This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Mechanically, how would you even know that, if you don't bother verifying thr voter's identity?
Why does literally every other country do it, then?
Politics is notorious for being motivated by collective belonging. Limiting the analysis to direct personal benefit seems like intentionally blinding yourself.
A combination of factors:
In order to impersonate someone else, you'd need a bit of their information (which you could get, but would take time and this is a low salience crime). You'd need to spend time picking out people who don't vote and you can impersonate.
Most states do check for some proof of who you are. The real trick the Republicans pull is suggesting that the fraudsters are also out here printing fake student IDs or something, so we can't have that. Gee, I wonder who someone who uses a student ID to vote might vote for. Or that the fraudster might get a hold of someone's expired photo ID.
That Republicans have been beating this drum for decades now, and can't even come out with verifiable stories of people showing up to vote and being told they already voted.
Mechanically, how do these fraudsters operate? Do they vote, go to their car and pick up a hat and fake student ID, and go right back in? Wouldn't you think if this were happening at scale a pollster would notice seeing the same guy but with a different hat? Or do they drive around to different polling sites?
I once did some napkin math and suggested that on election day, if you were to use different polling stations to hide your crime, you could probably cast maybe 40 votes on election day. When most elections are decided by thousands of votes, you accomplished jack shit. Whoop-de-do. If there's only one or two people per election willing to even attempt this, it is literally better to let them get away with it and not turn away the greater number of people who might be turned away by Republican attempts to limit voting.
My strongest argument here is number 2. This fight is really over being able to decide which forms of ID are acceptable to vote rather than some ID vs no ID.
Lots of other first world countries limit free speech or gun ownership too. I always get a chuckle about selective calls to copy other countries.
You're overstating a nugget of truth. I didn't say there was 0 reason. There's just a tiny reason, a risk of jail, a low positive impact of a single vote, and a lot of time needed to pull it off.
No, the question was "Mechanically, how would you even know that, if you don't bother verifying the voter's identity?" You even quoted it!
From what you said it looks like you're assuming there's little fraud because it requires some prep, brings little individual gains, and carries some risk of punishment, but once it's actually done I see nothing about how you would prove it happened after the fact.
The problem with portraying this as an evil Republican plot to exclude students from voting, is that students can just go an get the type of ID that enables them to vote. You know, just like they do in every other country.
Same, I find it very humorous that American progressive portray Europe as some far-left utopia that every right-thinking person should emulate, that they routinely claim Democrats would be see as right-of-center here, but the moment you bring up basic election integrity they spontaneously erupt into a cascade of fireworks, hamburgers, and bald eagles.
Anyway, you have again not answered my question. Does this mean you think that the same European governments who are routinely repressing right-wing speech, are somehow requiring voter-ID in order to repress left-wing student voters?
My point 4 is that a prosecutor's job isn't just to point to some circumstantial evidence of why a suspect might have done it, they need to be able to describe a reasonable chain of events of how the suspect did it. I'm asking you, how does our hypothetical fraudster perform the fraud? Does he go in as himself and vote as himself, then come in later posing as someone else and vote again? Might someone recognize him? Sure, in any individual case the odds might be low, but if the scale of fraud is large a 1% chance each time is likely to happen.
I'd add "requires being able to make fake forms of ID in many states."
The "But once it's actually done" part is assuming the conclusion, in a "but how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?" kind of way. [Many states have rules about signing an affidavit], and they can compare signatures after the fact. And you keep not addressing the part where there aren't any complaints about people being told they've already voted. Sure, you can make a safe bet about who is likely to vote and who isn't, but safe bets still sometimes lose. Consider how dumb Americans can be, and consider that criminals are usually dumber. People manage to find a way to fuck up. And Republicans want to shine a spotlight on voter fraud so they'd tell everyone if they found it.
A hurdle doesn't have to be insurmountable to be a hurdle. Why do you think gyms do things like letting you sign up easily but have to jump through hoops to cancel? Why do you think companies do mail-in rebates instead of sales? Because that extra hassle sometimes works.
I don't study the governments of other countries, but from what I've heard they have different laws on how people get IDs. But I do study pay attention to American politics, and I have seen American Republicans repeatedly target things like early voting which is primarily used by Democrats. I'm not accusing them of this in a vacuum.
It depends, someone here linked one time to a story about wide-scale fraud done by a political machine it Chicago that went on for years, and only came out because someone got cut out of a deal, and snitched. What's more, on questions where one side is strongly politically invested in a particular answer, I don't think you can assume the normal truth-seeking process will work as usual. I've seen this in the transgender issue, where the pro-trans side was knowingly and deliberately hiding studies that showed the evidence for gender affirming care is poor. Normally this would be a scandal, but there's been no professional consequences as far as I can tell. The voter-ID question seems to draw the same kind of zeal, so I'd fully expect people in a position to say something to look the other way, because doing otherwise would be inconvenient for the narrative of their tribe.
What you're saying might work in states where institutions are politically mixed, and the sides keep each other in check, though.
Are there not states that don't require any ID? The Google summarizer thing seems to be under the impression that there are quite a few.
Yes, and there's nothing wrong with that in this case. If you want to tell me "there's in no evidence for X", "what kind of evidence would you see, assuming X happened" is a perfectly valid question to ask,
It looks like you forgot to include a link. How many states, and how often are these signatures compared? How reliable is the signature comparison method to begin with?
What do I have to address here? This seems to show that unless someone loses the bet, you will not be able to show there was fraud after the fact, just like I suspected. Further, if you're particularly good at making these bets, losing a few won't even matter, because a part of your argument is "the amount of fraud is miniscule, so there's no reason to enhance integrity".
A hurdle that you only have to overcome once, is not much of a hurdle. You can even sweeten the deal. We had people people here recount the absurdity of the American approach to ID, just include in the law that whatever ID document you're proposing shall be valid in all American institutions, public and private alike, and you will have actually reduced the total amount of hurdles people have to overcome.
Well, I'd like to hear some details on what you think is so different, because I've often heard American progressives just outright lie about the state of laws in other countries (for example there were similar arguments about abortion laws, where conservatives pointed out late term abortion is illegal in Europe, and progressives tried claiming the law is dead letter, which is complete nonsense). Also, if there is some version of ID-law that Democrats would support, it's rather suspicious that they never argue try offering a counter-proposal, and instead just go on and on about how voter ID is unnecessary, racist, voter suppression.
I don't know the details of that, but I'd separate "outsider" fraud - a random civilian fraudulently voting vs. insider fraud - people working within the political system to elect a candidate. The people who tend to believe in one tend to believe in the other, but if voter ID wouldn't stop insider fraud then I see no reason to link the two. I'm generally of the opinion that in any conspiracy, someone will eventually snitch if the rewards are tempting, and I believe the Republican party will ensure the rewards are tempting.
Sure, there are states where one party wins solidly politically, but even in those the opposing party isn't completely powerless. There are people from both parties administering the election.
Apologies, here is the link.
I elaborated it more, but I did from my first response to you state that "double voting" would be what I would expect to see.
Let's look at the data. Heritage Foundation's data goes back to 1982. Filtering for "Impersonation at the polls" gives 34 results. You can click the link and read a little blurb which I did for I think all of them, and by my count exactly half of them are for mail-in ballots. Which is honestly part of my argument against voter ID, because if I were going to commit voter fraud mail-in ballots seem way smarter. The absentee ballots were found by signature matching or voting for a dead person
In these two - 1 2 they were recognized by poll workers.
In these two 1 2 the fraud was detected in the very way I said, that someone was told they already voted.
Let's say that there is a 99% chance to successfully fraudulently vote and a 1% chance to get caught. If 10,000 fraudulent votes were cast we might expect 100 failures. Yet we've found and punished either 17 or 34 (Heritage lists 34, but 17 sounded to me like they might have been mistagged) in 40 years.
I don't really like to give answers on topics I haven't studied, and as mentioned I'm focused on what American Republicans have previously done.
They do? A common refrain is that Dems say they will agree if voter ID is free and can be gotten conveniently for people who have limited time/transportation.
The reason I and I think the DNC don't push for this is because again I don't think it's really happening, plus if you take the position that your opponents are literally only doing this because they have your worst interests at heart (talking specifically about the Republican legislators) then there's no point giving them an inch because they're just going to try and find a way to take more.
I'm not sure why you would separate them. Any vulnerability is a vulnerability an insider can exploit, so the fewer of them you have, the better. It's just basic principles of security.
This seems to confirm what I said earlier - there are several states that don't ask for any form of ID at the time of voting.
Ok, but where does the 99%/1% number come from?
Yeah, I wasn't referring to random redditors. I was thinking more of Dem senators putting it forward as a condition for voting for the SAVE act.
Irrelevant. Progressives wanted body cams due to their belief in widespread racism in policing, which wasn't really happening either, the correct response was still to let them have exactly what they asked for. Same principle applies here.
Because we're talking about how to fix these vulnerabilities that we supposedly have (but nobody can prove we have). Even if it were, a change should be looked at in terms of what it will and won't accomplish. If people are getting into your house somehow, why are you talking about bolting your second story windows shut if you leave your door unlocked? You're technically making your house more secure, but that's not the problem.
Second of all, "security" isn't inherently worth it. A grocery store could require keys to get into the "employee only" section, but if no customers are walking in then it's not just "well it's more secure" it's "I spent time adding locks and now my employees constantly have to lock and unlock it just to solve a non-problem."
Literally every crime has a chance to fuck up. That's why we've caught the people that we have. The reason I keep asking you how these people are supposedly committing the fraud (and you STILL have not answered by the way) is because if you're showing up in the same place multiple times there's some chance of being recognized. If you're driving around that lowers the risk significantly but even then there's the chance that voter turnout fluctuates every year. So even if you steal the identity of someone who votes there's a chance you pick someone who decided to this time.
The chance is based on how the crime is supposedly committed. In short, the reason I pulled the 1% chance out of my ass is because I had to, because you keep asking me questions and never fucking answer mine.
And here you do the thing where you neglect to clip the part that answers that.
"if you take the position that your opponents are literally only doing this because they have your worst interests at heart (talking specifically about the Republican legislators) then there's no point giving them an inch because they're just going to try and find a way to take more."
As above, you avoid engaging with the idea that people think Republican laws are actively intended to harm Democratic voter turnout.
Upsides of police cameras:
Can prove or disprove if a civilian was resisting arrest
Can prove or disprove accusations of police brutality
The downside of police cameras:
Cost
Officers have to spend time using them
maintaining the footage.
Upsides of voter ID
Makes people feel the election is secure (but probably not really because they'll just make another unfounded accusation)
Stops people from wasting their time thinking they can steal an election where 160 million people voted by casting a single fraudulent vote LOL.
Downsides of voter ID
Some people will have to update their IDs or not be able to vote because we have to stop something from happening that nobody can even prove is happening more than a few times TOTAL.
Republicans may or may not pull some other bullshit to make it harder to vote.
To go with your example, I don't have to prove someone entered through an open door, to make the argument that an open door to be a vulnerability.
Checking for ID is locking your front door.
Depending on what you have inside the "employee only" section, putting locks on it is absolutely worth the time, even if no one tried to enter there yet, and your approach is insane.
Ok, but if you don't know what that chance is, you can't tell me whether the low number of detected crimes is due to there not being many crimes, or of a piss poor detection rate.
Because it doesn't answer it. The whole point of adding extra conditions to prevent the issues you're worrying about.
Also, if you just won't agree to it, even if your conditions are met, than the whole "Dems say they will agree if voter ID is free and can be gotten conveniently for people who have limited time/transportation." was just a straight up lie.
I'm not avoiding it, I'm telling you it's not relevant. It was specifically made irrelevant by the "if voter ID is free and can be gotten conveniently for people who have limited time/transportation".
Those are literally the same dynamics as the police cams. Your downsides boil down to cost, and the upsides of body cams, and all the "Republicans will just make up something else" is literally what happened with the Democrats and body cams.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link