djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 3, 2014 14:05:54 GMT -5
How would I know?
you wouldn't. but you are certainly presuming SOMETHING, here. i am unclear what that is. i typically ask when i am unclear about something.
Feel free to pointlessly deny that you move in your own circles.
i don't deny that. i am just not sure what circles you think those are.
Your circle could be a dot with just you in it, and the comment would still be valid. You define these things, not me.
fine. then i am a circle of one, making your statement meaningless. i am good with that.
There's this thing people do when they expect somebody to say something, and what that person actually says incorporates what they expected in some larger context. They tune out the unexpected bits and respond to what they were expecting to respond to. Look back at what I said, peel off the bits that your quoted response doesn't address, and you'll see what I mean. i have no idea what you are talking about.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 3, 2014 14:08:56 GMT -5
that is the negative of the argument. i am not going to prove that. you're on your own. however, the evidence for the case i was making is as obvious as Romney's predictions about the 2012 race. I still need you to tell me. turnout and disenfranchisement are unrelated phenomena. you can have low turnout, and high disenfranchisement. you can have high turnout, and low disenfranchisement. you can have low turnout, and low disenfranchisement. you can have high turnout, and high disenfranchisement. turnout has a huge impact on results. apparently that is a bigger factor than disenfranchisement. that doesn't mean disenfranchisement doesn't exist. NOR does it mean that it can't be shown. it is unrelated. forgive me for thinking that this is so simple that you could have made the same argument.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 3, 2014 14:15:59 GMT -5
Read this closely, please.
The argument made is: establishing voter laws will tend to further disenfranchise minority voters. It will tend to lower turnout.
The explicit linkage between disenfranchisement and turnout is central to the argument against voter ID laws. The case presented is that the implementation of voter ID laws will injure some citizens who have the right to vote but are rendered unable to exercise it due to the law.
I will accept that the following is possible:
i) A subpopulation exists which is under-represented historically in the voting pool.
ii) A voter ID law is implemented, the requirements of which appear prima facie to particularly burden that under-represented subpopulation.
iii) the implemented law does indeed particularly burden that under-represented subpopulation, but the effect of this is masked by some other factor that substantially swells representation of that subpopulation in the post-voter-ID-law pool.
iv) by pure misfortune or incompetence, legal counsel seeking to challenge the law on these grounds is unable to produce a single individual actually injured by the law.
However, that chain of events, consistent with actual happenings in my state, seems much less plausible than:
The law just doesn't disenfranchise minorities.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 3, 2014 14:17:51 GMT -5
You haven't stated, here or elsewhere, that neither you nor anybody you know hold a particular view?
And:
I'm really not. You're just viewing this conversation through an adversarial prism and reading into things instead of reading them.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jul 3, 2014 14:29:37 GMT -5
Yes. I need you to tell me why an increase in the minority voter share is evidence of disenfranchisement of minorities.
Just evidence of the need to cook up a phony scheme that will disenfranchise under the cloak of 'massive voter fraud'.
Goes hand in the hand with the Repos opposing motor/voter registration. How convenient would that be? You get a driver's license and are automatically registered to vote. But no, they have always been against that.
In Seattle we now vote by mail, which I don't really like, with just our signature on a secured envelope. Will we now have to include a copy of the photo ID?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 3, 2014 14:32:04 GMT -5
The problem there is arguably more with facilitating anything other than in-person voting on polling day than it is with voter ID.
"Vote Early, Vote Often..."
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 3, 2014 15:29:32 GMT -5
You haven't stated, here or elsewhere, that neither you nor anybody you know hold a particular view?
And:
I'm really not. You're just viewing this conversation through an adversarial prism and reading into things instead of reading them. quite the opposite. i simply asked out of curiosity. honestly? i (the poster) am irrelevant to the discussion. so, this is just windowdressing to me. i am interested in what people think, and why they think it. forgive my curiosity, but that is all it is.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 3, 2014 15:31:41 GMT -5
Read this closely, please.
The argument made is: establishing voter laws will tend to further disenfranchise minority voters.
agree
It will tend to lower turnout.
disagree.
The law just doesn't disenfranchise minorities.
no, but it DISPROPORTIONATELY disenfranchises REGISTERED DEMOCRATS. the GOP is well aware of this, btw. no secrets, here.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 3, 2014 15:36:11 GMT -5
To the extent that DEMOCRATS are REGISTERED UNLAWFULLY. That is the theory underpinning the law - that there exists a population of "registered Democrats" which does not actually correlate to real voters on a 1-to-1 map, and which by various sorts of chicanery can be mapped x-to-1 to real voters in order to proliferate Democratic votes.
Have you some evidence in mind of a case where an actual voter ID law, actually implemented, actually disenfranchised an actual voter? Or is this just your interpretation?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,560
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 3, 2014 15:36:48 GMT -5
The problem there is arguably more with facilitating anything other than in-person voting on polling day than it is with voter ID.
"Vote Early, Vote Often..."
Would you please give this another go. I don't understand what you are saying and would like to do so.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 3, 2014 15:38:10 GMT -5
Are you contending that the individual voter disenfranchised by the law is not thereby rendered less likely to vote?
Or is it your belief that a population of voters individually disenfranchised by the law will be collectively so motivated to overcome that adversity that they become en masse more likely to vote?
What I'm trying to understand is where you see the injury in law arising to justify legal challenge to voter ID laws.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 3, 2014 15:38:34 GMT -5
To the extent that DEMOCRATS are REGISTERED UNLAWFULLY.
no. to the extend that DEMOCRATS are DISPROPORTIONATELY POOR.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 3, 2014 15:39:47 GMT -5
To the extent that DEMOCRATS are REGISTERED UNLAWFULLY. That is the theory underpinning the law - that there exists a population of "registered Democrats" which does not actually correlate to real voters on a 1-to-1 map, and which by various sorts of chicanery can be mapped x-to-1 to real voters in order to proliferate Democratic votes.
the rhetorical underpinning of the law is actually kinda irrelevant to me. like i say. i am more about impact.
have you read Nate Silver's work on this subject?
Have you some evidence in mind of a case where an actual voter ID law, actually implemented, actually disenfranchised an actual voter? Or is this just your interpretation?
yeah, but i am really busy for the next couple of hours. i will look it up later for you.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 3, 2014 15:43:14 GMT -5
Are you contending that the individual voter disenfranchised by the law is not thereby rendered less likely to vote?
no, i contend that they are less likely to vote. that is not really disenfranchisement tho, is it? more like suppression. would you prefer that term?
Or is it your belief that a population of voters individually disenfranchised by the law will be collectively so motivated to overcome that adversity that they become en masse more likely to vote?
i believe that the suppression tactics have backfired, but they won't in the long term.
What I'm trying to understand is where you see the injury in law arising to justify legal challenge to voter ID laws.
the injury is to people who have difficulty voting due to their social status.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 3, 2014 15:45:08 GMT -5
I'll try, but it's not a dazzlingly brilliant point.
Dondub was saying that, in Seattle, it's sufficient for a mail-in vote to be mailed out to the address of a registered voter and for somebody to sign that registered voter's name on the returned mail-in vote, which seems, among its other failings, to be a less-than-totally-secure means of ensuring that the person who casts the vote is the person who registered to vote.
Dondub questions whether he should have to mail in photo ID to 'validate' his mail-in vote, but it seems to me that this would be an unnecessarily elaborate solution: if a box of cookies is on a shelf nobody can reach, it's certainly possible to solve the problem by issuing everybody a stepladder, but it's probably easier just to move the cookies. And if the cookies are there precisely so that it's hard to reach them, then moving the cookies isn't actually a good idea either - just a more efficient means of accomplishing a misguided end. I view mail-in voting as it's practiced - that is, simply as a convenience to people who certainly could vote in person but would prefer not to - as the same sort of thing.
By all means, for people who can't turn up in-person, let's find a more efficient way for them to vote. Let's get some sort of biometric database going (how about barcode tattoos! ) and allow people to scan themselves in online and vote with their smartphones the one time the voting software allows each unique biometric voter to cast a vote. As with a number of other bafflingly low-tech 'solutions' our government implements, I can't help but feel that the only reason we persist doing things this way is precisely because of the gaping holes through which the system can be rigged.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 3, 2014 15:53:13 GMT -5
To the extent that DEMOCRATS are REGISTERED UNLAWFULLY.
no. to the extend that DEMOCRATS are DISPROPORTIONATELY POOR. What percentage of the 2012 Democrat vote came from the lowest economic quintile?
Heck, doesn't have to be 2012. Any election. Cite your source, please. On what evidence are you asserting that Democrats are disproportionately poor?
Then: given that, in 2008, nine of the ten poorest states overall voted for the Republican presidential candidate (the tenth, New Mexico, went for Bush in '04)... is it your belief that "the poor" voted for Obama on the whole in those states, but were overwhelmed by the votes of "the rich" for McCain?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 3, 2014 15:53:44 GMT -5
And the measure of this injury before a court would be...?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 3, 2014 15:54:41 GMT -5
I don't think so. But I suspect I'll get a version of it from you in due course.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 3, 2014 15:56:23 GMT -5
Why (and, for that matter, how - if the tactic was to make it harder for, say, black voters to vote, then how did more black voters end up voting? Is it not possible that the assumption that black voters are unable to obtain picture ID is an offensive and racist stereotype of black voters)?
And why?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 3, 2014 15:58:12 GMT -5
no. to the extend that DEMOCRATS are DISPROPORTIONATELY POOR. What percentage of the 2012 Democrat vote came from the lowest economic quintile?
Heck, doesn't have to be 2012. Any election. Cite your source, please. On what evidence are you asserting that Democrats are disproportionately poor?
Then: given that, in 2008, nine of the ten poorest states overall voted for the Republican presidential candidate (the tenth, New Mexico, went for Bush in '04)... is it your belief that "the poor" voted for Obama on the whole in those states, but were overwhelmed by the votes of "the rich" for McCain?
dude, i have posted this like...six times. not exaggerating. nobody believes it, so i keep posting it. but again, i don't have time right now. but i will give you the thumbnail sketch. the bottom 20% vote Democrat 60% of the time. the top 20% vote Republican 60% of the time. so if you compare the bottom to the top 20%, you get that a rich person is about 50% more likely to vote for a Republican than a poor person is, and vice versa. but here is the rub: a rich person is 1.5x as likely to VOTE as a poor person! give that a few minutes of thought. edit: i checked the data, and it is 1.5x, not 2x. my apologies.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 3, 2014 16:00:44 GMT -5
And the measure of this injury before a court would be...? number of legitimate voters by income class turned away, being stricken from the rolls, or having uncounted ballots on election day. polling which indicates the likely impact on cutting back on early voting and same day registration on elections. actual data which backs up those polls.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 3, 2014 16:02:10 GMT -5
It's possibly a failure of comprehension, dj, but that didn't answer my question.
The rate of Democratic voting among the lowest economic quintile, fun fact though it is, doesn't tell me the proportion of Democratic voters from the lowest economic quintile. Ditto for Republicans.
Neither does the voting propensity of either quintile, especially absent any relative population data, answer the question.
How many of the people who voted Democratic in any given election were in the lowest economic quintile? How important was the vote distribution of that quintile in securing that election result?
It's an essentially different question.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 3, 2014 16:03:28 GMT -5
And the measure of this injury before a court would be...? number of legitimate voters by income class turned away, being stricken from the rolls, or having uncounted ballots on election day. polling which indicates the likely impact on cutting back on early voting and same day registration on elections. actual data which backs up those polls. And the court would differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate voters so injured by...?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,560
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 3, 2014 16:04:05 GMT -5
... I view mail-in voting as it's practiced - that is, simply as a convenience to people who certainly could vote in person but would prefer not to - as the same sort of thing. ... Just to clarify, the State of Washington has no in person voting. It is only mail-in. Whenever there is an election I am eligible to vote in, I get a ballot in the mail. This is true for presidential and local library district elections.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 3, 2014 16:07:53 GMT -5
number of legitimate voters by income class turned away, being stricken from the rolls, or having uncounted ballots on election day. polling which indicates the likely impact on cutting back on early voting and same day registration on elections. actual data which backs up those polls. And the court would differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate voters so injured by...? we probably have the same definition of legitimate, jim. what's yours?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 3, 2014 16:12:20 GMT -5
It's possibly a failure of comprehension, dj, but that didn't answer my question.
The rate of Democratic voting among the lowest economic quintile, fun fact though it is, doesn't tell me the proportion of Democratic voters from the lowest economic quintile. Ditto for Republicans.
i think it does. or at least it tells their proportions. the poor vote Democrat 60% of the time, but half as often as the rich. so, if there was some magical sampling of 10 poor and 10 rich, assuming that the rich turned out 100%, they would give 6 votes to the GOP in a federal election. the Democrats would get 4. the poor would only cast 5 votes. 3 would be for Democrats and 2 would be for Republicans. result = 8 to 7 GOP in an equally divided rich/poor district.
Neither does the voting propensity of either quintile, especially absent any relative population data, answer the question.
How many of the people who voted Democratic in any given election were in the lowest economic quintile? How important was the vote distribution of that quintile in securing that election result?
It's an essentially different question. if you say so. gotta go. sorry.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 3, 2014 17:04:07 GMT -5
no. to the extend that DEMOCRATS are DISPROPORTIONATELY POOR. What percentage of the 2012 Democrat vote came from the lowest economic quintile?
Heck, doesn't have to be 2012. Any election. Cite your source, please. On what evidence are you asserting that Democrats are disproportionately poor? i don't have data from 2004, 2008, or 2012. but the data from 1980-2000 is HERE: www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2004/0104cervantes.htmlif you boil the data down, here is what it says: the upper 20% income vote GOP over Democrat 1.6x as often as the lower 20%. the upper 20% by income VOTE 1.5x as often. so, the party voting is 7% higher than i thought, and the turnout numbers are 25% lower (1/4 less than 2x is 1.5). same basic idea, though. there is a significant POSITIVE correlation between GOP voters and income level. and there is a significant POSITIVE correlation between turnout and income level. the richer you are, the more likely you are to vote Republican, and to actually VOTE. might want to bookmark that link. note: i mentioned it once already, but this is for NATIONAL elections. there are probably regional differences which are not studied, though i suspect that they follow the same general pattern. edit2: i boiled down the data to actual votes in those six elections. if you are still interested, i will happily post it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 3, 2014 17:26:06 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 3, 2014 17:28:42 GMT -5
Republicans are way smarter about choosing constituents than Democrats. if you were to construct a party, you would aim for those that have the most money and are the most likely to vote. that is what the GOP has done. smart. it only becomes less smart when you enact policies which shrink the upper class and grow the lower class.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 14:44:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2014 19:56:58 GMT -5
Voter ID laws are evidence there is a desired absence. HUH Voter ID laws are evidence that there is a desire that only CITIZENS vote... and then just ONE TIME.
|
|