U.S. states increasingly require identification to vote – an ostensive attempt to deter fraud that prompts complaints of selective disenfranchisement. Using a difference-in-differences design on a 1.3-billion-observations panel, we find the laws have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation. These results hold through a large number of specifications and cannot be attributed to mobilization against the laws, measured by campaign contributions and self-reported political engagement. ID requirements have no effect on fraud either – actual or perceived. Overall, our results suggest that efforts to reform voter ID laws may not have much impact on elections.https://www.nber.org/papers/w25522#fromrss
>paywallAnd how can they count all the people who didn't vote who wanted to?
>>354837Using a difference-in-differences design on a 1.3-billion-observations.Comparing states that had voter ID and ones that didn't
>>354830What does the study define as a voter ID law?What was their methodology in specific terms?Which states did they look at?Many questions left unanswerable by the fact that this thing is locked behind a paywall.
>>354886>unanswerable because everything should be free
>>354830>U.S. states increasingly require identification to vote – an ostensive attempt to deter fraud that prompts complaints of selective disenfranchisement. Using a difference-in-differences design on a 1.3-billion-observations panel, we find the laws have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliationholy shit would would have thought it?i never would have guessed this was a liberal talking point and propaganda from the democratic party to retain two of their most effective voting pillars; dead people and illegal
>>354886>cation to vote – an ostensive attempt to deter fraud that prompts complaints of selective disenfranchisement. Using a difference-in-differences design on a 1.be smart with your shit nuggahttps://web.archive.org/web/20190211134618/https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/19-076_d6d50f60-0972-4680-b633-5667cb4de1ad.pdf
>>354901save a copy locally before a copyright takedown
>>354886>What does the study define as a voter ID law?States which require a form of voter ID. ultimately each definition of this is the states own>What was their methodology in specific terms?Using a nationwide individual-level panel dataset 2008–2016 and a difference-in-differences (DD) design, we find that strict ID laws have no significant negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any subgroup defined by age, gender, race, or party affiliation.Our data, collected by the political data vendor Catalist, cover the vast majority of U.S. voting-age individuals, 2008–2016, resulting in a total of more than 1.3 billion observationsWe use the full length of our panel to test the validity of the parallel-trends assumption underlying our design; we demonstrate the robustness of our estimates to alternative specifications including state and voter controls, linear state time trends (or state-by-year fixed effects, for heterogeneous effects), and voter fixed effects; and we show that our results hold when restricting our sample to adjacent counties in neighboring state>Which states did they look at?11 states with voter identi-fication measures (all states with this law) and 39 states without this law (all states without this law)
WOW ANOTHER FUCKING DEMOCRATIC LIE TO GET ILLEGAL VOTESEveryone knew their excuse of disenfranchisement was bullshit to begin with except for complete retards
Great! Not that this will ever actually get the left to stop inconsolably wailing that anything they don't like is racism, but at least the party of science here on the right can add another data point to the ledgers
>>354911>>354905Here comes /pol/ just using the head line and not caring about context or data.Then again, the right wing was never for thinking.
If you don't have a photo id you have no business voting. It's that simple
>>354913...unironically said the "green new deal" supporter.
>>354913Surely this is just bait. Nobody could be this stupid or ideologically possessed
>>354913You know saying "look at the context" is not a magic wand that can dismiss the lies you put out
>>354913It's annoying because we could talk about actual decent ways to protect voting, but the right always goes full retard with their implementations to be blatantly racist so it's easier to just dismiss it outright rather than discuss it.Honestly if we had a proper system I think we could get more empowerment through ID voting, but that might result in more votes which Republicans don't seem to like.
>>354918Actually it since it's a right wing's propaganda specialty to take things out of context to further their agenda.
>>354919>protect votingWhat did they mean by this
Voter fraud would vanish if the Republican party was dissolved
>>354922It's pretty self explanatory, what aren't you understanding about it?
>>354919What do you mean it's racist?What state has laws which discriminate on race when it comes to voter ID?If there's a state that says black people have to show ID to vote and white people don't I'm against that law.
>>354923This, how's that massive voter fraud case that Republicans were caught committing by stealing a thousands of ballots in North Carolina coming along?
>>354924Voting is under threat from people outside the establishment?
>>354925Arguing technicality as a defense is weak, but we can look at statistics if they're available.Is less than 100% of non-whites registered? Then racist. Pretty simple baseline, then we can adjust specific definitions from there.>>354927There's the nonzero possibility, yeah. Dems say Russia, Repubs say immigrants, both sides say yes.
>>354926And how is the case in Florida where the woman resigned after breaking various campaign laws, and in California with ballot harvesting
>>354928And if less than 100% of white people are registered?Is the law racist against all races?
>>354930>Flordiapar for the courseBallot harvesting is legal in California and Trump has yet provide any proof of illegal votes cast there. The only reason Republican claim ballot harvesting is illegal is because California takes the time to count all their votes, and that cost them multiple seats in the midterms because election day count had several Republicans up, before ballots that were either mailed or slowly processed came in and gave the Democrat the win.Of course that's impossible to Republicans so it must mean the Democrats cheat.
>>354932If we want to include it, sure. It would be harder to justify of course, but in pure hypothetical I have nothing against it.
>>354930>in California with ballot harvestingi cant believe this shit. well, i can because jerry brown passed it into law and that dick has been the governor on and off since the 70's, which isnt surprising because he openly proclaims you need to be a corrupt politican if you want to keep being elected (Quote: “Politics is a difficult business, you need to raise massive sums of money from people who all want something and if you give it to them directly you’ll go to jail. But if you don’t give it to them in some form, you won’t be elected to the next office.” source: https://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/five-remarkably-candid-tips-from-departing-gov-jerry-brown/article_9b25b488-043b-11e9-ae74-2baebc061b40.html )California is so fucked up. Several states have ballot harvesting outright illegal because nothing is to stop the harvesters from electioneering, where they 'help' people decide how to vote, or outright throwing out votes they dont want turned in and forging ones they do want turned inthe state is so hopelessly corrupt.Highest rate of homelessness and drug addiction. serves them right for allowing this to continue
>>354934The question in California isn't votes by illegals being cast. But modified ballots and undelivered ballots.When you have Democratic party affiliated people delivering ballots for people who voted for a democrat senator, and left their Governor vote blank there is a question as to whether or not the Democratic party operative "helping the person by filling out the governor box they forgot to vote for".Or perhaps them losing a ballot or a hundred on the way to the polling place.
>>354928>Is less than 100% of non-whites registered? Then racistwhat is wrong with you?because i dont want to register to vote (chinese) its racist?be real man
>>354935That's a stupid standard
>>354938Until you get actual evidence and not hyperbole. Everything you say is crap.The only wide spread voter fraud committed was by Republicans where they stole people's ballots in North Carolina, and they're so corrupt, they also did it in the primary as well.
>>354941Is California investigating ballot harvesting?How can I get evidence without an investigation?
>>354942Why investigate when no crime has been committed? At this point, all we have is proof that you're butthurt and you're rationalizing it.
>>354942here you go anonElection fraud scheme bribed LA homeless with cigarettes for signatures, prosecutors sayhttps://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article221982125.html
>>354942heres some moreSACRAMENTO -- The Department of Motor Vehicles is once again plagued by missteps in California, registering thousands of voters by mistake, some of whom may not even be eligible to vote.https://fox40.com/2018/10/10/california-dmv-blunders-exacerbate-voter-fraud-concerns/your right, nobody is investigating the specific ballot harvesting but plenty of voter fraud is going on here by the democratic party it just doesnt get talked about
>>354904Can you stop reprinting the abstract? I read it too. I want more detail!
>>354946can you stop asking for things people on this board obviously cant provide you with you complete retard?write to the authors if it conflicts with your world view so much that you need additional clarification
>>354901Read through it. A couple of glaring issues. One, they lump all the data together and don't look at specific states, nor give specific years. Which does matter since different states have different laws, and presidential and midterm turn outs are extremely different. Minorities and those targeted by restrictive voter ID tend to turn out in much greater numbers in presidential election years than midterms. If so say the law was implemented in 2012, you wouldn't see a dip because of that since it was a presidential year.Second, they don't take into account voter turn over, in which case just turnout is stable, doesn't mean that Voter ID laws act as a dam whereas if it weren't in place more minorities would vote. You could make the assumption that voter ID keeps minorities from flexing their muscle in states they were normally silent because they were never represented.Something also glossed over is the fact they say voter fraud is non existent and people only believe it happens if it pushes their point of view.
>>354943Didn't they find out there was crimes in North Carolina by investigating?
>>354944>Petitions to get measures on the California state ballot.Not the same as elections. >>354945>Mitchell says the data shows there is no evidence of any widespread voter fraud or illegitimacy in California's voting process.People were registered.It was also a human error, not malicious. Republicans only called bloody murder because it was 2018 and the blue wave was coming so they were looking to cling to anything to delegitimize the Democrats. While ignoring the fact that Republicans stole ballots and committed voter fraud to win a house race in North Carolina.You know, actual proof it was used to steal elections.
>>354950There was reason to investigate because people came forward who provided evidence of wrong doing. Your call for an investigation is only 'I don't like it, look into it'. Unlike North Carolina where the Republicans were caught stealing another Federal election with voter and election fraud. Unless you can provide some proof, it's waste of time.
>>354948>You could make the assumption that voter ID keeps minorities from flexing their muscle in states they were normally silent because they were never represented.So you could assume that something unprecedented would have happened coincidentally at precisely the moment these laws were put into place? No you couldn't.
>>354953You need to look at context and whom is running. I.E Black voter turnout increased when Obama ran. That's called something unprecedented. It would take something like a restrictive voter ID law to nullify that.
>>354954Oh, I misread you. I didn't realize "because they were never represented" implied that they were being represented that election. That makes better sense.Also I'm pretty sure you fucked up your "whom" there. That should be a "who."
>>354951>Not the same as electionsSo you agree that it happens I just don't have an article for a very specific electionThank you
>>354951Him: here is proof that it is happeningYou: but you can't prove one time!Kek
>>354830Here's how the conversation goes>Democrats: Russians are undermining the legitimacy of our election>Republicans:lack of voter ID is undermining the legitimacy of our election>Democrats:you're racist for wanting voter ID>R: Here's evidence that voter ID laws don't suppress votes from decades of elections and over a billion ballots cast>Democrats: You're a racist.
>>354939You not registering isn't the same as the register not registering.
>>354969Sure, in talks.In practice we already dealt with this in our history.Voter ID lost.
>>354964>Give non proof>Get called out >It's proof!geh he he>>354962Nope, the voter fraud you always claim to happen doesn't.
>>354969>Democrats: Russians are undermining the legitimacy of our election>Republicans: No they aren't let's focus on this non issue of voter fraud>Democrats: Then explain all this proof that our own government agencies have produced that shows that the Russians not only engaged in information warfare to manipulate the American people, and broke into the databases of voter rolls in multiple states, but Republicans conspired with them.>Republicans: *Defunds the agency in charge of election security*Fixed
>>354986What proof do you have that illegals vote in meaningful numbers?
>>354993>Project VeritasFind me a source that wasn't successfully sued for defamation or federally prosecuted.
>>355001After the Covington kids finish their suits, most mainstream media will have been successfully sued for defamation.I think most MSM has already settled out
>>355008>Finish their suitAs in gets thrown out because it's without merit.LOL, conservatives failing to play the victim again after they were caught being racist.
>>354990Racism, typically.If u could generalize it to power struggles if being called racist triggers them too hard.
>>355016If Voter ID wasn't used for voter suppression, the Republicans would make sure the ID's are paid for and expand the amount of facilities that can distribute IDs. instead they never do and have been closing them down.Black people are fighting this discrimination which is why it looks like it's not have any affect. Which only means if we repeal Voter ID, more people will vote.
>>355017Why can't black people pay for their own ID?Why does the government have to pay for their ID?
>>355018>Muh socialismWhy shouldn't the government pay for required participation in the country? Are your u some red coat scum?
>>354837>And how can they count all the people who didn't vote who wanted to?Maybe we should block chain the vote so no vote is missed?
>>354886>this thing is locked behind a paywall.I can solve the riddle without needing to pass the paywall.GOP only wants legal votersDEMs want to stuff the ballot box, "who cares where that vote came from, am I right?
>>355021If the GOP's concern is about legal versus illegal voters, then why do they oppose making election day a paid holiday? Their opposition to that doesn't do anything for making sure only legal voters are voting, and it pushes down voter turnout even among completely legitimate voters.
>>354905>WOW ANOTHER FUCKING DEMOCRATIC LIE TO GET ILLEGAL VOTESBased.
>>355021Still ignoring the fraud in North Carolina perpetuated by Republicans huh?
>>355033New Hampshire primaries are inside of planned parenthood?
>>355027>If the GOP's concern is about legal versus illegal voters, then why do they oppose making election day a paid holiday? How does making it a paid holiday stop illegals from voting?
>>355070It has nothing to do with illegals voting, it would simply help legal citizens vote. So why is it that the GOP is so dead set against it if they only want to stop illegals from voting?
>>355081Just allow early voting. Not that hard.
>>355081What is the downside of having voter ID laws?
>>355086it prevents illegals and dead people
>>355086Its a sop to racists and morons to fight a problem that doesn't exist.I wouldn't be opposed to a federal ID program but it would have to be free to everyone with no bullshit collection/registration shittery.Social Security numbers are outdated garbage anyway.
>>355102>It's a problem that doesn't exist>Therefore we should fight tooth and nail against anyone trying to stop ithmmmm
>>355081Because it’s not the federal holiday part they’re upset about, the bill includes things like allowing random gov’t employees to take a paid week off to spend on campaigning for whomever. Basically, free staff for your reelection project.
>>355102Let me pose another example.http://bwc.thelab.dc.gov/Body Cameras.Large scale study of body cameras found that the behavior of officers who wore cameras all the time was indistinguishable from the behavior of those who never wore cameras. There was no significant difference on the use of force by officers or citizen complaints against officers that could be attributed to the use of cameras. The rollout of BWCs did not affect the total amount of force used by police in the District, which you would expect if the cameras affected the behavior of both officers with cameras and those without. The authors looked at myriad other outcomes and found that BWCs had no significant effect on any of them. The cost of the program was also rather expensive.$1 million dollars on cameras, and DC is going to spend an additional $2 million each year for storage going forward.Why?To fight a problem that doesn't exist, shooting of unarmed black people by the police.https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/fatal-police-shootings-of-unarmed-people-have-significantly-declined-experts-say/2018/05/03/d5eab374-4349-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html?utm_term=.37ef9a21aa86Now.Would you be willing to exchange national voter ID for national police body cameras? Where they aren't actually solving a problem, but increasing the faith in the institutions they are associated with?
>>355114>Would you be willing to exchange national voter ID for national police body cameras? Where they aren't actually solving a problem, but increasing the faith in the institutions they are associated with?More people would probably vote if they had more faith in the voting process.Both body cams and voting I'd are goodBesides officer behavior what body cams do provide is an unbiased witness of events which is the real boon of using them
>>354972To bad that's not what the discussion was about retard
>>354843did they compare the same states to before and after id laws were implemented?
>>354905Quite literally this
>>355132Yes read it it's like a 10 year study with a billion and a half data points.It mentioned that multiple states passed voter ID laws during the study
>>355130I agree, which is why I found it odd he posted it anyway.Both of your just want to throw mean words instead of an actual discussion since you can't post your precious infographics.
>>355114I don't know I would. This sounds like on of those bipartisan compromises where the parties come together to make America a more authoritarian state at tax payer expense. No thanks.
>>355134>read itI'll pass I already have a good idea of how it will go.I will quickly skim the article, disagree with it and come up with vague hypotheticals which I will post here in a poorly executed attempt to poke holes in a research article that disagrees with my world view
>>355144How is that authoritarian?
>>355279Body cameras do jack shit other than cost tons of money to fix a nonexistent problem.> MSM says they helpThat's just proof that they're useless. If they were useful then it would be obvious and the MSM wouldn't need to shill for them.
>>355286>Body cameras do jack shit other than cost tons of money to fix a nonexistent problem.As if the videos of what's happened have no significance when it comes to getting the truth documented. Videos of what exactly occurred when the police shot someone? Useless.
>>355018Because if you need ID to vote and you need to pay for ID, then its considered a poll tax which violates the 24th Amendment. States with strict ID laws are required to provide free IDs due to this, but it hasnt stopped those states from making IDs as difficult to get as possible
>>354830Just seein if i'm still banned
>>355294Cool. Guess i'm not
>>355293>Because if you need ID to vote and you need to pay for ID, then its considered a poll tax which violates the 24th Amendment.no it doesnt because its not a tax on polling. an issuing fee is not a tax and any legal council will agree.
>>355297We already had this argument in America's history, why do you keep bringing it back with nothing new to add?I could say this for most conservative thinking, kind of annoying having to use a broken record to talk to another broken record.
>>355297>We already had this argument in America's historywhat the hell are you talking about?
>>355300>Taxes -- A tax represents money that a government charges an individual or business when they perform a particular action or complete a specific transaction.>Fees -- a fee is specifically applied for the use of a service. The fee rate is directly tied to the cost of maintaining the service. Money from the fee is generally not applied to uses other than to providing the service for which the fee is applied>Sometimes, a tax will be incorrectly labeled as a fee, or a fee incorrectly labeled as a tax, often for political reasons> a fee incorrectly labeled as a taxwow. this literally describes what you are doing!
>>355297Except numerous voter ID laws have been successfully halted with 24th Amendment arguments
>>355306more states than not require some form of identification to vote, and several states require voter ID so its obviously not constitutionally illegal at the federal level. maybe to state constitutions, yes, but there is no federal order saying what you say is fact.you can argue anything you want. sometimes you might even get lucky and win.
>>355309Try reading what you've responded to again
>>354830>doesnt affect voter turnout>increases faith in election process>may prevent illegal voting -- certainly wont increase it>may prevent dead people voting -- certainly wont increase it>can be issued for free if neededi see no reason to be against this
>>355311try reading again what you just responded to again
>>355158Hey man, at least you're self aware. You're one step closer to objectivity and growth.
>>355305If we go by strict definitions, then you can't be racist against whites, which I don't think anyone here supports as a definition.Would you rather us just use strict definitions?
>>355316>If we go by strict definitions, then you can't be racist against whiteslets look at the strict definition of racism and see if you actually know what you are talking about:rac·ismDictionary result for racism/ˈrāˌsizəm/nounnoun: racism prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.Nope. doesnt look like you know what your talking about. ill stick to strict definitions rather than changing definitions when they suit my argument
>>355279>The city of Rialto, California did a controlled study where the city’s 70 police officers were required to wear a video camera that recorded all of their interactions with the public. In 2012So a single year and 35 cops with cameras and 35 without.Don't you think that's a bit of a small sample size?
>>355293If you need a car to get to the polls is that considered a poll tax?Should the government be giving out cars to voters in rural Wyoming?
>>355317>talking about strict>gives generalWould you like to try again?
>>355329Anon doesn't need to try againYou could criticize that as a "general definition", but then the other poster was giving the retarded critical theory definition. That's no more appropriate.
>>355336So then what would be appropriate? Is there a third kind of definition you had in mind?
I agree that there should be no ID requirements to vote or to buy a firearm. Both violate the Constitution
>>355353>So then what would be appropriate?This definition>>355317
>>355356Alright, let's define "incorrectly"!Hint: subcategories will be "incorrectly" labeled as the category under Oxford definition, is this the argument we want to continue with?
>>355400Unless you don't want to use Oxford, list one you want instead since it won't matter for my plan here.
>>355400>>355402What are you on about now?Are going full retard or something?
>Voter ID laws are ok>But a federal assigned ID would be bad because big governmentI'm sure proper identification would also make it harder to employ illegals, why don't you follow Europe's example?
>>354954So are you saying that more black people voted when Barack Obama voted?The proportion of voting blacks increased?Suddenly voter ID laws weren't preventing them from voting?
>>355017They are free here nigga.