Christianity Today Op Ed

[DivineOb]

I love it when people say, "Oh yeah? Well, if X was the case, then you would be doing Y!" with Y just happening to be supportive of whatever point you're trying to make.

What is 'Y" in this case?

[lilpixieofterror]

Given our shared loathing of voter suppression I'm sure you'll agree that any indication that a law reduces voting must solve a significant and pressing issue in order to justify its existence. Taking this into account the fact that *half* of the studies showed a decrease is extremely alarming, especially given that these laws solve a problem which *doesn't* exist. Doubly so given that we have Republican officials admitting that traditionally Republicans have engaged in voter suppression, so we don't have to speculate as to why they exist.

Truth time: If we moved the election to Sunday and found a reduction of 0.5% in voting among White Christians in half the studies with no studies finding a "counterbalancing" increase in voting among White Christians wouldn't you have questions? Wouldn't you want to know if the solution was worse than the problem. I would and I'm certain to get an electoral result I'd prefer with such a law in place.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

[DivineOb]

You wouldn't give a clear answer *at all*! I was excoriated for allegedly taking what you said in the worst possible light so I chose instead to interpret it in the *best* possible light and you're still not happy. :cantwinemall:

Yet we do know, conclusively, that they don't solve a real problem. So why do YOU think we need them in the first place?

If it could be shown that those studies took these factors into account would it impact your perception of their results?

[Teallaura]

This is a nonsense take.

No, not really - it's a 'I can't read straight' take. Rereading what you wrote, you were drawning the conclusion about her intent to answer where I had read it originally as you concluding she approved of Republican malfeasance. Oops - sorry.

I like to look for points of agreement. If you asked me would I agree to condemn suppression by Democrats I'd give you a clear and unequivocal YES. And if you said you didn't hear me I'd shout YES until you did.

Fine - but why do you need her to do what you want?

Where did I accuse her of any such thing? I don't know where any of you stand on that issue. I'd like to think we Americans can agree that one person one vote is an integral part of America. I'd like to think that members of the party which benefits more from suppression could start to demand more of their party leaders.

Okay, this is a bit tone deaf - you have been insisting that she affirm something she's already indicated and not for simple clarification since that's been subsequently provided. The harping very much implies the accusation - 'you say X or you must believe Y'.

Again, why the need for affirmation here?

When California passed the redistricting reform I spent *one second* I asking myself "Won't this hurt the Democrats?" And then I said to myself "It's the right thing to do" and moved on. I rarely lead by example but I hope in this case you can take a little inspiration from reprobate me.

Er, redistricing seems to have hurt Republicans in California.

We could place California under Federal judicial supervision! Which, incidentally, screwed over large demographics in the South, ironically hurting blacks most of all.

There is no one size fits all solution - it has to be scrutinized case by case. Maybe someday voters will do their jobs and care about the boring stuff where this crap happens. Until then, we fight it out in classic muddling through.

If anyone asks you when you stopped beating your wife you say "I've never beat her." :mindblown:

Answer yes or no. Come now, I don't believe you have never encountered that example.

I just reread the last five pages to be sure I hadn't missed something and I don't see any clear example of her condemning voter suppression. At best she acknowledges "both sides" which could mean "both sides do it and it sucks" as well as "I won't stop until you stop first". Not to mention that accepting the comparison is simply letting the Republicans off the hook for taking suppression so far beyond "just politics" it should make any patriotic American sick.

This can be my last word on the matter since you think this is off topic.

I think insisting on an affirmation to the point where we're discussing that insistance is off topic. Also, why is Republican malfeasance an excuse for Democrat malfeasance? The 'but they do it too' thing deflects from the point in question - which isn't off topic but is fallacious argumentation.

And I think the entire line, on both sides, about voter suppression is just a mud flinging contest in context of this thread. Oh, it's a valid topic, but that's not what's being done in the thread.

[rogue06]

The Brooks Brothers Riot was orchestrated by Republican operatives, including Roger Stone, to halt the recount, since Bush was ahead. Through intimidation and outright violence, it worked.

Good luck with the ret-con, tho.

--Sam

They didn't want to stop the recount (although privately they would have not objected if it were to stop) but instead were demanding that all of the ballots be recounted and not just a select group that the Democrat officials picked. Further they objected to their moving to a small room away from public scrutiny to do their recount.

[Teallaura]

3% is HUGE! If it was even 0.5% of White Christians you'd be screaming bloody murder (as would I).

Last night you agreed that voter suppression was wrong and should be condemned wherever it occurs. Will you now join me in condemning laws which led to such a drop in minority participation?

Um, 3% is w/i most margins of error. It's not huge - it's a statistical blip.

FYI: That means it could just as easily represent an increase in minority turnout. Which is more plausible - people may be more inclined to vote if they think their vote is their own.
And yet another request for affirmation?

[rogue06]

Anyone else find it amusing how the left-wing contingent here likes to bring up alleged voter in Florida in 2000 but always ignore the incontrovertible suppression of Republican votes there.

Like how the MSM "accidentally" called the race for Gore when the polls were still open and there were long lines of folks still waiting to vote in the Republican dominated panhandle. That little trick resulted in those in the lines going home without voting because, well, why bother.

Then there was the coordinated effort to reject absentee votes from those in the military (which tends to vote Republican) and who were stationed overseas. In direct defiance of federal law Democrat officials in a dozen or so counties ignored ballots from them because they weren't postmarked (that's because they were transported by the military not the postal service). Even Al Gore's Florida campaign chairman cried foul about this and IIRC Joe Lieberman, Gore's running mate, also expressed displeasure over this stunt.

[Sam]

You'd need to cite those. I'm not aware of any studies "based on" 2016 and would be surprised to see studies in 2019 that had comprehensive access to 2018 data.

But the point would remain: even if we see small effects, those would be inside the margin of several recent elections. And, aside from the evidence of partisan intent in numerous cases, they would be additional hurdles to voting in service of a problem that exists in <10 cases of in-person voter fraud per election. If >10 people are disenfranchised, that's a poor solution to the problem being solved.

And that's aside from the evidence, presented repeatedly in the past, of the partisan intent behind many of these laws.

What's really funny is that I don't believe I tied Strict Voter ID laws exclusively to black voters. In fact, I believe my example was students. So why did you and others decide to go gung-ho on the racism angle?

--Sam

[Sam]

Um, 3% is w/i most margins of error. It's not huge - it's a statistical blip.

FYI: That means it could just as easily represent an increase in minority turnout. Which is more plausible - people may be more inclined to vote if they think their vote is their own.
And yet another request for affirmation?

One would have to see the studies to determine MoE but a 3% margin of error wouldn't mean 0%-3%. It would mean 0%-6% and several big elections in recent years have been well inside 3%.

--Sam

[DivineOb]

Um, 3% is w/i most margins of error. It's not huge - it's a statistical blip.

I'm using LPoT numbers. If all studies were within the MoE she should have said that *all* the studies were inconclusive. Her post implied statistical significance in some of the studies.

FYI: That means it could just as easily represent an increase in minority turnout. Which is more plausible - people may be more inclined to vote if they think their vote is their own.

And I could say that it's more plausible that people are less likely to vote because they don't feel the need to cancel out all the illegal voting. We can both make things up. That's why hard data, even in a soft science, is preferable to your and my intuition about a group of people we, or at least I, am not a member of.

And yet another request for affirmation?

Yes, another one. I was chewed out by you for assuming LPoT's answer was 'no' and I was chewed out by LPoT for assuming her answer was 'yes'. I don't want to assume the thoughts of people who see the world so differently from me because my assumptions will necessary be guided by my bias and part of why I came back to this board was to talk with people who could help me challenge my biases.

There are people on this board for whom I believe their honest answer would be "Republicans winning is ALL that matters." Fine, but those are people I *cannot* respect. I try not to people too many people in that category if I can help it.

[DivineOb]

Shot

Anyone else find it amusing how the left-wing contingent here likes to bring up alleged voter in Florida in 2000 but always ignore the incontrovertible suppression of Republican votes there.

Chaser

Al Gore's Florida campaign chairman cried foul about this[/url] and IIRC Joe Lieberman, Gore's running mate, also expressed displeasure over this stunt.

[oxmixmudd]

You didn't. He apparently took your sarcasm to be a statement of your actual beliefs. Whether his mistake was feigned or genuine is hard to say, but knowing ox, I suspect the former.

I need to remember you guys are not willing to think above a 7th grade level and make sure I spell out in mundane detail all the connections I'm using to derive my conclusion. Problem is, I'm not sure you or pix have the attention span to be able to read such a post.

[lilpixieofterror]

I need to remember you guys are not willing to think above a 7th grade level and make sure I spell out in mundane detail all the connections I'm using to derive my conclusion. Problem is, I'm not sure you or pix have the attention span to be able to read such a post.

[Teallaura]

One would have to see the studies to determine MoE but a 3% margin of error wouldn't mean 0%-3%. It would mean 0%-6% and several big elections in recent years have been well inside 3%.

--Sam

Exactly - which means no conclusion can be drawn from such numbers. Elections, unlike surveys, have no MoE. They aren't samples - they are pop counts.

[oxmixmudd]

You have not been able to accurately reflect back most of my comments over the last year at least. What can I conclude but that you are missing some neurons upstairs? But feel fee to demonstrate I'm wrong. Keep in mind that will require more logical thought and far less ranting. Ball's in your court.