08 Aug 20
@wolfgang59 saidSo wanting to see stats is "news to you"???
Like this is news to you?
No wonder you haven't a clue.
And you think *I* don't have a clue? catch up with the conversation.
@earl-of-trumps saidYou're like someone joining a science forum demanding proof the Earth orbits the sun. A basic level of knowledge is required before trying to debate.
So wanting to see stats is "news to you"???
And you think *I* don't have a clue? catch up with the conversation.
08 Aug 20
@earl-of-trumps saidNo no no you’re claiming that WHITES are effected by voter ID suppression you have to provide the figures to prove that, that’s how a debate works.
@vivify Bruh. That's the whole point.
It's not whites being affected by voter ID laws, minorities are.
----------
No no no no no. Vivify, you cannot make the remark that whites are or are not
affected by Voter ID laws, because whites were left completely out of the statistics.
That's *my* point that you seem to slough off, some how.
Here is my op ...[text shortened]... ember what I asked for??
I asked for stats on what percentage of each group, white/black, has ID's.
You cannot demand that your opponent provide the figures that support YOUR argument.
I’m sure that there will be white people without ID but if you think the numbers are on a par with those of minorities then produce the figures.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
@kevcvs57 saidI'm reposting the figures that I posted on the previous page...
No no no you’re claiming that WHITES are effected by voter ID suppression you have to provide the figures to prove that, that’s how a debate works.
You cannot demand that your opponent provide the figures that support YOUR argument.
I’m sure that there will be white people without ID but if you think the numbers are on a par with those of minorities then produce the figures.
According to the table on page 3 [1]
5% of Whites have no confirmed ID.
13% for Blacks
10% Hispanic
Given these statistics it is going to disproportionately remove White votes, not Black and Hispanic.
I'm surprised Dems aren't pushing for ID restrictions.
Consider the voter turnout gap by race in 2016 according to [2].
65.3% For White
59.6% for Black
47.6 for Hispanic
Just look at the ratio of White votes lost to Blacks + Hispanics assuming that the ID issue is uniformly distributed among voters ( i.e there is no reason to conclude that a significantly larger portion of Black/Hispanic voters are affected by ID laws above the percentage of those that don't have ID's) In other words, its not like we would expect 80%( or some large number) of all black voters to have the ID issue voting when only 13% are missing ID's. Same for Hispanics.
Whites:
71% of Population [1]
65.3% Voter Turnout [2]
5% Without Confirmed ID [1]
Blacks:
12% of Population [1]
59.6% Voter Turnout [2]
13% Without Confirmed ID [1]
Hispanics:
11% of Population [1]
47.6% Voter Turnout [2]
10% Without Confirmed ID [1]
So there are about 1.6 White Votes lost for every Black/Hispanic Vote Lost if ID is going to prevent them from voting.
0.05*0.653*0.71* P / ( 0.13*0.596*0.12 + 0.10*0.476*0.11 )*P ≈ 1.6
[1] http://www.projectvote.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/AMERICANS-WITH-PHOTO-ID-Research-Memo-February-2015.pdf
[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/12/black-voter-turnout-fell-in-2016-even-as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/
This seems to show that minorities would be disproportionately affected on an individual basis, but that White's would be disproportionately affected in the actual election. For every1 Black/Hispanic vote lost to tighter voter ID laws, you would lose 1.6 White votes.
08 Aug 20
1 edit
@joe-shmo saidFrom your own numbers, there are also nearly six times as many white people as black people, so that 1.6 votes means nothing per population. Blacks still experience a larger voice silencing per vote lost. The result is much larger suppression of black vote/voice than white vote/voice.
I'm reposting the figures that I posted on the previous page.
[quote]According to the table on page 3 [1]
5% of Whites have no confirmed ID.
13% for Blacks
10% Hispanic
Given these statistics it is going to disproportionately remove White votes, not Black and Hispanic.
I'm surprised Dems aren't pushing for ID restrictions.
Consider the voter turnout gap by r ...[text shortened]... tion. For every1 Black/Hispanic vote lost to tighter voter ID laws, you would lose 1.6 White votes.
08 Aug 20
@earl-of-trumps saidBut I don't think Britain is a particularly trusting society - certainly less so than the continental European countries with which I'm acquainted.
@Teinosuke
It's nice to have a trusting society to enjoy that level of freedom.
I wish I could say the same for this side of the pond.
The fact is that identity fraud is hard to pull off in any significant way. The impostor has to pretend to be someone else, whose name and address he must both know; he has to bank on them not having turned up at the polling station before him; even if they turn up after him, he'll probably get in trouble when they report that their vote was stolen (and there's a good chance that the person who gave the impostor his ballot paper will remember). All that risk and trouble just to shift one vote? And if it's going to be done in any numbers, you need a proper conspiracy... which is going to be instantly rumbled the minute somebody turns up whose vote has already been cast for him, or possibly even before, if the victim voted already.
How is the situation in the States any different?
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
@suzianne saidThere aren't six times as many white voters as their are minority voters.
From your own numbers, there are also nearly six times as many white people as black people, so that 1.6 votes means nothing per population. Blacks still experience a larger voice silencing per vote lost. The result is much larger suppression of black vote/voice than white vote/voice.
However, I will concede that a threshold must be met, and it does depends on these ratios. So a factor of 1.6 may not actually be enough to increase minority electoral power. I'll examine those figures too.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
@joe-shmo saidAccording to Pew, the projection of White to Minority vote is going to be ≈ 2.
There aren't six times as many white voters as their are minority voters.
However, I will concede that a threshold must be met, and it does depends on these ratios. So a factor of 1.6 may not actually be enough to increase minority electoral power. I'll examine those figures too.
2 is much less than 6, and as such voter ID laws are much closer to doing nothing to the "racial power dynamic" democrats so desperately rely on.
I personally believe that the reason Dems don't want voter ID laws is obviously not because they think it will drastically disenfranchise minorities, because it won't. Instead, it is that artificial migration prior to the election will be near impossible to pull off, and that is why the people in power of your party don't want the ID laws.
Imagine in every swing state artificial migrants are shipped in from surrounding blue states and given a short term swing state address. You don't currently have to have a Valid state ID to vote, just a valid address that meets the time requirements of residence.
Now imagine trying that same con when you have to present some valid form of identification. It would become readily apparent to the pollsters that their districts are being inundated by "recently out of state residents"( i.e. the election fraud that is prevalent would be entirely too obvious and traceable to persist ).
[1] https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/an-early-look-at-the-2020-electorate/
08 Aug 20
@kevcvs57 saidKev, it is on you to provide FULL statistics, not just the ones that "work"
No no no you’re claiming that WHITES are effected by voter ID suppression you have to provide the figures to prove that, that’s how a debate works.
You cannot demand that your opponent provide the figures that support YOUR argument.
I’m sure that there will be white people without ID but if you think the numbers are on a par with those of minorities then produce the figures.
you broached the matter, you supply the goods.
@vivify saidWith respect, that's not true.
No, it's not. The aim is to keep immigrants or minorities from voting. Just like in the U.S., there's a strong xenophobic culture among UK conservatives. Tories are aware they aren't popular with immigrants as a result, so they seem to be taking measures similar to Republicans to keep them from voting.
In many ways, the Democratic Party bar Senator Sanders is economically more right-wing than the Conservative Party - things like universal healthcare are not partisan political issues in the UK. However, since it occupies the position of America's "left-wing" party (despite not being left-wing), the Democratic Party might be more vocally "woke" on social issues, but in practice, there isn't a substantial difference between their average positions on social issues and those of a typical Tory. In an extremely oversimplified nutshell, UK politics is leftists vs liberals or moderates, while US politics is Liberals or moderates against whatever one might call President Trump and his supporters (either ideologically incoherent or off the charts).
Anyway, UK politics isn't nearly as focussed on the "culture war" over social issues like abortion, race, LGBT issues etc. Labour might be considered actively "progressive", while these things are close to being non-issues in the Tory party. UK politics tends to be more split along economic, rather than social, lines and parallels with America are thin. In the US, wealthy states vote Democrat and poor states vote Republican. However, if you look at a list of constituencies by wealth, you'll find that the Tories take almost all of the better-off seats (peppered with a few Lib Dems), while Labour takes almost all the poorest.
Take a look at the following map - it's outdated (2017) but the trend is clear. The Tory Party is historically perceived as protecting the interests of the middle and upper classes and the wealthy South, which is why Boris Johnson's wins in many working-class, Northern seats were quite unusual.
https://www.citymetric.com/politics/i-ranked-every-uk-constituency-deprivation-and-then-coloured-them-party-affiliation-fun
The trend stays rather constant when applied to ethnic minorities and immigrants. British Chinese, who are highly successful, are very pro-Tory. Indians (also successful) also lean Tory. Other groups, such as people of African and Caribbean descent, tend to be less successful and their political affiliations reflect that.
While I wish to avoid pointing to individual examples of ethnic minorities or immigrants in positions of power in the Conservative government, it's pretty clear that there isn't a strong xenophobic culture within the Tories. None of the four "Great Offices" is held by someone who is entirely white British. Indeed, the Chancellor (the second most powerful British politician after the prime minister) is Indian and is quite possibly the most popular politician in the country. His predecessor was of Pakistani origins. Likewise, the Home Secretary is also Indian. The Foreign Secretary is half Czech Jewish, and the prime minister himself is partly Turkish and partly Jewish.
08 Aug 20
@Teinosuke
I'm not so familiar as to say what is different. I think here, accommodations are
made for homeless and illegal aliens. Not sure how or if it is universal but that
is closer to the source of the argument.
08 Aug 20
@ashiitaka saidThank you for this post. A few things:
With respect, that's not true.
In many ways, the Democratic Party bar Senator Sanders is economically more right-wing than the Conservative Party - things like universal healthcare are not partisan political issues in the UK. However, since it occupies the position of America's "left-wing" party (despite not being left-wing), the Democratic Party might be more vocally " ...[text shortened]... Secretary is half Czech Jewish, and the prime minister himself is partly Turkish and partly Jewish.
You said said wealthy states vote Democratic. The wealth of states are not the relevant factor. It has more to do with culture. Educated people are much more likely to be liberals who also happen to earn more than uneducated people, who are more likely to vote Republican. In the U.S., education factors much more into being liberal than wealth.
That said said, the wealthiest 1 percent tend to support Republicans, who are well known to support policies that favor the rich. It's also Republicans who continually cut down welfare programs to help the poor, which Democrats defend. This isn't an opinion, even Republicans here will confirm their disdain for welfare programs.
Regarding voter ID, in light of what you've posted, why do you believe Tories want to enforce them?
08 Aug 20
@joe-shmo saidIt’s all bad / good either way. Forget colour and ethnicity it’s poorer people that tend to fall foul of ID voter laws.
I'm reposting the figures that I posted on the previous page...
[quote]According to the table on page 3 [1]
5% of Whites have no confirmed ID.
13% for Blacks
10% Hispanic
Given these statistics it is going to disproportionately remove White votes, not Black and Hispanic.
I'm surprised Dems aren't pushing for ID restrictions.
Consider the voter turnout gap by ...[text shortened]... tion. For every1 Black/Hispanic vote lost to tighter voter ID laws, you would lose 1.6 White votes.
That’s why Republicans support voter suppression by ID because poor people are more likely to vote for a party that has the best record of supporting poor people in regard to welfare, health and affordable housing etc.
That’s why the Republicans and this instance Trump are always thinking of ways to cut them out of the ballot.
@vivify saidYou said wealthy states vote Democratic. The wealth of states are not the relevant factor. It has more to do with culture. Educated people are much more likely to be liberals who also happen to earn more than uneducated people, who are more likely to vote Republican. In the U.S., education factors much more into being liberal than wealth.
Thank you for this post. A few things:
You said wealthy states vote Democratic. The wealth of states are not the relevant factor. It has more to do with culture. Educated people are much more likely to be liberals who also happen to earn more than uneducated people, who are more likely to vote Republican. In the U.S., education factors much more into being liberal than ...[text shortened]...
Regarding voter ID, in light of what you've posted, why do you believe Tories want to enforce them?
I know. However, I didn't want to make an implicit association between being wealthy and being educated, which doesn't apply to the UK scenario. The Tories might win the wealthier seats, but Labour leads among graduates by a margin of 3:2, which is not overwhelming but is nevertheless substantial.
Regarding voter ID, in light of what you've posted, why do you believe Tories want to enforce them?
To be honest, it is not an issue I have followed. My father is there, but I have not lived there for a decade. I have only voted in one election - last year's general election here in South Africa. It was the first time I was old enough. I may follow UK politics, but I am not always aware of the smaller details that one really learns from experience, like whether ID is required to vote.
I am not sure what the true motive is. I think it is plausible that it is to do with poorer people not having ID books, but I would have to know more to make an informed comment. I was only really responding to what you wrote about a strong xenophobic culture in the Tory Party. I was dismissing your assessment of their motives as unlikely but not offering an alternative opinion. I know that I am required to have ID to vote in South Africa, which would seemingly go against the ruling party's interests (their base is among those less likely to have the document) if we assume that the Tories are exploiting that in the UK. However, I can see how voter fraud is a much bigger issue here, so not having them might not be an option, given the potential for vote-rigging and corruption.