Study finds evidence for racial discrimination by voter ID proponents

[nehalem256]

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.

And as I explained in the 2nd post in the thread it was an unfair comparison. It is proven that people prefer names that are easier to pronounce.

So comparing "Jacob Smith" to "Santiago Rodriguez" is an invalid comparison if you want to make the study purely about "race".

Wonder what would happen if they used "Vladimir Medvedev" instead of "Jacob Smith"?

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.

Well except for the little issue that Hispanic isn't a race

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/latino-race-census-debate_n_2490592.html

 

[Fenixgoon]

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

mexico is central america? :whiste:

edit: i thought mexico was included in central america. apparently central america is anything below mexico but above south america.

 

[shira]

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

It's even worse than that. Even when the study's methodology is clearly explained to them, the right-wing contingent here just can't seem to get their minds around why ANY speculative explanation of why Republicans don't like making replies to certain kinds of emails completely misses the central point of the study: that there was a different response rates to "Anglo" and "Hispanic" voters. Furthermore, the right-wing contingent here is so brain-dead they seem unable to understand that saying something like "I just don't like to provide services to Hispanics" is precisely what racism is.

 

[justoh]

mexico is central america? :whiste:

edit: i thought mexico was included in central america. apparently central america is anything below mexico but above south america.

Hmm. Wot?

 

[fskimospy]

And as I explained in the 2nd post in the thread it was an unfair comparison. It is proven that people prefer names that are easier to pronounce.

So comparing "Jacob Smith" to "Santiago Rodriguez" is an invalid comparison if you want to make the study purely about "race".

Wonder what would happen if they used "Vladimir Medvedev" instead of "Jacob Smith"?

As was explained to you, not only did the people not need to pronounce the names, but you still need to explain why voter ID proponents are disproportionately affected by people with "hard to pronounce names". Are they dumber? Do they have worse reading skills? What?

Dumbass.

 

[fskimospy]

It's even worse than that. Even when the study's methodology is clearly explained to them, the right-wing contingent here just can't seem to get their minds around why ANY speculative explanation of why Republicans don't like making replies to certain kinds of emails completely misses the central point of the study: that there was a different response rates to "Anglo" and "Hispanic" voters. Furthermore, the right-wing contingent here is so brain-dead they seem unable to understand that saying something like "I just don't like to provide services to Hispanics" is precisely what racism is.

I think it's pretty clear that their conclusion before even opening the link was that they knew there was no racism. Then they started searching for how they could justify that conclusion.

 

[nehalem256]

As was explained to you, not only did the people not need to pronounce the names,

Sure they do. As you read things you pronounce them in your head.

but you still need to explain why voter ID proponents are disproportionately affected by people with "hard to pronounce names". Are they dumber? Do they have worse reading skills? What?

Dumbass.

Perhaps they have less experience with Hispanic sounding names?

I mean lets think about this. Who is more likely to represent a district with lots of minorities? A Republican or a Democrat?

Also, remember that even Democrats are less likely to respond to a hispanic sounding name. What is your explanation for that?

 

[fskimospy]

Sure they do. As you read things you pronounce them in your head.

Perhaps they have less experience with Hispanic sounding names?

I mean lets think about this. Who is more likely to represent a district with lots of minorities? A Republican or a Democrat?

Also, remember that even Democrats are less likely to respond to a hispanic sounding name. What is your explanation for that?

Nobody mentioned Republicans or Democrats, this is about voter ID proponents and opponents.

Your argument hinges on the fact that the offices of voter ID proponents have difficulty saying "Santiago Rodriguez". You have to be pretty fucking stupid to have trouble saying that name in America today. I guess if your argument is that voter ID proponents are just really, really stupid that's fine.

 

[nehalem256]

Nobody mentioned Republicans or Democrats, this is about voter ID proponents and opponents.

Wrong:

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.

Anyone with a brain knows who the proponents and opponents are. And typing Republican is less awkward that voter ID opponent.

Your argument hinges on the fact that the offices of voter ID proponents have difficulty saying "Santiago Rodriguez". You have to be pretty fucking stupid to have trouble saying that name in America today. I guess if your argument is that voter ID proponents are just really, really stupid that's fine.

You have to be pretty obtuse not to think that Jacob Smith is easier to say than Santiago Rodriguez.

 

[PokerGuy]

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.

Lets get this clear for everyone to understand. There is NO mention of race in any way shape or form. There is the use of a 'hispanic sounding' name, and the conclusions are then drawn to mean there is racism involved. That's BS. Hispanic name does not mean anything about someone's race. I don't assume a name to have any meaning as far as race, but it DOES have to do (from a probability perspective) with citizenship or lack of it. YOU are the one making inferences about race. Race has nothing to do with it.

Again, the only ones inserting race into it are the racists and other 'ist' crusaders.

The answer to the question isn't really "yes", it is actually "it depends".

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.

Nobody said anything about race, other than you and your fellow racists. I certainly said nothing about race, or providing service based on things you think about race. Race was never mentioned. Period.

I think from the above it should be clear that you're not someone to be opining on self awareness.

At least one of us is aware of how his biases influence his world views. (hint, it's not you). Clearly self awareness is a major gap for you.

You're desperate to find a way to ignore these findings by any means necessary.

Huh? Desperately trying to ignore these findings? Why in the heck would I "desperately" need to ignore them? They're garbage "findings" by idiots desperately seeking to "prove" racism where none exists.

 

[fskimospy]

You have to be pretty obtuse not to think that Jacob Smith is easier to say than Santiago Rodriguez.

Apparently it's much, much more difficult for voter ID opponents than for voter ID proponents despite neither of those names being at all uncommon.

By the way none of this addresses the fact that even though the study you mention was using extremely difficult names to pronounce, (ie: not common ones like Santiago Rodriguez) the beta coefficients in the study you mentioned would in no way compensate for the vast differences found here.

So no, you're still a dumbass.

 

[nehalem256]

Lets get this clear for everyone to understand. There is NO mention of race in any way shape or form. There is the use of a 'hispanic sounding' name, and the conclusions are then drawn to mean there is racism involved. That's BS. Hispanic name does not mean anything about someone's race. I don't assume a name to have any meaning as far as race, but it DOES have to do (from a probability perspective) with citizenship or lack of it. YOU are the one making inferences about race. Race has nothing to do with it.

Again, the only ones inserting race into it are the racists and other 'ist' crusaders.

The answer to the question isn't really "yes", it is actually "it depends".



Nobody said anything about race, other than you and your fellow racists. I certainly said nothing about race, or providing service based on things you think about race. Race was never mentioned. Period.



At least one of us is aware of how his biases influence his world views. (hint, it's not you). Clearly self awareness is a major gap for you.



Huh? Desperately trying to ignore these findings? Why in the heck would I "desperately" need to ignore them? They're garbage "findings" by idiots desperately seeking to "prove" racism where none exists.

I think the really ridiculous thing is that apparently people are suppose to naturally derive the race based on the name, but not any other "facts" about the person such as their probability in voting for you or their probability of being an illegal alien.

 

[fskimospy]

Lets get this clear for everyone to understand. There is NO mention of race in any way shape or form. There is the use of a 'hispanic sounding' name, and the conclusions are then drawn to mean there is racism involved. That's BS. Hispanic name does not mean anything about someone's race. I don't assume a name to have any meaning as far as race, but it DOES have to do (from a probability perspective) with citizenship or lack of it. YOU are the one making inferences about race. Race has nothing to do with it.

Again, the only ones inserting race into it are the racists and other 'ist' crusaders.

Go back and read your earlier posts.

The answer to the question isn't really "yes", it is actually "it depends".

Doesn't matter what the answer is, the study only measured if there was a response at all.

Nobody said anything about race, other than you and your fellow racists. I certainly said nothing about race, or providing service based on things you think about race. Race was never mentioned. Period.

Go back and read your earlier posts.

At least one of us is aware of how his biases influence his world views. (hint, it's not you). Clearly self awareness is a major gap for you.

Huh? Desperately trying to ignore these findings? Why in the heck would I "desperately" need to ignore them? They're garbage "findings" by idiots desperately seeking to "prove" racism where none exists.

Right on cue! Can you point to a single time in the entire history of these forums where someone has mentioned discriminatory behavior against blacks or hispanics where you have agreed that there was racism involved?

 

[Newell Steamer]

How about if I want to ride a bike, should I be carrying ID then?

 

[fskimospy]

I think the really ridiculous thing is that apparently people are suppose to naturally derive the race based on the name, but not any other "facts" about the person such as their probability in voting for you or their probability of being an illegal alien.

So instead you're arguing that the legislators are either unethical, as they are only doing the job they were elected to do for their own voters, or yet again, racist as they choose not to respond to Hispanic requests because they think they might be an illegal alien despite no evidence of such a fact.

 

[PokerGuy]

Go back and read your earlier posts.

Since you're convinced, perhaps you can highlight anywhere in my posts where I used or defended the use of race as a reason for anything or any decision making. Hint: spanish sounding name does NOT equate to race.

Doesn't matter what the answer is, the study only measured if there was a response at all.

Which is obviously flawed, because it can't evaluate the reason for the difference, which is obviously critical if you then want to turn around and yell 'racism!'. Complete fail, all around.

Right on cue! Can you point to a single time in the entire history of these forums where someone has mentioned discriminatory behavior against blacks or hispanics where you have agreed that there was racism involved?

I have no idea, I look at individual issues. If you can show any post where I've supported any kind of racism, feel free to show it, otherwise just go ahead and admit that you're just projecting your racism again as usual.

 

[PokerGuy]

or yet again, racist as they choose not to respond to Hispanic requests because they think they might be an illegal alien despite no evidence of such a fact.

A spanish sounding name does not equate to race. You can't accuse someone of racism unless you can actually show that race played a part in the decision making process. This study attempts to do just that. In the absence of information on motivation to respond or not respond, it assumes race, even though there's no evidence whatsoever to support it. They use a spanish sounding name as a proxy for race, which is obviously demonstrably wrong.

 

[glenn1]

How about if I want to ride a bike, should I be carrying ID then?

Your profile shows you live in NYC so no, since the law says you don't need to carry ID and likewise aren't required to show ID to a police officer.

And yet the above has nothing to do with voter ID laws. Unsure why Democrats keep fighting them since it's obvious you ARE going to lose. Voter ID laws are supported by 70%+ of the popluation including overwhelming numbers of both parties and the SCOTUS has said they're OK. It would be both far more effective and actually useful if you channeled your energies instead into getting IDs for those who don't have them. Even the Washington Post thinks you're picking the wrong fight.

 

[Newell Steamer]

you ARE going to lose.

This sums up why you are who you are (as well as the other creeps up in this piece); you are an angry person.

You want nothing more than victory over the things you do not approve of in life. Even on things you have no stake in,.. so, you aren't winning anything frankly. You just want to harm and hurt people you don't like. Punish them for living as they do, in the manner that angers you.

Well, it works the other way as well - and what you reap, is what you sow.

PS, I don't care about winning/losing, just living life,.. maybe you should too?

 

[glenn1]

This sums up why you are who you are (as well as the other creeps up in this piece); you are an angry person.

You want nothing more than victory over the things you do not approve of in life. Even on things you have no stake in,.. so, you aren't winning anything frankly. You just want to harm and hurt people you don't like. Punish them for living as they do, in the manner that angers you.

Well, it works the other way as well - and what you reap, is what you sow.

PS, I don't care about winning/losing, just living life,.. maybe you should too?

No, I want a Democratic Party that fights for things that help people rather than the party. You're fighting on "principle" (voter enfranchisement for those without IDs) when the correct and honorable thing to do would be help correct the cause of the problem (help get people IDs). I want something similar Democrat's abortion platform (safe, legal, and rare) applied to voting as well - easier to register, inclusive of those who are legal voters, and safe against frauds of all types. All the Democrat's good ideas about voter access (same-day registration, different varieties of "motor voter," etc.) should be implemented as well.

Also, it doesn't make me an "angry person" to urge people to stop fighting pointless fights. Voter ID is an example for the left, anti gay-marriage laws for the right, and the drug war for both are prime examples.

 

[chucky2]

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.

I don't know why it's confusing. Personally, I'd rather have every voter treated the same in an ideal world by requiring a valid state/Fed issued ID, or, revolving secure passcode and personal PIN.

Since having that is somehow beyond the realm of possibility for our lovely Politicians, and given we have 10's of millions of illegal invaders in our country, almost all of which are Hispanic heritage, I'm not shedding big tears that maybe a potential Hispanic voter would "suffer" more scrutiny at voting time than a white, black, or Asian voter. A Hispanic US Citizen who is going to vote understands how bad the illegal invasion problem is, and should probably expect some kind of greater attention paid to them because of the actions of the illegals.

Huge effort to provide an ID, huge...

 

[chucky2]

Someone that keeps typing Dumbass must be having a bad day...

 

[FerrelGeek]

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.

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.

tyg eskimo. You see racism around every corner, in every minute gesture that doesn't match your reality. I find racism abhorrent, but my filter is set a tad higher so that I'm not always wetting myself with outrage like those on the left. Given the lack of responders in the study, I'm just not convinced that we have blatant racism showing. And politicians are a dicey lot anyway as they will naturally cater to those that they think will be on their 'team'. I'm not attempting to justify anything, just trying to be realistic and not PC.

 

[jackstar7]

Funny how defensive some people are about this idea.

How about we get our participation rate up in the 80% range before we start looking for ways to exclude more people from the process?

 

[Genx87]

How about if I want to ride a bike, should I be carrying ID then?

If you live in that bastion of right wing conservatism NYC yes. Doubly so if you are a minority.