I used to live in a country that required all voters to produce photo ID in order to vote in presidential elections - no exceptions. And yet, turnout for such elections was typically around 80% or higher. (Getting a photo ID is no harder or easier in that country than in the USA, I’d say.)
The United States doesn’t require voter ID in all 50 states (I don’t think so, right?), and yet voter turnout rarely surpasses 60%.
Why?
Could it be that truly motivated voters who want to vote, will vote, photo ID requirements or not?
Could it be that the difference lies in American voter apathy?
In some other countries, there’s a strong sense that showing up and voting in a civic duty. There’s little of that attitude in the USA. In England, at least, even if you don’t like any of the candidates, you can turn in a “spoiled” ballot to show your displeasure with the choices; in the USA you can’t.
Voter ID laws have nothing to do with turnout. The plain fact is that nearly everyone has some form of ID and anyone who can legally vote can get such an ID. When states have enacted laws requiring voters to have an ID, it hasn’t reduced voter turnout at all. Certain parties have, of course, screeched and howled about voter ID laws being a racist plot to prevent Blacks or some other group from voting, but this is nonsense.
It’s not a matter of the moral character American citizens.
The U.S. system is first-past-the-post: whichever candidate gets the most votes in a district wins the district. This produces a political climate of two broad, inclusive coalition parties with relatively moderate views. This means that if a given voter’s views are similarly moderate, there’s not a lot of pressure on them to go vote.
Other nations use different systems; proportional representation, for instance, carries a strong incentive to always vote, because you have a greater opportunity to get someone you like into office than with first-past-the-post.
IMO, if you think that one of the primary the proposers’ and supporters’ reasons for the recent voter ID laws was not to restrict turn-out (whether it will do so or not), you’re being naive.
Is it just a coincidence that these are coming about at the same time as other laws restricting early voting? Is it just a coincidence they are proposed after a Democratic president was elected and he had an excellent grass-roots organization that was designed to get his supporters to turn out?
Okay then, simple question: in states where voter ID laws have gone into effect, how much has turnout fallen in the 2014 primary elections versus 2010? (2010 being the last year with a congressional but not a presidential election.)
Also, how much should we expect turnout to decrease in those states during the general election in November 2014, versus 2010?
I would like to know more on this subject, mainly because I have really only heard pro- and con- soundbites, both of which seem unconvincing.
For those that are pro-voter ID laws, I’ve heard that it’ll reduce voter fraud. While I can see this being a way to counter an issue of voter fraud, I think that it’s a fairly useless way to attempt it.
A) Is voter fraud an actual problem? Outside of a few high-profile cases with largely underwhelming impact I haven’t seen any talk of proof in the media. Just vague “zomg we are being bamboozled!” stories that they love to write.
B) What are the options in the case where Jane Doe presents a false ID as Rebecca Doe and Rebecca Doe shows up later to vote but is turned away? You would be able to tell that there is vote fraud (Because Rebecca turned up twice) but how would you resolve this issue? I already know that there are fakes that can pass the passive near-UV/purple lights at the TSA lines - what would prevent this at the voter booth? How would you get the fake Rebecca’s ballot back and allow the current (and potentially verified) Rebecca to vote?
For those that are anti-voter ID laws, I’ve heard that it’s racist, but I haven’t seen a method that explains how it’s racist. The closest to “racist” that I’ve seen an explanation for is that some of the inner city populations don’t have IDs. But of those without IDs, what percentage of them regularly vote? Is there any restriction on those that do vote to get an ID? While my knowledge of getting IDs is restricted to five states, I haven’t encountered anything that’s restrictive in getting an ID. Are there states that make people jump through hoops to get IDs, perhaps the old southern states?
IDs may or may not be free, and the supporting documentation (birth and marriage certificates, etc) can be fairly expensive. When you don’t have much money, buying ID probably isn’t a big priority, so needing to buy an ID to vote amounts to a poll tax.
Beyond that, yes, there are frequently hoops to jump through. In my state (Kansas), for example, most counties have exactly one location at which to obtain an ID, and that location may not be open convenient hours. In smaller counties in particular, the office is usually not open in the evening, is never open on weekends, and may be closed over lunch hour and/or on certain weekdays. If you are a registered offender (sex offender, drug offender, etc.), you cannot obtain ID in the limited-service offices and will need to go to a full-service office in a larger county. If you are homebound, have limited mobility, or just have a job during office hours, too bad, so sad.
The people who are most affected by these limitations are the elderly and the poor, particularly the minority poor.
Most Democratic voters are poor and minority, ergo Democrats cause poverty and…minorityism? Well, that broke down mid-stream…
But it’s the same line of reasoning. All laws disproportionately affect the poor. Ethanol-for-fuel? Well, the poor are suffering most from the price increase of making corn more expensive. Sin taxes? More of the poor use the “sin” target, plus they have less money. More pain for the poor. Tax credits to fuel consumer behavior? The poor can’t make the required investment, thus they get no benefit from the subsidy (yes, I consider the lack of an opportunity for an advantage to be “harmful”.)
Since the poor are basically harmed in some way by pretty much every law you can imagine, to say that a law is targeted against them needs more proof than the fact they are poor and this proposal affects them, for me.
Most people, though, have an ID. The rough guesstimate from various sources is 10-15% of people lack a government photo ID. However, the last election had roughly 58.7% of the eligible voters turn out. Are you saying that all 15% of those without IDs also vote regularly? Even though the poor are the least likely to vote (For even some of the same reasons you say they can’t get an ID - e.g. need the time to do so) I’d need some firmer figures than saying that this would then directly affect 8.8% of voters (58.7% of 15%).
While I can’t find data on it, I would also guess that a good majority of the voting poor would have ID already. If you are poor you are more likely to receive welfare, which requires an ID to sign up for.
As for the hoops, I fully understand that side of it. There is an additional burden to people who need to get a copy of their birth certificates. Would passing additional funding to eliminate the cost of birth certificates for some period of time (e.g. five years) for states adopting the Voter ID laws help alleviate this issue in your eyes?
In terms of finding time to go do it, I’m sort of on the fence about that. Yes, if you want to vote needing to go get an ID would definitely be somewhat burdensome. But if you wanted to vote, it’s not like you don’t know the vote is coming for an incredibly long time. When did Hillary start dropping hints about running? October of last year? And the six months leading up to the vote isn’t exactly known for people forgetting it’s coming. The news won’t shut up about it, and commercials run non-stop (Even on Hulu!), and some shows will even do episodes that have an “election time is coming to town” B plot in them.
If you wake up in early November and decide you want to vote but can’t because you don’t have ID, I’m not sure it’s the law that’s at issue at that point. You could have taken a vacation day or arrange your schedule to have a day off on a monday - friday day in some week to go spend time sitting in the local motor vehicle office. I’ve had to do that several times in my life, both when I was poor and after I was lucky enough to climb out of poverty. (Once was at a social security office…I’ve loved the DMV’s speed and efficiency ever since.)
Now, I understand that not everyone’s situation is all that rosy and there will certainly be cases where an undue burden is placed on some people’s shoulders. But that’s throwing out the good because it’s not perfection. Assuming the voter ID laws would actually accomplish something in regards to fraud (which I’m also not sold on) “getting an ID” probably wouldn’t be a sticking point for me.
No, they don’t. For example, the poor are more likely to smoke, and hence pay that form of sin tax, but they are less likely to drink booze than those with higher incomes.
They are, however, more likely to lack ID and to have difficulties obtaining ID. Meanwhile, for various reasons members of minority groups who are NOT poor are also less likely to have ID than whites in the same socioeconomic brackets.
No, but a percentage of them do. Disenfranchising those who do vote, merely because they don’t have the same opportunities to obtain ID that I do, is fundamentally unfair.
Nope. Obtaining welfare requires proving your identity, but that’s not the same thing as possessing current government-issued photo ID. Social welfare agencies all have procedures for dealing with individuals who don’t have it; in particular, most will accept expired ID and non-governmental records such as baptismal certificates. The election offices, by contrast, mostly don’t.
Only under certain conditions. For example, the funding would need to be for obtaining records from every locale. (Kansas will provide free copies of Kansas birth certificates for purposes of obtaining a voter ID card, but that does no good if you were born in Missouri.) The funding would need to cover the cost of obtaining a delayed certificate of birth for those who don’t have one on file. (Some elderly folks, e.g., were born before their state even required birth certificates; others don’t have them for various other reasons. Some white registrars in parts of the rural South, e.g., weren’t all that concerned with registering the births of black children even into the 1950s, while there have been some recent cases of foster kids who spent 18 years in the system and aged out to find that the state had never bothered to do the paperwork.) Moreover, there’d need to be some way for people in the future who find themselves without birth certificates to access the funding; many of those who now lack the documents had them at one point, but they were lost in fire or flood or eviction, etc.
There are places in my state where obtaining an ID might be a hundred-mile round trip. If you are bedridden and require medical transport to make that trip, who’s going to pay for it? Would you regard it as simply the price of the policy to tell people in that situation that their ability to vote is lost, but it’s okay because we’re not striving for perfection here?
Is an election in which eligible voters are disenfranchised any more free or fair than one in which ineligible votes are cast?
Most of the cases of vote fraud that actually appear on the news involve absentee ballots, and voter ID does nothing to prevent someone else from requesting or casting such ballots. In other words, the kinds of fraud that really happen won’t be affected, while genuinely eligible voters will be disfranchised. What’s to like about that?
So it seems to me, as a non-American, that the problem here isn’t voter ID; it’s the fact that poor and minority Americans have a hard time securing government identification at all. That seems to be a major problem, no? I mean, photo ID is something you really need for a lot more than just voting; frankly, I can’t see how any adult can survive very long without it. Maybe the U.S. government should take proactive measures to make sure *all *of its citizens are issued some form of ID, and only then worry about the whole voting thing.
Yes - the place it broke down was in your head, when you reasoned it out. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a disjointed non-sequitur used as a comparison.
It’s not necessarily targeting them, though. It’s just excessively painful for them. And the nasty part about that is that this isn’t consumer goods we’re talking about. This isn’t the ability to light up a cigarette. This is voting. The single most fundamental issue in a constitutional democracy! The way things get to change. That it hurts minorities more is just a neat little side effect.
No, the target is political. Why do you think this is such a partisan issue? Answer: because democratic voters are far less likely to have ID than republican voters. If you look at who is hit by voter ID laws, you have 4 major groups: minorities, the poor, the young, and the very old. Of those, only one consistently swings republican, and even then it’s kind of a toss-up. At the same time, this bogeyman that republicans appeal to is essentially non-existent. There is no evidence of voter fraud - at least not the kind that a voter ID would stop.
Okay, so take that 10-15%. What do you think is a reasonable estimate of how many of them vote regularly? 50%? 20%? 10%? 1%? Okay, now take that number, then take the number of actual in-person voter fraud cases, and see how low you can get that percentage before it starts being a good thing. I don’t remember exactly where it was, but I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations a while back… The number I came up with had quite a few zeros after the dot. See, that’s just it - in order for voter ID to make any sense at all, the number of people without ID who want to vote has to be lower than the number of voter fraud cases. A fake vote effectively “cancels out” a real vote; a real vote that could not be cast is just as bad as a fake vote. So the number of people without ID who want to vote has to be lower than the number of voter fraud cases. So… Very, very few. 0.00xx%. Not sure how many zeroes, but it’s at least 3.
But, as said above, there is no voter fraud! Not a single election has been shown to have been swung by voter fraud in recent memory. There was a long investigation on voter fraud carried out by an administration which really wanted to find it… and it came up with as close to nothing as you’re likely to get.
So you need to either demonstrate that pretty much nobody who has trouble obtaining an ID wants to vote, or that voter fraud is a bigger issue than we thought, or spend a hell of a lot more time getting people IDs… Or the law is a senseless waste of time. And a politically motivated one at that. And as much as very silly people try to paint it as “well, just get out and get your ID”, for a lot of people it isn’t that simple. What, you think it’s easy going through life without any kind of photo ID? These people basically by definition do not drive. In some cases, that means a 120-mile hitchhike in each directionto the nearest place where you could get a photo ID.
Plus, you have to either find time when you’re not working and the DMV is open, or you have to take time off of work. And then you’d better be damn sure that the DMV is open, functional (one couple drove an hour to get an ID renewed and found that the DMV’s computer system had broken down, leaving it incapable of processing them), and that you have every document you need, because coming back means more time off of work, and more struggling to get from point A to point B.
The island I lived on when I lived in the USA did not have a DMV. Getting any kind of photo ID meant going over 30 miles to the nearest mainland town (we were connected to the mainland via a bridge). Oh, and other than in midsummer, there’s no public transit, and even in summer you’re still only getting to the head of the island - there’s another 10 miles to the DMV. That’s at least one full day of traveling and standing in line if you don’t have a car, plus transit costs, plus the costs of getting your documents in order… For many people, getting ID is a gigantic mess! And for what? To improve voter confidence? To ensure that the whopping 100 cases of in-person voter fraud country-wide in 5 years, most of which appeared to be honest mistakes don’t happen?
Voter ID is asinine. Full stop. It’s a partisan ploy by republicans to reduce voter turnout.
No. The problem is, whatever form of ID the poor/minorities find it difficult to get, that’s the kind of ID the voter ID laws will demand since the whole point is to suppress the poor/minority vote. If a form of ID is easy to for them to get (or they already have it) then a voter ID law won’t demand it; since that won’t help suppress the vote there’s no point.
Fine, but that doesn’t change the fact that voting aside, it’s hard for them to get ID, and that’s something that should be fixed. I think that American citizens should have a right to ID, and the government should have an obligation to provide them with it. Lack of ID is a debilitating disadvantage in the modern world.
But what is the “good” that we’re throwing out? The number of fraudulent votes that the Voter ID laws would prevent is vanishingly small - the data I’ve seen shows they could probably be counted on one hand in even the biggest states. And the downside is that there are huge numbers of people that it would prevent from voting - close to a million in Texas alone. Now most of those people certainly wouldn’t have voted anyway, but even if it prevents a small percentage, that completely overwhelms any fraudulent votes that the law would keep out.
It’s not that anyone is trying to get perfection, it’s that the whole purpose of the Voter ID laws is to place barriers that will keep poor people from voting. There is no “good” there.
Cite? Having grown up around the poor, and I admit this likely skews my view, most of them did both (plus light drugs, such as pot).
Cite? I’ve seen this asserted many times, but I haven’t seen any evidence of who that 10-15% I reported from general reading breaks down.
Question: If the voting stations are close by, why can’t the DMV be also?
As a note, If they have expired government ID, they don’t have as many hoops to go through to get it renewed.
But, in this same vein, why should we restrict people from driving in rural areas because they don’t have access to a DMV like you do? Especially since they are rural, shouldn’t they get access to driving any vehicles without having to get a drivers’ license? Our society says currently says no.
If our society would say “We want ID cards for voting.” while I agree it’s a fundamental shift, how would this be different from driving, which is also a fairly large necessity outside urban and denser suburban America currently?
My proposal was simple: Make birth certificates (and no other vital records) free. While I get that doing this across state lines will be especially burdensome, can you think of a way to make this happen nationally and be completely burden free? I would think it would have to come through a federal law and incentive program to the states.
Nitpick: If you are bedridden, how are you voting? To another point: should perfection be our target? Right now, less than 60% of people vote in presidential elections, and that falls roughly 15% during non-presidential elections.
No. But as Budget responded below you the difference is in the mileage you get out of various laws. If you stop one person from voting who’s eligible and prevent 10 fraudulent voters, isn’t that a win? Or is this more akin to the old saying for prisons “It is better to free 100 guilty men than risk convicting one innocent man”?
Is there a way to cull those kinds of voter fraud without voter ID laws?
While I agree that some form of ID is good, there is a long entrenched tradition in this country of not wanting to have a unified identity database.
Except it’s not, really. You are using Correlation = Causation as your line of reasoning. “Poor people will be affected, therefore they are targeted.” I thus turned it around “Poor people tend to vote Democrat, therefore Democrats cause poverty.” Correlation is causation. The breakdown was minorityism. It’s hard to cause birth lineage as a policy platform.
“It’s not necessarily targeting them, though.” and then followed by “It’s excessively painful for them.” which is then followed by “That it hurts minorities more is just a neat little side effect.” So, no one is being targeted, but that it will hurt them, specifically, is “neat” which makes it a happy accident of design. Then what was the aim of the design that this was a happy accident?
Which do you actually believe? Is it targeted at poor and minorities or is it all some sort of happy political accident?
Because the American brand of politics requires red lines in the sand that both sides throw accusations across.
In terms of demographics, this will hurt rural poor just like urban poor. The rural poor tend to vote Republican while the urban poor tend to vote Democrat. Would this fundamentally alter the balance of a state to such a degree that it would swing Republican? Even in swing states, how much of an affect would it make?
Then the voter fraud that does happen, what would you do about it?
I already gave a best estimate and qualified it by saying I think it was too high a number, but it’s one I’m willing to use until a better number can be put forth for discussion. 8.8%.
Acceptable reasoning, and, as I said, one I’m very unconvinced about in general in terms of there being actual fraud.
That being said, is there no room for prevention? If so, what would you recommend that’s not Voter ID?
Actually, you said, above
Emphasis mine. So by your own statements, there is voter fraud, and by your further assessment, this voter fraud is minimal. I agree to both of these assertions, pending some reveal of an illuminati mind control society.
I agree with this, however, I can see the case being made that any fraud is good to try and stop. At what point do you think the tipping point comes? Should we try to stop it in advance or only after we see some municipality fall to fraud? At that point, wouldn’t the fix be infinitely more difficult?
Your own quote shows where we need to tighten up voting
I never said any such thing. But I know that it would be an effort once every five years and arranging ahead of an election you wish to vote in gives you up to two years to arrange it. Actually getting the ID is the weakest argument to make against voter ID laws. You were doing much better talking about the actual fraud statistics.
How often does this happen? I’ve been to DMVs, specifically and without counting other government offices, hundreds of times over my personal and professional life. The times that that they are unable to transaction business in some way is vanishingly small. Now, shit will happen, but if that was the standard to stop laws we wouldn’t have any.
What island was this and what population of poor people lived there? This seems like injecting a middle class or upper middle class choice of living issue onto the poor.
How has this harmed turnout in places that require IDs already? 16 states require photo ID to vote. another 16 states require non-photo ID to vote. The other 19 states require you to have a signature on file to compare against your ballot signature. At least one of these states passed these laws before Obama came to office. What was the turnout change between elections before and after? I can answer that, at least for Indiana:
In 2002 (NonPres), voter turnout was 38%.
In 2004 (Pres), voter turnout was 58%.
In 2006 (NonPres), voter turnout was 40%.
In 2008 (Pres), voter turnout was 62%.
In 2010 (Non Pres), voter turnout was 41%.
In 2012 (Pres), voter turnout was 58%.
I’m not seeing a trend of the disaffected, here. Their law was passed in 2005 and upheld by the USSC in 2008. Where are all of the poor people being prevented from voting?
Also, how has the legacy method of signature requirements fared, especially since the most common form of signature collection is the state ID or Drivers’ License application (where you can register to vote at the same time)? How has it prevented voters from voting? Or are those same people that have never gone to a government office to provide a signature not likely to also trek to a government office to get a photo ID? How likely are these people to vote? And isn’t this registration going to be at a government office you have to hitchhike 120 miles to, also?
Additionally, the federal government requires that when you register to vote in any state, you prove who you are. While this isn’t restricted to Government Photo ID (you can use a paystub, bank statement, etc), why should just registering to vote be more stringent than the voting place itself? Couldn’t these requirements be extended to the voting place as well?
I mean, yes, some people will have hardships, but you are overstating this case by ignoring current practice and what’s gone on in states that have had Voter ID laws.
The major issue with voter ID laws as implemented in various US states -to most who are opposed to those laws- is not the idea that ID should be required (although some groups do argue against the requirement in principle), it’s that the laws have mostly been written and implemented in such a way as to exploit and sometimes exacerbate the burdens on a wide demographic (mostly poor, mostly Democratic leaning) of obtaining the statutorily required forms of ID.
Since voter ID laws are not being introduced into a regulatory environment in which accepted forms of ID are universally available, the argument is that such laws must recognize and equitably deal with the realities of that environment. Simply making one form available without a fee is insufficient, if other important logistical considerations aren’t also dealt with (time commitment to obtain, number of issuing facilities and their locations, documentation required, etc.).
A federally issued, free universal ID issued through a variety of facilities (schools, post offices, Social Security Administration offices, etc.) and available to all citizens prior to voting age and which must be recognized throughout the states would make these considerations moot.
Probably not. But the Voter ID laws here are, clearly.
Yes, the US is different in some ways. One of those ways is the socioeconomic inequality that we have here. It may be a nice goal to get everyone a government ID, but we’re not there yet, and passing laws to require a current photo ID to vote before we get there is just sticking it to the poor in yet another way. The Voter ID laws that have been passed, AFAIK, make no provisions to provide everyone with an ID, and the laws are promoted by the exact group of politicians who would benefit from keeping the poor from voting.
