Study finds evidence for racial discrimination by voter ID proponents

[justoh]

You're right. I never thought of it that way.

 

[justoh]

I guess we all learned that trying to get along is way better than player-hating

 

[shira]

Maybe they're just po.



And what about this,



Sure, but maybe the 32% are all good friends. Peer pressure. Only one of them could have the relevant discriminatory intent, while the others are just going along to seem cool. The intent is still there, granted, but different, since the one guy intends to disenfranchise, while the others just want to get close to him.

The researchers addressed this question, and describe the results on Pages 24 and 25 of the report. The 32% showed MUCH less responsiveness-bias than the 68%. See my post 120 in the current thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36419647&postcount=120

 

[justoh]

The researchers addressed this question, and describe the results on Pages 24 and 25 of the report. The 32% showed MUCH less responsiveness-bias than the 68%. See my post 120 in the current thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36419647&postcount=120

Yeah. I think we all need to realize that everyone is different in one way or another, and we shouldn’t be threatened by those differences

 

[shira]

Yeah. I think we all need to realize that everyone is different in one way or another, and we shouldn’t be threatened by those differences

I don't think that pro-ID legislators are per se "threatened" by the ways that Hispanic voters are different from Anglo voters. I think they're primarily motivated by a cynical desire to win elections by any means, including those that infringe on the voting rights of minorities.

 

[justoh]

I don't think that pro-ID legislators are per se "threatened" by the ways that Hispanic voters are different from Anglo voters. I think they're primarily motivated by a cynical desire to win elections by any means, including those that infringe on the voting rights of minorities.

I guess the lesson is that it’s easy to perceive something some way, and then be wrong, so we all need to learn to be a little less perceptive

 

[michal1980]

I don't think that pro-ID legislators are per se "threatened" by the ways that Hispanic voters are different from Anglo voters. I think they're primarily motivated by a cynical desire to win elections by any means, including those that infringe on the voting rights of minorities.

you on the left see racism everywhere. So blinded by that crutch.

 

[michal1980]

They are racists because they didn't respond to an email.

Talk about reaching.

Learn how to read, you idiot.

I read it correctly. Did you?


Just cant take the fact that you biased little study is biased?


But I'll give you a chance. Please explain to me how I'm wrong.

This study sent an email to legislators. Some emails have white people names, some emails have Latino people names. It found that legislators responded to white people names more often then Latino people names. More so when the people wanted voter ids.

It concluded that because the white people names were responded to more often, the people that don't respond to Latino's are biased (ie racists individuals).

That none response to a trivial question proves that discrimination ie racism exists.

 

[justoh]

I read it correctly. Did you?


Just cant take the fact that you biased little study is biased?


But I'll give you a chance. Please explain to me how I'm wrong.

This study sent an email to legislators. Some emails have white people names, some emails have Latino people names. It found that legislators responded to white people names more often then Latino people names. More so when the people wanted voter ids.

It concluded that because the white people names were responded to more often, the people that don't respond to Latino's are biased (ie racists individuals).

That none response to a trivial question proves that discrimination ie racism exists.

If you're 10, that's a pretty good summary.

 

[michal1980]

If you're 10, that's a pretty good summary.

That's just what the study says.


Only fools read more into something as hackish as this 'study'

 

[shira]

I guess the lesson is that it’s easy to perceive something some way, and then be wrong, so we all need to learn to be a little less perceptive

Yes, it's easy for right-wing nutjobs to "perceive" a well-designed study as being exactly the opposite of what it is. They avoid actually reading the research report, intentionally misunderstand the research methodology, and invent "facts" that don't exist, all so that they can dismiss the study results.

If you've read the right-wing comments on this thread, you'll see this pattern of dishonest, know-nothing behavior repeated again and again and again. So please direct our comments at them.

 

[shira]

you on the left see racism everywhere. So blinded by that crutch.

It's certainly possible that right-wing voter-ID supporters merely want to stop blacks and Hispanics from voting, without having a racist bone in their bodies, in order to increase the odds that right-wingers will win elections. Do you approve of THAT reason for suppressing minority voting?

 

[shira]

I read it correctly. Did you?


Just cant take the fact that you biased little study is biased?


But I'll give you a chance. Please explain to me how I'm wrong.

This study sent an email to legislators. Some emails have white people names, some emails have Latino people names. It found that legislators responded to white people names more often then Latino people names. More so when the people wanted voter ids.

It concluded that because the white people names were responded to more often, the people that don't respond to Latino's are biased (ie racists individuals).

No. That's not what the study concluded.

The study concluded that legislators who are voter-ID proponents are likely to have "discriminatory intent" in passing voter-ID laws. As I wrote in my previous email, this discriminatory intent doesn't mean that the legislators are necessarily racist, though they might be. But establishing discriminatory intent, and also showing that voter-ID laws disproportionately suppress the voting rights of protected groups as compared with others, meets the burden of proof needed to get these laws thrown out under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

THAT'S the real message of this study.

That none response to a trivial question proves that discrimination ie racism exists.

No. The strong correlation between supporting voter-ID laws and "responsiveness bias" against Hispanics establishes that there's an underlying "discriminatory intent" when voter-ID supporters pass these laws.

 

[shira]

The study could have been made even stronger if legislators had ALSO been sent another email (from the "opposite" constituent) during the same two-week period that asked a trivial, "neutral" question that had nothing to do with seeking help with voting. For example,

"Dear [title and name of legislator],

My name is Santiago Gonzalez [Jacob Smith] and I want to bring my children to watch a session of the [name of the legislative body to which the legislator belongs). Can you provide me with the address where [name of legislative body] meets, and the times the [legislative body] is in session?

Thank you,

Santiago Gonzalez [Jacob Smith]​

If THIS email exhibited a significantly LOWER responsiveness bias among voter-ID proponents toward Hispanics than the ID-card email, then that would pretty much eliminate any conceivable alternate explanation (that is, explanations beside discriminatory intent). Of course, if a voter-ID proponent were virulently racist, he/she probably wouldn't respond to an email from an Hispanic constituent for ANY reason. But it's reasonable to suppose that a reasonable percentage of voter-ID proponents are motivated primarily by the intent so suppress minority voting, not by racism.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes, it's easy for right-wing nutjobs to "perceive" a well-designed study as being exactly the opposite of what it is. They avoid actually reading the research report, intentionally misunderstand the research methodology, and invent "facts" that don't exist, all so that they can dismiss the study results.

If you've read the right-wing comments on this thread, you'll see this pattern of dishonest, know-nothing behavior repeated again and again and again. So please direct our comments at them.

This is a scientifically demonstrated characteristic more commonly associated with conservative brains than liberal ones as are the differences that show up in brain scans. The conclusion is that while there is little difference in liberal conservative IQ on average, conservatives are more likely to have their perceptions influenced by fear and that they use their IQs therefore, to rationalize away information that is ego threatening, that does not conform to the ideologies that give them the warm and fuzzes, more than liberals do. Liberal minds are better at facing truth that logic will reveal. It is almost useless to try to get rationalizers to see this.

 

[justoh]

Yes, it's easy for right-wing nutjobs to "perceive" a well-designed study as being exactly the opposite of what it is. They avoid actually reading the research report, intentionally misunderstand the research methodology, and invent "facts" that don't exist, all so that they can dismiss the study results.

If you've read the right-wing comments on this thread, you'll see this pattern of dishonest, know-nothing behavior repeated again and again and again. So please direct our comments at them.

I get it now. I don't get it. I've been trying to say that I understand how latinos feel, but, I'll never understand. I'll never really get how it feels for a latino to have somebody just ignore him/her. I don't get it

 

[michal1980]

No. That's not what the study concluded.

The study concluded that legislators who are voter-ID proponents are likely to have "discriminatory intent" in passing voter-ID laws. As I wrote in my previous email, this discriminatory intent doesn't mean that the legislators are necessarily racist, though they might be. But establishing discriminatory intent, and also showing that voter-ID laws disproportionately suppress the voting rights of protected groups as compared with others, meets the burden of proof needed to get these laws thrown out under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

THAT'S the real message of this study.



No. The strong correlation between supporting voter-ID laws and "responsiveness bias" against Hispanics establishes that there's an underlying "discriminatory intent" when voter-ID supporters pass these laws.

except it is what the study says

Given the large scale and systematic nature of the study, this research creates an extensive evidentiary record that legislative support for voter identification is linked with revealed legislative behavior favoring Anglo whites over Latinos.

 

[Rebel_L]

Did they talk about why the question is so neutral? I would have thought that if you wanted to show a negative intent against particular group you would want to show that people are willing to ignore them even when they are offered some sort of benefit. Human motivation is by no means a simple thing and the amount of other factors involved would make me very sceptical of any conclusion of the intent or motivations of an observed bias based on such a simple questions tossed into such a complex situation.

As an example of other things going on during an election campaign, my understanding of election time is that by far the best bang for your time and money invested as far as getting votes goes is to ignore anyone who doesnt support you and instead get after the people who do support you to get out and vote. It is far more time intensive and often futile to try to convince someone that they are wrong and you are right compared to convincing someone that they should get to a polling station on election day.

As far as discriminatory intent and laws goes.... isnt the whole point of every law to discriminate? Can any law that is broken by one protected group more than another be repealed this way or is it just election laws?

 

[fskimospy]

Did they talk about why the question is so neutral? I would have thought that if you wanted to show a negative intent against particular group you would want to show that people are willing to ignore them even when they are offered some sort of benefit. Human motivation is by no means a simple thing and the amount of other factors involved would make me very sceptical of any conclusion of the intent or motivations of an observed bias based on such a simple questions tossed into such a complex situation.

As an example of other things going on during an election campaign, my understanding of election time is that by far the best bang for your time and money invested as far as getting votes goes is to ignore anyone who doesnt support you and instead get after the people who do support you to get out and vote. It is far more time intensive and often futile to try to convince someone that they are wrong and you are right compared to convincing someone that they should get to a polling station on election day.

As far as discriminatory intent and laws goes.... isnt the whole point of every law to discriminate? Can any law that is broken by one protected group more than another be repealed this way or is it just election laws?

I would suggest reading the study. First, this doesn't have anything to do with laws, this has to do with lawmakers doing their job and answering questions from their constituents. Supporting and representing their constituents is the entire reason they exist.

Additionally, the study specifically analyzes your question about the role of partisanship in this. When they compared Republicans and Democrats that were against voter ID they responded at pretty similar rates. The big difference was between those who supported voter ID laws and those who did not, not between Republicans and Democrats of similar positions on the issue.

As for the large number of factors that go into human decisionmaking, that's why you have a large sample. Unless you can point to factors that would specifically and disproportionately affect one of the groups being analyzed, it doesn't really matter.

 

[jackstar7]

except it is what the study says

Stop conflating. You're very bad at it.

 

[manimal]

Stop conflating. You're very bad at it.

smaller words would help him.


racism bad. Voting everybody good.

 

[Zaap]

I would suggest reading the study. First, this doesn't have anything to do with laws, this has to do with lawmakers doing their job and answering questions from their constituents. Supporting and representing their constituents is the entire reason they exist.

LOL! How many pages in, and you're still flailing away because no one but other leftist nutballs as loony as you is buying the dumb premise?

Once more- sending a random spam email to a legislator doesn't make you "their constituents".