The GOP War On Voting

bandit0013 wrote:

I posted the list of residency things because proof of residency is required to get the voter ID card. Some people were making a big deal about showing the bank statement and I was merely showing that you don't have to show the bank statement if you don't want to, any other of those items is fine.

The GAB has nothing to do with what's considered proof of residency for Voter ID cards. The DMV does. The page you're looking for is here.

The actual list of documents establishing residency for DMV-issued identification in Wisconsin[/url]]The following documents are acceptable proof of Wisconsin residency when they include your name and current Wisconsin residence street address:

* Employee photo identification card issued by your current employer, containing your employer's name and address. Your employer's telephone number may be required for verification.
* Pay check or stub or earning statement with your name and Wisconsin address, and your employer's name and address, issued within the last 90 days. Your employer's telephone number may be required for verification.
* A utility bill for water, gas, electricity or landline telephone service issued within the last 90 days. Cable or similar bundles of services that include landline telephone service is included in this category. Electronic copies are acceptable.
* An account statement from a Wisconsin bank/financial institution issued within the last 90 days. This includes savings, checking or money market accounts held in banks or credit unions. Electronic copies are acceptable.
* Certified school record or transcript that identifies you by name, shows your current address and is issued within the last 90 days for the most recent school period.
* Mortgage documents for a residential property located in Wisconsin.
* Your current valid homeowner, renter or motor vehicle insurance policy dated within one year of application.
* Government-issued correspondence or product issued within the last 90 days from a federal, state, county or city agency.
* Department of Corrections documentation: Letters from probation/parole agents on letterhead issued within the last 90 days.
* Your college enrollment documentation or Form 2019, Certificate of Eligibility for Exchange Visitor (J-1) Status with your current Wisconsin address.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

I posted the list of residency things because proof of residency is required to get the voter ID card. Some people were making a big deal about showing the bank statement and I was merely showing that you don't have to show the bank statement if you don't want to, any other of those items is fine.

The GAB has nothing to do with what's considered proof of residency for Voter ID cards. The DMV does. The page you're looking for is here.

The actual list of documents establishing residency for DMV-issued identification in Wisconsin[/url]]The following documents are acceptable proof of Wisconsin residency when they include your name and current Wisconsin residence street address:

* Employee photo identification card issued by your current employer, containing your employer's name and address. Your employer's telephone number may be required for verification.
* Pay check or stub or earning statement with your name and Wisconsin address, and your employer's name and address, issued within the last 90 days. Your employer's telephone number may be required for verification.
* A utility bill for water, gas, electricity or landline telephone service issued within the last 90 days. Cable or similar bundles of services that include landline telephone service is included in this category. Electronic copies are acceptable.
* An account statement from a Wisconsin bank/financial institution issued within the last 90 days. This includes savings, checking or money market accounts held in banks or credit unions. Electronic copies are acceptable.
* Certified school record or transcript that identifies you by name, shows your current address and is issued within the last 90 days for the most recent school period.
* Mortgage documents for a residential property located in Wisconsin.
* Your current valid homeowner, renter or motor vehicle insurance policy dated within one year of application.
* Government-issued correspondence or product issued within the last 90 days from a federal, state, county or city agency.
* Department of Corrections documentation: Letters from probation/parole agents on letterhead issued within the last 90 days.
* Your college enrollment documentation or Form 2019, Certificate of Eligibility for Exchange Visitor (J-1) Status with your current Wisconsin address.

Ok, thanks for posting that. Still backs up my point that you don't need to show your bank statement if you don't want to.

You can't make the assumption that the 790 people are legit. Also, if the election wasn't decided by 790 votes its inconsequential.

Not to the person who's having their vote rejected. They'll tell their friends, and they'll tell their friends -- at least some people are just going to stop showing up, because they get hassled when they try to vote.

Rights matter right down to every single individual. Collateral damage is absolutely unacceptable when it comes to voting.

You haven't proved any disenfranchisement

Out of 790 people, I guarantee you at least some of those were disenfranchised. Probably the great majority of them, when we examine the amount of actual voter fraud happening.

That is 790 votes that absolutely were not counted. This is demonstrable harm. And it is demonstrable harm to prevent something that isn't actually happening.

@Malor

While I understand where you're coming from, your guarantee is hyperbole. No attempt was made to keep these people from voting when showing a proper id. They were even allowed to fill out a provisional ballot. The fact that they didn't bother to come back is not disenfranchisement. If I show up at the polling station and say I'm Malor, but have no acceptable documentation to back it up, I shouldn't be allowed to vote.

There are burdens to vote. You have to register. You have to get to the polling station on the right day/hours. You have to bring ID in some states. Just because you choose not to go through the process doesn't mean you're disenfranchised.

It boggles my mind why anyone interested in a free and fair electoral process would have an issue with establishing identity.

Regardless, the Supreme Court already ruled on voter id in Indiana, which is the most restrictive:
"The application of the statute to the vast majority of Indiana voters is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process" - John Paul Stevens (normally rules to the liberal side of things)

The reason I keep asking for examples of people who were disenfranchised by the law as you all would claim is because during the Supreme Court case the Democratic Party of Indiana and numerous civil rights groups could not find a single example of a specific voter whose ballot was not counted because of the law.

I guess that's all I have to say on this subject. People are claiming disenfranchisement but a team of lawyers before the supreme court from several groups and the democratic party itself couldn't find one single person who was disenfranchised. Thus, I dismiss the point as bologna.

Oh, and the court ruled that if they did happen to find some credible evidence of disenfranchisement they'd re-open the case. Since they ruled in 2008... that clearly hasn't happened.

Consolidating these two lists.

bandit0013 wrote:

Considering without an ID you can't:

Get a hotel room
Get a credit card
Get a grocery store discount card
Attend a school
Register your children for school
Get phone/cable service

Yes? You really should invest the time to get an ID? Why does it have to be in Arizona in July? If you vote on november 5th, you have 364 other days a year to get your ID... the ID that you are required to have to work that job that you are claiming is keeping poor people away from the polls.

Sorry folks, but I dismiss the "it's too hard for poor people to get an ID" argument as utter nonsense.

bandit0013 wrote:

Things you can't do without a photo id:

Cash a check
Open a bank account
Apply for credit
Gain Employment
Fly on a commercial airline (Pre-9/11, including visiting Canada)
Drive
Purchase alcohol or tobacco
Purchase a firearm
Buy Sudafed at the local drug store
Go to a nightclub
Enter a casino
Buy a lottery ticket
Buy a home

Also, I know I've seen a lot of folks throw up health care reform polls and higher taxes on the rich polls in an attempt to strengthen their arguments. Well rasumussen showed that 75% of likely voters think ID should be required.

I have struck out the things I know for a fact can be done without a state-issued photo ID, because I have done them. I do not have a driver's license. I don't drive. I only acquired a state-issued ID card after 9/11 when they became necessary for air travel. I'm pretty damned sure that you don't need photo ID to register children for school or to buy a home. Probably not Sudafed, either, at least in some places. I'm not sure whether any of those anti-Sudafed laws have age requirements on them, but if they do they'll certainly not require photo ID for people who are clearly over the legal age. (Much like how as a bald man in my mid-thirties I never get carded for alcohol or cigarettes.)

Just earlier today, I filled in my online request for a renewed state ID. It will cost me $13.50. (Free voter ID cards are not available here yet, although they presumably will be if the new PA voter ID bill passes. It may even give me future ID cards for free. Yippee.) I was overjoyed to be able to do this online instead of having to go to the local DMV and wait in line to take care of it. Then after I had paid for my transaction, up popped the instructions for what to do next, including: "you will receive a camera card to take to a PennDOT Photo License Center to complete your transaction."

Awesome. So I can either take half a day of PTO to do this (get over to the licensing center, get in line, wait, have my picture taken, leave), or spend a whole Saturday doing it (last time I was there on a weekend, to replace my ID after I was mugged, the lines were pretty bad.) Great.

In WA when Clover was sick I had to present a government ID to buy Sudafed because it can be used as an ingredient for making meth. I didn't have to just show my ID either, it had to have details recorded for tracking and registration purposes.

There is one on the list you are missing too and that's pre-paid cell phones like Virgin Mobile. I had to present my ID at Radioshack and also have it recorded for tracking and registration purposes due to drug dealers using pre-paid phones to thwart warrant tapping like in the Wire.

Robear wrote:
Robear wrote:

Quote:

There's a moral hazard in giving people gifts to vote, yes.

Really? What is it?

People uninterested in the direction of the nation voting for the candidates that whoever gave them the gift told them to vote for.

We already stipulated that in the factual case and the discussion, the people getting out the vote were not telling them who to vote for. You must have missed that.

Is there still a moral hazard when the people are not told who to vote for, as in the college get-out-the-vote drives that actually exist?

Nope.

Post 9/11 you can't do most of the things on your list hyp (bank account in particular)

I just registered my youngest for school and they required state issued photo ID from me.

bandit0013 wrote:

Regardless, the Supreme Court already ruled on voter id in Indiana, which is the most restrictive:
"The application of the statute to the vast majority of Indiana voters is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process" - John Paul Stevens (normally rules to the liberal side of things)

The reason I keep asking for examples of people who were disenfranchised by the law as you all would claim is because during the Supreme Court case the Democratic Party of Indiana and numerous civil rights groups could not find a single example of a specific voter whose ballot was not counted because of the law.

I guess that's all I have to say on this subject. People are claiming disenfranchisement but a team of lawyers before the supreme court from several groups and the democratic party itself couldn't find one single person who was disenfranchised. Thus, I dismiss the point as bologna.

Actually, Indiana's law, while the most restrictive at the time, has been eclipsed by the legislation put together by ALEC (and adopted in Wisconsin, among other states).

Supporters claim that more restrictive voter ID legislation is to combat widespread fraud. This is simply not the case - in fact, investigations like the Milwaukee one linked upthread show that mistakes and misbehavior by electoral officials are far more likely to impact election results. Instead of investing money in policies and procedures to head off the vote fraud that's actually happening, the GOP is pushing for legislation that makes it harder for people to vote. As evidenced by Mr. Masset's unguarded words to the Houston Chronicle, they're doing this with the intent to suppress Democratic voters. Ultimately, the burden of proof here is on folks who support more restrictive voter ID legislation to demonstrate that the risk of disenfranchisement is non-existent, or offset by the greater ability to address actual vote fraud. I don't see anyone making that case.

For the record, I'd love for some resources to be put towards tracking voters who are turned away at the polls, so we have better data about who's either potentially being disenfranchised (or, alternatively, who might potentially be intending to commit vote fraud). That would be a far better use of government funds than the ALEC-written voter ID laws currently being put forward.

Nothing is stopping any of the groups from collecting it. I find it telling that if hundreds or thousands are being disenfranchised as you claim that the democratic party and the ACLU can't seem to find them. Additionally given that IDs are pervasive in this day and age I think the burden of proof falls on your side.

bandit0013: Would you care to address the question of why it is important to do this? Things were working just fine before, with incredibly low amounts of voter fraud. So why go through the expense of doing this in the first place?

All of the evidence suggests that there's no benefit in requiring photo ID. So why do it? Why is it so goddamned important? That is why the burden of proof is on those who would like to change something that has been working just fine--because it's wasting the resources of the government on something with no clear value.

I mean, for God's sake, how can you argue on the one hand that the government is filled with corruption and incompetence and waste and at the same time argue for this pointless bullsh*t [em]demonstrably[/em] wasteful policy?

bandit0013 wrote:

Nothing is stopping any of the groups from collecting it. I find it telling that if hundreds or thousands are being disenfranchised as you claim that the democratic party and the ACLU can't seem to find them. Additionally given that IDs are pervasive in this day and age I think the burden of proof falls on your side.

This just isn't your day for reading comprehension.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

An estimated 300,000 eligible voters in the state of Wisconsin do not currently have a driver's license - a number made up disproportionately of the elderly, minorities, the disabled, and students.

That's quite different than asserting that hundreds of thousands are being disenfranchised. You never answered what your acceptable threshold for disenfranchisement is, but mine is zero. If any of the 790 discussed upthread would have otherwise been able to cast their vote, that's unacceptable and requires fixing. If any of the 300,000 in Wisconsin who currently do not have a state-issued ID card would be able to cast their vote if not for the voter ID law, that's unacceptable and requires fixing.

You still haven't made a case for why more stringent voter ID laws are needed. At best, you've made clear that you feel these laws don't place an undue burden on citizens wishing to exercise their vote (we disagree there, but that's fine).

Apart from statistically non-existent vote fraud, the only reason that's been posted in this thread in favor of these laws is Mr. Masset admitting the law was intended to suppress Democratic turnout. I support investing money in procedures for election officials & an auditing process - that's where the potential fraud is, and would be a much better use of government money.

Quoting Yonder's post in full from the Wisconsin State Senate recalls thread, because I think it's spot on:

Yonder[/url]]

MattDaddy wrote:

Then getting into a vehicle and showing up at the polling place is a barrier. As is waiting in line, and finding out where you need to go to vote. Being able to read may be a barrier. Getting a absentee ballot would also be a barrier.

Exactly! For each separate case you have to carefully decide whether that barrier is one that simply needs to be there, or whether it's reasonable to lessen it.

Of the ones you listed the first one is a no-go. If you have so few polling stations that a vehicle is required to get to them then that's a pretty large barrier, especially in one of the many states that have rotten transportation. The expense of having enough polling places that nearly all people have one within walking distance absolutely sounds like a reasonable one. Only as a last resort (for example in the most rural and depopulated areas) should people need to resort to mailing in their ballot or renting a taxi.

As far as waiting in line goes, that's a barrier too, so some steps need to be taken to mitigate that. Some states make election day a holiday, so that everyone has more time available to vote. Other states mandate paid time off for part of the day, in California two hours is mandated. Working at it from the other direction there need to be enough polling places that are staffed well enough to let everyone vote in a reasonable amount of time. What's reasonable? I have no idea, I think that if people had to wait four hours in line to vote pretty much everyone could agree that that wasn't right. On the other hand I don't think that anyone would want to pay $10 billion to lower the average wait time from three minutes to two minutes.

As far as finding out where you need to go, that's also a barrier, and you probably notice every year that the government goes through a lot of effort every year keeping that a tiny barrier. They don't just throw it up on a website somewhere, that's not a big barrier for me, but I guarantee you that my grandparents may miss that election. You can find it online, and there are generally signs outside the polling places for at least several days leading up to the election, they mail you the address of your polling place, they generally put up fliers in libraries, supermarkets, and other public places, especially government-run public places. My local Subway and Baskin Robbins each have a bulletin board inside with various community events that always includes local polling places near election days. I've also lived in places with hotlines that you could call to get the address of your polling place, the number of the hotline was on many of the aforementioned fliers, as well as being advertised on the radio.

As far as being able to read, that does seem like a fairly reasonable barrier. It's a small barrier because pretty much everyone can read, in large part due to the fact that this country has free public education up through 12th grade. If that wasn't true, or if illiteracy was somehow a large problem regardless of that fact, then that would start to become an unreasonable barrier, especially with the ease that that could be fixed using modern technology. ("Punch the first circle to vote for XXX, punch the second circle to vote for YYY" through a pair of earphones). What if someone can read, but they can't see? That's exactly why they make Braille ballots.

It is never ok to point to a barrier and just through your hands up in the air and say that's the way it has to be. You have to continuously minimize these barriers as much as is reasonable (reasonable obviously being up for debate). Also pointing at existing barriers and saying "oh well, there are already some barriers, no reason not to put in new barriers" is absolutely terrible rationale.

Yonder wrote:

I used to think that same day registration, and the fact that if you were registered you could vote without any ID was odd, but the fact that after the election the government can easily make sure that your identity wasn't used to vote twice seems to be an acceptable defense for most frauds, and the other stuff like felons and dead people voting can and is caught just by keeping the registered voter list updated.

MattDaddy wrote:

After the election it's too late. The illegal vote has been counted. You can't just go into the bin and remove Joe Smith's ballot.

That seems like exactly the sort of electoral process change that the money should be better spent on. If it's even true that Wisconsin has no measures in place to discount discovered vote fraud, then what the heck is the point of the ID cards. "Look, there are two John Does that live in this district, but they voted 17 times, 16 of them from the guy that lives on 12th Main Street. Shame we can't do anything about that." Just becomes "Look, there are two John Does that live in this district, but they voted 17 times, 16 of them from the guy that lives on 12th Main Street with ID card number 173423876. Shame we can't do anything about that."

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/p52Ca.gif)

Now Yonder is the popular one!

Hypatian wrote:

bandit0013: Would you care to address the question of why it is important to do this? Things were working just fine before, with incredibly low amounts of voter fraud. So why go through the expense of doing this in the first place?

All of the evidence suggests that there's no benefit in requiring photo ID. So why do it? Why is it so goddamned important? That is why the burden of proof is on those who would like to change something that has been working just fine--because it's wasting the resources of the government on something with no clear value.

I mean, for God's sake, how can you argue on the one hand that the government is filled with corruption and incompetence and waste and at the same time argue for this pointless bullsh*t [em]demonstrably[/em] wasteful policy?

Because IDs are necessary in a variety of other very important aspects of being a member of our society. Why are you against integration?

Having citizens properly identified is a necessary step to ensuring that everyone can be located to get on the new mandatory health insurance plans under the new health reform. Having citizens properly identified increases the ability to give care once they're on the plans since electronic medical records are useless if the person brought into the ER doesn't have ID.

Having citizens properly identified helps ensure that people who receive employment are eligible to be employed in this country. It helps to ensure all workers are receiving pay and benefits according to federal standards and are paying in properly to insurance pools like unemployment and disability. It helps those who aren't working to be able to apply for the assistance they need and eases the burden on providers. (despite your views on voter fraud, medicare fraud is rampant).

I mean, for God's sake, how can you think that just because the government is incompetent in some areas that automatically dismisses the concept that being able to properly identify your citizens is a bad thing?

Dimmerswitch wrote:

That's quite different than asserting that hundreds of thousands are being disenfranchised. You never answered what your acceptable threshold for disenfranchisement is, but mine is zero. If any of the 790 discussed upthread would have otherwise been able to cast their vote, that's unacceptable and requires fixing. If any of the 300,000 in Wisconsin who currently do not have a state-issued ID card would be able to cast their vote if not for the voter ID law, that's unacceptable and requires fixing.

Why is everything I say suddenly about you? I was responding to this:

Malor wrote:

Out of 790 people, I guarantee you at least some of those were disenfranchised. Probably the great majority of them, when we examine the amount of actual voter fraud happening.

I assert that no one has been disenfranchised by these requirements. Any person who wants to vote in the major elections has over 500 days to get down to the BMV and get their free voter ID card. Again, you have to register to vote, you have to go to the polling station or request an absentee ballot, even if you show up to the polling station in non-photo ID states you generally still have to have SOMETHING that proves you are who you say you are. Explain to me why this is bad? Again, any steps in a democracy you can take to ensure the sanctity of the vote is generally a good thing for the concept of democracy.

As for suppression of Democratic voters, Justice Stevens addressed this in the Indiana decision in a far more eloquent way than I could, but I fully agree with him:

Stevens said that called for a "unique balancing analysis" on the part of the court. Because the state's intent is legitimate, he said, the challengers "bear a heavy burden of persuasion, and one not met by the evidence in the case."

Stevens noted that it is "fair" to infer that "partisan considerations may have played a significant role" in Indiana's decision to pass the law.

"But if a nondiscriminatory law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators," he wrote.

So, Dimmer, Hypatian, hate to tell you, but the Supreme Court of the United States agrees with my position in that it's a validly neutral reason regardless of what some buffoon in Texas thinks is an additional benefit. I state again that in the dozens of states where voter id laws have been passed for years not one single valid case of disenfranchisement has been found by the courts. They also agree with me that the burden of proof for disenfranchisement is with you and your supporters, so unless you can provide actual tangible proof, I consider this point of debate closed. I'm more than happy to debate the merits of having IDs in a functioning society, but your claims of disenfranchisement are without any merit/data backing them up and the SCOTUS agrees that reasonable steps to ensure fair elections are valid regardless of any partisan claims so long as they are nondiscriminatory, which SCOTUS agrees 6-3 that they are.

And those 300k people without IDs? They should take the time to get them. A birth certificate and some proof of residence isn't an unreasonable thing to ask for. As one of the lawyers stated in the Indiana case "it's not like elections sneak up on you". They're predictable. If those 300K people really want to vote, they have 14 months between now and the next election to get over to the BMV and get their free ID.

Additionally, @hypatian, if you think that providing IDs to citizens is a waste of government resources, I'd love to hear your views on things like Driver's licenses, medical licenses, legal licenses, business operation licenses/llcs/corporate filing, gun registration, vehicle registration, property registration for taxation, issuance of social security cards for social security benefits and income taxation, etc.

I'd say that issuing and ensuring proper identification is a pretty core government function. Which by the way is why I've always been in favor of a national id. If you're worried so much about resources, consolidation into a single passport style biometric id is the way to go. Legislate once, accept anywhere.

bandit0013 wrote:

Why is everything I say suddenly about you? I was responding to this:

Malor wrote:

Out of 790 people, I guarantee you at least some of those were disenfranchised. Probably the great majority of them, when we examine the amount of actual voter fraud happening.

Fair enough - I stand corrected.

Spoiler:

Including quotes is awesome, and makes it clear what you're responding to. :)

I have no problem with providing free IDs to anyone who wants them. I think that's a great idea. Getting such IDs should be made as easy as possible. In fact, the people who give out IDs should probably make an effort to visit places like schools, poor neighborhoods, and elderly individuals to help them keep their IDs up to date.

If we had a system that was already doing that, it would be reasonable to use such ID when voting as proof of identity in place of the signature-based system we use today--although ID replacement ought to be a same-day affair at that point, because you shouldn't be deprived of the vote because you happened to have your wallet fall out of your pocket getting out of the car the day before.

But requiring IDs for voting to solve a non-existent problem and then doing the BARE MINIMUM to patch up the incredible inconvenience of various states' drivers' license issuance systems to make it constitutional to do so? That's f*cking ridiculous.

To summarize that: Providing government-issued IDs for free? Great idea. Making it far more convenient for people to get and update their government-issued IDs? Great idea. Requiring government-issued IDs for the purposes of preventing voter fraud, and making them available for free (to satisfy minimum legal requirements) without making them easier to get and update (to ensure that there is no actual cost to people with marginal income or ability to move freely)? f*cking ridiculous.

FIRST take the steps necessary to ensure that IDs are freely available to all and are incredibly convenient. THEN show that presenting them at voting time would decrease the incidence of fraud. THEN pass a law requiring them for voting. Neither the first nor the second steps have been taken here. Instead, we have: FIRST appeal to "common sense" to argue that voter fraud would be reduced if you had to show ID, THEN ignore the contradictory evidence, THEN pass a law requiring IDs to vote and with it do the minimum necessary to improve the process of getting IDs to prevent your law being sh*t-canned by the courts before the ink is dry.

bandit0013 wrote:

Additionally, @hypatian, if you think that providing IDs to citizens is a waste of government resources, I'd love to hear your views on things like Driver's licenses, medical licenses, legal licenses, business operation licenses/llcs/corporate filing, gun registration, vehicle registration, property registration for taxation, issuance of social security cards for social security benefits and income taxation, etc.

I'd say that issuing and ensuring proper identification is a pretty core government function. Which by the way is why I've always been in favor of a national id. If you're worried so much about resources, consolidation into a single passport style biometric id is the way to go. Legislate once, accept anywhere.

The government charges money for all of those. In order to remain constitutional, the government is forced to eat the cost of issuing voter IDs.

PiP wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Additionally, @hypatian, if you think that providing IDs to citizens is a waste of government resources, I'd love to hear your views on things like Driver's licenses, medical licenses, legal licenses, business operation licenses/llcs/corporate filing, gun registration, vehicle registration, property registration for taxation, issuance of social security cards for social security benefits and income taxation, etc.

I'd say that issuing and ensuring proper identification is a pretty core government function. Which by the way is why I've always been in favor of a national id. If you're worried so much about resources, consolidation into a single passport style biometric id is the way to go. Legislate once, accept anywhere.

The government charges money for all of those. In order to remain constitutional, the government is forced to eat the cost of issuing voter IDs.

They don't charge you to issue a social security card. This could replace that. I'm certain it would be more cost effective at the national level than every state doing their own thing. For all I care put in an extra 0.1% fica tax or something to cover the costs. Let the social security administration and the postal service run it. People notify the post office when they change residency anyways, it'd be really convenient to be able to do that and fix up the info tied to your national id simultaneously.

But, why? What would the purpose be?

Hypatian wrote:

If we had a system that was already doing that, it would be reasonable to use such ID when voting as proof of identity in place of the signature-based system we use today--although ID replacement ought to be a same-day affair at that point, because you shouldn't be deprived of the vote because you happened to have your wallet fall out of your pocket getting out of the car the day before.

We can agree to disagree on the details since it seems we want to get to the same place down the road. The above though is already accounted for in the existing system. If for whatever reason you can't meet requirements you file a provisional ballot and provide proof of identity within whatever the state dictates is enough time (I think 30 days is typical).

Provisional ballots can be slippery though because you have to ensure that they aren't used as a tool to disenfranchise someone (like telling them their vote counts when it doesn't yet). Wikipedia says in 2006 only 20.5% of provisional ballots were not counted across all reasons. These reasons are things like in the prior example of the voter never showing up to affirm identity, to actually not being on the voter rolls at all (which technically would be a fraudulent vote, but we don't count them as such because it's unlikely there is 'intent' to defraud, but still, it's a solid example that invalid votes do exist), and of course, with absentee ballots and provisional ballots oftentimes they don't ever get counted because of the margin of victory (if candidate A wins by 1 million votes and there's 150k absentee and provisional ballots, why bother spending the money to count them?)

Naturally, with my interest in fair and proper elections, I support reasonable auditing standards for provisional and absentee ballots.

PiP wrote:

But, why? What would the purpose be?

Of a national id card?

Central database of useful information accessible to service providers and law enforcement. These could include but not be limited to:

- Current Residency and valid voting polling station

- Driving record, eligibility (some states agencies communicate well, others don't)

- Criminal record, government watch list, etc. (2 of the 9/11 hijackers were on the watch list and passed through security without it being flagged)

- Electronic medical records, which is the next big cost savings in our medical field. Better care and having any doctor/facility you see be able to quickly access your medical history. (If you were allergic to penicillin and showed up unconscious in the ER, wouldn't you like them to be able to swipe your id and know that?)

- Eligibility for social services, social security, welfare, medicare, etc. Replace ALL of those other forms of id, including driver's license. Less for people to keep track of, less bureaucratic processes.

- Having all of the above linked centrally would greatly ease data mining for fraud, especially in medicare/social security. (You see articles every year about dead people still receiving benefits. Coroner marks you dead, database updated, done, book it)

- Makes the full faith and credit part of the constitution much easier to enforce/administer.

The main argument I see leveled against the national id is one of privacy concerns. I'm considering making a new thread on privacy, because I think Americans take it waaaaaaaay too seriously.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

You never answered what your acceptable threshold for disenfranchisement is, but mine is zero. If any of the 790 discussed upthread would have otherwise been able to cast their vote, that's unacceptable and requires fixing. If any of the 300,000 in Wisconsin who currently do not have a state-issued ID card would be able to cast their vote if not for the voter ID law, that's unacceptable and requires fixing.

First, I want to note just how extreme of position you are taking on voting. By playing with the connotations of words and accusing some action of being disenfranchisement, you are saying that any barrier to vote is unacceptable. I assume the core reason is because you view voting as a right (indicated by previous posts), and therefore any barrier that prevents a constitutional right from being realized is unlawful.

By this logic, we can safely assume that police are wholly disallowed from searching anything without warrant, that we can make no restrictions on a person's right to a firearm, regardless of whether they are convicted of a crime, and that the federal government has no ability to infringe on anyone's privacy for any reason.

That is a breathtaking position. It is also a position that does not find any traction in law. Even though guns can't be prohibited in local jurisdictions, the state can regulate when, where, and how guns might be distributed. The state can say "you can own one, but you can't tote it to the state fair." Gun registration also exists as a barrier to gun ownership, as bandit noted earlier. The government CAN wiretap its citizens with convincing reason (and many citizens' own activities warrant it, though it is arguable as to how many of those who are watched). And police are fully allowed to search and seize evidence from someone if they have reason to do so. A list of exceptions exists that allow police officers to do work on the spot to get evidence that they did not have warrants to obtain. Rights are not without limits. They exist within constraints.

When I said "voting is a privilege and a responsibility," I did NOT say that it was not a right. The stress is on different things. The US congress says that voting is all three. But felons cannot vote. Why are you not bitching more about the disproportionately high incarceration rates of impoverished minorities when you bitch about voter disenfranchisement? It seems to be a much more reasonable place to go than Voter ID requirements.

A brief note however on form and tone--since many were unhappy with me in threads past for mine, I think it only fair to note. Extremist rhetoric like the title to this thread further cements ideological divisions between people in this country. Do you really think you will convince a republican of your argument by telling at same person that they are supporting the devil? What I quoted isn't a great example of the sort of rhetoric some users are using to describe republican actions, I admit. But there are ample examples in this thread of demonization of republican leaders. Really, can't you even try to give someone who you disagree with ideologically the benefit of the doubt? What would this thread otherwise look like if some users here would cool off the "REPUBLICANS ARE EVIL" shtick they have going on?

If you attack someone, you are likely to exacerbate divisions. If you attempt to engage them in dialogue, you might be more likely to get some open exchange of ideas going. This thread is not a great victory for idea exploration.

Oh, Poe, you silly goose. Better choose a more obscure reference next time, like "Dupin".

This thread is not a great victory for idea exploration.

Especially since you stood up two straw men as your evidence of problems with Dimmer's position, instead of *asking* him what *he* thinks.

All of the evidence suggests that there's no benefit in requiring photo ID. So why do it? Why is it so goddamned important?

Because, ultimately, I think bandit believes that more public good will occur from preventing poor people from voting. There is no visible fraud in the system at all, so there's no reason to even worry about all this sh*t, unless the real goal is to keep poor people away from the ballot box.

He's already said he approves of that outcome, so arguments that he makes that it's otherwise okay are just window dressing over the true motivation.

bandit0013 wrote:
PiP wrote:

But, why? What would the purpose be?

Of a national id card?

Central database of useful information accessible to service providers and law enforcement. These could include but not be limited to:

- Current Residency and valid voting polling station

- Driving record, eligibility (some states agencies communicate well, others don't)

- Criminal record, government watch list, etc. (2 of the 9/11 hijackers were on the watch list and passed through security without it being flagged)

- Electronic medical records, which is the next big cost savings in our medical field. Better care and having any doctor/facility you see be able to quickly access your medical history. (If you were allergic to penicillin and showed up unconscious in the ER, wouldn't you like them to be able to swipe your id and know that?)

- Eligibility for social services, social security, welfare, medicare, etc. Replace ALL of those other forms of id, including driver's license. Less for people to keep track of, less bureaucratic processes.

- Having all of the above linked centrally would greatly ease data mining for fraud, especially in medicare/social security. (You see articles every year about dead people still receiving benefits. Coroner marks you dead, database updated, done, book it)

- Makes the full faith and credit part of the constitution much easier to enforce/administer.

The main argument I see leveled against the national id is one of privacy concerns. I'm considering making a new thread on privacy, because I think Americans take it waaaaaaaay too seriously.

Couldn't 95% of this be linked through Social Security numbers?

You're not going to stop terrorists with ID cards. They're not real keen on lining up to have their picture taken.

Sorry to take us down this road, but does constitutionality enter in? With incredibly narrow exceptions, airlines for example, id laws or policies have been struck down. If a police officer cannot demand my license, why a poll worker? Because it runs contrary to the principles of law. You set up a system where the citizen justifies herself to the government, proves she belongs.

Malor wrote:
All of the evidence suggests that there's no benefit in requiring photo ID. So why do it? Why is it so goddamned important?

Because, ultimately, I think bandit believes that more public good will occur from preventing poor people from voting. There is no visible fraud in the system at all, so there's no reason to even worry about all this sh*t, unless the real goal is to keep poor people away from the ballot box.

He's already said he approves of that outcome, so arguments that he makes that it's otherwise okay are just window dressing over the true motivation.

And there is the ad hominem.

Besides all of the benefits having a valid ID brings, there is an acknowledged problem, particularly with poor minorities of lack of integration with society. Why are you motivated to continue to allow them to live outside the norms of the system and be denied the opportunities that require ID as listed?

Maybe instead of dismissing the value of IDs on the ground that "bandit hates poor people" you could explain why it is bad for them to have IDs like the other 95% of the adult population in Wisconsin?