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

[The Commish]

If paying 50 cents is a harm, then getting an ID is a greater harm.

Well except when JOhnny Millionaire comes and casts 1million votes for a mere $500,000. Not a bad price to buy an election.

Let's try to stay focused. A bunch of you guys were saying "there's absolutely no harm here." After we deal with that bad argument, we can move on to your other bad arguments.

You're the one who brought up the totally irrelevant paying 50 cents argument.

It is very relevant. If you think it is a harm to force some people to pay 50 cents to vote, it is a bigger harm to force them to get an ID. This was what I tried to get out like 10 pages ago (or maybe it was the other thread) with the stuffed unicorn. It's a harm.Once you guys acknowledge it is a harm, we can discuss how significant a harm it is, how different interests should be balanced, etc. But it's tough to have a reasonable discussion with people that won't even acknowledge stuff like this.

You seem to want to talk about this, so let's talk about it. I'm trying to understand all this and about all I get are some not so witty one liners in response. I acknowledge that making people pay a poll tax would be bad. Now, I'd like for you to explain to me a few things:1. Why it's important that I acknowledge that2. Why you even bring it up as no one is suggesting a poll tax as a solution.3. Why you think a free ID would lead to a "poll tax" (this is an assumption on my part. It's the only reason I can think of that would bring the topic up).

 

[RCon]

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.What hasn't been made clear is why it is a harm to ask people to obtain an ID. You've made it clear that a large number of people don't have them, but you've never given a viable reason why someone couldn't get one.

Possible and unlikely hypotheticals <> plausible scenarioThere's been a number of reasons given. People may lack the supporting documentation necessary to get the ID. It may cost money and time to get them. The place to get them may be inconvenient. And at the end of the day, I was trained to think like an economist. It's not my place to justify the decisions that people should have made. It's sufficient, and indeed preferable, to simply know that they made these decisions and base policy off of that. And it's a non-disputed fact that a substantial minority of American voters don't have a photo ID. It's reasonable conjecture that even if they were made free and necessary, a decent number of them would still not get one for the same reasons they don't have one now, whatever they are.

My reasons aren't plausible and harmful, even though we know it (voter fraud) is entirely possible. Your reasons, which you cannot describe, other than "they just might not", are plausible and harmful. Just not seeing it.

That's the beauty of this methodology. You don't have to see it. It doesn't depend upon you. All you have to know is that approximately of 11% of American voters don't have a photo ID. The reasons they may have and how much sense it makes to you is irrelevant.

Nope, it doesn't depend on me. But when we're debating in the abstract, I thought the point was to convince the other person by coming up with reasonable, tangible arguments, and "they just might not" doesn't qualify for me.Until I see the harm, I'll continue to advocate for voter ID laws. Ditto for lots of other people out there, so it would be to "your side's" advantage to come up with something more tangible than "they just might not".

 

[Rayderr]

If paying 50 cents is a harm, then getting an ID is a greater harm.

Well except when JOhnny Millionaire comes and casts 1million votes for a mere $500,000. Not a bad price to buy an election.

Let's try to stay focused. A bunch of you guys were saying "there's absolutely no harm here." After we deal with that bad argument, we can move on to your other bad arguments.

You're the one who brought up the totally irrelevant paying 50 cents argument.

It is very relevant. If you think it is a harm to force some people to pay 50 cents to vote, it is a bigger harm to force them to get an ID. This was what I tried to get out like 10 pages ago (or maybe it was the other thread) with the stuffed unicorn. It's a harm.Once you guys acknowledge it is a harm, we can discuss how significant a harm it is, how different interests should be balanced, etc. But it's tough to have a reasonable discussion with people that won't even acknowledge stuff like this.

You seem to want to talk about this, so let's talk about it. I'm trying to understand all this and about all I get are some not so witty one liners in response. I acknowledge that making people pay a poll tax would be bad. Now, I'd like for you to explain to me a few things:1. Why it's important that I acknowledge that2. Why you even bring it up as no one is suggesting a poll tax as a solution.3. Why you think a free ID would lead to a "poll tax" (this is an assumption on my part. It's the only reason I can think of that would bring the topic up).

I'm guessing he's going with the flawed logic that the cost associated with getting a free ID (requesting a birth certificate, riding the buss to an ID center, etc.) equates to a poll tax.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

It is very relevant. If you think it is a harm to force some people to pay 50 cents to vote, it is a bigger harm to force them to get an ID. This was what I tried to get out like 10 pages ago (or maybe it was the other thread) with the stuffed unicorn. It's a harm.Once you guys acknowledge it is a harm, we can discuss how significant a harm it is, how different interests should be balanced, etc. But it's tough to have a reasonable discussion with people that won't even acknowledge stuff like this.

You seem to want to talk about this, so let's talk about it. I'm trying to understand all this and about all I get are some not so witty one liners in response. I acknowledge that making people pay a poll tax would be bad. Now, I'd like for you to explain to me a few things:1. Why it's important that I acknowledge that2. Why you even bring it up as no one is suggesting a poll tax as a solution.3. Why you think a free ID would lead to a "poll tax" (this is an assumption on my part. It's the only reason I can think of that would bring the topic up).

I promise to answer your questions, but first can you explain why you think it would be bad if we had a modest poll tax? The way you answer the question may impact on the approach I take when answering your questions to me.

 

[matuski]

Lower voter turnout just means that real voters, who aren't cheating the system, vote really counts. Not seeing that as a harm.

 

[The Commish]

It is very relevant. If you think it is a harm to force some people to pay 50 cents to vote, it is a bigger harm to force them to get an ID. This was what I tried to get out like 10 pages ago (or maybe it was the other thread) with the stuffed unicorn. It's a harm.Once you guys acknowledge it is a harm, we can discuss how significant a harm it is, how different interests should be balanced, etc. But it's tough to have a reasonable discussion with people that won't even acknowledge stuff like this.

You seem to want to talk about this, so let's talk about it. I'm trying to understand all this and about all I get are some not so witty one liners in response. I acknowledge that making people pay a poll tax would be bad. Now, I'd like for you to explain to me a few things:1. Why it's important that I acknowledge that2. Why you even bring it up as no one is suggesting a poll tax as a solution.3. Why you think a free ID would lead to a "poll tax" (this is an assumption on my part. It's the only reason I can think of that would bring the topic up).

I promise to answer your questions, but first can you explain why you think it would be bad if we had a modest poll tax? The way you answer the question may impact on the approach I take when answering your questions to me.

It's illegal. I think any attempt to make a law that goes against the Constitution is a "harm" to us all. The Constitution should be our standard.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

It is very relevant. If you think it is a harm to force some people to pay 50 cents to vote, it is a bigger harm to force them to get an ID. This was what I tried to get out like 10 pages ago (or maybe it was the other thread) with the stuffed unicorn. It's a harm.

Once you guys acknowledge it is a harm, we can discuss how significant a harm it is, how different interests should be balanced, etc. But it's tough to have a reasonable discussion with people that won't even acknowledge stuff like this.

You seem to want to talk about this, so let's talk about it. I'm trying to understand all this and about all I get are some not so witty one liners in response. I acknowledge that making people pay a poll tax would be bad. Now, I'd like for you to explain to me a few things:1. Why it's important that I acknowledge that

2. Why you even bring it up as no one is suggesting a poll tax as a solution.

3. Why you think a free ID would lead to a "poll tax" (this is an assumption on my part. It's the only reason I can think of that would bring the topic up).

I promise to answer your questions, but first can you explain why you think it would be bad if we had a modest poll tax? The way you answer the question may impact on the approach I take when answering your questions to me.

It's illegal. I think any attempt to make a law that goes against the Constitution is a "harm" to us all. The Constitution should be our standard.

OK, but do you think it would be bad public policy to enact a poll tax, or do you just think it is bad because it is unconstitutional? Would you have been OK with poll taxes before the amendment to the Constitution that prohibited them?But I don't want to seem like I'm evading your questions, so I'll answer them. The reason I am asking about poll taxes is because any voting requirement is akin to a poll tax in many ways. Getting you to agree that poll taxes are bad is the first step in building the argument that voter ID requirements are bad for many of the same reasons. I'm trying to take things one step at a time because people in his thread frequently seem to be talking past each other.

 

[RCon]

That's the beauty of this methodology. You don't have to see it. It doesn't depend upon you. All you have to know is that approximately of 11% of American voters don't have a photo ID. The reasons they may have and how much sense it makes to you is irrelevant.

Nope, it doesn't depend on me. But when we're debating in the abstract, I thought the point was to convince the other person by coming up with reasonable, tangible arguments, and "they just might not" doesn't qualify for me.Until I see the harm, I'll continue to advocate for voter ID laws. Ditto for lots of other people out there, so it would be to "your side's" advantage to come up with something more tangible than "they just might not".

You're going to have to define your terms then.When I think "tangible evidence" survey data from multiple sources and studies and sides of the aisles is what I think of for this type of thing. So tell me what you mean that isn't this or convince me you're just not fishing.

I'm suggesting that we should require sufficient ID be presented in order to vote. Your data, which I'm not disputing, tells me that some percentage of eligible voters don't currently have what I would consider a sufficient ID. You're suggesting that requiring some percentage of that group (exact percentage TBD) to obtain such an ID would present a burden significant enough that it could be considered a serious harm. I find it difficult to believe that this requirement imposes a significant burden on anyone in that group. My question is "why is this such a significant burden on that group"? Until I hear a reasonable answer to that question, I'll continue to advocate for voter ID laws, and "They just won't/can't get them" isn't a reasonable answer to me.

 

[RCon]

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), those effects should be weighed against each other.

Indeed.

I think almost everyone here agrees on this. The disagreement is about the extent of the likelihood of 1 and the extent of the harm of 2.

 

[RCon]

I'm suggesting that we should require sufficient ID be presented in order to vote. Your data, which I'm not disputing, tells me that some percentage of eligible voters don't currently have what I would consider a sufficient ID. You're suggesting that requiring some percentage of that group (exact percentage TBD) to obtain such an ID would present a burden significant enough that it could be considered a serious harm. I find it difficult to believe that this requirement imposes a significant burden on anyone in that group. My question is "why is this such a significant burden on that group"? Until I hear a reasonable answer to that question, I'll continue to advocate for voter ID laws, and "They just won't/can't get them" isn't a reasonable answer to me.

Here's your problem.I'm defining the harm of requiring Voter IDs in the same terms that we're defining the benefits. The harm is that legitimate voters will not have their will registered for purposes of deciding an election. The benefit which we're trying to attain is that someone who votes legitimately will have their vote nullified by an illegitimate vote. The cost of that benefit is in the same terms. If someone would have been able to legitimately vote but has their vote nullified by the requirement/process, then that harm is of the same type as the benefit. So it's a question of comparing the relative size of the harm and benefit to decide upon the best public policy. It's the same formulation MT said in bold that I quoted above.

That's not my question and you know it.

 

[Jackstraw]

Lower voter turnout just means that real voters, who aren't cheating the system, vote really counts. Not seeing that as a harm.

Perhaps we could count the "not real voters" at some discount? 60% of a vote maybe. What this comes down to is the voter ID folks demand their fear of voter fraud trump liberals fear of denying voters the right to vote. I think its obvious the preponderance of evidence is that far more people will be disenfranchised to vote than those committing voter fraud. By orders of magnitude. Conservatives can't bring any diversity to their tent so they work to disenfranchise liberals. I got an idea. Adopt policy that doesn't cater to rich white aholes 100% of the time.

 

[RCon]

The why is important, because IMO "they're too lazy" isn't a good enough reason not to do this.

 

[RCon]

The why is important, because IMO "they're too lazy" isn't a good enough reason not to do this.

Then you are disagreeing with MT's statement of the problem

No I'm not. This was MT's post:

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), those effects should be weighed against each other.

Rain reduces legitimate voter turnout. Does that make raid "bad"? No. The voter ID law would likely reduce turnout, but that by itself isn't necessarily "bad", IMO. It's only bad, IMO, if those voters who otherwise would have shown up have what I consider a valid reason for not showing up. "Too apathetic to get a little wet" and "too lazy to get an ID" don't qualify, IMO.

 

[dparker713]

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), those effects should be weighed against each other.

Indeed.

I think almost everyone here agrees on this. The disagreement is about the extent of the likelihood of 1 and the extent of the harm of 2.

Harm 2 is fairly estimable. We have numbers on what %age of eligible voters lack an ID. We would have to model/estimate how many of those would not vote if this was put in place. If you really wanted to do it up, I came across some historical numbers of %ages of people who had IDs (or Drivers Licenses, I don't remember exactly) before and after some states instituted voting ID laws. You can find these numbers and crunch them. Thus far, I'm the only here looking for real data and it gets tiresome to just have it disputed and then ignored.Harm 1 we only have scattered anecdoctal reports, most times of which it doesn't even match the harm that is described. It involves confused voters or people voting absentee for their dead spouses. So if you want to find any real reports on the magnitudes of this, be my guest.

Actually, you need to estimate how many people would not vote that otherwise would have voted. This may be an equivalent percentage of eligible voters that actually vote, but I doubt it.

 

[The Commish]

It is very relevant. If you think it is a harm to force some people to pay 50 cents to vote, it is a bigger harm to force them to get an ID. This was what I tried to get out like 10 pages ago (or maybe it was the other thread) with the stuffed unicorn. It's a harm.

Once you guys acknowledge it is a harm, we can discuss how significant a harm it is, how different interests should be balanced, etc. But it's tough to have a reasonable discussion with people that won't even acknowledge stuff like this.

You seem to want to talk about this, so let's talk about it. I'm trying to understand all this and about all I get are some not so witty one liners in response. I acknowledge that making people pay a poll tax would be bad. Now, I'd like for you to explain to me a few things:1. Why it's important that I acknowledge that

2. Why you even bring it up as no one is suggesting a poll tax as a solution.

3. Why you think a free ID would lead to a "poll tax" (this is an assumption on my part. It's the only reason I can think of that would bring the topic up).

I promise to answer your questions, but first can you explain why you think it would be bad if we had a modest poll tax? The way you answer the question may impact on the approach I take when answering your questions to me.

It's illegal. I think any attempt to make a law that goes against the Constitution is a "harm" to us all. The Constitution should be our standard.

OK, but do you think it would be bad public policy to enact a poll tax, or do you just think it is bad because it is unconstitutional? Would you have been OK with poll taxes before the amendment to the Constitution that prohibited them?But I don't want to seem like I'm evading your questions, so I'll answer them. The reason I am asking about poll taxes is because any voting requirement is akin to a poll tax in many ways. Getting you to agree that poll taxes are bad is the first step in building the argument that voter ID requirements are bad for many of the same reasons. I'm trying to take things one step at a time because people in his thread frequently seem to be talking past each other.

If it wasn't unconstitutional I'd still have issue with it because of the potential problems it would introduce, like class warfare, buying votes etc. I'd view that poll tax a "bug" in the system just like I see lack of identification as a "bug" in the system. Fortunately, the poll tax bug has been fixed.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

OK, but do you think it would be bad public policy to enact a poll tax, or do you just think it is bad because it is unconstitutional? Would you have been OK with poll taxes before the amendment to the Constitution that prohibited them?

If it wasn't unconstitutional I'd still have issue with it because of the potential problems it would introduce, like class warfare, buying votes etc. I'd view that poll tax a "bug" in the system just like I see lack of identification as a "bug" in the system. Fortunately, the poll tax bug has been fixed.

Can you expand on what you mean by the "class warfare" and "buying votes" problems with poll taxes? How exactly do poll taxes create these problems?

 

[RCon]

Here's MT's post one more time.

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), those effects should be weighed against each other.

I am agreeing that (1) requiring IDs has the potential to reduce fraud.I am agreeing that (2) requiring IDs will almost certainly reduce legitimate voter turnout.

I am agreeing that (3) it is debatable that the second effect is bad.

I contend that (2) is not necessarily bad, depending on the circumstances, and more specifically, why voter turnout is reduced.

 

[The Commish]

OK, but do you think it would be bad public policy to enact a poll tax, or do you just think it is bad because it is unconstitutional? Would you have been OK with poll taxes before the amendment to the Constitution that prohibited them?

If it wasn't unconstitutional I'd still have issue with it because of the potential problems it would introduce, like class warfare, buying votes etc. I'd view that poll tax a "bug" in the system just like I see lack of identification as a "bug" in the system. Fortunately, the poll tax bug has been fixed.

Can you expand on what you mean by the "class warfare" and "buying votes" problems with poll taxes? How exactly do poll taxes create these problems?

If you come and tell me the poll tax is going to be 1 million dollars, you're going to eliminate a lot of people from being able to attain that. You are taking the option of voting completely off the table for people like me.

 

[The Commish]

It's a fruitless exercise Rich. Come talk with Ray and I. I think we can make some progress with rational discussion.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

OK, but do you think it would be bad public policy to enact a poll tax, or do you just think it is bad because it is unconstitutional? Would you have been OK with poll taxes before the amendment to the Constitution that prohibited them?

If it wasn't unconstitutional I'd still have issue with it because of the potential problems it would introduce, like class warfare, buying votes etc. I'd view that poll tax a "bug" in the system just like I see lack of identification as a "bug" in the system. Fortunately, the poll tax bug has been fixed.

Can you expand on what you mean by the "class warfare" and "buying votes" problems with poll taxes? How exactly do poll taxes create these problems?

If you come and tell me the poll tax is going to be 1 million dollars, you're going to eliminate a lot of people from being able to attain that. You are taking the option of voting completely off the table for people like me.

Assume the poll tax is under $5. Still bad?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm defining the harm of requiring Voter IDs in the same terms that we're defining the benefits. The harm is that legitimate voters will not have their will registered for purposes of deciding an election.

That's not going to be a harm in everyone's estimation.Not everyone wants to maximize the number of legitimate voters who turn out to vote. Some people instead want to maximize the ratio of informed voters to uninformed voters (or, more cynically, some people want to maximize the ratio of voters who agree with them to voters who disagree with them).I think it's likely that the people who'd be barred from voting by an ID requirement are less informed than the average voter. So for the people who want to increase the quality of voters rather than the quantity, the fact that an ID requirement would block some people from voting doesn't necessarily constitute a harm.(I think there are good reasons for being more concerned with increasing quantity than with increasing quality; but it's not a slam-dunk case that can be taken for granted.)

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I'm defining the harm of requiring Voter IDs in the same terms that we're defining the benefits. The harm is that legitimate voters will not have their will registered for purposes of deciding an election.

That's not going to be a harm in everyone's estimation.Not everyone wants to maximize the number of legitimate voters who turn out to vote. Some people instead want to maximize the ratio of informed voters to uninformed voters (or, more cynically, some people want to maximize the ratio of voters who agree with them to voters who disagree with them).I think it's likely that the people who'd be barred from voting by an ID requirement are less informed than the average voter. So for the people who want to increase the quality of voters rather than the quantity, the fact that an ID requirement would block some people from voting doesn't necessarily constitute a harm.(I think there are good reasons for being more concerned with increasing quantity than with increasing quality; but it's not a slam-dunk case that can be taken for granted.)

The sort of people that would be willing to vote fraudulently are likely to be very informed. They deserve multiple votes.

 

[The Commish]

OK, but do you think it would be bad public policy to enact a poll tax, or do you just think it is bad because it is unconstitutional? Would you have been OK with poll taxes before the amendment to the Constitution that prohibited them?

If it wasn't unconstitutional I'd still have issue with it because of the potential problems it would introduce, like class warfare, buying votes etc. I'd view that poll tax a "bug" in the system just like I see lack of identification as a "bug" in the system. Fortunately, the poll tax bug has been fixed.

Can you expand on what you mean by the "class warfare" and "buying votes" problems with poll taxes? How exactly do poll taxes create these problems?

If you come and tell me the poll tax is going to be 1 million dollars, you're going to eliminate a lot of people from being able to attain that. You are taking the option of voting completely off the table for people like me.

Assume the poll tax is under $5. Still bad?

The loophole is still there to begin the exercise of segregating groups, so yes. I don't care what the dollar value is assigned to it. The idea that there is a potential way of discriminating is there. That's bad.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Assume the poll tax is under $5. Still bad?

The loophole is still there to begin the exercise of segregating groups, so yes. I don't care what the dollar value is assigned to it. The idea that there is a potential way of discriminating is there. That's bad.

Why is it discriminatory if everyone has to pay the same poll tax?

 

[The Commish]

Assume the poll tax is under $5. Still bad?

The loophole is still there to begin the exercise of segregating groups, so yes. I don't care what the dollar value is assigned to it. The idea that there is a potential way of discriminating is there. That's bad.

Why is it discriminatory if everyone has to pay the same poll tax?

It's not. But the potential for there to be differing taxes still exist since the tax exists. That's my concern.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Assume the poll tax is under $5. Still bad?

The loophole is still there to begin the exercise of segregating groups, so yes. I don't care what the dollar value is assigned to it. The idea that there is a potential way of discriminating is there. That's bad.

Why is it discriminatory if everyone has to pay the same poll tax?

It's not. But the potential for there to be differing taxes still exist since the tax exists. That's my concern.

Assume everyone has to pay the same amount and there are sufficient protections in place so that nobody is charged extra and nobody gets to vote for a discount.

 

[jonessed]

How come this issue is not settled after the Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of voter IDs? I got two questions:1. What exactly is causing this debate now?2. What is the step in the process beyond the Supreme Court ruling?

At this point it's just the justice department trying to delay implementation and expansion.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

How come this issue is not settled after the Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of voter IDs? I got two questions:1. What exactly is causing this debate now?2. What is the step in the process beyond the Supreme Court ruling?

At this point it's just the justice department trying to delay implementation and expansion.

That's not entirely true. The Supreme Court upheld one specific ID law (I think in Indiana). It didn't say "all Voter ID laws are OK." The constitutionality of other state laws is not settled to the extent that the situation in those states differs from Indiana (e.g., the law is different or it is tougher to get IDs or something).

 

[The Commish]

Assume the poll tax is under $5. Still bad?

The loophole is still there to begin the exercise of segregating groups, so yes. I don't care what the dollar value is assigned to it. The idea that there is a potential way of discriminating is there. That's bad.

Why is it discriminatory if everyone has to pay the same poll tax?

It's not. But the potential for there to be differing taxes still exist since the tax exists. That's my concern.

Assume everyone has to pay the same amount and there are sufficient protections in place so that nobody is charged extra and nobody gets to vote for a discount.

So I don't lose track:1. The Constitution and SC have no problem with poll taxes2. Everyone has to pay the same tax and that amount can not changeOk...now what? Am I to say it's good or bad? I don't think it's either personally. At that point it's just like sales tax. But now we are so far gone that the hypothetical just doesn't matter IMO. It's so far from reality of what could possibly happen that entertaining it seems pointless. But I'll continue. What's next? By the way...did you answer all my questions yet?

 

[NCCommish]

If you don't have a drivers license it is easy enough to get an ID card, at least in Pennsylvania it is. I don't think it is too much to ask for the voter for the sake of reducing fraud.

If there's one thing I've learned from this thread, it's that there are a large number of people out there for whom it requires a herculean effort to swing by the DMV to pick up a free ID. And even though these people are apparently completely incapable of navigating their way through life, it's extremely important that they vote. I don't get it either, but that's the argument.

It's a constitutional right they have as a citizen.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

So I don't lose track:1. The Constitution and SC have no problem with poll taxes2. Everyone has to pay the same tax and that amount can not changeOk...now what? Am I to say it's good or bad? I don't think it's either personally. At that point it's just like sales tax. But now we are so far gone that the hypothetical just doesn't matter IMO. It's so far from reality of what could possibly happen that entertaining it seems pointless. But I'll continue. What's next? By the way...did you answer all my questions yet?

I think I answered all your questions but if I missed something let me know.Here's what's next -- Some people, including myself, have a problem with a poll tax, even if applied evenly, because poor people would be more likely to be dissuaded from voting than rich people. Although everyone would theoretically have the right to vote, and everybody theoretically was being treated equally, the practical result would be that some poor people might decide to save the $5 by not exercising their right to vote. Do you view that as problematic?

 

[RCon]

If you don't have a drivers license it is easy enough to get an ID card, at least in Pennsylvania it is. I don't think it is too much to ask for the voter for the sake of reducing fraud.

If there's one thing I've learned from this thread, it's that there are a large number of people out there for whom it requires a herculean effort to swing by the DMV to pick up a free ID. And even though these people are apparently completely incapable of navigating their way through life, it's extremely important that they vote. I don't get it either, but that's the argument.

It's a constitutional right they have as a citizen.

That's not exactly true. The right to vote isn't absolute, nor is it a right that cannot have restrictions (such as requiring preregistration).

 

[The Commish]

So I don't lose track:1. The Constitution and SC have no problem with poll taxes2. Everyone has to pay the same tax and that amount can not changeOk...now what? Am I to say it's good or bad? I don't think it's either personally. At that point it's just like sales tax. But now we are so far gone that the hypothetical just doesn't matter IMO. It's so far from reality of what could possibly happen that entertaining it seems pointless. But I'll continue. What's next? By the way...did you answer all my questions yet?

I think I answered all your questions but if I missed something let me know.Here's what's next -- Some people, including myself, have a problem with a poll tax, even if applied evenly, because poor people would be more likely to be dissuaded from voting than rich people. Although everyone would theoretically have the right to vote, and everybody theoretically was being treated equally, the practical result would be that some poor people might decide to save the $5 by not exercising their right to vote. Do you view that as problematic?

From the qualifications you've presented in your hypothetical, voting isn't a right. It's a privilege. However, I DO see the problems with poll taxes. I don't think I've ever said otherwise. Can you tie all this back in with giving someone a free ID?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I think I answered all your questions but if I missed something let me know.Here's what's next -- Some people, including myself, have a problem with a poll tax, even if applied evenly, because poor people would be more likely to be dissuaded from voting than rich people. Although everyone would theoretically have the right to vote, and everybody theoretically was being treated equally, the practical result would be that some poor people might decide to save the $5 by not exercising their right to vote. Do you view that as problematic?

From the qualifications you've presented in your hypothetical, voting isn't a right. It's a privilege. However, I DO see the problems with poll taxes. I don't think I've ever said otherwise. Can you tie all this back in with giving someone a free ID?

I'm not trying to hide the ball here, I didn't think that it was a mystery where I'm going. Time and inconvenience have value. If you think it's a problem to charge a few bucks because it will dissuade a certain subset of the population from voting, it seems equally problematic to me to tell certain people they have to spend the time and inconvenience (and possibly money) to get a special ID. I have a hard time seeing the difference.But I'm not sure that you've actually articulated whether that's a problem that concerns you about poll taxes. So if it is, why is the ID thing less of a harm?* If it isn't, why not?*Right now I'd just prefer to stay focused on the "harm" side of the equation, so the answer can't be that "there are good reasons for the ID requirement but not for the poll tax."

 

[ArcticEdge]

Why is this thread 12 pages?

The answer is yes! /thread

 

[jonessed]

How come this issue is not settled after the Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of voter IDs? I got two questions:1. What exactly is causing this debate now?2. What is the step in the process beyond the Supreme Court ruling?

At this point it's just the justice department trying to delay implementation and expansion.

That's not entirely true. The Supreme Court upheld one specific ID law (I think in Indiana). It didn't say "all Voter ID laws are OK." The constitutionality of other state laws is not settled to the extent that the situation in those states differs from Indiana (e.g., the law is different or it is tougher to get IDs or something).

It's still just delaying. Every state now has a model they can use. The Justice Department can fight every state if they want, but ultimately they all have a legal path to voter IDs, either through the previous ruling or simply when a Republican president tells a new Atteroney General to stop trying to delay.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

At this point it's just the justice department trying to delay implementation and expansion.

That's not entirely true. The Supreme Court upheld one specific ID law (I think in Indiana). It didn't say "all Voter ID laws are OK." The constitutionality of other state laws is not settled to the extent that the situation in those states differs from Indiana (e.g., the law is different or it is tougher to get IDs or something).

It's still just delaying. Every state now has a model they can use. The Justice Department can fight every state if they want, but ultimately they all have a legal path to voter IDs, either through the previous ruling or simply when a Republican president tells a new Atteroney General to stop trying to delay.

Right, the Justice Department is trying to make sure that states do it in a constitutional way, not an unconstitutional way. It's not like they're way out on the fringe -- courts seem to be agreeing with the Justice Department that these voter ID laws are unconstitutional, even though the Indiana one was upheld.

 

[Rayderr]

I think I answered all your questions but if I missed something let me know.

Here's what's next -- Some people, including myself, have a problem with a poll tax, even if applied evenly, because poor people would be more likely to be dissuaded from voting than rich people. Although everyone would theoretically have the right to vote, and everybody theoretically was being treated equally, the practical result would be that some poor people might decide to save the $5 by not exercising their right to vote. Do you view that as problematic?

From the qualifications you've presented in your hypothetical, voting isn't a right. It's a privilege. However, I DO see the problems with poll taxes. I don't think I've ever said otherwise. Can you tie all this back in with giving someone a free ID?

I'm not trying to hide the ball here, I didn't think that it was a mystery where I'm going. Time and inconvenience have value. If you think it's a problem to charge a few bucks because it will dissuade a certain subset of the population from voting, it seems equally problematic to me to tell certain people they have to spend the time and inconvenience (and possibly money) to get a special ID. I have a hard time seeing the difference.But I'm not sure that you've actually articulated whether that's a problem that concerns you about poll taxes. So if it is, why is the ID thing less of a harm?* If it isn't, why not?

*Right now I'd just prefer to stay focused on the "harm" side of the equation, so the answer can't be that "there are good reasons for the ID requirement but not for the poll tax."

There's nothing special about it.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It's special if, unlike other forms of ID, it allows you to vote.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

It's special if, unlike other forms of ID, it allows you to vote.

This is true. I was using "special" in the sense that the people we're discussing don't seem to have a need or desire for it otherwise. So from their vantage point, they would be getting the ID merely for the purpose of voting.

 

[Mello]

If you don't have a drivers license it is easy enough to get an ID card, at least in Pennsylvania it is. I don't think it is too much to ask for the voter for the sake of reducing fraud.

If there's one thing I've learned from this thread, it's that there are a large number of people out there for whom it requires a herculean effort to swing by the DMV to pick up a free ID. And even though these people are apparently completely incapable of navigating their way through life, it's extremely important that they vote. I don't get it either, but that's the argument.

It's a constitutional right they have as a citizen.

That's not exactly true. The right to vote isn't absolute, nor is it a right that cannot have restrictions (such as requiring preregistration).

I always saw the expansion of voting rights to be a good thing. Something about equality. Guess that was just the liberals brainwashing me. Fact is, it should be a right for every adult without any restrictions. If not, why don't we just go back to requiring land ownership. Or just screw it all, who needs the citizens to vote. We'll have the rich people fight to determine who is leader next. It would be more fun than watching them buy peoples' votes now. Might as well if we're not getting as close as possible to a true representation of the peoples' will.

 

[dparker713]

So I don't lose track:1. The Constitution and SC have no problem with poll taxes2. Everyone has to pay the same tax and that amount can not changeOk...now what? Am I to say it's good or bad? I don't think it's either personally. At that point it's just like sales tax. But now we are so far gone that the hypothetical just doesn't matter IMO. It's so far from reality of what could possibly happen that entertaining it seems pointless. But I'll continue. What's next? By the way...did you answer all my questions yet?

I think I answered all your questions but if I missed something let me know.Here's what's next -- Some people, including myself, have a problem with a poll tax, even if applied evenly, because poor people would be more likely to be dissuaded from voting than rich people. Although everyone would theoretically have the right to vote, and everybody theoretically was being treated equally, the practical result would be that some poor people might decide to save the $5 by not exercising their right to vote. Do you view that as problematic?

I have zero problem with a nominal, non-discriminatory fee designed to offset costs of voting. You could even allow for a waiver of the fee if you can produce evidence that you're currently on government assistance (welfare, SS, unemployment, food stamps, etc). Then again, I've paid $10 atm fees before without blinking.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Voting is already irrational from the standpoint of the time it takes versus the likelihood of affecting the outcome of an election. That's part of why so few people vote right now. If we added a $10 fee, or even a $1 fee, it would be even more irrational, and substantially fewer people would vote because you're rubbing the irrationality of it right in people's faces.

 

[The Commish]

I think I answered all your questions but if I missed something let me know.Here's what's next -- Some people, including myself, have a problem with a poll tax, even if applied evenly, because poor people would be more likely to be dissuaded from voting than rich people. Although everyone would theoretically have the right to vote, and everybody theoretically was being treated equally, the practical result would be that some poor people might decide to save the $5 by not exercising their right to vote. Do you view that as problematic?

From the qualifications you've presented in your hypothetical, voting isn't a right. It's a privilege. However, I DO see the problems with poll taxes. I don't think I've ever said otherwise. Can you tie all this back in with giving someone a free ID?

I'm not trying to hide the ball here, I didn't think that it was a mystery where I'm going. Time and inconvenience have value. If you think it's a problem to charge a few bucks because it will dissuade a certain subset of the population from voting, it seems equally problematic to me to tell certain people they have to spend the time and inconvenience (and possibly money) to get a special ID. I have a hard time seeing the difference.But I'm not sure that you've actually articulated whether that's a problem that concerns you about poll taxes. So if it is, why is the ID thing less of a harm?* If it isn't, why not?*Right now I'd just prefer to stay focused on the "harm" side of the equation, so the answer can't be that "there are good reasons for the ID requirement but not for the poll tax."

I think "time and inconvenience" are strawmen. I've said that already. A system can be put in place to render both a non issue. Simply requiring a SS card and having the ID making area at the polling place would fix those concerns.To me a poll tax is completely different beast than making someone prove who they are. However, in your hypothetical, you've attempted to make them the same.

 

[The Commish]

It should be noted I am not hell bent on an ID....I don't care what is used as long as it can verify identity. A fingerprint would be fine by me as well.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I'm not trying to hide the ball here, I didn't think that it was a mystery where I'm going. Time and inconvenience have value. If you think it's a problem to charge a few bucks because it will dissuade a certain subset of the population from voting, it seems equally problematic to me to tell certain people they have to spend the time and inconvenience (and possibly money) to get a special ID. I have a hard time seeing the difference.But I'm not sure that you've actually articulated whether that's a problem that concerns you about poll taxes. So if it is, why is the ID thing less of a harm?* If it isn't, why not?*Right now I'd just prefer to stay focused on the "harm" side of the equation, so the answer can't be that "there are good reasons for the ID requirement but not for the poll tax."

I think "time and inconvenience" are strawmen. I've said that already. A system can be put in place to render both a non issue. Simply requiring a SS card and having the ID making area at the polling place would fix those concerns.To me a poll tax is completely different beast than making someone prove who they are. However, in your hypothetical, you've attempted to make them the same.

Well, none of the new voter ID laws popping up require an ID-making area at the polling place. I'm not sure we should judge the issue by what the government hypothetically might do when we have evidence of what the laws actually do. As it stands now, getting an ID takes some time, inconvenience and usually some money too (if not for the ID itself, then at least for transportation to get to the place where you get the ID). So I don't see how these things constitute "strawmen." They are just as real as paying $5 at the polls, except even more onerous for people that do not already have or want an ID.I'm not attempting to say poll taxes are the same thing as ID requirements. I'm just saying that the harm from each is similar. The benefits may be wildly different, but I'm not talking about that yet.

 

[The Commish]

I'm not trying to hide the ball here, I didn't think that it was a mystery where I'm going. Time and inconvenience have value. If you think it's a problem to charge a few bucks because it will dissuade a certain subset of the population from voting, it seems equally problematic to me to tell certain people they have to spend the time and inconvenience (and possibly money) to get a special ID. I have a hard time seeing the difference.But I'm not sure that you've actually articulated whether that's a problem that concerns you about poll taxes. So if it is, why is the ID thing less of a harm?* If it isn't, why not?*Right now I'd just prefer to stay focused on the "harm" side of the equation, so the answer can't be that "there are good reasons for the ID requirement but not for the poll tax."

I think "time and inconvenience" are strawmen. I've said that already. A system can be put in place to render both a non issue. Simply requiring a SS card and having the ID making area at the polling place would fix those concerns.To me a poll tax is completely different beast than making someone prove who they are. However, in your hypothetical, you've attempted to make them the same.

Well, none of the new voter ID laws popping up require an ID-making area at the polling place. I'm not sure we should judge the issue by what the government hypothetically might do when we have evidence of what the laws actually do. As it stands now, getting an ID takes some time, inconvenience and usually some money too (if not for the ID itself, then at least for transportation to get to the place where you get the ID). So I don't see how these things constitute "strawmen." They are just as real as paying $5 at the polls, except even more onerous for people that do not already have or want an ID.I'm not attempting to say poll taxes are the same thing as ID requirements. I'm just saying that the harm from each is similar. The benefits may be wildly different, but I'm not talking about that yet.

I understand it would be something extra the person has to do to vote. My state doesn't require IDs yet so I don't know what the requirements are for an ID in states that do. What are those requirements? If there is an additional cost outside of every day expenses I have a problem with the laws.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I understand it would be something extra the person has to do to vote. My state doesn't require IDs yet so I don't know what the requirements are for an ID in states that do. What are those requirements? If there is an additional cost outside of every day expenses I have a problem with the laws.

Well, this was posted earlier in the thread:

Among the findings from the judge who just last week issued a injunction against Wisconsin's new voter id law:

1. Wisconsin Act 23 imposes a substantial burden upon constitutionally qualified voters.

"The plantiffs have submitted affidavits of 40 individuals each of whom describes the process of attempting to obtain the identification document. Nineteen people obtained a voter ID card only after paying between $14 and $39.50 to obtain a certified birth certificate from Wisconsin or elsewhere. This is a real cost that is imposed upon constitutionally eligible voters...A poll tax of $1.50 upon otherwise eligible voters was deemed an unconstitutional impairment..." (Supreme Court case Harper v. Virginia Board State of Elections). "The forty uncontested affidavits offer a picture of carousel visits to government offices, delay, dysfunctional computer systems, misinformation, and significant investment of time to avoid being turned away at the ballot box. This is burdensome, all the more for the elderly and the disabled."

2.There is no evidence of voter fraud that would have been prevented by Act 23

"The record is uncontested that recent investigations of vote irregularities, both in the City of Milwaukee and by the Attorney General have produced extremely little evidence of fraud and that which has been uncovered, improper use of absentee ballots and unqualified voters, would not have been prevented by the photo identification requirements of Act 23. Photo identification does not offer assurance that the person standing at the poll is not actually another person. It does not assure that the person is qualified to vote. It does not preclude the person having also voted by absentee."

3. Constitutionally Qualified Wisconsin Voters who do not Possess a Drivers License are Disproportionately Elderly, Indigent, or Members of a Racial Minority.

"The touchstone of the voter identification system is the drivers license. Statewide, 80% of men and 81% of women possess a valid Wisconsin drivers license. For minority members, the picture is substantially different, however. In Wisconsin, 45% of African-American males and 51% of females possess a license. As to Hispanics, 54% of males and 41% of females have a Wisconsin license. 23% of residents age 65 and older do not possess a drivers license."

So there you have it in a nutshell: the ID requirements present a substantial burden which falls disproportionately on minorities, elderly, and the disabled who are constitutionally eligible to vote. But even worse, it can't even be said that the policy will reduce fraud (of which there's scant proof to begin with). There's been a lot said in this thread in support of ID requirements based on posters opinions and anecdotes of how difficult it's been for them to obtain ID. But those who have studied the issue (e.g., Brennan) and presented evidence have come to a different conclusion. As for me, I'd prefer far ranging public policy to be evidence-based rather than opinion-based.

 

[The Commish]

I understand it would be something extra the person has to do to vote. My state doesn't require IDs yet so I don't know what the requirements are for an ID in states that do. What are those requirements? If there is an additional cost outside of every day expenses I have a problem with the laws.

Well, this was posted earlier in the thread:

Among the findings from the judge who just last week issued a injunction against Wisconsin's new voter id law:

1. Wisconsin Act 23 imposes a substantial burden upon constitutionally qualified voters.

"The plantiffs have submitted affidavits of 40 individuals each of whom describes the process of attempting to obtain the identification document. Nineteen people obtained a voter ID card only after paying between $14 and $39.50 to obtain a certified birth certificate from Wisconsin or elsewhere. This is a real cost that is imposed upon constitutionally eligible voters...A poll tax of $1.50 upon otherwise eligible voters was deemed an unconstitutional impairment..." (Supreme Court case Harper v. Virginia Board State of Elections). "The forty uncontested affidavits offer a picture of carousel visits to government offices, delay, dysfunctional computer systems, misinformation, and significant investment of time to avoid being turned away at the ballot box. This is burdensome, all the more for the elderly and the disabled."

2.There is no evidence of voter fraud that would have been prevented by Act 23

"The record is uncontested that recent investigations of vote irregularities, both in the City of Milwaukee and by the Attorney General have produced extremely little evidence of fraud and that which has been uncovered, improper use of absentee ballots and unqualified voters, would not have been prevented by the photo identification requirements of Act 23. Photo identification does not offer assurance that the person standing at the poll is not actually another person. It does not assure that the person is qualified to vote. It does not preclude the person having also voted by absentee."

3. Constitutionally Qualified Wisconsin Voters who do not Possess a Drivers License are Disproportionately Elderly, Indigent, or Members of a Racial Minority.

"The touchstone of the voter identification system is the drivers license. Statewide, 80% of men and 81% of women possess a valid Wisconsin drivers license. For minority members, the picture is substantially different, however. In Wisconsin, 45% of African-American males and 51% of females possess a license. As to Hispanics, 54% of males and 41% of females have a Wisconsin license. 23% of residents age 65 and older do not possess a drivers license."

So there you have it in a nutshell: the ID requirements present a substantial burden which falls disproportionately on minorities, elderly, and the disabled who are constitutionally eligible to vote. But even worse, it can't even be said that the policy will reduce fraud (of which there's scant proof to begin with). There's been a lot said in this thread in support of ID requirements based on posters opinions and anecdotes of how difficult it's been for them to obtain ID. But those who have studied the issue (e.g., Brennan) and presented evidence have come to a different conclusion. As for me, I'd prefer far ranging public policy to be evidence-based rather than opinion-based.

I have a problem with the requirement being done in a way that folks have to pay money...especially when there are free ways to do it (like a social security card). All that aside, I'll say it again. I'm not hell bent on doing photo ids. I finger print would work as well. I come at this from the problem perspective and how it could be exploited as well as fixed. You seem to be looking at what exists. I don't disagree that some of these solutions are "harmful". I wasn't really interested in talking about the bad solutions though. I was talking about the problem and reasonable solutions to fix it. Because governments have come up with bad solutions isn't a compelling argument for not doing anything at all.

This seems easy to fix and fix correctly and I think it should be. If the federal government wants to leave it to the states then they should have guidelines around ease of acquisition and cost. As long as states meet those criteria, their process can be whatever they want it to be.

ETA: I'd also be interested to know WHY folks don't have identification or refuse to get identification. To me, that's important.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I come at this from the problem perspective and how it could be exploited as well as fixed. You seem to be looking at what exists. I don't disagree that some of these solutions are "harmful". I wasn't really interested in talking about the bad solutions though. I was talking about the problem and reasonable solutions to fix it.

I feel like we are making some progress now. Many of us that object to these laws do so, at least in part, because of "what exists." The reason this subject is being talked about right now is because of all the new laws being passed around the country. Many, if not all, of the laws would not pass your test. So you should probably oppose them.Now that we've got that out of the way maybe we can discuss a hypothetical law that checks IDs but does not cost anyone any money nor cause any undue burdens. I'm not sure that any of us on the "anti-voter ID law" side would have an objection to a law, for example, that required a digital photo to be taken of each voter and matched with the name that the voter indicated.