Now THIS I agree with. Never understood the reason for making it a weekday instead of a weekend.
Just out of curiosity, can you honestly say it without the quotes?
Number 4. Having to get a picture ID, something that I can’t fathom how anyone in modern society functions without, is such a de minimis burden to require before exercising the most important function in society. If a person cannot be bothered to take such a basic step, then I don’t sympathize with them being “denied” the right to vote.
No one is being meaningfully denied a right to vote by any Voter ID laws.
Plenty of people are denied the right to vote by operation of other laws.
Just out of curiosity, is it necessary to have the qualifier “meaningfully” in there?
Anyway, you’ve cited the Ramon Cue case repeatedly. Assuming for the sake of argument that it actually was voter fraud and it actually could have been prevented by the laws under discussion (otherwise, why would it be relevant?), and if you would have chosen (2) or (3) had (4) not been available, does it strike you as possible that a franchised citizen through some combination of poverty, remoteness, age or infirmity might not be able to get the necessary voter ID?
If your answer would have been (1), we could discuss that, too, but I don’t believe that’s the stance of the authors of the paper cited in the OP, nor is it mine.
I’m curious as to why an actual ID is required and it is not allowed to bring whatever ID would have been sufficient to obtain the voter ID directly to the polling station (similar to the way it is done in Canada). I would assume that would both resolve the issue of having to take time off work and spending the day traversing the metropolis and waiting in line for days and the issue of ensuring that an identification trail is available to aid possible prosecution.
I admit to not having read the entire paper yet, but I’m not sure that the paper takes a stance as to which type of mis-vote (to coin a phrase) is worse. It’s stance seems to be that voter ID laws may increase the percentage of fraudulent votes by increasing the percentage of more fraud prone forms of voting (e.g. absentee ballots).
From the excerpt in the OP, I thought the concern was depressed turnout of legitimate voters, with larger effect than the depressed turnout of fraudulent voters.
Certainly possible.
In that specific case, that would be (2): as bad as a fraudulent vote.
But that’s not what your original question asked, was it?
Yes, but by how much? By 2,500 times as much? That seems a hard number to swallow even if there was good evidence backing it up.
And if doping was extremely rare, and the test took the team’s best member out of commission for a week, and one particular team was succeptible to false positives more than others? Your analogy fails on virtually every level. There are perfectly good reasons to be against voter ID laws - voter fraud is incredibly rare, voter ID laws only stop the rarest and most nonsensical kind of electoral fraud, tons of people have no voter ID… Please, address the arguments made in the thread. Don’t just throw out woefully misinformed one-liners.
@OP: actually discussing the study is meaningless if those in favor of voter ID are incapable of examining the evidence already before them. The study is completely superfluous - it’s like the 30th study showing that vaccines don’t cause autism. That’s nice, but until people understand that thimerosal is not a neurotoxin just because it contains a mercury atom, it doesn’t help us any.
Which original question are you referring to?
On reflection, I gather you’re alluding to an apparant goalpost shift on my part, from “denial of vote” to “inability to get voter ID”. If not, please elaborate, and directness in future would save time.
Y’know, under homeopathic theory, one atom is more than enough. Literally. Zero atoms would be even more drastic. Kids would be exploding in autism.
Your original question talked about the aggregate fraudulent vote compared to the aggregate denied vote. Or perhaps the “average” such vote is a better term.
My answer to that was (4).
Then you asked about the specific case of a person too old, infirm, etc, to get the ID.
My answer to that different question was (2).
Well, that is ultimately where I was headed, so I guess I’ve got no grounds to quibble over the sequence, so let’s revisit your earlier “meaningfully” comment, specifically:
Is one case in a thousand meaningful? One in ten thousand? One in a million? Is there a stark prevarication in the following two sentences:
- No one is being meaningfully denied a right to vote by any Voter ID laws.
- Voter fraud is not meaningfully affecting the outcomes of elections.
Is there a meaningful difference in how “meaningfully” is being used? In short, is the problem supposedly being addressed bigger than the problem being created?
Who says I’m disregarding those other costs? I think it’s a flaw in the system that we vote on a weekday during extended business hours. That naturally disadvantages poor hourly wage-earners, as opposed to salaried employees with more flexibility in their work schedules. I don’t think of those as “free” at all. We can have that conversation too, if you’d like, but right now I’m disinclined to fall into the “you can’t complain about anything unless you also complain about everything else” trap.
I was only talking about birth certificates.
Let’s assign every possible barrier to voting a score of 1 to 10, where 10 is the most direct (e.g. a poll tax, or a direct cost to acquire Voter ID), and a 1 is the most indirect (e.g. having to wait in line more than half an hour, which is at worst mildly inconvenient.) To me, a voter ID that, while technically free, requires another $20 document to acquire, is only one small step removed from a poll tax. I’d call it a “9” on the scale. You, me, and everyone in this thread has some limit to what they’d tolerate. This is only my opinion, but I see so little difference between “Voter ID costs $20” and “Voter ID is free if you can show a document that costs $20” that I’m unwilling to support it. (I would support Voter ID if it was free, as were any documents needed to procure it, and everyone in America could get one without needing to endure more than, say, an hour of bureaucracy.)
Well, that is ultimately where I was headed, so I guess I’ve got no grounds to quibble over the sequence, so let’s revisit your earlier “meaningfully” comment, specifically:
Is one case in a thousand meaningful? One in ten thousand? One in a million? Is there a stark prevarication in the following two sentences:
- No one is being meaningfully denied a right to vote by any Voter ID laws.
- Voter fraud is not meaningfully affecting the outcomes of elections.
Is there a meaningful difference in how “meaningfully” is being used? In short, is the problem supposedly being addressed bigger than the problem being created? Since we’ve established that a lost good vote is as bad as a bad cast vote, and all.
Let’s say I am a hourly wage earner who takes time off work to vote. I have to drive to the polling place, wait 1/2 hour in line, and return to work. 1 hour total. I make $15/hr. It was five miles each way to the polling place. At 51 cents per mile, the trip cost me approximately $5 in wear and tear on my car.
It cost me $20 to vote. Yet my waiting in line situation rates a “1” on your scale, but having to pay $20 for a birth certificate (that your mother probably already has a copy of anyways) rates a “9”?
Well, since you’re already in for $20, I sure you won’t mind if some government official demands you pay another $20 to cover the Leprechaun Resettlement Fee. The fact that nobody’s ever seen a leprechaun doesn’t matter - the goal of resettling them meets the rational basis burden and if you can’t or won’t be bothered to take such a basic step, then I don’t sympathize.
No. My “1” rating applies to someone whose only inconvenience is 30 minutes during which they had to wait in line. Assume in that case they could otherwise walk to the polling place after they get off work and suffer no other costs. But you pick nits, and avoid my main objection.
Logistics of voting are an unavoidable evil in the system; like just about everything else in life, they impose more of a burden on the poor. Effectively adding another fairly arbitrary $20 dollar fee to obtain a voter ID will just discourage that many more disadvantaged people from voting – more, I’m convinced, that the number of fraudulent votes the Voter ID prevents in the first place. I see that as a failure of the system.
More plainly, we all have a threshold that would keep us away from the polls. What if “free” voter ID required a doc that cost $500 to procure? What if your county had only one polling station, in its poorest and most dangerous neighborhood, and was only open from 9:00 PM to 3:00 AM? I’ll bet plenty of affluent people would choose to stay home, even if they’d have voted under more reasonable conditions. Each of us has some bar we’d place, where we’d say this level of impediment is okay, but that one is not. Obviously your opinion differs, but I find the requirement of an ID which is not in practice free for many people, and which in some poorer regions of the country is particularly time-consuming to obtain, to be on the wrong side of that bar. Particularly given that the more unavoidable logistical hurdles already affect the poor disproportionately.
My state was genuinely concerned about this problem (and the issue of long lines), so it enacted reforms to make it much easier to get a ballot without having to go to a polling place. (And by “it,” I mean the Republican-controlled General Assembly, the Republican governor, and the Republican secretary of state. Of course, it took the party less than three years to start bitching and moaning about the law it passed.)