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

mudbunny wrote:

How many of those cases of voter fraud would have been prevented by stricter ID laws??

None. Seeing as how the ones where they were impersonating someone else were all done by absentee and the rest they were simply voting as themselves twice.

Yeah, nobody would deny that voter fraud does exist in various forms, it's just that it's (A) generally a statistically insignificant amount and, more importantly, (B) voter ID laws would do absolutely nothing to prevent those forms of fraud from happening. Voter ID isn't a magic wand that takes away fraud, it takes away in-person, impersonation fraud. Which, frankly, would be an incredibly stupid way to try to rig an election.

Re: that Fresh Air podcast, I tried to listen to it last week but couldn't finish. The ignorance was appalling.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
Yeah, nobody would deny that voter fraud does exist in various forms, it's just that it's (A) generally a statistically insignificant amount and, more importantly, (B) voter ID laws would do absolutely nothing to prevent those forms of fraud from happening. Voter ID isn't a magic wand that takes away fraud, it takes away in-person, impersonation fraud. Which, frankly, would be an incredibly stupid way to try to rig an election.

I dont remember where i saw this (since i cant find the link again it may have been on tv) but it was around .004% of all submitted votes were fraudilent.

The number comes from a 2004 Ohio election cycle, and it's actually 0.000004%. With a population of about 11 million at the time, and maybe 5.5M voters, that would be, um, 88 votes across the state. There were of course serious accusations that some of the voting systems were rigged, and some people went to jail for interfering with recounts. But voter id laws would do nothing about that sort of wholesale theft of elections - and we won't ever know, because the pre-adjustment vote totals were deemed proprietary information by Diebold and never released.

SixteenBlue wrote:
mudbunny wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Woo! Disenfranchising large numbers of voters so you can prevent 2-10 extra votes from being cast! YAY!

I am not familiar with how Absentee ballots work, having never done one, so I don't know if stricter voter ID laws would have done anything in those cases. Nor am I aware of the procedures for cross checking those that voted early to make sure that they do not vote on election day.

Personally, it looks to me like stricter voter ID laws wouldn't have done anything in the above cases.

I'm not convinced either but for the sake of discussion I wanted to point out that we're talking 2 of those 3 articles had a total of 2-10 extra votes being cast. So even if it would solve the problem it creates a bigger problem.

When there's actual evidence that proponents of these schemes do it to suppress legitimate votes I'm shocked anyone still defends the idea.


many gun control laws were put in place to keep blacks from owning guns, lest they get any ideas about having rights and being able to defend them... Just because someone backs something for a poor reason, doesn't mean the policy itself is bad.

I'd be in favor of some other form of making sure that people aren't voting more than once. But at the same time I'd prefer everyone get IDs so that the government can better track their lives.

Good policy addresses a known problem and seeks to remedy it. Unfortunately, it seems in many states (Ohio and Pennsylvania in particular), the problem they're attempting to address isn't voter fraud; it's people voting Democrat.

I'd be in favor of some other form of making sure that people aren't voting more than once. But at the same time I'd prefer everyone get IDs so that the government can better track their lives.

I thought conservatives were all about keeping government off our backs?

rosenhane wrote:
I'd be in favor of some other form of making sure that people aren't voting more than once. But at the same time I'd prefer everyone get IDs so that the government can better track their lives.

Wait...what??

You want the government to be more easily able to track people? For what purpose?

I can understand wanting voter ID laws in order to more easily ID people. It is a solution without a problem, but hey, that is what a fairly significant portion of government programs are aimed at. However, there is a right way to implement voter ID laws, and there are bad ways of going about doing it.

However, there is a right way to implement voter ID laws,

I'm not sure there is. Voting is a right. A government-issued ID is a privilege. You can't make a right contingent on granting a privilege, or it's not a right anymore.

Malor wrote:
However, there is a right way to implement voter ID laws,

I'm not sure there is. Voting is a right. A government-issued ID is a privilege. You can't make a right contingent on granting a privilege, or it's not a right anymore.

Wayyy, wayyy upthread, I linked to Canada's voting ID requirements. A significant number of the ways that can be used to ID yourself can be obtained for free or are things (utility bills, lease, for example) which the person will more than likely have as a matter of course.

There are 3 different ways:

1 - Show one original piece of identification with your photo, name and address. It must be issued by a government agency.
Driver's Licence
Ontario Health Card

Note: Not all electors in Ontario will have cards with photo, name and address

Provincial/Territorial Identification Card for the provinces/territories of

Newfoundland and Labrador
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Manitoba
Alberta
British Columbia
Northwest Territories
Nunavut

2 - Show two original pieces of authorized identification. Both pieces must have your name and one must also have your address.

Identity Cards

Driver's Licence
Health Card
Canadian Passport
Certificate of Canadian Citizenship (Citizenship Card)
Birth Certificate
Certificate of Indian Status (Status Card)
Social Insurance Number Card
Old Age Security Card
Student ID Card
Provincial/Territorial Identification Card
Liquor Identification Card
Hospital/Medical Clinic Card
Credit/Debit Card
Employee Card
Public Transportation Card
Library Card
Canadian Forces Identity Card
Veterans Affairs Canada Health Card
Canadian Blood Services/Héma-Québec Card
CNIB ID Card
Firearm Possession and Acquisition Licence or Possession Only Licence
Fishing, Trapping or Hunting Licence
Outdoors or Wildlife Card/Licence
Hospital bracelet worn by residents of long-term care facilities
Parolee Identification Card

Original documents
(with name and address)

Utility Bill (telephone, TV, public utilities commission, hydro, gas or water)
Bank/Credit Card Statement
Vehicle Ownership/Insurance
Correspondence issued by a school, college or university
Statement of Government Benefits (employment insurance, old age security, social assistance, disability support or child tax benefit)
Attestation of Residence issued by the responsible authority of a First Nations band or reserve
Government Cheque or Cheque Stub
Pension Plan Statement of Benefits, Contributions or Participation
Residential Lease/Mortgage Statement
Income/Property Tax Assessment Notice
Insurance Policy
Letter from a public curator, public guardian or public trustee
One of the following, issued by the responsible authority of a shelter, soup kitchen, student/senior residence, or long-term care facility: Attestation of Residence, Letter of Stay, Admission Form or Statement of Benefits

3 -

Take an oath and have an elector who knows you vouch for you (both of you will be required to make a sworn statement). This person must have authorized identification and their name must appear on the list of electors in the same polling division as you. This person can only vouch for one person and the person who is vouched for cannot vouch for another elector.

Examples: a neighbour, your roommate.

Yeah, those are probably reasonable qualifications; I think nearly anyone could meet those, without incurring additional expense. And many of those documents come completely from the private sector, so the right/privilege thing is avoided.

Meanwhile, Jim Cramer's dad can't vote:

“My dad, a vet, won’t be allowed to vote in Pa. because he does not drive, he is elderly, and can’t prove his citizenship,” Cramer wrote on Twitter.

So then Pennylvania officials jumped in and made it all better -- but somehow, I don't think that would have happened if Cramer wasn't white and famous.

Oh, didn't he know? Real Americans carry photo ID.

*shudder* Submit to authority, citizen.

More info on the PA law:

By the way, the ruling by the Commonwealth Court Judge who upheld the voter suppression law recently, may be even more absurd than originally believed or as detailed by The BRAD BLOG's legal analyst Ernie Canning upon appeal. As Nicole Flatow explains, the law that Judge Simpson relied on to support his ruling was an 1869 case, Patterson v. Barlow, in which the majority warned of "rogues", "strumpets" and "wandering Arabs" who, it was feared, might commit voter fraud in Philadelphia that year.

Even back then, as the dissenting opinion in the 143-year old case reveals, the minority Justices were concerned "that among the barriers so ingeniously contrived to prevent [voter fraud], the defeat of the duly qualified voters must inevitably occur."

Yes, you read that correctly. The supporting case law was to fight rogues, strumpets, and wandering Arabs.

Good news! Florida's push to purge nefarious illegals from sneaking their way into voting has yielded results! One result, actually. A Canadian. He claimed to be a citizen so he could vote twice--half the number of times he claimed to be a citizen so he could buy a gun.

PRI has more.

Heh, I bet the people most surprised by that are the Republicans that passed the law in the first place. "You mean, there actually WAS someone voting illegally? Damn."

Can we get to the other part? Now I am all for the importance of the democratic process and all that. Dude was able to fraudulently buy guns.

Is it just me? Or if someone can fake their way into buying guns, doesn't the voting take a back seat?

Eh, big deal, he didn't use them. He did vote.

Having guns is never the problem. It's using guns that's sometimes the problem.

Digression, but I've very unsurprised to see such a flippant reaction.

What, I'm supposed to get my panties in a bunch that he bought a gun that never, apparently, hurt anyone?

What you are supposed to do with your panties is between you and they, and certainly, faced with yet another example of the gun industry being unable to regulate itself, I fully expected someone to play the minimize card (or the umbrage card). Carry on.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
What you are supposed to do with your panties is between you and they, and certainly, faced with yet another example of the gun industry being unable to regulate itself, I fully expected someone to play the minimize card (or the umbrage card). Carry on.

They seem to be about on par with the state elections board.

Kraint wrote:
They seem to be about on par with the state elections board.

I dunno, at least in this case, their investigation only turned up one fraudulent voter. Think the gun industry would be so lucky? They had twice as many chances, after all.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Kraint wrote:
They seem to be about on par with the state elections board.

I dunno, at least in this case, their investigation only turned up one fraudulent voter. Think the gun industry would be so lucky? They had twice as many chances, after all.

Far from it. However, 1) I don't think criticizing them for failing on this guy is fair since he seems to have a talent for altering his identity, and 2) this isn't the thread for it.

I definitely agree with #2, I just couldn't let it slide uncommented upon because I'm weak.

Ah, yes, the dreaded 'minimize card', where a poster points out that no harm was actually done.

Such lunacy should never be allowed in arguments.

Wrong thread for my needling and your point missing, Malor. It's been kindly asked we desist.

For this thread, the take away from the PRI story ought be: at great expense, Florida's campaign against fraudulent illegal immigrant voters netted a solitary result, a lone operator who, ironically, is likely the exact opposite of who the campaign's sponsors thought they'd net. Really highlights the raw absurdity for a change, without mingling it with the rage of voter suppression.

Well, to circle back around. How do the new photo ID laws fight this, which is already illegal? IE if your poll place cannot recognize a fake ID anymore than any other store, what does the law do?

At the risk of re-railing the thread, Wisconsin's Government Accountability Board (who oversees elections in our state) has asked the State Supreme Court to not rule on the Attorney General's appeal until after the November elections.

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel[/url]]The state's chief elections official said Wednesday that he does not want the Wisconsin Supreme Court to rule before the Nov. 6 presidential election on two cases that have blocked the state's voter ID law.

If the high court were to reinstate the law in the next eight weeks, people who do not have appropriate IDs may have to scramble to get them, said Kevin Kennedy, director of the state Government Accountability Board. Additionally, his agency would have to rush to train clerks and poll workers on what IDs could be used for voting.

"There's not enough time," Kennedy said.

Two Dane County judges blocked the voter ID law this year in cases against Gov. Scott Walker and Kennedy's board, which runs state elections. Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen in August asked the Supreme Court to take the cases and quickly rule on them so the law can be in place for this fall's election.

The court has not yet said what it will do, though in April it declined to take them when Van Hollen made an earlier request.

Van Hollen must represent clients with two different viewpoints - Walker wants the case taken up soon, while the accountability board wants the matter decided after the election. Kennedy said he informed Van Hollen's Department of Justice of his concerns, adding he recognized the attorney general's authority to decide how to handle the case.

"We said, 'This is going to create problems,' and they said, 'Well, we want this resolved quickly,' " Kennedy said.

Walker and Van Hollen are Republicans. The accountability board is nonpartisan and consists of six retired judges. Kennedy said the board has no position on whether the state should require IDs for voting, but that for administrative reasons, it does not want major changes to election laws just before people go to the polls.

Has this been posted yet?