I sincerely doubt that. I think that if most people had all the facts on hand, they wouldn’t agree with you. Rather, most of them think to themselves, “ID? Had it my whole life. Shouldn’t be a problem for them to get,” and then stop thinking about it.
Well, you know, the basic foundation of democracy as representative of the people. As said again, when people understand the facts they by and large disagree with you. Most people who understand what an onerous mission it can be to get ID when you have none, and who understand how little of an issue voter fraud actually is, do not agree with you. Saying “well, the people agree with me” is nice, but you might as well be saying “the people agree with me about the Ernskine-Mac amendment” - the people have no idea what they’re talking about.
And yet, you admit that you are willing to subject some small number of people to what you have just admitted is an unreasonable impediment to voting, in order to improve voter confidence.
I’ll assume that “voter confidence” is shorthand for “confidence that a vote’s outcome accurately reflects the will of all legal voters who wish to vote.” If that is the case, I simply cannot understand how, if the number of people in whose way you have placed this unreasonable impediment is equal to or greater than the number of fraudulent votes you expect to prevent, that this does anything other than to erode voter confidence.
(This is especially true given that the vast majority of states promoting these laws have a history of disenfranchising minorities, and practically fell over themselves to add these laws the moment the VRA was gutted.)
And I agree with Budget Player Cadet that polls about this question merely reflect an understandable ignorance on the part of the public. If a poll question was: “Would you support Voter ID, even knowing that XX million Americans currently lack that ID, and that the costs in time and money to acquire one are likely to prevent XX - YY million voters from voting, even though they voted in previous elections,” you’d see support for the idea drop precipitously.
Oh, I think voting is pretty essential to democracy by any conventional definition. Please answer the question instead of stalling.
What you’ve said repeatedly is that “minimal” hurdles to voting are acceptable. What you’ve refused to address is that “minimal” is a relative term, and “minimal” becomes “significant” for many more voters than fake voters. A simple willingness to apply math would lead most people to recognize the potential problem.
On a side note, anyone else find it funny that the impasse we’re at appears to be “the value of letting people vote in a democracy”?
Look, let me make this clear. I care about the government. A lot. I care about politics a lot too. I care about the future of America, because even though I don’t live there any more, its effects ripple outwards in a way that severely impacts everyone else in the world. But with that in mind, if I had the choice to either vote or lose a day or half-day of work and I was short on money, I would not vote. If I had the choice to spend my one day off a week trekking out to the DMV to get an ID I didn’t need before this in order to vote or spend the day goofing off and relaxing, I would not vote. If I had the choice between spending $50 on a nice dinner out with my girlfriend or procuring documents I needed to vote… I would not vote. Because an individual vote is ephemeral and all but meaningless, even if the choice between the candidates is significant. I care about politics and the future of this country, but not enough to jump through a long list of hoops and spend a substantial amount of money and time.
I have the luxury of being able to say that. Many people don’t. That doesn’t mean these people don’t care about the electoral process. It doesn’t mean that they aren’t well-informed. We have something like 60% voter participation in a really good year; do you think that means that 40% or more of the country doesn’t care? You can find tons of people who care quite a lot, and who are deeply interested in the subject, and who still don’t vote - because it’s too much of a hassle, because the vote of one person seems so utterly meaningless, and because there are simply more important things in your day-to-day life. Last year, the list of days when I could have taken full-day excursions was almost zero due to how my college schedule and romantic situation was set up. The summer month where I was in Maine, I was working every weekday from 9-4 and had no opportunity to visit the DMV, which is open 8-4:30, business days. Luckily, I didn’t need to; luckily, if I had needed to, I could have asked my boss for the day off, because he happens to be my father and he’s pretty cool with that kind of thing. On the other hand, it was either “take the whole day and ride my bike 30 miles each way to the DMV” or “do literally anything else”. I’m not lazy. I’m not disinterested. If I was in that position, I simply would give up on voting, because it’s not worth the effort. And with that, the democratic process loses my voice and my support. See the problem here?
We exclude all sorts of people from this “essential” function. My son was able to answer questions that stumped a majority of American adults (“Name the three branches of government; which party controls the Senate…”) and they vote but he doesn’t. So it’s not stalling: how come you get to define the terms?
Why do you get to define when “minimal” becomes “significant?” I say we should use my definition.
Yes, but you don’t. The problem here (apart from your implicit suggestion that the trip to the DMV is required each election rather than as a one-time event for a small number of people) is that your bar of “not worth the effort” is set too low.
For the purposes of the question assume every member of Group X has the franchise.
By your definition, how many legitimate holders of the franchise will lose their vote, and is this number greater than a reasonable estimate of blocked fraud votes? Simply slapping on definition labels is useless. Are you open to actual evidence?
Why? For all intents and purposes, the extent of my effort could be “Walk to the center of town, give them my name and social security number, cast my ballot, walk back”. Rather than this massive rigmarole. Never mind that a single vote in a pool of thousands is about as meaningful as a drop in a bucket. But really, given that you don’t seem to care about voter participation, there’s no real reason for you to care about any of that, and there’s no real reason for me to care about your opinions with regards to how the democratic process should work.
Sure. But I have already said I don’t care so much about the raw numbers of “blocked” votes as I do about ensuring that the rationale used is meritorious. If votes are blocked because people won’t take reasonable efforts to overcome minimal obstacles, I’m fine with that.
So it looks like we’re going to have to agree on a way to either agree on metrics to measure what’s too high, or agree on a system to mediate the controversy and reach a decision that we both may not agree to.
Why do *you *get to decide the definitions of *reasonable *and minimal? And, if you do, what are they?
And what level of difficulty do you really think is involved, given the thorough amount of information you’ve been shown only to handwave it away so peremptorily?
And does it bother anyone else that someone is talking about “reasonable” in one sentence and in the next is trying to make it harder for me to vote in order to assuage fears of leprechaun attacks.
Still that making it easier for the group to vote and harder for the group to vote are both morally neutral actions when based on how the group is expected to vote?
Your rationale isn’t meritorious. How could you prove it was, if it relies on a vague notion like “confidence”, which you have not quantified in any way despite repeated requests to do so?
Regardless of how or if the issue is resolved, calling it a “controversy” invokes the “teach the controversy” issue regarding evolution. One side has facts, the other has comfortably convenient fiction they protect from.analysis.
The motives of every legislator who voted for Voter ID laws, every governor who signed the bills into law, every judge who upheld them as valid, and every person who answered a poll saying he approved are not identical.
I agree it’s immoral to create laws intending to suppress a group’s vote.
But I say that the law itself gets judged by its actual merit, not the motives of some of the people who supported it.
So the law’s effects are morally neutral.
The proof is simple: people approve of the law because they believe it makes elections more secure. I don’t have to quantify voter confidence to observe it increases.
I don’t agree. And to the extent there’s a controversy, have you noticed how far on the minority side of it your position is? Low public supprt for your argument, courts upholding laws, laws getting passed… you’re right: a “controversy” is hardly fair to me. It’s a settled issue.
Again, I disagree that public support is a viable claim that these laws are morally right, any more than it would be for a law that advocated whites-only drinking fountains.
Public support for Voter ID laws reflects an ignorance of their effects on minorities and the poor, rather than approval of pushing a significant number of citizens over the “too much burden to vote” line. (Well, except in cases where the public is actually racist or happy to see poor people disenfranchised.)
