Study finds evidence for racial discrimination by voter ID proponents

[nehalem256]

If it's racist to be pro voterID because minorities have less documentation on average, why isn't anyone ever push for fixing that? Seems like the voter ID issue could merely be a symptom of a greater problem, and one that could be fixed. So much nowadays requires an ID anyway.

They are trying to get minorities documentation. Did you miss their push for amnesty?

 

[michal1980]

Eskimospy and his ilk don't give a shit about these people apart from hoping to get their votes and don't care and likely don't want to get them IDs. "It's too much work" or "too expensive" they'll complain right after asking for billions to spend on "stimulus." Krugman will argue it's better to have people dig holes and others fill them back in just to get the government spending money, but if someone proposes spending money on IDs for the poor all of a sudden it's "wasteful." Or "it's not a real problem" after railing against the Koch brothers donating to political campaigns. The same party that was able to put men on the moon and tried (but failed spectacularly) to launch a massive website like healthcare.gov suddenly turn around and whine "it's too hard" when people suggest liberals (the people who care) should help people get IDs rather than just complain that not having one might "disenfranchise" them and enabling them to proceed in the grey market without one.

the only rights they dont care about are the 2nd amendment if they could delete that they'd be happy

 

[jackstar7]

Me and my ilk just want to see the American public participating in elections at the level of countries like India. When we have a much larger number of participants, then we can start looking for ways to weed out people.

Though I'd start by making voting last an entire week, rather than just one day.

 

[nehalem256]

Me and my ilk just want to see the American public participating in elections at the level of countries like India. When we have a much larger number of participants, then we can start looking for ways to weed out people.

Though I'd start by making voting last an entire week, rather than just one day.

Not sure why you would hold up India as a country you would like to emulate?

Perhaps you like the idea of classifying 1/5th of the population as "untouchables" that you can rape and murder with near impunity?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

^^he is talking about participation not issues. The people and the government go extraordinary distances to vote.
We (the US) should consistently have 90+% voting. Why not make voting on the weekend or allow 72 hours for a vote to be cast

 

[shira]

Same offices? Why would they go through the same offices? You realize that email isn't like regular mail, right? There is no mail room where this is all distributed. They are probably asked similar questions dozens of times by actual constituents during this same period. It is not a noteworthy request.

I also think it's funny that you believe state legislators are this finely tuned data machine. I strongly encourage you to visit your local state rep's office and view that machine in action sometime, lol.



Hey look, the guy who got caught in an obvious lie won't own up to it. Shocker.

Have you noticed the classic technique of the willfully ignorant? They raise completely speculative objections without any substantive evidence that their objections are grounded in reality (for example, they assume that legislators from the same state all use the same email address OR that legislators somehow "share and compare" all their emails, and therefore "obviously would detect" the study's emails as "spam" and would refuse to answer them). They then convince themselves that merely dreaming up these "explanations" makes them legitimate, and without bothering to even read the study or to check out their assumptions - Voila! - "the study is worthless!"

Lost in their fuzzy thinking is the fact that they also need to explain why - for example - if legislators are efficiently detecting "spam" emails, why is it that the "Anglo spam" is nevertheless being responded to at a much higher rate than "Hispanic spam?" Why is it that the strongest of voter-id proponents have the largest differential in responding to "anglo spam" and "hispanic spam?" But that's just too much for the fuzzy mind to think about. Much better to just throw shit explanations out there, pretend they're valid, and dismiss the study results. Yeah, that's how real researchers work.

 

[Cozarkian]

Me and my ilk just want to see the American public participating in elections at the level of countries like India. When we have a much larger number of participants, then we can start looking for ways to weed out people.

Why, what benefit derives merely from the number of votes or percentage of people voting?

While a high quantity of quality voters would be ideal, given a choice, I'd take quality over quantity and average quality over total quality. Having a 10% turnout of voters that actually make an effort to understand the issues and the candidates is a better system that has a 90% turn out rate where 70% of votes are by people whose knowledge is limited to a few mail flyers and political ads.

If more votes are inherently good, why not register babies?

 

[fskimospy]

Why, what benefit derives merely from the number of votes or percentage of people voting?

While a high quantity of quality voters would be ideal, given a choice, I'd take quality over quantity and average quality over total quality. Having a 10% turnout of voters that actually make an effort to understand the issues and the candidates is a better system that has a 90% turn out rate where 70% of votes are by people whose knowledge is limited to a few mail flyers and political ads.

If more votes are inherently good, why not register babies?

Can you define a 'quality voter'?

 

[fskimospy]

Have you noticed the classic technique of the willfully ignorant? They raise completely speculative objections without any substantive evidence that their objections are grounded in reality (for example, they assume that legislators from the same state all use the same email address OR that legislators somehow "share and compare" all their emails, and therefore "obviously would detect" the study's emails as "spam" and would refuse to answer them). They then convince themselves that merely dreaming up these "explanations" makes them legitimate, and without bothering to even read the study or to check out their assumptions - Voila! - "the study is worthless!"

Lost in their fuzzy thinking is the fact that they also need to explain why - for example - if legislators are efficiently detecting "spam" emails, why is it that the "Anglo spam" is nevertheless being responded to at a much higher rate than "Hispanic spam?" Why is it that the strongest of voter-id proponents have the largest differential in responding to "anglo spam" and "hispanic spam?" But that's just too much for the fuzzy mind to think about. Much better to just throw shit explanations out there, pretend they're valid, and dismiss the study results. Yeah, that's how real researchers work.

I think that was pretty clear when our good friend declared the study worthless based on a bunch of issues he had with it that were actually answered in the study he claimed he read.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I don't believe these laws are racist or intended to be racist, they are POLITICAL. Sure it might look racist, but it's not a white vs Mexican American thing, it's a Left Vs Right thing, and just happens that more immigrants happen to learn more to the left politically.

 

[Cozarkian]

Can you define a 'quality voter'?

In the post to which you responded I defined it as someone "that actually makes an effort to understand the issues and the candidates."

Quality is really a scale, though. Our policy goal should be to define a minimum level of quality that votes should have and then encourage people to reach that level of quality when they go vote.

 

[fskimospy]

In the post to which you responded I defined it as someone "that actually makes an effort to understand the issues and the candidates."

Quality is really a scale, though. Our policy goal should be to define a minimum level of quality that votes should have and then encourage people to reach that level of quality when they go vote.

How would you measure this?

 

[shira]

I don't believe these laws are racist or intended to be racist, they are POLITICAL. Sure it might look racist, but it's not a white vs Mexican American thing, it's a Left Vs Right thing, and just happens that more immigrants happen to learn more to the left politically.

You can call it "political," but if it can be proven that the intent of a law was - at least in part - to harm minority voting strength, then the law can be overturned under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_2/about_sec2.php

Proving intent is, of course, not easy. So discriminatory intent is evaluated according to the "disparate impact test" devised by the SCOTUS in the case "Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp." (1977):

the challenging party has the burden of showing that 1) the official action affects a protected class in greater proportion than others, and if such is established, 2) that the official action was intended to discriminate against a suspect or protected class.

If you read the full study linked in the OP, you'll see that the study authors state that the research results establish that (2) is true, since they clearly show that those most in favor of voter-ID laws also exhibit the greatest bias in their responsiveness to constituents based solely on the perceived ethnic group of the constituent.

Whether you call this intent to weaken minority voting strength "racist" or "political," it's pretty disgusting.

 

[Cozarkian]

How would you measure this?

To clarify, you are asking how I would measure whether voters meet the minimum level of quality?

Well, to start, I think every election category should start with a box that says "I haven't done sufficient research to make an educated choice." That will help people realize it is okay to vote only on those issues for which they have knowledge. Then, for example, someone who watched the presidential debates but didn't even know the names of people running for representative in his district has something to mark to express his decision not to vote. Otherwise, people might just make a random choice because he/she isn't comfortable leaving a box blank on the ballot.

Next, when handing a person their ballot, I would have the poll worker explain that in accepting the ballot, they agree they made a reasonable effort to learn enough information to make an educated choice and are voting with an open mind. They would then sign to confirm their acknowledgment and be given the ballot.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Not sure why you would hold up India as a country you would like to emulate?

Perhaps you like the idea of classifying 1/5th of the population as "untouchables" that you can rape and murder with near impunity?

Like you actually give a damn.

simple assault?

 

[michal1980]

To clarify, you are asking how I would measure whether voters meet the minimum level of quality?

Well, to start, I think every election category should start with a box that says "I haven't done sufficient research to make an educated choice." That will help people realize it is okay to vote only on those issues for which they have knowledge. Then, for example, someone who watched the presidential debates but didn't even know the names of people running for representative in his district has something to mark to express his decision not to vote. Otherwise, people might just make a random choice because he/she isn't comfortable leaving a box blank on the ballot.

Next, when handing a person their ballot, I would have the poll worker explain that in accepting the ballot, they agree they made a reasonable effort to learn enough information to make an educated choice and are voting with an open mind. They would then sign to confirm their acknowledgment and be given the ballot.

the conclusion comes from a biased view point.

over 70% of illegal immigration comes from one region of the world to the USA.

It would more logically follow that asking about voting rights for someone with that name would be a more negative answer then positive.


https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ois_ill_pe_2011.pdf

You on the left just see racism everywhere. So every action is racist.

 

[glenn1]

Whether you call this intent to weaken minority voting strength "racist" or "political," it's pretty disgusting.

If they're not legitimate voters it doesn't matter if they're minorities or not. SCOTUS has ruled the state has a legitimate interest in verifying the identity of attempted voters so trying to play the "disgusting" card is bunk since both sides have legitimate concerns. A legitimate voter being inconveniced or disenfranchised is bad, just as that same person's vote being diluted by someone else committing voter fraud is bad.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

To clarify, you are asking how I would measure whether voters meet the minimum level of quality?

Well, to start, I think every election category should start with a box that says "I haven't done sufficient research to make an educated choice." That will help people realize it is okay to vote only on those issues for which they have knowledge. Then, for example, someone who watched the presidential debates but didn't even know the names of people running for representative in his district has something to mark to express his decision not to vote. Otherwise, people might just make a random choice because he/she isn't comfortable leaving a box blank on the ballot.

Next, when handing a person their ballot, I would have the poll worker explain that in accepting the ballot, they agree they made a reasonable effort to learn enough information to make an educated choice and are voting with an open mind. They would then sign to confirm their acknowledgment and be given the ballot.

How would this help
What happens to the ballot of someone who states no I voted D or R on everything
What happens if a voter refuses to answer the question
What if they can read but know the name of the candidate
Couldn't the same thing be accomplished by putting up a poster that says you are not required to vote on every candidate or issue

 

[Cozarkian]

the conclusion comes from a biased view point.

over 70% of illegal immigration comes from one region of the world to the USA.

It would more logically follow that asking about voting rights for someone with that name would be a more negative answer then positive.


https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ois_ill_pe_2011.pdf

You on the left just see racism everywhere. So every action is racist.

Did you mean to quote someone else, because I can't figure out how anything you typed is relevant to what I typed in the quoted post.

 

[jackstar7]

Why, what benefit derives merely from the number of votes or percentage of people voting?

Because it is a representative government.

The more participation, the more accurate the representation.

 

[jackstar7]

Not sure why you would hold up India as a country you would like to emulate?

Perhaps you like the idea of classifying 1/5th of the population as "untouchables" that you can rape and murder with near impunity?

Go fuck yourself.

 

[Cozarkian]

How would this help

Problem: People vote on offices/issues they know nothing about, because once they get to the ballot box to vote on the important office/issues, they feel like they have an obligation to vote on everything.

First-step Solution: Find ways to educate voters that it is okay to admit they don't know what the right choice is.

Long-Term Solution: Find ways to help educate potential voters so they feel comfortable voting for more and more offices/issues.

What happens to the ballot of someone who states no I voted D or R on everything

There is no place for someone to state that. We are asking them to sign that they agree to keep an open mind and make educated choices. If they refuse to sign, they don't get to vote. If they sign and lie, nothing happens, because there isn't a practical way to enforce it. Fortunately, people will sometimes do the right thing and keep promises they make even if they don't have to.

What happens if a voter refuses to answer the question

There is no question. The ballot looks like this:

[box] No vote ("I haven't done enough research to make an educated choice)
[box] Obama
[box] Romney

and for propositions:

[box] No vote ("I haven't done enough research to make an educated choice)
[box] Yes
[box] No

What if they can read but know the name of the candidate

Assuming you meant "can't," then they look for the name of the candidate.

Couldn't the same thing be accomplished by putting up a poster that says you are not required to vote on every candidate or issue

That's an alternative option. I don't think it would be quite as effective, but it might be cheaper. Also, I'd rather see a poster that says "you should not vote on a candidate or issue if you don't have enough information to make an educated vote."

 

[Cozarkian]

Because it is a representative government.

The more participation, the more accurate the representation.

So should we let teenagers vote to get a more accurate representation? What about toddlers?

 

[Thebobo]

So should we let teenagers vote to get a more accurate representation? What about toddlers?

thats just silly.

 

[Cozarkian]

thats just silly.

My point exactly. Telling people they should vote for the sake of voting is also silly.

I have the intellectual capacity sufficient to teach a high school chemistry class, but I would have no business showing up at a school tomorrow without at least without doing some research to make sure I am familiar with the material in the lesson plan.

The same logic applies to voting. Just because someone is capable of making an educated choice as to who is a better candidate doesn't mean they should vote without actually trying to research a little about the candidate.