PDA

View Full Version : Voter ID



Nicho Void
July 25 2012, 08:44:43 PM
In my home state of Minnesota, voter ID has been a recent point of contention.

I have to honestly admit that I do not understand how/why there is debate against the issue, so I'm hoping that some of you opposed to it (either locally, or on a national scale, or both) could give me a breakdown of why you disagree.

For those of you too lazy to Google:
Wiki summary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws)
State breakdown of current Voter ID laws (http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx)

spasm
July 25 2012, 08:51:05 PM
The only argument I heard against it (besides the typical government is putting us all on lists to execute when the revolution comes) is that it disenfranchises poor people and illegals. Illegals shouldn't be voting in the first place, and I'm betting the hobo with a litany of mental disorders doesn't care about it. Seems pretty sensible to me, I don't know who you can live today without some form of ID.

I think it should be mandatory in every state and I'm generally libertarian in my views.

I'm a bit uninformed about other states though, Florida has me register to vote and even gives me a voter ID card (no photo) when I do.

definatelynotKKassandra
July 25 2012, 08:58:28 PM
My understanding is that the sensible objections take the form of:

Requiring ID to vote is fine. Changing the requirements in the runup to an election is not.

Objectors would also claim that this debate always arises in the runup to major elctions, and goes quiet the year after when the impact on voters of any change would be minimised. This suggests the motives behind those wanting to change the ID requirements is not entirely about concern for the legitimacy of the democratic process. I have no idea whether that claim is accurate or fair, though.

I don't anyone would claim that requiring ID to vote is, in and of itself, wrong. However, introducing the requirement in teh runup to an election when it could have been brought in months/years earlier raises suspicions over motives.

Ralara
July 25 2012, 09:00:42 PM
I think it should be mandatory in the sense that "you only get one vote".

It should be anonymous in that "no one knows who you voted for".

It should not cost someone money or make it difficult to get or by some other means make some people over others more likely to have it.

As long as that is followed, I not only "don't care", I support it. In theory, it could, with relevant safe guards in place, cut down on fraud.



The issue I have with it (which doesn't really matter in the UK, since it'd never be this way... on account of us being "socialist", I guess :p) is making it cost money... perhaps $25 or $50... basically the individual paying for it, rather than "the tax payer" (i.e. it's spread out over time) and making people jump through loop holes. Those who do not have money / live on the breadline / poverty, cannot then afford one. Not to be partisan about it, but let's face it, MOST of those will vote democrat (if we pick the USA) if they had the choice between the two... ergo introducing it makes it "harder" for democrat "supporters" to vote for their representative. Whilst overly simplistic, that's one argument against it and it's one I understand.

Aea
July 25 2012, 09:16:30 PM
Objectors would also claim that this debate always arises in the runup to major elctions, and goes quiet the year after when the impact on voters of any change would be minimised. This suggests the motives behind those wanting to change the ID requirements is not entirely about concern for the legitimacy of the democratic process. I have no idea whether that claim is accurate or fair, though.

This would be my only opposition, every time such concerns are raising there are calls for purging voter registration rolls. This is patently unacceptable and to me are blatant attempts to manipulate turnout and/or discard otherwise legitimate votes.

F*** My Aunt Rita
July 25 2012, 09:37:03 PM
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/voter-id-laws-charts-maps

http://onebit.us/x/ut/AuntRita/34354aadd1.png (http://onebit.us/x/u/AuntRita/34354aadd1.png)http://onebit.us/x/ut/AuntRita/03b0ed72c3.png (http://onebit.us/x/u/AuntRita/03b0ed72c3.png)


Between 2000 and 2010, there were:

649 million votes cast in general elections

47,000 UFO sightings

441 Americans killed by lightning

13 credible cases of in-person voter impersonation


Proponents of voter ID laws are just using voter fraud justification to restrict voters who vote for the opposing party.

Krugerrand
July 25 2012, 09:45:54 PM
::ignorance: Do you guys in the US have to take any papers at all to register your vote?

Tarminic
July 25 2012, 09:47:48 PM
Proponents of voter ID laws are just using voter fraud justification to restrict voters who vote for the opposing party.
This, essentially. It disenfranchises tens or hundreds of thousands of voters while its positive impact is (to put it generously) negligible. I don't see how this is good legislative policy in any context.

Consider this in another context. What if a bill was introduced that said anyone who has had a speeding ticket would have their licenses revoked for 6 months, because 0.1% of that demographic caused fatal accidents? They'd be laughed out of the chamber.

Nicho Void
July 25 2012, 10:04:56 PM
::ignorance: Do you guys in the US have to take any papers at all to register your vote?
When I went to my first polling place a couple cycles back, I was told I needed something like, and I quote, "A cell phone bill with your name and address on it. If you do ebilling, just print it off". Not even a bill that had been mailed to me, a printed copy. I was blown away.

erichkknaar
July 25 2012, 10:20:54 PM
::ignorance: Do you guys in the US have to take any papers at all to register your vote?

Where I live, in California, they registered me to vote at my citizenship ceremony. You prove your status as a U.S. citizen (obviously easy when you get the certificate freshly minted) and that registrar records your information, address and your party choice.

Once the (my only experience is in the last primary in June) election comes around, they send a non-valid ballot to you by mail. It contains the ballot sheet, and the polling location on voting day. You also have the option to record your vote then and mail it in. According to some of the election officials I spoke to when I actually went to the polling location (a community hall), most people just do this anyway.

Anyway, I went to the polling location, because, well, first time voting in the U.S. and all, and I hand in the fake ballot with my name and address on it. They find my name on the roll, I sign it and they gave me a real ballot. At no point was I asked for ID, but I did have to sign beside my name, so I don't think there is any possibility of extra votes. I guess I could have claimed to be someone else, but all in all, it didn't seem like voter fraud is a big issue to me anyway. Every vote is tallied, and has to correspond with a registered voter.

Mynxee
July 26 2012, 12:50:35 AM
::ignorance: Do you guys in the US have to take any papers at all to register your vote?


I am always asked for a photo ID even though in my county of <8000 people, the people who run the polls where I vote know me by name. They look at my ID, find me on their computer list, check me off, and send me on to the guy who is the gatekeeper of the digital voting machine keycard. It's no big deal, usually takes about five minutes to vote because in 14 years here, I have only had to wait in line behind one other person once. Usually there is no one else in front of me and no delay.

Qwert
July 26 2012, 01:29:48 AM
The biggest problem with the ID requirement, especially coming so last minute, is that people tend to work in the same timeslot that you can go to %GOVT_OFFICE% and get an ID card. This normally isn't a problem, unless you are a poor family that needs to work every day to keep food on the table, and would have to spend money on gas taking the only family car for a day. And some states even charge you for the ID!

Funnily enough, poor people vote disproportionately Democrat, and the biggest pushers for voter ID are Republican.

Sponk
July 26 2012, 01:52:43 AM
Some quotes (emphasis mine)



The voter ID law passed by the GOP-controlled legislature in Pennsylvania could keep nearly half of registered voters in heavily Democratic Philadelphia from casting a ballot, according to new state data.

About 437,237 registered voters in Philly either lack a state-issued ID or have one that has expired before Nov. 6 of last year, which would make it invalid in the upcoming elections under Pennsylvania’s new law, according to state data (https://docs.google.com/open?id=1qpQCy54nPrZ6O535f-t3EFSTBYY4B-UdO0Lkxyop8h4WXP-qo0n-_PUW5YyM) obtained by the AFL-CIO. As first reported by Philadelphia City Paper (http://www.citypaper.net/blogs/nakedcity/Enormous-43-percent-of-Philadelphia-voters-may-not-have-voter-ID-according-to-new-data.html), that number represents 43 percent of registered voters in the city, the highest in any county statewide.




Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R) said that the voter ID law passed by the legislature would help deliver the state for Mitt Romney in November.

“Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation - abortion facility regulations - in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done,” Turzai said at this weekend’s Republican State Committee meeting , according to PoliticsPA.com.

A spokesman for Turzai confirmed the accuracy of the quote for TPM but argued that people were reading too much into it.

“The fact is that while Pennsylvania Democrats don’t like it to be talked about, there is election fraud,” Turzai spokesman Stephen Miskin told TPM. “Protecting the integrity of an individual vote is the purpose of any election reform."
yet


The state signed a stipulation agreement (http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/ApplewhiteStipulation.pdf) with lawyers for the plaintiffs which acknowledges there “have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states.”

and on the subject of these new laws in general:


Attorney General Eric Holder deviated from his prepared remarks during a speech before the NAACP on Tuesday and called voter ID laws “poll taxes.” (video (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/eric_holder_calls_voter_id_poll_taxes.php))

“Under the proposed law, concealed handgun licenses would be acceptable forms of photo ID, but student IDs would not,” Holder said, referring specifically to the voter ID law passed in Texas. “Many of those without IDs would have to travel great distances to get them, and some would struggle to pay for the documents they might need to obtain them. We call those poll taxes.”

That last line was not part of Holder’s prepared remarks released to the press.


Which sounds a bit rich at first, but:



[poor] voters may be particularly affected by the significant costs of the documentation required to obtain a photo ID. Birth certificates can cost between $8 and $25. Marriage licenses, required for married women whose birth certificates include a maiden name, can cost between $8 and $20. By comparison, the notorious poll tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_%28United_States%29) — outlawed during the civil rights era — cost $10.64 in current dollars.


since those taxes were declared unconstitutional, there's a case to be made that voter ID laws with non-free options are also unconstitutional.


Personally, though, I think the worst thing about the voting franchise in the US is that elections are held on a week day.

indi
July 26 2012, 06:46:05 AM
Living in a 'socialist' country, we have to ID before we can vote. I can see why. You want, after all, to make sure the people who vote are:
- Of an age to do so;
- Are citizens (which is not necessarily the same as holding the Dutch nationality, depends on election);
- Are allowed to vote
- Have not garnered unlimited votes from unsuspecting people

Before you explode @ nr 3 - there are some people who have a curator. These people might not be able to vote (think severely limited faculties). There is also the technical possibility that a judge has stripped someone of passive and/or active voting rights. This happened to a few Nazi sympathizers who had held office during the 2nd World War. Pretty rare all in all.

As for nr 4, you can 'deputize' someone to vote for you. A person cannot vote for more than 2 other people and the vote has to be cast at the same time as their own. This is to prevent certain people from just going into a caring facility for senior citizens and rounding up 200 votes. Once you're marked on the roster you can't come in with 2 new votes as your own has already been cast.

The process is much like Mynxee describes. We have 'kieskringen' - something like a small district. If you apply in time you can vote outside the district (administrative process), although you obviously can't vote in the neighbouring town if the election is for the local council. As long as there is nothing to connect you to your particular vote - and that is strictly part of the law - I don't see a problem. What is wrong with having an ID? It's pretty much mandatory here anyway (ask me about that some other time) and everyone has either a passport or ID card. The voting stations are manned by volunteers, not representatives of the government. The physical votes are kept and sometimes recounted to make sure no mistakes were made. (Voting computers are now mostly discarded due to mostly theoretical problems with them having been exposed).

I do see how it is terribly wrong to change a law like that in a period leading up to elections, leaving people (perhaps?) unable to get their identification sorted in time. Don't be too hasty to discard notions of election fraud; it happens in the USA too.

Navigator Six
July 26 2012, 07:24:49 AM
This seems pretty simple: voter ID is fine on paper, but this is the money quote (along with the matching one from Sponk up there):

In 2007, a report prepared by the staff of the federal Election Assistance Commission found that, among experts, "there is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud".[21] The report was based on research conducted by a Republican elections lawyer and another expert with liberal leanings.[21]
If you're passing laws in the runup to an election which have the practical effect of disenfranchising votors and which solve a problem that doesn't exist then it's obvious what you're really doing.

(related side note: Doonesbury has just this week kicked off (http://doonesbury.slate.com/strip/archive/2012/7/23) a series of comics on "Jim Crow laws")

untilted
July 26 2012, 09:29:30 AM
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/voter-id-laws-charts-maps

http://onebit.us/x/ut/AuntRita/34354aadd1.png (http://onebit.us/x/u/AuntRita/34354aadd1.png)http://onebit.us/x/ut/AuntRita/03b0ed72c3.png (http://onebit.us/x/u/AuntRita/03b0ed72c3.png)


Between 2000 and 2010, there were:

649 million votes cast in general elections

47,000 UFO sightings

441 Americans killed by lightning

13 credible cases of in-person voter impersonation


Proponents of voter ID laws are just using voter fraud justification to restrict voters who vote for the opposing party.

the content of the graphic is actually a very important argument.

from my (european) point of view voter ID is a non-problem, as it's very rare to not have a photo ID available (drivers license, passport, personal ID or similar) as in the context of a welfare state you regularly need these IDs anyway.

but looking at the US there seems to be no such tradition in regards to administration and interaction between state and citizens. considering that cost associated with photo IDs (even in europe it costs 50-100+ € to get such an ID) and the minimal benefit for everyday purposes (who needs a photo ID if never asked for it?) i certainly can see how it will exclude specific socio-economic groups of people.

add to this an increased frustration with representative democracy and it becomes even more questionable that people would spend a hundred $ just to take part in a political staging*, making elections as a fundamental process of representative democracy (even more) a farce.


*while "staging" has a negative undertone, symbolic acts are actually quite an important part of politics. e.g. the whole idea behind a parliamant is the idea to subvert antagonism inherent in a society and the associated tendency to violent outburst, into the peaceful ceremony of parliamentary practice of debating and casting votes. the same goes for elections - if it's not celebrated as an democratic practice, it becomes just another opinion poll without any ties to a concept of democracy.

lt
July 26 2012, 09:38:53 AM
On a side note I find it weird that so few americans have IDs. Pretty much anyone over the age of 15 got one here in Sweden.

indi
July 26 2012, 10:03:07 AM
On a side note I find it weird that so few americans have IDs. Pretty much anyone over the age of 15 got one here in Sweden.

I find it a very real problem, maybe even bigger than the voting issue. If a large portion of your population effectively has no access to ID, you seem to be quite close to a present and real proletariate... bad.

Hel OWeen
July 26 2012, 10:41:54 AM
From a German perspective, the whole U.S. voting system seems terribly complicated and therefore prone to errors (intentional and not). Let me quick describe the German system:

- Mandatory ID
You're even required to carry your ID card with you all the time to prove your identity (to authorities) if necessary. Sounds Orwellian to most of you, I guess, but in reality it's anon-issue. I'm 43 years old and in that time I needed to show my ID 2-3 times "outside of the norm" like at the airport for traveling and such. One occasion I remember was when a terror bombing (later reveal as initiated by the IRA) occurred nearby, where the victim was an officer of the British Rhine Army, and the police set up checkpoints and controlled every car which passed by. I guess we can all agree that it's reasonable to be asked for your ID in such cases. The other cases were similar.

- Mandatory registration
In Germany, you have to register with local authorities. You move somewhere -> you visit the town hall there and tell them where you live. That's mainly for two purposes: taxes and voting registration

- Automatic voting registration/notification
With the above, you're automatically registered as a voter (or not, depending of your citizenship). Each time an election takes place where you're eligible to vote, the city sends you an official voting card, where the type of election is pointed out and where your voting booth is located and its opening ours (typically 09:00-18:00, elections are alwaysheld on sundays in Germany). If you can't take part there at that time, because you're somewhere else, you might request either voting via mail or voting in a different district/city.

This very much resembles the fact that as a citizen you have the right (some even say duty) to vote. Under normal circumstances, there's nothing you need to do in order for you to be able to execute your perhaps most fundamental citizen right. On election day, you grab your voters invitation, wander to the voting booth and vote. Done!

So having described our process, the whole debate about Voter ID sounds very strange. And knowing the fact that in the U.S. there's non such thing like mandatory registration/ID, it seems the U.S. made a thing that should be very simple and accessible to every citizen overly complicated. Which then also opens up the opportunity for all sides to try to spin the system in their favor.

Me
July 26 2012, 11:07:04 AM
In the free world they just ask our name when we vote and tick it off the list and trust us to tell the truth since we are trustworthy.

Also voluntary suffrage is doing it wrong, you either make everyone vote or you only take the votes of those that deserve it. Voluntary voting only gets the extremes of either side voting, the "typical man in the street" doesn't bother.

untilted
July 26 2012, 11:15:35 AM
On election day, you grab your voters invitation, wander to the voting booth and vote. Done!

you sure you don't need an ID? because in austria you certainly do (even if you got the voters invitation)

the rest is pretty much 100% the same.

Sacul
July 26 2012, 11:59:07 AM
From a German perspective, the whole U.S. voting system seems terribly complicated and therefore prone to errors (intentional and not). Let me quick describe the German system:

- Mandatory ID
You're even required to carry your ID card with you all the time to prove your identity (to authorities) if necessary. Sounds Orwellian to most of you, I guess, but in reality it's anon-issue. I'm 43 years old and in that time I needed to show my ID 2-3 times "outside of the norm" like at the airport for traveling and such. One occasion I remember was when a terror bombing (later reveal as initiated by the IRA) occurred nearby, where the victim was an officer of the British Rhine Army, and the police set up checkpoints and controlled every car which passed by. I guess we can all agree that it's reasonable to be asked for your ID in such cases. The other cases were similar.

- Mandatory registration
In Germany, you have to register with local authorities. You move somewhere -> you visit the town hall there and tell them where you live. That's mainly for two purposes: taxes and voting registration

- Automatic voting registration/notification
With the above, you're automatically registered as a voter (or not, depending of your citizenship). Each time an election takes place where you're eligible to vote, the city sends you an official voting card, where the type of election is pointed out and where your voting booth is located and its opening ours (typically 09:00-18:00, elections are alwaysheld on sundays in Germany). If you can't take part there at that time, because you're somewhere else, you might request either voting via mail or voting in a different district/city.

This very much resembles the fact that as a citizen you have the right (some even say duty) to vote. Under normal circumstances, there's nothing you need to do in order for you to be able to execute your perhaps most fundamental citizen right. On election day, you grab your voters invitation, wander to the voting booth and vote. Done!

So having described our process, the whole debate about Voter ID sounds very strange. And knowing the fact that in the U.S. there's non such thing like mandatory registration/ID, it seems the U.S. made a thing that should be very simple and accessible to every citizen overly complicated. Which then also opens up the opportunity for all sides to try to spin the system in their favor.

Same in Holland, complete non-issue. The only thing i do not like is the fact a ID is insanly expensive *80 euro's (up 225% from 2008) . Can afford it sure but i had being the governments golden goose.

Hel OWeen
July 26 2012, 12:43:17 PM
On election day, you grab your voters invitation, wander to the voting booth and vote. Done!

you sure you don't need an ID? because in austria you certainly do (even if you got the voters invitation)

the rest is pretty much 100% the same.

You're supposed to carry your ID card with you, but I was very surprised on my first election that I didn't get asked for it. Well, back then I lived in a small village where everybody did know everybody. I've move since then, but haven't been asked for my ID since. I find that also disturbing, because anybody who is able to get hold of my voting invitation might vote in my name. I even asked the guys at the voting booth about that very fact. I don't remember the explanation, but I discarded it as "does not solve the issue at hand". As I've lived in a couple of different cities in a couple of different states within Germany, I can tell that it's not a local phenomen either.



The only thing i do not like is the fact a ID is insanly expensive *80 euro's (up 225% from 2008) . Can afford it sure but i had being the governments golden goose.


Yeah, same here. I wonder what I pay taxes for, as those are supposed to cover the administration's cost, if I need to pay an extra fee for each little <stuff> I need.

Shiroi Okami
July 26 2012, 01:32:50 PM
I don't understand, why use state issued voter-IDs instead of regular photo ID like a driver's license/student card/etc? Is there not a voting registrar in the US of every citizen from X state eligible to vote that they can consult on election day for people who come to vote?

elmicker
July 26 2012, 01:55:17 PM
Why use IDs at all? In the UK you just turn up, state your name and address, get your polling card, vote and fuck off. Unless fraud becomes a significant issue, why would you ever need anything more? Voting should have as few barriers to entry in place as possible.

Mynxee
July 26 2012, 01:58:32 PM
While I agree that changing the photo ID rules in the run-up to an election is shady, I don't have problems with such laws otherwise.

Re FMAR's chart citing percentages of adults without photo IDs, I am curious just exactly who doesn't have a photo ID and why they don't. You can't very effectively argue that it is just the poor and that they will be disenfranchised by requiring a voter ID when in fact to apply for social programs (like food stamps) in Virginia (and many other states), a photo ID is required. And at least in Virginia, when you apply for a photo ID, you also fill out a Voter ID form if you are someone who is eligible to vote. Then you get a Registered Voter card in the mail and that is all that you really HAVE to show to vote in VA. Sure, you have put in some effort (http://www.dmv.virginia.gov/webdoc/pdf/dmv141.pdf) to accomplish all this. So? Everyone in Virginia who has a photo ID had to do that.

Furthermore, what are those who believe the poor would be disenfranchised by such laws doing to make sure that every single person who wants one but is apparently too poor to get one on their own has a photo ID?

Food for thought (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/293027/real-photo-id-civil-rights-issue-deroy-murdock):


“It’s perplexing how so many groups complaining about voter ID laws have the funds to register voters, educate voters, and transport voters to the polls, but never budget anything to rectify ID problems,” declared Deneen Borelli, one of my fellow advisory-board members of Project 21, a network of market-oriented black thinkers.

Civil-rights organizations and other groups that rail against photo-ID rules “should dedicate their resources to help people get IDs rather than complain about laws that have passed,” says J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department voting-rights attorney and author of the legal-policy page-turner Injustice. “That’s what they did in 1964. But it’s harder to raise funds off of accomplishments rather than complaints.” Adams introduced me to the challenge of credentialing America’s undocumented citizens.

Nicho Void
July 26 2012, 02:17:27 PM
My Google foo seems to be failing me here. I'm curious to see if there is any data or graphs exploring the correlation (if any) between states with/without voter ID laws and the number of fraud cases successfully prosecuted. I hear a lot of you saying voter ID is unnecessary until fraud becomes a problem and I wonder if that's true, if voter ID actually deters fraud, or if it's all just a political way to stir the pot.

Great discussion so far. I especially like hearing how this works in other countries. Big ups m8s.

elmicker
July 26 2012, 02:57:03 PM
I am curious just exactly who doesn't have a photo ID and why they don't.

Why should that matter? Before we get to the topic of who has id, who hasn't and why not, in this context we need to establish whether ID is necessary. Speaking from principles, voting should be as accessible as is reasonably possible. A multitude of countries manage to pull off fraud-free voting without requiring ID, so why have that barrier at all in the first place?

Lallante
July 26 2012, 02:57:52 PM
The reason people get worked up in favour of it is because it disproportionately fucks over the poorest people in the area, in turn disproportionately from minorities.

Voter fraud isn't widespread for the additional security to be worth the massive disenfranchisement.

Note that if ID were compulsory then voter ID would be a reasonable requirement, but as ID is NOT compulsory, you just screw over those who dont know how to get ID, can't afford it, etc.

Mynxee
July 26 2012, 03:11:13 PM
I am curious just exactly who doesn't have a photo ID and why they don't.

Why should that matter? Before we get to the topic of who has id, who hasn't and why not, in this context we need to establish whether ID is necessary. Speaking from principles, voting should be as accessible as is reasonably possible. A multitude of countries manage to pull off fraud-free voting without requiring ID, so why have that barrier at all in the first place?

It would seem that knowing why people don't have IDs would be useful information in determining whether IDs are necessary and what the impact of requiring them might be. It would also potentially shed light on whether being poor is a key factor in not having an ID and thus whether the poor would be disenfranchised as a whole if IDs were required. There will always be edge cases, but the central argument seems to be that requiring voter IDs would prevent the majority of the poor to vote. My further question then is "Do they vote now, in places where an ID is not required?" To understand the potential scope of the impact, I think answers to these questions really need to be examined.

Edited to add: Can you cite any authority as to which countries that don't require voter ID have fraud-free elections, and as well as any alternate measure those countries may be taking to prevent fraud?

Hel OWeen
July 26 2012, 03:42:57 PM
It would seem that knowing why people don't have IDs would be useful information in determining whether IDs are necessary and what the impact of requiring them might be.

At least for the later (impact), the Wiki linked in the OP has some material:


A commonly cited study by New York University's Brennan Center claimed that of the US population that is of voting age, 11% lack government-issued photo IDs.[27] A paper in the Harvard Law and Policy Review, “ID at the Polls: Assessing the Impact of Recent State Voter ID Laws on Voter Turnout”(PDF), compares changes in voter turnout between 2002 and 2006 as related to three voting requirement categories – photo ID needed, non-photo ID needed and no identification needed. Key study findings include: 1). “Non-photo ID laws [are] associated with a 2.2% point decline in turnout, and photo ID laws are correlated with a 1.6% point decline.” In a related analysis, the author found a 1.1% decline in turnout in states with strengthened photo ID laws between 2002 and 2006. 2). In 2002, prior to the widespread adoption of photo ID poll requirements, more than 40% of eligible voters in states with no voting ID requirements and more than 35% of voters in states with minimal ID requirements turned out at the polls. By 2006, the percentage of voting-age citizens who turned out in states with no ID requirement or a non-photo ID requirement increased to 42% and 38%, respectively. States requiring a photo voter ID saw the lowest percentage of voter turnout, approximately 37%. 3). Counties with older populations saw an increase in turnout of 1.5%. However, counties with higher Hispanic and Asian-American populations saw a small negative effect on voter turnout as ID laws were tightened. Greater household income positively correlated with voter turnout. 4). Possible variables impacting overall voter turnout include Election Day registration (associated with increases), the presence of an incumbent (a small increase) or a controversial ballot initiative (a 4.6% point increase in voter turnout). Much of the increase in voter turnout can be attributed to news coverage and state-sponsored public outreach.[28]

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative thinktank, disputed the methodology of the study of 900 people. The credibility of the survey was contested by another question, where 14% of respondents said they had both a U.S. birth certificate and naturalization papers.[29] In 2010, the voting age population was an estimated 237.3 million, and the citizen voting age population was 217.5 million. Of those, 186.9 million were registered voters.[30] The Heritage Foundation has pointed to U.S. Department of Transportation records showing that there were 205.8 million valid drivers licenses in 2009, meaning there are 19 million more individuals with photo ID than there are registered voters, as evidence that photo ID is not hard to obtain[31], though this frame still assumes that voters should have to take the extra step of getting an ID and bringing it to their polling place in order to vote. Similarly, Kris Kobach, a Republican supporter of Voter ID laws, points to evidence in Kansas that more than 30,000 registered drivers in Kansas are not registered to vote.[32]


One question did arise from this thread: which problem is this voter ID supposed to solve? Was there a special event that triggered that debate? I mean, it did work without ID until now, so why change it?

elmicker
July 26 2012, 06:58:02 PM
It would seem that knowing why people don't have IDs would be useful information in determining whether IDs are necessary and what the impact of requiring them might be.

You've got this logic thing backwards. Whether IDs are necessary has nothing whatsoever to do with who has them, who hasn't and if not why not. The two things are independent. You assess the impact of a change once you've considered the necessity of the change. Ends and means.


seems to be that requiring voter IDs would prevent the majority of the poor to vote.

No, it doesn't. You've just made this up. The only person to have said the word "majority" in this thread is you. (and sponk, but in a completely unrelated context).

The key argument, or my argument at least, is that requiring ID represents further state intrusion into the voting process. I think all would agree that in a liberal democracy that the process of voting should be as unfettered, as easy to do and as free as is possible.

So, the fundamental question isn't "who would be disenfranchised" it's "what's the fucking point?"

If one takes the time to examine the fundamental question of "what's the fucking point", you'll find, as others have stated in this thread that "there is no fucking point"; fraud is rare and ID laws probably wouldn't prevent it anyway (particularly not in the US with your loltastic systems of ID).

So you get to the further question: why do people care?

The answer, as it unfortunately so often is, is simple racism. Or if you're a bit more generous it's gerrymandering but let's be honest it's fucking racism.


My further question then is "Do they vote now, in places where an ID is not required?" To understand the potential scope of the impact, I think answers to these questions really need to be examined.

Why bother with the impact until you've assessed the need? You're still prattling on as if voting needs to be more secure, when instances of fraud by impersonation are so few and far between that simply not a single fuck should be given about them; compared to spoiled or incorrectly filled out ballot papers they're absolutely nothing.


Edited to add: Can you cite any authority as to which countries that don't require voter ID have fraud-free elections, and as well as any alternate measure those countries may be taking to prevent fraud?

Well if you'd bothered to read the thread you'd know the UK, amongst others, requires absolutely no identification other than ticking one's name off a list.



Answer me this.

You'd have no problem with someone demanding you identify yourself with state-issued ID to vote.
Would you have a problem with someone demanding you identify yourself with state-issued ID to protest? Or to travel between cities? Or to walk down the street?

That's how fundamental voting is. It should be as free as you can humanly make it. Something as odious as voter ID requirements, something that so clearly disproportionately impacts the poor and ethnic minorities, should be laughed out of the room as the fascism it is.

Sacul
July 26 2012, 07:48:52 PM
[quote]seems to be that requiring voter IDs would prevent the majority of the poor to vote.

No, it doesn't. You've just made this up. The only person to have said the word "majority" in this thread is you. (and sponk, but in a completely unrelated context).



I admit i dont know the source from the top of my head but i distinctly remember from the last election cycle where this same thing happened that yes indeed it makes it so that poor voters dont vote if they need a ID which cost money and is used only for voting. We are discussing America here where only 10% (something very low in any case) of all citizens even have a passport.

Poor vote is usually black vote is usually democrat etc etc. In any case Mynxee didnt make it up.

elmicker
July 26 2012, 08:07:27 PM
Even if we're at the considering what will happen stage, we don't need empirical evidence to see what will happen. We can just employ pure logic. This being the srsbsns forum, I'm going to assume that's positively encouraged.

The whole point of a voter id law, its entire purpose, is to prevent people without a valid ID from voting.
What is therefore implied is that demographics that tend to be without valid ID will tend to be discouraged from voting, regardless of whether they should in principle be allowed to vote.
In general this will make it harder for all persons to vote. In demographic terms it will be harder to vote the fewer members of that demographic hold valid ID.

If we throw in FMAR's data, which is almost certainly reputable (FMAR being a generally upstanding gentleman of good character), that leads us to at least one direct conclusion.

A direct consequence of any voter ID law is that it becomes harder for black people, for poor people, for hispanics, for young and for the poor to vote. Fewer poors, ethnics and yoofs will vote.

To what end? Sweet fuck all. We simply cannot conclude that fraud would be significantly reduced. To be frank we can't even conclude that voter fraud even exists in most western democracies. Not only is the presented argument in favour of the laws simply baseless, the negative consequences of those laws are intolerable in any liberal democratic society.

indi
July 26 2012, 08:15:08 PM
The key argument, or my argument at least, is that requiring ID represents further state intrusion into the voting process. I think all would agree that in a liberal democracy that the process of voting should be as unfettered, as easy to do and as free as is possible.


Not going to go into the rest of the text, but no, not all would agree. Fallacy there :-) My mind is frankly boggled that you can see 'state intrusion' in a process like voting, which you really, really cannot in any way see as separate of the state you don't want intruding in that very process.

Yes, voting should be accessible to as many people as possible, the threshold should be low and they should be free to cast whichever vote they want. Nobody should be able to trace anyone's vote back to them, etc. I think those principles are probably something we can all agree on. But elections and their results are only worth anything if they are done correctly - and as certain countries in this world show, that's not the case everywhere. (I'm not saying that the USA or the Netherlands or Germany are in any real danger of that any time soon, mind you.) But the voting process should be regulated by law and there should be supervision. If that isn't done by some part of the government, I wouldn't know who should do it.

I too cannot fathom why it is such a problem. I think it is an almost fundamental right to have an ID and claim your place in society. As I said before, it's worrying that there's apparently a large minority of people who cannot do this in the USA. Would be nice to see that fixed.

(Sacul, 80 euros is ridiculous. Move to a different municipality :-) )

elmicker
July 26 2012, 08:22:14 PM
I never said there shouldn't be any regulation, i said what regulation there is should be kept to an absolute bare minimum. If there isn't a clear-cut case for having that regulation in place, it frankly should not be there.

This argument comes across a lot better if, in place of "regulation", you do the traditional righty thing and read "barrier" or "red tape". We shouldn't have to jump through hoops to vote. We will if we absolutely have to, but generally we shouldn't. Proving you are who you say you are by showing state-regulated ID is a hoop you don't absolutely have to jump through, so it's a hoop that cet. par. shouldn't be there.

Throw in the demographic data about who tends not to have ID and the argument stops being one of principle and one of outright racism.

Sacul
July 26 2012, 08:31:55 PM
Even if we're at the considering what will happen stage, we don't need empirical evidence to see what will happen. We can just employ pure logic. This being the srsbsns forum, I'm going to assume that's positively encouraged.

The whole point of a voter id law, its entire purpose, is to prevent people without a valid ID from voting.
What is therefore implied is that demographics that tend to be without valid ID will tend to be discouraged from voting, regardless of whether they should in principle be allowed to vote.
In general this will make it harder for all persons to vote. In demographic terms it will be harder to vote the fewer members of that demographic hold valid ID.

If we throw in FMAR's data, which is almost certainly reputable (FMAR being a generally upstanding gentleman of good character), that leads us to at least one direct conclusion.

A direct consequence of any voter ID law is that it becomes harder for black people, for poor people, for hispanics, for young and for the poor to vote. Fewer poors, ethnics and yoofs will vote.

To what end? Sweet fuck all. We simply cannot conclude that fraud would be significantly reduced. To be frank we can't even conclude that voter fraud even exists in most western democracies. Not only is the presented argument in favour of the laws simply baseless, the negative consequences of those laws are intolerable in any liberal democratic society.

Well i dont take the fraud argument seriously either but as you pointed out the demographics are the key here. In 2 ways 1) poor people dont vote for party 'x' sp party 'y' is leading the ID laws. 2) poor people are fickle as fuck and cant be trusted upon come next election cycle.
I would honestly like to see some data on this last part because i can imagine it but dont know if its the case in the USA (i know its the case in Holland, very much so even but we allready have extensive ID laws ffs it sometimes feels like you need an ID to take a shit outside your house, try loosing on over here and feel like a african immigrant (i had that kafkaesk scenario happen to me once).

indi
July 26 2012, 08:32:00 PM
I never said there shouldn't be any regulation, i said what regulation there is should be kept to an absolute bare minimum. If there isn't a clear-cut case for having that regulation in place, it frankly should not be there.

This argument comes across a lot better if, in place of "regulation", you do the traditional righty thing and read "barrier" or "red tape". We shouldn't have to jump through hoops to vote. We will if we absolutely have to, but generally we shouldn't. Proving you are who you say you are by showing state-regulated ID is a hoop you don't absolutely have to jump through, so it's a hoop that cet. par. shouldn't be there.

Throw in the demographic data about who tends not to have ID and the argument stops being one of principle and one of outright racism.

1) I think it's necessary. We can agree to disagree
2) That's not the problem of the voter ID regulation (or possibility of, etc). That's a problem you need to fix at its root; the disadvantage this group is at is frankly staggering.

In case I wasn't absolutely clear, I find it distasteful to the maximum to try and find ways to exclude people from the voting process. But I think the debate on principle should have nothing to do with this particular issue. In practice: different story, of course - it's so wrong I don't have words.

Nicho Void
July 26 2012, 09:03:16 PM
I never said there shouldn't be any regulation, i said what regulation there is should be kept to an absolute bare minimum. If there isn't a clear-cut case for having that regulation in place, it frankly should not be there.

This argument comes across a lot better if, in place of "regulation", you do the traditional righty thing and read "barrier" or "red tape". We shouldn't have to jump through hoops to vote. We will if we absolutely have to, but generally we shouldn't. Proving you are who you say you are by showing state-regulated ID is a hoop you don't absolutely have to jump through, so it's a hoop that cet. par. shouldn't be there.

Throw in the demographic data about who tends not to have ID and the argument stops being one of principle and one of outright racism.

1) I think it's necessary. We can agree to disagree
2) That's not the problem of the voter ID regulation (or possibility of, etc). That's a problem you need to fix at its root; the disadvantage this group is at is frankly staggering.

In case I wasn't absolutely clear, I find it distasteful to the maximum to try and find ways to exclude people from the voting process. But I think the debate on principle should have nothing to do with this particular issue. In practice: different story, of course - it's so wrong I don't have words.
I think I agree with indi here. If the root problem is that voter ID disproportionally excludes minorities from voting, can we not do something about that problem in order to have a more secure voting system (perceived or otherwise, I'm still hoping we can dig up data on fraud charges/convictions/etc)?

Or are state issued IDs the mark of the beast, etc?

Qwert
July 26 2012, 09:11:35 PM
Everyone going on about "secuting the vote" are falling for the bait, hook, line, and sinker. As it is now, there is negligible voting fraud that a voter ID law would stop. The real question, then, is why they are pushing for a voter security law, when they know it won't help in the slightest?


As an analogy, you are letting the firewall salesman sell you a firewall for a system with no network capability, then ignoring all the money you are giving him because technically, it improves security.

Mynxee
July 26 2012, 10:33:56 PM
Answer me this.

You'd have no problem with someone demanding you identify yourself with state-issued ID to vote.
Would you have a problem with someone demanding you identify yourself with state-issued ID to protest? Or to travel between cities? Or to walk down the street?

No, no, and :roll: To travel between cities on a plane, I have to show ID. If some cop decides to pull my car over, I have to show ID. So what? Why the fuck should I care if I am required to identify myself?


That's how fundamental voting is. It should be as free as you can humanly make it. Something as odious as voter ID requirements, something that so clearly disproportionately impacts the poor and ethnic minorities, should be laughed out of the room as the fascism it is.

While I agree that voting should be as accessible a right as it can be, I do not see how that right can be separated from a need to establish one's eligibility to exercise that right. To me, it's not a lot different than establishing your right to cash a check by showing an ID to prove that you are indeed the person to whom that check is written to. Or that you are the person for whom an airline ticket was issued. Or that you are the person who is named on your health insurance card so that you can get medical services.

Voter ID cards as currently proposed may not be the best way to prove voter eligibility but I don't have a problem AT ALL with requiring that people prove they are eligible to vote before they are allowed to actually cast their vote. Maybe something like Mexico's biometric ID issued to all citizens is a better approach. They just swipe their card in a reader and then vote, done deal, no registration required. A card like that could serve many ID-related purposes, too, not just establish voting eligibility and are presumably less prone to tampering/forgery than your typical state-issued driver license or photo ID.

Sponk
July 26 2012, 10:58:00 PM
No, no, and :roll: To travel between cities on a plane, I have to show ID.

You didn't used to, btw. Just show your ticket and not have explosives. The ID was actually pushed by the airlines, to stop people reselling or giving away tickets.

elmicker
July 26 2012, 10:58:27 PM
But I think the debate on principle should have nothing to do with this particular issue.

That's why i approached it from both angles. In principle it represents a completely unnecessary barrier to voting and in practice it represents a grossly disproportionate burden on already significantly disenfranchised (in economic terms) minorities.

elmicker
July 26 2012, 11:05:26 PM
No, no, and :roll: To travel between cities on a plane, I have to show ID. If some cop decides to pull my car over, I have to show ID. So what? Why the fuck should I care if I am required to identify myself?

Why the fuck should you care if the police want to investigate your life if you've got nothing to hide, amirite?

Flying on a plane (operated by a private company, using the public's airspace) and driving a car (under license, on the public's roads) are privileges, not rights. Voting is a right. I used protesting and walking down the street for a reason. We're talking about the fundamental building blocks of democracy here, not the hazardous products of private enterprise.



While I agree that voting should be as accessible a right as it can be, I do not see how that right can be separated from a need to establish one's eligibility to exercise that right.

This is a very, very poor straw man argument. Not once have I ever said there is no need to establish the voter's identity. I've said throughout that requiring some form of physical ID card, usually a state issued photo ID with nothing whatsoever to do with your voting (driving license, passport etc.), is a totally disproportionate method of establishing that identity.

You're prattling on as if I'm saying voters shouldn't have to identify themselves and that simply isn't the case, yet again attacking arguments you've just made up.

For an example, again from the UK. If I am contacted by my bank, or if I contact them, or if I visit my doctor, all that is required to reasonably establish my identity is me verbally stating my name, my address and occasionally my date of birth. This brings us back to the fundamental question underlying this issue, one you have consistently refused to answer.

Why should the state demand anything more?

Voter fraud is as good as nonexistant. Voting should be as accessible as possible, both in principle and in practice; someone on their way home from work should be able to vote without having to worry about bringing ID, for example.

So why, why should the state demand formal, physical identification?

You've stated more than once now that you see nothing wrong with the state demanding this identification, and I don't disagree in principle with the need for the voter to identify themselves, but you've consistently failed to explain why you think requiring physical, state-issued ID, a measure plainly above and beyond what is required, is acceptable to you.

Try explaining that and maybe we'll get somewhere.

inora aknaria
July 26 2012, 11:42:28 PM
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measuring-the-effects-of-voter-identification-laws/

Five thirty eight is an interesting site / blog that follows the election and its polls and tries to use those all to attempt to accurately give tracking on how the election is progressing. I like the site because of how the owner goes through and attempts to explain what he does, how he does it, and his rationalizations for his decisions in approaching the problem of predicting elections.

The article I linked is his attempt to provide statistics into the voter id laws and their effect on the election. His conclusion is essentially that it effects democrats at twice the rate of republicans, but the magnitude of the effect is small. I thought it was an interesting read.

tapatalk

Mynxee
July 26 2012, 11:59:15 PM
For an example, again from the UK. If I am contacted by my bank, or if I contact them, or if I visit my doctor, all that is required to reasonably establish my identity is me verbally stating my name, my address and occasionally my date of birth. This brings us back to the fundamental question underlying this issue, one you have consistently refused to answer.

Why should the state demand anything more?

Really? That's how it works in the UK? Okay. I'll assume you're not trolling, as hard as it is to believe you're not. Based on your assertions, what is stopping a person who knows some basic information about you from impersonating you at your bank, doctor, or elsewhere and availing themselves of whatever resources you'd have access to? Like, you know, your money. To extend that idea relevant to the conversation here, what is stopping them from impersonating you at the polls? That is why I think the state should demand voter identification, by a method less prone to misuse than simply taking someone's word for who they are and which provides the lowest barrier of entry for everyone regardless of socioeconomic status.


Voter fraud is as good as nonexistant. Voting should be as accessible as possible, both in principle and in practice; someone on their way home from work should be able to vote without having to worry about bringing ID, for example.

So why, why should the state demand formal, physical identification?

If the voting process is not conducted in a way that permits voter identification so that their eligibility is established and their participation at the polls recorded, how does the state prevent one person from voting multiple times or those with no legal voting rights from casting votes? With the undocumented approach you advocate, how can the level of fraud even be calculated?


Try explaining that and maybe we'll get somewhere.

Are we there yet?

lt
July 27 2012, 04:47:12 AM
Elmicker, you don't have to show some sort of ID at the bank? Because I'd be pissed if someone could walk in to my bank and just claim that they are me. Or do you mean over the phone only?



:TpTlk:

Navigator Six
July 27 2012, 06:31:51 AM
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2012/db120727.gif

indi
July 27 2012, 06:54:47 AM
I recognize everyone's right to a different opinion (really, I do :) ), but could we keep the tone of the debate constructive and somewhat polite/respectful?

In the Dutchlands I have to be able to show ID to the doctor/hospital. In practice it is not usually brought up after you have completed your registration at that particular hospital - but yes, health insurance fraud is regularly committed. Considering all ensured people have what we refer to as a 'risk' of a few hundred euros on a yearly basis that would potentially hurt your wallet too. I have to be able to ID myself to the bank too, etc. This is at least a hurdle to some retard deciding my money should be his (or hers).

Using a database with your citizens in it (y'know, most civilized countries do have this :) ) you can work up a list of eligible voters in no time. This means nobody will have to register to vote, they just show up - lowers the barrier. They show their ID - which is not copied, etc - to prove they are who they say they are and are eligible to vote. Presto. I accept that some (like Elmicker) don't agree on this necessity. That's fine. But I would like to see some respect for this point of view too.

On a sidenote, I do have issues with the extent to which you can be required to identify yourself to police, etc. In all honesty, it hasn't happened to me yet. If I would find the request unreasonable as it apparently often is, I'd bring it before the judge myself (and probably win like most others who do that). Just to make it abundantly clear, I am not one of those people who will say it is ok for the police/government/uncle bob to have an insight into all that you do 'because you have nothing to hide anyway'.

Aramendel
July 27 2012, 09:49:23 AM
Elmicker, you don't have to show some sort of ID at the bank? Because I'd be pissed if someone could walk in to my bank and just claim that they are me. Or do you mean over the phone only?

That. If I go to the bank in socialist Germany I do not have to show my identity card (unless I want to open or close an account), but I *do* have to show my bank card. Similar when I go to the doctor, I do not have to show my identity card, but they need my medical insurance card. I do need my identity card when I pick up a package for me from the postal office.

If they phone me I do not need to tell them it, of course. That would be silly, I am already phoning from the number I gave them. Or they are calling me using them number I gave them. Likewise I do not need to show my identity card when I receive a package at my own door step (with the exception of special letters which require it, i.e. bank cards are typically sent like that).

The tl'dr is: I do not always need my identity card, but I almost always need some form to identify myself.

Lallante
July 27 2012, 10:05:13 AM
11% of total voters in the US dont have ID
They are overwhelmingly disproportionately vulnerable (poor, low income, minorities, aged etc).

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/section/category/voter_id/

If you dont have a birth certificate or other existing ID, getting the necessary voting ID is insanely expensive, difficult, time consuming and complex.


People bringing up the use of ID in different countries and contexts is completely unhelpful - in many of those countries or contexts owning ID is compulsory and (usually) free, so the issues with requiring it to vote do not apply.

If you want ID to be compulsory for voting then you first need to make ID free, compulsory and make obtaining it minimal hassle, next you need to educate people about the need for ID and ensure its propegation until 99% of the population has it. THEN and only then can you fairly require it for voting.


For a srs bzns forum thread there seem to be a lot of "why would you care if you have nothing to hide?" arguements...

Aramendel
July 27 2012, 10:40:36 AM
If you want ID to be compulsory for voting then you first need to make ID free, compulsory and make obtaining it minimal hassle, next you need to educate people about the need for ID and ensure its propegation until 99% of the population has it. THEN and only then can you fairly require it for voting.

Agreed there. The cost of getting an ID is definitely a problem in the US.

But I think elmicker was arguing more along the lines of "I do not want to have to show my ID because of my FREEDOM!" which is kinda silly.

Hel OWeen
July 27 2012, 11:12:09 AM
11% of total voters in the US dont have ID
If you dont have a birth certificate or other existing ID, getting the necessary voting ID is insanely expensive, difficult, time consuming and complex.


Don't take this as U.S. bashing, but rather as a big surprising "What!?!" moment: If I wouldn't know that we are discussing voter ID in the U.S. here, that statement sounded like it references some 3rd world banana republic. No birth certificate?


For a srs bzns forum thread there seem to be a lot of "why would you care if you have nothing to hide?" arguements...

Don't mistake "I have a right to a means to identify me as a citizen of a country, with all rights that are granted to a citizen" for the "if you have nothing to hide ..." argument.

I'm a strong proponent of strict privacy laws and I'm pleased that my country, Germany, has some of the strictest laws in that area, which I feel are nonetheless way to loose. But at the same time I think just like voting should be accessable as possible, proving your identiy without a doubt should be, too.

Lallante
July 27 2012, 12:04:09 PM
If you want ID to be compulsory for voting then you first need to make ID free, compulsory and make obtaining it minimal hassle, next you need to educate people about the need for ID and ensure its propegation until 99% of the population has it. THEN and only then can you fairly require it for voting.

Agreed there. The cost of getting an ID is definitely a problem in the US.

But I think elmicker was arguing more along the lines of "I do not want to have to show my ID because of my FREEDOM!" which is kinda silly.

If everyone already had to carry ID that would be a silly arguement as in effect your voter registration card has the same effect on your "Freedom" (i.e. it "identifies" you by name as a registered voter).

Lallante
July 27 2012, 12:05:44 PM
11% of total voters in the US dont have ID
If you dont have a birth certificate or other existing ID, getting the necessary voting ID is insanely expensive, difficult, time consuming and complex.


Don't take this as U.S. bashing, but rather as a big surprising "What!?!" moment: If I wouldn't know that we are discussing voter ID in the U.S. here, that statement sounded like it references some 3rd world banana republic. No birth certificate?
7% of US citizens do not have ready access to their birth certificate.

Things get lost, stolen, destroyed etc.

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/download_file_39242.pdf



For a srs bzns forum thread there seem to be a lot of "why would you care if you have nothing to hide?" arguements...

Don't mistake "I have a right to a means to identify me as a citizen of a country, with all rights that are granted to a citizen" for the "if you have nothing to hide ..." argument.

I'm a strong proponent of strict privacy laws and I'm pleased that my country, Germany, has some of the strictest laws in that area, which I feel are nonetheless way to loose. But at the same time I think just like voting should be accessable as possible, proving your identiy without a doubt should be, too.

"right?" we are talking about an OBLIGATION to have a SPECIFIC and OPTIONAL form of proof of identity (an I.D.) above and beyond what is currently required for voting (a voter registration card).

You are on my side of the argument as currently in the US and in many (most?) countries getting an official form of I.D. is optional, expensive, difficult and slow and therefore is not done by a significant (11% in the US) portion of the population.

Hel OWeen
July 27 2012, 12:52:23 PM
"right?" we are talking about an OBLIGATION to have a SPECIFIC and OPTIONAL form of proof of identity (an I.D.) above and beyond what is currently required for voting (a voter registration card).


I guess that's where we differ. And we differ because of our different backgrounds. You feel it's an unnecessary, additional obligation - which it is, if implemented on top of the current procedure. From your POV, I can agree with you there.

But I call it a right - but keep in mind that I'm a citizen of country which has mandatory ID card anyway - which also acts as voter ID. So that's an absolute non-issue for me.

But I asked a question earlier in the thread, to which no one answered. What was/is the problem/event, that stimulated this voter ID debate now? I'm not referring to the OP, here, but wonder if something happened in Minnesota. Or was it just on the agenda anyway?

Aramendel
July 27 2012, 12:58:01 PM
I guess that's where we differ. And we differ because of our different backgrounds. You feel it's an unnecessary, additional obligation - which it is, if implemented on top of the current procedure. From your POV, I can agree with you there.

But I call it a right - but keep in mind that I'm a citizen of country which has mandatory ID card anyway - which also acts as voter ID. So that's an absolute non-issue for me.

You do not differ, you miss what Lall is saying.


If you want ID to be compulsory for voting then you first need to make ID free, compulsory and make obtaining it minimal hassle, next you need to educate people about the need for ID and ensure its propegation until 99% of the population has it. THEN and only then can you fairly require it for voting.

He has no problems with making an ID compulsive for voting, but first you have to make sure that almost everyone has it too.

Hel OWeen
July 27 2012, 01:05:17 PM
You do not differ, you miss what Lall is saying.


Good catch. You're right. Thanks for pointing that out. I keep forgetting there's no ID right now and that an initial distribution needs to take place somehow. Which vastly differs from the current situation in Germany, were IDs are already distributed and just need to be updated/issued to new citizens.

Side note: from all the comments made so far, the process and cost involved for one citizen to receive an ID seems unnecessary complicated, time-consuming and expensive in all countries.

KathDougans
July 27 2012, 01:23:34 PM
In the UK, there is the Electoral Roll, which lists everyone who is eligible to vote, and their registered address.

In the run up to a vote, voting cards are sent out to those names at their registered address. The card isn't necessary to vote, but it helps speed things up.

When you go to vote, you can give your card to the electoral officer, who will take down your name, and score it off their copy of the electoral roll. If you don't have the card, you give your name and address, and the officer will score it off the roll.

If someone else turned up previously, claiming to be you, then the electoral officer will give you a ballot paper, that won't count for the official count, but instead will be used as a record of there being an irregularity.

So, there's a small possibility of fraud, esp. when turnout is very low - simply assume the name/address of a voter that is unlikely to turn up.

Polling stations usually have two policemen on duty, which may act as a deterrent for in-person vote fraud though.

Postal voting fraud is a lot more common in the UK.

Mynxee
July 27 2012, 01:36:46 PM
7% of US citizens do not have ready access to their birth certificate.

Things get lost, stolen, destroyed etc.

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/download_file_39242.pdf

My concern about that study you linked is whether the 987 people surveyed represent a statistically significant sample of the 2010 estimate of 200+ million citizens of voting age. It wouldn't seem so to me (maybe someone more familiar with survey statistics can chime in on that). Without a statistically significant sample of the population in question, how accurate can the findings be?

From the Wikipedia entry on Voter ID laws: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws)


In 2010, the voting age population was an estimated 237.3 million, and the citizen voting age population was 217.5 million. Of those, 186.9 million were registered voters. The Heritage Foundation has pointed to U.S. Department of Transportation records showing that there were 205.8 million valid drivers licenses in 2009, meaning there are 19 million more individuals with photo ID than there are registered voters, as evidence that photo ID is not hard to obtain, though this frame still assumes that voters should have to take the extra step of getting an ID and bringing it to their polling place in order to vote. Similarly, Kris Kobach, a Republican supporter of Voter ID laws, points to evidence in Kansas that more than 30,000 registered drivers in Kansas are not registered to vote.

I am not disputing that there are a lot of people without personal identity papers; I am simply questioning the validity of that study's sample size and the possibility that its findings are skewed as a result. I also note that the study is from 2006. A lot can change in six years, particularly when the situation involves an issue as contentious as Voter ID laws. I would like to see findings from more recent research from a larger sample size. Unfortunately, my Google-fu did not reveal any.

Lallante
July 27 2012, 02:09:47 PM
7% of US citizens do not have ready access to their birth certificate.

Things get lost, stolen, destroyed etc.

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/download_file_39242.pdf

My concern about that study you linked is whether the 987 people surveyed represent a statistically significant sample of the 2010 estimate of 200+ million citizens of voting age. It wouldn't seem so to me (maybe someone more familiar with survey statistics can chime in on that). Without a statistically significant sample of the population in question, how accurate can the findings be?

From the Wikipedia entry on Voter ID laws: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws)


In 2010, the voting age population was an estimated 237.3 million, and the citizen voting age population was 217.5 million. Of those, 186.9 million were registered voters. The Heritage Foundation has pointed to U.S. Department of Transportation records showing that there were 205.8 million valid drivers licenses in 2009, meaning there are 19 million more individuals with photo ID than there are registered voters, as evidence that photo ID is not hard to obtain, though this frame still assumes that voters should have to take the extra step of getting an ID and bringing it to their polling place in order to vote. Similarly, Kris Kobach, a Republican supporter of Voter ID laws, points to evidence in Kansas that more than 30,000 registered drivers in Kansas are not registered to vote.

I am not disputing that there are a lot of people without personal identity papers; I am simply questioning the validity of that study's sample size and the possibility that its findings are skewed as a result. I also note that the study is from 2006. A lot can change in six years, particularly when the situation involves an issue as contentious as Voter ID laws. I would like to see findings from more recent research from a larger sample size. Unfortunately, my Google-fu did not reveal any.

There is a huge amount of evidence that large tranche of poor, minority and elderly voters don't currently have I.D.s. Are you contesting this? Do you honestly find it unlikely (given the expense and difficulty of obtainin an ID without, for example, a birth certificate)?

Basically I can see you are trying to pick holes in my case but I can't see the countercase you are making? Are you saying only an insignificant number of potential voters dont have ID? Seriously?

Theres a reason this is only a political hot potato in swing and democrat-dominated states and those where there is a lot of anger about illegal immigration.

Mynxee
July 27 2012, 02:54:41 PM
7% of US citizens do not have ready access to their birth certificate.

Things get lost, stolen, destroyed etc.

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/download_file_39242.pdf

My concern about that study you linked is whether the 987 people surveyed represent a statistically significant sample of the 2010 estimate of 200+ million citizens of voting age. It wouldn't seem so to me (maybe someone more familiar with survey statistics can chime in on that). Without a statistically significant sample of the population in question, how accurate can the findings be?

From the Wikipedia entry on Voter ID laws: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws)


In 2010, the voting age population was an estimated 237.3 million, and the citizen voting age population was 217.5 million. Of those, 186.9 million were registered voters. The Heritage Foundation has pointed to U.S. Department of Transportation records showing that there were 205.8 million valid drivers licenses in 2009, meaning there are 19 million more individuals with photo ID than there are registered voters, as evidence that photo ID is not hard to obtain, though this frame still assumes that voters should have to take the extra step of getting an ID and bringing it to their polling place in order to vote. Similarly, Kris Kobach, a Republican supporter of Voter ID laws, points to evidence in Kansas that more than 30,000 registered drivers in Kansas are not registered to vote.

I am not disputing that there are a lot of people without personal identity papers; I am simply questioning the validity of that study's sample size and the possibility that its findings are skewed as a result. I also note that the study is from 2006. A lot can change in six years, particularly when the situation involves an issue as contentious as Voter ID laws. I would like to see findings from more recent research from a larger sample size. Unfortunately, my Google-fu did not reveal any.

There is a huge amount of evidence that large tranche of poor, minority and elderly voters don't currently have I.D.s. Are you contesting this? Do you honestly find it unlikely (given the expense and difficulty of obtainin an ID without, for example, a birth certificate)?

Basically I can see you are trying to pick holes in my case but I can't see the countercase you are making? Are you saying only an insignificant number of potential voters dont have ID? Seriously?

Theres a reason this is only a political hot potato in swing and democrat-dominated states and those where there is a lot of anger about illegal immigration.

Note bolded text above, and to clarify: ...and for whom obtaining those papers would present considerable obstacles. Stop assuming I am trying to be combative. That is not my preferred approach to discussion. While I may favor a particular position at the moment, I am still in the "Hmmm...who's got the right of things here?" stage of understanding this whole issue. By "who", I don't mean just you or anyone else in this thread, but everyone who engages on the issue in the wider world. Studies, facts, references, and opinion are all part of getting to that understanding. To that end, I simply asked the question about statistical significance of the report you happened to cite. It has nothing to do with you or trying to pick apart your position on the issue. You are as welcome to your opinion as anyone else and as a participant in this debate, I honor your right to express it and endeavor to give it due consideration as a courtesy. If that's not how you perceive it, then oh well.

My question about the study was one of curiosity about statistics. I simply don't trust statistics without a deeper look into methodologies, agendas, basis for conclusions, anomalies, etc., because as we all know it is not that difficult to massage findings to reflect a desired reality. If, however, a study bears up under more than face-value scrutiny, then it has a much better chance of me believing it and letting it impact my opinions.

So again I ask, is 987 a statistically significant sample size from a pool of 200+ million?

Lallante
July 27 2012, 02:56:17 PM
yes, particularly in the absence of contrary evidence.

In any case when you are considering a change that could threaten one of the most fundamental civil liberties (the right to vote) for many people, obviously the onus is on those who want to make the change to prove that it wont do so, not the other way around.

dpidcoe
July 27 2012, 03:18:23 PM
The biggest problem with the ID requirement, especially coming so last minute, is that people tend to work in the same timeslot that you can go to %GOVT_OFFICE% and get an ID card. This normally isn't a problem, unless you are a poor family that needs to work every day to keep food on the table, and would have to spend money on gas taking the only family car for a day. And some states even charge you for the ID!

Funnily enough, poor people vote disproportionately Democrat, and the biggest pushers for voter ID are Republican.
If they have a car, they have a drivers license, which is a valid form of ID last I checked (at least in california).

--------------------------------------

Most of the "voter fraud" that I've heard of involves not so much people voting multiple times, but small political groups (unions, community organizers, etc) bussing people in mass to the polling station while telling them who they should vote for on the ride over. My grandma usually volunteers to help a polling place each year, and every time she's done it there's been some lady who runs a group home for mentally disabled people. She shows up with a big van full of them, then "helps" them vote, which means she tells them what boxes to tick (most of them can't read, let alone understand the significance of what they're doing).

Qwert
July 27 2012, 03:44:26 PM
The biggest problem with the ID requirement, especially coming so last minute, is that people tend to work in the same timeslot that you can go to %GOVT_OFFICE% and get an ID card. This normally isn't a problem, unless you are a poor family that needs to work every day to keep food on the table, and would have to spend money on gas taking the only family car for a day. And some states even charge you for the ID!

Funnily enough, poor people vote disproportionately Democrat, and the biggest pushers for voter ID are Republican.
If they have a car, they have a drivers license, which is a valid form of ID last I checked (at least in california).


True, but if you only have one car, then you only need one license. The household may have a spouse + grandparent. They also may just be driving without a license.

The basic point though, is that the poorer you are, the larger the problem getting ID becomes.

Lallante
July 27 2012, 04:02:02 PM
The biggest problem with the ID requirement, especially coming so last minute, is that people tend to work in the same timeslot that you can go to %GOVT_OFFICE% and get an ID card. This normally isn't a problem, unless you are a poor family that needs to work every day to keep food on the table, and would have to spend money on gas taking the only family car for a day. And some states even charge you for the ID!

Funnily enough, poor people vote disproportionately Democrat, and the biggest pushers for voter ID are Republican.
If they have a car, they have a drivers license, which is a valid form of ID last I checked (at least in california).

--------------------------------------

Most of the "voter fraud" that I've heard of involves not so much people voting multiple times, but small political groups (unions, community organizers, etc) bussing people in mass to the polling station while telling them who they should vote for on the ride over. My grandma usually volunteers to help a polling place each year, and every time she's done it there's been some lady who runs a group home for mentally disabled people. She shows up with a big van full of them, then "helps" them vote, which means she tells them what boxes to tick (most of them can't read, let alone understand the significance of what they're doing).

That's not fraud - if they are legally entitled to vote its completely legitimate. IF they are incapable they shouldnt be entitled to vote but I have no idea what US law is like on this point.

Its not really much different from a religious communities' pastor telling them "vote X, he is god's choice" with the subtext that voting Y = going to hell.

dpidcoe
July 27 2012, 04:45:40 PM
That's not fraud - if they are legally entitled to vote its completely legitimate. IF they are incapable they shouldnt be entitled to vote but I have no idea what US law is like on this point. Which is why I put it in quotes. I'm not saying that voting when you're entitled to vote isn't legit, but I don't see how you could deny that it really starts to go against the spirit of the voting system when you go scooping people up off the street who don't have the knowledge, interest, or brainpower to make an informed decision besides "I get some snacks and an air conditioned bus ride if I punch some holes in this card where the person told me to".


Its not really much different from a religious communities' pastor telling them "vote X, he is god's choice" with the subtext that voting Y = going to hell. Basically the same thing albeit to a slightly lesser degree. At least the congregation has presumably been listening to the guy for longer than 5 minutes (so they probably agree with his opinions already or they'd have found a different church) before being bused off to the polls and told what boxes to tick.

JForce
August 9 2012, 11:56:26 PM
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-8-2012/wizards-of-i-d-

Frug
August 10 2012, 01:22:06 AM
So again I ask, is 987 a statistically significant sample size from a pool of 200+ million?

Statistics baffled me when I had to take it, and I never had the patience for it. I still can't be assed to decypher their gibberish. But, apparently, it's quite sufficient to draw conclusions within about a 5% margin of error if you plug in 300000000 for the population:
http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html
It seems you can draw conclusions from about 1000 people with very high accuracy BUT I also believe a simplified calculator like this must assume that your sample is truly randomly chosen. These questionnaires are never truly random samples and idk if there's any way around that.

Note: I have no idea what the fuck I'm talking about and would prefer to be corrected.

Keorythe
August 10 2012, 01:44:47 AM
So again I ask, is 987 a statistically significant sample size from a pool of 200+ million?

Statistics baffled me when I had to take it, and I never had the patience for it. I still can't be assed to decypher their gibberish. But, apparently, it's quite sufficient to draw conclusions within about a 5% margin of error if you plug in 300000000 for the population:
http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html
It seems you can draw conclusions from about 1000 people with very high accuracy BUT I also believe a simplified calculator like this must assume that your sample is truly randomly chosen. These questionnaires are never truly random samples and idk if there's any way around that.

Note: I have no idea what the fuck I'm talking about and would prefer to be corrected.

If you're running pure numbers then sure. But for something like this, demographics matter. If you go into a poor district, your numbers will show a higher rate of lost papers, not giving a damn papers, and maybe even a few illegal aliens who still get counted in the census and charts like these (they don't ask for ID). Vice versa if you go into a rich neighborhood or ethnic (latino) enclave. What's the ratio of old to young who might have need of the birth certificates? Of course this doesn't even cover the fucking lazy, I'll live in the basement until you die, types either.

In most cases you can just have a blood relative with an ID order it for you over the internet for $20.

Frug
August 10 2012, 02:36:10 AM
If you're running pure numbers then sure. But for something like this, demographics matter.
Not sure what you're arguing for here. Speaking about the staistical significance of the study in Mynxee's question; demographics don't matter if the sample could have been a truly random sample. A random sample isn't going into any neighborhood, it's drawing people at random from all of the US. The integrity of the study rests on how well they did that (probably not that well, but her question was about sample size not methodology). Actually I bothered to open the PDF and it states in he footnotes a 95% certainty of +/-2% error which is good enough to draw conclusions (again, assuming decent methodology). 7% of Americans being potentially affected by this is a high number and supports Lall's position. That these people are clustered in certain areas is a different matter that probably supports his position even more by suggesting this can be used to manipulate voting groups.

Personally I sit on the fence on this one. I dread the thought of republicans winning anything, but I have to wonder about all these people who can't muster and ID to vote and how much I respect their opinion. I only want them voting as fodder for the democrats, which isn't really saying I care about their opinions or right to vote. Only that, apparently, they're inclined to vote a way I agree with.

Qwert
August 10 2012, 02:54:52 AM
It is important to remember that ANY significance will affect the election: votes have come down to less than 1% many, many times.

Keorythe
August 10 2012, 02:59:00 AM
If you're running pure numbers then sure. But for something like this, demographics matter.
Not sure what you're arguing for here. Speaking about the staistical significance of the study in Mynxee's question; demographics don't matter if the sample could have been a truly random sample. A random sample isn't going into any neighborhood, it's drawing people at random from all of the US. The integrity of the study rests on how well they did that (probably not that well, but her question was about sample size not methodology). Actually I bothered to open the PDF and it states in he footnotes a 95% certainty of +/-2% error which is good enough to draw conclusions (again, assuming decent methodology). 7% of Americans being potentially affected by this is a high number and supports Lall's position. That these people are clustered in certain areas is a different matter that probably supports his position even more by suggesting this can be used to manipulate voting groups.

Wasn't arguing anything. Thought you were asking a question which you just answered again yourself.

Hel OWeen
August 10 2012, 08:32:13 AM
So again I ask, is 987 a statistically significant sample size from a pool of 200+ million?

Not sure if this is true in general nor if it applies to this specific poll, but I do know that companies specialized in opinion polls have fine-tuned their selection process in such a way that a surprising low number of participants are needed in order to achieve representative results. That process involves of course a deep understanding of statistics, but also a lot of experience in the field to adjust your samples in such a way that you correct known participants bias. For example when doing election polls (in Germany), although done anonymously, people won't tell the truth if they voted for some neo-nazi party. According to previous polls and the real results, they know if the outcome of the poll is like 1% for <nazi party>, the real result is 1.8765 times higher (that's a made up figure by me, ofc).

Navigator Six
August 10 2012, 12:24:57 PM
It is important to remember that ANY significance will affect the election: votes have come down to less than 1% many, many times.

I don't think you're using the same definition of "significance" as the other posters around you. If a result is not "statistically significant" then as you've defined the term the result has literally no "significance" at all (because the results are indistinguishable from random chance).

In any event, even if there was significant voter fraud (which there isn't; the "statistical significance" discussion here doesn't directly relate to that at all) you still cannot in good faith implement a solution which effectively disenfranchises a certain class of voter.

Aramendel
August 10 2012, 02:21:06 PM
Personally I sit on the fence on this one. I dread the thought of republicans winning anything, but I have to wonder about all these people who can't muster and ID to vote and how much I respect their opinion. I only want them voting as fodder for the democrats, which isn't really saying I care about their opinions or right to vote. Only that, apparently, they're inclined to vote a way I agree with.

+1

One thing kinda pushes me over the fence, though - the hypocrisy of the Republicans. They keep going at "reducing the control of the state", MOAR freedom!, etc., etc., but when it benefits them they are very quick in supporting laws which increase the control the state has on its citizens.


It is important to remember that ANY significance will affect the election: votes have come down to less than 1% many, many times.

http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/Doonesbury.jpg

Keorythe
August 11 2012, 06:36:08 AM
Personally I sit on the fence on this one. I dread the thought of republicans winning anything, but I have to wonder about all these people who can't muster and ID to vote and how much I respect their opinion. I only want them voting as fodder for the democrats, which isn't really saying I care about their opinions or right to vote. Only that, apparently, they're inclined to vote a way I agree with.

+1

One thing kinda pushes me over the fence, though - the hypocrisy of the Republicans. They keep going at "reducing the control of the state", MOAR freedom!, etc., etc., but when it benefits them they are very quick in supporting laws which increase the control the state has on its citizens.

Not even close. When they say less government intrusion in most cases is actually less Federal intrusion. The case being that each state is different and having policies from Texas shoved down the throats of Californians isn't very fun or acceptable and vice versa. But we're talking about elections which determine how the local, state, and the nation will be headed in terms of policy. Trying to tie it to "government control" is disingenuous. One side is claiming that it disenfranchises a specific set of voters who vote for their party more often (mostly the poor and the lazy). The other side claims that it's to prevent voter fraud but there have been only a small number of convicted cases. Where exactly is the "government control" bit? We aren't talking about a poll tax here. We're talking about a basic item that is used in almost everything today. And in some cases the State is willing to give it to you free of charge.


It is important to remember that ANY significance will affect the election: votes have come down to less than 1% many, many times.

http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/Doonesbury.jpg[/QUOTE]

That comic is fairly misleading. There were only 2 CONVICTED cases of fraud. Not pending nor indicted but lack of evidence. Both cases involved ballot stuffing which could mean a few dozen to a few thousand votes added. I mean, what's a few hundred votes? Right? RIGHT? Oh wait, there was that issue with Al Franken and the 1,099 convicted felons who voted for him despite the fact that felons are barred from voting. He won by 312 votes. That wasn't ballot stuffing. http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots/article/2504163

I mean really, how do you even track voter fraud when you can't ID the people voting? In the few cases where convictions occurred, the guilty parties almost always were poll workers and caught red handed. And while the comic above may allude to a mere two votes added, the fact as previously stated is that many extra votes were added. So how often does it happen? Convictions? Hardly. It's tough to prove fraud and it's almost impossible to convict a person of voting more than once if done at various polls. You see, they don't need ID. Just a name.

It may be that some are looking at things with the wrong scope. Elections include both local and State District legislatures. Frankens case showed that a handful can sweep an election. But many states don't have the tools to prove or disprove exactly who's allowed to vote. Here's an example done Colorado where they compared drivers licenses to non-citizens registered to vote. The number was fairly large but there was no way to tell if the people had changed their status to citizens or stayed non-citizens and still voted. No ID is required to vote and no way to prove if someone is eligible at the table. The people on this list aren't illegal immigrants either. These are just those who are legal residents with no voting rights. Note how much effort went into confirming this and how little they still don't know about the voter's status. The next step is usually contacting each individual and have them present ID showing their eligibility or have their name stricken from the registration rolls. :psyduck:

http://cha.house.gov/sites/republicans.cha.house.gov/files/documents/hearing_docs/co_non_citizen_report.pdf

"The comparison identified 11,805 individuals who (1) were non-citizens at the time they obtained a driver’s license, and (2) are registered to vote. As discussed below, the Department of State is nearly certain that 106 individuals are improperly registered to vote. And potentially many of the remaining 11,805 individuals are also improperly registered to vote. It is impossible to provide a precise number, however, because voter registration data are inconclusive."

How about something from a more liberal perspective. Taken from a Slate article in 2004. Many of these were accidental cases but still significant towards local and State elections.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2004/10/people_who_vote_twice.html

Note: this started a storm in a cup worth of investigations and compiled the largest number of voting fraud convictions in a while. These all took place from 2004-2008 under the Bush administration. A total of 82 convictions were made with a whopping 1,914 indictments but lacking evidence were dropped.

Other investigations revealed similar results elsewhere. The Orlando Sentinel found that 68,000 Florida voters are also registered in Georgia or North Carolina (the only two states it checked), 1,650 of whom voted twice in 2000 or 2002. Hanging chads and such....right? That election was won with less than 1,000 votes wasn't it?


Some examples of recent voter fraud. Notice the disproportionate number of those convicted of stuffing with absentee vs. multiple voting. Much easier to catch and prove ballot stuffing than multiple polling.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/24/12-charged-with-voter-fraud-in-georgia-election/
http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Vote-probe-arrests-include-councilmen-2414466.php#ixzz1hE1umPdZ
http://lawandorder.blogs.gainesville.com/10710/madison-elections-supervisor-and-8-others-arrested-in-voting-scheme/?tc=ar
http://www.nbc-2.com/story/16662854/2012/02/02/nbc2-investigates-voter-fraud
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/21/officials-plead-guilty-in-new-york-voter-fraud-case/#ixzz1hE0jMR8E
http://www.tunicatimes.com/index.php?view=article&id=1176

So the question remains.

How do you ensure election integrity while not disenfranchising the poor?
How can you prove voter fraud without any form of ID?
If the cost of a Voter ID waived would that be acceptable?

Aramendel
August 11 2012, 07:02:24 AM
Where exactly is the "government control" bit? We aren't talking about a poll tax here. We're talking about a basic item that is used in almost everything today. And in some cases the State is willing to give it to you free of charge.

Since when is "government control" = "tax"?

Fact is it is *not* given out for free in most states. If it could be gotten for free without major issues everywhere this topic wouldn't exist.

By your logic you would be fine if you needed to take a mandatory training costing XX$ to own firearms? Oh, and it would be free in Texas. By your logic it wouldn't be "government control", nor would it be a "gun tax" because it does not cost money everywhere.

Point taken about the comic though.


If the cost of a Voter ID waived would that be acceptable?

Yes. Assuming you do not have to jump months through legal hoops to get it. The whole thing with presenting a birth certificate seems rather strange to me, don't you US people have some central citizen database?

Keorythe
August 11 2012, 07:29:19 AM
Where exactly is the "government control" bit? We aren't talking about a poll tax here. We're talking about a basic item that is used in almost everything today. And in some cases the State is willing to give it to you free of charge.

Since when is "government control" = "tax"?

Fact is it is *not* given out for free in most states. If it could be gotten for free without major issues everywhere this topic wouldn't exist.

The problem is that some states have offered free ID's but were still hounded with claims of disenfranchisement. The reason? Too expensive to travel to a DMV and obtain it.


By your logic you would be fine if you needed to take a mandatory training costing XX$ to own firearms? Oh, and it would be free in Texas. By your logic it wouldn't be "government control", nor would it be a "gun tax" because it does not cost money everywhere.

Maybe it's just a bad example and you're attempting say describe something differently. Firearm training is not required (except for CCL's) but I do need ID to purchase any type of firearm in Texas. It's not a gun tax because an ID is used for a plethora of other things but mostly to prove who I say I am. This includes anything from purchasing firearms, opening a bank account, or even obtaining a welfare check.


Point taken about the comic though.


If the cost of a Voter ID waived would that be acceptable?

Yes. Assuming you do not have to jump months through legal hoops to get it. The whole thing with presenting a birth certificate seems rather strange to me, don't you US people have some central citizen database?

Central database? Births and deaths are handled by the States, not the national government. Differences between US and other nations showing up here again. 50 individual sovereign states with different laws. Granted, the populations of some of these State match or eclipse some European states. Central databases have been proposed but the coordination and costs have kept the idea from really taking off. With technology that might be much simpler now.

Aramendel
August 11 2012, 08:50:14 AM
The problem is that some states have offered free ID's but were still hounded with claims of disenfranchisement. The reason? Too expensive to travel to a DMV and obtain it.

Considering people sue in the US coffee shops because they scalded themselves by their coffee I do not find that surprising. Of course someone always complains. But the point is that some complains are valid and some aren't.

Although I am not sure what you mean with DVM. If that means travelling to your states capital I would actually agree with them. If I loose my personal ID I do not need to travel to my national or regional capital, I can get a new one in the nearest city of ~30k+ inhabitants to my current residence.


It's not a gun tax because an ID is used for a plethora of other things but mostly to prove who I say I am. This includes anything from purchasing firearms, opening a bank account, or even obtaining a welfare check.

Except if you do not need any of those things. Take i.e. a housewife. Mind, I wouldn't say that there are many cases like these, but they exist.


Central database? Births and deaths are handled by the States, not the national government. Differences between US and other nations showing up here again. 50 individual sovereign states with different laws. Granted, the populations of some of these State match or eclipse some European states. Central databases have been proposed but the coordination and costs have kept the idea from really taking off. With technology that might be much simpler now.

I think you mistake what I mean with "central". It does not have to be for the whole nation, one for each state would be just fine. Point is that they are centralized, as in: not local. So if you go to your local office (which isn't the one for the location you were born) you can say "Hi, I am XY, I lost my Identity Card/Papers/Butt Tattoo, could I have a new one." they will look up your info from the centralized database (if necessary send an identification request to another state) over the network, ask you a few questions (When were you born, etc) and compare your picture to check it and you will get a new ID thingy soonish.

Having to show a birth certificate seems rather :psyduck:

Keorythe
August 11 2012, 09:27:45 AM
Although I am not sure what you mean with DVM.

DMV or Department of Motor Vehicles. Depending on the size and population, there will be between 1 and 6 of them spread across the city. There is also the county clerk office.



It's not a gun tax because an ID is used for a plethora of other things but mostly to prove who I say I am. This includes anything from purchasing firearms, opening a bank account, or even obtaining a welfare check.

Except if you do not need any of those things. Take i.e. a housewife. Mind, I wouldn't say that there are many cases like these, but they exist.

The funny part is that if you are married and she has an ID, your wife can order it for you online or by mail. That's for Texas. Other States may be different.



Central database? Births and deaths are handled by the States, not the national government. Differences between US and other nations showing up here again. 50 individual sovereign states with different laws. Granted, the populations of some of these State match or eclipse some European states. Central databases have been proposed but the coordination and costs have kept the idea from really taking off. With technology that might be much simpler now.

I think you mistake what I mean with "central". It does not have to be for the whole nation, one for each state would be just fine. Point is that they are centralized, as in: not local. So if you go to your local office (which isn't the one for the location you were born) you can say "Hi, I am XY, I lost my Identity Card/Papers/Butt Tattoo, could I have a new one." they will look up your info from the centralized database (if necessary send an identification request to another state) over the network, ask you a few questions (When were you born, etc) and compare your picture to check it and you will get a new ID thingy soonish.

That is pretty much what happens. If you have no ID, no birth certificate, and no blood relatives or wife, you will have to sit down with a DMV representative and be asked a lot of questions. If you remember everything and pass, they issue you a copy of your birth certificate. You get the State ID or drivers license in the same building.

SAI Peregrinus
August 11 2012, 10:57:03 AM
Although I am not sure what you mean with DVM.

DMV or Department of Motor Vehicles. Depending on the size and population, there will be between 1 and 6 of them spread across the city. There is also the county clerk office.


One thing to remember, the US is big. Some areas are pretty sparsely populated. EG Inyo County, California. Land area of about 26000 km^2, population 18,500 It's easily possible to live there and be over 200 km from any DMV, county clerk's office, courthouse, or other place to get an ID. Harney County, Oegon, is even worse, similar land area and only 7.5k people. And that's ignoring Alaska, Texas, Nevada, etc. Inyo isn't even in the 50 least densely populated counties, and neither is in the 10 largest counties by land area. The Unorganized Borough (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unorganized_Borough) is a "county" larger than Finland. Most of it has no real government. It's bigger than Texas.

Even if ID were free getting ID also needs to be viable. The people in these areas who vote mostly vote by mail.

Sponk
August 22 2012, 12:31:52 PM
voter id 3-part series:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/08/the_fake_voter_fraud_epidemic_and_the_2012_electio .php

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/08/elections_in_the_hands_of_the_partisan_and_incompe .php

(third part tomorrow)

smuggo
August 24 2012, 10:32:35 PM
Don't see the fuss to be honest. In the UK you register on the electerol roll. You can elect for a postal vote or vote in absentia. You rock up at the polling station, hand over your card, make your mark, job's a goodun.

F*** My Aunt Rita
August 25 2012, 01:01:11 AM
voter id 3-part series:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/08/the_fake_voter_fraud_epidemic_and_the_2012_electio .php

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/08/elections_in_the_hands_of_the_partisan_and_incompe .php

(third part tomorrow)

Third part: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/08/ending_the_voting_wars.php

His prescriptions seem pretty spot on to me. Then again, I believe in wacky stuff like functional democracies.

definatelynotKKassandra
August 25 2012, 12:32:09 PM
Don't see the fuss to be honest. In the UK you register on the electerol roll. You can elect for a postal vote or vote in absentia. You rock up at the polling station, hand over your card, make your mark, job's a goodun.

Note - you don't actually need the card, you can just say your name.

Also, the card is just a bit of paper with your name on it.

Dorvil Barranis
August 26 2012, 09:52:07 PM
Here is my anecdotal evidence that voter ID laws disproportionately impact minorities. A black guy was in my shop in Aurora, CO, and he said that the cops kept his ID after an interaction because he lied about his age. If this happened right before election day . . .

Nicho Void
August 27 2012, 03:53:04 AM
Here is my anecdotal evidence that voter ID laws disproportionately impact minorities. A black guy was in my shop in Aurora, CO, and he said that the cops kept his ID after an interaction because he lied about his age. If this happened right before election day . . .
Don't commit a crime the day before an election?

Tarminic
August 27 2012, 05:09:44 PM
Here is my anecdotal evidence that voter ID laws disproportionately impact minorities. A black guy was in my shop in Aurora, CO, and he said that the cops kept his ID after an interaction because he lied about his age. If this happened right before election day . . .
Don't commit a crime the day before an election?
DO you honestly believe that lying to a cop about your age justified being unable to vote in the Presidential election?

Zeekar
August 27 2012, 05:12:29 PM
I find it strange that any body can validly steal your valid ID.

Sponk
August 27 2012, 11:09:01 PM
:cops:

Lallante
August 28 2012, 10:09:51 AM
Here is my anecdotal evidence that voter ID laws disproportionately impact minorities. A black guy was in my shop in Aurora, CO, and he said that the cops kept his ID after an interaction because he lied about his age. If this happened right before election day . . .
Don't commit a crime the day before an election?

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. If you dont want to be raped, don't wear a skirt. If you dont disrespect the prison warden you wont have your teeth knocked out. Bradley Manning should have acted differently if he didnt want to be tortured. That grandma shouldnt have backtalked if she didnt want to be tazed. etc etc. amirite?

Dorvil Barranis
August 28 2012, 07:17:05 PM
I find it strange that any body can validly steal your valid ID.

I doubt that the cops really had a valid reason for it, but if they don't think you have enough money to sue, they will often do whatever they want. There are some good cops in the states, but I for one have had my chin busted open for attempting to explain to a cop what me legal rights were.