YOU'RE FIRED!

[Miles]

.


Joe Biden, now with 279 electoral votes and Trump with only 213 or 214 electoral votes (depends on whom your watching) is the clear President Elect of the U.S.A..

Trump received the news while golfing in Florida. (Where else would he be?)


Upon hearing of Biden's 279 electoral votes. . . .



“Frankly, we did win this election.” * "Yup." "You sure did your highness." "yes siree!"

"Shortly before his defeat by Joe Biden was called, and with the nation deeply divided, Donald Trump began his Saturday by tweeting inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud. Then he went to play golf.

The president, the White House pool reporter wrote, appeared for the motorcade to his course in Sterling, Virginia “wearing white Maga cap, windbreaker, dark slacks, non-dress shirt, shoes that look appropriate for golfing”.

Trump’s dedication to playing golf while in office has been a source of continuing controversy – particularly because he memorably and repeatedly lambasted his predecessor, Barack Obama, over how often he played the game."
source

And

"Trump Was Golfing When He Lost the Presidency"
Where were you when you found out the 2020 presidential election was called for Joe Biden? I was at home, blogging. My neighbors appear to have been “at the store, shopping for airhorns.” We know where President Trump was: at the golf course. According to the Associated Press, Trump left for his golf course in Virginia earlier this morning and hasn’t yet come back.

Thoughts and prayers for his caddie."
source

And Trump's response?

"Donald Trump is refusing to concede the presidential election to Joe Biden even after the Associated Press, and every US television news network, declared him the president-elect, saying the race is “far from over” and promising an intense legal fight.

“The simple fact is this election is far from over. Joe Biden has not been certified as the winner of any states, let alone any of the highly contested states headed for mandatory recounts, or states where our campaign has valid and legitimate legal challenges that could determine the ultimate victor,” the president said in a statement, released by his campaign.

“Beginning Monday, our campaign will start prosecuting our case in court to ensure election laws are fully upheld and the rightful winner is seated. The American people are entitled to an honest election: that means counting all legal ballots, and not counting any illegal ballots,” he said, continuing to claim there is widespread voter fraud but without evidence."
source

So, kind members, how do you think Trump will be handling his defeat in the coming months. Will he actually go ahead with an "intense legal fight"? Will he welcome the Bidens into the White House in January as is the custom? Will he even attend Biden's inauguration? Some TV pundits are doubtful.

*source


.

[Purple Knight]

In general, people have a right to have it proved to them that the game is fair. If people could be cheating, that's reason enough to investigate and add measures against. This is the way it works in any rigorous competition. Why do people suddenly lose that right when the competition is more important?

[The Barbarian]

The only evidence you've presented is instances where voter fraud is caught, but that doesn't tell me about how much isn't caught."

So the first step in dealing with a problem is showing that there's a problem. So far no one can show me that there is. We have enough laws for stuff that's demonstrably real, without adding some to handle problems that so far, can be only shown to exist in some people's imaginations.

If someone claims there is a problem, then they should demonstrate it.

For some reason, you're not doing that.

At the same time, if someone claims that there is NO problem of people not getting caught, then that claim needs to be validated, as well.

I pointed out that no one has presented any evidence of a problem, not what you said I said. I'm reluctant to conclude there's a comprehension problem here, but this isn't the first time.

Later on in your post, you mentioned

There should be no new laws, absent a demonstrated need for them. Americanism 101.

but perhaps you should also consider Logic 101, as well when it comes to burden of proof

As you know, if you claim there is a problem, the burden of proof is on you. That's how it works.

and arguments from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.

Precisely why I pointed out that no one has provided evidence that there is a problem with illegal voting. And why I'm questioning your argument that since we don't know there is a problem, we must do something about it.

I'm wanting to know how can we know either way? Surely, taking away oversight and security that is meant to catch problems won't help us know that.

As you learned, existing oversight catches cheaters. On the other hand, voter ID and other "ballot security" laws in Texas did not catch more cheaters. For reason it shouldn't be hard to figure out.

Therefore, to test your claims and anyone elses, I propose we increase security.

Done. It failed.

And if anything, what is wrong with having security anways?

We should. As you see, it caught several people. Here's the truth that statists don't get: making new laws won't catch more criminals. It just criminalizes things that were legal in a free society.

I'm specifically addressing voter fraud and how we can know how much is being committed. Bringing up Republicans suppressing votes or bringing up voter ID, does not answer my question.

As you know, voter suppression is the only instance of widespread voter fraud in the United States. If this is about reality, then shouldn't you address the problems that actually exist, first?

Logic 101. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Nor is Absence of evidence, evidence of presence. It's just absence of evidence. But as the Texas example shows, writing more laws isn't enough to catch more criminals; there have to actually be criminals to catch.

Just because there's no evidence of uncaught fraud, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Just because there's no evidence of elephants hiding in the trees in the park, doesn't mean they aren't there. I think everyone gets that.

Like you've suggested, we can see if added security would catch more cheating.

It failed not just in Texas, BTW. Name me one state that increased "ballot security" that caught more criminals cheating.

What I want to know is how we can have a fair assessment, or any assessment at all, when it comes to the amount of cheating via voter fraud.

That's what you have to show us. It does no one's argument any good to say "I don't have any evidence, but I just know it's a problem."

You're misrepresenting my claim. Here's my claim from the last post, "I'm not claiming that the uncaught cases are a big problem, I'm just stating that they can happen."

So you're saying the cheating could all be just imaginary?

You''re stating that they are not a problem,

No. I'm pointing out there is no evidence for it. It's not just an opinion:

Donald Trump has repeatedly alluded to fraud as a reason to introduce controversial voter ID laws, but a News21 analysis and recent court rulings show little evidence that such fraud is widespread.

A study of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases in 50 states between 2000 and 2012 found the level of fraud was infinitesimal compared with the 146 million voters registered over the 12-year period.

The analysis found only 10 cases of voter impersonation, the only kind of fraud that could be prevented by voter ID at the polls.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/st ... ud-n637776

and that's also a claim that needs to be backed up.

Thought you knew. Here's just one study. Feel free to show us one that confirms widespread illegal voting.

I'm not claiming that the uncaught cases are a big problem, I'm just stating that they can happen.

"I'm not claiming that meteorite strikes injuring people are a big problem. I'm just stating that they can happen. So we need new laws and meteorite shields." Um, no.

We don't need security just because I think uncaught cases are a big problem. It's only lately I've been using that point as a solution to the problem of knowing about uncaught cases.

Texas, among other states tried that. No widespread cheating found.

But I've also argued in earlier threads that security should also be PROACTIVE and not just reactive.

Note that existing PROACTIVE security caught people. At about the same rate as numerous investigations have confirmed that it happens.

Even if no one to date had committed voter impersonation, that doesn't mean that someone can't do it or won't try at some point in time.

They do, rarely. They got caught. Increasing "ballot security" didn't catch more.

Security closes the door on that happen

It did. We caught them.

I don't know how much of a problem or the number of cheating that goes uncaught. In contrast, you're making an absolute claim that would involve having absolute knowledge of cheating when you claimed all instances are caught.

Except, I didn't. Go back and take another look.

You've said that almost all voter fraud cases are caught.

Yes, and there is good evidence for that claim.
1. repeated investigations show no evidence of widespread cheating.
2. increased "ballot security" laws show no such increase in cheaters being caught.

Which is perhaps why animal control doesn't survey the trees in the park to find those hidden elephants.

Then you suggested that uncaught cases don't exist.

No, I said that there is no evidence for that assumption.

You can't blame me for understanding your statements to be an absolute claim

Actually I can. It's not what I said.

or as near to that as you can get.

If you suppose that having no evidence for illegal voting is as near to having no illegal voting as you can get, perhaps you're right. But that seems to undercut your argument.

So far you've dodged your obligation to show how we can know that all cases are caught.

Would be so, if I made that claim. But I didn't. I don't believe any law at all can assure that all violators would be caught. Would you like checkpoints and random "your papers, please" operations to assure no crimes occur?

So how do you know about the number of uncaught cases?

Kinda like I know about the number of elephants hiding in the park.

Do you now acknowledge that there can be voter fraud that goes uncaught?

Since I told you that almost all such cases get caught, I'm thinking you're not paying attention very well.

If so, how do you know what number or percentage of those cases out of all fraud cases?

One study actually came up with a number. It's not a very large one... (Barbarian checks).... Ah, from an advocate of more laws...

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has called voter fraud “rampant” in Texas. A records request from News21 to the Office of the Attorney General of Texas shows that more than 360 allegations of voter fraud were sent to the attorney general since 2012. Fifteen of those cases were successfully prosecuted. Four of those convicted were voters – the rest were elections officials or third-party volunteers.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/st ... ud-n637776

So in 19 years, 4 cases of illegal voting. A lot less than one case per several million votes. Can you show me even one race that might have been affected in Texas if all of them happened in the same election? Right. None of them.

So why don't people cheat? It's pretty simple. The odds of your vote actually deciding an election is very, very small. The penalty for getting caught (felony in most places) is very serious. Huge penalty, tiny payoff. Expected value of cheating is a huge loss. Turns out, criminals are economic beings, like the rest of us. This is why voting scandals tend to be major efforts by candidates or election workers, not individual voters.

Secondly, the strength your response about leprechauns is usually is based on the fact that if we can't evidence it or prove it, then it shouldn't be considered.

No law should be passed absent a demonstrated need for it. Americanism 101.

So by your logic, we need voter ID laws since voter impersonation has happened.

No demonstrated need. As the numbers provided by a voter suppression advocate showed above, none of the four illegal votes he found in 19 years of looking, affected elections in any way at all.

However, in my scenario, I'm not referring to things that can't be proven. There is a way to catch even more cheating than what we're catching now, and that's with INCREASED security and oversight.

Sounds like a testable claim. What is your evidence for that? Texas increased oversight in the 2020 election. No significant fraud was found. So the evidence we have is contrary to your assumption.[/quote]

For instance, Raquel Rodriguez was going door to door collecting mail-in ballots that she would turn in herself. After she saw what people were marking down for their votes, she was caught trying to get them to change it and offering gifts (trying to buy their vote??) in return.

Voter ID at the polls wouldn't do a thing about that. And several such schemes have been caught by existing security. As you're probably starting to realize, "ballot security" was designed to suppress votes, not to catch illegal voting.

I mean just think of it logically. If there was no security, and you caught no cheating, would you feel confident in saying there was no cheating?

There is security. That's how they catch the people who do cheat. I'm just pointing out that the elaborate additional "security" implemented in Texas didn't catch more cheaters. Bottom line; more security didn't find more cheating.

Let's try to do some Security 101. As I mentioned before, there's nothing wrong with having added security

Providing it works and doesn't keep legal voters from voting. But as you know, the people touting more security are doing it to keep legal voters from voting. Occasionally, they forget themselves and admit it. Would you like to see that?

Your link says the change was because the State of Georgia failed to count some ballots. I'm puzzled as to how you think "security" to prevent illegal voting would have assured that the republicans counting the votes would not have erred. I mean, they shorted their own candidate by failing to tally votes. I don't see how that could be considered intentional.

Who says it was just Republicans counting the votes?

The state of Georgia.

Who says that it wasn't intentional?

Seems unlikely that the Secretary of State (a Trump supporter) would do it intentionally.

It would seem someone had a way of knowing about the discrepancy by comparing the number of ballots casts with the final vote tally, and yet they chose to call the election WITHOUT addressing this discrepancy. The discrepancy wasn't addressed until there was a RECOUNT.

Precisely because vote ID laws would not have detected such an error.

Here's another case involving a dead person voting and it took EXTRA work, in the form of investigations to catch (so far I've seen no updates from the investigation):

The Philadelphia Inquirer got ahold of Ondick’s daughter, who said she helped her mother fill out an application for a mail-in ballot in early October, before she died of cancer. The daughter told the Inquirer she could not explain why the ballot had been sent in after her mother’s death, and that her father, Ondick’s husband, could not recall if he did anything with the ballot. The daughter said her mother had planned to vote for Trump.

Allegheny County officials said they will investigate the matter.

At least one dead person voted for Trump in 2016, as well. And voter ID wouldn't have caught this one, either.

I'm not sure what cases you're referring to. I'm assuming we can agree that if there is a voter ID law in place, and someone tries to vote for someone else, then doing an ID check would catch that.

Such a case actually occurred twice in the last two presidential elections. They got caught each time, without a voter ID law.

You're getting off topic by not answering what I asked about.

Just pointing out that existing security was sufficient. That's precisely the topic.

I asked specifically if voter ID requirement could catch voter impersonation

Not those cases. Not surprisingly, they seem to be more common than the sort voter ID might prevent.

You addressed one of my points but didn't address the other one. Do you agree that requiring voter ID can be used to deter voter impersonation?

If someone walks in and tries to vote for someone else, would requiring them to show voter ID be a way to catch them?

Likely so. It would happen with most state security as it is now.

[AgnosticBoy]

Voter ID at the polls wouldn't do a thing about that. And several such schemes have been caught by existing security. As you're probably starting to realize, "ballot security" was designed to suppress votes, not to catch illegal voting.

I'm open to the idea that increased requirements and rules can be used to suppress votes, however, voter ID is not one of those things. If you recall, a month or so ago, I debunked your claim that voter ID suppressed voters. Not only that but it's an easy fix. Instead of worrying about Republicans putting in a law to require ID, something which is already required for some of the most routine things in our society (buying drinks, driving a car, getting a job, etc), I'd rather work on helping minorities get an ID. And I'm assuming that lacking an ID is the real reason why some don't want to vote as opposed to some other reason.

[The Barbarian]

Voter ID at the polls wouldn't do a thing about that. And several such schemes have been caught by existing security. As you're probably starting to realize, "ballot security" was designed to suppress votes, not to catch illegal voting.

I'm open to the idea that increased requirements and rules can be used to suppress votes, however, voter ID is not one of those things.

Well, let's take a look...

Indeed, in a column for right-wing clearinghouse WorldNetDaily, longtime conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly acknowledged as much with a defense of North Carolina’s new voting law, which has been criticized for its restrictions on access, among other things. Here’s Schlafly:

“The reduction in the number of days allowed for early voting is particularly important because early voting plays a major role in Obama’s ground game. The Democrats carried most states that allow many days of early voting, and Obama’s national field director admitted, shortly before last year’s election, that ‘early voting is giving us a solid lead in the battleground states that will decide this election.’

“The Obama technocrats have developed an efficient system of identifying prospective Obama voters and then nagging them (some might say harassing them) until they actually vote. It may take several days to accomplish this, so early voting is an essential component of the Democrats’ get-out-the-vote campaign.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/republica ... tic-voters

Last spring, for example, Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai told a gathering of Republicans that their voter identification law would “allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.” That summer, at an event hosted by the Heritage Foundation, former Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund conceded that Democrats had a point about the GOP’s focus on voter ID, as opposed to those measures—such as absentee balloting—that are vulnerable to tampering. “I think it is a fair argument of some liberals that there are some people who emphasize the voter ID part more than the absentee ballot part because supposedly Republicans like absentee ballots more and they don’t want to restrict that,” he said.

After the election, former Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer told The Palm Beach Post that the explicit goal of the state’s voter-ID law was Democratic suppression. “The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told the Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only ... ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’” he said. Indeed, the Florida Republican Party imposed a host of policies, from longer ballots to fewer precincts in minority areas, meant to discourage voting. And it worked. According to one study, as many as 49,000 people were discouraged from voting in November 2012 as a result of long lines and other obstacles.

Likewise, if Alabama’s voter-ID law goes into effect, it will place its largest burden on black voters who lack acceptable forms of identification and don’t have immediate access to alternatives. And while most of these laws—which, it’s worth noting, have been passed in most of the states of the former Confederacy—provide for free identification, it’s not an easy reach. To get one in Mississippi, for instance, residents need a birth certificate, which costs $15 and requires the photo identification they don’t have. They’ll also need time to travel to the state office to pay or a computer to do the transaction online.

For the one in five Mississippians who live below the poverty line, there’s no guarantee of the time to go to an office, a computer to access the website, or a credit card to make the transaction. After all, more than 10 million American households don’t have bank accounts, and the large majority of them are low income. Most voters will know the steps they need to get an ID. They just aren’t easy to complete, and that’s the point.

So we should be thankful for Schlafly’s candor. The more Republicans acknowledge that these laws are designed to suppress the votes of blacks, Latinos, and others, the easier building a movement to stop them will be.

If you recall, a month or so ago, I debunked your claim that voter ID suppressed voters.

You denied it. But let's take a look at that...

The study, published June 4 in the journal Politics, Groups, and Identities, examined turnout changes across the two most recent presidential elections in 2012 and 2016. Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, and Wisconsin all implemented strict voter photo ID laws. They defined "strict" as laws that require voters to present identification before their ballot will be officially counted. Eleven states currently have strict voter ID laws.

"We collected data on turnout in every county in the United States over two elections," says Dr. Hajnal. "We then compared turnout changes in states that enacted a new strict ID law with changes in states that did not enact a new law. We found that turnout in more racially diverse counties fell faster relative to turnout in less racially diverse counties in those states that had implemented strict ID laws then in other similar states. In essence, racial and ethnic minorities fell further behind when strict voter ID laws were introduced."

Hajnal said this research came out of concern about the possible consequences fo these laws.

"[These laws] are relatively new and yet have already been introduced in so many states," says Dr. Hajnal. "Moreover, there is a strong sense that they are targeting racial and ethnic minorities but the limited studies that have been done so far haven’t reached a definitive conclusion." He says this study makes a significant advance because "it uses official turnout data and a simple but sophisticated research design."

The fraud that these laws supposedly prevent is far from substantial. Research of Loyola University found that between 2000 and 2014, there were only 31 credible allegations that "someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix." And 2017 research on the 2016 general election shows that, in the jurisdictions studied, of 23.5 million votes only 30 are estimated to have been cast by noncitizens.

The next step to address voter ID laws is in the courts, says Dr. Hajnal. In February, North Carolina's Court of Appeals blocked the state's new voter ID law from taking effect. As of May 2014, more than half of the states that enacted voter ID laws have seen at least one legal while and some faced up to four. "They need to decide whether laws that disproportionately negatively impact racial minorities can still be considered to be constitutional," says Hajnal.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/voter ... r-BB161h9b

As you see, voter ID laws, as they were prepared by partisan legislatures, did what they were designed to do; reduce minority voting. Not just one or two states; everywhere they were implemented. As republicans sometimes admit, that's why they are implemented.

Not only that but it's an easy fix. Instead of worrying about Republicans putting in a law to require ID, something which is already required for some of the most routine things in our society (buying drinks, driving a car, getting a job, etc), I'd rather work on helping minorities get an ID.

See above. That would be a good plan, but notice that making it difficult for many people to get the ID is part of the plan. Making sure every qualified voter has an ID would defeat the whole purpose of requiring them in the first place. But I would support that ID if the state would guarantee that every qualified voter had an ID.

That's not going to happen, is it?

[AgnosticBoy]

Voter ID at the polls wouldn't do a thing about that. And several such schemes have been caught by existing security. As you're probably starting to realize, "ballot security" was designed to suppress votes, not to catch illegal voting.

You quoted me but then you didn't even address what I said. Nothing you said addresses the studies that I bought up regarding voter ID correlating with lower voter turnout.

#red herring #misdirection

I'm open to the idea that increased requirements and rules can be used to suppress votes, however, voter ID is not one of those things.

Well, let's take a look...

Indeed, in a column for right-wing clearinghouse WorldNetDaily, longtime conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly acknowledged as much with a defense of North Carolina’s new voting law, which has been criticized for its restrictions on access, among other things. Here’s Schlafly:

“The reduction in the number of days allowed for early voting is particularly important because early voting plays a major role in Obama’s ground game. The Democrats carried most states that allow many days of early voting, and Obama’s national field director admitted, shortly before last year’s election, that ‘early voting is giving us a solid lead in the battleground states that will decide this election.’

Did you even bother to read your own information to see how it addresses my point about voter ID? It says nothing about voter ID, and instead it talks about early voting. So that's another distraction.

“The Obama technocrats have developed an efficient system of identifying prospective Obama voters and then nagging them (some might say harassing them) until they actually vote. It may take several days to accomplish this, so early voting is an essential component of the Democrats’ get-out-the-vote campaign.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/republica ... tic-voters

Last spring, for example, Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai told a gathering of Republicans that their voter identification law would “allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.” That summer, at an event hosted by the Heritage Foundation, former Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund conceded that Democrats had a point about the GOP’s focus on voter ID, as opposed to those measures—such as absentee balloting—that are vulnerable to tampering. “I think it is a fair argument of some liberals that there are some people who emphasize the voter ID part more than the absentee ballot part because supposedly Republicans like absentee ballots more and they don’t want to restrict that,” he said.

So now you're posting hearsay that involves someone saying that increase voter ID laws will allow Republicans to win, particularly mitt Romney. Why don't the studies by experts show that?

After the election, former Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer told The Palm Beach Post that the explicit goal of the state’s voter-ID law was Democratic suppression. “The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told the Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only ... ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’” he said. Indeed, the Florida Republican Party imposed a host of policies, from longer ballots to fewer precincts in minority areas, meant to discourage voting. And it worked. According to one study, as many as 49,000 people were discouraged from voting in November 2012 as a result of long lines and other obstacles.

Even if Republicans are instituting new voter ID laws to suppress vote, that doesn't mean that it actually suppresses votes. That's the point of me bringing up the studies. I don't care about what people think or say when it comes to debate, what I want are studies, and not just one study, but a series of studies that are independently replicated in that provide consistent results that show correlation or causation.

If you recall, a month or so ago, I debunked your claim that voter ID suppressed voters.

You denied it. But let's take a look at that...

The study, published June 4 in the journal Politics, Groups, and Identities, examined turnout changes across the two most recent presidential elections in 2012 and 2016. Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, and Wisconsin all implemented strict voter photo ID laws. They defined "strict" as laws that require voters to present identification before their ballot will be officially counted. Eleven states currently have strict voter ID laws.

"We collected data on turnout in every county in the United States over two elections," says Dr. Hajnal. "We then compared turnout changes in states that enacted a new strict ID law with changes in states that did not enact a new law. We found that turnout in more racially diverse counties fell faster relative to turnout in less racially diverse counties in those states that had implemented strict ID laws then in other similar states. In essence, racial and ethnic minorities fell further behind when strict voter ID laws were introduced."

Hajnal said this research came out of concern about the possible consequences fo these laws.

"[These laws] are relatively new and yet have already been introduced in so many states," says Dr. Hajnal. "Moreover, there is a strong sense that they are targeting racial and ethnic minorities but the limited studies that have been done so far haven’t reached a definitive conclusion." He says this study makes a significant advance because "it uses official turnout data and a simple but sophisticated research design."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/voter ... r-BB161h9b

As you see, voter ID laws, as they were prepared by partisan legislatures, did what they were designed to do; reduce minority voting. Not just one or two states; everywhere they were implemented. As republicans sometimes admit, that's why they are implemented.

Not only that but it's an easy fix. Instead of worrying about Republicans putting in a law to require ID, something which is already required for some of the most routine things in our society (buying drinks, driving a car, getting a job, etc), I'd rather work on helping minorities get an ID.

See above. That would be a good plan, but notice that making it difficult for many people to get the ID is part of the plan. Making sure every qualified voter has an ID would defeat the whole purpose of requiring them in the first place. But I would support that ID if the state would guarantee that every qualified voter had an ID.

That's not going to happen, is it?

Did it take you a long time to find that ONE study that just so happens to agree with you?

Try a series of studies:

Another 10 studies GAO reviewed showed mixed effects of various forms of state voter ID requirements on turnout. All 10 studies examined general elections before 2008, and 1 of the 10 studies also included the 2004 through 2012 general elections. Five of these 10 studies found that ID requirements had no statistically significant effect on turnout; in contrast 4 studies found decreases in turnout and 1 found an increase in turnout that were statistically significant.

Source: https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-634

[The Barbarian]

Voter ID at the polls wouldn't do a thing about that. And several such schemes have been caught by existing security. As you're probably starting to realize, "ballot security" was designed to suppress votes, not to catch illegal voting.

You quoted me but then you didn't even address what I said. Nothing you said addresses the studies that I bought up regarding voter ID correlating with lower voter turnout.

I showed you a nationwide study that clearly shows that ID laws reduce voting participation.
The study, published June 4 in the journal Politics, Groups, and Identities, examined turnout changes across the two most recent presidential elections in 2012 and 2016. Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, and Wisconsin all implemented strict voter photo ID laws. They defined "strict" as laws that require voters to present identification before their ballot will be officially counted. Eleven states currently have strict voter ID laws.

"We collected data on turnout in every county in the United States over two elections," says Dr. Hajnal. "We then compared turnout changes in states that enacted a new strict ID law with changes in states that did not enact a new law. We found that turnout in more racially diverse counties fell faster relative to turnout in less racially diverse counties in those states that had implemented strict ID laws then in other similar states. In essence, racial and ethnic minorities fell further behind when strict voter ID laws were introduced."

Hajnal said this research came out of concern about the possible consequences fo these laws.

"[These laws] are relatively new and yet have already been introduced in so many states," says Dr. Hajnal. "Moreover, there is a strong sense that they are targeting racial and ethnic minorities but the limited studies that have been done so far haven’t reached a definitive conclusion." He says this study makes a significant advance because "it uses official turnout data and a simple but sophisticated research design."

The fraud that these laws supposedly prevent is far from substantial. Research of Loyola University found that between 2000 and 2014, there were only 31 credible allegations that "someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix." And 2017 research on the 2016 general election shows that, in the jurisdictions studied, of 23.5 million votes only 30 are estimated to have been cast by noncitizens.

The next step to address voter ID laws is in the courts, says Dr. Hajnal. In February, North Carolina's Court of Appeals blocked the state's new voter ID law from taking effect. As of May 2014, more than half of the states that enacted voter ID laws have seen at least one legal while and some faced up to four. "They need to decide whether laws that disproportionately negatively impact racial minorities can still be considered to be constitutional," says Hajnal.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/voter ... r-BB161h9b

As you see, voter ID laws, as they were prepared by partisan legislatures, did what they were designed to do; reduce minority voting. Not just one or two states; everywhere they were implemented. As republicans sometimes admit, that's why they are implemented.

#red herring #misdirection

It demonstrates what you denied.

I'm open to the idea that increased requirements and rules can be used to suppress votes, however, voter ID is not one of those things.

Well, let's take a look...

Last spring, for example, Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai told a gathering of Republicans that their voter identification law would “allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.” That summer, at an event hosted by the Heritage Foundation, former Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund conceded that Democrats had a point about the GOP’s focus on voter ID, as opposed to those measures—such as absentee balloting—that are vulnerable to tampering. “I think it is a fair argument of some liberals that there are some people who emphasize the voter ID part more than the absentee ballot part because supposedly Republicans like absentee ballots more and they don’t want to restrict that,” he said.

After the election, former Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer told The Palm Beach Post that the explicit goal of the state’s voter-ID law was Democratic suppression. “The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told the Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only ... ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’” he said. Indeed, the Florida Republican Party imposed a host of policies, from longer ballots to fewer precincts in minority areas, meant to discourage voting. And it worked. According to one study, as many as 49,000 people were discouraged from voting in November 2012 as a result of long lines and other obstacles.

Likewise, if Alabama’s voter-ID law goes into effect, it will place its largest burden on black voters who lack acceptable forms of identification and don’t have immediate access to alternatives. And while most of these laws—which, it’s worth noting, have been passed in most of the states of the former Confederacy—provide for free identification, it’s not an easy reach. To get one in Mississippi, for instance, residents need a birth certificate, which costs $15 and requires the photo identification they don’t have. They’ll also need time to travel to the state office to pay or a computer to do the transaction online.

For the one in five Mississippians who live below the poverty line, there’s no guarantee of the time to go to an office, a computer to access the website, or a credit card to make the transaction. After all, more than 10 million American households don’t have bank accounts, and the large majority of them are low income. Most voters will know the steps they need to get an ID. They just aren’t easy to complete, and that’s the point.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/republica ... tic-voters

Did you even bother to read your own information to see how it addresses my point about voter ID? It says nothing about voter ID, and instead it talks about early voting. So that's another distraction.

? Read it again. I clipped the relevant part of the post for you, so you won't miss it.

doesn't mean that it actually suppresses votes.

That's the point of me bringing up the study that shows it does.

If you recall, a month or so ago, I debunked your claim that voter ID suppressed voters.

You denied it. But let's take a look at that...

The study, published June 4 in the journal Politics, Groups, and Identities, examined turnout changes across the two most recent presidential elections in 2012 and 2016. Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, and Wisconsin all implemented strict voter photo ID laws. They defined "strict" as laws that require voters to present identification before their ballot will be officially counted. Eleven states currently have strict voter ID laws.

"We collected data on turnout in every county in the United States over two elections," says Dr. Hajnal. "We then compared turnout changes in states that enacted a new strict ID law with changes in states that did not enact a new law. We found that turnout in more racially diverse counties fell faster relative to turnout in less racially diverse counties in those states that had implemented strict ID laws then in other similar states. In essence, racial and ethnic minorities fell further behind when strict voter ID laws were introduced."

Hajnal said this research came out of concern about the possible consequences fo these laws.

"[These laws] are relatively new and yet have already been introduced in so many states," says Dr. Hajnal. "Moreover, there is a strong sense that they are targeting racial and ethnic minorities but the limited studies that have been done so far haven’t reached a definitive conclusion." He says this study makes a significant advance because "it uses official turnout data and a simple but sophisticated research design."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/voter ... r-BB161h9b

As you see, voter ID laws, as they were prepared by partisan legislatures, did what they were designed to do; reduce minority voting. Not just one or two states; everywhere they were implemented. As republicans sometimes admit, that's why they are implemented.

Not only that but it's an easy fix. Instead of worrying about Republicans putting in a law to require ID, something which is already required for some of the most routine things in our society (buying drinks, driving a car, getting a job, etc), I'd rather work on helping minorities get an ID.

See above. That would be a good plan, but notice that making it difficult for many people to get the ID is part of the plan. Making sure every qualified voter has an ID would defeat the whole purpose of requiring them in the first place. But I would support that ID if the state would guarantee that every qualified voter had an ID.

That's not going to happen, is it?

Did it take you a long time to find that ONE study that just so happens to agree with you?

The one nationwide study that actually looked at minority voting differences when ID laws were changed (as republicans have admitted) to reduce minority voting.

Another 10 studies GAO reviewed showed mixed effects of various forms of state voter ID requirements on turnout. All 10 studies examined general elections before 2008, and 1 of the 10 studies also included the 2004 through 2012 general elections. Five of these 10 studies found that ID requirements had no statistically significant effect on turnout; in contrast 4 studies found decreases in turnout and 1 found an increase in turnout that were statistically significant.

Source: https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-634
[/quote]

Total turnout is not the same as minority turnout. Which is why the one study that actually looked at that issue is the only one that reported lower minority turnout. Not hard to figure out.

[AgnosticBoy]

The study, published June 4 in the journal Politics, Groups, and Identities, examined turnout changes across the two most recent presidential elections in 2012 and 2016. Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, and Wisconsin all implemented strict voter photo ID laws. They defined "strict" as laws that require voters to present identification before their ballot will be officially counted. Eleven states currently have strict voter ID laws.

"We collected data on turnout in every county in the United States over two elections," says Dr. Hajnal. "We then compared turnout changes in states that enacted a new strict ID law with changes in states that did not enact a new law. We found that turnout in more racially diverse counties fell faster relative to turnout in less racially diverse counties in those states that had implemented strict ID laws then in other similar states. In essence, racial and ethnic minorities fell further behind when strict voter ID laws were introduced."

Sorry but your research is biased to say the least. It seems like you never took my advice about the folly of going by ONE study, especially studies that deal with hot button issues. Did you bother to read up on any REPLICATIONS of Dr. Hajnal's study? Doesn't seem like it:

We replicate and extend Hajnal, Lajevardi, and Nielson’s 2017 article, which concludes that voter ID laws decrease turnout among minorities, using validated turnout data from five national surveys conducted between 2006 and 2014. We show that the results of their article are a product of data inaccuracies, the presented evidence does not support the stated conclusion, and alternative model specifications produce highly variable results. When errors are corrected, one can recover positive, negative, or null estimates of the effect of voter ID laws on turnout, precluding firm conclusions.

Source: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/a ... alCode=jop

Consider the replication in addition to all of the other studies I brought up earlier that shows your claim to be nothing more than PARTISAN talking points.

[The Barbarian]

The study, published June 4 in the journal Politics, Groups, and Identities, examined turnout changes across the two most recent presidential elections in 2012 and 2016. Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, and Wisconsin all implemented strict voter photo ID laws. They defined "strict" as laws that require voters to present identification before their ballot will be officially counted. Eleven states currently have strict voter ID laws.

"We collected data on turnout in every county in the United States over two elections," says Dr. Hajnal. "We then compared turnout changes in states that enacted a new strict ID law with changes in states that did not enact a new law. We found that turnout in more racially diverse counties fell faster relative to turnout in less racially diverse counties in those states that had implemented strict ID laws then in other similar states. In essence, racial and ethnic minorities fell further behind when strict voter ID laws were introduced."

Sorry but your research is biased to say the least.

Because it actually measured the effect on areas with large minority populations? That's what were were talking about. Your studies never addressed the issue.

It seems like you never took my advice about the folly of going by ONE study

So far, you haven't gotten ONE study that addresses the effect of these targeted laws on minorities. If you found one, it would help your case.

Give it a try.

[AgnosticBoy]

So far, you haven't gotten ONE study that addresses the effect of these targeted laws on minorities. If you found one, it would help your case.

I posted a REPLICATION of Dr. Hajnal study in my last post. Take your time and read through my entire post.

[The Barbarian]

So far, you haven't gotten ONE study that addresses the effect of these targeted laws on minorities. If you found one, it would help your case.

I posted a REPLICATION of Dr. Hajnal study in my last post. Take your time and read through my entire post.

I read the abstract of the "REPLICATION." ("Sponsored by the Southern Political Science Association") "Nuh-uh" isn't a refutation; it's a denial.

The study focuses on four states—Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, and Wisconsin—that have implemented particularly draconian voter ID laws in the period between the 2012 and 2016 elections. Researchers looked at how turnout changed in those states’ counties in the two elections, comparing more racially diverse counties with whiter ones.

The researchers also compared the county data of those four states to that of demographically similar states that had not passed such laws, to find the relative drop in turnout and to mitigate the role of other factors that may have affected voter turnout. In order to do that, they used official aggregate turnout data for the two elections from all 3,142 counties in the U.S. and census data to help break each county down by racial and ethnic makeup.

The results showed a concrete effect on minority turnout. “Racial and ethnic minority turnout is dropping, relative to white turnout, more when these laws are passed than when not,” says Zoltan Hajnal, a professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego, and one of the study’s coauthors.

Voter turnout in counties with a 75% nonwhite population declined by 1.5% more in states that just adopted strict ID laws than in states that did not. While that’s not a staggering number, Hajnal emphasizes the principle: “Any relative decline in minority turnout is significant,” he says. “Any law that disproportionately burdens racial minorities is discriminatory.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/stric ... r-BB16hYBl

If republicans had been successful in stopping just 1.5% more minority votes, it's almost certain that Trump would have carried Georgia. So the take-away from the republicans is not that they need to change their behavior to attract more American voters; it's that they just didn't cheat hard enough. And the study is confirmed by the nonpartisan US Government Accountability Office:

States that have toughened voter identification laws have experienced steeper drops in election turnout than those that have not, including disproportionate falloffs among black and younger voters, according to a nonpartisan congressional study [text, PDF] released on Wednesday by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) [official website]. By June of this year, 33 states had enacted voter photo ID laws to reduce fraud. The GAO report compared election turnout in Kansas and Tennessee, two states which strengthened voter ID requirements between the 2008 and 2012 elections, to voting in Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware and Maine, which did not change their ID requirements. The report concluded that reductions in voter turnout were about two percent greater in Kansas, and from two to three percent greater in Tennessee than they were in the four other states examined. According to the report, “GAO’s analysis suggests that the turnout decreases in Kansas and Tennessee beyond decreases in the comparison states were attributable to changes in those two states’ voter ID requirements.” The report said that reduced voter turnout in Kansas and Tennessee was sharper among people aged 18 to 23 than among those aged 44 to 53 and that the drop was also more pronounced among black voters than white, Hispanic or Asian voters. The GAO also determined that, in at least one state, an estimated 85 percent of white registered voters and 81 percent of African-American registered voters had a valid ID for voting purposes. The study found that the costs to obtain certain forms of photo IDs vary by state and range from $14.50 to $58.50.
https://www.jurist.org/news/2014/10/con ... y-turnout/

From the republican point of view, decreasing the turnout by younger voters is an unanticipated, but welcome effect of stricter ID laws. No point in denying the facts. While ID laws don't address any significant issues, I'd have no problem with stricter laws if the state was also required to make sure that every eligible voter was given an ID card at no cost to the voter. But as you know, that would defeat the whole purpose of having stricter ID laws, so very unlikely to happen.