Voter ID

[Lallante]

7% of US citizens do not have ready access to their birth certificate.

Things get lost, stolen, destroyed etc.

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/...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:

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]

7% of US citizens do not have ready access to their birth certificate.

Things get lost, stolen, destroyed etc.

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/...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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...izards-of-i-d-

[Frug]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Keorythe]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Keorythe]

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.

[/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-w...rticle/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.

http://cha.house.gov/sites/republica...zen_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_a...ote_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...rgia-election/
http://www.timesunion.com/local/arti...#ixzz1hE1umPdZ
http://lawandorder.blogs.gainesville...-scheme/?tc=ar
http://www.nbc-2.com/story/16662854/...es-voter-fraud
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1hE0jMR8E
http://www.tunicatimes.com/index.php...rticle&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]

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]

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]

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