The voter ID Thread

[The_Tooth]

@HurricaneDitka

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?

Dunno. Maybe they support reasonable laws like those under which I vote but not your party’s attempts to disenfranchise those who tend not to vote Republican under the guise of “increasing voter confidence” or whatever excuse is hip these days. The poll you’re using doesn’t differentiate.

[Bricker]

@gatorslap

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.

OK.

Then I think I’ve already answered the question many times: the general framework I approve features a requirement for government-issued photo IDs to vote in person, but allows provisional ballots to be cast with the understanding that the voter returns within a short period of time to present his ID. The state must provide free ID, and should allow some method of sworn declaration to serve in place of supporting documents if none can be found after diligent effort. Finally, no change in voting requirements can take effect without at least one intervening election cycle.

[elucidator]

…but allows provisional ballots to be cast with the understanding that the voter returns within a short period of time to present his ID…

Why? He doesn’t have ID, but we are going to assume that he can obtain it within a “short” period of time? And why must he/she return to a specific place to present it?

…sworn declaration to serve in place of supporting documents if none can be found after diligent effort…

Are you going to set a standard of diligence? Keeping in mind that a definition of sufficient diligence must be explicit, or it may be misapplied. That said, we here in the People’s Republic of MN allow that a registered voting neighbor may attest under a glowering threat of penalties that, yes, indeed, this is Pete Peterson of 123 Maple St., and Pete votes. And is registered.

Under this system, had an ultra-close election fairly recently, between “Good 'Nuf” Al Franken and What’s his face. Much noise and tumult, no fraud, no problem. Works. Why fix?

[gatorslap]

@k9bfriender

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.

Funny how I don’t see any clamoring for getting rid of Oregon’s vote-by-mail system, though. Nor do I see voter ID proponents in other states combining the ID requirement with a strict crackdown on absentee voting.

Absentee ballots notwithstanding, I think very few people who are suspicious of voter ID would have a problem with your “ID on the spot” scenario. But that wouldn’t fulfill one of the purposes of voter ID, which is to make people go through the steps to meet the requirement beforehand, or else lose the chance to vote.

[Bricker]

@gatorslap

But that wouldn’t fulfill one of the purposes of voter ID, which is to make people go through the steps to meet the requirement beforehand, or else lose the chance to vote.

If you add “taking a thumbprint,” to the on-the-spot voter ID proposal, I’m all in.

[begbert2]

Honestly forget the ID and just take a photo and a thumbprint. There’s no point in handing out the IDs anyway; once you’re willing to generate them on the spot then they no longer play a part in identifying the voters at all; there’s nothing forcing them to present an ID they’ve been given, after all.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@elucidator

Under this system, had an ultra-close election fairly recently, between “Good 'Nuf” Al Franken and What’s his face. Much noise and tumult, no fraud, no problem. Works. Why fix?

Truth be told, when it comes down to the guy with 49.45% of the vote vs. the guy with 49.36% of the vote, with a margin of plus-or-minus 0.1%… does it really matter which of them takes the office? No matter which does, he’s gotta know that more than half the voters didn’t want him there - it’s not like that 0.09% margin is magically equivalent to sweeping acclaim - so it comes down to character. Will the winning candidate try to persuade some of the hostile half, or will be just declare them to be not true Americans and make every action a “fuck you” gesture to make the friendly half cheer?

[elucidator]

Unlike the boisterous and aggressive Canadian, the typical American is calm, civil and placid.

[Bricker]

@begbert2

Honestly forget the ID and just take a photo and a thumbprint. There’s no point in handing out the IDs anyway; once you’re willing to generate them on the spot then they no longer play a part in identifying the voters at all; there’s nothing forcing them to present an ID they’ve been given, after all.

True. And I agree with this proposal.

[k9bfriender]

@Bricker

If you add “taking a thumbprint,” to the on-the-spot voter ID proposal, I’m all in.

You still think the thumbprint is necessary? I was on board with it, but as many naysayers as there have been about the logistics of carrying around an inkpad, I wasn’t sure how necessary it would be, if you also have a photo. A webcam and some sort of tablet is maybe easier logistically.

@begbert2

Honestly forget the ID and just take a photo and a thumbprint. There’s no point in handing out the IDs anyway; once you’re willing to generate them on the spot then they no longer play a part in identifying the voters at all; there’s nothing forcing them to present an ID they’ve been given, after all.

One reason why I like the idea of giving an ID on the spot is due to others in this thread complaints that there is not enough being done to get ID’s to those who really need them most. It would be a voter ID, but it would also be useable for most of the other functions you need an ID for.

I would be personally down for not having to present any ID at all, they have your photo on file, they look at it, look at you, (look at your signature on file, look at your signature you just signed) and hand you your ballot.

[D_Anconia]

@k9bfriender

You still think the thumbprint is necessary? I was on board with it, but as many naysayers as there have been about the logistics of carrying around an inkpad, I wasn’t sure how necessary it would be, if you also have a photo. A webcam and some sort of tablet is maybe easier logistically.

Wait, I don’t understand. What is at all difficult about the logistics of carrying around an inkpad?

[elucidator]

Depends on “Why?”. To solve an actual problem, not so bad. To prevent a unicorn stampede, stupid.

[k9bfriender]

@D_Anconia

Wait, I don’t understand. What is at all difficult about the logistics of carrying around an inkpad?

I dunno, but when it was proposed in previous threads, it was shot down as unworkable due to the difficulty in carrying an inkpad and possibly a separate book. I couldn’t tell you the specifics, as I thought that they were a bit trite myself, and so did not commit them to memory.

[Bricker]

@k9bfriender

You still think the thumbprint is necessary? I was on board with it, but as many naysayers as there have been about the logistics of carrying around an inkpad, I wasn’t sure how necessary it would be, if you also have a photo. A webcam and some sort of tablet is maybe easier logistically.

This is the modern age! No need for an inkpad; electronic fingerprint readers are almost as inexpensive as webcams.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

This is the modern age! No need for an inkpad; electronic fingerprint readers are almost as inexpensive as webcams.

Great. I look forward to an appropriations bill getting through the current House and Senate approving funding for the modernization of local elections nationwide. The cost, as you point out, is fairly minor and would go a long way toward improving voter confidence, if that’s the actual goal.

[Max_Torque]

Since we’re creating all these new files on everyone, we’ll need a company to look after everyone’s photo and fingerprint records. What’s Equifax doing these days?

[k9bfriender]

@Max_Torque

Since we’re creating all these new files on everyone, we’ll need a company to look after everyone’s photo and fingerprint records. What’s Equifax doing these days?

What company looks after the BMV photos?

[begbert2]

@k9bfriender

What company looks after the BMV photos?

Technically for the purpose of voter authenticity we’d only need to hang on to the data until everybody’s satisfied that all the dark-skinned and/or haggard-looking people in the photo have been traced down and verified as actual residents (and that the same face/print combo hasn’t turned up multiple times). But there’s no way a data cache that valuable will be allowed to vanish; you can be quite certain it will be promptly handed over to, at the very least, the NSA.

So we might as well let them take care of it to start with.

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

Great. I look forward to an appropriations bill getting through the current House and Senate approving funding for the modernization of local elections nationwide. The cost, as you point out, is fairly minor and would go a long way toward improving voter confidence, if that’s the actual goal.

If such a bill were proposed, it’d be killed by the Democrats:

@Max_Torque

Since we’re creating all these new files on everyone, we’ll need a company to look after everyone’s photo and fingerprint records. What’s Equifax doing these days?

@begbert2

Technically for the purpose of voter authenticity we’d only need to hang on to the data until everybody’s satisfied that all the dark-skinned and/or haggard-looking people in the photo have been traced down and verified as actual residents (and that the same face/print combo hasn’t turned up multiple times). But there’s no way a data cache that valuable will be allowed to vanish; you can be quite certain it will be promptly handed over to, at the very least, the NSA.

So we might as well let them take care of it to start with.

[k9bfriender]

@Bricker

If such a bill were proposed, it’d be killed by the Democrats:

It would be killed by people who are highly concerned about privacy and ways that privacy could be breached. Not a partisan thing. Moderates on both sides of the aisle could ignore the fear mongering of the privacy concerns, and get something done. That those who would kill it here based on privacy concerns leaning to the left does not mean much in the broader context, most of the people here are on the left in the first place.

I don’t see the objections as a democratic thing.