[FoRK] Newsroom score: American Taliban
sdw at lig.net
Wed Aug 29 19:57:54 PDT 2012
On 8/29/12 2:47 PM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
> On Aug 29, 2012, at 2:07 PM, Lucas Gonze <lucas.gonze at gmail.com> wrote:
>> One part of this conversation that's worth exploring is the dividing
>> line where Democrat/Republican reality filters yield different results
>> and where we see the same things.
>> The Democrat filter says that voter fraud is insignificant and the
>> number of legit voters who would be disenfranchised is significant.
>> The Republican filter yields the opposite reality.
>> Democrats believe the disenfranched voters would have voted
>> Democratic. Here's a question for Republican-leaners: do you agree
>> that the lost votes would have been Democratic, or do you think there
>> are no lost votes? (Or is there a third option)?
> There are two independent assertions commonly being made:
> 1) Republicans believe that voter id laws will reduce fraudulent votes, which presumably go Democrat.
> 2) Democrats believe that voter id laws will disenfranchise some voters, which presumably go Democrat.
> If the policy decision revolves around these two assertions then, regardless of the factuality of either assertion, it is obvious why Republicans support it and Democrats are against it. The only neutral outcome is if both assertions are false. Every other combination in the truth table benefits the Republicans. Since both Democrats and Republicans believe at least one of these assertions is true, what is the probability that this policy would reduce Democrat votes?
> There is no high moral reasoning behind either party's position, it is just a way to sell a position that is in their political interest. Even more cynically, neither party seems to strongly reject that there might be some truth to the assertion of the other. Moral outrage is for the proles.
The Good Thing About Science Is That Its True Whether Or Not Your
Believe In It
There are objective ways to determine how much voter fraud has occurred
in a particular case, at least for the examined cases.
More information about the FoRK