Crazy Ivan
Well-known member
It's a lot simpler just to call you a racist.
Yes. And it's lazy. And it's inaccurate.
Other than that, it's amazing!
It's a lot simpler just to call you a racist.
There was an exceptional candidate to inspire blacks, obviously, as you also noted.
That is what I mean. The black candidate was exceptional because he was an exception to the rule that Presidents are white - a rule that had been followed since the founding of the nation, even after 1870 when blacks were supposedly full citizens. Having one white President is not surprising. After all, whites were 87% of the population. But having that pattern repeated in 31 more elections is not mere chance. If it were mere chance based on the percentages in the population the probability of one white President is 87%. The probability of two in a row is 76%. The probability of three in a row is 66%. Four in a row is 57%. Ten in a row 25%. The probability of 20 white Presidents in a row is 6%. And the probability of 31 white Presidents in a row, which we had, after black emancipation, when black were supposed to be as free as whites and entitled to anything whites can do, is 1.3%. So when Obama was a real possibility, it was an exception to this long-running and very unlikely winning streak. It's not like we already had 4 or 5 black Presidents already. That would not have been an exceptional election. But the first ever in over 200 years - that is very exceptional. So you are right. It was because he was black - and rightly so!Oh, and by "exceptional" candidate, you meant "black" candidate. If you think black voters weren't energized by the fact that the "exceptional" candidate was black, you literally weren't paying any attention at all.
That is what I mean. The black candidate was exceptional because he was an exception to the rule that Presidents are white - a rule that had been followed since the founding of the nation, even after 1870 when blacks were supposedly full citizens. Having one white President is not surprising. After all, whites were 87% of the population. But having that pattern repeated in 31 more elections is not mere chance. If it were mere chance based on the percentages in the population the probability of one white President is 87%. The probability of two in a row is 76%. The probability of three in a row is 66%. Four in a row is 57%. Ten in a row 25%. The probability of 20 white Presidents in a row is 6%. And the probability of 31 white Presidents in a row, which we had, after black emancipation, when black were supposed to be as free as whites and entitled to anything whites can do, is 1.3%. So when Obama was a real possibility, it was an exception to this long-running and very unlikely winning streak. It's not like we already had 4 or 5 black Presidents already. That would not have been an exceptional election. But the first ever in over 200 years - that is very exceptional. So you are right. It was because he was black - and rightly so!
Your second source, which defines the categories based only on those who are 18 and older, says blacks represent 12.7% of the over 18 population. But only 12.2% of the votes were cast by blacks. Meanwhile, whites over 18 represented 57.8% of the population, but the white votes made up 71% of the votes cast, using data from your bgov.com source. I would not call that "virtually identical". Here is your more relevant source:You’re citing a different stat than I did. I’ll repeat what I posted earlier.
The overall US racial demographics are (from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States ):
White: 57.8%
Hispanic & Latino: 18.7%
Black: 12.1%
Asian: 5.9%
In the 2020 Presidential election, here's how the voting demographics broke down (from: https://about.bgov.com/brief/election-demographics-and-voter-turnout ):
White: 71%
Hispanic & Latino: 10.7%
Black: 12.2%
Asian: 4.4%
Why is it necessary to answer that question in order to admit that blacks are under-represented? I never said that blacks are the only ones being disenfranchised. Some Latinos in particular are living in fear of having some members of their family deported who are undocumented, even though they themselves are documented citizens. This can also cause one to shrink from drawing attention to themselves by voting. I don't know why Asian votes only make up 4.4% of total when they represent 6.3% of the population. But I don't want to get sidetracked.The real questions revolve around the UNDER-representation among Hispanics and Asians.
If you don't know whether or not in-person voter fraud is a real problem, why risk any unnecessary harm to anyone, and why complicate the job of election officials to solve a problem that may not be a real problem. I think that is a much more urgent question than why Asians are not represented in the vote proportionally to their presence in the population.I don’t know IF it’s a “real problem”.
First of all, we can forget about the town aspect because towns do not set voting requirements. That is set by your Secretary of State to be followed by all the towns. Secondly, I can think of any number of hypothetical reasons why a majority Democratic state legislature or Secretary of State might institute photo ID requirements. But without knowing which state it is, I can't research it to find out why it is the way it is. If you think revealing which state you live in is going to compromise your confidentiality, then don't expect this question to be answered. I refuse to guess at hypotheticals.What I DO know is that in my liberal, democrat dominated state and town, democrats implemented ID requirements to vote.
They aren't, as explained above.So three questions:
1. If voter ID laws suppressed the black vote, how come they were a tick OVER represented in the 2020 voting population?
We can use voter motivation as an explanation in specific elections, but not in most elections.2. How come blacks voted in much higher numbers during 2008 and 2012, when most voter ID laws were on the books, if we cannot use “voter motivation” as an explanation?
I'm not talking about a transient decrease. I'm talking about a long-standing underrepresentation.3. If we can see evidence of motivation as a reason for increased voting among blacks, why can’t we see a lack of motivation as a reason for DECREASED voting among blacks?
Yes vote ID requirements were barriers. It might have been even higher in 2008 and 2012, if not for voter ID laws. We will never know.Exactly my point. The black vote rose considerably because they had MOTIVATION to vote. Voter ID barriers were no barriers when they were motivated to vote.
This figure is unsupported and I think very inaccurate.Ergo...this is evidence that it's not voter ID laws themselves that are the problem; it's the motivation of the people that's the problem. Because getting an ID is really a very easy thing. It's a small, small barrier that is, for 99.999% of the people, very easy to overcome.
Your second source, which defines the categories based only on those who are 18 and older, says blacks represent 12.7% of the over 18 population. But only 12.2% of the votes were cast by blacks. Meanwhile, whites over 18 represented 57.8% of the population, but the white votes made up 71% of the votes cast, using data from your bgov.com source. I would not call that "virtually identical". Here is your more relevant source:
Why is it necessary to answer that question in order to admit that blacks are under-represented?
I never said that blacks are the only ones being disenfranchised. Some Latinos in particular are living in fear of having some members of their family deported who are undocumented, even though they themselves are documented citizens. This can also cause one to shrink from drawing attention to themselves by voting. I don't know why Asian votes only make up 4.4% of total when they represent 6.3% of the population. But I don't want to get sidetracked.
If you don't know whether or not in-person voter fraud is a real problem, why risk any unnecessary harm to anyone, and why complicate the job of election officials to solve a problem that may not be a real problem. I think that is a much more urgent question than why Asians are not represented in the vote proportionally to their presence in the population.
First of all, we can forget about the town aspect because towns do not set voting requirements. That is set by your Secretary of State to be followed by all the towns. Secondly, I can think of any number of hypothetical reasons why a majority Democratic state legislature or Secretary of State might institute photo ID requirements. But without knowing which state it is, I can't research it to find out why it is the way it is. If you think revealing which state you live in is going to compromise your confidentiality, then don't expect this question to be answered. I refuse to guess at hypotheticals.
They aren't, as explained above.
We can use voter motivation as an explanation in specific elections, but not in most elections.
I'm not talking about a transient decrease. I'm talking about a long-standing underrepresentation.
Yes vote ID requirements were barriers. It might have been even higher in 2008 and 2012, if not for voter ID laws. We will never know.
This figure is unsupported and I think very inaccurate.
Leave it to a rockribbed Republican like @Backup to dispense reliable advice to the Republican Party. Ron DeSantis' brand involved being faithful to Donald Trump, and in connection to that making the promise that he would not run against him in the primary. As near as I can tell, Ron DeSantis has absolutely destroyed his one credential for being president.I think he has a better chance of being the nominee than Trump does.
It’s tempting to believe DeSantis is a cynical, old school, Dixiecrat using bigotry to rile up the base.
But I guess we have to proceed assuming he sincerely believes all that crazy stuff.
In other words, you claim it’s a barrier and even though you can’t possibly quantify it, you insist that it must be true. That‘s quite the argument. Very persuasive!
Yes I totally made up that number. I did so because people need an ID for about a million things in life, and it’s incredibly easy to get one. It takes a severe situation for a person to not get an ID if they want one. And here’s the thing… you need an ID to REGISTER to vote. Four questions:
1. Why should citizens need to REGISTER to vote?
2. Why should citizens need an ID to register to vote (but not an ID to actually vote)?
3. How can a person manage to get an ID to register to vote, but lack the ability to have an ID to actually vote?
4. What kind of person lacks the ability to get an ID, but has the wherewithal to get themselves to a polling place to vote, or get a mail in ballot and send it in? A person who can manage to find a way to do the latter surely has the capacity to do the former.
(In many cases you don’t need an actual ID, as long as you have the last four digits of your SS#. That would work for voting as well.)
Is this a serious question? Registration is the demonstration to the appropriate body that you are eligible to vote.1. Why should citizens need to REGISTER to vote?
Actually, you don't, you can register with an affidavit, not uncommon amongst your Asian example where parents come over who do not speak english, drive etc. I registered 40 some odd years ago with a birth certificate and an affidavit from my parents. I have never presented an ID to vote, In NYS and I believe California is the same, you do not need to present ID at the polling place, but the polling place has a record of your resistration and your signture.2. Why should citizens need an ID to register to vote (but not an ID to actually vote)?
see above, as a poll inspector, I had a elderly oriental woman who who had no need of a DL or any of the common ids, (I don't think anyone would have accepted her Medicare card. Her children had to explain to her everything about the voting process and had to sign an affidavit to help her in the booth. She did the one thing she had to do which was to sign her name to declare that she was in fact eligible to vote. I then verified that it was the signature on file and gave her a ballot. Note, in the past, illiterate people would sign with an x, and accommodations are made for persons who are unable to fill out a ballot with a pen.3. How can a person manage to get an ID to register to vote, but lack the ability to have an ID to actually vote?
Again, see above, there are quite a few people who have no need of a formal ID, but not having one should not disenfranchise them any more than forgetting your wallet on the day of election should.4. What kind of person lacks the ability to get an ID, but has the wherewithal to get themselves to a polling place to vote, or get a mail in ballot and send it in? A person who can manage to find a way to do the latter surely has the capacity to do the former.
NO ss number or card is not a valid form of ID.(In many cases you don’t need an actual ID, as long as you have the last four digits of your SS#. That would work for voting as well.)
That is no worse than you claiming we NEED photo ID to solve the problem of in-person voter fraud even though you cannot possibly quantify that problem.In other words, you claim it’s a barrier and even though you can’t possibly quantify it...
There are people without suitable voter ID who still manage to live.I did so because people need an ID for about a million things in life.
How do you do that if the office that issues voter ID is 150 miles away and you don't have a car? It may be very easy for many people, but not for all., and it’s incredibly easy to get one.
We should not write off those in severe situations just because they are not like most people.It takes a severe situation for a person to not get an ID if they want one.
I'm not going to get into answering distracting questions that you have not connected to an argument, especially since you have not answered my very relevant question, which is, why do we NEED voter ID? What is the problem without it?And here’s the thing… you need an ID to REGISTER to vote. Four questions.
Give an example of people who live 150:miles away from any services. How do they survive?That is no worse than you claiming we NEED photo ID to solve the problem of in-person voter fraud even though you cannot possibly quantify that problem.
There are people without suitable voter ID who still manage to live.
How do you do that if the office that issues voter ID is 150 miles away and you don't have a car? It may be very easy for many people, but not for all.
We should not write off those in severe situations just because they are not like most people.
I'm not going to get into answering distracting questions that you have not connected to an argument, especially since you have not answered my very relevant question, which is, why do we NEED voter ID? What is the problem without it?
As compared to whites, the minority races are all under-represented. The problem with voter ID laws is that they disenfranchise other already marginalized groups too. And all for no purpose.I said that the percentage of blacks in the general population is virtually identical to the percentage of blacks who are in the voting population. And I’m right about that. Whits, however, are over represented in the voting compared to their representation in the general population. But that’s reflective not of underrepresentation among blacks, but among Hispanics and Asians.
So why are Hispanics and Asians underrepresented in the voting population compared to the general population? Maybe ID laws help explain it among Hispanics, but not among Asians. So here must be another reason (or reasons).
Your suggestion of motivation is a good one. Blacks were not as motivated as they might have been before Obama because none of the candidates before then seemed to hold out much hope of being concerned about them. If all the choices appear to them to be inadequate choices, it stands to reason that they might not care as much. But on top of this, voter ID is yet another hurdle combined with the others.I’ve suggested motivation to vote as one reason. You think that’s bunk. Ok. What’s your explanation? It can’t be “because of voter ID laws”.
Understood. I don't agree with your answer, but since you don't really want me to answer it, I won't try.Well I can tell you that I’ve asked some people in local politics in my town this question about my state’s voter ID laws. These people are democrats. Their answer? Because we want to make sure that the person who comes in to vote is who they say they are. It doesn’t dawn on them that it might be racist.
So yeah, I already knew the answer to this question before I asked you to consider it. Sorry…that was mean of me.
You mean back in the 1950's? Well, there was lynching, state laws, grandfather clauses, literacy tests, etc.Before voter ID laws went into effect in the 2000s, why did blacks vote in lower percentages than whites?
I can only speculate on why the system is set up to make it hard for them, but if I had to guess, I would say it is hard because those in power want to appease their rich political supporters and prevent the riff-raff from gaining power.Also…. Why is it so hard for blacks to get IDs?
Oh, then I would definitely be in favor of it. But understand this means the government takes the full responsibility for translating birth certificates into voter registrations and IDs, coming to the person's home to take the photo and deliver them and ID. The actual cost of the ID is not the issue. It is the onerous procedure one has to go through. There is no reason why anyone should have to produce a birth certificate. The government has already got all the records of birth certificates. Same thing for naturalization papers. If the government took full responsibility for the ID process, I would have no objection. Of course that will never happen. But then we don't have a problem without voter ID, do we?And if the government paid for an ID for everyone that doesn’t have one or can’t afford one, so there would literally be no reason why any adult citizen couldn’t have an ID, would you still be opposed to it? Why?
I didn't say 150 miles from any service. I said 150 miles from the office where you apply for the ID.Give an example of people who live 150:miles away from any services. How do they survive?
Give an exampleI didn't say 150 miles from any service. I said 150 miles from the office where you apply for the ID.
I notice that you jumped from the 1950s to the 2000s.As compared to whites, the minority races are all under-represented. The problem with voter ID laws is that they disenfranchise other already marginalized groups too. And all for no purpose.
Your suggestion of motivation is a good one. Blacks were not as motivated as they might have been before Obama because none of the candidates before then seemed to hold out much hope of being concerned about them. If all the choices appear to them to be inadequate choices, it stands to reason that they might not care as much. But on top of this, voter ID is yet another hurdle combined with the others.
Understood. I don't agree with your answer, but since you don't really want me to answer it, I won't try.
You mean back in the 1950's? Well, there was lynching, state laws, grandfather clauses, literacy tests, etc.
I can only speculate on why the system is set up to make it hard for them, but if I had to guess, I would say it is hard because those in power want to appease their rich political supporters and prevent the riff-raff from gaining power.
Oh, then I would definitely be in favor of it. But understand this means the government takes the full responsibility for translating birth certificates into voter registrations and IDs, coming to the person's home to take the photo and deliver them and ID. The actual cost of the ID is not the issue. It is the onerous procedure one has to go through. There is no reason why anyone should have to produce a birth certificate. The government has already got all the records of birth certificates. Same thing for naturalization papers. If the government took full responsibility for the ID process, I would have no objection. Of course that will never happen. But then we don't have a problem without voter ID, do we?
Is this a serious question? Registration is the demonstration to the appropriate body that you are eligible to vote.
Actually, you don't, you can register with an affidavit, not uncommon amongst your Asian example where parents come over who do not speak english, drive etc. I registered 40 some odd years ago with a birth certificate and an affidavit from my parents. I have never presented an ID to vote, In NYS and I believe California is the same, you do not need to present ID at the polling place, but the polling place has a record of your resistration and your signture.
see above, as a poll inspector, I had a elderly oriental woman who who had no need of a DL or any of the common ids, (I don't think anyone would have accepted her Medicare card. Her children had to explain to her everything about the voting process and had to sign an affidavit to help her in the booth. She did the one thing she had to do which was to sign her name to declare that she was in fact eligible to vote. I then verified that it was the signature on file and gave her a ballot. Note, in the past, illiterate people would sign with an x, and accommodations are made for persons who are unable to fill out a ballot with a pen.
Again, see above, there are quite a few people who have no need of a formal ID, but not having one should not disenfranchise them any more than forgetting your wallet on the day of election should.
If you have demonstrated the eligibility to vote at some time, there is no reason you should ever be denied it thenceforth for lack of some piece of paper or difficulty getting to the polling place at a limited set of hours.
NO ss number or card is not a valid form of ID.
Your Social Security card is not an identification document and, in many situations, you only need to know your Social Security number (you do not need to show the physical card).
Social Security Administration (.gov)
That is no worse than you claiming we NEED photo ID to solve the problem of in-person voter fraud even though you cannot possibly quantify that problem.
There are people without suitable voter ID who still manage to live.
How do you do that if the office that issues voter ID is 150 miles away and you don't have a car? It may be very easy for many people, but not for all.
We should not write off those in severe situations just because they are not like most people.
I'm not going to get into answering distracting questions that you have not connected to an argument, especially since you have not answered my very relevant question, which is, why do we NEED voter ID? What is the problem without it?
As compared to whites, the minority races are all under-represented. The problem with voter ID laws is that they disenfranchise other already marginalized groups too. And all for no purpose.
Your suggestion of motivation is a good one. Blacks were not as motivated as they might have been before Obama because none of the candidates before then seemed to hold out much hope of being concerned about them. If all the choices appear to them to be inadequate choices, it stands to reason that they might not care as much. But on top of this, voter ID is yet another hurdle combined with the others.
Understood. I don't agree with your answer, but since you don't really want me to answer it, I won't try.
You mean back in the 1950's? Well, there was lynching, state laws, grandfather clauses, literacy tests, etc.
I can only speculate on why the system is set up to make it hard for them, but if I had to guess, I would say it is hard because those in power want to appease their rich political supporters and prevent the riff-raff from gaining power.
Oh, then I would definitely be in favor of it. But understand this means the government takes the full responsibility for translating birth certificates into voter registrations and IDs, coming to the person's home to take the photo and deliver them and ID. The actual cost of the ID is not the issue. It is the onerous procedure one has to go through. There is no reason why anyone should have to produce a birth certificate. The government has already got all the records of birth certificates. Same thing for naturalization papers. If the government took full responsibility for the ID process, I would have no objection. Of course that will never happen. But then we don't have a problem without voter ID, do we?