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

[parasaurolophus]

No surprise that you'd think so, but they aren't. It absolutely is an opinion, just like the number of people who will be unable to vote because of ID laws is only an opinion. The entire debate is filled with opinions.

Believe it or not, there's actually a formal methodology to this type of stuff. I realize the "both sides are spinning" has been the trendy way of trying to say anything you want the last few years but sometimes there really is a line.

You speak of an exact science, yet are unable to show one.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

No surprise that you'd think so, but they aren't. It absolutely is an opinion, just like the number of people who will be unable to vote because of ID laws is only an opinion. The entire debate is filled with opinions.

Believe it or not, there's actually a formal methodology to this type of stuff. I realize the "both sides are spinning" has been the trendy way of trying to say anything you want the last few years but sometimes there really is a line.

You speak of an exact science, yet are unable to show one.

Go to college. That's what I did.Broadly speaking, it's Cost-Benefit Analysis. In the case of voter IDs the public choice is what are the benefits of enacting this policy and what are the costs? The costs, properly understood, are not the costs to the individuals who are reacting to this but rather the broader social effects. But I said all this in the last page.

The marginal benefit of an additional ID-less (but otherwise eligible) voter is still a matter of opinion, however. Some people think the value of his vote is negative.

 

[kutta]

I don't think I've ever shown anyone my ID to get work.

I've probably had about 20 different jobs in my lifetime and I have had to show a picture ID for every one.

 

[humpback]

No surprise that you'd think so, but they aren't. It absolutely is an opinion, just like the number of people who will be unable to vote because of ID laws is only an opinion. The entire debate is filled with opinions.

Believe it or not, there's actually a formal methodology to this type of stuff. I realize the "both sides are spinning" has been the trendy way of trying to say anything you want the last few years but sometimes there really is a line.

You speak of an exact science, yet are unable to show one.

Go to college. That's what I did.Broadly speaking, it's Cost-Benefit Analysis. In the case of voter IDs the public choice is what are the benefits of enacting this policy and what are the costs? The costs, properly understood, are not the costs to the individuals who are reacting to this but rather the broader social effects. But I said all this in the last page.

Yes, you said all of this earlier. You're still wrong, it's an opinion.

 

[parasaurolophus]

No surprise that you'd think so, but they aren't. It absolutely is an opinion, just like the number of people who will be unable to vote because of ID laws is only an opinion. The entire debate is filled with opinions.

Believe it or not, there's actually a formal methodology to this type of stuff. I realize the "both sides are spinning" has been the trendy way of trying to say anything you want the last few years but sometimes there really is a line.

You speak of an exact science, yet are unable to show one.

Go to college. That's what I did.Broadly speaking, it's Cost-Benefit Analysis. In the case of voter IDs the public choice is what are the benefits of enacting this policy and what are the costs? The costs, properly understood, are not the costs to the individuals who are reacting to this but rather the broader social effects. But I said all this in the last page.

Like I said, you still have not shown any exact science.Unless of course phrases like "the broader social effects" refer to an exact science in your world. Stay tuned for the exact science of oil on canvas...

 

[Todd Andrews]

Poll taxes are wrong.

 

[parasaurolophus]

The marginal benefit of an additional ID-less (but otherwise eligible) voter is still a matter of opinion, however. Some people think the value of his vote is negative.

Sure. It's the form of analysis which is rigid. You can differ on what terms you put in for the valuation, but as I said in the last page, you almost have to custom-build your model to make it a close question.ETA: Although I'd dispute pretty strongly the validity of segregating out "ID-holding voters" vs "ID-less voters" for differential treatment.

Oh crap. Pretty strongly? You are exactly correct then, since most people only dispute mildly strongly.

 

[parasaurolophus]

No surprise that you'd think so, but they aren't. It absolutely is an opinion, just like the number of people who will be unable to vote because of ID laws is only an opinion. The entire debate is filled with opinions.

Believe it or not, there's actually a formal methodology to this type of stuff. I realize the "both sides are spinning" has been the trendy way of trying to say anything you want the last few years but sometimes there really is a line.

You speak of an exact science, yet are unable to show one.

Go to college. That's what I did.Broadly speaking, it's Cost-Benefit Analysis. In the case of voter IDs the public choice is what are the benefits of enacting this policy and what are the costs? The costs, properly understood, are not the costs to the individuals who are reacting to this but rather the broader social effects. But I said all this in the last page.

Like I said, you still have not shown any exact science.Unless of course phrases like "the broader social effects" refer to an exact science in your world. Stay tuned for the exact science of oil on canvas...

I give up. You guys truly are a waste of time.

Could you please give us the rigid scientific formula for exactly how much time you wasted? I would prefer it to three sig figs.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I really have no idea what you're trying to say here. The positive event is that we know that voters are who they claim to be. That's plenty positive enough for me to make it worth a phone call, not positive enough to make it worth a trip by every citizen to San Fran.

What I'm getting at is that you're mixing and intermingling the nuisance/value decision of an individual, which is a question of micro-economics, and the sum effects of everyone responding to that policy, which would be a question of macro-economics/public policy. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter one whit why the public make the choices which they do or what they decide on. What society cares about is maximizing its own social goals.So let me try a different tact. If the IRS spent $5,000,000 collecting on a $100 debt owed by someone evading taxes, would this be a good use of the public's time/money?

Your analogies are completely flawed. What you can't seem to admit is that there isn't one set of values for the pro's and con's of requiring ID. Your values aren't better than someone else's.

Well, yah, I think they are. But even if someone wants to use their own values, I expect them to have consistent values between the costs and the benefits expressed in some form of voters or votes. And if someone is trying to frame the costs as a personal cost on the individual, then they're just not doing the public policy right. That's not a matter of opinion.

What most people on the pro-ID side are saying is that the cost to each individual of getting an ID is trivial. When you sum those costs across all individuals, the aggregate "hassle cost" is still very small and easily outweighed by the social gain. Most of us also think the cost associated with fewer people voting is also very small or even nonexistent.I know you disagree with this assessment, but it's certainly consistent and doesn't contain any methodological errors.

 

[Warrior]

I don't think I've ever shown anyone my ID to get work.

I've probably had about 20 different jobs in my lifetime and I have had to show a picture ID for every one.

I call BS. Not only that you have had 20 different jobs, not only that you have had to show ID for each one, but even that you would have the ability to remember showing ID for every single one of them. Get real.

 

[Mario Kart]

This isn't a poll tax. There is no test that needs to be taken here. Show proof you are a citizen as well as proof of where you live. How difficult is that to do? Laughable that people spin this as a poll tax or unconstitutional.

Everywhere you go that needs an ID check you have to show your ID or you don't earn entrance. Why should voting be different?

 

[Warrior]

What most people on the pro-ID side are saying is that the cost to each individual of getting an ID is trivial. When you sum those costs across all individuals, it's still very small and easily outweighed by the social gain.I know you disagree with this assessment, but it's certainly consistent and doesn't contain any methodological errors.

It does. It's incomplete. You have to do a valuation of the votes that are lost as they won't be cast.If a city required everyone who wanted to make a widget to go to city hall and get a certain stamp, then the social cost would be the summation of the travel time of the people who got a stamp (and any lost productivity thereon) and the lost widgets that would no longer be made because someone would not get the stamp. You're trying to create an argument for the first prong to be the exclusive harm and that's just methodologically wrong.

I'll do a valuation of the votes that are lost right now.Value to society of illegal immigrant votes = $0That's being generous...I really should probably go into the negatives for votes that shouldn't be cast in the first place.

 

[RCon]

What most people on the pro-ID side are saying is that the cost to each individual of getting an ID is trivial. When you sum those costs across all individuals, it's still very small and easily outweighed by the social gain.I know you disagree with this assessment, but it's certainly consistent and doesn't contain any methodological errors.

It does. It's incomplete. You have to do a valuation of the votes that are lost as they won't be cast.If a city required everyone who wanted to make a widget to go to city hall and get a certain stamp, then the social cost would be the summation of the travel time of the people who got a stamp (and any lost productivity thereon) and the lost widgets that would no longer be made because someone would not get the stamp. You're trying to create an argument for the first prong to be the exclusive harm and that's just methodologically wrong.

It's not incomplete. We are doing a valuation of the votes that are lost; we're just valuing them so low as to be near zero.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Most of us also think the cost associated with fewer people voting is also very small or even nonexistent.

Right. This part. You fixed it on your edit.Here's my challenge then. Take a few steps back. Think about what social good you are trying to achieve via the process of elections. Define it. Then think about how that social good is impacted by this process and think in particular about other processes that could also be done which would capture even greater social value.

We've been doing this for over 20 pages. As far as I can tell, here are the relevant variables:Benefits to requiring an ID:1) Reduced voter fraud.2) Increased public confidence in the electoral system.3) Fewer low-value "noise" voters.*Costs to requiring an ID:1) Collective hassle of people going to the DMV.2) Government expenditures to print up IDs.3) Fewer voters.*Item (3) in both lists is really the same thing -- some of us see lower voter participation by the socially alienated as a bug, while for others of us it's a feature. At this point, it seems like it should be clear that we're simply not going to agree on the magnitude to assign to (1) or (2) on either list.

 

[Mello]

I cannot believe people can actually think certain votes are more important than others or that peoples' votes don't have value. Silly me thinking universal suffrage was kind of important to modern democratic systems. Let's go back to only white land owners being able to vote

 

[IvanKaramazov]

We've been doing this for over 20 pages. As far as I can tell, here are the relevant variables:Benefits to requiring an ID:1) Reduced voter fraud.2) Increased public confidence in the electoral system.3) Fewer low-value "noise" voters.*Costs to requiring an ID:1) Collective hassle of people going to the DMV.2) Government expenditures to print up IDs.3) Fewer voters.*Item (3) in both lists is really the same thing -- some of us see lower voter participation by the socially alienated as a bug, while for others of us it's a feature. At this point, it seems like it should be clear that we're simply not going to agree on the magnitude to assign to (1) or (2) on either list.

I mean more holistically. What are you looking for from an electoral process? Not just this one debate specifically.

You're going to have to spell out how you're breaking this down, because I honestly have no idea what you're going for here. My only guess is that you're getting at something about a person's general philosophy toward democracy, but surely you know by now that you and I are approaching that one from different angles, which is a big part of why you see decreased voter participation as a "bad" while I see it as a "good."

 

[The Commish]

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I cannot believe people can actually think certain votes are more important than others or that peoples' votes don't have value.

If a person is unable to manage his or her own life effectively, that person probably shouldn't be managing the lives of others. We've been over this one before a bunch of times too.

 

[RCon]

I cannot believe people can actually think certain votes are more important than others or that peoples' votes don't have value. Silly me thinking universal suffrage was kind of important to modern democratic systems. Let's go back to only white land owners being able to vote

You're missing the point. I don't think any one specific person's vote is less important. I think the vote of a person who can't be bothered to vote isn't a significant loss. I think the vote of a person who can't be bothered to register to vote isn't a significant loss. Essentially, if the voter himself/herself doesn't place importance on their own vote, then neither do I.

 

[Mello]

I cannot believe people can actually think certain votes are more important than others or that peoples' votes don't have value. Silly me thinking universal suffrage was kind of important to modern democratic systems. Let's go back to only white land owners being able to vote

You're missing the point. I don't think any one specific person's vote is less important. I think the vote of a person who can't be bothered to vote isn't a significant loss. I think the vote of a person who can't be bothered to register to vote isn't a significant loss. Essentially, if the voter himself/herself doesn't place importance on their own vote, then neither do I.

A person not wanting to have his papers scrutinized by the government so he can be given the blessing to vote <> can't be bothered.

 

[RCon]

Forget becoming obsessed with voter ID for a second. Say you're designing a brand new voting system for the nation. What are your relevant considerations? What concepts do you value, positively and negatively?

In no particular order:1. Educated and informed voters2. Transparency of the process3. Accuracy of the result4. Equality of opportunity to vote5. Ease of use by the voter6. Ease of implementation by the government7. Integrity of the resultProbably a few others that I'm missing off the top of my head.

 

[humpback]

The marginal benefit of an additional ID-less (but otherwise eligible) voter is still a matter of opinion, however. Some people think the value of his vote is negative.

Sure. It's the form of analysis which is rigid. You can differ on what terms you put in for the valuation, but as I said in the last page, you almost have to custom-build your model to make it a close question.ETA: Although I'd dispute pretty strongly the validity of segregating out "ID-holding voters" vs "ID-less voters" for differential treatment.

There's no "almost" about it- every model is going to be custom built. The variables, and the values for those variables, are all opinions which are going to be different for everyone. Do you really think there is one CB analysis equation here?

 

[pantagrapher]

I cannot believe people can actually think certain votes are more important than others or that peoples' votes don't have value.

If a person is unable to manage his or her own life effectively, that person probably shouldn't be managing the lives of others. We've been over this one before a bunch of times too.

I don't see how suddenly requiring someone who's never needed a photo ID to vote to go out and obtain one is an effective test of that person's ability to "manage his own life effectively."

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I give up. You guys truly are a waste of time.

You really suck at giving up.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I cannot believe people can actually think certain votes are more important than others or that peoples' votes don't have value.

If a person is unable to manage his or her own life effectively, that person probably shouldn't be managing the lives of others. We've been over this one before a bunch of times too.

I don't see how suddenly requiring someone who's never needed a photo ID to vote to go out and obtain one is an effective test of that person's ability to "manage his own life effectively."

This is another one that we've gone over a bunch of times already. If a person is given 6 month's notice or so that they need to stop by the DMV to get an ID, and they're unable to do that, I think that qualifies as an inability to navigate through live successfully in the overwhelming majority of cases. As you've mentioned before, for most of us this is the sort of thing that's trivially easy to achieve. In an ideal world, I would probably like to construct some sort of system that screens people out a little more rigorously than this, but that's fine, and it's sort of a side issue for me anyway. Even if ID requirements screened nobody out, I'd still support them for the other reasons I stated above.

 

[pantagrapher]

I cannot believe people can actually think certain votes are more important than others or that peoples' votes don't have value.

If a person is unable to manage his or her own life effectively, that person probably shouldn't be managing the lives of others. We've been over this one before a bunch of times too.

I don't see how suddenly requiring someone who's never needed a photo ID to vote to go out and obtain one is an effective test of that person's ability to "manage his own life effectively."

This is another one that we've gone over a bunch of times already. If a person is given 6 month's notice or so that they need to stop by the DMV to get an ID, and they're unable to do that, I think that qualifies as an inability to navigate through live successfully in the overwhelming majority of cases. As you've mentioned before, for most of us this is the sort of thing that's trivially easy to achieve. In an ideal world, I would probably like to construct some sort of system that screens people out a little more rigorously than this, but that's fine, and it's sort of a side issue for me anyway. Even if ID requirements screened nobody out, I'd still support them for the other reasons I stated above.

I'm kind of surprised to hear this from you, IK. In a country where voter turnout is already so low, you want to screen out more people you deem unworthy of voting. That's just crazy to me. And not at all in the spirit of the electoral process as I envision it.

 

[The Commish]

Forget becoming obsessed with voter ID for a second. Say you're designing a brand new voting system for the nation. What are your relevant considerations? What concepts do you value, positively and negatively?

Holy Crap...this is actually a good question. Probably the best of the thread. I know I'm on ignore or whatever, but here's my list:1. Ease of use.2. Equal access to all citizens.3. Legitimacy of results.4. Transparency of process.5. Audit trail of process.6. Every vote count equally.7. Uniform implementation in every state.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

My system would make voting compulsory, just like jury duty or registering for the draft or paying taxes.

 

[Rayderr]

I cannot believe people can actually think certain votes are more important than others or that peoples' votes don't have value.

If a person is unable to manage his or her own life effectively, that person probably shouldn't be managing the lives of others. We've been over this one before a bunch of times too.

I don't see how suddenly requiring someone who's never needed a photo ID to vote to go out and obtain one is an effective test of that person's ability to "manage his own life effectively."

So you're cool with letting anyone go get a gun at the last minute with no ID? After all, it's a right, and it's not fair to punish them just because they can't manage their life effectively.

 

[ericttspikes]

I cannot believe people can actually think certain votes are more important than others or that peoples' votes don't have value.

If a person is unable to manage his or her own life effectively, that person probably shouldn't be managing the lives of others. We've been over this one before a bunch of times too.

I don't see how suddenly requiring someone who's never needed a photo ID to vote to go out and obtain one is an effective test of that person's ability to "manage his own life effectively."

So you're cool with letting anyone go get a gun at the last minute with no ID? After all, it's a right, and it's not fair to punish them just because they can't manage their life effectively.

never heard of the voting = killing someone analogy before

 

[pantagrapher]

I cannot believe people can actually think certain votes are more important than others or that peoples' votes don't have value.

If a person is unable to manage his or her own life effectively, that person probably shouldn't be managing the lives of others. We've been over this one before a bunch of times too.

I don't see how suddenly requiring someone who's never needed a photo ID to vote to go out and obtain one is an effective test of that person's ability to "manage his own life effectively."

So you're cool with letting anyone go get a gun at the last minute with no ID? After all, it's a right, and it's not fair to punish them just because they can't manage their life effectively.

WAT

 

[StrikeS2k]

I cannot believe people can actually think certain votes are more important than others or that peoples' votes don't have value. Silly me thinking universal suffrage was kind of important to modern democratic systems. Let's go back to only white land owners being able to vote

You're missing the point. I don't think any one specific person's vote is less important. I think the vote of a person who can't be bothered to vote isn't a significant loss. I think the vote of a person who can't be bothered to register to vote isn't a significant loss. Essentially, if the voter himself/herself doesn't place importance on their own vote, then neither do I.

Voter ID doesn't effectively weed these out. These require annually-renewed voter ID cards which will require some expenditure of bother and hassle to obtain in order to properly segregate the population. We may have to do it on a percentage-income/wealth basis so that the impact is reasonably equated.

"Voter ID" doesn't do what you suggest above. Maybe specific laws do and we can discuss what the requirements for voter id should be, but voter id doesn't inherently require an annual renewal. And I think this discussion at this point is about whether a voter should be required to show an ID in order to vote, in very broad terms. Let's be honest. You'd be against voter ID even if a person only had to get it once and could use that same ID for the rest of their lives.

 

[ericttspikes]

GOP lobbyist hired to publicize Pennsylvania voter ID law.

I confess I didn't see this coming. But I guess it shouldn't be surprising that they use their own ID law as a way to send a nice thank you to their friends.

$30k for a $240k job. That's how you do it. Nice return there. Thanks PA tax payers!Love the warm fuzzy tagline “Your right to vote: it’s one thing you never want to miss out on.”

So Republicans get bashed for passing voter ID laws. Then they get bashed for making it public and telling people to go get an ID so they can vote? That seems weird. I would think you would be happy they are reminding people to go get an ID.

It's a perfect reflection of our modern democracy actually. One party builds the obstacles to voting and then has the stones to take a quarter million of tax payer money to advertise the fact.

 

[the moops]

My system would make voting compulsory, just like jury duty or registering for the draft or paying taxes.

Make it a national/state holiday as well.

 

[Phil Elliott]

My system would make voting compulsory, just like jury duty or registering for the draft or paying taxes.

Would you have to vote for one of the candidates or would there be a "write-in" and "none of the above" options?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

My system would make voting compulsory, just like jury duty or registering for the draft or paying taxes.

Make it a national/state holiday as well.

It seems a bit excessive to give everyone a day off work for something that typically takes way less than an hour. Maybe we could do it on an existing holiday. I guess Veterans Day could work. It's in November and there might be some cross-marketing opportunity with the whole "they fought for your right to vote" stuff.

 

[Mello]

I cannot believe people can actually think certain votes are more important than others or that peoples' votes don't have value.

If a person is unable to manage his or her own life effectively, that person probably shouldn't be managing the lives of others. We've been over this one before a bunch of times too.

You can go down that road all you want. I think it's fundamentally wrong. I'm sure your opinion of what managing a life effectively is, is completely different from others' opinions. A basic facet of our system is that everyone is supposed to have a vote and everyone's vote should be equal. The millionaire should be equal to the homeless guy as far as their say in who represents them goes. Any effort to filter out voters based on their education, lifestyle, religion, race, anything else other than age is a failure. Someone is not getting their proper say.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

My system would make voting compulsory, just like jury duty or registering for the draft or paying taxes.

Would you have to vote for one of the candidates or would there be a "write-in" and "none of the above" options?

Ballot would still be secret so you could vote or not vote for whomever you want. You just need to show up at the polls (or send in an absentee ballot).

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I cannot believe people can actually think certain votes are more important than others or that peoples' votes don't have value.

If a person is unable to manage his or her own life effectively, that person probably shouldn't be managing the lives of others. We've been over this one before a bunch of times too.

You can go down that road all you want. I think it's fundamentally wrong. I'm sure your opinion of what managing a life effectively is, is completely different from others' opinions. A basic facet of our system is that everyone is supposed to have a vote and everyone's vote should be equal. The millionaire should be equal to the homeless guy as far as their say in who represents them goes. Any effort to filter out voters based on their education, lifestyle, religion, race, anything else other than age is a failure. Someone is not getting their proper say.

This is begging the question, and like you mentioned, we already deny people the right to vote when they're under 18 -- it's not a universal right that we extend to everyone.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I cannot believe people can actually think certain votes are more important than others or that peoples' votes don't have value.

If a person is unable to manage his or her own life effectively, that person probably shouldn't be managing the lives of others. We've been over this one before a bunch of times too.

You can go down that road all you want. I think it's fundamentally wrong. I'm sure your opinion of what managing a life effectively is, is completely different from others' opinions. A basic facet of our system is that everyone is supposed to have a vote and everyone's vote should be equal. The millionaire should be equal to the homeless guy as far as their say in who represents them goes. Any effort to filter out voters based on their education, lifestyle, religion, race, anything else other than age is a failure. Someone is not getting their proper say.

This is begging the question, and like you mentioned, we already deny people the right to vote when they're under 18 -- it's not a universal right that we extend to everyone.

and felons and people who don't register

 

[Rayderr]

I cannot believe people can actually think certain votes are more important than others or that peoples' votes don't have value.

If a person is unable to manage his or her own life effectively, that person probably shouldn't be managing the lives of others. We've been over this one before a bunch of times too.

I don't see how suddenly requiring someone who's never needed a photo ID to vote to go out and obtain one is an effective test of that person's ability to "manage his own life effectively."

So you're cool with letting anyone go get a gun at the last minute with no ID? After all, it's a right, and it's not fair to punish them just because they can't manage their life effectively.

WAT

Owning a gun is a constitutional right just like voting.The left seems to have no issue at all with requiring ID to purchase a gun. The left also has no problems with making a person go through the hassles of obtaining an ID, going to the place to purchase gun, then return to that store 7 days later to pick up gun.If the left is fine with all of that, how can they be against requiring ID to exercise another right (in this case, voting)? That said, I still think fingerprints is the way to go. When you go to register, prove that you're eligible to vote, and do a finger print scan. Everytime you go to vote, you get your fingerprint scanned. Wonderfully simple.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I cannot believe people can actually think certain votes are more important than others or that peoples' votes don't have value. Silly me thinking universal suffrage was kind of important to modern democratic systems. Let's go back to only white land owners being able to vote

You're missing the point. I don't think any one specific person's vote is less important. I think the vote of a person who can't be bothered to vote isn't a significant loss. I think the vote of a person who can't be bothered to register to vote isn't a significant loss. Essentially, if the voter himself/herself doesn't place importance on their own vote, then neither do I.

Voter ID doesn't effectively weed these out. These require annually-renewed voter ID cards which will require some expenditure of bother and hassle to obtain in order to properly segregate the population. We may have to do it on a percentage-income/wealth basis so that the impact is reasonably equated.

"Voter ID" doesn't do what you suggest above. Maybe specific laws do and we can discuss what the requirements for voter id should be, but voter id doesn't inherently require an annual renewal. And I think this discussion at this point is about whether a voter should be required to show an ID in order to vote, in very broad terms. Let's be honest. You'd be against voter ID even if a person only had to get it once and could use that same ID for the rest of their lives.

He would be against it if the ID's were mailed to everybody and available for pickup at any post office if they didnt have a mailbox or address.

 

[RCon]

Forget becoming obsessed with voter ID for a second. Say you're designing a brand new voting system for the nation. What are your relevant considerations? What concepts do you value, positively and negatively?

In no particular order:1. Educated and informed voters2. Transparency of the process3. Accuracy of the result4. Equality of opportunity to vote5. Ease of use by the voter6. Ease of implementation by the government7. Integrity of the resultProbably a few others that I'm missing off the top of my head.

You want to add in, "Voters who are really willing to overcome difficulty to vote", right?20% tongue in cheek, 80% serious.

No, I don't see a need for that if the other items I listed are met.

 

[RCon]

You can go down that road all you want. I think it's fundamentally wrong. I'm sure your opinion of what managing a life effectively is, is completely different from others' opinions. A basic facet of our system is that everyone is supposed to have a vote and everyone's vote should be equal. The millionaire should be equal to the homeless guy as far as their say in who represents them goes. Any effort to filter out voters based on their education, lifestyle, religion, race, anything else other than age is a failure. Someone is not getting their proper say.

Serious question: in your view, what makes age a valid criteria for restricting the right to vote, but not any others?

 

[the moops]

That said, I still think fingerprints is the way to go. When you go to register, prove that you're eligible to vote, and do a finger print scan. Everytime you go to vote, you get your fingerprint scanned. Wonderfully simple.

How many polling places are there in the US? Got to be in the 10's of thousands, right? That is a lot of fingerprint scanners. And what, they need to all be connected to some national database in order to get instantaneous voter ID info? I imagine there are some polling places where the vast majority of people have never even used the internet. You want them running these machines? The cost of something like this would be astronomical.Seems very unsimple to me.

 

[RCon]

Forget becoming obsessed with voter ID for a second. Say you're designing a brand new voting system for the nation. What are your relevant considerations? What concepts do you value, positively and negatively?

In no particular order:1. Educated and informed voters2. Transparency of the process3. Accuracy of the result4. Equality of opportunity to vote5. Ease of use by the voter6. Ease of implementation by the government7. Integrity of the resultProbably a few others that I'm missing off the top of my head.

You want to add in, "Voters who are really willing to overcome difficulty to vote", right?20% tongue in cheek, 80% serious.

No, I don't see a need for that if the other items I listed are met.

How do you feel about your "educated and informed voters" versus "equality of opportunity to vote" criteria? Should some voters be favored in the process?

Well, the question was "what concepts do I value", and I think educated and informed voters is perhaps the most positive concept of all. Unfortunately, in practice, I don't see any method of screening these voters that is 100% fair and accurate. In practice, I'd probably abandon that goal and try to make all the others happen as best I could.

 

[Mello]

I cannot believe people can actually think certain votes are more important than others or that peoples' votes don't have value.

If a person is unable to manage his or her own life effectively, that person probably shouldn't be managing the lives of others. We've been over this one before a bunch of times too.

You can go down that road all you want. I think it's fundamentally wrong. I'm sure your opinion of what managing a life effectively is, is completely different from others' opinions. A basic facet of our system is that everyone is supposed to have a vote and everyone's vote should be equal. The millionaire should be equal to the homeless guy as far as their say in who represents them goes. Any effort to filter out voters based on their education, lifestyle, religion, race, anything else other than age is a failure. Someone is not getting their proper say.

This is begging the question, and like you mentioned, we already deny people the right to vote when they're under 18 -- it's not a universal right that we extend to everyone.

and felons and people who don't register

If it was up to me, you wouldn't have to register, felons would have a vote, and I would allow students in high school to vote (show your report card as proof). Laws affect all these people and they should have representation.

 

[Rayderr]

That said, I still think fingerprints is the way to go. When you go to register, prove that you're eligible to vote, and do a finger print scan. Everytime you go to vote, you get your fingerprint scanned. Wonderfully simple.

How many polling places are there in the US? Got to be in the 10's of thousands, right? That is a lot of fingerprint scanners. And what, they need to all be connected to some national database in order to get instantaneous voter ID info? I imagine there are some polling places where the vast majority of people have never even used the internet. You want them running these machines? The cost of something like this would be astronomical.Seems very unsimple to me.

Well as it is, if your at a polling place that uses electronic booths (which I think most are now) they're already having to do things like program in the cards that allow a person to vote. Of course if they were really smart, they would've incorporated into the machines themselves.But cost isn't really a factor. You can get them for about $10. And you don't need to be connected to the national database right away. There are several ways to do it. One, each polling place has the database for just their voters. Or, go in, say "Hi I'm Rayderr", they scan your fingerprint, and it's linked to vote card 123456. When the polls are closed and the info from the machines is retrieved, also retrieve the fingerprint file. Take it back and run it against the regional/national database/etc. If it turns out my fingerpint doesn't match the one on file, remove vote card 123456 from the counting process.

 

[Christo]

My system would make voting compulsory, just like jury duty or registering for the draft or paying taxes.

Oh, now that would piss them off

 

[the moops]

Ahh. Thanks Rayderr. Good explanation