3 ms·

The title should have been "Strong mobilization efforts needed to neutralize voter turnout reduction of ID laws", because that's what the data in their abstract

by titzer 5y ago

The title should have been "Strong mobilization efforts needed to neutralize voter turnout reduction of ID laws", because that's what the data in their abstract actually says.

unclebucknasty 5y ago
Exactly this. In fact, the current title is actually refuted by the abstract.
- tessierashpool 5y ago
  that's a pretty significant title error
  - bena 5y ago
    It's not quite an error. The poster's other submissions are not surprising given the editorializing of this abstract.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
elil17 5y ago
Even then, there was a 0.1% reduction in voter turnout, but the reduction was primarily among white voters. Although this isn’t the negative outcome that myself and other opponents of voter ID laws were worried about, any policy that reduces voter engagement is bad - even if it doesn’t lead to racial inequality.
- nverno 5y ago
  I agree, but there needs to be some compromise between integrity and ease. As programmers, we all know how easily systems can be compromised. Having effectively zero barrier to getting proper ID seems like a simple, inexpensive solution, especially given you already need ID for so many other essentials
  - grayhatter 5y ago
    As a programmer, you should know to not touch things that aren't broken. There's no evidence of meaningful abuse, why are you making everything more complicated with ratelimits? Speaking as someone who actually supports state identification requirements for voting.
    - gruez 5y ago
      "we haven't been hacked before, why switched to hashed passwords?"
      - bastawhiz 5y ago
        That's not a good comparison. Hashed passwords protect secrets from being exposed when a system is abused, they don't protect the system from abuse.
    - nverno 5y ago
      I didn't claim there was, but at the same time I'm convinced there easily could be [1] if people play down security and don't take any precautions. Election fraud isn't uncommon around the world, and there is plenty of incentive. [[I do think Americans in general have been pretty good so far, but I'm no expert, and I'm not sure anyone could convince me 100% there is no fraud ever here]] More importantly, I think it is necessary for everyone to /feel/ satisfied that the elections are fair to maintain faith in the system. Requiring IDs seems like an easy nod to that effect [1] https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-elections-russia-hack-how-to-hack-an-election-in-seven-minutes-214144/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-electio...
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > More importantly, I think it is necessary for everyone to /feel/ satisfied that the elections are fair. Requiring IDs seems like an easy nod to that effect Its obviously not, because lots of people think that it it is unfair in and of itself, and this feeling is buttressed by the fact that politicians pushing for specific versions of it keep getting caught admitting that their motives are more about stopping people that don't vote their way from voting than election security in the usual sense when they think they have a friendly audience.
- mijowi 5y ago
  .1% sounds statistically insignificant to me
  - KennyBlanken 5y ago
    .1% of the US population is 300,000+ people. That's not "insignificant" by any stretch and could easily sway an election given many of them come down to a handful of votes.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      Those people are distributed across the nation. If they were all in Columbus or Detroit you'd have an argument but in reality they're probably distributed roughly the same way the general population is. There are ~150k voting precincts in the US. 300k people across the nation is probably on the order of a dozen at the most effected precincts. Opening half an hour earlier and closing half an hour later would have a larger effect on ensuring people get to vote.
  - elil17 5y ago
    There’s this funny little thing called sample size…
ryantgtg 5y ago
Could this be an issue of that sentence you quoted being really difficult to comprehend? So they attempted to rewrite it and got it wrong? I’ve read it 10x and am still baffled. It’s the “voter turnout reduction of ID laws” part that I don’t understand. I guess I should go read the paper itself.
- titzer 5y ago
  The quotes were my attempt at summarizing their abstract, what they actually wrote was: > The lack of negative impact on voter turnout cannot be attributed to voters’ reaction against the laws, measured by campaign contributions and self-reported political engagement. However, the likelihood that nonwhite voters were contacted by a campaign increases by 4.7 percentage points, suggesting that parties’ mobilization might have offset modest effects of the laws on the participation of ethnic minorities. Finally, strict ID requirements have no effect on fraud, actual or perceived. Overall, our findings suggest that efforts to improve elections may be better directed at other reforms. Which is completely different from their title.
- brendoelfrendo 5y ago
  > It’s the “voter turnout reduction of ID laws” That should be interpreted as "voter turnout reduction due to ID laws," or perhaps "voter turnout reduction as a result of the implementation of ID laws."

by titzer 5y ago

The title should have been "Strong mobilization efforts needed to neutralize voter turnout reduction of ID laws", because that's what the data in their abstract actually says.

unclebucknasty 5y ago

Exactly this. In fact, the current title is actually refuted by the abstract.

tessierashpool 5y ago
that's a pretty significant title error
- bena 5y ago
  It's not quite an error. The poster's other submissions are not surprising given the editorializing of this abstract.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

elil17 5y ago

Even then, there was a 0.1% reduction in voter turnout, but the reduction was primarily among white voters. Although this isn’t the negative outcome that myself and other opponents of voter ID laws were worried about, any policy that reduces voter engagement is bad - even if it doesn’t lead to racial inequality.

nverno 5y ago
I agree, but there needs to be some compromise between integrity and ease. As programmers, we all know how easily systems can be compromised. Having effectively zero barrier to getting proper ID seems like a simple, inexpensive solution, especially given you already need ID for so many other essentials
- grayhatter 5y ago
  As a programmer, you should know to not touch things that aren't broken. There's no evidence of meaningful abuse, why are you making everything more complicated with ratelimits? Speaking as someone who actually supports state identification requirements for voting.
  - gruez 5y ago
    "we haven't been hacked before, why switched to hashed passwords?"
    - bastawhiz 5y ago
      That's not a good comparison. Hashed passwords protect secrets from being exposed when a system is abused, they don't protect the system from abuse.
  - nverno 5y ago
    I didn't claim there was, but at the same time I'm convinced there easily could be [1] if people play down security and don't take any precautions. Election fraud isn't uncommon around the world, and there is plenty of incentive. [[I do think Americans in general have been pretty good so far, but I'm no expert, and I'm not sure anyone could convince me 100% there is no fraud ever here]] More importantly, I think it is necessary for everyone to /feel/ satisfied that the elections are fair to maintain faith in the system. Requiring IDs seems like an easy nod to that effect [1] https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-elections-russia-hack-how-to-hack-an-election-in-seven-minutes-214144/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-electio...
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > More importantly, I think it is necessary for everyone to /feel/ satisfied that the elections are fair. Requiring IDs seems like an easy nod to that effect Its obviously not, because lots of people think that it it is unfair in and of itself, and this feeling is buttressed by the fact that politicians pushing for specific versions of it keep getting caught admitting that their motives are more about stopping people that don't vote their way from voting than election security in the usual sense when they think they have a friendly audience.
mijowi 5y ago
.1% sounds statistically insignificant to me
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  .1% of the US population is 300,000+ people. That's not "insignificant" by any stretch and could easily sway an election given many of them come down to a handful of votes.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    Those people are distributed across the nation. If they were all in Columbus or Detroit you'd have an argument but in reality they're probably distributed roughly the same way the general population is. There are ~150k voting precincts in the US. 300k people across the nation is probably on the order of a dozen at the most effected precincts. Opening half an hour earlier and closing half an hour later would have a larger effect on ensuring people get to vote.
- elil17 5y ago
  There’s this funny little thing called sample size…

ryantgtg 5y ago

Could this be an issue of that sentence you quoted being really difficult to comprehend? So they attempted to rewrite it and got it wrong? I’ve read it 10x and am still baffled. It’s the “voter turnout reduction of ID laws” part that I don’t understand. I guess I should go read the paper itself.

titzer 5y ago
The quotes were my attempt at summarizing their abstract, what they actually wrote was: > The lack of negative impact on voter turnout cannot be attributed to voters’ reaction against the laws, measured by campaign contributions and self-reported political engagement. However, the likelihood that nonwhite voters were contacted by a campaign increases by 4.7 percentage points, suggesting that parties’ mobilization might have offset modest effects of the laws on the participation of ethnic minorities. Finally, strict ID requirements have no effect on fraud, actual or perceived. Overall, our findings suggest that efforts to improve elections may be better directed at other reforms. Which is completely different from their title.
brendoelfrendo 5y ago
> It’s the “voter turnout reduction of ID laws” That should be interpreted as "voter turnout reduction due to ID laws," or perhaps "voter turnout reduction as a result of the implementation of ID laws."