Logical Fallacy
The New York Times has an "Editorial Observer" piece out today by Adam Cohen that starts right out with a whopper of a logical fallacy:
The Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a hugely important case about voter ID laws. Asking for identification at the polls may sound reasonable, but an Indiana law disenfranchises large numbers of people without driver’s licenses, especially poor and minority voters. If the court upholds the law, as appears likely, it will be a sad new chapter in its abandonment of voters, a group whose rights it once defended vigorously.
The issue before the court is whether or not the law, in fact, actually disenfranchises anyone. However, Cohen states, as stone tablet truth, that the law does, in fact, disenfranchise people. This is a serious logical fallacy called "Begging the Question." He states the conclusion of the argument as the premise that supports his conclusion.
That Cohen then descends into raging conspiracy theories about the impact of making someone show considerably less ID than is required to cash a check in most places in order to cast a vote is - at best - indicative of another fallacy: that Cohen actually knows what the heck he is talking about.
But the New York Times should, seriously, exert better editorial control. This is pretty lame reasoning even for the "Paper of Record."
(Side note: "Begging the Question" is badly misused these days by a lot of people. I have to watch myself on that.)
By Lars Walker, Wednesday, 16 January , 2008 @ 7:21 am
Begging the question! One of the most misused phrases in English today. It may be lost without hope, though, I fear.
By Kathy, Wednesday, 16 January , 2008 @ 7:49 am
The Indiana law *does* disenfranchise voters. Not everyone has a driver’s license; in fact, many people, don’t have a driver’s license. And it’s plain as rain that many of those who don’t have a driver’s license would be poor people and minorities.
That is not begging the question. That is answering the question.
Here is another fact: Cashing a check is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. Voting is. We should be making it *easier* to vote, not putting additional obstacles in the way of voting.
By Lars Walker, Wednesday, 16 January , 2008 @ 8:18 am
Uh, there are state-issued forms of identification for people who don’t, or can’t drive. If it’s too much trouble to obtain one, they’re probably not going to take the trouble to vote either. I suppose the state should be required to bring voting machines to people’s homes, too, for people who can’t be bothered to leave the house.
By Gaius, Wednesday, 16 January , 2008 @ 9:19 am
Begging the question in order to prove the original author did not beg the question. I don’t think there is even a logical name for that one.
In point of fact, the only person they trotted out to prove someone had been denied the right to vote turned out to have been registered to vote in two states.
By Lars Walker, Wednesday, 16 January , 2008 @ 9:30 am
Oh, I love that.
By Sam, Wednesday, 16 January , 2008 @ 12:03 pm
My daughter doesn’t drive but has a state-issued ID card that is good to get in a bar, an airport, or a voting booth. It took minimal time and effort for her to obtain it and renew it. How do all these people without drivers licenses get into bars without ID? Sorry, I think the circumstances where someone has no access or ability to obtain an official ID, but is eligible to vote (ie: not underaged, not illegal aliens, not convicted felons, not a non-resident, not dead, etc) are so miniscule as to be essentially nonexistent.
Kathy, I agree that we should be making it easier to vote and making sure each vote is counted correctly, but opening the door to massive fraud as a way of accomplishing that is just so wrong. And yes, voter fraud does happen. Just last week, some Demos in New Hampshire were alleging it in connection with the primary there. Whether any fraud happened is open to debate. We will likely never know. But fraud has happened in recent years in St. Louis, and Chicago has a reputation (rightly or wrongly) as a place where voter fraud happens. And even the perception of fraud is enough to undermine the fairness and legitimacy of elections, elected officials, and the political process in general. Witness the result of the “stolen” presidential election of 2000.
By Kathy, Wednesday, 16 January , 2008 @ 12:32 pm
Uh, there are state-issued forms of identification for people who don’t, or can’t drive.
If you read the paragraph Gaius quotes from the NYT editorial, it implies that drivers’ licenses are the only form of ID Indiana will accept.
If it’s too much trouble to obtain one, they’re probably not going to take the trouble to vote either.
First, there are all sorts of reasons why obtaining a state-issued voting ID would be an onerous requirement for many people. I can think of half a dozen right off the top of my head that are totally understandable and legitimate.
Second, even assuming the legitimacy of your premise, for the sake of argument, if a person doesn’t vote because it’s too much trouble to obtain an ID, then you have created an obstacle that makes it less likely that person will vote. That’s the entire point. We already have only about half of the eligible voter population even registered to vote, and of those, only about half actually vote. That is a far more immediate and real threat to democracy than voter fraud, which won’t and can’t be stopped or even reduced with state-issued ID anyway.
By Uncle Pinky, Wednesday, 16 January , 2008 @ 1:10 pm
If you read the paragraph Gaius quotes from the NYT editorial, it implies that drivers’ licenses are the only form of ID Indiana will accept.
I think the larger point of Gaius’ post was that Adam Cohen had put out an op-ed of dubious quality. By my reading Cohen was using “drivers’ licenses” as shorthand for “State issued identification” cementing my perception of him as a bonehead of the first water (at least in this instance) who operates without the safety net of editorial oversight.
… voter fraud, which won’t and can’t be stopped or even reduced with state-issued ID anyway.
I would be very interested in seeing proof of this assertation. I’ll grant that voter fraud can’t be stopped, but “even reduced” seems a trifle … oh, I dunno … overbroad, don’t you think?
By crosspatch, Wednesday, 16 January , 2008 @ 1:42 pm
I don’t know about Indiana but in California the DMV also issues an ID card that isvalid ID for any purpose that the driver’s license is used for.
The Indiana law does not require a driver’s license, it requires a photo ID. Indiana’s DMV also supplies an ID card for people who do not have a driver’s license.
http://www.in.gov/sos/photoid/
According to Indiana’s page:
A photo ID must meet 4 criteria to be acceptable for voting purposes. It must:
1. Display the voter’s photo
2. Display the voter’s name, and the name must conform with the voter registration record
3. Display an expiration date and either be current or have expired sometime after the date of the last General Election (November 7, 2006)
4. Be issued by the State of Indiana or the U.S. government
In most cases, an Indiana driver’s license, Indiana photo ID card, US Passport, or Military ID is sufficient.
A student ID from an Indiana State school may only be used if it meets all of the 4 criteria specified above.
A student ID from a private institution may not be used for voting purposes.
By Gaius, Wednesday, 16 January , 2008 @ 2:56 pm
Funny how Jimmy Carter recommends even more stringent voter identification:
http://www.american.edu/ia/cfer/report/CFER_section2.pdf
By martian, Wednesday, 16 January , 2008 @ 3:21 pm
Kathy, you seem to be against ANY form of voter identification. In that case, how can the polling place staff be sure that a person has the RIGHT to vote - that is, is a United States citizen and resides within the district in which they are trying to cast a vote? There MUST be some minimum level of identification to ensure that the person trying to vote has a right to do so. I’m sure the Supreme Court is bright enough to figure that out.
By Mockin'bird, Wednesday, 16 January , 2008 @ 3:33 pm
I’m wondering about how proper ID is handled with absentee ballots for people in hospitals, nursing homes, rich retirees traveling in europe and recluses who are snowed in.
Someone must know.
By Uncle Pinky, Wednesday, 16 January , 2008 @ 5:23 pm
Mockin’bird,
Short answer, it isn’t. Absentee ballots are generally an open invitation to fraud. Some areas make you shoe ID when requesting an absentee ballot, others not so much. I think some jurisdictions are giving out one-time use PINs, kind of like they do for on-line DMV transactions, but I haven’t heard much about that.
By Kathy, Wednesday, 16 January , 2008 @ 7:12 pm
Kathy, you seem to be against ANY form of voter identification. In that case, how can the polling place staff be sure that a person has the RIGHT to vote - that is, is a United States citizen and resides within the district in which they are trying to cast a vote? There MUST be some minimum level of identification to ensure that the person trying to vote has a right to do so. I’m sure the Supreme Court is bright enough to figure that out.
Martian, you talk as if voter identification is or has been a standard requirement, rather than something brand new that has never been required before. I don’t know about you, but I had to *register* to vote when I turned 18. I had to register to vote every time I changed my address. I had to register to vote again when I got married and changed my name. How do you imagine that a person who is registered to vote has NOT demonstrated that they have a right to do so?
By Uncle Pinky, Wednesday, 16 January , 2008 @ 11:00 pm
Kathy, I know that your query was directed to martian, but let an earthling take a stab at it.
It’s voter registration farming. ACORN has had some difficulty with it in the past. Due to the so-called Get Out The Vote movement voter registration has never been easier. Every time one enters a DMV one is asked if they wish to register, and in some jurisdictions one can register for other members of the family if they live at the same residence. Political volunteers go door to door registering folks with suspiciously large turnouts. Name switching is popular. Voting the graveyard is another big-seller.
One of the plaintiffs in this case is registered in both Florida and Indiana (making the states case for them, if you ask me) and claiming multiple residences is a serious problem. New Yorkers who have winter homes in Florida and vote there by absentee ballot and in NY at the polls are a common problem. The plaintiff even says that she didn’t remember registering to vote in Florida, that’s how damn easy it is. Folks who go by their middle names, maiden names and nicknames swell the registration rolls because they are not asked for identification. Seeing as:
We already have only about half of the eligible voter population even registered to vote, and of those, only about half actually vote.
and knowing that the registrations are inflated probably won’t help you sleep better, and I ‘m sorry about that; but we really need to reform the system and that includes cross state registration checks, matching to death records, inspections of GOTV groups, cross-referencing with city directories and, you guessed it, valid identification at all stages of the voting process.
Gaius, I think I set a BCB run-on sentence record. Please give me a cookie.
By Gaius, Thursday, 17 January , 2008 @ 12:17 am
Chocolate chip ok?
By martian, Thursday, 17 January , 2008 @ 3:40 pm
I couldn’t have said it better myself, Uncle Pinky!