DOJ Puts States on Notice About Election Law Changes - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15183241
wat0n wrote:It seems according to recent research cited by @Politics_Observer that this is not really the case. Those laws did not affect results, turnout or registration even when looking at them by demographic variables like race/ethnicity, age, gender, voter fraud itself (makes sense, since it is already non-existent), etc.

If you have other literature to cite, please do so.


Yes, other studies do show a clear impact. Here is one: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... 1420966620

The study to which you allude also disproves your claim that these laws influence fence sitters. So we know your support for these laws is not based on facts.

It seems only around 60% of all US adults trusted electoral results before the 2020 election, including 60% of independents, as per the link included above. Care to explain why shouldn't this be concerning?


No. Not unless you can show that these laws would help.

If you cannot show that these laws would create more benefit than the obvious negative impacts, there is no logical reason to keep supporting them.
#15183243
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you cannot show that these laws would create more benefit than the obvious negative impacts, there is no logical reason to keep supporting them.


I'm a Republican and I want the negative impacts but I can't figure out how to say that without coming off like a complete asshole.

So, therefore, I put the onus on you to tell me why people getting water for free at a polling station is funny, because I am fundamentally incapable of understanding how jokes work.
#15183247
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, other studies do show a clear impact. Here is one: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... 1420966620


Not as credible as a paper that looks at the actual registration and turnout administrative data instead of a survey. For all we know, the result in that particular paper could easily be the result of statistical noise.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The study to which you allude also disproves your claim that these laws influence fence sitters. So we know your support for these laws is not based on facts.


Weird, because I don't think that study measured attitudes about election credibility.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. Not unless you can show that these laws would help.

If you cannot show that these laws would create more benefit than the obvious negative impacts, there is no logical reason to keep supporting them.


"Obvious" negative impacts that have not been clearly shown in the literature you mean - even the very abstract of your paper says the literature is mixed. I bet these are as "obvious" as your claim that unconscious racism exists, even when the literature also suggests the concept is bullshit.
#15183250
It's super cool that trump supporters feel the need to organize ~Election Integrity Comittees~ that go knocking on doors and asking how people voted. And I want to hear from our resident dipshits how this isn't a natural extension from their stupid beliefs.

Please tell us how you are conscientious and moral suppporters of authoritarianism. But not that kind of authoritarianism. Do it, cowards.

Every rightwinger on this forum: "I thought someone cooler would try to intimdate people into never voting Democrat again. I never imagined that they would make us look lame."

Eat shit, losers.
#15183251
wat0n wrote:Not as credible as a paper that looks at the actual registration and turnout administrative data instead of a survey. For all we know, the result in that particular paper could easily be the result of statistical noise.


You often argue that because a single paper might have an error, the whole claim is obviously wrong.

So, unless you can show that this study (and all the other ones that show disenfranchisement) is wrong, we will continue to operate as if it is a fact that disenfranchisement occurs because of said laws.

Weird, because I don't think that study measured attitudes about election credibility.


Then you misread.

"Obvious" negative impacts that have not been clearly shown in the literature you mean - even the very abstract of your paper says the literature is mixed. I bet these are as "obvious" as your claim that unconscious racism exists, even when the literature also suggests the concept is bullshit.


Since you cannot show that these laws would create more benefit than the obvious negative impacts, there is no logical reason to keep supporting them.

Another study showing these laws have a negative effect on BIPOC voters:
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/a ... 086/688343
#15183264
[quote="wat0n"][/quote]



wat0n << And fence sitters quite obviously exist. Indeed, only around 60% of all voters and 60% of independents trust the election system circa late 2020 and early 2021, and the same could be said about Democrats and Republicans right before the 2020 election too:

It's interesting how for both Democrats and Republicans trust of elections or believing they are free and fair depends on whether their party wins or not. Guess you are reacting just as Democrats are expected to, minus the pathetic big boy in the interwebs insults that you'd not dare to say to anyone's face IRL :)<<



"Trust". That is what it all boils down to, simple. If a system is not trusted, that is a problem in itself. And that problem has to be addressed, to avoid the lack of trust creating further problems in the operation of the system. If no ID requirements creates trust issues in the election system then that has to be addressed, and I do not see what better way to address that than institutions of ID requirements. :lol:
#15183273
Pants-of-dog wrote:You often argue that because a single paper might have an error, the whole claim is obviously wrong.

So, unless you can show that this study (and all the other ones that show disenfranchisement) is wrong, we will continue to operate as if it is a fact that disenfranchisement occurs because of said laws.


Go on, you can read the paper cited by PO here:

https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication ... c2c2fe.pdf

Why would I rely on survey evidence when one can use administrative data? Also, what's the identification strategy used by the authors you are citing? Your paper is behind a pay wall, so I can't see it, but one reason why the literature finds differing results is that not all papers use the same identification strategy, such as the one you cited below.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Then you misread.


You are correct - they also found no effects on perceptions of fraud. Interesting result.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since you cannot show that these laws would create more benefit than the obvious negative impacts, there is no logical reason to keep supporting them.


You have yet to show they have a negative effect.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Another study showing these laws have a negative effect on BIPOC voters:
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/a ... 086/688343


That paper is here:

http://ippsr.msu.edu/research/voter-ide ... rity-votes

Pretty poor paper, the only thing it does is to estimate an interaction between some demographics and political leaning and whether the State has voting ID laws. Yet it's entirely possible that the states where voter ID requirements are strict, are also those states where demographic groups such nonwhites, the poor and naturalized citizens and also where Democrats tend to register less even if no such laws are in place. Indeed, this actually makes sense since there's a reason why these laws are being passed in states with a traditional Republican lean: Lack of minority and Democrat participation is one reason why those states lean Republican to begin with.

The paper mentioned by PO, and which I have shared for you to read, controls for that and finds no effect: Racial minorities and other demographics, along with Democrats, are not less likely to register or to actually vote after the voting ID laws were passed in the states where these laws were passed. Removing those ID requirements won't make minorities or Democrats show up more to vote. Instead, it seems that there are some nationwide trends that are more relevant to explain if they will show up to vote or not, and actually based on the survey I cited earlier it seems they might be more likely to do so in the future after Biden's win.

@Juin they are one way to do it, another is for citizens to be randomly selected to do the vote counting. It's a pain in the ass, but I had to do it earlier this month and at least my country's electoral results have not been called into question since the return to democracy.
#15183278
Juin wrote:"Trust". That is what it all boils down to, simple. If a system is not trusted, that is a problem in itself. And that problem has to be addressed, to avoid the lack of trust creating further problems in the operation of the system. If no ID requirements creates trust issues in the election system then that has to be addressed, and I do not see what better way to address that than institutions of ID requirements. :lol:


Can you provide a reasonable standard that would make you trust the system?

——————-

wat0n wrote:Go on, you can read the paper cited by PO here:

https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication ... c2c2fe.pdf

Why would I rely on survey evidence when one can use administrative data? Also, what's the identification strategy used by the authors you are citing? Your paper is behind a pay wall, so I can't see it, but one reason why the literature finds differing results is that not all papers use the same identification strategy, such as the one you cited below.


You misunderstood. I will repeat myself more clearly.

There are many studies that show that these restrictions have a negative impact on BIPOC voters.

You have not shown that the many studies are incorrect.

You are correct - they also found no effects on perceptions of fraud. Interesting result.


And since this is the only support for your argument that these laws are necessary, your argument falls apart.

w wrote:You have yet to show they have a negative effect.


No. I have provided several studies supporting my claim.

That paper is here:

http://ippsr.msu.edu/research/voter-ide ... rity-votes

Pretty poor paper, the only thing it does is to estimate an interaction between some demographics and political leaning and whether the State has voting ID laws. Yet it's entirely possible that the states where voter ID requirements are strict, are also those states where demographic groups such nonwhites, the poor and naturalized citizens and also where Democrats tend to register less even if no such laws are in place. Indeed, this actually makes sense since there's a reason why these laws are being passed in states with a traditional Republican lean: Lack of minority and Democrat participation is one reason why those states lean Republican to begin with.

The paper mentioned by PO, and which I have shared for you to read, controls for that and finds no effect: Racial minorities and other demographics, along with Democrats, are not less likely to register or to actually vote after the voting ID laws were passed in the states where these laws were passed. Removing those ID requirements won't make minorities or Democrats show up more to vote. Instead, it seems that there are some nationwide trends that are more relevant to explain if they will show up to vote or not, and actually based on the survey I cited earlier it seems they might be more likely to do so in the future after Biden's win.


Your speculation is not an argument.

Unless you can provide evidence for your speculations, this is just a way of rationalising your refusal to accept evidence.

@Juin they are one way to do it, another is for citizens to be randomly selected to do the vote counting. It's a pain in the ass, but I had to do it earlier this month and at least my country's electoral results have not been called into question since the return to democracy.


The only places where electoral results are being called into question is battleground states where Democrats won, and they are only being contested by Republicans.

Here is an obvious vested interest and bias.
#15183281
Pants-of-dog wrote:Can you provide a reasonable standard that would make you trust the system?


I don't really distrust the system. But clearly, others do. So how about simply following the same standards in place in places like Canada or Western Europe? Do you trust their elections?

Pants-of-dog wrote:You misunderstood. I will repeat myself more clearly.

There are many studies that show that these restrictions have a negative impact on BIPOC voters.

You have not shown that the many studies are incorrect.


Yes I did. I included you a much more credible one that finds no effect.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And since this is the only support for your argument that these laws are necessary, your argument falls apart.


Maybe, OTOH if you accept that paper than you have to accept that the laws also don't affect electoral results, turnout or registration. Do you accept that finding?

If so, then I don't see the point of fighting those laws either. And again, they can and will be used the next time the GOP tries to question electoral results, which is also important.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. I have provided several studies supporting my claim.


You provided two of them, both based on surveys and not administrative data. This is a problem because survey nonresponse is not random. Also, one is behind a paywall so it's impossible to assess its quality, the second one is shit and doesn't prove anything.

Quantity is irrelevant if all the papers you use to support your claims are shit.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Your speculation is not an argument.

Unless you can provide evidence for your speculations, this is just a way of rationalising your refusal to accept evidence.


Identification is an old concept in statistics, and indeed the second paper you cited would have been rejected in any decent economics journal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameter ... on_problem

The parameter in the second paper you cited is not identified for the reasons I mentioned earlier: The voter ID laws were passed in Republican-leaning states where Democrats and minorities already have low turnouts compared to Democrat-leaning states. The model used by the authors cannot separate the effects of the laws from those previous trends.

The paper that does in fact allow to control for those previous trends, finds no effects at all.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The only places where electoral results are being called into question is battleground states where Democrats won, and they are only being contested by Republicans.

Here is an obvious vested interest and bias.


For 2020 perhaps. For 2016, the result in general was called into question by Democrats alleging Russian interference.

This issue of questioning election results in the US is not a new thing, at all. And no party has a monopoly on this, indeed, both will whine when they don't get voted.
#15183283
wat0n wrote:I don't really distrust the system. But clearly, others do. So how about simply following the same standards in place in places like Canada or Western Europe? Do you trust their elections?


I did not ask you.

Yes I did. I included you a much more credible one that finds no effect.


No. Citing another study that happens to agree with your preconceived bias is not a rebuttal.

Please provide evidence that the studies are wrong.

Maybe, OTOH if you accept that paper than you have to accept that the laws also don't affect electoral results, turnout or registration. Do you accept that finding?


Since that is the only part contradicted by other studies, that is the only part that is doubtful.

You are not disagreeing that your claim has no evidence.

If so, then I don't see the point of fighting those laws either. And again, they can and will be used the next time the GOP tries to question electoral results, which is also important.


The GOP ignored the evidence that this election was legitimate. Why would more evidence saying the same thing matter?

You provided two of them, both based on surveys and not administrative data. This is a problem because survey nonresponse is not random. Also, one is behind a paywall so it's impossible to assess its quality, the second one is shit and doesn't prove anything.

Quantity is irrelevant if all the papers you use to support your claims are shit.


Again, your speculations about how these stud8es might be wrong is not evidence.

Identification is an old concept in statistics, and indeed the second paper you cited would have been rejected in any decent economics journal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameter ... on_problem

The parameter in the second paper you cited is not identified for the reasons I mentioned earlier: The voter ID laws were passed in Republican-leaning states where Democrats and minorities already have low turnouts compared to Democrat-leaning states. The model used by the authors cannot separate the effects of the laws from those previous trends.

The paper that does in fact allow to control for those previous trends, finds no effects at all.


Provide evidence for these claims.

For 2020 perhaps. For 2016, the result in general was called into question by Democrats alleging Russian interference.

This issue of questioning election results in the US is not a new thing, at all. And no party has a monopoly on this, indeed, both will whine when they don't get voted.


Whataboutism. Ignored.

So you agree that Republicans are only questioning the integrity of the elections they lost. And that this is a clear example of bias.
#15183288
Shut the fuck up dorks.

We are all waiting on one thing, and one thing only:

We want to hear from Juice about how he isn't a massvie fucking dipshit for supporting the "No water for voters" bill.


I dunno about you guys, but I want to hear the dumbest man on the forum explain this. Keep in mind, he has black friends so he can't be racist.

Step aside, there is a special child coming through.

Chugga chugga choo choo! Here comes our special boy!
Last edited by SpecialOlympian on 31 Jul 2021 20:50, edited 1 time in total.
#15183290
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. Citing another study that happens to agree with your preconceived bias is not a rebuttal.

Please provide evidence that the studies are wrong.


It is when the study has a much better methodology. And clearly it did not agree with my preconceptions about fraud perceptions, by the way.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since that is the only part contradicted by other studies, that is the only part that is doubtful.

You are not disagreeing that your claim has no evidence.


No, it's not "doubtful" when its methodology is better. Your reasoning is like saying we should legalize piracy to stop global warming because of this graph:

Image

After all, the data is there! Temperatures increase when there are less pirates around! Participation among some people decreases in states that passed voter ID laws! Of course there are no alternative explanations for both of these!

:roll:

Pants-of-dog wrote:The GOP ignored the evidence that this election was legitimate. Why would more evidence saying the same thing matter?


Because it would lead to further skepticism about their claims among everyone else (not just Democrats). If the results don't change after implementing the measures the GOP wants, then why would anyone believe their claims anymore?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, your speculations about how these stud8es might be wrong is not evidence.


And neither is yours about how these studies may be right, and the one I cited is wrong. Unfortunately for you however what we know about causal inference is on my side and not yours: You need to account for past trends to ever hope to catch a causal effect.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Provide evidence for these claims.


Read about causal inference. You may want to start with this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_in_differences

It also explains why the papers you cited are not credible. In particular, the states that passed voter ID laws lean Republican, and that may reflect preexisting differences in participation by different demographics and political leaning (Democrats may simply just not bother to vote if they don't think they can win) that have nothing to do with the voting ID laws.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Whataboutism. Ignored.

So you agree that Republicans are only questioning the integrity of the elections they lost. And that this is a clear example of bias.


And Democrats did exactly the same, just as both parties try to bend the rules to their favor. Your willful disregard of that verifiable fact shows you are as biased as both parties are.
#15183295
Pants-of-dog wrote:So you agree that Republicans are only questioning the integrity of the elections they lost. And that this is a clear example of bias.


Yes, no one is disputing that. This is about removing any credibility they have; making elections as airtight as possible while simultaneously encouraging mass voter turnout. I sometimes wonder if Australia have it right when they force all their citizens out to vote.

After that we only need to find a way of removing all corporate lobbyists, repeal Citizen United, break the Two-party system and we've got a real stew cooking. This is the bland political revolution necessary if the US will remain a force over the next century. :excited:
#15183300
[quote="Pants-of-dog"][/quote]



Juin wrote:
"Trust". That is what it all boils down to, simple. If a system is not trusted, that is a problem in itself. And that problem has to be addressed, to avoid the lack of trust creating further problems in the operation of the system. If no ID requirements creates trust issues in the election system then that has to be addressed, and I do not see what better way to address that than institutions of ID requirements. :lol:


Pants-of-dog << Can you provide a reasonable standard that would make you trust the system?<<



Me? I trust the system, at the personal level. I believe a no voter ID requirement is problematic in itself, irresepective of whether I personally trust it or not. An obvious problem with the no ID required system is that it is at the mercy of any person who claims fraud. There is no way to refute any such claim, since the system itself is by design open to fraud. The only way to address such problems is being instituting voter ID requirements
#15183311
Juin wrote:An obvious problem with the no ID required system is that it is at the mercy of any person who claims fraud. There is no way to refute any such claim, since the system itself is by design open to fraud. The only way to address such problems is being instituting voter ID requirements


That's not really the case though.

A signature can be forged, sure, but you can likely also fake the photocopy of an ID.

Fraud is more likely to happen at other stages of the process anyway.
#15183312
[quote="Pants-of-dog"][/quote]


Pants-of-dog << There are many studies that show that these restrictions have a negative impact on BIPOC voters.<<


I do believe there are direct correlations between various voter laws and how they impact various segments of society. These could be voter ID requirements, it could be gerrymandeering, it could be land qualifications, it could be educational qualifications, it could be minimum age requirements, heck, why not maximum age cut offs, or disqualifications on basis of sanity, disqualifications for ex felons....

I will say in the main they negatively impact the lower class.

I will address only the ID requirement one.

I believe ID requirements can negatively impact what you referred to as BIPOC. But it is because they belong in the lower class; which class are the natural constituences of progressives. Even in the absence of BIPOC- that is say the society is all white- I believe ID requirments will still be resorted to if it can discourage the poor from wasting their time by heading to the polls. Tightening up the system will always be frowned on by progressives because it will always negatively impact their natural constituences the most.

Given all that, I still am FOR voter ID requirements. Between the integrity of the system and the dregs who will not be bothered to obtain an item as simple as an ID, I side with integrity of the system. Let Democrats get IDs for the proletariat. I will even vote for free IDs for the proletariat. But that is it. If an idiot cannot be bothered to get an ID am not sure how he is any more an asset to a functioning democracy than an inmate at a mental asylum.
Last edited by Juin on 01 Aug 2021 01:42, edited 4 times in total.
#15183336
wat0n wrote:It is when the study has a much better methodology. And clearly it did not agree with my preconceptions about fraud perceptions, by the way.

No, it's not "doubtful" when its methodology is better. Your reasoning is like saying we should legalize piracy to stop global warming because of this graph:

Image

After all, the data is there! Temperatures increase when there are less pirates around! Participation among some people decreases in states that passed voter ID laws! Of course there are no alternative explanations for both of these!

:roll:

And neither is yours about how these studies may be right, and the one I cited is wrong. Unfortunately for you however what we know about causal inference is on my side and not yours: You need to account for past trends to ever hope to catch a causal effect.

Read about causal inference. You may want to start with this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_in_differences

It also explains why the papers you cited are not credible. In particular, the states that passed voter ID laws lean Republican, and that may reflect preexisting differences in participation by different demographics and political leaning (Democrats may simply just not bother to vote if they don't think they can win) that have nothing to do with the voting ID laws.


Again, I understand your argument about methodology.

What I have been asking for is evidence that your argument is true; specifically, quotes from the studies that support your specific claim.

Because it would lead to further skepticism about their claims among everyone else (not just Democrats). If the results don't change after implementing the measures the GOP wants, then why would anyone believe their claims anymore?


I doubt any people outside the Republican faithful have any skepticism about the election. And the evidence you yourself keep supporting also contradicts this claim that these laws will help.

And Democrats did exactly the same, just as both parties try to bend the rules to their favor. Your willful disregard of that verifiable fact shows you are as biased as both parties are.


Whataboutism.

Now, since Republicans are only focused on battleground states that they lost, we can logically assume that election integrity is not the focus, and disenfranchisement of potential Democrat voters is the focus of these laws.
#15183346
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, I understand your argument about methodology.

What I have been asking for is evidence that your argument is true; specifically, quotes from the studies that support your specific claim.


PO provided such quote from one of the authors from the better study. If you have evidence from a large sample study stating the opposite that at least follows a basic identification strategy (DiD is not all that complicated after all) I'll be happy to read it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I doubt any people outside the Republican faithful have any skepticism about the election. And the evidence you yourself keep supporting also contradicts this claim that these laws will help.


When only 60% of independents trust the electoral system, then yes I'd say skepticism about the procedural aspects of it is more widespread than it should be. And it's not just among Republicans or Democrat voters, who were showing similar levels of trust in the system before the 2020 election.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Whataboutism.

Now, since Republicans are only focused on battleground states that they lost, we can logically assume that election integrity is not the focus, and disenfranchisement of potential Democrat voters is the focus of these laws.


Maybe, under this reasoning one would claim the Democrats were actually trying to regulate political speech in their concern about Russian interference, just like Republicans may indeed be hoping to regulate the actual voting in their concern about integrity. I'd say both are indeed possible and if Trump had been reelected the Republicans would be the ones trusting the system and the Democrats claiming there was foreign (Russian) interference consisting in doing propaganda campaigns not dissimilar to those done by the US itself - just like after the 2016 election. And their voters seem to mirror this type of behavior, judging from the sudden increase in trust of the system among Democrats and a corresponding decrease in trust among Republicans (independents' trust remained basically flat after).

Thankfully in practice neither party gets to impose their preferences on everyone else, despite the feelings of their supporters, as the system of checks and balances acts to prevent either from doing so.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
"Whether we like it or not"

@Truth To Power does not believe in climate sci[…]

Igor and Colleric are just trolls. And not very g[…]

Also, for me, freedom is a value in itself which […]

Well I think we are starting to see how vastly di[…]