Voter ID - Reasonable or Disenfranchising?

[Stoked]

What do I care? If someone can't afford an $18 card then they probably shouldn't be voting anyway.

Considering that most of the states passing these laws are willing to waive all fees to get an ID this is not even a valid arguement.

A major critique is that it places a "tax" or "fee" on voting which is illegal. I fail to see that if the state is providing them free.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

How significant of a problem is this? Is is a serious, systematic problem, or is it a minor problem that provides a widow of opportunity to be exploited by Republican partisans for the purpose disenfranchising, or at least making it more difficult to vote, for traditional Democrat constituencies as a stratagem for improving the electoral odds of fellow Republicans? I'm inclined to believe it's the latter, not the former.

Plus I would say that anyone who actually believes that this movement is motivated by a genuine concern to protect the integrity of the electoral system is a naive fool. Whether it is addresses an actual serious problem is separate question, but it's underlying motivation cannot be doubted. It's pure politics.

 

[Gameface]

I believe the motivation for this is a belief that illegal immigrants are stealing our democracy by voting in the name someone else. I highly doubt there is a "problem" with voter fraud. It is not something I'm worried or upset about.

 

[Scat]

How significant of a problem is this?

https://www2.wjbf.com/news/2012/jan/11/dead-people-voting-south-carolina-ar-3027685/

The report says nearly 900 deceased people have been voting, which caught the attention of South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson.

 

[Scat]

I believe the motivation for this is a belief that illegal immigrants are stealing our democracy by voting in the name someone else. I highly doubt there is a "problem" with voter fraud. It is not something I'm worried or upset about.

If states hand out free ID's why would you be against voter ID if it can fix even a slight problem?

 

[SaltyDawg]

Once you register to vote you are registered for life. You never need to re-register. The voting card that I currently have is the same card that I received when I was 18. To vote all you need to do is show up at the polling place associated with your address. You give them your name, they actually show you the entry they have for you listed in their book and ask you to verify that it is you, then you sign your name and get a ballot. They don't ask for ID, they don't ask to see your voting card, they don't even ask you for your address to verify that you are who you say you are. All you need is a name and the correct polling station to cast a vote as anybody you like.

As currently set up, it is amazingly easy to commit voter fraud.

Are you sure about that? I thought you had to register again when you move. Otherwise, how do they know where your polling location is and your precinct and all that? I guess you could say you aren't technically "registering" to vote when you move, but just notifying them, but it's basically the same thing.

As for the polling location, it varies by state. Some states require you to show your voter registration card, some ask you to verify your address, some even require ID.

If states hand out free ID's why would you be against voter ID if it can fix even a slight problem?

There are a number of reasons why the cost of the ID isn't the only issue. For example, I saw some old lady in Wisconsin on tv a few weeks ago who was born in her home and never received a birth certificate. And as you may or may not know, a birth certificate is required to get an ID.

A social security card is also required to get an ID. Between the birth certificate and social security card, it could take weeks or even months to get an ID.

And some other people are just flat out against having an ID. You may think they're nuts or whatever, but I am of the opinion that we should not be required to have an ID. I'm not a "mark of the beast" nutjob about it, and I obviously have ID, but if someone wants to think an ID is the "mark of the beast" and refuse to own one, that is their right. And they shouldn't give up any other rights for it.

There are just way easier option to fix this alleged problem. Like I said, if the bank can approve you for a huge loan in 5 minutes after filling out a simple online form (or even over the phone) without ever seeing your ID, then the state should certainly be able to tell if you're dead or alive, and if you really live at the address you claim. And they should be able to do it even faster than a bank loan or credit application, with an even simpler form.

 

[Gameface]

If states hand out free ID's why would you be against voter ID if it can fix even a slight problem?

I'm not against it, I just don't think it's important.

 

[Gameface]

I'm not against it, I just don't think it's important.

I just want to say, the reason for my apathy probably has to do with being a voter in Utah. Let's just say, no matter what side you're on, Utah elections are seldom up in the air, especially for pres, so it doesn't feel like votes matter here. The decisions have already been made and the outcome is certain before any voting takes place.

 

[Stoked]

I just want to say, the reason for my apathy probably has to do with being a voter in Utah. Let's just say, no matter what side you're on, Utah elections are seldom up in the air, especially for pres, so it doesn't feel like votes matter here. The decisions have already been made and the outcome is certain before any voting takes place.

I can understand the apathy. In Utah you are right. It will not make much difference. But what about places like Nevada, Ohio, Florida... Also it would have a much higher impact on local elections.

It seems like an easy fix and yet DC will get nothing done.

 

[default]

I think proper I.D. should be mandatory.

100% agree and will give rep

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

https://www2.wjbf.com/news/2012/jan/11/dead-people-voting-south-carolina-ar-3027685/

Is this a large number relative to the number of votes cast? Is it systematic across time and place, or is it an isolated occurrence? Did it, or can it, swing elections? A raw number of 900 is not sufficient information to answer these questions.

Also, I think from a policy perspective, one must compare the tradeoffs involved with the benefit of increasing the accuracy of the vote by X% to the cost of disenfranchising (or making it substantially difficult to vote) of X number of the people. For example, if this law increased accuracy by, say 2%, but imposed insurmountable obstacles for 10,000 people to vote, is the tradeoff worth it? (Note also that disenfranchising people skews the vote also, by a potentially greater amount than voter fraud, but then, that's the purpose, isn't it?)

I don't have the answer, other than to say that the social benefit from such legislation its not self-evident on its face, regardless of its partisan political benefit. (I care about social benefit, not partisan political benefit.)

 

[Stoked]

Is this a large number relative to the number of votes cast? Is it systematic across time and place, or is it an isolated occurrence? Did it, or can it, swing elections? A raw number of 900 is not sufficient information to answer these questions.

Also, I think from a policy perspective, one must compare the tradeoffs involved with the benefit of increasing the accuracy of the vote by X% to the cost of disenfranchising (or making it substantially difficult to vote) of X number of the people. For example, if this law increased accuracy by, say 2%, but imposed insurmountable obstacles for 10,000 people to vote, is the tradeoff worth it? (Note also that disenfranchising people skews the vote also, by a potentially greater amount than voter fraud, but then, that's the purpose, isn't it?)

I don't have the answer, other than to say that the social benefit from such legislation its not self-evident on its face, regardless of its partisan political benefit. (I care about social benefit, not partisan political benefit.)

I do not feel that accurately reflects the bills on the table. It is, in my opinion, purely partisan spin.

These bills are providing free state IDs to those that for some reason cannot normaly acquire them. That right there should do away with the whole "disenfranchised" argument.

 

[SaltyDawg]

I do not feel that accurately reflects the bills on the table. It is, in my opinion, purely partisan spin.

These bills are providing free state IDs to those that for some reason cannot normaly acquire them. That right there should do away with the whole "disenfranchised" argument.

Do they also give a free birth certificate and free social security card? And what about people that either don't have a birth certificate or don't have the paperwork to get theirs?

And also, even for those people who have all their stuff together, if it takes several months to get all this stuff together, lots of people could miss their window and end not not being allowed to vote.

I haven't heard one single argument, from the left or right, against the bank style verification that seems to work for loans and credit checks (without ever seeing an ID).

Until some politician brings this up, I won't consider it a serious issue.

The right wants to require ID because they know a substantial portion of the left won't be able to vote. And the left hates it because they know lots of their constituents don't have ID.

If anyone really cared about fraud, the logical solution would be to do it like a bank where everyone can still vote without jumping through hoops. The left is happy because all of the eligible citizens still get to vote, and the right is happy because the fraud is eliminated.

 

[Stoked]

Salty you are on ignore but I was not logged in and saw your post.

A few things.

1. Social Security cards are free so that not a factor
2. Personal responsibility. Maybe they should get off their asses and get started. We are not baby sitters
3. I could be persuaded to allowing a free BC to those that for reasonable reasons cannot afford to buy one
4. For those that do not have any papers of any kind. If they are US citizens than that should have an avenue in the bills to resolve that issue.

I am in favor of Voter ID laws but obviously there are concerns that would need to be addressed and resolved.

As for your bank verification system I'd ask you to explain it but I wont see your response so what is the point?

 

[Qman]

I believe it is completely reasonable to require a photo i.d.

 

[SaltyDawg]

I believe it is completely reasonable to require a photo i.d.

Would you still believe that if you did not think it was reasonable to own a photo ID?

It's easy to say a photo ID should be required when you actually have one. But if you hated the thought of owning an ID for whatever reason, you would probably be in the camp that an ID should not be required in order to get your constitutional rights.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I do not feel that accurately reflects the bills on the table. It is, in my opinion, purely partisan spin.

These bills are providing free state IDs to those that for some reason cannot normaly acquire them. That right there should do away with the whole "disenfranchised" argument.

WTF??? Your comment might make sense has I tried to describe the bills on the table, which on reading my post carefully, should be clear I did not try to do.

I've merely asked questions related to the extent of the problem and raised issues related to the tradeoffs of marginal improvements in vote count accuracy and marginal reductions in voter enfranchisement. I have not made any assertion about the relative merits, but merely raised questions I think are worth asking before rushing to judgment.

Plus your response assumes that one's general party identification determines their position on this issue. I can assure you that there ARE Republicans/conservatives in the US who oppose such laws and there are Democrats/liberals who support them. Party ID is, for many people if not most, only a general guide to how they think on a particular issue.

So, IF one defines partisan as not thinking in lock-step with Stoked or the right wing ideologues pushing to gain political advantage with these laws, then I guess I"m being partisan. But if one defines it as it is meant to be defined, then I'm hard pressed to see how my answer implies partisanship.

I'm trying to be open minded here. As I've made clear, while I think the motivation behind such bills is obvious, the policy and social merits are not, which does not imply they don't exist, merely that they are not obvious.

It is much more your thinking on this issue that appears to be driven by partisanship, not mine.

 

[Stoked]

God you do not listen to anything said. You are not trying to be open minded at all in my opinion. I am completely open to debating/discussing anything with anyone as long as I feel they actually have an honest interest in the subject.

To me you come off as liking to hear youself talk and having no real interest in listening to anyone.

You bring up some points that are very valid. I tried to address some specific ones (and stayed clear of party affiliation) amd you go off about right wingers and all that other ********.

I have no more use for you.

 

[default]

Would you still believe that if you did not think it was reasonable to own a photo ID?

It's easy to say a photo ID should be required when you actually have one. But if you hated the thought of owning an ID for whatever reason, you would probably be in the camp that an ID should not be required in order to get your constitutional rights.

I hear you and like many of your previous posts, but it really sounds like you are just looking for controversy when common sense is all that is required on this issue.

 

[SaltyDawg]

I hear you and like many of your previous posts, but it really sounds like you are just looking for controversy when common sense is all that is required on this issue.

To me, the common sense thing to do is verify people the same way banks do for a credit application. No ID needed, no red tape, no hoops to jump through that could prevent eligible citizens from being allowed to vote.

That solves any alleged fraud issues, and doesn't potentially prevent eligible citizens form voting. How is that just looking for controversy and not common sense? it actually kills the existing controversy by using a simpler method.