# I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 12, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943 "2012-06-12T19:15:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/261 "2012-06-14T23:21:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As Bosstone correctly observes, this is a side effect, not the goal. Of course it’s the goal. Otherwise, they’d bar absentee ballots, which is where a boatload of the actual (albeit negligible) fraud occurs. Which Voter ID law was bundled with the elimination of absentee ballots again? I also don’t see you up in arms about the exceptionally long waiting lines in urban areas while the suburbanites can often breeze right in. For fuck’s sake, you know better, and we know you know better. I’ve often disagreed with you, and even thought that you sometimes used twisted logic to try and defend your stance, but I don’t recall ever thinking that you were nothing more than a partisan shill. I do now. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/262 "2012-06-14T23:29:44Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I don’t doubt that you don’t take what Bricker said for a lie. Because you aren’t very smart. Actually, smart has very little to do with this one. It’d simply understanding what a “lie” is and is not. Odd that this little nugget of information has been so elusive for you all these years. > [@Lobohan](#): > > I’ll leave it up to the peanut gallery as to whether Bricker’s actions in that thread count as lying. By all means. Let anyone who wants to raise their hand an admit they share this bit of ignorance and idiocy with you stand and be counted. Of course, you still haven’t even pointed to a “lie”. You already backpedaled to “dishonest”, and that amounted to him only offering his side of the argument. Boo-hoo, poor Chuckle Head… **Bricker** didn’t argue your side of the debate for you. You really don’t see how lame your on in this, do you? Ahh. Such is part of the beauty, I guess. Perhaps you might learn to keep your ad hominem yap shut a little more. Hope springs eternal. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/263 "2012-06-14T23:29:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So my point is: prudence dictates we implement a system ahead of time that allows us to reliably associate voters with voting. That may not stop fraud, but it creates a real framework for catching and punishing non-citizen voters, for example. Now, a voter can simply deny he was the one casting the ballots. > > > [@Sinaptics](#): > > > > But we’ve already established that ID doesn’t do that. Yeah, umm, > [@Bricker](#): > > … The problem arises only in the very rare cases when an election’s results are within a margin of error that includes voter fraud numbers. > > The Washington State governor’s race in 2004 is a good example. No one knew ahead of time that the race would be so razor-thin. After a recount, Democrat Christine Gregoire was ahead by 129 votes. > > That is not the time to discover that 200 voters were illegal aliens. > > What do you do? You can’t subtract 200 votes from Gregoire – that would clearly be unfair, absent some showing they all voted for her. At the same time, you realize that the opponent is going to point to those votes as evidence that the winner shouldn’t be considered the winner. … we might prevent some illegal votes before the fact and we can catch illegal voters after the fact but unless we abandon the secret ballot (now there’s an idea sorely lacking for an advocate!) . . . Gregoire still wins. So, tell me again, exactly what does this voter ID thingy accomplish exactly? I can clearly see how shifting voter confidence from elections in general to the legitimacy of a specific elected official might appeal to [del]Republicans[/del] some. If the wet ink on the birth certificate don’t sway 'em surely the wetbacks will? > [@Sinaptics](#): > > … ID’s are easily falsifiable, especially nowadays. In another thread a did some research and found one can be bought online for $20-25 complete with readable magnetic stripe. … The first rule of voter ID fight club is you don’t mention the glaringly obvious security holes in voter ID fight club (see also: the solution to dead folks still being listed in poll books isn’t to properly maintain the books . . . it’s voter ID, _… it gets rid of your gambling debts it quits smoking it’s a friend and it’s a companion and it’s the only product you will ever need follow these easy assembly instructions it never needs ironing well it takes weights off hips bust thighs chin midriff gives you dandruff and it finds you a job it is a job and it strips the phone company free take ten for five exchange and it gives you denture breath and you know it’s a friend and it’s a companion and it gets rid of your traveler’s checks it’s new it’s improved it’s old-fashioned well it takes care of business never needs winding never needs winding never needs winding …_ Tom Waits [_Step Right Up_](http://www.tomwaits.com/songs/#/songs/song/222/Step_Right_Up/)) CMC fnord! Interesting note: The thread [\*Do the flaws in electronic voting machines render American elections unreliable? \*](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=654615) in GD has a grand total of 62 posts and the last one was on 06-12-2012. I guess some of the reasons for a lack of voter confidence in elections are just more important than others, or could it be that the solutions to flaws in electronic voting machines don’t do anything to advance the Quixotic quest for voter IDs? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/264 "2012-06-14T23:40:16Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I am calling a liar anyone who claims to believe that any of this shit – voter-roll purges, voter-ID laws, caging-lists – has any real purpose other than Dem vote-suppression. I deny you **do** believe it. This is not a matter of respecting honest disagreement, because there is none. That is what this Pitting is **about.** Can I state that any more plainly? Well, you can _call_ anyone a liar you want. You can call your chair a liar, too. Doesn’t make it so, though. And your explanation shows how your bias short-circuits your brain. It is wrong to think that what you describe has at its necessary and ONLY purpose Dem vote-suppression. For even if it is granted that such suppression is a necessary result—hell, even the _intent_ of it—you also have the increased likelihood that only proper votes will be cast and the chances of a valid vote being undone by an illegal one is reduced. You have a more secure voting system that people can have increased faith in. So, you’re wrong. You say it’s not about repeating honest disagreement. Well, you’re free to not respect honest disagreement all you want. But what I love is that you absolutely deny 100% that anyone can have a principled position on this. Why? Because you’ve declared it so. That’s some comical shit, right there. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/265 "2012-06-15T02:04:15Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > So you’re acknowledging that you’re not right, but relying on the fact that most people want it. > > Okay, I acknowledge that surveys may suggest that majorities would in general favor voter IDs. Let’s provide them with facts, and then ask again. Let’s ask if they think it would be worth the cost. Go right ahead. > [@](#): > > Relatedly, I suppose you must favor abortion rights. After all, majorities do, so therefore… No, I don’t favor abortion rights. But I absolutely acknowledge the legitimacy and validity of abortion rights laws. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/266 "2012-06-15T02:10:02Z")
> [@Sinaptics](#): > > Okay, went back and reread all 16 pages of that damn thread. Was a real pain in the ass because I went backwards and for the last 10 pages you were telling John Stamos to go back an read your answer, which was actually on page 1 or 2. > > Since I want everyone to be able to play along, I have to craft a post that gives the links and summarizes the argument which will take a bit of time. I’ll see if I can get to this later or tomorrow as I have to go back to work since I spent the last hour reading a 16 page thread. > > However, in brief, I think you arbitrarily dismissed the findings of the study. They even directly contradict your expressed reason for accepting them. Obviously I don’t agree. We can have that discussion here or in that thread – whichever you like. Of course, I wonder why you’d bother. According to the current line, I’m simply an unrepentant liar. Why would you waste time constructing an argument, if I am the sort of person who would simply deny you had a point? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/267 "2012-06-15T02:11:51Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I am calling a liar anyone who claims to believe that any of this shit – voter-roll purges, voter-ID laws, caging-lists – has any real purpose other than Dem vote-suppression. I deny you **do** believe it. This is not a matter of respecting honest disagreement, because there is none. That is what this Pitting is **about.** Can I state that any more plainly? No, your point is plain. It’s simply wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/268 "2012-06-15T02:12:51Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > Of course it’s the goal. Otherwise, they’d bar absentee ballots, which is where a boatload of the actual (albeit negligible) fraud occurs. Which Voter ID law was bundled with the elimination of absentee ballots again? I also don’t see you up in arms about the exceptionally long waiting lines in urban areas while the suburbanites can often breeze right in. > > For fuck’s sake, you know better, and we know you know better. I’ve often disagreed with you, and even thought that you sometimes used twisted logic to try and defend your stance, but I don’t recall ever thinking that you were nothing more than a partisan shill. I do now. Let me guess: you’ve lost all respect for me? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/269 "2012-06-15T02:17:57Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Yeah, umm,we might prevent some illegal votes before the fact and we can catch illegal voters after the fact but unless we abandon the secret ballot (now there’s an idea sorely lacking for an advocate!) . . . Gregoire still wins. > So, tell me again, exactly what does this voter ID thingy accomplish exactly? As I have mentioned several times, the purpose is creating a framework by which we can reliably associate voters with the fact that they voted. We can prosecute non-citizens who vote. This will,I am confident, be a deterrent for non-citizens voting,in the same way that cameras in bank lobbys act a deterrent for bank robberies. Are you telling me that you missed each and every previous post where I said this? ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/270 "2012-06-15T05:17:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Let me guess: you’ve lost all respect for me? I realize it means squat to you, but yes. The list of people who I find to be without integrity isn’t actually terribly long. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/271 "2012-06-15T12:46:16Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I am calling a liar anyone who claims to believe that any of this shit – voter-roll purges, voter-ID laws, caging-lists – has any real purpose other than **Dem vote-suppression**. I deny you **do** believe it. This is not a matter of respecting honest disagreement, because there is none. That is what this Pitting is **about.** Can I state that any more plainly? So you honestly believe that the Republican Party powers-that-be have data showing “a majority of Dem voters do not have valid government issued ID and are so busy being awesome that they can’t go get one in time for an election every four years.” And that upon seeing that data they decided that this law would would suppress enough votes for them to gain an advantage? That is what you think their master plan is? Did you know that in the 2008 election only 57.37% of eligible voters bothered to cast a vote? Of those, only 52.9% voted for Obama, about 10million more than for McCain. That’s not much more than a quarter of eligible voters, and you honestly believe that the Republican Party thinks they aren’t able to go get valid government id? Of that 10million, how many do you think (a) did not at the time have valid government issued id and (b) would not have ever been able to get one because they’re so busy being awesome during the entire 4 years leading up to the election and (c) that group represents a significant enough MARGIN that it would have altered the electoral college in McCain’s favour all the while (d) not in any way suppress Republican votes in a district that might tip the scales in favour of Obama. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/272 "2012-06-15T14:08:38Z")
Okay, these studies on the effect of voter ID on voter confidence were previously posted in the following thread: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=652910&highlight=confidence](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=652910&highlight=confidence) Harvard/Columbia study (_Note: This appears to be a joint effort between members of the two institutions. John actually linked it twice as separate studies, which it’s not_): [http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces/publications/vote-fraud-eye-beholder-role-public-opinion-challenge-voter-identification-require](http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces/publications/vote-fraud-eye-beholder-role-public-opinion-challenge-voter-identification-require) Among the conclusions (bolding mine): > [@](#): > > Although a sizable share of the population believes that vote fraud commonly or occasionally occurs, there is little or no relationship between beliefs about the frequency of fraud and electoral participation (reported, validated, or intended). Nor does it appear to be the case that universal voter identification requirements will raise levels of trust in the electoral process. **Such fears appear unaffected by stricter voter ID laws, given that individuals asked to produce ID seem to have the same beliefs about the frequency of fraud as those not asked for ID.** MIT Study: [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=2035513](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2035513) This study looks at the aspect of partisanship on voter confidence. Among the findings: > [@](#): > > Those findings suggest that change in election procedures, rather than their substance, decreases confidence in electoral practices. Another electoral practice that comes to mind worthy of investigating is voter identification, which has been justified precisely on voter confidence grounds. Our findings here suggest that states which have recently adopted more stringent voter identification requirements may experience a drop in voter confidence afterwards, and not only among opponents of the requirement. John also referenced a book excerpt that I won’t link since we can’t adequately dissect it (unless someone wants to buy copies for everyone). In response to these links, Bricker quotes the following from the Harvard/Columbia study: > [@](#): > > We begin this Essay in Part I by situating the argument about fears > of fraud within the debate over voter identification requirements and > election law more generally. The argument follows a path familiar to > campaign finance law, in which the Court elided difficult questions > about the empirics of campaign contributions and corruption by relying on the prevention of the appearance of corruption as a state interest sufficient to justify restrictions on campaign contributions and expenditures. > > Part II describes the unique national survey we > conducted to assess how widespread popular fear of two different > types of election fraud is, and the relationship between such fear and > the likelihood of people turning out to vote. Part III discusses our > findings about the prevalence of perceptions of vote fraud and how > those perceptions vary among political, racial, and other demographic > subgroups. In Part IV, we present findings suggesting that such fears > of fraud, while held by a sizable share of the population, do not have > any relationship to a respondent’s likelihood of intending to vote or > turning out to vote. Part V then assesses whether voter identification > laws might make a difference in quelling such fears of fraud. We find > that voters who have been forced to show identification are no less > likely to perceive fraud than those not similarly subject to an ID requirement. Part VI presents our conclusions. And responds thus: > [@](#): > > I suggest that the questions answered miss the mark. The real question would be: if voter ID is universal, and understood as a strict requirement in the jurisdiction, would voters still perceive fraud in equal strength? Bricker appears to be relying on the notion (correct me if I’m wrong) that when voters who were required to present ID were asked about confidence they were thinking about places that don’t require voter ID. This is the only explanation that I can come up with since the study states right in it’s conclusion that > [@](#): > > Such fears appear unaffected by stricter voter ID laws, given that individuals asked to produce ID seem to have the same beliefs about the frequency of fraud as those not asked for ID. Bricker in a follow-up post quotes this part of the study: > [@](#): > > The particular structure of the Cooperative Congressional Election > Study allows us to measure the use of voter identification at the aggregate state level and the individual level. The 2006 CCES asked individuals whether they were asked to show picture identification when > they voted. > 40 > Approximately half of all voters said that they were > asked to show photo identification, with the highest rates in the southern states and the lowest rates in the northeast. > 41 > States served as the > sampling frame for the 2006 CCES, and the very large 36,500-person > sample creates sufficient density of cases in each state that we can aggregate the individual-level responses to the state level to estimate the > frequency with which voter identification is required in the states. Of > course, only a few states actually mandate photo identification as the > only acceptable form of identification in order to vote. > 42 > We suspect > that most respondents who say they were asked for photo ID, in fact, > were merely asked for some form of ID and they produced a photo ID > — the most likely type of identification voters would have handy. > Nevertheless, one might suspect that if more stringent identification > requirements produce more confidence in elections, voters who say > they needed to produce ID would have lower fears of fraud than those > not similarly asked. > 43 > Moreover, although the aggregated responses > differ from what the law on the books actually requires in many states, > one still might expect that respondents from states where larger shares > of people say they were required to produce a photo ID might have > different views on the prevalence of fraud. and writes that he rejects the reasoning of the study because > [@](#): > > This misunderstands the value of photo ID. When a voter knows he is not REQUIRED to produce photo ID, he knows the ID requirements are weak or useless --even if he was personally asked for and able to provide a photo ID. Which doesn’t make any sense because they specifically asked people who WERE required to provide ID. These two studies together heavily suggest that voter ID will have no impact or a negative impact on voter confidence. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/273 "2012-06-15T14:17:54Z")
> [@August\_West](#): > > Okay, so maybe “the poor” (although you seem to posit fairly lazy poor people), but why “minorities”? > > I’ve been poor, and it isn’t an easy life, but finding an hour to take a bus across town to the DMV is hardly an “onerous burden” > [@Bricker](#): > > Open 9-5, Monday through Friday, with maybe some weekend hours as well, the whole goddam year, vs one polling place open on Election Day. > > “Hmmmmm.” When I moved to Baltimore three years ago, I had to get a new drivers license. I drove to the closest DMV, which was a forty-minute drive from my house. I got there an hour before they opened, and the line was, no shit, halfway across the damn parking lot. It took me two hours just to get into the building. Once inside, it was another two hours before I was able to even start the process of getting my ID. Luckily, my wife is very organized, and had remembered to bring everything we needed to get our licenses- if I’d gone by myself, I wouldn’t have brought enough to prove that I actually live where I said I did. Now imagine doing all of that on a minimum wage. Imagine doing all that without a vehicle. Imagine doing all of that in a wheelchair. Yes, it _is_ a goddamn “onerous burden”. Three years later, I still seethe when I think about how much bullshit that entire thing was. When I had to renew my tags, I took my coworker’s advice and went the opposite direction, out into the country. Again, another forty minute drive- but at this DMV, I was in and talking to a clerk within ten minutes. Of course, no bus runs out there… Personally, I don’t care whether we check IDs for voting. I was actually surprised the first time I voted and I didn’t have to present my ID. However, if you’re going to do it, it’s got to be _as easy as voting is now._ If it isn’t, if you require more hoops to jumped through, then you’re disenfranchising voters who would normally be able to vote. And I’m sure it’s just coincidence that Republicans are the ones presenting this solution for a problem which may or may not exist, and which seems to disenfranchise voters who are more likely to vote for the opposition. Republicans are for small government, as long as it’s the government \*they \*want. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/274 "2012-06-15T14:21:45Z")
One thing that I postulated in another thread was a dual-system where you have to enter your SS # into a terminal prior to being allowed to vote. We already have plenty of systems with full lists of SS #'s that we could tie into, so setup shouldn’t be a burdensome problem. Additionally, only citizens have SS #s. If it comes up that you’re SS # has already been used, then ID could be provided to establish identity and an investigation could ensue. Any thoughts on this? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/275 "2012-06-15T14:52:04Z")
I’m not sure what these questions are even doing here, since they are fair, reasonable, and cogent efforts aimed at either refining or rebutting my claims. It’s as if you brought in Bizarro World posts. > [@Sinaptics](#): > > Bricker appears to be relying on the notion (correct me if I’m wrong) that when voters who were required to present ID were asked about confidence they were thinking about places that don’t require voter ID. This is the only explanation that I can come up with since the study states right in it’s conclusion that Not exactly correct. From the Harvard study, page 1755: > [@](#): > > Of course, only a few states actually mandate _photo_ identification as the only acceptable form of identification in order to vote.[sup]42[/sup] We suspect that most respondents who say they were asked for photo ID, in fact, were merely asked for some form of ID and they produced a photo ID — the most likely type of identification voters would have handy. Nevertheless, one might suspect that if more stringent identification requirements produce more confidence in elections, voters who say they needed to produce ID would have lower fears of fraud than those not similarly asked. (emphasis added) It’s upon this supposition that the authors rest their claims. But it’s not a valid one. Most voters know that their state doesn’t require photo ID. They weren’t thinking of other states when they responded as they did; they were thinking of their own state and the fact that photo ID was not required. It was THAT lack which resulted in a lower confidence. A repeat of this study, divided between states that require photo ID and those that don’t, will prove my point. See the distinction? Even people that were asked to produce ID were not required to produce PHOTO ID. That is the key upon which the whole voter ID discussion rests. Voters are not fools; they know a non-photo ID is weak or meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/276 "2012-06-15T14:56:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m not sure what these questions are even doing here, since they are fair, reasonable, and cogent efforts aimed at either refining or rebutting my claims. It’s as if you brought in Bizarro World posts. > > Not exactly correct. > > From the Harvard study, page 1755: > > (emphasis added) > > It’s upon this supposition that the authors rest their claims. But it’s not a valid one. Most voters know that their state doesn’t require photo ID. They weren’t thinking of other states when they responded as they did; they were thinking of their own state and the fact that photo ID was not required. It was THAT lack which resulted in a lower confidence. A repeat of this study, divided between states that require photo ID and those that don’t, will prove my point. > > See the distinction? Even people that were asked to produce ID were not required to produce PHOTO ID. That is the key upon which the whole voter ID discussion rests. Voters are not fools; they know a non-photo ID is weak or meaningless. But many/most of the laws (if not all) being passed STILL don’t require photo ID. So I don’t see how that’s relevant to the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/277 "2012-06-15T14:57:48Z")
> [@Sinaptics](#): > > One thing that I postulated in another thread was a dual-system where you have to enter your SS # into a terminal prior to being allowed to vote. We already have plenty of systems with full lists of SS #'s that we could tie into, so setup shouldn’t be a burdensome problem. Additionally, only citizens have SS #s. If it comes up that you’re SS # has already been used, then ID could be provided to establish identity and an investigation could ensue. > > Any thoughts on this? That wouldn’t bother me at all. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/278 "2012-06-15T14:58:15Z")
> [@Sinaptics](#): > > One thing that I postulated in another thread was a dual-system where you have to enter your SS # into a terminal prior to being allowed to vote. We already have plenty of systems with full lists of SS #'s that we could tie into, so setup shouldn’t be a burdensome problem. Additionally, only citizens have SS #s. If it comes up that you’re SS # has already been used, then ID could be provided to establish identity and an investigation could ensue. > > Any thoughts on this? Yes. My wife is a citizen of the Dominican Republic and has a social security number. I’d love to get another right-wing voter on the rolls. Second problem: let’s say I show up and the system tells me my SSN has been used to vote. A full investigation of my ID proves I am the legitimate holder of my SSN. How do we identify and prosecute the previous voter, the one who used my SSN? ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/279 "2012-06-15T15:02:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. > > My wife is a citizen of the Dominican Republic and has a social security number. I’d love to get another right-wing voter on the rolls. > > Second problem: let’s say I show up and the system tells me my SSN has been used to vote. A full investigation of my ID proves I am the legitimate holder of my SSN. > > How do we identify and prosecute the previous voter, the one who used my SSN? Hmm…wasn’t aware that territory members got SS numbers. Makes sense now that I’m thinking about it. I suppose since we know which SS #s come from the territories, we could just bar their use. Not sure re: investigation. Also, since you (probably) couldn’t link the two systems, you wouldn’t know which way the false vote went to discount it. Maybe a thumb print (not linked to a database) at voting time? That way, we have a fingerprint with which to identify the illegally voting party. Additionally, the ink could keep people from voting more than once. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/280 "2012-06-15T15:11:44Z")
> [@Sinaptics](#): > > Hmm…wasn’t aware that territory members got SS numbers. Makes sense now that I’m thinking about it. I suppose since we know which SS #s come from the territories, we could just bar their use. > > Not sure re: investigation. Also, since you (probably) couldn’t link the two systems, you wouldn’t know which way the false vote went to discount it. Maybe a thumb print (not linked to a database) at voting time? That way, we have a fingerprint with which to identify the illegally voting party. Additionally, the ink could keep people from voting more than once. I would absolutely be in favor of a thumb print at voting time, reliably associated with the name and address of the voter. In fact, that’s better than a photo ID. Er… the DR is not a US territory. Non-citizen permanent residents get Social Security numbers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=15)