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

[RCon]

I've provided plenty of evidence that supports my own case. Specifically, when I go to the polling location, I'm asked for the name of a street, then a name. That's it. No other verification required. If you can't see that there's an issue there, you're the one not facing reality.

Rich, if you're just going to keep pretending that nothing was written before you decide to post whatever you happen to think at that exact second, I'm not sure what point there is here.

Incidentally, as I've tried to hammer over and over and over again in this and other threads, "easily conceivable situations" tend to go hand-in-hand with fraud. Leave out $100,000 in income on your tax fraud? Instant profit! It's rarely, if ever, that fraud is particularly difficult. What generally contrains fraud is the penalty-to-gain ratio. In some types of voter fraud such as losing entire bags of envelopes, that ratio may favor fraud occuring. In some types of voter fraud, such as the type prevented by Voter IDs, it doesn't.

I could easily say the same. If you're going to pretend that you and others haven't been asked dozens of times to provide a reasonable reason why obtaining an ID is such a burden, then why bother continuing to discuss.

 

[RCon]

I could easily say the same. If you're going to pretend that you and others haven't been asked dozens of times to provide a reasonable reason why obtaining an ID is such a burden, then why bother continuing to discuss.

But then I'd also have to pretend that I didn't yesterday give you a link to where people said that getting an ID was difficult or in months past link to the requirements to get a photo ID in New York state where you need other forms of ID to get that ID.There's no equivocation here.

Right. You provided a link to people saying that the process of obtaining an ID was burdensome. Nowhere in the article linked was a reason given describing WHY it was burdensome. So basically, an article repeating the same thing you've said all along, but no reason behind it.So, again I ask, what is it that makes this so burdensome?

 

[humpback]

16 pages- anyone change their mind yet? Let's call this what it is- there are some arguments for and against voter ID requirements, and most people in here are just arguing based on which side of the isle they're on. If we reversed this and the people who would be "disenfranchised" were R voters, I suspect most of the partisans would be making the opposite arguments that they are now.

For me, it has nothing to do with which side of the aisle I'm on. I see the very easy potential for fraud, I think it should be fixed. I then consider the downsides of a way in which it could fixed. I don't see any readily identifiable downside. If someone presented a downside to me, I'd change my mind.

You have to admit, that's a lot easier to say when it also would help "your side". My point is that there are arguments for and against, but it seems that both sides completely dismiss the other's point like it doesn't even exist. You may not think that having to get an ID is a major burden, but it is, in fact, more difficult than not having to go out and get an ID for some people. Likewise, just because there haven't been many confirmed cases of voter fraud that IDs would have prevented doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that having them wouldn't install more faith in the voting process.I personally think the pro's outweight the con's for having ID requirements (especially since you can reduce some of the cons), but I at least acknowledge that there are cons to consider. It seems many in here think there are either only positives or only negatives, and that reeks of partisanship to me.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

16 pages- anyone change their mind yet?

 

[RCon]

I could easily say the same. If you're going to pretend that you and others haven't been asked dozens of times to provide a reasonable reason why obtaining an ID is such a burden, then why bother continuing to discuss.

But then I'd also have to pretend that I didn't yesterday give you a link to where people said that getting an ID was difficult or in months past link to the requirements to get a photo ID in New York state where you need other forms of ID to get that ID.There's no equivocation here.

Right. You provided a link to people saying that the process of obtaining an ID was burdensome. Nowhere in the article linked was a reason given describing WHY it was burdensome. So basically, an article repeating the same thing you've said all along, but no reason behind it.So, again I ask, what is it that makes this so burdensome?

Why is it too burdensome for you to do your own research?

I already admitted to being lazy about this. But, as I also pointed out, I'm not the one claiming it's burdensome.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

16 pages- anyone change their mind yet?

I'll bet this was the argument that finally turned you around:

Not only should you have to present a valid ID to vote, but you should also have to own land. I'm sick of all these people that don't pay #### in taxes and don't pay property taxes voting for big government to take my money and give it back to the poor. ####### moochers!

 

[CBusAlex]

Bump for Rich.This was posted here in this thread last month.

Rich will tell you that this doesn't count because in his hypothetical reality, it doesn't happen.

 

[RCon]

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."

Give everyone one free birth certificate (means tested, of course). Problem solved.

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."

Irrelevant to the question of whether obtaining an ID is burdensome (or how burdensome).

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.

Also doesn't show that obtaining an ID is burdensome (or how burdensome).Any more reasons why it's burdensome?

 

[humpback]

16 pages- anyone change their mind yet?

I was referring more to the partisans who keep arguing the same things over and over, but maybe explaining your thoughts would help?

 

[dparker713]

Among others, that typographical errors in people's birth certificate entailed a bureaucratic labyrinth. Beyond that, your Google works as well as mine does, I imagine. And in the bigger picture, your standard of proof for voter fraud is "conceivable scenarios." Your standard of proof for difficulty in obtaining Voter ID seems to be, "Place the person in front of me, have them tell me their story, produce written evidence showing their difficulty, and let me cross-examine them."

Typo on the birth certificate? Meh. Going to say that's not a common thing, and it's a problem not caused by the voter ID law, and it's an issue the person should want rectified anyway.My standard for voter fraud is reasonable. That is, I have seen the level of verification performed at many voting booths, and it's far too lax.

My standard for voter ID is also reasonable. That is, tell me the problem and we'll attempt to rectify it.

That's not a valid reason.

Sure it is. Properly screening potential voters is a duty of the government. You may disagree with the conclusion, but that is a perfectly valid reason.ETA: And absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Next time I'll use my sarcasm font.I would say the canard is only partially true. Absence of proof is proof of absence. It's not absolute proof. But it is evidence of. The fact that nobody has captured a purple unicorn as of yet doesn't mean that they don't exist. But eventually you have to start pushing their existence down the probability scale. And when you're forming public policy you need to work in the realm of probabilistic functions. And creating burdens to fix imaginary harms on the sole ground that nobody hasn't yet disproven purple unicorns is a ghastly way to go about it.

What about creating burdens to fulfill a governmental duty?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

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."

Give everyone one free birth certificate (means tested, of course). Problem solved.

You are truly a gifted wizard. My dog has a rash on his butt. Can you make that problem go away too?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

16 pages- anyone change their mind yet?

I'll bet this was the argument that finally turned you around:

Not only should you have to present a valid ID to vote, but you should also have to own land. I'm sick of all these people that don't pay #### in taxes and don't pay property taxes voting for big government to take my money and give it back to the poor. ####### moochers!

Before I first opened the thread, I figured that voters should be required to show ID, and (without giving it any thought) I didn't expect there to be very good arguments against that position. I expected to come in here and side with the pro-ID peeps.Then I read the arguments in this thread, pro and con, and I found the arguments persuasive that ID requirements would reduce the number of legitimate voters by a lot more than they'd reduce the number of illegitimate voters.

So this thread has changed at least one person's mind.

 

[RCon]

You have to admit, that's a lot easier to say when it also would help "your side". My point is that there are arguments for and against, but it seems that both sides completely dismiss the other's point like it doesn't even exist. You may not think that having to get an ID is a major burden, but it is, in fact, more difficult than not having to go out and get an ID for some people. Likewise, just because there haven't been many confirmed cases of voter fraud that IDs would have prevented doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that having them wouldn't install more faith in the voting process.I personally think the pro's outweight the con's for having ID requirements (especially since you can reduce some of the cons), but I at least acknowledge that there are cons to consider. It seems many in here think there are either only positives or only negatives, and that reeks of partisanship to me.

I'm no great lover of Republicans either, so I'm not sure it helps "my side". I identify more closely with Republicans than Democrats because fiscal issues tend to be more important to me than social issues, but I find myself siding with liberals/Democrats on many issues.I've readily acknowledged that obtaining an ID would be "more burdensome" that not having to obtain one. I've simply stated that, in my opinion, that level of burden easily falls within an area that I consider reasonable.

 

[RCon]

You are truly a gifted wizard. My dog has a rash on his butt. Can you make that problem go away too?

Some sort of rash cream at the pet shop?

 

[RCon]

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."

Give everyone one free birth certificate (means tested, of course). Problem solved.

Not really. Read the italicized.

So anytime government bureaucracy is inefficient, we're just going to ignore government's responsibilities? Sweet. So if it takes more than 10 minutes to get a driver's license, we should just conclude that having a driver's license is an unnecessary precondition to drive. If it takes more than 10 minutes to get a concealed carry license, we should just conclude that the license isn't really that necessary. Sorry, but I'm just not buying this argument.I wholeheartedly support efforts to make government more efficient, so if steps can be taken in that direction, by all means let's do so.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

So anytime government bureaucracy is inefficient, we're just going to ignore government's responsibilities? Sweet. So if it takes more than 10 minutes to get a driver's license, we should just conclude that having a driver's license is an unnecessary precondition to drive. If it takes more than 10 minutes to get a concealed carry license, we should just conclude that the license isn't really that necessary. Sorry, but I'm just not buying this argument.I wholeheartedly support efforts to make government more efficient, so if steps can be taken in that direction, by all means let's do so.

One way to make government more efficient would be to stop all this voter ID stuff.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Before I first opened the thread, I figured that voters should be required to show ID, and (without giving it any thought) I didn't expect there to be very good arguments against that position. I expected to come in here and side with the pro-ID peeps.

Then I read the arguments in this thread, pro and con, and I found the arguments persuasive that ID requirements would reduce the number of legitimate voters by a lot more than they'd reduce the number of illegitimate voters.

So this thread has changed at least one person's mind.

Actually, it's not this thread I was thinking of; it's the previous one on Voter IDs. By the time this thread was started, my mind had already been changed. So never mind.

 

[RCon]

So anytime government bureaucracy is inefficient, we're just going to ignore government's responsibilities? Sweet. So if it takes more than 10 minutes to get a driver's license, we should just conclude that having a driver's license is an unnecessary precondition to drive. If it takes more than 10 minutes to get a concealed carry license, we should just conclude that the license isn't really that necessary. Sorry, but I'm just not buying this argument.I wholeheartedly support efforts to make government more efficient, so if steps can be taken in that direction, by all means let's do so.

One way to make government more efficient would be to stop all this voter ID stuff.

Yup, and so would getting rid of requirements for driver's licenses, concealed carry permits, etc.

 

[dparker713]

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).

Curious how a one time fee is equated to a recurring poll tax. Especially since the fees were in place prior to the voter ID laws and are not often required.

 

[RCon]

So anytime government bureaucracy is inefficient, we're just going to ignore government's responsibilities? Sweet. So if it takes more than 10 minutes to get a driver's license, we should just conclude that having a driver's license is an unnecessary precondition to drive. If it takes more than 10 minutes to get a concealed carry license, we should just conclude that the license isn't really that necessary. Sorry, but I'm just not buying this argument.I wholeheartedly support efforts to make government more efficient, so if steps can be taken in that direction, by all means let's do so.

I thought the question was, "Show me how people have difficulty getting a photo ID because I don't believe that they do."

Not exactly. The directive was to "provide a valid reason why obtaining a photo ID is overly burdensome". For me, waiting in line doesn't cut it. Heck, I've had to wait 20+ minutes in line to vote before.

 

[humpback]

Before I first opened the thread, I figured that voters should be required to show ID, and (without giving it any thought) I didn't expect there to be very good arguments against that position. I expected to come in here and side with the pro-ID peeps.

Then I read the arguments in this thread, pro and con, and I found the arguments persuasive that ID requirements would reduce the number of legitimate voters by a lot more than they'd reduce the number of illegitimate voters.

So this thread has changed at least one person's mind.

Actually, it's not this thread I was thinking of; it's the previous one on Voter IDs. By the time this thread was started, my mind had already been changed. So never mind.

See, no one's changed their mind!

 

[RCon]

B < PL

You keep offering that argument, but you continue to ignore that reasonable people can have different values for the variables B, P, and L. My values for those variables clearly indicate that a well crafted voter ID law is not only useful, but necessary.

 

[dparker713]

I would say the canard is only partially true. Absence of proof is proof of absence. It's not absolute proof. But it is evidence of. The fact that nobody has captured a purple unicorn as of yet doesn't mean that they don't exist. But eventually you have to start pushing their existence down the probability scale. And when you're forming public policy you need to work in the realm of probabilistic functions. And creating burdens to fix imaginary harms on the sole ground that nobody hasn't yet disproven purple unicorns is a ghastly way to go about it.

What about creating burdens to fulfill a governmental duty?

Government has a legislated duty to protect endangered species. There's none more endangered than the purple unicorn. They're so endangered nobody has ever seen one. It seems reasonable that pollutants in the air endangers this already endangered animal. All coal plants must reduce emissions by 80% to protect this endangered creature.

You're looking at the current system and adding a requirement. If you were to look at a newly implemented system and it had a vote ID requirement, would you think that would be unreasonable? Its basically an originalist argument you're offering.

 

[RCon]

So anytime government bureaucracy is inefficient, we're just going to ignore government's responsibilities? Sweet. So if it takes more than 10 minutes to get a driver's license, we should just conclude that having a driver's license is an unnecessary precondition to drive. If it takes more than 10 minutes to get a concealed carry license, we should just conclude that the license isn't really that necessary. Sorry, but I'm just not buying this argument.I wholeheartedly support efforts to make government more efficient, so if steps can be taken in that direction, by all means let's do so.

I thought the question was, "Show me how people have difficulty getting a photo ID because I don't believe that they do."

Not exactly. The directive was to "provide a valid reason why obtaining a photo ID is overly burdensome". For me, waiting in line doesn't cut it. Heck, I've had to wait 20+ minutes in line to vote before.

I'm going to hazard a guess that you've mischaracterized the affidavits which you haven't read. You certainly have mischaracterized the article's characterization of them.

Very possible that I've mischaracterized something I haven't read. Just as possible that you have.More to the point, "two wrongs don't make a right" applies here. Just because one facet of government doesn't work well or isn't efficient, doesn't mean we should accept that it doesn't work well and intentionally craft bad laws around that temporary situation. Instead, we should fix that situation so that the facet of government does work well.

 

[dparker713]

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).

Curious how a one time fee is equated to a recurring poll tax. Especially since the fees were in place prior to the voter ID laws and are not often required.

Because they previously weren't required to vote?

So, the character of a Constitutional nominal fee is recategorized as an impermissible poll tax because it has subsequently been tangentially related to voting requirements? Quite the stretch.

 

[RCon]

But something being bad and staying on the books isn't a great justification for making bad laws.

Exactly. That one particular local government has had some perceived inefficiencies in providing birth certificates in a timely fashion isn't a great justification for making bad laws such as "you may vote as anyone you claim to be".

 

[CBusAlex]

So anytime government bureaucracy is inefficient, we're just going to ignore government's responsibilities? Sweet. So if it takes more than 10 minutes to get a driver's license, we should just conclude that having a driver's license is an unnecessary precondition to drive. If it takes more than 10 minutes to get a concealed carry license, we should just conclude that the license isn't really that necessary. Sorry, but I'm just not buying this argument.

This is where a cost-benefit analysis has to come in. Driver's licence and concealed carry requirements impose a social cost by preventing some people from driving and carrying weapons who otherwise would, but most would agree that the benefits of these policies outweigh the cost.

I wholeheartedly support efforts to make government more efficient, so if steps can be taken in that direction, by all means let's do so.

As a conservative like you surely knows, governments are inherently inefficient and error-prone. I agree that any steps to minimize this inefficiency are a good thing, but it's a pipe dream to think that you can get rid of it altogether.

 

[RCon]

So anytime government bureaucracy is inefficient, we're just going to ignore government's responsibilities? Sweet. So if it takes more than 10 minutes to get a driver's license, we should just conclude that having a driver's license is an unnecessary precondition to drive. If it takes more than 10 minutes to get a concealed carry license, we should just conclude that the license isn't really that necessary. Sorry, but I'm just not buying this argument.

I wholeheartedly support efforts to make government more efficient, so if steps can be taken in that direction, by all means let's do so.

I thought the question was, "Show me how people have difficulty getting a photo ID because I don't believe that they do."

Not exactly. The directive was to "provide a valid reason why obtaining a photo ID is overly burdensome". For me, waiting in line doesn't cut it. Heck, I've had to wait 20+ minutes in line to vote before.

I'm going to hazard a guess that you've mischaracterized the affidavits which you haven't read. You certainly have mischaracterized the article's characterization of them.

Very possible that I've mischaracterized something I haven't read. Just as possible that you have.More to the point, "two wrongs don't make a right" applies here. Just because one facet of government doesn't work well or isn't efficient, doesn't mean we should accept that it doesn't work well and intentionally craft bad laws around that temporary situation. Instead, we should fix that situation so that the facet of government does work well.

That would be the reason for the "hazard the guess" part.Then we should fix the problems in government and then enact these types of laws. Maybe then they would make sense.

OK, how about we come up with a voter ID law that goes into affect beginning in 2020. Plenty of time to rectify the perceived troubles as they come up.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

But something being bad and staying on the books isn't a great justification for making bad laws.

Exactly. That one particular local government has had some perceived inefficiencies in providing birth certificates in a timely fashion isn't a great justification for making bad laws such as "you may vote as anyone you claim to be".

I agree that would be a bad law, if such a law existed.

 

[RCon]

But something being bad and staying on the books isn't a great justification for making bad laws.

Exactly. That one particular local government has had some perceived inefficiencies in providing birth certificates in a timely fashion isn't a great justification for making bad laws such as "you may vote as anyone you claim to be".

I agree that would be a bad law, if such a law existed.

That's the de facto standard today in many locations.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

But something being bad and staying on the books isn't a great justification for making bad laws.

Exactly. That one particular local government has had some perceived inefficiencies in providing birth certificates in a timely fashion isn't a great justification for making bad laws such as "you may vote as anyone you claim to be".

I agree that would be a bad law, if such a law existed.

That's the de facto standard today in many locations.

Voting as somebody else is a felony with serious penalties.

 

[dparker713]

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).

Curious how a one time fee is equated to a recurring poll tax. Especially since the fees were in place prior to the voter ID laws and are not often required.

Because they previously weren't required to vote?

So, the character of a Constitutional nominal fee is recategorized as an impermissible poll tax because it has subsequently been tangentially related to voting requirements? Quite the stretch.

There were bigger stretches back when the Court cared about voter disenfranisement. You should check out some of the Texas primary cases.

One error does not excuse another.

 

[RCon]

But something being bad and staying on the books isn't a great justification for making bad laws.

Exactly. That one particular local government has had some perceived inefficiencies in providing birth certificates in a timely fashion isn't a great justification for making bad laws such as "you may vote as anyone you claim to be".

I agree that would be a bad law, if such a law existed.

That's the de facto standard today in many locations.

Voting as somebody else is a felony with serious penalties.

Agreed, but if there is no mechanism for enforcement, it doesn't really matter what the penalty is.

 

[Sarnoff]

Voting as somebody else is a felony with serious penalties.

Unfortunately that's the only extent of the punishment, a tainted election result is usually still allowed to stand.

 

[dparker713]

But something being bad and staying on the books isn't a great justification for making bad laws.

Exactly. That one particular local government has had some perceived inefficiencies in providing birth certificates in a timely fashion isn't a great justification for making bad laws such as "you may vote as anyone you claim to be".

I agree that would be a bad law, if such a law existed.

That's the de facto standard today in many locations.

Voting as somebody else is a felony with serious penalties.

Still places with sodomy and adultery laws on the books too. Doesn't make them actual deterrents though.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Voting as somebody else is a felony with serious penalties.

Agreed, but if there is no mechanism for enforcement, it doesn't really matter what the penalty is.

It's the same mechanism for enforcement as pretty much all laws. In most cases the way we enforce laws is by arresting and prosecuting people after the crime is committed.

 

[RCon]

Voting as somebody else is a felony with serious penalties.

Agreed, but if there is no mechanism for enforcement, it doesn't really matter what the penalty is.

It's the same mechanism for enforcement as pretty much all laws. In most cases the way we enforce laws is by arresting and prosecuting people after the crime is committed.

Perhaps enforcement is the wrong word. You and I both know that in many locations, there is no meaningful method to identify or detain someone who votes as another individual.

 

[RCon]

Tell you what, let's approach this from another direction. In many locations, including mine, there is zero effort made to verify that the person voting is who he/she claims to be. This gives me pause in trusting election results from that location. For those who are opposed to voter ID laws, how would you rectify the situation? What would be acceptable?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Tell you what, let's approach this from another direction. In many locations, including mine, there is zero effort made to verify that the person voting is who he/she claims to be. This gives me pause in trusting election results from that location. For those who are opposed to voter ID laws, how would you rectify the situation? What would be acceptable?

Which situation are we trying to rectify? Your lack of trust in the election results?

 

[RCon]

Tell you what, let's approach this from another direction. In many locations, including mine, there is zero effort made to verify that the person voting is who he/she claims to be. This gives me pause in trusting election results from that location. For those who are opposed to voter ID laws, how would you rectify the situation? What would be acceptable?

Which situation are we trying to rectify? Your lack of trust in the election results?

In many locations, including mine, there is zero effort made to verify that the person voting is who he/she claims to be.I realize your answer may be "this isn't a situation that needs to be rectified". If so, then for sake of argument, let's stipulate that it is something to be fixed. How should we do so?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Tell you what, let's approach this from another direction. In many locations, including mine, there is zero effort made to verify that the person voting is who he/she claims to be. This gives me pause in trusting election results from that location. For those who are opposed to voter ID laws, how would you rectify the situation? What would be acceptable?

Which situation are we trying to rectify? Your lack of trust in the election results?

In many locations, including mine, there is zero effort made to verify that the person voting is who he/she claims to be.I realize your answer may be "this isn't a situation that needs to be rectified". If so, then for sake of argument, let's stipulate that it is something to be fixed. How should we do so?

I like my idea from earlier in this thread of taking a digital photo of every person that votes. It's cheap, it won't prevent anyone from voting, and if there are allegations that somebody has voted illegally, it will make an investigation very simple.

 

[RCon]

Tell you what, let's approach this from another direction. In many locations, including mine, there is zero effort made to verify that the person voting is who he/she claims to be. This gives me pause in trusting election results from that location. For those who are opposed to voter ID laws, how would you rectify the situation? What would be acceptable?

Which situation are we trying to rectify? Your lack of trust in the election results?

In many locations, including mine, there is zero effort made to verify that the person voting is who he/she claims to be.I realize your answer may be "this isn't a situation that needs to be rectified". If so, then for sake of argument, let's stipulate that it is something to be fixed. How should we do so?

I like my idea from earlier in this thread of taking a digital photo of every person that votes. It's cheap, it won't prevent anyone from voting, and if there are allegations that somebody has voted illegally, it will make an investigation very simple.

It's better than what we have now, but it doesn't necessarily make it easier to identify fraud (e.g. if person A claims to be person B and person B never shows up, no one will ever know that fraud occurred). I'm also not sure it makes it significantly easier to find an offender in the event fraud is identified.Perhaps we take a picture of the person when they register to vote and then use facial recognition technology at the polling location to match.

You don't seem to think much of it, but in everywhere I've voted they've also checked that your signature matched what they had on file. If you think that isn't sufficient, you could do a personal passcode when people register to vote.

I have lived in a location with the signature thing, and you're right that I didn't think much of it. For one, that's awfully subjective, and for another, at least in the location I voted, they handed you the book to sign and the signature to be matched was right there next to the box where you signed when voting. They should at least hide the signature to be matched from the prospective voter while he/she signs. Also, I noticed that the poll worker rarely even glanced at the signatures to see if they matched.Personal passcode is a definite improvement. I might be willing to sign onto such a proposal instead of voter ID, depending on the implementation.Thumbprint suffers from the same issues as Wrighteous Ray's suggestion above.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I like my idea from earlier in this thread of taking a digital photo of every person that votes. It's cheap, it won't prevent anyone from voting, and if there are allegations that somebody has voted illegally, it will make an investigation very simple.

It's better than what we have now, but it doesn't necessarily make it easier to identify fraud (e.g. if person A claims to be person B and person B never shows up, no one will ever know that fraud occurred). I'm also not sure it makes it significantly easier to find an offender in the event fraud is identified.

After every election, people that voted could get something in the mail that said "You voted on November 3, 2012. Here is your picture taken at the polls. If this isn't you, please notify authorities."

 

[RCon]

I like my idea from earlier in this thread of taking a digital photo of every person that votes. It's cheap, it won't prevent anyone from voting, and if there are allegations that somebody has voted illegally, it will make an investigation very simple.

It's better than what we have now, but it doesn't necessarily make it easier to identify fraud (e.g. if person A claims to be person B and person B never shows up, no one will ever know that fraud occurred). I'm also not sure it makes it significantly easier to find an offender in the event fraud is identified.

After every election, people that voted could get something in the mail that said "You voted on November 3, 2012. Here is your picture taken at the polls. If this isn't you, please notify authorities."

Ooh, much better. Now add instant e-mail/text in addition to regular mail and we're getting somewhere. This would let the problem be identified before the results have been finalized.Actually, let's combine this with Matthias's personal passcode idea and we'll call it a day.

 

[dparker713]

Tell you what, let's approach this from another direction. In many locations, including mine, there is zero effort made to verify that the person voting is who he/she claims to be. This gives me pause in trusting election results from that location. For those who are opposed to voter ID laws, how would you rectify the situation? What would be acceptable?

Which situation are we trying to rectify? Your lack of trust in the election results?

In many locations, including mine, there is zero effort made to verify that the person voting is who he/she claims to be.I realize your answer may be "this isn't a situation that needs to be rectified". If so, then for sake of argument, let's stipulate that it is something to be fixed. How should we do so?

I like my idea from earlier in this thread of taking a digital photo of every person that votes. It's cheap, it won't prevent anyone from voting, and if there are allegations that somebody has voted illegally, it will make an investigation very simple.

Thats kind of worthless without a verified master list somewhere.

 

[RCon]

I like my idea from earlier in this thread of taking a digital photo of every person that votes. It's cheap, it won't prevent anyone from voting, and if there are allegations that somebody has voted illegally, it will make an investigation very simple.

It's better than what we have now, but it doesn't necessarily make it easier to identify fraud (e.g. if person A claims to be person B and person B never shows up, no one will ever know that fraud occurred). I'm also not sure it makes it significantly easier to find an offender in the event fraud is identified.

After every election, people that voted could get something in the mail that said "You voted on November 3, 2012. Here is your picture taken at the polls. If this isn't you, please notify authorities."

Ooh, much better. Now add instant e-mail/text in addition to regular mail and we're getting somewhere. This would let the problem be identified before the results have been finalized.Actually, let's combine this with Matthias's personal passcode idea and we'll call it a day.

What, no ?

 

[Rayderr]

Tell you what, let's approach this from another direction. In many locations, including mine, there is zero effort made to verify that the person voting is who he/she claims to be. This gives me pause in trusting election results from that location. For those who are opposed to voter ID laws, how would you rectify the situation? What would be acceptable?

Which situation are we trying to rectify? Your lack of trust in the election results?

In many locations, including mine, there is zero effort made to verify that the person voting is who he/she claims to be.I realize your answer may be "this isn't a situation that needs to be rectified". If so, then for sake of argument, let's stipulate that it is something to be fixed. How should we do so?

I like my idea from earlier in this thread of taking a digital photo of every person that votes. It's cheap, it won't prevent anyone from voting, and if there are allegations that somebody has voted illegally, it will make an investigation very simple.

I still think fingerprints are the way to go, that way you can require people to put their fingerprints on absentee ballots to help end fraud there (which we know has happened.)

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I still think fingerprints are the way to go, that way you can require people to put their fingerprints on absentee ballots to help end fraud there (which we know has happened.)

Fingerprints are less accurate than DNA tests. We should probably require a semen sample to vote.

 

[Rayderr]

I still think fingerprints are the way to go, that way you can require people to put their fingerprints on absentee ballots to help end fraud there (which we know has happened.)

Fingerprints are less accurate than DNA tests. We should probably require a semen sample to vote.

That may be a problem for the women voters, or are you also proposing we repeal the 19th amendment as well?

 

[StrikeS2k]

I still think fingerprints are the way to go, that way you can require people to put their fingerprints on absentee ballots to help end fraud there (which we know has happened.)

Fingerprints are less accurate than DNA tests. We should probably require a semen sample to vote.

That may be a problem for the women voters, or are you also proposing we repeal the 19th amendment as well?

That's the beauty of the proposal. It will have the same effect without the hassle.