Voter Suppression (1 Viewer)

[Snotbubbles]

About what? I just literally posted 5 different cases none of which found that voter ID was racially discriminatory. You posted a case that also didn't conclude that voter ID was racially discriminatory.

Even if there no impact on voting patterns (there are a few studies that agree with this and more that don't), these laws assign mostly minorities extra tasks to maintain their right to vote. Because these tasks also apply to others similarly situated does not make them not "racists". Because some of these minorities go ahead and jump through all the hoops put in their way doesn't make them not "discriminatory".

It doesn't make them racist or discriminatory either (see, all the cases I posted above).

Further, the case that @tommyGunZ posted didn't find that voter ID laws were racist/discriminatory either. It found that laws that are put in place with racially discriminatory INTENT should not allowed to stand. That case was in 2016. In 2018 NC voters in a 55% majority voted to institute voter ID laws in NC. So when the General Assembly instituted them based on this vote, the NC courts will most likely allow them to stand. (see, Holmes v. Moore, case outcome still pending)

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It doesn't make them racist or discriminatory either (see, all the cases I posted above).

None of which prove what you are asserting they prove. Clearly a case that you say is still pending doesn't prove anything. Iowa absentee ballots has nothing to do with voter id at polling places. Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Alabama found that the "diversion of resources equates to loss of money and time" in countering the discrimination was not "irreparable harm". North Dakota settled, per your link. Finally, the Wisconsin case is the one with Richard Posner's dissent over a 5-5 result that I was early trying to remember. These are the backbone of your argument? I assume no one was supposed to look?

 

[The Commish]

Oh boy. This thread is turning into one of those "that tax loophole isn't for the wealthy. It applies to ANYONE who makes a billion dollars...even the poor people" threads isnt it?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Oh boy. This thread is turning into one of those "that tax loophole isn't for the wealthy. It applies to ANYONE who makes a billion dollars...even the poor people" threads isnt it?

Snot’s arguments are at least novel. Normally conservatives argue that Voter ID laws aren’t discriminatory because they ignore the disproportionate impact on minorities.

Snot seems to acknowledge that Republicans are enacting voter ID laws with the intent to suppress minority voters, but that the laws they actually pass don’t have the impact Republicans are intending.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Oh boy. This thread is turning into one of those "that tax loophole isn't for the wealthy. It applies to ANYONE who makes a billion dollars...even the poor people" threads isnt it?

Snot’s arguments are at least novel. Normally conservatives argue that Voter ID laws aren’t discriminatory because they ignore the disproportionate impact on minorities.

Snot seems to acknowledge that Republicans are enacting voter ID laws with the intent to suppress minority voters, but that the laws they actually pass don’t have the impact Republicans are intending.

I'm arguing no such thing. I'm saying that voter ID laws are a socio-economic and not racial.

 

[The Commish]

I'm arguing no such thing. I'm saying that voter ID laws are a socio-economic and not racial.

Whether we like it or not, there is a strong correlation between socioeconomic status and race in this country. Picking nits trying to separate them.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I'm arguing no such thing. I'm saying that voter ID laws are a socio-economic and not racial.

Whether we like it or not, there is a strong correlation between socioeconomic status and race in this country. Picking nits trying to separate them.

Agree to disagree.

 

[The Commish]

I'm arguing no such thing. I'm saying that voter ID laws are a socio-economic and not racial.

Whether we like it or not, there is a strong correlation between socioeconomic status and race in this country. Picking nits trying to separate them.

Agree to disagree.

My comment wasnt subjective.

Like I said before this is pretty similar to the " this isnt discriminatory marriage law!!! It applies to homosexual AND hetrrosexuals the same" shtick we kept hearing several years ago......At least in terms of intellectual honesty anyway.

 

[Stealthycat]

seems every restriction/rule is twisted into an attack on someone anymore .... amazing

 

[KarmaPolice]

Oh boy. This thread is turning into one of those "that tax loophole isn't for the wealthy. It applies to ANYONE who makes a billion dollars...even the poor people" threads isnt it?

Snot’s arguments are at least novel. Normally conservatives argue that Voter ID laws aren’t discriminatory because they ignore the disproportionate impact on minorities.

Snot seems to acknowledge that Republicans are enacting voter ID laws with the intent to suppress minority voters, but that the laws they actually pass don’t have the impact Republicans are intending.

I'm arguing no such thing. I'm saying that voter ID laws are a socio-economic and not racial.

In this country it's basically the same thing since blacks more likely to be in poverty.

I keep saying to leave race out when talking about wanting to help black communities- focus on income and it largely does the same thing. If that's true, the opposite is true- ie if a voter ID law is socio-economic and hurts lower income people, again that is largely minorities.

eta: sorry, didn't see Commish's similar post.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I'm arguing no such thing. I'm saying that voter ID laws are a socio-economic and not racial.

Whether we like it or not, there is a strong correlation between socioeconomic status and race in this country. Picking nits trying to separate them.

Agree to disagree.

What part? Last I looked poverty rates for white and Asian population was about 10%, and near double that or more for Hispanic, black, and Native Americans.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I'm arguing no such thing. I'm saying that voter ID laws are a socio-economic and not racial.

Whether we like it or not, there is a strong correlation between socioeconomic status and race in this country. Picking nits trying to separate them.

Agree to disagree.

My comment wasnt subjective.

Like I said before this is pretty similar to the " this isnt discriminatory marriage law!!! It applies to homosexual AND hetrrosexuals the same" shtick we kept hearing several years ago......At least in terms of intellectual honesty anyway.

I don't understand your marriage law analogy. But from what you posted, no, the situations are not the same.

To me, a better analogy is the criminal justice system. There are both socio-economic and racial disparities in the criminal justice system so it's easier to distinguish the difference. For example, representation by counsel is a socio-economic issue. If you cannot afford counsel, your trial outcome possibilities are diminished compared to people who can afford counsel. But that doesn't make that portion of the criminal justice system racially discriminatory because a poor white person has the same trial outcome as a poor black person. Where the criminal justice system show racial disparities is in the sentencing portion when two similarly situated defendants get two different sentences based on racial characteristics. That's the difference.

 

[The Commish]

I'm arguing no such thing. I'm saying that voter ID laws are a socio-economic and not racial.

Whether we like it or not, there is a strong correlation between socioeconomic status and race in this country. Picking nits trying to separate them.

Agree to disagree.

My comment wasnt subjective.

Like I said before this is pretty similar to the " this isnt discriminatory marriage law!!! It applies to homosexual AND hetrrosexuals the same" shtick we kept hearing several years ago......At least in terms of intellectual honesty anyway.

I don't understand your marriage law analogy. But from what you posted, no, the situations are not the same.

To me, a better analogy is the criminal justice system. There are both socio-economic and racial disparities in the criminal justice system so it's easier to distinguish the difference. For example, representation by counsel is a socio-economic issue. If you cannot afford counsel, your trial outcome possibilities are diminished compared to people who can afford counsel. But that doesn't make that portion of the criminal justice system racially discriminatory because a poor white person has the same trial outcome as a poor black person. Where the criminal justice system show racial disparities is in the sentencing portion when two similarly situated defendants get two different sentences based on racial characteristics. That's the difference.

Here's a political analogy then. "Hey, I am not discriminating against them because they are black. I am discriminating against them because they are democrats". I know full well exactly what I'm talking about in these things. Whether you like it or not, the two can't be separated in any meaningfully accurate way. Socioeconomic status has an incredibly strong correlation to race in this country. There's no getting around it. You can say that "poor white guy gets treated the same as poor black guy" and while true, that completely ignores the % make up of the "poor" class by race.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I'm arguing no such thing. I'm saying that voter ID laws are a socio-economic and not racial.

Whether we like it or not, there is a strong correlation between socioeconomic status and race in this country. Picking nits trying to separate them.

Agree to disagree.

What part? Last I looked poverty rates for white and Asian population was about 10%, and near double that or more for Hispanic, black, and Native Americans.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

So which statistical viewpoint are you using for your numbers and then why is using that particular statistic more relevant to this discussion than any other statistical number?

So I pulled the numbers for you on poverty. (https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2022/demo/p60-277.html) There are tables that break down poverty levels by a multitude of racial categories

Using table A-5

Whites below poverty level 2021 (18 years and older): 18.288,000, ~9.2% of all whites
Blacks below poverty level 2021 (18 years and older): 5,814,000, ~17% of all blacks

So as you can see there are about 3x as many whites living in poverty as blacks. It's just that a larger percentage of blacks as a group live in poverty. So when we're talking about something like the ability for an individual to vote, why would/should we look at per capita statistics? Votes are a personal, individual act. Each INDIVIDUAL has the right to vote. So when there are hurdles for poor people to obtain voter IDs, they actually affect more individual white voters than black voters.

Do you see how numbers can be exploited to try and make a position say what you want it to?

 

[KarmaPolice]

I get and agree with what you are saying. It is also one part of the puzzle. Location, voting record, and other things come into play on top of that as well. Ie a voter law that effects poor people in SD will have a different outcome than one in Atl - but still noting in it specifically targeting race. A lot of this is also because traditionally these black communities voted a certain way.

Your point is well taken if it was a blanket voter law nationwide, but that's usually not what we are talking about.

 

[The Commish]

I'm arguing no such thing. I'm saying that voter ID laws are a socio-economic and not racial.

Whether we like it or not, there is a strong correlation between socioeconomic status and race in this country. Picking nits trying to separate them.

Agree to disagree.

What part? Last I looked poverty rates for white and Asian population was about 10%, and near double that or more for Hispanic, black, and Native Americans.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

So which statistical viewpoint are you using for your numbers and then why is using that particular statistic more relevant to this discussion than any other statistical number?

So I pulled the numbers for you on poverty. (https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2022/demo/p60-277.html) There are tables that break down poverty levels by a multitude of racial categories

Using table A-5

Whites below poverty level 2021 (18 years and older): 18.288,000, ~9.2% of all whites
Blacks below poverty level 2021 (18 years and older): 5,814,000, ~17% of all blacks

So as you can see there are about 3x as many whites living in poverty as blacks. It's just that a larger percentage of blacks as a group live in poverty. So when we're talking about something like the ability for an individual to vote, why would/should we look at per capita statistics? Votes are a personal, individual act. Each INDIVIDUAL has the right to vote. So when there are hurdles for poor people to obtain voter IDs, they actually affect more individual white voters than black voters.

Do you see how numbers can be exploited to try and make a position say what you want it to?

You didn't ask me, but in my view, it's the better indicator to use per capita in a country like ours because every state is different and the rules are different in many places. So if one wants to insist on trying to separate the two (class and race) you need a national view to at least try and attempt to do it. We can't look at individual situations because each individual situation is different. Only when you look at the larger picture do the trends begin to emerge. Otherwise you're left with the "Look!!!! 5.5 times more white people live below the poverty line than black people!!!" kinds of statements ignoring that there are 41M black people compared to 231M white people. If things were closer to "equal" between the races, we'd expect a TON more white people to be in that class.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I'm arguing no such thing. I'm saying that voter ID laws are a socio-economic and not racial.

Whether we like it or not, there is a strong correlation between socioeconomic status and race in this country. Picking nits trying to separate them.

Agree to disagree.

What part? Last I looked poverty rates for white and Asian population was about 10%, and near double that or more for Hispanic, black, and Native Americans.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

So which statistical viewpoint are you using for your numbers and then why is using that particular statistic more relevant to this discussion than any other statistical number?

So I pulled the numbers for you on poverty. (https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2022/demo/p60-277.html) There are tables that break down poverty levels by a multitude of racial categories

Using table A-5

Whites below poverty level 2021 (18 years and older): 18.288,000, ~9.2% of all whites
Blacks below poverty level 2021 (18 years and older): 5,814,000, ~17% of all blacks

So as you can see there are about 3x as many whites living in poverty as blacks. It's just that a larger percentage of blacks as a group live in poverty. So when we're talking about something like the ability for an individual to vote, why would/should we look at per capita statistics? Votes are a personal, individual act. Each INDIVIDUAL has the right to vote. So when there are hurdles for poor people to obtain voter IDs, they actually affect more individual white voters than black voters.

Do you see how numbers can be exploited to try and make a position say what you want it to?

You didn't ask me, but in my view, it's the better indicator to use per capita in a country like ours because every state is different and the rules are different in many places. So if one wants to insist on trying to separate the two (class and race) you need a national view to at least try and attempt to do it. We can't look at individual situations because each individual situation is different. Only when you look at the larger picture do the trends begin to emerge. Otherwise you're left with the "Look!!!! 5.5 times more white people live below the poverty line than black people!!!" kinds of statements ignoring that there are 41M black people compared to 231M white people. If things were closer to "equal" between the races, we'd expect a TON more white people to be in that class.

Voting is a state controlled issue. You want to take a more national view for a local issue? Why would/should a citizen of one state matter to the the effects of a law of a particular state than that person isn't a citizen of? Should a 20 year old female in New York matter when discussing the effects of an abortion law in Texas?

 

[The Commish]

I'm arguing no such thing. I'm saying that voter ID laws are a socio-economic and not racial.

Whether we like it or not, there is a strong correlation between socioeconomic status and race in this country. Picking nits trying to separate them.

Agree to disagree.

What part? Last I looked poverty rates for white and Asian population was about 10%, and near double that or more for Hispanic, black, and Native Americans.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

So which statistical viewpoint are you using for your numbers and then why is using that particular statistic more relevant to this discussion than any other statistical number?

So I pulled the numbers for you on poverty. (https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2022/demo/p60-277.html) There are tables that break down poverty levels by a multitude of racial categories

Using table A-5

Whites below poverty level 2021 (18 years and older): 18.288,000, ~9.2% of all whites
Blacks below poverty level 2021 (18 years and older): 5,814,000, ~17% of all blacks

So as you can see there are about 3x as many whites living in poverty as blacks. It's just that a larger percentage of blacks as a group live in poverty. So when we're talking about something like the ability for an individual to vote, why would/should we look at per capita statistics? Votes are a personal, individual act. Each INDIVIDUAL has the right to vote. So when there are hurdles for poor people to obtain voter IDs, they actually affect more individual white voters than black voters.

Do you see how numbers can be exploited to try and make a position say what you want it to?

You didn't ask me, but in my view, it's the better indicator to use per capita in a country like ours because every state is different and the rules are different in many places. So if one wants to insist on trying to separate the two (class and race) you need a national view to at least try and attempt to do it. We can't look at individual situations because each individual situation is different. Only when you look at the larger picture do the trends begin to emerge. Otherwise you're left with the "Look!!!! 5.5 times more white people live below the poverty line than black people!!!" kinds of statements ignoring that there are 41M black people compared to 231M white people. If things were closer to "equal" between the races, we'd expect a TON more white people to be in that class.

Voting is a state controlled issue. You want to take a more national view for a local issue? Why would/should a citizen of one state matter to the the effects of a law of a particular state than that person isn't a citizen of? Should a 20 year old female in New York matter when discussing the effects of an abortion law in Texas?

When it comes to a national election and the argument is "X group is impacted more than Y group" of course.....you need to look at the entirety of the group. Of course, it would be helpful at some point to drill down and look at areas where the general argument is false and then look at why that's so in hopes to make all the other areas like it.

Of course NONE of this is anything but a distraction from the fact that socioeconomic status and race are pretty tightly correlated in this country, which is where this conversation was prior to the tangent. When one % of the demographic is 2,3,4 times that of another type in the demographic, it needs to be acknowledged how disproportionate that is. When seeking equal opportunity, those % need to be closer together since the groups are so different in size.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I'm arguing no such thing. I'm saying that voter ID laws are a socio-economic and not racial.

Whether we like it or not, there is a strong correlation between socioeconomic status and race in this country. Picking nits trying to separate them.

Agree to disagree.

What part? Last I looked poverty rates for white and Asian population was about 10%, and near double that or more for Hispanic, black, and Native Americans.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

So which statistical viewpoint are you using for your numbers and then why is using that particular statistic more relevant to this discussion than any other statistical number?

So I pulled the numbers for you on poverty. (https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2022/demo/p60-277.html) There are tables that break down poverty levels by a multitude of racial categories

Using table A-5

Whites below poverty level 2021 (18 years and older): 18.288,000, ~9.2% of all whites
Blacks below poverty level 2021 (18 years and older): 5,814,000, ~17% of all blacks

So as you can see there are about 3x as many whites living in poverty as blacks. It's just that a larger percentage of blacks as a group live in poverty. So when we're talking about something like the ability for an individual to vote, why would/should we look at per capita statistics? Votes are a personal, individual act. Each INDIVIDUAL has the right to vote. So when there are hurdles for poor people to obtain voter IDs, they actually affect more individual white voters than black voters.

Do you see how numbers can be exploited to try and make a position say what you want it to?

You didn't ask me, but in my view, it's the better indicator to use per capita in a country like ours because every state is different and the rules are different in many places. So if one wants to insist on trying to separate the two (class and race) you need a national view to at least try and attempt to do it. We can't look at individual situations because each individual situation is different. Only when you look at the larger picture do the trends begin to emerge. Otherwise you're left with the "Look!!!! 5.5 times more white people live below the poverty line than black people!!!" kinds of statements ignoring that there are 41M black people compared to 231M white people. If things were closer to "equal" between the races, we'd expect a TON more white people to be in that class.

Voting is a state controlled issue. You want to take a more national view for a local issue? Why would/should a citizen of one state matter to the the effects of a law of a particular state than that person isn't a citizen of? Should a 20 year old female in New York matter when discussing the effects of an abortion law in Texas?

When it comes to a national election and the argument is "X group is impacted more than Y group" of course.....you need to look at the entirety of the group. Of course, it would be helpful at some point to drill down and look at areas where the general argument is false and then look at why that's so in hopes to make all the other areas like it.

Of course NONE of this is anything but a distraction from the fact that socioeconomic status and race are pretty tightly correlated in this country, which is where this conversation was prior to the tangent. When one % of the demographic is 2,3,4 times that of another type in the demographic, it needs to be acknowledged how disproportionate that is. When seeking equal opportunity, those % need to be closer together since the groups are so different in size.

You're not making sense. A national election is nothing more than a bunch of state elections with the results combined. So what happens in for example, California is not relevant to what happens in Alabama. Just like the election laws in California are not relevant to a voter in Alabama. Neither is the socio-economic or racial make-up of a Californian voter relevant to the Alabama state legislature when deciding on their election laws.

 

[Shutout]

So just get them IDs, right? IDs would be beneficial in many areas of life. Problem is that racial minorities are also less likely to be able to obtain the necessary official documentation to get such an ID. Whether because it is cost prohibitive or simply doesn't exist. ETA: There is a really well written appeals court decision from a decade or so out there that lays this all out. I just cannot remember how to find it. Hopefully this reference triggers someone's memory.

so tired of this talking point. not aimed at you but in general. maybe, MAYBE, 10 years ago, maybe. now, make a call & either side, Dem, Republican operatives will get you one or drive you to a place to get one.
cripes.

just reposting this because it needs to be said on every page here. This is truth. Unbelievably, people still cling to this notion that in 2022, in today's political climate, that if ANY person who was legally eligible to vote, couldn't get multiple people come get them and assist them to get an ID card, is ludicrous. Heck, the people coming to help you would literally pay for it if they thought it meant you would now vote their cause.

I have been in cities where people needed to provide ID for such things as buying alcohol, picking up their pre-ordered video game, setting up their Internet, etc, and amazingly, I have never, not once, seen an underprivileged non-white person turn to the line behind them and say "no Call of Duty for me! I gots no ID!".

 

[The Commish]

You're not making sense. A national election is nothing more than a bunch of state elections with the results combined. So what happens in for example, California is not relevant to what happens in Alabama. Just like the election laws in California are not relevant to a voter in Alabama. Neither is the socio-economic or racial make-up of a Californian voter relevant to the Alabama state legislature when deciding on their election laws.

I am attempting to meet you where you're at. I did my best to navigate the rabbit hole the best I could. This stat:

Whites below poverty level 2021 (18 years and older): 18.288,000, ~9.2% of all whites
Blacks below poverty level 2021 (18 years and older): 5,814,000, ~17% of all blacks

1. Did you bring it up? If so, why do you believe it's relevant if you want to keep things local?
2. Is this national or for an individual state?

Remember...my contention is, and has been this whole time that socioeconomic status and race are tied really close together in this country. I'm not trying to separate them. You are because you think they somehow are meaningfully different.

Perhaps I should have nipped the whole thing in the bud when you asked:

So when we're talking about something like the ability for an individual to vote, why would/should we look at per capita statistics? Votes are a personal, individual act. Each INDIVIDUAL has the right to vote.

I should have asked why you were using national numbers like quoted above and gone from there. If you want to keep it local, then quoting national numbers is meaningless. Maybe we want to talk about a specific state like Alabama or Mississippi? Those percentages above (but at a state level) get much harder for you to address though.

 

[JIslander]

So just get them IDs, right? IDs would be beneficial in many areas of life. Problem is that racial minorities are also less likely to be able to obtain the necessary official documentation to get such an ID. Whether because it is cost prohibitive or simply doesn't exist. ETA: There is a really well written appeals court decision from a decade or so out there that lays this all out. I just cannot remember how to find it. Hopefully this reference triggers someone's memory.

so tired of this talking point. not aimed at you but in general. maybe, MAYBE, 10 years ago, maybe. now, make a call & either side, Dem, Republican operatives will get you one or drive you to a place to get one.
cripes.

just reposting this because it needs to be said on every page here. This is truth. Unbelievably, people still cling to this notion that in 2022, in today's political climate, that if ANY person who was legally eligible to vote, couldn't get multiple people come get them and assist them to get an ID card, is ludicrous. Heck, the people coming to help you would literally pay for it if they thought it meant you would now vote their cause.

I have been in cities where people needed to provide ID for such things as buying alcohol, picking up their pre-ordered video game, setting up their Internet, etc, and amazingly, I have never, not once, seen an underprivileged non-white person turn to the line behind them and say "no Call of Duty for me! I gots no ID!".

So you and @shadrap know all this for fact? Or just your expectations? I actually agree that we shouldn't be (still) in this position, but we are.

 

[shadrap]

So you and @shadrap know all this for fact? Or just your expectations? I actually agree that we shouldn't be (still) in this position, but we are.

It's a fact in my town. mother does it every year as I don't live there. Calls day before the election & someone picks her up. heck, call your Dem office & ask them. would take 2 minutes. let us know.

 

[Snotbubbles]

You're not making sense. A national election is nothing more than a bunch of state elections with the results combined. So what happens in for example, California is not relevant to what happens in Alabama. Just like the election laws in California are not relevant to a voter in Alabama. Neither is the socio-economic or racial make-up of a Californian voter relevant to the Alabama state legislature when deciding on their election laws.

I am attempting to meet you where you're at. I did my best to navigate the rabbit hole the best I could. This stat:

Whites below poverty level 2021 (18 years and older): 18.288,000, ~9.2% of all whites
Blacks below poverty level 2021 (18 years and older): 5,814,000, ~17% of all blacks

1. Did you bring it up? If so, why do you believe it's relevant if you want to keep things local?
2. Is this national or for an individual state?

Remember...my contention is, and has been this whole time that socioeconomic status and race are tied really close together in this country. I'm not trying to separate them. You are because you think they somehow are meaningfully different.

Perhaps I should have nipped the whole thing in the bud when you asked:

So when we're talking about something like the ability for an individual to vote, why would/should we look at per capita statistics? Votes are a personal, individual act. Each INDIVIDUAL has the right to vote.

I should have asked why you were using national numbers like quoted above and gone from there. If you want to keep it local, then quoting national numbers is meaningless. Maybe we want to talk about a specific state like Alabama or Mississippi? Those percentages above (but at a state level) get much harder for you to address though.

Notice the first sentence in my post. I used the numbers to show how statistics can be manipulated to show what you need them to. It was in response to someone up thread using statistic to try and show that voter ID laws affect minorities in larger percentages because they have difficulty obtaining them. They used a national poverty number so I expanded the numbers they used to show that even though the numbers may be correct, you can take other correct numbers and paint an entirely different picture.

ETA: I missed the second part of your post. Actually the state level numbers aren't hard for me to address in a state like Alabama mostly because they are irrelevant. The Alabama Circuit Courts have already opined on voter IDs in Alabama. (see, Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Alabama, The court held that the burden of providing a photo ID pursuant to Ala. Code 17-9-30 in order to vote is a minimal burden on Alabama's voters—especially when Alabama accepts so many different forms of photo ID and makes acquiring one simple and free for voters who lack a valid ID but wish to obtain one).

One more edit, I looked up Mississippi. In 2011, 60% of Mississippi voters passed it through a ballot initiative. In 2012, it was enshrined in statute. It is currently being challenged.

 

[JIslander]

So you and @shadrap know all this for fact? Or just your expectations? I actually agree that we shouldn't be (still) in this position, but we are.

It's a fact in my town. mother does it every year as I don't live there. Calls day before the election & someone picks her up. heck, call your Dem office & ask them. would take 2 minutes. let us know.

Good to hear that works for her -- wish it was like that everywhere

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It's a fact in my town. mother does it every year as I don't live there. Calls day before the election & someone picks her up. heck, call your Dem office & ask them. would take 2 minutes. let us know.

Your mother gets a new photo id from scratch every year?

ETA: As in not a renewal. As in not with the required documentation on file.

 

[shadrap]

Your mother gets a new photo id from scratch every year?

ETA: As in not a renewal. As in not with the required documentation on file.

she gets a ride every year from the Repub. headquarters volunteers. I didn't say she needs an ID. want me to call them & see if they can arrange for her to get one if she needs one?

 

[The Commish]

You're not making sense. A national election is nothing more than a bunch of state elections with the results combined. So what happens in for example, California is not relevant to what happens in Alabama. Just like the election laws in California are not relevant to a voter in Alabama. Neither is the socio-economic or racial make-up of a Californian voter relevant to the Alabama state legislature when deciding on their election laws.

I am attempting to meet you where you're at. I did my best to navigate the rabbit hole the best I could. This stat:

Whites below poverty level 2021 (18 years and older): 18.288,000, ~9.2% of all whites
Blacks below poverty level 2021 (18 years and older): 5,814,000, ~17% of all blacks

1. Did you bring it up? If so, why do you believe it's relevant if you want to keep things local?
2. Is this national or for an individual state?

Remember...my contention is, and has been this whole time that socioeconomic status and race are tied really close together in this country. I'm not trying to separate them. You are because you think they somehow are meaningfully different.

Perhaps I should have nipped the whole thing in the bud when you asked:

So when we're talking about something like the ability for an individual to vote, why would/should we look at per capita statistics? Votes are a personal, individual act. Each INDIVIDUAL has the right to vote.

I should have asked why you were using national numbers like quoted above and gone from there. If you want to keep it local, then quoting national numbers is meaningless. Maybe we want to talk about a specific state like Alabama or Mississippi? Those percentages above (but at a state level) get much harder for you to address though.

Notice the first sentence in my post. I used the numbers to show how statistics can be manipulated to show what you need them to. It was in response to someone up thread using statistic to try and show that voter ID laws affect minorities in larger percentages because they have difficulty obtaining them. They used a national poverty number so I expanded the numbers they used to show that even though the numbers may be correct, you can take other correct numbers and paint an entirely different picture.

ETA: I missed the second part of your post. Actually the state level numbers aren't hard for me to address in a state like Alabama mostly because they are irrelevant. The Alabama Circuit Courts have already opined on voter IDs in Alabama. (see, Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Alabama, The court held that the burden of providing a photo ID pursuant to Ala. Code 17-9-30 in order to vote is a minimal burden on Alabama's voters—especially when Alabama accepts so many different forms of photo ID and makes acquiring one simple and free for voters who lack a valid ID but wish to obtain one).

One more edit, I looked up Mississippi. In 2011, 60% of Mississippi voters passed it through a ballot initiative. In 2012, it was enshrined in statute. It is currently being challenged.

Then I don't know where we're at now

I guess back to trying to separate two tightly wound together things like race and socioeconomic status in this country? When they are so tightly wound, I find it uncompelling for someone to say "this is socioeconomic, not racial" and when I hear that excuse, it reads very much like the excuses we've seen before along the lines of "that marriage law prohibits both heterosexual females and homosexual females from marrying other females" or "I'm not supressing them because of their skin color, I am supressing them because of their political affiliation"...pretty much hollow to me.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

she gets a ride every year from the Repub. headquarters volunteers. I didn't say she needs an ID. want me to call them & see if they can arrange for her to get one if she needs one?

Sure. Tell them that she has never seen her birth certificate. That she isn't sure where exactly she was born, or even when. Was raised by atheists that home schooled her. That all of the bills are still in her now deceased husband's name. Oh, and that there is a clerical error on SS card.

 

[shadrap]

Sure. Tell them that she has never seen her birth certificate. That she isn't sure where exactly she was born, or even when. Was raised by atheists that home schooled her. That all of the bills are still in her now deceased husband's name. Oh, and that there is a clerical error on SS card.

tried to show that getting an ID & a ride to vote is easy. apparently, you are not interested from the snark emitted in your reply.
figured as much but you sure proved it.
thanx

 

[Snotbubbles]

You're not making sense. A national election is nothing more than a bunch of state elections with the results combined. So what happens in for example, California is not relevant to what happens in Alabama. Just like the election laws in California are not relevant to a voter in Alabama. Neither is the socio-economic or racial make-up of a Californian voter relevant to the Alabama state legislature when deciding on their election laws.

I am attempting to meet you where you're at. I did my best to navigate the rabbit hole the best I could. This stat:

Whites below poverty level 2021 (18 years and older): 18.288,000, ~9.2% of all whites
Blacks below poverty level 2021 (18 years and older): 5,814,000, ~17% of all blacks

1. Did you bring it up? If so, why do you believe it's relevant if you want to keep things local?
2. Is this national or for an individual state?

Remember...my contention is, and has been this whole time that socioeconomic status and race are tied really close together in this country. I'm not trying to separate them. You are because you think they somehow are meaningfully different.

Perhaps I should have nipped the whole thing in the bud when you asked:

So when we're talking about something like the ability for an individual to vote, why would/should we look at per capita statistics? Votes are a personal, individual act. Each INDIVIDUAL has the right to vote.

I should have asked why you were using national numbers like quoted above and gone from there. If you want to keep it local, then quoting national numbers is meaningless. Maybe we want to talk about a specific state like Alabama or Mississippi? Those percentages above (but at a state level) get much harder for you to address though.

Notice the first sentence in my post. I used the numbers to show how statistics can be manipulated to show what you need them to. It was in response to someone up thread using statistic to try and show that voter ID laws affect minorities in larger percentages because they have difficulty obtaining them. They used a national poverty number so I expanded the numbers they used to show that even though the numbers may be correct, you can take other correct numbers and paint an entirely different picture.

ETA: I missed the second part of your post. Actually the state level numbers aren't hard for me to address in a state like Alabama mostly because they are irrelevant. The Alabama Circuit Courts have already opined on voter IDs in Alabama. (see, Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Alabama, The court held that the burden of providing a photo ID pursuant to Ala. Code 17-9-30 in order to vote is a minimal burden on Alabama's voters—especially when Alabama accepts so many different forms of photo ID and makes acquiring one simple and free for voters who lack a valid ID but wish to obtain one).

One more edit, I looked up Mississippi. In 2011, 60% of Mississippi voters passed it through a ballot initiative. In 2012, it was enshrined in statute. It is currently being challenged.

Then I don't know where we're at now

I guess back to trying to separate two tightly wound together things like race and socioeconomic status in this country? When they are so tightly wound, I find it uncompelling for someone to say "this is socioeconomic, not racial" and when I hear that excuse, it reads very much like the excuses we've seen before along the lines of "that marriage law prohibits both heterosexual females and homosexual females from marrying other females" or "I'm not supressing them because of their skin color, I am supressing them because of their political affiliation"...pretty much hollow to me.

It is socio-economic. If voter ID laws were a form of racial discrimination by disparate impact they would have been struck down in a court of law.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Sure. Tell them that she has never seen her birth certificate. That she isn't sure where exactly she was born, or even when. Was raised by atheists that home schooled her. That all of the bills are still in her now deceased husband's name. Oh, and that there is a clerical error on SS card.

tried to show that getting an ID & a ride to vote is easy. apparently, you are not interested from the snark emitted in your reply.
figured as much but you sure proved it.
thanx

Snark? Those are just some of numerous reasons why one would not have the documentation to get a photo id. Because it is easy for some (or even most) does not make it easy for all. And since this is all about creating specific exceptions, this is a time where exceptions rather than the rule should be the focus.

 

[shadrap]

Sure. Tell them that she has never seen her birth certificate. That she isn't sure where exactly she was born, or even when. Was raised by atheists that home schooled her. That all of the bills are still in her now deceased husband's name. Oh, and that there is a clerical error on SS card.

tried to show that getting an ID & a ride to vote is easy. apparently, you are not interested from the snark emitted in your reply.
figured as much but you sure proved it.
thanx

Snark? Those are just some of numerous reasons why one would not have the documentation to get a photo id. Because it is easy for some (or even most) does not make it easy for all. And since this is all about creating specific exceptions, this is a time where exceptions rather than the rule should be the focus.

so you in favor of anyone voting? no ID just their word that they say who they say they are? Just wondering what if any requirements should be provided for voting?

 

[The Commish]

You're not making sense. A national election is nothing more than a bunch of state elections with the results combined. So what happens in for example, California is not relevant to what happens in Alabama. Just like the election laws in California are not relevant to a voter in Alabama. Neither is the socio-economic or racial make-up of a Californian voter relevant to the Alabama state legislature when deciding on their election laws.

I am attempting to meet you where you're at. I did my best to navigate the rabbit hole the best I could. This stat:

Whites below poverty level 2021 (18 years and older): 18.288,000, ~9.2% of all whites
Blacks below poverty level 2021 (18 years and older): 5,814,000, ~17% of all blacks

1. Did you bring it up? If so, why do you believe it's relevant if you want to keep things local?
2. Is this national or for an individual state?

Remember...my contention is, and has been this whole time that socioeconomic status and race are tied really close together in this country. I'm not trying to separate them. You are because you think they somehow are meaningfully different.

Perhaps I should have nipped the whole thing in the bud when you asked:

So when we're talking about something like the ability for an individual to vote, why would/should we look at per capita statistics? Votes are a personal, individual act. Each INDIVIDUAL has the right to vote.

I should have asked why you were using national numbers like quoted above and gone from there. If you want to keep it local, then quoting national numbers is meaningless. Maybe we want to talk about a specific state like Alabama or Mississippi? Those percentages above (but at a state level) get much harder for you to address though.

Notice the first sentence in my post. I used the numbers to show how statistics can be manipulated to show what you need them to. It was in response to someone up thread using statistic to try and show that voter ID laws affect minorities in larger percentages because they have difficulty obtaining them. They used a national poverty number so I expanded the numbers they used to show that even though the numbers may be correct, you can take other correct numbers and paint an entirely different picture.

ETA: I missed the second part of your post. Actually the state level numbers aren't hard for me to address in a state like Alabama mostly because they are irrelevant. The Alabama Circuit Courts have already opined on voter IDs in Alabama. (see, Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Alabama, The court held that the burden of providing a photo ID pursuant to Ala. Code 17-9-30 in order to vote is a minimal burden on Alabama's voters—especially when Alabama accepts so many different forms of photo ID and makes acquiring one simple and free for voters who lack a valid ID but wish to obtain one).

One more edit, I looked up Mississippi. In 2011, 60% of Mississippi voters passed it through a ballot initiative. In 2012, it was enshrined in statute. It is currently being challenged.

Then I don't know where we're at now

I guess back to trying to separate two tightly wound together things like race and socioeconomic status in this country? When they are so tightly wound, I find it uncompelling for someone to say "this is socioeconomic, not racial" and when I hear that excuse, it reads very much like the excuses we've seen before along the lines of "that marriage law prohibits both heterosexual females and homosexual females from marrying other females" or "I'm not supressing them because of their skin color, I am supressing them because of their political affiliation"...pretty much hollow to me.

It is socio-economic. If voter ID laws were a form of racial discrimination by disparate impact they would have been struck down in a court of law.

We have a brand new set of districts in the state of Florida that flat out show this thought process of "If it was against the law, it would be struck down in court" is a completely flawed thought process in today's political climate.

Again....in today's United States of America, socio-economic class and race are tightly wound together, so much so that if it's socio-economic, then it's also racial. It's not either/or and hasn't been for 200+ years....it's what this country was built on.

ETA: And I have ZERO problem with voter ids as a concept as long as they are free and really easy to get.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

so you in favor of anyone voting? no ID just their word that they say who they say they are? Just wondering what if any requirements should be provided for voting?

I'm in favor of every eligible voter who wants to vote to have quick and easy access to the ballot box. I believe in the free market of ideas where the best ideas will win and, over time the masses will stumble towards the best ideas, candidates that slowly lead to the best policies if allowed. I don't believe in pointless policies such as voter id laws that do not reduce fraud, do not create a perception of reduced fraud, do not create a perception of improved election integrity. Requiring ID's only purpose is to rig the market, to create barriers to thwart eligible voters from voting. A single vote is of such value that about half of them are not even cashed in, yet we pretend to worry about people risking severe criminal penalties for a vote valued so little. In the marketplace of ideas, voter id has no utility in election security just to help secure elections for those that push it.

 

[BladeRunner]

so you in favor of anyone voting? no ID just their word that they say who they say they are? Just wondering what if any requirements should be provided for voting?

I'm in favor of every eligible voter who wants to vote to have quick and easy access to the ballot box. I believe in the free market of ideas where the best ideas will win and, over time the masses will stumble towards the best ideas, candidates that slowly lead to the best policies if allowed.

And yet you continue to vote for a party that believes in NONE of that (the bolded).

You're either really that oblivious or you're blowing smoke up our collective bums to try and fool everyone.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

..... I believe in the free market of ideas where the best ideas will win and, over time the masses will stumble towards the best ideas, candidates that slowly lead to the best policies if allowed.

And yet you continue to vote for a party that believes in NONE of that (the bolded).
....

My curiosity has the best of me. I'd kind of like to hear how candidates I vote for demonstrates beliefs contrary to mine. I mean I agree that I'm usually ahead of them on policy choices, but that is not the same as rejecting my optimistic beliefs. In fact, I think that this belief among those I vote for works against them in the short term.

 

[KarmaPolice]

..... I believe in the free market of ideas where the best ideas will win and, over time the masses will stumble towards the best ideas, candidates that slowly lead to the best policies if allowed.

And yet you continue to vote for a party that believes in NONE of that (the bolded).
....

My curiosity has the best of me. I'd kind of like to hear how candidates I vote for demonstrates beliefs contrary to mine. I mean I agree that I'm usually ahead of them on policy choices, but that is not the same as rejecting my optimistic beliefs. In fact, I think that this belief among those I vote for works against them in the short term.

I just find it creepy BR knows who you continue to vote for.

 

[BladeRunner]

..... I believe in the free market of ideas where the best ideas will win and, over time the masses will stumble towards the best ideas, candidates that slowly lead to the best policies if allowed.

And yet you continue to vote for a party that believes in NONE of that (the bolded).
....

My curiosity has the best of me. I'd kind of like to hear how candidates I vote for demonstrates beliefs contrary to mine. I mean I agree that I'm usually ahead of them on policy choices, but that is not the same as rejecting my optimistic beliefs. In fact, I think that this belief among those I vote for works against them in the short term.

I just find it creepy BR knows who you continue to vote for.

I find it creepy that you follow me around, commenting about me without addressing me directly.

 

[urbanhack]

..... I believe in the free market of ideas where the best ideas will win and, over time the masses will stumble towards the best ideas, candidates that slowly lead to the best policies if allowed.

And yet you continue to vote for a party that believes in NONE of that (the bolded).
....

My curiosity has the best of me. I'd kind of like to hear how candidates I vote for demonstrates beliefs contrary to mine. I mean I agree that I'm usually ahead of them on policy choices, but that is not the same as rejecting my optimistic beliefs. In fact, I think that this belief among those I vote for works against them in the short term.

I just find it creepy BR knows who you continue to vote for.

He's the king of assumptions.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I just find it creepy BR knows who you continue to vote for.

I think one can reasonably presume that I mostly vote for democrats. That I vote for democrats that lose primary races. to more "establishment" and moderates. That I vote for democrats that lose to republicans in most races*. I might get an occasional democrat to be president, but never my first choice. However, while this is typical, he can guess that I vote for the occasional republican. And sometimes (especially now*) republicans are the only choices.

All that being said I don't see how democratic candidates representing the party are not offering up ideas - some good, some way too compromised to work, some awful to compete in the marketplace of ideas. And while I assume he means college students shouting down speakers, "woke" and "cancel" movements to silence opinions, prosecuting Jan 6th tourists, IRS taking their sweet time to approve conservative political groups with certain "key words" in their names' tax-exempt status, etc. to keep ideas out of that marketplace, I don't know of anyone that I ever casted a vote that would fit there. Most might support in spirit the ideas that those trying to silence others are "protecting", but none to my knowledge support the methods nor did the ideas survive scrutiny. So, am I missing something?

*As for winning elections and candidate choice I'm in Northern Texas in a not so long-ago rural community growing fast into being the suburbs. Even when I was in Maryland, I lived where republicans won everything after you got more local than the County wide office. County offices and state offices would normally, but not always [Larry Hogan] be democrats.