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

[The Commish]

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.

There are a few here that oppose it because:1. "there is no evidence of significant voter fraud" (even though there is an easy path to it becoming significant)2. "it will cost 10s of millions of dollars to provide free ids to those that don't have them"Both 1 and 2 could still be hidden behind and what we've discussed doesn't address those "concerns". Opposing something so important to our country's core based on these two "concerns" is laughable to me.ETA: Again, because the governments have come up with bad solutions doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue the good solutions.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

There are a few here that oppose it because:1. "there is no evidence of significant voter fraud" (even though there is an easy path to it becoming significant)2. "it will cost 10s of millions of dollars to provide free ids to those that don't have them"Both 1 and 2 could still be hidden behind and what we've discussed doesn't address those "concerns". Opposing something so important to our country's core based on these two "concerns" is laughable to me.

Well, I think everything needs to be considered in context. We've spent a bunch of time talking about the negative impact of the laws that have been proposed and how they're like poll taxes in many ways. Those negative impacts (and any other negatives such as cost of implementation) need to be weighed against any positive impacts of the law. And that's where argument #1 comes in. Because if there is very little positive impact from these laws, then they should be opposed due to the negatives. If it seemed as though these laws actually prevented a significant amount of fraud, that might be reason to support them, even if they had negative "poll tax" type consequences. But in the absence of actual benefit from the laws, it becomes an easy call to oppose them based on the negatives.I'd also say that it is not only the lack of actual evidence of voter fraud that leads us to be skeptical of the purported benefits of these laws. It's also that the lack of evidence is consistent with what we would expect. None of us agree that "there is an easy path to [this type of voter fraud] being significant." Because the risk is so great relative to the reward. It is an incredibly stupid way to try to influence an election. So like all stupid crimes, there are probably a handful of people that might try it. But it strikes many of us as laughable that this type of voter fraud would be attempted on some sort of grand scale.

 

[jon_mx]

Without an ID requirement, there is nothing which stops me from voting in a half-dozen sites in my county. Absolutely nothing. The idea that people are not doing this is just stupid. I guarantee many union thugs have no issue with it and do it all the time.

 

[jon_mx]

Without an ID requirement, there is nothing which stops me from voting in a half-dozen sites in my county. Absolutely nothing. The idea that people are not doing this is just stupid. I guarantee many union thugs have no issue with it and do it all the time.

1. Voter Registration lists.2. Why would an ID requirement stop this?3. I don't think your guarantees are worth much.

1. Voter Registration lists are a joke. They keep growing and growing and include dead people and people who haven't lived there in years.2. Because it provides some assurance they are who they say.3. My guarantees >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinity...>>>>>>>>>> Your assertion no fraud happens.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Your assertion no fraud happens.

Nobody has asserted that "no fraud happens." We're talking only about the type of fraud that voter ID laws would prevent. There doesn't seem to be much of that.

 

[jon_mx]

Your assertion no fraud happens.

Nobody has asserted that "no fraud happens." We're talking only about the type of fraud that voter ID laws would prevent. There doesn't seem to be much of that.

There is no way of knowing that since no one checks. It is naive to think there aren't a significant number of people who take advantage of the slack rules. Politics are a dirty game and many people will do dubious things to get their way.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Your assertion no fraud happens.

Nobody has asserted that "no fraud happens." We're talking only about the type of fraud that voter ID laws would prevent. There doesn't seem to be much of that.

There is no way of knowing that since no one checks. It is naive to think there aren't a significant number of people who take advantage of the slack rules. Politics are a dirty game and many people will do dubious things to get their way.

Put yourself in the position of a rational individual (this part may be hard) attempting to influence an election. Which of these things do you do on election day?:1) Go to a phone bank and call people that have previously indicated they support your candidate but haven't voted yet2) Drive old people that support your candidate to the polls3) Go to public areas where people are likely to support your candidate and hand out information, etc.4) Volunteer as an election watcher to make sure your opponent's supporters aren't up to dirty tricks.5) Go around to a bunch of polling sites giving fake names and casting extra votes.Option number 5 is the only one that's illegal. If you are caught doing it you face severe penalties. Yet it seems less likely to influence the outcome of the election than any of the other choices.

 

[RCon]

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.

I was under the impression this is what we've been discussing the entire time.

 

[jon_mx]

Your assertion no fraud happens.

Nobody has asserted that "no fraud happens." We're talking only about the type of fraud that voter ID laws would prevent. There doesn't seem to be much of that.

There is no way of knowing that since no one checks. It is naive to think there aren't a significant number of people who take advantage of the slack rules. Politics are a dirty game and many people will do dubious things to get their way.

Put yourself in the position of a rational individual (this part may be hard) attempting to influence an election. Which of these things do you do on election day?:1) Go to a phone bank and call people that have previously indicated they support your candidate but haven't voted yet2) Drive old people that support your candidate to the polls3) Go to public areas where people are likely to support your candidate and hand out information, etc.4) Volunteer as an election watcher to make sure your opponent's supporters aren't up to dirty tricks.5) Go around to a bunch of polling sites giving fake names and casting extra votes.Option number 5 is the only one that's illegal. If you are caught doing it you face severe penalties. Yet it seems less likely to influence the outcome of the election than any of the other choices.

And yet there are thousands of people who sign Mickey Mouse or some other fake names on petitions. Many people want to avoid talking politics to other people, so 5 is the easiest route for them. The arguments against voter ID are lame. Voter ID is a simple and cheap way to improve the integrity of elections. Why make a system which is so easy to cheat?

 

[RCon]

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.

Re-read his whole post.But in any case, whatever his position is, your position is that you feel like that the only voters you are concerned about are those who are willing to make what are, to you, a threshold amount of effort in order to come out to vote. So you're redefining the set of people you consider "legitimate voters." If that's the case, Voter ID laws should just be the start.

You're also living in an incoherent position where you think fifty cents is a harm on voting and want to make everything free but consider time and effort costless and that these things should actually be substantial. Which is curious, to say the least.

Here's MT's post one more time.

[QUOTE='Maurile Tremblay]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.

[/QUOTE]*bump for Matthias*

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

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.

I was under the impression this is what we've been discussing the entire time.

Well, that's one of the frustrating things about this conversation from my vantage point. We now have dozens of voter ID laws that have passed in different states. Those laws often result in people being burdened and/or having to pay money. But when those of us that oppose the laws bring that up, you guys insist you aren't talking about those laws, you're supporting some imaginary laws that have not passed and seem unlikely to pass.

 

[jon_mx]

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.

I was under the impression this is what we've been discussing the entire time.

Well, that's one of the frustrating things about this conversation from my vantage point. We now have dozens of voter ID laws that have passed in different states. Those laws often result in people being burdened and/or having to pay money. But when those of us that oppose the laws bring that up, you guys insist you aren't talking about those laws, you're supporting some imaginary laws that have not passed and seem unlikely to pass.

What is so imaginary. States like Wisconsin provide free ID cards to be used for voting. Seems pretty real to me. What is fake is this phony argument that if it does cost $5 that it is some huge burden which can not be overcome by millions of votes.

 

[jon_mx]

*bump for Matthias*

So if someone would have voted, but doesn't vote because it's too difficult for them (say it would cost them $50 in time and effort), how much would that loss be on a scale of 0 to 1? Zero would be no loss. One would be fully legitimate vote lost.If someone votes and has their vote cancelled out by vote frad, how much would that loss be on a scale of 0 to 1? Same scale as first question.Feel free to use fractions/decimals.

IMHO, it is a gain. If people can't make even a minimal effort to cast a vote, they won't have put much thought in it. I go in late for work, spend time in line. All that costs, even without having an ID card, which would be the smallest cost of all. And if just ONE person cheats the system, that has effectively eliminated my vote.

 

[Spiderman]

This is about eliminating Democratic voters, but it also heavily about deregulating the voting process so that what goes on goes on without anyone's knowledge because nobody is legally required to check it out.

If it was about not supressing the rights of those without ID's, then why are ID's required for virtually every other necessary component of daily life. You can't enter a Federal building without an ID. You can't establish a bank account, fly on an airplane, pay for an item with a Credit Card, get a library card, drive a motor vehicle of any kind, put your kids in Public School or sign them up for Little League, acquire a passport for any sort of international travel, cashing a check, opening a business, getting a permit to hold a rally, getting a job (submitted with I9 form), purchasing or renting a house, renting a car, acquiring the right to fish or hunt via license, buying alcohol or tobacco, getting permitted to build or improve your home in any way, getting a prescription filled, etc.

All of these are things that normal people need to function every day and that the Federal Government does not believe requiring a photo ID is a violation of that person's rights. Only for voting, which has about a hundred laws requiring that you be an actual American to vote. But, the Federal Government doesn't believe we should be able make sure that these people are citizens before they cast a ballot, which is very interesting since we know that we have roughly 15-18 million illegal aliens residing in the US right now that don't have that right and who could impact or influence elections.

 

[dparker713]

*bump for Matthias*

So if someone would have voted, but doesn't vote because it's too difficult for them (say it would cost them $50 in time and effort), how much would that loss be on a scale of 0 to 1? Zero would be no loss. One would be fully legitimate vote lost.If someone votes and has their vote cancelled out by vote fraud, how much would that loss be on a scale of 0 to 1? Same scale as first question.Feel free to use fractions/decimals.

01First is a consequence of the duties of the state and a legal choice to not exercise a right. Second is a consequence of a failure of the state and an illegal choice to prejudice the rights of others.

 

[RCon]

*bump for Matthias*

So if someone would have voted, but doesn't vote because it's too difficult for them (say it would cost them $50 in time and effort), how much would that loss be on a scale of 0 to 1? Zero would be no loss. One would be fully legitimate vote lost.If someone votes and has their vote cancelled out by vote fraud, how much would that loss be on a scale of 0 to 1? Same scale as first question.Feel free to use fractions/decimals.

I still can't answer until I know why they didn't vote. Thought that was clear by now.

 

[Insomniac]

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.

I was under the impression this is what we've been discussing the entire time.

The entire purpose of Voter ID laws is to reduce the vote from citizens that are probably going to vote for Democrats.(poor people) A system that would just take a picture of the voter at no (direct) cost to the citizen wouldn't prevent these people from voting. If the GOP couldn't reduce the Democratic vote why would they bother to spend time on this issue.

 

[Insomniac]

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.

I was under the impression this is what we've been discussing the entire time.

Well, that's one of the frustrating things about this conversation from my vantage point. We now have dozens of voter ID laws that have passed in different states. Those laws often result in people being burdened and/or having to pay money. But when those of us that oppose the laws bring that up, you guys insist you aren't talking about those laws, you're supporting some imaginary laws that have not passed and seem unlikely to pass.

What is so imaginary. States like Wisconsin provide free ID cards to be used for voting. Seems pretty real to me. What is fake is this phony argument that if it does cost $5 that it is some huge burden which can not be overcome by millions of votes.

A fee of $5 in order to vote violates the 24th amendment against poll taxes. Citizens have the right to vote. Any attempt to pass a law with a primary purpose of preventing citizens from exercising their right to vote is despicable.

 

[jon_mx]

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.

I was under the impression this is what we've been discussing the entire time.

Well, that's one of the frustrating things about this conversation from my vantage point. We now have dozens of voter ID laws that have passed in different states. Those laws often result in people being burdened and/or having to pay money. But when those of us that oppose the laws bring that up, you guys insist you aren't talking about those laws, you're supporting some imaginary laws that have not passed and seem unlikely to pass.

What is so imaginary. States like Wisconsin provide free ID cards to be used for voting. Seems pretty real to me. What is fake is this phony argument that if it does cost $5 that it is some huge burden which can not be overcome by millions of votes.

A fee of $5 in order to vote violates the 24th amendment against poll taxes. Citizens have the right to vote. Any attempt to pass a law with a primary purpose of preventing citizens from exercising their right to vote is despicable.

there is no fee to vote and the Supreme Court has.struck down your silly assertion. What else you got?

 

[Riversco]

How about requiring either a photo ID or a fingerprint scan? The scan can be uploaded and matched to some database to ensure they are who they say they are and haven't already voted. That should prevent fraud, and squash fears of disenfranchisement. Am I wrong?

 

[jon_mx]

How about requiring either a photo ID or a fingerprint scan? The scan can be uploaded and matched to some database to ensure they are who they say they are and haven't already voted. That should prevent fraud, and squash fears of disenfranchisement. Am I wrong?

They will then scream about privacy. The Dems want illegals and people to be able to vote multiple times. It is necessary for them to win. Their arguments are pathetic.

 

[Riversco]

How about requiring either a photo ID or a fingerprint scan? The scan can be uploaded and matched to some database to ensure they are who they say they are and haven't already voted. That should prevent fraud, and squash fears of disenfranchisement. Am I wrong?

They will then scream about privacy. The Dems want illegals and people to be able to vote multiple times. It is necessary for them to win. Their arguments are pathetic.

People give their full annual income records to the government for income tax purposes. You'd think THAT would be a privacy issue. You're saying people are ok with doing that, but will scream "invasion of privacy!" when that same government asks for a fingerprint ID to vote? That doesn't make sense.

 

[Rayderr]

So, what happens if come this November, there is no significant drop off in voting in the states that have voter ID laws? Will the anti-ID crowd cease with the "disenfranchising" aspect? Likewise, what if there is a significant drop off? Will the pro-ID crowd admit that the system is currently flawed?

 

[Riversco]

So, what happens if come this November, there is no significant drop off in voting in the states that have voter ID laws? Will the anti-ID crowd cease with the "disenfranchising" aspect? Likewise, what if there is a significant drop off? Will the pro-ID crowd admit that the system is currently flawed?

Which system? The current one, or the new one that uses voter IDs? I think you could argue that a significant dropoff in turnout means there was a lot of voter fraud before voter IDs were required, and that we have improved the system.

 

[The Commish]

There are a few here that oppose it because:1. "there is no evidence of significant voter fraud" (even though there is an easy path to it becoming significant)2. "it will cost 10s of millions of dollars to provide free ids to those that don't have them"Both 1 and 2 could still be hidden behind and what we've discussed doesn't address those "concerns". Opposing something so important to our country's core based on these two "concerns" is laughable to me.

Well, I think everything needs to be considered in context. We've spent a bunch of time talking about the negative impact of the laws that have been proposed and how they're like poll taxes in many ways. Those negative impacts (and any other negatives such as cost of implementation) need to be weighed against any positive impacts of the law. And that's where argument #1 comes in. Because if there is very little positive impact from these laws, then they should be opposed due to the negatives. If it seemed as though these laws actually prevented a significant amount of fraud, that might be reason to support them, even if they had negative "poll tax" type consequences. But in the absence of actual benefit from the laws, it becomes an easy call to oppose them based on the negatives.I'd also say that it is not only the lack of actual evidence of voter fraud that leads us to be skeptical of the purported benefits of these laws. It's also that the lack of evidence is consistent with what we would expect. None of us agree that "there is an easy path to [this type of voter fraud] being significant." Because the risk is so great relative to the reward. It is an incredibly stupid way to try to influence an election. So like all stupid crimes, there are probably a handful of people that might try it. But it strikes many of us as laughable that this type of voter fraud would be attempted on some sort of grand scale.

I'm pretty confident you are the one person against the laws that are looking at it from a real cost/benefit perspective. The rest seem to be political talking point That's probably why our conversation has gone as far as it has. I think you're in a boat by yourself as a naysayer in that regard. I get that folks like to go the "chance" route and say there is so little chance that a mass movement could/would happen that fixing the potential problem is a waste of money/time whatever. I see it as a potential problem that can be fixed now, or wait til something really does happen, then fix it. However, we can't ignore the costs of researching, debunking, reporting etc that go along with the "accusation" side of this that comes up almost every election cycle. If it's a million dollars a year spent country wide dealing with these issues, that adds up quickly and it can be severely reduced by patching the "bug" now. People bringing cost into this rarely look at what the real costs are yearly to administer this kind of stuff with this clear whole in the system.

 

[RCon]

*bump for Matthias*

So if someone would have voted, but doesn't vote because it's too difficult for them (say it would cost them $50 in time and effort), how much would that loss be on a scale of 0 to 1? Zero would be no loss. One would be fully legitimate vote lost.If someone votes and has their vote cancelled out by vote fraud, how much would that loss be on a scale of 0 to 1? Same scale as first question.Feel free to use fractions/decimals.

I still can't answer until I know why they didn't vote. Thought that was clear by now.

it's in the premise of the question.

Time and effort? I expend time and effort to vote now, without voter ID. If they can't expend the time to register properly (i.e. obtain an ID), I calculate the harm at 0.Vote cancelled by voter fraud (of any type), I calculate the harm at 1.

 

[RCon]

*bump for Matthias*

So if someone would have voted, but doesn't vote because it's too difficult for them (say it would cost them $50 in time and effort), how much would that loss be on a scale of 0 to 1? Zero would be no loss. One would be fully legitimate vote lost.If someone votes and has their vote cancelled out by vote fraud, how much would that loss be on a scale of 0 to 1? Same scale as first question.Feel free to use fractions/decimals.

I still can't answer until I know why they didn't vote. Thought that was clear by now.

it's in the premise of the question.

Time and effort? I expend time and effort to vote now, without voter ID. If they can't expend the time to register properly (i.e. obtain an ID), I calculate the harm at 0.Vote cancelled by voter fraud (of any type), I calculate the harm at 1.

So then the benefit of someone voting who wouldn't be willing to spend $50 in time and effort to vote is also worth 0 votes? It has to be for consistency's sake, but I just want to make sure we're clear.

I don't necessarily agree with the time and effort = $50 comment, but yes, if you're not willing to spend the time and effort it takes to vote, then the loss of your vote is meaningless to me.

 

[Rayderr]

So, what happens if come this November, there is no significant drop off in voting in the states that have voter ID laws? Will the anti-ID crowd cease with the "disenfranchising" aspect? Likewise, what if there is a significant drop off? Will the pro-ID crowd admit that the system is currently flawed?

Which system? The current one, or the new one that uses voter IDs? I think you could argue that a significant dropoff in turnout means there was a lot of voter fraud before voter IDs were required, and that we have improved the system.

A few people on here have said 11% won't be able to vote because they have don't have, and won't be able to get an ID. Unless voter fraud is rampant, I think it's safe to say removing all fraudulent votes won't come anywhere near that close to that amount. Voter fraud is more than likely less than 1% (and before the anti ID crowd jumps in ad says "Why disenfranchise 11% to fix 1%?" let me remind you that in 2000, 5 states had a less that 1% margin of victory. Florida, 0.0092% New Mexico, 0.06% Wisconsin, 0.22% Iowa, 0.31% Oregon, 0.44%. In 2004, 3 states had less than 1% margin. Wisconsin 0.38% Iowa 0.67% New Mexico 0.79%. And 2 states in 2008. Missouri 0.14% North Carolina 0.32%.)

 

[RCon]

I don't necessarily agree with the time and effort = $50 comment, but yes, if you're not willing to spend the time and effort it takes to vote, then the loss of your vote is meaningless to me.

So our real problem is that we make it too easy to vote. We have all these zero-value votes diluting full-value voters.Any suggestions on how we can make voting harder to solve this problem?

I really don't know what you're driving at here. I've asked over and over again for one good reason why someone can't/won't be able to obtain an ID, and you haven't provided anything other than "they just might not".The Constitution doesn't say voting must be an painless process. It doesn't provide for votes via mental telepathy. The fact is voting requires some amount of effort. I'm simply proposing we slightly alter the amount of effort required. I really don't understand why this is such a "you're taking away my rights" catastrophe.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

We'll also have to definitely abolish absentee votes.

This would also be a great way to reduce fraud, since there is a lot more evidence of fraudulent absentee voting than there is evidence of people showing up at the polls and voting as someone else.

 

[RCon]

I don't necessarily agree with the time and effort = $50 comment, but yes, if you're not willing to spend the time and effort it takes to vote, then the loss of your vote is meaningless to me.

So our real problem is that we make it too easy to vote. We have all these zero-value votes diluting full-value voters.Any suggestions on how we can make voting harder to solve this problem?

I really don't know what you're driving at here. I've asked over and over again for one good reason why someone can't/won't be able to obtain an ID, and you haven't provided anything other than "they just might not".The Constitution doesn't say voting must be an painless process. It doesn't provide for votes via mental telepathy. The fact is voting requires some amount of effort. I'm simply proposing we slightly alter the amount of effort required. I really don't understand why this is such a "you're taking away my rights" catastrophe.

There was stuff a few pages back, re-quoted by Ray this page or last, from the Wisconsin case. But in any case, for me it doesn't matter on the why.For you, it does. So right now we're talking about how we should structure things to arrive at your best electoral outcome.Follow me here.1: Votes that wouldn't be cast if it took some set amount (here we said $50 worth) of effort have zero value to you.2: Votes that would be cast from someone willing to spend the effort have full value (one vote) to you.3: We have a problem that we have a lot of lazy voters. There's a lot of people who probably only vote because they already have a driver's license and they don't move around so they don't have to re-register to vote.4: All these lazy voters (who have zero value to you) are diluting the vote of people whose vote we really want to count.Therefore, what we have to do is make voting harder for everybody to solve this problem.I think my idea of requiring everyone to get a new voting ID every year is a step in the right direction. We should also probably require everyone to spend some minimum amount of time (4 hours, maybe?) while getting this ID. We'll also have to definitely abolish absentee votes.You on board so far?

Yes.As I said before, voting requires effort. The amount of effort varies from location to location, and due to other factors. No one is arguing that voting should require literally zero effort. We're simply debating the amount of effort that it is proper (or acceptable, if you prefer) to require. I happen to think it's acceptable to require far more effort than we currently do.Now, if you want a serious answer, I'd be fine with requiring everyone to re-register to vote every year. I'm obviously fine with requiring everyone to obtain a photo ID such as a driver's license. I'd be fine with requiring everyone to renew that ID every so often (10 years? 15?). Once per year to renew the photo ID seems excessive to me. I'd be fine with all of that even if it didn't add the benefit of reducing fraud. I happen to think that we should continue to have absentee ballots, but I'd make the process more fraud-proof.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

requiring everyone to get a new voting ID every year

everyone to spend some minimum amount of time (4 hours, maybe?) while getting this ID.

abolish absentee votes.

So is everyone is on board with this?

 

[RCon]

Of course I want a serious answer.

You're trying to define how much effort, to you, feels proper in order to have someone vote.

I'm trying to define the social cost of your programs. The electorate will be made up by VD and VL where VD would be diligent voters willing to put forth the effort to vote and VL would be lazy voters who will only vote if it's easy enough for them. If you don't value the votes of VL then you should want to minimize their votes in order to maximize the effect of the votes of VD. And the best way to do that is to raise real hurdles to everyone voting so that the only people voting are VD.

You're attempting to obfuscate.How much effort should be required to vote?

Why can't/won't people obtain voter IDs?

These are basic questions that you refuse to answer.

 

[RCon]

Of course I want a serious answer.

You're trying to define how much effort, to you, feels proper in order to have someone vote.

I'm trying to define the social cost of your programs. The electorate will be made up by VD and VL where VD would be diligent voters willing to put forth the effort to vote and VL would be lazy voters who will only vote if it's easy enough for them. If you don't value the votes of VL then you should want to minimize their votes in order to maximize the effect of the votes of VD. And the best way to do that is to raise real hurdles to everyone voting so that the only people voting are VD.

You're attempting to obfuscate.How much effort should be required to vote?

Why can't/won't people obtain voter IDs?

These are basic questions that you refuse to answer.

Not obfuscating in the slightest. There's a systematic bias in that there's segments of the population for whom it is already easy to vote because they have a photo ID for other purposes. Now if you just want to argue that you want those people voting, and not these other people who don't already have an ID, then say so. But thus far, I've taken your word that the determiner that you're using is willingness to expend effort, not some situational circumstance.

I really can't make this any simpler. It is acceptable to me for voting to require some nominal amount of effort on the part of the voter. I do not see a benefit in making that effort as close to zero as possible. IMO, obtaining a photo ID falls well short of that nominal amount.Now, why is it that these potential voters can't/won't obtain an ID? I suspect the reason you refuse to answer is because you are aware that there isn't a good answer.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Now, why is it that these potential voters can't/won't obtain an ID? I suspect the reason you refuse to answer is because you are aware that there isn't a good answer.

I think there are many people that would not go through the hassle of getting ID just to vote. Most of them just happen to be lucky enough to already have an ID for other purposes.

 

[Parrothead]

Now, why is it that these potential voters can't/won't obtain an ID? I suspect the reason you refuse to answer is because you are aware that there isn't a good answer.

I think there are many people that would not go through the hassle of getting ID just to vote. Most of them just happen to be lucky enough to already have an ID for other purposes.

how many of these people currently vote? or is voting a "hassle" as well?would someone go through the "hassle" of getting a free ID to recieve government assistance?

 

[RCon]

Now, why is it that these potential voters can't/won't obtain an ID? I suspect the reason you refuse to answer is because you are aware that there isn't a good answer.

I think there are many people that would not go through the hassle of getting ID just to vote. Most of them just happen to be lucky enough to already have an ID for other purposes.

Done. The loss of those votes is not something I consider a "harm", so if that's the only reason, then the benefit of eliminating even one fraudulent vote outweighs the harm, IMO. As an aside, I've voted in a local election recently where one additional vote would have changed the outcome.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Now, why is it that these potential voters can't/won't obtain an ID? I suspect the reason you refuse to answer is because you are aware that there isn't a good answer.

I think there are many people that would not go through the hassle of getting ID just to vote. Most of them just happen to be lucky enough to already have an ID for other purposes.

Undeniably true.

 

[RCon]

Now, why is it that these potential voters can't/won't obtain an ID? I suspect the reason you refuse to answer is because you are aware that there isn't a good answer.

I think there are many people that would not go through the hassle of getting ID just to vote. Most of them just happen to be lucky enough to already have an ID for other purposes.

Done. The loss of those votes is not something I consider a "harm", so if that's the only reason, then the benefit of eliminating even one fraudulent vote outweighs the harm, IMO. As an aside, I've voted in a local election recently where one additional vote would have changed the outcome.

If you don't consider it a "harm" that these people aren't voting, then you see no "benefit" to having them vote, right? We can agree on that much?

Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I'm not sure those two things are the same.I've been as clear as can be, and answered every question. Answer my question, then we'll continue this discussion.ETA: By "those votes", I mean people who cannot be bothered to expend the nominal amount of effort that is required to vote.

 

[RCon]

The benefit of having a particular person vote has to be exactly identical to the harm of not having that person vote. That has to be true for the Cost-Benefit to work.And what question do you mean? Why someone doesn't get an ID to vote? Not sure how many times I say, "I don't know" but I don't see it as relevant to the discussion except for purposes of talking about our diligent voters and lazy voters above. You care about it. I don't.

I'll accept your premise for the sake of argument. Now what?Re: the reason someone can't/won't expend the effort to obtain an ID, it matters because if you could provide me with what I consider a good reason why someone can't/won't, I might change my opinion. For the sake of argument, and not having to revisit this, I'll assume the answer to the question is "all of them just don't feel like it" until told differently. That makes it simple enough for me to conclude that I don't need to worry about any societal harm in those potential voters not voting.

 

[The Commish]

GB you Rich You aren't going to get meaningful answers to your questions unless you switch to having your conversations with Ray.

ETA: I'm sorta why he hasn't put you on ignore like he did me. I went this exact same path with him.

 

[RCon]

ETA: By "those votes", I mean people who cannot be bothered to expend the nominal amount of effort that is required to vote.

So we're back to we want to raise the hurdles to voting to separate out the people who are willing to expend the effort from the people who don't have to.

The Constitution does not provide for "effortless" voting. I believe it is acceptable for government to require some nominal amount of effort on the part of the voter. This is not the same as saying I think government should require the effort be as high as possible, which is where you're trying to take this.I believe requiring annual registration would fall well short of "nominal". I believe requiring photo ID falls well short of "nominal".ETA: This is not the same as saying "government needs to prevent (or weed out) people from voting". No one is trying to "weed out" people who don't already have driver's licenses. From a policy standpoint, I'd be OK with requiring everyone to obtain a new ID card, but it seems wasteful when most people already have a valid, difficult to fake, government issued photo ID. This is not the same as a lot of the things you're trying to say.

 

[RCon]

The Constitution does not provide for "effortless" voting. I believe it is acceptable for government to require some nominal amount of effort on the part of the voter. This is not the same as saying I think government should require the effort be as high as possible, which is where you're trying to take this.I believe requiring annual registration would fall well short of "nominal". I believe requiring photo ID falls well short of "nominal".

We're not talking about constitutional issues. We're talking about weighing the social costs and benefits of instituting particular programs and how we value the benefit, and loss, of any particular type of individual voting.

I believe it is acceptable for government to require some nominal amount of effort on the part of the voter. I believe there is no societal harm in not counting the votes of those who choose not to expend the nominal effort required. I don't know how many more times I can say the same thing.

 

[jon_mx]

The arguments against voter ID are laughable. It has to be shtick to keep pushing this nonsense.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I believe there is no societal harm in not counting the votes of those who choose not to expend the nominal effort required.

Is there a societal benefit in not counting them, or is society indifferent as to whether they vote or not? I think that's what Matthias was trying to get you to respond to.

 

[RCon]

I believe there is no societal harm in not counting the votes of those who choose not to expend the nominal effort required.

Is there a societal benefit in not counting them, or is society indifferent as to whether they vote or not? I think that's what Matthias was trying to get you to respond to.

I'll go with indifferent. That is, if they wish to expend the effort, great. If not, no loss.

 

[The Commish]

I believe there is no societal harm in not counting the votes of those who choose not to expend the nominal effort required.

Is there a societal benefit in not counting them, or is society indifferent as to whether they vote or not? I think that's what Matthias was trying to get you to respond to.

I'll go with indifferent. That is, if they wish to expend the effort, great. If not, no loss.

If you remove politics from the equation, I'd agree with this 100%. But I can see the political "harm" of not counting them. Personally, I don't really care about political harm. If the politicians don't care about harming us, I see no reason we should care about harming them. That's a different thread though.

 

[dparker713]

*bump for Matthias*

So if someone would have voted, but doesn't vote because it's too difficult for them (say it would cost them $50 in time and effort), how much would that loss be on a scale of 0 to 1? Zero would be no loss. One would be fully legitimate vote lost.If someone votes and has their vote cancelled out by vote fraud, how much would that loss be on a scale of 0 to 1? Same scale as first question.Feel free to use fractions/decimals.

01First is a consequence of the duties of the state and a legal choice to not exercise a right. Second is a consequence of a failure of the state and an illegal choice to prejudice the rights of others.

Your moral absolutes won't work on me, boy.The harm of requiring anyone who wants to vote to do so on election day in Fairbanks, Alaska, between the hours of midnight and 1am?dparker: Zero. Volitional act.Yah, no.

Actually, my view is amoral, not moral. The society sets the rules for a valid eligible vote, and the society can set those rules to be anything it likes. In this country, if a one hour polling window is Constitutionally sufficient, then the state has satisfied it's obligation and it is incumbent upon the voter to get to the polls during that hour. Someone has a problem with it? Well get other people to agree with you and change it.

 

[cubd8]

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.

What, in your opinion, are valid arguments against presenting an ID?Republicans, or those who support voter ID's requirements, why is this necessary? Voter Fraud doesn't exist. Is this just a preference of having rules in the voting process?

 

[Rayderr]

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.

What, in your opinion, are valid arguments against presenting an ID?Republicans, or those who support voter ID's requirements, why is this necessary? Voter Fraud doesn't exist. Is this just a preference of having rules in the voting process?

This has been proven wrong many, many times. You can debate how much there is, and whether ID laws would sufficiently stop it, but it is incorrect to say voter fraud doesn't exist.