is a considerable body of evidence here.

Now, if you like, we can say that only a few Republicans are unprincipled scoundrels looking to stack the deck, and the rest are simply innocent lambs frolicking among the daffodils. Didn’t hear any objections or complaints, nobody called them, there was nothing in the papers about it… So, in their pristine ignorance, they just went ahead and voted for it anyway! Sure thing! Hugh Betcha!

There! Feel better now?

(And John? This is all kinda atypical for a benignly unbiased non-partisan such as yourself. Are you sure you’re getting enough fiber?)

Just to be clear, I’m going to go out a limb here and take the risky position of condemning any vote-suppressing Republican out there!

[ElvisL1ves]

@What_the

What’s the distinction between wholesale vote suppression and wanting to stop the one illegal vote that renders my vote worthless?

My guess is who the “suppressed” are voting for.

Your guess is wrong. The primary distinction there is that between reality and fabrication. Another is that between supporting democracy and subverting it. And another is between fairness and cheating.

[septimus]

@John_Mace

But still, I’d wait another election cycle to draw any conclusions, since it’s going to take time for people to adapt to the new system.

:eek:
If you’re saying that it will take time for people to obtain the required voter ID, that’s rather the whole point, isn’t it?

[John_Mace]

@septimus

:eek:
If you’re saying that it will take time for people to obtain the required voter ID, that’s rather the whole point, isn’t it?

I think people are lazy and bureaucracies are inherently inefficient. I don’t like the way some of these laws have not left enough time for proper implementation (said that a long time ago) and if the GOP thinks this is going to gain them a significant vote advantage, I think they are not looking past the next elections (said that a long time ago, too).

[AlienVessels]

@Stratocaster

I think it’s a reasonable opinion that fraud is miniscule and that the remedy will disenfranchise a substantial percentage of people. But that’s an opinion as well, right? It comes down to what one considers an undue burden. ANY requirement will cause SOME number of people to not vote who otherwise would have. I speculate that it is a very, very small number of people who have virtually no means of meeting the requirement. But that’s speculation. For everyone else, the question is, where is the “lazy line,” the point beyond which it’s just not reasonable to ask such a thing of people, but short of it it, well, you’re just not motivated enough to bother? That’s pure opinion. But if your position is that these laws serve absolutely no material purpose, your line will be different than if you believe it does. And neither person will be “wrong.”

Whether the burden is excessive is an opinion. However, the side that claims we need ID is also the side that historically has demanded clear proof of the benefits before we add the expense of a law. And that’s also the side that refuses to consider making getting ID easier, implicitly admitting that they’re in favor of setting the bar just high enough to eliminate the people they don’t want voting.

“These laws, as currently designed, place an undue burden on the poor.” They certainly place a disproportionate burden on them, but that’s unavoidable except by degree. The poor have less discretionary energy to devote to ANYTHING additional. They have enough to worry about as it is. But if we stop there then no law is acceptable in the absence of hard evidence that it remedies widespread fraud, where widespread equals “more than what the impact would be on voter turnout.” If we take it further and say that it’s legitimate to guard against a fraudulent outcome in a tight election and that it can be a burden but not an unreasonable one, then we’re back on the same endless cycle of opinion, ISTM.

When I vote, as I will this Tuesday, I cross the street, nod to the staff, sign next to my name on a sheet and vote. There’s no reason this has to be harder.

I have yet to see evidence that the amount of voter fraud of the kind that Voter ID would address has had any significant impact on any election. Further, I haven’t seen any evidence that it’s a greater source of election tampering than many other kinds of election hijinks. But somehow this is the area that will make them happier about their vote.

Perhaps because the end result will tweak the election process more in their favor than regulating the other types of fraud that occur.

[MaxTheVool]

@John_Mace

I suspect that people with better data and analytical tools than we have will weigh in after the election wrt the effect of the Texas voter ID law. But still, I’d wait another election cycle to draw any conclusions, since it’s going to take time for people to adapt to the new system.

So what happens if we do that, and after the 2016 presidential elections we look at the results and say “well, gull-durn-it, looks like there WAS appreciable voter suppression after all”. But then it’s WAAAAY too late because two entire presumably-very-close elections (each covering multiple elected positions) have been “stolen”.
That’s a large part of my position here… I can’t prove that the difficulty imposed by the voter ID laws is an undue burden. Even if I had all the necessary knowledge and data to make a really good estimation of how much decrease in turnout there would be (if any), reasonable people might disagree on what “undue” really meant. But because of the risk of a political advantage being unfairly gained, I think that laws of this sort clearly should face some sort of additional scrutiny. And in this particular case, I think it’s clear that the level of scrutiny is VERY low, with language like “neutral justification” and “could produce an increase in voter confidence in the unlikely event of a future very close election” being thrown around.

[adaher]

If a lot of non-citizens are voting, then that means elections are already being stolen by the Democrats.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@adaher

If a lot of non-citizens are voting, then that means elections are already being stolen by the Democrats.

Yeah, and if a lot of times Democrats are taking ballot boxes in armed raids of polling places and replacing them with doctored ballots, a lot of elections are already being stolen by Democrats.

Non citizens can’t register to vote, dummy.

[adaher]

Sure they can if proof of citizenship isn’t required. Democrats oppose that, you know.

[MaxTheVool]

@adaher

If a lot of non-citizens are voting, then that means elections are already being stolen by the Democrats.

Three responses to that:
(1) Do you have any reason to think that if there were significant numbers of fraudulent votes, they would tend to tilt Democratic? Is the Democratic party for some reason the party of fraudulent voters?
(2) There’s a difference between “it’s plausible that changing this law would lead to X, and X would be very anti-democratic. Therefore we should be extra cautious about this law”. And “we are currently in state Y, which we suspect might have a certain bad quality. Therefore laws that might prevent that bad quality have extra justification”. In the latter case, if you are already in the state, you can presumably MEASURE it. Provide me some evidence that without voter ID laws there are statistically significant numbers of democratic-leaning fraudulent votes happening, and I’ll definitely agree that a law to address that has a strong justification
(3) Do you honestly believe that lots of non-citizens are currently voting, particularly for democrats, enough to be at all likely to tilt elections? When did this start? Is it just a total coincidence that the Republicans came to the horrible realization that they were being cheated by real-but-unverifiable fraudulent voting, and proposed totally reasonable measure to address that inequity, at precisely the same time that they decided to start restricting early voting hours and other measures that do NOT have the same neutral justification but which have the same appearance of intent? My point being, there are a lot of parts of this issue which, if looked at in isolation, might be the political equivalent of he-said she-said… “well, voter ID is a good idea in isolation… but the Democrats say that it will add unfair biased undue burdens, which is bad. But the Republicans say that there is a good chance that there is lots of fraudulent voting going on currently, which is bad”, etc. How do you know who to believe? I think you have to think about things like that in context. What other actions are Dems and Reps taking w.r.t. this and similar issues? Which party is more likely to have a motive to lie here? And that angle I believe STRONGLY goes against the Republicans.

[Bricker]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Yeah, and if a lot of times Democrats are taking ballot boxes in armed raids of polling places and replacing them with doctored ballots, a lot of elections are already being stolen by Democrats.

Non citizens can’t register to vote, dummy.

Ramon Cue did.

[elucidator]

They know it, don’t they? They know for a fact that America is basically conservative, a center-right country, everybody knows that, that real Americans are more or less Republican. So, what could possibly explain otherwise inexplicable election results?

Voter fraud. What else could it be? They know that, they just can’t prove it, but it doesn’t matter that they can’t, because they know it. Gotta wonder how many otherwise honest Republicans feel a bit queasy about these shenanigans, but tell themselves that its just payback, just evening things up after all that Democrat voter fraud.

Of course, this is rank speculation, I can’t actually prove that there are any honest Republicans who feel that way. Have to prove there are honest Republicans for starters, wouldn’t I? Pretty much have to exclude those who voted for this shit sandwich.

On the other hand, we must be ready to praise and applaud those Republicans who refused to play along, that stood up to be counted for truth and justice and would not to be tempted by partisan gain. I stand ready to shower approval upon them, just as soon as we get all their names. Or maybe both of their names.

Or one?

[elucidator]

Thanks, Bricker! Thanks for reminding me about Florida, and reminding me of the Florida Republican election officials who wouldn’t play along with Governor Skeletor’s “purge”. Honest Republicans, right there! We cannot have too many such men, they are a credit to any party and a blessing to any nation!

May the Goddess hold them close to Her bountiful bosom for ever and ever, amen. Apersons. Whatever…

Can we get their names, maybe invite them to join the Boards? I would be proud to have them, proud to engage them in open and honest debate. Are they still Republicans? When Republicans are excommunicated, do they tear off your US flag lapel pin, and break your golf clubs over their knee?

[ElvisL1ves]

@adaher

Sure they can if proof of citizenship isn’t required. Democrats oppose that, you know.

No, I don’t know that. What makes you think “they” do? :dubious: