Voting ID, the problems it purports to solve, and the problems it might create

You're missing the larger point, Greg. It's obvious some people have different ideas on what defines a right - specifically, how they can be limited and still called a right. I find that fascinating. Can a right only be called as such if it is completely and absolutely unlimited? I say no, but others seem to disagree.

Seth wrote:

This may be a derail, but I think there's a lot going on here in the disagreement in what defines a right and a benefit. The heart of this may hold some explanation as to why idiots are convinced that - for example - Limbaugh's freedom of speech was denied by corporate sponsors withdrawing funding.

Limbaugh's freedom of speech was not denied. He does not have a constitutional right to unfettered access to a private medium to amplify his speech.

The last time I checked, soapboxes and parks were still readily available.

And no-one is commenting on the mandatory voter ID laws up here in Canada that I pointed out.

I don't think that it is voter ID laws that are disenfranchising to poor people. It is, as mentioned above, laws which are introduces with very little lead time to allow poor people to obtain the cards.

mudbunny wrote:

And no-one is commenting on the mandatory voter ID laws up here in Canada that I pointed out.

I don't think that it is voter ID laws that are disenfranchising to poor people. It is, as mentioned above, laws which are introduces with very little lead time to allow poor people to obtain the cards.

Because many of the laws being introduced in the US take it a couple steps further then those laws.

To vote in Indiana, there is no option 2 or 3. You must show an ID, issued by the state of Indiana or the federal government, have your name, address, photo, and an expiration date. Basically, the only acceptable things are a driver's license, military ID, state ID, or passport. Compare those 4 things to the incredibly long list you posted. You could use your lease and a hunting license in Canada. Not really the same level.

Raising the barriers to vote when there is no evidence to justify doing so is what people (or at least, me) aren't happy about.

Lucky Wilbury wrote:

Raising the barriers to vote when there is no evidence to justify doing so is what people (or at least, me) aren't happy about.

Precisely. Especially when there are more pressing issues in the validity of elections (unverifiable electronic voting machines with zero security, partisan/incapable election commissioners, gerrymandering, etc.).

Lucky Wilbury wrote:
mudbunny wrote:

And no-one is commenting on the mandatory voter ID laws up here in Canada that I pointed out.

I don't think that it is voter ID laws that are disenfranchising to poor people. It is, as mentioned above, laws which are introduces with very little lead time to allow poor people to obtain the cards.

Because many of the laws being introduced in the US take it a couple steps further then those laws.

To vote in Indiana, there is no option 2 or 3. You must show an ID, issued by the state of Indiana or the federal government, have your name, address, photo, and an expiration date. Basically, the only acceptable things are a driver's license, military ID, state ID, or passport. Compare those 4 things to the incredibly long list you posted. You could use your lease and a hunting license in Canada. Not really the same level.

Raising the barriers to vote when there is no evidence to justify doing so is what people (or at least, me) aren't happy about.

So, just out of curiosity. Would be ok with a law that was exactly like the Canadian one?

obirano wrote:

So, just out of curiosity. Would be ok with a law that was exactly like the Canadian one?

You mean how it currently is in most of the US?

obirano wrote:
Lucky Wilbury wrote:
mudbunny wrote:

And no-one is commenting on the mandatory voter ID laws up here in Canada that I pointed out.

I don't think that it is voter ID laws that are disenfranchising to poor people. It is, as mentioned above, laws which are introduces with very little lead time to allow poor people to obtain the cards.

Because many of the laws being introduced in the US take it a couple steps further then those laws.

To vote in Indiana, there is no option 2 or 3. You must show an ID, issued by the state of Indiana or the federal government, have your name, address, photo, and an expiration date. Basically, the only acceptable things are a driver's license, military ID, state ID, or passport. Compare those 4 things to the incredibly long list you posted. You could use your lease and a hunting license in Canada. Not really the same level.

Raising the barriers to vote when there is no evidence to justify doing so is what people (or at least, me) aren't happy about.

So, just out of curiosity. Would be ok with a law that was exactly like the Canadian one?

Not really. There a lot of fear-mongering going on that there are supposedly hundreds and thousands of illegitimate votes are being cast in every election (despite all the evidence on contrary). On a personal level, I wouldn't advocate my state (I'm still a registered voter in Michigan despite living in NH) to adopt that level of verification. In Michigan, you have to show a photo ID (Michigan, any other state, Federal, Military, Tribal, or educational). If you don't have an acceptable ID (or if you simply forgot to bring it with you), you sign a brief form stating as much. Takes less than a minute if you have to sign the form (I did it once a few years back when I had my wallet stolen). That's it. There's no provisional ballot cast (like some states). There's no taking extra time off to drive to the county board of elections office to verify I am who I say I am.

Michigan makes it pretty easy. They don't even ask for my id; I just tell them my name, they scratch it off the list, and I go into the booth.

edit: upon reflection, I realize the ease I experience is more likely a benefit of privilege than a case of "how it is."

The Canadian ID law looks to be exactly the same as the Minnesotan one and, as was pointed out in the hijacked Wisconsin thread, our last election was completely stolen by voter fraud.

Spoiler:

I'd use the sarcasm font but I don't remember how to make green text.

We almost always lead the nation in voter turnout so it looks like allowing a buddy to say, "yeah, he lives here," doesn't disenfranchise voters.

These types of laws are the electoral equivalent of dunking your hand in Neosporin and covering your hand with 30 feet of gauze wrap because you got a paper cut.

But hey, at least it won't get infected...probably.

iaintgotnopants wrote:

The Canadian ID law looks to be exactly the same as the Minnesotan one and, as was pointed out in the hijacked Wisconsin thread, our last election was completely stolen by voter fraud.

Spoiler:

I'd use the sarcasm font but I don't remember how to make green text.

We almost always lead the nation in voter turnout so it looks like allowing a buddy to say, "yeah, he lives here," doesn't disenfranchise voters.

Sen. Franken won by a few hundred votes, less votes than the last number of convicted and pending trial fraudulent vote counts that I posted. And that doesn't include those that simply weren't aware they couldn't vote. So it could have changed the election results, meaning that potentially a great many voters were disenfranchised. When the margin isn't a few hundred votes, then it could be a huge change in the results.

I do note that the LSAT requires a photo ID, for a much less serious issue than the basis of our government.

rosenhane wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:

The Canadian ID law looks to be exactly the same as the Minnesotan one and, as was pointed out in the hijacked Wisconsin thread, our last election was completely stolen by voter fraud.

Spoiler:

I'd use the sarcasm font but I don't remember how to make green text.

We almost always lead the nation in voter turnout so it looks like allowing a buddy to say, "yeah, he lives here," doesn't disenfranchise voters.

Sen. Franken won by a few hundred votes, less votes than the last number of convicted and pending trial fraudulent vote counts that I posted. And that doesn't include those that simply weren't aware they couldn't vote. So it could have changed the election results, meaning that potentially a great many voters were disenfranchised. When the margin isn't a few hundred votes, then it could be a huge change in the results.

I do note that the LSAT requires a photo ID, for a much less serious issue than the basis of our government.

The LSAT isn't a constitutionally protected right.

rosenhane wrote:

Sen. Franken won by a few hundred votes, less votes than the last number of convicted and pending trial fraudulent vote counts that I posted. And that doesn't include those that simply weren't aware they couldn't vote. So it could have changed the election results, meaning that potentially a great many voters were disenfranchised. When the margin isn't a few hundred votes, then it could be a huge change in the results.

This was addressed quite well in the last thread.

rosenhane wrote:

I do note that the LSAT requires a photo ID, for a much less serious issue than the basis of our government.

A test that you have to pay for and requires hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of education does not need to be as accessible as voting. This isn't f*cking rocket science.

You also don't need an ID to do rocket science.

(What? Just sayin'...)

More seriously...

rosenhane wrote:

I do note that the LSAT requires a photo ID, for a much less serious issue than the basis of our government.

I think this idea actually gets to the heart of the matter. Your inclination is to say "Voting is very very important! Protect the hell out of it to make absolutely sure that no-one votes unless they're eligible!" Ours is to say "Voting is very very important! Protect the hell out of it to make absolutely sure that no-one eligible is prevented from voting!"

And that also connects to the difference between rights and privileges, at least in the minds of those of us who think that a few extra votes are less of a problem than a few prevented votes.

A privilege is something you protect by being very careful not to let anyone in unless you're absolutely sure they have it. A right is something you protect by being very careful not to keep anyone out unless you're absolutely sure they don't have it.

Let me add a 3rd inclination: I don't see how you can expect your citizenship rights to be guaranteed and enforced if you can't be identified.

Jon Stewart talked a bit about Florida last night. This seems somewhat relevant to this topic, the whole "we're trying to protect fraud even though there is barely any" argument.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...

bandit0013 wrote:

Let me add a 3rd inclination: I don't see how you can expect your citizenship rights to be guaranteed and enforced if you can't be identified.

I really really don't want to Godwin things but the phrase "papers, please" comes to mind.

bandit0013 wrote:

Let me add a 3rd inclination: I don't see how you can expect your citizenship rights to be guaranteed and enforced if you can't be identified.

And I will add that, if you're so willing to deny someone liberty and rights just because you can't immediately prove exactly who they are, we have _very_ different ideas of how the country should be run. The unsavory element will always exist. If this was not a constant, we wouldn't still be fighting it millennia into civilization.

I think that small risk is better than reducing the basic rights of law-abiding citizens. It's why I dislike the TSA, the entire premise behind our drug laws, so on.

Lucky Wilbury wrote:

Because many of the laws being introduced in the US take it a couple steps further then those laws.

To vote in Indiana, there is no option 2 or 3. You must show an ID, issued by the state of Indiana or the federal government, have your name, address, photo, and an expiration date. Basically, the only acceptable things are a driver's license, military ID, state ID, or passport. Compare those 4 things to the incredibly long list you posted. You could use your lease and a hunting license in Canada. Not really the same level.

Raising the barriers to vote when there is no evidence to justify doing so is what people (or at least, me) aren't happy about.

As a Hoosier I can vouch for this. When I voted in the May primaries had to show my DL even though I was voting in the same precinct, at the same polling place, and pretty much staffed by the same people (a number who I know by name) ever since I move to my current location 14 years ago.

bandit0013 wrote:

Let me add a 3rd inclination: I don't see how you can expect your citizenship rights to be guaranteed and enforced if you can't be identified.

Why do I need to be identified in order to do the following:

Stand on a soapbox and preach on the street corner.
Print a tri-fold pamphlet critical of the government.
Circulate a petition to redress a grievance I have with the government.
Walk down the street.
Have any type of sex with another consenting adult.
Read any book on this list.
Attend any house of worship of my choosing.
Not attend any house of worship at all.
Picket the state capital, the county courthouse, city hall, or any government building in Washington, DC.

I'd contend that voting isn't a basic right. It is, after all, not in the Bill of Rights--the founders debated if those first 10 amendments a necessity, or if they just made explicit things that the rest of the Constitution implied. Obviously, there are later amendments that extended voting rights, but they don't come up in the Bill of Rights, because unlike the freedoms of speech, assembly, due process and so forth, voting wasn't implied in the Articles, is was directly stated.

So, voting isn't a basic right, it's a foundational concept upon which our nation was built. As such, we really shouldn't put barriers around it--no matter how insignificant that barrier may seem to a limited imagination.

Stele wrote:

Jon Stewart talked a bit about Florida last night. This seems somewhat relevant to this topic, the whole "we're trying to protect fraud even though there is barely any" argument.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...

I was gonna post that. Jon Oliver is absolutely brilliant on that show. "Voter fraud statistics are limited only as much as your imagination."

Phoenix Rev wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Let me add a 3rd inclination: I don't see how you can expect your citizenship rights to be guaranteed and enforced if you can't be identified.

Why do I need to be identified in order to do the following:

Stand on a soapbox and preach on the street corner.
Print a tri-fold pamphlet critical of the government.
Circulate a petition to redress a grievance I have with the government.
Walk down the street.
Have any type of sex with another consenting adult.
Read any book on this list.
Attend any house of worship of my choosing.
Not attend any house of worship at all.
Picket the state capital, the county courthouse, city hall, or any government building in Washington, DC.

You don't
You don't
You don't
You don't
You don't
You don't
You don't
You don't
You don't
You may need a permit, in accordance with not disrupting normal public movement, which likely requires an ID and some form of responsibility for said event.

You should need to be identified when exercising something that is not intended for non citizens which would include but is not limited to:

Entering into a legal contract under US law
Engaging in a legal activity that is restricted by age, residence or criminal status
Entering/leaving the country
Receiving financial benefits that are restricted to citizens or permanent residents

This is reasonable and sensible.

Our definitions of reasonable and sensible differ.

edit: or perhaps our definition of identified differs.

Lucky Wilbury wrote:

Our definitions of reasonable and sensible differ.

edit: or perhaps our definition of identified differs.

In the case of a breach, how do you successfully sue someone if you can't prove they legally entered into the agreement?

How do you propose to limit things like alcohol consumption, voting, smoking, gambling, running for senate, or engaging in employment without identification?

I guess open borders is something some people believe in, but I'm not going there because it's clearly unworkable.

How do you propose managing something like social security, just give it to anyone who asks? Yeah, btw I'm a retired fireman, pay up, state of Ohio, yeah, I know I only look 25, but it's true. Those social security benefits, well, I never ID'd myself for any employer, so uh, yeah I paid in for the max benefit, pay up.

My post above yours wasn't in response to contracts or alcohol consumption or employment. It was in regards to voting, since that's the focus of the topic. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

My criteria for identification is satisfied by stating your name/address and the polling official checking your name and address is on the county voter registry. The registry I'm on because I already proved I was John Smith, living at 123 Fake Street when I registered at the board of elections office.

The recent swath of Voter ID legislation is aimed at fighting a problem that doesn't really exist. And even if the problem did exist on a level that warranted action, requiring photo IDs is hardly the answer.

edit to add:

bandit0013 wrote:

You should need to be identified when exercising something that is not intended for non citizens

Also, a state issued photo ID only wouldn't stop a non-citizen from voting. State issued IDs and even military IDs don't prove citizenship, simply residence. Only passports do that.

Sen. Franken won by a few hundred votes, less votes than the last number of convicted and pending trial fraudulent vote counts that I posted.

Right. And if you implement an ID system, then you would turn away thousands of legitimate votes. So that election would have been decided by not counting valid votes you don't like.

How is getting rid of tens or hundreds of bad votes worth losing thousands of good ones?

The Republicans just don't want "people like that" voting.

Also note, and you keep constantly ignoring this: THESE LAWS WOULD NOT HAVE STOPPED BAD VOTES. They would have probably gotten a small percentage, because some of the bad voters wouldn't have had ID. But most of them would be able to produce ID, because being eligible to have ID is NOT THE SAME AS BEING ELIGIBLE TO VOTE.

Again: having an ID is not the same as voting eligibility. They are different things.

At this point, rosenhane, if you keep arguing for voter ID, then I can only presume that you really do want to stop poor and black people from voting. And you're just engaging in cognitive dissonance to ignore all facts involved. If you still support voter ID, knowing what you know, then you are deliberately trying to stack the deck in favor of the party you prefer, by trying to shut legitimate voters out of the polls.

Hey, I found some fun pictures:

IMAGE(http://indianapublicmedia.org/news/files/2011/09/Voter-Turnout-Map.jpg)

IMAGE(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/United_States_Voter_ID_Laws.svg/800px-United_States_Voter_ID_Laws.svg.png)

Gray- no ID laws

Blue- Requires an ID, even non-photo

Yellow- Requests photo ID

Green- Requires photo ID.