Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@Frazzled: Another dance we've danced before -- racist intent is not required for racist result.

Manchu wrote:Phanatik, I am 100% in favor of any loopholes that render voter ID requirements ineffective.

Do you recognize that some people are ineligible to vote for various reasons?

Are you in favor of people that are ineligible to vote getting to vote anyway due to lax election processes?

Cheers,

Manchu wrote:@Frazzled: Another dance we've danced before -- racist intent is not required for racist result.

Ah the disparate impact argument from the EEOC. However, other than providing no evidence that would stand up in a court of law to support your claim, you've been alleging racist motivations all along. Don't try to soft pedal it now.

So put up or shut up. How is it racist, unless you are making your own racist assumptions.

Phanatik wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Phanatik wrote:Manchu has been advocating it disenfranchises the poor, but can't prove it.

I suspected that you hadn't been reading the thread. They say trolling is an art and your style is certainly effortless. My argument is that voter ID requirements disenfranchise the poor because only people who can afford voter IDs (even if the ID itself is free) will be able to vote, regardless if they are otherwise eligible to vote. The opposing argument is that voter fraud disenfranchises eligible voters -- which, it turns out, is not actually an opposing argument. The real problem is that supporters of voter ID requirements believe that voter fraud is carried out in person and would be curtailed by government-issued voter IDs. No one in this thread has been able to show that this is actually happening. So, as I just posted a few minutes ago, the laws in question trade one hypothetical disenfranchisement against another. We have no evidence that one hypothetical disenfranchisement affects more eligible voters than the other. So it all washes out to being another obstacle in the way of people who are likely to vote for Democrats.

Using the term "trolling" is the fallback position for those that have lost the debate.

Why don't your poor elderly black disenfranchised democrats you refer to mail in their vote as well? That way they can apparently get around the need for valid I.D.?

Cheers,

Perhaps because at the moment they can just vote?

Kilkrazy wrote:Perhaps because at the moment they can just vote?

But, if valid i.d. is mandatory and they don't have it, they can just mail it in and are not thus disenfranchised.

If someone writes a law making it mandatory to arrive at the voting booth in a helicopter or you must mail it in to vote, guess what? I mail it in.

Cheerio,

Frazzled wrote:Don't try to soft pedal it now.

So put up or shut up.

I have never argued anything but what I am currently arguing, even in other threads. Voter ID requirements disproportionately affect black people. I believe it was even in this thread where I posted that there is nothing inherently racist about voter ID requirements -- and then you quoted my statement in agreement. You may have to be 65 to be old, Frazzled, but you don't have to be old to have a poor memory or argue disingenuously.

Manchu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Don't try to soft pedal it now.

So put up or shut up.

I have never argued anything but what I am currently arguing, even in other threads. Voter ID requirements disproportionately affect black people. I believe it was even in this thread where I posted that there is nothing inherently racist about voter ID requirements -- and then you quoted my statement in agreement. You may have to be 65 to be old, Frazzled, but you don't have to be old to have a poor memory or argue disingenuously.

Then you're not arguing racism.

Phanatik wrote:Do you recognize that some people are ineligible to vote for various reasons?

Yes.

Are you in favor of people that are ineligible to vote getting to vote anyway due to lax election processes?

Generally, no. Even if people who are otherwise eligible to vote would be disenfranchised, I'd still be able to support these laws if it were true that American elections were being undermined by in-person voter fraud. I'm not certain if I'd subscribe to the "one impersonation is too many" ideology -- after all, one impersonation is counterbalanced by one disenfranchisement of an otherwise eligible voter.

But that is pretend land. In the real world, it cannot be shown that in-person fraud is actually undermining American elections.

So I reiterate my stance: I oppose legislation designed to undermine the mobilization of any segment of eligible voters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Then you're not arguing racism.

Okay.

Getting away from the evil Democrat/Republican stuff now.

Ok so we're talkng disparate impact. How are you envisioning DI impacting minorities Manchu? Please elaborate. The reason being DI cases can often be addressed via measures to ameliorate that impact. For those not looking to DI a particular they would be onside with that.

Cost - make it free. (its free in Texas)
Availability - make it available. Some locales even have mobile services for this.
What else? If both parties have pure intent as in want to protect against potential fraud but at the same time not desiring a material DI, then issues should be addressed.
(I'll note these were issues the various courts have also reviewed, with revised and frankly better legislation following thereafter).


Lets do this from the standpoint of legislators attempting to craft good legislation.

what are DI?

AustonT wrote:what are DI?

Disparate impact. I just hate typing it constantly.

altneratively DI if you're Frazzled Sr., but then you have to talk in a quiet strained voice and make fun of Air Force and Navy guys at any opportunity.

I don't think you can sort it out that way. The ID requirement is an additional obstacle in the path of voters. The SCOTUS opinion was that the hypothetical obstacle did not outweigh the actual state interest and that's a fine standard for constitutional review. But if we're talking about legislators making good laws -- well, we have to balance hypothetically disenfranchising eligible voters against preventing disenfranchisement by hypothetical fraudsters. We will never be able to weigh them against each other because each is equally weightless. Now, as good legislators, we have to be mindful of the consequences of our proposed law -- and not just the ones we intend, obviously. Whether intentional or not, voter ID requirements will make it harder to mobilize certain voters. People who could hardly be bothered to register and show up will certainly not be bothered to obtain a voter ID. Dealing with this abstractly, we might say that there is no loss -- after all, no party has a prerogative over ambivalent or lazy voters. Unfortunately, we aren't just talking about who is willing -- but also who is able. This is where we encounter the perhaps unintentional disproportionate impact of voter ID requirements on the poor and by extension on black people. These are two groups that traditionally vote for Democratic candidates. So in effect what remains after we check hypothetical disenfranchisement off against hypothetical disenfranchisement is a law that will actually make it harder for Democrats to mobilize their traditional constituents. I know, I know -- the response is, so what? why shouldn't they have to work hard for votes? And that would be a great argument if voter ID requirements actually did anything except make it harder for Democrats to mobilize poor people, especially poor black people. As things stand, however, the law is just a transparent partisan abuse and cannot be rehabilitated short of someone demonstrating that in-person voter fraud is a significant problem.

If I was a Republican or Blue Dog in the state house, I would have to oppose these bills.

Manchu wrote:I don't think you can sort it out that way. The ID requirement is an additional obstacle in the path of voters. The SCOTUS opinion was that the hypothetical obstacle did not outweigh the actual state interest and that's a fine standard for constitutional review. But if we're talking about legislators making good laws -- well, we have to balance hypothetically disenfranchising eligible voters against preventing disenfranchisement by hypothetical fraudsters. We will never be able to weigh them against each other because each is equally weightless. Now, as good legislators, we have to be mindful of the consequences of our proposed law -- and not just the ones we intend, obviously. Whether intentional or not, voter ID requirements will make it harder to mobilize certain voters. People who could hardly be bothered to register and show up will certainly not be bothered to obtain a voter ID. Dealing with this abstractly, we might say that there is no loss -- after all, no party has a prerogative over ambivalent or lazy voters. Unfortunately, we aren't just talking about who is willing -- but also who is able. This is where we encounter the perhaps unintentional disproportionate impact of voter ID requirements on the poor and by extension on black people. These are two groups that traditionally vote for Democratic candidates. So in effect what remains after we check hypothetical disenfranchisement off against hypothetical disenfranchisement is a law that will actually make it harder for Democrats to mobilize their traditional constituents. I know, I know -- the response is, so what? why shouldn't they have to work hard for votes? And that would be a great argument if voter ID requirements actually did anything except make it harder for Democrats to mobilize poor people, especially poor black people. As things stand, however, the law is just a transparent partisan abuse and cannot be rehabilitated short of someone demonstrating that in-person voter fraud is a significant problem.

If I was a Republican or Blue Dog in the state house, I would have to oppose these bills.

Thats never been a legal standard though. The standard of "I'm too lazy" doesn't hold legal gravitas, especially when the effort is deminimis.

The standard of impacting who is able is more of a concern. What issues are not being mitigated by free cost, expanded DPS hours, and scheduled DPS remote facilities?

It's still an additional obstacle that cannot be justified. Your holding the hoop a little closer to the ground but I still see no reason why anyone should have to jump through it.

Manchu wrote:It's still an additional obstacle that cannot be justified. Your holding the hoop a little closer to the ground but I still see no reason why anyone should have to jump through it.

To potentially prevent fraud,same reason you have to have id for anything else. Its a minimum standard appropriate for a minimum regulation.

There is no reason to spend tax dollars on a program that prevents fraud that does not occur.

Manchu wrote:There is no reason to spend tax dollars on a program that prevents fraud that does not occur.

That may not occur. Of course the government spends tax dollars all the time like that for insurance, fire and damage prevention, etc. etc.
So we're back to the legislation. Are there any mitigants yet needed for the nonlazy (not counting the whole absentee voting option which varies heavily depending on state).

Actually speaking of, if they are too lazy to get ID, and thats the standard you're discussing, how are they suddenly not too lazy to go vote? Getting an ID is at worst something needed every half decade or so. Voting is much more frequent. WOuld you have the same issue with absentee voting if it were restricted only to those with medical conditions or who are legitimately out of state?

Manchu wrote:I don't think you can sort it out that way. The ID requirement is an additional obstacle in the path of voters. The SCOTUS opinion was that the hypothetical obstacle did not outweigh the actual state interest and that's a fine standard for constitutional review. But if we're talking about legislators making good laws -- well, we have to balance hypothetically disenfranchising eligible voters against preventing disenfranchisement by hypothetical fraudsters. We will never be able to weigh them against each other because each is equally weightless. Now, as good legislators, we have to be mindful of the consequences of our proposed law -- and not just the ones we intend, obviously. Whether intentional or not, voter ID requirements will make it harder to mobilize certain voters. People who could hardly be bothered to register and show up will certainly not be bothered to obtain a voter ID. Dealing with this abstractly, we might say that there is no loss -- after all, no party has a prerogative over ambivalent or lazy voters. Unfortunately, we aren't just talking about who is willing -- but also who is able. This is where we encounter the perhaps unintentional disproportionate impact of voter ID requirements on the poor and by extension on black people. These are two groups that traditionally vote for Democratic candidates. So in effect what remains after we check hypothetical disenfranchisement off against hypothetical disenfranchisement is a law that will actually make it harder for Democrats to mobilize their traditional constituents. I know, I know -- the response is, so what? why shouldn't they have to work hard for votes? And that would be a great argument if voter ID requirements actually did anything except make it harder for Democrats to mobilize poor people, especially poor black people. As things stand, however, the law is just a transparent partisan abuse and cannot be rehabilitated short of someone demonstrating that in-person voter fraud is a significant problem.

If I was a Republican or Blue Dog in the state house, I would have to oppose these bills.

The evolution of your criticism of valid i.d. requirement laws in this thread is truly amazing.
You have reached the point where you're against it because the democrat base is lazy, and just ONE more straw in their way will keep them home. And we're supposed to care?
Is it racist for you to suggest that the poor, blacks, and the elderly are lazy?

Reading that huge block of text is like listening to Louis Farrakhan give a speech. The roundabout circular logic is mindnumbing.

Cheers,

Frazzled wrote: Of course the government spends tax dollars all the time like that for insurance, fire and damage prevention, etc. etc.

Insurance is a very, very bad analogy but I'll run with it to show you why. Insurance means that, for a payment, you can transfer your potential loss to someone else. The loss we're considering here is disenfranchisement. In this case, people who can afford voter IDs are transferring the risk of their own disenfranchisement to people who cannot afford voter IDs. The trouble is that we're not paying any premium to those who must cover the loss. Also, loss is not actually being transferred: even if those who can afford voter IDs are never disenfranchised those who cannot afford them still might be.

Thats a misplaced argument in that you argued we shouldn't pay government expense for something that may not occur, not opportunity costs related to the voters themselves.

Further, they have no disenfranchisement costs under the Frazzled Voter Act. Any disenfranchisement they face is if they literally can't put themselves out. But thats not economic specific. I know lots of lazy rich people. Heck I hope to be one if this Lotto ticket is da winner!

Voter ID requirements are nothing like insurance. That an event may occur, especially when it is not occurring and there is no evidence to support that it is at all likely to occur in the future, is not sufficient grounds to restrict access to voting.

Also, I have already explained that voter ID requirements do not only hypothetically disenfranchise those who are not willing but also those who are not able. I don't want a budget bloated with all kinds of spending on programs to mitigate disparate impact of a law that addresses a non-existent problem.

Manchu wrote:Voter ID requirements are nothing like insurance. That an event may occur, especially when it is not occurring and there is no evidence to support that it is at all likely to occur in the future, is not sufficient grounds to restrict access to voting.

Also, I have already explained that voter ID requirements do not only hypothetically disenfranchise those who are not willing but also those who are not able. I don't want a budget bloated with all kinds of spending on programs to mitigate disparate impact of a law that addresses a non-existent problem.

Actually you didn't address how it impacts those "who are not able," when there are mitigants put in place to prevent that harm. What other mitigants are needed for those "who are not able."

If none then we're back to "the lazy." Again, if its really about "the lazy" why are they a concern when "the lazy" would be too lazy to show up and vote? Further, why are you saying the poor and elderly are more lazy than any other group?

I don't need to explain how we might mitigate the hypothetical disenfranchisement of poor black people because there is no justification for the laws that would require mitigation.

Manchu wrote:@Seaward/Phanatik: I have a feeling that if this was voice chat you guys wouldn't even bother to speak. I have a feeling that you would just emit an incessant, high-pitched whine that I could hear even over Frazzled's impersonation of Dachshund barking.

Nah. Frankly, I wouldn't want to miss an opportunity to hear some of these hilarious assertions in real time.

Incidentally, you're in Carytown, I'm guessing.

Manchu wrote:I don't need to explain how we might mitigate the hypothetical disenfranchisement of poor black people because there is no justification for the laws that would require mitigation.

So...you're boxed in now and can't, because you're reduced to defending "the lazy" which isn't a valid disparate impact argument.

Woops off to watch my Poles get their heads handed to them yet again, by Brits today I think. My valiant Poles, so brave, with such an incompetent commander
(helps if I had time to like read the rules...)

Frazzled wrote:

Manchu wrote:I don't need to explain how we might mitigate the hypothetical disenfranchisement of poor black people because there is no justification for the laws that would require mitigation.

So...you're boxed in now and can't, because you're reduced to defending "the lazy" which isn't a valid disparate impact argument.

Woops off to watch my Poles get their heads handed to them yet again, by Brits today I think. My valiant Poles, so brave, with such an incompetent commander
(helps if I had time to like read the rules...)

wait are you playing FoW now?

First, I have made a distinction between those who are unwilling to vote and those who are unable. I will not otherwise respond to your attempt to troll me by pretending that I am saying old, poor, or black people are more lazy than anyone else.

Second, you are posing a question about mitigating damage. I am saying there is no need to inflict damage in the first place. You acknowledge that there is a harm but you refuse to justify why you need to cause it. Yes, I know you keep talking about voter fraud but I have shown you and you have not been able to contradict the fact that in-person voter fraud is not an issue.

I'll try another analogy: You insist that we talk about the best types of casts and I am telling you not to break the leg. You're saying that the leg may one day be broken so we'd best go ahead and break it anyway and figure out about casts.

Manchu wrote:@Frazzled: Another dance we've danced before -- racist intent is not required for racist result.

Again, there is no evidence that this will happen.

You're arguing for the sole sake or arguing. Your entire line of reasoning is based on a theoretical possibility and on prior Jim Crow laws.

Assuming a racist result is not an issue, is there a reason to not implement voter ID laws? The next argument I see is cost, is the cost so high that it's prohibitive? There are multiple forms of ID you can use such as a military ID and driver's license. The only number I can find quickly for number of registered drivers in the US is 106 million.

The only reasonable argument against it is that it is unnecessary as there is not a major problem with fraudulent voting. Most of the people you (Mancu) are arguing against will probably not agree with this, but you need to stop playing the race card with this as it is not applicable.

Amaya, I'm really not interested in the race card. A law that forces anybody to pay for anything will disproportionately affect the poor. Black people are disproportionately poor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:The only reasonable argument against it is that it is unnecessary as there is not a major problem with fraudulent voting.

It is not only unnecessary; it also hypothetically disenfranchises people and it "incidentally" puts a further obstacle in the way of mobilizing people who traditionally vote for Democratic candidates.

Manchu wrote:Amaya, I'm really not interested in the race card. A law that forces anybody to pay for anything will disproportionately affect the poor. Black people are disproportionately poor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:The only reasonable argument against it is that it is unnecessary as there is not a major problem with fraudulent voting.

It is not only unnecessary; it also hypothetically disenfranchises people and it "incidentally" puts a further obstacle in the way of mobilizing people who traditionally vote for Democratic candidates.

That is completely irrelevant as there significantly higher numbers of poor white people. In all likelihood, they vote Republican.

Blacks
- Higher % of poor
+ Closer to areas where they can acquire a form of voter ID
- Vote Democrat

Whites
- Higher total numbers of poor
- Significant numbers in rural areas with less access to government services
- Vote Republican

If anything, this looks like it would hurt Republicans more...but it doesn't matter because the primary argument for implementing nation wide Voter ID laws is to counter fraudulent voting which is a massively overblown issue.

Lastly, yes, saying that this could theoretically impact blacks more than any other ethnic group is playing the race card, because that line of reasoning suggests that proponents of the law want it in order to disenfranchise minorities to weaken the Democratic voting base. You can argue the semantics, but it comes dangerously close to saying "Republics support this because they don't want minorities to vote."