Let me ask this of the anti-IDers:
Would you support strict voter ID laws (meaning no ID and you don’t vote) provided the State did one of two things?
a) Provided an ID card (not necessarily photo but with anti-counterfeiting security) upon registration.
b) Made an honest effort to find people without photo ID and provide services to help them get it, even for free if low income.
And by the way, I’m not changing my position. I advocated these solutions for years and I believe I was the first ever on this board to advocate this in a Voter ID thread … before any Dems came around to my way of thinking.
You bring up a point that is often overlooked, and that is the central myth of voter fraud. That Republicans are solidly the majority and always have been, and the only reason the Dems win anything is voter fraud. They will believe anything that shares that central truth, and reject anything that does not.
“Its a lot easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled”.
(Quote attributed to Mark Twain, but I personally doubt it, it doesn’t have the flavor of bourbon and cigar smoke.)
Republican poll workers witnessed and reported Democrats filling in votes on ballots. Thing was that that is legal in Washington if used to clarify a voters choice. Question is what verification is there before the worker marks the vote?
Well, there’s the proof! Before I get too sarcastic, are you kidding? Republican poll workers said so, and that’s it?
Nope, I don’t agree this would work. You may believe these concerns are phantom, but they still exist and cannot be assuaged as you describe.
I disagree with the necessity, but I’m happy to accept the amendment as part of the political process at work. See my post 205, for example.
Since my agreement is with the concept in general, do you picture that I should provide a list of every single law and indicate my agreement or disagreement? No, no – it’s for anyone who disagrees to provide the specific example with which they disagree.
Virtually everyone in this thread or the other has said that they would support voter ID if the ID’s were not onerous to get for those who are already the most marginalized populations.
The objection to voter ID has never been that the elections should not have any integrity, just that they already have plenty of integrity, in-person voting fraud being as close to non-existent as statistically possible, and that these steps were not put into place with the intent of protecting the vote, but rather, as a deliberate and cynical attempt to decrease the number of people voting for the “wrong” side.
With the ability of absentee ballots being far easier to use to manipulate elections, in-person fraud is an error bar inside the error bar. If your projected error from accepting absentee ballots is higher (which I believe it is) than that of in-person fraud, then you are not actually increasing the integrity of the election, you aren’t even decreasing the error bars, you are just eliminating one possible source of noise that is already being drowned out by others.
It would be like if you were a chemist weighing things on a scale.
You have a 100kg weight, which you know for certain is as accurate as is any meaningful measurement. (Vast majority of voters)
You have a 10kg weight, which is accurate to within about 10%. (absentee ballots)
Then you have gram weights that are accurate to less than 1% (in-person fraud)
(I am making up the weights and variances, so they have no specific ratio to actual legitimate/fraudulent votes, but I feel that they are close enough that at least the magnitudes are in the right place.)
Voter ID deals with the gram weights. In theory, that could get you a more accurate result, but in practice, if there actually were an ultra close election swung by fraudulent votes, it was already probably grossly distorted by other effects.
I agree. It’s about the perception, though, and what might happen after the fact. I think most people accept the necessity of absentee ballots but can’t understand why in-person voters must be allowed to vote without ID.
Ummm … the Democratic workers admitted they did it. They claimed they were clarifying votes and since the ballots were defaced there was no evidence of fraud. But then again we had to rely on the poll workers word that they were not committing fraud in a way that they could reasonably assume would be undetectable.
[moderating]
This is me interpreting generously.
I am trying to conceive of a way that this content-less diatribe of fake praise and personalizing the argument isn’t being a jerk. For now I’ll chalk it up to me being hungry that I can’t, and advise you to not personalize arguments in this fashion.
Best stay away from this construction as well lest it be interpreted as an insult. If you feel the need to attempt clever quips intended to denigrate a poster’s intelligence, the BBQ Pit is right around the corner.
[/moderating]
I didn’t say the concerns weren’t real. Right-wing propaganda is very effective, after all. That voter fraud is a concern worth worrying about is the phantom, as I said. Right-wingers worry about voter fraud because they’re told to. Tell them the problem is no longer extant, and they can vote with confidence.
Meanwhile, non-Republicans won’t be at risk of having their names struck from voter rolls for partisan reasons, and they can also head to the polls with confidence.
Or you can just issue ID to all registered voters. Or redefine ID such that it’s almost impossible to not have. I can vote using a prescription insert and cable bill for ID, so long as I’m registered to vote.
To hear is to obey.
Is it worth mentioning that voter ID laws have strong, bi-partisan support? It’s not strictly a right-wing concern.
No, because that poll is an opinion poll. For all I know every single respondent to that poll believes voter fraud is rampant and has made a poor decision using bad data. Or maybe some believe voter ID should be provided and others don’t, but the questions don’t allow for that and so the poll lacks resolution. It doesn’t show that there’s a need for the rules Republicans wish to implement or that these rules will solve the problem they’ve been put in place to allegedly solve, either.
You moderate based on how hungry you are? :eek:
Perhaps I should have snipped your post to the part I was responding to. Earlier you said “Right-wingers worry about voter fraud because they’re told to.” Why do you think so many left-wingers support voter ID laws? Did someone tell them to “worry about voter fraud” too?
I think it’s a reasonable question to ask the particulars of your agreement. If I say I’m in favor of gun control generally, one wouldn’t presume that I’m in favor of any and all gun control regardless of what it does, and it’d be reasonable to ask what sort of measures I do and don’t support. If I say I’m against abortion, it’d be reasonable to ask just how far I take that opposition – should a woman who gets an abortion be charged with a crime? If I say I’m in favor of greater financial regulation, it’s fair to ask for specifics on what I want regulated, which would just be asking for some details, not a complete vision of a regulatory framework. And if you say you’re in favor of voter ID, it’s reasonable to ask what sort of ID requirements you think would be appropriate and what might be a bridge too far. This doesn’t have to be down to existing laws, it can be in the hypothetical; all different manner of proposals have been floated by various parties in various places.
I don’t see the necessity of in-person voting. Oregon has a completely by-mail system of voting and it seems to work fine for them. There haven’t been any allegations of widespread fraud that I’m aware of. There may be a small amount of in-person voting for the disabled or whatever, but otherwise, people fill in their ballot at home and either mail it in or drop it off in a sealed envelope. No long lines at the polls, no dodgy voting machines, no photo ID required.
A great many Americans seem to have lived long contributive lives without them.
Good idea. Why not make sure every country government is responsible before you start hassling somebody who worked in a factory making B-29s so that you could grow up in a world where people don’t have to knuckle under to Hitler?
Great, set out on a national (or at least state-by-state-wide) program to modernize the record-keeping. It can be done. My province of Quebec did it in the mid-1990s, replacing a hodgepodge system of mostly church records with a tidy secular blue form, the wallet-size version of which I routinely carry with me at all times. It helped that we didn’t get the sense at the time that this was a pretext to fucking us out of our votes.
Hey, great endorsement, there.
And, taking you at your word, they should have - and targeted their ire at election workers and not voters.
I don’t get why your ire isn’t directed at the election workers and officials who approve the use of questionable machines and questionable record-keeping. I don’t know why you’re okay with Yvonne being hassled for this; all she did for you was work the swing shift riveting tanks together so that you don’t have to live under fascism.
The benefit of in-person voting is a reduction of fraud. It is easier to commit fraud through absentee ballots, as you don’t have to show any ID or even show your face to vote. It is not that difficult to vote in your wife’s (or ex-wife’s) name. There is also a much easier time of intimidation or buying of votes, as this can occur at any place, not just at the voting booth. I don’t know how easy it is to “sneak” a chest full of ballots in, but as far as voter confidence is concerned, if it happens in “The Good Wife”, then it may well happen in reality as well.
Besides, “what we esteem too lightly” and all that, how much can you esteem the process of voting if you can’t be bothered to get up off your couch?
If I were given dictatorial control over voting, I would get rid of absentee ballots almost entirely (leaving only active servicemen [which I would still do as an actual poll. They go to a location on base to receive and fill out their ballot within the same time frame as early voting back home.]and a few other demographics that can demonstrate a need[that I can’t think of off the top of my head, but I’m sure there’s someone]), but dramatically increase the number of polling stations, including most of which are open for early voting, at least a month before the election in question. If someone does not have an ID, then a voter ID can be made for them on the spot. Taking their picture means that you have their picture in the voter ID database, so if it turns out that they were not supposed to vote, or voted multiple times, that can be easily proven. If they lose their ID in the future, no problem, you can print a new one for their convenience, while comparing their picture to the one on file.
Some of this may cost money, but if as I said, I were completely in charge, then I would not have all that much issue spending the amounts of money required to safeguard and promote our democracy.