The most important thing you need to know about the voter ID issue . . .

Pretty much whatever they want.

Not that I have a problem with that. I have zero respect for homeschoolers or for any sort who think they have a right to be invisible to the government, which they don’t. One of my early law cases was for a midwifery practice. Nothing to do with the issue at issue (it had to do with midwife-licensing), but I recall that the head of the center once told me that quite a few of their clients were strangely creepy people who ducked out before the birth-certificate could be filled out, and who appeared to have chosen a midwife instead of a hospital just because it would make that easier. They wanted, for religious reasons most likely, to avoid giving Caesar any record of their or their child’s existence. Like the “Blanks” in Max Headroom. Well, fuck 'em lubeless forever, they’re not cool like Blank Reg, they were only crippling their poor child’s future. May all the arrows in their Quiverfull be shot at them with painful effect.

N.B.: Caesar is better than Christ.

And Judas is better than Caesar.

It’s a lot less than that.

One example was cited in post #24. The alleged fraudulent voting amounted to less than 1 in 5,000in that case (note this is how much was being used to scare people).

In the end the investigation was only left with five unresolved votes that might have been fraudulent (out of 1,365,480 votes cast).

That is what? 3.66 fraudulent votes per 1 million (or about 1 per 273,000)?

I looked up the references that my opinion was based on, and I think it is largely on this:

Cheating rarely seen at polls

So far less than 20 cases of voting fraud that could be addressed by voter-ID laws, in two elections, contrasted with 800,000 registered voters with no drivers license, and a significant chunk of those with no photo ID at all.

Are these figures in dispute?

Missed the edit.

Read what you were stating wrong.

My bad.

It is certain that voter fraud in the sense of an impersonator or legally ineligible person casting a ballot is a nonproblem, and the rare instances where it happens are simply noise in the signal, their effect on the outcome unpredictable, and certainly those votes are not sought by either party despite conspiracy theories to the contrary, and requiring voter ID would fix nothing that’s broke.

But I admit it is hard to answer the arguments that presenting ID when you vote just seems right, is done in many countries, you have to present ID to do a lot of other things so what’s the big deal, etc., etc.

But the biggest problem with this nonissue is that it all diverts attention from what’s really wrong with the American electoral system – hyperfederalization, partisan adminstration, incompetent administration, irregularity of procedures and practices, underfunding and obsolete equipment, etc., etc. etc. The world’s oldest existing republic after Switzlerland and San Marino should be able to do all of this right by now! :mad:

While regrettably the current conservative program of voter suppression will probably work for them, it’s going to bite them in the ass in the long run. I order to enact their program, they have to convince the public that voter fraud and illegitimate elections are huge issues in order to justify the need for things like voter ID laws. And it seems to be working and it will most likely tilt the next couple of elections in the conservatives’ favor (which is after all the real goal here).

The problem for conservatives, as is so often the case, will be the backlash when the public sees the consequences of the conservative agenda in action. In this case, it’s going to be thousands of legitimate voters not voting. And having made a huge issue in the public mind over a few dozen possible voter problems, several thousand actual voter problems will be seen as a massive crisis. The Democrats will finally rally, make the obvious comparisons to Jim Crow voting laws, and get the current crop of voting laws overturned.

Of course by that time, the conservatives will already be working on their next plan. They usually have about a decade lead on their schemes.

I applaud this post. I think you’ve honestly admitted the difficulties in arguing against Voter ID, and at the same time pointed out that the real issues go well beyond ID demands to some very systemic problems in conducting elections. Thanks for a concise and accurate statement of the problem.

You credit them with great forward-thinking cleverness. Actually, however, in many tactical and strategic respects, their thinking seems to have a ten-year lag.

In recent years, there has been a sign in my bank prohibiting customers from wearing hats, hoods, or sunglasses. Before this went into effect, what proportion of customers wearing the aforementioned items were bank robbers, I wonder?

Well you veteran fighters of ignorance are really something.

You used good statistical analysis to minimize how much voter fraud might exist because of the lack of voter IDs.

You have successfully held up the belief that the only reason we are getting voter ID laws is because the bad guys want it as it surely will provide fewer votes for the good guys. The fact is that 74% of Americans favor voter ID laws, as stated previously and not challenged.

Not to mention the use of the mysterious disenfranchised voter who will stop voting because they live there lives without any sort of ID. They might exist, but I don’t see any proof in this thread.

You successfully fought ignorance with ignorance.

I suggest you go through the thread again-but this time, actually read it. Everything you claim was glossed over has been covered extensively.

That might be a useful analogy if:

  1. There were some problem with our voting system that the voter-ID laws actually addressed, and

  2. The number of eligible voters prevented from voting by the voter-ID laws was small.

However, since neither of those seems to be true, what was your point?

Is there any problem that voter-ID laws would actually correct? Or even help with?

You are saying there is a large nmber of people without ID? Who? Where? And why don’t they have it for all the other reasons it is a necessary part of modern life?

I don’t see any statistics on disenfranchised voters. Which is the only thing that I claim as glossed over.

I see a good analysis on voter fraud etc, but the disenfranchised voters claim has gotten a pass.

One more time, with scant hope of success. It’s not so much about disenfranchising as it is about discouraging. Make voting more difficult, more tiresome and tedious, and hope to winnow away voters who are not determined to vote. With the hope that this will have some effect on the Dem voter turnout. With the further hope that discouraging some 1, 2, or 3% of those voters will sway a close election.

It has been covered but here are some more stats.

So, roughly 11% of the population does not have a photo ID. That is significant.

In the realm of disenfranchisement this is not the sole means being attempted either. Get a few percent here, a few percent there and you can seriously sway election results.

After three pages of this thread, apparently nobody has any. There have not even been any studies, that anyone has heard of, about what effect voter-ID laws had in any way on the 2012 elections.

Substitute “Dems” and “Pubs” for “good guys” and “bad guys” respectively in that sentence, and that is certainly true. Hasen devotes a whole chapter to “The Fraudulent Fraud Squad.” Nothing coming from the Pub side on that issue in the past decade has been honest.

Except, perhaps, for this rare moment of candor:

Hasen’s not making that up, either. Vadum’s article.

And not in any way relevant to any of the above. Probably about 50% of Americans favor voter ID laws for partisan reasons, perhaps even for Vadum’s worse-than-that reasons, and the other 24% for the reasons I mentioned in post #127, i.e., it just seems right.