Only if the defense doesn’t learn the phrase, “Can you be positive it wasn’t a fake ID?”
If the GOP cared they’d be instituting thumbprints or video recording the sign-ins. But those things don’t let them steal elections.
I believe I was the first person in this thread to propose fingerprints, and the opposition t that plan came from a liberal.
I could be wrong – it’s been about three years.
So, Alabama removing DMV offices from every county where the population is more than 75% black - is there anything to be done about that?
Any protests? Any grassroots efforts to bus people to get ID’s?
A solution is in the works, apparently. If rural counties and the black caucus will support an effort to fund these branches, perhaps a way can be found.
You mean, for all *three *of them? The avalanche of voter fraud in Kansas might be stemmed? We can all breathe a sigh of relief at this happy news!
Perhaps slightly. A poll worker swearing that they diligently checked all the IDs has some (small) value as evidence, but it’d have to be a pretty marginal case for that to move me from a ‘not-guilty’ to a ‘guilty’ verdict.
That right there ^ is the OP.
This right here is the proof that the OP is correct. (.pdf!) Washington Post article here.
IDK who that favors on the Pub side or on the Dem side. Perhaps it just doesn’t matter, in primaries.
Hey! Actual data!
Bricker, any comment?
Just like a liberal lefty, can’t make a good argument so you start dragging in facts!
It’s a working paper, not peer reviewed. So I’d like a chance to study it, and a chance for others better versed in methodology than I am to review it as well. Prior studies have, as we previously discussed, shown different results. It’s not clear to me why this one is correct and they are flawed.
And, Bo, that’s a blogger, not a “Washington Post article.”
Perhaps not so much “flawed” as dated.
Truth be told, I’d be okay with voter IDs if:
- Everyone who was registered for a previous election gets grandfathered in;
- The requirement is coupled with an energetic governmental effort to put such IDs into the hands of every citizen, including going to middle- and high-schools to register young citizens and such;
- The regulations are common-sensical, i.e. even an expired driver’s license would work if coupled with something else showing the address is still current;
- The registration process is greatly improved so every citizen is automatically registered (and cannot be casually unregistered) and the rolls updated constantly any time a citizen has an interaction with the government, unless they specifically opt out in which case they’re idiots and screw them; and
- The process (as well as deciding on district borders) is taken out of the hands of officials who themselves might be re-elected by the process, on the basis of conflict of interest.
Basically, I’d trust it (provisionally) if steps are taken to reduce any possible benefit to elected officials, because the temptation for them to change the rules to increase their odds of re-election is too great.
Of course. No one in this thread (that I recall) has taken the position that the very idea of requiring ID to vote is in some sense flawed. There are plenty of countries that have voter ID laws that seem to work fine.
The devil is in the details, particularly the details of motivation and transitional logistics.
Fair enough. Imagine, hypothetically, that you believed the findings to be accurate. Would that change any of the stands that you have espoused in this thread?
Sorry, it’s published under the Washington Post banner; I didn’t notice the tiny “Wonkblog”. Does it matter, tho? Is it somehow incorrect or suspect information?
Yes, it does matter, quite a lot. It’s the difference between news reporting and opinion.
You guys are always talking about how you should look to Canada for a more civilized way of doing things. I agree.
In Canada, you have to show positive identification to vote. No one on the left or right sees any problem with this whatsoever. A while ago I had an argument with a lefty friend who was ranting about how the Republicans in the U.S. wanted to ‘subvert democracy’. I asked him why he thought requiring proof of citizenship was subverting democracy, and he looked flabbergasted. “That’s not the issue at all! Of course they have to show that - it only makes sense. It’s something else the Republicans are doing!”
When I explained that the issue really was about requiring proof of citizenship before voting, he refused to believe me because that was obvious common sense. What country wouldn’t want to make sure you were eligible to vote before doing so? He promised to get back to me when he found out what the ‘real’ issue was, but never did.
It’s quite clear to me that the reason this is such a huge issue in the U.S. is precisely because the left knows that they would lose votes if that happened because some of their voters wouldn’t be arsed to actually go through the minimal steps required. To me, and I’ll bet to 90% of Canadians if you asked them, if someone can’t be bothered to register to vote or to get some form of official ID, they probably aren’t the kind of person you want voting on stuff anyway.
I daresay the relevant social factors are somewhat different there.