9% of Pennsylvanian voters not allowed to vote.

[Blayne]

I'm not the one posting anecdotes as evidence and expecting to be taken seriously. But keep up the hilarity.

Last I checked, anecdotal evidence was considered superior to none.

You've offered none, which is kind of funny.

Unless, of course, you're accusing me of lying, which I've no reason to do.

The Daily Show did a special report where they said the rate of fake voters was 0.00000014% Or something similarly small, so sure, one or two fake voters exist, but is this a problem where over a million people lose the right to vote the right response to this non-problem?

[Simon_Jester]

So why don't you have to first prove that invisible fake-voters exist?

Are you joking?

I told you what my grandma and aunt saw. If you want to spin that into "oh, he's just a nice exit poller!" and that helps you sleep at night, so be it.

I have no clue. Your grandma and aunt may have talked each other into a case of mistaken identity that fits their preconceptions (maybe they believe in fake-voters, and expected to see them whether they existed or not). They may have misunderstood the significance of what the man was asking. They may have put two and two together and got five when it comes to interpreting the evidence- misunderstood a phone conversation, overheard something and gotten the words wrong. From your description, all these things appear possible to me, and I can't exactly ask your grandma about the details- not that she'd remember them now anyway.

Or by sheer blind coincidence, they may have found evidence of a vast conspiracy of fake-voters.

But then I'm confused. I have to wonder why no one's been blowing the whistle on the fake-voter conspiracy. Or pressing charges. And why no criminal investigations are having any luck finding these hordes of fake voters. Even in states that claim fake-voters are a huge problem that justifies shutting thousands of normal people out of the polls, there don't seem to be any charges being pressed for fake-voting. No one acting in any official capacity seems willing to put a name or a face to these fake voters.

And yet we need to change the laws to protect ourselves against them.

Absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but it's not good evidence of presence, either.

[Haruko]

Wait, is fraud by voters really a serious issue? How great is fraud by voters compared to fraud by politicians?

Edit: Blayne brought up the point earlier, I see.

[Todeswind]

I'm not the one posting anecdotes as evidence and expecting to be taken seriously. But keep up the hilarity.

Last I checked, anecdotal evidence was considered superior to none.

You've offered none, which is kind of funny.

Unless, of course, you're accusing me of lying, which I've no reason to do.

The Daily Show did a special report where they said the rate of fake voters was 0.00000014% Or something similarly small, so sure, one or two fake voters exist, but is this a problem where over a million people lose the right to vote the right response to this non-problem?

Nobody is loosing the right to vote. Exactly 0 people are losing the right to vote. They have to apply for a government photo ID which they can get for free. If they can't get an ID in time for the election they will still be allowed to vote after signing an affidavit to their identity which will be verified by the state after the fact.

If a voter cannot obtain an acceptable photo ID without paying a fee that they cannot afford to pay (for example, the cost of a certified copy of a birth certificate), the voter will be able to vote by provisional ballot.

http://phillyelection.com/pa_voter_id_l ... meless.pdf

There is literally no person who will be prevented from voting even if they don't have an ID before november.

I truly fail to see how a process that deprives nobody of their right to vote and can ostensibly prevent a crime from happening, even a crime that only happens a couple of times a year, constitutes a volition of civil rights.

[Simon_Jester]

The affadavit is a reasonable precaution (although I wonder if the state is prepared to process a few hundred thousand of them). I think it was a good idea.

Even so, I still dislike this type of law. More because I am not convinced of the necessity than anything else.

[Broken]

Further bits of information about PA's suppression scheme,

The Nation's website

Although Secretary of Commonwealth Carol Aichele has repeatedly stated that 99 percent of Pennsylvania voters were already in possession of the identification needed to comply with the new law, her numbers were way off. The deliberate or accidental overestimate means that the state is stuck with a law that will potentially disenfranchise 758,939 voters.

In a press release dubiously titled “Department of State and PennDOT Confirm Most Registered Voters Have Photo ID,” issued Tuesday, her own office illustrates that more than 180,000 of Philadelphia’s voters lack the proper ID to cast a ballot. More than 44 percent of Philadelphia is African-American. Pennsylvania’s strict voter ID law means that only certain forms of identification are acceptable. Even government-issued photo ID cards without an expiration date aren’t acceptable.

This seems like an awfully harsh solution to a problem that can't even be proven to exist and just happens to help the major political party that was in power when writing these laws across the country.

[seanrobertson]

Further bits of information about PA's suppression scheme,

The Nation's website

Although Secretary of Commonwealth Carol Aichele has repeatedly stated that 99 percent of Pennsylvania voters were already in possession of the identification needed to comply with the new law, her numbers were way off. The deliberate or accidental overestimate means that the state is stuck with a law that will potentially disenfranchise 758,939 voters.

In a press release dubiously titled “Department of State and PennDOT Confirm Most Registered Voters Have Photo ID,” issued Tuesday, her own office illustrates that more than 180,000 of Philadelphia’s voters lack the proper ID to cast a ballot. More than 44 percent of Philadelphia is African-American. Pennsylvania’s strict voter ID law means that only certain forms of identification are acceptable. Even government-issued photo ID cards without an expiration date aren’t acceptable.

This seems like an awfully harsh solution to a problem that can't even be proven to exist and just happens to help the major political party that was in power when writing these laws across the country.

Now, I couldn't agree more with what you just wrote. The bold part seems especially punitive. What difference would an expiration date make?

[Darth Wong]

Absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but it's not good evidence of presence, either.

I'm sick of the line "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". It's totally false. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence; it's just not proof of absence.

[Simon_Jester]

It's not so good when written out in symbolic logic, but it's good poetry and it's memorable- if you're a non-bonehead, remembering that phrase and the idea behind it can keep you from making some mistakes and help you explain mistakes to others. This makes it a useful teaching tool even if, as I said, it doesn't hold up perfectly under symbolic logic.

It can also depend on the way you connote "evidence." Try: "Absence of ironclad evidence is not ironclad evidence of absence."

If by "evidence" I mean absolute undeniable proof, then yeah, absence of that kind of evidence is not bulletproof evidence of wrong-ness. And some people do mean that when they talk about evidence and proofs- an argument that consists of induction with a side order of 'pay no attention to the assumption behind the curtain' is not acceptable as proof to them, even if the conclusions sometimes turn out to be right.


Plus, some people will wander around with their eyes tight shut and then use "I don't see anything!" as evidence of absence. You might know the practice better as "argument from ignorance," or think of it as "wall of ignorance," but it does come down to asserting "if I can't see it, it's not there," which is very efficiently countered with "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Assuming you don't want to just say "LOOK HARDER DUMBASS" and walk away, which personally I usually try to avoid because I'm loopy like that.

[Darth Wong]

Well, many people have trouble grasping the difference between evidence and proof, but that doesn't justify repeating their mistakes. The line "absence of proof is not proof of absence" is just as catchy. The "mistake" was, I suspect, quite deliberate on the part of religious apologists.

[Simon_Jester]

Uh... I don't really think the phrase was invented by "religious apologists." They're not all-powerful.

[Darth Wong]

Uh... I don't really think the phrase was invented by "religious apologists." They're not all-powerful.

I'm sure it would be incredibly difficult to determine who first said it. We can, however, say who loves to promote it.

[Serafina]

It's only catchy when you don't know the difference between evidence and proof. Someone everyone familiar with science (and law) should be, and religious fundamentalists notoriously aren't.

[Simon_Jester]

Uh... I don't really think the phrase was invented by "religious apologists." They're not all-powerful.

I'm sure it would be incredibly difficult to determine who first said it. We can, however, say who loves to promote it.

I use it. Because it's euphonious. It sounds good. Substituting 'proof' for 'evidence' makes it sound less good, at least to me. For these little aphorisms, tht matters.

If abuses of it are such a big problem, that's a general flaw in people's logic training, not some special evil that comes from the phrase itself.

When we get some moron in here who's shrieking "FALLACY" at people because he can't be troubled to understand their argument, does that mean that there's a problem with the idea of something like "the ad hominem fallacy?" Or does it mean we just found someone who doesn't know what it is?


By way of metaphor, I'm going to borrow another saying: "if the facts aren't on your side, pound on the law. If the law isn't on your side, pound on the facts. If neither is on your side, pound on the table." If someone does that, it isn't the table's fault that someone is pounding on it as a substitute for the facts and legal arguments they don't have.

It's only catchy when you don't know the difference between evidence and proof. Someone everyone familiar with science (and law) should be, and religious fundamentalists notoriously aren't.

So, what, I'm not allowed to use something that sounds good as a shorthand for a particular type of argument, because it doesn't pass hyperliteral analysis?

This makes talking sound awfully boring.

[Darth Wong]

Why does it sound better to you? Could it simply be that you've heard it far more times? Is there some musical principle of cadence that makes it sound intrinsically superior?

The fact is that one version is incorrect, and the other version is correct. Sure, a lot of people might not know the difference, but why use an incorrect (and worse yet, misleading) version if you do know the difference?

[Blayne]

[quote="Todeswind"][/quote]

Have you ever lived in poverty?

Secondly, are you aware that many of these suppression laws also work to make registering to vote tedious to the point of impossibility? Such as florida's needing to hand in their forms within 24-48 hours of being filled out?

[Terralthra]

Why does it sound better to you? Could it simply be that you've heard it far more times? Is there some musical principle of cadence that makes it sound intrinsically superior?

The fact is that one version is incorrect, and the other version is correct. Sure, a lot of people might not know the difference, but why use an incorrect (and worse yet, misleading) version if you do know the difference?

For me, yes, the ending "-ence" sounds to both words sounds phonetically similar and lends it a poetic quality, despite the technical inaccuracy.

[Todeswind]

Have you ever lived in poverty?

Secondly, are you aware that many of these suppression laws also work to make registering to vote tedious to the point of impossibility? Such as florida's needing to hand in their forms within 24-48 hours of being filled out?

I've lived in parts of the world where it was common for police to earn extra cash by killing street children in an effort to curtail the excess breeding of poor people in the Favelas. I have witnessed poverty beyond what the worst of America can offer. Do not presume to label me or to have the remotest idea of my life experiences simply because I disagree with you.

And I will repeat it again. Even if you don't have an ID in time for the november election (or just didn't know they had to make one) you can still vote by signing an affidavit to their identity that will later be verified by the state. Nobody is being prevented by voting.

If a voter cannot obtain an acceptable photo ID without paying a fee that they cannot afford to pay (for example, the cost of a certified copy of a birth certificate), the voter will be able to vote by provisional ballot.

[Darth Wong]

Why does it sound better to you? Could it simply be that you've heard it far more times? Is there some musical principle of cadence that makes it sound intrinsically superior?

The fact is that one version is incorrect, and the other version is correct. Sure, a lot of people might not know the difference, but why use an incorrect (and worse yet, misleading) version if you do know the difference?

For me, yes, the ending "-ence" sounds to both words sounds phonetically similar and lends it a poetic quality, despite the technical inaccuracy.

Does that honestly sound like a sufficient justification to promote a misleading statement?

[Terralthra]

Why does it sound better to you? Could it simply be that you've heard it far more times? Is there some musical principle of cadence that makes it sound intrinsically superior?

The fact is that one version is incorrect, and the other version is correct. Sure, a lot of people might not know the difference, but why use an incorrect (and worse yet, misleading) version if you do know the difference?

For me, yes, the ending "-ence" sounds to both words sounds phonetically similar and lends it a poetic quality, despite the technical inaccuracy.

Does that honestly sound like a sufficient justification to promote a misleading statement?

Nope, but then again, I don't use the phrase to begin with; I was just answering your question about why it sounds better.

[Losonti Tokash]

Being allowed to use a provisional ballot is not the same as voting. They are quite often "lost" or simply thrown out.

[Simon_Jester]

Since it's only "misleading" in the sense that it can be deliberately twisted by someone whose idea of "absence of evidence" is bizarre, I would say yes.

Almost any words can be twisted by someone. Or they won't mean the same thing to you that they did to me, because of idiosyncratic stuff about vocabulary and what context we learned different words in. Trying to make one's language totally free of ambiguity is impossible, if you can find someone determined enough to find "misleading" content in it.

Whereas actually using words that sound good and stick in the mind is very important to effective communication. So no, I think I'll keep using the phrase in places where I know it's not misleading.

[Darth Wong]

Since it's only "misleading" in the sense that it can be deliberately twisted by someone whose idea of "absence of evidence" is bizarre, I would say yes.

Almost any words can be twisted by someone. Or they won't mean the same thing to you that they did to me, because of idiosyncratic stuff about vocabulary and what context we learned different words in. Trying to make one's language totally free of ambiguity is impossible, if you can find someone determined enough to find "misleading" content in it.

Whereas actually using words that sound good and stick in the mind is very important to effective communication. So no, I think I'll keep using the phrase in places where I know it's not misleading.

You've got it backwards: the statement is false and misleading if you use the correct definition of "evidence". The statement can only be "correct" if one uses the wrong definition of "evidence", ie- thinking that "evidence" and "proof" are the same thing.

[Simon_Jester]

Since it's very easy to come up with examples of absence of evidence- any at all- really not being evidence of absence, I don't think it's misleading at all.

A lot of people dismiss things before they look. If that's not a logical fallacy, it's sure a silly thing to do. I have often found "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" useful in such cases- because when I haven't seen any evidence because I never looked, that's certainly not a piece of evidence i can use to say the thing isn't there.

Not all conversations boil down to repeats of you arguing against the existence of God while talking to some sophist who actually is mad and silly enough to trot out "God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist."

[SirNitram]

Have you ever lived in poverty?

Secondly, are you aware that many of these suppression laws also work to make registering to vote tedious to the point of impossibility? Such as florida's needing to hand in their forms within 24-48 hours of being filled out?

I've lived in parts of the world where it was common for police to earn extra cash by killing street children in an effort to curtail the excess breeding of poor people in the Favelas. I have witnessed poverty beyond what the worst of America can offer. Do not presume to label me or to have the remotest idea of my life experiences simply because I disagree with you.

And I will repeat it again. Even if you don't have an ID in time for the november election (or just didn't know they had to make one) you can still vote by signing an affidavit to their identity that will later be verified by the state. Nobody is being prevented by voting.

If a voter cannot obtain an acceptable photo ID without paying a fee that they cannot afford to pay (for example, the cost of a certified copy of a birth certificate), the voter will be able to vote by provisional ballot.

Except, if you knew what you were talking about, you'd know provisional ballets aren't worth the paper they're written on. Let me put it to the finest point possible: One election day, I explained I wasn't voting as I wasn't a citizen, it was still offered as a provisional. Most of the time, they aren't used. In short, no ID(And even one red cent is unconstitutional under poll tax rulings), no vote. The 'provisional' ballet is just a way to convince the dull of brain that those caught aren't simply fucked. It seemed to work on you well enough.