Quote:
Originally Posted by GirlySports
my ID example. Let's say of the people who don't have ID, 70% of them happen to be black. You get IDs for 100% then the black problem is solved without identifying it. If you identify it, you solve the 70% and the other 30% are pissed.
|
This does not follow. Identifying how a problem impacts different segments of society doesn't
require the solution to be skewed or limited to a particular segment of society. And in many cases you HAVE to identify those segments because the laws often require that a change
cannot inequitably impact a segment of society.
And if you don't identify how a segment of society is impacted by something, then you have no way of knowing if something does or doesn't have an inequitable impact.
And it's that ignorance of impact that facilitates those that DO have an idea and want to make an inequitable impact to do so. That's exactly what the voter registration law changes are; They're making a change that appears equitable and applies to everyone in the name of fairness to prevent fraud but only if you dig into the details, identify the segments of society involved and how they're impacted, do you find out that the change is (often purposefully) in fact impacting poor people far more than others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GirlySports
Just make good policy for everyone and if it indirectly helps minorities, great!
|
Well sure, but I think that oversimplifies things. We're talking about low level changes to complex interconnected systems where there's rarely a change that only results in wins from every possible viewpoint. There's always an upside and a downside.
And again, the only way to know if there's a downside is to identify and measure the outcomes.