I realize that we live in a post-bipartisan world, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence that when Voter ID laws come up, they are always introduced passed by Republican-controlled state houses at the objections of the Democratic minorities.
Does this really mean that Democrats are all for election fraud? (I joke but there are some who actually believe this.)
When one hears about election fraud in the news, it is almost always having to do with voter registration issues (which is not the same thing as voter fraud). The few times where corruption is found, it has to do with local candidates buying votes, something which Voter ID laws do not address.
When you ask proponents for evidence of rampant voter fraud which Voter ID laws would address, they admit that they have none.
Supporters of Voter ID laws like to say “you need an ID to _____________” and list one of a handful of things, but voting is not like those things. It’s a fundamental right, unlike anything else.
In my view, voter ID laws are useful not to stop existing voter fraud nor to disenfranchise any voters, but to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the voting system.
I notice the OP failed to list that as a possible reason for support. Why is that? Didn’t think of it?
I’ve found the debates on here a little puzzling to be honest.
Posters who oppose voting controls keep saying that there is no evidence of voter fraud, but it seems to me that if you don’t have any real checks against voter fraud then you will never catch it.
I know (in Ireland of course) of quite a few cases of multiple voting, but if you went by our official figures it would be deemed non-existant.
Of course it is an attempt to subvert the democratic process and prevent Democratic votes from being cast. If they didn’t manufacture outrage over “the integrity of the election process” they’d have no way to pull of their con game. We can’t legislate something based on the false beliefs of a small but lout minority. Voter ID laws may make sense to you if you believe that ACORN was an evil organization that stole the last election for Obama. But we can’t make laws based on what people misbelieve.
Yet these laws also undermine the confidence that many others have in the integrity of the voting system. Isn’t that funny! More on that at the end of my post…
Meanwhile, back at the facts - we like facts here, right? Because if something done in the name of “public confidence” is based on supposition instead of, dare I say, the straight dope, that would be a lousy reason to do it, right? - they show that they are addressing fraud which has yet in our history to occur (which you concede) but they also ARE disenfranchising voters, and there is evidence for this.
To be sure, even if you feel that the number of disenfranchised voters are exaggerated (apparently provided by people who are all in favor of voter fraud?), they’re not zero. I think everyone would agree that these laws will cause some people to become disenfranchised, even if we can debate on how much the some is.
So you have to ask yourself: Is the security that a type of voter fraud that has yet to occur at all is somewhat less likely to occur for the first time (these laws still don’t make duplitous voting impossible as anyone who has ever had to check IDs at bars in college towns could tell you) worth disenfranchising this x-number of voters?
My feeling is I could possibly be convinced that some disenfranchising of voters might be a necessary evil if it meant stopping some obvious fraud, but that disenfranchising even one voter in the name of addressing a problem that doesn’t exist is shameful.
No. But I don’t agree you’ve shown anything that contradicts the concern about public confidence. I agree that there is, as you say, a non-zero population of voters that will be so discommoded by the requirement to obtain voter ID that they will not vote. And I regard it as an acceptable consequence of being able to say that when people cast votes, we have a system in place that verifies the voter’s identity.
You disagree with that weighing, of course, and you’re welcome to hold that opinion, but there’s nothing that makes your disagreement objectively correct, any more than my agreement is objectively correct.
This is why we live in a democratic republic. We have agreed upon a system to decide what laws to enact, knowing that not all citizens will favor the same approaches. In this case, the elected representatives of various states have agreed with me, and passed laws, representing the will of the people. In other states, representatives have agreed with you, and rejected such laws.
That’s how our system works.
As an aside, I didn’t see you acknowledge the point that in two states, Democratically-controlled state houses have passed voter ID laws.
This assumes there are no checks as it is. There are many rules and regulations pertaining to elections (aren’t Republicans supposed to be against regulations?) as it is, and they often will detect fraud when it occurs.
So you didn’t read the Harvard Law Review piece I linked?
So you think it’s fine to disenfranchise x-number of voters in order to address a problem that doesn’t exist. And this is supposed to make public confidence in elections better. Am I correct?
As for Rhode Island:
The story also comes up with theories as to why a Blue state such as Rhode Island would do something atypical.
And that’s because it is atypical. This legistation is not nearly as likely to disenfranchise someone because they won’t get turned away at the polls.
As for Delaware:
So the Delaware law also doesn’t demand a photo ID and instead allows for many other forms of identification.
So the Democratic-led states with these laws put them in effect with various checks to avoid disenfranchising voters. Possibly you can see the difference in how they are written?
Does anyone have any evidence that Republicans actually desire to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters? Ive never seen any, yet it’s an article of faith among some.
Has any Republican came out and said “This will disenfranchise people who would vote for my opponent?” Not that I know of (but it would be funny if they did).
Will it have that effect? Yes, even though some may disagree on how much of an effect.
Are they aware of this? They should be.
I kind of think that Occam’s Razor should be applied here. YMMV.
I have a better way, that doesn’t disenfranchise anyone. It’s an anti-voting-fraud rock. Place one rock in each polling station and it will prevent voting fraud. It also keeps away the Boogie Man, he’s scaaaary!
Granted, it’s a left-leaning organization. Even so, whatever the actual figure is, it will cost millions of dollars. This while school districts budgets are being cut, among other things.
Why is voter confidence suddenly so all-fired important that we have to spend money bolstering it now, during hard economic times?
If you read the article you’ll see that the complaint is that they have to jump through hoops to get the exemption and that many will feel it’s too much trouble and won’t bother. You’ll also see that most Amish who vote, vote Republican.
I have to believe that there are more non-Amish than Amish that will have to jump through hoops to prove that they can vote, and I have to believe that the poor and minorities (who tend to vote Democratic) will on average have less resources to aid them in jumping those hoops.
Personally, I don’t want to disenfranchise anyone, the Amish included.
Oh, perhaps because that argument tends to come from the same faction that found ways to rationalize Bush v. Gore, perhaps the hugest violation of the integrity of the voting system in our history. And because that position is indistinguishable from the one that they’d reach on the basis of naked partisan advantage, and that every other single position they take on the subject is similarly aligned with that basis. And that the problem they purport to solve, a lack of confidence in the integrity of the voting system, is a problem they themselves have drummed up. And that their purported solution to the problem they have invented involves reducing participation in democracy, *against *our nation’s ideals.
That pretty much cover it for ya? :dubious: Now go try to fool someone else.