The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Do Voter ID Laws Suppress Democratic Votes?
A new study challenges the conventional wisdom on voter ID laws.
A new study examining the effects of voter identification requirements suggests that such laws may not have the effects that many assume. The paper, "Who benefits from voter identification laws?" by Jeffrey Harden and Alejandra Campos, challenges the assumption that such requirements reduce Democratic turnout or otherwise advantage Republicans.
Here is the abstract:
In the first two decades of the twenty-first century, many American state governments implemented voter identification (ID) laws for elections held in their states. These laws, which commonly mandate photo ID and/or require significant effort by voters lacking ID, sparked an ongoing national debate over the tension between election security and access in a democratic society. The laws' proponents—primarily politicians in the Republican Party—claim that they prevent voter fraud, while Democratic opponents denounce the disproportionate burden they place on historically disadvantaged groups such as the poor and people of color. While these positions may reflect sincerely held beliefs, they also align with the political parties' rational electoral strategies because the groups most likely to be disenfranchised by the laws tend to support Democratic candidates. Are these partisan views on the impact of voter ID correct? Existing research focuses on how voter ID laws affect voter turnout and fraud. But the extent to which they produce observable electoral benefits for Republican candidates and/or penalize Democrats remains an open question. We examine how voter ID impacts the parties' electoral fortunes in races at the state level (state legislatures and governorships) and federal level (United States Congress and president) during 2003 to 2020. Our results suggest negligible average effects but with some heterogeneity over time. The first laws implemented produced a Democratic advantage, which weakened to near zero after 2012. We conclude that voter ID requirements motivate and mobilize supporters of both parties, ultimately mitigating their anticipated effects on election results.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Anybody who thinks blacks are to stupid to get a state ID is a racist.
Period.
You have to present photo ID to obtain medical care in most every medical office ( for at least the last 10 – 15 years). Not sure if that is true for emergency care, but it is required anytime you see the doctor ( with some discretion/ non enforcement allowed when seeing the same doc multiple times).
I do not present identification when I visit my doctor (he has been my doctor for decades). If I were a first-time customer, I would expect to be asked for insurance documentation and perhaps personal identification.
I do not present identification when I visit my polling place for an election (this has been my voting district for 25 years). For first-time customers, personal identification is required.
I do not present identification when I register for a mailed ballot (this is a relatively new -- and welcome -- development). I was required to provide identification when I initially subscribed to mailed ballots.
that's because everybody recognizes you, Jerry
We conclude that voter ID requirements motivate and mobilize supporters of both parties, ultimately mitigating their anticipated effects on election results.
Isn't this what we actually want? More participation?
Sarcastr0? Arthur? 🙂
Commenter_XY, yes, that is what we want. But I posit an exception to the mobilization principle, which could be tested. I doubt it is easy to mobilize Black males whose disorderly lives have left them in various degrees of legal jeopardy. It seems unlikely that someone will present himself with verifiable ID at a place where police will be present if he faces arrest for a long string of unpaid parking tickets, or if he is in arrears on child support, or worse. In general, I suspect Black males are more cautious about police contact than any other identifiable group of Americans. If so, that would probably work to the detriment of the Democratic Party.
A first-order check to see if that might be happening would simply check the balance of male vs. female registrations among Blacks. If females are notably more likely to be registered, or if they vote in larger percentages, then you have to ask what accounts for that.
If there is disproportionate female voting among Blacks, then procedures to enable Black males to register and vote without encountering police could be tried, to see if it made a difference.
I have noticed that in reports of voter ID rules from place to place, it seems like voter ID advocates do systematically tend to disparage any kind of ID, such as student IDs, which might enable a would-be registrant to avoid face-to-face contact with police. I suspect those advocates would continue to object if a trial like the one I suggest were proposed.
Very telling you bring race into the discussion, lathrop. You cannot help yourself. It is literally like a moth to flame.
It was the right-wing vote suppressors who introduced race to this issue. They had a nationwide consent decree to show for it for decades.
Quit flailing, clingers. And try to diminish your bigotry before replacement.
I thought "Replacement" was a race-ist right wing "trope" Jerry,
you race-ist right wing trope,
Frank
I have never voted where a police officer was present.
There's the recent example in Florida of ex-felons being told they were legal to vote by voting officials, voting, then getting arrested for voting illegally. There's a deliberate scare-tactic if ever there was one.
They weren't arrested at the polls.
True. Still naked intimidation.
Wow, what an astonishingly racist comment.
lathrop doesn't know that, Rossami. He is completely oblivious to the import of what he writes in the walls of text.
It’s less racist than just nonsensical. What do voter ID laws have to do with cops? Absolutely nothing. Poll workers, not cops, enforce them. And government clerks, not cops, issue them in the first place.
Don't know how it is where you are Nieporent, but the polling places around me station cops in the parking areas, a cop at the door, and a cop or two inside. When I return my ballot, the clerk checks me off the list as having voted, and then announces in a loud voice, "Stephen Lathrop has voted."
Whatever you think the formal setup is, I don't think many folks who are wary about encountering cops know what you know, or would trust what you say anyway. Black males with sketchy lives are not going to go to places where they expect cops might be checking IDs.
I don't believe you. I've voted in different states over the years, using different method, and nobody has ever announced the name of anyone voting.
But of course none of that has anything to do with voter ID anyway! Let alone drivers' licenses vs. student IDs!
Oh, and where I am it is illegal for any law enforcement officer to be within 100 feet of a polling place except if called to respond to a specific incident.
"I have noticed that in reports of voter ID rules from place to place, it seems like voter ID advocates do systematically tend to disparage any kind of ID, such as student IDs, which might enable a would-be registrant to avoid face-to-face contact with police. "
What they're disparaging is ID that you can obtain without ever having had to prove who you were. Student ID is typically issued on in a very lax manner, because the university isn't actually concerned that "Eric Jones" really IS Eric Jones, they're just concerned that the guy attending the classes is somebody who paid to attend, rather than somebody who walked in off the street.
And the guy issuing fishing licenses is?
Can you cite a voter ID law that lists fishing (or hunting) licenses as acceptable forms of ID? If not, what was the point of your comment?
What are you talking about?
On what basis do you make this claim?
You are saying that if I show up the first day and say "I'm Eric Jones," they will give me an ID without checking to see who I am. That sounds absurd, offhand, both from the POV of the school and the fraudster.
I think you are making shit up.
Some schools have proof-of-who-you-are requirements for obtaining a school ID, and some do not. Some are kind of wish-washy about it. For instance, according to UCSD, you can apply for your university ID online by uploading a photo, and when picking it up...
"You may be asked to show a second form of physical identification (driver's license or Passport) when visiting our office."
You may (or may not) be asked for secondary ID before yours is issued. It's not an absolute requirement. For some others the entire process can be carried out online, and the ID is mailed.
Maybe learn a little something about a subject before making stupid accusations about others "making shit up".
"But I posit...which could be tested...seems unlikely...In general, I suspect ...would probably... I suspect..."
I missed the part where you read and critiqued the methodology of the posted study.
Absaroka, it was an easy critique, because no mention in the article of police or cops.
I’m not sure I follow your line of thinking. Regardless of what level of verification is required, every voting system requires voters to identify themselves both when registering and when casting their votes. To the extent there’s a perception that someone is checking voters for warrants (a perception that, to my knowledge, would be false in every precinct in the country), why would an ID requirement change participation rates? Much less requiring a driver’s license versus a student ID?
"why would an ID requirement change participation rates?"
It may be a fair point that someone who isn't sure whether or not they have outstanding warrants might not be sure whether or not the kindly poll worker will check for warrants. You and I know better, but then we both probably have a pretty good idea whether or not we have outstanding warrants.
It's like when someone calls 911 and reports that so-n-so shorted them in a drug deal. It's common enough I've seen several videos on youtube. The officer leads them through the questions:
Officer: "So, you were buying crack from Fred over there?"
Suspect: "That's right, I gave him $10 but he only gave me a $5 rock"
O: "And the rock you bought is the one in your hand?"
S: "That's right, and that's no $10 rock!"
O: "And you know it is crack?"
...
And they are always so surprised when they get cuffed.
"Much less requiring a driver’s license versus a student ID?"
I didn't get that one either. Maybe the idea is that they think DoL is more likely to check for warrants than the college admin office? But you have to wonder if there are a whole lot of college students out there with outstanding warrants. You hope the sets 'people smart enough to be in college' and 'people dumb enough to go through life with a string of outstanding warrants' don't overlap a whole lot.
That's all aside from the question 'is a lack of voter participation by people with a string of active warrants one of the major problems in a democracy'.
Student ID's are disfavored as a form of ID first because students tend use their parents home address for drivers licenses, etc, and then often have school address for student ID. dual addresses help facilitate multiple voting/ registrrations etc.
Secondly, Student ID's are much easier to forge / create fake ID's since they are not uniform through out the state and generally dont have an official govt seal
Participation based on not liking a change in the law is not sustainable, Commenter.
Uh huh....You the same guy who argued that voter ID laws were rooted racism and would depress the vote? Thought so.
Did not happen (and was not the case = rooted in racism).
I argue that voter ID laws as promulgated by the GOP these days is rooted in partisanship, and effected by targeting minorities and the poor as proxies.
Also that's not my argument. Want to engage with my argument?
I doubt that compelling some citizens (those on the winning side of the culture war and the right side of history) to devote resources to overcome the partisan, bigoted conduct of the other side seems like a good idea to those of us who are not afflicted by whatever motivates Republicans these days.
This blog attracts so many racist, gay-bashing, misogynistic, ignorant, xenophobic clingers that it must be deliberate. I suspect the deans of legitimate law schools are becoming aware of this, and not just because of the frequency of the racial slurs this right-wing blog publishes.
Arthur, one logical extension of the author's conclusion is that we need more voter ID laws, and discuss them widely, in order to increase voter participation. I know it sounds nuts, but the data are the data.
It is not racist or bigoted to use objectively verifiable means to increase voter participation, is it?
the data are the data.
Oh come on, XY.
This is not the only study anyone has ever done of these laws. The paper cites some others, among other things. Further, consider the conclusion(emphasis added):
this research does not imply that voter ID laws represent a benign reform. A broad majority of the American public supports them (6), but these laws can also alienate disadvantaged groups from politics (10). Thus, they are most useful to the extent that they solve a problem observed in American elections. Empirical evidence—which examines voter turnout (2, 3), voter fraud (4), and now, election results—shows essentially no such problem. Thus, future election policy may benefit from a shift in the debate. Instead of focusing on security versus access, lawmakers should consider the threshold for a baseline level of voter responsibility while avoiding the enactment of barriers that lack empirical support.
As for racism, the first paragraph of the paper gives some history:
In the early 2010s, Republicans in the North Carolina General Assembly gathered detailed data on the recent voting behavior and racial background of North Carolinians. For instance, staff members compiled information on early versus Election Day voting by race and the number of black and white voters who did not possess a driver’s license (1). Soon after, the Republican-controlled legislature passed a comprehensive election administration bill that included a requirement that all voters must show photo identification (ID) to access a ballot.
bernard11, it is counterintuitive (the logical extension). My interpretation better fits human nature, I think. Think it through, from the perspective of motivating people to act, and why people do get motivated to act.
Without exception, where aggressive Voter ID laws are pursued it is the most extremist right wing Republicans who are pushing it. Because, of course, it helps those poor Democrats they don't like.
Do you guys even think about this for a second? Leaked memos and e-mails from RNC hacks celebrate the success of suppressing the non-white vote wherever they are successful at getting their laws passed. You can't even give them the benefit of the doubt because there is no doubt.
Maybe the “extremist right wing Republicans” are just idiots who don’t understand the consequences of their proposals.
That’s an extremely common situation with our political class.
Nah, Republicans are fiendishly clever villains. Think Ernst Stavro Blofeld or Lex Luthor. Getting a reputation as the Stupid Party was actually their greatest success.
Arguably being dumb is the reason why you would do this while knowing the consequences. That or too lazy to get the targeted voters to vote for you instead. Aso, it's not extremist, this is mainstream Republicanism.
Arguably, these days mainstream Republicanism *is* extremist.
I’m skeptical of this study for several reasons, but even if it turns out to be right, the fact remains that Republicans push for these laws because they *believe* it will deter some Democrats from voting. So it’s a little like me wanting to kill someone and giving him a glass of water under the mistaken belief that it’s really poison. The fact that the person didn’t die doesn’t make me or my actions honorable. In fact, they're still criminal.
It's one more facet of Repulican behaviour, like declaring the election a fraud or trying to overturn the election results with a mini-riot or banning books in schools or academic courses in colleges or passing laws against trans people, that show exactly who Republicans are and their intentions, but whch everyone has to ignore or pass over because their methods supposedly haven't quite worked yet, despite quite a lot of that stuff actually working, like if you're trans or pregnant in a Red State or a black scholar in Florida.
But ultimately the point is not disparaging the assumed intent of your political opponents. The point is what this information suggests we should do. If it makes the voting system even slightly more secure while doing no harm, why not?
Because that outcome doesn't occur in a vacuum. Suppose this law keeps 100 people from wrongly voting, but it also keeps 100 people from rightly voting. Is the cost of excluding 100 people who should have been allowed to vote worth the benefit of preventing 100 people from wrongly voting? And I would like to see actual data on which of those two groups is larger, and by how much, before just saying it makes us more secure so that's that.
"Is the cost of excluding 100 people who should have been allowed to vote worth the benefit of preventing 100 people from wrongly voting?"
That's kind of an interesting question!
First, for any reasonably large election (i.e. not for the mayor of Podunk, pop. 45), discarding even pretty large numbers of votes won't affect the outcome much, as long as the discarding is more or less random with respect to party. You could randomly discard 10% of the votes for a statewide election with a negligible chance of affecting the outcome - that's just the law of large numbers at work.
Secondly, let's ignore what you might call retail fraud, i.e. Gramps passes away just before the election, and Granny fills out his ballot 'the way he would have wanted it'. I don't think that kind of thing is common, or particularly favors one party.
But what about systematic fraud of the kind the Daley machine was reputed to do back in the day, where they might stuff large numbers of ballots into the boxes. Let's say they can produce 5% of the ballots if they have to. Is some voting security feature that prevents that, at the cost of throwing out 5% of the legitimate ballots a good tradeoff? Almost certainly so. If the discarded legit votes are an even split (and if the election is close enough, they won't be far from that), the only way you'd improve the election by allowing both the 5% of legit ballots and the 5% fake ones is if the legit (but excluded) ballots were almost all from one party. And while people argue whether some feature of voting (mail in, voted ID, extended poll hours) favors one party or the other, I don't think any of the contested features are 100% effective at favoring one party.
Excluding one known-fraudulent ballot at the price of excluding one legit ballot will almost always make for a better election, unless the excluded legit ballots are selected very non-randomly.
(n.b. I am assuming that wholesale ballot fraud usually favors one party or the other. In the machine politics days, my sense is one party usually controlled the election process well enough that the opposing party couldn't do fraud wholesale)
No harm is not what this suggests.
The fact that you want to build policy based on one study, that is not quite on point, is a sign of outcome-oriented thinking.
So now you're supporting the guys who want to suppress votes?
"Leaked memos and e-mails from RNC hacks celebrate the success of suppressing the non-white vote wherever they are successful at getting their laws passed."
The dude in Wisconsin last month is the only guy I recall. Show your evidence this is common.
The evidence from the UGA poll showing the thoughts of black voters related to the election demonstrate that the Republicans who think this are full of shit as to how much they’ve accomplished, assuming the whole “leaked emails thing” isn’t fabricated bullshit.
If the survey was to measure the effecitveness voter suppression, then just surveying people who succesfully voted would seem a bit self-defeating.
What? They’re supposed to survey people who didn’t bother to vote about their opinion on a system that they didn’t try to experience?
The whole point of the gnashing of teeth was that blacks who wanted to vote would find it difficult to do so. The poll shows that to be emphatically false.
Yes? If they wanted to be thorough?
'The poll shows that to be emphatically false.'
But if so was it because the suppression efforts failed or the efforts to stop it succeeded? You're trying so hard to 'both sides' this you're willingly suspending any actual exploration of what happened.
You’re trying so hard to sustain a false narrative that you’re not worth my time.
Not sure what's false about suggesting making further surveys before reaching such a definitive conclusion.
It did not. It showed that blacks who did vote did not find it difficult. By definition, that can tell us nothing about the ones who didn't.
If you found it too onerous to vote as a result of legal changes and decided to give up without voting, they didn't survey you.
Even a bigoted hayseed from Obsolete, Ohio should be able to find the records associated with the national consent decree governing Republican vote suppressors for decades.
These are your fans, Volokh Conspirators. You should be ashamed but I sense you lack the requisite character.
There's a few more here.
On the other hand, can you show any evidence of voter fraud (that would be fixed by IDs) being a widespread problem?
For years, it's been an open secret that Republican's try to add voter ID laws because they believe poor minorities that vote Democratic are less likely to have ID.
The point of this article is that they are incorrect in that belief.
"open secret "
Evidence?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
With few exceptions, the "aggressive Voter ID laws" that are being pursued almost always less aggressive than the existing requirements in many D-controlled jurisdictions. Republican-controlled states are being sued for trying to implement controls that places like New York and New Jersey have had for years.
It's the same thing with absentee and early voting: Democratic activists were suing Republican states that had more of both than many Democrat dominated states. North Carolina, for instance, was repeatedly sued for trying to slightly scale back voting laws that were much more 'liberal' than New York.
But New York is safely Democrat dominated, and so Democrats didn't care what their election laws were.
If anything consistent was happening, it was an attempt to impose a "no retrogression" principle on voting laws. But there wasn't any constitutional basis for such a principle.
Is it possible conditions are different in NC than in NY?
Is it possible that the whole point of NC's changes was to reduce minority voting with "surgical precision," so that they were plainly discriminatory?
Is it possible you're just pulling excuses out of your nether orifice? Yeah, it is.
Georgia was supposed to be the New Jim Crow but it turned out to be pretty much the opposite.
Is it possible that the entire reaction to these changes in voting laws is overwrought media narrative horseshit?
Or perhaps it's actually appropriate to be outraged over efforts at voter suppression.
Agreed, I am outraged too....So Nige, when are you coming to the People's Republic of NJ to help straighten things out here? Not only do we have voter suppression going on, we have to have election do-overs because of the corruption we face. Hell, this blue state paradise has some of the most draconian restrictions around. Help us, Nige. This should appeal to your idealistic side. The fight for truth and justice. All that jazz.
Really looking forward to seeing you come here and fix it. I can tell you are outraged. Come here, and find a constructive outlet for your rage. 🙂
Thoughts and prayers.
LOL. 🙂
I was going to reply to this comment, but it's just too tiresome. So predictable. It's just unsupported statements, no evidence given, not even any argument. I'm bored. Do better. If I want drivel there are many other places on the interwebs where I can get my fill.
Which party is more inclined to stuff ballot boxes?
That is a factor here...
So you're saying that because Republicans are more likely to cheat, they're more likely to suspect the other side of cheat?
No, you moron. It's not a factor at all.
Why assume that one party is more inclined to stuff ballot boxes than the other?
Because one party is more inclined to demand that ballot boxes be put in unattended locations where stuffing them is easier?
Look, I think both parties probably cheat where they think they can get away with it. Doesn't mean they both favor the same sort of cheating.
Such accusation should be accompanied by actual evidence, not just cynicism and speculation.
And, of course, assuming Dems are concerned about voter ID in bad faith.
"Why assume that one party is more inclined to stuff ballot boxes than the other?"
180 years of Democrats doing it.
Because one party has a demographic group that commits crimes of all kinds at a significantly higher rate than other demographic groups.
and don't blame me, blame the Messenger (DOJ)
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/revcoa18.pdf
(redacted) Shot:
"In 2018, based on data from the FBI’s Uniform
Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, black people
were overrepresented among persons arrested for
nonfatal violent crimes (33%) and for serious nonfatal
violent crimes (36%) relative to their representation
in the U.S. population (13%) (table 1).
1 White people
were underrepresented. White people accounted for
60% of U.S. residents but 46% of all persons arrested
for rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and other assault,
and 39% of all arrestees for nonfatal violent crimes
excluding other assault. Hispanics, regardless of their
race, were overrepresented among arrestees for nonfatal
violent crimes excluding other assault (21%) relative to
their representation in the U.S. population (18%)."
Frank
Or one demographic is ridiculously over-policed and one isn't.
Unless you’re suggesting that voter ID requirements do suppress Democratic votes, but that Democrats obscured this fact by fraudulently inflating their results, I’m hard-pressed to see how it could be a “factor here”.
"conventional wisdom on voter ID laws"
How can a view held by only one half [at best] of people be "conventional wisdom"?
Polls [garbage as they might be ] show that conventional wisdom is that such laws are good. Its only Democratic party and left wing activist "conventional wisdom" that they are bad.
That's actually a good point. This might have been "conventional wisdom" among some limited group of people. Left wing political activists, maybe. Public opinion, on the other hand, is has been all along rather one sided in favor of such laws.
You guys are lying. Republicans told reporters and political strategists that they believed Voter ID laws would hurt Democrats (indeed, they are an example of what used to be called the "sloppy Dem thesis" in election law). Both parties believed strongly in an effect that these laws did not have.
We're distinguishing between " common wisdom" in a public sense, and the beliefs of a subset of the population.
Yes, it has been "common wisdom" among political activists that the Democratic party had more lazy voters, and the Republican party more voters who'd walk barefoot through a blizzard if that's what it took to vote, so Republicans prayed for rain on election day, and Democrats treated every slightest inconvenience as an existential threat.
And apparently that political activist common wisdom isn't true anymore, if it ever was.
At the very same time, it is "common wisdom" among the general public that voter ID is just a drop dead sensible thing to do, because the general public is used to having to show ID to do all sorts of normal things, and doesn't view showing ID as an outrageous imposition.
Brett, the GOP pushing a policy in *mistaken* bad faith doesn't make it a good policy.
Plus, if their game is longer than a few cycles, the effect of the law changing will almost certainly dissipate.
"Republicans told reporters and political strategists that they believed Voter ID laws would hurt Democrats"
Evidence? Not stories with anonymous sources, people on the record.
Bob, the notion that anything that is said anonymously to a reporter or strategist is not true is just not a defensible epistemic position.
Can you imagine this exchange at trial?
A: I was told X
Q: Who told you?
A. I can't say. I promised not to disclose it.
That is what an anonymous sourced article is. We have to trust the reporter. Maybe a tenable position before twitter [and other social media] but we can see the reporter's tweets now where they disclose their biases.
Given how well anonymous sources worked out under Trump...yeah, doubting them is an exceedingly prudent stance to take.
Bob, the notion that anything that is said anonymously to a reporter or strategist is not true is just not a defensible epistemic position.
Nice straw man. The notion isn't that anything claimed to come from an anonymous source is automatically not true. It's that the claim has no evidentiary value. One would think that someone who claims to be a lawyer would understand that distinction.
You guys are lying. Republicans told reporters and political strategists that they believed Voter ID laws would hurt Democrats (indeed, they are an example of what used to be called the “sloppy Dem thesis” in election law).
A handful of people (out of millions) from a given group saying they believe something makes it the “conventional wisdom” of that group? OK, I’m going to go find something said by a few Democrats so you can then declare that to be believed by most Democrats.
"We conclude that voter ID requirements motivate and mobilize supporters of both parties, ultimately mitigating their anticipated effects on election results."
It might be more accurate to say that the anticipated effects, rather than having been mitigated, were fictional to begin with.
If voter ID laws disenfranchise the poor when why do you need the same photo ID to apply for food stamps, housing assistance, medicaid, and pretty much every other program we have to help the poor?
Most of the legal challenges to voter ID have foundered on the plaintiffs' inability to actually find anybody who didn't have the ID.
Most of the proposals of voter id have foundered on the complete lack of any actual need for them.
...yet they're required to access all government services outside of voting.
Why?
Voting isn't a government service.
Along with needing a photo ID just to see a doctor
Because it's okay to treat the poor like cheating lazy undeserving hustlers, and now you want to add treating them like untrustworthy fraudsters in the voting booth, too.
Why are they even inquiring about party advantage? Suppression is suppression.
And the thesis that people are motivated by attempts to suppress their vote may be true, but would tend to not be a sustainable effect, seems to me. Or at least you should prove it.
Policy by 'oh this policy won't suppress the vote because people will be motivated by hating it' is not good practice, IMO.
I think there is a place for addressing election integrity and keep voter burden in mind. But the right doesn't really like to talk about the latter at all.
No, "suppression" isn't "suppression".
We're not talking about siccing police dogs on people trying to vote, or attacking them with fire hoses. We're talking about measures that may make it very marginally less convenient to vote, with countervailing advantages.
We're not talking "suppression", IOW, we're taking about different opinions about where to set the tradeoffs between conflicting values. Ease vs security. More time to vote, vs people voting before information comes out. Those sorts of tradeoffs.
You can't just declare that ease of voting is the only value that matters, and there are no tradeoffs to be evaluated. Or rather, you can, but at the cost of being utterly unserious.
I mean, if you took that seriously, we'd offer limousine rides to the polls, and voting by psychic hotline, and all sorts of stupidity. Obviously we're going to balance competing values.
So stop pretending anybody who doesn't set the balance exactly where you want it is "suppressing the vote". That's fundamentally unserious, and in insult to the memories of people who actually did face genuine vote suppression decades ago.
We’re not talking about siccing police dogs on people trying to vote, or attacking them with fire hoses. We’re talking about measures that may make it very marginally less convenient to vote, with countervailing advantages.
The problem is that it's been repeatedly shown that voter impersonation is not a real problem.
And once you remove the "countervailing advantages" you're just left with less convenience, ie, suppression.
If these Voter ID laws were matched with efforts to get IDs to minorities and poor people you'd have a point, but they aren't. So clearly the underlying value at play is suppressing Democratic voters.
But you can’t just declare voter impersonation fraud utterly non-existent. It does, in fact, happen. Not a lot, sure, but here we are: Back to deciding tradeoffs between competing values.
And you’re just declaring the competing values non-existent, and mad that everybody doesn’t agree.
“If these Voter ID laws were matched with efforts to get IDs to minorities and poor people”
If Democrats had put half the effort into getting people IDS that they did insisting that voting be the one life activity that not require them, the whole issue would have gone away. What made it so contentious is that you didn’t do that. You treated some tiny fraction of the population not having ID as an unalterable brute fact, and demanded that voting not require ID.
Why WOULDN’T you have picked the “get everybody ID” path, rather than the “don’t require ID for just this one single activity” path, confronted with that fork? Looked suspicious as hell to anybody who was aware of how many life activities required ID, which is to say, to almost everybody.
Which is why you lost public opinion on Voter ID.
All of this huffing and puffing and demanding the surveillance state be extended is beside the point. There is no demonstrable need for them.
"efforts to get IDs to minorities and poor people you’d have a point, but they aren’t"
There is no "poor person" or "minority" ID gap. Its a myth.
Brett, you *utterly* missed that I said. Suppression that favors one party is the same as suppression that favors the other.
That you jumped to 'well there are no police dogs so where's the fire' says quite a bit about where you place your 'tradeoff' and it's pretty bad. All benefit, not cost should raise a red flag with you. But you often ignore costs when you want a thing.
So stop pretending anybody who doesn’t set the balance exactly where you want it is “suppressing the vote”.
I explicitly said the opposite. ("I think there is a place for addressing election integrity and keep voter burden in mind.")
YOU are doing your usual Brett thing, so yeah you're into voter suppression, want to solve problems that don't exist in order to effect some suppression, and then deny even to yourself that it's a thing.
But despite past evidence of GOP perfidy in this area, I do think there is a middle ground policy wise; and I'm agnostic about exactly where that line is. I just know you continue to be amazingly wrong about not only the line, but how to even approach the question.
"past evidence of GOP perfidy in this area"
What evidence? Not anonymous sources either.
" So stop pretending "
Stop pretending you are not a bigoted right-wing misfit, Birther Brett Bellmore, and that you do not understand the practical, partisan reasons that Republicans strive -- frequently in a race-targeting manner -- to make it more difficult for Americans to vote.
Carry on, clingers. Guys like me will establish how far and how long that will be permitted, though.
Thanks for the heads up,
didn't realize Jerry Sandusky had that kind of pull.
Frank
Why should we try to figure out whether a commonly-held belief about a frequently-discussed public policy is actually true? Seriously?
It’s one thing to say that this result doesn’t change your assessment of these laws, but saying that they shouldn’t have even explored the issue is bizarre (and I doubt it would be your take if they had found a different result).
My point is whether it helps the GOP or Dems, both, or neither is immaterial to making good policy.
They accidentally addressed the effects of voter ID generally, but their 'which party benefits' perspective is utterly wrong IMO. Suppresses/does not suppress is the proper avenue of inquiry for policy analysis.
"Suppression is suppression" because tautology is a thing. That does not, however, mean that "voter ID laws" are "suppression". You are assuming the conclusion that you are supposed to be proving.
Studies don't matter. Democrats will just ignore them or deny the findings, then make up stories and decide to believe those stories instead.
- It didn't matter to Democrats when the Trump Russia collusion story was shown to be false.
- It didn't matter to Democrats when the Hunter laptop story was shown to be true.
- It didn't matter to Democrats when "hands up don't shoot" was shown to be false.
- It doesn't matter to Democrats that studies have shown that masks are ineffective in preventing Covid.
- As the end date of every global warming prediction arrives and the predicted events don't happen, their faith in global warming doomsday is never challenged.
- To Democrats, the events in Venezuela teach them nothing about socialism. Nor the history of China or Russia or any of the others.
So expect to see the same people making the same claims about Voter ID laws. If you acknowledge reality or if you question their stories in light of the facts, they'll call you a racist.
That's because most of the things you mention didn't happen.
I mean, Ben is a hardcore zealot, but which among those things he listed didn’t happen.
I’ll give you the Venezuela one because most Democrats are not socialists, but the others are true to some extent. No?
I’m not a zealot, but even if I was, none of this is about me in any way, so it’s 100% irrelevant.
My post was about how Democrats process information and how they (fail to) learn from events and revealed knowledge.
Also, Democrats will push socialism when CNN or their leaders tell them the right story. If they’re not socialists now, it’s only because the leaders decided that’s not the message they want to communicate right now.
- Trump Russia collusion was never shown to be false. Many of the most salacious aspects were, and the severely interfered with investigation didn't prove many others, but the Trump campaign had undisclosed contacts with Russian operatives and the campaign was welcoming to Russian interference. Papadopoulos literally had advance notice of the Clinton email dump!
- The Hunter laptop story was never verified. The story of how the laptop got there is possible (but weird) and the contents do seem to be legit. However, the contents don't show wrongdoing by anyone other than Hunter Biden.
- It's probably accurate that Michael Brown never said anything like “hands up don’t shoot”.
- "It doesn’t matter to Democrats that studies have shown that masks are ineffective in preventing Covid." I've never heard of these studies, the pro-mask evidence seems fairly solid.
- "As the end date of every global warming prediction arrives and the predicted events don’t happen, their faith in global warming doomsday is never challenged." like now we're getting into old school AGW denialism.
- As for Venezuela I'd agree that very few US Democrats are socialists, and even many of the ones who claim to be aren't socialist, and that beyond that China and Russia were Communist, not Socialist.
Thank you for being a second example.
Here’s a link to one of the latest studies on masks:
https://yournews.com/2023/02/02/2506143/massive-peer-reviewed-mask-study-shows-little-to-no-difference-in/
We all already know you’ll ignore the findings.
Quote:
'The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.'
whereas
https://egc.yale.edu/largest-study-masks-and-covid-19-demonstrates-their-effectiveness-real-world
Dems: One study shows a very small effect, therefore ignore this survey of many studies that show no significant effect. Very small effects over short periods of time in one villiage are sooooo much more meaningful than all the other studies that show no statistically significant effect.
You quoted a study that didn't say what you claimed at all.
The review that Ben links to looks at number of trials, including the one you link to. The trial you linked to shows positive results for masks, but there are other trials which don't. When the reviewers combine the results of all of the studies, they conclude that masks have not been shown to be effective. (That's not quite the same thing as showing that masks are not effective.)
I don't think that the failings Ben attributes to Democrats are less common among Republicans than Democrats. I've seen Republicans ignore or misrepresent studies on masks, so even on a topic that Ben chose as one where Democrats do badly, I have no particular reason to believe that Democrats do worse than Republicans.
"I’ve seen Republicans ignore or misrepresent studies on masks…"
Republicans want people to be left alone to make their own choices. They should try to get the science right. But not forcing everyone to do it your way makes it relatively unimportant whether your way is the right way.
If you have some insight that convinces you to wear a mask, then go ahead and wear one. And ask others to wear one if you want. Share your insights. Maybe you can persuade someone. If you can’t, you can’t.
No, you want to make it offical government policy to ignore public health emergencies. Some of the studies in the survey showed poor mask effectiveness because of low compliance in mask wearing. Congrats, you disproved your own argument.
The authors of the survey say that there are too many variables in the studies to safely conclude anything from their survey, so I'm not sure it's worth much. A survey of studies that were all carried out to the same or similar standards might be more useful.
The discussion section of the review qualifies its conclusion about the effectiveness of medical/surgical masks in three ways, saying that the evidence “suggests” “probably” “little or no difference.” So yes, it seems like the trials analyzed by the review are insufficient to allow anything close to a firm conclusion to be drawn.
One reason I'm not sure how to interpret “little difference” is that one of the difficulties of testing the effect of masks is that if you ask the subjects in the test group to wear masks, many of them won't. Meanwhile, some members of your control group, whom you haven't asked to wear masks, will wear masks anyway. So you might expect to see only a small difference between the test group and the control group even if masks are highly effective.
I would expect studies of mask effectiveness where the subjects didn't actually wear masks would be somewhat hampered.
Denying my nonsense is only proof it is true!
Helluva flex of your nonseriousness, Ben.
You’ve never shown a particular interest in facts.
1. You haven’t read the CJR story written by an experienced journalist (20 years at the NYT) excoriating the media over their putting their animus toward Trump ahead of their journalistic accuracy, have you?
2. The point is that the laptop, whatever the hell is on it, is/was actually Hunter Biden’s laptop. We were assured that it was a Russian misinformation op, which turned out to be crap.
3. We agree
4. Longer term studies are being done now and are showing up all over now that show that masks have minimal impact on transmitting flu or Covid. I’m not an anti-masker and politely wear a mask whenever asked but data is data and facts are facts.
5. Ooh, denialism. That hurts me so bad to be a denier. The models, since the beginning of this back in the 80s have always run hot relative to what eventually occurred and have predicted catastrophies that didn’t occur. Remember when Manhattan was going to be under water by the year 2000? Remember when the glaciers in Glacier National Park were going to be gone by 2020 but the opposite actually happened? Again, data is data and facts are facts. Somebody is denying facts and it’s isn’t me.
6. I said that before you did.
1. Critiquing the coverage? Is there anyone who didn't critique the coverage?
2. Yeah, the importance and relevance of whatever is actually on the supposed laptop is rapidly dwindling.
4. Nope, studies show that masks are effective.
5. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-mountain-glaciers
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
The central predictions were that as atmospheric CO2 increased, so would global temperatures, altering weather patterns, intensifying extreme weather events. You'd kind of have to be a bit of a shut-in not to be aware of the assorted extreme weather events.
Dems: Weather wasn’t a problem for people before 1950.
Oh I'd point to the Dustbowl as an useful example of how shifts in the weather and human disregard for the environment can lead to disastrous consequences.
Proving that you’ll say anything, ignoring weather before 1950 in one message and saying it proves you’re right in the next.
Proving you don't actually have a point.
Saying that the stories were filled with false information is beyond “critiquing.”
You haven’t bothered to read the CJR piece, have you?. It’s a very extensive break down of what was done. The media was driven so hard by their animus to Trump that journalistic standards went out the windon. A lot of the stuff that was published in the media and has become fact was known to be untrue even to Peter Strzok, who is not a MAGA guy.
Is Manhattan under water? Are the glaciers gone from GNP? You’re worshiping at the altar of a false god.
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past:
https://www.climatedepot.com/2018/01/04/flashback-2000-snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-children-just-arent-going-to-know-what-snow-is-uk-independent/
That was in March 2000. So much global warming and 22 winters since then.
Actually the guy says snowfall in the UK specifically will get rarer. So the headline distorted it and you distorted it further. The Met Office were reiterating the likelihood of less snowfall in the UK as lately as 2020.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55179603
'Saying that the stories were filled with false information is beyond “critiquing.”'
Critiquing is exactly what it is, but selective media critiquing is what you do when you don't want to read the Mueller Report.
'Is Manhattan under water? Are the glaciers gone from GNP? You’re worshiping at the altar of a false god.'
Did I predict they would be? Did I say I believed someone who said they would be? Did I show you a fraction of the evidence that global warming is real and affecting glaciers and sea levels? In your arbitrary selection of benchmarks for determining whether the climate crisis is real, have you forsaken any special claim that your centrism grants you some sort of special affinity for facts and science? Yes.
I read the CJR piece. I don't think it established, or even claims, that the media was “driven...by their animus to Trump.” It does establish that the coverage was imperfect, but not that it was particularly bad, either in an absolute sense or relative to press coverage of other matters.
The CJR article by Jeff Gerth?
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/02/columbia-journalism-review-jeff-gerth-trump-russia-the-media/
It's funny when MAGAmites love something from an NYT reporter.
It was Hunter Biden's files, plus an unknown number of other files added or modified later. And like Ashley Biden's diary, probably more wrongdoing by the people who promoted it than by the original owner.
"plus an unknown number of other files"
A number that may be zero.
"Ashley Biden’s diary"
Remember when the Biden regime sent the FBI to raid journalists' homes for that? And then collected lots of data including communications with lawyers and gave it to The NY Times, even though those journalists had sued The NY Times for defamation?
Sending the FBI to raid journalists for a missing diary is completely normal during Democrat regimes.
1. Sounds like a rabbit hole I'm not going to bother with.
2. The story behind the laptop was very, very fishy. There was suspicion it could be a plant (maybe is) but it was only that, and it's been generally agreed the contents are legit. However, the contents aren't incriminating to Joe Biden.
4. I believe current consensus of scientific literature still supports masks.
5. Yes, individual people sometimes make bad global warming predictions, but the evidence is pretty damn overwhelming that things are getting hotter.
6. Yes, and I was agreeing with you (with a bit more context).
1. Not really. It’s pretty simple if you only look at facts.
2. Double talk. Are you happy with all the lies told about the laptop?
4. Because "consensus" is defined as whatever Democrats say it is. There’s no "consensus" that masks are very effective or that mask mandates are even moderately effective. There’s a lot of people who feel better performing little rituals to ward off evil spirits. The mask supporters who point at data are always pointing at benefits so small that they’re close to the edge of statistically insignificant. The anti-mask people point at similar data just on the other side of the statistically significant line. Masks do little or nothing, the only question is how little.
5. A little warmer is no problem or a small problem. When can we stop pretending that people falsely pushing doomsday hype are Good Guys?
1. You don’t want to know.
2. Oh, screw it.
1. Largely because how the media reported on it is irrelevant to whteher it was a 'hoax.'
Well, the two most obvious:
The Russia collusion thing was not shown to be a hoax. Notwithstanding Barr's attempt to get in front of the story, that was not Mueller's finding, nor was it the finding of the GOP-led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. (Obviously there were some individual claims that were wrong, but that doesn't mean the issue as a whole was shown to be a hoax. (One could argue that it wasn't proven true, but one cannot informedly argue that it was proven to be a hoax.))
The Hunter laptop story was not shown to be true. Nothing has been shown about it at all. The most one can say is that about 10% of the files and email on what purports to be the drive were authentic. But that by itself dos not prove anything one way or the other about the other 90%.
David, HUNTER’S LAWYERS HAVE ADMITTED IT WAS HIS LAPTOP. They’re asking for investigation into whoever disseminated his information. If it weren’t his laptop they’d have no standing or basis to do so. The laptop was absolutely not Russian disinformation like the media insisted.
The CRJ article was written by a reporter who worked in the McGovern campaign and was an investigative reporter for the NYT for 20 years. He tears the reporting to pieces, based substantially on internal emails and memos. There was no there there as to the collusion garbage.
They have implicitly admitted that the laptop that the repair guy had was Hunter Biden's computer. (They were very careful not to expressly say that, but it would be hard to read it any other way.) They did not admit the provenance of the laptop, though — never admitting that Hunter Biden dropped it off at the store¹ — and they certainly did not admit that the files said to be on the laptop — which are the actual gravamen of this story — were genuine.
(I just want to reiterate that my tentative conclusion is that the 'laptop' is mostly genuine — minus a few manipulations we do know about — because I think that if someone were going to create a fake one for foreign/domestic dirty tricks reasons, they'd have put something on there that would've incriminated Joe Biden.)
¹This is not mere nitpicking, because Biden has said that he lost a laptop.
'They’re asking for investigation into whoever disseminated his information'
It's already been established that at least some of the data purportedly on the laptop but released into the public was his.
'There was no there there as to the collusion garbage.'
Again, you're basing this on media critique rather than actual findings.
Thanks for being an example.
Congrats on distracting everyone with the shit you threw at the wall.
Successfully done; you made the conversation worse.
You weren’t going to acknowledge that voter ID is benign no matter what any study (or any 1000 studies) found.
I have no idea what I would do in another situation, and you certainly do not.
What I do know is you threw a bunch of off-topic bombs into the thread.
It may indeed not be true that Voter ID laws suppress Democratic votes, but it is evidently the case that the GOP in many states think it is true.
So what we decide to do about voting laws should be determined by the impact on delusions of political zealots?
Well, that's been precisely how it's gone over the last few years.
Not just delusions, also lies - see the whole Big Steal.
SRG, I 'truly think' I won Powerball. But when I went to cash my ticket, objective reality was totally different. This really is not much different. The data are the data.
No need to fight about it. The results are in. Voter ID laws do not suppress the vote. Quite the opposite.
Not exactly true.
Even assuming the study is 100% on-the-money, look a their conclusion:
The reason the effects of these laws are mitigated is because of the motivation/mobilization they prompt. Take away the "fight" about it, and that motivation/mobilization evaporates.
Or to put it another way... if Democrats didn't "fight" about it, then it's likely these laws would have the intended effect. The only reason they don't have the intended effect is because the fight.
You've only thought through half the story, Escher. When the Democrats don't "fight" about it, the R-voters don't "fight" either. It's a wash. The only thing the "fight" does is mobilize both partisan bases and dilute the moderate middle.
So what? The point is that they are mitigated. The Democrats are every bit as wrong as the Republicans on these laws even their intentions are better.
The point is that they are mitigated
Nice passive voice. And present tense. And reading a scientific paper and discarding any discussion of causality.
What are you trying to pull here?
Commenter_XY, absent any way to say what an election outcome, "would have been," you do not have the evidence you suppose. Fears that voter suppression would give to Rs an election Ds might otherwise win in Georgia are not disproved by a D win. It could be that voter suppression made the race closer without flipping the results. In the next election, where a suppression-free election might have been closer, then the same suppression effect might swing the election.
Evidence abounds that right-wing election officials in some southern venues believe voter ID is a means to achieve voter suppression among Democrats. Evidence also shows Democrats believe that.
The study in which you place such great store does not prove otherwise. It has actual results, but no reliable baseline to measure them against. Compared to a baseline which assumes election officials who tried to rig the election knew what they were talking about, the data you now rely upon deliver only counter-factual speculation.
Of course we do not know what to assume. The study cited in the OP might be right, or it might be wrong. If right-wingers go forward insisting, for instance, that the Georgia results prove that voter ID does not suppress Democratic votes, then we do know they are trying to claim a case closed without evidence to prove it.
That has been a commonplace feature of right-wing argument, from the Trayvon Martin case, to claims about Trump and Russia, to cockamamie statistics about defensive gun use, to uncritical reassertions of questionable claims about masking and Covid.
A tendency to chorus certainty where none exists gets tiresome. There has been zero evidence to increase likelihood that the Covid pandemic originated in a Chinese lab. A failed climate change prediction about some specific future event is not proof of lying about climate change. If incorrect predictions about the future were culpable lies, then every economist on the planet ought to be in jail.
lathrop, may I suggest you add a tl;dr section to your walls of text?
No. Only the fraudulent ones.
How many Democratic Voters has 50 years of Abortion "suppressed" ??(to date, no aborted baby has ever grown up to vote in an election*)
Frank
* except in Chicago
You don't have to show ID to get on an airliner, why should you have to show one to vote?
Let us assume that authenticating a voter can be done in a variety of ways. Let us also assume that there is no political advantage to adopting any particular method of authentication over any other. In short, let us assume that reasonable people can have perfectly ordinary and acceptable differences in how something like authentication needs to be done.
With that cleared off, what is left is a discussion of the engineering questions around the methods of authentication. Are some methods easier to implement than others? Are some more effective in terms of allowing legitimate voters through but rejecting illegitimate ones?What are their comparative costs of implementation? Are some more robust than others, that is, better able to deal with the vagaries, problems, and issues that arise during an election?
These are the questions that interest me. What I want are quality elections. If the elections are of good quality, then it is far, far easier to live with the results.
And, most importantly, talking at the level of engineering and process gets us out of the political mud-slinging, which is so, so tiresome because it is freaking endless.