Full disclosure: I think the current push for voter ID is a sham excuse to limit the vote for members of the Democratic Party. While I think that it is theoretically possible to vote in the name of someone else—and may theoretically be easy to do so—voter fraud is a non-existent problem. Even in cases where it has occurred, its impact on any election has been negligible.
Many newspapers are splashed with photographs of the Egyptian vote. Among iconic imagery is a person holding out a forefinger or thumb that has been dipped in ink, showing the person voted. It’s recognizable enough that we use it all the time in books we write/put together about democratic governance.
When the bugaboo of voter fraud comes up, why hasn’t anyone inserted an amendment or pushed for such practices to be adopted here, rather than go through the ID process? I know why the Republican establishment wouldn’t go for it (see full disclosure), but what lip service do they pay to their objections to the practice? Aside from their spin, what are the legitimate reasons this doesn’t both solve the so-called voter fraud problem and allow maximum enfranchisement?
Older democracies went through stages of sufferage - elites, properties owners, all men, over 25, etc. Early in the process only ‘good’ and ‘decent’ types had the vote and that was continued as entitlement widened.
The new democracies went straight to universal sufferage - even the hoi polio can vote nowadays.
So the bulk of people supposedly voting with stolen identities is made up of non-citizens, the disenfranchised, and those who already submitted an absentee ballot in their own name?
While I’m sure there are a number of limbless people out there, the discretion of the poll manager should come into play as to what other part to ink. The process is done in parts of the world that have been ravaged by violence prior to the election, and the percentage of people in that condition is non-trivial. I’m sure that there are lessons there.
For those with allergies–if a hypo-allergenic ink is not possible–a provisional ballot could be submitted. No follow-up on their part would be necessary; provisional ballots would be inspected for duplicates.
Since there is hardly any retail voter fraud as it is, let alone fraud of that type, it would do little to prevent fraud, but unlike most measures it would not do anything to disenfranchise people, so I would not oppose it. Those without fingers could get a mark on the forehead, which would have added comical advantages that should be immediately obvious to Revelation fans.
I think the entire push for voter ID cards is built on a foundation of lies. Whether or not double-voting is a problem is irrelevant. Of course there isn’t, just as there aren’t any examples of widespread voter fraud that would support voter ID laws. The closest you get is people like **Bricker **who seem to acknowledge that voter fraud is not a problem but like the idea of a poll tax to keep the vote count lower.
I’m pretty much wondering if there is an out to the pursuit of disenfranchisement that would be difficult for the Republicans to counter.
Though I am aware of the semantical differences of legal terms of art (thank you, Georgetown Law), it matters not what you name the rose, a “price” on voting is walks and quacks; it’s a form of a poll tax.
Hence my contention that you seem to acknowledge that voter fraud of the sort ostensibly addressed by voter ID laws is not a actual problem (which is an assumption on my part based on other posts) but like the idea (a reading into the quoted post that you find value in voter ID laws that place a burden on people) of a poll tax (or call it whatever you will; all we’re doing is bickering over price) to keep the vote count lower (any price will necessarily reduce the number of people voting; hence the vote count will be lower).
Note that I do not necessarily disagree with you that voting should require more than, say, ticking a box on an Internet screen. We differ in the belief that the instant any method tends to favour one party over the other–or even the appearance of bias–it should be soundly rejected as inadequate to fostering a working democracy. If the bias is against *any *describable group is sufficient in itself to avoid such a requirement. If the bias is against a particular political party, the offence to democracy and its associated values is magnified.
Like most other common-sense solutions, the answer is ‘lawyers’. We can’t even get people to need picture id to vote. The argument that voter fraud ain’t that big a problem is disingenuous, and doesn’t answer the question: even if voter fraud is small, what’s the harm in requiring picture id to vote? You need it to drive, so why not for doing other actions that affect others? Doubtless were there to be a drive to push for finger-staining, u can be assured that groups like the ACLU & the usual gang would file lawsuits to the point of making such a solution prohibitively expensive.
America - where u need a picture id to drive, fly, buy a gun, or see a doctor - but NOT to vote.
we do it (although a pad or sponge is used, kind of like when they take your fingerprint) and I think it’s stupid. It doesn’t prevent anything, and even though it comes off easy enough it’s still annoying.
What’s really stupid is the anti-democracy people pushing voter ID just have to to do one simple thing. Set up a solid, respectable program to help anyone, regardless of income to acquire ID free of charge. Such a thing would take the rhetorical wind right out of my sails.
That’s it. But they don’t. Apparently money is more important than democracy. benbo1, are flying, and driving rights or privileges? I have never needed an ID to see a doctor, so I don’t know what the fuck you’re babbling about there.
Apart from practicalities, the main drawback IMO would be symbolic: a country that uses the dye method admits to not having a reliable (politically neutral) and efficient civil service in place.
Interestingly, in the very case you cite, Indiana itself was unable to present any evidence whatsoever that the problem they (and you) claim of voter fraud even existed. Not one single example. And that’s your own damn cite.
So where, might we inquire, does this problem you allege of public confidence in voting come from? Why do we see this fantasy hammered upon endlessly by those who immediately go on to support what you call “reasonable” restrictions on suffrage as the only solution?
Or, to put it more directly, when and why did YOU decide this was a problem? :dubious:
We in PR are an American jurisdiction. We use a UV-ink mark (so not visible to the naked eye) AND a*** freely ***issued voter picture ID (you get it when you register). Why? Because when we went to open polls, lo so many decades back, everyone panicked that it would mean everyone would set out to vote “early and often”, so they made damn sure THAT got taken care of.
Absentee/advance ballots are handled in that if you applied for an absentee/advance ballot, your name/voter number will be flagged in the voter list at the polling station and you will not be allowed onsite vote except through a very convoluted procedure involving having your in-person ballot sequestered under separate seal until they confirm your absentee/advance packet never arrived. Conscientious objectors to being “marked” have to fill out a form and present it.
Someone could say that having to go to the township registration office during business hours, no later than 60 days before the election, with evidence of citizenship and residence in hand, is itself onerous yet it’s in the clear.
