Study finds evidence for racial discrimination by voter ID proponents

[fskimospy]

Dunno. I was trolling at the time, but the author seems to acknowledge that the data from the english emails are worthless.

That's absolutely not what that passage says, they are just talking about two different things. The english language emails clearly show that discriminatory bias exists, as every legislator can speak English and their results are highly significant. (p<0.01)

So right there the description of 'worthless' is thrown in the trash. It's super informative.

I see this crop up in a lot of threads. Every competent research paper has a part of its discussion where they talk about what the possible limitations of the research are. This is all an important part of science.

Then he seems to make a big deal about the spanish email responses, which i guess is all that he really has?

That was based on a 10% response rate of voter id supporters responding to anglo named spanish language email senders, and 0% to hispanic named spanish language email senders. I don't know how interesting or meaningful that is. I think more or less worthless was a pretty accurate description.

The spanish language part is more effective at looking at what the precise motivation for that might be. A few problems, first you seem to be looking at table 6 when you should be looking at table 4 for the differences in support among voter ID supporters.

As for the results, the paper actually goes into how interesting and meaningful that is. Using a 1 tailed difference of means test and an n of 936 you get a result significant at the P<0.01 level for voter ID supporters, which is highly significant.

I do agree that table 6 was highly interesting though, although for different reasons. What the author is focusing on there was that both Republican and Democratic legislators who OPPOSED voter ID laws showed quite small (and statistically insignificant) response biases. Republican legislators that favored voter ID laws showed a result significant at the p<.1 level. That helps account for party bias.

It's hard to see how you could come to your conclusion.

 

[fskimospy]

That is what the study is saying.

No it isn't. You can't read.

And whats the evidence? That their emails weren't responded to.

Yes. Do you understand the study?

 

[nehalem256]

That's absolutely not what that passage says, they are just talking about two different things. The english language emails clearly show that discriminatory bias exists, as every legislator can speak English and their results are highly significant. (p<0.01)

So right there the description of 'worthless' is thrown in the trash. It's super informative.

But it doesn't show the reason for the bias:

Legislators who fail to respond to minority constituents and who also
support laws with the effect of disfranchising minority voters may do so for partisan or electoral reasons

So in other words per the study your thread title is wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

But it doesn't show the reason for the bias:

So in other words per the study your thread title is wrong.

If you think as per the study my title is wrong the only possible explanation is that you are unable to read.

 

[michal1980]

No it isn't. You can't read.



Yes. Do you understand the study?

Its saying that not responding to Latino's emails makes one a racist.


Do you understand what they are saying?


Even in your Washington post piece the author concludes:

"In short, voter ID laws are simply racially-motivated solutions to a problem that never existed."

Or does the author you linked also not understand the study?

 

[justoh]

That's absolutely not what that passage says, they are just talking about two different things. The english language emails clearly show that discriminatory bias exists, as every legislator can speak English and their results are highly significant. (p<0.01)

So right there the description of 'worthless' is thrown in the trash. It's super informative.

But the stated point was to find discriminatory intent, not effect, and he seems to conclude that intent cannot be satisfactorily shown for the english responses. Isn't the result irrelevant?

Legislators who fail to respond to minority constituents and who also
support laws with the effect of disfranchising minority voters may do so for partisan or electoral reasons, but the result is political marginalization of the minority group

 

[fskimospy]

Its saying that not responding to Latino's emails makes one a racist.

Do you understand what they are saying?

Even in your Washington post piece the author concludes:

"In short, voter ID laws are simply racially-motivated solutions to a problem that never existed."

No, it's talking about the population of legislators as a whole, not individuals.

You don't understand what you're talking about.

 

[nehalem256]

If you think as per the study my title is wrong the only possible explanation is that you are unable to read.

It provides no evidence of racial discrimination.

Its pretty simple

Supporters of voter ID could be doing so for racist or electoral reasons.

Lack of response could be for racist or electoral reasons.

All the study shows is that supporters of voter ID are also less likely to respond to Hispanic names, which is exactly what you would expect regardless of the reason. The study provides no way to differentiate which of those reasons might be the case.

 

[nehalem256]

No, it's talking about the population of legislators as a whole, not individuals.

You don't understand what you're talking about.

Lets think about this. If a group of legislators is racist do you think the individual legislators are racist?

 

[fskimospy]

But the stated point was to find discriminatory intent, not effect, and he seems to conclude that intent cannot be satisfactorily shown for the english responses. Isn't the result irrelevant?

No.

They did find discriminatory intent, they just couldn't narrow down whether that discriminatory intent stemmed from one of two possible sources. No matter the combination of the two, there's still discriminatory intent.

 

[fskimospy]

It provides no evidence of racial discrimination.

Its pretty simple

Supporters of voter ID could be doing so for racist or electoral reasons.

Lack of response could be for racist or electoral reasons.

All the study shows is that supporters of voter ID are also less likely to respond to Hispanic names, which is exactly what you would expect regardless of the reason. The study provides no way to differentiate which of those reasons might be the case.

Interesting that you are so stupid as to think that if someone discriminates against a race for electoral reasons as opposed to personal ones that it suddenly isn't racial discrimination anymore.

This must be some of those new conservative definitions of words.

 

[fskimospy]

Lets think about this. If a group of legislators is racist do you think the individual legislators are racist?

The study didn't determine if individual legislators are racist.

That's like telling me that there's a room with 100 people in it, 60 of which proclaimed that they were racists, and then saying all the individuals in the room are racist.

So not only do you not know how english works, you don't know how math works. What grade did you graduate in school?

 

[nehalem256]

Interesting that you are so stupid as to think that if someone discriminates against a race for electoral reasons as opposed to personal ones that it suddenly isn't racial discrimination anymore.

It only looks like racial discrimination because they didn't include any non racial categories that could be identified as a non-Republican voter.

If say abortionchick42@naral.org had asked the same question it seems likely they would have been treated similarly to the Hispanic sounding name 😉

 

[fskimospy]

It only looks like racial discrimination because they didn't include any non racial categories that could be identified as a non-Republican voter.

If say abortionchick42@naral.org had asked the same question it seems likely they would have been treated similarly to the Hispanic sounding name 😉

lol. Now you're inventing new categories and reasons to avoid admitting you're wrong. The study addressed that later but you're too stupid or lazy to have bothered.

That's enough out of you on this. Haven't you embarrassed yourself enough?

 

[michal1980]

No, it's talking about the population of legislators as a whole, not individuals.

You don't understand what you're talking about.

wow you must be losing it.


So the individuals aren't racist, but the group is?

how exactly is that possible?

 

[fskimospy]

wow you must be losing it.

So the individuals aren't racist, but the group is?

how exactly is that possible?

America as a whole voted for Obama. Did you?

 

[justoh]

No.

They did find discriminatory intent, they just couldn't narrow down whether that discriminatory intent stemmed from one of two possible sources. No matter the combination of the two, there's still discriminatory intent.

Maybe they're just po.

We argue that legislators&#8217; electoral considerations, personal biases,
and resources all shape why legislators may engage in responsiveness bias to constituents

And what about this,

A potential critique of our interpretation of the findings that legislator preferences condition responsiveness bias is that legislator support for voter identification may be highly correlated with the party affiliation of legislators. If nearly all Republican legislators support voter identification, then our
results may be driven purely by party affiliation and not legislator policy preferences. As it turns out, Republican legislators in these states showed substantial variation in support for voter identification. Among Republican legislators, 31.9% supported voter identification and 68. 1% did not

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.

 

[justoh]

I think we can call this one a draw.

 

[michal1980]

America as a whole voted for Obama. Did you?

So you agree they are calling legislators racist. They just haven't named the individuals they determined to be racists yet.

 

[fskimospy]

Maybe they're just po.

And what about this,

Then you would have to show that there was a statistically significant difference in resources between voter ID proponents and opponents that was large enough to inhibit response to emails. I'm aware of no plausible reason to believe 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.

I'd say you're reaching now. I think the study presents a strong case that voter ID proponents exhibit racial bias against Hispanics.

 

[fskimospy]

I think we can call this one a draw.

No offense, but I really don't see how.

 

[michal1980]

Then you would have to show that there was a statistically significant difference in resources between voter ID proponents and opponents that was large enough to inhibit response to emails. I'm aware of no plausible reason to believe this.



I'd say you're reaching now. I think the study presents a strong case that voter ID proponents exhibit racial bias against Hispanics.

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

Talk about reaching.

 

[fskimospy]

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

Talk about reaching.

Learn how to read, you idiot.

 

[justoh]

Then you would have to show that there was a statistically significant difference in resources between voter ID proponents and opponents that was large enough to inhibit response to emails. I'm aware of no plausible reason to believe this.



I'd say you're reaching now. I think the study presents a strong case that voter ID proponents exhibit racial bias against Hispanics.

Too tenuous. That guy with the shitty taste in sitcoms was right about the email being ridiculous and difficult to answer in a binary fashion. To explain the relative difference between supporter and non supporter responses, one could argue that non supporters are necessarily more intelligent and therefore less likely to be caught in a brain freeze when someone solicits a yes/no response to a question involving other variables (are you otherwise legal to vote? do you have other id?).

Who expects that the actual reps answered any of the emails? Surely they have interns for that shit. Isn't it relevant that possibly none of the actual reps responded to the emails?

How would you react to a spanish email from a guy called jacob smith? It's obviously a little bit intriguing. Maybe you ignore most emails but this one made you laugh or smile or something, so you responded.

Surely there are many variables involved as to whether a particular rep will respond to a question you ask. Maybe republicans are more prone to taking it easy.

Maybe they don't even remember that they supported or sponsored leg calling for voter id, rendering their non response meaningless or non supportive of the author's hypothesis. At least i think this makes sense.

 

[fskimospy]

Too tenuous. That guy with the shitty taste in sitcoms was right about the email being ridiculous and difficult to answer in a binary fashion. To explain the relative difference between supporter and non supporter responses, one could argue that non supporters are necessarily more intelligent and therefore less likely to be caught in a brain freeze when someone solicits a yes/no response to a question involving other variables (are you otherwise legal to vote? do you have other id?).

There was no need to answer it in any particular way, just to answer it at all. I'm aware of no recorded correlation between personal intelligence and support for voter ID laws.

Who expects that the actual reps answered any of the emails? Surely they have interns for that shit. Isn't it relevant that possibly none of the actual reps responded to the emails?

Not really. (and the study addresses this) The legislator sets priorities for their staff. Additionally, staff frequently heavily interact with the legislator and share priorities with that individual. Let's just say it's highly implausible that individuals supporting legislation that disproportionately attacks Hispanics just happened to have all hired staff that act the same way.

How would you react to a spanish email from a guy called jacob smith? It's obviously a little bit intriguing. Maybe you ignore most emails but this one made you laugh or smile or something, so you responded.

Surely there are many variables involved as to whether a particular rep will respond to a question you ask. Maybe republicans are more prone to taking it easy.

Maybe they don't even remember that they supported or sponsored leg calling for voter id, rendering their non response meaningless or non supportive of the author's hypothesis. At least i think this makes sense.

If you believe that large numbers of legislators unable to remember their own votes or sponsorship for high profile issues that were legislated within the last 12 months or so then we have a very serious crisis in governance completely separate from this survey.

Can you provide examples of any legislators that have supported voter ID and have later forgotten?

All of these are simply baseless conjectures without empirical support. Anyone can come up with an endless series of hypotheticals for any study ever written. If you believe a certain unaccounted for confounding variable is a plausible explanation for this disparity you're going to need to provide some evidence.