tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post116794956649297442..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: One in a MillionDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1168024950497481592007-01-05T11:22:00.000-08:002007-01-05T11:22:00.000-08:00It's not an issue of competence--I suspect most ci...It's not an issue of competence--I suspect most citizens are <I>physically</I> capable of getting a photo ID (although that depends on how much the requirement is publicized, and if it costs money). For some it's significantly harder than others (Judge Evans uses the example of a 64 year old in an Indianapolis retirement home born in Arkansas--how does he get his birth certificate?). But even still, the point isn't impossibility--it's that it imposes a burden that falls much heavier on some people (those that don't have/wouldn't otherwise need a photo ID) than others, for no particularly compelling reason.<BR/><BR/>Disenfranchisement refers to disenfranchisement that actually happened. Since Gore's motion in that case was rejected, nobody was disenfranchised. The only people who actually were disenfranchised in Florida were those whose attempted votes were actually not counted. I have absolutely zero doubt that more people in Florida in 2000 cast their ballots believing they had voted for Al Gore. And as demonstrated below, a fair standard of adjudication would have borne that out.<BR/><BR/>In any event, I always argued that Florida ballots needed to be counted in one of two ways. <I>Either</I> we adopt a strict standard that demands all ballots be "textbook", so to speak, regardless of whether the intent of the voter was clear. This would reject both the overseas absentee ballots (which were accepted) for lack of proper certification, in addition to Gore's overvotes and undervotes (which weren't). <I>Or</I>, we adopt a more leniant standard based off the intent of the voter. This would accept both the absentee ballots and Gore's over/undervotes. I favor the latter quite strongly, because I oppose disenfranchisement. But regardless, it should have been self-evidently obvious that the standard needed to be consistent.<BR/><BR/>Either way, the numbers would have Gore winning. The only way he could have lost was if a double-standard was adopted--ballots that favored Gore (over/undervotes) were judged strictly, and ballots that favored Bush (Absentee) were judged leniantly. And so it was.David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1168020994073951722007-01-05T10:16:00.000-08:002007-01-05T10:16:00.000-08:00David,I used the term incompetent because I think ...David,<BR/>I used the term incompetent because I think that the poor in this country, if competent can get a photo ID. If you can't incompetent is the correct label.<BR/><BR/>Do you mean disenfranchisement in Florida like Gore's motions to exclude overseas absentee ballots?Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10837999838469082203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1167971568010630942007-01-04T20:32:00.000-08:002007-01-04T20:32:00.000-08:00This debate may represent an interesting case of w...This debate may represent an interesting case of what Cass Sunstein has called "normative bias", whereby an individual's prior normative commitments influences her factual judgments. I'm not so sure that, at least to a conservative lay-voter, the Indiana law does represent a thinly veiled Republican political gambit. Strong conservative commitments to norms of law and order may predispose conservative lay-voters towards belief in the existence of voter fraud and also towards support for a law that purports to combat the problem. Let's face it, most people don't subject their factual beliefs to any kind of rigorous empirical research, but rather construct their beliefs from hearsay and selective incorporation according to worldview. <BR/><BR/>Moreover, conservative morality - with its strong emphasis on self-reliance and the role of reward & punishment in fostering it - tends to discount the worth of the poor (and hence their votes), who are often perceived as irresponsible, moochers, lazy, undisciplined, etc. We might therefore expect a conservative balancing of the interests to weigh in favor of the law's validity.<BR/><BR/>On the contrary, liberal morality's emphasis on empathy and nurturance - and it's corresponding willingness to acknowledge the existence of "social forces" in shaping personal character - is likely to highly value the political self-determination of the poor, and perhaps discount (or even deny) the existence of voter fraud. Thus, a liberal balancing test is likely to strongly favor (poor) voters' rights. <BR/><BR/>So lay-voters of both stripes may sling acrimony across the aisle in good faith: conservatives at liberals for being soft on criminals, liberals at conservaties for being insensitive and greedy. And both stances may be held in all sincerity. The more interesting question in my mind is whether more sophisticated political actors, such as the Indiana Republicans who drafted and passed the law, were in fact motivated by raw political advantage but understood the useful (legitimizing) political valence the law would have among the state's conservatives. Their rhetoric may have even self-consciously framed the populace's understanding of the law to that end.<BR/><BR/>I guess my basic contention is that, when looking across the divide between distinct moral frameworks, sincere normative positions can often be mistaken for thinly veiled maneuvering, at least insofar as those positions are taken by (politically) unsophisticated laypeople. But what motivates the technocrats in the state capitol may be a different matter altogether.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1167965218795735702007-01-04T18:46:00.000-08:002007-01-04T18:46:00.000-08:00Gore didn't lose in Florida because of voter fraud...Gore didn't lose in Florida because of voter fraud. He lost because votes weren't counted (disenfranchisement).<BR/><BR/>As to your latter question, first of all, "poor" does not equal "incompetent". It equals "poor." Second, I may be a democracy skeptic, but if we're going to have a democracy, let's have a democracy. No halvsies. Third, I think that one of the most important roles in a democracy is that decisions are made (or at least influenced by) a representative cross-sample of the community. If certain classes of citizens are systematically excluded or deterred from voting, that results in a non-representative government, and the marginalized groups will be hurt.David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1167963260699883562007-01-04T18:14:00.000-08:002007-01-04T18:14:00.000-08:00Dave,I find it interesting that a Democrat is argu...Dave,<BR/>I find it interesting that a Democrat is arguing that voter fraud is not an issue .... ask Mr Gore in 2000 and Mr Kerry (Ohio?) in 2004? <BR/><BR/>Tell me how informed a voter will be if he can't produce photo ID?<BR/><BR/>And yes, I know the "uninformed/indigent electorate" trends Democrat and that puts a bias on everyone's argument but I'm curious. What is your principled reason for wanted to expand the voter pool with no regard to their competence?Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10837999838469082203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1167956582770452432007-01-04T16:23:00.000-08:002007-01-04T16:23:00.000-08:00True or false: Chicago is in Indiana.True or false: Chicago is in Indiana.David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1167953701813790772007-01-04T15:35:00.000-08:002007-01-04T15:35:00.000-08:00What a load of malarkey. Whether an individual is...What a load of malarkey. Whether an individual is Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, or Bill Homeless-Dude, would be voters have the obligation to demonstrate his or her identity. <BR/><BR/>An official photo ID is insufficient, in my opinion, to do that. But it is better than nothing. <BR/><BR/>Without some standard the dead have a certain tendency to start voting from the "other side". <BR/><BR/>Don't pretend that it's never happened before and in that part of the country. Daley's "machine", anyone?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com