Voter photo id laws.

I'll start with an overview of the case and conclude with rebuttals. I'll show exactly why, if my sources are correct (and they are), Wylted cannot win this debate.== Overview ==Wylted has dropped almost every piece of evidence I offered. He briefly contested the News 21 study in Round 2, but dropped it in Round 3, as well as dropping the rest of my sources throughout (note: Wylted mentions [1], [5], and [6] but doesn't argue them). At this point, my uncontested evidence must be taken as true; Wylted cannot argue the evidence anymore because I won't be able to rebut what he says. This dooms Wylted's entire case.Suppression. The argument here is simple: photo ID laws impose a severe burden on voting by increasing the cost of voting. For low-income individuals, this cost is up to $175. [8] The impact: when the cost of voting increases, voter turnout decreases. Wylted drops this argument in its entirety. I supported this argument with multiple studies, including the unbiased GAO report discussed in Round 3. [7] Wylted also drops my "voting is a low reward activity" argument (see Round 2 and 3 for elaboration). The impact: even a small cost depresses voter turnout. These arguments -- especially when taken together -- weigh heavily against photo ID laws.NOTE: Wylted abandons his "provisional ballots," "reasonable accommodations," and "absenteee ballots" argument (i.e. he drops my rebuttal in Round 3), so those arguments carry no impact.Fraud. There is virtually no evidence of in-person voter fraud. I cited multiple studies which show that in-person voter fraud is extremely rare (e.g. the News 21 study says 0.5% of voter fraud is in-person voter fraud). Wylted also drops key arguments here. First, Wylted drops my argument that in-person voter fraud is the "most likely type of fraud to be discovered" (this point is discussed in the EAC report). [16] Second, Wylted drops my argument that in-person voter fraud is an inefficient and irrational way to influence an election (i.e. it's costly, difficult to coordinate, the easiest type of fraud to detect, and imposes heavy punishments). Finally, Wylted drops my argument on public perceptions of voting fraud (see section on Voting Integrity from Round 3). I discuss Wylted's "fraud is hard to detect" argument below.== Rebuttal == (1) Wylted wrote: "The study linked to does indeed show that number. What my opponent fails to show is how many of those 21 million people can still easily vote, with their military ID, government or employer ID, school ID, certificate of live birth, passports and several other methods that escape me at the moment."Wylted's statement is utter nonsense. The study says: "11 percent of United States citizens – more than 21 million individuals – do not have government-issued photo identification.” [1] The term "government-issued photo identification" includes all forms of ID relevant to this debate. The debate isn't about whether to require an identification document (e.g. a birth certificate). The debate is about whether to require a "government-issued photo ID." The study speaks directly to that issue. Wylted's attempt to discredit the study's impact simply has no bearing or relevance to this debate.(2) Wylted quotes this from [5]: "Voter identification requirements alone do not determine turnout. Multivariate models that take into account other predictors of voting can paint a more complete picture between voter identification requirents and turnout" (emphasis mine).The first sentence in this statement says photo ID laws affect voter turnout. Of course, other factors also affect voter turnout. So what? The study concludes: "The results presented here provide evidence that as voter identification requirements vary, voter turnout does as well....The overall effect for all registered voters was...statistically significant....It appears that stringent requirements can reduce turnout."(3) Wylted quotes this -- "[t]he district court found that the law placed no significant burden on the right to vote" -- from [6] and then claims "[e]ven my opponent's citations, support my position."Wylted's quote mining. The article states: "This Essay surveys the voter ID controversy and describes original empirical research finding ID laws to have a negative impact on voter turnout." Yes, the study notes that some courts have upheld photo ID laws, but the entire study was about those courts being wrong. The mere fact that the study "surveys the voter ID controversy" doesn't mean the study agrees with the courts that have upheld the laws. Contrary to Wylted's claim, the "citation" clearly found that photo ID laws depress voter turnout.(4) Wylted wrote: "I don't know where my opponent is getting his stats, but my ID cost me $20. In Indiana where they have voter ID laws, they made state issued ID's free for those who couldn't afford them."First, I'm not sure how Wylted doesn't know where the stats come from, since I've meticulously cited them throughout the debate. The stats come from the GAO report and from a study published by the Institute for Race & Justice at Harvard Law School. [7] [8] I cited both in Round 2 and discussed them again in Round 3. Second, $20 is a severe burden for some low-income voters, and it's certainly enough of a burden to influence turnout, because of the perception that voting is a low-reward activity (i.e. even a small cost lowers turnout). Third, just because a state-issued ID is free doesn't mean obtaining the ID is free. Voters must still pay for underlying documentation (e.g. birth certificates), travel and transportation costs, and waiting time (often having to take off work). I explained this in Round 2, but Wylted ignored that argument (i.e. pretends I never made it).(5) Relying on "Occam's Razor," Wylted says in-person voter fraud happens frequently because voter fraud is hard to detect.Occam's razor is the idea that "among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." Wylted's argument -- or rather, narrative -- requires more assumptions than mine, so under occam's razor, prefer mine. Wylted's argument rests on at least 4 or 5 assumptions. Wylted names some of them in his argument: (1) the idea that politicians will do anything they can get away with; (2) the idea that in-person voter fraud is harder to detect than other types of fraud (which is wrong as noted in [16]); (3) the idea that in-person voter fraud is economically feasible (it's not); (4) lack of evidence is irrelevant (also false). The number of assumptions underlying Wylted's position make occam's razor inapplicable. The argument I make rests on a single assumption: If there's no evidence of something, it's probably rare. If anything, occam's razor applies to my position, not Wylted's. The problems with Wylted's argument don't stop there. First, in-person voter fraud is the easiest type of voter fraud to detect. I made this argument in Round 2 and 3, and Wylted ignores it entirely. Wylted cannot argue this point now because I'd have no chance to rebut it. There's simply no reason politicians would use in-person voter fraud when other types of fraud are much harder to detect. Again, under occam's razor, politicians are going to choose the cheapest, least difficult to orchestrate, and hardest type of voter fraud to detect. I explained earlier that in-person voter fraud is not the cheapest, it's inefficient, it's difficult to coordinate and bribe thousands of voters, and it's the easiest to detect. Occam's razor suggests that in-person voter fraud simply isn't how politicians would go about influencing an election. This is especially so because of the heavy punishments that attach to in-person voter fraud. Second, in-person voter fraud requires a massive campaight by politicians. Wylted says politicians will engage in in-person voter fraud because it's difficult to detet, but that ignores the practical difficulty of orchestrating a massive campaign. The reason a massive campaign is necessary is because you can't influence an election with one vote. Politicians need to coordinate and bribe thousands upon thousands of voters. Occam's razor suggests that politicians won't go through that trouble, not only because of the complexity, but also because of the economics (it's simply too expensive). Think about how much each person would charge to break the law and face the risks of detected. Consider the risks: if even a single one of these thousands of people is caught, the entire scheme falls apart. The logistiscs are simly so complex and impractical, not to mention how inefficient in-person voter fraud is at influencing an election.I offered a study on these very points in Round 2 and 3 -- the EAC report -- which talks about all these practical difficulties with in-person voter fraud. The study makes the opposite argument that Wylted's making: It's simply so complex, impractical, inefficient, and expensive that politicians are going to choose other forms of voter fraud to influence an election. I also cited a study on public perceptions of voting fraud, which suggests that in-person voter fraud simply doesn't happen, for reasons relatating to public perceptions of it.Third, there's an easy solution to the kind of in-person voter fraud (using dead people's names) that Wylted talks about: update the voter rolls. That solution won't suppress voters. Wylted's given no reason why we can't do that instead of photo ID laws.== Conclusion ==Wylted cannot in this debate with the arguments he's made. He's dropped almost all my evidence. He's banked his entire case on the idea that in-person voter fraud is hard to detect so therefore it's happening frequently. But as I've shown, there's a number of other reasons why in-person voter fraud doesn't happen (e.g. practical issues orchestrating it). I've also shown that photo ID laws suppress a significant number of votes. The net effect of these laws is to suppress voters.