YOU'RE FIRED!

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3354
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 257 times
Been thanked: 927 times

YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #1

Post by 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. . . .

Image

“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


.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1335
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 96 times
Contact:

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #181

Post by AgnosticBoy »

The Barbarian wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 6:57 pm
Using a difference-in-differences design on a 1.6-billion-observations panel dataset, 2008–2018, we find that the laws have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation.
Source: Enrico Cantoni & Vincent Pons; Strict ID Laws Don’t Stop Voters: Evidence from a U.S. Nationwide Panel, 2008–2018

Your source doesn't say what you want it to say:
"However, the likelihood that non-white voters were contacted by a campaign increases by 5.4 percentage points, suggesting that parties’ mobilization might have offset modest effects of the laws on the participation of ethnic minorities. Finally, strict ID requirements have no effect on fraud – actual or perceived. Overall, our findings suggest that efforts to improve elections may be better directed at other reforms. "
https://www.nber.org/papers/w25522
Don't you think that factor should be studied before presuming that it had an impact, and if so, the amount of impact?!

Meanwhile, I'm more convinced than ever that your studies don't say what you want it to say. There is some decrease in voting according to some studies (other studies say otherwise), but I don't see why a 2 or 3% decrease should be called "suppression". Requiring ID doesn't suppress voting any more than it would suppress minorities from driving and buying alcohol.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #182

Post by The Barbarian »

Source: Enrico Cantoni & Vincent Pons; Strict ID Laws Don’t Stop Voters: Evidence from a U.S. Nationwide Panel, 2008–2018

Your source doesn't say what you want it to say:
"However, the likelihood that non-white voters were contacted by a campaign increases by 5.4 percentage points, suggesting that parties’ mobilization might have offset modest effects of the laws on the participation of ethnic minorities. Finally, strict ID requirements have no effect on fraud – actual or perceived. Overall, our findings suggest that efforts to improve elections may be better directed at other reforms. "
https://www.nber.org/papers/w25522[/quote]
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:05 pm Don't you think that factor should be studied
As you see, they did. In fact, you cited it. It just doesn't say what you want it to say.
There is some decrease in voting
According to a GAO study that took a look at all states using such tactics, focusing on specific groups.
but I don't see why a 2 or 3% decrease should be called "suppression".
A 2 or 3 percent suppression, if applied everywhere, would have changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential race. So yes, significant. And yes, republicans are trying to make it more effective against minorities and other people likely to vote for democrats. So desperate to find anything that might make cheating more effective, they passed a bill making it a crime to give water to someone waiting to vote. When you're ideology is getting more extreme, and fewer people are buying it, there's just two choices; do something about making your party more attractive to Americans, or finding a way to keep more Americans from voting. They chose the latter.
Requiring ID doesn't suppress voting any more than it would suppress minorities from driving and buying alcohol.
Which it does. A person close to the legal age for alcohol purchases, is almost always required to provide ID. It's a law in most states.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1335
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 96 times
Contact:

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #183

Post by AgnosticBoy »

The Barbarian wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:25 pm Source: Enrico Cantoni & Vincent Pons; Strict ID Laws Don’t Stop Voters: Evidence from a U.S. Nationwide Panel, 2008–2018

Your source doesn't say what you want it to say:

AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:05 pm Don't you think that factor should be studied
As you see, they did. In fact, you cited it. It just doesn't say what you want it to say.
"However, the likelihood that non-white voters were contacted by a campaign increases by 5.4 percentage points, suggesting that parties’ mobilization might have offset modest effects of the laws on the participation of ethnic minorities[/i][/b].
https://www.nber.org/papers/w25522[/quote]

What does "might" suggest? By how much was the offset? Would it have further decreased voter turnout and if so by how much? Seems that if the issue was studied, you would have been able to answer that.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #184

Post by The Barbarian »

Source: Enrico Cantoni & Vincent Pons; Strict ID Laws Don’t Stop Voters: Evidence from a U.S. Nationwide Panel, 2008–2018

Your source doesn't say what you want it to say.

AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:05 pm Don't you think that factor should be studied
As you see, they did. In fact, you cited it. It just doesn't say what you want it to say.
"However, the likelihood that non-white voters were contacted by a campaign increases by 5.4 percentage points, suggesting that parties’ mobilization might have offset modest effects of the laws on the participation of ethnic minorities[/i][/b].
https://www.nber.org/papers/w25522
What does "might" suggest?
That they concluded an effort to get out the vote, tended to get out the vote. Go figure.
By how much was the offset?
5.4 points, according to their data.
Would it have further decreased voter turnout and if so by how much? Seems that if the issue was studied, you would have been able to answer that.
Probably, more studies could get an even better result. Still, it clearly doesn't say what you suggested. In fact, it's more evidence that the efforts made by republicans to suppress voting actually worked, albeit not good enough to overcome additional efforts to oppose the suppression. Which is why Georgia republicans came up with an even greater effort to suppress voting. You have to be pretty desperate if you feel the need to criminalize a person giving another person water while standing in line.

But they're between a rock and a hard place. The only thing beyond that would be to just outlaw voting by minority citizens. I think. Maybe they'll come up with an even more ingenious fraud. We'll have to see. Obviously, they don't plan on changing their philosophy to fit the electorate; they are putting all their hopes on changing the electorate to fit their philosophy.

So much for democracy.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1335
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 96 times
Contact:

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #185

Post by AgnosticBoy »

The Barbarian wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 1:51 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:05 pm What does "might" suggest?
That they concluded an effort to get out the vote, tended to get out the vote. Go figure.
It does not say that. It said that it "might". Might doesn't mean that, "yes, it did" play a role.

If I say I might go to the store, it doesn't mean that I did go to the store.
The Barbarian wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 1:51 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:05 pmBy how much was the offset?
5.4 points, according to their data.
Reread the excerpt again:
"However, the likelihood that non-white voters were contacted by a campaign increases by 5.4 percentage points, suggesting that parties’ mobilization might have offset modest effects of the laws on the participation of ethnic minorities.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w25522

That 5.4 figure goes towards how many non-White voters were contacted. It doesn't apply to voter turnout. Sure, contacting voters can help increase voter turnout, but that doesn't mean that it works in all cases. Either way, how would contacting more minorities get them to vote more if they don't have ID? Without ID, they can't vote in states where voter ID is required.
The Barbarian wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 1:51 pmStill, it clearly doesn't say what you suggested.
I claimed that some studies show that voter ID does not decrease voter turnout. What did the study in question say:
U.S. states increasingly require identification to vote – an ostensive attempt to deter fraud that prompts complaints of selective disenfranchisement. Using a difference-in-differences design on a 1.6-billion-observations panel dataset, 2008–2018, we find that the laws have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #186

Post by The Barbarian »

WASHINGTON (AP) — States that toughened their voter identification laws saw steeper drops in election turnout than those that did not, with disproportionate falloffs among black and younger voters, a nonpartisan congressional study released Wednesday concluded.

As of June, 33 states have enacted laws obligating voters to show a photo ID at the polls, the study said. Republicans who have pushed the legislation say the requirement will reduce fraud, but Democrats insist the laws are a GOP effort to reduce Democratic turnout on Election Day.

The report by the Government Accountability Office, Congress’ investigative agency, was released less than a month from elections that will determine which party controls Congress.

The office compared election turnout in Kansas and Tennessee — which tightened voter ID requirements between the 2008 and 2012 elections — to voting in four states that didn’t change their identification requirements.

It estimated that reductions in voter turnout were about 2 percent greater in Kansas and from 2 to 3 percent steeper in Tennessee than they were in the other states examined. The four other states, which did not make their voter ID laws stricter, were Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, and Maine.

“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.

The study cautioned that the results from Kansas and Tennessee don’t necessarily apply to other states with stricter ID laws. It also found that of 10 other studies that mostly focused on voting before 2008, five found no significant impact from voter ID laws, four found decreases and one found an increase.

The report said that in Kansas and Tennessee, reduced voter turnout was sharper among people aged 18 to 23 than among those from 44 to 53. The drop was also more pronounced among blacks than whites, Hispanics or Asians and was greater among newly registered voters than those registered at least 20 years.

Estimated falloff among black voters was nearly 4 percent greater than it was among whites in Kansas, and almost 2 percent larger among blacks than for whites in Tennessee, the report said.
...
The report also:

—Examined 10 other studies that found that the portion of registered voters with driver’s licenses or state ID’s ranged from 84 percent to 95 percent. In seven of the studies, blacks had a lower rate of ID ownership than whites;

—Found that in 17 states, the costs of acquiring the required ID’s ranged from $14.50 to $58.50;

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/gao- ... acks-young

So we're left with the conclusions that earlier attempts at voter suppression only results in a 2-3 percent drop in minority voting, and a "so what?"

Obviously, that would have, if applied in certain states, have thrown the election to Donald Trump. That's what.

The conclusion that minority voter suppression tends to reduce minority voter turnout, while efforts to contact minority voters to get to the polls increases that turnout, seems unremarkable I don't see why anyone would doubt this. Obviously, republican politicians wouldn't be doing it if it didn't work, and the democrats wouldn't be contacting minority voters to make sure they had or obtained necessary documents unless such moves would counter the attempt keep minority voters from voting. And as the GAO reprort says, that's what the evidence indicates.

That's what the GAO study found. It's typical of papers in the literature to use conditional language. The evidence pointing to these findings were reported as "might." Would you like to see some obvious examples wherein there was really no question?

Notice that the Georgia republican party, rather than being abashed at the failure of their earlier scheme, concluded that they had to cheat harder. This is in itself a problem. If a burglar is repeatedly caught trying to break in and rob a residence, you don't conclude that it's all right because an alarm system foiled him. The republicans sooner or later will get it right, if not stopped. Notice also that the people plotting to disenfranchise minorities reacted with outrage when donors volunteered to pay fees necessary to get the documents or clearance for people to vote.

In a similar case in Florida, where voters overwhelminging voted to change the Constitution to allow felons who served their time to vote, the republicans came up with scheme that required many of they to pay fees to vote anyway. They threatened lawsuits when Michael Bloomberg organized donations to pay what effectively is a poll tax.

Not only did Georgia republicans trot out daffy ideas like making sure people in line can't be given water (which in hours-long lines would definitely reduce turnout), but also included some seriously authoritarian provisions like allowing the legislature to simply set aside election results and pick the winner they wanted, regardless of the vote totals.

Berman responded, "Yes, if this law had been in place, Donald Trump absolutely might have succeeded in overturning the election in Georgia because his biggest Republican critic in Georgia was the secretary of state, (Brad Raffensperger)…. If the Republican legislature in Georgia had wanted to overturn the will of the voters, they could have done that through control of the State Board of Elections and through leaning on county board of elections. And this is why they have made this such a big part of the bill."

Not being able to give people food and water, trying to cut back on early voting — those kinds of things got the headlines. But I think the real purpose here was to intensify control over how every aspect of elections are run in Georgia. So, when there are close elections in the future — which they know there will be — they will have unprecedented power to challenge the election results and to decline to certify them if they don't like who the winner is."

https://www.alternet.org/2021/03/georgi ... ppression/

And it's clear why this is happening. Republicans have become so radicalized that they can no longer hope to get a majority of Americans to vote for them. Their only hope, absent party reform, is to keep as many people from voting as they can.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #187

Post by The Barbarian »

GAO’s evaluation of voter turnout suggests that turnout decreased in two selected states—Kansas and Tennessee—from the 2008 to the 2012 general elections (the two most recent general elections) to a greater extent than turnout decreased in the selected comparison states—Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, and Maine. 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. GAO found that turnout among eligible and registered voters declined more in Kansas and Tennessee than it declined in comparison states—by an estimated 1.9 to 2.2 percentage points more in Kansas and 2.2 to 3.2 percentage points more in Tennessee—and the results were consistent across the different data sources and voter populations used in the analysis.
...
GAO also estimated changes in turnout among subpopulations of registrants in Kansas and Tennessee according to their age, length of voter registration, and race or ethnicity. In both Kansas and Tennessee, compared with the four comparison states, GAO found that turnout was reduced by larger amounts: •among registrants, as of 2008, between the ages of 18 and 23 than among registrants between the ages of 44 and 53; •among registrants who had been registered less than 1 year than among registrants who had been registered 20 years or more; and •among African-American registrants than among White, Asian-American, and Hispanic registrants. GAO did not find consistent reductions in turnout among Asian-American or Hispanic registrants compared to White registrants, thus suggesting that the laws did not have larger effects among these subgroups.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-634-highlights.pdf

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1335
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 96 times
Contact:

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #188

Post by AgnosticBoy »

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #188]
Let's try this again. You're telling me that voter ID requirement is so bad that we should scrap it. So far, you agreed that voter ID can stop voter impersonation. In other words, there is a security function for it. So is a 2 or 3% decrease in votes (according to some studies) worth scrapping ID requirement? Does a 2 or 3% decrease in voter turnout amount to voter "suppression"?

This is where you have failed to convince me. I see most of your points as being nothing different than the propaganda and political spin that I see from politicians.

Keep in mind, that I'm an independent. I care more about logic and evidence than I do political parties. For those who are partisan/political and ideologically-driven, it tends to be the opposite.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #189

Post by The Barbarian »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:30 pm [Replying to The Barbarian in post #188]
Let's try this again. You're telling me that voter ID requirement is so bad that we should scrap it.
No. I said that I'd support it if the state made absolutely sure that any citizen could easily obtain one for free. Of course, that won't happen, because that would defeat the whole purpose of having voter ID in the first place.
So far, you agreed that voter ID can stop voter impersonation.
And making it difficult for a poor working person to get said ID will disenfranchise many poor working people. So the answer is obvious; have voter ID but make sure that anyone who wants one can have one for free, without difficulty. But as I said, that would defeat the whole purpose of requiring ID; if every qualified voter had an ID, they'd all be able to vote and the republicans would gain nothing at all by doing it.

We already know that voter fraud is extremely rare, so there are no real "ballot security" concerns. Even many republicans admit that their "ballot security" programs are to keep the "wrong people" from voting:

A conservative Arizona state lawmaker rationalized his support for a Republican-backed bill to restrict voting access on Thursday, as legislators aim to pass a series of similar measures.

Discussing one legislative proposal that would remove certain voters from a state roster dictating which residents receive absentee ballots automatically, Republican Rep. John Kavanagh told CNN that "everybody shouldn't be voting."
...
"Republicans are more concerned about fraud, so we don't mind putting security measures in that won't let everybody vote—but everybody shouldn't be voting."
...
"Not everybody wants to vote, and if somebody is uninterested in voting, that probably means that they're totally uninformed on the issues," he continued, according to CNN. "Quantity is important, but we have to look at the quality of votes, as well."

https://www.newsweek.com/arizona-state- ... ts-1575573

The problem is, stupid people often want to vote, and do. It's what kept Jim Crow alive in conservative states for so many years.

(Edit) It is true that the motives for voter ID are not entirely racist. The far right has long desired to keep voting limited purely for reasons of gaining power, quite aside from racial considerations. Here's Paul Weyrich in 1980, explaining why conservatives should limit voting:
“I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning of our country, and they are not now. As a matter of fact our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”
https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/i-d ... ppression/
In other words, there is a security function for it.
In the sense that "let's keep ourselves in office, even if most qualified voters don't want us" is a security concern. Or in the sense that wearing a sprig of wolfsbane to ward off vampires is a security function. "Don't tell me that vampires are very rare or nonexistent; we just haven't been able to catch them yet."
So is a 2 or 3% decrease in votes (according to some studies) worth scrapping ID requirement?
Yes. No honest and sane person will tell you that voter fraud in the United States amounts to 2 or 3 percent of the total vote. So if the motive for ID laws was actually to prevent illegal voting, it would be like burning down your house to get rid of the cockroaches. On the other hand, we have all sorts of cases where a 2 or 3 percent change in voting would have changed election results.
Does a 2 or 3% decrease in voter turnout amount to voter "suppression"?
One voter kept from voting by such means is voter suppression. Republicans tend to think in terms of "group rights", but our Constitution intended every individual to have rights on their own.
This is where you have failed to convince me.
As you see, the intent, often inadvertently admitted by proponents of the law, is to suppress voting, not to increase ballot security. And the evidence shows this to be a fact; it does suppress voting for particular groups, even if it doesn't work as well as republicans hoped it would. And it works well enough to sometimes throw elections. As I point out, if the ID laws provided ID for every qualified voter without cost or difficulty in getting it, there wouldn't be any objections. But of course, that won't happen, because it would defeat the whole purpose of ID laws to begin with.
I see most of your points as being nothing different than the propaganda and political spin that I see from politicians.
Logically, a "remedy" that causes more harm than it prevents is no remedy at all. And of course, we have those moments when republicans blurt out the real reason for voter ID laws.
Keep in mind, that I'm an independent.
Me too.
I care more about logic and evidence than I do political parties.
You seem deeply committed to a plan that was developed to preserve the power of the republican party, as some of them occasionally admit. For a true independent who believes in the principles on which this country was founded, the idea of preventing qualified voters from voting is a travesty and deeply harms America. For those who are partisan/political and ideologically-driven, it tends to be the opposite.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1335
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 96 times
Contact:

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #190

Post by AgnosticBoy »

The Barbarian wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:27 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:30 pm Let's try this again. You're telling me that voter ID requirement is so bad that we should scrap it.
No. I said that I'd support it if the state made absolutely sure that any citizen could easily obtain one for free. Of course, that won't happen, because that would defeat the whole purpose of having voter ID in the first place.
You're assuming that the only reason for voter ID would be to suppress votes. I thought we already agreed that another reason was for simple verification of identity, no different than what we'd require if you were going to offer ID to get a job, buy a drink, drive a car, buy a gun, etc.

In fact, if voter ID is such a big deal, then I'd be for a program to get everyone free or reduced cost for state identification. Some states already offer such programs.
The Barbarian wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:27 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:30 pmSo far, you agreed that voter ID can stop voter impersonation.
And making it difficult for a poor working person to get said ID will disenfranchise many poor working people. So the answer is obvious; have voter ID but make sure that anyone who wants one can have one for free, without difficulty. But as I said, that would defeat the whole purpose of requiring ID; if every qualified voter had an ID, they'd all be able to vote and the republicans would gain nothing at all by doing it.
Not requiring ID is just as extreme as someone using ID to suppress votes. This is the problem with a lot of issues in politics. Dems and Repubs always have extreme and unnecessary polarizing positions. Democrats should be pushing for programs to offer state ID for free for the poor. And I'm sure if they pressed Republicans on it, instead of trying to say voter ID is not needed at all, then a lot of Repubs. would probably give in.
The Barbarian wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:27 am We already know that voter fraud is extremely rare, so there are no real "ballot security" concerns.
I don't know that any more than a business owner with little to no security/oversight would know if people are stealing from him or her.
The Barbarian wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:27 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:30 pmIn other words, there is a security function for it.
In the sense that "let's keep ourselves in office, even if most qualified voters don't want us" is a security concern. Or in the sense that wearing a sprig of wolfsbane to ward off vampires is a security function. "Don't tell me that vampires are very rare or nonexistent; we just haven't been able to catch them yet."
If you're considering REpublicans, then I can see where you're coming from. But if you go beyond that, and just consider voter impersonation, which has happened, then we can also say that voter ID would be a way to catch it.

As for your point about vampires, I already answered a similar point of yours. It's more like, "don't tell me vampires are non-existent, just because there's no evidence for it". Get it?

Logic 101. You're claiming that there are no uncaught cases of fraud because there is no evidence for it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Security 101. Security should be proactive to guard against or DETER fraud/errors that can happen, instead of being reactive by only being in place AFTER something happens. The latter is naive and unreasonable, certainly not something a smart business owner (except maybe a cheap one) would have in place. I run a forum just as otseng does and I'm sure he takes some proactive steps to ensure the forum is running smooth, like making a clone of the site, backups, etc. Try to run a business and then perhaps you'll get what I'm saying.
The Barbarian wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:27 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:30 pmSo is a 2 or 3% decrease in votes (according to some studies) worth scrapping ID requirement?
Yes. So if the motive for ID laws was actually to prevent illegal voting, it would be like burning down your house to get rid of the cockroaches.
Actually, voter ID would be a very easy way to catch voting impersonation. The other ways that voter impersonation was caught was through a voting audit, sometimes called "canvassing", and that assumes that the person doing the manual auditing won't miss it. This process takes place WEEKS after votes are submitted. So in terms of the speed of catching the fraud, and it's simplicity (less steps involved), that voter ID offers, I'd say your analogy is unreasonable.

The Barbarian wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:27 am On the other hand, we have all sorts of cases where a 2 or 3 percent change in voting would have changed election results.
True. But seeing how small of a problem it is, then why not get IDs for those 2 or 3% of the population who couldn't afford IDs?

Oh, and don't forget about those studies that show NO decrease in voting, or the ones that suggest mitigating factors, like contacting voters. And wait, here's another simple solution, give assistance on getting an ID just as they assist with voter registration! Why aren't Democrats pushing for that? Would they rather complain and use it as an issue against Republicans rather than providing the easy fix I brought up?
The Barbarian wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:27 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:30 pm Does a 2 or 3% decrease in voter turnout amount to voter "suppression"?
One voter kept from voting by such means is voter suppression.
That's true. But that's not a big problem that Democrats are painting this issue as. Democrats are selling the idea that there would be widespread suppression similar to those of the Jim Crow era where most Blacks weren't allowed to vote. They're not telling you that the studies are "mixed" on the issue, and even those that show some negative effect, it's a very small one. More importantly, they're taking away a layer of security, a type of security that is very standard for a lot of routine areas of our life (ID required to buy a gun, drive, get a job, buy drinks, etc).
The Barbarian wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:27 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:30 pmI see most of your points as being nothing different than the propaganda and political spin that I see from politicians.
Logically, a "remedy" that causes more harm than it prevents is no remedy at all. And of course, we have those moments when republicans blurt out the real reason for voter ID laws.
Stay focused on my reason instead of Republicans. Refutting Republican reasons does not refute my points.
The Barbarian wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:27 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:30 pmKeep in mind, that I'm an independent.
Me too.
Good, so perhaps like me, you've noticed that both parties have become too political, partisan, and polarizing.
The Barbarian wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:27 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:30 pmI care more about logic and evidence than I do political parties.
You seem deeply committed to a plan that was developed to preserve the power of the republican party, as some of them occasionally admit. For a true independent who believes in the principles on which this country was founded, the idea of preventing qualified voters from voting is a travesty and deeply harms America. For those who are partisan/political and ideologically-driven, it tends to be the opposite.
You're again mixing why I want voting ID versus why some Republicans want it. Democrats during President Obama's time in office were offering poor Americans free cellphones. You mean to tell me they can't figure out how to provide free ID to the TWO or THREE percent of the population that can't afford an ID?!
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

Post Reply