In Florida, in 2000, the margin of votes for victory is fairly described as less than the margin of error.
In a circumstance like that, with a few hundred votes out of tens of millions being determinative of a state’s electoral votes, and that state’s votes being determinative of the presidential election, it seems your own concession provides sufficient impetus. The time to correct this kind of error is now, not when highly motivated partisans are either attacking or defending each questionable vote.
I understand what you are saying but I doubt any system can be sufficiently accurate not have some questionable votes cast. When it is as close as that a very few votes obviously matter a lot. But I think it was you (might be wrong) who once schooled me that making law based on the exception rather than the rule usually makes for bad law (ok…highly paraphrased from a dim memory and I think you or whoever said it more eloquently but I think that was the gist of it).
I would still like to see:
A) How many fraudulent votes are cast in Tennessee (not including absentee ballots which are not covered for this).
B) How much the new rules are expected to reduce fraudulent votes.
I am also pretty sure there will always be some fraudulent votes (either intentionally or, more likely, someone accidentally goes to the wrong polling place). With so many people casting votes errors are bound to occur.
That said I do not think the public in Tennessee or anywhere else generally feel elections are rigged and have no faith in the results.
Voter fraud these days is more of the type that the republicans pulledin Ohio in 2004.
In other words, “legal” voter fraud. In my opinion this is more of the same. Legally disenfranchising a certain segment of voters.
If you want to talk about having faith in election results how can one have faith when the system itself is rigged against one side? The occasional miscast vote (whether intentional or by accident) is a drop in the bucket in comparison to these sorts of shenanigans.
That argument can easily be turned around. If we make it even a little bit harder for people to vote then if only 1/10 of 1% of voters are unable to meet the new requirements it can still have a significant effect on the outcomes of elections.
So the question is what is the actual rate of people voting illegally compared to the number that will be disenfranchised by the new law. You wouldn’t vaccinate people if there were a 1% chance of them dying from the vaccine and only a 0.5% chance of them dying from the disease.
Nobody has mentioned this yet, but when I walk into a polling place, I burn calories. I must then replenish those calories with food that I have to buy with my OWN money! Is that not a poll tax? I mean, they condition my RIGHT to vote on me being able to get into the polling place, breathe oxygen while voting (which also requires calories) and to find my own way out, burning calories, wasting my money all the way.
I feel that the state should bring the ballot to me in my bed, put me on a respirator, and then let me vote so that I don’t have to expend even a de minimus amount of money. But then again, if I am still conscious, then I am using mental thought, which I should be compensated for, otherwise it would be an invidious poll tax.
Who is with me? The future of democracy is at stake!
Since there are almost zero fraudulent voting, you have to ask why such legislation is being proposed.
It affects the poor, the old and minorities. I heard on TV that 25 percent of minorities don’t own cars. Poor people don’t have them. Getting a new form of proof would be burdensome for seniors.
The money which is trivial for many has a big impact on the few.
What it distills down to is it would eliminate a sect of Democratic voters.
This is not, strictly speaking, true. A driver’s license is required for operating a vehicle on public roads. There is no other government regulated activity that I’m aware of that require a driver’s license.
Any private companies that ask for an ID will accept other forms of ID, unless you happen to be trying to rent a vehicle for use on public roads.
In Peru, for what it’s worth, the people manning the polling station not only are required to ask for the NAtional Identity card (which is free for poor people), but also have you photo on their list of voters for that specific station (usually 150-200 people) to check it. If we can do it i can’t see why the US can’t.
I am still flabbergasted that people in the year 2011 are able to function in society without a government issued ID. I can’t even begin to list the number of things that require an ID in modern society, or the many reasons I have had to show mine in the last year.
Don’t these senior citizens need to present ID at the bank when they cash their social security checks? Or provide one when they opened a bank account to deposit them in? Don’t the poor need to likewise show ID when they cash welfare checks? Or apply for Section 8 housing?
Hell, what about hospital treatment or a doctor’s visit? Can I just say that I don’t own a government issued ID and my name is Shaemus McGillicuddy III and I live at 123 Popular Lane? Just send me a bill? You wouldn’t deny me health care because of a lack of ID, would you?
Well, that’s nice, but it’s clear that there are lots of people who do function in society without government issued photographic identification cards, so… so what?
To what extent do they function in society? They can’t drive, work, cash a check, or open a bank account. If I have to show photo ID to buy cold medication, then showing ID to vote is not that harsh, IMHO.
Not entirely. In order to get a job, you need to fill out an I-9 form and provide documents proving you’re legally able to work in the US. The 1-9 form is here:
The documents that meet the requirement are on the last page. I think a few of those eligible documents don’t have a photo ID, but the vast majority do.
Some states like Arizona require proof of citizenship to get voter registration. One county rejected 75 percent of applicants because they did not include sufficient proof. Proof of citizenship is more expensive to get and requires a lot of dealing with agencies.
Many people in Louisiana would have trouble getting proof after Katrina.
People who have been voting for a long time would be stopped from voting. Old people would have more trouble dealing with agencies and the trouble of getting ID.
One site said over 700,000 voters in North Carolina don’t have drivers licenses.
Some people live in the country. getting to the proper offices in the city to get an ID might be a difficult process.
This is just another Republican move to scrub potential Democratic voters disqualified.
And I am a fully functioning, employed middle class person and I show my ID so rarely, I’m not even entirely sure where my driver’s license is right now. I don’t write checks in stores (because it’s 2011) and I don’t buy tobacco or alcohol.
I refuse on general principle to buy behind-the-counter cold medicine and go into a federal registry when I can send someone else to pick up strong prescription narcotics for me with no ID shown or even question as to who they are.
I understand that certain retailers (Walmart) demand ID to buy things like spray paint and certain chemicals due to graffiti and huffing incidents. I do not shop at such retailers.
Very, very few people cash a social security check. The money is direct deposited into bank accounts they’ve had for years on end, opened when they did still have valid driver’s licenses. The Social Security administration is loath to send out live checks and in the rare cases that they do, they’re generally to people who have someone else (a child, caretaker or POA holder) handle their finances for them.
And see, that’s another sticky point. A lot of people who don’t currently have ID did at one point. But their circumstances have changed and since they no longer own/drive a car or no longer have financial liquidity, when their license/ID expired, they didn’t bother to renew. Many people also mistakenly report themselves as not having valid ID because their address has changed, and they are unaware of how to update their address with the state and think that they need to go through the whole application and photo-taking process again. (Though a valid ID with an outdated address presents another barrier to voting.)
And the ridiculous thing is that the picture on an expired ID is still a photo of the holder. The name is still theirs, but it’s no longer considered legitimate proof of identity – the one thing that it does still demonstrably prove, and only because an arbitrary date has passed.
And it’s very arbitrary – Pennsylvanian drivers are only demonstrably themselves for four years, two years (optionally) as senior citizens. Marylanders can prove that they’re themselves for five years, while North Carolinans get a full decade. In some states the length of validity of state-issued photo IDs is incongruous with the validity of driver’s licenses, so you’re yourself longer if you don’t drive a car. So the idea that you need to renew at intervals so that the photo is contemporary enough to be reliable has no concrete standard. Saying that an expired license no longer legitimately identifies the holder is balderdash, but it’s a legal fiction we allow to stand.
You don’t cash welfare checks (and don’t need a photo ID to sign up for benefits) because there are no checks. Recipients are issued a debit card that contains both cash benefits (TANF) and food-only (SNAP, aka food stamp) benefits. You can get the cash from ATMs and swipe the card at the grocery checkout just like any other.
They’ll accept photo ID but if you don’t have one, they’ll accept a Social Security card and birth certificate as proof of identity.
All of these things are readily learned by simple application of Google. Try “apply for Section 8 benefits (your state)” if you wish to verify.
I’ve been hospitalized in three states in the last decade, and have seen doctors in five different offices and didn’t have to show state-issued ID at any stage. (During one admission, my ID wasn’t even in the same state.) Yes, even if you’re uninsured, they just take your name and address. If you’re hospitalized for any period of time, they’ll send around a social worker from the financial office to confirm your information (but they still don’t ask for ID) and to cajole you to apply for Medicaid, even if you’re unlikely to (or absolutely won’t) qualify.
Yes, entirely. A photo ID is not necessary to secure employment in the US unless the job requirements include operating a vehicle on public roads.
You’ll notice that a person can submit a Voter’s Registration card and a Social Security card as proofs (and a number of other combinations of cards) which requires no photo.
National Identity Card? This is America! Land of the free! Suck it, world!
/sarcasm off/
This is a great, interesting discussion going on here. For me, it boils down to .. will the voter ID requirements prevent some number of legal voters from exercising their right to vote? I think they probably will. Whether it’s the (yes, minor) financial costs of obtaining such an ID, or the cost of time and hassle to get where you need to go to get that ID, or even the ignorance of knowing what is required once you make the effort to get to the polls - I think there would be some otherwise eligible voters who would then choose to say, “Screw it, this is too much hassle.”
So, should we agree as a nation that this relatively minor hurdle is one that a citizen should be willing to encounter in order to exercise their voting rights? Or are we okay with not counting the potential votes of this relatively small sector of our society? I think that’s the debate, right there.
I’m personally not in favor of much restriction at all at the polls, even though none of these regulations would affect me personally. The voting process shouldn’t be a burden to work your way through. That said, I do agree with the idea that registration should be the place to prove your eligibility to vote. You show up at the polls, you’re on the list of registered voters, you should be good to go and that’s it. If we’re going to be showing ID when we vote, why have registration at all?
I agree with this but I also believe that documents which have civic importance ought be 100% free; otherwise, it’d be like requiring parents to purchase their newborn child’s Social Security Number from the feds or Certificate of Live Birth from the State. The State ought not require ID cards to vote without ensuring everyone has free and fair access to it. The goal should be to ensure that those who are voting are who they say they are and should not be about making likely voters jump through hoops for the sake of jumping through hoops.
