Federal Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Voter ID Law

[Gulo Blue]

as I already mentioned, I do not believe that is the real reason why those individuals are not voting. they are either psycho fools who overthink Big Brother, or they just do not want to vote and use this as a convenient excuse.

once again, big picture is there is a far greater percentage of people not voting than this small number. if these people were the only ones not voting, then your view would be absolutely correct. the fact that there are far larger percentages who are not voting who have IDs or do not use the lack of an ID as their convenient excuse to not vote tells me that it just is not important to them. if it was important to them, then they would go through the process of getting the ID one time in order to vote in multiple future elections.

laziness, lack of motivation, perception their vote doesn't matter, whatever their real reasoning is, the lack of an ID seems to be a trivial issue at best, convenient excuse to divert attention and blame as greater probability. always easier to point the finger at the big bad government that is "forbidding" them their right to vote when in reality it is their lack of will to spend less time going to get their ID than it takes to go vote.

This is inconsistent with the claim that you "totally get how convenience impacts behavior". If 50% of the population doesn't vote, but you have no idea what it would take to get them to vote, that doesn't excuse you for talking action that discourages an additional 2% from voting. Particularly if there is a significant bias in that 2% that you find favorable or if that 2% is largely composed of a certain class/grouping.

 

[zyxt9]

you seem to think I don't want that 2% to vote, which is untrue. I don't care whether they vote or not, nor for which party. It is purely an appropriate level of accountability in requesting they provide a state ID. You are acting like that is an insurmountable obstacle for them, but it is a simple thing to acquire. It is one of the easiest government documents to get and is even easier than the actual act of voting. We keep going round on this. Lets just agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Gulo Blue]

you seem to think I don't want that 2% to vote, which is untrue. I don't care whether they vote or not, nor for which party. It is purely an appropriate level of accountability in requesting they provide a state ID. You are acting like that is an insurmountable obstacle for them, but it is a simple thing to acquire. It is one of the easiest government documents to get and is even easier than the actual act of voting. We keep going round on this. Lets just agree to disagree and move on.

Agreeing to disagree is fine if you had what I've been saying right, but you still have my position wrong. I am not acting like, nor do I believe that it is an insurmountable obstacle for them. I am saying that when you have to create a balance between 2 valid motivations, if possible, you should evaluate the results of your policies rather than blindly follow the principle that resonates with your gut feeling more strongly. In the case of voting security, you're close to the right level of security when the next small increment of increased security reduces the amount of fraud by a comparable amount of people it dissuades from voting. Right now, what data there is suggests that there is too much security, not too little.

 

[zyxt9]

Right now, what data there is suggests that there is too much security, not too little.

Agree to disagree. Removing the ID requirement means you are removing all security and people will exploit that. The fraud level is minimized by requiring the ID and is extremely minimal as a legitimate excuse for why someone would not be voting, and would be non-existent as an excuse under proper cross examination of the situation. There is not a single person who is legally allowed to vote who cannot easily obtain a non-driving state ID. If the person lives too far away and or is incapable of travel, that is not the fault of the ID requirement. If they think they cannot afford it, the state has so many financial assistance programs available that such an excuse is without merit. There are so many activist groups who would be willing to transport the person as well.

I cannot come up with a single reason why someone can claim it is impossible for them to obtain a state ID. Homeless? Nope, can still get one. Broke? Nope. Cannot travel? Nope, someone will assist you with that too (except MAYBE someone who is bed ridden or hospitialized, but I'm betting activist groups exist that assist in that situation). Big Brother Fear Club? Get a shrink and overcome your mental shortcoming, but don't blame the ID requirement for the paranoia. Some sort of discrimination? Decades ago that was a potential issue, but not these days.

What possible reason exists? And IF you can provide one, then the next question becomes, does that reason also prevent the person from being able to actually vote in which case the entire argument is moot, because if they cannot vote due to some legitimate reason (not the perceived challenge of showing ID), then there is no reason to cry about not being able to acquire the ID that is a requirement.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Agree to disagree. Removing the ID requirement means you are removing all security and people will exploit that.

Not true. If you ask someone for their name and address, they still have to know some registered voter's name and address. That's a good enough level of security.

I cannot come up with a single reason why someone can claim it is impossible for them to obtain a state ID.

I'm not claiming this. I just said it in the previous post. I don't think anyone in this thread is. It's a strawman. Maybe you're comfortable arguing against this point so you keep going back to it, but nobody's disagreeing with this part.

 

[KAWDUP]

My understanding is that the Supreme Court found evidence that it does and the focus on it makes me think both parties know the impact. Wikipedia mentions studies that find a 1.6-2.2% drop in voter turnout when ID laws are enacted and 11% of voting age Americans don't have photo ID.

My question for you is this. How did they isolate that single factor in voter turnout. There are so many factors that can affect it, including but not limited to whether it was overcast that day or not. Did it have a link to those studies to determine how these studies were conducted?

 

[Gulo Blue]

My question for you is this. How did they isolate that single factor in voter turnout. There are so many factors that can affect it, including but not limited to whether it was overcast that day or not. Did it have a link to those studies to determine how these studies were conducted?

That's a good question. If you would like to really answer that question, here is a list of studies. LINK That's a lot of work though. Instead, I tend to trust Nate Silver's analysis of those polls, which can be found here: LINK. He finds a consensus around 2%, and lists 7 states where he can quantify the net effect of the reduced voter turnout. They all benefited Republicans.

 

[zyxt9]

It's a political argument on the right, they can't win elections so they need to supress votes and gerrymander districts. The dems get more overall votes for the house but have a minority due to the way districts are constantly redrawn.

I'd be all for every measure to increase voter turnout, even getting the rural southern voter who I couldn't be farther from politically.

I don't see the validity in a new argument for impeding people voting. the goal of democracy is to have as high a percentage of the population participate

Where am I trying to suppress votes??? All I want is as fair and accurate vote as possible. As for gerrymandering, that is the biggest BS political move of all time by any politician and every district should be redone in accordance with zip codes or whatever.

Such a falicy that requiring an I'd results in voter suppression. As stated, they are using that as a convenient excuse. There is zero, ZERO reason the I'd requirement is an issue, but it is a convenient excuse and chance to point fingers across party lines. Any cross examination of a person claiming the I'd requirement prevented them from voting would prove it to be false.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Such a falicy that requiring an I'd results in voter suppression.

Can you explain that? What did Nate Silver get wrong when he said turnout drops?

 

[zyxt9]

Can you explain that? What did Nate Silver get wrong when he said turnout drops?

My guess is everything. You are saying there is a 2%, that is way too small of a percentage to deem it is directly due to the I'd requirement. You are a scientist, what would be the standard deviation percent on whatever formula he was using to base his argument? Furthermore, where is the absolute proof that the cause was from the I'd requirement? Was there a proper follow up to verify the reason was due to I'd as opposed to something with far greater likelihood like I have previously mentioned.

The entire thing smacks of incompetence and pushing his agenda.

And I'm pretty sure if 98% of the public is willing and able to get an easily obtained I'd, the reason why 2% felt it prevented them from voting in truth had a different reason and were using that as an excuse because it has for some reason became a hot button topic.

The burden of proof is on them that there is a negative impact. They have not proven the difficulty in acquiring an I'd is so extreme as to prevent them from voting. Yes, everyone who wants to vote should be able to, but believing that an I'd requirement is some major hurdle to overcome that it prohibits voting is proven false by 98% of the population. That is an incredibly high number who are saying it was not a problem that it should be a red flag to anyone looking at the data objectively would be very suspect of the reasoning of the 2%.

 

[Gulo Blue]

My guess is everything. You are saying there is a 2%, that is way too small of a percentage to deem it is directly due to the I'd requirement. You are a scientist, what would be the standard deviation percent on whatever formula he was using to base his argument? Furthermore, where is the absolute proof that the cause was from the I'd requirement? Was there a proper follow up to verify the reason was due to I'd as opposed to something with far greater likelihood like I have previously mentioned.

The entire thing smacks of incompetence and pushing his agenda.

And I'm pretty sure if 98% of the public is willing and able to get an easily obtained I'd, the reason why 2% felt it prevented them from voting in truth had a different reason and were using that as an excuse because it has for some reason became a hot button topic.

The burden of proof is on them that there is a negative impact. They have not proven the difficulty in acquiring an I'd is so extreme as to prevent them from voting. Yes, everyone who wants to vote should be able to, but believing that an I'd requirement is some major hurdle to overcome that it prohibits voting is proven false by 98% of the population. That is an incredibly high number who are saying it was not a problem that it should be a red flag to anyone looking at the data objectively would be very suspect of the reasoning of the 2%.

I provided links. Why don't you take a look to form some criticism based on what's there? When you say "98% of the population", it squashes the motivation to dig up the answer for you. If the voter turn out is reduced by 2%, then what does 98% of the population have to do with anything? Nothing. You're not trying to digest what I'm posting. If I thought your mind wasn't made up, if I thought you were open to looking a data, it might be worth going down that road. But so far, you're not posting like it.

You offer no evidence showing fraud is an issue and you aren't giving a fair look at evidence that's presented.

 

[KAWDUP]

That's a good question. If you would like to really answer that question, here is a list of studies. LINK That's a lot of work though. Instead, I tend to trust Nate Silver's analysis of those polls, which can be found here: LINK. He finds a consensus around 2%, and lists 7 states where he can quantify the net effect of the reduced voter turnout. They all benefited Republicans.

I read the whole Silver article you sited - He did not seem biased at all, but quite a number of Silver's conclusions are based on estimates and likely outcomes - there is still quite an argument over the statistical significance of the actual effects.

His final conclusion is the argument I would choose to use in this discussion.

" . . . although the direct effects of these laws are likely negative for Democrats, it wouldn?t take that much in terms of increased base voter engagement ? and increased voter conscientiousness about their registration status ? to mitigate them."

Based on that, I am still in favor of a well written law requiring voter id. One that has methods for dealing with provisional ballots that are cast by voters without id. Many of the states with these laws have such provisions. I can't say I know whether Wisconsin's law had such provisions - maybe that is why it was struck down.

 

[zyxt9]

I provided links. Why don't you take a look to form some criticism based on what's there? When you say "98% of the population", it squashes the motivation to dig up the answer for you. If the voter turn out is reduced by 2%, then what does 98% of the population have to do with anything? Nothing. You're not trying to digest what I'm posting. If I thought your mind wasn't made up, if I thought you were open to looking a data, it might be worth going down that road. But so far, you're not posting like it.

You offer no evidence showing fraud is an issue and you aren't giving a fair look at evidence that's presented.

I'm not claiming fraud IS an issue currently. I'm saying that by not requiring IDs, it opens the door to fraud by both parties. One Person, One Vote. Why provide the opportunity to having these parties do what they love to do most: lie, cheat, and steal at any chance? This makes it way too easy for elections in the future to become corrupted.

And you keep avoiding the point that it is so freaking easy to get the ID that their argument is moot. You are a thinking man, and I respect you, but I do not understand why you are not understanding my point. There is nothing preventing this 2% from getting their ID other than something they have created in their own mind. The government is not restricting them. The KKK isn't out at the ID locations keeping back anyone. IF they need transportation, they can get it for free form activist groups as a last resort. There is not one shred of evidence that getting an ID is too big of an obstacle, yet you continue to disregard that fact. Start from that point, and the entire argument that the 2% are somehow being prevented from voting falls apart.

So please list the obstacles in obtaining an ID that do not equally prevent getting to a voting booth.

 

[zyxt9]

What about changing the norm?

It would not be difficult these days to have one or more representative from the state at the polling locations who has access to the digital database that includes photos. If someone shows up without an ID, they are directed to one of these verifiers who can quickly ask them for their name and address then pull up their photo to verify they are legit. If the voter has already properly registered, then this info should be there and it means that they can show up without the ID and still cast their vote upon verification that they are whom they claim to be. A minor inconvenience for someone who may feel they are unable to vote due to lacking their ID.

I'm not opposed to something like this. It allows the person to not have their ID but still be validated for the purpose of One Person, One Vote.

Is this being unreasonable? The tech is there, obviously. It would only impact about 2% of the people who go to vote, all of whom are supposed to check in anyway. Heck, I'd be okay with no one needing their ID, just show up and the person doing the verification asks for name, address, telephone, blah, blah, blah...system pulls up their photo on the screen that was taken when the person registered to vote or was previously gathered from other legit sources (getting state ID). Person then checks their name off the master list (or more likely on the computer marks them as present for the vote).

Would this process work? Would it increase, decrease, or leave unchanged the turnout?

I'm not making these points to favor one party or the other. I'm solely concerned about each person having their vote count correctly and fully, meaning not diluted by either party doing tactics that they have done in the past to illegally influence results.

I guess I'm saying there are better alternatives than opening the door to voter fraud, ones that can accomplish the extremely important One Person, One Vote element while reducing the perception by the 2% that they are somehow not important or discriminated against, or whatever they are claiming makes it so bloody difficult to vote when having their ID verified.

 

[Michchamp]

Again: there's no need to put ANY burdens on voters to prevent voter fraud since there is no evidence voter fraud is a problem in the first place.

 

[zyxt9]

You offer no evidence showing fraud is an issue and you aren't giving a fair look at evidence that's presented.

Blue (still not used to that nic, but trying to remember not to call you Red, lol), the evidence exists through the historical record of voter fraud. There are numerous elections that have been proven fraudulent in the past. All parties, not even just Reps and Dems, have been guilty of it. It is like part of the Human DNA to try illegally influencing elections. I'm just trying to prevent that from happening, no more nor less. I'm a Moderate, so it matters far less to me which Party wins an election and more which Person wins.

My prior post about verification at the polling station is sufficient enough, IMO. Maybe there are even better methods that are or will be around, but not requiring a photo verification of some type just opens the door to bad things. It would not surprise me in the least for the Tea Party to exploit the non-ID required elections to their fullest, even more than any Liberal group will attempt to do the same.

Now it is true a computer system could be hacked and the votes still be illegally influenced, but it makes it considerably more challenging and most of the time a hack like that will be found out.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I read the whole Silver article you sited - He did not seem biased at all, but quite a number of Silver's conclusions are based on estimates and likely outcomes - there is still quite an argument over the statistical significance of the actual effects.

His final conclusion is the argument I would choose to use in this discussion.

" . . . although the direct effects of these laws are likely negative for Democrats, it wouldn’t take that much in terms of increased base voter engagement — and increased voter conscientiousness about their registration status — to mitigate them."

Based on that, I am still in favor of a well written law requiring voter id. One that has methods for dealing with provisional ballots that are cast by voters without id. Many of the states with these laws have such provisions. I can't say I know whether Wisconsin's law had such provisions - maybe that is why it was struck down.

Yeah. That's part of why I linked it, it does sound fair, and people on this board haven't really had a problem with Silver in the past. The issue you point out is a good one, but on the other hand, if increasing turnout by 2% does take much, then increasing turnout is far, far easier then getting people to go vote more than once using IDs that don't belong to them. That argument right there is a big part of why I am not surprised at all to find that's there's no evidence of significant voter fraud. The security non-ID requiring states already have (registration) makes it tougher to commit voter fraud than it does to go get out the vote a little more.

 

[KAWDUP]

Again: there's no need to put ANY burdens on voters to prevent voter fraud since there is no evidence voter fraud is a problem in the first place.

Here is a strawman for you. I call it an analogy, but whatever. Say I own a store. It has had virtually no crime used against it, shoplifting, robberies etc. - nothing.

Does that mean I shouldn't have a security camera installed, or maybe have other security features which might possibly have an adverse effect on customers coming into the store?

I would say it depends on many factors, including the location of that store, but that's me.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Again: there's no need to put ANY burdens on voters to prevent voter fraud since there is no evidence voter fraud is a problem in the first place.

Registration is a burden. We already make people go through that and it's a safe bet that it reduces voter turnout. It's not a matter of security or no security, all states have at least registration. It's a matter of finding the right level of security.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'm not claiming fraud IS an issue currently. I'm saying that by not requiring IDs, it opens the door to fraud by both parties. One Person, One Vote. Why provide the opportunity to having these parties do what they love to do most: lie, cheat, and steal at any chance? This makes it way too easy for elections in the future to become corrupted.

And you keep avoiding the point that it is so freaking easy to get the ID that their argument is moot. You are a thinking man, and I respect you, but I do not understand why you are not understanding my point. There is nothing preventing this 2% from getting their ID other than something they have created in their own mind. The government is not restricting them. The KKK isn't out at the ID locations keeping back anyone. IF they need transportation, they can get it for free form activist groups as a last resort. There is not one shred of evidence that getting an ID is too big of an obstacle, yet you continue to disregard that fact. Start from that point, and the entire argument that the 2% are somehow being prevented from voting falls apart.

So please list the obstacles in obtaining an ID that do not equally prevent getting to a voting booth.

I'm not the one missing the point. I agree that "there is nothing preventing this 2% from getting their ID." I've said it over and over.