# I Pit GOP "voting reform" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 4, 2011, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180 "2011-09-04T19:34:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/181 "2011-09-06T03:38:23Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > You say that voter fraud is practically nonexistent. Assuming you’re correct (and I seem to recall endless whinging around here about hanging chads and Diebold voting machines during the GWB era), how long do you think it would stay that way if people could vote willy nilly without having to register beforehand and prove who they are when they vote? What would prevent prevent illegal immigrants, convicted felons\*, minors and anyone else from voting illegally? And most importantly, what would prevent people (including _Republicans!_) from voting mulitiple times? No. Voter impersonation fraud (the only sort of election fraud that voter ID laws can prevent) was almost nonexistent at a time when there were no voter ID laws. The best possible interpretation of this movement is that it’s a solution in search of a problem. The worst is that it’s a Republican idea that affects the voting rights of Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/182 "2011-09-06T03:50:52Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > What about them? They’ve got a vote and they used it. > > This mildly reminds me of a piece of _Starship Troopers_, or maybe it was _Citizen of the Galaxy_, which opined that maybe we should only give the vote to those who can solve a simple quadratic equation. It’s not in any of those – it’s in _expanded Universe_, Heinlein’s revamp of \*The Worlds of Robert Heinlein. Heinlein liked screwing around with ways to establish the polity – the right to vote. He throws out a number of them in Expanded Universe. He also talks about it at length in _Starship Troopers_, where he only allows those who have performed government service (almost invariably military, despite his protestations in Expanded Universe) to have the vote. He plays with different systems in \*Tunnel in the Sky[/i[, too. And he mentioned Mark Twain’s _The Curious Republic of Gondiour_ I doubt if he was at all serious about most of these (although I think he really liked the one in Starship Troopers – it’s the only one he felt compelled to come back and defend), but they show how deciding on who gets the tright to vote is not an obvious thing, and that there certainly are options. Certainly they have changed in this country, varying over time and place. What’s troubling about the actions cited in this thread is that they amount to undeclared but _de facto_[ restrictions on the right to vote for certain classes in certain areas. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/183 "2011-09-06T04:36:42Z")
My thoughts on the topic (as a liberal democrat): There are a variety of different levels of scrutiny and security that could generally accompany voting. One the one extreme, anyone could wander into any polling place completely anonymously, with no request for a name or an address or ANYTHING, and just vote. On the other extreme, voting could require an on-the-spot DNA test to prove identity, being compared to a sample taken at a single facility in Montana that must be done with 4 biological relatives present to testify to your identity, with their DNA taken and matched to prove the blood relation, etc. Clearly, neither of those extremes are desirable. And reasonable people can disagree about precisely where on the scale is “best”. I can not even prove in some really convincing sense that these changes under discussion do not make things “better”. What strikes me as totally clear, however, is that the motivation for these changes is 100% purely political. And that is VERY dangerous, because it can strike directly at the root of the fundamental underpinning of democracy,which is the franchise. We all know that politics swing back and forth… dems win, then repubs, then dems, then repubs, etc. But if a party in a very close state swings into power and is able to implement enough theoretically neutral voting rules that have non-neutral effects, they can potentially basically rig the pendulum forever. And that is the very definition of anti-democratic. In my perfect world, all elections, zoning, voter fraud prevention, etc., would be overseen by a non-partisan fully transparent commission with international and academic advisers. Politics should NEVER play a part in such decisions. (Potential hypocrisy warning and side note: there are two basic things one can do to affect voter roles. You can make it easier for people to vote, or you can make it harder for people to vote. Making it harder for people to vote seems totally odious to me and making it easier for people to vote seems yay-good-hurray. But of course it’s possible to go too far even in the direction I would generally support. And in the real world, most times when this issue comes up, making it easier benefits dems, and making it harder benefits repubs, so it’s very hard to really be objective about it.) (Thought experiment: suppose that one of these laws is passed in, say, Ohio, and in the next presidential election Ohio very very very narrowly goes red, and that determines the national election. Then someone does some extraordinarily convincing and in-depth analysis that proves to everyone’s satisfaction that the effect of the law clearly changed the outcome in Ohio. And this was not due to fraud prevention, this was due to some number of legal voters who would have voted without the law, but did not vote with the law. Would any conservative here have a problem with that?) ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/184 "2011-09-06T10:39:58Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > I would think it would be obvious to any but the most base idiot that I have no idea whether or not these reforms are non-partisan … I would refer you to the excellent posts by **elucidator** and **MaxTheVool** to understand why many believe this is partisan politics. Their replies are much more restrained than I could produce, given my anger on such matters. Perhaps I owe you an apology, **curlcoat** , if you honestly do not see these as partisan moves. But be aware that that people **happy about such moves because they are pro-Republican** will pretend the moves are non-partisan. I may have mistaken you for one of these. If I did make this mistake, and you did not understand that this is Republican partisanship in action, I would especially ask that you study the posts by **elucidator** and **MaxTheVool** and gain a better awareness of the reality of present American politics. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/185 "2011-09-06T11:16:02Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > 😕 I noticed no rationalist here arguing that disenfranchising ex-felons was less of an outrage than the ID requirement. To the contrary, it is the GOP apologists who have cherry-picked what they consider the least serious of charges to argue against. A plausible debating tactic perhaps (at least for the easily gulled), but one which shrieks their intellectual dishonesty. While it’s true that no poster here said it was less of an outrage directly, it has been largely ignored. People are having their voting rights flat out removed because of something they have done in the past and people are more upset about having to get an ID before you vote. > [@](#): > > I’m afraid that even your post, **Harborwolf** , leads me to suspect you did not read the full article linked-to in OP. SDMB policy permits only smallish excerpts, such as: Indeed I had not. This was a thread I was reading very shortly before I left for work and I had only skimmed the thread. I apologize for that and have rectified my initial error. I’m sorry to say that after reading the article and the thread, I still don’t see what a fair amount of the anger is about. Florida’s law on voter registration groups is concerning, but only because it’s oddly hostile for something so stupid. Groups still have 48 hours to turn in the forms, so they simply have to organize better. Honestly I’d be a dick about it and have voter registration drives as close to where I had to turn in the forms as possible. It’s worth pointing out that my idea of a protest would be a far better one than the League of Women Voters who pulled out of the state in protest. You think they’re trying to prevent you from registering voters so _you stop doing it in protest_? Who’s idea was that? Seems to be doing exactly what they wanted. Preventing people from registering on election day isn’t exactly a big deal either. You’ve only got 364 other days to get it done. Golly. I honestly think if you can’t register to vote in 364 days, you probably aren’t motivated enough to vote or aren’t smart enough for your vote to be well informed. Better for all of us if you stay home. I should add that I’m a total fucking bastard and I think you should have to pass at least a science and current event test before you vote anyways. Extra credit given for general knowledge of government. Get better than 100% and you get to vote twice. Yes it can be a pain in the balls to get an ID, but it’s not the berlin wall that I’ve seen it made out to be here. Yes you have to wait, but so do most of us when we renew our licenses and our vehicle registration. Even those of us with shit jobs and mean bosses manage to do it. Maybe this is because I live in a rural area anyways, but a drive of thirty miles isn’t an insurmountable obstacle. It’s also worth pointing out that in a country where a third of us regularly don’t vote at all, ten percent of the population having to work a little harder to register or to vote isn’t the end of days. I’m far more alarmed by the large number of people who refuse to accept evolution (39%), believe Obama is a muslim (18%), or believe that vaccines cause autism (18% with another 30% not sure). Overall, I find the level of hysteria over “election theft” to be as disproportionate as the level of hysteria over “voter fraud.” As a side note, I think if we’re going to make it mandatory to have an ID to vote, you should be able to get some form of government ID for free. Voting ideally shouldn’t cost money to do (though again some kind of test to make sure you know enough to vote in the first place). Just bill it to homeland security. Call it a freedom pass or something. That way we can all have the ability to drink, vote, and smoke when age appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/186 "2011-09-06T11:26:09Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > How many young people in college don’t have a photo ID of some kind? It can’t be “photo ID of some kind”, it has to be a _government issued_ ID, a school ID won’t work. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/187 "2011-09-06T11:40:06Z")
> [@PaulParkhead](#): > > Well, unnecessary laws do waste taxpayers’ money. I see that as a reason not to pass them. In general, if illiberal laws are to be passed, I’d like to see a clear and specific justification for them. > > It’s not meaningful to call any ID card scheme “voluntary” if you need the card to vote, claim benefits, get a job or seek health care. Such a system is, to all intents and purposes, compulsory. > > And it’s not correct, in the UK, to say that the state knows who you are because of your NINO. I, as a benefit processor, could find out some information about you - what benefit claims you’d made in the past, the last address you used to claim benefits, even your current salary. But I couldn’t find out your immigration status or criminal record, because those things are not linked to your NINO. > > Makes sense. It was none of my business. Of course, it’s possible for state investigators to find out pretty much anything they need to know, but they have to provide a reason why they need to know, and I’d like it to stay that way. The fact that NI number isn’t in any way linked to criminal record is part of the problem that a true national ID would solve. The length of time background checks currently take when applying for jobs that require one not to have a criminal record is ridiculous - with a single ID it would (hopefully) be much easier and quicker. There’s still no reason you would have access to the information, as a well designed system would only allow specific people to access specific information. So, there’s a specific example of how ID cards would improve people’s lives. It may not be necessary, strictly, but it’s certainly useful. I see nothing illiberal about having to prove entitlement to claim government services, or exercise limited rights. In practice, we already do have to do this, and a national ID card simply makes it easier. What do you consider illiberal about a technically voluntary, but in practice compulsory, ID card, the function of which is to combine and standardise the various forms of ID we use on a daily basis? I’m surprised people can read this thread and not see the problems that occur when a significant amount of people don’t have easy access to universally accepted ID. If there’s a better way to provide that than through the government, I’d be happy to hear it. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/188 "2011-09-06T11:56:10Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > It’s an otherwise normal license with a RFID chip and a background check. I wouldn’t put it that way. I’d say it’s a hybrid of a driver’s license and the new passport card. It allows land and sea border crossings with Canada, Mexico, and parts of the Caribbean. Getting mine required the documentation it takes to initially get a passport as well as the other crap required by NY to get a driver’s license. I got one because my passport had recently expired (and I didn’t have a need to renew in the short term) and any international travel was likely to be driving to Canada (either Ontario or Quebec) where the EDL would be sufficient. More info for anyone who might be interested: [http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/edl-faqs.htm](http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/edl-faqs.htm) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/189 "2011-09-06T12:27:15Z")
Adventures in bizarre conversations. “The Repubicans are using the law to create a political advantage.” “But its about voter fraud!” “There is no voter fraud, its all made up so Republicans…” “Besides, you need a picture ID to go to Canada and buy beer.” “What the hell does Canada have to do with it? Its about Republican…” “Not to mention the dreadful liberal hypocrisy about felon voting rights.” “These people aren’t felons, they’re just ordinary…” “Yo Mamma so fat, her blood type is gravy.” “My Mamma weighs 98 pounds, fer Chrissake, and this has nothing to do with Republicans…” “Cognitive dissonance is the number one threat to the Republic!” “Got that shit right!” “Its good for you to admit when you’re wrong. More tea?” ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/190 "2011-09-06T12:33:01Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Felons end up losing the right to serve on a jury and possess guns, plus I believe they can’t run for office - should they be allowed to do these things too? I guess it would depend on the felony but I think we have enough folks with a bunch of strikes against them voting, without including those who lie, cheat, murder, whatever. I think how long since said person has committed a crime/“paid his debt to society” and his (or her) conduct during that time should also be taken into account. Someone who commits a serious felony, serves the imposed time, then behaves themselves as a model citizen for 15 or 20 years afterwards (and I do know a few people who fit that description) should be allowed to vote again, as they have demonstrated an ability to behave and follow the law. Among other things, it provides an incentive for convicted felons to reform and become law-abiding. Perhaps there should be\* some sort of hearing \*to re-obtain rights like voting, where the person has to provide proof of reform and good behavior, but really, I see no downside to that. That might also include a re-instated ability to serve on a jury or run for office. Gun ownership? Perhaps if the felony was non-violent. I was once a member of a club where a man was voted in as treasurer. He was flabbergasted that he was nominated, much less voted in, as it was no secret that he had a felony conviction and had severed several years in jail. 15 years prior. The consensus was that he was arguably one of the most honest and responsible people in the club, hence his election. That was based on people who were familiar with his conduct _after_ he was released from prison, for a long time period. He served in that position well with no hinky business, unlike that guy a few years prior who had no record and bragged about his church attendance but somehow managed to “lose” 75% of the club funds during his term. Granted, that anecdote, but some people DO reform and shouldn’t be punished for life when only sentenced to, say, 5 years after which they behave themselves. I can’t emphasize enough that this would be _after a long time_ of good conduct. This would allow a one-time offender to redeem him/herself. It would also be impossible for a repeat and frequent offender to do this, or someone given a life sentence for a truly heinous crime. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/191 "2011-09-06T13:17:38Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > (Thought experiment: suppose that one of these laws is passed in, say, Ohio, and in the next presidential election Ohio very very very narrowly goes red, and that determines the national election. Then someone does some extraordinarily convincing and in-depth analysis that proves to everyone’s satisfaction that the effect of the law clearly changed the outcome in Ohio. And this was not due to fraud prevention, this was due to some number of legal voters who would have voted without the law, but did not vote with the law. Would any conservative here have a problem with that?) That’s a well-thought-out quesiton, because I think (I hope!) it goes to the heart of how I view these changes. And my answer is no. Now, let me ask you a question: Let’s imagine that a month before the election, Lady Gaga makes a personal appeal to the voters of Ohio, making personal appearances in each and every Ohio zip code over the next month exhorting voters to make sure Ohio goes blue in the election. And sure enough, Ohio does – and subsequent extraordinarily convincing and in-depth analysis proves to everyone’s satisfaction that the effect of the effort clearly changed the outcome in Ohio. Would any liberal (or music lover) have a problem with that? I hope not. Because even though the result had virtually nothing to do with the political merits, we all should recognize that it’s not unreasonable for Lady Gaga to campaign on behalf of a candidate. She has every right to, in fact. So while I don’t like the result, I recognize that the process by which it arrived is one that is a reasonable one under our laws. So too here. A law that requires voters to be identified may indeed cause a few voters not to bother. But it’s not an unreasonable thing to do. And that should be the touchstone. ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/192 "2011-09-06T14:38:10Z")
While the points have all been really exhausted, I just wanted to voice my opinion… 1. Showing proof of citizenship/ID to vote is not inherently wrong or flawed. 2. But if you are going to require it, ALLOW PEOPLE TO GET THIS STUFF EASILY AND FREELY. Or require everyone to have it in the first place, for FREE and EASILY. 3. If you are requiring someone to purchase something in order to vote, and that they cannot vote without purchasing this thing (ID, proof of citizenship, etc), it is tantamount to a poll tax. Unfair and unconstitutional. If republicans are really concerned with voter fraud, and want to make sure everything is on the up-and-up, they should be campaigning for free voter ID etc. But they aren’t. This is obviously an attempt on their part to disenfranchise certain voters who typically do not vote for the GOP. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/193 "2011-09-06T15:15:39Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > I think how long since said person has committed a crime/“paid his debt to society” and his (or her) conduct during that time should also be taken into account. Where is the legal support for Constitutional rights to be based upon the good conduct of a citizen? If someone is not in jail or on parole, what is the constitutional basis for further restraint on their rights? When the debt is paid, the debt is paid. To say that something which is constitutionally guaranteed should be withheld until some arbitrary date, not related to current conduct or correctional status, is frankly rather abhorrent. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/194 "2011-09-06T15:28:43Z")
> [@drewtwo99](#): > > While the points have all been really exhausted, I just wanted to voice my opinion… > > 1. Showing proof of citizenship/ID to vote is not inherently wrong or flawed. > 2. But if you are going to require it, ALLOW PEOPLE TO GET THIS STUFF EASILY AND FREELY. Or require everyone to have it in the first place, for FREE and EASILY. > 3. If you are requiring someone to purchase something in order to vote, and that they cannot vote without purchasing this thing (ID, proof of citizenship, etc), it is tantamount to a poll tax. Unfair and unconstitutional. > > If republicans are really concerned with voter fraud, and want to make sure everything is on the up-and-up, they should be campaigning for free voter ID etc. But they aren’t. This is obviously an attempt on their part to disenfranchise certain voters who typically do not vote for the GOP. Well said ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/195 "2011-09-06T15:40:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s a well-thought-out quesiton, because I think (I hope!) it goes to the heart of how I view these changes. > > And my answer is no. > > Now, let me ask you a question: > > Let’s imagine that a month before the election, Lady Gaga makes a personal appeal to the voters of Ohio, making personal appearances in each and every Ohio zip code over the next month exhorting voters to make sure Ohio goes blue in the election. And sure enough, Ohio does – and subsequent extraordinarily convincing and in-depth analysis proves to everyone’s satisfaction that the effect of the effort clearly changed the outcome in Ohio. There’s a difference. We draw a line between the acts of governing and the acts of campaigning to serve in the government. Remember the flak a few years ago when it was suggested Al Gore used a phone in his office to discuss campaign contributions? (I don’t remember how that one turned out.) I have a problem with someone using their powers of office to increase their chances of staying in office. Passing laws that make it easier for your voters to get to the polls, or more difficult for your opponent’s, sets off those alarm bells for me. A private citizen going around on her own time to campaign for someone doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/196 "2011-09-06T15:58:11Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > Where is the legal support for Constitutional rights to be based upon the good conduct of a citizen? If someone is not in jail or on parole, what is the constitutional basis for further restraint on their rights? Amendment XIV, Sec 2, which clearly says that it’s permissible to withhold the right to vote based on previous conviction of a crime. The Supreme Court considered the issue in _Richardson v. Ramirez_, 418 U.S. 24 (1974): > [@](#): > > As we have seen, however, the exclusion of felons from the vote has an affirmative sanction in 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, a sanction which was not present in the case of the other restrictions on the franchise which were invalidated in the cases on which respondents rely. We hold that the understanding of those who adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, as reflected in the express language of 2 and in the historical and judicial interpretation of the Amendment’s applicability to state laws disenfranchising felons, is of controlling significance in distinguishing such laws from those other state limitations on the franchise which have been held invalid under the Equal Protection Clause by this Court. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/197 "2011-09-06T16:04:12Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > There’s a difference. We draw a line between the acts of governing and the acts of campaigning to serve in the government. Remember the flak a few years ago when it was suggested Al Gore used a phone in his office to discuss campaign contributions? (I don’t remember how that one turned out.) > > I have a problem with someone using their powers of office to increase their chances of staying in office. Passing laws that make it easier for your voters to get to the polls, or more difficult for your opponent’s, sets off those alarm bells for me. A private citizen going around on her own time to campaign for someone doesn’t. Unfortunately, as the ghost of Elbridge Gerry can attest, it’s an unattainable goal: as long as humans are the beings in charge of election procedures, they will use their office to advance policies that favor them at the expense of their opponents. What the electorate must do is judge each proposal on its merit. A gerrymandered district may have the laudable end of increasing minority particpation and representation at the same time that it’s advanced for selfish reasons. We can’t reject it out of hand merely because it was proposed by someone whose party would profit by its adoption. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/198 "2011-09-06T16:09:25Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > This is the ridiculous thing. There appears to be a strong view that people should be entitled to claim things without demonstrating that they are entitled to them. > > I’m in the UK, and have watched with disbelief the objections to national ID cards. There is, quite frankly, no downside to them (apart from cost), and massive benefits. The benefits being that we can be sure that anyone who votes, works, or claims benefits here is entitled to do so. It would also remove any issues of whether ID is valid in other situations, such as buying alcohol or other age-restricted products, or if the police need to verify your identity. > > The cost need not be high - if a 10-year passport can be obtained for less than £80, an ID card should be somewhat less. For people claiming that such a cost is to high, it’s less that 16p a week. That’s a frankly trivial amount.\* > > The big problem seems to be the difficulty of obtaining ID in the US, and I agree that’s a massive problem. A national ID scheme would alleviate this, and some sort of spread payment scheme would remove ant financial issues. > > \*I don’t know if it’s been suggested that ID cards could be paid for over time. It should be. With the amount of privacy invasion Brits are comfortable with I’m surprised you don’t all have bar codes tattooed on your neck. ---
**Author:** ![Laudenum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7993a0/32.png) [@Laudenum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laudenum)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/199 "2011-09-06T16:11:55Z")
Just to chuck this in here, most of those restrictions are present in Ireland, and most other European countries. I actually find it bizarre that you consider it such a big deal - it’s standard practice worldwide. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/200 "2011-09-06T16:19:22Z")
> [@Laudenum](#): > > Just to chuck this in here, most of those restrictions are present in Ireland, and most other European countries. > > I actually find it bizarre that you consider it such a big deal - it’s standard practice worldwide. Because it is not present here and we have almost no voter fraud in our present system. What some want to do , is make voting more difficult and more expensive than it has been in the past. It would exclude some voters who would not have the money or the ability to obtain the documentation by the next election. Those who would have trouble are likely Dem voters. Those pushing the rules are REpubs. It is not about right or wrong. It is about trying to win an election by booting as many opposite voters as possible. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180.md?page=11)