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.