Study finds evidence for racial discrimination by voter ID proponents

[Munky]

With 10's of Millions of illegal invaders in your country that are Hispanic, that's a pretty good attitude to have actually. This is turning into Thread Backfire territory...

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Victorian Gray]

With 10's of Millions of illegal invaders in your country that are Hispanic, that's a pretty good attitude to have actually. This is turning into Thread Backfire territory...

So you're ok with treating 17% of U.S. citizens as if they *might* be 'illegals'?

Cool...

 

[chucky2]

So you're ok with treating 17% of U.S. citizens as if they *might* be 'illegals'?

Cool...

No I'd just treat every voter the same and require a valid ID or a secure revolving passcode and PIN that only that registered voter should have access to. Really what I'd prefer is come up with a modern secure way of voting, one in which some body like the UN could employ - with monitoring - in other countries where legit voting is a novelty. I'd rather see the US lead rather do nothing.

But to cry crocodile tears on this...nah. Go whine to the illegals that caused the extra scrutiny.

 

[Fenixgoon]

So you're ok with treating 17% of U.S. citizens as if they *might* be 'illegals'?

Cool...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigrant_population_of_the_United_States#Size

there's somewhere between 11-20 million illegal immigrants, half of whom are from mexico alone, and the vast majority of whom are from south/central america.

those aren't exactly insignificant numbers. you're looking at anywhere from 15 to 40% of the latin american population in the US being illegal immigrants.

17% of ~300M = 51M ~ 50M. 11/(50+11) ~ 1/6 ~ 16% as lower limit and 20/50 = 40% as upper limit.

is it right to do that? no. but to deny that there is a significant illegal population is stupid as well.

 

[Victorian Gray]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigrant_population_of_the_United_States#Size

there's somewhere between 11-20 million illegal immigrants, half of whom are from mexico alone, and the vast majority of whom are from south/central america.

those aren't exactly insignificant numbers. you're looking at anywhere from 15 to 40% of the latin american population in the US being illegal immigrants.

17% of ~300M = 51M ~ 50M. 11/(50+11) ~ 1/6 ~ 16% as lower limit and 20/50 = 40% as upper limit.

is it right to do that? no. but to deny that there is a significant illegal population is stupid as well.

The issue is *not* the treatment of illegal immigrants or their numbers but the treatment of American citizens.

 

[justoh]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigrant_population_of_the_United_States#Size

there's somewhere between 11-20 million illegal immigrants, half of whom are from mexico alone, and the vast majority of whom are from south/central america.

How could half of x be from north america as well as the vast majority of x be from central or south american?

 

[Victorian Gray]

No I'd just treat every voter the same and require a valid ID or a secure revolving passcode and PIN that only that registered voter should have access to. Really what I'd prefer is come up with a modern secure way of voting, one in which some body like the UN could employ - with monitoring - in other countries where legit voting is a novelty. I'd rather see the US lead rather do nothing.

But to cry crocodile tears on this...nah. Go whine to the illegals that caused the extra scrutiny.

Your words do not match

"With 10's of Millions of illegal invaders in your country that are Hispanic, that's a pretty good attitude to have actually"

So, it seems that you are just fine with American citizens being treated differently based on their names/ethnic backgrounds.

 

[Moonbeam]

Conservative thinking is fear bases and bigotry is one form of fear. It is no surprise to find that the will to save America from the vote of the other is tied to stereotypes of well defined and feared others. The on conscious need of the bigot is control, the feeling that he or she is only safe if only he or she has a single vote. All the evil of the world is. Contained in our unconscious fear, traumatic events we experienced and repressed as children and thus project on others.

 

[davmat787]

Whether you are pro-ID or not, one good thing the.gov could do is run a program for a year that would help anyone obtain identification, birth certificates, etc at a reduced rate or free if certain criteria was met.

 

[fskimospy]

With 10's of Millions of illegal invaders in your country that are Hispanic, that's a pretty good attitude to have actually. This is turning into Thread Backfire territory...

Lol. You think choosing to not respond to your constituents based on what their name is is a good idea.

What a dumbass.

 

[fskimospy]

Your words do not match

"With 10's of Millions of illegal invaders in your country that are Hispanic, that's a pretty good attitude to have actually"

So, it seems that you are just fine with American citizens being treated differently based on their names/ethnic backgrounds.

It's interesting to see half the people claim there is no racism present while the other half claim that it's a positive good to discriminate based on race. Remember, this simply measured response rate.

Bizarrely enough not one of them seems to think that officials elected to represent and help their constituents should simply reply to all their reasonable questions equally regardless of race.

 

[PokerGuy]

All of the factors you mention would be considerations for both voter-ID advocates and voter-ID opponents.

Well duh. The voter-id opponents clearly want to say "yes!" to everyone, legal or not, so I'd expect their answer rate to be much higher.

Logically, the possibility of a "yes" answer being incorrect because the person asking the question might not be eligible for other reasons is obviously much higher given a hispanic name. Nothing to do with racism, and everything to do with logic.

This is another good example of the politically correct 'ism' crusaders seeking to label whoever doesn't agree with them as racist.

 

[Genx87]

The best either side of the issue responded was 50%. I think the real story here is even if your name is a Smith don't expect to hear a response from your elected representative half the time.

 

[fskimospy]

Well duh. The voter-id opponents clearly want to say "yes!" to everyone, legal or not, so I'd expect their answer rate to be much higher.

Logically, the possibility of a "yes" answer being incorrect because the person asking the question might not be eligible for other reasons is obviously much higher given a hispanic name. Nothing to do with racism, and everything to do with logic.

This is another good example of the politically correct 'ism' crusaders seeking to label whoever doesn't agree with them as racist.

Haha so you think choosing not to respond to questions from your constituents is okay based solely on what race their name sounds like. Then you claim it isn't racism. The lack of self awareness is stunning.

 

[PokerGuy]

Haha so you think choosing not to respond to questions from your constituents is okay based solely on what race their name sounds like.

Where in the letter was the race of the letter writer shown? Apparently you think someone with a hispanic name must be of a certain race? Are there no caucasian hispanics? More failed assumptions.

Then you claim it isn't racism.

It isn't. It's called logic. Officials are less likely to answer when the answer is statistically less likely to be correct. Simple logic. Of course, I'm sure the 'ism' crusaders will ignore logic and move forward as they always do.

The lack of self awareness is stunning.

Mr. Pot, have you met Mr. Kettle? You have pretty decent analytical skills, but a giant blind spot when it comes to your own biases and leanings, and how they influence your perspective. I can scarcely think of anyone less self aware than you.

 

[fskimospy]

Where in the letter was the race of the letter writer shown? Apparently you think someone with a hispanic name must be of a certain race? Are there no caucasian hispanics? More failed assumptions.

I like how you appeal to the logic of probabilities in your second paragraph while saying there's no way to know if Santiago Rodriguez is Hispanic here. Let's just say that's a pretty sorry excuse.

It isn't. It's called logic. Officials are less likely to answer when the answer is statistically less likely to be correct. Simple logic. Of course, I'm sure the 'ism' crusaders will ignore logic and move forward as they always do.

This is simply factually incorrect. The probability of that individual being able to vote based on the question asked is 100% identical regardless of their race. This is an inescapable fact. And anyway, you just argued that they couldn't possibly know their race. Now you're trying to have it both ways.

You then decided that it was not racism to decline to answer that question based on their race because you thought it was more likely that some couldn't vote for other, unrelated reasons not mentioned in the email. Giving someone worse service based on things you think about their race that are not facts presented in evidence is basically the dictionary definition of racism.

Mr. Pot, have you met Mr. Kettle? You have pretty decent analytical skills, but a giant blind spot when it comes to your own biases and leanings, and how they influence your perspective. I can scarcely think of anyone less self aware than you.

I think from the above it should be clear that you're not someone to be opining on self awareness. You're desperate to find a way to ignore these findings by any means necessary.

 

[FerrelGeek]

The best either side of the issue responded was 50%. I think the real story here is even if your name is a Smith don't expect to hear a response from your elected representative half the time.

As I was cruising through this thread, this is exactly what occurred to me as well.

Liberals see racism wherever possible; it's their favorite trump card to play. If I refuse to walk around in certain neighborhoods at night, I'm a racist pure and simple. Never mind the silly fact that I'm basing that decision on said neighborhood having a statistically higher crime rate and I'm simply playing the odds. Totally irrelevant to their world view.

 

[fskimospy]

As I was cruising through this thread, this is exactly what occurred to me as well.

Liberals see racism wherever possible; it's their favorite trump card to play. If I refuse to walk around in certain neighborhoods at night, I'm a racist pure and simple. Never mind the silly fact that I'm basing that decision on said neighborhood having a statistically higher crime rate and I'm simply playing the odds. Totally irrelevant to their world view.

Do you see racial discrimination here?

I honestly can't think of a single thread in the history of ATPN where conservatives have looked at something and simply said "yes, that appears to be racist", no matter how egregious.

 

[glenn1]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...r-discriminatory-intent-behind-voter-id-laws/

Long story short, researchers conducted a randomized study of legislators that either supported or opposed voter ID laws. Importantly, this all occurred in states where there was no photo ID requirement.

The letter in effect said: "I don't have a photo ID, can I vote?" Because no state had such a requirement, the answer in every case could simply have been "Yes". The only difference between the letters was one half had a white sounding name and the other had a Hispanic sounding name. Legislators who supported voter ID laws had a much larger gap in response rate between the Hispanic sounding name and the white sounding name.

While this doesn't have to mean that those who support voter ID laws are doing so specifically to discriminate against Hispanics, it is strong evidence that those who support voter ID laws discriminate against Hispanics in other voting related contexts.

Who cares? Voter ID is a defensible position on its merits. You may disagree with it for whatever reason but assuming bad faith on the part of everyone who does just makes you a hack. It may utterly amaze you, but very few people on the right are racists, and likely not in greater percentages than on the left. Besides, the very assumption that someone with a "hispanic sounding" name is more likely to be a Democrat and thus unduly impacted by voter ID laws is itself predjudicial thinking.

 

[dank69]

This thread is amazing.

 

[BoberFett]

It's interesting to see half the people claim there is no racism present while the other half claim that it's a positive good to discriminate based on race. Remember, this simply measured response rate.

Bizarrely enough not one of them seems to think that officials elected to represent and help their constituents should simply reply to all their reasonable questions equally regardless of race.

Funny, because that's exactly what I said. You're bias and desire to find racism in the other team only allows you to read what you want to read from my posts.

 

[shira]

Who cares? Voter ID is a defensible position on its merits. You may disagree with it for whatever reason but assuming bad faith on the part of everyone who does just makes you a hack. It may utterly amaze you, but very few people on the right are racists, and likely not in greater percentages than on the left. Besides, the very assumption that someone with a "hispanic sounding" name is more likely to be a Democrat and thus unduly impacted by voter ID laws is itself predjudicial thinking.

It's astounding that you're missing the point of the study on so many levels. This study wasn't about whether voter ID laws are right or wrong. It wasn't about whether Hispanics are more likely to be affected by voter ID laws. It was all about how the offices of Republican and Democrat legislators in states where there is NO voter ID law respond to emails asking if the "constituent" can (still) vote without an ID card, from "constituents" with Anglo-sounding and Hispanic-sounding names.

The sole purpose of the study was to determine if there was a difference in the response rate to "Anglo" and "Hispanic" constituents. The ONLY difference in the constituent emails was the name of the constituent. And the observed result was that Republican legislators responded significantly less often to Hispanic-named constituents than to Anglo-named constituents as compared to Democrat legislators.

Clearly there must have been something about the names of the constituents that triggered in the Repubulicans the difference in response rates; there simply is no other explanation since everything else about the emails was identical. And since the Republicans ended up providing LESS service to their constituents based solely on the Hispanic-sounding name, it's completely fair to label that "racism," since that's exactly what racism is.

 

[fskimospy]

Who cares? Voter ID is a defensible position on its merits. You may disagree with it for whatever reason but assuming bad faith on the part of everyone who does just makes you a hack. It may utterly amaze you, but very few people on the right are racists, and likely not in greater percentages than on the left. Besides, the very assumption that someone with a "hispanic sounding" name is more likely to be a Democrat and thus unduly impacted by voter ID laws is itself predjudicial thinking.

While voter ID definitely isn't defensible on its merits, that has nothing to do with this thread.

That Hispanics are more likely to be impacted by voter ID laws is an empirical reality backed up by evidence. Thus, by definition it is not prejudicial. Responding much less frequently to people, solely based on if they sound Hispanic is in fact prejudicial.

 

[fskimospy]

I get a feeling that a lot of people in this thread didn't read the article.

 

[shira]

Funny, because that's exactly what I said. You're bias and desire to find racism in the other team only allows you to read what you want to read from my posts.

No, it's not. You tried to rationalize why Republicans would be more averse to giving a one-word answer to a complex question, even though the answer could have been as long and complicated as the legislator wanted/needed it to be. Furthermore, you conveniently ignored my follow-up question that shredded your rationalization:

How does this theoretical "aversion" to one-word emails (or to making a "Yes, but . . ." reply) explain why the response rate to the "Anglo" constituents was almost twice as high? The ONLY difference between the emails was the name of the "constituent."

Clearly the pro-ID legislators were making assumptions about the "constituent" based on ONLY the name. That was the ONLY difference in the two kinds of "stimuli."