Voter ID Laws: Necessary to combat rampant fraud or subtle subjugation of the Democratic demographic

[Bryan_Ekers]

@davidm

It isn’t just a question of whether or not they’ve already voted. It’s a question of whether or not they’re even eligible to vote in the first place. And it’s also a question of whether or not they’re eligible to vote in that precinct.

And if you can find a magic formula that can suss this out without hassling a larger number of legitimate voters, more power to you.

[davidm]

@Bryan_Ekers

And if you can find a magic formula that can suss this out without hassling a larger number of legitimate voters, more power to you.

I’m on your side. I hate these voter ID laws. I was just explaining why we’ll never do the stick your finger in the ink thing in this country.

Our current system works fine at preventing in person voter fraud (though there are other issues). We don’t need any drastic changes. Inked fingers aren’t necessary.

[BrainGlutton]

@Robot_Arm

I remember 2000. I remember the uncertainty over the election results in Florida, and I don’t remember anything about it being due to voter fraud.

:rolleyes: No, you’re right, it wasn’t; it was almost all about misguided or dishonest efforts to prevent “voter fraud.”

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

The few times where corruption is found, it has to do with local candidates buying votes, something which Voter ID laws do not address.

When you ask proponents for evidence of rampant voter fraud which Voter ID laws would address, they admit that they have none.

You don’t actually mean this, do you? Because there are plenty of examples. For example, here and here and here and here and here. Just from a quick Google search.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@Age_Quod_Agis

You don’t actually mean this, do you? Because there are plenty of examples. For example, here and here and here and here and here. Just from a quick Google search.

How many of those examples would Voter ID laws have addressed? Nobody said there wasn’t election fraud (although it is not nearly as rampant as others - including yourself - want to make it out to be), what was said is that Voter ID would not deal with any meaningful amount of fraud, and that the current regulations are sufficient.

You actiually give great evidence that the regulations we have are working just fine: A few officials were caught commiting fraud.

Voter ID laws would not stop Mickey Mouse from being registered to vote (your last citation). Unless Mickey Mouse is actually voting, that is. And there’s no evidence that erroneous registrations, whether comical or fraudulent or simple errors, impact the integrity of actual elections.

[Bricker]

@Robot_Arm

I remember 2000. I remember the uncertainty over the election results in Florida, and I don’t remember anything about it being due to voter fraud. It was all about hanging chads, and absentee ballot deadlines, and recounts in specific districts. If every vote in Florida was cast by the individual who was entitled to do so (and I haven’t got any reason to think they weren’t), it wouldn’t have changed a thing. If you really want to improve confidence in elections, develop a foolproof, tamper-proof means of voting and calculating the results.

The solution you propose has nothing to do with the problem you want to solve.

On the contrary. The reason I mentioned the 2000 election was stated quite clearly. Nowhere did I say that it was itself affected by voter fraud.

I said that it rubbed our noses in the fact that it was possible for a critical national election to come down to a very few votes. This caused an increase in the interest in ensuring that only eligible voter could vote.

[Bricker]

@davidm

Bricker, I still think you’re reaching. While this study does not definitively prove that voter ID laws have no effect on confidence, it certainly calls that assumption into question. So the benefit of the doubt is on you to prove that it does have an effect.

Why is the burden on me?

But let’s ignore that and look at another part of my quote from that document.
Beliefs in the frequency of fraud (which I believe is equivalent to confidence) have little or no effect on electoral participation. So, even if ID laws do increase confidence, it’s meaningless because the level of confidence has little or no effect on voter turnout.

Not at all. Just because the electorate believes that fraud is at a certain frequency now does not mean that a future election will not contain elements (like being ultra-close) that will cause that confidence to change for the worse.

If your team loses by two points, and the refs called back a successful field goal for a dubious holding penalty, you might be highly convinced that poor refereeing lost the game for you. If your team lost by 20 points, you undertstand that one bad call wasn’t the culprit.

[davidm]

@Bricker

I said that it rubbed our noses in the fact that it was possible for a critical national election to come down to a very few votes.

A very few. Nine.

I know that’s not really relevant to the discussion. I just had to get it out.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@Bricker

Not at all. Just because the electorate believes that fraud is at a certain frequency now does not mean that a future election will not contain elements (like being ultra-close) that will cause that confidence to change for the worse.

(emphasis mine)

Heeeelp me! I’m falling down a slope! It’s sliiiiiiperyyyyyyy!

[Bricker]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

(emphasis mine)

Heeeelp me! I’m falling down a slope! It’s sliiiiiiperyyyyyyy!

No.

The slippery slope argument is motivating the electorate, perhaps. But since my argument is about the confidence of the electorate, I am not entering the slippery slope. Do you see the distinction?

[davidm]

@Bricker

Why is the burden on me?

Not at all. Just because the electorate believes that fraud is at a certain frequency now does not mean that a future election will not contain elements (like being ultra-close) that will cause that confidence to change for the worse.

If your team loses by two points, and the refs called back a successful field goal for a dubious holding penalty, you might be highly convinced that poor refereeing lost the game for you. If your team lost by 20 points, you undertstand that one bad call wasn’t the culprit.

But you’re missing the point of the quote you’re responding to.

So, even if ID laws do increase confidence, it’s meaningless because the level of confidence has little or no effect on voter turnout.

This part of the study says that confidence doesn’t affect voter turnout in any meaningful way. So confidence doesn’t matter. So a future decrease in confidence doesn’t matter.

Certainly it’s a good thing for people to have confidence in their elections. But isn’t there some cost benefit ratio, especially when confidence doesn’t seem to have much effect on behavior? As I said in a previous post: what is the upper limit on the number of people it’s worth disenfranchising in order to give the rest of us a warm fuzzy feeling about our elections?

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

You are arguing the confidence of a future electorate, actually, or maybe more accurately the future confidence of the current electorate after a “future election.” Either way, a a slippery slope.

[Rand_Rover]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Has any Republican came out and said “This will disenfranchise people who would vote for my opponent?” Not that I know of (but it would be funny if they did).

Will it have that effect? Yes, even though some may disagree on how much of an effect.

Are they aware of this? They should be.

I kind of think that Occam’s Razor should be applied here. YMMV.

You are using poor reasoning. You are looking at a proposed law, coming up with what you think the impact will be, and then saying that those who propose the law specifically intend for that impact to occur. That is fallacious–the proposers my acknowledge that the impact could occur but is outweighed by other considerations.

Your same reasoning can be used for your position. I could say that you support a system that is easily abused, therefore you must actually desire for there to be abuse. Is that right? Of course it isn’t.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

How many of those examples would Voter ID laws have addressed?

You’re moving the goalposts. You said that the only examples of voter fraud are “local candidates buying votes.” So the pertinent question is, how many of those examples involved something other than “local candidates buying votes.” And the answer is: all of them.

Nobody said there wasn’t election fraud (although it is not nearly as rampant as others - including yourself - want to make it out to be), what was said is that Voter ID would not deal with any meaningful amount of fraud, and that the current regulations are sufficient.

No. That’s not what you said. You said there was no voter fraud except a few instances of a local candidates buying votes. That’s not true.

Second, I haven’t said anything about voter fraud being rampant. Nor do I think voter fraud has to be rampant for it to be a good idea to pass laws restricting it.

Third, the examples I gave involved fraudulent votes being cast. Voter ID laws would presumably help prevent that.

Fourth, you didn’t say that current regulations are sufficient. You’re only saying that now.

You actiually give great evidence that the regulations we have are working just fine: A few officials were caught commiting fraud.

First, you’re either not reading or misrepresenting the links I provided. The voter fraud goes beyond “a few officials.”

Second, you’re moving the goalposts again. Either voter fraud laws work, or they don’t. Which is it?

Voter ID laws would not stop Mickey Mouse from being registered to vote (your last citation). Unless Mickey Mouse is actually voting, that is. And there’s no evidence that erroneous registrations, whether comical or fraudulent or simple errors, impact the integrity of actual elections.

So we have to wait until an election is decided by fraudulent votes before we can do anything about it? I really, really hope you don’t mean that.

[Bricker]

@davidm

But you’re missing the point of the quote you’re responding to.

This part of the study says that confidence doesn’t affect voter turnout in any meaningful way. So confidence doesn’t matter. So a future decrease in confidence doesn’t matter.

Certainly it’s a good thing for people to have confidence in their elections. But isn’t there some cost benefit ratio, especially when confidence doesn’t seem to have much effect on behavior? As I said in a previous post: what is the upper limit on the number of people it’s worth disenfranchising in order to give the rest of us a warm fuzzy feeling about our elections?

Again, why is the burden on me? You quoted that question but failed to answer it.

The study says that voter confidence does not affect turnout. Even if I agree that there’s no step function involved here, a tipping point past which it would affect turnout (and I don’t!) who cares? When did I tie any part of my argument to voter turnout?

Let me ask you this question: for many years, my polling place (at a local elementary school) placed the voting machines in the school cafeteria. Then they added a new gym. Now the voting takes place there. It’s a longer walk from the street parking.

Have I been disenfranchised?

I suspect you’ll say no.

Even though there’s probably one or two people who were willing to hop out of their cars and walk sixty feet but don’t want to talk 250 feet. We don’t call them “disenfranchised” because that change is entirely reasonable.

I’m not concerned so much with how many people stop voting as I am with the reasonableness of the changes. If people stopped voting because the seal of the state were printed in green instead of purple, I wouldn’t regard them as disenfranchised.

You have assumed that people who don’t vote under a voter ID scheme are disenfranchised. I disagree.

[Bricker]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

You are arguing the confidence of a future electorate, actually, or maybe more accurately the future confidence of the current electorate after a “future election.” Either way, a a slippery slope.

No.

I am arguing that to prevent a foreseeable crisis, we should (and have) act to strengthen voter identity integrity. There’s no question that the event is foreseeable. I agree that the effect of the event is not certain.

But if a hurricane hits the coast and washes away five feet of sand, I am entitled to argue for the beach to be built back up and breakwaters installed, even though we don’t know if, or when, another hurricane will hit and whether or not it will be strong enough to do any damage at all.

It’s quite irritating to hear fallacy names like “slippery slope” bandied about by people who don’t seem to understand the nature of the fallacy, except perhaps at a surface level.

Here is a brief link to a fairly decent, concise description.

The fallacy involves asserting that something more serious is the inevitable result of a current phenomenon.

My argument is that the current phenomenon places us on notice that a future event is possible, and prudence dictates that we take steps to protect ourselves from the negative effects, should it occur.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Does this really mean that Democrats are all for election fraud? (I joke but there are some who actually believe this.)

By the way, I should have pointed out how this cite made me giggle. Your cite goes to Google search results for “democrats want election fraud” (without quotes). And scrolling down the results, I see … zero hits that support your proposition. But hey, you Googled it, so it must be true.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@Age_Quod_Agis

You’re moving the goalposts.

Not really. My OP said that what small amount of fraud has happened would not be addressed by Voter ID. I used “local candidates buying votes” as one example, however can you please show me how any of your cites would have been prevented by Voter ID? Additionally, I also said in a previous post that “there are many rules and regulations pertaining to elections (aren’t Republicans supposed to be against regulations?) as it is, and they often will detect fraud when it occurs.” Your cites do show that I was correct that the current regulations in place are sufficient, so thank you for that.

So we have to wait until an election is decided by fraudulent votes before we can do anything about it? I really, really hope you don’t mean that.

You are aware there are already rules against fraudulent votes, right? I mean, see your citations…

I already stated my opinion:

Is the security that a type of voter fraud that has yet to occur at all is somewhat less likely to occur for the first time (these laws still don’t make duplitous voting impossible as anyone who has ever had to check IDs at bars in college towns could tell you) worth disenfranchising this x-number of voters?

My feeling is I could possibly be convinced that some disenfranchising of voters might be a necessary evil if it meant stopping some obvious fraud, but that disenfranchising even one voter in the name of addressing a problem that doesn’t exist is shameful.

And I will add to the last sentence “especially when there are already laws against voting multiple times on the books.”

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@Age_Quod_Agis

By the way, I should have pointed out how this cite made me giggle. Your cite goes to Google search results for “democrats want election fraud” (without quotes). And scrolling down the results, I see … zero hits that support your proposition. But hey, you Googled it, so it must be true.

The very first link is entitled “Why The Democrats Want Voter Fraud” so I guess you didn’t get very far. Sorry I linked my search instead in a cut & paste error. Thanks for catching that.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@Bricker

I am arguing that to prevent a foreseeable crisis, we should (and have) act to strengthen voter identity integrity. ***There’s no question that the event is foreseeable. ***

No slippery slope there at all, Bricker. None whatsoever. We’re just predicting the future, it just so happens that the future we are predicting and making laws to affect is actually uphill in your world. So kudos to your forward-thinking future world where things slide upwards.

You have not answered my question asking you to sum up your own views. I will ask again:

So you think it’s fine to disenfranchise x-number of voters in order to address a problem that doesn’t exist. And this is supposed to make public confidence in elections better. Am I correct?