4 ms·

US history is why its a big deal to show your ID to vote. Wikipedia has a great summary of the racist policies voter ID laws were made to enforce, and that vot

US history is why its a big deal to show your ID to vote. Wikipedia has a great summary of the racist policies voter ID laws were made to enforce, and that voter fraud is "vanishingly rare" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_States#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_St...

seanmcdirmid 7y ago
If only the southern racists during Jim Crow promoted voter suppression tactics as a way of reducing voter fraud like today.
weberc2 7y ago
Maybe voter fraud is "vanishingly rare", but that statement in the wikipedia article only links to a NYT article which says: > Academic studies have repeatedly concluded that fraud at the ballot box — the sort that photo identification requirements might reduce — is already vanishingly rare. With no citation. Anyway, "vanishingly rare" could mean that fewer than 1% of votes are fraudulent, but those fraudulent votes could be concentrated in a handful of key counties thereby having a big impact. I'm not arguing in favor of tougher voter ID restrictions but rather in favor of educated discourse.
- wbronitsky 7y ago
  I want to point out that there is no citation for this straw-man thought experiment. Even the Heritage Foundation, which is incentivized to dig up as much voter fraud as it possibly can, has only found fewer than 1250 individual cases in what seems to be the last decade. This is overwhelmingly lower than the preposterous 1% presented in the above straw-man. https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud Indeed my point was not just about voter fraud, but the racist history of Voter ID laws in the US. My overall point was that there is overwhelming and easily accessible evidence that voter ID laws are racist and that voter fraud is not an issue.
  - weberc2 7y ago
    I can't tell what the "straw man" argument you're referring to. Could you clarify?

seanmcdirmid 7y ago

If only the southern racists during Jim Crow promoted voter suppression tactics as a way of reducing voter fraud like today.

weberc2 7y ago

Maybe voter fraud is "vanishingly rare", but that statement in the wikipedia article only links to a NYT article which says: > Academic studies have repeatedly concluded that fraud at the ballot box — the sort that photo identification requirements might reduce — is already vanishingly rare. With no citation. Anyway, "vanishingly rare" could mean that fewer than 1% of votes are fraudulent, but those fraudulent votes could be concentrated in a handful of key counties thereby having a big impact. I'm not arguing in favor of tougher voter ID restrictions but rather in favor of educated discourse.

wbronitsky 7y ago
I want to point out that there is no citation for this straw-man thought experiment. Even the Heritage Foundation, which is incentivized to dig up as much voter fraud as it possibly can, has only found fewer than 1250 individual cases in what seems to be the last decade. This is overwhelmingly lower than the preposterous 1% presented in the above straw-man. https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud Indeed my point was not just about voter fraud, but the racist history of Voter ID laws in the US. My overall point was that there is overwhelming and easily accessible evidence that voter ID laws are racist and that voter fraud is not an issue.
- weberc2 7y ago
  I can't tell what the "straw man" argument you're referring to. Could you clarify?