'Matthias said:
'Matthias said:
Pretty much comes down to you (and most people) thinking that requiring people to go out and obtain a voter ID card doesn't harm them, versus those arguing that it does harm them. For me, I'm never going to agree that requiring them to obtain a voter ID is a harm, so I'll never see eye to eye with those arguing the other side.
How do you feel about unintended consequences?
Not a big fan. Especially when they are predictable. So far, though, I've not heard one plausible scenario where a voter ID law, if implemented in a way I consider proper, could create what I consider a tangible harm.
I haven't heard one plausible scenario that results in a tangible harm if voter ID laws are
not implemented.
A close vote going the wrong way because of voter fraud is most definitely a harm, and I know you know this. The likelihood is debatable, but the harm is clear.
Yes, exactly. Requiring an ID makes a certain type of voter fraud more costly, and if other things are equal, that will make it less frequent, and therefore less likely to affect the outcome of an election. (Other things are not equal, however. Requiring an ID will also reduce overall voter turnout, which makes a given number of fraudulent votes more likely to affect the outcome of an election, and therefore makes fraud more profitable; so if other things are equal, that will make fraud more frequent. So there are competing possibilities concerning whether requiring IDs will make fraud more or less frequent, or more or less likely to affect the outcome of an election. My guess is that, overall, requiring an ID will reduce the frequency of fraud; but it's just a guess.)
What hasn't been made clear is why it is a harm to ask people to obtain an ID.
The harm is the lower turnout of legitimate voters that would almost certainly result. (Some people may not consider that a harm. The voters who'd be dissuaded from voting because they don't have IDs are very likely less well informed than average, so their votes may be undesirable. I disagree that uninformed votes are undesirable, however. I think a higher turnout is a good in itself because it forces politicians to win by attracting the median voter, rather than by better mobilizing their own base. I.e., it makes the politicians in both parties less extreme.)
I hope everybody can agree that (1) requiring IDs has the potential to reduce fraud, (2) requiring IDs will almost certainly reduce legitimate voter turnout as well, and (3) to the extent that the first effect is likely and the second effect is bad (both of which are debatable), that those effects should be weighed against each other.
But that's irrelevant anyway. I'm just wondering why the refrain here so often is "it hasn't happened before, so why should we deal with it?" because that answer suggests that once it does happen, you'll change your stance. I just want to know "why wait?"
The best argument we've had against this reality is "we don't really know if fraud is happening, so there's nothing to fix"....simply shortsided IMO. How about we be proactive for once and fix the potential problem before it actually happens...a novel thought, I know.
Show me the error of my ways. I've admitted on these boards before that I've been wrong. I'd be happy to be wrong here. Just show me how people get hurt.
