So, if you make a rule and have data that shows that it will impact one group more than another. How is it not a bias if you implement that rule?
More horror from liberal rules
- Thread starter TopSecretBoiler
- Start date
So, if you make a rule and have data that shows that it will impact one group more than another. How is it not a bias if you implement that rule?
I'm going to try really hard to not get into the statistics (probably should have said that black people are "born" more violent for the point you were trying to make.) that you may have opened the door. I know what you were saying, but others may not. Data shows blacks are more violent, but you cannot say they are born that way is more precise. I get what you are saying, but math is hard and not allowed in here.
Nope. You can study the relationship between race and crime but you are trying to prove a correlation. I’m happy to let you study and report your results till the cows come home. I’m saying you know implementing a rule will impact one group more than another and implement it then that is a bias.
Not expectations just the nature of predicting how people will act in large groups. We use this approach for other social sciences such as economics. Can we not try to study and make predictions about this issue in the same way?
I don't know what to say. I literally just gave you an example of why that is a fallacy. Skin color is not the CAUSAL element here. You are inferring that incorrectly.
Are we proposing using the same id? Do they have an id to get booze?
I don’t care how absolutely difficult it is. That varies from person to person. I’m saying if you make a change to make it more difficult than fewer people willl vote. Is this controversial? I didn’t say anything about minorities. I do believe that life in general is more difficult for people who don’t have many resources and that has nothing to do with intelligence.
I dont know the reason. For this example it does not matter what the cause is. If you require an id it is more likely people that already have an id will have an id by the end because they already have the id. That is for the example of using an id that already exists as a voter id. If we come up with a brand new voter id, it is murkier, but there is no reason to suspect the group with higher instances of having one now won’t for the new one as well assuming that the process to get this new is is similar to the ones they already have.
Let’s say there is a group of people that I have data on. I know which ones have a screwdriver and which dont. If I tell them all to put a screw into a piece of wood within an hour, which ones will have more success? I’m not saying the group without a screwdriver won’t have any success. Some might have pliers or strong hands. Some might drive to the store. Some might be able to borrow from a neighbor. But don’t you agree that they will probably have less success than the people with screwdrivers?
If you really want to vote, you’ll put forth the minimal effort required to get an ID. If not, you won’t.
Cool.
Do you have a limit in how much difficult we can make it to vote? Is there a limit?
Yes, getting a photo ID. Which even the dumbest hillbilly IU fans have figured out.
These are pretty insignificant percentages.
As we've said before, if voting is important to these people, they'll figure out a way to comply with the laws. If it's not, they won't. Pretty simple.
Serious question (because I don't know the answer): Was any ID required to receive the govt stimulus provided the last 12+ months?
Say what?
That ID voting laws are specifically targeted at blacks or that making things 'easier' is basically saying "The process is too complex for you to figure out or comply with. Therefore, lets dumb it down".
Me neither, so we are in agreement. But then one of the big complaints by critics is illegal aliens receiving benefits, but if you need ID to receive benefits (seems like that's what you were suggesting with your question), then they must not be receiving benefits, right?
We are in agreement that only citizens should vote. I guess it comes down to how far one needs to go to "prove it," and whether proving it will require extraordinary effort that affects a non-negligible population.
May I ask how are you so sure? What has to be true for you to change your mind?
Let's take a step back. According to the link that Level42 (who clearly supports strict voter ID law) provides, voter ID law will disproportionately affect people of color, low income, and young adults. Now, let's forget whether there is an intent to suppress those voters, but can we acknowledge that such laws will affect them more than white, affluent and older adults?
Well, it's a funny thing with voting, because individual vote by itself doesn't matter much. However, collectively, it is very powerful. So if up to each of us, many won't go to great lengths if it's too difficult, because it is unlikely that my one vote will be the deciding vote. But COLLECTIVELY, it is very important.
It's kind of like vaccines. One individual not taking the vaccine is not going to tip the balance. But collectively, if we all take the vaccine, we can reach herd immunity (as we've seen with measles, where in 2000 WHO declared it eliminated in the US due to successful vaccine effort). So individually, a person might not think it's a big deal to get the vaccine, even though collectively, he does want the disease to be eliminated.
Measles: Answers to Common Questions
Get answers to common questions about measles and the vaccinewww.cdc.gov
So, it sounds like we're on the same page on a number of issues.
But, besides voting, there's any number of things that impact poor or young people, and maybe even POC.
Things like the ability to get a loan, ability to get credit, etc.
But, there's only 1 thing that would impact one's ability to vote, and that's getting the proper ID. Sure, there might be some hassle factor involved, and you might have to find some documents and go wait in line someplace, but that's the sacrifice you might have to make to have the right/privilege to vote in this country.
PROVE THAT YOU ARE A US CITIZEN AND THAT YOU ARE WHO YOU SAY YOU ARE.
Geez…this really isn’t that difficult to understand…
Wow, bet you are fun at parties, social events or just family gatherings. Maybe you could ask BuilderBob he claims to be a carpenter.
I bet he would know. Good idea.
@BuilderBob6
Cray thinks you may know the typical vodka content of screwdriver? Any guidance?
You want to believe something, even though I have demonstrated through logic and statistics isn't true. So go on. I don't care about liberal dogma. The process is the same for everyone.
To a democrat, everything can be perceived as racially biased. But, it probably impacts other demographics as well.
Even if the numbers were known, it's unlikely that the randomness of 13% of blacks not having the proper ID is enough to outweigh the benefits of requiring the ID.
What percentage of the group would it have to impact to be acceptable? 0%? 5%? 15%?
Because according to a statistic we saw earlier, only 15% of blacks would be impacted by the ID law.
What other rules/laws exist that impact one group over another yet the rule/law still exists?
How about the ability to read to obtain a drivers license?
Ability to prove a certain income level to obtain a mortgage or car loan?
Ability to lift certain amount of weight or stand on your feet to do a certain job?
I’ll take a net 0% impact. So, some outreach program to go along with the requirement With as close as elections generally are 15% is a huge number.
As my Dad says: "Nobody said life was fair"
(he also says "life is tough, get used to it")
So, what percentage of that 15% of black people would vote if they had the proper ID?
Black voter turnout was within 1 percentage point of whites in 2008 (65.2% compared to 66.1%) and was actually higher than whites in 2012 (66.6% compared to 64.1%). In 2016, voter turnout for Blacks dipped to 59.6%
Brookings.edu
I think your impression that vote ID laws restrict black voting more than white is 100% false, not to mention, statistically inaccurate.
So, if making a test that may ask a question that is part of a score that is used to determine placement, graduation etc and a certain demographic misses that question even though they had the opportunity to answer that question correctly, using that question of knowledge is viewed as "negative" bias if it is a "sorting mechanism" for something that results in a viewed negative bias? So, if we have a group of ... let's say illegals since they may not know much about the USA of relevance and we ask them some academic questions to discern if they are in a position to be placed in the various academic groups, that is a "negative" bias? Is it a bias to be against genital mutilation by some countries? Bias as a noun is neither good or bad as a word, it is a form of discretion...of discriminating information. Some would say that some lacking any morality is absent bias. Is that good? I mean the word itself is pretty meaningless without the full context
BTW, there is a statistical review in this warped view of discernment or lack of that opens the door to a lot of problems and "could in theory" reduce substantially, if not eliminate, assimilation by throwing away any requisite knowledge sought should "any" demographic (and there are a lot of those) score significantly worse than other demographis on given questions. This was never a consideration years ago. It is called DIF...differential item functioning and "could" allow the ignorant to remain ignorant by not counting scores in areas that "demographics" may show significant differences and actually not count those questions. In other words it is possible that if there was an expectation that everyone knew there were three branches of government say for a statewide graduation test and a group however defined did not know the answer, that question could be for review and thrown out due to "bias". Years ago, testing would try to see if wording was an issue and compare observed versus expected for various questions as well as missed questions and correlations of the scores that missed those.
Here is a good book on discrimination and disparities. The more discriminating we are the better.
Amazon product ASIN 154164560X
yep, when a demographic can't read and I do not advance that group into a class where reading is expected it is truly bias, but in a VERY good way. Bias has no sign. It may be good or bad. Were you indoctrinated in thinking being biased is bad as a given?
Can you imagine making a rule that those with a very high risk of heart failure cannot be a pilot and implementing that rule? There might even be a vision test that requires you to have a mirror on the outside of the car due to a rule. Next thing you know someone may put a rule in place for a loan to help ensure they can not lose money. Others might have a rule for a margin in profit that is held unless an override by an authorized person permits it that also penalized people.
This is along the dumb line of intersectionality. Show me a group that is oppressed and I'll show you another more oppressed. It is a logical fallacy to reach any conclusion other than it going back to the individual and yet we see some still hold on to intersectionality. Don't believe me...try it.
In every rule, there is always some demographic hurt by the rule...always. It has always been that way in the adult world.
Not only this, which is well stated, but particular to voter ID, the causal factor for the aggrieved demographic. Is the demographic injured due to racism inherent in the process, or not? I think both the statistics and logic are a clear no.
yeah...Do you want to hurt a legal voter or just add a "potential hoop" to not hurt the legal voter...the legitimate voter or the person that may miss a movie, breakfast or whatever. Just the very nature of doing this once every four years for president signifies this is an important event, not something to be taken lightly. As in any important event it is almost always accompanied by needing extra effort of it wouldn't be significant. Quite often we find an inverse correlation between significance and effort devoted. If we look at our lives do we not find the important events taking more effort than typical day. This is important, take the effort others do.
OK, so do many people, including myself.
OK, then has anything I cited didn't pass your bull$hit meter? If so, I'm happy to learn.
Thank you, although that really doesn't help to appease the millions of people who listened to Sidney Powell and believed the Dominion voting system changed their votes (even if she later said in court no reasonable person should believe what she said as factual). Nor does it stop many other forms of fraud like vote buying. Or coercion. Or fake registration forms. And I am not sure if in-person voting only is a viable solution when there are many states already have long history of mail-in voting or absentee ballot. Heck, even Trump himself voted by mail.
So you want to insist others to spend a couple hours (one way) to go to a voting place to vote and not allow mail-in voting?
Sorry, I am not following. Is your personal vote cancelled? What make you believe that?
Sorry, I am not really sure what you mean by "your vote cancelled illegally." Do you mean someone impersonate as you, such that your actual vote is not counted? It sounds like one can easily check his voting history. So if you have any doubt, you might want to try that to verify. What makes you believe that someone have stolen your vote?
Looking Up Your Voting Record Is as Easy as Opening an App
If you're interested in looking up your voting record, there are a few ways of doing so online. Your voting record contains your voter registration information and voting history as maintained by your state, and is publicly available.
I am not sure "regurgitating" is the right word. If someone already has answered your concern in a way better than I can explain, why not just use his words? Plus, I like to provide links such that people can follow up on the source.
As for ideas to ensure voter integrity, how about if you let me know what voter fraud activity you think is the most serious and rampant, and we start with that? If it's about someone "cancelling" your vote by pretending to be you, then I've already shown above that you can check your voting record.
Pretty strong words here. 81 million idiots - I suppose you are referring to the 81M popular votes that Biden got? I find it disappointing that someone like you whom I thought I could respect would make such a broad statement against, well, 81 million people. Just because people doesn't vote for your candidate doesn't mean they are idiot or unpatriotic. I generally avoid statements like that because I realize the world is not as simple as black and white. People vote for a candidate for a variety of reasons, and just because they prefer a candidate different than mine doesn't make them an idiot. We can want the same things (a stronger country) but just see different ways of achieving that.
So can you let me know what makes you so certain (or concerned) that your vote is compromised? I am not sure it is wise to insinuate how one votes has to do with a person's IQ. That said, I do think people are quite easily fooled. Again, using Sidney Powell as an example, I still see many people believing in her election fraud claims even though in court she defended her claims as "no reasonable person would believe as facts."
Sidney Powell argues in new court filing that no reasonable people would believe her election fraud claims
Right-wing lawyer Sidney Powell is claiming in a new court filing that reasonable people wouldn't have believed as fact her assertions of fraud after the 2020 presidential election.
It isn't just racially biased, but income too. As level42's link shows, 12% of folks under $25k income doesn't have a photo ID, compared to just 2% of the high income group.
I mean, if we make it explicit that poor people shouldn't be allowed to vote, or at least make them go through a ton more trouble in order to vote, then I guess you have a point.
And again, I am actually in support of requiring ID to vote. But how strict that has to be (e.g. active duty military ID OK but veterans affairs ID not) remains the question. Plus, even if photo IDs required, if your candidate loses, what stops anyone from blaming it on the voting machine changing their votes, as Sidney Powell alleges (though no reasonable person would believe it as fact, according to her own defense in court)? So when will it end?
So, what you're saying is that requiring voter ID or having more stringent ID requirements isn't racially biased but potentially economically biased, regardless of race?
And, if that were there case, could it be argued that this would negatively impact more likely Republican voters than Democrat voters?
I am not sure that's a fair comparison. For pilots, or any professional field, there is a much higher standard of qualification required. Voting is, supposedly much looser. The only requirement is that you are a citizen (at least in this day and age ... in the old days you can't be a woman, or a slave).
Now the issue is about proving that you are a citizen? And I agree that only citizens should be allowed to vote. So why is something like Student ID not be allowed as photo ID, when as Bonefish1 said, the school should have already verified the identity of the student to issue a student ID? Why is something like state employee ID not qualified, when again, the state should have already verified?
True that, I guess it depends on how egregious that is. If there is a rule saying that all white male cannot run for office, and people complain, can we use your reasoning, "In every rule, there is always some demographic hurt by the rule ... always. It has always been that way in the adult world" and shut them down?
No. I am saying the voter ID requirement affects not only race, but also poor, and young adults. That's what I am seeing from the data that Level42 shared. Whether that is intention or not, I can't tell for sure, but I think it is clear that it affects a specific group (be it race, income, or age) more than another group in a non-trivial manner.
Depends. In the 2020 election, the lowest income group (<$50k) voted Biden 57 to 42:
2020 Presidential Election exit polls: share of votes by income U.S. 2020 | Statista
According to exit polling in the 2020 Presidential Election in the United States, 57 percent of surveyed voters making less than 50,000 U.S.
www.statista.com
Blacks voted Biden 92 to 8, and younger voters 59 to 35 Biden:
Behind Biden’s 2020 Victory
A new analysis of 2020 validated voters examines change and continuity in the electorate, both of which contributed to Joe Biden’s victory. It looks at how new voters and voters who turned out in either 2016, 2018 or both voted in the 2020 presidential election, and offers a detailed portrait of...
www.pewresearch.org
In all, the ID requirement specifically affected Biden voters a lot more than Trump voters.
No. I am saying the voter ID requirement affects not only race, but also poor, and young adults. That's what I am seeing from the data that Level42 shared. Whether that is intention or not, I can't tell for sure, but I think it is clear that it affects a specific group (be it race, income, or age) more than another group in a non-trivial manner.
Depends. In the 2020 election, the lowest income group (<$50k) voted Biden 57 to 42:
2020 Presidential Election exit polls: share of votes by income U.S. 2020 | Statista
According to exit polling in the 2020 Presidential Election in the United States, 57 percent of surveyed voters making less than 50,000 U.S.
Blacks voted Biden 92 to 8, and younger voters 59 to 35 Biden:
Behind Biden’s 2020 Victory
A new analysis of 2020 validated voters examines change and continuity in the electorate, both of which contributed to Joe Biden’s victory. It looks at how new voters and voters who turned out in either 2016, 2018 or both voted in the 2020 presidential election, and offers a detailed portrait of...
In all, the ID requirement specifically affected Biden voters a lot more than Trump voters.
what were those numbers in 2016?
Do you think states with relatively strict voter ID requirements (New York) should loosen them?
What ID proof did people need to receive the govt stimulus money over the last 16 months? This is a serious question because I don't know. I'm guessing, someone either had to have filed a tax return, been on some sort of welfare, etc, which all presumably, would require ID.
Point being, if it's voting is important to someone (like getting free money might be), then they'll find a way to comply with the rules. If it's not, they won't. Super simple.
The single most important thing we can do as Americans is vote and the left is going above and beyond to make it less and less secure. It's all very telling.
For all those using voter ID or registration or voting for dead people or your vote getting "canceled"......or any voter fraud you claim is happening in our elections.........because after all the audits and recounts of the 2020 elections you can no longer blame the machines or Italygate or Venezuelan communists.........here is a database from The Heritage Foundation that shows cases of fraud dating back some 40 years. 1277 cases. Of course they say it's not a comprehensive list........not sure why they would not list all of them if they were trying to make an argument of substantial voter fraud. Or it could be that this is the complete list........and voter fraud as a common occurance is a myth.
Regardless, these arguments are all lacking one critical element.......PROOF. The only driving force for you is that Trump said there was massive fraud or a conspiracy. You're assuming facts not in evidence. I get your guy lost and he doesn't like it one bit.......but there's NO basis for your argument. Just doing like the former guy tells you......like most of the pubs in Congress.......only you're not repeating a lie because you're afraid of losing your job.
www.heritage.org
Regardless, these arguments are all lacking one critical element.......PROOF. The only driving force for you is that Trump said there was massive fraud or a conspiracy. You're assuming facts not in evidence. I get your guy lost and he doesn't like it one bit.......but there's NO basis for your argument. Just doing like the former guy tells you......like most of the pubs in Congress.......only you're not repeating a lie because you're afraid of losing your job.
Voter Fraud Map: Election Fraud Database | The Heritage Foundation
Explore a sampling of recent proven instances of election fraud from across the country. The database is intended to demonstrate the vulnerabilities in the election system and the many ways in which fraud is committed.
www.heritage.org
Last edited:
Strict ID Laws Don’t Stop Voters: Evidence from a U.S. Nationwide Panel, 2008–2018
Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Purdue Baseball 2024 Big Ten Baseball Tournament: Indiana 8, Purdue 6:
- Latest: Travis Miller