DOJ Puts States on Notice About Election Law Changes - Page 5 - 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.
#15183451
late wrote:Definitely troll.

Actually the fix is childishly simple, and some states already have automatic registration. Australia has mandatory voting, and that would just plain kill this.

Guess what.


Well, actually some red states did pass automatic voter registration laws:

https://ballotpedia.org/Automatic_voter_registration

And no state makes voting mandatory, neither red nor blue ones. I don't know if it's politically feasible to do so, even in Democrat states (and even more so if registration is automatic).

But we're digressing - the issue is voting ID laws, automatic registration would probably be a good thing but it's a different matter.
#15183452
I think it is important to note that the study that claims that ID laws have no effect has two important caveats:

1. It only looks at voter ID laws and not the many other restrictions put in place by Republicans, so it ignores the disenfranchisement effect of other tactics, and…
2. It does claim that these laws could have impacts but that Democrat efforts to combat said disenfranchisement were probably able to counteract this effect. Republicans are a trying to restrict these sorts of efforts to help people vote.

Studies that look at all the efforts (not just ID) show that these Republican laws have the effect of disenfranchisement of legal voters.

So, yes, we are still seeing disenfranchisement
#15183457
wat0n wrote:I didn't say they are right. But if they claim so, it's entirely consistent for them to start pushing for laws dealing with election integrity.


No, idiot. One fucking straight New York Queen starts crying about how he lost, based entirely on his feelings and not founded in fact, and now we have to change the election process? Fuck you, moron.

I didn't bother to read the rest of your post after the part I quoted because I figured out you were stupid.
#15183460
"But think of the feelings of the morons who say Nancy Pelosi literally drinks baby blood, what of their opinions on election integrity? What if we made elections so secure they could never say that aliens made fake bamboo ballots to steal the Arizona vote?"

-Idiots who argue in good faith
#15183463
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think it is important to note that the study that claims that ID laws have no effect has two important caveats:

1. It only looks at voter ID laws and not the many other restrictions put in place by Republicans, so it ignores the disenfranchisement effect of other tactics, and…


Actually it would include the effects of those other measures if they were passed concurrently. I thought you understood how differences in differences works? Or you are actually bullshitting and when people post papers here you don't actually understand them?

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. It does claim that these laws could have impacts but that Democrat efforts to combat said disenfranchisement were probably able to counteract this effect. Republicans are a trying to restrict these sorts of efforts to help people vote.


It mentions that as a possibility, and it also says those effects are small. More importantly, that's clearly not disenfranchisement as disenfranchisement refers to a legal ban on voting, and the "solution" was to simply tell people to bring IDs to vote - as is done in other Western democracies.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Studies that look at all the efforts (not just ID) show that these Republican laws have the effect of disenfranchisement of legal voters.

So, yes, we are still seeing disenfranchisement


Which studies would those be? What methodology do they use?

SpecialOlympian wrote:No, idiot. One fucking straight New York Queen starts crying about how he lost, based entirely on his feelings and not founded in fact, and now we have to change the election process? Fuck you, moron.

I didn't bother to read the rest of your post after the part I quoted because I figured out you were stupid.


You sure seem to be upset for someone who doesn't care about feelings :lol:

Did you have a bad day, @SpecialOlympian?
#15183468
I had a great day. PoFo is the only place where I can meet people who admit they're conservatives so I can laugh at them and their stupid, stupid beliefs.

Where the fuck else am I going to meet retards like @juin who say shit like, "Yes, I oppose giving water to voters."
#15183470
The paper originally cited by @Politics_Observer and vociferously defended by @wat0n only looks at voter ID. So no, it does not look at other restrictions.

Specifically, it looks at the impacts of voter ID laws. The net effect is insignificant in terms of both voter turnout and public confidence in election integrity.

So, it disproves the claim that these laws will make skeptics feel better.

But it does not disprove the claim of disenfranchisement. Instead it helps explain how it rolls out:

First, it does have the impact of potentially disenfranchising legal voters because many legal voters will not have ID.

Secondly, these laws inspire a predictable reaction on the part of voting rights advocates to ensure that people have ID. According to the paper in question, this can balance out the negative impact.

And since we saw that Ms. Abrams was able to use these bring out the vote efforts to flip Georgia, these efforts are not insignificant. And so it is logical to assume the effect they counteract is also not insignificant.

So what Republicans figured out is that they need to not only look at voter ID laws but also the efforts made by grassroots movements to counteract the disenfranchisement effect. This is why these bills are currently packaged with a bunch of other laws that address these other emthods of helping people vote.
#15183471
@Pants-of-dog

That's true, the paper doesn't disprove disenfranchisement or attempted disenfranchisement. Here in Georgia, the republican controlled legislature is looking at taking over elections in Fulton County, a democrat county if it doesn't vote the way it likes.
#15183472
wat0n wrote:

But we're digressing - the issue is voting ID laws



It's about bringing back Jim Crow.

You're ignoring all the other things they are doing, and all the things they will do, if they get away with this.

This is the most consequential political fight since the Civil War, and there's no telling how bad it will get.
#15183473
SpecialOlympian wrote:I had a great day. PoFo is the only place where I can meet people who admit they're conservatives so I can laugh at them and their stupid, stupid beliefs.

Where the fuck else am I going to meet retards like @juin who say shit like, "Yes, I oppose giving water to voters."


You sure sound upset given you can't help yourself to insult others when you have no arguments.

@Pants-of-dog just because you don't understand how differences in differences works it doesn't mean that voter ID laws were the only thing those estimates may be capturing. And just because you think you know what disenfranchisement is, it doesn't mean you are right. If Democrats managed to mobilize their voters to get IDs to vote, then they were not deprived of their legal right to vote, just like having to get a drivers' license to drive does not mean your legal right to drive was taken away.

I'm still waiting for you to provide actual research to make your case. It's up to you to show, by the way, that the voting ID laws have effects, not me.

@late honestly, thus far the election results show they are failing big time at it. And if you are concerned, then it's up to Congress to address those concerns. They have no excuses now.
#15183477
I don't need an argument. There is no argument to had. Voter fraud isn't an issue. You're the one who has no argument aside from, "Think of how the idiots might feel if we don't appease them."

wat0n wrote:I'm still waiting for you to provide actual research to make your case. It's up to you to show, by the way, that the voting ID laws have effects, not me.


No, the onus is on you to prove voter fraud exists. It doesn't, and I'm under no obligation to prove a negative. And when voter fraud does happen it's Trump voters casting ballots for their dead spouses and stupid shit like that. We know about such cases because their fraud is easily caught. Which only further proves my point.

You prove voter fraud is even a problem first, then we will talk. Until then I will reiterate that you are dumb baby bitch who is desperately trying to make the case that I should care about the feelings of America's dumbest citizens and what we can do to make them feel good as they call me a baby blood drinking adrenochrome addict.

Also:

@JUIN, WE AWAIT YOUR OPINION ON WHY IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL TO GIVE PEOPLE A BOTTLE OF WATER WHILE THEY ARE WAITING IN LINE TO VOTE

THE PEOPLE CRY OUT FOR YOUR WORDS THAT DRIP LIKE MANA FROM HEAVEN FROM YOUR LIPS, OH WISE JUIN WHO HAS STRONG OPINIONS ON WHY PEOPLE SHOULD BE RESTRICTED FROM GIVING WATER TO OTHER FREE AMERICAN CITIZENS
#15183480
So you don't believe voter fraud is a problem, but believe we need to enact stricter measures to make it more difficult to vote anyway. To appease morons who worship a straight queen who will never acknowledge the legitimacy of the electoral process. And now you want me to understand this fine and meaningless distinction that makes you no different from someone who doesn't believe the electoral process is secure enough, even though you have no problems with it.

Ok, whatever.

I'm sorry that I assumed you had beliefs or convictions. It was rude of me to believe that you were anything besides a pedantic bore.
#15183481
SpecialOlympian wrote:So you don't believe voter fraud is a problem, but believe we need to enact stricter measures to make it more difficult to vote anyway. To appease morons who worship a straight queen who will never acknowledge the legitimacy of the electoral process.

I'm sorry that I assumed you had beliefs. It was rude of me to believe that you were anything besides a pedantic bore.


Yet more recent research suggests those measures don't really have any discernible effects on voting in practice. In practice, carrying an ID isn't all that demanding. After all, you still need one to do stuff as mundane as buying a drink. If this was not the case, I'd think otherwise but thus far the evidence for that idea is not particularly strong. Sorry.

And yet if the Democrats win in 2024 (don't see why this would somehow be impossible, by the way) what will the Republicans whine about if they are the ones who have been passing those ID laws? Wouldn't it be great to just tell them they are the ones who designed the anti fraud system and that they've always been full of shit?
#15183482
wat0n wrote:In practice, carrying an ID isn't all that demanding. After all, you still need one to do stuff as mundane as buying a drink


Lol no you don't. What are you, 15?

wat0n wrote:what will the Republicans whine about


Don't worry, my young little friend. The Republicans will find something to whine about.
#15183484
Juin, would you like to tell us why you oppose the rights of American citizens to freely exchange property, in the form of water, in voting lines?

Or do you still want to avoid this question because there is no way to answer it without coming off like a monster? You are free to continue being a pussy bitch coward by pretending this post doesn't exist.
#15183486
wat0n wrote:You sure sound upset given you can't help yourself to insult others when you have no arguments.


You often sound upset, like now. It does not change the argument at all.

Focus on the argument, not the person.

@Pants-of-dog just because you don't understand how differences in differences works it doesn't mean that voter ID laws were the only thing those estimates may be capturing.


Insulting me is not an argument.

If you want to argue that the paper that disproves your argument discusses more than just voter ID, quote the text that supports your claim.

Please note that the quoted abstract specifically refers only to voter ID laws.

And just because you think you know what disenfranchisement is, it doesn't mean you are right. If Democrats managed to mobilize their voters to get IDs to vote, then they were not deprived of their legal right to vote, just like having to get a drivers' license to drive does not mean your legal right to drive was taken away.


You are confusing two things: a legal policy law that explicitly takes away the right to vote, and a law that does not do so but still has the same effect.

Jim Crow laws like the grandfather clause also did not disenfranchise black voters according to your legalistic way of confusing these two things.

If you need, I can clarify that I am referring to any laws that have the effect of making it impossible for legal voters to vote.

I'm still waiting for you to provide actual research to make your case. It's up to you to show, by the way, that the voting ID laws have effects, not me.


I already have.

You then speculated about how they might be wrong and then jump to the illogical conclusion that they must be wrong based on your speculations, and then went even further and incorrectly concluded that all Republican efforts to disenfranchise BIPOC voters have zero impact.

This is another example of your habit of assuming the non-existence of facts based on a minor and unsupported methodology criticism.
#15183491
Pants-of-dog wrote:You often sound upset, like now. It does not change the argument at all.

Focus on the argument, not the person.


I'm not mad at all. I'm not insulting anyone :)

Pants-of-dog wrote:Insulting me is not an argument.


Stating you are ignorant about a topic is not an insult.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you want to argue that the paper that disproves your argument discusses more than just voter ID, quote the text that supports your claim.

Please note that the quoted abstract specifically refers only to voter ID laws.


As I said, the estimate will also include the effects of other laws that were concurrently passed with voter ID laws, if any. Also, I don't know why you changed the goalposts here: I was clear and explicit this conversation is about voter ID laws.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You are confusing two things: a legal policy law that explicitly takes away the right to vote, and a law that does not do so but still has the same effect.


It doesn't have the same effect if turnout and registration are not affected.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Jim Crow laws like the grandfather clause also did not disenfranchise black voters according to your legalistic way of confusing these two things.


Eh, actually the election laws of southern states would have also disenfranchised plenty of illiterate whites if the grandfather clauses had not been passed (and that's exactly what happened after they were banned by the SCOTUS). The Constitutional issue with the grandfather clauses circa 1915 was that they treated Black and Whites differently based on the pre-1871 (15th amendment) status quo, after the SCOTUS ruling southern states had to choose between enfranchising everyone or disenfranchisement of illiterate whites as well. They chose the latter, and that was legal until using literacy tests to decide who had a right to vote was banned.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you need, I can clarify that I am referring to any laws that have the effect of making it impossible for legal voters to vote.


It's not impossible for them, they only need to bring their IDs. That's it, and no it's not an impossible standard to fulfill just as getting a driver's license is not. It's far easier than learning to read as an adult.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I already have.

You then speculated about how they might be wrong and then jump to the illogical conclusion that they must be wrong based on your speculations, and then went even further and incorrectly concluded that all Republican efforts to disenfranchise BIPOC voters have zero impact.

This is another example of your habit of assuming the non-existence of facts based on a minor and unsupported methodology criticism.


No, it's not a "minor and unsupported methodology criticism" when the results are overturned by new research that addresses those. It means the methodological differences may be the reason why the authors of the second paper you cited found an effect to begin with, as their estimate does not control for pre-existing differences in electoral behavior between states with and without those voter ID laws. Hence the global temps vs piracy incidents graphs - it's literally the same thing (omitted variable bias).

This is also an empirical and not a purely logical question. If you have other research you can cite, I'll be happy to read it on its merits and compare it with the (recent) paper PO cited.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9

This whole pact is merely the moving of pieces[…]

He has his moments. I'm not going to bother wat[…]

Cultural Revolution 2.0

@late ; Committed to lunacy. You like so man[…]

Texas Six Week Abortion Law

Realistically, taxes matter because of dividend[…]