July 18, 2012

Dane County judge finds Wisconsin's voter ID law violates the state constitution.

This is the second case finding the law violates the state constitution. Dane County is the location of Madison, and the case will almost certainly be appealed to the state supreme court. In the meantime, the rest of Wisconsin has another opportunity to notice Dane County/Madison and feel aversion/affection/apathy.

96 comments:

Tregonsee said...

Madison is best viewed from a distance of 500 miles and 32 years.

vet66 said...

I would expect actions like this in Russia but not in one of the United States. Wisconsin is dysfunctional and a hotbed of subversion. If this state was a business there would be a stand down and subsequent job briefing about what the rules are in state governance.

Wisconsin? You have a serious problem that needs to be dealt with.

hawkeyedjb said...

Every day, the government violates the civil rights of minorities by preventing them from flying on airplanes. I've wondered why it's only white people on airplanes, and now I know: it's the evil government-issued ID rules.

Kit said...

But will they pay enough attention to notice that it was a Republican appointed judge (Thompson)? I don't know...

Jake Diamond said...

Don't worry, the GOP will be back with other vote suppression measures.

Matthew Sablan said...

Without reading the opinion, I'm not sure what to think. Maybe he said this ID law is too much, but other approaches would be acceptable? I'm too lazy to find his opinion and too stupid to feel comfortable making my own without listening and reading more.

Jake Diamond said...

I've wondered why it's only white people on airplanes

Do you always use KKK airlines?

Matthew Sablan said...

I wonder how oppressive it would be to require two forms of IDs. Woe on any racist institution that requires two. That's like, twice as racist, right?

vet66 said...

Kit; Where I come from, we call them RINO's. Wrong is wrong no matter the party affiliation. Without secure voting requirements the process is tainted and encourages corruption/perversion of the foundation of our rights as CITIZENS.

Jake Diamond said...

Wrong is wrong no matter the party affiliation.

Agreed! Vote suppression is wrong no matter which party employs it.

AllieOop said...

Wisconsin, dysfunctional, a hotbed of subversion?! A state that reelected Walker? LMAO.

Hey, come to think of it you may be right, only not in the way you think.

Palladian said...

Jake Diamond thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID card.

Jake Diamond said...

Hey, come to think of it you may be right, only not in the way you think.

Hey, don't discount vet66's head-in-the-sand perspective!

Jay said...

Jake Diamond said...


Vote suppression is wrong no matter which party employs it.


Except requiring someone to have an ID to vote is not "vote suppression" no matter how many times you shout it is.

Chuck66 said...

Kit, whoever appointed the judge doesn't mean he is a rightwing conservative.

Jake Diamond said...

Jake Diamond thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID card.

I didn't mention minorities, nor did I suggest that stupidity is the reason that ID requirements lead to vote suppression.

Palladian's "minorities are too stupid to get an ID card" post reveals a lot about his own strange thought patterns. Why does Palladian's knee-jerk reaction to the concept of vote suppression lead him to say something about minorities and stupidity? There's a lot of ugliness in that thought that Palladian will now have to try to explain away.

Ann Althouse said...

"But will they pay enough attention to notice that it was a Republican appointed judge (Thompson)?"

Maybe if Hovde/Neumann/Fitzgerald puts it in an ad.

Jake Diamond said...

Except requiring someone to have an ID to vote is not "vote suppression" no matter how many times you shout it is.

Jay is a dolt. It's well established that voter ID measures lead to vote suppression. But Jay lives in denial and fights hard to keep facts from entering his bubble.

Ann Althouse said...

"Jake Diamond thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID card."

That's an argument in the same form as the one Matt Taibbi made about Romney speaking to the NAACP.

Colonel Angus said...

Vote suppression is wrong no matter which party employs it.

How is proving you are the person on the voter roll suppression? It's no different than showing ID at the bank to prove you are the account holder.

Or was your comment sarcasm?

Jay said...

Jake Diamond said...

It's well established that voter ID measures lead to vote suppression


HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA

I bet it is!!!

Note:

In both federal elections held in Georgia since its voter ID became effective, the increase in turnout of Hispanic and black voters dwarfed the increase in turnout of white voters

Georgia has one of the strictest voter ID laws in the country.

Idiot.

Jay said...

Jake Diamond said...

It's well established that voter ID measures lead to vote suppression


Also note:

You can provide no evidence to support this idiotic claim.

None.

It is a fact that black voter turnout increased in Georgia and Indiana after voter ID laws passed.

Keep flailing, idiot.

t-man said...

The Wisconsin legislature should pass a law that challenges to the constitutionality of a state law should be heard in the first instance by a panel of judges drawn from across the state, or a panel of judges elected by statewide ballot.

Jake Diamond said...

How is proving you are the person on the voter roll suppression?

A lot has been written about this subject. How have you managed to miss all of it? Don't you think you should do a bit of reading until you at least understand the argument linking photo ID requirements to vote suppression?

t-man said...

Are judges appointed or elected in Wisconsin? I know Supreme Court judges are elected, but what about lower court judges?

t-man said...

Jake, a lot may have been written about it, but none of it is convincing. In the Seventh Circuit Indiana case, the court said that the plaintiffs could not identify any person who would have been denied the right to vote by the voter ID law.

Palladian said...

That's an argument in the same form as the one Matt Taibbi made about Romney speaking to the NAACP.

Which argument, mine or Jake Diamond's?

Jake Diamond said...

If you go to the Wikipedia entry for Voter Suppression, under the subsection "Methods of voter suppression," the second entry is "Photo ID Laws."

What's next, Jay? Are you going to deny the existence of Wikipedia or are you going to declare that Wikipedia is a liberal plot to make the population ignorant?

I'm prepared for more denial. Keep it coming Jay!

Matthew Sablan said...

Voter suppression: Asking to see IDs.

Not voter suppression: Standing in front of polling places brandishing weapons and using racial slurs.

I'm glad that this all makes sense now!

AllieOop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Colonel Angus said...

Don't you think you should do a bit of reading until you at least understand the argument linking photo ID requirements to vote suppression?

You made the claim laddie. It's your duty to back it up, not mine. At least if you wish to have any credibility on the topic.

Bryan C said...

"Vote suppression is wrong no matter which party employs it."

If a legitimate voter's identity is stolen and used to cast a fraudulent vote, then that voter has been suppressed.

If a legitimate vote has been cancelled-out by another fraudulent vote, then the legitimate vote has been suppressed.

At this point, the only people who actively work to suppress these legitimate votes are those who insist on giving equal weight to fraud. Why do you suppose anyone would want to do that?

Jake Diamond said...

You made the claim laddie. It's your duty to back it up, not mine.

It's not my job to educate you. You asked a question that revealed your lack of familiarity with the subject. Don't let me keep you from doing the reading necessary to understand the issue.

Matthew Sablan said...

Jake: Are fewer people voting in states that have ID laws? Or, have more people voted?

Matthew Sablan said...

Also, where fewer people voted, did they not vote because of the voter ID laws, or because Americans are notoriously bad at not voting? You seem to want to claim every non-voter as disenfranchised when, in reality, most of them just don't care.

Sorun said...

Jake - your source cites "Talking Points Memo." That doesn't make for a good argument.

Colonel Angus said...

Per Wiki, it claims via Talking Points Memo voter id laws effect minorities and elderly voters who don't maintain drivers licenses. A questionable assertion as I witness elderly and minorities driving every day.

To recap my earlier point, such an assertion would mean minorities and elderly people don't use banks, travel by airline or participate in the myriad of societal activities that require a photo ID.

Obtaining a photo ID is less a burden than registering to vote. I suspect you have alterior motives to your opposition to protecting the integrity of the voting booth.

Matthew Sablan said...

... the fact Wikipedia quotes from sources like Talking Points makes me sad inside.

Bryan C said...

"What's next, Jay? Are you going to deny the existence of Wikipedia or are you going to declare that Wikipedia is a liberal plot to make the population ignorant?"

Jake, old boy, you had me going there for a bit, but no one can cite Wikipedia as an authoritative source with a straight face.

Other methods of voter suppression include Godzilla, Mental Telepathy, and Fluoridation Of Drinking Water. Don't believe me? Give me 20 minutes and check Wikipedia again.

Colonel Angus said...

It's not my job to educate you. You asked a question that revealed your lack of familiarity with the subject.

Typically in a debate/discussion format, when one side makes an assertion, its that person's duty to support it when challenged.

Nevertheless, I did look up your Wiki reference and I must say, I'm surprised at your critique of Palladian when your own reference stated photo ID impacted mostly minorities. It's almost as if you didn't even read your own reference.

John Cunningham said...

I find it most telling that the Lefties and black racists never mention the increase in minority voting in Indiana and Georgia.
Another instructive comment by an NAACP stooge after Romney's speech to their convention--
The response from one NAACP leader after Mitt Romney’s speech before the organization on Wednesday? He favors white people.

“I believe his vested interests are in white Americans,” Charlette Stoker Manning, the chairwoman of Women in NAACP, told the website BuzzFeed following the Republican candidate’s Wednesday speech in Houston.

“You cannot possibly talk about jobs for black people at the level he’s coming from. He’s talking about entrepreneurship, savings accounts — black people can barely find a way to get back and forth from work,” Manning said.

AllieOop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AllieOop said...

Judicial selections in Wisconsin not quite non-partisan

Calypso Facto said...

I like your idea for statewide input on constitutional questions, T-man. Any Sconnie outside of Dane County is tired of having these suits all determined in La-La Land. At least challenges can now be brought in other counties, but the Libs always are sure to file where they enjoy homefield advantage. And now they have almost certainly achieved the true goal of pushing off any attempt at legitimizing the vote until after the fall election.

AllieOop said...

Calypso Facto, as a liberal that lives in Waukesha County (the "hotbed" of Wisconsin conservatism), I have to say it, speak for yourself.

TWM said...

I view it with fascination. I'm in wonder at how many times the liberals in your area keep banging their heads against that stone wall.

edutcher said...

I take it there's a reason Hizzoner's political affiliation is not given in the article.

Roger J. said...

I dont particularly put much stock in Wikipedia when it comes to political issues. That said my hearts go out to these poor folks who cant buy beer, alcohol, or tobacco without some form of photo ID--we need to protect the rights of drinkers and smokers everywhere. And think of the poor folks who cant drive without photo id--Oh, the injustice of it all.

machine said...

Hmmmm....and I thought "conservatives" we're all about protecting constituional rights....haha


Only if it helps the party, right?

Matthew Sablan said...

Machine: Protecting rights requires fair elections. Seeing as we are increasing the number of people voting (record turnouts and all), I find it hard to believe that votes are being suppressed.

machine said...

of course you do...

Matthew Sablan said...

Er... yes. That's what I said. Are voters being suppressed? Why are they not able to get IDs? How has the government failed them so that they aren't able to get this basic necessity of modern life?

That should be the question. Why is government failing these people, and how can we fix it so they can get IDs?

Jake Diamond said...

Jake: Are fewer people voting in states that have ID laws? Or, have more people voted?

Seriously? This is how you propose to determine if photo ID laws lead to vote suppression?

You may not have noticed this previously, but populations grow and election turnout varies from election cycle to election cycle according to ballot initiatives, weather, and many other circumstances unrelated to ID requirements. If you've found a way to account for all those factors so that you can isolate the consequences of photo ID laws, then let's see what you've got.

Matthew Sablan said...

Actually, I think it is a fair question. Are more people voting? If no, then you've got the possibility of being right on its face! If yes, more people are voting, then you actually have to prove your case and not just assert it.

Since more people are voting, you have to prove that somehow, voter ID laws are causing less voter growth than would normally happen. Which you can't do, since there are so many confounding variables. But go ahead and try.

Matthew Sablan said...

Also, Diamond -- if you can't prove that Voter ID laws suppress the vote... then you can't make your assertion. This is basic logic. Since voting is not going down, and in fact, in many places it is rising (even among populations allegedly being suppressed!), I can comfortably say that I don't feel that suppression is happening. You can't just say: Well, in some corner cases voting percentages have gone down in statistically insignificant values for a variety of reasons, for which I will say only voter ID laws are the cause. Well, you can. You'll just be wrong.

Jake Diamond said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jake Diamond said...

Actually, I think it is a fair question.

Yeah, that's the problem. If you think your question addresses the connection between photo ID laws and vote suppression, then you're fooling yourself.

Colonel Angus said...

"In 2011, more than 100 Democratic members of Congress urged the Department of Justice to oppose such legislation, arguing that it "has the potential to block millions of eligible American voters, and thus suppress the right to vote."

Again, the question is how? Unless one can prove millions of eligible American voters are unable to obtain a photo ID, this amounts to nothing more than hyperbole.

Matthew Sablan said...

Let me explain the logical progression. You claim that they cause voter suppression. If, however, -no statistically significant voter suppression is happening- your statement is wrong, on its face.

So I ask you: Is voting going up or down? If it is going down, then you have a case. If it is going up, then you have a harder case to prove. You refuse to even determine what the reality on the ground is, and insist we educate ourselves.

OK. Fine. So, after educating myself, I see that, at most, people say maybe a 2% dip in the growth of voters voting. Maybe, among certain populations in a single election cycle.

That's... not telling at all, when there are huge growths in other places.

So. Yeah. Prove your assertion since it's not convincing.

Jake Diamond said...

Since voting is not going down, and in fact, in many places it is rising (even among populations allegedly being suppressed!), I can comfortably say that I don't feel that suppression is happening.

This is a basic logical error. Your inability to observe something doesn't mean it isn't happening.

I'm posting a link to an article on the subject. If you're serious about discussing the issue, read the article and we can continue the discussion.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/07/voter-suppression-returns

Matthew Sablan said...

... that's a terrible article that opens by trading on fears of Republican Jim Crowness and that ALEC is some shadow legislation designed to destroy minorities. Please tell me you don't take it seriously. Voter ID laws are in no way related to Jim Crow, the constant chorus that they are should not be taken seriously.

Also, voter impersonation happened. There is even video of people showing that it is doable and that, had they not video taped themselves and refused to cast their ballot, no one would ever have known about it.

So, sorry. It's arguing ignorant of the truth. It also hits the same question I've asked: Why are we not making sure the government isn't failing its people by failing to get them IDs? That is a government failing.

edutcher said...

machine said...

Hmmmm....and I thought "conservatives" we're all about protecting constituional rights....haha


Only if it helps the party, right?


The mindless automaton actually thinks vote fraud is a Constitutional right (well, he is a Democrat...).

I wonder if he knows the right to vote appears nowhere in the Constitution?

Calypso Facto said...

speak for yourself

About what? You DO prefer to have all of these issues decided by the most liberal circuit in the state?

Which means you agree that the Madison courts are stacked against the understanding of jurisprudence prevalent in the rest of the state. Good for you! Just not good for a respect of the state's court system.

Jake Diamond said...

I'm surprised at your critique of Palladian when your own reference stated photo ID impacted mostly minorities

But it doesn't say that. It says "photo ID requirements disproportionately affect minority and elderly voters..."

Did Palladian make a reference to "elderly people?" Nope. He immediately singled out minorities. And the reason Palladian chose? Stupidity. Do you know of a source that identifies "stupidity" as the reason minorities don't have photo IDs?

Give me a break. Palladian's comment revealed something ugly about his thought processes.

Sorun said...

Jake - you're citing another opinion piece.

Justify this comment you made: "It's well established that voter ID measures lead to vote suppression."

Jake Diamond said...

I wonder if he knows the right to vote appears nowhere in the Constitution?

You're not counting Constitutional Amendments as part of the Constitution?

Hilarious!

Jay said...

Jake Diamond said...

If you go to the Wikipedia entry for Voter Suppression, under the subsection "Methods of voter suppression," the second entry is "Photo ID Laws."


Huh?

This is an assertion that is backed with no data.

Idiot.

Colonel Angus said...

The Harvard article isn't a serious one. It simply assumes that the poor, elderly, blacks and Hispanics have to accumulate numerous documents to obtain an ID. Nonsense of the highest order. It is nearly impossible to engage in the various societal transactions without a photo ID in this country unless you are living off the grid.
Try coming up with something other than the assumption that the poor, elderly or minorities are incapable of obtaining a laminated card that most people obtain at age 16.

Jay said...

Jake Diamond said...

What's next, Jay? Are you going to deny the existence of Wikipedia or are you going to declare that Wikipedia is a liberal plot to make the population ignorant?


No stupid, I'm going to keep pointing out that you can cite no actual real world examples of a voter ID being indicative of voter suppression.

Assertions that reflect your political biases are not fact.

Idiot.

Jay said...

Jake Diamond said...

It's well established that voter ID measures lead to vote suppression


No it isn't.

And you saying Wikipedia says so isn't an argument, response, or supportive of the dumbass comment.

Note: you are utterly unable to distinguish between fact & opinion.

Jay said...

Jake Diamond said...
You may not have noticed this previously, but populations grow and election turnout varies from election cycle to election cycle according to ballot initiatives, weather, and many other circumstances unrelated to ID requirements.


HA HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA HA

Translation: just because I can't show evidence doesn't mean what I'm saying is untrue!

You're a moron.

Beevalo Bill said...

Voter suppression is bad. What is even more pernicious is vote suppression.

Lefties embrace theoretical voter suppression because it can be portrayed in emotional terms.

I think it is manifest that Voter ID laws, if properly constructed (like Wisconsin's) present only theoretical, not actual, voter suppression.

As to vote suppression, i.e., nullification of votes using both active and passive voter fraud seems to be acceptable to the lefties.

Shipping kids in from Illinois to vote in a Wisconsin election using same day registration supported by mail addressed to "occupant" is alright in the prog mind because someone actually voted.

Many conservative voters in Racine had their votes suppressed in the recall election.

This issue is not and should not be about political advantage. It should be about representative government.

I Callahan said...

I take it there's a reason Hizzoner's political affiliation is not given in the article.

Not sure of the party, but the judge did sign the Walker recall petition:

LINK

leslyn said...

WOO HOO!

AllieOop said...

He was appointed by Governor Tommy Thompson.

Rusty said...

Jake Diamond said...
Except requiring someone to have an ID to vote is not "vote suppression" no matter how many times you shout it is.

Jay is a dolt. It's well established that voter ID measures lead to vote suppression


No it isn't.


See. I can do that too.

Jake Diamond said...

Justify this comment you made: "It's well established that voter ID measures lead to vote suppression."

You should read Nate Silver regularly--he writes a great column.

His analysis of the impact of voter ID laws on vote suppression is here.

Among other things, he says this:

"There is something of a consensus in the literature, in fact, about the rough magnitude of the effects. The stricter laws, like those that require photo identification, seem to decrease turnout by about 2 percent as a share of the registered voter population."

Hope that helps!

Jake Diamond said...

The Harvard article isn't a serious one.

Because Harvard is famous for its frivolous analyses?

It simply assumes that the poor, elderly, blacks and Hispanics have to accumulate numerous documents to obtain an ID.

It doesn't assume this. The author relies on studies that demonstrate that the poor, the elderly and minority voters are less likely to have the required ID and relies on the facts relating to various voter ID measures to show that numerous documents must be collected to obtain the necessary ID.

Nonsense of the highest order. It is nearly impossible to engage in the various societal transactions without a photo ID in this country unless you are living off the grid.

Please understand that I say this in the kindest way possible... You should not be so proud of your ignorance of how the poor, the elderly and minorities live.

Jake Diamond said...

That said my hearts go out to these poor folks who cant buy beer, alcohol, or tobacco without some form of photo ID--we need to protect the rights of drinkers and smokers everywhere. And think of the poor folks who cant drive without photo id--Oh, the injustice of it all.

Hearts? I haven't seen evidence of one heart yet, much less multiple hearts. Maybe you're confusing testicles with hearts. Republicans tend to not like or understand the "science-y stuff" too much.

Jay said...

Jake Diamond said..

Among other things, he says this:

"There is something of a consensus in the literature, in fact, about the rough magnitude of the effects. The stricter laws, like those that require photo identification, seem to decrease turnout by about 2 percent as a share of the registered voter population."

Hope that helps!


Note you missed this:

The stricter laws, like those that require photo identification, seem to decrease turnout by about 2 percent as a share of the registered voter population.

Note that in no instance is the fact that states with voter ID faced no reduced turnout among minorities mentioned.

Gee, I wonder why that is?

Jay said...

The author relies on studies that demonstrate that the poor, the elderly and minority voters are less likely to have the required ID

Note the author doesn't point to real world examples of states that have enacted voter ID laws.

Why do you think that is?

Jay said...

Jake Diamond said...

You should read Nate Silver regularly--he writes a great column.

His analysis of the impact of voter ID laws on vote suppression is here.


Um, his speculation is not fact, idiot.

Note: no real world examples of states that have already changed voter ID laws are given.

Idiot.

B said...

Jake Diamond,

I read Mr Silver's article in full. Mr Silver's article was full of supposition, not 'science-y' fact.

Jay may be an irascible sort, but he has you correctly pegged as a pretentious clown. You have no grasp of what Mr Silver said, how he arrived at his 2.4% number, or what he attributed the reduction in voter turnout to (it was not owning or obtaining photo ID, but not having it with them).

You also lose any credentials entitling you to reasonable discussion with the 'science-y' BS. That alone pegs you as one of the common bleating fools progressive fabulists so rely on.

Jay said...

machine said...
Hmmmm....and I thought "conservatives" we're all about protecting constituional rights.


Um, per the constitution:

The manner of elections is at the discretion of State Legislatures.

Duh.

Banzel said...

Can a trial court ruling invalidate the law for the whole state in Wisconsin or is the effect limited to Dane Co for now?

Banzel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jake Diamond said...

Note that in no instance is the fact that states with voter ID faced no reduced turnout among minorities mentioned.

Jay lives and breathes denial. He's too happy with his ignorance to look at the facts, and too stupid to understand the few facts that he allows into his bubble.

Reality is an unwelcome visitor in Jay's world.

Jake Diamond said...

Note the author doesn't point to real world examples of states that have enacted voter ID laws.

Why do you think that is?


He links to multiple studies, dolt. You have to follow the links if you want information about things that Silver isn't specifically analyzing in his column.

Idiot.

Jake Diamond said...

Um, his speculation is not fact, idiot.

Silver does statistical analysis. Statistical analysis is not "speculation."

Idiot.

Thanks for playing! You're a poor loser but at least you're getting a lot of practice at it!

Jake Diamond said...

I read Mr Silver's article in full. Mr Silver's article was full of supposition, not 'science-y' fact.

So you read the article and didn't understand it. That's not my fault.

Silver does statistical analysis. Statistical analysis is not "supposition." You really need to lift your game. It's embarrassing to watch you flail like this.

Jake Diamond said...

I haven't discovered a single conservative at Althouse who has the mathematical skills to follow Silver's analysis, but if one appears, I'm open to discussing informed criticism of Silver's work, or criticism of any of the studies he cites.

This offer does not extend to Jay. Jay's high opinion of his own intelligence is contradicted by the evidence of his idiotic comments. I don't discuss mathematics, statistical analysis or science with fools. Sorry Jay.

Jay said...

Jake Diamond said...

Silver does statistical analysis. Statistical analysis is not "speculation."


Uh, yeah it is because he is not analyzing states that have implemented voter ID and subsequently held elections.

Idiot.

Jay said...

Jake Diamond said...

He links to multiple studies, dolt. You have to follow the links if you want information about things that Silver isn't specifically analyzing in his column.


Um, no "study" of states that have implemented voter ID laws and held an election is analyzed.

Why do you think that is?

Further, instead of providing evidence of your silly, dipshit claim, why do you think you're shouting "links" instead of providing said evidence?

Jay said...

Jake Diamond said...

Silver does statistical analysis. Statistical analysis is not "supposition."


I love how you keep shouting "statistical analysis" as if you know what that means.

You also can't seem to grasp that phrases such as:

My view is that something which might reduce turnout by 2 percent in a key state is meaningful in a practical sense

Are not in fact a "statistical analysis"

But you keep pretending.

Moron.

Jay said...

HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Here is this vaunted "statistical analysis" in action:

I sought to back into an estimate of the net effects of these laws, therefore, in a couple of different ways.

Isn't it funny how Silver didn't instead look at states which implemented ID laws to actually analyze the impact? Gee, why would he do something like this?

Don't worry jakie, you don't understand it all anyway.

So you'll persist in the meme.

B said...

Jake Diamond said...
'So you read the article and didn't understand it. That's not my fault.

Silver does statistical analysis. Statistical analysis is not "supposition." You really need to lift your game. It's embarrassing to watch you flail like this.'

You are a blowhard and fraud. Mr Silver did not do statistical analysis. He describes the methodology that should be used. He does not apply it himself. You are demonstrably incapable of knowing the difference.

Do yourself a favor. Do not claim in knowledgeable company, ever, to any 'science-y' understanding any more than you should ever claim financial-y understanding. You haven't a clue about where Mr Silver was coming from, where he went and why, and how he got there.

When an author notes at the start of an article that analytical studies diametrically disagree, yet in his opinion this is a matter of semantics, he is not preparing to analyze data, but preparing to express an opinion.

The key statement he makes is when he describes the effects of voter ID in prior elections. The statement is relational, and requires the context of the preceding paragraphs to fully understand. However, I see no reason why I should reproduce an article you didn't read, understand when you did, or are capable of understanding in any event. Nonetheless, the statement does illustrate Mr Silver's approach:

'I am open to looking into more robust means of estimating these effects, in case any of you have ideas.'

Silver composed a well written and honest opinion piece and cherry picked some estimates of numbers provided from other sources that support his opinion, BUT, he made that clear. He does, being an honest writer, make it very clear that there is no consensus on the effects of voter ID on turnout. He doesn't claim to have proved any point. One cannot fault Mr Silver because some pretentious dunderhead like yourself thinks he did.