Should voters be required to show ID? (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

As an aside, we're comfortable with people voting absentee even though that doesn't have the same level of surety as someone voting in person with an ID that says they are who they say they are and people voting with state IDs which could be faked (they could ask college students for tips on this) because we as a society believe that the benefit of these two things is greater than the theoretical harm than something more stringent.I think this attitude is perfectly sensible.

If you're the sort of person who is either (a) willing to take the time and effort to fill out an absentee ballot or (b) willing to take the time and effort to fake an ID for the purpose of voting (though I'm having trouble figuring out the motivation for this one) then you are exactly the sort of person I want voting. On the other hand, if you're the sort of person who can't be bothered to produce an ID, either because you don't have one or you left it at home or simply could care less about voting (except that somebody drove you to the voting booth, told you who to vote for, and maybe even gave you a few bucks to do it) then you are exactly the sort of person I don't want voting.

 

[The Commish]

Ok, but you acknowledge that the problem of voter identity does exist, right? Whether you think it's a big deal or not shouldn't preclude you from understanding that fact. If there is an easy solution to a problem, what's the big deal in fixing it?

Define "exists."Is it theoretically possible? Yes. Is it conceivable that it's ever been done? Yes. Does it look like it really is a problem? No. Would it cause an even larger problem to "fix" than to remain the status quo? Yes. If the answer to the last question was "No" then a lot of the opposition to this would shift.

How many different definitions are there for the word "exist"? I fail to see why it's not a problem to not be able to know that the person coming in the door is who they say they are. It's a stupid "problem" to have, but a problem nonetheless. What is the "larger problem" to fixing this though? That's what I don't understand. Why is it a problem to require proper identification at the voting booth?

 

[timschochet]

But then again, who gets to decide who is an idiot?

Good point. I think people should have to take a test before they're allowed to vote. This test would be similar to the one that used to discriminate against blacks during Jim Crow days, except my test would discriminate against everyone. It would be designed to eliminate around 80% of the entire electorate. Hell I might not be able to pass it myself (which is OK with me.)

 

[timschochet]

As an aside, we're comfortable with people voting absentee even though that doesn't have the same level of surety as someone voting in person with an ID that says they are who they say they are and people voting with state IDs which could be faked (they could ask college students for tips on this) because we as a society believe that the benefit of these two things is greater than the theoretical harm than something more stringent.I think this attitude is perfectly sensible.

If you're the sort of person who is either (a) willing to take the time and effort to fill out an absentee ballot or (b) willing to take the time and effort to fake an ID for the purpose of voting (though I'm having trouble figuring out the motivation for this one) then you are exactly the sort of person I want voting. On the other hand, if you're the sort of person who can't be bothered to produce an ID, either because you don't have one or you left it at home or simply could care less about voting (except that somebody drove you to the voting booth, told you who to vote for, and maybe even gave you a few bucks to do it) then you are exactly the sort of person I don't want voting.

How about the sort of person who is willing to go to jail to vote by lying and saying that you're somebody else?

Yeah, I'm OK with that. If they're willing to go to that sort of effort, they deserve to vote more than I do.

 

[timschochet]

As an aside, we're comfortable with people voting absentee even though that doesn't have the same level of surety as someone voting in person with an ID that says they are who they say they are and people voting with state IDs which could be faked (they could ask college students for tips on this) because we as a society believe that the benefit of these two things is greater than the theoretical harm than something more stringent.I think this attitude is perfectly sensible.

If you're the sort of person who is either (a) willing to take the time and effort to fill out an absentee ballot or (b) willing to take the time and effort to fake an ID for the purpose of voting (though I'm having trouble figuring out the motivation for this one) then you are exactly the sort of person I want voting. On the other hand, if you're the sort of person who can't be bothered to produce an ID, either because you don't have one or you left it at home or simply could care less about voting (except that somebody drove you to the voting booth, told you who to vote for, and maybe even gave you a few bucks to do it) then you are exactly the sort of person I don't want voting.

How about the sort of person who is willing to go to jail to vote by lying and saying that you're somebody else?

Yeah, I'm OK with that. If they're willing to go to that sort of effort, they deserve to vote more than I do.

Well, you managed to carve yourself out a unique stance in all this. I'll give you that.

Obviously I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek here. But I really don't care about voter fraud. I don't think it exists; I agree with you 100% about that. And one aspect of it about this whole thing which you haven't mentioned, and which really irritates me, is the whole unstated fear of illegal immigrants that creates such paranoia among conservatives. Illegals are invading this country, they're taking our jobs, they're destroying the culture of this country, and now they're going to vote in elections- it's such an obsession with them and it really pisses me off. Unlike you, I am in favor of Voter ID laws (I've stated why several times) but I hate these voter fraud arguments.

 

[The Commish]

Ok, but you acknowledge that the problem of voter identity does exist, right? Whether you think it's a big deal or not shouldn't preclude you from understanding that fact. If there is an easy solution to a problem, what's the big deal in fixing it?

Define "exists."Is it theoretically possible? Yes. Is it conceivable that it's ever been done? Yes. Does it look like it really is a problem? No. Would it cause an even larger problem to "fix" than to remain the status quo? Yes. If the answer to the last question was "No" then a lot of the opposition to this would shift.

How many different definitions are there for the word "exist"? I fail to see why it's not a problem to not be able to know that the person coming in the door is who they say they are. It's a stupid "problem" to have, but a problem nonetheless. What is the "larger problem" to fixing this though? That's what I don't understand. Why is it a problem to require proper identification at the voting booth?

Seriously?

You tell me If your premise is that it's a potential problem and you are betting that it won't become a big deal then fine. If you have a position that's financially driven, I'd like to hear the logic behind it. You've been all over the place in this thread, whether you realize it or not.

 

[The Commish]

You tell me If your premise is that it's a potential problem and you are betting that it won't become a big deal then fine. If you have a position that's financially driven, I'd like to hear the logic behind it.

Re-read the last 3 page. If you're still mystified, I can't help you.

That's the BEST you can convey your issues? I wouldn't say mystified, but certainly confused by the lack of a tangible point. Best I can tell you think it's going to cost 10s of millions of dollars to get it fixed. You've not really said anything specific as to why you think it will cost that much money. What will drive that cost?

 

[dparker713]

That's fine. Which side do you think the data supports?

Depends on which side as to what data is actually relevent. If you're of the opinion that the most important thing is for everyone to vote, then the total number of properly counted votes is the important data set. If you're of the opinion that the most important thing is the faith in the system, then voter confidence is the important data set.

 

[MaxThreshold]

You tell me If your premise is that it's a potential problem and you are betting that it won't become a big deal then fine. If you have a position that's financially driven, I'd like to hear the logic behind it.

Re-read the last 3 page. If you're still mystified, I can't help you.

That's the BEST you can convey your issues? I wouldn't say mystified, but certainly confused by the lack of a tangible point. Best I can tell you think it's going to cost 10s of millions of dollars to get it fixed. You've not really said anything specific as to why you think it will cost that much money. What will drive that cost?

I've never said anything about the cost of implementation. That's been mostly, if not exclusively, TGunz.You're trying to safeguard some small amount (very likely < 1,000) votes by removing some large number (very likely > 1,000,000) votes.

I call bogus on that. That's a boogeyman number invented by the left as a case against Voter ID. If I were to believe that, then I would believe that there are very likely > 1,000,000 voters who are to damn lazy to get off their asses and get an ID. If you told those same people that the ID came with a case of beer and $50 gift card from Best Buy then that number would be zero.I'm not trying to bash you by the way, just saying that I don't believe that.

 

[dparker713]

That's fine. Which side do you think the data supports?

Depends on which side as to what data is actually relevent. If you're of the opinion that the most important thing is for everyone to vote, then the total number of properly counted votes is the important data set. If you're of the opinion that the most important thing is the faith in the system, then voter confidence is the important data set.

Depends.Faith in the system can be defined as feeling secure that everyone who was present at a polling place presented some form of photo identification to say that they are who they say they are. Faith in the system can also be defined as not being systematically biased in favor of certain groups to arrive at pre-determined outcomes.

In both of your examples the most important data is voter confidence. The perception of bias would be more important than actual bias.

 

[timschochet]

If you told those same people that the ID came with a case of beer and $50 gift card from Best Buy then that number would be zero.

The gift card would not be necessary.

 

[humpback]

That's fine. Which side do you think the data supports?

Depends on which side as to what data is actually relevent. If you're of the opinion that the most important thing is for everyone to vote, then the total number of properly counted votes is the important data set. If you're of the opinion that the most important thing is the faith in the system, then voter confidence is the important data set.

Depends.Faith in the system can be defined as feeling secure that everyone who was present at a polling place presented some form of photo identification to say that they are who they say they are. Faith in the system can also be defined as not being systematically biased in favor of certain groups to arrive at pre-determined outcomes.

Are you comfortable defining what "faith in the system" means for others? That's the part many on the left aren't acknowledging by saying "there is no problem". For many, it isn't just about fraud, it's about the potential for fraud and the confidence in the system. That's why the cost/benefit analysis will be completely different based on what you use for inputs, and none of us can say what the correct inputs are.

 

[Sheriff66]

Yes, you should have to show ID to vote

 

[tommyGunZ]

That's fine. Which side do you think the data supports?

Depends on which side as to what data is actually relevent. If you're of the opinion that the most important thing is for everyone to vote, then the total number of properly counted votes is the important data set. If you're of the opinion that the most important thing is the faith in the system, then voter confidence is the important data set.

Depends.Faith in the system can be defined as feeling secure that everyone who was present at a polling place presented some form of photo identification to say that they are who they say they are. Faith in the system can also be defined as not being systematically biased in favor of certain groups to arrive at pre-determined outcomes.

In both of your examples the most important data is voter confidence. The perception of bias would be more important than actual bias.

Perhaps instead of spending 10s of millions on voter ID cards ( IK) we should spend that money on awareness to properly illustrate how absurd the perception that voter fraud is a "problem" really is.That way we eliminate the problem and don't disenfranchise millions. Win-Win.

 

[The Commish]

You tell me If your premise is that it's a potential problem and you are betting that it won't become a big deal then fine. If you have a position that's financially driven, I'd like to hear the logic behind it.

Re-read the last 3 page. If you're still mystified, I can't help you.

That's the BEST you can convey your issues? I wouldn't say mystified, but certainly confused by the lack of a tangible point. Best I can tell you think it's going to cost 10s of millions of dollars to get it fixed. You've not really said anything specific as to why you think it will cost that much money. What will drive that cost?

I've never said anything about the cost of implementation. That's been mostly, if not exclusively, TGunz.You're trying to safeguard some small amount (very likely < 1,000) votes by removing some large number (very likely > 1,000,000) votes.

This is what I don't get. Who's removing anyone? No one's being excluded unless they make the choice themselves to be excluded. If they are ok with it, why shouldn't you be? Also, where do you get the 1000 and 1000000 numbers?

 

[timschochet]

Perhaps instead of spending 10s of millions on voter ID cards ( IK) we should spend that money on awareness to properly illustrate how absurd the perception that voter fraud is a "problem" really is.

People don't believe this because they don't want to. It's much easier to fear everything about illegal immigrants than it is to accept the fact that they are a net benefit to our society. Spending money to educate people on this issue will have no effect whatsoever- they prefer to be ignorant.

 

[The Commish]

That's fine. Which side do you think the data supports?

Depends on which side as to what data is actually relevent. If you're of the opinion that the most important thing is for everyone to vote, then the total number of properly counted votes is the important data set. If you're of the opinion that the most important thing is the faith in the system, then voter confidence is the important data set.

Depends.Faith in the system can be defined as feeling secure that everyone who was present at a polling place presented some form of photo identification to say that they are who they say they are. Faith in the system can also be defined as not being systematically biased in favor of certain groups to arrive at pre-determined outcomes.

In both of your examples the most important data is voter confidence. The perception of bias would be more important than actual bias.

Perhaps instead of spending 10s of millions on voter ID cards ( IK) we should spend that money on awareness to properly illustrate how absurd the perception that voter fraud is a "problem" really is.That way we eliminate the problem and don't disenfranchise millions. Win-Win.

Why would these ID cards cost 10s of millions of dollars? What's in that vague number? (I can't believe I just typed that, but I use what I'm given )

 

[Rayderr]

As an aside, we're comfortable with people voting absentee even though that doesn't have the same level of surety as someone voting in person with an ID that says they are who they say they are and people voting with state IDs which could be faked (they could ask college students for tips on this) because we as a society believe that the benefit of these two things is greater than the theoretical harm than something more stringent.I think this attitude is perfectly sensible.

You know what, Matthias? You convinced me. IDs are not the way to go. Fingerprinting is the solution. Fingerprint all the voters. When they go to vote, if the fingerprint doesn't match what's on record, then they can't vote. It's incredibly cheap to fingerprint people verses giving out free ID's. Plus, we'll be able to quickly find out if someone registered and voted in multiple districts. We can also solve the worry about people faking absentee ballots. From now on, all absentee ballots must have a fingerprint on them.Now, I know what you're saying "But it's too much of an inconvenience for someone to go get fingerprinted. Not a problem. We'll just send out a cop to the polling locations who will fingerprint anyone who's not on record. And who knows, maybe we'll finally solve some of those cold cases in the process.

 

[Slapdash]

I really am pretty biased about this, because I've always believed the less people that vote the better. So when I hear people complain that this will discourage people from voting, I'm thinking, good. I really hate all the ads encouraging people to vote every 4 years. I would love to see an ad which reads: "If you haven't paid attention and don't know what you're doing, please stay at home." (And yes, I am making the assumption that if a person is unable or unwilling to produce a picture ID, that person is unlikely to have paid attention to the election, and I don't want that person voting.)

More voters are better IMO.

 

[tommyGunZ]

That's fine. Which side do you think the data supports?

Depends on which side as to what data is actually relevent. If you're of the opinion that the most important thing is for everyone to vote, then the total number of properly counted votes is the important data set. If you're of the opinion that the most important thing is the faith in the system, then voter confidence is the important data set.

Depends.Faith in the system can be defined as feeling secure that everyone who was present at a polling place presented some form of photo identification to say that they are who they say they are. Faith in the system can also be defined as not being systematically biased in favor of certain groups to arrive at pre-determined outcomes.

In both of your examples the most important data is voter confidence. The perception of bias would be more important than actual bias.

Perhaps instead of spending 10s of millions on voter ID cards ( IK) we should spend that money on awareness to properly illustrate how absurd the perception that voter fraud is a "problem" really is.That way we eliminate the problem and don't disenfranchise millions. Win-Win.

Why would these ID cards cost 10s of millions of dollars? What's in that vague number? (I can't believe I just typed that, but I use what I'm given )

Some of the states who have considered the idea have estimated a few millions dollars for implementation, resources, etc. Multiply that by 50 and it adds up quickly. Of course if you're a big gov't conservative, and want to expand the federal gov'ts role even further, a national ID card could probably be done more efficiently, which is why I suggested 10s of millions instead of 100s of millions.

 

[The Commish]

As an aside, we're comfortable with people voting absentee even though that doesn't have the same level of surety as someone voting in person with an ID that says they are who they say they are and people voting with state IDs which could be faked (they could ask college students for tips on this) because we as a society believe that the benefit of these two things is greater than the theoretical harm than something more stringent.

I think this attitude is perfectly sensible.

You know what, Matthias? You convinced me. IDs are not the way to go. Fingerprinting is the solution. Fingerprint all the voters. When they go to vote, if the fingerprint doesn't match what's on record, then they can't vote. It's incredibly cheap to fingerprint people verses giving out free ID's. Plus, we'll be able to quickly find out if someone registered and voted in multiple districts. We can also solve the worry about people faking absentee ballots. From now on, all absentee ballots must have a fingerprint on them.Now, I know what you're saying "But it's too much of an inconvenience for someone to go get fingerprinted. Not a problem. We'll just send out a cop to the polling locations who will fingerprint anyone who's not on record. And who knows, maybe we'll finally solve some of those cold cases in the process.

Though I hadn't said it yet, this was the solution I had thought of as well.

 

[The Commish]

That's fine. Which side do you think the data supports?

Depends on which side as to what data is actually relevent. If you're of the opinion that the most important thing is for everyone to vote, then the total number of properly counted votes is the important data set. If you're of the opinion that the most important thing is the faith in the system, then voter confidence is the important data set.

Depends.Faith in the system can be defined as feeling secure that everyone who was present at a polling place presented some form of photo identification to say that they are who they say they are. Faith in the system can also be defined as not being systematically biased in favor of certain groups to arrive at pre-determined outcomes.

In both of your examples the most important data is voter confidence. The perception of bias would be more important than actual bias.

Perhaps instead of spending 10s of millions on voter ID cards ( IK) we should spend that money on awareness to properly illustrate how absurd the perception that voter fraud is a "problem" really is.That way we eliminate the problem and don't disenfranchise millions. Win-Win.

Why would these ID cards cost 10s of millions of dollars? What's in that vague number? (I can't believe I just typed that, but I use what I'm given )

Some of the states who have considered the idea have estimated a few millions dollars for implementation, resources, etc. Multiply that by 50 and it adds up quickly. Of course if you're a big gov't conservative, and want to expand the federal gov'ts role even further, a national ID card could probably be done more efficiently, which is why I suggested 10s of millions instead of 100s of millions.

So, if I am understanding correctly, none of the states are 'equipped' to handle all their citizens getting a drivers license either? I find that hard to believe. Of course if they approached it as a completely separate ID that everyone would have to get, I can see the point. I refuse to believe THAT was their approach though. I'm pretty down on gubment in general, but I don't think they are THAT dumb.ETA: Kudos for using terms like "implementation and resources" to clear up the vagueness of the original numbers

 

[Slapdash]

As an aside, we're comfortable with people voting absentee even though that doesn't have the same level of surety as someone voting in person with an ID that says they are who they say they are and people voting with state IDs which could be faked (they could ask college students for tips on this) because we as a society believe that the benefit of these two things is greater than the theoretical harm than something more stringent.I think this attitude is perfectly sensible.

You know what, Matthias? You convinced me. IDs are not the way to go. Fingerprinting is the solution. Fingerprint all the voters. When they go to vote, if the fingerprint doesn't match what's on record, then they can't vote. It's incredibly cheap to fingerprint people verses giving out free ID's. Plus, we'll be able to quickly find out if someone registered and voted in multiple districts. We can also solve the worry about people faking absentee ballots. From now on, all absentee ballots must have a fingerprint on them.Now, I know what you're saying "But it's too much of an inconvenience for someone to go get fingerprinted. Not a problem. We'll just send out a cop to the polling locations who will fingerprint anyone who's not on record. And who knows, maybe we'll finally solve some of those cold cases in the process.

Yet another way to disenfranchise the Men In Black

 

[Rayderr]

As an aside, we're comfortable with people voting absentee even though that doesn't have the same level of surety as someone voting in person with an ID that says they are who they say they are and people voting with state IDs which could be faked (they could ask college students for tips on this) because we as a society believe that the benefit of these two things is greater than the theoretical harm than something more stringent.I think this attitude is perfectly sensible.

You know what, Matthias? You convinced me. IDs are not the way to go. Fingerprinting is the solution. Fingerprint all the voters. When they go to vote, if the fingerprint doesn't match what's on record, then they can't vote. It's incredibly cheap to fingerprint people verses giving out free ID's. Plus, we'll be able to quickly find out if someone registered and voted in multiple districts. We can also solve the worry about people faking absentee ballots. From now on, all absentee ballots must have a fingerprint on them.Now, I know what you're saying "But it's too much of an inconvenience for someone to go get fingerprinted. Not a problem. We'll just send out a cop to the polling locations who will fingerprint anyone who's not on record. And who knows, maybe we'll finally solve some of those cold cases in the process.

Yet another way to disenfranchise the Men In Black

If they got clearance to know about the aliens, they got fingerprints on file.

 

[RCon]

What is this problem that doesn't exist that you and Matthias keep talking about?

This is a problem of 2 problems.First problem: Right now there is some # (the Brennan Center says 11%; people are free to find competing data) of American citizens who are qualified to vote who don't have a government-issued photo ID. If you require a photo ID tomorrow to vote, those people won't vote and can't vote. If you require a photo ID to vote in 2014, then some %age of that %age will assumedly still not have a photo ID and can't vote, won't vote even they can vote, would vote.

Second problem: People may be committing voter fraud by giving the name of someone else and using their name to vote. This would be prevented by requiring a photo ID to vote.

This discussion is a comparison of these 2 problems.

Correct.Matthias and tommyGunz and some others believe that #1 above is a significant problem, and that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to fix. They also believe that #2 above is not an issue, and that it is actually not a problem at all.

Most people in this and other similar threads believe the exact opposite. Namely, that #2 is a problem, and that #1 is not a problem at all.

That's fine. Which side do you think the data supports?

IMO, the data supports my side. That's because it's not possible to quantify the level of a problem that is subjective by nature. That is, I don't consider it to be a problem if those who can't be bothered to obtain an free ID also can't vote. I recognize that there may be some small portion of the population that will choose not to obtain an ID; I just don't consider it a problem that they can't vote.

 

[tommyGunZ]

What is this problem that doesn't exist that you and Matthias keep talking about?

This is a problem of 2 problems.First problem: Right now there is some # (the Brennan Center says 11%; people are free to find competing data) of American citizens who are qualified to vote who don't have a government-issued photo ID. If you require a photo ID tomorrow to vote, those people won't vote and can't vote. If you require a photo ID to vote in 2014, then some %age of that %age will assumedly still not have a photo ID and can't vote, won't vote even they can vote, would vote.

Second problem: People may be committing voter fraud by giving the name of someone else and using their name to vote. This would be prevented by requiring a photo ID to vote.

This discussion is a comparison of these 2 problems.

Correct.Matthias and tommyGunz and some others believe that #1 above is a significant problem, and that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to fix. They also believe that #2 above is not an issue, and that it is actually not a problem at all.

Most people in this and other similar threads believe the exact opposite. Namely, that #2 is a problem, and that #1 is not a problem at all.

That's fine. Which side do you think the data supports?

IMO, the data supports my side. That's because it's not possible to quantify the level of a problem that is subjective by nature. That is, I don't consider it to be a problem if those who can't be bothered to obtain an free ID also can't vote. I recognize that there may be some small portion of the population that will choose not to obtain an ID; I just don't consider it a problem that they can't vote.

Interesting that you label the millions who will be disenfranchised as a "small portion of the population", yet the instances of voter fraud are microscopic compare to that "small portion", and you consider it a problem.

 

[The Commish]

What is this problem that doesn't exist that you and Matthias keep talking about?

This is a problem of 2 problems.First problem: Right now there is some # (the Brennan Center says 11%; people are free to find competing data) of American citizens who are qualified to vote who don't have a government-issued photo ID. If you require a photo ID tomorrow to vote, those people won't vote and can't vote. If you require a photo ID to vote in 2014, then some %age of that %age will assumedly still not have a photo ID and can't vote, won't vote even they can vote, would vote.

Second problem: People may be committing voter fraud by giving the name of someone else and using their name to vote. This would be prevented by requiring a photo ID to vote.

This discussion is a comparison of these 2 problems.

Correct.Matthias and tommyGunz and some others believe that #1 above is a significant problem, and that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to fix. They also believe that #2 above is not an issue, and that it is actually not a problem at all.

Most people in this and other similar threads believe the exact opposite. Namely, that #2 is a problem, and that #1 is not a problem at all.

That's fine. Which side do you think the data supports?

IMO, the data supports my side. That's because it's not possible to quantify the level of a problem that is subjective by nature. That is, I don't consider it to be a problem if those who can't be bothered to obtain an free ID also can't vote. I recognize that there may be some small portion of the population that will choose not to obtain an ID; I just don't consider it a problem that they can't vote.

Just makes logical sense to know who the people are voting. I don't think voter fraud is a huge problem we face today, but I also think it's stupid to leave the possibility out there when it's pretty easy to remedy. The best I can tell the nay sayers think it's either too much money or that it's not fair to ask people to do their part in the process.

 

[dparker713]

Perhaps instead of spending 10s of millions on voter ID cards ( IK) we should spend that money on awareness to properly illustrate how absurd the perception that voter fraud is a "problem" really is.That way we eliminate the problem and don't disenfranchise millions. Win-Win.

Lets call it 50 million. How much ad time do you really think you could buy with that?And 10s of millions is a rounding error in a government expenditures. The federal government alone could swallow that cost without a second thought.2012 federal budget: 3,796,000,000,000Cost you're decrying: 50,000,000

 

[tommyGunZ]

Perhaps instead of spending 10s of millions on voter ID cards ( IK) we should spend that money on awareness to properly illustrate how absurd the perception that voter fraud is a "problem" really is.That way we eliminate the problem and don't disenfranchise millions. Win-Win.

Lets call it 50 million. How much ad time do you really think you could buy with that?And 10s of millions is a rounding error in a government expenditures. The federal government alone could swallow that cost without a second thought.2012 federal budget: 3,796,000,000,000Cost you're decrying: 50,000,000

It doesn't matter - it's $50M wasted on a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[RCon]

What is this problem that doesn't exist that you and Matthias keep talking about?

This is a problem of 2 problems.First problem: Right now there is some # (the Brennan Center says 11%; people are free to find competing data) of American citizens who are qualified to vote who don't have a government-issued photo ID. If you require a photo ID tomorrow to vote, those people won't vote and can't vote. If you require a photo ID to vote in 2014, then some %age of that %age will assumedly still not have a photo ID and can't vote, won't vote even they can vote, would vote.

Second problem: People may be committing voter fraud by giving the name of someone else and using their name to vote. This would be prevented by requiring a photo ID to vote.

This discussion is a comparison of these 2 problems.

Correct.Matthias and tommyGunz and some others believe that #1 above is a significant problem, and that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to fix. They also believe that #2 above is not an issue, and that it is actually not a problem at all.

Most people in this and other similar threads believe the exact opposite. Namely, that #2 is a problem, and that #1 is not a problem at all.

That's fine. Which side do you think the data supports?

IMO, the data supports my side. That's because it's not possible to quantify the level of a problem that is subjective by nature. That is, I don't consider it to be a problem if those who can't be bothered to obtain an free ID also can't vote. I recognize that there may be some small portion of the population that will choose not to obtain an ID; I just don't consider it a problem that they can't vote.

Interesting that you label the millions who will be disenfranchised as a "small portion of the population", yet the instances of voter fraud are microscopic compare to that "small portion", and you consider it a problem.

No one will be disenfranchised. Disenfranchised means they are denied the right to vote, which wouldn't be the case. They could vote, they just have to choose to obtain an ID first. It's no different than choosing to register to vote first. Yes, you and I will never see eye to eye on this.And timschochet, stop with the horsecrap about this being about illegal immigration. You yourself are the perfect counterexample to your own point. You're in favor of open borders, yet you're also in favor of voter ID.

 

[tommyGunZ]

What is this problem that doesn't exist that you and Matthias keep talking about?

This is a problem of 2 problems.First problem: Right now there is some # (the Brennan Center says 11%; people are free to find competing data) of American citizens who are qualified to vote who don't have a government-issued photo ID. If you require a photo ID tomorrow to vote, those people won't vote and can't vote. If you require a photo ID to vote in 2014, then some %age of that %age will assumedly still not have a photo ID and can't vote, won't vote even they can vote, would vote.

Second problem: People may be committing voter fraud by giving the name of someone else and using their name to vote. This would be prevented by requiring a photo ID to vote.

This discussion is a comparison of these 2 problems.

Correct.Matthias and tommyGunz and some others believe that #1 above is a significant problem, and that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to fix. They also believe that #2 above is not an issue, and that it is actually not a problem at all.

Most people in this and other similar threads believe the exact opposite. Namely, that #2 is a problem, and that #1 is not a problem at all.

That's fine. Which side do you think the data supports?

IMO, the data supports my side. That's because it's not possible to quantify the level of a problem that is subjective by nature. That is, I don't consider it to be a problem if those who can't be bothered to obtain an free ID also can't vote. I recognize that there may be some small portion of the population that will choose not to obtain an ID; I just don't consider it a problem that they can't vote.

Just makes logical sense to know who the people are voting. I don't think voter fraud is a huge problem we face today, but I also think it's stupid to leave the possibility out there when it's pretty easy to remedy. The best I can tell the nay sayers think it's either too much money or that it's not fair to ask people to do their part in the process.

We know who the people are who are voting now. Voter fraud is not an issue.

 

[dparker713]

That's fine. Which side do you think the data supports?

Depends on which side as to what data is actually relevent. If you're of the opinion that the most important thing is for everyone to vote, then the total number of properly counted votes is the important data set. If you're of the opinion that the most important thing is the faith in the system, then voter confidence is the important data set.

Depends.Faith in the system can be defined as feeling secure that everyone who was present at a polling place presented some form of photo identification to say that they are who they say they are. Faith in the system can also be defined as not being systematically biased in favor of certain groups to arrive at pre-determined outcomes.

In both of your examples the most important data is voter confidence. The perception of bias would be more important than actual bias.

Yes. I was using your metric of voter confidence. Thus, both my examples used that metric. That metric cuts both ways on this issue.

Well, it could cut both ways, but determining how to proceed with the data is a matter for the legislatures, and not the courts.

 

[tommyGunZ]

No one will be disenfranchised. Disenfranchised means they are denied the right to vote, which wouldn't be the case. They could vote, they just have to choose to obtain an ID first. It's no different than choosing to register to vote first. Yes, you and I will never see eye to eye on this.

I agree, we will never see eye to eye. Apparently you're so far removed from the situations of folks who would be disenfranchised by this new hurdle, that you seem to think they're expendable and don't care that they won't be participating in their own democracy. I think the country is better off when more voices, including those of the least fortunate, are heard.

 

[dparker713]

Perhaps instead of spending 10s of millions on voter ID cards ( IK) we should spend that money on awareness to properly illustrate how absurd the perception that voter fraud is a "problem" really is.That way we eliminate the problem and don't disenfranchise millions. Win-Win.

Lets call it 50 million. How much ad time do you really think you could buy with that?And 10s of millions is a rounding error in a government expenditures. The federal government alone could swallow that cost without a second thought.2012 federal budget: 3,796,000,000,000Cost you're decrying: 50,000,000

It doesn't matter - it's $50M wasted on a problem that doesn't exist.

Or, its a $50M investment in voter confidence. All for much less than the cost of 1 military airplane.

 

[dparker713]

No one will be disenfranchised. Disenfranchised means they are denied the right to vote, which wouldn't be the case. They could vote, they just have to choose to obtain an ID first. It's no different than choosing to register to vote first. Yes, you and I will never see eye to eye on this.

I agree, we will never see eye to eye. Apparently you're so far removed from the situations of folks who would be disenfranchised by this new hurdle, that you seem to think they're expendable and don't care that they won't be participating in their own democracy. I think the country is better off when more voices, including those of the least fortunate, are heard.

We don't have a democracy. We have a representative republic.

 

[The Commish]

What is this problem that doesn't exist that you and Matthias keep talking about?

This is a problem of 2 problems.First problem: Right now there is some # (the Brennan Center says 11%; people are free to find competing data) of American citizens who are qualified to vote who don't have a government-issued photo ID. If you require a photo ID tomorrow to vote, those people won't vote and can't vote. If you require a photo ID to vote in 2014, then some %age of that %age will assumedly still not have a photo ID and can't vote, won't vote even they can vote, would vote.

Second problem: People may be committing voter fraud by giving the name of someone else and using their name to vote. This would be prevented by requiring a photo ID to vote.

This discussion is a comparison of these 2 problems.

Correct.Matthias and tommyGunz and some others believe that #1 above is a significant problem, and that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to fix. They also believe that #2 above is not an issue, and that it is actually not a problem at all.

Most people in this and other similar threads believe the exact opposite. Namely, that #2 is a problem, and that #1 is not a problem at all.

That's fine. Which side do you think the data supports?

IMO, the data supports my side. That's because it's not possible to quantify the level of a problem that is subjective by nature. That is, I don't consider it to be a problem if those who can't be bothered to obtain an free ID also can't vote. I recognize that there may be some small portion of the population that will choose not to obtain an ID; I just don't consider it a problem that they can't vote.

Interesting that you label the millions who will be disenfranchised as a "small portion of the population", yet the instances of voter fraud are microscopic compare to that "small portion", and you consider it a problem.

Why on earth would millions be "disenfranchised" with this? I'm not saying you're wrong, but what's their line of thought? Where does the "millions" come from? Again...not saying you're wrong, just wondering where you get the numbers from.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I agree, we will never see eye to eye. Apparently you're so far removed from the situations of folks who would be disenfranchised

It doesn't help your case when you refer to ID requirements as "disenfranchisement." Nobody is being disenfranchised. Anybody who is currently eligible to vote will still be eligible to vote, provided that they get an ID. This is a vastly less-encumbersome requirement than the requirement that voters show up at a particular place on a particular day to case their vote in the first place. It's roughly the same amount of work as registering to vote, and nobody considers registration requirements to be disenfranchisement. When you resort to hyperbole, the reader is left to assume that you don't have any valid arguments, which is why you're resorting to table-pounding.

 

[The Commish]

What is this problem that doesn't exist that you and Matthias keep talking about?

This is a problem of 2 problems.First problem: Right now there is some # (the Brennan Center says 11%; people are free to find competing data) of American citizens who are qualified to vote who don't have a government-issued photo ID. If you require a photo ID tomorrow to vote, those people won't vote and can't vote. If you require a photo ID to vote in 2014, then some %age of that %age will assumedly still not have a photo ID and can't vote, won't vote even they can vote, would vote.

Second problem: People may be committing voter fraud by giving the name of someone else and using their name to vote. This would be prevented by requiring a photo ID to vote.

This discussion is a comparison of these 2 problems.

Correct.Matthias and tommyGunz and some others believe that #1 above is a significant problem, and that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to fix. They also believe that #2 above is not an issue, and that it is actually not a problem at all.

Most people in this and other similar threads believe the exact opposite. Namely, that #2 is a problem, and that #1 is not a problem at all.

That's fine. Which side do you think the data supports?

IMO, the data supports my side. That's because it's not possible to quantify the level of a problem that is subjective by nature. That is, I don't consider it to be a problem if those who can't be bothered to obtain an free ID also can't vote. I recognize that there may be some small portion of the population that will choose not to obtain an ID; I just don't consider it a problem that they can't vote.

Just makes logical sense to know who the people are voting. I don't think voter fraud is a huge problem we face today, but I also think it's stupid to leave the possibility out there when it's pretty easy to remedy. The best I can tell the nay sayers think it's either too much money or that it's not fair to ask people to do their part in the process.

We know who the people are who are voting now. Voter fraud is not an issue.

Not all states do. Some states you can walk up and give them whatever name you want. If it's on the list, you're fine. I'll say again, I agree it's not an issue, but the potential is there for it to happen. I don't see why we have to wait until it's an issue before we remove the possibility from happening. Especially if it's simple to fix like this is. I'm more proactive than reactive by nature though

 

[tommyGunZ]

Perhaps instead of spending 10s of millions on voter ID cards ( IK) we should spend that money on awareness to properly illustrate how absurd the perception that voter fraud is a "problem" really is.That way we eliminate the problem and don't disenfranchise millions. Win-Win.

Lets call it 50 million. How much ad time do you really think you could buy with that?And 10s of millions is a rounding error in a government expenditures. The federal government alone could swallow that cost without a second thought.2012 federal budget: 3,796,000,000,000Cost you're decrying: 50,000,000

It doesn't matter - it's $50M wasted on a problem that doesn't exist.

Or, its a $50M investment in voter confidence. All for much less than the cost of 1 military airplane.

Why don't we just offer Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh $1M each to stop talking about it, and then we'll never hear about the problem again. And we save $47M!

 

[The Commish]

I agree, we will never see eye to eye. Apparently you're so far removed from the situations of folks who would be disenfranchised

It doesn't help your case when you refer to ID requirements as "disenfranchisement." Nobody is being disenfranchised. Anybody who is currently eligible to vote will still be eligible to vote, provided that they get an ID. This is a vastly less-encumbersome requirement than the requirement that voters show up at a particular place on a particular day to case their vote in the first place. It's roughly the same amount of work as registering to vote, and nobody considers registration requirements to be disenfranchisement. When you resort to hyperbole, the reader is left to assume that you don't have any valid arguments, which is why you're resorting to table-pounding.

I'm having problems deciphering between the point and they hyperbole.

 

[The Commish]

I'd like links to places saying it would cost "10s of millions of dollars" and that millions of voters would be "disenfranchised" I'd also like us to create a FFA dictionary for all the terms we use to mean other things so I can keep it all straight.....TIA.

 

[Topes]

My father doesn't have a valid government-issued photo ID. He doesn't drive anymore.

Luckily, in my state, all he needs is to be active on the voter rolls. He signs the book, and casts his vote.

 

[jplvr]

My father doesn't have a valid government-issued photo ID. He doesn't drive anymore.Luckily, in my state, all he needs is to be active on the voter rolls. He signs the book, and casts his vote.

K, thanks. Now, do you think he would avoid getting a free photo ID if they required it for him to vote?I did like the fingerprint idea, but then wondered if the statue of limitations had run out on some things. ***Is that a Seinfeld or Friends thing? I forget.

 

[tommyGunZ]

My father doesn't have a valid government-issued photo ID. He doesn't drive anymore.Luckily, in my state, all he needs is to be active on the voter rolls. He signs the book, and casts his vote.

My great aunt never drove. She worked 30 yrs for Dupont riding the bus everyday before retiring. Didn't go to the library, and never needed a photo id at the bank since she knew all the tellers and managers (small town).

 

[tommyGunZ]

I'd like links to places saying it would cost "10s of millions of dollars" and that millions of voters would be "disenfranchised" I'd also like us to create a FFA dictionary for all the terms we use to mean other things so I can keep it all straight.....TIA.

The Brennan Center study has been mentioned several times in this thread Commish. A little googling and you can inform yourself, and stop asking these basic questions.

 

[Topes]

I agree, we will never see eye to eye. Apparently you're so far removed from the situations of folks who would be disenfranchised

It doesn't help your case when you refer to ID requirements as "disenfranchisement." Nobody is being disenfranchised. Anybody who is currently eligible to vote will still be eligible to vote, provided that they get an ID. This is a vastly less-encumbersome requirement than the requirement that voters show up at a particular place on a particular day to case their vote in the first place. It's roughly the same amount of work as registering to vote, and nobody considers registration requirements to be disenfranchisement. When you resort to hyperbole, the reader is left to assume that you don't have any valid arguments, which is why you're resorting to table-pounding.

Registering to vote is filling out a form.In my state, to get a non-driver photo ID, one needs to come in person, bring proof of name, proof or residence, birth certificate and Social Security card, and the $15 fee. This is hardly trivial for many people. For somebody not in possession of either their original birth certificate or Social Security card, getting replacements is a time-intensive process that can cost a good deal of money.

It's not hyperbole. It's enough of a pita that many people just won't bother.

 

[Mello]

No one will be disenfranchised. Disenfranchised means they are denied the right to vote, which wouldn't be the case. They could vote, they just have to choose to obtain an ID first. It's no different than choosing to register to vote first. Yes, you and I will never see eye to eye on this.

I agree, we will never see eye to eye. Apparently you're so far removed from the situations of folks who would be disenfranchised by this new hurdle, that you seem to think they're expendable and don't care that they won't be participating in their own democracy. I think the country is better off when more voices, including those of the least fortunate, are heard.

We don't have a democracy. We have a representative republic.

I hate when people say this when it's completely meaningless to the point being made.

 

[The Commish]

This is a vastly less-encumbersome requirement than the requirement that voters show up at a particular place on a particular day to case their vote in the first place. It's roughly the same amount of work as registering to vote, and nobody considers registration requirements to be disenfranchisement.

You know I'm a fan, but you should mind your own advice.

When you resort to hyperbole, the reader is left to assume that you don't have any valid arguments, which is why you're resorting to table-pounding.

Getting your photo ID is a less-cumbersome requirement than voting for you. I wouldn't extrapolate that out to the universal.

What are some of the "cumbersome" requirements necessary in getting this free id vs getting to the voting spot?

 

[The Commish]

I'd like links to places saying it would cost "10s of millions of dollars" and that millions of voters would be "disenfranchised" I'd also like us to create a FFA dictionary for all the terms we use to mean other things so I can keep it all straight.....TIA.

The Brennan Center study has been mentioned several times in this thread Commish. A little googling and you can inform yourself, and stop asking these basic questions.

If this is what you're talking about, I've read it. It doesn't speak to what it would cost to get everyone an ID, nor does it speak to how many people would be "disenfranchised" with having to do so. I'll say again, this isn't about politics for me. It's about seeing a possible exploitation and closing it before it IS used.You guys against this ID stuff are the equivalent of a developer leaving a clear and easy path into anyone's bank account and saying "well, they haven't used this way in yet, so I don't think it's worth the time to fix it". It makes zero logical sense.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I agree, we will never see eye to eye. Apparently you're so far removed from the situations of folks who would be disenfranchised

It doesn't help your case when you refer to ID requirements as "disenfranchisement." Nobody is being disenfranchised. Anybody who is currently eligible to vote will still be eligible to vote, provided that they get an ID. This is a vastly less-encumbersome requirement than the requirement that voters show up at a particular place on a particular day to case their vote in the first place. It's roughly the same amount of work as registering to vote, and nobody considers registration requirements to be disenfranchisement. When you resort to hyperbole, the reader is left to assume that you don't have any valid arguments, which is why you're resorting to table-pounding.

Registering to vote is filling out a form.In my state, to get a non-driver photo ID, one needs to come in person, bring proof of name, proof or residence, birth certificate and Social Security card, and the $15 fee.

I'm pretty sure I had to do all of that when I registered to vote, except for the $15 fee. And I think all of us are agreeing that the state should pick up the fee for an ID.