Support NeoGAF

[Clevinger]

However, just one more notch in the "we need to demand IDs to vote" argument.

No, at best it means nothing. The question hasn't been "Is voter fraud possible?" It's been "Is voter fraud prominent enough that we need to enact new laws?" and "Is it prominent enough that it's worth disenfranchising actual voters?"

There hasn't been a good answer. The Republicans' last big stunt to try and prove its prominence turned out to be bullshit.

On a side note, it's always hilarious to see conservatives hate big government unless it hurts the poor, minorities, foreigners, or gay people.

 

[thatbox]

Why does it have to be MASS voter fraud? What is your threshold?

The threshold is when the cure is worse than the disease.

 

[Enron]

I'm sorry, but did you even bother reading the post I was replying to before quoting me? If you're not responding to me, why quote me? I don't think it's a leap to think you're replying to me when you reply to my post with nothing but "Nice leap". I'll make the rest easy for you:



For more context on the discussion that you didn't bother to read:

I read all of that. And you manufactured that nonsensical point by making an enormous leap.

Can you just call me a racist and be done with it? That way we can both just move on.

 

[nyong]

I'm fine with requiring an ID to vote, but it needs to be completely free to obtain. I can't believe how many (expensive) hoops someone has to jump through just to get a driver's license if they're from out of state.

But yeah, there is probably boatloads of fraud going on from groups/individuals on both sides of the political spectrum. This dude was undoubtedly showing how easy it is after that recent media story about how they couldn't find a single instance of voter fraud...no shit, if they don't gather a single piece of traceable information.

 

[Wthermans]

Hypothetical question: If a National ID gets implemented (with no cost to the holders---aside through taxes & driving/CCW endorsements would still carry a cost), would it be acceptable to require ID when voting? Seems like that would be a great way for Republicans and Democrats to compromise and kill two birds with one stone.

 

[nyong]

The Republicans' last big stunt to try and prove its prominence turned out to be bullshit.

Checking out six names is hardly conclusive proof of anything.

 

[Clevinger]

Hypothetical question: If a National ID gets implemented (with no cost to the holders---aside through taxes & driving/CCW endorsements would still carry a cost), would it be acceptable to require ID when voting? Seems like that would be a great way for Republicans and Democrats to compromise and kill two birds with one stone.

It's a moot point because Republicans (mainly the ones with power behind this movement, not necessarily their well-meaning voters) don't actually care about that. Like in Wisconsin how the governor said, "Hey, our IDs are free. So we're totally not trying to disenfranchise voters." Then shortly after the ID law passed another law passed that started to charge for IDs.

 

[Clevinger]

Checking out six names is hardly conclusive proof of anything.

The AG claimed that close to 1000 were suspected of voter fraud. Then he only gave 6 names, of which none were actual fraud. I'm guessing it was more about generating the headlines of "1000 dead people vote, SC Attorney General says." Because barely anyone will follow up with the correction and even less will give a shit.

 

[Enron]

But yeah, there is probably boatloads of fraud going on from groups/individuals on both sides of the political spectrum. This dude was undoubtedly showing how easy it is after that recent media story about how they couldn't find a single instance of voter fraud...no shit, if they don't gather a single piece of traceable information.

boatloads of fraud? I very seriously doubt that. Nobody can prove that any large-scale fraud is going on, even though said fraud is ridiculously easy to do. It's a waste of time.

 

[Wthermans]

It's a moot point because Republicans (mainly the ones with power behind this movement, not necessarily their well-meaning voters) don't actually care about that. Like in Wisconsin how the governor said, "Hey, our IDs are free. So we're totally not trying to disenfranchise voters." Then shortly after the ID law passed another law passed that started to charge for IDs.

You're bringing a straw man into the equation. For your sake, what if Congress supplements the cost of the IDs to the states (through National Highway Funds, etc) or requires a no-fee policy in the legislation?

Actually, here's a better question. What would it take for you to support IDs being required to vote (since legislation doesn't seem sufficient). A constitutional amendment? If so, would an amendment to a state's constitution be enough or would it have to be federal?

 

[coldfoot]

Actually, here's a better question. What would it take for you to support IDs being required to vote (since legislation doesn't seem sufficient). A constitutional amendment?

1. True separation of church and state, starting with the removal of "In god we trust" from our currency.
2. Equal rights for gays and other groups in similar situations.
3. National healthcare
4. Reversal of the 2010 supreme court decision, a corporation is not a person.
5. Fair taxes for everyone, all income treated the same.
6. Complete marginalization of the republican party.

Then I would be ok with it.

 

[Clevinger]

You're bringing a straw man into the equation. For your sake, what if Congress supplements the cost of the IDs to the states (through National Highway Funds, etc) or requires a no-fee policy in the legislation?

Actually, here's a better question. What would it take for you to support IDs being required to vote (since legislation doesn't seem sufficient). A constitutional amendment?

I'm saying of course Democrats would support the things you mentioned (if there was a free national ID, if there was public transportation to the DMV etc.), but it's not going to happen in the real world so I'm not sure what's the point in discussing it. "What if the anti-voter fraud movement was acting in good faith and we could come up with a reasonable, non-disenfranchising solution like adults?"

 

[Wthermans]

1. True separation of church and state, starting with the removal of "In god we trust" from our currency.
2. Equal rights for gays and other groups in similar situations.
3. National healthcare
4. Reversal of the 2010 supreme court decision, a corporation is not a person.
5. Fair taxes for everyone, all income treated the same.
6. Complete marginalization of the republican party.

Then I would be ok with it.

So you feel that legislation shouldn't be enacted until entirely unrelated matters are corrected? That's rather short-sighted and seems like it would lead to an even more deadlocked legislative system than we are currently enduring.

I'm saying of course Democrats would support the things you mentioned (if there was a free national ID, if there was public transportation to the DMV etc.), but it's not going to happen in the real world so I'm not sure what's the point in discussing it.

Free national ID is something that could easily be enacted. Public transportation is another strawman given the fact that you aren't offered free transportation to vote to begin with. I think it's a fair discussion for two separate issues that have similar facets and could easily be resolved with a single piece of legislation. It's only "not worth discussing" if you make it that way.

It's not that I'm opposed to voter ID laws specifically. It is more that looking at every single attempt to inact them so far looks closer to Jim Crow laws than any sincere attempt to properly implement a system.

So what would it take for you to support IDs being required to vote (which was my original question)?

 

[Blergmeister]

You're bringing a straw man into the equation. For your sake, what if Congress supplements the cost of the IDs to the states (through National Highway Funds, etc) or requires a no-fee policy in the legislation?

It's not that I'm opposed to voter ID laws specifically. It is more that looking at every single attempt to inact them so far looks closer to Jim Crow laws than any sincere attempt to properly implement a system.

 

[coldfoot]

Free national ID is something that could easily be enacted. Public transportation is another strawman given the fact that you aren't offered free transportation to vote to begin with. I think it's a fair discussion for two separate issues that have similar facets and could easily be resolved with a single piece of legislation. It's only "not worth discussing" if you make it that way.

There are far more places you can go to vote compared to DMV offices, and voting hours are a lot more generous than DMV hours. Implementing the same amount of coverage to get an ID as to vote would be prohibitively expensive.

 

[Clevinger]

Free national ID is something that could easily be enacted.

I don't think so. In our current political climate we can't even pass centrist (in reality right-leaning) budgets because of Republican obstructionism. We're not going to be passing something like this unless Democrats get another supermajority, and even then their conservative members will have to not object.

Anyways, I don't think we disagree if you're for this as well. We only disagree on its feasibility.

 

[Wthermans]

There are far more places you can go to vote compared to DMV offices, and voting hours are a lot more generous than DMV hours. Implementing the same amount of coverage to get an ID as to vote would be prohibitively expensive.

So you don't agree with the fact you are required to go to the DMV to obtain ID. I agree with you. It's a PITA to get an ID from the DMV, perhaps we should look to ease ID access restrictions. What if you could go to your county clerk to obtain a basic ID (not with vehicular/CCW endorsements of course)? Would you support Voter ID if that was the case?

 

[morningbus]

Voter turnout in the US is abysmal. Especially in off-years. While you are taking a gamble that the person you're impersonating doesn't show up to vote, it's extremely easy to sway the odds in your favor given the low turnout and the fact that you can easily get an individual's information who is incapacitated (take a stroll down a nursing home hallway while pretending to visit someone then Google the name displayed on the doorway of each of the rooms). You don't have to coordinate on a large scale when there are plenty of people to impersonate who don't have the capability nor will to vote.

Hell, I could impersonate all my friends (who feel it's a waste of time to to vote) quite easily if I didn't live in Tennessee (where IDs are required to vote).

I'll try to make my point as succinct as possible: there is no way a single person could affect the outcome of an election beyond the margin of error. There would need to be a group of people doing it. The idea that you could get a group of people large enough to actually affect the outcome of an election to all agree to commit a federal crime without a single person messing up is absolutely crazy.

The idea that you are capable of doing something is completely different from actually being able to do it.

 

[coldfoot]

So you don't agree with the fact you are required to go to the DMV to obtain ID. I agree with you. It's a PITA to get an ID from the DMV, perhaps we should look to ease ID access restrictions. What if you could go to your county clerk to obtain a basic ID (not with vehicular/CCW endorsements of course)? Would you support Voter ID if that was the case?

Again, only one place for county clerk which could be miles away, and limited hours, compared to locations where you can vote and the hours. It's impossible to have hundreds of offices to get an ID and keep them open for longer hours.

 

[Wthermans]

I don't think so. In our current political climate we can't even pass centrist (in reality right-leaning) budgets because of Republican obstructionism. We're not going to be passing something like this unless Democrats get another supermajority, and even then their conservative members will have to not object.

Anyways, I don't think we disagree if you're for this as well. We only disagree on its feasibility.

Just gotta lump the bills together (much like every other piece of legislation that gets passed).

I agree the current political climate makes compromise difficult, but I believe that if we, as citizens of this country and constituents of our representatives, work together to form compromise and push said compromise on our elected officials, we can craft legislation that eases the concerns of all parties involved.

I'll try to make my point as succinct as possible: there is no way a single person could affect the outcome of an election beyond the margin of error. There would need to be a group of people doing it. The idea that you could get a group of people large enough to actually affect the outcome of an election to all agree to commit a federal crime without a single person messing up is absolutely crazy.

The idea that you are capable of doing something is completely different from actually being able to do it.

Given the close races I've seen in the past decade for local issues and referendums, and the way voting is handled (I've actually volunteered many times for the local election commission), all I can say is I disagree. It would not be difficult to get a group of <10 people together to impact local elections in the area of the country I reside.

Again, only one place for county clerk which could be miles away, and limited hours, compared to locations where you can vote and the hours. It's impossible to have hundreds of offices to get an ID and keep them open for longer hours.

We've got at least 4 locations for county clerk throughout the county (and this is a rather rural county). We've got 2 DMVs within 10 miles (to be fair, one is in another county).

 

[Blergmeister]

There are far more places you can go to vote compared to DMV offices, and voting hours are a lot more generous than DMV hours. Implementing the same amount of coverage to get an ID as to vote would be prohibitively expensive.

I think my biggest sticking point with the laws I'm familiar with is peoples access to getting them. It needs to be more than just free. Maybe them being mailed to people? I'm not sure. I'd also like to see them implemented over the course of a few years, rather than just using a primary as a test run. In general I'd feel more comforatable if the National ID thing was already in place and well established before flipping the switch on the voting requirement.

 

[DarthWoo]

You know the best part of all this? According to yet another study, this one done by an explicitly conservative organization (Republican National Lawyers Association) pretty much showed that of the very little voter fraud that has taken place, most of it would never have even been prevented at all by any level of voter ID bill. These were things like vote buying, incorrectly completed registrations, etc. Additionally, the states with voter ID bills in place saw no corresponding decrease in the incidence of fraud. Given that the costs in potential and actual disenfranchisement far outweigh the benefits in prevention of some phantom voter fraud conspiracy, and that every bit of evidence that the supposedly well-informed GOP leaders who actually make these laws should be privy to and able to comprehend, there is only a limited range of probable explanations for why they want to enact these laws, and practically none of them are particularly benevolent.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Having this very discussion with Withermans defeats the point.

You're letting him off the hook by not daring him to point out a less racially restrictive way to combat the "problem" at hand.

 

[morningbus]

Given the close races I've seen in the past decade for local issues and referendums, and the way voting is handled (I've actually volunteered many times for the local election commission), all I can say is I disagree. It would not be difficult to get a group of <10 people together to impact local elections in the area of the country I reside.

How many polling stations do you have? How many times would those same 10 people have to go into the same polling station and vote? All 10 of those people can keep their mouth shut? Not a single one of those people could possibly be caught?

If this stuff were so easy it would be happening at a grand scale already.

 

[Menelaus]

Require US Post Offices to issue IDs like they do passports.

NEXT.

 

[morningbus]

Require US Post Offices to issue IDs like they do passports.

NEXT.

Republicans want to close the post office.

NEXT PLAYER.

 

[Dorrin]

We should be more concerned with the closed system electronic voting systems that are being used more and more frequently across the country.

 

[Wthermans]

I think my biggest sticking point with the laws I'm familiar with is peoples access to getting them. It needs to be more than just free. Maybe them being mailed to people? I'm not sure. I'd also like to see them implemented over the course of a few years, rather than just using a primary as a test run. In general I'd feel more comforatable if the National ID thing was already in place and well established before flipping the switch on the voting requirement.

I completely agree. I feel that Voter ID laws are useless until national ID is implemented or IDs are supplemented through federal funds.

 

[sangreal]

It's not just a matter of making the IDs free, you need to look at all the supporting documents required.

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/28/146006217/why-new-photo-id-laws-mean-some-wont-vote

Ruthelle Frank, Brokaw, Wis.

Like Hessing and Mitchell, Frank, 84, was denied in her application for a new voter ID because she lacked a birth certificate. She was born in Wisconsin, has lived in the same home for 83 years and never had need of the document.

"After I was married, we made several trips into Canada. I used my baptismal certificate to cross all the time," Frank said. "That's all I ever needed."

She called her county's registrar of deeds, to no avail. The state's vital records office managed to find her birth certificate, but there were other problems &#8212; both her parents' names were misspelled, rendering the document invalid.

"In order to get it corrected, I'd have to amend it. And it would cost $200," Frank said. "I decided I didn't want to spend $200 for the right to vote because I've always thought the right to vote was free. I don't think it's fair."

Require US Post Offices to issue IDs like they do passports.

NEXT.

Post offices do not issue passports. You can apply for a passport at a post office (and sometimes have your picture taken). If you want to be issued a passport in person you need to go to a regional passport agency

 

[Menelaus]

Post offices do not issue passports. You can apply for a passport at a post office (and sometimes have your picture taken).

Semantics, good enough. If you can get a welfare check in the mail, you can get your ID in the mail.

 

[Wthermans]

Having this very discussion with Withermans defeats the point.

You're letting him off the hook by not daring him to point out a less racially restrictive way to combat the "problem" at hand.

I'm not a smart person. I've never claimed to be. I don't claim to have the answers to this issues (nor any other). I'm simply voicing my opinion and what I see from my life experiences. I don't view this as a racial problem though. I do find it offensive you feel it is though.

How many polling stations do you have? How many times would those same 10 people have to go into the same polling station and vote? All 10 of those people can keep their mouth shut? Not a single one of those people could possibly be caught?

If this stuff were so easy it would be happening at a grand scale already.

Off the top of my head we have 20 polling stations in the county. Many stations are in overlapping districts. It is not difficult to have 10 people keep their mouth shut about an act that could land them in federal prison.

We should be more concerned with the closed system electronic voting systems that are being used more and more frequently across the country.

Agreed.

 

[DarthWoo]

I'm not a smart person. I've never claimed to be. I don't claim to have the answers to this issues (nor any other). I'm simply voicing my opinion and what I see from my life experiences. I don't view this as a racial problem though. I do find it offensive you feel it is though.

As I mentioned before from the NYT article, one of the unreleased studies from the investigation of voter fraud showed that laws such as voter ID laws do in fact reduce turnout, but particularly more amongst minorities.

 

[Wthermans]

It's not just a matter of making the IDs free, you need to look at all the supporting documents required.

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/28/146006217/why-new-photo-id-laws-mean-some-wont-vote






Post offices do not issue passports. You can apply for a passport at a post office (and sometimes have your picture taken). If you want to be issued a passport in person you need to go to a regional passport agency

I had to do the same thing to get my learners permit at 15. Hospital listed me as my father instead of myself (put my suffix as III instead of IV). Had to pay $100 to get it corrected. I do agree those fees should be waived by the state/feds though.

 

[Wthermans]

As I mentioned before from the NYT article, one of the unreleased studies from the investigation of voter fraud showed that laws such as voter ID laws do in fact reduce turnout, but particularly more amongst minorities.

What was the foundation of the study? What actually causes the reduced turnout from simply requiring an ID?

 

[Dude Abides]

Checking out six names is hardly conclusive proof of anything.

This is ironic, considering the pro-ID crowd offers nothing but speculation and conjecture (and rants about welfare).

 

[Blergmeister]

Require US Post Offices to issue IDs like they do passports.

NEXT.

I can think of a dozen different ways to issue the IDs. That is not the problem we are discussing.

 

[Wthermans]

I can think of a dozen different ways to issue the IDs. That is not the problem we are discussing.

It seems to be though. Some in this thread have expressed dissatisfaction with the requirements to obtain an ID (whether it be monetary, distance, whatever). Let's ease the method of obtaining an ID if it is such a problem for so many people.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Why does it have to be "mass" voter fraud to be a problem? Are state and national elections the only type that should be protected against voter fraud? Local elections impact an individual's life far more often and are at a much higher risk for voter fraud. There have been a handful of elections/referendums in E. Tennessee that have been decided by <100 votes.

There isn't any evidence of significant fraud at all. It's like treating a cold with chemotherapy. Whether or not its facially neutral, the reality is that it will have a far greater effect on minority voting than non-minorities.

Moreover, the underlying argument lacks logic: the level of voting fraud necessary to rig an election couldn't be feasibly performed.

 

[Wthermans]

There isn't any evidence of significant fraud at all. It's like treating a cold with chemotherapy. Whether or not its facially neutral, the reality is that it will have a far greater effect on minority voting than non-minorities.

Moreover, the underlying argument lacks logic: the level of voting fraud necessary to rig an election couldn't be feasibly performed.

Given my experiences with local races, I disagree. Also, why does this affect minorities more than non-minorities? That's the real question.

 

[DarthWoo]

What was the foundation of the study? What actually causes the reduced turnout from simply requiring an ID?

Like I also said, the panel buried the details of the report. It's not hard to imagine though. Certain minorities tend toward lower socioeconomic brackets, wherein the acquisition of a form of ID may not be as necessary or easy. Believe it or not, there are people who will never drive a car in their life, will never go to anything past secondary education, will never own a home, or do anything that necessarily requires an ID. As someone mentioned on the previous page, the homeless would be a good example.

Nevermind that as someone just said, the ID isn't even the main issue. These bills don't even work, as most of the very small amount of actual voter fraud could not have been prevented with these laws.

 

[Wthermans]

Like I also said, the panel buried the details of the report. It's not hard to imagine though. Certain minorities tend toward lower socioeconomic brackets, wherein the acquisition of a form of ID may not be as necessary or easy. Believe it or not, there are people who will never drive a car in their life, will never go to anything past secondary education, will never own a home, or do anything that necessarily requires an ID. As someone mentioned on the previous page, the homeless would be a good example.

Nevermind that as someone just said, the ID isn't even the main issue. These bills don't even work, as most of the very small amount of actual voter fraud could not have been prevented with these laws.

Honestly, I can't garner much from a study that doesn't publish the methods of it's findings. Seems like a junk study IMO. Also, bringing up the homeless is an interesting point, many local commissions won't even allow you to register to vote without a valid address (usually verified through ID or utility bills). How would the homeless even be able to vote? If they're using their last known address, do you feel it's acceptable for the homeless to vote in a district they no longer reside?

 

[Angry Grimace]

Given my experiences with local races, I disagree. Also, why does this affect minorities more than non-minorities? That's the real question.

Because independent research shows that voter identification laws are substantially more likely to affect minorities and urban voters. These voters are less likely to drive, less likely to maintain current valid identification, and less likely to have the money required to go through the process of obtaining a photo identification. In South Carolina alone, 178,000 eligible voters lack photo identification, and must pay for a passport or birth certificate to justify their identity.

Moreover, your entire argument is just theoretical and it's patently illogical to insist that all of the studies being cited to support the counter argument were conducted with flawed methodology when your entire argument is based around personal anectdotal evidence. What you're talking about is Draconian.

 

[adamsappel]

Could the IDs be issued at the polling places? I'm for same-day registration, why not have the ID issued at the same time?

 

[Dram]

That would help Democrats.

 

[DarthWoo]

Could the IDs be issued at the polling places? I'm for same-day registration, why not have the ID issued at the same time?

It would be rather self-defeating if there was actually any use for a voter ID law. In order to avoid the obvious flaw of the law being a de facto poll tax, you'd have to minimize or eliminate any monetary cost associated with acquiring the ID. For an ID, you typically need things like your birth certificate or other documents which generally have some costs associated with them. I have the feeling that the agencies that collect those fees won't be too happy to part with them. If you require fewer forms of documentation, then the integrity of the process becomes questionable. Additionally, if we implement such a process at the polling place, then there is an issue of logistics. Urban polling places can be busy and inefficient as it is, and adding another level of bureaucracy will just slow things down more, possibly discouraging people who may not have as much free time to stand in line at the polls as they'd like.

And again, all this disregards the fact that voter ID laws do not work.

 

[Angry Grimace]

It's pretty telling that it's always just a theoretical problem and there's no actual evidence of electoral fraud occurring on any significant level. It's saying that a problem "could" occur, so let's implement a solution that's likely to throw out the baby with the bathwater. However, it's fairly apparent the actual goal IS throwing the baby out.

 

[coldfoot]

A good rule to remember is that any initiative started out by conservatives/republicans is just a step towards social darwinism, and should be opposed as fiercely as possible.

 

[malingenie]

Anyone opposed to simple voter ID laws falls into the "Thy doth protest too much!" category. There is nobody who votes who does not have some sort of ID - and for those that might have lost it, there is always an attestation you can sign at the polling place that will let you vote without an ID in places where they require it. And yes, there should be no fee for a State issued ID - and I believe all States will give you a free ID if requested.

You need an ID for all of the following:

Driver's license
Buy alcohol
Buy cigarettes
Apply for welfare
Apply for food stamps
Cash a check
Purchase a firearm
Make any large credit card purchase
Open a bank account
Rent an apartment
Get a marriage license​

Who is voting that has not done one of the above?

Wrong on most counts. I know someone with no state id who regularly buys cigarettes, and just moved in to a new apartment. He is poor as hell and a state I issued id card is low in his priorities.

 

[mltplkxr]

You don't need to prove your identity to vote in the US? Wow. Mind blown!

On one hand, it makes sense to put the barrier to vote as low as possible to increase turn out. On the other hand, I can't understand how the vote can be reliable if the identity of each voter wasn't verified.

To vote in Canada, you need a valid photo id (driver's licence, national health card) and a valid proof of residence (electricity bill, phone bill, cable bill). There is no state issued id. There would be an outrage if this was not required. I wonder what the rules are in other countries...

 

[Sirpopopop]

I'm not a smart person. I've never claimed to be. I don't claim to have the answers to this issues (nor any other). I'm simply voicing my opinion and what I see from my life experiences. I don't view this as a racial problem though. I do find it offensive you feel it is though.

Have you even heard about the Voting Rights Act?

I'm offended that you would even make a limited appeal to authority without even dealing with the VRA.

I expect an apology from you with regard to the comment in bold.